Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Transmogrified Tiger

Community Moderator
  • Posts

    38,761
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Transmogrified Tiger

  1. Oh it looks like the Miller rumor might be bogus. The Sean Sears guy isn't at all connected, and Mooney disavowed the tweet of someone claiming he reported the connection. [tweet] [/tweet]
  2. That would be my big problem with it, although maybe the market just isn't there for Soler. Davis's arm problem is scary, but velocity, control, and effectiveness were fine when he came back, and since it's only one year you don't need the arm to hold up forever. On the other hand, 10 million for one year of a closer with an injury question is enough question marks for me without getting into the lost opportunity with Soler.
  3. I moved this here. Davis and Miller would be an interesting and hopefully low-cost way to play the volume game with the pitching staff. Davis/Rondon/Strop/Edwards has a solid chance of giving you 3 good relievers, and Miller + Montgomery probably stands a decent chance of netting you a quality SP. On the other hand, the Dodgers rotation and Giants bullpen from last year seem poignant examples of what could go wrong. EDIT: Miller would be yet another example of the Cubs strongly preferring durability from their SP targets.
  4. Let's make this a proper thread. [tweet] [/tweet]
  5. I don't think that's unfair, but I also don't think it's unfair to point out that Baez's 2016 output is also due to factors beyond himself. He saw more LHP than an everyday player would, and was shielded from specific RHP unless he was in good form. His defensive flexibility is awesome, but if the corner OF is more settled next year then there's less use for that flexibility(not no use, but less). Ultimately people are saying it's probably at least as likely that Baez is exposed with more playing time that he takes an additional step. Given the current and immediate future of the rotation, surely you can get why people would be willing to forego his flexibility and upside to make that part of the team so much better, right?
  6. I will be excited that they made a move, and then pretty bummed out that the move is for a short term acquisition(especially if it costs major trade assets), and then cognitive dissonance will kick in and I'll find a way to justify it so that it's actually brilliant. The last part has already started btw, the working theory is that pending FA are a market inefficiency because you can't plan super far ahead with any certainty anyway(especially pitchers), so the upside you're sacrificing isn't as great as thought.
  7. To clarify, I wasn't talking about surplus value necessarily, just that the minimum expectation should be someone who is better in 2017 than 2016 Baez.
  8. I think the important distinction is who you trade Javy for. You don't trade him for anyone that isn't giving you more value than the current version of Javy. So you probably don't trade him for Odorizzi, definitely not for Duffy or Bauer or Smyly. But if you're making a run at Archer, at Quintana, trading Baez is more acceptable since you're making the team better while you trade one problem for another. I'm perfectly fine with either path, and in many ways I prefer the front office to earn its money by getting guys who then become better in the organization(which shouldn't necessitate Javy), but I don't think highly enough of Baez's future to consider trading him for a top end arm a non-starter.
  9. The system is not very good at the moment. I'm more than fine with keeping Javy and getting a different pitcher, but if you want someone of Quintana's caliber there's very likely only one way to get there, and that's by trading Baez.
  10. I feel like a deal with Baez headlining doesn't do it anymore after this. Schwarber, Baez and Eloy? Too much to give up, but I think that's what it would take. Anyway, this trade feels a lot like Beckett for Hanley+. I really like it for both teams. Quintana is not Sale, and for as great as the prospect haul for Sale is, the distance from MLB matters. No one in the return for Sale has played in a AAA game(although Moncada did play poorly in a MLB cameo). Baez as someone who has had an MLB season as good as his 2016 and still has the insane potential that a Kopech or a Moncada has is worth more. That said, I don't mean to imply 1 for 1 Quintana for Baez, the Cubs would have to add more to it.
  11. Also, it is absolutely time to shove Baez in their face in return for Quintana.
  12. Alternatively, just change the 'and' to 'or' when it comes to the age and pro service time requirements.
  13. No GM loves trading away prospects more than Dombrowski. And sure enough as practice makes perfect, no one is better at it.
  14. I still don't see a ton of AS/upside level guys in their system. They all seem like really nice pieces and decent prospects but not cornerstone guys. Idk, I'm not a prospect guy so maybe I'm off but that's my impression. Yeah, that's the problem with the full teardown, is that you need star level players. To use Steamer as a quick illustration, right now the Brewers have 2 guys projected at 2 WAR, Guerra and Davies, both guys who have pretty much no upside beyond that. That doesn't mean those guys won't come, you never know where the next Rizzo or Arrieta is going to come from(to use examples that weren't expensive to acquire), but they're still a long ways from realizing that progress.
  15. [tweet] [/tweet] Beginning to hope that they'll be able to make a 3 way deal for a SP capitalizing on the interest in Soler, this would be another move in that category.
  16. It looks like at the moment the return is Travis Shaw, Mauricio Duhon, and Josh Pennington. I'm not super well versed in other team's prospects, but for those looking for a Cubs comparison, that's probably something like Vogelbach, Happ, and Cease.
  17. sure, the marlins, why not [tweet] [/tweet]
  18. Yeah, someone like Szczur is the closest I'd come to using the MLB roster to try to acquire Wilson. Detroit is trying to cut salary, and for as much as his velocity entices, Wilson doesn't offer enough to be considered a bullpen mainstay. If he doesn't end up a Cub because of it, I'm not terribly concerned. SIgning Duensing probably shuts the door on any other LHRP acquisitions anyway(save for the slim possibility of Chapman).
  19. Some combination of him and Andy Reid are pretty underrated, I think. Since Reid came to KC only the Patriots, Broncos, and Seahawks have more wins.
  20. I think I was the first person to bring up Wilson weeks ago but Soler and Grimm for Wilson is just an impossibly bad trade. I mean holy smokes both of them individually have significantly more value than Wilson, the whole point is that Wilson is buy low. Ziegler and Uehara are both fine, but there's also only so many roster spots out there(I'm similarly assuming Montgomery gets bumped from the rotation by an acquisition. If either or both are the best reliever the Cubs add then they screwed up, and that means they're probably guys that get added if a current reliever gets traded.
  21. I'm capping him around 3 wins as a best case scenario because he has a relatively rare shoulder injury. Look at the guys who had Thoracic Outlet Syndrome, it either ends their careers or they're not close to the same after.
  22. Rewatching this part about the 10th really makes me wish Edwards had been able to close it out. Montgomery is great and all but I love me some Carl.
  23. Why are you so sure he won't take a multi-year deal? If he's remotely unsure of his own health, signing a multi-year deal is security for him. Players bet on themselves. Plus if he's that bearish on his arm that's even more reason to not pursue him. One of the reasons that the Cubs have had remarkable health in their rotation is that they don't gamble it on obvious risks like Ross. EDIT: Ross has already made 18 million in his career too, security probably isn't a big priority.
×
×
  • Create New...