|
|
Post by happtobehere on May 12, 2021 11:54:31 GMT -5
Who says no right now? Kris Bryant or the Cubs
7 years 248.5 million
That would put him at a 35.5 AAV, .5 million over Rendon for the same amount of years.
IMO, Rendon should have won the MVP the year he hit free agency. Yes, Bellinger had a fantastic year and the Dodgers were a playoff team but the Nationals completely turned their season around once Rendon came off the IL.
Anyway, IMO, Bryant and Rendon are a push. I think Rendon is the better third baseman but Bryant's ability (and willingness) to play all over the diamond erases the edge that Rendon has defensively at third.
|
|
|
|
Post by bryzzobrist on May 12, 2021 13:08:58 GMT -5
I think Cubs say no. Cubs would've said yes to that if he didn't have an injury history. Mayyyyybe.
I'd personally rather someone give us the moon for him in a trade so we can further stock up for the future. There will be plenty of FA's we can sign when it's the right time.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheChico on May 12, 2021 13:20:01 GMT -5
Bryant will not hesitate to sign but no way the FO offers that type of deal and don't need to, the market is going to be little more depressed from when Rendon was a Free agent and also it was a big overpay by the Angels too.
I think Bryant will get around $25-$28 Million per year range my guess he will test free agency and returns to the Cubs on a 7/196 or 8/$206 (Cubs add another year to lower the AAV in exchange for another $10 Million)
Cubs are a big market team with probaly the most payroll room to work with this offseason, so competition is not going to be strong for KB.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheChico on May 12, 2021 13:21:02 GMT -5
I think Cubs say no. Cubs would've said yes to that if he didn't have an injury history. I'd personally rather someone give us the moon for him in a trade so we can further stock up for the future. There will be plenty of FA's we can sign when it's the right time. I would still trade him if the offer is better than what they can get for the QO, but I would also look to bringing him back in the offseason. |
|
|
|
Post by cfin on May 12, 2021 13:38:15 GMT -5
I would still focus on resigning Rizzo first.
Say what you want to about Rizzo only being a first baseman, but that defense at first base has helped a lot of the infielders look good. Take that away and suddenly the infield defense might not be that great. Signing someone like Freeman might be a good alternative, but I'm a bit gun shy on signing huge free agent contracts to new players. Very often those players come into a new team and it takes them the better part of the first season, if not the complete first season or even the second season, to start settling in to their environment. If all things are equal, I'll take resigning Rizzo - someone that you know can perform in Chicago - over another big splash at first base.
If you can resign Rizzo and then resign Bryant at that offer, then sure! Go for it.
Rizzo is the heart and soul of this team. I have higher confidence that Rizzo will continue to perform without Bryant in the lineup versus Bryant performing without Rizzo in the lineup.
Not to really bring the Cardinals into this discussion - but Rizzo is the Pujols of this team. Bryant is the Matt Holliday of this team. Matt Holliday was always a complementary piece, he was fine on a team that had someone else to carry the team - but when it's left up to him to carry the team, he falters. That's how I see Bryant. The Cardinals made the decision to let Pujols go (and I'm not necessarily blaming them, I'm not sure if matching that contract he got with the Angels would have been smart) and lean heavily on Holliday - that was their mistake.
Yes, he's putting up great numbers right now - I won't doubt that. But I just don't see Bryant as the heart and soul of this team - maybe other's opinions differ.
I also feel like Bryant has a little bit of Bryce Harper in him. He's a big name and yes he can put up some good numbers, but people see that big name and just want to pour money into it. Often times you're paying more for the perception of the name than the actual on-field performance.
There really wasn't ever any doubt that Bryant was going to hit free agency. This is really why it made since to trade him this past offseason or the offseason before then. Get something for him and then turn around and resign him if you so desired. Just because he will hit free agency this offseason that doesn't mean he won't be a Cub next season. But the Cubs will have to outbid other teams for him. There was no advantage to not trading him.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheChico on May 12, 2021 13:53:42 GMT -5
I would still focus on resigning Rizzo first. Say what you want to about Rizzo only being a first baseman, but that defense at first base has helped a lot of the infielders look good. Take that away and suddenly the infield defense might not be that great. Signing someone like Freeman might be a good alternative, but I'm a bit gun shy on signing huge free agent contracts to new players. Very often those players come into a new team and it takes them the better part of the first season, if not the complete first season or even the second season, to start settling in to their environment. If all things are equal, I'll take resigning Rizzo - someone that you know can perform in Chicago - over another big splash at first base. If you can resign Rizzo and then resign Bryant at that offer, then sure! Go for it. Rizzo is the heart and soul of this team. I have higher confidence that Rizzo will continue to perform without Bryant in the lineup versus Bryant performing without Rizzo in the lineup. Not to really bring the Cardinals into this discussion - but Rizzo is the Pujols of this team. Bryant is the Matt Holliday of this team. Matt Holliday was always a complementary piece, he was fine on a team that had someone else to carry the team - but when it's left up to him to carry the team, he falters. That's how I see Bryant. The Cardinals made the decision to let Pujols go (and I'm not necessarily blaming them, I'm not sure if matching that contract he got with the Angels would have been smart) and lean heavily on Holliday - that was their mistake. Yes, he's putting up great numbers right now - I won't doubt that. But I just don't see Bryant as the heart and soul of this team - maybe other's opinions differ. I also feel like Bryant has a little bit of Bryce Harper in him. He's a big name and yes he can put up some good numbers, but people see that big name and just want to pour money into it. Often times you're paying more for the perception of the name than the actual on-field performance. There really wasn't ever any doubt that Bryant was going to hit free agency. This is really why it made since to trade him this past offseason or the offseason before then. Get something for him and then turn around and resign him if you so desired. Just because he will hit free agency this offseason that doesn't mean he won't be a Cub next season. But the Cubs will have to outbid other teams for him. There was no advantage to not trading him. This is a type of market you should let the players test free agency, most of the big market teams are likely going to make smaller moves in the offseason due to luxury tax concerns and maxed out payrolls so if any year you let players you want to keep to test the market this is the offseason to do so. I agree that Rizzo is the heart of the team, he will retire as a Cubs same with Freeman with the Braves but after to big overpays to guys like Chris Davis and Goldschmidt in recent years the market is due to correct itself on that part and likely the FO is betting on. |
|
|
|
Post by ddevonb on May 12, 2021 13:55:01 GMT -5
I would still focus on resigning Rizzo first. Say what you want to about Rizzo only being a first baseman, but that defense at first base has helped a lot of the infielders look good. Take that away and suddenly the infield defense might not be that great. Signing someone like Freeman might be a good alternative, but I'm a bit gun shy on signing huge free agent contracts to new players. Very often those players come into a new team and it takes them the better part of the first season, if not the complete first season or even the second season, to start settling in to their environment. If all things are equal, I'll take resigning Rizzo - someone that you know can perform in Chicago - over another big splash at first base. If you can resign Rizzo and then resign Bryant at that offer, then sure! Go for it. Rizzo is the heart and soul of this team. I have higher confidence that Rizzo will continue to perform without Bryant in the lineup versus Bryant performing without Rizzo in the lineup. Not to really bring the Cardinals into this discussion - but Rizzo is the Pujols of this team. Bryant is the Matt Holliday of this team. Matt Holliday was always a complementary piece, he was fine on a team that had someone else to carry the team - but when it's left up to him to carry the team, he falters. That's how I see Bryant. The Cardinals made the decision to let Pujols go (and I'm not necessarily blaming them, I'm not sure if matching that contract he got with the Angels would have been smart) and lean heavily on Holliday - that was their mistake. Yes, he's putting up great numbers right now - I won't doubt that. But I just don't see Bryant as the heart and soul of this team - maybe other's opinions differ. I also feel like Bryant has a little bit of Bryce Harper in him. He's a big name and yes he can put up some good numbers, but people see that big name and just want to pour money into it. Often times you're paying more for the perception of the name than the actual on-field performance. There really wasn't ever any doubt that Bryant was going to hit free agency. This is really why it made since to trade him this past offseason or the offseason before then. Get something for him and then turn around and resign him if you so desired. Just because he will hit free agency this offseason that doesn't mean he won't be a Cub next season. But the Cubs will have to outbid other teams for him. There was no advantage to not trading him. Of course there was. He was coming off of a bad season and has a chance to be MVP this year. If the contend, keeping him is a must... even if he leaves in free agency. |
|
|
|
Post by cfin on May 12, 2021 14:10:11 GMT -5
This is a type of market you should let the players test free agency, most of the big market teams are likely going to make smaller moves in the offseason due to luxury tax concerns and maxed out payrolls so if any year you let players you want to keep to test the market this is the offseason to do so. I agree that Rizzo is the heart of the team, he will retire as a Cubs same with Freeman with the Braves but after to big overpays to guys like Chris Davis and Goldschmidt in recent years the market is due to correct itself on that part and likely the FO is betting on. Definitely agree that there has been some overpays in recent years (Heyward?). And I'm not saying I want to overpay for Rizzo. But I would rather pay fair-market value for Rizzo and let Bryant walk, than to pay fair-market value for Bryant and let Rizzo walk. If you can pay both of them fair market value, I'm fine with that too. But that's why I'd put the focus on Rizzo first, then see what's left over for Bryant. If Rizzo wants an absurd contract then let him walk. |
|
|
|
Post by threeandone on May 12, 2021 14:14:50 GMT -5
I say no and if he keeps up his pace this year, they can likely get a couple solid prospects for him. With Kimbrel who will be a hot item near the deadline if he keeps it up and stays healthy, they could both help rebuild the system. Then add in Baez, who some executives/managers will think they can fix, there is potential for real progress for the future.
Somehow they need to get back to the original plan of building up the organization and sustaining success year in and year out.
|
|
|
|
Post by threeandone on May 12, 2021 14:15:37 GMT -5
This is a type of market you should let the players test free agency, most of the big market teams are likely going to make smaller moves in the offseason due to luxury tax concerns and maxed out payrolls so if any year you let players you want to keep to test the market this is the offseason to do so. I agree that Rizzo is the heart of the team, he will retire as a Cubs same with Freeman with the Braves but after to big overpays to guys like Chris Davis and Goldschmidt in recent years the market is due to correct itself on that part and likely the FO is betting on. Definitely agree that there has been some overpays in recent years (Heyward?). And I'm not saying I want to overpay for Rizzo. But I would rather pay fair-market value for Rizzo and let Bryant walk, than to pay fair-market value for Bryant and let Rizzo walk. If you can pay both of them fair market value, I'm fine with that too. But that's why I'd put the focus on Rizzo first, then see what's left over for Bryant. If Rizzo wants an absurd contract then let him walk. Completely agree! |
|
|
|
Post by lajoiesghost on May 12, 2021 14:24:57 GMT -5
No. With very few exceptions, those huge contracts don't work out and can handcuff a team for years. Imagine the TWO very good players you could get for 18 mil each. By and large, the star players are paid to put butts in the seats, which they do. But as far as production, it is almost always an overpay. This isn't a slight to Bryant by any means, just my personal opinion on a decision based on value. I would much rather trust my scouting and extend a guy early than pay top dollar to keep a guy well past his prime. Look what Milwaukee did with Yelich. They extended him through 2028 for an average of just under $24 mil. They did a similar deal with Braun, extended early and had his prime years cheap. Sure, Braun may have been a little pricey the last couple years but nowhere near an albatross contract. Brewers are a small market and have to be smart with their money and they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by happtobehere on May 12, 2021 16:33:38 GMT -5
No. With very few exceptions, those huge contracts don't work out and can handcuff a team for years. Imagine the TWO very good players you could get for 18 mil each. By and large, the star players are paid to put butts in the seats, which they do. But as far as production, it is almost always an overpay. This isn't a slight to Bryant by any means, just my personal opinion on a decision based on value. I would much rather trust my scouting and extend a guy early than pay top dollar to keep a guy well past his prime. Look what Milwaukee did with Yelich. They extended him through 2028 for an average of just under $24 mil. They did a similar deal with Braun, extended early and had his prime years cheap. Sure, Braun may have been a little pricey the last couple years but nowhere near an albatross contract. Brewers are a small market and have to be smart with their money and they are. Yelich's deal was very unique in the sense that he was still under contract for three more season due to the extension he signed with the Marlins. Also, the Brewers are not a team that flirts with the luxury tax, Yelich's contract will hurt them MORE than signing KB at 10 million more per season.
|
|
|
|
Post by happtobehere on May 12, 2021 16:53:06 GMT -5
I would still focus on resigning Rizzo first. Say what you want to about Rizzo only being a first baseman, but that defense at first base has helped a lot of the infielders look good. Take that away and suddenly the infield defense might not be that great. Signing someone like Freeman might be a good alternative, but I'm a bit gun shy on signing huge free agent contracts to new players. Very often those players come into a new team and it takes them the better part of the first season, if not the complete first season or even the second season, to start settling in to their environment. If all things are equal, I'll take resigning Rizzo - someone that you know can perform in Chicago - over another big splash at first base. If you can resign Rizzo and then resign Bryant at that offer, then sure! Go for it. Rizzo is the heart and soul of this team. I have higher confidence that Rizzo will continue to perform without Bryant in the lineup versus Bryant performing without Rizzo in the lineup. Not to really bring the Cardinals into this discussion - but Rizzo is the Pujols of this team. Bryant is the Matt Holliday of this team. Matt Holliday was always a complementary piece, he was fine on a team that had someone else to carry the team - but when it's left up to him to carry the team, he falters. That's how I see Bryant. The Cardinals made the decision to let Pujols go (and I'm not necessarily blaming them, I'm not sure if matching that contract he got with the Angels would have been smart) and lean heavily on Holliday - that was their mistake. Yes, he's putting up great numbers right now - I won't doubt that. But I just don't see Bryant as the heart and soul of this team - maybe other's opinions differ. I also feel like Bryant has a little bit of Bryce Harper in him. He's a big name and yes he can put up some good numbers, but people see that big name and just want to pour money into it. Often times you're paying more for the perception of the name than the actual on-field performance. There really wasn't ever any doubt that Bryant was going to hit free agency. This is really why it made since to trade him this past offseason or the offseason before then. Get something for him and then turn around and resign him if you so desired. Just because he will hit free agency this offseason that doesn't mean he won't be a Cub next season. But the Cubs will have to outbid other teams for him. There was no advantage to not trading him. This is a type of market you should let the players test free agency, most of the big market teams are likely going to make smaller moves in the offseason due to luxury tax concerns and maxed out payrolls so if any year you let players you want to keep to test the market this is the offseason to do so. I agree that Rizzo is the heart of the team, he will retire as a Cubs same with Freeman with the Braves but after to big overpays to guys like Chris Davis and Goldschmidt in recent years the market is due to correct itself on that part and likely the FO is betting on. Bryant, IMO, should have been the ONLY Cub the Cubs should have extended.
I agree about testing the market for Rizzo and Baez for the following reasons:
Rizzo: a qualifying offer saps his value due to his position and age (and the fact that he is second best first baseman currently projected to be on the market). The Cubs extension offer was not far off base as to what Rizzo can expect on the open market. I think he is looking at 80 million tops in guaranteed money assuming he can turn his season around.
Baez: he is in a market that is a toss up between Seager, Story, Correa and himself. Those four are going to drive his over all contract down (and his flaws) plus you can add Marcus Semien and Simmons to the list of quality short stop options. The abundance will reduce his market.
Now, lets look at the market for KB.... at this pace not only the top third base option but the top free agent target. Not only is he the top third base and over all, he would be the top option for RF, LF and CF. Given the choice between Bryant at first or Rizzo, most teams would opt for Bryant (certainly has the body for it). So in other words, KB is the top free agent at 4 positions.
I'm not asking if the Cubs should re-sign Rizzo either, I think it would be wise to saddle him with the QO and let the market play itself out for him. I'm asking if the Cubs should avoid a bidding war with for the top free agent on the market and pay him fair market value right now? Bryant is going to be a target for nearly every team this off season due to his versatility. NY he can play third, Boston he can play outfield, San Diego outfield, both LA teams outfield, Braves-3rd base and so on. Bryant's versatility and market could drive him into the 37.5 range.
|
|
|
|
Post by cfin on May 12, 2021 17:51:23 GMT -5
From the moment that Bryant was drafted, there was practically no chance that he wasn't going to hit free agency when the time comes.
Boras can say what he wants - and some of his clients may sign extensions - but a player of Bryant's caliber... assuming he didn't tank after being drafted ... was always going to hit free agency whenever that happened.
That's THE way players get the most money, open yourself up so that everyone can bid on your services and start a bidding war. I never saw the Cubs extending Bryant as a viable outcome. Maybe if they'd offered him a 10 year $500M contract, but in order to keep Bryant from going to the open market the contract offer would have to be HUGE.
That's why he should have always been a candidate to be traded. You don't really gain anything by holding on to him. If the Cubs had traded him to the Mets this past offseason (no clue if that was ever really an option and don't want to pretend that it was), then the Cubs would have whatever prospects the Mets gave up in hand AND they'd still be an equal position to sign him after 2021 as a free agent.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheChico on May 12, 2021 18:01:16 GMT -5
From the moment that Bryant was drafted, there was practically no chance that he wasn't going to hit free agency when the time comes. Boras can say what he wants - and some of his clients may sign extensions - but a player of Bryant's caliber... assuming he didn't tank after being drafted ... was always going to hit free agency whenever that happened. That's THE way players get the most money, open yourself up so that everyone can bid on your services and start a bidding war. I never saw the Cubs extending Bryant as a viable outcome. Maybe if they'd offered him a 10 year $500M contract, but in order to keep Bryant from going to the open market the contract offer would have to be HUGE. That's why he should have always been a candidate to be traded. You don't really gain anything by holding on to him. If the Cubs had traded him to the Mets this past offseason (no clue if that was ever really an option and don't want to pretend that it was), then the Cubs would have whatever prospects the Mets gave up in hand AND they'd still be an equal position to sign him after 2021 as a free agent. Cubs decided to bet on a bounce back season from KB and so far they are winning that bet big time, Bryant is worth more now in a trade then he was this past offseason as he already shaken the 2020 concerns off and now showing we might not even seen the best of him yet. he keeps this up which he will as long he is healthy will give a much stronger haul at the deadline and will be able to sign him back this offseason. Could be a win-win. |
|
|
|
Post by TheChico on May 12, 2021 18:23:04 GMT -5
This is a type of market you should let the players test free agency, most of the big market teams are likely going to make smaller moves in the offseason due to luxury tax concerns and maxed out payrolls so if any year you let players you want to keep to test the market this is the offseason to do so. I agree that Rizzo is the heart of the team, he will retire as a Cubs same with Freeman with the Braves but after to big overpays to guys like Chris Davis and Goldschmidt in recent years the market is due to correct itself on that part and likely the FO is betting on. Bryant, IMO, should have been the ONLY Cub the Cubs should have extended.
I agree about testing the market for Rizzo and Baez for the following reasons:
Rizzo: a qualifying offer saps his value due to his position and age (and the fact that he is second best first baseman currently projected to be on the market). The Cubs extension offer was not far off base as to what Rizzo can expect on the open market. I think he is looking at 80 million tops in guaranteed money assuming he can turn his season around.
Baez: he is in a market that is a toss up between Seager, Story, Correa and himself. Those four are going to drive his over all contract down (and his flaws) plus you can add Marcus Semien and Simmons to the list of quality short stop options. The abundance will reduce his market.
Now, lets look at the market for KB.... at this pace not only the top third base option but the top free agent target. Not only is he the top third base and over all, he would be the top option for RF, LF and CF. Given the choice between Bryant at first or Rizzo, most teams would opt for Bryant (certainly has the body for it). So in other words, KB is the top free agent at 4 positions.
I'm not asking if the Cubs should re-sign Rizzo either, I think it would be wise to saddle him with the QO and let the market play itself out for him. I'm asking if the Cubs should avoid a bidding war with for the top free agent on the market and pay him fair market value right now? Bryant is going to be a target for nearly every team this off season due to his versatility. NY he can play third, Boston he can play outfield, San Diego outfield, both LA teams outfield, Braves-3rd base and so on. Bryant's versatility and market could drive him into the 37.5 range.
I cannot argue with Bryant's case, but Boras clients generally want to test free agency which Bryant wants to do. The way Bryant is playing, I would not shocked if he gets a $35 AAV type deal but I just think the Market will be a little depressed than usual and teams like the Dodgers and Yankees will likely not be big spenders and Mets are getting close to the luxury cap and have to get starting pitching which they might not be able to fit Bryant in their payroll and Braves have not shown to give out long term commitments to free agents. Bryant is going to get paid big time and Cubs SHOULD have the most payroll room to work with this offseason so they should be considered the favorites even if they trade him at the deadline. With Rizzo, I am just assuming he will be with Cubs long term but will hit the open market to find out he will not be getting Goldschmidt/Davis money as those two guys were a overpay. I have no clue on the Baez market as there is big risk long term with him, at least Bryant and Rizzo skill set will age well best their primes and will likely be productive players into their mid to late 30's. All I know the Cubs will be the highlight this offseason good or bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on May 12, 2021 18:50:19 GMT -5
I'll never forget the players and the new culture that brought a hype and hope that turned out a World Series (not to mention the veteran signings to plug the holes-Lester and Ross). That being said, it's time to move on. I don't think we make a big splurge in free agency until 2024. The next two years will be "figure out what we have" phase and small deals.
|
|
|
|
Post by cfin on May 12, 2021 20:48:43 GMT -5
I'll never forget the players and the new culture that brought a hype and hope that turned out a World Series (not to mention the veteran signings to plug the holes-Lester and Ross). That being said, it's time to move on. I don't think we make a big splurge in free agency until 2024. The next two years will be "figure out what we have" phase and small deals. In a sense - I think this is why some small market teams have an advantage over big market teams.
As good as Bryant (and Rizzo, Baez, Contreras, Happ (?), etc) are ... often times, if you develop players right, you can get just as good performance from younger players at a fraction of the cost.
This is really what has separated the Rays from the other small market teams. They are able to constantly develop players and nobody really bats an eye when they trade veterans that are starting to make more and more money, and then invest those prospects into their development program and it just kind of becomes a constant cycle.
It's easier (maybe that's because nobody watches the Rays?) for the Rays to trade a high-priced veteran, whereas a big market team, like the Cubs, are vilified if they trade a player like Bryant (or Rizzo, Baez, etc). When the Rays do it, the refrain is: "Well, they weren't going to be able to afford him, might as well get some development pieces they can work with and add to their system", but when a big market team like the Cubs do it, it's: "Oh great! Another rebuild! Wah Wah Wah!"
In a sense, I agree with Mike here - it may just be time to move on from this group and start over. And if that's the case, I don't know what good it will do to have Bryant signed to a monster contract that's not going to do anything. The trouble is, I don't see a ton of upper level talent in the minor leagues ready to take over. Davis and Amaya and that's about it for position players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on May 12, 2021 21:38:50 GMT -5
I think we could extend Contreras, who'd become extra valuable if/when E-strike zone is implemented. He can trade off days with Amaya behind the plate if/when DH is implemented. But that's a conversation for after Spring Training...
Because, the thing is, with the CBA ending and work stoppage a real possiblity, trading big contracts off of the books at the All-Star Break would benefit the Cubs more ways than one. It's a strategy that could also make Heyward waive his 10/5 rights.
We all know that lightning in a bottle can happen on teams where veterans are on short deals supplementing the young talent. That's where we're at next season, whether we hang onto our stars or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by happtobehere on May 12, 2021 22:04:34 GMT -5
Bryant, IMO, should have been the ONLY Cub the Cubs should have extended.
I agree about testing the market for Rizzo and Baez for the following reasons:
Rizzo: a qualifying offer saps his value due to his position and age (and the fact that he is second best first baseman currently projected to be on the market). The Cubs extension offer was not far off base as to what Rizzo can expect on the open market. I think he is looking at 80 million tops in guaranteed money assuming he can turn his season around.
Baez: he is in a market that is a toss up between Seager, Story, Correa and himself. Those four are going to drive his over all contract down (and his flaws) plus you can add Marcus Semien and Simmons to the list of quality short stop options. The abundance will reduce his market.
Now, lets look at the market for KB.... at this pace not only the top third base option but the top free agent target. Not only is he the top third base and over all, he would be the top option for RF, LF and CF. Given the choice between Bryant at first or Rizzo, most teams would opt for Bryant (certainly has the body for it). So in other words, KB is the top free agent at 4 positions.
I'm not asking if the Cubs should re-sign Rizzo either, I think it would be wise to saddle him with the QO and let the market play itself out for him. I'm asking if the Cubs should avoid a bidding war with for the top free agent on the market and pay him fair market value right now? Bryant is going to be a target for nearly every team this off season due to his versatility. NY he can play third, Boston he can play outfield, San Diego outfield, both LA teams outfield, Braves-3rd base and so on. Bryant's versatility and market could drive him into the 37.5 range.
I cannot argue with Bryant's case, but Boras clients generally want to test free agency which Bryant wants to do. The way Bryant is playing, I would not shocked if he gets a $35 AAV type deal but I just think the Market will be a little depressed than usual and teams like the Dodgers and Yankees will likely not be big spenders and Mets are getting close to the luxury cap and have to get starting pitching which they might not be able to fit Bryant in their payroll and Braves have not shown to give out long term commitments to free agents. Bryant is going to get paid big time and Cubs SHOULD have the most payroll room to work with this offseason so they should be considered the favorites even if they trade him at the deadline. With Rizzo, I am just assuming he will be with Cubs long term but will hit the open market to find out he will not be getting Goldschmidt/Davis money as those two guys were a overpay. I have no clue on the Baez market as there is big risk long term with him, at least Bryant and Rizzo skill set will age well best their primes and will likely be productive players into their mid to late 30's. All I know the Cubs will be the highlight this offseason good or bad. The only team that is paying the luxury tax this season (as of right now) is the Dodgers. The rest of the league (as of right now) will reset meaning that for the power house spenders, it will be open season.
Also, with Bryant, you can run into the Jon Lester situation. The Red Sox, if my memory serves, offered more money but Lester choose Chicago. If we trade Bryant, I think he wouldn't return to Chicago knowing they are going to go into a rebuild. Also, you cannot discount how upset a player will be having to uproot his life for a couple months when he has a small child.
Bryant has always been the ONLY player that an extension makes sense for (out of the three anyway).
|
|
