Cubs Pre-Offseason Mega Thread

[Rcal10]

9 minutes ago, Nolo said:

1 yr/12.5M with mutual option or buyout or something would be ideal, but I could be way off as well.

Not sure if we will get three starters in free agency. Hopefully two solid starters. Might have to get creative in a trade. Names I've heard thrown around Joe Ryan, Taj Bradley, Reid Detmers, etc. I don't want to circle back to "who do we trade for these guys?" ... I'm not sure at this point.

I just think he could get 3 years. But maybe you and Jason are right and he gets 1 and 1. At that, he is fine. Just don’t know why Boyd is a definite no while Peterson is a guy you, and others, want. Over the last 2 years Peterson has pitched 10 more innings and given up 29 more runs. If Peterson comes with 3 years and Boyd only 1, I don’t see much difference. It changes a bit if each only gets 1. But even then, why is Boyd such a bad idea while Peterson is sought out? We are talking about BOR starters here. Not a top option. 

[macarthur31]

14 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think Peterson is primed for a 1+1 deal where the "+1" is really just a mutual option/buyout. We can look at his time with the Cubs all we want, but his overall numbers still look like horsefeathers in many spots; 4.79 ERA, 4.75 xERA, 20.7 K%, 9.8 BB%. Teams will use this against him and if I were David I'm not entering the market looking for multiple years with that. Especially in a fairly deep SP market of "pretty good, but not amazing" arms. 

Instead, I'm looking for a team who has a killer infield defense this market and then trying to parlay that into multiple years next year. And when I look at the Cubs, that's a perfect storm. 

I think what would amount to 1/$13m with a $2m buyout next offseason (so really $15m in total) feels like a good landing spot. 

Your comment reminded me of something I heard this past season (I think from one of our new pitching acquisitions at the deadline) to the effect of pitchers out there are paying attention to what the Cubs have on defense and would relish the opportunity pitch in front of that.  As you note - with a bunch of "pretty good" arms out there, perhaps that (and summer nights at Wrigley) may be enough of a tie breaker to win us those arms at a "reasonable" cost.

While it seems like every season, the Cubs have been able to churn out at least one bullpen reclamation project (Lopez, Keller, Rolison, etc); Michael Conforto seems to be the analogue on the position player side.  I think he's priced himself into a better contract this year, but I'm wondering how Jed could do that again.

[Jason Ross]

18 minutes ago, macarthur31 said:

Your comment reminded me of something I heard this past season (I think from one of our new pitching acquisitions at the deadline) to the effect of pitchers out there are paying attention to what the Cubs have on defense and would relish the opportunity pitch in front of that.  As you note - with a bunch of "pretty good" arms out there, perhaps that (and summer nights at Wrigley) may be enough of a tie breaker to win us those arms at a "reasonable" cost.

While it seems like every season, the Cubs have been able to churn out at least one bullpen reclamation project (Lopez, Keller, Rolison, etc); Michael Conforto seems to be the analogue on the position player side.  I think he's priced himself into a better contract this year, but I'm wondering how Jed could do that again.

Yeah, these guys aren't stupid and they want to get paid. It's the name of the game. They know that the Cubs defense can give them a boost and any boost will help them out. As you said it's a good tie-breaker. The Cubs can't act like it's going to take a bad offer to a good one. But it can certainly, and especially for guys like Peterson who are looking to potentially re-enter the market next year, give you a strong boost. Like Peterson might turn down a 3/$40m for 1/$15m because he's assuming the next two years will be worth more than $25m if his ERA is 3.90 with the Cubs saving him. 

[Bertz]

Peterson is not my top choice to retain.  "Finesse guy who somehow also has a bit of a walk problem" is a profile I don't expect to age super gracefully.

That said if If we re-sign Peterson on something akin to the Matt Boyd contract while guys like guys like Peralta and King approach 9 figures I'm going to do Robert Deniro in Cape Fear style maniacal laughter.  That would be a coup.

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I know most posters have suggested Holmes and Peterson coming back. But what if Peterson @ 3/$40M is instead Boyd 1/$13M and a mutual option the next year? If they signed Skubal and Holmes as their top 2, would Boyd as a 3rd be that bad? For 1 or 2 years? Am I way off here, or will Boyd and Peterson get close to the same annual salary? 

3 years is a lot, but id sign him for 2 years.  Something like 2/27.  He's a very average SP but the GB% works for our defense/park.  1 year would be better.

Taillon got 4 from Jed, who was also pretty average when he signed. But that was an overpay at the time and cost us some wins this season.

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, Stratos said:

3 years is a lot, but id sign him for 2 years.  Something like 2/27.  He's a very average SP but the GB% works for our defense/park.  1 year would be better.

Taillon got 4 from Jed, who was also pretty average when he signed. But that was an overpay at the time and cost us some wins this season.

I agree about Peterson. If he is their 3rd pitcher brought in on a 1 year or 1 plus an option, and the range is $12M-$15M annual, that is fine. But they need 2 others better than him. The thing is. I do think someone will give him 3 years. Maybe not what the Cubs should do. And maybe Jason is right that he might rather take one year from the Cubs to produce better numbers so he can be a FA again coming off a good year. It does make sense for him with his ground ball tendencies. 

Edited 39 minutes ago by Rcal10