Jump to content
The trade deadline is two days away, and 78 of our top 80 are still on the board. Click here to stay up-to-date! ×
North Side Baseball

Rcal10

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,328

  • 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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Rcal10

  1. Rcal10
    Yep, that seems much closer. And your 4/$96 is more more like what I am used to seeing from you👍. It is also where I would call the highest I would be interested in too. I don’t want Alonso for more than 4. And, personally I don’t think he is an upgrade to Bellinger. Sure, he will hit more homers. But that is it. Bellinger helps other ways.
  2. Rcal10
    Honestly, with or without Bellinger they weren’t going after Soto. And spending $1M on a back up catcher is hardly a big deal. And, he might not even be on the major league roster,’so he would only make $400,000.
  3. Rcal10
    I am shocked that you think he will get that much. Through the years you have been notoriously low on what you expect people to get. And now you are outrageous high. There is no chance in hell Alonso get $180M. If he holds out for that he will be the 2024 version of Chapman and Bellinger. I think the absolute high end for him would be 6/$150M. And I wouldn’t want the Cubs to do it. Anything more than 4/$100M is too much for my liking.
  4. Rcal10
    But how is trading for Crochet and then adding someone like Bieber aiming for mediocre? Even signing Eovaldi and Bieber is better than giving the #5 spot to Assad all year. Not sure I understand your POV. Sure, I would love Snell, Fried or Nurnes. Love if they were in Soto too. But it is their choice to not be. So how do we get to 80 wins?
  5. Rcal10
    I think Alonso would be a terrible signing if any more than 3 to 4 years.
  6. Rcal10
    But don’t you still need Flaherty or Eovaldi too? He said if they salary dump Bellinger. Not if they trade him for someone like Castillo.
  7. Rcal10
    I’m fine with this. Kind of what I was talking about. Get a solid pitcher (doesn’t have to be Crochet) and then add Bieber. That works for me.
  8. Rcal10
    I don’t think they will add 2. Maybe 1 solid guy and then take a flier on someone. Doesn’t mean Assad is in the rotation. Wicks could be instead. Or combined Assad and Wicks. I wouldn’t be mad if Assad isn’t part of the rotation. But I also wouldn’t be upset if he was a spot starter, 5/6 ish guy either.
  9. Rcal10
    Yep, trade. Or there is also Eovaldi they can sign.
  10. Rcal10
    Ok, so you are suggesting that has Bellinger opted out the Cubs could have used that money to shop at the highest end of the pitching market. Fine. That is all you had to say. I don’t think they would have. I think they would have tried replacing his bat. But at least now I understand your point. Just don’t agree, which is fine. I think the plan without Bellinger was one bat, one MOR starter, a pen arm or two, a back up catcher and maybe improve the bench a little. With Bellinger they scrap the idea of the bat. They can still implement the rest of the plan.
  11. Rcal10
    Still don’t follow. I asked you what they would do with the money had it not been Bellinger. I assume it would have went for a different higher priced bat. Assuming that was the case, how does Bellinger costing maybe $10M more than the higher priced bat they brought in, scrap the entire plan? Maybe it means they get Morgan instead of Stephenson. Now they are back to the same amount (roughly) to spend on the rest of the roster. I don’t understand how you take this to mean I assumed the $32M spend would only be spent on Bellinger.
  12. Rcal10
    Where in anything I said do I suggest the $32M spend on Bellinger was only going to be used on Bellinger. I don’t even know what you are talking about. I have no idea the point you are even trying to same with this comment. This is all part of a discussion we are having because you said Bellinger opting in has caused Jed to scrap his entire off season plan. I disagree with that. And I am trying to see why you suggest that. I already acknowledged that I agree Jed would have rather he opted out. I just don’t see him staying changing much, with the exception of he won’t now sign a FA bat or trade for a FA bat that requires a high salary.
  13. Rcal10
    So Bellinger opting out would have cleared out more money and then the Cubs would have went with Cassie in the outfield/DH and not spent that money? Honestly, if that was the plan I am glad he opted in. If you believe, as I do, that had Bellinger opted out the Cubs would have tried replacing him with a similar player in the way of team value, he isn’t costing them $32M they didn’t expect to spend. He is probably costing them $10M, because whoever replaced him would have probably costed that. So instead of spending $10M on a pen arm they make a trade for Morgan. Again, him being here should not blow up the entire off season. Again, I agree Jed would have rather he opted out. But it isn’t nearly as big a deal as you are making it. It isn’t some egregious mistake Jed made. He is overpaying for a solid player. Hardly something to be all that concerned about. I am sure you can find numerous players in every roster in baseball that you can say the same thing about.
  14. Rcal10
    I’m asking you because you suggested Bellinger opting in scrapped all of Jed’s plans. Jed didn’t say that, you did. So what do you think his plan was? I think Bellinger is probably being paid about $10M too much for next year. I just don’t see that as a reason to scrap everything. Like I said, if he opted out maybe the Cubs sign Alonso or Hernandez for $22M a year. So they are starting FA with $10M less. That is basically trading for Morgan instead of signing Stephenson. Now they are back on track with Jed’s plan. Except no one knows what that plan is. I just think you are making way too big a deal about Bellinger being here. I don’t think he is bowing out of the top FA because of Bellinger. I think he was never going for the top end of FA, regardless(with the possible exception of signing someone to replace Bellinger- and that wouldn’t have included Soto). I do agree with you that Jed would have rather Bellinger opted out. But I don’t see it scrapping all plans moving forward.
  15. Rcal10
    I do expect a pitcher to be spotted in ahead of Taillon. And I also still think they will do that. Not sure if it will be via trade or FA. But tbh, after that I am not sure what they will do. Not expecting much.
  16. Rcal10
    What do you think Jed’s plan was without Bellinger? How does him opting in scrap the entire plan? Was the plan to sign a bat? If so, at most, Bellinger opting in cost the Cubs maybe $10M in payroll this year. But takes them off the hook of having to have someone fir 4 years at $22M a year. I would have rather he opted out, but I feel you are making way too much out of Bellinger staying. He isn’t dead weight. He is a solid player.
  17. Rcal10
    Never be surprised at the Cubs not signing someone. Yes, he makes sense. But doesn’t mean they sign him.
  18. Rcal10
    Probably not going to trade Bellinger. I agree with that. Just suggesting if they did, Castillo would be more appropriate. And now Kikuchi is gone. Went to the Angels. My guess is they stay with Bellinger and sign someone like Flaherty or Eovaldi, if they even go that high for a pitcher.
  19. Rcal10
    Yep. And if Bellinger doesn’t exactly fit the Mariners needs they can either trade him to get what they feel they need or trade the guy whose place he takes in the line up to get what they might need. Arozarena would be an example of someone who might be available if the Mariners got Bellinger. Not like Dipito is afraid to shake the team up with trades. As I said, Bohm seems like a target for them and Bellinger makes a lot of sense for Phillies. They are ibviously not the same value. So Mariners can trade Bellinger or Arozarena, plus something else for Bohm. Castillo is much more the type of guy the Cubs should target for Bellinger than Stroman is. And if not, just stay with Bellinger. The deal for Castillo would mean the Cubs would probably pick up another bat via FA. So is Castillo and Teoscar Hernandez better than Kikuchi and Bellinger? Honestly I am not sure. That is why I am fine just keeping Bellinger if they don’t get what they want.
  20. Rcal10
    Isn’t Ron, Coomer?
  21. Rcal10
    I don’t consider getting Castillo, just getting rid of Bellinger. I also don’t feel the prospect should come from the Cubs. If anything, since Seattle is getting the most valuable player in the deal, they would have to kick in a prospect to the Phillies. Cubs get Castillo for Bellinger. Pretty fair. Phillies get Bohm for Castillo. So they have to add to make it fair for the Phillies. Phillies get Bellinger for Bohm. So they need to get more. But more comes from the Mariners. Anything else added would be very small adds, if any.
  22. Rcal10
    Just the fact that one proposal has two opposite responses, one suggesting it is a bad deal for the Cubs and the other saying the Mariners would never do a deal like this, tells me it is probably pretty fair. But to your point, Mariners are looking for infield help. So why not add Phillies and Bohm in this deal? Phillies get Bellinger, who would do well in that park and helps them where they need help, Mariners get Bohm to help their infield, Cubs get Castillo. Add whatever else is needed, either some cash or lower level prospects. Not like the GM’s of both the Phillies and the Mariners are afraid to shake things up.
  23. Rcal10
    What would Flaherty cost for 4 years? If Castillo got them out of Bellinger I still think it is pretty fair. It could be a starting point. Add others and it money one way or the other. And Castillo is really 3/$72M+. The 4th year is $25M vesting IF he throws 180 innings in 2027. Which, if he does, he is probably worth the $25M. So just like Bellinger he is a little overpriced.
  24. Rcal10
    I don’t know. I really think Bellinger for Castillo is pretty fair. Maybe the Cubs add $5M to $6M to the deal to make salaries the same. Then both guys are good players but just not worth their money. Bellinger is an everyday player that bats anywhere 2 thru 6 in a line up and Castillo is a solid #3 pitcher. Fair deal IMI. But if the Cubs had to add anything I wouldn’t tbh knit would be a high end prospect. Maybe someone not in the top 30? But if that did happen are the Cubs better off with Castillo and FA bat, not Soto, or Kikuchi, Flanaagan or Eovaldi and Bellinger. That is what has to be asked.
  25. Rcal10
    For me, if the Cubs were to DUMP Bellinger it would be strictly for salary relief. Maybe save at least $20M of his contract and take little back. Then spend that $20M to $30M to replace his bat. Then with the original money go about their original business. Maybe if they got someone to take the entire contract they could also add a better pen arm via FA with extra money they had beteeen the Bellinger money and the money they pay whoever they sign. But is the team better with Teoscar Hernandez, Alonso, O’Neil or even any other FA they might sign (excluding Soto) instead of Bellinger? Honestly, I’m not sure. But what I am sure about is, I would rather have Bellinger and either Eovaldi or Kikuchi over Stroman and one of the FA bats I mentioned above. Trading Bellinger for Stroman isn’t the proper dumping of Bellinger. It is trading him for a worse, less useful player without gaining enough money to add someone to replace him. Dump to get out of his contract and then spend elsewhere, I get. Not sure I would do it, but I get it. Dump to add a #4 or #5 starter, I don’t get.
×
×
  • Create New...