Jump to content
Click here to join us at 4pm Central as we talk Cubs! ×
North Side Baseball

Rcal10

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,801

  • 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

  1. Rcal10
    Being honest, I don’t see the Cubs getting Bregman either. But he isn’t getting $35M a year for 7 years. But this discussion was specifically what would happen if the did get him. My guess is he doesn’t even get over $30M a year unless it is heavily deferred. And he isn’t getting 7 years. Most likely 5, but maybe a team adds a 6th year. If the Cubs want to get a good starting pitcher for a lower salary I can see Cassie or Mo dealt. Not Shaw, unless Bregman was added. And, we both agree that’s unlikely.
  2. Rcal10
    Well we are in a thread talking about trading for Bregman. So there would be a bat added. I also think they will deal at least one young bat to add something else. We are not going to see Alcantara, Cassie, Mo, and Long all in the line up with Shaw after this year. At least I hope we aren’t.
  3. Rcal10
    I would rather keep Shaw too. This is only talked about if the Cubs did sign Bregman. IMO that would lead to a Shaw trade. The same reasons you would rather keep Shaw and trade Cassie or Mo, is why Shaw was mentioned more at the TDL. Back to the original point, if the Cubs did sign Bregman I would assume there is a trade coming for a young pitcher. Who knows who they have to trade to get that pitcher.
  4. Rcal10
    Wow, I wouldn’t have guessed that. Actually that makes him more valuable. Maybe it would take just Shaw and one of the pitchers for someone. Save Cassie, Mo and Long.
  5. Rcal10
    That’s fair. But to get a controlled potentially front end starter the cost is going to be high. One advantage Cabrera has is he has 3 years of control to Shaw’s 5. (Didn’t Shaw lose one year of control last year?)
  6. Rcal10
    Then you must really like Shaw and you also aren’t getting any of those pitchers.
  7. Rcal10
    I don’t think a big bat is there primary need at this time. I think it will be pitching. TBH, I am surprised they are mentioned with Bregman. I think the only way this happens is if they have a trade in place of some young players (pick 2 prospects and 1 pitcher from Shaw, Cassie, Mo, Long along with Brown, Assad, Wicks) for a controlled cheaper, potentially TOR starting pitcher. Otherwise I just don’t see them spending big money on a bat and still have to sign a FA pitcher.
  8. Rcal10
    It would be Shaw+ for a pitcher. Not just Shaw. Otherwise, as you said, doesn’t make sense. Supposedly he was asked about at the TDL last year. Something like Shaw+ for Cabrera, Gore or Ryan.
  9. Rcal10
    Hopefully because they will sign someone else.
  10. Rcal10
    What do you consider “not that expensive”? I think he will cost plenty.
  11. Rcal10
    Also, if you believe reports at the TDL, Shaw was mentioned often. So, yes, I believe if they signed Bregman, Shaw would be dealt along with whatever else is needed, for a young cheap, potential TOR, controlled arm. (Cabrera, Gore or Ryan) Then you add a pen arm or two plus a bench bat.
  12. Rcal10
    You wouldn’t. He would DH. Honestly not worth discussing. I highly doubt they would trade for him.
  13. Rcal10
    I get this and understand your point. But not signing Tucker is going to be the outcome regardless of what they do. They are not getting him. So now we move on. Bregman would be a good FA signing for them.
  14. Rcal10
    Bregman does fit the Cubs MO. They can get him and not lose a draft pick, for one. Next, they want a right handed bat over a lefty bat. Bregman may take 5 years, instead of a mega deal of 10+ for Tucker. At the TDL there were rumors teams wanted Shaw. This would allow them to deal Shaw. I would much rather have Tucker, but the Cubs just are not going to be in that. So accepting that, Bregman makes a lot of sense.
  15. Rcal10
    True. Honestly, I am not even arguing for Hernandez. As I said at the start, I give it a 1% chance of happening. My only comment was him and Seiya wouldn’t be a problem. I tend to agree with most other posters who suggest the Cubs won’t spend that money on him when they have other needs. Goldy does make sense here. My only worry is he will be 38 next season. But if he comes cheap, sure he is a good fit.
  16. Rcal10
    Its spring training time. He probably won’t pitch any more innings in the WBC then he would in spring training. To me it is NBD. I am just surprised he is someone they even want on the team.
  17. Rcal10
    To be fair, Teoscar isn’t my first option. My only point was he isn’t redundant. I would rather have Bregman too. If the Dodgers are in the hook for the deferral money, Teoscar isn’t that much more costly than Goldy would be. And if Bertz is right, in trade assets he wouldn’t cost much. That said, I have no issue with you not wanting him. I am in the fence with that as well. But if they did get him he would be a good line up addition and not redundant. That is all I am saying.
  18. Rcal10
    You don’t want Hernández but want Goldschmidt? Why does that work any better? He is a DH that would mean Suzuki is in the outfield.
  19. Rcal10
    Suzuki would play right and Teoscar would DH. Mo can play another year at AAA, maybe sharpening his catching skills and Cassie be traded for pitching. I understand not wanting him if you want to play youth. I am just saying he isn’t redundant. The Cubs need a power hitting right handed bat. He would be a nice addition to the line up. I just doubt that happens.
  20. Rcal10
    Hernandez is not redundant. Cubs need a solid right handed bat in the line up WITH Suzuki. It makes no sense at all to trade for him and then just trade Seiya.
  21. Rcal10
    Like the idea but give it about a 1% chance of the Cubs making that sort of move. If they liked him they could have signed him last year without having to give something up for him. They didn’t. Instead they traded assets for Tucker, who they will now lose. But if they did somehow do this that would probably mean the pitcher added to the rotation would be via trade and his salary would be low. Sadly, the Cubs just don’t act big market so there isn’t room for Teoscar plus someone like King and also a pen arm that cost $10M+ a year.
  22. Rcal10
    I can see signing one of Finnegan/Rogers/Weaver/Keller/Fairbanks and then maybe spend a little on a lefty reliever. Or trade for one. Maybe if they trade for a staring pitcher they also get a lefty relief pitcher. And if that trade brings a lower cost starting pitcher I also can see them add another pen arm from that list above. If they traded for Cabrera, as an example, there would be plenty of money to add 2 pen arms. If they sign King they probably can only sign one pen arm.
  23. Rcal10
    He did say a 95% outcome. Which means Cassie plays to close to his absolute ceiling. I don’t think Cassie having a 4.5WAR year playing to his absolute highest ceiling is wildly optimistic. He didn’t say he would do that. Thinking he plays to his 95% ceiling is wildly optimistic. But if he did, which is Bertz point, he would be a guy with a 4.5WAR or better.
  24. Rcal10
    True. And I don’t get it. Why don’t the Cubs want to use deferrals? Makes no sense to me. And it hurts their chances on signing some guys.
  25. Rcal10
    I don’t think the report is malarkey, I think the FO has a limit and the limit is always too low to reel in a big fish. I also think the definition of “big fish” is a reliever they may give multi years to. So think Fairbanks, Keller, Finnegan, Rogers, Weaver. I am certain big fish does not include Suarez or Diaz.
×
×
  • Create New...