Transmogrified Tiger

I wanted to start a new thread because I think the Qualifying offer is still a bit underdiscussed in terms of how much of a limiter it could be to the Cubs offseason plans. One caveat to begin with is while all the reporting I've seen expects the QO to still exist this offseason, it's possible the new CBA changes or removes it. The expectation is with a few exceptions, most Free Agents are going to wait to sign until after the new CBA is signed, and if there's any rumbling that the QO penalty will be removed/lowered, those folks would be extra incentivized to wait. But for now, let's assume the structure remains the same. A refresher on the actual consequences of signing a QO FA is in the spoiler below if you need it. I spell this out because this isn't a trivial price to pay, in a league where player development and the success of pre-FA players is increasing in importance, giving away what amounts to a Top 10 prospect and a Top 30-50 prospect for the right to pay a FA salary can't be taken lightly. To that end, even high spending successful teams don't regularly make it their business to pay that price. There have been 35 FAs that rejected the QO in the last 5 years. The most successful big market teams in the 5 years that followed(Dodgers, Astros, Yankees, Red Sox) have paid the penalty to sign one of those 35 players twice: Gerrit Cole to the Yankees, and AJ Pollock to the Dodgers(the Dodgers gained QO compensation for Grandal that year). The Nationals also signed a QO FA in the same year they gained comp for another twice(Murphy/Zimmermann, Corbin/Harper) if you want to include them. What this tells me is even well run teams that spend oodles on payroll are hesitant to give up the player assets to sign a FA unless they have the 'house money' of that benefit coming back to them elsewhere. I don't think that means QO FA should be off limits to the Cubs as a result, especially when it looks like an abnormal amount of QO FA's will be on the market thanks to the end of CBA/Covid weirdness in classes, but it does indicate they should have a good reason. I made this a new thread because I'm curious what everyone thinks the target or limits should be for signing a QO, since I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it quite yet. What I feel most confident in saying is 1) given the FA class it's very unlikely signing 2 or more QOs is a good idea and 2) any QO player you sign needs to have pretty big upside(5+ WAR) even if it's far from guaranteed.

Thor, Gray, and Taylor are all in the 'likely' category to receive a QO from MLBTR's August breakdown: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/08/2021-22-qualifying-offer-candidates.html Say what you will about the likelihood/benefit of signing a QO'd Free Agent(I think I'll start a separate thread about that soon), but I don't think signing three of them is a particularly realistic (or even desirable) path.

Maybe a silly question, but would PSU want to match that? I get the sense that Franklin at PSU is a situation not too dissimilar to Pelini at Nebraska, where the results are objectively good for what the program is but the fanbase has an unreasonable standard based on the bygone era/legendary coach. Since it's one of their up years it's probably more likely he'd get kept, but if you had this rumor before the season I'm not sure.

I thought they played with 2 strikers a chunk of the time but maybe not. Definitely takes the shine off that option if so.

Let's go back to the Ajax rumors please, give him a few months to break into the team then ~18 months of playing on the front foot in the Eredivisie before going to a super club instead of skipping straight to a Steffen-esque limbo at one of those clubs. Wolfsburg would be fine too for similar reasons.

Non-Contreras catchers put up -0.7 fWAR in 257 PA last year, that's the part that's not that hard to improve on. Yes, if you trade Contreras and have 2 new catchers you could add up to a similar amount, but the biggest gains are just from finding a functional backup. Plus if you find the functional backup you likely get better performance from Contreras since he will not get overworked or have to face every elite SP. Probably not a coincidence his 2nd half was better with Chirinos around to be a worthwhile backup.

1. A writer or two saying "if they're rebuilding maybe they'll trade Contreras since he's a FA to be without an extension" is not 'hot and heavy' trade rumors, characterizing it as such is outing yourself as an unserious person. 2. Trading Contreras as an academic exercise is not punting on multiple years. As mentioned, he's 30 as a catcher so his best days are likely behind him, and he's never hit 3 fWAR in a season so the bar is not so absurdly high in replacing him. 3. However, any team you're trading Contreras to is unlikely to be giving you substantial 2022 contributors, which further hurts the likelihood of 2022 and 2023 being playoff caliber teams. Plus with Amaya's disappointing 2021 there isn't an internal candidate at the ready to take on a starting role, nor is catcher a particularly deep position in FA. Contreras's skillset is well rounded enough that until I hear otherwise about him having absurd contract demands, I'm assuming the best way forward is extending him.

not to mention that they have a tv station that they cant afford to completely cripple with a long tank + rebuild, unsustainably high (much higher than what they were in 2011-14 when they also had the good will of people buying in to the theo rebuild) ticket prices that nobody will pay to watch a rebuild (and a season ticket base that isn't just going to stick around in hopes of getting to see that first world series like they might have in the past), and just flat out the fact that the landscape has changed - hoyer himself has said the sign and flip stuff they did back then would not fly today. all that said, horsefeathers ptr and his stupid horsefeathering letter. I believe the majority of the TV revenue comes from people who pay for it as part of their normal cable package, which was always the plan. Seeing rumors online that season ticket prices will drop a very small amount, which, combined with the 6 digit waiting list and your standard stream of Chicago tourists, will be more than enough to keep ticket revenue high. I can see there being some pressure just in terms of keeping the surrounding area lively, but it's pretty much a locked in cash cow at this point. Attendance was down to just under 2 million this year, even in the valleys of 2012-2014 it didn't dip below 2.6 million. Yes, Covid was a big factor, but this is also still stated attendance v. actual, which matters a lot more when the cash cow relies on the gameday experience with all the stuff they just finished building in and around the park. There was also this bit from Mooney recently that indicates it's ownership that won't have the patience for a 2012-2014 level rebuild I don't think we can be all that certain what 'trying' looks like in terms of payroll, but increasingly it seems like the more concerning estimates of 125 million or so are not going to be accurate. Whether that's 150 million or 175 million, and what the FO's appetite is to use that flexibility on longer term contracts/QO recipients remains to be seen.

I think this is a bit overblown, partially because of what you say in your subsequent post about the nature of the international game. If you look at the teams we aspire the US to match the level of dominance doesn't look terribly different. You used Italy in an example, they're in a qualifying group with FIFA ranks 15, 47, 70, and 137(for comparison, the Ocho ranges from 9 to 68). They've scored more than 2 goals once, in the home game against #137. France has 3 draws and 8 goals in 6 games in a group with 27, 55, 57, and 120. I want the US to be more goal dangerous and there's definite room for improvement(from Berhalter and the players), but CONCACAF is improving too and international soccer is often a slog, doubly so in these condensed windows that forces a choice between fatigue or losing cohesion. Mopping the floor with non-Mexico opponents shouldn't be a baseline expectation.

I'd be more interested in Goodrum if I was confident he was a plus defensive SS, or if his platoon split was heavy on the left side instead of the right. As it stands even the good version of him seems redundant with the infielders already on the roster.

Yeah I don't begrudge anyone being wary about it, especially overall. I think where I try to point out the bright side is when we talk about what a good v. bad window looks like. It seems like people at times can miss that there's a gap between what a reasonable expectation is given the opponents, and what would truly be damaging to their qualification chances.

I'm usually going for what's required for 3rd place. In the Hex, it took an average of 15.2 points for third and 13.2 for 4th, which is 21.2 and 18.4 for the 14 game round. I was kind of figuring it might be on the higher end of those since we're bringing in two worse teams into the qualifying that the better teams would theoretically be able to pick up more points against. UMFan also posted the chart, don't know how legitimate it is, a couple days back that showed our chances for auto qualification based on point totals. 23 points was a 95.6% chance, 22 points was 82.2%, 21 points was 61.4% and 20 was 53.5%. So I've kind of stuck with the 22-23 point range as where we need to get to so we're probably good for 3rd. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was talking about aiming for 3rd place too. Yes, extrapolating the hex will get you to 21 and there was that table that said 23 was needed for absolute confidence, but thus far it looks like that was underselling the lack of stratification in the central american teams that are keeping any of them from pushing that high. Panama is the only central american team above a point per game and they've had The US, Mexico, and Costa Rica all at home, while getting smacked @Canada and being the only team to lose @El Salvador. This can go the other way, for example if Jamaica can get their full team in future windows they've already gone to Mexico, US, and Costa Rica, but the US also has a 6 point head start there. All that said, another caveat would be that the US hasn't played any of their 3 most difficult games(home/away v. Mexico and @Canada) and if you like Costa Rica you can extend that to 4 with that away game too. However, two of those 4 are in the last window and if they take care of business in the next couple windows those are likely to be low stakes.

4th place is currently trending at just under 19 points right now, and the only team at that level is Panama, who still has to go to Mexico and the US. One of the central american teams could get hot, but its looking like if the US can manage 4+ points next window then they’ve functionally qualified. Once you're to the point where you can stay above the line with 1 ppg then you need a miracle to miss.

I don’t have issues with his qualifications and he seems as good a bet as any candidate to help the org, but it’s a real missed opportunity to break up the homogeneity of the FO’s decision makers. Especially since the Epstein executive tree has not covered itself in glory on or off the field recently.

I don't think they'll have the Cubs specific decline, only that the most likely outcome is this is their best team of the competitive window. They may not have the specific components that led to the Cubs decline, but regression to the mean comes for everyone. Will they still be division favorites? Probably next year at the least. But it only takes one pop up team to knock you to the wild card if you aren't in that 'best 2-3 teams in MLB' tier(and sometimes even then like this year's dodgers), and even if they don't they still have to beat the best in the AL to win a title in all likelihood. If this sounds bearish it doesn't mean to be, I like the White Sox roster for the most part and think Hahn is capable of supplementing it further, but there's an actuarial reality, especially when it comes to pitching, and I think it's fair to question if they can replicate that for the foreseeable future. But doesn't the 'actuarial reality' come for every team? By that logic, won't the Astros be worse next year too? I get that pitching is more susceptible than offense, but this was still a 6th in offensive fWAR, 3rd in wRC team with every major piece coming back next year. I don't see why regression is a White Sox unique concept, and so if you set that aside, the core they have (Robert, Moncada, Eloy, Anderson, Vaughn, Sheets, Gio, Cease, Kopech, plus the guys in their 30s), don't need to improve much on 6th best offensive team, best pitching (by fWAR) team to have as good a chance as anyone the next couple years. Yes, but they needed a 2016 Cubs level of good outcomes to be the 7th best team in MLB(beating 9th by a game), and they don't have the financial resources of many of those teams to stay there nor the farm system(Fangraphs has the Sox system as 30th by a non-trivial margin) to keep up on that axis. And again, the implication isn't that the Sox are doomed, I like lots of their players and I'd be surprised if they don't have multiple other playoff appearances in the next 3-5 years. But in terms of the probability of winning a championship, I don't think those teams will be as strong as this year, similar to how the 2017-2020 Cubs turned out to not be as strong as 2016.

I don't think you can necessarily take the Cubs 2016-2020 gradual decline and slap it onto the Sox though. They don't have a Heyward, they hopefully don't have a Russell, and they have 2 top 20 fWAR pitchers, ages 27 and 26, locked up for 2 and 4 years, even ignoring Lynn (and to a lesser extent Kopech). Why can't they be the 2017 (or 2015) Astros? Or even the 2015 Cubs? And I guess it depends on how much weight you place on being among the best 2-3 teams in baseball, vs just being in a position to take as many shots at the post-wild card playoffs as possible. I think they're in a good spot to carry their division for a few years. I don't think they'll have the Cubs specific decline, only that the most likely outcome is this is their best team of the competitive window. They may not have the specific components that led to the Cubs decline, but regression to the mean comes for everyone. Will they still be division favorites? Probably next year at the least. But it only takes one pop up team to knock you to the wild card if you aren't in that 'best 2-3 teams in MLB' tier(and sometimes even then like this year's dodgers), and even if they don't they still have to beat the best in the AL to win a title in all likelihood. If this sounds bearish it doesn't mean to be, I like the White Sox roster for the most part and think Hahn is capable of supplementing it further, but there's an actuarial reality, especially when it comes to pitching, and I think it's fair to question if they can replicate that for the foreseeable future.

I think the way to say this is that this was the Sox equivalent of 2016 and they bowed out quickly in the DS instead of winning it all. They'll still have the talent and resources to be competitive, and your best teams aren't always the ones that win it all, but they won't have a better shot again unless something happens that is not the most likely outcome(Vaughn or Eloy become Edgar Martinez, they find a new Lynn, etc).

3 games in a week means you need to rotate, and unlike the last window its more important to win the 3rd game than the 2nd. You can quibble with a couple of the choices but from my view it’s on the margins given that theyre clearly saving their bullets, and this team is good enough to beat this panama group.

Since it’s nigh impossible to know exactly how good someone would be in the role, my enthusiasm is mainly around how much the hire would diversify the backgrounds in the front office. Harris and Rodriguez are clear winners on that axis, Zoll is pretty meh, and Hawkins’ “Vanderbilt to intern and on up” path would be the worst of the 4.

Excited for the MMA midfield, bummed I’m gonna miss most of it playing softball

..it is? teams that paid money for proven talent last winter seemed to somehow do pretty well generally, in spite of their lack of restraint [attachment=0]Capture.PNG[/attachment] As with the previous comparison, the pandemic offseason makes this not a great illustration, and counting dollars committed instead of say AAV added isn't ideal, but yes. The Jays got phenomenal value for their spending, and Realmuto was great for the Phillies, but for others it was far more mixed. The Yankees got great value for a half season from Kluber but most of their spend is to have LeMahieu be the 17th best 2B. Similarly, the Braves got great value for Morton but most of those dollars were for Ozuna to be below replacement until he wasn't allowed to play due to legal trouble. Most of the Mets spend was to get less than 2 wins combined from McCann and Walker. And maybe most importantly, if the Cubs even have a 125 million payroll(a 20 million drop from this year!), they'd be spending to the level that they'd almost certainly show fairly high on a list like this, so the extent of the opportunity being missed is really for the select few getting mega contracts. The Klubers and Mortons and Rays of the world didn't sign deals beyond the '22 Cubs price range.

Yes in a literal sense they have to 'win the offseason', Jed's point is that the teams that actually did win the offseason didn't do it by spending the most or having the most public praise for their acquisitions, which is 1) true and 2) useful for his purposes of setting expectations about the Cubs offseason regardless of if they up the payroll by 15 million or 150 million. Having a Dodgers/Yankees payroll would give them more margin for error, but ultimately if you don't trust the front office to build a winning roster with a sub-200 million payroll, then the headline is you don't think they're up for the job(not an indefensible position) since you can't spend your way past incompetence into repeat championship contention.

This past year's market is not going to be a great comparison point for obvious reasons, but looking at the ESPN FA tracker, only 10 SP got more AAV in free agency than Arrieta. 2 were very good in a full season(Morton, Ray), 2 were very good in half a season(Bauer, Kluber), and of the remaining 6 the only one who exceeded 1 fWAR was Mike Minor and his 5.05 ERA. Trevor Williams had 1.2 fWAR in 91 IP. This is the point, the unspoken inference to 'if only they weren't so cheap' is that they'd have done better if they had just spent more money, when the guys further up the ladder are a pretty big minefield themselves. This is tedious. The lesson is not 'nothing matters, don't try', it's that what matters is the team gets good players, whether they spend 1 dollar or 100 million to get them. Spending more on an individual player has never been less correlated with that player's success. They need to use their financial muscle if they're going to get better quickly, but you need to be able to separate distaste for the system ownership is responsible for from the best decisions to have a winning team within that system too.

ah, numbers, the letters of math

US Soccer's website says tonight is ESPN2, Panama is Paramount+, and Costa Rica is back to ESPN2.