toonsterwu

It's really going to be interesting to see what these guys sign for. I would love a timeline and corresponding values for any Cubs offers made to them. I could see the Yankees actually overpaying for Rizzo if he continues to produce for them (3/60 or 4/75 ish). I think KB eventually gets 5/130 from somone (probably the Giants) and Baez gets 5/110 from the Mets. That's a bummer if it's what it takes for Bryant/Baez. I'd be surprised if Rizzo gets 20 AAV. I think someothing like 3/48 with an option year type deal is what he end up agreeing on. I actually KB might get close to 200, if not more. He won't get Arenado numbers, but I could see a team offering him close to 30 mil AAV on maybe a 7 year type deal, maybe vesting type options on the last year. I've got no guess on Baez. No guess at all. I think that one is so up in the air ... he could do so well in New York and Cohen gives him a solid deal.

Ouch. Sounds like Rizzo's hinting that the guys were unhappy as well. Hoyer made the right decision, IMO, but Hoyer might've been better off not saying anything.

I thought the genesis was something about Hoerner getting the Cubs a quality starting pitcher. I don't think he gets them anything good for the rotation, he's 24+ oft injured with a very limited resume. He looks like a more valuable to the Cubs than anybody else kind of player. This team is very short on major league talent for the next couple years. They need him to fill a spot until they decide to start trying again. I haven't read the other posts yet, just checked the site right now, but I'm guessing it had to do with my post? Anyhow, I'm not sure individually, Hoerner can land a controllable SP. Maybe one that was headed into their walk year. Maybe. That said, he's had a decent season, has some attributes teams look for, and with his size, I'm guessing that, even though the Cubs haven't made it happen, some teams might think they could coax some more pop out of him. Anyhow, my original thinking was very specific, pairing him with Willson and targeting the Marlins (I did throw the A's in there as a thought with Lowrie as a FA and Allen maybe needing another half season, but Allen's long term spot is likely at short). Marlins don't have much in terms of young MI's, are looking for controllable positional assets (reported post-deadline), had interest in Contreras last year as they were looking to upgrade at C, and are deep on the arm side. More a "random August thought" than anything serious.

Those comments are ... fascinating. Instead of all the conciliatory talk ... It's a business, in the end. I'm more fascinated on the sudden unwillingness on whether or not this is a full rebuild. Would love to know the context if someone has a chance to listen.

I think Bryant's the only one that might get there. I don't think he'll get Arenado's contract, but I could see him get close to 30 mil a year. Maybe it ends up something like 7/200 or so, with the last year as an option. I doubt Baez gets there. If Rizzo gets anywhere near the 5/70 or 5/80 (I don't recall what it was), I'll be mildly surprised. I could see him perhaps top that AAV if he gets hot down the stretch, but I expect more a shorter term deal, maybe 3 years. I think, as of now, there's only going to be one, blow it away type deal, and that's Correa. If Seagar finishes strong, maybe.

Well, didn't Rizzo turn down 5/70? Or was it 5/80? It does seem to suggest he wanted a bit more, or bet on himself to get that. Giving him more ... is debatable considering clear signs of decline (doesn't mean he can't have a hot run like his start with the Yankees). Cubs claimed to have offered Bryant big money - Bryant's side said otherwise (or something like that), so not sure who to believe, but Boras was taking that to FA. I don't believe we ever had specific rumors on Baez's demands and numbers - maybe I missed it. Only thing I recall was that it was close, then the pandemic happened, and then 600 or so AB's showing Baez going backwards offensively happened. Functionally, I don't fault them for any of the moves or situations in these three cases. I think one of the critiques made was that it should never have gotten to this point. That may be fair, but considering what we know now on the individual players, signing them down for what they wanted would be irresponsible in many respects. The thing is, in baseball, you can rarely find replacements as good or better while carrying your old core without having guys from the system to supplement it. It's ridiculously hard. Most organizations haven't shown the ability to maintain a strong system and flip the core while carrying the old core - basically, what the Dodgers are attempting to do, which is win now and flip their core in the process. The Cubs attempted to extend the core, in some respects, but then some of their moves didn't pan out, big and small, even if they were logical. I mean, if we had an Eloy JImenez around to help add to the core now, it would be a big factor. Should the Ricketts spend more? Maybe, but dipping money continuously hasn't worked for many teams. The Phillies have been stuck in a state of mediocrity since their old core faded away. They spent big on Bryce, and he's been fine, but it hasn't worked. Same goes for the Angels - the best player in baseball has been supplemented by FA moves/veteran trades through the year. He's hurt now, and they have another transcendent player, but they basically acknowledged they couldn't compete this year because they didn't have the depth and their SP has been horrid. I don't know if I buy the White Sox as miles ahead of the Cubs. Are they ahead, right nnow, as of 8/2/2021? Sure. They tore it down, built up their system, got good. We have to see how willing they are to maintain it. They still have a middle of the pack payroll. Some big money is coming off in the next few years for them, and they are lucky some youngsters extended already, but they'll need to add in FA to really maintain a run, as their system isn't all that interesting. That said, the one thing I agree on is that the Cubs will have to reinvest some of these funds. They are claiming that they aren't going through a full rebuild like last time ... if so, they'll have to spend, as the system isn't anywhere near close to providing the assets to accelerate a rebuild. We'll have to wait and see.

Tampa loves fast groundball hitters. Shop there. Maybe. I was looking at Oakland and Miami because of their needs there. Oakland has a clear need at 2nd with Lowrie hitting FA. Nick Allen is a good MI having a good year, but he's a good fit at short and could probably use another year in the minors. Andrus has one more year left on the deal. They could certainly go to Nick Allen at 2nd, before sliding him to short. Marlins have Rojas, who is fine, but probably need to find a young guy up the middle and their system is a bit thinner there (at least, off the top). They also have a lot of controllable arms in the majors doing well, and a lot of arms in the minors. With Lowe/Franco/Brujan/Edwards, I didn't really see a match for shopping a Hoerner/Madrigal type there. I'm sure they'd listen, Rays being the Rays.

You're digging a deeper hole in another part of the yard with this idea. Maybe. I don't know. I'm not enamored with running both of the guys out there. I know the value aspect ... don't get me wrong about that. Both are valuable guys who can fill a role. I'm just not sure I see two of those guys as being a part of a key aspect of an offense for the next core. (I'd obviously lean towards moving Hoerner instead of Madrigal). I also wouldn't do it if they couldn't make a splash this winter on a shortstop. I'm not suggesting to haphazardly give them away. That said, with the Marlins having multiple arms with multiple years of control doing well in the majors (Rogers, Alcantara, Lopez) ... and with their system being deeper on the arm side ... the fit and need seem there.

A case of sudden onset laryngitis left me bored as heck today, and I wasted a bunch of time looking at baseball stuff. I don't really expect it to happen, but reading the random news today, I'm growing more enamored with the idea of shopping Hoerner ... and maybe even Madrigal. I'm specifically thinking the Marlins and Athletics here, both teams that could use a young MI. With the Marlins looking at C as well, I wonder what pitcher a Hoerner/Contreras package could potentially land. Of course, Hoerner could fit for the A's as well, with Jed Lowrie hitting FA again. I'd rather not have to spend big on multiple arms. 1 maybe, and then take a flyer on 1 or 2.

I can see number ... 5 being something like a) Move Contreras to say, the Marlins, for an arm b) Sign FA C (say Yan Gomes) c) Make a trade or two for young-ish players (I'm growing enamored with my own "trade with Oakland" idea. Jed Lowrie is a FA, Logan Davidson has struggled, and Nick Allen could use a little more time, and he's more a SS anyways. Some sort of Hoerner swap makes sense) d) Make a big signing (Correa) and some smaller signings (I still like Eduardo Rodriguez at the right price, heck, Jed Lowrie could slide in at 3rd).

I don't know how to make this not sound crass ... but there was no core before there was one. Whether or not management cares, I don't know. I hope they do, but I don't know. I don't particularly care for Ricketts, but I've never been in a blame Ricketts mode. They made some moves that didn't pan out, traded some young talent that could've been a part of a new core, didn't develop well, and didn't draft well. Most teams that compete each year aren't the major market teams necessarily - they are the teams that identify talent well, whether through trades or the draft, and develop them. I don't think anyone really anticipates this to be WS team by 2023. I know for me, I'm simply talking about opening the window (roughly speaking, let's call it above .500 and trying to push for a wild card). If we're honest, that'd be a fast rebuild, but it's doable. They just have to spend some of the money that they've traded away. If you get an anchor type piece in FA, that really opens the door up a bit. That said, your general point is fair in that, the system itself won't deliver us to a competitive window in a year. Outside of Davis, many of the top guys are at least 2-3 years away On Heyward - the amount of salary left in the early years meant getting rid of him was likely impossible. It might be possible now, but I don't see the point. You'd have to attach prospect capital to move him, if a team's willing, and it's not worth it now.

I thought there was a report that said the Mets didn't get one pre--draft? Either way, that report, however valuable, is irrelevant relative to league rules on the compensation pick. The league MRI aspect might not really matter in that Boras likely would've taken him another route instead of signing for 1.9 or so, but I don't like the fact that the player had no choice in this.

I doubt his fall had anything to do with that. His peak was arguably his freshman year. He was still a very, very good pitcher that flashed elite stuff at times, but the consistency wasn't there for a variety of factors. You can almost make a case that Rocker's ceiling is still higher than Leiter, but Leiter's ceiling is close and his floor is higher. I mean, pre-draft, the talk was maybe around the 6th pick area, so it's not a major fall. Mets also offered him an over-slot 6 million deal, contingent upon passing medicals. Something flared up. I don't begrudge the Mets for being concerned with whatever their doctors told them. That said, this situation is definitely not in Rocker's favor. He either goes back to Vanderbilt or goes the Indy League route, and tries the draft in another year. Thing is, he loses leverage, he adds innings, and if he truly has some sort of issue, there's some added health risk. Certainly, part of this is on his advisors. I get it - you have a top pick, you don't want his medicals passed around (or something along those lines). If he had done the league MRI, I think the Mets would have had to offer him 40% of slot, which is roughly 1.9 million, roughly early 2nd round pick value. I'm not sure what the answer is, but none of this looks good, IMO. Obviously, I think most people will gloss over and not care about it, and in the grander scale of things, it's not an issue that's going to keep me up at night. It's just a bad situation. Also, I think the compensation pick system would give the Mets the 11th pick.

I've seen the website bandied about. No idea how they make their calculations - I'm guessing it's fairly reasonable. In terms of logic, I can agree with their opinions on all the trades. I don't particularly love Madrigal, but I get the value, and a half season of Javy for a recent first round pick, even injured is solid. Loved the Rizzo deal. Just did the reverse Marisnick trade to see what they would have it, and it's a win for getting Espinoza. I get the opinion/valuation on the Bryant trade. I'd really love to know what other teams offered, but I could venture a guess that the Cubs really wanted to add some pitching so Killian made sense for them. He's a step behind the two the Rays got for Cruz in terms of development (and maybe ceiling, Joe Ryan looks fascinating). Still, not many quality arms got moved.

If there's a discussion elsewhere and I missed it, sorry. That said, this Rocker situation irks me. No, it has nothing to do with the Cubs. Barring a late turn of events, it sounds like Rocker's basically being given no options. The Mets aren't giving obligated to give him any offer, since he skipped league medicals/MRI. He's losing leverage, risking arm health from extra innings (to go along with the fact that he might have elbow issues) . Their side seems to argue it's not that serious and have other orthopedists backing it up. I get the Mets concern. His advisors probably made the wrong decision to have him skip the league MRI, which would've forced the Mets to offer something to be eligible for the compensation pick. I don't know what the answer is. What I do think is that, with the draft now at 20 rounds, instituting a trade system becomes more reasonable. Obviously, this was a post-draft flare up. It would force a rethinking of the pool system in some ways, but I wonder if there's a way to institute some draft-rights trade system. None of this works for the player. The easiest way to have avoided this sticky issue for any team drafting would be to make mandatory league physicals/medicals/MRI's, but I don't know how MLB would do that.

Maybe, but Arenado and KB will get their deals at 3rd (and I just saw that Arenado had made a comment about not opting out). Correa will get his deal - he's the stud of the class. A lot of people seem to buy Story because of the numbers, and in this modern age, I think someone jumps on him early if he's not overly expensive (if he's expecting break-the-bank, that's a separate issue) That leaves Seagar and Baez. I think a lot depends, for Seagar, on how he performs down the stretch. If he does well, I think his offensive game gives him the edge. It' possible everyone gets their ideal deals, but sure feels like someone will be priced out, and right now, my guess would be Baez. Of course, the possibility exists that he does enough down the stretch, Lindor performs well, and they convince Steve Cohen to open the pocket books for him with Baez moving permanently to 2nd.

I don't know if I see them going after Hosmer now. We're almost out of the woods of our big contracts, and Hosmer is what, 18 million for 4 more years. Hassell's safer than some of our kids, but I don't know - I don't want them to have a new "Heyward" crutch now that the system has been restocked somewhat, with an impending draft to add to it. Was trying to slap together a plan, but then I came to the realization that, boy, it's tough to figure out 3rd base. My idea would be to spend big on Correa now (only one I would spend big on now ... even Seagar, I would hope for the market to come down). That said, without going overboard in FA signings (I did mildly wonder about the Seagar/Seagar combination), it's hard to figure out 3rd, outside of slapping Wisdom in there. Wisdom is probably fine as an option, but was really trying to think of anyone else. Thought about Buxton/Donaldson in some package. That said, the Twins claim to want to compete next year, and I don't see how they do it moving one of them. If they want to rebuild, then sure, that makes sense. The other thought was maybe the Marlins might move Brian Anderson. Perhaps Wisdom is the best option to slap there. Honestly, the other thought was first base. I don't suspect they'll sign two new guys, so Wisdom at 1 of them does make sense. I think I'd try to trade for a pitcher moreso than any interesting positional asset. Still go back to Oakland - Manaea is a FA in 1 year. I wonder if they might sell high on him. You add that with 1 or 2 FA gambles and a mid-tier starter (is Eduardo Rodriguez mid-tier? Organizations are all modernized now, but still hard for me to think he's a big ticket item coming off the raw numbers, and I'd go with that along with Hendricks/Alzolay. I would avoid older guys unless they are "on-sale". There's an argument to be made to go after big ticket pitching items, but Correa's youth and power, plus a willingness to eventually move to 3rd, is just the perfect mix. If the Cubs decide to spend a lot more than this, then it's a lot easier, obviously. Goal isn't to win now - goal is to get the window open by 2023, let the youngsters develop, and keep the sheets clean enough that if Juan Soto hits FA, you go all-out in the winter of 2024 to get him. Edit: Just read about the Marlins being open to discuss young pitching talent for a young positional asset. Looks like they want someone close to ready, so it's tough to figure out exactly how to get that, as I'm not moving Brennen in a trade for Max Meyer. Would be interesting to try and find something they want to spin for a top young arm, but it's probably a bit difficult to find a match. Boy, that hypothetical Marsh/Meyer trade, had it happened, would've been fascinating.

They seem fairly clear that they aren't going to go the multi-year tank route, but it also wouldn't be prudent for them to spend on top of the line big-ticket items. I think a) The most likely route is that they see how their youngsters develop. The system is rebuilt, but it's rebuilt to the extent of having some high impact, farther away players, so the risk level is still high (I mean, 5 of our main guys are at least 3 years away in Howard, Preciado, Hernandez, Crow-Armstrong, Alcantara). Stronger draft positioning next year will help, but there still isn't much in the way of strong pitching talent that's really close. They'll let things develop, spend on some FA pitching gambles (A lot of reasonable gambles out there, but reasonable gambles are guys coming off struggles, like Dylan Bundy, Andrew Heaney, and maybe even Jose Quintana). Shop Willson Contreras this offseason, as well as Kyle Hendricks (winter or next deadline). Focus the draft on high level pitching talent in the early rounds, if possible (obviously take the best player possible, but if it's a close, the nod should go to the arm). In this scenario, you hope Brennen Davis is showing well in the major leagues at the end of 2022, and Madrigal/Hoerner make for a solid MI combination and top of the order. At this point, maybe you get aggressive on the FA market. The problem with this is, at first glance, the post-2022 FA market doesn't look all that great. Some of the better younger guys seem to be Benintendi and uh ... ? The poor man's Baez (joke ... but referencing Dansby Swanson). I guess the main guys would be Buxton, Gallo, and Trea Turner, along with Jose Berrios, Taijuan Walker. Gary Sanchez. Sean Manaea. Some options and opt-out guys. It's not a great class. I believe they said the post-2023 class looks good on the pitching side. b) So ... I've been wondering, since it's a relatively young and interesting FA class, could they actually get somewhat aggressive this offseason? I think a lot may depend on how the youngsters show the rest of the year (in the majors and the minors). That said, a lot of money has been cleared. At this point, there's no real need to ponder moving Heyward's contract off, as you'd need to attach prospect talent to it, which is not worth it now. Maybe if the team improves this year, they could contemplate moving the final year off for some savings, but not this winter. Still, the FA class is intriguing this winter. There's the obvious - the SS's, Arenado/KB. (I expect Arenado to opt-out). Then, there's some young-ish pitching like Stroman, Gausman, Robbie Ray. There's the young-ish guys that have struggled, like Bundy, Eduardo Rodriguez, and Andrew Heaney and offensively, Conforto. I don't think they'll be the first guy out of the gate, so to speak. That said, it seems possible a few of those guys might not find their market early on. If the Cubs feel confident about Madrigal and/or Hoerner in the near future, could they make a splash if someone's market comes down? You add a power hitting infielder at SS or 3rd, add say, Conforto, and some pitching gambles ... this looks like a somewhat competitive team without busting the budget. Or if the Cubs really wanted to get bold, they'd go out and sign, as much as I don't like him, someone like Carlos Correa down for big dollars as the anchor to the next cycle, add some cheap gambles, and hope their guys develop. Edit: Are the Cubs only major commitments for 2022 Heyward and Hendricks? Arrieta's going to be turned down. Everything else is arb or pre-arb? Oh, wait, there's Bote. Still, that's a lot of money to play with. It's hard to imagine them spending on two big ticket items, but it feels like they could go get ... Correa (not that I really love him, but his age and performance matters, along with his stated willingness to go to 3rd at some point) and maybe take a pitching gamble or two. Try to trade for a team that may shop a starter (not sure who ... just hypothetically) for either cost purposes now (or because they might hit FA later - don't know why I keep going back to Oakland and Sean Manaea.) See if some positional assets price comes down/is cheap (keep going to Conforto because of his struggles). The NL Central isn't overwhelming, so suddenly, that's a reasonably competitive squad with a much improved system that still has a draft to add to it.

Baez is who he is, fun, electric, but also aggravating often. It really felt like he was edging closer to turning a corner after 18/19, but the last 600 AB's were tough. He was a wonderful player to have around, but the idea of spending huge on him would have been troubling. In my mind, he's the ideal "secondary star". If he's the top guy or 2nd guy on your core, it's not ideal, unless he reverts to 18/19 offensive form. If he's that 3rd guy playing great defense up the middle and power in the lineup, fantastic. I didn't even realize Albert Almora was with the Mets. Forgot all about that. Boy, 3 hits in 40 AB's? Hard to believe he almost hit .300 one year. With so much money cleared off the books, if Baez's price comes down in FA, and the Cubs wanted to revisit it, I wouldn't rule it out. It sure feels like someone is going to be left out in the cold this winter, that someone will get a lesser payday. They seem fairly clear that they don't intend to tank, so with a rebuilt system and stronger draft positioning next year, it's not impossible to see them spend on some guys if the price is right. I think the years will obviously be the biggest deal. I mean, you bring back a Baez (or whoever is the SS left out in the cold in FA), add a corner bat or two on the cheap (I wonder what happens with Conforto with his horrid season), take some pitching gambles and hope to get lucky, and this team looks like it could be decent.

Oh, I know that Espinoza was more upside and potential than performance back then. That said, it was tantalizing upside, 3 plus pitches upside. I also know that, you miss so many years, there could be nothing. I think, considering the age, the Cubs should still work him as a starter. There looks to be some positive signs so far this year. If he shows well the 2nd half, then he starts in AA next year. If not, then you can move him to the pen and see if things can accelerate.

I don't mind this trade, but they better have reviewed those medicals a million and one times. I still might've preferred a gamble on power, but I guess we can't be certain if guys like Vientos were really offered, despite being heavily rumored. That said, we have to be realistic - it's a half season of Javy and Trevor Williams. Getting a quality asset like PCA is worth the gamble.

Espinoza was a STUD once. This was a stud once, and then injuries and COVID. I love this deal. It might be my favorite deal of the deadline. It may flameout, but boy, there's huge upside, and Marisnick is a nice role player. It's funny, the deals for Marisnick and Rizzo are the ones that I'm most excited about. Excitement doesn't always lead to positive results, but hey, it leads to intrigue.

I think everything this front office does is reasonable, but it's obviously a disappointing return. What I find puzzling isn't that the Cubs took it (still better than a comp pick and the pool money) - what I find more puzzling is that a team like the Rays didn't try to step up. Or anyone really. It's a lottery ticket and a high floor strike throwing arm that's probably a number 4, but maybe the developments he's made makes him mid-rotation. In the prospect scheme of things, it's not a lot. Or ... the Cubs just really like these guys.

It’s not just the walks, Longenhahen reported Woods Richardson’s velocity went backwards last year too. Okay, I missed that. If it did go backwards, then it is a bit concerning.

So after a few years of "we need contact to stop being so one-dimensional" and " we could use a better top of the order option", it looks like the Cubs are trying to corner the market on those types of players as best as possible? I'm joking, obviously. Elite power, middle of the order prospects tend not to be moved unless it's a monster deal, and I get that. I get the value, but I don't love this deal. Same goes for the Mets trade, but PCA might have some more pop in him.