Transmogrified Tiger

Rodriguez has an opt out after this year like Stroman.

Is the point of a team to maximize their chance at a future championship if the current year's chances aren't all that high? I'm all for efficiency and optimizing the value of a roster, and I don't think there's a singular right answer to that question, but I think it's worth asking 'why bother' if it's not possible to enjoy the potential playoff team's play without it needing to be a precursor to a future uber-team.

Either the thread split/merge is glitching or I'm losing my mind and somehow quoting in the wrong thread. Both seem possible at this point. I have a hard time buying that it's not possible to find 2024 contributors. Heck they technically did it last year with McKinstry, and other teams did without trading players that were appreciably different than who the Cubs could potentially be trading. The Angels turned Syndegaard's expiring deal into Moniak, the Yankees and Cardinals both got next year contributors from the Bader/Montgomery deal, the Pirates and Cardinals both got next year contributors in the Quintana deal, and that's not including teams that got 2023 contributions from yet-to-debut prospects. Does the Cubs 2024 success hinge on finding a poor-performing major leaguer and making them into a 5 win player? No, but at the same time uncommon success requires uncommon things happening, and a deadline where very few are giving up on 2023 and no one is giving up on 2024 means that type of player is the most likely potential 2024 contributor to be available. As for Bellinger, we can agree to disagree about that cause I don't want to belabor a previous point. It's not about the value of the pick itself, it's the flexibility it affords you in FA without kneecapping your total draft resources. Stroman I'm more open minded about trading, but I also see some benefit in signaling the intent to be competitive by keeping him(plus he's technically under contract in 2024), so I'm not going to see it as pass/fail that he needs to go.

I alluded to this above(I think that's still this thread?), but I think 'thread the needle implies' that they're trying to get the best of both worlds and make both 2023 and 2024 better. While that's far from impossible I'm not saying that's the goal. The Cubs have very low playoff odds for 2023, they have been very low for a while and even if they aren't a bad team they shouldn't make moves with 2023 in mind. What I keep reiterating about this deadline is that 1) they should be trying to prioritize 2024 with any moves because of the roster window recent FA + extensions have created 2) trading away players for what you can get is not really the best way to prioritize 2024 in this situation. This especially applies to Bellinger(and Gomes since you mention him), and there are arguments you can apply it to Stroman as well depending on the details(how high the still-bad playoff odds are, what Stroman's market is).

This season has been such a disaster for the Cardinals(and I guess disappointing enough for the Cubs) that even with them only coming here once this season I just bought tickets for Sunday the other day for $13, direct from the team and including fees.

I didn't say anything about improving the team in 2023. To make that point more clearly: The Cubs are about what we thought, a .500 team give or take depending on variance While the current winning streak is fun, they still have long odds to make the playoffs Even with those long odds, there's still value in not stripping the team for parts simply because a 2022 Phillies run is unlikely If you are making trades though, 2023 improvements are secondary/optional compared to 2024 improvements, which are required

Is it? Getting a specific return for Stroman might be, but the plan here presupposes that you're fine with that not happening too. Yes, buying low and having it pay off is an uncommon outcome by definition, but it also definitonally comes at a low cost. If you trade for, I dunno, Bobby Dalbec, and he isn't any good that's not the preferred endgame, but the opportunity cost is lower and that risk exists for every type of acquisition(see: Heyward, Taillon, Quintana, Justin Wilson, etc)

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.