Rcal10

Absolutely pitching comes first. Wouldn’t mind seeing Peterson signed so they can go bigger on two others. Or maybe trade either Shaw or Ramirez+ for a starter and then go way big for Skubal. Then figure out what you can spend on a bat. The only issue with that is what to do with Happ? They have to decide on a QO or not before then. Which could lessen the money spent on pitching, if Happ takes the QO.

Probably true about Bauers. But he is something to keep an eye on. The numbers you have him for are close to what I would expect the Cubs to consider. If he is trending in the low end of your estimate he could be a guy to sign.

Bauers wouldn’t be instead of Busch. He would be DH, play some corner outfield and also some first base against left hands pitching. And, off of last year alone, he is a big upgrade over Busch, if they wanted to play him at first and trade Busch. But best to have them both in the line up.

So O’Hearn would compare more to Happ, with Happ playing better defense? So does Happ get 2/$37M as a platoon bat who also plays good defense? If Bauers gets into the 4 or 5 year deal at $17M to $20M annual he would be a pass.

So I was thinking of him similar to what Ryan O’Hearn got. 2/$29. Maybe even first year at $14 with a player opt out and a second year at $15M or $1M buyout. O’Hearn wasn’t coming off as good a season as Bauers just had, but his success with the bat was a little longer. Maybe even add a 3rd year option similar to the first one he had. He would be guaranteed $44M but could also opt out after year one or two.

I completely understand the players not wanting it. I never questioned that. My skepticism is in the owners trying to have us believe 23 of them would agree to a cap/floor revenue sharing salary cap. I appreciate your explanation of how they might.

Would they get 23 votes? I assume you agree the higher revenue teams wouldn’t like to share and drop to $90M in revenues. So they would be against it. Then, the low earning teams, even getting $90M instead of what they normally get in their own revenues and from the luxury tax, would they want to have to go to $190M for team payroll. I don’t think several teams would want that. The total payroll of the 3 non Dodger teams in the playoffs is $364M. Would any of them want to have to spend $190M?

To me this whole cap/floor idea the owners are said to be for is all nonsense to get other things. I just don’t see lower spending teams agreeing to a floor. And if there is a cap there has to be a floor. Even if the owners wanted a cap of $270M, what would the floor be? I would guess it should be at least 70% of the cap? At that, then floor is almost $190M. Does anyone honestly believe the small market owners are going to want to have a payroll of $190M? I certainly don’t. Also, with a cap/floor I would imagine there wouldn’t be luxury tax given to lower market teams. There shouldn’t be any luxury tax since in a cap no kne can go over. But also, there shouldn’t be any different rules to give lower spending teams extra picks in the draft, or more IFA money or any other advantage they get. All teams should play by the same rules. Again, why would small market teams want that. Then on the other side of the argument, do we really believe the high revenue teams really want full revenue sharing? Do they really want to spread their revenues around the league, evenly? The whole idea from the owners POV doesn’t make any sense to me. I know a lot of guys know way more than me in this, so maybe what I am saying doesn’t make sense. But could someone(maybe cubinNY) explain why a salary cap with any floor and ceiling and revenue sharing would be something enough owners would get behind.

I see him as someone who can play a little left field, play some first base and DH. He also hit righties as well as lefties, which is where he differs from Conforto. Also means he can play 1st against a tough lefty. Something else Conforto can’t do. That said, if he is going to cost $16M-$20M annual and for 4 years, I would possibly move on from him. As you said, he did it one year. If his offers are cheaper because teams want to see more years of solid offense or if he wanted a one year deal to prove he can do it again to get a better deal the next year, I would like him. Basically, if it came down to him or Ward and the same salary, I would go with the left handed bat of Bauers.

I get it. There is also the “So Cub” reason not to do it. Meaning he becomes a Cub and goes back to sucking. But, I am staying away from those narratives. Just looking at strictly who is available and at what cost. Have to stop viewing the Brewers as lucky and somehow having the ability to sprinkle pixie dust over a player and make him good. Also have to stop caring like every time the Cubs do something it is wrong. Just focus on the player, period. Brewers didn’t do any magic with Bauers. They may have done something to fix him, but it isn’t magic. He can carry over his newfound ability to a new team.

They can do what you are suggesting. And it does make sense. But I don’t think there is an “obvious” right call for how to move forward.

Absolutely. Need to get that done asap.

I am starting to like the idea of Bauers for the Cubs. He would have to be the DH, but at least it adds a bat. He shouldn’t cost that much. Maybe similar to Ward. And actually his splits are solid against left handed pitching. So even though he is a left handed bat, he can play 1st when they want to sit Busch against a lefty. I know Jason brought him up a few days ago. I would rather go with him then Ward.

Still not seeing Ward at 108, same as Happ. I see Ward at 102, Happ at 107 and Suzuki at 134, wRC+. That said, I guess I am just not a fan of Ward. I would rather just put Shaw out there and save some money. Use it for pitching. Or, trade Shaw for an outfielder who would be more value than Ward. TBH, not looking forward to many of the options I am seeing for COF.

I don’t know where to find the wRC+ you are showing. I didn’t think they were the same. But OPS+ is definitely Ward at 94, which is bad. We don’t need another bat in the line up less than league average. He would be an awful Suzuki replacement unless someone expects a bounce back year after a terrible season at 32 years old. Considering it doesn’t appear many people think Happ can do that, I’m not sure why anyone would think Ward can. I’m just not interested in spending money on a guy clearly inferior to Happ and Suzuki. He will probably still cost $10M and is a huge drop off from Seiya. I realize Happ might have to platoon more than ever before, but at least on the strong side of the platoon he had a very solid year. Ward wasn’t strong anywhere. I know this isn’t Ward versus Happ or Suzuki. I’m just saying, I am not interested in Ward. I would hope they can do better, regardless of what happens with Happ or Seiya.