Rcal10
-
Posts
7,827 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
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
-
Cant he still be DFA’ed and sign a minor league contract? I don’t know exactly how this works.
-
Agreed. But if he is in AAA as insurance if/when a catcher goes down to injury, that would be fine with me. Until that time, I am going to believe they will do better at the catcher position.
-
Not meeting with Soto is a level of incompetence all to itself. It is ridiculous that the Cubs don’t even make him a serious offer. But that is what this teams ownership/Front office does. Not getting a solid back up or even starting catcher is a totally different level of incompetence. And trading for Thaiss does not strike me as the catcher move they are going to make to fill the second catcher spot. I think people are overrating to tbis. Let’s wait and see. If we are into spring games and Thaiss is still the top back up, then I will criticize the tram.
-
I would like a clear starter above Amaya too. But the fact is he really doesn’t have to get that much better to be a league average bat. He only has about 800 AB in the majors. Is it really inconceivable he can improve 10% above his current level. That would make him a league average bat and an above average bat for a catcher. Again, I am not advocating Amaya should be the clear starter or that the Cubs should get better at catcher. But I do think he will be better next year than last year. No, he won’t be what he was after changing his stance. But I do think he will be closer to that player than the one who was barely hitting .200 before the stance change.
-
That is exactly what I think he is. AAA depth. I think many are making way too big a deal about this move. It cost the Cubs nothing but a few $. It doesn’t change any off season plans, IMO.
-
Agreed. Actually if Brown didn’t unseat Hodges or anyone they may bring in to close, that is probably a better outcome for the Cubs. Because if Brown did become the closer, most likely, that would mean the closer to start the year was failing. I do think Brown can be very good. Love if he didn’t have to close, however.
-
I doubt this very much. For one thing, the also got Neely in that trade. The Cubs are not putting Cowles on the 40 man to make sure they save face. I agree about being surprised they would worry about someone grabbing Cowles. Just not because they worry about a horrible look. They may actually like him and know he could be a utility man next year for some teams. Also they traded Mark Lieter Jr. it isn’t like they traded Chapman of 2016. Lieter wasn’t even on the playoff roster until someone got hurt. Losing 1 guy you got in a Leiter trade in the rule 5 draft wouldn’t exactly be this huge embarrassment. Especially since they still have Neely.
-
Yep, I feel bad for Davis. Never could stay healthy. I would have liked to see what he could have done in the majors. At one point he was as high as 14 on the top prospect list. Too bad for him, and the Cubs.
-
Your last paragraph answers the question you had when you said if Jed and Ricketts are interchangeable why not extend Jed? It doesn’t matter if Jed shares Tom’s philosophy. You are right, we all just assume Jed feels the same way. But really that doesn’t matter anyway. He agreed to build the team based on Ricketts plan. But as I said and now you just said, if Jed doesn’t win within the parameters of the plan Tom will probably let him go. So that would be the reason to not extend him,
-
I am not sure I follow. What evidence is needed? All that is being said is TR and Jed appear to agree with a plan on team building. Hasn't the last several years kind of shown what that plan is? Just because Jed agrees with Ricketts way to run a team doesn’t mean Ricketts will be happy with his work if they don’t make the playoffs again next year. I believe that TR does set the budget and does have a certain philosophy of how he wants his team built. I would think he would believe his plan is good enough to actually win. So just because Jed also believes this philosophy, that does not give him free reign to continually underperform what TR expects. So that is why he didn’t just extend him. I am sure there are many potential GM’s that would be fine taking the job with the Cubs, even if it meant they need to follow certain philosophies. And I would think TR would sign one who does believe in his plan.
-
That is what I thought. That said, IMO Fried is highly unlikely.
-
I know he did with Burnes. I am not sure about Fried. But I doubt he signs him.
-
Brandon Glick’s 2025 Payroll Blueprint:
Rcal10 replied to Brandon Glick's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Agreed. Now if they wanted to sign Adames and then trade Parades for a young starting pitcher and then not sign Fried, that might make some sense. Considering you have to add Taillon to this plan, they cannot sign both Adames and Fried. Personally k am fine with Parades. But if they signed Adames, Parades would need to be traded, not benched. And they need to get someone decent for him. -
Agreed. It really is hard to separate the two of them. On one hand Tom is setting the budget and is clearly not interested in giving a guy a 10-12 year deal. But on the other end, I think Jed agrees with that philosophy. I also agree with what you said earlier. If/when Tom replaces Jed it will be with the same sort of guy.
-
I think he will get $10M for one year. Maybe with a team option for year 2, or mutual option. I might do the 2/$20M, no more than that. And I would do the 1!for $10M prove it deal. But with another good pitcher picked up this off season as well.
-
If they did this and traded for a front of the rotation pitcher is signed a front of the rotation starter, I would hate Buehler for a 1 year or at most a 2 year deal. But can’t just go with him.
-
Cubs Eyeing Yusei Kikuchi and Nick Pivetta
Rcal10 replied to Matthew Lenz's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I think if they like him enough to go 5 years they won’t worry about the QO penalty. But to sign him for 2 or 3 years they might not want to part with a second round pick. I don’t believe they have ever lost a second round pick for a guy they signed for 3 years. I realize you never said 3 years. I am saying it as a time line that, IMO, they would have to exceed in signing someone if they are losing a pick. So if it is Pivetta my guess is he would get a 4 or 5 year deal. -
I think the Phillies wouldn’t consider this for even a minute.
-
Cubs Eyeing Yusei Kikuchi and Nick Pivetta
Rcal10 replied to Matthew Lenz's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Let me clarify my statement. Stratos said Pivetta wasn’t good enough but Kikuchi was. I happen to like Pivetta a bit. So I added to his comment that he was not good enough, because I thought the only way he would say that is because of the draft pick compensation. I don’t see how Kikuchi could be someone they should sign but not Pivetta if it wasn’t for that reason. That said, I am not certain the Cubs will sign a mid level starter on a 3 year deal if it means losing a second and fifth would pick. Maybe they would do it on a 5 year or more deal. But do you want then to sign Pivetta for 5 or more years? I’m not sure I would want that. That is why I will stay with my belief that they won’t do it. I would be more than happy if they proved me wrong. As I said, I do like Pivetta a bit more than Kikuchi. But, I think, more than likely, they will either trade for a starter or sign a mid level guy not attached to a QO to a 3 year or less deal. -
Cubs Eyeing Yusei Kikuchi and Nick Pivetta
Rcal10 replied to Matthew Lenz's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
To finish your sentence, he isn’t good enough “to lose a second and fifth round draft pick to sign him’ -
Jeff Passan: Cubs expected to operate in "mid tier" pitching market
Rcal10 replied to Jason Ross's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
I agree with you. But I doubt that happens. I don’t think the Cubs will be in an obvious sell position next deadline. And, dor that matter, I don’t think the Red Sox will be in an obvious buy, either. But for the scenario you suggested, it does make sense. -
I understand Castillo might not be any better than the mid level pitchers they can just sign. But if they traded Bellinger for Castillo my hope would be they then add a big bat like Tucker via trade, to replace Bellinger. I would rather have Tucker and Castillo than Bellinger and Eovaldi, as an example. I think the Castillo/Tucker combo is actually cheaper than Eovaldi/Bellinger. Besides that, several of the mid level pitchers are attached to a QO. Trading Bellinger gives the Cubs room to add a big bat. And why not do that and also fill a hole in the rotation. The catch is, they then need to sign Tucker. I would think the FO should have a pretty good idea what Tucker would cost. If they don’t plan on paying that price for him, then there is no reason to make a trade for him. I don’t want to lose the prospects they will have to lose for one year of Tucker. To me, this would be the biggest reason not to entertain something like Castillo/Bellinger. But it is also something they can absolutely control. Just pay him more than anyone else does and you have him. Time to be aggressive if they want to win.
-
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.
