Transmogrified Tiger

I say this as someone who will be attending Cubs Convention this year: it is full of weirdos, and the people who ask questions in the panel sessions lean towards being super-weirdos. There are a million reasons(e.g. it wasn't that popular or interesting, Tom has a scheduling conflict, etc) that you can come up with for not attending. And those have the benefit of not carrying the contradictory assumption that Ricketts has such disdain for the fans that he's dictating no spending but also that he's afraid to do a 50 minute session in a hotel ballroom where half the fans ask questions about why the hot dog buns are smaller than they used to be.

Tough to see you being the victim of excessive drama when you've spent over a dozen posts over the last half day defending your "right" to sarcastically joke about the Tucker Barnhart signing, including such gems as "That’s the fault of your parents or upbringing" and "do you think you could stop being a complete moron even just for the night?". A little self-reflection would be healthy. Post how you like, and people are allowed to say your posts are irritating(especially in pointing out habitual patterns). If you cross the line to insult people, or there's a critical mass where posting how you like impacts everyone else's experience on the site, the consequences are gonna be on your end dude.

My man you do not have the right to make everyone miserable with your posts as long as they're responding to the topic, that's not how this works. I'm not saying that's what's happening here specifically, as clearly there are diversity of feelings about the tenor of the offseason. But to be very clear, there is not some inalienable right to react when you're irritated or absence of responsibility to productively contribute to the conversation.

People are allowed to disagree and even say that posts or patterns of posts are irritating, there is no right to post whatever you want about the Cubs and have people not respond if it bothers them. To use an extreme example, if I made 1000 word posts in every thread that connected the current topic to a random Cub from the 90s, people would say "hey that's weird and distracting" and "why do you know so much about Steve Trachsel's hairline" even though it is a Cubs forum and I'm posting about the Cubs. There are limits to this, but in terms of last night's kerfluffle there's only one side of the argument that approached/crossed that line and it wasn't those saying things similar to Squally.

From any pitching leaderboard, click the 'Pitch modeling' , then Stuff+ will be one of the options if it's not the first one defaulted to.

I'm honestly not really sure, I've been sitting on that since I clipped it from a daily C&H feed and waiting for a time to use it. But really, taking every bit of news as an outlet to bemoan a caricature of how you think the team is operating (but the especially ridiculous parts are for giggles!) makes for a pretty tedious read day after day

Also the Cubs have their share of relievers with below average velocity already, if they're making guaranteed deals to one I don't have the guy with uncertain MLB production who tops out at 94 particularly high on my list.

I think that one has a more compelling reason for it(Mormons) than Hawaiians choosing Nebraskan colleges.

Yeah, players who do the slow approach/hop to try to get the keeper to commit typically have a longer run up. But I've seen a variant of that PK a bunch of times. If you don't get the keeper to guess wrong or keep the slotted shot too close to the center it looks very bad. And frankly, they deserve it because those types of PKs make a mockery of the spirit behind them, especially since keepers are on a super strict VAR leash to not leave their line.

Prospects of PCA and Horton's caliber(going off their consensus rankings in Top 100s) just don't really get traded anymore. They have too much value in terms of potential upside and cheaper team control, and teams are less and less willing to trade pre-arb or even early arb talents in return. When they do happen, it's for players who also have lots of years of team control along with good performance(e.g. the Varsho/Moreno trade last year), not very good players with only 1-2 years to FA that are closer to market prices and post-prime performance. Valdez is an excellent pitcher and a good trade target, I would give up prospects that I probably wouldn't in other rumored deals to get him(Shaw and Alcantara come to mind). But he is not a 'trade half your top 5 including a Top ~25 prospect' player, partially due to his qualities but mostly because those trades just don't really exist in the 2020s.

I doubt it's the most *likely* option, but I half wonder if there's a 3 team deal to be had there, where Bieber and a bat from a 3rd team comes to the Cubs, a 'bigger than Bieber's value' prospect goes from the Cubs to the Guardians, and the Guardians make up the difference across to the third team. If they don't agree on Naylor's value but are pretty interested in getting Bieber over the line that would match up on motivations, though I'm not certain who a great partner is since some potential 3rd teams are divisional rivals of either team that don't trade often(Twins, Reds).

This is just divorced from reality, there's no coherent argument to be made that they've been 'shopping for scraps no one else wanted'. It's taking your frustration about the team and retrofitting a narrative for why that is, even if it doesn't fit(and it does not).

On one hand, you have today alone people suggesting the Cubs will add no one better than Brandon Belt and a "MORP/BORP" starter, and people calling ownership cowards for not letting 15 Al Yellons ask their weird personal pet peeve questions of them at the convention. On the other hand, you have people saying that is silly and to let the offseason play out since they've clearly spent significantly in FA before and there's numerous options available. Sure seems like two sides of the same coin to me?

Looks like they got rid of the Farm system panel too? Definitely seems lighter on sessions in total than when I last checked(which admittedly was over 5 years ago) compared to the 'expo' type stuff.

I don't disagree that these are probably the three 40 man spots I'd swap out first, though I am curious how many of them are going to be needed. I've been under the assumption that 4, probably 5 MLB additions were coming, and depending on the route and the trade pieces given up to get there, it's very plausible with the roster currently at 37 that none of those folks need to lose their spot before ST. By *Opening Day* on the other hand, very different conversation.

But they didn't sign Lee, and we don't know if they were deep in negotiations to give him near 100 million like the Giants, or if they scouted and him and liked him as a depth option and bowed out when someone was ready to pay him 8 figure AAVs. Searching for this type of meaning out of brief mentions of FA interest(especially from national/agent-side sources) is an exercise in futility.

I appreciate the sentiment, since the vitriol towards Chapman is a bit over the top. But Hoskins is unlikely to get 24M(Bellinger's 17M is probably a decent benchmark), and he's quite likely to take a 1 year deal a la Bellinger. At a minimum it's fair to expect Hoskins will sign for at least 2 years fewer than Chapman.

Yes, I have been saying as much all offseason.

I'm not sure I'd put much more stock in that than the times they've been connected to Yamamoto, but when you've got 1B and DH unspoken for, there's always plenty of at bats to go around. As long as you don't have someone besides PCA who you expect to get the bulk of their value from CF defense, then between rest, injuries, and performance variance you'll easily find room for everyone. Especially since PCA should not be in Chicago opening day.

I'll caveat this that despite the date it's still earlier in the offseason than it feels. While lots of teams have made moves or definitely done more than the Cubs, very few teams are *done*, and with the delayed start plus Boras clients remaining headlining the market, I think there's still opportunity to have a good offseason. That said, the thing that frustrates me the most about the current trajectory(which is not assuming zero moves, but some of what's been rumored), is that it double dips the same risk tolerance. I'm more willing than maybe anyone here to be on board with Jed's reluctance to give out long term deals, and I understand the hesitancy to avoid plundering the farm since it has to be the lifeblood of a consistently excellent modern MLB winner. But the thing about valuing financial flexibility is if you don't come close to using it when you have it, then you're ultimately tying a hand behind your back when financial might is one of your biggest advantages. Similarly, if you're wanting to have the team rise and fall by the farm system, then the way to make that easier is to fill fewer gaps at the MLB level but fill them with higher quality players that lower the pressure for prospects to contribute immediately. This is why the seeming preference to pursue Bieber more than Glasnow doesn't make sense to me. The things that Bieber has in his favor(AAV, slightly more durability), are the exact things you expect the prospect depth to smooth out so you can get the things Glasnow has in his favor(premium velo/TOR performance).

Welcome!

Economically you receive more value with a straight 10/500 than the deferred 700 million that Ohtani chose, because a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar 10 and 20 years from now.

Morel's per/150 game error pace at 3B by year: 2017: 50 (12 games) 2018: 41 (36 games) 2019: 31 (72 games) 2021: 52 (23 games) 2022: 34 (22 games) 2023: 28 (36 games) Total: 35 (203 games) Total as a SS: 47 (105 games) Total as a 2B: 8 (78 games) No qualified 3B in MLB committed errors at a rate greater than 20 per 150 games last year. The only person to do it since the start of the pandemic is Devers, with 22 in 151 games in 2021. Morel's problem isn't that he's committed a couple errors in a handful of winter ball games, it's that he's never demonstrated the ability to field and throw consistently enough to be on the left side of an MLB infield.