SaorsaDaonnan

I like Thompson as a nice multi-inning relief option. And, I see Hendricks as a "worth trying but health-dubious" #5 starter at this point, for 2023 anyway, with Wesneski, Sampson, and Assad first in line to replace him in the event of a failed/delayed shoulder recovery....or, conversely, in the event of a nice recovery and deadline deal to a clearer contender. So I like the idea of a #4 starter who is also reported to be a good clubhouse guy, which Smyly is. Even more, I like the way that Smyly returned to the Cubs after they helped him get his career back on track, and that he was specifically regarded as a good clubhouse member of OUR '22 squad. Those things point toward positive feelings towards the Cubs org and its current players, which in turn implies positive vibes for '23 if you ask me. I don't by any means think Smyly is the only person who could succeed in this #4 role, but I love that he already likes our guys, doesn't cost any prospects, and is decent and affordable. And given the questions around Hendricks, I definitely want another starter from outside the current org...very preferably, one who does not cost prospects.

I like it. Now two consecutive offseasons of nice moves, and it's nice to see the future finally start to take shape. Swanson, Hoerner, PCA up the middle, hopefully Mervis and Suzuki on the right side, and then some uncertainty on the left side and top of rotation, but potentially with a star in Brennan. C's and DHes as needed. And who knows, maybe Soto or Ohtani in the next few years :beg:

I want Swanson. Actually I built my imaginary offseason around him back in October, in (contextual) preference to the other shortstops out there. Maybe my late 80/early 90s kid origins are showing, but I like a defensive SS, and in my opinion, a great defender up the middle at a youngish-for-FA age and with some level of offensive upside is pretty appealing. Alongside PCA’s rise and a deal with Hoerner that buys out the arb years and gives us another handful beyond, a Swanson signing means strong up-the-middle defense with neutral to plus offense for essentially the rest of the decade. That’s highly appealing to me. The issue, imo, is that Swanson needs to be paired with a meaningful bat like an Abreu or Contreras, or else another impact run preventer like Senga in addition to Taillon...and those guys are largely off the market now. From the point of view of the early offseason, adding a bat like that would have been no problem for a team not being precious about resources, and it all could have been done on the shorter deals the FO wants. You could argue about whether it would be better or worse than just getting a Turner or Correa, but something like a Swanson/Abreu/Senga/Taillon or a Swanson/Contreras version would have fit the bill pretty nicely. In fact, for a team that needed so many positions — 2 SP, a C, some kind of middle infield help, a 1B/DH to join Mervis, several deadline deal-able relievers — Swanson arguably is more practical than the others. Sure, he may be a star rather than a superstar most years, but he’s damned useful. I think the problem people are responding to isn’t so much Swanson as the feeling of several years’ worth of rejection and squandered opportunities. We wasted 2019-21, dumped Schwarber for nothing, Darvish for a very distant future, Contreras for just a QO, turned down Harper, got rejected by Correa twice and Turner and Bogaerts once, while also seeing Abreu and Senga pass us by, and today hearing the same about Vasquez. Alzolay, Marquez, Davis, and Amaya had disappointing years, and I could go on. Suzuki, Stroman, Taillon, and now hopefully Swanson are all nice adds, but none of them add up to the feeling that we have turned the corner now and the ugly transition is finally over, and we're a credible big market team again. Of course, a winning season with good news from a few corners could still change that narrative soon. But right now, it’s looking like the likely case is something like Swanson, Taillon, Bellinger, Narvaez, Mancini, and Smyly/Kluber/Thor/Eovaldi, plus some RP…..or, it’s something like that, but wsy worse, with just a temp 2B or 2B instead of Swanson. The former is darn useful, but it’s good evolution rather than the revolution we long for, a wild card run or a plan to sneak past the Cards if they stumble, a la the 2018-19 Brewers. Of course, with a nice farm and plenty of future money, the long term outlook isn’t actually that dark. But for now, we’ve really painted ourselves into a corner with Swanson here, where this is a clear failure of an offseason now if we don’t get him…barring a case of Ohtani or Trout falling into our laps. That would be four out of the last five off seasons that we’ve totally horsefeathers the bed, so we now absolutely have to beat out like five teams for the least star-powered star or else face another huge fail. And this was a preventable circumstance. We can blame the FO or ownership for that, but we shouldn’t blame Swanson for it.

Apparently the CBA expires at 11:59, while the lockout vote the owners recently approved takes effect at 12:01. C’mon Jed, find an interesting shenanigan to pull in those two minutes and become a legend!

IMO, if the Cubs didn’t like the physical and then lowered their offer, Stroman would have gambled that another team would have a rosier outlook later, and offer him something better in Feb. Therefore, I think the shorter deal is something he’s cool with. Oh yeah, I think he's looking at this as a huge opportunity. I was speaking more to having escalators at 160 IP considering his durability, maybe suggests the Cubs and Stroman have bigger ideas than just plug and play 2023 strikeout king, Cy Young award winner Marcus Stroman does have a nice ring to it…

The opt-out after year two also points to Stroman being interested in hitting the market again soon, imo…

IMO, if the Cubs didn’t like the physical and then lowered their offer, Stroman would have gambled that another team would have a rosier outlook later, and offer him something better in Feb. Therefore, I think the shorter deal is something he’s cool with.

Wow, nice, I guess Stroman likes the idea of continuing to gamble on himself a bit. Very interesting. Nice work, Jed :good:

I think it is within the realm of possibility, but I wouldn't feel comfortable placing money on that bet. I suddenly feel much more confident. I could see any of Story, Suzuki, or Castellanos joining up, maybe 40% chance of someone like that. Would not be utterly shocked by Correa or Freeman or Bryant, or it being more than one player on this little list, but am definitely thinking lower odds, like maybe 20% odds of multiples or a clear superstar. (I have Story as a star but not superstar…) And an SP, and Boyd for next year and the stretch, of course.

Sorry, I’m a moron who just accidentally quoted myself when trying to edit. Plz ignore.

They can get away with one more starter. Stroman Hendricks Miley XXXXX Alzolay/Steele/Mills/Thompson/Kilian But they could also really use three bats. I feel like Adbert has done enough to get a spot in the rotation and it would be nice to have a hard thrower in that rotation. Agreed. I like Alzolay’s arm and am happy with Mills as the guy who helps compensate for his innings limit, or who could temporarily push A to the pen out of ST, depending on who’s hot or cold. I don’t hate the idea of making Alzolay and Marquez into late inning beasts in the style of several really good recent teams around the league, but I also see them as plausible 5th types this year and next, respectively. Collectively, Alzolay/Mills/Thompson/Steele is a 5/6/7/8 I’m pretty happy with, even though it’s kind of a pain that not everyone can be sent down. So I just aim for one more starting pitcher by going after two or three targets I like. If I get one, great, then I have a rotation I like. If I happen to get two, hey, I have really nice depth and my rotation could actually be a strength rather than just solid, and that’s also good. And then the other thing I’d do is get Boyd on a 2-year deal, maybe with an option for a third, and think of him like we did Smyly the other year, or Wade Miller or Demp a long time ago. In the good case, he returns as a reinforcement down the stretch, helping a playoff drive if you’re good or filling in for a guy you cashed in at the deadline if you aren’t good. And then after that, you have a one year deal for a 3 or 4 with upside, and the potential to stretch that for another year if it goes well. So, 1 SP plus Boyd, plz!

Oh, confirmed while I lingered over writing the post. Cool! Welcome, Marcus!

Nice, count me in as another who approves. Gotta say, it’s really good to have fun Cubs news breaking on a random winter night again, even if tonight isn’t actually random. Three offseasons was a long time to go without… Don’t wanna jinx it and say “welcome, Marcus!”quite yet, but hot damn, I could get used to this

There’s a nice efficiency to having two good hitting catchers if you usually have the one not catching on a given day as your DH, in that it basically subtracts your backup catcher spot from your 26-man roster count. You get not only injury and slump resistance through better depth, but a free bench or pen player too. IMO it’d be especially a plus for the team’s utilization of a player like Willson, but it’s a general phenomenon too. That said, I bet Jed shops Willson and is currently agnostic about Contreras’ future as a Cub. Not the “we plan to trade him but aren’t counting chickens or publicly giving away leverage” agnostic, but “genuinely comparing the above value to possible trade returns” agnostic.

Apologies if I’m just missing it, by why is Castellanos not in the convo? We have positive history with him, he isn’t that old, and he fits our contact and power targets pretty well. Not to downplay Suzuki, who also seems interesting, but Castellanos could be a pretty useful corner guy that you DH a couple times a week in larger parks or when his corner seems likely to get a bunch of fly balls. Also, for the roster crunch of non-optionable 5th/6th/7th starters, why not have them piggyback as is done in the minors? Three innings apiece from Mills/Steele/Thompson could get you pretty far for pretty cheap IMO, while Alzolay could be a weapon as a reliever if enough good SP deals are out there. If someone of Alzolay/Marquez/Mills/Steele/Thompson emerges of the next couple or three years as a 200 inning a year workhorse who regularly goes deep in games, great. That’s ideal. But no need to let that hope be a straightjacket that makes you waste the others, or avoid signing other SP if conditions are suitable.

Some questions for ya: 1. Semien is an older player than the other shortstops and clearly someone a team would be buying high on. (Arguably a later bloomer too.) As a guy with value more concentrated in the short term than the alternative FA shortstops, he seems like the kind of guy Jed wants to avoid, doesn’t he? Especially given our position in the contention cycle, but even before that? And maybe before the debate about stars vs signing more mid-tier guys? 2. Are we at a point in history yet where we can confidently declare that we know what the “Jed Doctrine” is? 3. Is the Jed doctrine statable as “be very afraid of long term risk, especially if it’s a pitcher or you’re not at the peak of the contention cycle?” It seems like he generally wants 1-3 year deals of medium dollars for intermediate talent that can variously be enjoyed if things click, or traded if they don’t, or easily moved on from if they suck. Not that there wouldn’t be some play in that idea for a Castellanos or a Stroman, but just generally? 4. That said, I think he’d sign a high dollar, long -term shortstop this offseason IF he thought the deal would be rational to have for, say, 2024-2029. But I think he would judge a deal by that metric while mostly ignoring 2022 and 2023. If a proposed SS deal looks good in most of the outyears, then by the Jed doctrine I proposed it can be the method for improving in the less important next couple years, but otherwise, skip the big shortstops and revert to the non- peak-of-the-cycle default and just sign smaller, shorter deals. Do you agree that that sounds like Jed? 5. Who do you see as the realistic suitors for the five shortstops? The easy google searches say NYY, NYM, Astros, Tigers, Rangers, possibly Cubs, possibly Cards (disputed by VEB though). One said the Reds too, but I can’t see that. Dodgers if they deal Turner too. One source said Philly already spent its allowance on Realmuto, another seemed to assume they’re loaded. IDK for sure, but assume the former. 6. What interactions are there likely to be between teams wanting 3B or 2B, on the one hand, and the SS market on the other? One columnist had the Astros signing KB and sliding Bregman over to SS, another had the Jays or Red Sox plugging Semien in at 2B, several had the Cards sending DeJong to plug a 2B hole elsewhere to create payroll space, etc. Seems like it might be too unwieldy and complicated to get a handle on, but have any you tried? 7. Tell me why my off-the-cuff predictions are silly: Seager — Yankees, lefty hitter for lineup balance Correa — Tigers outbid the field after Seager signs Semien — Rangers want to splurge, way overpay for a player they aren’t good enough to benefit from Baez — Mets snap him up quick Story — sees interest from many who wait him out, Astros, hometown Rangers before they sign Semien, Rockies before they get priced out, Cubs and Cards offer fixed sums, he’s still choosing as ST starts, whenever it starts KB — I wish I knew 8. I didn’t really consider cases of Dodger-style ginormous but short deals. Would Jed be intrigued by that concept?

My take is that it’s as much about shaking things up as it is about wanting that little bit of extra defense or fastball hitting, or the extra mil. I’m not saying they don’t value all of the later, as I think they really do, but basically, I think Jed may see lateral moves away from the 2020 status quo as a big plus. Personally, I agree that psychological factors were big issues in 19 and maybe 20, but I think that falls on leadership for putting guys in a high pressure situation, conspicuously not doing much to help in the offseasons, and trapping them for a year with the Russell experience and an increasingly checked out Joe Maddon. As much I get the frustration people experience when hearing about millionaires’ sensitive feelings, job performance is most definitely affected by bad clubhouses. Who among you would say 2019 didn’t feel like 2004? I don’t share the feeling that pivoting away from longtime Cubs is necessary for the psychological reboot, as I think bringing in Ross and making the obvious kinds of big market transactions would have done it. But I do think Jed is thinking this way.

Lol, that aged well. I think it’s more like they’re wondering whether Rick Reuschel or Rueben Quevado still have it..... Ruben Quevedo does not still have it. Exactly

Lol, that aged well. I wonder if they have checked in on Zambrano and Colon. I think it’s more like they’re wondering whether Rick Reuschel or Rueben Quevado still have it.....

Well, the way things have been going lately, at least they didn’t announce a move to Iowa to play under a 400 foot statue of Joseph de Maistre.... ....though yes, the day is young.....

Thx

Does anybody remember what Schwarber’s arb projection was? I was thinking 8 vs Joc’s 7. Unless you really distrust arb projections, seems like the comp should be Schwarber for arb vs Joc as FA, rather than vs Schwarber’s 10 from the Nats.

It’s tough to tell what is happening... Was the point of the deal to continue cutting payroll to meet a diminished budget stipulated by ownership? Or were we already pared down to that level? Was the point of the deal to free up cash to pursue Lester or another starter, on the theory that bulk innings are a greater need than an ace, given the oddity of the 60 game to 162 game transition? Was the point to free up payroll space in 22-23 for an extension for Baez/Bryant/Contreras/Rizzo? Was the point of the deal to operationalize a philosophy of intense aversion to pitching risk and intense preference for short term deals and flexibility? Was the point of the deal to take advantage of the weakness of the division by remaining at the front of the pack despite subtractions while meaningfully improving the farm? All of these questions, IMO, need to be addressed separately from any opinions about whether the general idea of a package of teenagers is a reasonable alternative to talent closer to the majors, and separately from any opinions about whether the four youngsters sound promising on their individual merits. And then there’s one more question still bugging me after all that: what is the plan for 2022 and 2023? Are we semi-going for it this year, then running with the pack for a couple years and doing a lot of tinkering, then hoping for a new core to emerge mid-decade, just as finances recover and Jed comes up for an extension?

Whereas many of us are pretending to be Jed, I thought maybe he was pretending to be Tom and Jed. Since many people think the team has deep enough pockets to do fine while freely spending, or that an owner should deliberately lose a bit of money as a civic duty to boost the team, that would potentially explain his other positions. But he said no, he is pretending to be Jed only, and just disagrees with the rest of us on the facts of what Jed’s marching orders are. Or, as a slight wrinkle to that, on what they will be...sometimes he sounds to me like he thinks that since the Cubs might not have set a specific budget yet, the reports of big cuts might all be a mirage.

TomtheBombadil, would it be fair to say you’re more interested in the question “how would an ideally rational ownership-management partnership with league average financial health and an a priori commitment to market-appropriate budgets approach this Cubs offseason?” than the question “if you were Jed and faced the problems Jed actually faces, what would you do”? Maybe the reason you look so Panglossian to the rest of us is that you’d just rather spend your free time answering the first question, whereas the rest of us are mostly focusing on the second?