Rcal10
-
Posts
7,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
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
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Rcal10
-
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.
-
Cubs Planning To Add Starting Pitcher In Offseason
Rcal10 replied to Matthew Lenz's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
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..
-
Cubs Planning To Add Starting Pitcher In Offseason
Rcal10 replied to Matthew Lenz's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
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?
-
I agree with everything you just said. The opt out never benefits the team. I also agree it is seldom offered. That said, if Soto had to have one, as long as it was not after the first 3 years of the contract, I would give it to him. How does it hurt the team either way? If he is a super signing that means they get 4 great years out of him. And he leaves. Ok, fine. If he doesn’t leave, than the opt out didn’t hurt the team. I think the opt out issue is how soon it comes in a contract, not the opt out, itself. I agree that if it is after year 1 or 2, no way. Not very comfortable with year 3 either, but if other things are written into the contract, like deferred money, that keeps the contract at a “reasonable” salary towards the cap space and because of that Soto wants the option to leave, I might be ok with after 3 years. All I am saying is it wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me as long as it isn’t after every year and it doesn’t come in until after year 4, (maybe 3).
-
I honestly don’t think he will need even that much. I think he opts out if he can get a 5 year deal at $100M. Maybe even something like 6/$116. If he opts out he get $2.5M. So if you add that to the next contract he would be close to or just over a $20M average. And it is guaranteed. I think he would take that and I think he can get that.
