JudasIscariotTheBird

Oh. You are realistic and no one else is. But to get serious, why do you take it as a given that trading Bryant is the best/only way to keep the pitching from being bad? And also, why not just let the pitching suck and keep Bryant? Why is keeping that pitching at an arbitrary level of current performance needed, and at the expense of trading away our (probably) best position player? This can all be avoided by not doing any of it. No, if you read what I wrote, I'm saying that some others in this thread are lacking in imagination, not that they haven't been realistic. The straw man trade ideas they've put forth have been unrealistic (like Bryant for Trout or whatever), but the complete inability to conceive of a possible trade that hurts their chances in 2020 but sets them up much better in 2021 and beyond is simply a lack of imagination. It's very realistic to say that you can't improve this team for 2020 by trading Bryant. I agree strongly with that statement. And if that's what a lot of posters have been saying (but just leaving out specifying 2020 only) then this was all a misunderstanding. I also don't say trading Bryant is the only way to keep the pitching from being bad or that the Cubs pitching will suck going forward, but to address your hypothetical, how many teams get to/go deep into the playoffs with a great line-up but sucky pitching? That doesn't sound like a plan that will get the Cubs to the desired result to me. Does it to you? I doubt you'll want to read my ridiculously long post that's coming (I'm moving at the end of the month so I've had small bits of time to write lately. But it's coming if you're really interested. (As an aside, yo, peeps, stop with the knee-jerk reactions to anyone who says something different than you and read dudes, sheesh...) In general, if you don't like knee-jerk reactions, then this place prob isn't your jam. I think most of us read, however...or am I giving a knee-jerk reaction to the implication that we aren't reading your posts? The teams that get into/go deep in the playoffs are the ones that are good at winning baseball games. You can be good at winning baseball games with so-so pitching if you mash the ball, and vice versa. We all know this. I don't see why the Cubs of 2020, or even the Cubs of 2024, should be interested in trading position players for pitchers for the sake of it.

I'll diagree on one point. He was so horrible last year that it would be difficult to actually be worse next year. He'll probably "bounce back." The true definition of a dead cat bounce. That isn't a reason to keep him, to be clear.

[bbvideo=560,315] [/bbvideo]

Can I add that I predict he generates around half of his WAR while visiting Busch?

If he gets the ABs, he gets to 5 WAR.

Oh. You are realistic and no one else is. But to get serious, why do you take it as a given that trading Bryant is the best/only way to keep the pitching from being bad? And also, why not just let the pitching suck and keep Bryant? Why is keeping that pitching at an arbitrary level of current performance needed, and at the expense of trading away our (probably) best position player? This can all be avoided by not doing any of it.

[bbvideo=560,315] [/bbvideo]

I'm definitely rooting for the home team in this one. I don't like Tiger. I don't like Kuchar. I don't like Reed. I don't like JT. I don't like Bryson. If Fowler and Finau weren't on the team, it would be really easy to root for them to fail.

For me the comparison is more general: two depreciating assets at 3B with salaries preventing their respective orgs from getting better. Bryant's salary alone is projected to be just under 10% of the cap and could break that number next year. Cozart will cost $5+ million to roster than Bryant will in 2020, a big factor in what made him easier to move Yeah, that's the reason why he was "easier to move." http://www.flowjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/judge-judy-eye-roll.gif

It's just a rough comparison. Bryant's actually projected to make like $40 million through arb or so over the next two years to Cozart's 1 year and ~$13 million so arguably the Cubs have even more to gain than the Angels did. The cap space offers flexibility over that time frame so the Cubs can reset, maybe even help them recoup some of the money they lost between renovations and launching the network I still don't understand how you compare Cozart (.247/.300/.399/.699 with avg. of 17 HR and 59 RBI) with Bryant (.284/.385/.516/.901 with 32 HR and 92RBI). Well, you can compare them. You can compare how much better a team is with one of them on it, as opposed to the other...

Correct, don't trade Bryant. Not what the post I originally replied to considers an option. I'm assuming Regular was being a touch hyperbolic there.

What? The way I see it...right now there is a market for 3B. Buyers and sellers. We don't HAVE to trade Kris. When the Merry-Go-Round ends, there is either going to be a team missing a 3B, or there are going to be some 3B looking for jobs. In one case, Kris's value has decreased. In the other, his value increased. I don't understand why January is some magically horsefeathers month for trading him. It will either be better, worse, or the same as now. Why not stand pat and see if we can get an actual haul if someone gets desperate? Because teams don't really get more desparate and up offers in practice, they find another way before then. Do you see more blockbuster trades in November/December or January/February? Do Free Agents tend to get more than expected by waiting until January/February, or less? Maybe you can talk yourself into it if we were in a 2018 world where no one has done anything at this point, but it's clear this is a pretty normal moving market. I don't especially care about the frequency that trades occur in January, party because I don't especially want to trade Bryant. The point is that, on average, Bryant's value shouldn't be expected to be lower in January than it is now. If that is indeed how it works, that the market for 3B demand dries up by then...then you just don't trade him. No biggie.

...why? Waiting to trade Bryant hurts your ability to get maximum value for him. Since the only logical reason to trade Bryant is predicated on thinking his value is at an artificial high, you're punting that benefit by waiting. What? The way I see it...right now there is a market for 3B. Buyers and sellers. We don't HAVE to trade Kris. When the Merry-Go-Round ends, there is either going to be a team missing a 3B, or there are going to be some 3B looking for jobs. In one case, Kris's value has decreased. In the other, his value increased. I don't understand why January is some magically shitty month for trading him. It will either be better, worse, or the same as now. Why not stand pat and see if we can get an actual haul if someone gets desperate?

...why?

Man, I still don't follow your logic. A 10-6 Bears would still be more likely to make the PO. He isn't saying that. Obviously, if the Bears win all their games, their chances of making the playoffs increases. He is saying that if you simulated the season, say, 100 times, and then would looked at all of the instances where the Bears were in the playoffs, there would be more instances of the Bears being 9-7 and in than 10-6 and in, merely because going 3-0 is very unlikely.

Well, someone came up with a potential reason earlier. If the Cubs feel that he is past peak and will begin to decline, there could be a strong argument to trade him now. You have to be *really* sure that the shoulder or whatever is going to create a steeper decline phase than normal (or something like that), but there can be scenarios where it makes sense to trade him. I personally don't feel it is likely that scenario is playing out in real life, but logical hypotheticals do exist. This isn't a rebuttal as much as it is a genuine question, but do you think situations like that actually occur, where the Cubs would have pretty definitive insight into a presumably injury driven decline, but other teams wouldn't be aware of it? I don't think it would be a question as to if other teams were AWARE of it or not. Of course they are aware of the fact Bryant has had shoulder injuries and there is risk involved with that, and of course a physical would be a part of the deal. Its more a question of teams appraising value differently, be it due to different regression curves assigned to Bryant, competative windows, owners that are suddenly miserly, whatever.

He's not wrong. The Cubs are a big market team so, the only reason to trade the best player who is in his prime and still two years from free agency is... I don't really know the reason. Well, someone came up with a potential reason earlier. If the Cubs feel that he is past peak and will begin to decline, there could be a strong argument to trade him now. You have to be *really* sure that the shoulder or whatever is going to create a steeper decline phase than normal (or something like that), but there can be scenarios where it makes sense to trade him. I personally don't feel it is likely that scenario is playing out in real life, but logical hypotheticals do exist.

I think a 9-7 Bears playoff team is more likely than a 10-6 one. The Eagles don't matter, they and the Cowboys are both 6-7 and they play each other. Neither one can win the wild card. What? Well, let's say the Bears go 2-1. In order for the Eagles to catch the Bears, they would then need to go 3-0. In order for that to happen, they would have to beat the Cowboys, which means they win their division, which means they don't matter, as far as the Bears' playoff chances go. (The same situation applies to the Cowboys). Only the Rams and Vikings effect the Bears hopes of getting a wild card spot.

Yeah for his RBIs! RBIs! ...he had 5 WAR

Trading Kris Bryant to extend Javier Baez is not giving a damn about the long term health of the roster (at least as far as being WS tier competitive is concerned). Extending Baez after multiple slaps in the face is just pandering to whatever fanbase is left, he's a great player and Cub but when a .330 OBP would be career high for the team MVP that team is screwed Team MVP?! He was runner up in the NL for the MVP vote with a .326 OBP. Take your stat cherry-picking and gtfo. You talk bad about my boy again and I'll cut you.

Yeah, no way in hell Quintana and Yu are "salary neutral."

https://media.giphy.com/media/J4ODmDUTc3zWmPdcLl/giphy.gif This isn't the epic ownage you think it is. If you think the not-even-a-technicality that you consume your media by following BCB or whatever on facebook instead of visiting the actual url absolves you from the absurd, fantastic ownage you just got handed, then you would be Derwood.