Why a 40-Homer Slugger Isn't a Good Free-Agent Target for the Cubs

1 hour ago, matto1233 said:

Simply put, the Cubs aren’t one Anthony Santander away from being a playoff baseball team.

It's very funny to me when the same fans who get on Jed's ass about the deliberate nature of this "retool not a rebuild" also say stuff like this.  Like the complaining about the former is fair, but if you're also saying things like this you're absolutely speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Not to mention Anthony freakin' Santander is not going to get some mega contract.  4/$100M on the absolute high end?

As for his fit on the roster, I tend to think it's pretty clean.  It does force you to play Seiya in the field a decent amount, but essentially every power bat out there to be had except Luis Robert comes with that tradeoff.  Santander can also play 1B and is stronger against lefties than righties, so he's actually a better defensive fit on the roster than his FA peers like Teoscar Hernandez because of those ~30 games of infield work.  Essentially he replaces Cody Bellinger AND Patrick Wisdom on the roster.

I agree on Santander. However, I would go all in on Alonso. Biggest problem is I don't see the Mets letting him go. We can dream, so let's assume he leaves the Mets. If Cody doesn't opt out (I wish he would opt out) we would have 6 guys for 5 positions. Hoyer (my biggest wish is he gets fired) would never do that. I'd worry about getting rid of one of the six later. Hoyer has so locked this team in it is hard to improve the hitting next year without taking some risk and being creative. 

Rather trade for Rooker

3 hours ago, Bertz said:

It's very funny to me when the same fans who get on Jed's ass about the deliberate nature of this "retool not a rebuild" also say stuff like this.  Like the complaining about the former is fair, but if you're also saying things like this you're absolutely speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Not to mention Anthony freakin' Santander is not going to get some mega contract.  4/$100M on the absolute high end?

As for his fit on the roster, I tend to think it's pretty clean.  It does force you to play Seiya in the field a decent amount, but essentially every power bat out there to be had except Luis Robert comes with that tradeoff.  Santander can also play 1B and is stronger against lefties than righties, so he's actually a better defensive fit on the roster than his FA peers like Teoscar Hernandez because of those ~30 games of infield work.  Essentially he replaces Cody Bellinger AND Patrick Wisdom on the roster.

In my defense, I am not sure I have complained about the slow nature of the rebuild on this site. 

Regardless, I think people are allowed to change their minds on account of two things:

1. Hoyer is investing in players at the wrong times. Dansby Swanson is a good player, and by $/WAR, was a good investment. Same for Taillon and Suzuki. However, because Hoyer hasn’t added other guys around them, or because there wasn’t MLB ready young talent on the roster, what will theoretically be the most productive years of those guys’ contracts have now been wasted and they’re all on the other side of 30. 

2. Clearly, it isn’t working. They’re going to miss the playoffs for the second straight season. Trading out Bellinger/Wisdom for Santander isn’t changing that. It’s just repeating the same mistake from the past couple of off seasons. Falling in love with the 4/$100m contract over the mega deals is exactly how we ended up here. They don’t need more supporting players. They need an all star level player. 

1 hour ago, Old Time Cub Fan said:

However, I would go all in on Alonso. Biggest problem is I don't see the Mets letting him go. 

The biggest problem will be the contract he receives. We already have a better first baseman than Alonso. I know there's also a DH, but I really, really don't want to get stuck with Alonso's declining years.

Hard, hard pass on Alonso from me.

8 minutes ago, matto1233 said:

They don’t need more supporting players. They need an all star level player. 

Is this actually true?  If you had a magic wand and changed Ian Happ and Dansby Swanson into Bryce Harper and Core Seager, the team adds 2.1 WAR.  If you used the same wand and upgraded the Cubs' catcher production from 29th to 15th the team adds 2.7 WAR.

14 minutes ago, matto1233 said:

In my defense, I am not sure I have complained about the slow nature of the rebuild on this site. 

Regardless, I think people are allowed to change their minds on account of two things:

1. Hoyer is investing in players at the wrong times. Dansby Swanson is a good player, and by $/WAR, was a good investment. Same for Taillon and Suzuki. However, because Hoyer hasn’t added other guys around them, or because there wasn’t MLB ready young talent on the roster, what will theoretically be the most productive years of those guys’ contracts have now been wasted and they’re all on the other side of 30. 

2. Clearly, it isn’t working. They’re going to miss the playoffs for the second straight season. Trading out Bellinger/Wisdom for Santander isn’t changing that. It’s just repeating the same mistake from the past couple of off seasons. Falling in love with the 4/$100m contract over the mega deals is exactly how we ended up here. They don’t need more supporting players. They need an all star level player. 

1. This is just plainly incorrect.  The 'stars, then role players' mental model of team building some fans like to cling to isn't real.   None of those players mentioned have comparable replacements available for less dollars or years, and if you can look at the FA class and think 'man I wish we had spent less so we can nab two more of these guys' you're looking at a different list than me. Plus this is not feasible in a practical sense, other teams have needs/desires too and you can't expect to add 5 role players in one offseason.  

2. It'd be one thing to rue the Taillons of the world if the team had lost 95 games 2 years running, but they're on track to have a winning record both seasons despite having their share of adverse circumstances/injuries. Those seasons matter and they won those games and will miss the playoffs by a small margin.  A small margin that can very easily be made up with the right offseason moves even if they aren't adding an inner circle HOF.  Adding stars is often the easiest way to make a multi-win jump, but as Bertz illustrates it's far from the only way.  And we should avoid the trap of assuming 2024 as the baseline for the team etched in concrete, especially given the way the season progressed for the bullpen, young hitters, etc.

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

Is this actually true?  If you had a magic wand and changed Ian Happ and Dansby Swanson into Bryce Harper and Core Seager, the team adds 2.1 WAR.  If you used the same wand and upgraded the Cubs' catcher production from 29th to 15th the team adds 2.7 WAR.

This is a good point, and one I can agree with. Though the article is written in regards to the Cubs pursuing Anthony Santander instead Juan Soto. I am fully on board with them pursuing a catcher or bullpen reinforcements. Swapping out Bellinger for Santander is just not the move for me. 

1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

 

1. This is just plainly incorrect.  The 'stars, then role players' mental model of team building some fans like to cling to isn't real.   None of those players mentioned have comparable replacements available for less dollars or years, and if you can look at the FA class and think 'man I wish we had spent less so we can nab two more of these guys' you're looking at a different list than me. Plus this is not feasible in a practical sense, other teams have needs/desires too and you can't expect to add 5 role players in one offseason.  

2. It'd be one thing to rue the Taillons of the world if the team had lost 95 games 2 years running, but they're on track to have a winning record both seasons despite having their share of adverse circumstances/injuries. Those seasons matter and they won those games and will miss the playoffs by a small margin.  A small margin that can very easily be made up with the right offseason moves even if they aren't adding an inner circle HOF.  Adding stars is often the easiest way to make a multi-win jump, but as Bertz illustrates it's far from the only way.  And we should avoid the trap of assuming 2024 as the baseline for the team etched in concrete, especially given the way the season progressed for the bullpen, young hitters, etc.

I’m not ruing the Taillon’s of the world. He was a good signing! I acknowledged as much. My point is that guys like Taillon should be added to take a team from 80 wins to 90, or 90 wins to 100, not from 70 to 80. Retrospectively, that lever was pulled in the wrong offseason.  Now we have a situation where the team is going to pay the luxury tax and not make the playoffs, which, whether we like it or not, will most likely affect future spending. That is a failure. And Taillon has two more seasons on this deal at the age of 33 and 34 with velocity that is trending downwards. ZiPS projects him for a 4.41 and 4.51 ERA the next two seasons, respectively. He was added, provided value in the first two seasons, and it was wasted on middling teams. 

Soto is not leaving NY. And doubly so if they win the WS this year. Even dumb-ass Hal Steinbrenner knows that. They are going to make him the highest-paid player in baseball. 

16 minutes ago, matto1233 said:

I’m not ruing the Taillon’s of the world. He was a good signing! I acknowledged as much. My point is that guys like Taillon should be added to take a team from 80 wins to 90, or 90 wins to 100, not from 70 to 80. Retrospectively, that lever was pulled in the wrong offseason.  Now we have a situation where the team is going to pay the luxury tax and not make the playoffs, which, whether we like it or not, will most likely affect future spending. That is a failure. And Taillon has two more seasons on this deal at the age of 33 and 34 with velocity that is trending downwards. ZiPS projects him for a 4.41 and 4.51 ERA the next two seasons, respectively. 

This is also incorrect on all accounts.  The idea that the Cubs' future spending is going to be affected by sneaking into the luxury tax by a couple million requires some logical leaps that are frankly absurd.  They clearly signaled they weren't prioritizing 2024 when they traded away one of their more reliable relievers while being 6.5 games(and nearly as many teams) out when they started making moves.  It would've been trivial to make an additional move to get under the tax line if it were meaningful to their future plans.  Assuming it's a failure that is hamstringing future seasons requires assuming Jed(the guy constantly criticized for his conservatism) decided to go full bore on 2024 with the team in last place and did so by trading away a key player in the most problematic are of the roster.  It's either that or maybe exceeding the tax line just barely doesn't really matter.

And then again with Taillon, the two seasons he pitched matter, the shots they had at the postseason were real, every season is sacred, etc.  But the price for a 'clearly better than Jameson Taillon' SP in the market is not set at what he's currently making.  It'll take more money, more years, or most likely both.  And the Cubs need a SP even with Taillon around, and adding several SP in an offseason is not an easy thing to do when 20 teams have designs on being competitive and everyone wants more SP at all times.  You can't just flip a switch when you hit 80 wins(ignoring that Taillon is a big part of why they aren't still in your 70 win quadrant!) and make wholesale additions in a single offseason, the market does not work like that.