tartan22
-
Posts
10 -
Joined
-
Last visited
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
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by tartan22
-
very lightly dipping your toe into the deferral waters is a good bit. saving $1m a year on the actual value of the contract is just the kind of creative accounting that could put this team over the top
-
-
you realize people just have to click back one page to see you actually said "nobody in our rotation projects as better than an average ERA" you have subsequently qualified that to say that one of our starters doesn't count, and also some of the projections don't count, and also you can decide the average era is lower than it actually is
-
i've been kind of confused as to why we haven't shown any interest in bichette if we are in on bregman, so i'll take that report bichette + using shaw in a package for a front-end pitcher was always my dream 'feasible' offseason. (seems like we probably wouldn't trade shaw even if we did add a 3b, given the noise around nico's future, but you could still add a solid SP via trade with other pieces)
-
given hoyer's remarks on pitching at the start of the offseason, i don't think there's a player left in free agency who would qualify as a success for addressing the need as he defined it. you can't come out in november hammering on that as the big thing you're going to focus on and then walk away with "zac gallen bounceback year?" as your solution you gotta swing a trade at this point. you have the resources, go out and make a move
-
sometimes pessimism and frustration is justified. i also think it's stupid to complain about every single free agent who signs somewhere else, or to act like we've massively missed out on the SP/3B markets when there are plenty of options still left to sign. but the reason i started grousing after the fairbanks signing specifically is because he was the last big-name bullpen FA left on the market, and his signing elsewhere is an affirmation that the front office is going to continue operating under the philosophy that it isn't worth it to pay the going rate for an established relief arm. i think that's bad roster-building, i think the lack of a go-to guy in the bullpen has hurt us even when we've (impressively) been able to cobble together a solid relief unit from spare parts, and i think now is a reasonable time to express your concerns about that approach to assembling a team if it helps to mentally append a "but if they make a bunch of good moves later then i will be happy about that" to my posts, then go right ahead
-
also like...sorry if this makes me a cynic, but i'm not going to jump to "maybe we're not spending on a reliever because we're going to give $50m to an impact bat and starter instead :)" until i see them actually sign one (1) of those two types of players unless we get a radically different approach to how this front office pursues desirable free agents, they should not be operating as if they will actually be the top bidder for players like imai or bregman. the flexibility to get guys like that on "good deals" is nice, but if you're not going to be aggressive about spending on them, then you shouldn't also be using them as an excuse to pass on more realistic opportunities to upgrade the roster
-
i'm not just talking about this season, or this one specific contract for fairbanks. we didn't just walk into this offseason and get handed $50m to spend. if the front office is of the belief that we don't have the resources available to pay the going rate for one high-end reliever this offseason, that's because of their failure to adequately budget. and the fact that we have to sign/trade for a high-end reliever is because of their failure to address this need at any point before now. like, if you're going to be the team who doesn't even pretend to make a competitive offer for kyle tucker because you don't give out big nine-figure contracts, you shouldn't also be the team who won't give 3/$45m to a reliever. the conservative long-term team-building approach should mean we have more short-term flexibility, or more of an ability to splurge on a "luxury" player who doesn't actually bog down your books all that much. ultimately, while we're not spending to the top end of our ability as a franchise because of ownership, we're also not exactly strapped for resources. the unwillingness to spend on the bullpen is 100% just a jed thing, not a "it's not in our means!" thing
-
even with a hard cap at the luxury tax line set by ownership (which is stupid but a fixed reality that's been in place for some time), we have $240 million to spend. the baseball operations people should be able to find ~$15-20m in the budget for one high-end relief arm to shore up a long-standing team weakness, especially if the organization is so confident in its ability to find cheap reclamation projects to fill out the rest of the bullpen you don't even have to get into the nebulous realm of "well, right now they can't spend money to address this need, because then they might not have money to make other hypothetical signings to address other needs." $240 million is enough money for a single established reliever. spending multiple seasons trying to field a competitive team without one is just bad resource allocation, full stop.
-
the refusal to allocate *any* resources to *one* established reliever is definitely a top 3 most annoying thing about this front office. can't be expected to spend like the marlins, though
