Jump to content
Marlins-Cubs game thread is live — talk the game with us! ×
North Side Baseball

Rcal10

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,806

  • 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
    I just think they didn’t want 3 years guaranteed. I think they would be willing to work out a possible 3 year deal with him with options after each year. Maybe $17M a year each year with a $3M buy out or $17M the next year. Something like that would guarantee Shota $20M. But if he really believes in himself a 3 year deal with options is a better deal for him. After year one he is guaranteed $20M. If his option is picked up after year one he is guaranteed $37M. If he makes all 3 he gets $51M. Not the $57M guaranteed but better than 1/$22M. TBH, they can also add a 4th year with the same option. Cubs obviously wouldn’t take the 4th year, but it would then give him $54M for 3. If he is pitching well he deserves that. If not, they cut their losses. I’m. It sure the Cubs expect him to decline. But I am sure they don’t want to bet multiple years on him not declining. This is a way they can do that. And probably better than anything else he would get. If there is no bad 1 year deal and his one year offer is $22M, then I don’t see from the Cubs POV why this wouldn’t be a better option. Same with Shota, unless he knows he is cooked.
  2. Rcal10
    Complete coincidence, I am going to Las Vegas today. Anyone know where the GM meetings take place?
  3. Rcal10
    Depends on the contract offered. If they are willing to give him or any pitcher a 4 year or more deal, I agree with you. The draft pick shouldn’t matter. But I am not sure Woodruff gets that length. I wouldn’t sign someone for a year or two and lose the draft pick. And I think if Woodruff doesn’t take the QO(I think he will) he won’t get a long term contract.
  4. Rcal10
    There was an injury. He came back from a hamstring injury. It could have affected his velo. But I also am not sure about spending that kind of money.
  5. Rcal10
    I am way more concerned about what the offer looks like, and how it shapes the off season. To me it looks like the Cubs are only going to look for the short term deals. Either through FA or trade I don’t see the Cubs adding anyone with any real years or salary on a contract. That is why Shota isn’t necessarily a bad signing. But it is a bad sign of an uneventful off season. I read this decision as they aren’t going to give an significant multi year deal to anyone. They are going to use the lame excuse that the labor uncertainty after this CBA is controlling their decisions this year. As if the new CBA might end up hurting them if they had any long term contracts from this off season. And I think most of us would agree there is really no realistic scenario where the new CBA would hurt the Cubs, even if they did sign a few guys to multi year deals. If they do plan on being somewhat aggressive and offering multi year deals to FA or trade for someone regardless of how many years or how much money they make, then I don’t like the offer. It wasted decent money they could use elsewhere.
  6. Rcal10
    Even assuming 2.3WAR is fine for $22M, I wish they would spend the money on a better pitcher or a bat. Even if they had to add to that number, if the Cubs plan is to go about business as usual and just stay a little below the LT line, I think they could have used that money better.
  7. Rcal10
    Unless they build that into their contract. Also, I am not sure when a lock out ends if that isn’t negotiated as well. TBH, if the owners lock them out and they want to play, they should get paid. They can always play using the old CBA until a new one is in affect. It isn’t their fault of the owners can’t come to an agreement within their own ranks to present to the players.
  8. Rcal10
    Unless the Cubs plan is to not have any long term contracts on the books after this year I don’t see why it is a good idea to have offered Imanaga $22M. They could have used that money plus the money they didn’t spend on Kittredge and signed a TOR starter instead of Shota. Which is why I fear the Cubs are not going to do anything that will give them a players who has 3 or more years left on a contract. Which really narrows the FA buying and even the trade market a little. In a vacuum signing Shota for a year at $22M is fine, decent pitcher and great teammate. Maybe he did have physical issues the last half of the year that caused him to pitch poorly. Sure, $22M is too much, but not crazy, if he gets back to 24’ production. No such thing as a bad 1 year deal. But giving him that money with what we all know is a limited budget does concern me regarding their plans. Guess we will see how it works out.🤷 But I am not expecting any big moves that would come with a guy having 3 years or more on a contract without options. I think this offers shows the Cubs hand.
  9. Rcal10
    I am sure people will tell me I am reading too much into this, but I think offering Shota $22M for one year is a sign of things to come this off season. I think they will be very careful on offering any contract beyond one year. If they do it will have an opt out or option after next year. I don’t expect much from them this off season. Maybe a trade for a guy with one year left, plus maybe a team option. I think they are going to roll with the EXCUSE of a possible lock out making it hard for them to do business this year because of what the new CBA will be. And I think most of us knows it won’t affect the way the Cubs do business once there is a new CBA. It may alter other teams plans. The very high or very low spenders, but there will not be anything there that would hurt the Cubs, even if they did sign guys to multi year deals. This is a convenient time for a possible lock out for the Cubs. It gives them a built in excuse not to go hard after multi year contracts for free agents. WHICH SUCKS.!
  10. Rcal10
    Your scenerio is very much like my thinking. I would add Bohm as a possibility as well. Or maybe Laureano, Hays, or Andujar signed as a right handed bat. I think the least likely would be the surprising, weird move. I don’t see that. However, I do think Soroka is a possibility. Not sure that fits in the surprising weird narrative. But everything else I do agree is a very realistic view of a decent off season.
  11. Rcal10
    Of that group if they ended up with Framber, Okamoto and Fairbanks it wouldn’t be a bad FA off season. Imai, Woodruff and Saurez would be fine too. But I think Woodruff will probably be back with the Brewers.
  12. Rcal10
    I agree they need one TOR starter. After that I would rather get a better pen arm.
  13. Rcal10
    I guess they can trade Taillon if they signed/traded for 2 starting pitchers. But if Imanaga accepts the QO(which I think he should. I saw his FA projection at 3/$43.5) I don’t see how they add 2 guys without subtracting someone. Also, remember with a QO that makes him less desirable as a FA.
  14. Rcal10
    WOW, this surprises me. So Cubs will have him for one more year. Can’t imagine he declines the QO. Guess, at most, they sign one more starting pitcher. But I am afraid it might be bringing the gang back and hoping Steele is healthy.
  15. Rcal10
    I agree with this. I think one of the depth young pitchers will be moved along with a young bat to get either a bat or a rotation piece. Whichever they don’t get, I think they will get that piece via free agency. I am probably reading too much into bringing Rea back signaling only 1 starting pitcher added. But that is probably because I think with or without Rea that is all they will do anyway. So bringing Rea back is a real good depth move. Add one TOR starters and go with TOR starter, Steele, Horton, Boyd, Taillon with Rea and whatever young pitchers don’t get traded as depth. Plus Wiggins comes up late in the year. I just don’t see them adding 2 solid starting pitchers.
  16. Rcal10
    But we aren’t really talking solely about the Kittredge decision. I would have liked to have kept him and understand your logic. I am just saying the moves they made so far are not exactly that indicative of an upcoming off season. It is a bit too early to suggest these moves sets up for an underwhelming off season.
  17. Rcal10
    I agree it also signals a real possibility that one of the depth back of the rotation young guys (Assad, as you suggested) gets moved. But I think with 3 definite starters and Steele coming back early(ish) in the season, if they believe Steele will be fine, I don’t think they will go with 2 MOR/TOR starters added now that they have Rea. If they went with 2, Rea would be a 7th starter. I think Rea will be used as a 5th starter until Steele gets back and then be a spot starter, long relief man after that, with one pitcher added. And this doesn’t even include Wiggins later in the season.
  18. Rcal10
    A bit too early for this. So far they made two rather obvious choices and one iffy one. But not picking up Kittredge really isn’t all that unusual for how they build pens.
  19. Rcal10
    Rose?
  20. Rcal10
    Agreed. But does this now signal adding only 1 starting pitcher this off season? Or if the Cubs can restructure a Shōta deal, maybe no starting pitchers added. Go with the same crew and hope Steele is back early? Sure hope the Shota scenerio isn’t the case. I would like at least one TOR starter this off season. He isn’t it, IMO.
  21. Rcal10
    With Steele coming back by June and guys like Rea, Wicks, Assad and Brown as depth, plus possibly Wiggins later in the year, this signing tells me they are only looking to add one pitcher to the rotation. Which is fine, as long as it is someone who can fill the TOR, not another 4th starter. If/when all are healthy a rotation of Steele, Boyd, Horton, Taillon and a front end starter is a nice rotation. And they have depth.
  22. Rcal10
    I didn’t say anything about targeting a RP. I just meant in general a large market team should be able to target a particular player (Cease, Valdez, Tucker, Alonso, Schwarber, whoever) and get that guy instead of having to wait out the market for a guy to fall to them. I agree RP is a crap shoot. A pen arm is the hardest position to fill.
  23. Rcal10
    Oops, my bad. Thought it was Shota he was talking about. I think they will pick up Rea’s option, but it isn’t a sure thing IMO. If they think Assad can do what Rea did they might let him go too. $6M isn’t a lot of money, but it is one less spot to sign a cheaper pen arm and maybe have more for a better pitcher. If they bring in 2 starting pitchers this off season (one via trade and another as a FA) where does Rea fit? $6M for a #6, #7 starter or a multiple inning middle relief pitcher is a lot to pay. Especially when you have guys like Assad, Wicks, Brown and maybe even Wiggins who can fill any of those spots for less. Again, I think they pick it up, but I can see an argument against it.
  24. Rcal10
    1 for $22M? I can see them not doing that. I hope they don’t.
  25. Rcal10
    Of the 3 scenarios you mentioned that could hurt the Cubs I can see one that makes sense. Maybe new contracts have language for the player to get paid during the lock out. But that would be a small amount of money. The luxury tax line going lower is not a realistic result of a stoppage. Players aren’t going to go for making less. And a hard cap isn’t going to hurt the Cubs either. They will not get near that number anyway. That said, I agree the Cubs might use the uncertainty of the new CBA as a way of explaining why they won’t spend money. I am not arguing that. I just feel it is a false flag. This is just the excuse for this year. No differ than the years they cried broke because of Covid. No different than once the lock out ends and they complain about massive losses they incurred due to the lock out so they can spend after 2027. I not disputing they won’t spend over the first LT line. I am saying in the end the new CBA will not alter anything the Cubs want to do anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...