toonsterwu

Tbh, all that's fair. It's a bit disconcerting to see him go so flyball heavy and have it impact his offense so much. I really don't take the time to look deep into numbers anymore ... so I'm not sure if there's a good explanation. Off the top, I thought advanced metrics had his defense at 2nd as generally slightly above average. I might be thinking of someone else, though. At the end of the day, there's very little reason to add him. I just wonder if more time to adjust allows him to tap back into the changes he made 2 years ago. To put it another way, I tend to think there's more ceiling with him than Zobrist or LaStella, but certainly that could just be wishful thinking.

I half wonder if the Indians may deal Jason Kipnis on the cheap this winter to clear some money off the books. If so, I'd still have some interest. I wouldn't prioritize this, obviously, but if Russell moves on, as most anticipate, slotting Kipnis in at 2nd is still an intriguing idea for me. It's sort of wishing/hoping that he can bounce back, but on essentially a 1 year deal and what looks at a cursory glance, to be some bad luck this year, it'd be interesting if the price was right, and while I don't particularly think a top of the order bat is absolutely necessary, I never really loved the machinations at the top of the lineup this year, so slotting him up there is a nice thought. Wouldn't pay too much for him, though.

Depends on if he wants more security or money. I doubt he gets 20 mil a year ... but I could see him get something like 3/45? Maybe even a tick higher. Someone is really going to give Hamels 3 years? That seems risky. I don't think it's impossible. More than likely, it wouldn't be a straight 3, 2 and an option, 2 and a trigger, or something. But so many teams are looking for pitching. Maybe 3/45 is high, now that I look at last year's signings, but he isn't exactly in Jason Vargas territory yet, and he finished strong. If he didn't finish strong, I'd probably be thinking Jason Vargas territory ... 2/16 or so, but he finished strong. Maybe I'm being too bullish on this guess ... maybe 2/24. Either way, Hamels would likely prefer the option, now that I think about it, as he can likely pick up a cheap 1 year deal next year anyways, even if he has a bad campaign. My personal hunch is actually that, assuming he doesn't come here, he'll end up on the Nationals, who are looking for a lefty starter. It'd be a blow to Phillies fans, but that'd be my guess.

I'd be surprised if the Cubs pondered Hamels option all that much. The only argument would be that it's for one year, but even then, I highly doubt it. It wouldn't surprise me if the Cubs went to Hamels to see if they could work out a 2 ... maybe 3 year deal. Maybe. Although I still think it's more likely that they trade for a SP this winter ... and this is assuming they don't find a way to dump Chatwood, which might necessitate 2 SP's in the offseason (if they don't bring Hamels back).

Depends on if he wants more security or money. I doubt he gets 20 mil a year ... but I could see him get something like 3/45? Maybe even a tick higher.

wtf lol this isn't baseball mogul. Anyway. You gotta prioritize one of the two bats. If you get one of them, preferably harper, our floor is probably "really good" offense and our ceiling (bryant and contreras bouncing back) is super elite. Plus if there's enough teams out there looking to spend to try and upgrade 1B, then it would make more sense to try and sell them Schwaber as a 1B than for the Cubs to move Rizzo and then gamble on Schwarber as an everyday 1B themselves. I'd be open to dealing Schwarber as well, but ... I'm not real sure what Schwarber gets in this market. I'm not suggesting it's chump change, but ... I'm just not real sure. Tbh, I'm not real sure on Happ either. At one point this year, I kept thinking Happ might be able to netus a solid starter, with all the starter's woes, but ... what team deals a young-ish starter away for Happ? I keep thinking something like Zack Godley for Ian Happ, which I'm sure there'd be mixed opinions about, but I'm sorta okay with it IF the Cubs added another starter, but I'm not all that convinced the Diamondbacks would do that. Maybe I'm overvaluing how teams may value some young-ish starters, but I'm not sure the paradigm has shifted all that much. And as you note, Schwarber's pretty much a platoon guy as of now, so I wonder. I dunno, it's tough to gauge the value of our most likely MLB trade chips. ____ Realistically, the most likely out come is still running a fairly similar unit to what we ran out this year, with some small changes, perhaps a big pen signing (or two).

My guess would be something like ... ugh ... uh ... Edwards Jr./Schwarber/Montgomery/Happ/Almora/Bote Tbh, I'm not real sure. The pen market is strong, so maybe that depresses Edwards Jr.'s value a bit, but in this day and age, someone's bound to place high value if he's put on the market. I doubt the Cubs put him out there. I wanted to go Happ next, but ... I feel like teams can find something similar to Happ without trading a boatload. My gut says Schwarber next, but my head says Montgomery, a bit more proven and a versatile lefty. I think there's too much unknown about Bote right now, although you could probably make a case to slap him higher. Almora's glovework is fine, but I'm not sure the bat ever becomes much.

No, the idea would be to leverage Rizzo into helping make improvements throughout the roster. Realistically, I don't think it's possible, but this isn't a strong 1st base market, and there's several teams that could look to upgrade. I don't love the constant lineup machinations, so if you could construct a deal where Rizzo nets you two key assets, and then subsequently move Schwarber to first, I don't know if it's the worst idea. To put it into a bit more specificity, say you could land a starting OF/top of the order type hitter and a 2nd baseman for Rizzo, both guys being relatively young-ish (that is, we aren't talking about 30+ year old guys) would you do it? If you could lop in Bryce Harper after that ... Again, I don't think it will happen, but it has nothing to do with last night's loss. wtf lol this isn't baseball mogul. Anyway. You gotta prioritize one of the two bats. If you get one of them, preferably harper, our floor is probably "really good" offense and our ceiling (bryant and contreras bouncing back) is super elite. FIrst, I have no idea what baseballmogul is. I assume it's a game of some sort. 2nd, what happens if you don't get Harper/Machado? I actually think the chances at Harper at slightly greater than at midseason, due to the Nationals tanking, but there's going to be a lot of teams involved. And I should add on top of that ... a lot of teams that can spend will be involved, and to top that off, a lot of teams that can spend in the short term, which is critical, IMO, to at least Harper, and probably Machado. This isn't to say the Cubs won't be in it. I suspect they will be, although I still question how hard they go after Machado. This is to simply say that the chances of not landing either is quite high, and the ability to improve this team is somewhat limited. The farm system is still a year or so away from another major trade, and that's if all goes well. That means you have to trade from the major league inventory, which is fine if you add pieces, but the value of Happ/Almora/Schwarber, while better than last year in all likelihood, is still somewhat debatable. Like I said, I don't think the Cubs will actually deal Rizzo, but I don't think it's ridiculous to not ponder the possibility when there's some limitations on this team's ability to make moves this offseason. One could say ... hey, if all goes well, we'll be better, but it's baseball. It's not impossible to see several guys take a step back, either due to age, or luck.

The hell? I'm not opposed at all to the idea of moving Rizzo in the right circumstances; the part that really jumps out at me is "Schwaber's bounce back season." The dude's...fine. As a platoon player. He didn't really do anything to show he should or needs to be in the lineup almost every day, which he'd have to do to effectively replace Rizzo. That's fair. I don't love Schwarber, although a part of me does wonder if he would improve offensively at a position where there would be less physical demands on him. Finding a guy to balance with Schwarber at first likely wouldn't cost much. Again, I don't really see them moving Rizzo. I just think there's a lot of limitations for the FO in ways to dramatically improve the team this offseason, and Rizzo might be the one way where they could make major changes. More than likely, they'll take their runs at Harper (maybe Machado ... I'm still not sold on that), and if they fail that, make some smaller moves here or there. I just don't love the constant lineup machinations.

Replacing Rizzo with Schwarber? Apparently you're not thinking straight because of the loss last night. No, the idea would be to leverage Rizzo into helping make improvements throughout the roster. Realistically, I don't think it's possible, but this isn't a strong 1st base market, and there's several teams that could look to upgrade. I don't love the constant lineup machinations, so if you could construct a deal where Rizzo nets you two key assets, and then subsequently move Schwarber to first, I don't know if it's the worst idea. To put it into a bit more specificity, say you could land a starting OF/top of the order type hitter and a 2nd baseman for Rizzo, both guys being relatively young-ish (that is, we aren't talking about 30+ year old guys) would you do it? If you could lop in Bryce Harper after that ... Again, I don't think it will happen, but it has nothing to do with last night's loss.

I'm not against listening on Rizzo this off-season. I know, it sounds blasphemous and reactionary, but the idea's been percolating for awhile, particularly with Schwarber's bounce back season. Now, the problem is, it's going to be awfully hard to construct a deal that makes sense for the Cubs. So, I'm not saying shop Rizzo. All that said, I don't see them shopping him. I just would ... ponder it. The offense stalled late in the year, and I'd like to ideally change up the dynamic at the top of the lineup. I don't particularly love the juggling act lineups, somewhat out of necessity.

The issue for the Nationals, IMO, is that, if they lose Bryce, it's going to be awfully hard to keep the window open, and the window is now with Scherzer in his prime. Yes, an OF of Soto/Robles/Eaton looks awfully nice, and then add in Rendon/Turner, and that's 5 solid young-ish pieces. Still, they'd have holes at 1st/2nd/C, along with at least needing 1 SP, and proabbly 2, and probably needing an addition or two in the pen as well. The argument would be that without Bryce, there'd be some more flexibility on spending, but I'd argue that a) Money for Bryce isn't necessarily money that will be otherwise spent b) Without Bryce, the team looks a bit more average on paper, in a NL East that is rapidly getting better (even the Marlins showed some signs of development, although they are probably 2-3 years away). Thus, it's harder to think that they'll be able to dip into FA and land guys they want without competition. With Bryce, suddenly, Robles or Eaton can be flipped. It's a tough question on who (a healthy Eaton is a crucial cog on offense, but Robles offers more offensive potential and doesn't force Bryce to CF like Eaton does). I mean, Eaton could conceivably net them a hole, giving them a lot more flexibility. ____ If the bidding gets that high, I've got a tough time seeing Atlanta winning it. That said, the reality is, this is likely a 3 year deal couched in a longer frame, so maybe with all their youth, they'll put out the best up front package. If we don't get Bryce, I sort of hope Atlanta goes hard but falters, and then perhaps considers dealing a young SP for Happ. The thing about a Harper deal is that, I wonder if a team can overwhelm on the "upfront" money and win a deal, even if the larger framework looks weaker.

I've got a legitimately tough time seeing them sign down Manny. Manny's going to prefer short, and it's quite possible the Phillies throw big bucks at him and give him short. I could possibly see another team or two emerging that will give him short, but the Phillies are the big money threat. Are we going to move Baez off short for Machado? I'm not so sure. Harper's the interesting candidate. His public words seem to suggest that if the Nationals show him some love (that is, get aggressive with the bidding), he might stick around. With the Nationals surprisingly poor year (hey, thanks Dave Martinez for mismanaging that team ... there's a joke somewhere about Dave Martinez and clubhouse problems somewhere, probably), plus the emergence of Juan Soto, there is some thought as to whether or not they will pay through the roof for Harper. That said, the Harper market is likely to be more robust than Machado (IMO). For all the talk about the Cubs/Dodgers/Nationals/Phillies, I could see another 4-5 teams make a legitimate run, and it wouldn't surprise if a darkhorse team emerged. If we fail to get Manny/Harper, I tend to think it's a focus on pitching. I'd guess they'd trade to go after a starter in the trade market (unless they keep Hamels around, but I've got my doubts on that), as I simply don't see them giving out the requisite long term deal to guys like Eovaldi/Corbin/Pomeranz or even Keuchel. Could be way off, but I just don't see it. There are a bevy of options I could see ... for example, still think the Diamondbacks/Cubs pair up relatively well. Hazen has some pitching in the system, moreso than hitting, at least, on the high end and close to ready. While it's not a sexy move, I wonder if bringing back Zack Godley might be a consideration at the right price. Depending on how the Braves/Phillies offseasons go, it wouldn't be incredibly shocking if they moved a young arm to fill other voids, looking internally to fill in the pieces. I tend to think if the Cubs trade for a starter, it might not be a flashy name, but will be a guy they can control for a few seasons. After a SP, my guess would be that they would target a late inning pen arm ... and perhaps more. It wouldn't surprise me if they went after a big name, perhaps even someone like Andrew Miller. Obviously, these moves wouldn't happen sequentially, so they'd probably target some sort of utility player Not that I'm going down memory lane, but someone like Marwin Gonzalez could be a useful depth piece if they opted to stay in house with their guys (for example, if they dealt Happ to get pitching).

I think my thoughts on the trade are rather simple ... Ryan Pace had to make the deal. Whatever the price, he had to make the move. For him, he's nearing the end of the rope for him, but that's besides the point. They had to make major improvements this year, and let's face it, a pass rushing linebacker was needed. Mack should make the entire defense better ... the interior linemen should get more one-on-one opportunities, Floyd should get better matchups, and the secondary should have a little more breathing room. In some respects, it should buy Roquan Smith some time as wel. They needed a stud defense to buy time for Trubisky, because while one hopes for a Goff-like jump, it shouldn't be expected, and this organization is only going to go as far as he goes. The Bears look to have a stud 3-4 defense (after missing out in the Jauron era ... since Jauron wasn't a 3-4 coach). Wouldn't surprise me if this defense jumps up a lot more than people think ... on paper, I think I could see this as a possible top 5 unit.

I wouldn't read too much into Hoerner getting sent there, other than the fact that they wanted him to get in some work. I mean, I'm sure they are confident in him, but I feel like this is more a nod towards getting work in for the lost time.

Longenhagen had prospect notes that included Swarmer about a week or so ago, and it was admittedly, fairly disappointing to read. He suggests that all his pitches are fringy (which suggest 40/45's) and play up because of the delivery (to be fair, the difference between fringy and average isn't a ton). Made a comparison to Josh Collmenter's delivery. Made a comment about depth and guys like Swarmer being fit for spot starts and relief work. I really hope Swarmer goes to Arizona for a few innings so we get a better idea of him against top competition. It's a very impressive run in AA. I think, if Longenhagen is right that it's all fringy, the fact that Swarmer has extremely good command will help things play up a bit more. Collmenter didn't have that level of command.

As a UVA fan, I'm obviously biased, but I am really curious if he can bounce back. His abbreiviated stint against South Carolina in 2011 in the tournament was as good a performance as I've seen, considering the circumstances (he was vomiting between innings). That wasn't a bad South Carolina team ... they won their 2nd title after-all ... had Jackie Bradley Jr., Evan Marzili, Christian Walker in that lineup. Hultzen mowed them down. I believe it was something like ... 25 pitches to strike out 6-7 guys? It was something insane. Yes, Cole and Bauer had higher ceilings, but there was a very legitimate case for Hultzen to go superbly high that year (although to be fair, I was stunned when he went 2). His stuff was that good, but as he's said in interviews, after getting to the pros, he lost the discipline and structure of college, and started feeling pressure and started messing with his delivery. Certainly, the expectations should be zero ... but if he finds anything close to his old form ... that's still a good arm.

With Steele, I don't care all that much about the results (obviously positive results are better). I want to know what he was throwing. If he's hitting mid-90's with a power sinker as a starter ... and he finishes the year strong (and heads to Arizona) ... I'm not so sure he isn't top 5, and perhaps even top 3, in this system entering 2019. My Zach Britton comparison would be a bit light if Justin is dialing up mid-90's on his sinker ... Zach never hit mid-90's as a starter. ____ On Clifton, much as there are things that intrigue me about him as a starter, if push came to shove and he was in a fight for a rotation spot ... I'm fine moving him to the pen. I think that's probably his best future - his fastball/curve could perhaps play up out of the pen, and his command issues wouldn't be as big a problem. ___ as an aside, I'm impressed with the early results from Riley Thompson at Eugene.

Well, that sucks for Yu. But I do applaud that he seems proactive about it now. Gotta look long term with him, due to the contract. ____ With the way he's eating solid innings, getting a healthy number of K's, and not giving up a lot of hits, I'm gonna be awfully surprised if Swarmer doesn't have 50's, if not better, on his report. It's enough of a sample size that you can't simply slap "SSS - lack of scouting report". Unless he racks up too many innings that they want to shut him down (would be on the borderline ... he worked around 101 innings last year, is at 111 right now ... he's probably got 3 starts left, putting him around 130 for the year), I gotta think he's got to be an option to head to Arizona, unless there's other factors involved. Would be nice to see him there, even if it's for the likely short bursts.

Is it injury? I would guess, without checking right now, that they just wanted him to get an inning of work in.

Swarmer has to be one of the favorites as of now for MiLB pitcher of the year. It's an impressive run he's put together in AA, and it seems like the scouting reports in AA are holding from Myrtle, which is one of those things you always hope for, but don't always get. Going to be interesting to see where people place him at year's end. Sounds like 50/55's across the board, with the fastball playing up because of the delivery, plus strong command. Puts him on the fringes of a mid-rotation ceiling, which is plenty good, but what's always fascinating after a breakout year is whether or not they can hold it the next year. That said, this doesn't feel like Ryan Williams/Duncan Robinson, both solid guys. Swarmer's stuff is a notch better. Steele's also got to be in that ... group of interesting arms to follow. If that velocity holds, he's going to be fascinating next year. edit: Haven't really paid attention, but never noticed that the last mlbpipeline update didn't include Swarmer, and they slapped 50's on Cory Abbott. Maybe I'm being a bit generous for Swarmer, although it sure sounds like he's at least got one or two 50's.

I'm not that worried about the fastball velocity. It feels like he's throwing a lot more 2-seamers now than before, and it's obviously not going to top out at as high a velocity. If there are reports that his 4-seamer is sitting there ... then I'd be a touch concerned.

Holy crap, that looks like a heck of a deal for the Rays for Archer. Interesting thing on the Orioles deals is it sure looks like Duquette's talk about focusing on international spending is true. Gotta think Victor Victor Mesa is there's ... you don't make these moves to add money unless you have a place to spend it.

Kinsler and Pedroia don't get along, from their year together at ASU. This could be fun. Wasn't it more Kinsler not liking Pedroia for taking his position than anything, or is there something else I'm forgetting?

I really doubt the Marlins do that. They are supposedly asking for Robles and Kieboom already, two likely top 50 guys, and the Nationals are balking, and I don't see how the Cubs can cover the prospect difference to justify it.