Transmogrified Tiger

I'm quite certain they're *trying* to trade him, when the topic came up months ago my thinking was the minimal control, career year, and most importantly LF only profile make it easier to make a better 2023+ by trading him, and that still holds true. Where I'm less certain is if they'll find a willing buyer at the price he needs to fetch, even before getting into the MLB readiness side of the return.

Did this rule change? It likely would have if the international draft had been implemented, which was assumed to be coming until those talks fell apart. What I read at least said that pick comp would be limited to those reaching FA with their original team or something in that vein.

I'm wondering a bit if Happ isn't getting traded at the deadline. In the last 2 weeks you've had Soto come onto the market to attract attention/resources from the top of the market, the retention of the qualifying offer makes Happ's price all the higher(since the acquiring team would be able to get his QO pick), and a couple potential fits have already started making minor acquisitions that indicate they aren't in on him(Yankees, Mets).

I'm of a similar mind, but there's not a super obvious fit that qualifies. Maybe they think they can stretch out Pearson? Or they're confident of a swing change that levels up Groshans? Looking at BTV, a couple other imperfect options: - Gurriel is worth ~half of Happ. It's a bit weird to just swap left fielders but Happ's better and LH, and the Jays may be on the part of the win curve where those incremental improvements are worth burning up a year of cost control and a couple modest prospects? - Danny Jansen and Happ are worth about the same. I hate this idea, but the Jays have Kirk and the Cubs need catching help. Jansen makes Nico look like Cal Ripken, but he's been a star during his intermittent/infrequent playing time - Like I said above Tiedemann and Frasso looks about right, Jed might give zero horsefeathers and go for it to grab the guy who would probably be the top pitcher in the system - The Jays are a candidate for relief help, so maybe Happ plus Robertson and/or Givens opens up some of the options that the Cubs would be more excited about? I don't love any of the above, but I could see them? Or obviously there could be additional pop-up guys not prominent on the current prospect lists and a more traditional trade happens. Gurriel would be really puzzling. He's almost 29, only one more year of team control than Happ, worse as a player like you mention, and makes them even more right handed. The catching angle makes more sense in one direction or another, but still feels like a stretch. Jansen is a very interesting target(and one worth revisiting this offseason at a minimum), but 2.5 years of control dims his value as a primary piece. Maybe you get into Moreno territory if you package Happ with Robertson? Seems doubtful but at least they can rely on their existing options with Jansen and Kirk, unlike the C possibilities in SD, CLE, and SF.

I'm of a similar mind, but there's not a super obvious fit that qualifies. Maybe they think they can stretch out Pearson? Or they're confident of a swing change that levels up Groshans?

Frasso's a 40+ FV on Fangraphs, which is an upgrade following this look from earlier this season:

If not Soto then I'd love to bring back either of Skubal or Pablo Lopez. Stroman/Hendricks/Thompson/Steele/(Skubal/lopez) would be a good 2-6. Grab Musgrove in FA and that's a solid staff. I had thought of this in the context of Soto(which I have trouble seeing as a reasonable possibility), but for a different buy move it's an interesting idea, especially if the best prospect capital you can get is less immediately useful. Personally, I'd be very curious what the price is on Trevor Rogers, since it might be lower than Lopez even though Rogers has more team control, velocity, and demonstrated ceiling. Plus, Rogers is a command and plus changeup guy who maybe needs help developing a better slider, which is a glove-like fit with Cubs pitching dev.

O'Hoppe would be an appropriate target in a Happ trade, but probably a bridge too far for a reliever(or even something like Smyly + Robertson). So the question is what Philly's appetite is to make a big upgrade at LF. They're very much in the wild card race, but have no shot at the division, and if they add Happ they'll have paid a premium to either give themselves a OF/DH bottleneck(Harper/Schwarber/Happ/Castellanos for 3 spots) or conclusively decided they're gonna move on from one of those. Hard to see them having the motivation to make such a decisive trade. Seems like they might be more after an infielder, a la Merrifield.

It's only 55 PA in MLB across 3 different seasons, so while it's objectively awful performance it's tough for me to read too much conclusively into it. Especially when it's not accompanied with extreme BB/K rates or some similar harbinger of doom.

I shook my head when I read this, but now that I look there could be a path. Abrams has been sub-replacement, is currently hurt(albeit a minor injury), Kim is outplaying him this year, and Tatis's return is getting close. If they're a little worried now that he's too swing happy and might be more of an average 2B than playable at SS, that could get you into 'Preller does Preller things' territory. Even moreso if we're talking about a combo deal for Contreras/Happ, Contreras/Robertson, etc. But they have so many other players I'd prefer as a return. Abrams strikes me as just being "better Madrigal". While that's probably not a bad player, it isn't filling any real gaps on this team. Abrams is about as old today as Madrigal was when he was drafted, and he has less than 650 PA as a professional(with 20% of those at the MLB level), so I think it's safe to say there's a fair amount of meat still left on the developmental bone. He's also a lot bigger framed(6 inches taller than Madrigal) so there's more room for physical development to play a part. But even if he doesn't, reports as of this spring say he hasn't lost his 80 speed as he's started to fill out, which is another big differentiator. That said, it's not risk-free, that's why a Top 15 overall prospect might be available for a rental, and with the runaway success Hassell and Wood have had Preller might not be nearly as willing to part with them.

I shook my head when I read this, but now that I look there could be a path. Abrams has been sub-replacement, is currently hurt(albeit a minor injury), Kim is outplaying him this year, and Tatis's return is getting close. If they're a little worried now that he's too swing happy and might be more of an average 2B than playable at SS, that could get you into 'Preller does Preller things' territory. Even moreso if we're talking about a combo deal for Contreras/Happ, Contreras/Robertson, etc.

I feel like I clarified in the follow up to Irrelevant Dude, but the takeaway isn't 'wow I can't believe you guys care about losing Willson', it's that in general the overall feelings of (dis)engagement are way more correlated to the success of the team than the way the roster is managed. But you talked about “current crowd favorites” and listed a bunch of guys everybody hated. People knew last year Rizzo, Baez, and Bryant being kept would almost certainly be overpays based on past performance and there was a lot of bemoaning when they were kicked to the curb. I wasn't trying to make it about maximum crowd favorites(the posts I replied to hadn't called that out as the specific thing), but to tie back to the larger point, that's mostly a function of individual performance too. There's nothing special about Bryant or Rizzo's personality compared to Almora or Heyward's. And yes, I mentioned before that regardless of team success there would be people who wanted to keep various parts of the 2020 group just like I'm sure that existed for the Dodgers and Seager and exists for the Yankees and Judge. Where there's a difference is if the 2022 Cubs were good bets to be competitive(like the 2022 Dodgers or 2023 Yankees), the amount of tying that consternation to the value of the business of baseball and other meta topics would be minimal.

I can’t believe you’re capable of such stunning…I dunno dishonesty doesn’t sound like the right word, but I’m just in awe I feel like I clarified in the follow up to Irrelevant Dude, but the takeaway isn't 'wow I can't believe you guys care about losing Willson', it's that in general the overall feelings of (dis)engagement are way more correlated to the success of the team than the way the roster is managed.

oof

Absolutely. A great example is that in making that post you quoted, I scanned the roster for the next players who are potentially in the Happ/Contreras keep/trade conundrum soon, and Nico is basically the only one until like 2025.

I'd disagree about the prime bit, but I don't mean to say they're all equivalent or that no one should want to keep Willson(I've said many times that's my preference). And even if the team were in the playoff race I think you'd see consternation about keeping him because he's good, same way that I'm sure that consternation existed for the Dodgers and Seager last year or the Yankees and Judge this year. But the larger point is the more meta conversation about the nature of player tenures and a person's attachment to the team is very much driven by the team's success more than how often they keep the current crowd favorites.

I took a look to see if there's any potential Madrigals out there this year, not tiny second basemen but injured MLBers on contenders who might part with them as part of a deadline deal. Shane Baz - This would be a pretty big decision given Baz's pedigree and actual results, but he's thrown 40 IP this year in between elbow injuries and has never reached 90 IP in a season, so the argument exists for them to sell high. Whether they would sell high on a player the Cubs are trading at the deadline is an additional question. Chris Paddack - The Twins probably aren't in a hurry to give up Paddack given his strong start, and the Cubs would get at most 1.5 full strength years out of him before FA. But he would hit FA young so if the value is right and they believe in their conviction to extend him or get extreme value out of his 2025 season, maybe. Royce Lewis - Maybe more likely before he tore up AAA(and in 12 MLB games) before tearing a knee ligament, but if they don't see him as a long term SS(and this is his 2nd ACL tear) they do have a lot of bats for where he'd play instead. Given the limited MLB time he's probably more applicable to acquiring PCA than Madrigal. Hyun Jin Ryu - This is less targeting Ryu, but maybe more that the Cubs wouldn't mind him being on the roster/payroll for 2023 and that could goose the return in a deadline deal. Ryu's on 20 million/year though so I'm not sure what would be worth that handicap. Dustin May - Very unlikely, especially since he's almost back from his TJS now, but his K rates have never matched his stuff and his MLB performance to date has been more decent than portending future greatness. I would be shocked, but then again I was very surprised by Madrigal. Evan White - White is more similar to Ryu in that he can't have much value in trade given his guaranteed money. He doesn't have any MLB track record, but he would make up for that in (relative) youth, prospect pedigree, and potential roster fit. Joey Lucchesi - Lucchesi was a bang average starter in SD but had a peripheral strong start as a swingman in New York before TJS hit. The Mets need rotation options for next year worse than the Cubs, and he's a FA after 2024, but especially if the pitching infrastructure sees some un-mined potential he could be a secondary piece in a Happ or Contreras trade.

I'm not sure that's any less representative of their future than playing all the best teams on their schedule for 2 months with 1.5 healthy starting pitchers

I still watch games all the time, but I understand the sentiment and I know several people who used to follow the Cubs very closely and have basically stopped watching them entirely over the past few years. There is risk involved in operating the team like an analytical sports simulation, which can be contradictory to maintaining a fan base over the long term. There is a point where the "smart" business move might not be the best thing for the long term health of the franchise. Do you really want to sever one of the last links to the 2016 championship team (Contreras), while creating yet another giant hole to fill? How can you expect to build a loyal fan base if the organization fails to reciprocate that loyalty to both the fans and players? Maybe this new rebuild works and we have another 3-4 year playoff run, but then what? Then it's time to trade Davis, PCA, Amaya, etc. and start over again. We can't expect the team to re-sign everyone all the time, but there are times when re-signing a player might be the right thing to do even though the computer says otherwise. Contreras is the exact type of player that the team should be looking to keep around and bridge the gap to the proverbial "next great Cubs team", yet somehow that idea has never seriously been entertained. It's one thing to rebuild and be smart about spending money, but this team shouldn't be operating like the Tampa Bay Rays. To play devils advocate: If the team wins, the fans will be there. We're now 6 years removed from the WS team. It sucks that it played out this way but, as a comparison, here are key members of the 2016 team that were on the roster in 2014: Rizzo (breakout season in 2014) Baez (hit .169, spent most of 2015 in the minors) Coghlan (traded from Oakland in 2016) Arrieta (breakout 2014) Hendricks (called up down the stretch, pitched great) Rondon Strop Grimm That's 8 guys (and stretching it a lot on Coghlan and Grimm) that were on the team just 2 years before the 2016 team. This is a bad team right now, it's been a bad team for a whole calendar year. Yes, a lot of that is self inflicted, which is garbage, but the fans (which are already showing up) will be selling the place out as soon as the record flips, regardless of the players on the field. Agreed, success (both individual and team) is always going to be the biggest driver. No one bemoaned losing the connection to the success of 2016 when Almora or Russell was kicked to the curb, or got contemplative about the business of baseball when they moved on from Quintana or Chatwood. People are dying to not look at Heyward in a Cubs uni anymore, it's always gonna come down to the belief that they can continue to be successful and play a part in the team continuing to be successful. That said, I think the front office(and I say front office because I believe the org's current state is about 90% front office driven and 10% ownership) really could stand to do what it takes to avoid this circumstance with *all* of the next round of players. Reward Nico with an extension that buys out some FA years, plant a flag on Morel with a longer term deal, or show faith in Steele or Thompson with guaranteed money. There's value in not being on the 6 year treadmill with every young player who lands at your feet, and while there is risk involved(e.g. no one is putting Bote's name on the roster in pen), it's a useful and ultimately small thing they can do to signal their intent even if the bigger statements of intent like large FA deals are (sometimes justifiably) not the best choice for the moment.

Szymborski has an article with a handful of proposed trades he dreamed up: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-make-some-deadline-trades/ One is Contreras to the Mets for Vientos straight up. The other is Happ to the White Sox for Jared Kelley, Oscar Colas, and Norge Vera. The former feels light but I would at least understand the upside and appeal. The latter is silliness.

Yep, my only concern is the Astros system is so bad there might be some more hesitation around using their best prospect for a rental, or similarly, trading their futures game rep a week after the fact.

Currently going back and forth on if trading for Happ in these circumstances is very much not a Rays move or a very on brand Rays move. On one hand, they aren't bidding war winners in any sense of the word, and they could try to limp along with their current team or some potential reinforcements(Ramirez when he gets healthy, maybe Mastrubuoni or another try w/ Brujan). On the other hand, they've got a big 40 man crunch, limited LHH OF options in the short term without some reversal of fortune(J Lowe, Phillips), and if they are spending to improve for the stretch run and help the 40 man pressure they'll probably appreciate the target having additional team control.

In that sense, maybe Josh Bell too, though the risk profile on both ends is different. In terms of who might be another Stroman, the potential FA that cannot get a QO due to receiving it before are Correa(pending opt out), Syndergaard, Verlander(pending opt out), and (lol) Greinke.

Cross-posting here because I wonder what this does for some pending FA's and potential extension negotiations. If Musgrove was close with SD, knowing his market just dropped by 8 figures has to push him over the edge, right? And in the more important case of Willson, is the gap between his goals and an extension offer now close enough to re-engage? Isn't this good for us? Cubs can sign the #1 kid in the IFA that they've been linked to. With a draft, that wouldn't have been possible. It is good for that, and might be good for the immediate future if the FO is more inclined to be aggressive on QO's due to various circumstances(stocked farm after 2 years of selling, wanting to move towards playoff contention soon). It is bad in that the front office has to make harder tradeoffs in free agency between adding talent now and maintaining a consistent pipeline for the years to come.

Cross-posting here because I wonder what this does for some pending FA's and potential extension negotiations. If Musgrove was close with SD, knowing his market just dropped by 8 figures has to push him over the edge, right? And in the more important case of Willson, is the gap between his goals and an extension offer now close enough to re-engage?