Rcal10

Don’t put me in the camp that’s conditioned to believe Jed won’t sign a long term deal for the right person. That is it what I am saying. But I am in the camp that does not believe Jed would trade for a 1 year rental unless he had a very good idea what the player wanted and was comfortable providing that sort of deal to the player. If the Cubs did trade for a rental like Tucker or Vlad or even a high end pitcher in the last year of his deal, I would be shocked if they did not also extend that player. Whether it took 2 weeks or 2 months after the trade, I would expect an extension. And I doubt they would trade for someone without knowing they could sign him. I mean it goes against everything Jed has done up until now and what he is still suggesting. Long term sustained success. If he doesn’t think he could sign a guy long term I would expect him to do more trades for guys with years left on deals. Guys like Rooker(of course, why would the A’s trade him), maybe O’Hoppe, Schmidt, Gore, a pitcher on Seattle, etc….. I am sure there are several others that fit. Keep in mind, my take on trading for rentals doesn’t matter. As you said, the cost will be based on them only having one year left. So you don’t have to give up as much as you would if they had several years left. I get that. But so far, anyway, Jed has stayed away from a big trade for a one year rental. So, IMO, it is his take. Maybe he proves me wrong?

Then I guess I wouldn’t want to trade for Vlad or Tucker, then. Not if they aren’t almost certain they can get a deal done, because they know what he wants and are comfortable giving him what he wants, And I am pretty sure it would be a barrier to this FO too. If Jed has been consistent with one theme, it has been long term sustained success. I would be shocked if he decided to trade for a rental without pretty much knowing he could get an extension done. They didn’t do it last off season with Alonso or a few others, and I wouldn’t expect them to do it this year either.

This is true. But, I certainly would hope they know what a guy would take to not go to free agency and know they are comfortable going to that place before making a trade. And then lock him up long term, soon after they trade for him. And if they don’t pretty much know they can get him locked in, I would rather not trade for a one year rental.

Well that escalated quickly. Kind of uncalled for. But whatever. Have a good day biitner.

Agree on Vlad. Love to have him. But any deal to get a big addition with only 1 year left in his deal has to come with an extension. If not, I don’t want the Cubs to give up solid minor league assets for one year of any player. That goes for Vlad, Tucker, or any high end pitcher who might be on his last year. Fine with trading for any of them, but they need them signed long term.

So in order to not have to explain every time why a team would want to make a trade why not just realize people are just bringing up ideas or wishes for a trade. Obviously no one knows what another team is thinking. As long as someone doesn’t suggest something like Otahi for Mastrobuoni why not just allow people to make suggestions. In the case of Seattle, they have an all mright handed staff. They also have a bad offense. So why wouldn’t they want to trade from a strength to add to a weakness? Also, we are talking about a team run by Dipino. He does, at times, do some unorthodox things. Just like when Cuzi brought up Schmidt. No one said. Why would they want to take a chance on a rookie bat when they can just buy a bat, why do we question the other team FO and what they might do. This is the off season. We are going to hear a lot of ideas and a lot of wants. It is also just fans talking. Bottom line is we don’t know what the Xhbs plan iA, let alone any other team. So maybe just listen to ideas instead of questioning why a team would do something.

Did you purposely leave out my next sentence when quoting me? I said maybe they would dump his salary to then add a FA bat. Same as what you said. When I said they might not care to dump salary I was referring to the the team bottom line total salary.

Castillo would be an interesting move. He isn’t cheap, but probably can still be an effective starter ahead of Taillon. And as you said, shouldn’t cost as much in the way if trading minor league assets. Not sure the Mariners would care so much about dumping salary, but they do have 4 other very good starters. So maybe that is something they would consider if they could then use that salary savings to sign a FA bat. I wouldn’t expect them to eat much of his salary, which is fine as long as the asset we dealt back was a lottery ticket. The more they eat if his salary the bigger the asset we have to send back.

Along the same lines, would Seattle be interested in Cassie? Probably can’t get Miller or Woo unless the package was expanded. But what about Kirby?

I like Schmidt. He would be a good option. Might not have to spend big on a starter if they brought him in. That would allow them to use a lot of dollars to add to offense and maybe the pen.

I realize what will bring a player to Chicago is offering the most money. PERIOD! I also realize the Cubs FO hasn’t proven they will provide the most money for ELITE talent, up until now. But they are in the best position they have been in for a long time. Prospects are probably at max value. They team is decent as is. No bad contracts of any consequence. They have money, especially if Bellinger opts out. And Jed is on the last year of his deal. The time is now to put up or shut up. As for your criticism on Hoyer and Ricketts, I don’t agree with that. If the Cubs make the best offer in a trade or offer a FA the best deal, no one in baseball is going to tell them no because they view them as used car salesman. While I agree with you that playing in Wrigley and in Chicago isn’t going to sell a FA, if the mkneh isn’t there, I don’t think it will be a deterrent if the money is there. to be clear, I am not suggesting I like Hoyer or Ricketts, I am saying industry wide, in the world of the mlb, I doubt they are viewed as terrible people to play for.

Well said.

Well if you read comments prior to my posts you would have seen Vlad mentioned as a trade possibility. Of course I didn’t see a smart ass comment after that. However then someone posted the issue they had with trading for Vlad was he was a right handed bat and he wanted a lefty. Bertz suggested that was a concern for him as well. Since most of the talk about a big bat being added via trade centered around Vlad, Tucker and Rooker, with some also adding Robert, I light heartedly mentioned if you want a lefty go get Tucker. Problem solved. This wasn’t meant to be some great trade proposal. It was just a throw away comment using the one lefty bat people have commented on previously. And as Cuzi pointed out, the reason the Astros might be willing to move him is due to a possible payroll situation. I never said it was a slam dunk. Never said it was easy peezy. Just talking Cubs baseball.

I don’t know if he would want one or not. I just wouldn’t want that to be the line in the sand the Cubs put down if they actually had a chance to sign him. I wouldn’t be interested if he wanted it after the first 2 years, but after year 3 (maybe) or 4 (definitely)I wouldn’t have a problem with it. The issue isn’t will he want one. You may be right. He might not want one. He might use it as leverage to get something else. This isn’t a decision on if he would demand one. It is a discussion on if he did demand one should the Cubs drop out of the bidding for him. I would much rather get Soto for 4 years in his absolute prime than not at all.

Yes. But if they deal for Cease they would have to sign him, or don’t deal for him. My apologies for leaving that out. And, also, before biitner criticized the idea and asks if SD is fine with him not in the rotation, it goes without saying that no trade idea is a slam dunk. Obviously you need a partner to make a trade. All anyone ever does here is make suggestions and obviously it is much easier to suggest a trade than to actually make it happen. But SD does have some high salaries on their team and some solid pitchers. So IF they didn’t think they could sign Cease long term, and they felt they had enough pitching without him, maybe he would be available.

I never suggesting trading for Tucker was a slam dunk. I was just pointing out if people had an issue with targeting Vlad because he is right handed, the Cubs could look to Houston to see what they want for Tucker. We have talked about adding a big bat here for some time now. Soto has been mentioned as a FA and Vlad and Tucker have been mentioned as a trade. Of course it won’t be easy to get it done. But neither would trading for Vlad or signing Soto..

How about Cease in the last year of his deal? Castillo for 3 more years. These are a few other options, depending on costs. Of course I would love Logan Gilbert or maybe another young pitcher in the Mariners as well. But Castillo cost less.

Ok, Bellinger opts out and they trade for Tucker instead of Vlad. Problem solved. Again, have to sign him long term though.

Don’t see the downside of having him and him maybe leaving after 4 years, but guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I would love Belli to opt out and the Cubs trade for Vlad. But similar to the Soto discussion, I wouldn’t want Vlad for one year. They would have to extend him. Don’t like the idea of trading Nico and moving Busch to second, however. Without Belli, Vlad, Busch or Parades can DH.

Coming in hot? No. Sorry if it sounded that way. I actually think we agree. Changing coaches is no big deal. Maybe I misread your response.

And you got this take by the Cubs letting go of some coaches? Can’t it be the contracts were up and Counsell wants to bring some of his own guys in? I have never heard the FO say these guys did anything wrong and now that they are gone we can put better coaches on the staff. That this was the missing piece they were looking for. Teams change coaches often. It really isn’t a big deal.

Disagree if it is year 1. Even after year 2, I wouldn’t do it. Once it gets to 3 maybe it would be considered, but rather it be year 4. I don’t want him for 1 year. It can’t be one and done.

Great idea. Then when he gets it from another team the Cubs fan base will be all over Jed because he let a stupid clause in the contract not allow the Cubs to have Soto for AT LEAST 4 years. Is not having him at all better than having him for at least 4 years? Even in your scenario where he leaves and the Cubs have to restructure the team after he is gone, isn’t that where they are now if they don’t sign him? If he left after 4 years don’t they then have whatever money was earmarked for him available after that time? I totally understand not liking opt outs. But to have it be a deal breaker is not acceptable.

Look, all I am saying is if he had to have one that wouldn’t be the deal breaker. What is your option? They don’t sign him? So they don’t get 4 great years because of a possibility he MIGHT leave at 30 years old to get a better deal? Honestly, if he stuck to having to have this, you wouldn’t want them to put it in the contract rather than lose him for the 4 years they could have him?