Rcal10

I think LA has an advantage because of a huge Japanese population there. Also, all the glamour and glitz of Hollywood. New York gets that same advantage IMO. That is what the players in Japan know best about the US. It also didn’t hurt those two teams that they played in the World Series this year. And LA has Ohtani and Yamamoto being in the rotation next year. I can completely understand why the Dodger would be the favorites to land him.

Thanks. That is fair. But I do think the Mariners could still use Bellinger and the Cubs can use Castillo. At least enough to make those two the main pieces in a deal.

Just curious, how much sense does a Bellinger for Castillo trade make, straight up. Both have a similar salary. Both underperformed a bit. But both make some sense for the team they are traded too. Is that fair? Does something else need to be added somewhere? Would Castillo excite some Cubs fans as a guy better than Taillon and a top 2 or 3 in the rotation? Maybe they do that and trade for Lowe? Or think bigger and go with Tucker or even Vlad.

True. But the problem I have with mid market pitchers is some come with a QO. I don’t see the Cubs giving Pivetta, Eovaldi, or even Manaea a 2 or 3 year deal and lose a couple picks in the draft. If Flaherty is considered mid market, I can see him and, of course, Kikuchi.

Hoyer gets a lot of grief from the fanbase, mostly justified. But, tbh, he does a good job selling Chicago to the Japanese market. He may not get Sasaki, but I do have faith he will do a good job recruiting him. Cubs treat the Japanese players they do get very well. That goes a long way. And, again, Hoyer has something to do with that as well.

I think geography gets overstated most times. I agree with you on factors like branding, marketability, team fit and team culture are imporrant. I also feel the cities Japanese population plays a large part in the decision making. I think that is why LA is so appealing to Japanese players. Plus they are a major market in Japan as well. I really don’t feel being a few hours closer, via plane, makes that big a difference. How often do players fly home during a season? Besides that all players start the season in either Arizona or Florida. I guess family traveling from Japan to see the player could mean something. However I think it is far lower in the level of importance than a players comfort day to day.

It not a done deal. But IMO the Dodgers have better than a 50/50 chance of getting him. Cubs are probably the second most likely (they have done a good job with recruiting Japanese players), but that still probably gives them about a 20% chance. This is not a signing that money will factor in. Cubs do have a chance, but I wouldn’t count on it.

I get it. But I don’t think you need to trade them all to build a winner the next few years. With trades and FA signings you can build a good team and still have some top end prospects. I would agree everyone is available in the right deal. I just wouldn’t trade everyone. I don’t think k there is enough guys on the trade market for the Cubs to blow through all their high end prospects. Plus you might want to keep a few around to fill a spot and/or to be used as trade bait at the deadline.

I am not quite on the trade all prospects bus, but I do agree they should be trading prospects for major league talent. And I also agree using the 2015-2016 team as an example of why you keep prospects is foolish. I am sure we can find many examples of it not working like that. You don’t keep prospects because 1 time it worked not trading them versus 15-20 times it doesn’t work.

Him doing what ownership wants him to do is no different than any employee doing what his boss wants him to do. Deviating from what your boss wants you to do gets you fired in all types of work. No different in baseball. In fact, the reason Jed has the job is because he agreed to do what ownership wants him to do to build a team.

Three things here. First, I am not talking about extending anyone. Honestly haven’t even thought of that and never talked about it. I am talking about not trading major league talent and replacing it with minor league talent this off season. I don’t think you just trade Happ or Suzuki and assume a minor leaguer will fill in for them and be just as good. Second, I agree that more of the same is not ideal. But even bringing back the 9 guys who played most games at the end of the year is not more of the same from MOST of 23’. This year they have Parades and PCA all year. They have a more established Busch. Those 9 guys, when playing together won at a 90 win pace. I know, small sample. I also agree with that. But that is why you get a front line starting pitcher to replace Hendricks starts. You improve the pen. They bring in another catcher to either share time with Amaya, or take over the job. They add a solid utility/ semi regular infielder who bats left handed and strengthen the bench. That takes an 83 win team to a 90+ win team. Maybe add a right handed bat better than Wisdom to the bench. Between prospects and money they can spend there is no reason they can’t add enough through trades and FA to be that team. IMO now is not the time to get rid of good players and replace them with minor leaguers. That is all I am saying. And finally, the Cubs aren’t missing out on big name free agents because they have other guys signed already. They are missing out because the FO and ownerships philosophy of building a team does not include giving guys a contract of more than 7 years. Big time FA want to be paid until their later 30’s to even early 40’s.

I get your plan. I just think too often people suggest trading good players and replacing them with minor league players and assume that minor league player is going to be successful instantly. And that that player will be every bit as good as the guy he replaced at a 1st year salary. Replacing guys like Happ, Suzuki, Hoerner, and even Parades with Alcantara, Cassie, Shaw and Triantos would turn this team into a 70 win team. And I realize you aren’t suggesting trading all of those guys. This is just an extreme example. IMO the Cubs are pretty close to being that 90 win team they are shooting for. Replacing Hendricks with a solid starter, having Paredes and PCA all year, adding solid catcher, a pen arm or two and maybe strengthening the bench get them to a 90 win team. Between prospects and money they can spend, they can do all of that. For me, rather than trading Happ or Suzuki(who both have NTC anyway) and replacing them with a prospect, use those prospects to bring back someone like one of the Seattle pitchers or Crochet. Maybe a solid starting catcher. Maybe a solid left handed hitting bat who can play the infield. Maybe a bench bat or pen arm. Not all of those things via trade. Don’t trade all the minor league talent. Keep some to hopefully take over in a year or two. But they can use 3 or 4 of their top 10 prospects along with a few more between 11-30 to add a few solid pieces via trade. That plus spending on a few guys through FA and using the minor league talent they keep to filter into the majors could make this a very good team and still have talent to replace guys in a few years.

So your plan is to bring players along until they are good and then trade them and replace them with prospects who may or may not be good. Probably will not be good for at least a few years, if ever. And then once they get good I assume you trade them too? And the reason to do this is to cut payroll so you can add quality players as free agents. The problem with that is usually you pay for past performance with free agents and actually overpay. The other problem with that is you are signing free agentd onto a bad team. So maybe you take a 70-75 win team with Cassie and Alcantara in the outfield and by adding a few decent free agents turning it into 77-83 win team. Your plan is what small market teams have to do. And sometimes they get lucky and hit on young talent. It isn’t something the Cubs should do, IMO. I just feel this plan is a plan to constantly kick the can down the road to becoming a good team. You put way too much faith in young talent. Happ and Suzuki are not easily replaced.

I doubt Morosi is just making stuff up. I am sure what he says is something he heard. The problem is that doesn’t mean a trade is imminent. And then when nothing happens you have people suggesting he made stuff up. I would guess 90% of what is talked about doesn’t happen. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t discussed. Doesn’t not mean Morosi or any other reporter was just throwing horsefeathers against the wall.

That’s fair. But you do have to factor in the team they would be trading with, too. I think TB is far more likely to trade Lowe than Houston is to trade Tucker. And as I said, I was responding to thawv when I wrote what I wrote. And he already eliminated Tucker. Tucker would obviously be a bigger upgrade. But keeping him around would be a huge financial commitment, after 25. Lowe, not nearly as much.

Agreed. Add a young pitcher by using some minor league talent. Then they still have a good chuck of money to add other needs.

Honestly, for me, everyone is available. I am not suggesting depleting the system. I am saying there is no one guy I know of that I feel strong enough to have to keep. The Cubs might have one, and I understand that. I just don’t know enough about the way the Cubs view any particular prospect and I am not a scout or deep into the team to have a strong opinion of any one prospect. I just know this is a good year to trade some of those assets for proven talent. I don’t expect their value to be higher than it is now. And now is also the time where adding a proven major league talent via trade should be used as a tool to get this team from an 83 win team to a 90+ win team. Not the only tool. But at least a part of the plan.

I would love Tucker. But while some do project what they think Jed would do, based on his past, you tend to ignore it, all together, and act like NOW he will start being aggressive. As for Langeliers, he is just an option. Could be O’Hoppe, could be a guy that splits time with Amaya. Langiers does add power to the team, however. As for the last bat, you mentioned filling it from within, which is fine. But the Cubs can do that with a Lowe trade as well. Really all I was trying to do was show thawv how they can add another bat and still have money to add elsewhere. He already suggested not seeing how it could be done with Tucker. That is why I used Lowe. As I said, I love Tucker. I just see that far less likely. Yes, they can do it with him, but IMO he is far less likely an option.

I agree it won’t be Tucker. His salary will be too high, it is only 1 year before he hits free agency, he probably should play 155 games, the Astros probably won’t trade him, and he might cost too much in minor league assets. But why not Lowe? He cost $10M this year and the Cubs would have an option for him in 26. He fills in for Nico now. He is similar to the players he would be mixing with. So playing 140 games works for him. And he is on a team who is known to trade guys around this time. If the Cubs did make a trade for one of the Seattle starters or Crochet, there is plenty of money to add a $10M bat. Honestly they would still have enough money to add someone like Tanner Scott for the pen, keep Tauchman as the 5th outfielders and add a catcher by trade or free agency. All that would be left is picking up a right handed bat for the bench and maybe another pen arm. depending on how aggressive Jed wants to be with prospect trades he could deal for Langeliers and get a catcher cheap too. Which, even keeping Tauchman and spending big on the pen arm, he would have roughly $20M for a right handed bench bat and maybe another pen arm. Even if my numbers are of some and they don’t have $20M, we are talking about adding the last bat on the team and maybe a pen arm. There would be enough money for that. We are also talking about adding Scott. They could cut some cost there too and get a different lefty for less. Point is, if they do fill the rotation with a cheaper, young, controlled starting pitcher via trade they do have money to use to add aggressively elsewhere. I agree that most likely this doesn’t happen. All I am trying to show is that with something like this you can play 9 guys at 8 positions effectively. You don’t need a set line up for 155-160 games a year.

You are using Tucker, which is fine. But IMO, if the did something like this someone like Lowe would be more likely. He cost less in salary and assets and with him the platoon can be 9 guys for 8 positions. With Tucker it would only be 6 guys for 5 positions. Yes, Tucker is clearly a better player, but he is not typically someone Jed goes with. Lowe fits the entire Cubs team. Good, not great talent. Which, to me, makes him way more probable. Plus, if you trade for Lowe, technology they can just keep Tauchman for the bench too. So all they would need is a right handed bench bat and a catcher. Bench bat can play anywhere.

I agree with you Tucker. I think he will cost too mich in in the way of assets and salary. And he is actually too good. He should play everyday. But if the Cubs added Lowe, his salary doesn’t hurt too much, especially if they trade some prospects for a starting pitcher. And his asset cost shouldn’t be too high since he is in the last year of his deal. He would also give infielders a day off as well as outfielders. Lowe can DH from time to time. Which would allow one of the 4 outfielders a day off.

Interesting that the Mariners and Cubs seem to match up pretty well. I know people hate to give up prospects. But would Shaw+ be something anyone would be willing to deal for either Gilbert, Kirby, Miller or Woo? It would give the Cubs a controlled pitcher for at least 2 years and maybe as many as 5, depending on who they got. It would also be giving them a pitcher better than Taillon for not a lot of money. Again, depending on who they got, he could be very cheap. Maybe this would allow the Cubs to think bigger for the lefty pen and and think of Scott. And they would still have money to improve the bench as well as the catchers position. If the Cubs could get one of the Seattle pitchers or Crochet for a few prospects it does open up possibilities to spend money elsewhere.

The Cubs😬

Doing well thawv. Hope you are too. Now, back to baseball. No one is suggesting Mastrobuoni or Wisdom should be added to the 8 non catching regulars the Cubs have now. People are talking about Lowe or Tucker. If the Cubs added one of those guys who are the best 8. What 8 should play 155 games and who should only play 50 games. In reality, even with 9 guys for 8 positions, when you factor in inevitable injuries, guys that are healthy all year from the 9 guys being discussed would probably play 145-150 games anyway. That is more than enough, especially when you have a back up just as good. The best part of this plan, besides giving guys rest, is you always have a starting caliber player on the bench.

Honestly, it is just thawv living in the 60’s and 70’s when you grow up on baseball in that time it is hard for some to let it go. I remember those times too. But that doesn’t mean I still think that is how the game should be played.