anotheridiot
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jul 15, 2016
- Posts:
- 5,935
- Liked Posts:
- 791
Happ is the apparent replacement for Zobrist, who still has one more year of full no trade power. Why would you jettison both of them?
Happ is the apparent replacement for Zobrist, who still has one more year of full no trade power. Why would you jettison both of them?
CSF77
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 18,669
- Liked Posts:
- 2,845
- Location:
- San Diego
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
Exactly why I think the cubs would be giving up too much. Plus the fact that Cueto's contract is viewed as bad enough that he didn't opt out. I think you could make an argument that Zobrist for Cueto is fair if the giants don't eat any money. And I think on the high end if Cueto is viewed as just a one year bump you could argue zobrist + a mid level prospect could be high but a bit fair.
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- 4,579
- Location:
- Hell
Explain to me please how Cueto for Zobrist is fair for the Giants?
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
It largely depends on how they want to proceed. I mean look you can say Cueto just had a bad year and all is rosey. But he is owed $83 mil over the next 4 years and had a 4.52/4.49 ERA/FIP last year. Zobrist's deal isn't amazing either but he's only due $29 mil. Supposedly the giants really want to get under the luxury tax. One way to do that is trading pricer players for cheaper ones. It's the quintessential bad contract swap.
Now truth be told the Giants probably have no use for Zobrist themselves. so in a 1 for 1 deal I don't think it makes a ton of sense. But my comments were more in reference to Shermans proposed idea of stanton to SF Cueto to the cubs and a bunch of shit to FLA. That trade effectively would be Cueto, Christian Arroyo and Seth Corry for Stanton from their perspective. I'm sure they would jump at the chance to do that deal. On the cubs side, Cueto for Zobrist seems within the realm of reality and something the cubs would be happy with. Whether or not the Marlins would give up Stanton for Zobrist, Arroyo and Corry is harder to say. Think you could argue they'd want at least a half decent prospect but essentially my point was that the cubs aren't going to give up Happ for Cueto given how bad he was last year and how much money he is owed. He's going to be 32 and makes $21 mil the next 4 seasons. You've likely already missed his peak year as generally you're talking 27-32 and ever year after that you can generally expect half a win or more to come off their value.
Regardless, if you think 2017 was an aberration that's fine. I'm not even sure the Giants will move Cueto. But you're not going to get premium players for a 32 year old coming off an injury ridden season where he had a mid 4 ERA. Look at what Shields went for 1.5 years after he signed.
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- 4,579
- Location:
- Hell
I am thinking that even if Cueto could be the nest Shields, that is still an unknown and last year seems more of a fluke. If that is so, the Giants trading Cueto is going to return rebuilding pieces, not over the hill pieces in Zobrist.
chibears55
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2013
- Posts:
- 13,554
- Liked Posts:
- 1,915
I doubt the Cubs have any interested in Cueto and their definately not trading Zobrist...
They dont need to pay a 2nd SP 20+ per on the downside of career age 32 to 36..
It my belief they will get their SPs in 1 of 2 ways....
Theyll sign/trade for 2 SP no older then 30, that will be fixtures to rotation for next 4-5 yrs...
Or
Theyll sign/trade for 1 SP that will be that fixture for 4-5 yrs and add another on just a 1 yr deal to keep a slot open for next year FA group or one of their own prospect who might be ready to take a jump up in 2019...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
They dont need to pay a 2nd SP 20+ per on the downside of career age 32 to 36..
It my belief they will get their SPs in 1 of 2 ways....
Theyll sign/trade for 2 SP no older then 30, that will be fixtures to rotation for next 4-5 yrs...
Or
Theyll sign/trade for 1 SP that will be that fixture for 4-5 yrs and add another on just a 1 yr deal to keep a slot open for next year FA group or one of their own prospect who might be ready to take a jump up in 2019...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
Well like I said in a straight 2 team trade I certainly agree. Zobrist makes little sense to the Giants. With that being said, I think Cueto's deal is a bit more toxic than you think. A lot depends on what SF wants to do. If they are trying to clear salary you're not going to get more than a couple of middling prospects for him right now. In a lot of ways it's the same problem the cubs have with Heyward. I don't think you're getting much for either so its probably better for you to just keep the guy and hope he rebounds.
But, I would argue that if the giants are looking to retool in the huge 2019 FA class ditching Cueto for a shorter more manageable contract isn't the worst idea. And the thing is Zobrist is always going to hold value if he's hitting to a team at the trade deadline because while he's not what he used to be you can still rotate him in at least 3 positions(LF/RF/2B). So, if your goal is to just clean up your books a bit so you are primed for 2019, you could feasibly deal Cueto this offseason and look to deal Zobrist to a contender during the season.
Regardless, when I say something is "fair" I generally mean it's within the realm of feasible. In other words, I think that is a fair starting point where you don't have to add crazy pieces in order to make it work. If you were to add Hatch with Zobrist for example I think that doesn't greatly change the value of the deal and could see SF wanting more than just Zobrist. I'm generally referring to the core pieces needed to make a deal and less concerned about the pieces that finish a deal off. My point here is that I don't see any team offering any package for Cueto involving a top 100 prospect given the season he just had and the money he's making.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
Supposedly according to USA today the cubs didn't stay under the luxury tax. I'm not 100% ready to believe that because the luxury tax calculation is some what complicated but if true it's pretty bad. Davis/Arrieta draft pick compensation would go from second round to after the 4th round. And signing a player like Cobb who is a QO guy goes from a 2nd round pick and $500k in IFA money to the cubs 2nd and 5th highest draft picks plus $1 mil in IFA money. And then you're also taxed more on a per dollar basis for any normal FA you sign who is over that limit.
Main reason I'm dubious on it actually being true is that the cubs would be with in a few million of it and I strongly doubt they wouldn't have considered this during the season only to go over by a few million. They knew davis and arrieta were FA and they knew they would no longer be out of IFA bidding. So, I have to believe they would have done a lot to stay under it.
Main reason I'm dubious on it actually being true is that the cubs would be with in a few million of it and I strongly doubt they wouldn't have considered this during the season only to go over by a few million. They knew davis and arrieta were FA and they knew they would no longer be out of IFA bidding. So, I have to believe they would have done a lot to stay under it.
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- 4,579
- Location:
- Hell
Fair enough, this however I think is the minority opinion. The Giants do not have money issues AFAIK.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
Define money issues. They have been over the luxury tax the past 2 years and if USA today is correct are on pace for a third straight year. As I mentioned with reference to the cubs the penalties now for being over are really strict. So while they certainly seem to have more than enough income to pay over it the question becomes does a 64 or whatever win team want to be over the luxury tax? Their money situation doesn't get better either. The next three years they are projected at $181.4M/$187.3M/$160.4M which is under but that also includes no additions what so ever. And the third year doesn't include Bumgarner who's a FA.
So, if the idea for them is to go hard after 2019 FA's which honestly given the state of their farm system and talent in general it probably should be... they need to do everything they can this offseason to get money off their books. And honestly I think you're going to see a lot of teams this offseason ditching money in anyway they can. The new CBA rules are no joke. The fact you're paying 2 of your top 5 picks to sign QO FA's just murders your long term ability to draft if you're over the luxury tax and the IFA penalty also is stiff given it's 20% of most team's budget for IFAs.
brett05
867-5309
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 27,226
- Liked Posts:
- 4,579
- Location:
- Hell
I haven't heard of financial troubles or selling the team. You can cut dollars and still get returns IMO.
CSF77
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 18,669
- Liked Posts:
- 2,845
- Location:
- San Diego
Giants have a bottom 5 farm. I can’t see them trading parts for anything but farm replenishments then using F/A to back fill the voids. Kinda use next year’s draft pool then the Comp from Bum the following to bluster the system.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
Not saying they have financial troubles/selling the team. They have a high payroll and that combined with the new penalties is going to be a problem for teams. I think it's a safe assumption that every team is going to aim to get below the luxury tax. It's just not worth it being over. But I'll humor your argument that they have better pieces to move so let's look.
Buster Posey(4x $21.4 miil)
Johnny Cueto(4x $21.8 mil + 5th year $22 mil/$5 mil buy out)
Hunter Pence(1 year $18.5 mil)
Jeff Samardzija(3x $19.8M)
Brandon Crawford(4x $15.2M)
Brandon Belt(4x $17.2M)
Mark Melancon($15M/$19M/$19M)
Madison Bumgarner(1 year $12M/$12M team option in 2019)
Denard Span($11M/$12M or $4M buy out)
Matt Moore($9M/$10M or $750k buy out)
No one else is making more than arbitration. Posey and Bumgarner are clearly not moving. Pence and Belt I would argue are good enough you wouldn't want to move them. Crawford isn't a big bat but you can't just replace SS defense like his. So that leaves you with Cueto, Shark, Melancon, Span and Moore. I'm sure they'd love to ditch Melancon but he's not returning anything on that deal. Same goes for Moore and his 5.52 ERA. They could probably move Shark but of him and Cueto think you'd rather have Shark. Moving Span doesn't get you anything. And even if you move Shark instead does he really return much of anything? Wouldn't you rather just sign someone like Lance Lynn if you are a team that needs pitching? I think i'd probably rather have shark a little more personally but you're giving up nothing to sign Lynn other than money.
Now maybe I'm wrong and they will just eat the luxury tax again. My obvious presumption here is they wont just do that. But if I'm right moving Cueto seems to be their best play. And I'm just not seeing teams jumping to eat his deal.
anotheridiot
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jul 15, 2016
- Posts:
- 5,935
- Liked Posts:
- 791
Its more of a return on investment problem with them.
chibears55
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2013
- Posts:
- 13,554
- Liked Posts:
- 1,915
Patrick Mooney writes that “Theo Epstein’s front office sounds willing to make big changes that would shake up this team” this week at the GM meetings in Orlando. Oh my. And while no specific and/or new rumors emerge from the post, Mooney does include a few notable bit. Mainly, that the truly untouchables remain Anthony Rizzo, Kris Bryant, and Willson Contreras, and that the Cubs are*most likely*not ready to break up the Addison Russell and Javy Baez double-play combo.From there,*Mooney extrapolatesthat Ian Happ, Kyle Schwarber, and Albert Almora, although all front-office favorites, can reasonably be considered the guys the Cubs would be willing to dangle.*I think we always knew this on some level, but now it’s been written down, so to speak.At CBS Chicago, Bruce Levine mostly echoes that sentiment, noting that Alex Cobb, Brandon Morrow, and Jake McGee are the names who’ve already been attached to the Cubs this winter.
Ive been saying...
Schwarber could be gone this off season...
Doesn't matter how much they love the guy, if the right deal comes up theyll trade him...
I also said it wouldnt surprise me if they have a couple new position players at start of season...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Ive been saying...
Schwarber could be gone this off season...
Doesn't matter how much they love the guy, if the right deal comes up theyll trade him...
I also said it wouldnt surprise me if they have a couple new position players at start of season...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
It's been discussed to death so I'm not going to get into it again but I'll take bets Schwarber is still with the cubs. Theo wouldn't single him out as a leader out of no where if his intention was to deal him.
CSF77
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 18,669
- Liked Posts:
- 2,845
- Location:
- San Diego
I honestly don’t see a SP target now that Archer has been pulled back.
chibears55
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2013
- Posts:
- 13,554
- Liked Posts:
- 1,915
Couple things i just read...
Despite reports earlier, cubs will not be over the 195 mil luxery tax..
So..that good
According to Epstein , their in final steps and close to hiring a 1B/OF coach...
Cubs have interest in acquiring Britton from Orioles..
Plus
Because there little options at closers, they may still look to resigning Davis
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Despite reports earlier, cubs will not be over the 195 mil luxery tax..
So..that good
According to Epstein , their in final steps and close to hiring a 1B/OF coach...
Cubs have interest in acquiring Britton from Orioles..
Plus
Because there little options at closers, they may still look to resigning Davis
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
edit: nevermind found the source i was asking for myself 