Rob

I clicked on this expecting the worst and was pleasantly surprised.

If this is the team, what is the point in trading for Hosmer? Nobody is interested in acquiring Hosmer. As much as we rag on Jason Heyward for his performance since signing his contract, even he has vastly outperformed Hosmer since Hosmer signed his big contract four years ago -- 6.0 fWAR to 0.5 fWAR. So whatever you think Heyard's miniscule value on the field is, Hosmer's is ten times less. And Hosmer is owed $15M more dollars than Heyward. The value of Hosmer is the package of prospects the Padres would have to include to get somebody to absorb his contract. I could honestly see the Cubs trading for him and cutting him within the day, just for a chance to get the prospects. Though as far as reclamation projects go, he'd probably be worth giving a month of at bats to and see if a change of scenery from Petco helps at all. But I sincerely doubt anybody sees anything of real value in Hosmer at this point.

The Rockies thing for KB seems like a clear cut case of an agent leaking a rumor to try to get another team to up their offer just a bit more. I still think he ends up with the Mariners. The Mariners thing seems like a longer-shot to me after getting Winker and Suarez from the Reds, unless they have plans to flip one of them. I totally forgot about Winker and Suarez. Yeah, Phillies seem more appropriate in that case.

The Rockies thing for KB seems like a clear cut case of an agent leaking a rumor to try to get another team to up their offer just a bit more. I still think he ends up with the Mariners.

5 IP is kind of a pointless goal as you'd pretty much just be losing your DH in games you go down big early. But 6 IP is not great and I'd hate to incentivize major league managers extending their SP past their comfort zone just to keep the DH. Can Manfred please just take baseball behind the shed and give it the Old Yeller treatment already? Dragging it out like this isn't helping anybody.

I hope you fall into a carton of thick onion gravy.

Crossover post. Nah, looks more like a Model 3 than a Model Y.

A long, long time ago in a previous CBA there actually used to be a date before which you couldn't trade newly signed players. Not sure if that's still a thing or not. But I'm not able to think of any "sign-and-trade" situations off the top of my head.

Exactly. Squeeze a league-average starter out of him and he's worth way more than $4M, and it's not hard to squint and see it happening. This is precisely the sort of move that I would love if the Cubs were a cash-strapped team looking to catch lightning in a bottle. But making him the starter on this team is stupid, as we shouldn't be cash-strapped. I'd be fine with him as a backup, as well. Particularly for injury prone guys like Correa or Story. But I just think Simmons clearly has a high opinion of himself and after one injury-plagued season, one season where baseball was fundamentally broken, and one down season -- I don't think he's going to view himself as a backup yet. And even if he somehow did -- why would he sign on to be the backup on a terrible team like the Cubs? Better teams would offer him that gig.

He did that twice, in his age 27 and 28 seasons, and hasn't been close in the three seasons since then. He's 32 now and will turn 33 during the season. He also did sign cheaply as a backup, that's what $4m is. Not debating that $4M would be a cheap backup. Debating the "backup" part. There's still a few weeks left. I'm hoping I'm proven wrong. But I'd bet dollars to donuts he came he because he was offered significant playing time.

I kinda figured they'd try to limit his innings a bit this year anyways. Hopefully it's nothing structural. He threw 125 IP last year, there's only so much intentional limiting you can do while still trying to get him closer to a full starter's workload, since performance/pitch economy means he's not going 6-7 every outing. Yeah, I figured roughly 150-160 IP this year and moving to a full starter's workload the following year. Though perhaps I need to adjust my perception of what a full starter's workload looks like under the new normal. My brain still defaults to 180-200 IP.

I'm not surprised. Hoping for Correa and Story after signing Simmons seemed like wishful thinking. Those potential roster moves just hand-waved away the question of why Simmons would have choosen to sign on with us. Simmons has been bad lately, but he was a guy pulling 5.0+ fWAR seasons not that long ago. If he was agreeing to sign on cheaply as a backup, it was going to be with a playoff-bound team. He came here because he was presumably promised playing time and an opportunity to rebuild his value. FWIW, I think there's a reasonable chance we get exceptional value out of him. If we still had a large core of good but expensive players, this is exactly the sort of move I'd love to see to round out a weak spot. But it's pretty inexcusable with our payroll -- particularly considering that Simmons skillset isn't one that is likely to make him an attractive trade candidate even if he does rebound. Ultimately, this just looks like more proof that the directive from on high is to shoot for cheaply being a .500ish team who can potentially sneak into the playoffs and get lucky.

I kinda figured they'd try to limit his innings a bit this year anyways. Hopefully it's nothing structural.

Honestly, yeah. If you’re going that short it’s mostly luck anyways. Might as well make it exciting.

Fast forward to Opening Day when he is starting in RF and batting 5th. He may well be starting, but I'd be shocked if he climbs above the 6th spot this season.

Matt Murton? Clint Frazier. I think I prefer Matt Murton.

We have Jorge at home, he's got all of the defensive liabilities but maybe not the bat and also he's a ginger Matt Murton?

Ultimately, I'm just surprised that once again the MLBPA seems to have settled for minor incremental change on a system that's incredibly owner-friendly as currently constructed. After they got embarrassed by how the last CBA played out, I always expected their asks to be much bigger this time around.

i watched so many non-cubs extra inning games that i wouldn't have. it's instant action/strategy, and 17 inning slogs are overrated. There is just something magical about the possibility of that 17 inning game. By no means do I want to stay up until 2am every night watching extra innings marathons, but I want to know that it "might" happen. I like the unknown of going to the ballpark and expecting a 3 hour game but understanding that we might end up being there for 5+ hours instead. That could all just be me, but I enjoy the unpredictability and the chance to see something crazy/historic on any given day. Agreed. Long ago, I went to Wrigley to celebrate my birthday, and was rewarded with a 14 inning game with a rain delay. I got to hang out in my Mecca for like 7 hours that day. Even though the Cubs lost, it was glorious, and a memory I'll always cherish.

The good changes to baseball in my lifetime: - Drug testing - The expansion teams - The first wild card - Limited replay - The rules intended to minimize contact when breaking up double plays or sliding into home. (though admittedly, I miss those moments) A ten team playoff was a lateral-move which didn't drastically increase or decrease my enjoyment of the game. It has some pluses and minuses which roughly even out. Everything else has been a bad change. Advertising on uniforms, NL DH, three batter minimums, further expanding playoffs, draft pools, international spending caps, luxury taxes, revenue sharing, even the automatic walk. That said, I'm not sure how I feel about banning the shift. I always loved seeing the extreme defensive alignments with five infielders or four outfielders for the last few batters of the game. Heck, just hearing the phrase "infield is in" has always put a smile on my face and my butt on the edge of my seat. On the other side of the coin, banning the shift could conceivably put some more runners on base and increase the value of some lost arts like stolen bases and make the game look a little bit more like I remember it looking in its heyday. I dunno, I could see this going either way. As far as the pitch clock is concerned, it seems like another bad idea. I agree that the pace of the game needs to be sped up a bit for that stuff. But I feel like a pitch clock is drastic. The same goal could be reached by lesser means -- keeping pitchers near the rubber and batters at the plate, telling umps not to allow time calls to go on so long, etc... I'd prefer something that can be flexible rather than a rigid rule.

This is just a convenient excuse to funnel ~$3B or so to an ally of Putin.

Pretty sure this is it, but they haven't realized it yet.

The economics of baseball escape me when it comes to stadium-level stuff. But $1M doesn't seem like it would support very many employees for very long.

Kill the draft and bonus pools. Let the free market sort it out.

Yeah, this is awful. Lots more watching the Cubs shoot for 82 wins and luck in the playoffs.