Transmogrified Tiger

Ah crap the board ate my draft reply, let me try to be more concise than I was in that one. Taking the lower level/upside play often leaves you net negative on value too (see: Darvish) I don't think they need to pick a lane outside of 'make 2024 better', and I think there's enough value in being seen as competitive(see: any Ohtani pursuit) that even the one potential big chip with negative 2024 value (Stroman) could be kept under that argument My wish for the deadline would be to: 1. Keep Bellinger, you want the inside track on extending him and if not the benefits of having a QO'd FA are greater than rental returns 2. Only trade Stroman if you get someone who clearly fills a 2024 need, and not just is a decent player who will be MLB ready in 2024 3. Make a decisive trade for an underperforming/undervalued MLB player(s). The FO did this so well during the build up to 2016(Fowler, Montero, Arrieta) and it's been missing while this go round has mostly rescued players from the margins of waivers(Wisdom, Leiter Jr). They have a lot of different options that teams could potentially be interested in for this type of challenge trade, in particular the MLB infielders and AAA outfielders, and I think it's the type of trade that is most likely to be agreeable at this deadline too because no one is punting on 2024.

If PCA(who was a unique case due to injury and immediately gave the Mets a permanent complex about trading prospects) debuts next year, it'll be 3 years after he was first acquired. If Caissie debuts next year that would be 4 years since the Darvish trade. There's always opportunity that you can get someone at lower levels with higher potential and try to develop that potential, and there is a virtue to optimizing for maximum talent over immediate need. But Hoyer also probably doesn't have the job security to be that long-minded at this stage, and even the idea that you maximize assets so you can re-purpose them later(e.g. with an offseason buy trade) is one that is not in his strengths(he hasn't done it, and supposedly he hated the Quintana deal).

I'm increasingly thinking the main type of trade this team can/should/will make is going to be one that resists categorization. The Angels just paid a higher price for 2 rentals than recent years out of desperation but even if that sets the market it's not a big sea change over recent years prices. The White Sox are clearly selling but apparently even they are telling teams they want to compete in 2024, which is a representative example that nearly everyone is either not giving up on this year, wants to be good next year, or both. So the trades that do get made are likely going to be more like teams swapping disappointing young MLBers, taking chances on failed/blocked prospects, stuff like that. More Arrieta trade than Samardzija trade.

It uh hasn't been a great series for Perlaza in the field

I think there's a Stroman connection that may go above matchups/rest/form too. For a while Barnhart was basically his personal catcher, and Stroman's recent dip in form does match fairly cleanly with Gomes catching him more in late June/July.

Was a little curious why since they didn't add a big FV guy, Shaw was the best and he only graded at a 45. Turns out Fangraphs ranked 108 players as 40 FV or better, and the Cubs got 5 of them(Shaw, Wiggins, Sanders, Rivera, Carico)

They get something if Bellinger is kept and leaves in FA, and history shows us they value that something pretty highly compared to what rentals have gotten in trade in recent years.

that is obscene Adbert

I think it's showing specific urgency from Ross. He knows that this week is make or break for the last two months, so he's not screwing around with Rucker/Kay even with a healthy lead. Add in the off day, Hendricks making it to the 7th, and Stroman/Steele starting the next two days, he's playing to win first and foremost.

Welcome!

In other news, with that swing from Moncada I'm again willing to talk myself into him being healthy/fixable and a terrific Cubs target.

I'll be a wet blanket, Hendricks' contact management is real but he's not striking out anyone, and he got a boost by not having to pitch the full season which casts doubt(along with his 2021-2022 struggles) that he'll be able to pull it off again in 2024. In specific circumstances I could see him coming back, but I'll be disappointed if they pick up the option because I really doubt he gets close to 16 million on the open market.

PCA home run on the game's first pitch

Don't think he cared about the signing bonus, he just wanted the mulligan on the pick next year.

We are message board posters, as a species we *love* inside sources however questionable, vague, or potentially self-important(which in this case was zero, imo) they might be

Yep, and the same consensus about the depth of this draft didn't necessarily have Wiggins as one of the top 70 players. Or would have that view of Wiggins after seeing whatever in the medical gave the Cubs pause(assuming that's the main hangup). The other thing they might consider from a balancing perspective is what their plans are for both Bellinger and Free Agency. This was literally the comp pick they got for Willson, so you can think of it as pushing the draft pool balancing back a year to protect the 2024 class against signing multiple QO Free Agents(or one + Bellinger). Since Wiggins is in line for slot or slightly above, they wouldn't have really hurt the rest of their 2023 class in the process.

Maybe 'better player' isn't the right phrase, but rather 'more valuable' or 'more attractive'. Even if we assume a competitor isn't going to trade a player with greater current productivity with Garver, it still implies one might trade one with similar productivity and more team control, or who is younger than 32, or plays a position of more acute need. For example, the Twins are currently running a Joey Gallo/Michael Taylor timeshare in CF, it wouldn't be a stretch to see them want to make a run and add Bellinger at the expense of say, Matt Wallner.

The implicit assumption in trading Bellinger for Garver and a prospect is that it's likely you could trade him for a better player than Garver or a better prospect. Or you could hang on to him if you're wanting to compete and take the pick benefits that follow afterwards. I'd prefer all 3 to this particular option.

There isn't an exact match with this board software, but you can create content 'streams' and get fairly close. @WrigleyField 22 made one to try to replicate Active Topics here: https://northsidebaseball.com/discover/14/

Did he have a good reputation or did people speak highly of his ability to not be forced off the position due to physical limitations(e.g. he has a cannon)? He has 39 errors in 156 MiLB games at 3B, and 3B hasn't been the dominant position he played at a level since South Bend in 2019.

Same problem but different source, it was to get away from the mess of the Post-Dispatch's CardsTalk message board.

Setting aside Ohtani since he'll be a very unique situation and basically in a tier of his own, he has the Cubs signing/retaining like 3 of the Top 5-7 FA in this class, and probably the 2 best position players.

I only think a move of this nature makes sense if some uncommon things happen in the next week to raise playoff odds to closer to a coin flip. There are other 'buy' moves that could make sense even if that uncommon thing doesn't happen, but with Candelario's ceiling only being so high, the range of outcomes has too many instances where Candelario is similar/worse than the alternatives, who are not currently struggling(Cubs 3B have a 150 wRC+ in July). Ironically it's not so different than the situation that shipped Candelario out of the Cubs org, though at least in that case the Cubs' playoff chances were much different.