Rcal10
-
Posts
7,402 -
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
-
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.
-
I just hope they aim higher than a bench left handed bat. With or without Bellinger I want a guy that could be in the line up for 135-140 games (if Bellinger stays, or everyday if he opts out) batting somewhere between 2nd and 6th. And I am fine with them trading whatever they need to do it.
-
2 is a no go. I agree with that. 3 would be a rough one. But after 4 I wouldn’t have a problem. At 4 Soto would be 30. If the Cubs front loaded a deal he might be able to get a better deal after 4 years. I am not saying I like the idea or it will even be needed. All I am saying is if that was the final issue and they put it in after 4 years, I wouldn’t want that to be the sticking point for them to it make the deal. As I said, maybe a front load gets him out after 4. Maybe after 4 his salary drops to $35M a year for 8 more years. He might get better than that. I don’t really know how to structure a contract. Hell, most of us didn’t see the Otani contract coming. Maybe the Cubs can be creative while still giving Soto an option to opt out after 4. Maybe 4 years at $55M a year. 8 years at $35M a year and $100M deferred. Again, I don’t even know if they can do something like this. Not my job to figure this out😀.
-
Or they can trade Cassie and/or Alcantara in a big deal to get an established major leaguer. I honestly don’t understand all the penciling in of prospects that so many people do. I would much rather use them as assets for proven talent.
-
And has anyone paid attention to the pens of those two teams? Any star middle relief arms? And star closers? Or is is just a collection of mainly youngish system guys with maybe a average(ish) middle relief pitcher added to the young guys. In fact the “established, dependable” Astros pen arms (Pressley and Hader) actually blew the game.
-
They probably wanted media attention!
-
I agree that I would rather not have to offer one. But if that was the one thing holding up a deal and it didn’t come in play until after year 4 or 5, I would still hope the Cubs did it. I do understand they issue with it not being great for the team. But if he demands it an some team will give it, I hope it is the Cubs. And as you said, if he does then opt out that means the Cubs got 4-5 great years from him. Count me in on that.
-
I don’t think anyone on the farm is untouchable. If the A’s demanded Shaw in a deal for Rooker and Miller, I would be ok with Shaw going. Same with Mo and Smith. But I agree with you, between money and minor league assets, no reason the FO shouldn’t build a team that should win the central.
-
I wouldn’t let an opt out option, especially any year after 4 years, be the line in the sand if everything else was agreed upon. No issue at all with giving Soto an opt out if that is what got the deal none. But not before 4 years.
-
Maybe Snell if he opts out. I agree they most likely won’t go the QO route, but if they did, I would think it would be for Burnes over Fried.
-
Maybe one ahead of Taillon than another like Nick Martinez. A guy that could pitch in the pen or the rotation.
-
I could see 2 in this scenario. But I don’t see 2 to spear the season with Taillon as a 5.
-
To be honest, I am surprised he is good at blocking balls.
-
The last sentence was spot on. It doesn’t matter.
-
Agreed. I definitely do not see 2 starters added. I can see one who would be counted on to be better than Taillon and push Taillon to 4th starter. To start the season I can see Assad as the 5. But they will also have other options if/when healthy. Wicks, Horton, Brown, Wesneski, etc….. Maybe is Bellinger stays they will focus mainly on the pitching. Get a solid starter and add 2 “dependable” pen arms. Add someone to share time with Amaya or swing bigger for A’s or Angels catcher. Stengthen the bench, and go with the line up they used since Parades came around. I know fans don’t want to hear this, but since Paredes came around the offense was too 8 in baseball, even with playing half their games in Wrigley. I would think that very well could be the case next year with PCA having 400 AB under him now, Busch a full year in the majors, Amaya getting more acclimated to the majors and a full year of Parades.
-
This has to be one of the least consequential discussion we have had in a long time. And that says a lot. It went from “who cares” (where it should have stayed) into some conspiracy by the Cubs to get publicity or to make an excuse for not winning this year. Absolutely ridiculous. Changes are being made because Counsel, as the manager of the Cubs, wants to make some changes. He might be more comfortable working with someone else. Again, kind of a nothing burger. I think what is happening within the organization should have been expected. Hell, Chibear said it during the last week of the season. I, and a few other posters, agreed this would be the first thing they would do. Again NBD..
