|
Post by happtobehere on Jun 21, 2021 10:02:17 GMT -5
Uncertain re-opening guidelines in a pandemic and a depleted farm system say it was a good move. That money was spent on Arrieta, Chafin, Williams, Marisnick, Romine, and Duffy. The Cubs also attempted to re-sign Rizzo after they trade Darvish.
It's funny to me, some guys are bitching about trading Darvish and others are screaming up and down for a first place team to sell....
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Jun 21, 2021 10:14:16 GMT -5
Ill admit I’m not up to date on Cubs financial situation but Cubs are currently 32 million under the luxury tax threshold. Seems they could have easily kept Darvish while making those other additions and still be below the tax which as I previously understood was the goal to get to it to reset. Davies has been very good since May indeed but come home stretch and playoff time I’m much more comfortable with Darvish on the bump than Davies. You really have failed to see the big picture as it related to Darvish and the Cubs financial state. It's kind of been a dead horse topic but I'll hit the broad strokes for you.
The luxury tax threshold is a moot point. The bigger issue in regarding to trade Darvish was that the Cubs lost a ton of revenue due to covid last season AND they had a huge bill due for Wrigley renovations being complete... Given, at the time of the Darvish trade, MLB was not sure if they would have fans at all in 2021 AND they were not sure that they would be able to play 162 games, the Cubs were looking at even more revenue loss. Once Cubs got word that they would allow 30% capacity, they spent on Arrieta, Pederson and Chafin. Those three moves, plus adding Davies salary pretty much offset Darvish's salary (they also attempted to extend Rizzo).
So people can complain about not having Darvish, but they fail to see what the Cubs saw, they want to retain Rizzo (and possibly Baez and Bryant) and they could not do that with Darvish's salary on the books, not only this year but for two more years. Not with the question marks regarding fans capacity in the stadium and the revenue it would draw.
Now that Wrigley is at 100% (for now) the Cubs could probably add more salary to their roster.
On any given (normal) year, the Cubs should operate at + or - 10% as it relates to the luxury tax. The Cubs over the past couple seasons were at + 10% and needed to get -10% for this year regardless to balance the books. I'd be willing to bet dollar to donuts that Hoyer has a -10% cap, meaning that he can spend how he sees fit as long as he is under 10% of the luxury tax. Anything Hoyer wants to spend over that 10% threshold needs ownership approval with a hard cap at +10%. If he is operating at + luxury tax his true dollar amount needs to be significantly lower, i.e. back loaded contracts, to offset the financial penalties for going over. IF he is under the LT threshold his true dollars can be higher (front loaded/signing bonus money).
If you look at what the Cubs did this past off season, they focuses on true money with just a little set aside for buyouts of option years, by contrast the Brewers are robbing Peter to pay Paul in the sense they differed/back loaded a lot of money. I think, given the amount of free agents the Cubs have and the depth of the free agent class, the Cubs were very wise in doing so. It's going to allot Hoyer a lot of true money this off season for signing bonuses and contracts. Hoyer basically was able to reset the books, not only by resetting the luxury tax but also resetting the true spending amount. It SHOULD set him up nicely for 5+ years and allow the Cubs to be active in free agency.
It's tough to use the revenue loss from COVID for a legit excuse because even though there was a ton of uncertanty surrounding it, we all knew it would eventually end and things would creep back to normal and Rickets wouldn't exactly be bankrupt, eventually that cash cow the Cubs are would be flowing again. But like you said , at the time there was no way they could even make the attempt they did to sign Rizzo had the Darvish contract still been on the books and stay under the cap. And on top of it , even with how great Yu was last year , it was time to sell high. Most people don't think they did that because no top 100 guys were obtained and most are looked at as lottery type picks, plus Caratini was in the deal too , who they REALLY could use right now But I think they possibly could end up with a huge haul from this deal because most of these guys were not ranked high , not because of talent levels , but because of lack of pro ball experience. Like it's been mentioned, Tatis at the time of his trade was nowhere near being ranked. I'm not saying they might get the next Tatis out of the deal. But most of the guys were ranked in the 10-20 range in what at the time was the best system before they even played a game. And you nailed it with your last paragraph..
|
|
|
Post by fine09 on Jun 21, 2021 13:22:22 GMT -5
You do if squeezing out a Division title & then going home isn’t enough anymore especially with free agency gutting your team at years end. You must think long term as team owners unlike fans that can ride their pipe dreams. And getting close to MLB ready top prospects is hardly rebuilding, it is retooling especially if we can get some youngsters already in the bigs which with what they have to trade shouldn’t be a problem at all.. I get it, you do not believe in the team. That's fine.
You are acting like the Cubs do not have the money to spend on free agency to bring back players, either their players or other free agent targets when they do. The farm is in pretty good shape as is and any one of Baez, Rizzo or Bryant would bring back a compensation pick (which you also deem as pretty worthless).
Me, I would, as previously stated, target a guy like Brujan (or Walls) from Tampa and do a prospect for prospect swap. I love Brujan and would deal Marquez for him in a heart beat.
I'd try pulling off another Cole Hamels style trade where we give up very little for a decent starter, at this point nearly anyone would be better than Arrieta.
Then I would look at dealing for an Ace style pitcher, Jon Gray kind of guy. He isn't an ace but he can dominate a game and he isn't going to cost you an Amaya or Davis to get him. You're looking at dealing one of the kids from the Darvish trade plus another no-name but has potential prospect.
At that point, I have a team loaded with potential to give you a deep run and I only dealt one top 100 prospect for another. Brujan or Nico can fill in for Baez next season and the Cubs can focus on re-signing Bryant or Rizzo or target someone else via free agency. Maybe look at re-signing Gray and bring Thompson into the rotation for next season.
**I'd look at dealing Amaya for Edwards if Brujan was off limits.
The days of top 100 prospects being dealt for rental pieces are pretty much over. We can re-hash that opinion after the trade deadline but that is what recent history has shown. With that in mind, what is more valuable to an organization, some B prospects or a post season run? My vote is post season run. We are not the Royals who cannot afford to re-sign players, we are not taxed out financially either. We are not a baron farm system lastly. The Cubs can deal if they choose to, if they crash and burn but me, I would best position myself for a post season run without mortgaging the future.
Actually, I 100% believe in the Cubs. I believe that if they make the playoffs with this roster they will do exactly the same as they did the past 2 years in a row which is a very early exit in the playoffs because they just don't have the firepower in the rotation & offense to get past the first round - & if by some oddity they did get past the wild card round they would surely have the same issues with the next round. Sadly that seems very much to be a "best case scenario" for us.. Understand that our #1 Comp pick if we were to let KB play out the season instead of trading him would net us somewhere in the #40th to 45th pick in this years draft - & he would "probably" slot in somewhere in our top 10 to top 15 player on the Cubs - which equates to somewhere around a top 500 to 700 MiLB talent. Now.. If we trade KB (if he gets hot again), we would be looking at a top 30 to 50 player in all MiLB which is a HUGE upgrade over a #500 to 700 player that would do very well to ever crack the roster. You can plug in a package of Kimbrel (one of the best closers with 1-1/2 years of control) along with either Javy, Rizzo, Davies, Tepera, etc. & get back another top 30 to 50 in all of MiLB as well because our next Comp pick should be in the top 800 to 1,100 player which would probably not slot in to the Cubs top 30 MiLB list. So in a nutshell by dealing the guys that we are certain to lose at the end of the year for "peanuts", we flip them & get 50 times the return we would if we kept them AND it actually gives the players that we traded a bonus because there is no compensation attached to them so signing deals would be much easier & likely. As far as the Cubs having the money to spend in free agency, this coming Winter will be a HIUGE year for Cubs spending but if we did as I say & flip the guys for very high-end prospects maybe they only have to sign 3 upper free agents this Winter instead of 5 or 6 if just let them walk for damn near no return. That would in turn allow the Cubs to "buy" better rated or more expensive free agents because they may very well have 2 or 3 youngsters obtained in the trades I am proposing which will also leave a good chunk of change to spend on next years deadline. Honestly you have no idea if "The days of top 100 prospects being dealt for rental pieces are pretty much over" because there are numerous teams that are fighting & clawing to get to the postseason & some of them almost never get there so it is impossible to know just how bad they want it. Take the Padres for example. If them (or a team like them) could bring in a good innings eating starting pitcher like Davies that would keep them in the games, an All star 3rd. baseman/outfielder like KB that when is hot is an MVP candidate & one of the best closers in all of baseball because theirs is at best decent & push them over the top they just might win it all.. I understand completely your reasoning for wanting to swap prospects & also to trade for a new starting pitcher to help us this year because taking Division titles for granted is NOT a good idea or to be taken lightly. Then again if I have to give away "A CHANCE" at winning our weak division in order to end up with the best minors system in all of baseball AND still go after re-signing Rizzo & possibly KB in the off season that would hardly be considered a re-build wouldn't you agree? I do like our chances with Nico & Duffy in there (If they both continue to over-perform) but where exactly is Duffy going to play every game & who sits if he does??
|
|
|
Post by fine09 on Jun 21, 2021 13:27:55 GMT -5
Uncertain re-opening guidelines in a pandemic and a depleted farm system say it was a good move. That money was spent on Arrieta, Chafin, Williams, Marisnick, Romine, and Duffy. The Cubs also attempted to re-sign Rizzo after they trade Darvish.
It's funny to me, some guys are bitching about trading Darvish and others are screaming up and down for a first place team to sell....
I liked the Darvish trade because it saved 3 years at roughly 20 mil per season & felt that there were selling as absolutely high on him as they could at the time. I did hate losing Victor though, no sugar coating that one. I will be very interested to see if one of the very nice but far away from action prospects might make a splash. No guarantee of course but that farm system was deep & the Cubs got to pick exactly who they wanted after researching them.
|
|
|
Post by thisbuds4u on Jun 21, 2021 15:11:42 GMT -5
Is it time to possibly trade Ian Happ? The Cubs waited and got nothing for Schwarber and Almora.
|
|
|
Post by rvn11 on Jun 21, 2021 15:16:24 GMT -5
Is it time to possibly trade Ian Happ? The Cubs waited and got nothing for Schwarber and Almora. I doubt it. They have him under team control for 3 more seasons, and after seeing Schwarber start to realize his potential elsewhere they're probably kicking themselves for letting him go and probably won't do the same with Happ.
Additionally I don't think Happ has any trade value right now except as a buy low piece.
|
|
|
Post by thisbuds4u on Jun 21, 2021 15:30:50 GMT -5
Is it time to possibly trade Ian Happ? The Cubs waited and got nothing for Schwarber and Almora. I doubt it. They have him under team control for 3 more seasons, and after seeing Schwarber start to realize his potential elsewhere they're probably kicking themselves for letting him go and probably won't do the same with Happ.
Additionally I don't think Happ has any trade value right now except as a buy low piece.
The 3 years of control makes him a better trade candidate. I wouldn't trade him for a half season rental but the Cubs don't have a lot of trade chips either.
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Jun 21, 2021 16:17:05 GMT -5
Is it time to possibly trade Ian Happ? The Cubs waited and got nothing for Schwarber and Almora. I doubt it. They have him under team control for 3 more seasons, and after seeing Schwarber start to realize his potential elsewhere they're probably kicking themselves for letting him go and probably won't do the same with Happ.
Additionally I don't think Happ has any trade value right now except as a buy low piece.
Lets not forget Schwarber hit 38 bombs and had a better average and OPS in 2019 , so he's really not realizing his potential elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jun 21, 2021 16:41:42 GMT -5
Is it time to possibly trade Ian Happ? The Cubs waited and got nothing for Schwarber and Almora. Reds (went to UC) or Pirates (home town) would take a shot on him. I have no clue what that trade would look like, but having a mutual option on Marisnick for $4M next year (Hoerner having some time in CF), and Canha/Marte/Taylor available on the market - there are plenty of variables to consider.
|
|
|
Post by rvn11 on Jun 21, 2021 16:50:07 GMT -5
I doubt it. They have him under team control for 3 more seasons, and after seeing Schwarber start to realize his potential elsewhere they're probably kicking themselves for letting him go and probably won't do the same with Happ.
Additionally I don't think Happ has any trade value right now except as a buy low piece.
Lets not forget Schwarber hit 38 bombs and had a better average and OPS in 2019 , so he's really not realizing his potential elsewhere. Certainly not forgotten... We all saw for years the ability and the potential, very few players in this organization have ever had more potential and expectations. But we also saw some deep valleys to offset the peaks.
But that's not the point of my comment. They had a player with stud potential but was frustrating with fluctuations between success and struggles, and they made the decision to part ways with him, IMO Happ isn't all that dissimilar. There has to be at least some thought in the back of their minds that they made a mistake in doing so with Schwarber and would think twice about doing the same with another similar player.
|
|
|
Post by irishcubfan on Jun 21, 2021 16:57:11 GMT -5
Is it time to possibly trade Ian Happ? The Cubs waited and got nothing for Schwarber and Almora. Reds (went to UC) or Pirates (home town) would take a shot on him. I have no clue what that trade would look like, but having a mutual option on Marisnick for $4M next year (Hoerner having some time in CF), and Canha/Marte/Taylor available on the market - there are plenty of variables to consider. My guess is the JM mutual option was an agreed upon deferred payment with all parties agreeing to not execute the option. Though, my theory could be wrong and I could just be talking out of my ass, which isn't the first time and surely not the last.
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Jun 21, 2021 18:33:29 GMT -5
Lets not forget Schwarber hit 38 bombs and had a better average and OPS in 2019 , so he's really not realizing his potential elsewhere. Certainly not forgotten... We all saw for years the ability and the potential, very few players in this organization have ever had more potential and expectations. But we also saw some deep valleys to offset the peaks.
But that's not the point of my comment. They had a player with stud potential but was frustrating with fluctuations between success and struggles, and they made the decision to part ways with him, IMO Happ isn't all that dissimilar. There has to be at least some thought in the back of their minds that they made a mistake in doing so with Schwarber and would think twice about doing the same with another similar player.
It was part money or what his arb hit would have been and probably also part they needed to make that change to the core they had been talking about and try to get away from too many too similar players. I'm still shocked though and kind of still pissed that he was non tendered . I could understand wanting to go in a different direction, but I find it hard to believe he could not have been traded. But I find it hard to believe they did not try , so I really don't know what to think.
|
|
|
Post by bryzzobrist on Jun 21, 2021 22:34:33 GMT -5
Now we wish we woulda traded KB while he was hot. Also good with if he starts hitting again.
Think he's nursing an injury?
|
|
|
Post by irishcubfan on Jun 22, 2021 2:13:50 GMT -5
Now we wish we woulda traded KB while he was hot. Also good with if he starts hitting again. Think he's nursing an injury? I think it is just the ups and downs to a season. Plus, it would be reckless to move him around to nearly all the positions if he were nursing a injury.
|
|
|
Post by happtobehere on Jun 22, 2021 22:41:31 GMT -5
I get it, you do not believe in the team. That's fine.
You are acting like the Cubs do not have the money to spend on free agency to bring back players, either their players or other free agent targets when they do. The farm is in pretty good shape as is and any one of Baez, Rizzo or Bryant would bring back a compensation pick (which you also deem as pretty worthless).
Me, I would, as previously stated, target a guy like Brujan (or Walls) from Tampa and do a prospect for prospect swap. I love Brujan and would deal Marquez for him in a heart beat.
I'd try pulling off another Cole Hamels style trade where we give up very little for a decent starter, at this point nearly anyone would be better than Arrieta.
Then I would look at dealing for an Ace style pitcher, Jon Gray kind of guy. He isn't an ace but he can dominate a game and he isn't going to cost you an Amaya or Davis to get him. You're looking at dealing one of the kids from the Darvish trade plus another no-name but has potential prospect.
At that point, I have a team loaded with potential to give you a deep run and I only dealt one top 100 prospect for another. Brujan or Nico can fill in for Baez next season and the Cubs can focus on re-signing Bryant or Rizzo or target someone else via free agency. Maybe look at re-signing Gray and bring Thompson into the rotation for next season.
**I'd look at dealing Amaya for Edwards if Brujan was off limits.
The days of top 100 prospects being dealt for rental pieces are pretty much over. We can re-hash that opinion after the trade deadline but that is what recent history has shown. With that in mind, what is more valuable to an organization, some B prospects or a post season run? My vote is post season run. We are not the Royals who cannot afford to re-sign players, we are not taxed out financially either. We are not a baron farm system lastly. The Cubs can deal if they choose to, if they crash and burn but me, I would best position myself for a post season run without mortgaging the future.
Actually, I 100% believe in the Cubs. I believe that if they make the playoffs with this roster they will do exactly the same as they did the past 2 years in a row which is a very early exit in the playoffs because they just don't have the firepower in the rotation & offense to get past the first round - & if by some oddity they did get past the wild card round they would surely have the same issues with the next round. Sadly that seems very much to be a "best case scenario" for us.. Understand that our #1 Comp pick if we were to let KB play out the season instead of trading him would net us somewhere in the #40th to 45th pick in this years draft - & he would "probably" slot in somewhere in our top 10 to top 15 player on the Cubs - which equates to somewhere around a top 500 to 700 MiLB talent. Now.. If we trade KB (if he gets hot again), we would be looking at a top 30 to 50 player in all MiLB which is a HUGE upgrade over a #500 to 700 player that would do very well to ever crack the roster. You can plug in a package of Kimbrel (one of the best closers with 1-1/2 years of control) along with either Javy, Rizzo, Davies, Tepera, etc. & get back another top 30 to 50 in all of MiLB as well because our next Comp pick should be in the top 800 to 1,100 player which would probably not slot in to the Cubs top 30 MiLB list. So in a nutshell by dealing the guys that we are certain to lose at the end of the year for "peanuts", we flip them & get 50 times the return we would if we kept them AND it actually gives the players that we traded a bonus because there is no compensation attached to them so signing deals would be much easier & likely. As far as the Cubs having the money to spend in free agency, this coming Winter will be a HIUGE year for Cubs spending but if we did as I say & flip the guys for very high-end prospects maybe they only have to sign 3 upper free agents this Winter instead of 5 or 6 if just let them walk for damn near no return. That would in turn allow the Cubs to "buy" better rated or more expensive free agents because they may very well have 2 or 3 youngsters obtained in the trades I am proposing which will also leave a good chunk of change to spend on next years deadline. Honestly you have no idea if "The days of top 100 prospects being dealt for rental pieces are pretty much over" because there are numerous teams that are fighting & clawing to get to the postseason & some of them almost never get there so it is impossible to know just how bad they want it. Take the Padres for example. If them (or a team like them) could bring in a good innings eating starting pitcher like Davies that would keep them in the games, an All star 3rd. baseman/outfielder like KB that when is hot is an MVP candidate & one of the best closers in all of baseball because theirs is at best decent & push them over the top they just might win it all.. I understand completely your reasoning for wanting to swap prospects & also to trade for a new starting pitcher to help us this year because taking Division titles for granted is NOT a good idea or to be taken lightly. Then again if I have to give away "A CHANCE" at winning our weak division in order to end up with the best minors system in all of baseball AND still go after re-signing Rizzo & possibly KB in the off season that would hardly be considered a re-build wouldn't you agree? I do like our chances with Nico & Duffy in there (If they both continue to over-perform) but where exactly is Duffy going to play every game & who sits if he does?? Duffy? Third base. I'll take Bryant in RF and sit Heyward unless a certain match up favors Heyward and/or we need to upgrade the outfield defense.
Show me the last top prospect that was dealt mid-season for a guy with >2 years of control... I'll wait. A team certainly COULD trade a top prospect but recent history suggest otherwise. Jazz Chisholm was dealt recently but he was a prospect for prospect (more less) deal. I'm not up to date with every single top 100 prospect so maybe I missed a deal but I haven't seen any. You barely see a top 100 deal as it related to Blake Snell or Mike Clevenger.
So lets look at the last time a MVP candidate was dealt to a team that was desperate for a World Series and look at the "haul"... The last, off the top of my head, was Manny Machado to the Dodgers. Machado at the time was absolutely raking in Baltimore .315 .387 .575 .963 162OPS+. The Dodgers had not won a World Series since the late 80's and were pretty damn desperate. They dealt Diaz, the number 52 prospect at the time (and infamous bust) and a bunch of Wild Cards. Three additional guys that landed in the O's top 30.
That is a comparable trade for an MVP caliber player, is it better than a compensation pick? Sure, I'll give you that but was it franchise altering? Did it speed up Baltimore's rebuild?
More importantly, is that return WORTH GIVING UP A PLAYOFF RUN? Think about what even a first round sweep would mean to the Cubs financially and what that would mean for re-signing or signing free agents.
We (the Cubs) are at 100% capacity and are a first place team.. what does a playoff run mean financially? To the Marquee network? To the money coming in at the gate and concessions? Merchandise, advertising, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by TheChico on Jun 23, 2021 13:36:19 GMT -5
Actually, I 100% believe in the Cubs. I believe that if they make the playoffs with this roster they will do exactly the same as they did the past 2 years in a row which is a very early exit in the playoffs because they just don't have the firepower in the rotation & offense to get past the first round - & if by some oddity they did get past the wild card round they would surely have the same issues with the next round. Sadly that seems very much to be a "best case scenario" for us.. Understand that our #1 Comp pick if we were to let KB play out the season instead of trading him would net us somewhere in the #40th to 45th pick in this years draft - & he would "probably" slot in somewhere in our top 10 to top 15 player on the Cubs - which equates to somewhere around a top 500 to 700 MiLB talent. Now.. If we trade KB (if he gets hot again), we would be looking at a top 30 to 50 player in all MiLB which is a HUGE upgrade over a #500 to 700 player that would do very well to ever crack the roster. You can plug in a package of Kimbrel (one of the best closers with 1-1/2 years of control) along with either Javy, Rizzo, Davies, Tepera, etc. & get back another top 30 to 50 in all of MiLB as well because our next Comp pick should be in the top 800 to 1,100 player which would probably not slot in to the Cubs top 30 MiLB list. So in a nutshell by dealing the guys that we are certain to lose at the end of the year for "peanuts", we flip them & get 50 times the return we would if we kept them AND it actually gives the players that we traded a bonus because there is no compensation attached to them so signing deals would be much easier & likely. As far as the Cubs having the money to spend in free agency, this coming Winter will be a HIUGE year for Cubs spending but if we did as I say & flip the guys for very high-end prospects maybe they only have to sign 3 upper free agents this Winter instead of 5 or 6 if just let them walk for damn near no return. That would in turn allow the Cubs to "buy" better rated or more expensive free agents because they may very well have 2 or 3 youngsters obtained in the trades I am proposing which will also leave a good chunk of change to spend on next years deadline. Honestly you have no idea if "The days of top 100 prospects being dealt for rental pieces are pretty much over" because there are numerous teams that are fighting & clawing to get to the postseason & some of them almost never get there so it is impossible to know just how bad they want it. Take the Padres for example. If them (or a team like them) could bring in a good innings eating starting pitcher like Davies that would keep them in the games, an All star 3rd. baseman/outfielder like KB that when is hot is an MVP candidate & one of the best closers in all of baseball because theirs is at best decent & push them over the top they just might win it all.. I understand completely your reasoning for wanting to swap prospects & also to trade for a new starting pitcher to help us this year because taking Division titles for granted is NOT a good idea or to be taken lightly. Then again if I have to give away "A CHANCE" at winning our weak division in order to end up with the best minors system in all of baseball AND still go after re-signing Rizzo & possibly KB in the off season that would hardly be considered a re-build wouldn't you agree? I do like our chances with Nico & Duffy in there (If they both continue to over-perform) but where exactly is Duffy going to play every game & who sits if he does?? Duffy? Third base. I'll take Bryant in RF and sit Heyward unless a certain match up favors Heyward and/or we need to upgrade the outfield defense.
Show me the last top prospect that was dealt mid-season for a guy with >2 years of control... I'll wait. A team certainly COULD trade a top prospect but recent history suggest otherwise. Jazz Chisholm was dealt recently but he was a prospect for prospect (more less) deal. I'm not up to date with every single top 100 prospect so maybe I missed a deal but I haven't seen any. You barely see a top 100 deal as it related to Blake Snell or Mike Clevenger.
So lets look at the last time a MVP candidate was dealt to a team that was desperate for a World Series and look at the "haul"... The last, off the top of my head, was Manny Machado to the Dodgers. Machado at the time was absolutely raking in Baltimore .315 .387 .575 .963 162OPS+. The Dodgers had not won a World Series since the late 80's and were pretty damn desperate. They dealt Diaz, the number 52 prospect at the time (and infamous bust) and a bunch of Wild Cards. Three additional guys that landed in the O's top 30.
That is a comparable trade for an MVP caliber player, is it better than a compensation pick? Sure, I'll give you that but was it franchise altering? Did it speed up Baltimore's rebuild?
More importantly, is that return WORTH GIVING UP A PLAYOFF RUN? Think about what even a first round sweep would mean to the Cubs financially and what that would mean for re-signing or signing free agents.
We (the Cubs) are at 100% capacity and are a first place team.. what does a playoff run mean financially? To the Marquee network? To the money coming in at the gate and concessions? Merchandise, advertising, etc.?
I am with you that the Cubs are not selling if in first place or in reach of it, it is a horrific look around the league and like you said the Cubs are not going to get a franchise altering return for some of the players they have, so mind as well buy and see what happens. Also there is already rumored reports that The Rickets are doing better than expected and will let Hoyer make moves to improve the team at the deadline that he seems fit. While Hoyer will not be able to a big overhaul to the rotation but getting it at least middle of the road is a realistic goal and that is all he needs to do as long the bullpen keeps doing what it is doing. So add quality starter to the rotation and then beef up the offense with guys like Starling Marte and even Asrubal Cabrera (IF Duffy cannot return) and all the sudden your offense goes from middle of the road to above average and will not cost a top prospect to make it happen. All sudden the Cubs have a average rotation, Elite bullpen with a above average offense that can score is different ways which should help get them in the postseason and go from there. So if the Cubs have the lead after 5 innings then you hand it over to the bullpen for the win. This formula worked for the Giants, Royals and Brewers in the past and what the Cubs will have to do to contend this year. I don't think the Cubs are far off from being a serious threat this year.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jun 23, 2021 14:06:46 GMT -5
We have a history trading with the Tigers, so I'd expect we'd acquire Schoop (who's been pretty hot lately and playing 1B/2B/DH this year).
|
|
|
Post by jerm42991 on Jun 23, 2021 15:01:50 GMT -5
Duffy? Third base. I'll take Bryant in RF and sit Heyward unless a certain match up favors Heyward and/or we need to upgrade the outfield defense.
Show me the last top prospect that was dealt mid-season for a guy with >2 years of control... I'll wait. A team certainly COULD trade a top prospect but recent history suggest otherwise. Jazz Chisholm was dealt recently but he was a prospect for prospect (more less) deal. I'm not up to date with every single top 100 prospect so maybe I missed a deal but I haven't seen any. You barely see a top 100 deal as it related to Blake Snell or Mike Clevenger.
So lets look at the last time a MVP candidate was dealt to a team that was desperate for a World Series and look at the "haul"... The last, off the top of my head, was Manny Machado to the Dodgers. Machado at the time was absolutely raking in Baltimore .315 .387 .575 .963 162OPS+. The Dodgers had not won a World Series since the late 80's and were pretty damn desperate. They dealt Diaz, the number 52 prospect at the time (and infamous bust) and a bunch of Wild Cards. Three additional guys that landed in the O's top 30.
That is a comparable trade for an MVP caliber player, is it better than a compensation pick? Sure, I'll give you that but was it franchise altering? Did it speed up Baltimore's rebuild?
More importantly, is that return WORTH GIVING UP A PLAYOFF RUN? Think about what even a first round sweep would mean to the Cubs financially and what that would mean for re-signing or signing free agents.
We (the Cubs) are at 100% capacity and are a first place team.. what does a playoff run mean financially? To the Marquee network? To the money coming in at the gate and concessions? Merchandise, advertising, etc.?
I am with you that the Cubs are not selling if in first place or in reach of it, it is a horrific look around the league and like you said the Cubs are not going to get a franchise altering return for some of the players they have, so mind as well buy and see what happens. Also there is already rumored reports that The Rickets are doing better than expected and will let Hoyer make moves to improve the team at the deadline that he seems fit. While Hoyer will not be able to a big overhaul to the rotation but getting it at least middle of the road is a realistic goal and that is all he needs to do as long the bullpen keeps doing what it is doing. So add quality starter to the rotation and then beef up the offense with guys like Starling Marte and even Asrubal Cabrera (IF Duffy cannot return) and all the sudden your offense goes from middle of the road to above average and will not cost a top prospect to make it happen. All sudden the Cubs have a average rotation, Elite bullpen with a above average offense that can score is different ways which should help get them in the postseason and go from there. So if the Cubs have the lead after 5 innings then you hand it over to the bullpen for the win. This formula worked for the Giants, Royals and Brewers in the past and what the Cubs will have to do to contend this year. I don't think the Cubs are far off from being a serious threat this year. Did you think we would have a franchise altering return for Scott Feldman? What about Ryan Dempster? What about Dan Straily and Luis Valbuena? Franchise altering deals aren’t always for top prospects
|
|
|
Post by rvn11 on Jun 23, 2021 15:19:05 GMT -5
Duffy? Third base. I'll take Bryant in RF and sit Heyward unless a certain match up favors Heyward and/or we need to upgrade the outfield defense.
Show me the last top prospect that was dealt mid-season for a guy with >2 years of control... I'll wait. A team certainly COULD trade a top prospect but recent history suggest otherwise. Jazz Chisholm was dealt recently but he was a prospect for prospect (more less) deal. I'm not up to date with every single top 100 prospect so maybe I missed a deal but I haven't seen any. You barely see a top 100 deal as it related to Blake Snell or Mike Clevenger.
So lets look at the last time a MVP candidate was dealt to a team that was desperate for a World Series and look at the "haul"... The last, off the top of my head, was Manny Machado to the Dodgers. Machado at the time was absolutely raking in Baltimore .315 .387 .575 .963 162OPS+. The Dodgers had not won a World Series since the late 80's and were pretty damn desperate. They dealt Diaz, the number 52 prospect at the time (and infamous bust) and a bunch of Wild Cards. Three additional guys that landed in the O's top 30.
That is a comparable trade for an MVP caliber player, is it better than a compensation pick? Sure, I'll give you that but was it franchise altering? Did it speed up Baltimore's rebuild?
More importantly, is that return WORTH GIVING UP A PLAYOFF RUN? Think about what even a first round sweep would mean to the Cubs financially and what that would mean for re-signing or signing free agents.
We (the Cubs) are at 100% capacity and are a first place team.. what does a playoff run mean financially? To the Marquee network? To the money coming in at the gate and concessions? Merchandise, advertising, etc.?
I am with you that the Cubs are not selling if in first place or in reach of it, it is a horrific look around the league and like you said the Cubs are not going to get a franchise altering return for some of the players they have, so mind as well buy and see what happens. Also there is already rumored reports that The Rickets are doing better than expected and will let Hoyer make moves to improve the team at the deadline that he seems fit. While Hoyer will not be able to a big overhaul to the rotation but getting it at least middle of the road is a realistic goal and that is all he needs to do as long the bullpen keeps doing what it is doing. So add quality starter to the rotation and then beef up the offense with guys like Starling Marte and even Asrubal Cabrera (IF Duffy cannot return) and all the sudden your offense goes from middle of the road to above average and will not cost a top prospect to make it happen. All sudden the Cubs have a average rotation, Elite bullpen with a above average offense that can score is different ways which should help get them in the postseason and go from there. So if the Cubs have the lead after 5 innings then you hand it over to the bullpen for the win. This formula worked for the Giants, Royals and Brewers in the past and what the Cubs will have to do to contend this year. I don't think the Cubs are far off from being a serious threat this year. Marte is one guy I wish the front office would focus on. I think he could be the spark that could ignite this team, he does everything this lineup lacks. He hits well, and not just for power, can run extremely well and doesn't strike out a ton. I know he's stated he wants to sign with Miami long term, but all signs say no talks have taken place. If they could pry him away that could change the offense completely with just one guy.
|
|
|
Post by TheChico on Jun 23, 2021 15:31:35 GMT -5
I am with you that the Cubs are not selling if in first place or in reach of it, it is a horrific look around the league and like you said the Cubs are not going to get a franchise altering return for some of the players they have, so mind as well buy and see what happens. Also there is already rumored reports that The Rickets are doing better than expected and will let Hoyer make moves to improve the team at the deadline that he seems fit. While Hoyer will not be able to a big overhaul to the rotation but getting it at least middle of the road is a realistic goal and that is all he needs to do as long the bullpen keeps doing what it is doing. So add quality starter to the rotation and then beef up the offense with guys like Starling Marte and even Asrubal Cabrera (IF Duffy cannot return) and all the sudden your offense goes from middle of the road to above average and will not cost a top prospect to make it happen. All sudden the Cubs have a average rotation, Elite bullpen with a above average offense that can score is different ways which should help get them in the postseason and go from there. So if the Cubs have the lead after 5 innings then you hand it over to the bullpen for the win. This formula worked for the Giants, Royals and Brewers in the past and what the Cubs will have to do to contend this year. I don't think the Cubs are far off from being a serious threat this year. Did you think we would have a franchise altering return for Scott Feldman? What about Ryan Dempster? What about Dan Straily and Luis Valbuena? Franchise altering deals aren’t always for top prospects true, but you also don't sell while middle contending for first place hopes you can get a undervalued players like that again, a lot has changed since 2014 as more teams have a better talent evaluation then they did back then too. Cubs can get a franchise altering deal by becoming buyers too, can go grab German Marquez and the Cubs unlock another level and have another TOR for another 3.5 years.
|
|