toonsterwu

If this is the contract, then Boras/Harper screwed up by passing on the Nationals reported offer (10/300) and the Nationals rumored offer (higher than that). Yeah, he sets a record, but Machado ended up with a higher AAV, and if there's no opt out, this is just a weird, weird ending to the Harper FA. Sure, he's going to a more competitive team than Harper, but it sure feels like the Nationals offer was better, so it feels like Boras, along with ... well, a lot of us, misread the market, but we don't have a client's future at stake. This is just a bleh deal. Tbh, it's a pretty solid deal for the Phillies, outside of the latter years likely being a mess.

What the hell are the Giants doing getting in on a 10 year deal? The team's in a tough division, 2-3 years away from legitimately competing, with an average system ... at best. By the time they are legitimately ready to push for another run ... Bryce will likely be nearing the end of his physical prime. So ... again, what the hell are they doing? I get it from Bryce's part, sorta - west coast, record-setting deal.

Now, I've been suggesting a short term deal wasn't that ridiculous ... but I don't get a 5 year deal. That seems just a touch long. My thinking on a massive short term deal would've been for Bryce to get out around 28/29 and possible get a 8 year deal to take him into his late 30's while still potentially getting a high AAV. A bet on yourself move while taking massive money early. 5? Just seems a tad long. Still think it's Phillies here, although it's interesting to read rumors of another 300+ million offer and the possibility the Nationals were still lurking (I have my doubts about that, sure feels like it's Boras trying to drive the Phillies up). I think Boras is trying to get the Phillies to 10/350, but I wonder if they (or any team) would actually go there right now. To think that early in the offseason, there was talk of 400.

If someone really bombs him with a deal ... I mean ... something insane ... there's a certain price point where it'd be stupid to pass up on it at his age. To be fair, 4/160 might not be enough. It might have to be closer to 4/200 to even ring a bell. It'd probably have to even further. Yes, skill loss could happen. Injuries could happen. There should be a point on whatever internal analytical work they've done that it'd be hard to pass up on, considering Bryce's age. This isn't to say there is ... maybe they are that dead set against it, but if something insane came down the pipes, they should consider it. Anyhow, truthfully, I don't expect that to happen.

The Dodgers, now, are a more reasonable team (unlike the Giants) to really bomb the market and give him some sort of insane short term deal. I still don't see it happening, but unless I'm mistaken, huge chunks of their remaining committed salaries come off in the next 1-3 years (Ryu, Turner, Hill, Martin, Jansen after 2021, Bailey's remaining, and Kemp - looking at sportrac right now). Gotta think even they could find a way to move Joe Kelly's contract if need be, unless he really falls apart. With a solid system, few major contracts ... they could really bomb the market if they feel they could supplement things elsewhere. I mean, if they offered something like ... 4/160, I wonder if Boras and Harper's attention perk up). At a certain point, there's a number on the short term deal that's bound to get Boras/Harper's attention ... but it'd probably have to be pretty insane and record-breaking. At the end of the day, I expect this will end the way people expected - Harper in Philly. It'd be an interesting team there, and a relatively wide-open NL East.

I wonder if SF may bomb the market. That is, a very short term deal with such an immensely high AAV that Boras and Harper can't say no. I suggested something similar early in the offseason, not really thinking it was a real possibility. But say someone threw 3/120+. Still, at the end of the day, the most likely scenario seems to be a creative long term deal (that could be a short term deal in actuality), with options, perhaps on both sides, and maybe deferrals. Sure feels like no one wants Philly ... and it's sort of baffling. Yeah, the Natonals/Braves look good, but the Phillies are promising. Sure feels like they have really go stupid to get Bryce ... and if Manny was option A for them, I wonder if they will go that stupid. Still, after going "in" (maybe not all-in, but they sure moved chips to the middle) with the Realmuto move, now is as good a time as any to live up to the owner's stupid money comments. Still think it's Philly's to lose, but the rumor a couple months or so ago was that the Nationals final offer was closer to 10/350 than the reported 10/300. If that's the case ... can they still come up with that money, after spending big on Corbin and others this offseason? There is a part of me that wonders if a legitimate sleeper is out there, (and I'd count the Cubs as a sleeper by now), but it's just hard to see who emerges this late in the game.

My guess is that, beyond dealing with holes that they need to deal with on the team (namely pitching) that they are betting on their own guys internally. At the end of the day, this Harper FA has been ... interesting. I keep thinking more teams will pop into it (Braves/Cardinals come to mind ... they keep saying a team on the periphery and I keep wondering about the Cubs being that team as well), but it's been weird for one of the premier talents in the game.

Significantly overused by Buck during his run in Baltimore (Orioles missed a chance to sell high on him two years ago, when he might've commanded a big return), but for this offseason, and the constraints, I do like the move. The fastball isn't as good as it once was, so I doubt he's a consistent late inning option, but if he's not over-used, I imagine there's a chance he could still be a steady pen arm that could potentially help out in the late innings. Sort of Michael Wuertz, for a comparison (and in a similar vein, once Wuertz lost his fastball, he went downhill).

I tend to think this is the Phillies game to lose now. Boras and Harper will wait, but the Phillies almost HAVE to pull in someone big, so they'll be willing to wait. For the Nationals to get him back ... Honestly, it might take something vaguely close to that. (To be clear, I'm not saying that specifically) For the Nationals to get him back, if the Phillies have outbid everyone by an appreciable amount (say, if the Nats had offered something close to 10/350, something like 10/400 would be a sizable chunk enough that would be hard to pass down), they would likely need to construct a contract that's a win for all parties involved, from the Nationals, to Boras, to Harper. So, it would have to be a combination of a record-setting deal, enough security length for Harper and enough opt-outs for Harper if the situation goes south, and a way for the Nationals to get out if the contract becomes too burdensome. Of all the teams in the majors, the Nationals willingness to go with deferrals would certainly make creating a creative contract possible. Still, it's hard to see where the sweet spot is and how they would structure the contract to make it a positive for all parties. A part of me wonders (in the few moments I actually have thought about this) about some sort of long-term deal with say, opt-out capability after Year 2, but maybe some sort of opt-out AND team option after Year 4 or 5. Still, it's just hard to see how they get there and find the sweet spot, if the Phillies significantly overbid.

Situation reminds me, vaguely, of the Pujols situation several years ago. IIRC, Pujols had an offer from the Cardinals, the Angels topped it by a fair amount, and Pujols kept waiting and hoping the Cardinals would come back in. Sure feels like the Phillies have offered something significantly higher than the Nationals have offered, and it sure doesn't feel like there's a lot more teams out there waiting in the winds. It'll probably come down to whether or not the Nationals can come close enough and ... maybe ... whether or not Ted Lerner decides to step in, despite handing things off. If he goes back to the Nationals, it wouldn't surprise me if it's a superbly complex deal with player options and team options mixed in, along with deferrals. Much as I've thought the Nationals all off-season ... I think I'm leaning towards the Phillies getting him. It's hard to see Middleton going back to the fan base with say, Keuchel/Kimbrel and calling it a big offseason after his comments.

Wouldn't surprise me if that was the case, but I'd guess that they'd double down on pitching first - say Keuchel or Corbin to go with Paxton AND maybe a Charlie Morton (who wants to be on the East Coast, near Delaware, IIRC). Makes me sorta wonder if the Yankees jump in on Addison Russell if gets set free.

I think the Yankees get a good deal. I don't know if Justus Sheffield is a dominant starter. Say what you want about Paxton, but when he's on, he's been electric for three years. This is a good chance for the Yankees to take. I don't think they stop here - they have money to spend, so I suspect Corbin and Machado could still be in the mix. This deal could fall big time for them, but I think it's a good gamble for them to take considering where they are as an organization right now (primed to try and win now and compete with the Red Sox). Tbh, the deal looks fine from the Mariners side once they decided they had to move Paxton. Still, Paxton was originally the third of their potential next dominant trio (when do trios actually work out? the Orioles vaunted Arrieta/Tillman/Matusz grouping never did, Isringhausen, Pulsipher, and uh ... Halladay? anyhow, it's all besides the point), behind Walker/Hultzen. I like Sheffield as an elite prospect, but pitching prospects can and obviously do miss.

I thought Fulmer was a pen arm when he was at Vandy, and I still feel that way. A potentially elite pen arm, but I just don't buy him as a starter. Still, if you can get him and work on him, why not.

Because I don't want to read a report right now ... Just for fun, because of Theo's comments about it being "virtually impossible" Can anyone come up with Bryant deal that a) Makes sense for the Cubs b) Makes sense for the opposing team? c) Offers the Cubs a headline player d) Offers the Cubs future assets or other useful immediate assets Been trying to do that for the last ... 5 minutes or so. Kept pondering the A's as a surprise, but I can't talk myself into believing that Beane trades years of cost control on Chapman away. Thought the Yankees, but ... putting Gleyber in seems unlikely. Don't see a match with Boston. Wonder about the Rays. Don't see them dealing him to any team in the NL Central barring a total fireburner. Rockies don't make sense - they may ponder dealing Arenado, but Bryant would bring in the same cost problems on the horizon. I'm left thinking 1. Nationals - Anthony Rendon and ???? Cubs would ask for Juan Soto, but I doubt the Nationals move Soto. Rendon/Bryant swap is a swap of two in-their-prime guys ... but Rendon's older. Something else would have to come along, and therein lies the problem. Victor Robles seems like too much ... they don't have pen arms that they would likely offer that provide more immediate certainty ... 2. Braves - Some young SP as a headliner, Johan Camargo (if we wanted a 3rd baseman), and ??? I just don't see, say, Foltyniewicz and Camargo as anywhere near close, but I wonder if that's my own bias in play. 3. Indians??? There seems like there could be something there ... if they are in win-now mode ... I just don't know what makes sense. Dunno ... that's the three I like, but maybe I'm missing. AGAIN ... I don't think Bryant is being moved ... just waiting on stuff and thinking about the "virtually impossible to envision a deal" comment that Theo made.

It’s called click bait. It's Buster Olney. I highly doubt he did it as click bait. I could be wrong, but Olney has a fairly solid rep, even with all of ESPN's issues. My guess is he legitimately heard something ... who leaked it and why becomes the issue. To be real clear, I highly doubt the Cubs ponder dealing Bryant unless it's a monster deal, the type of deal you can't turn down (as good as Bryant is ... yeah, there are hypotheticals you can make to fit that demand) ... but therein lies the rub ... those types of deals tend to mean the other side wouldn't do it either.

I do buy the Yankees as being out, though, as of now. Yes, they could make a Harper/Stanton/Judge configuration work (blue moon Harper CF, otherwise, rotate at DH and occasionally put Harper at 1st (I think he's the only one that's practiced some there)). Machado makes more sense, and Corbin is probably priority number 1. I'm not sure on the Cubs, but for some reason, I could see the Dodgers slow play it and be the "mystery" team type that pops up late. Somewhat weird, though that the White Sox are showing public interest and not those three (granted, not that weird, they have to "show" their fan base changes, or the potential for change),

It doesn't matter what it's "set at." It could be 25/900. The thing is going to have so many opt outs that the length of the contract is meaningless. I've said repeatedly I think the money pre-opt out might end up being what gets a deal done (I still wonder about a team like Philly coming in and plopping down something insane over the first three years or so), but I would argue that length and size of contract isn't exactly meaningless. I think Boras wants to make a point and have big target numbers in mind. Doesn't mean that he definitively has to get them or will get them, but I think he'd like to make a point. Get the longest contract, get the biggest overall contract, highest AAV, and so forth. I actually don't suspect that many "opt-outs". At best, 2. One relatively early in the deal, and one maybe half-way through the deal or so, giving his client, Harper, in this case, options in case things go off-kilter.

I too hope that this year's baller FA class is inexplicably dragged down in cost like last year's FA class was dragged down because it sucked, and because teams didn't want to spend too much in the face of the baller FA class that is happening RIGHT NOW. To be real clear, I'm not saying I think any of the elite guys in this class are going to get lower than expected contracts. I'm just saying that my guess would be that all the talk and rumors are just that right now - talk and rumors, and that the Cubs will try to fortify their other areas of need while potentially pursuing big fish, and hope said big fish's numbers come down a bit. I don't think that is all that controversial ... almost all the teams will play that same game - my point was I don't read too much into anything being said or leaked right now, which was the original point of the post I replied to.

Was it a weak extension attempt? Maybe, but I'd argue that it was a shrewd move by Rizzo and Co. There was no way Bryce was resigning days before FA. The move effectively helps Boras out by setting the market a bit, by allowing Boras to argue for a higher AAV without people questioning whether or not that was doable (the jump from 30-35 isn't that big, at those numbers). It sets the years barrier. I mean, Boras called the move an olive branch. The lack of opt outs looks glaring, but almost everyone assumes opt outs would be there, and there's no need to give it all away for an initial offer. My hunch is this will come down to what people suspected for several months - Phillies making a big offer, and Harper and Boras going to the Nationals to see if there's a way that they'll match it.

It feels like Boras is setting the starting point at 14 years/500 million, with all the talk of playing till 40 and Zack Greinke's AAV. If that's the case, I really only see one team jumping anywhere near that, and that's Philadelphia. As for the Cubs, I tend to think it's all talk at this point in time. I don't think Theo wants anything to do with 14/500, if that's the case, and I can't exactly blame him for that. Those are huge numbers, and one would assume if there is an early opt out that the pre-opt out AAV's would be level, or higher. Still, one has to remember that Theo's ideal situation is internal development. He talked so wistfully for awhile about wondering what those Red Sox teams would have looked like had he kept some of the kids, like Reddick, around. It's not hard to imagine Theo and Co. talking themselves into the idea that, from a cost-benefit assessment, they might buy the idea that their kids, when factoring in costs, could be more worthwhile if they really buy into them. I suspect, though, it's all talk at this juncture, with the hopes that some of the top end numbers get dragged down a bit. Akin to how they went about Darvish last year, sorta. Try and fill enough holes (as was the hope with Chatwood) that you aren't forced to break the bank, while hoping that the price comes down enough to facilitate some sort of move, or has given you enough time to make moves to clear salary. ___ A lot probably depends on the Yankees, as always. If they really pull off a Machado move, as many seem to suspect right now, and Philly is desperate for a star acquisition, Harper may get an offer he can't refuse. It's hard to see the Yankees sitting pat this offseason, and the predictions of a Machado/Corbin double dip make a ton of sense for them. Still, the Nationals have set the bar already, by going to 300 million and a 30 mil AAV, so it's not hard to see them bridging the gap somehow, and I tend to think the Nationals probably are still the favorites for Harper. I mean, while it's a lot, a 30 mil to 35 mil AAV jump isn't that big, so it would come down to years and creative financing, and the Nationals clearly are okay with creative ways to fit things in (namely deferrals). I still think, for all the talk about 14 years and total numbers, the amount before whatever opt-out year they decide on will be most critical.

I ... don't know if I care all that much about Nico's speed. Law's usually not going to that far off the walls, so I'd guess he either caught Nico on a bad day, or that Nico made some poor runs. Speed and baserunning aren't exactly the same thing, and Law's comments were about him being a below-average runner. That said, put it this way - I just don't think Nico's speed is going to end up being the breaking point of whether he's a major leaguer or not. Not an issue to quibble over, but I think a positive case for Giambrone is more Todd Walker than Mike Fontenot, as I think he might have a bit more pop than Fontenot ever consistently had.

Well, I just wasted time trying to see if there's a possible Quintana deal that makes sense for me, and I can't figure one out. In general, acknowledging that you aren't likely to get Quintana level proven production in a deal ... I'd want, when considering Quintana's age, production, cost, and market value of similar arms ... a) A controllable young starter that has shown he has some ability in the pros and still has potential to get better (but acknowledging the above point, said player has probably struggled so far) b) If you want a young pen arm, okay. Every roster has a hard throwing young pen arm. c) Another asset or two. Closest I could come up with would be something like Dylan Bundy/Mychel Givens/x/x ... and even that would make me very wary as I'm just not sure what to think of Bundy. White Sox probably have some combination that would get close. But ... no way Orioles (anbd probably White Sox) do those deals in rebuilding modes.

I haven't been to BCB in ages ... but that got me mildly curious enough to check out, and uh ... no. Just no. I think there's probably an argument, or a fantasy trade, that could be composed of involving Quintana that I wouldn't necessarily say no to, but the idea of trading Quintana for bullpen arms? No, just no. In the first place, while I've been a fan of Smyly in the past, I think there should be minimal expectations placed on him for next season, along with Chatwood. Just too much unknown to actually depend on one of them. Now, if you want to toss them in there as competing for the 5th spot, fine. But if you remove Quintana without replacing it ... I think that's too many questions. So, therein is the first problem. To trade Quintana while the Cubs are currently in their window, you would need to have a plan on improving the rotation. Simply saying Hamels/Smyly/Chatwood isn't enough, and that leaves aside questions on Darvish, age for Lester/Hamels. Either you are spending more money, or you are spending for trading assets to address that hole. I don't love Quintana ... never really loved him (trade made sense, much as it shocked me to see them double down with Eloy and Dylan), but it's going to be tough to find something better than him. I mean, in this FA market, there's what, a handful of guys that one would say is a notch above Quintana, and most of them are aging and older (and they are all going to get deals far surpassing Quintana's). The 2nd issue is simple. I'm not trading a good starter, like Quintana, away for anything more than a good closer, basically. Any good organization should be able to find mid-90's hard throwers for the pen. Heck, the Cubs had Blake Parker (granted, he was never "young" as a pitcher, since he made a late transition and was a college guy to begin with). I won't rule out any sort of trade as a concept. I mean, the idea of trading Quintana, or even a guy like Rizzo, while unlikely, shouldn't be written off as a thought, IMO. Still, only way I deal Quintana, because of the costs and production, is if I get a big, meaningful return, and young pen arms ... nope. As secondary assets to a deal, fine.

To be fair, Boras does prefer that, but there have been cases where if the player basically asks Boras to make a deal, he does. The most recent example is Strasburg wanting to stay with the Nationals, provided fair terms, which was obviously met. Anyhow, I don't think this is all that significant. Makes no sense for KB to sign that now anyways.

If Eppler is allowed to move Trout (and I find that unlikely, tbh, as I don't think Moreno would allow it), I'm not sure the Cubs are great fits. They would obviously want high caliber, impact talent. It's hard to really believe that Happ/Schwarber/Almora types hold that intrigue for other organizations, at least, to the magnitude of a Trout trade. After all, with 2 years left on the deal, all sorts of teams would likely jump in on this, particularly teams with loaded systems and young talent. They are probably looking for catching help, more pitching, and maybe some sort of IF, so if you stretch the imagination ... no, I just don't see it. ____ Realistically, on the Angels, I think they ponder Griffin Canning in the rotation next year (although may be a year early). I think they make a run at a FA SP, hope Ohtani full-time as a DH gives the lineup a big boost next season, and maybe scrounge for some cheap help in the IF and at C. Depending on how much Moreno is willing to spend, maybe they make a run at Ramos.