squally1313

Cody becomes the 4th outfielder, essentially, in any of these scenarios. Vlad/Rooker: Vlad is full time DH, you live with Seiya in right (metrics aren't that bad), Cody backs up all three outfield positions, backs up Busch, and occasionally you let Busch play second and Bellinger first if you want a bunch of lefties Tucker: Tucker is full time RF, Seiya is DH, Cody does the same thing as above

Looking through the top rookies this year, Jackson Merrill got zero games in AAA, had a wRC in the low 90s through May, then blew up. Jackson Chourio got 6 games in AAA at the end of last year, had a terrible April and May, then blew up Austin Wells got 33 games in AAA last year, 20 games in the majors last year (decent), had a bad April and May, and then blew up Colton Cowser got 87 games in AAA last year, a brutal 26 games in the majors last year, a very good April, bad May, and then mostly good the rest of the year. Nothing definitive here, but haven't seen someone in a while that comes up and immediately establishes themselves, regardless of the amount of time in AAA.

Eh....I think there's a decent counterargument that dudes are just going to struggle for a block of games when they reach the majors and PCAs month in AAA this year didn't really do anything to his development one way or the other. Totally on board with the argument that a team aiming for 90+ wins shouldn't count on a prospect from the jump, especially when you have established and reliable value there. But don't think there's some foolproof way to avoid that initial adjustment period, and you just hope when we bring up a guy and he works through it you don't have, hypothetically, historically bad catching production and nothing from shortstop or third base.

Would certainly live in really any world where Soto is a Cub, but I think any trade with Seattle for a major league established pitcher has to include premium offense (or at least premium offensive potential) going the other way. They're going to miss the playoffs not because of the rotation, but because of the offense. Would think they would prefer the Shaw/Caissie/Alcantara's of the world vs a glove first guy. And in a win now world (beaten by Bertz above), give me Nico's surefire production over Shaw's potential if we're making clear upgrades in Soto and the rotation.

Plus Busch wasn't 'blocked' in the Dodgers organization if they truly considered him a second baseman. Gavin Lux put up a decent but by no means good year in 2022 and then missed all of 2023 with an injury. Busch could have definitely fought for that job if they thought he was consistently playable there. Lux was their 9 hitter on opening day and has never had good defensive metrics. In a world without Nico (presumably with Shaw), I'm fine putting Busch there occasionally to protect Shaw early on or in situations TT talked about. But downgrading at first base just to downgrade at second (with the upside of whatever Hoerner gets you offsetting that) doesn't appeal to me.

fully aware this is basically me here:

Busch was graded at 30 for fielding going into this year on the back of playing mostly second base in the minors. The glass half full side of things can point to his improvements and say he's just a drastically better fielder now, the half empty view is that first base is truly that much of a step down, difficulty wise, from a middle infield position, and whatever offensive upgrade you'd get there (depends on the metric: wOBA and wRC look to be substantial step ups, xwOBA not so much) would be given away (and maybe then some) defensively. I don't know. I feel a lot better about Bellinger than I did a month ago but still prefer all of Happ, PCA, Suzuki, Busch, and Hoerner over him as consistent options. We've tried, and failed, two years in a row to have the offensive plan be 'good all over, great nowhere'....but if Bellinger opts in maybe it's the best route and then you just go sign two of Flaherty/Burnes/Eovaldi and/or go prospects for pitching? Like, yeah, good but not great was the plan going into this year, but that was with us hoping on Morel at third and Madrigal in the opening day starting line up. Whereas Bellinger as your starting right fielder next year probably projects as your 8th best offensive starter. I'd still rather Bellinger opt out and we get creative on an elite bat. But $60m and a bunch of blocked prospects (behind an offense that's been 5th in fWAR in the second half) gets you at least 2 legitimate starters, some pen stability, and ideally a Carson Kelly. Steele/Shota/Mariners pitcher/Flaherty/Taillon with Assad/Brown/Horton there as support/amped up pen work is significantly improved over where we are now, and there's still plenty of money for the pen and a catcher after that.

I don't think their internal budget number is drastically different than the CBT number. But I don't think, if they ran back the Bellinger situation again this February, they'd take an approach of like 'we can offer this much and not a penny more because of CBT'. If they're willing to offer a player $30m, they're probably going to be willing to go to $32 or $33 all in (with the tax) if that's what it takes. Ultimately, Tom's number and the CBT number are very much in the same ballpark and therefore the actual disincentives of the tax (minimal), in my opinion, are never really going to be a main driving factor.

I generally tend to agree with you that overall production matters more than a specific facet of the game but pretty much every offensive roster idea thrown about so far has focused specifically on offensive production (because we have enough glove heavy guys) and picking Seiya as the guy to be replaced means your incremental offensive improvement is minimized. I like Bellinger as a person and he's going to end up having a decent year. But if I'm Hoyer and I don't mind being an horsefeathers, I'm doing everything I can broadcast to people that we are going to be heavily in the market for a big RF bat this year, and that Seiya is our DH, PCA is our CF, and Busch is our first baseman*, and let Bellinger see the writing on the wall. *: There are arguments for bringing back Bellinger as a right/center fielder. There are, in my opinion, no legitimate arguments to bringing him back as the primary first baseman making 30x what Busch does to hit and maybe field worse.

The Bleed Cubbie Blue article I'm reading says that they knew they were very likely going to be over back in February when they signed Bellinger. They then went on to add salary in the Paredes/Morel trade, which they very obviously didn't have to do. Crane Kenney is also quoted as saying 'the CBT is not a governor'. I mean, what specific piece of evidence (them being over, them knowing they were over before the year, them adding salary at the deadline) is pointing towards 'they won't go over in the future'. We can be frustrated conceptually that they likely won't approach a $300m payroll. But in line with the budget that many of us understand it to be ($250m or so), the penalties just don't mean anything and there's no evidence pointing to that being a hard line in the sand.

But why would they care if the penalty is some rounding error? They obviously didn’t this year. Like the only actual piece of evidence we have is them seemingly going slightly over, and Jed candidly talking about it in a way that expresses very little concern about it.

“30% penalty’ doesn’t mean anything in terms of actual financial disincentive. It’s like moving into the next marginal tax rate. The question is always 30% of what, and all indications are the cubs plan will be to stick around that line and therefore it will at worst be some percentage of some low number.

Well Suzuki and Happ are both better hitters than bellinger, so I’m not sure why he automatically gets a spot

Seiya Suzuki is comfortably our best hitter but I guess with Dansby and Happ doing their thing we need to target somebody

I don't know what the mechanics would have been to push them back under once they got to midseason and didn't look like a playoff team. But like, Taillon probably could have gotten traded to save the (minimal) tax penalty. But then you're out a known starter for A. the slim chance you had at the playoffs this year and B. on a go forward basis. I really don't think it was as simple as some excel mistake.

Because he's Bad At His Job, duhhhh

Is it a dick move to cut Smyly at this point in the season?

Sure. Just clarifying that late 2000s Ryan Theriot was an average player, and early 2020s Nico Hoerner is a Good player.

It's not a bad comparison when you look at the pure statistics. Theriot in his career went 281/341/350 and Hoerner is at 276/337/377. But you're looking at pretty different offensive climates. 2008 was Theriot's best fWAR year (3.0) and the league wide OPS was 37 points higher than what it currently is in 2024. That and defense explains why Hoerner has pretty comfortably produced a lot more, WAR wise, then Theriot (4.3/4.6/3.3 the last three years).

Brought it up before but going to repeat my idea of a Paredes centered deal for Tucker. Bregman is a free agent this year, Paredes has 19 home runs this year, would only have 14 expected home runs at Wrigley but would have had 29 if he played every game in Houston. You slot Shaw in at third base and do whatever you can to lock in Tucker long term.

Yeah they certainly could be done playing pretty soon here but at least they're getting paid for (multiple) more seasons. Don't know what the market is for a 35 year old first baseman with a .608 OPS.

Honestly, Rizzo is probably the guy for that, maybe as soon as this offseason. I'm so old.

Let's get through this start without needing serious arm surgery, please

This might be the push I need to drop YTTV and go with just an antenna and the ondemand apps

Out of curiosity, would you take under 105 wRC next year?