Jump to content
North Side Baseball

squally1313

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,357

  • 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
    Was curious about this. Cots is obviously not the end all be all here, but from what I could tell: Shota: $1m for winning the Cy Young, $500k for 2nd or 3rd, $250k for 4th-10th Boyd: $100k for hitting 80, 90, 100, 110, 120 innings pitched, so theoretically $500k total Kelly: "may earn additional $500k annually in performance bonuses based on games started" Brasier: "may earn additional $4m(!) in performance bonuses based on relief appearances". This looks to be $2m/year. Berti: "may earn additional $1.3m in performance bonuses"
  2. squally1313
    You need 900 innings from your starters. Steele gave you 135 last year, we can call that 150. Shota gave you 175. Optimistic, but fine. Boyd? 100 is probably optimistic, but sure. That's 425. A midseason trade for a better starter typically happens right around the deadline, using Jack Flaherty as an example, he threw 55 innings for the Dodgers last year. So let's just say you've got 450-500, or a little over half covered by those pitchers. Do we want 400+ innings to be covered by the rest of the pitchers on the roster? Assad and Rea are stretched out but clearly a level below Taillon, and even full, healthy seasons wouldn't cover the full need. Wicks threw 67 innings last year, Brown 55, Horton 34. Poteet 77. What if Steele or Shota goes down? How are you covering this?
  3. squally1313
    Even if you're real optimistic about Bregman as a hitter and call him equivalent to Suzuki (126 and 118 wRC the last two years vs 128 and 138 wRC), you're basically just...improving third base defense by a little bit at the end of the day? The prospects, at a high level, wash out because whatever comes in for Suzuki probably has to go back out (or at least the equivalent value, switch some names out, whatever) to upgrade the pitching, and so ultimately you're going from 2/34 on Suzuki to 4/110 or whatever on Bregman, plus a mid-level 'rental' starter in a trade (if you aim higher, debit the farm system). Realistically though, you just made the offense worse and lost $12m-$15m in available money this year. Kinda just seems like a way to avoid some of it going back in RIcketts pockets without actually improving the team. BaseballTradeValue is very flawed but has Suzuki with basically the same trade value as Ryan Pressly.
  4. squally1313
    Yeah I get you. I think ultimately you were talking more about 'what happens if we get him' and I was still stuck on 'let's not do this', which are two different conversations. If we sign Bregman, I certainly don't want some late February, everyone knows we're trying to dump Hoerner, trade just in the name of financial flexibility. Basically, if signing Bregman means our only way to a midseason starter is a Hoerner trade, I'd like to politely pass. If signing Bregman means we have to trade Hoerner right away, hard pass.
  5. squally1313
    Agree on the last point, and candidly if you asked me I'm more Team Megathread but I understand the desire to generate new topics. Here's a link to the thread with plenty of discussion on Bregman in the last 24 hours:
  6. squally1313
    That's fine, seems like everyone here (implicitly or explicitly) wants Bregman to bail after this season too. Trading prospects for a one year guy is a win now move, but pretty much everything is telling us we should be in win now mode. On top of that, I think everyone here wants to extend Tucker. Cease 100% coming off the books at year end gives us a better shot than whatever the probability is of Bregman opting out. You're down prospects, sure, but Cease is a bigger improvement to the team, and you're more likely to sign Tucker, which makes you less likely to need someone like Caissie or Alcantara.
  7. squally1313
    But that's the thing, you won't find the same conversations in all of them. I think people here are trying to help you, in one way or another. I assume you want to see people here talking about the latest news (ie Bregman), giving their opinions, dropping in the latest news, etc. That's why you came here with those tidbits right? That's all happening, but not in this thread. You'd (maybe) get more enjoyment here if you found the other threads where this news is being discussed (some would say ad nauseam!).
  8. squally1313
    I'm not going to be thrilled about adding $18m ish in 2025 payroll and like $60m in future payroll to wind up in a wash for the 2025 major league team. There isn't really a prospect package out there that bridges that gap for me, especially in a 'win now' mode. I know a Bregman contract and 2/24 of Nico isn't apples to apples in terms of overall contribution to the team. But, what, you then thread the needle a third time (after the Bregman contract, and after the Nico trade) to trade prospects for the starting pitcher you still probably need in a few months? And ultimately you end up with a slightly better farm system than just getting a starter now, three months of a good pitcher instead of six, and a likely uncertain payroll situation, a la Bellinger, going into 2026. Isn't it just easier to bite the bullet on Caissie, Assad/Birdsell, and a lower level lottery ticket now? Your farm system takes a hit, but you're a better team than you are in a increasingly unlikely hypothetical of a Bregman and Hoerner and Shaw future, and you maintain better in season flexibility and a lot more flexibility going into next year. And yes, I know we can't just wave our wand and force a Cease trade, but we also shouldn't just assume Bregman is waiting on our offer.
  9. squally1313
    We did though, didn't we? Catcher we went from Gomes/Amaya to Kelly/Amaya Third Base we probably didn't upgrade from Paredes, but on the whole last year our 3Bs generated -0.8 fWAR, and Shaw is projected for 2.1. Centerfield, PCA outproduced Bellinger last year in less ABs (obviously in the aggregate, not offensively) Right field we went from Suzuki to Tucker DH, we had Suzuki there for 60 games last year, then a mix of others (Morel with 29 games, Bellinger with 24, Tauchman with 20). Everyone listed besides Suzuki is worse than Suzuki, more starts for Suzuki here is an upgrade. Meanwhile on the pitching we took Hendricks 24 starts (0.4 fWAR) and replaced them with Boyd and Rea. I'd argue replacing Assad (1.0 fWAR in 29 starts last year) with a 4 fWAR pitcher is more valuable (and less of a financial commitment) than replacing Shaw (2 fWAR) with Bregman (4 fWAR).
  10. squally1313
    At the risk of minimizing your really well thought out post, there's a common trend there: I don't know. If those are your options (and I think they largely are), and they all come with some less than ideal implications for 2026 and beyond, I'd rather just overpay for Cease? His money falls off after this year and you're left with essentially the same pile of cash you'd need to extend Tucker, you're down someone like Caissie and a pitching prospect but you also aren't on the hook for like a 3/90 Bregman contract. Caveat that I would do whatever it takes to get the price down on Cease (or go talk to Seattle again, or see if Miami wants to talk, etc). But the knock on effects of a Bregman deal feel like an overpay all on its own. Go get an elite starter.
  11. squally1313
    And that elite/semi-elite pitcher would need to also be making less money than Nico, because that was the whole point of trading him anyways. Which means dipping into the prospect pool to supplement Nico in that hypothetical trade, when instead you can just use the prospects to trade for a pitcher now and not have to give up as much talent because you're not as constricted on the financial cost.
  12. squally1313
    I don't know if I care enough to try and find out on my own, but I am curious on the discrepancy behind the simple math of adding all the individual WAR numbers and what eventually got spit out here. I know you have to reduce playing time across the board, but not totally sure why it seemed to hit the Cubs the hardest. Fairly certain I had the Cubs ahead of the Mets, Phillies, and DBacks in pure cumulative math, all of which are now projected to have more wins than the Cubs, and I had us like 10 wins ahead of the Brewers, and that gap is now down to 3.
  13. squally1313
    Tucker is 3 years younger and coming off the best offensive season of his career. Not exactly apples to apples. The 'very good' second half was still worse than Bregman's career average wRC. You sign Tucker (or any other elite player) to long term deals because you have to, and you hope you reap the benefits in the front end of the contract and hope those benefits (and inflation) are enough to stomach the back end. Bregman's walk rate being cut in half (consistent in the first and second half of 2024) without a corresponding benefit to his K rate is concerning. Bregman is a good player. He's not an elite player anymore. If we lived in a world where you could sign Bregman (ideally for one year) and not have it become much more likely that we'd have to trade Nico, and/or much less likely we could supplement the team midseason, then yep, fully in, let's go. But I don't think we live in that world. The signing eats up basically all your flexibility for the next 12 months. There's better uses of the money.
  14. squally1313
    I mean, for a lot of reasons. The big one being the outcome where the 31 year old coming off his worst year of his career continues declining and we're stuck with a much worse version of the Bellinger contract (likely with an NTC) and we have to dump actual talent just to free up the money to convince Tucker to sign with us while simultaneously hurting our 2026 chances (after the damage that a subpar Bregman and lack of financial freedom did to our 2025 team).
  15. squally1313
    This is not the Michael King thread, but I'm not totally sure why that idea stopped being discussed. Similar production as Cease but with a lesser reputation and the Padres threw some mutual option contract language into his deal this year to spread out the cost of the contract, but the last time a mutual option was actually used was like 2013. Go get him, maybe take on Suarez to reduce the prospect capital, and go into the year sans-Bregman but with a very deep rotation, payroll flexibility, and most of the prospects you have now. Probably room for a solid bench bat as well.
  16. squally1313
    Yeah agree with most of this. I would happily take Bregman, but I ultimately don't trust that a Bregman signing wouldn't lead to a Hoerner trade that makes you worse at the ML level and/or a significant hit to the chances we resign Tucker in the next 12 months, and both of those are probably deal breakers for me.
  17. squally1313
    The rumor was, in a Bregman reunion, Paredes to first or second and something about Altuve moving to left field (I guess anyone can play left field in that park?). I don't really get it either, unless you buy into the theory that Houston just really wanted Paredes for his batted ball profile and didn't particularly care about the position fit.
  18. squally1313
    Understood. Just saying at this exact point I'll take the financial flexibility over the potential change in low level prospects. And ultimately if the money ends up in Ricketts' pockets, I'm going to allocate most of that blame to Ricketts himself, not Hoyer painting himself into an unspendable corner or whatever. But I'm aware I'm a Hoyer apologist, so take that with a grain of salt.
  19. squally1313
    Have there been any reports about the Astro's 6/150ish deal being taken off the table? I think him having that as a backstop is going to limit how cheaply Jed is going to be able to go. I'm not a fan of this, but it's a little funny that Hoyer could make Bregman's position a lot worse by....trading Hoerner to the Astros. They get their 4 fWAR infielder for less money/prospects, guessing that Bregman offer goes away pretty quick.
  20. squally1313
    I mean, to be clear, I'd rather have Hoyer sitting there with $30m to spend and 7 weeks till the regular season vs a different non-major league player from the Yankees (they weren't giving up MLB talent) or the prospect we sent for Pressly who's name I already forgot. Sure I'll be pissed if they end up putting it in their pocket, but A. there's a lot of time left and B. I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over the minutiae of the Pressly and Bellinger trades.
  21. squally1313
    But there's no player on the planet that would fill up that $30m hole when you're trading for him halfway through the year. I think your main focus is still the staring contest with the Padres for King or Cease. One of them replacing Rea is the biggest WAR increase you can find, and it leaves you a lot more flexibility, both mid-season and long term, than a Bregman deal does. It's going to cost us some Iowa capital, but at some point you need to push those chips in.
  22. squally1313
    Getting too far out over my skies here but I'm not sure what the framework of a mid-season Nico Hoerner trade is. Are we to believe that Shaw is going to prove himself in pretty limited opportunities to the extent we would be comfortable trading Hoerner for straight prospects to a contender? If not, are we going to be that good that we're willing to risk that downgrade without seriously impacting our playoff (or first round bye) hopes? Both of those seem pretty low probability, which means you're left trying to go find major league talent to offset the Hoerner loss, and I can't see a rebuilding team being too enamored by 14 months of Hoerner, and I can't see a contending team trading away legitimate talent while taking on extra money. There's, of course, the other outcome, which is that we suck and all our 2026 expiration guys are for sale, but if that's the case you can probably say goodbye to Tucker wanting to sign here long term anyways. But let's not think about that.
  23. squally1313
    I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth at this point because the situation is pretty fluid, so apologies for that, but the math is starting to change pretty significantly in these scenarios. The 'huge money' coming off the books is $19m+$19m+$18m+$12m and we can throw in Boyd at $15m. That's $83m. A Bregman deal is somewhere between $25m and $30m annually, and Tucker is probably looking at $45m. That's at least $70m, or a $13m net, just swapping those 5 players (Happ, Suzuki, Taillon, Hoerner, Boyd) for Bregman and Tucker. And you figure the Steele raises alone offset the increase in the cap number. While you'd hope those guys could largely be replaced internally, having to go out and get one or two replacements would put you back where you are now pretty quickly.
  24. squally1313
    Eh. Bellinger was coming off a 2.2 fWAR year with theoretically two years left and we were able to move what...80% of it pretty easily? You'll have Happ (projected 3.4 fWAR, 1/19), Suzuki (projected 3.1 fWAR, 1/19), Taillon (projected 1.4 fWAR, 1/18), and Hoerner (projected 4.2 fWAR, 1/12). Any one of those first three plus Hoerner covers the gap between Tucker's 2025 $16m and Tucker's 2026 $45m. But obviously you're making the team worse.
  25. squally1313
    Probably, but maybe not directly. Assume nothing gets done during the year (and I would guess a Bregman deal makes that slightly more unlikely) you'll be going into next year with a 2026 salary crunch but also Happ, Taillon, Suzuki, and Nico on theoretically reasonable one year deals. Logically you're not going to be able to move their salary without a drop in talent. So you can clear up the money pretty easily, but you'd be looking at moving a key player, and the implication to this whole assumption is that Bregman's semi-bet on himself didn't work for him and we're left with him a level that wouldn't be rewarded with more money than what we would be on the hook for. My question is how creative can you get in terms of AAV vs actual dollars spent....can we offer 40/20/20/20 with opt outs after each year? And if we could, do you think Ricketts would go for it? I think, first principles, trying to back into a contract where you are doing whatever you can to hope he leaves after 1 year probably means it's not a great fit. He would improve the team, but it's very much a square peg/round hole situation to me.
×
×
  • Create New...