Jump to content
North Side Baseball

squally1313

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,348

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

 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 squally1313

  1. squally1313
    it's like you almost figured it out and then just couldn't help yourself
  2. squally1313
    Have we talked about how Workman's middle name is Tater
  3. squally1313
    Alcantara looks like he might be a keeper. I'd already rather have him than PCA.
  4. squally1313
    I can certainly see the reasoning. If I wanted to wade into the conspiracy/anti-FO waters, I'd be a little worried he becomes the guy they point to as the reason for not going full bore on a Tucker extension. But worrying about finding a spot for Alcantara seems very pre-mature.
  5. squally1313
    Talking about this in the Transaction threads, but if Tucker signs up to be the back up CF (and potentially take some starts against LHPs), then the last spot is Workman, if they need outfield help, it's Brujan.
  6. squally1313
    Yeah I forgot just how little he's played there. Seems like it would be easier in Wrigley than in Houston but still hasn't touched the position in a few years. Would solve the Seiya 'complaints', gives you a lineup that, besides Shaw and with Kelly, would be filled entirely with above average hitters v LHP based on 2024 results. If you can get Tucker on board (and maybe sell it as something that he could point to in his free agency), maybe it's Turner for PCA against LHPs in Wrigley, Turner for Busch on the road against LHPs.
  7. squally1313
    Could Turner be his platoon partner?
  8. squally1313
    Forgot he didn't have the 6 years of service time, good call, probably would have been $2m-$2.5m? I get your point but also think they're leaning towards a second bench person with the ability to play 3B/SS/2B, especially given Hoerner's health status and Shaw having 0 PAs. Having Shaw/Dansby/Hoerner/Berti to cover three positions feels a little thin.
  9. squally1313
    Yeah on February 19th you'd probably love to throw a pile of cash his way, enough to get him comfortable with being a 5th outfielder at best. But he's done enough to warrant more PAs and went and got that opportunity. Go trade for him in a couple months if need be.
  10. squally1313
    Yeah, as someone who is probably considered 'too married' to the raw numbers, with all this extra cash lying around bringing in a guy who can also double as a hitting coach to the Shaws of the world certainly can't hurt. You could tell how excited Happ, Hoerner, etc were yesterday.
  11. squally1313
    And they still signed more 2024 fWAR in major league contracts than the Brewers did.
  12. squally1313
    The era where he didn't opt out and the Cubs were stuck with the remaining years of his contract?
  13. squally1313
    Yeah that's fair. This is tricky to articulate, but we've all been under the assumption that the budget is the first tax line. I don't think Ricketts gets trashed across the baseball media for being willing to spend to the first tax line. Assuming that's actually the budget, being $30m under going into the year is....mostly Jed's fault? Like, yeah, at this point don't go and sign five terrible starters to use all the money and then cut them all in two months, that's just wasted playing time. But being the guy at the auction draft who ends the night with 15% of their budget isn't how you draw it up. I'm not sure where I'm at on this aversion to long term deals, 2026 lock out thing. All this unused cash and now media pressure just adds to the Tucker extension importance, and signing that contract ends all the lockout speculation. If they let him walk, there's more reasons to be angry than all the CBA stuff.
  14. squally1313
    I think we should be able to take a levelheaded view at the ability of a particular player relative to their peers without automatically being accused of being in bed with ownership. Bregman had the 54th best wRC in baseball last year. 37th over the last 3 years. 30 teams have had four months to sign him to a deal. Ricketts, specifically, gets trashed at this exact moment (and not for being a non-factor in Soto, missing on Ohtani/Roki, not even being linked to Burnes/other top starters even though we're clearly missing one, etc), is just a weird time to make the point that obviously should be made. Bregman is a good player but looking at the entirely of the offseason he was not the big miss.
  15. squally1313
    I think there's a little bit of grey area that these teams and players are obviously trying to exploit, and it'll probably be an evolving issue as states work to close loopholes like this. Like, take Ohtani's contract. Couldn't it theoretically be written that he's obligated to perform consulting/marketing work (remotely, obviously) for the Dodgers during the time when he's actually getting paid? And so it's like....for the next 10 years he gets paid $10m or whatever to play baseball, and then the 10 years after that he gets paid $70m/year to work remotely for the organization. Obviously it's a sham, but I don't know if states, especially states like California, want to start weeding into what is 'fair' compensation for services and how it should be taxed.
  16. squally1313
    It's a little weird to me that Rosenthal and now Buster Olney are using the Bregman saga as the catalyst for trashing the Cubs front office, and specifically the ownership. The Olney article in particular is really sloppy. Offering 4/$115 isn't being 'outbid significantly' by Houston's 6/$156....it's more money per year in a situation where he was going to get opt outs probably either way. And then there's whatever this means: Like, the standard complaints still apply. Tom should put more money back into the team, should care less about the luxury tax penalties, and if the budget is really the $240m, Jed need/needs to be a better job of maximizing the team under those guardrails. But not outbidding Boston's 3/$95m (essentially) offer when you have Nico for 2 years, a DH for 2 years, and a top 15 prospect in baseball penciled in is not the definition of a slam dunk. It may seem like that because he was the last solid way to use the money in free agency, but it was definitely a square peg/round hole situation to me.
  17. squally1313
    To be clear, I meant the offset/wash more just on the team side. The team has to inflate the nominal value of the contract if they want to include deferrals, just due to time value of money, and then they get to discount it back down for CBT. Ultimately you end up materially where you would have been in a no-deferral contract alternate universe. Like, Team A offers 3/$90, no deferrals, Team B offers 3/$90, mostly deferrals. Team B would get a better CBT answer, but the player is going to pick the offer from Team A 99 times out of 100. The player preference to defer....I get the argument but I think a situation like Shohei is unique in that he already has so much money coming in through endorsements that he already has complete and total financial freedom before whatever money he takes him in a baseball salary. Someone like Kyle Tucker bringing home $40m next year ($25m post tax) vs $10m next year ($6m post tax) and $35m in 10 years ($25m post tax) probably wants the money up front not have to wait to maximize his quality of life now.
  18. squally1313
    double post
  19. squally1313
    But these two offset right? On the ownership side, they have to pay a nominal premium vs would it cost up front and so after you discount the amounts you end up with AAV/CBT numbers in line with what everyone was projecting. On the players side, they get to brag about the numbers on the contract, but getting $20m in 5 years vs getting $15m tomorrow and having their investment team go get 8% annual return puts him in (roughly) the same financial situation in 2030. Everyone assumed Bregman was trying to beat Devers' annual salary, even if just by a little bit. Ultimately Boston's CBT number on Devers is $29.3m and for Bregman it's $31.7m. Yes, they got to 'lower' the CBT number from $40m to $31.7m. But the $40m is essentially a fake number anyways, besides bragging rights or whatever.
  20. squally1313
    Whatever the internal models are for the Cubs continue to be very much in line with the Zips calculations.
  21. squally1313
    Agreed. I said something about him taking Shaw's spot above but looking deeper into where/how he played the last couple years, his days at 3B are over. I wonder if there's a chance we see him as more of a short side of a platoon with PCA? Busch had a 103 wRC against LHPs last year, so maybe they're more comfortable letting him start every day regardless of the pitcher. Sit PCA against lefties, give Suzuki the time in the outfield he obviously still wants, in those games PCA becomes a pinch running/pinch hit bunt thread/defensive replacement. Against righty starters, Turner is your standard first bat off the bench against lefty relievers for Busch, PCA, Amaya, maybe even a struggling Shaw/Swanson/Hoerner.
  22. squally1313
    I think the conversation about Canha probably looking for a starting role applied to Turner too...he's had over 500 PAs every healthy year for a while now. Either he wants a lesser role, he exhausted his options as a potential starter somewhere (or, a combination of the two, he didn't want to go start for like, the White Sox)....or we made some promises about more starts/PAs than maybe we were anticipating here. 30 games off for PCA, 30 games off for Busch, 40 games off for Shaw, etc. Who knows.
  23. squally1313
    Kyle Tucker isn’t going to demand that he doesn’t get some of his salary for another 15 years. This isn’t some bargaining chip, it’s just math that all involved parties are more than able to comprehend.
  24. squally1313
    So….this isn’t a real concern.
  25. squally1313
    Red Sox, present day value: 3 years, $95m, $31.6m/year, opt out option after year 1 Cubs offer: 4 years, $115m, $28.75m/year, no opt out after year one. deal one is better for reasons that had nothing to do with deferrals.
×
×
  • Create New...