Cubs - trade deadline

[irishcubfan]

Jun 17, 2024 19:58:51 GMT -5 kfidd said:

The Cubs aren’t set up to sell in any meaningful way. It absolutely would be just about clearing roster shots and commitments. Buying doesn’t seem particularly practical at this point either as they just aren’t good enough. But again, repurposing makes sense.

Either swallow your pride and eat some money to clear some roster spots in order to promote your deemed future or turn those future parts into present day parts that fit our current needs for the long haul. That’s why I mentioned Miller and Langeliers. Who cares about prospects when you can fill needs for the long haul like that?

The worst case scenario feels like the same as last deadline (which is exactly the route they went) and that’s a half assed attempt at being buyers that misses out on the playoffs while losing trade capital to be used in more meaningful ways. Hopefully they don’t make that same mistake again but I don’t have much faith in our front office to do anything other than perceived value buying.

If they are close, Hoyer and company will for sure buy for two reasons:

Hoyer and company own job security.
Attendance.

[kfidd]

I don’t know where else to put this since the game thread was archived. Continuing the topic our trade protected underachieving veteran outfielders.

I just don’t think these examples are applicable here. The question isn’t whether players with these no trade clauses are moveable, the question is whether our players are movable. It’s conditional. Let’s look at Stanton and Arenado.

Stanton was traded in the offseason after posting a 59 homerun season at age 27. He already had four .900+ OPS seasons under his belt. He was considered a massive run producing talent while Miami was in perpetual rebuild mode coming off eight straight losing seasons and would have four more after trading Stanton. Aka, Stanton was an incredibly desirable trade target while Miami was stuck a never ending rebuild.

Arenado was traded in the offseason following 2019. Age 29, four straight .930+ OPS seasons and a defensive wizard at third base. The Rockies were actually coming off consecutive winning seasons but were also headed for a clear rebuild that has seen them win at most 74 games since the trade. Arenado was again a very desirable trade target while Colorado was headed for the cellar again.

Of course both of these players had huge contracts that required special considerations but the theme of them both being prime MVP candidates leaving rebuilding teams remains. The Cubs under this front office are highly unlikely to head for a rebuild after already being stuck in one for 4+ seasons and nobody is viewing our veteran outfielders as MVP candidates that will put them over the top.

Could a team out there want Happ, Suzuki, or Bellinger? Sure. Would they give up assets for them? Maybe if A) they were willing to waive their no trade protections and B) our front office will eat significant money and/or attach assets to make them and their contracts more desirable. I don’t see that happening from our decision makers all things considered and that’s what we are talking about here: are our guys movable?

I still can’t think of any non-rebuilding team that has ever traded a player with multiple seasons of control and no trade protections. But even if I could that player has to be desirable on the market. We don’t have that here.

[irishcubfan]

Jun 24, 2024 17:00:32 GMT -5 kfidd said:

I don’t know where else to put this since the game thread was archived. Continuing the topic our trade protected underachieving veteran outfielders.

I just don’t think these examples are applicable here. The question isn’t whether players with these no trade clauses are moveable, the question is whether our players are movable. It’s conditional. Let’s look at Stanton and Arenado.

Stanton was traded in the offseason after posting a 59 homerun season at age 27. He already had four .900+ OPS seasons under his belt. He was considered a massive run producing talent while Miami was in perpetual rebuild mode coming off eight straight losing seasons and would have four more after trading Stanton. Aka, Stanton was an incredibly desirable trade target while Miami was stuck a never ending rebuild.

Arenado was traded in the offseason following 2019. Age 29, four straight .930+ OPS seasons and a defensive wizard at third base. The Rockies were actually coming off consecutive winning seasons but were also headed for a clear rebuild that has seen them win at most 74 games since the trade. Arenado was again a very desirable trade target while Colorado was headed for the cellar again.

Of course both of these players had huge contracts that required special considerations but the theme of them both being prime MVP candidates leaving rebuilding teams remains. The Cubs under this front office are highly unlikely to head for a rebuild after already being stuck in one for 4+ seasons and nobody is viewing our veteran outfielders as MVP candidates that will put them over the top.

Could a team out there want Happ, Suzuki, or Bellinger? Sure. Would they give up assets for them? Maybe if A) they were willing to waive their no trade protections and B) our front office will eat significant money and/or attach assets to make them and their contracts more desirable. I don’t see that happening from our decision makers all things considered and that’s what we are talking about here: are our guys movable?

I still can’t think of any non-rebuilding team that has ever traded a player with multiple seasons of control and no trade protections. But even if I could that player has to be desirable on the market. We don’t have that here.

[irishcubfan]

Jun 24, 2024 17:26:14 GMT -5 irishcubfan said:

Jun 24, 2024 17:00:32 GMT -5 kfidd said:

I don’t know where else to put this since the game thread was archived. Continuing the topic our trade protected underachieving veteran outfielders.

I just don’t think these examples are applicable here. The question isn’t whether players with these no trade clauses are moveable, the question is whether our players are movable. It’s conditional. Let’s look at Stanton and Arenado.

Stanton was traded in the offseason after posting a 59 homerun season at age 27. He already had four .900+ OPS seasons under his belt. He was considered a massive run producing talent while Miami was in perpetual rebuild mode coming off eight straight losing seasons and would have four more after trading Stanton. Aka, Stanton was an incredibly desirable trade target while Miami was stuck a never ending rebuild.

Arenado was traded in the offseason following 2019. Age 29, four straight .930+ OPS seasons and a defensive wizard at third base. The Rockies were actually coming off consecutive winning seasons but were also headed for a clear rebuild that has seen them win at most 74 games since the trade. Arenado was again a very desirable trade target while Colorado was headed for the cellar again.

Of course both of these players had huge contracts that required special considerations but the theme of them both being prime MVP candidates leaving rebuilding teams remains. The Cubs under this front office are highly unlikely to head for a rebuild after already being stuck in one for 4+ seasons and nobody is viewing our veteran outfielders as MVP candidates that will put them over the top.

Could a team out there want Happ, Suzuki, or Bellinger? Sure. Would they give up assets for them? Maybe if A) they were willing to waive their no trade protections and B) our front office will eat significant money and/or attach assets to make them and their contracts more desirable. I don’t see that happening from our decision makers all things considered and that’s what we are talking about here: are our guys movable?

I still can’t think of any non-rebuilding team that has ever traded a player with multiple seasons of control and no trade protections. But even if I could that player has to be desirable on the market. We don’t have that here.

Regarding this specific deadline, Bellinger is most moveable if he agrees to opt out. Of course he would be crazy to opt out as only the Cubs view (amongst major markets) Bellinger as the offensive centerpiece in a lineup, on a very good team he is a 4th/5th best offensive option.

The rest, the best thing about the contracts are the short term nature. Not franchise crippling to any franchise but not much difference makers. This all goes back to one real star versus comp players. Amazing that the third largest market does not have a true star/s.

[batman66]

Jun 24, 2024 17:00:32 GMT -5 kfidd said:

I don’t know where else to put this since the game thread was archived. Continuing the topic our trade protected underachieving veteran outfielders.

I just don’t think these examples are applicable here. The question isn’t whether players with these no trade clauses are moveable, the question is whether our players are movable. It’s conditional. Let’s look at Stanton and Arenado.

Stanton was traded in the offseason after posting a 59 homerun season at age 27. He already had four .900+ OPS seasons under his belt. He was considered a massive run producing talent while Miami was in perpetual rebuild mode coming off eight straight losing seasons and would have four more after trading Stanton. Aka, Stanton was an incredibly desirable trade target while Miami was stuck a never ending rebuild.

Arenado was traded in the offseason following 2019. Age 29, four straight .930+ OPS seasons and a defensive wizard at third base. The Rockies were actually coming off consecutive winning seasons but were also headed for a clear rebuild that has seen them win at most 74 games since the trade. Arenado was again a very desirable trade target while Colorado was headed for the cellar again.

Of course both of these players had huge contracts that required special considerations but the theme of them both being prime MVP candidates leaving rebuilding teams remains. The Cubs under this front office are highly unlikely to head for a rebuild after already being stuck in one for 4+ seasons and nobody is viewing our veteran outfielders as MVP candidates that will put them over the top.

Could a team out there want Happ, Suzuki, or Bellinger? Sure. Would they give up assets for them? Maybe if A) they were willing to waive their no trade protections and B) our front office will eat significant money and/or attach assets to make them and their contracts more desirable. I don’t see that happening from our decision makers all things considered and that’s what we are talking about here: are our guys movable?

I still can’t think of any non-rebuilding team that has ever traded a player with multiple seasons of control and no trade protections. But even if I could that player has to be desirable on the market. We don’t have that here.

I think they are easily movable and they  could  trade all three of those guys and get a decent return but I don't see it happening.

Why I mentioned Happ in the first place was and I doubt it because they seem to love him , is he's a guy that's blocking the players they collected that were SUPPOSED to be a big part of the future.
I still have confidence in PCA and that he will be the CF the next 6 years and I'm pretty confident that Caissie is going to be a legit solid major league hitter so that's two OF spots that they had planned on being part of the core.
Then you have Canario who they seem reluctant to commit to so far , so I'm not sure where he fits in , it doesn't seem like he fits in anywhere at all.

The Morel experiment at 3b doesn't look like it's going to end up with him being the 3b they move forward with so if he's going to be an everyday part of the team and line up , it's likely as the DH .

But what further  clouds the picture is Ballesteros and his rapid rise to AAA as a 20 year old and the distinct possibilty that he's actually going to turn out the best hitter of them all and he's not good enough behind the plate to be an everyday catcher or even the main backup and nothing more than a 3rd catcher , so his only real every day shot is going to be as a DH .............So now what happens with Morel , Canario ...........it seems like all signs point to them needing to either trade Happ or Suzuki.
And if Bellinger stays around another year where does Busch play ?

So I'm not going to spend any time finding guys who were traded to prove what I said , that wasn't my  point anyway of the trades only coming from teams going into rebuilds or what type of mode they were in , it was the point that guys who have NTC's do get traded and they do waive them and I'm fairly certain if the Cubs came to Happ and said we want to open up a spot for Caissie so we'd like to deal you , he's not going to stand in the way and want to stay around where he's not wanted.
He might refuse to go to some teams , but he'll more than likely end up accepting a deal. 

[okeecub]

Jun 24, 2024 19:47:36 GMT -5 batman66 said:

Jun 24, 2024 17:00:32 GMT -5 kfidd said:

I don’t know where else to put this since the game thread was archived. Continuing the topic our trade protected underachieving veteran outfielders.

I just don’t think these examples are applicable here. The question isn’t whether players with these no trade clauses are moveable, the question is whether our players are movable. It’s conditional. Let’s look at Stanton and Arenado.

Stanton was traded in the offseason after posting a 59 homerun season at age 27. He already had four .900+ OPS seasons under his belt. He was considered a massive run producing talent while Miami was in perpetual rebuild mode coming off eight straight losing seasons and would have four more after trading Stanton. Aka, Stanton was an incredibly desirable trade target while Miami was stuck a never ending rebuild.

Arenado was traded in the offseason following 2019. Age 29, four straight .930+ OPS seasons and a defensive wizard at third base. The Rockies were actually coming off consecutive winning seasons but were also headed for a clear rebuild that has seen them win at most 74 games since the trade. Arenado was again a very desirable trade target while Colorado was headed for the cellar again.

Of course both of these players had huge contracts that required special considerations but the theme of them both being prime MVP candidates leaving rebuilding teams remains. The Cubs under this front office are highly unlikely to head for a rebuild after already being stuck in one for 4+ seasons and nobody is viewing our veteran outfielders as MVP candidates that will put them over the top.

Could a team out there want Happ, Suzuki, or Bellinger? Sure. Would they give up assets for them? Maybe if A) they were willing to waive their no trade protections and B) our front office will eat significant money and/or attach assets to make them and their contracts more desirable. I don’t see that happening from our decision makers all things considered and that’s what we are talking about here: are our guys movable?

I still can’t think of any non-rebuilding team that has ever traded a player with multiple seasons of control and no trade protections. But even if I could that player has to be desirable on the market. We don’t have that here.

I think they are easily movable and they  could  trade all three of those guys and get a decent return but I don't see it happening.

Why I mentioned Happ in the first place was and I doubt it because they seem to love him , is he's a guy that's blocking the players they collected that were SUPPOSED to be a big part of the future.
I still have confidence in PCA and that he will be the CF the next 6 years and I'm pretty confident that Caissie is going to be a legit solid major league hitter so that's two OF spots that they had planned on being part of the core.
Then you have Canario who they seem reluctant to commit to so far , so I'm not sure where he fits in , it doesn't seem like he fits in anywhere at all.

The Morel experiment at 3b doesn't look like it's going to end up with him being the 3b they move forward with so if he's going to be an everyday part of the team and line up , it's likely as the DH .

But what further  clouds the picture is Ballesteros and his rapid rise to AAA as a 20 year old and the distinct possibilty that he's actually going to turn out the best hitter of them all and he's not good enough behind the plate to be an everyday catcher or even the main backup and nothing more than a 3rd catcher , so his only real every day shot is going to be as a DH .............So now what happens with Morel , Canario ...........it seems like all signs point to them needing to either trade Happ or Suzuki.
And if Bellinger stays around another year where does Busch play ?

So I'm not going to spend any time finding guys who were traded to prove what I said , that wasn't my  point anyway of the trades only coming from teams going into rebuilds or what type of mode they were in , it was the point that guys who have NTC's do get traded and they do waive them and I'm fairly certain if the Cubs came to Happ and said we want to open up a spot for Caissie so we'd like to deal you , he's not going to stand in the way and want to stay around where he's not wanted.
He might refuse to go to some teams , but he'll more than likely end up accepting a deal. 

I could be wrong but wasn’t Verlander moved at the deadline with aNTC possibly Scherzer too

[batman66]

Jun 24, 2024 20:19:18 GMT -5 okeecub said:

Jun 24, 2024 19:47:36 GMT -5 batman66 said:

I think they are easily movable and they  could  trade all three of those guys and get a decent return but I don't see it happening.

Why I mentioned Happ in the first place was and I doubt it because they seem to love him , is he's a guy that's blocking the players they collected that were SUPPOSED to be a big part of the future.
I still have confidence in PCA and that he will be the CF the next 6 years and I'm pretty confident that Caissie is going to be a legit solid major league hitter so that's two OF spots that they had planned on being part of the core.
Then you have Canario who they seem reluctant to commit to so far , so I'm not sure where he fits in , it doesn't seem like he fits in anywhere at all.

The Morel experiment at 3b doesn't look like it's going to end up with him being the 3b they move forward with so if he's going to be an everyday part of the team and line up , it's likely as the DH .

But what further  clouds the picture is Ballesteros and his rapid rise to AAA as a 20 year old and the distinct possibilty that he's actually going to turn out the best hitter of them all and he's not good enough behind the plate to be an everyday catcher or even the main backup and nothing more than a 3rd catcher , so his only real every day shot is going to be as a DH .............So now what happens with Morel , Canario ...........it seems like all signs point to them needing to either trade Happ or Suzuki.
And if Bellinger stays around another year where does Busch play ?

So I'm not going to spend any time finding guys who were traded to prove what I said , that wasn't my  point anyway of the trades only coming from teams going into rebuilds or what type of mode they were in , it was the point that guys who have NTC's do get traded and they do waive them and I'm fairly certain if the Cubs came to Happ and said we want to open up a spot for Caissie so we'd like to deal you , he's not going to stand in the way and want to stay around where he's not wanted.
He might refuse to go to some teams , but he'll more than likely end up accepting a deal. 

I could be wrong but wasn’t Verlander moved at the deadline with aNTC possibly Scherzer too

Yes, both had NTC's they waived and are currently playing under contracts they signed with the Mets .

acquired by Texas in trade from NY Mets 7/29/23, with Scherzer agreeing 1) to waive no-trade protection and 2) not to exercise his right to opt out of his contract after the 2023 World Series.

I think Chris Sale is another  and there are plenty more , happens all the time, way more than players nixing deals and then staying with the team.

[irishcubfan]

Trade Hoyer for Epstein type.

[kfidd]

Both Scherzer and Verlander were cases of older veterans escaping rebuilding teams and chasing rings.

We can go back and forth on this indefinitely. I still don’t believe this is nearly as simple as you think it is and I think history supports that. Players that typically waive their no trade are desired talents leaving rebuilding teams to ring chase and generally are older veterans. I don’t see any of that on the Cubs. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen but it will require swallowing a lot of pride to do so and that doesn’t seem to favor the mentality we’ve witnessed time and time again from this front office.

Time will tell.

[batman66]

Jun 25, 2024 5:51:12 GMT -5 kfidd said:

Both Scherzer and Verlander were cases of older veterans escaping rebuilding teams and chasing rings.

We can go back and forth on this indefinitely. I still don’t believe this is nearly as simple as you think it is and I think history supports that. Players that typically waive their no trade are desired talents leaving rebuilding teams to ring chase and generally are older veterans. I don’t see any of that on the Cubs. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen but it will require swallowing a lot of pride to do so and that doesn’t seem to favor the mentality we’ve witnessed time and time again from this front office.

Time will tell.

I'm done trying to come up with names, the entire point for me anyway was WAY more players with NTC's waive them than block trades and then stay with a team , I really can't think of a single player that did block a trade and then stayed with the team for a season or more after .

I know plenty do block deals but then they usually find an acceptable destination for them soon after.

[okeecub]

Jun 25, 2024 8:31:22 GMT -5 batman66 said:

Jun 25, 2024 5:51:12 GMT -5 kfidd said:

Both Scherzer and Verlander were cases of older veterans escaping rebuilding teams and chasing rings.

We can go back and forth on this indefinitely. I still don’t believe this is nearly as simple as you think it is and I think history supports that. Players that typically waive their no trade are desired talents leaving rebuilding teams to ring chase and generally are older veterans. I don’t see any of that on the Cubs. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen but it will require swallowing a lot of pride to do so and that doesn’t seem to favor the mentality we’ve witnessed time and time again from this front office.

Time will tell.

I'm done trying to come up with names, the entire point for me anyway was WAY more players with NTC's waive them than block trades and then stay with a team , I really can't think of a single player that did block a trade and then stayed with the team for a season or more after .

I know plenty do block deals but then they usually find an acceptable destination for them soon after.

when Verlander left Detroit for Houston in 2017 he wasn’t that old and I think he still had a year or two on his contract. He went from an underperforming ( Cubs?? ) to a team he felt had a better chance to go to the postseason. I’m thinking that could appeal to players on our team too

[cfin]

A no trade clause doesn't mean that a player can't be traded. It just means that a player gets a say to where they are traded to. Just because a player has a no trade clause doesn't mean they can't be shopped (someone should tell Hoyer this) but it's not as easy as just calling up a team, getting a trade proposal together and then executing it. Instead the player has to be involved before the trade can be executed.

Having said all of that... I think @kfidd is right in the aspect that none of the Cubs players are going to generate a lot of trade interest and that may be the issue.

None of the Cubs players (at least position player wise) is that good to really generate a lot of interest. So in order to move them, the Cubs are probably going to have to eat some salary AND not get a lot back in return. But, I think that's a move the front office needs to make just to clear out roster space for players in AAA that profile better to what this team needs.

I still contend that Suzuki is the most likely to waive his no trade clause (within reason... I don't think he'd accept a trade to the Athletics). I know this statement generates a lot of arguments, but I just don't see Suzuki being the power hitter that this team needs. Suzuki knows this. Hopefully a reset with another team will allow him to draw out that power and he can set himself up better as a higher-priced star player for his next contract. I just don't know if that trade happens at the trade deadline or in the offseason.

But any trade that involves Suzuki, whether it be at the trade deadline or the offseason, is not going to return a lot. I'd estimate that the Cubs will have to eat about $10M of the remaining contract and get a Low-A lottery ticket back as a return. But the most important aspect for the Cubs is that it opens a spot for Canario or Caissie, who profile more as that power hitter that the Cubs need (doesn't mean they will be though).

On the topic of Canario, I have no clue why the organization isn't high on him. I fear that they will end up trading him (probably in a futile attempt to remain relevant this year) and then Canario will go on to have a pretty good career with pretty good power numbers.

And if that happens, it goes to prove just how worthless Hoyer is. He will have nothing to show for from the Bryant trade. He has nothing to show for the Kimbrel trade. He is just not a very good evaluator of talent. More of why I'd like to see him go before trying to assemble the next team.

[bryzzobrist]

Why would we trade happ? He's been productive.

Definitely would not trade suzu for a low a lottery ticket and eat money to move him.

Lets make the team better by filling holes, not by trading away production.

We need relief pitching, a 3b and maybe a catcher still.

[cfin]

Well, the offense needs production. They're not getting any production. So in order to change that, you're going to have to add productive players. And those players have to play a position.

3B is an obvious one. But who are you going to get to provide that production at 3B? Name a productive 3B that would be had on the trade market? Or even in the offseason when a would-be contending team MIGHT be more apt to move a productive player?

If you are committed to PCA in CF, then you're not going to get that player in CF.

If you are committed to Busch at 1B, then you're not going to get that player at 1B.

If you are committed to leaving the DH spot open as a semi-rest rotation player, then you're not going to get that player at DH.

If you are committed to Hoerner at 2B, then you're not going to get that player at 2B - nor are there a lot to choose from.

Additionally you have Bellinger, where do you put him if you are committed to keeping him?

I highly doubt that Swanson is moving. And I never like relying on your catcher to be a main offensive cog in your lineup - not saying they can't provide offense, but if your catcher is batting 4th, then what happens to your lineup when the catcher - the most physically demanding position on the diamond - needs a day off?

The argument for me always comes back to Happ and Suzuki. Because the Cubs have a lot of depth already in their system at the positions they play.

The offense needs a couple of 30+ homerun guys and ideally a few more 25 to 30 homerun guys. You're not going to string together 3, 4, or 5 hits in a row to score runs against good pitching.

Happ's biggest issue is that he's blocking a position with non-traditional offense. He's not horrible by himself, but because he plays a traditional power hitting position, the Cubs need to offset that power production at another position. And they don't even have typical power production at the traditional power positions. If Happ were to play CF, he'd be fine. If Happ were to play 2B, he'd be fine. But for a power starved team, he's blocking that production in LF.

[batman66]

Jun 25, 2024 11:45:51 GMT -5 bryzzobrist said:

Why would we trade happ? He's been productive.

Definitely would not trade suzu for a low a lottery ticket and eat money to move him.

Lets make the team better by filling holes, not by trading away production.

We need relief pitching, a 3b and maybe a catcher still.

I'm not talking so much about this upcoming deadline , but for them to give any of the minor league players a legit chance, somebody is going to need to be moved.

And  one guy not mentioned who would probably be pretty tradable but you would not get a lot for  , and that is Tauchman because he's ultra cheap.

But in general how are they going to fit the following into the roster in 2025 if Bellinger stays around

Bellinger  CF , RF, 1B
Suzuki RF , DH
PCA CF
Happ LF
Caissie LF, RF, DH
Morel 3B, DH  ...3B experment is likely over when Shaw is ready or Triantos , but who knows what they are doing with him , he's been playing CF often
Busch 1B, DH
Ballesteros DH
Canario OF, DH 

Ballesteros on the cusp of being ready ( I know he was just promoted to AAA) but he's such an advanced hitter he probably won't need to be there long and I think he's going to struclty DH and be a 3rd string catcher so it's not like they need to spend more time on his catching before they call him up because he's probably never going to be good enough behind the plate to be a regular ML catcher. 

[batman66]

Jun 25, 2024 12:05:48 GMT -5 cfin said:

Well, the offense needs production. They're not getting any production. So in order to change that, you're going to have to add productive players. And those players have to play a position.

3B is an obvious one. But who are you going to get to provide that production at 3B? Name a productive 3B that would be had on the trade market? Or even in the offseason when a would-be contending team MIGHT be more apt to move a productive player?

If you are committed to PCA in CF, then you're not going to get that player in CF.

If you are committed to Busch at 1B, then you're not going to get that player at 1B.

If you are committed to leaving the DH spot open as a semi-rest rotation player, then you're not going to get that player at DH.

If you are committed to Hoerner at 2B, then you're not going to get that player at 2B - nor are there a lot to choose from.

Additionally you have Bellinger, where do you put him if you are committed to keeping him?

I highly doubt that Swanson is moving. And I never like relying on your catcher to be a main offensive cog in your lineup - not saying they can't provide offense, but if your catcher is batting 4th, then what happens to your lineup when the catcher - the most physically demanding position on the diamond - needs a day off?

The argument for me always comes back to Happ and Suzuki. Because the Cubs have a lot of depth already in their system at the positions they play.

The offense needs a couple of 30+ homerun guys and ideally a few more 25 to 30 homerun guys. You're not going to string together 3, 4, or 5 hits in a row to score runs against good pitching.

Happ's biggest issue is that he's blocking a position with non-traditional offense. He's not horrible by himself, but because he plays a traditional power hitting position, the Cubs need to offset that power production at another position. And they don't even have typical power production at the traditional power positions. If Happ were to play CF, he'd be fine. If Happ were to play 2B, he'd be fine. But for a power starved team, he's blocking that production in LF.

The two potential and I'm using the word potential impact type bats they have in the system are probably Caissie who should be a 30+ homer type guy and Ballesteros who will just flat out hit and get on base and they both can't be the DH , so Caissie is going to have to play one of the corners so that means Happ or Suzuki will probably have to go .

I think Busch can be a productive player once he's more established and moves up in the line up , he could be a Rizzo type 25-30 homer 80+ rbi guy 

I think three players from within the sytstem Caissie, Ballesteros and Shaw could really change the line up and run production .

I'm not saying right now, but for starters in 2025 but will we still be seeing the same old same old guys with Tauchman being told he made the roster day one of spring 2025 and these guys ripping up AAA.

I'm really confused as to what direction they are going and I'm finally with you guys on doubting if Jed is the right man.

Last night broke me , the situation of the bullpen is pathetic for a 230 million team , yes they has a shit ton of injuries, but they were not very good prior to them anyway to the point the injuries caused this.
Merryweather was a huge loss and they were counting on Alzolay after how he looked last season and having both hurt it a huge loss that wasn't something you could envision.
But to have NOBODY who can get 3 outs in a 9th inning of  a game is pathetic.

[batman66]

The frightening thought is , yes the offense needs to be better and not leave so many guys on base , hit more homers etc etc .

But it's been good enough to give them leads to take into the last inning to the point the pen has blown 17 saves , so even if the Cubs would score more and give the sorry I can't use the word "closer" seriously with any of these guys a bigger lead , they'd probably still blow it , it doesn't seem to matter if it's 1 run , 2 or 3, nobody can pitch the 9th inning for this team.

Hell , if they won just 10 of those 17 they'd be 47-32 and right there with the Brewers

[Mike]

If we offer Alcantara for Tanner Scott, who says no?

[TheChico]

Jun 25, 2024 16:12:54 GMT -5 Mike said:

If we offer Alcantara for Tanner Scott, who says no?

I am not trading top 100 prospects for a rental 

the Cubs are in last place, I am not really interested in Rental, I want to prospects to be traded for long term pieces at this point. 

[kfidd]

Jun 25, 2024 16:12:54 GMT -5 Mike said:

If we offer Alcantara for Tanner Scott, who says no?

I’m with Chico here. I am ALL FOR moving some of our top prospects, but not for a rental. The way this team is trending that sort of move is not justified.

I’d much rather build a huge package with multiple Alcantaras for a controlled dominant closer like Mason Miller than go after a rental.