Cubs offseason rumors/transactions

[anotheridiot]

well, getting Alvarez and Morrow AND a new pitching coach with hopefully different philosophy might fix some of these control issues with the young arms we have. I still really hope we can eventually see a system guy rise to the rotation, Tseng, Underwood probably not, next hope is Alzolay maybe. Would be nice to not give any of them up to get a bigger name.

 

[DanTown]

Stay with me on this but what if instead of having some push button bullpen you use that you had a variety of guys and matched them up based on where you are in the lineup, who is fresh, and who is pitching well in that moment of time in the season? The one thing I think analytics gets wrong about bullpens is falsely believing that you can just plug and play based on season numbers. I think guys have times where they're hot and times when they can't get anyone out and that you have to manage your bullpen day-to-day more so than say a starting rotation or even a lineup.

Just give me about four or five high K guys to pitch after the seventh and I think it's ok. Add one more guy to it and then I'll be ok with something like

One more guy
Morrow
Edwards
Wilson
Montgomery
Strop

Battle for two spots among
Grimm
Maples
Alvarez
Farrell

And for the reasons Beck mentioned, just say no to Alex Cobb. I would have rather given Jake or Darvish 6/150 and gone with minor leaguers at the #5 spot like Tseng for less money than Cobb/Chatwood will end up costing.

 

[chibears55]

If they add Addison Reed or Brandon Kintzler then that's four guys, including Wilson, who can close. You have all season to figure it out. Most closers start as set up guys and don't forget Davis was Holland's set up guy in KC. Morrow was signed to get the first shot at the job. if your bullpen guys are Morrow, Reed or Kintzler, Strop, Edwards, Montgomery, Wilson and a rotating cast of Tseng, Alvarez and a rotating cast a couple of other guys you have a nice mix to build a pen. Relievers are erratic and difficult to predict, paying a lot of money for them rarely works out and both Davis and Holland are going to be way more money than makes sense. I'm worried a lot less about the team building a solid pen than I am about a rotation that could end up being Q, Hendricks, Lester, Cobb and Chatwood. That's just not good enough for me.

Now you're adding Reed or Kintzler to close..

That what ive been saying, they cant be done with just Morrow to fix the pen, they have to be looking to add a closer..




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Now you're adding Reed or Kintzler to close..

That what ive been saying, they cant be done with just Morrow to fix the pen, they have to be looking to add a closer..




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

No, ideally Morrow would close with Kintzler or Reed to back him up if it doesn't work. Morrow is a better pitcher than either of those guys but they have closed before. I guarantee that unless Colome falls in their laps or another option we aren't considering Morrow will get the first crack at the closers job.

 

[chibears55]

No, ideally Morrow would close with Kintzler or Reed to back him up if it doesn't work. Morrow is a better pitcher than either of those guys but they have closed before. I guarantee that unless Colome falls in their laps or another option we aren't considering Morrow will get the first crack at the closers job.

I dont think their considering Morrow as a Closer now....

They have a list of guys they can choose from via FA

Davis
Holland
Reed
Kintzler
Shaw
Mcgee

And 3 names that been brought up via trade

Colome TB
Britton Balt
Herrera KC



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

Historically set up was just grooming to be the next closer. His numbers justify a closer gig.

It comes down to if Theo trusts Edwards in the 8th or not.

 

[chibears55]

Historically set up was just grooming to be the next closer. His numbers justify a closer gig.

It comes down to if Theo trusts Edwards in the 8th or not.

What numbers?

He was a starter in 2010 11 12 and 13

He pitched in 13 games in 2014 and 5 games in 2015 as a starter...

He then pitched in 18 G 16 ip in 2016

Last season was his first full season as a reliever in past 8 years 45 G 43 ip

So, not sure how those 45 Gs justifies putting your trust in him to close out games, plus he 33....




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

6.4 H/9
1.9 BB/9
10.3 SO/9

All he is is a converted starter post injury. He has made vast improvements over his first year in the role in SD. 10.7 H/9. 1.7 BB/9. 6.4/SO/9.

Honestly I really don’t see them making another investment in the pen. 9 mil on a set up when historically Theo has not made huge investments here.

I can buy into a trade or taking on a rehab but a full on investment would be a 180 from their track record.

So ya his numbers are pretty much justifying a closer gig. The question I feel is if Theo trusts Edwards in the 8th. If he doesn’t then it may end up interesting this week.

 

[DanTown]

McGee makes sense if you think about it.

Everyone healthy bullpen

Middle Relief
Grimm, Maples

6th-8th
Montgomery (L), Wilson (L), Strop, Edwards

9th
Morrow, McGee (L)

You're always resting one of the back six guys who you "don't want to use" but you still have plenty of options. There isn't a guy there I would be like "damn, that guy can't pitch in that role". And considering Morrow might need a little more maintenance, having Strop/Edwards are guys to pitch in the 8th who have a history of doing it and then using McGee as a closer (which he was) is fine; especially against the poorer hitting teams of the NL.

 

[beckdawg]

So apparently...

Yankees rumor time: Heyman reports that the Yankees might be willing to pay up to $34M of the $68M they owe Jacoby Ellsbury to facilitate a trade, but will likely struggle to get him to waive his no-trade clause. As for why a team would really want Ellsbury right now anyway, Rosenthal adds an important part of the story:

and

Ken Rosenthal
✔
@Ken_Rosenthal
One way for #Yankees to trade Ellsbury, assuming he will waive no-trade: Attach quality prospects. New team effectively would “buy” the prospects to take on negotiated percentage of Ellsbury’s contract: $21.1M through ‘20, plus $5M buyout for ‘21.

If the yankees were willing to eat $34 mil AND give up some top prospects to facilitate an Ellsbury trade and presumably if he were in talks to come to the cubs he'd waive the NTC because familiar front office and winning team, I think that could be an interesting way to add some depth behind Almora. If we assume you're going to just buy out his Age 37 season for $5 mil, and you evenly distribute the $34 mil across the 3 remaining years he'd cost around $11.5 mil for the next 3 years. Obviously that's higher than you'd like to pay a back up outfielder but they paid Jay $8 mil last year. He hit .264/.348/.402 and the year prior hit .263/.330/.374. Given his age he's no longer great defensively in CF but probably still good enough to player there in a short side of a platoon and he does hit RHP well .287/.346/.434(109 wRC+) on his career and .274/.367/.429(113 wRC+) last year.

Now I'm not entirely saying the cubs should make this trade. To me I think it would depend on who the Yankees are offering prospect wise. But if they were willing to give up 2 prospects in their 5-15 range I think its an idea worth considering.

 

[DanTown]

So apparently...



and



If the yankees were willing to eat $34 mil AND give up some top prospects to facilitate an Ellsbury trade and presumably if he were in talks to come to the cubs he'd waive the NTC because familiar front office and winning team, I think that could be an interesting way to add some depth behind Almora. If we assume you're going to just buy out his Age 37 season for $5 mil, and you evenly distribute the $34 mil across the 3 remaining years he'd cost around $11.5 mil for the next 3 years. Obviously that's higher than you'd like to pay a back up outfielder but they paid Jay $8 mil last year. He hit .264/.348/.402 and the year prior hit .263/.330/.374. Given his age he's no longer great defensively in CF but probably still good enough to player there in a short side of a platoon and he does hit RHP well .287/.346/.434(109 wRC+) on his career and .274/.367/.429(113 wRC+) last year.

Now I'm not entirely saying the cubs should make this trade. To me I think it would depend on who the Yankees are offering prospect wise. But if they were willing to give up 2 prospects in their 5-15 range I think its an idea worth considering.

It would almost assuredly take you out of the Harper race to do this and I consider that such a strong possibility that it simply doesn't make the risk return it. If the Cubs didn't have Heyward and his sub replacement level offense here maybe it would make sense but to me this deal doesn't make sense because you're basically buying Ellsbury and prospects then likely trading Happ, one of the guys who's probably as valuable if not more than the guys the Yankees would give you.

Far more interesting to me would be if the Yankees did a deal like that and the Cubs used the prospects/money to flip Heyward out and shorten their commitment and get a better suited player next to Harper.

Something like

Heyward, several prospects, 30M to the Giants (10M from the Yankees this year, 20M from the Yankees next year)
- The Giants get basically two free years (2018 cost upgrade from Pence, 2019) of Heyward AND prospects. Considering their ballpark and the dimensions in RF, even Heyward below average offensively will be a huge help to them. True cost of Heyward is 6/102 with prospects coming back.

Elsbury, Pence, 3M (all from NYY in 2018) to the Cubs
- The Cubs get out of the last years of the Heyward deal (2021-2023) which coincidentally is when Q is up and when Rizzo's final year is. Extra $8 million in 2018 to do it.

Nothing of true value to the Yankees except saving a ton of money.

 

[beckdawg]

It would almost assuredly take you out of the Harper race to do this and I consider that such a strong possibility that it simply doesn't make the risk return it. If the Cubs didn't have Heyward and his sub replacement level offense here maybe it would make sense but to me this deal doesn't make sense because you're basically buying Ellsbury and prospects then likely trading Happ, one of the guys who's probably as valuable if not more than the guys the Yankees would give you.

Far more interesting to me would be if the Yankees did a deal like that and the Cubs used the prospects/money to flip Heyward out and shorten their commitment and get a better suited player next to Harper.

Something like

Heyward, several prospects, 25M to the Giants
Elsbury, Pence, 8M to the Cubs
Nothing of true value to the Yankees

I'm not entirely sure how real Harper is to the cubs. I mean I can see them being in on him to an extent but he's likely going to have to take a fairly large cut to come to the cubs. Is $11.5 mil for the first 2 years of the deal enough to really tank that? I mean you're likely just going to put a bunch on the back end anyways given where the cubs are in their window.

Like I said I'm not entirely sure the cubs should do that sort of deal. And I seriously doubt the yankees would include Torres, Chance Adams, Estevan Florial and Justus Sheffield but they have some interesting depth in their 5-15 range. And Ellsbury does fill a need albeit expensively. It would probably be worth looking into to see just how much leverage you could apply via his NTC. He almost certainly wouldn't go to a bad team. And frankly he probably wouldn't get 3 years $30 mil as a FA. So it wouldn't surprise me if the yanks are optimistically floating $34 mil as their amount they are willing to eat.

 

[DanTown]

I'm not entirely sure how real Harper is to the cubs. I mean I can see them being in on him to an extent but he's likely going to have to take a fairly large cut to come to the cubs. Is $11.5 mil for the first 2 years of the deal enough to really tank that? I mean you're likely just going to put a bunch on the back end anyways given where the cubs are in their window.

Like I said I'm not entirely sure the cubs should do that sort of deal. And I seriously doubt the yankees would include Torres, Chance Adams, Estevan Florial and Justus Sheffield but they have some interesting depth in their 5-15 range. And Ellsbury does fill a need albeit expensively. It would probably be worth looking into to see just how much leverage you could apply via his NTC. He almost certainly wouldn't go to a bad team. And frankly he probably wouldn't get 3 years $30 mil as a FA. So it wouldn't surprise me if the yanks are optimistically floating $34 mil as their amount they are willing to eat.

A-Rod was worth 62 fWAR over the 10 years of his deal. Harper is similar age and skillset and would be a natural replacement for Rizzo at 1B when Rizzo's deal is up considering Harper will be drastically younger than Rizzo and probably be a less longterm commitment from the point Rizzo will want a new deal.

Regardless of that, even if the Cubs get prospects, where they going to play? You likely aren't getting a TOR future arm in a buyout deal (no matter what they're ranked in the system) so I don't care about depth prospects as the Cubs have a ton of those guys already. The Cubs don't need depth prospects.

 

[DanTown]

Regarding Harper, everything this franchise has done has been a nod to that FA class. They had Heyward and they front loaded all that money under the (likely) idea that Heyward would be in the prime of his career and opt out and the Cubs would replace him with Harper. Zobrist's deal drops a ton in 2019. Lester's deal drops a ton in 2019. They went for Lackey in 2016 instead of longer term options. They were in Verlander (expires 2019). I just refuse to believe that the Cubs and maintaining limited salary beyond 2019 is some coincidence.

 

[anotheridiot]

So apparently...



and



If the yankees were willing to eat $34 mil AND give up some top prospects to facilitate an Ellsbury trade and presumably if he were in talks to come to the cubs he'd waive the NTC because familiar front office and winning team, I think that could be an interesting way to add some depth behind Almora. If we assume you're going to just buy out his Age 37 season for $5 mil, and you evenly distribute the $34 mil across the 3 remaining years he'd cost around $11.5 mil for the next 3 years. Obviously that's higher than you'd like to pay a back up outfielder but they paid Jay $8 mil last year. He hit .264/.348/.402 and the year prior hit .263/.330/.374. Given his age he's no longer great defensively in CF but probably still good enough to player there in a short side of a platoon and he does hit RHP well .287/.346/.434(109 wRC+) on his career and .274/.367/.429(113 wRC+) last year.

Now I'm not entirely saying the cubs should make this trade. To me I think it would depend on who the Yankees are offering prospect wise. But if they were willing to give up 2 prospects in their 5-15 range I think its an idea worth considering.

Its better than saying "a guy that has no role with the Yankees, who got a stupid money deal from them" is a perfect for the cubbies.

The only thing missing with Rosenthal is tying Ellsbury to being Theo's second first round draft pick after he got Pedroia. Get on the ball Rosenthal

 

[beckdawg]

Regardless of that, even if the Cubs get prospects, where they going to play?

Ellsbury? I'm pretty sure I was clear about that. He'd be your 4th/5th OF. If you're asking where he would play when/if Harper signs, think that's an entirely different conversation. First it's hugely speculative. But even if Harper does sign with the cubs they will need a back up who can play CF. Ellsbury adds a fair bit from the bench given he's a LH bat and stole 22 bases in 112 games. I'd argue he's a better version of what Jay was when the cubs signed him. So, even if they sign Harper he's not the issue. The issue is Heyward and or Schwarber/Happ.

Edit: re-read what you said and I think now you're referring to the prospects they would get for Ellsbury. To answer that question, you realize the 16th pick in the 2017 draft is Clarke Schmidt right and that he is the yankees #11 prospect on mlb.com. These aren't fringe major league players. They have solid prospects through their top 15.

 

[chibears55]

http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0732020409347610270-4

Answers question on leadoff hitter and where their main focus is at now

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[TL1961]

“Welcome to the Winter Meetings, aka 24/7 discussion of the Yankees lineup”

 

[DanTown]

Ellsbury? I'm pretty sure I was clear about that. He'd be your 4th/5th OF. If you're asking where he would play when/if Harper signs, think that's an entirely different conversation. First it's hugely speculative. But even if Harper does sign with the cubs they will need a back up who can play CF. Ellsbury adds a fair bit from the bench given he's a LH bat and stole 22 bases in 112 games. I'd argue he's a better version of what Jay was when the cubs signed him. So, even if they sign Harper he's not the issue. The issue is Heyward and or Schwarber/Happ.

Edit: re-read what you said and I think now you're referring to the prospects they would get for Ellsbury. To answer that question, you realize the 16th pick in the 2017 draft is Clarke Schmidt right and that he is the yankees #11 prospect on mlb.com. These aren't fringe major league players. They have solid prospects through their top 15.

You realize the Cubs have seven under 25 players (Bryant, Schwarber, Happ, Russell, Almora, Baez, Contreras) with at least four years of control so I stand by my statement. How does acquiring Ellabuey/prospects make you better to the point it’s worth the cost?

 

[beckdawg]

You realize the Cubs have seven under 25 players (Bryant, Schwarber, Happ, Russell, Almora, Baez, Contreras) with at least four years of control so I stand by my statement. How does acquiring Ellabuey/prospects make you better to the point it’s worth the cost?

Those players are going to become expensive at some point quickly. And more to the point, you're always going to have holes. If you can get 1-2 first round pick quality players for a player who fits a need and who is maybe $15 mil more expensive than you other wise would pay over 3 years why would you not consider that? It's ironic that you of all people are arguing against this when you pushed for them to trade for Dee Gordon who's even more expensive and plays a position thats completely covered already and who wouldn't come with useful players.