Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Bertz

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    12,500

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

 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 Bertz

  1. Bertz
    We could always take back Inciarte or Shane Greene in a KB trade for money reasons (both are making $6 million or so this year). I wonder if that's enough. But yeah Inciarte would be a solid fit on the roster, and the net $ savings would still be comparable to a Quintana deal, which should be enough. It would mean a lot more infield for Happ, I wonder a lot about how that will go.
  2. Bertz
    I can't see the Braves doing it. They're already ~$15M over last year's end of season payroll, and their ownership group is as faceless and corporate as any other team in the league. I'm curious about the Padres. They'd be a great fit, but I don't know if they'd be as willing to stretch for KB as they are for Mookie. I guess it might depend on if they still view Pham as a CF.
  3. Bertz
    The Fangraphs readership thinks KB has more trade value. That certainly doesn't mean he actually does, but it's not just Cub fan bias to think he would: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/ranking-the-trade-value-of-nolan-arenado-mookie-betts-kris-bryant-and-francisco-lindor/
  4. Bertz
    That's a pretty strong package. I wonder if that's straight up for Mookie or with an additional contract heading to LAD.
  5. Bertz
    The Phillies and Nationals are both still realistic options as well. That said I think at this point it's ultimately going to come down to the Dodgers. I think they're going to do something big, and the question is whether that's Betts or Bryant. If they go Betts I'd imagine the Cubs send Quintana somewhere like Anaheim to get under the cap and reevaluate the KB situation in July.
  6. Bertz
  7. Bertz
    By Fangraphs WAR, Strop is the 4th best Cubs reliever of all time. And considering his consistency and longevity I'd bump him up over the current #3 in Marmol.
  8. Bertz
    https://twitter.com/No_Little_Plans/statuses/1222904968400769024
  9. Bertz
    Right, I believe if they pick up his option, it's a 1/15 deal for LT purposes. So I have the team about $10M under if they pick it up, and $25M under if they dont. I used fairly rough arb numbers though so it's purely directional. Ah, I'm saying the CBT burden if they pick it up is 25 and 0 if they don't. That's why Rizzo's burden is 16.5 this year and not 14.5. Gotchya. You might be right, Cole Hamels' contract was pretty analogous and the full value of his option counted against the tax. I thought there was some weird thing where that only happened because we traded for him though, and the Rangers would have been on the hook for less. But we're definitely getting into the weirder more esoteric parts of the CBA at this point. If Jon does count $25M against the CBT next year no way that option is picked up.
  10. Bertz
    With rough arb numbers, I have the team about $10M below the tax next year if they pick up Lester's option, $25M if they don't. Knock both of those down ~$5M going from KB's fourth year of arb to Arenado. I think there's enough upper level pitching in the farm that you can reasonably count on it to fill one of the empty rotation spots. But then yeah you probably deal Contreras to fill one of the others. That in turn opens up another 7-8 mil, so you've got at least $10M to fill out the margins of the roster regardless of the Lester decision. If PTR is fine resetting the penalties next year (which honestly I doubt) next offseason is a much cleaner one for getting under. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I don't think they have any CBT responsibility for Lester if they don't exercise the option. That 10 million has been part of the 155 million guaranteed, and why his CBT number this year(and the 5 years prior) is 25.8 million and not less than that. Right, I believe if they pick up his option, it's a 1/15 deal for LT purposes. So I have the team about $10M under if they pick it up, and $25M under if they dont. I used fairly rough arb numbers though so it's purely directional.
  11. Bertz
    If you assume you need to cover 10 million you didn't before, then you have Lester, Quintana, and Chatwood freeing up close to 50 million in CBT payroll. You can probably fill those spots for a fair amount less than 40 million. You can also finally pull the trigger on trading Schwarber or Contreras for further breathing room against arb increases(though those 2 and Baez are the only significant increases). With rough arb numbers, I have the team about $10M below the tax next year if they pick up Lester's option, $25M if they don't. Knock both of those down ~$5M going from KB's fourth year of arb to Arenado. I think there's enough upper level pitching in the farm that you can reasonably count on it to fill one of the empty rotation spots. But then yeah you probably deal Contreras to fill one of the others. That in turn opens up another 7-8 mil, so you've got at least $10M to fill out the margins of the roster regardless of the Lester decision. If PTR is fine resetting the penalties next year (which honestly I doubt) next offseason is a much cleaner one for getting under.
  12. Bertz
    I'm not positive, but I believe when you send money in a trade, it's applied to the year(s) the money is received, not amortized over the life of the deal. So if, say, they did a 1 for 1 deal where all of the money the Rockies kicked in (let's say $25M) was in year one. that would get the Cubs under the tax this year rather than simply lowering Arenado from a $32M AAV guy to a $29M AAV guy. Realistically though, I would imagine that if Arenado becomes a Cub it would have to be next winter or maybe at the deadline. But who knows, Theo did the Nomar deal and the Jason Bay/Manny Ramirez switcheroo so he's got it in him.
  13. Bertz
    I don't think I understand this idea... Let's say you have a guy who hits FA with 6 years and 120 days, where 180 is the cutoff. This guy has 2/3s of an extra year of service, so his club would owe him 2/3s of the AAV of his next contract (e.g. $10M on a $15M AAV contract) Like TT said it's far more complicated of a solution than the problem requires, but it'd be amongst the most fair and equitable.
  14. Bertz
  15. Bertz
    This will never happen, but an interesting alternative
  16. Bertz
    Couldnt they just lower the number of days it would take to get your first year of service time? Teams do this because they rationalize that being without that player for 2 weeks at the beginning of the season is not that bad. If they had to wait until May 15th to call that player up, I'm guessing that would be less tempting for a team looking to contend. That would definitely help a lot (and is the more realistic solution), but small market teams like the Rays hold guys down until the Super 2 deadline just to save money in arbitration, so we'd still see it to an extent.
  17. Bertz
    I think what I'd like to see to address this ugliness is MLB moving away from service time being measured in days. Have it be a binary thing like a minor league option, where if you appear in an MLB game in a given season that's a year of service time. Maybe you add some additional carveouts for like September callups and injury rehabs, but broad-strokes I think that's the solution that fixes the issue without completely turning the system on its head.
  18. Bertz
    It's going to understandably get buried given the news this morning but I highly recommend this piece from Sharma on the bullpen:
  19. Bertz
  20. Bertz
    The 40-man is at 39. They snuck Pelham through waivers the other day. I think Underwood doesn’t make it through spring and would guess one of the horsefeathers against the wall guys takes his spot. I also think Ryan is a likely lock to make the pen. Ah, I meant to have Ryan in there as a lock with Wick (you can tell from how awkwardly worded that sentence is 8-[ ). But yeah like Brian said it's 39 before Souza and Jeffress, so someone has to go. I'd guess Underwood as the worst combination of expendable and lacking minor league options, but it could be someone else. I also wonder if we're about to see a Q trade, and that the team is finally spending money because they finally know exactly how much they have available.
  21. Bertz
    Jeffress projects to a 3.54 ERA via ZiPS and a 4.24 ERA via Steamer. I'm not any more worried about his performance than I would be any other non-star reliever. That being said this is a slightly weird fit in that it basically eliminates the minor league optionability of the bullpen. We now have: Kimbrel Jeffress Sadler Underwood Mills Megill Locked into the roster for contract reasons, and Wick as locks for the start of the season for performance reasons. Now, none of these guys save Kimbrel would be all that painful to get rid of, but it seems weird given the "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" nature of the pen to not really have an ability to shuttle guys back and forth. There's also Hultzen and Morrow, who once they're up they have to stay up. I wonder if Underwood is about to get DFAd. That would also address the 40 man issue at hand (once Souza's official the roster is at 41).
  22. Bertz
    I'm wondering if this, Souza, and the Gennett rumor all in succession means they have more clarity on their salary commitments for the year. We should probably expect a trade (Q?) soon.
  23. Bertz
  24. Bertz
    So the union is just stupid then. Not *just* stupid, but I'd say moreso selfish and short sighted. They sold minor leaguers and amateurs down the river for things like an extra seat on bus and plane rides and an extra chef in the clubhouse before games. But then things like the Qualifying Offer and the Luxury Tax were pure stupidity.
  25. Bertz
    Sounds like the Reds are probably done, at least with big moves.
×
×
  • Create New...