Cubs offseason rumors/transactions

[DanTown]

I bet something like 4/120 with a fifth year 5/25 option makes the most sense for either Jake or Darvish from the Cubs side and I bet they have a similar offer (if not that one) to both guys and the first guy who wants it gets it. Neither guy is worth bidding against the market and the Cubs know that most teams won't be able to give more guaranteed money without going five-six years and it's quite simple that the market for that does not exist. No one waits to sign a guy to five/six years.

 

[beckdawg]

I bet something like 4/120 with a fifth year 5/25 option makes the most sense for either Jake or Darvish from the Cubs side and I bet they have a similar offer (if not that one) to both guys and the first guy who wants it gets it. Neither guy is worth bidding against the market and the Cubs know that most teams won't be able to give more guaranteed money without going five-six years and it's quite simple that the market for that does not exist. No one waits to sign a guy to five/six years.

$30 mil AAV puts the cubs over the luxury tax. They are already at around $165 and you have $13-15 mil in player benefits to add.

 

[anotheridiot]

$30 mil AAV puts the cubs over the luxury tax. They are already at around $165 and you have $13-15 mil in player benefits to add.

There are probably 5 teams in the league that should have no problem affording the luxury tax. Why not just go over it already. You are going to with KB, Rizzo, Javy, Russell and Schwarber and Contrares will eventually need to get paid. All that is coming off the books will be 16 million for Zobrist, I doubt Lester gives them a home town discount. Hometown for him is somewhere he can go in his backyard and shoot something.

You are also considering they have offers out to both pitchers, what happens if both decide to come here together?

 

[beckdawg]

There are probably 5 teams in the league that should have no problem affording the luxury tax. Why not just go over it already.

Because if you want to sign Harper next year you're losing 2 draft picks instead of 1. Plus, there's no reason to go over it. Who's giving Darvish $30 mil?

 

[SilenceS]

Has to be Jake. No one will give him 7 years. I’ll bet the best offer was 4 and a option.

The issue going on right now is front offices are running modern now. They are basing offers off of what they are getting vs what a pitcher has done.

I’ve pretty much thought the general rule is take the last 5 years of a player. Avg his WAR values and figure up a AAV off of that. Front load it so his AAV is higher early contract and it drops later as his WAR drops due to age. Years given is based off of age but going past a players 36th year is unwise in general.

Now as far as Jake is concerned his WAR has dropped 3 years in a row. He had a inhuman run but his velocity dropped and he had to readjust his delivery while becoming more of a curveball pitcher to counter his fastball loss. Teams are looking at him as a 2 now and not a ace. So a 2 goes for 22 AAV honestly and the Cubs offer was well over that but on a more realistic time frame.

I just believe that Jake thinks he is better than the numbers are showing but teams are running smarter right now and don’t want to pay on Jake’s great run.

Cubs already got his best years. Honestly I believe he will be a 18 AAV guy myself the rest of the way.

Im going with Martinez still. Bo Sox offered him 5 years 100 million which is half of what he was looking for and has almost no other suitors.

 

[SilenceS]

Soft Collusion is a big term being thrown around. Seems people have some legs to it.

 

[beckdawg]

Soft Collusion is a big term being thrown around. Seems people have some legs to it.

IMO the CBA basically forced this type of policy. It punishes teams who are middling in the ways they can acquire young cheap talent via the draft and IFA. And on the top end they are now REALLY punishing big market teams who in the past were happy to pay the luxury tax. There's little incentive for teams to spend.

 

[Diehardfan]

Len Kasper agrees with you. I think today's signing of a Duensing was a push, in other words telling Darvish's people that they'd be OK with out him and that it's time to shit or get off the pot. I expect it will work.

I hope he's right. Not completely sold on Darvish but I think he's a better fit than Jake at this point....and I've always been a huge fan of Jake. It's just the drop off in speed on his heater, his persistence of picking corners leading to pitch count overload and general lack of confidence in his stuff. He's not the same guy anymore. I believe it's started for him and one thing you don't ever beat is Father Time. I highly doubt he'll ever be the pitcher he once was.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Im going with Martinez still. Bo Sox offered him 5 years 100 million which is half of what he was looking for and has almost no other suitors.

Pretty sure it's Martinez. Boston's offer is said to be 5/$100 mi and supposedly hasn't changed in almost a monthl. That's some tough medicine for a guy whose agent convinced him he'd get 7/$210.

 

[beckdawg]

Pretty sure it's Martinez. Boston's offer is said to be 5/$100 mi and supposedly hasn't changed in almost a monthl. That's some tough medicine for a guy whose agent convinced him he'd get 7/$210.

I'd be leery if i were a player to expect teams to offer more than $30 mil. That includes guys like Harper. I think the new CBA has created an environment where you really only have 10-15 teams trying to win and willing to throw money at the problem. The rest are in a race to the bottom to be as cheap as possible and acquire young assets. In particular, I think one thing you're going to see more of is what the Braves did where they'd find ways to eat contracts for prospects/comp. balance picks. If you think about it logically it makes sense. If you're not trying to win you have the payroll space and you can't acquire players easily.

A weird offshoot of this is you end up in situations where there is a surplus of guys at a position that historically wouldn't be the case. For example, look at the starting pitching market right now. In the past you might argue that a middling team from last year would make a strong play for Darvish/Arrieta. In fact some suggested the Phillies would do that. But near as I've seen they've not really been connected to anyone at all. And the thing is if you start to see a surplus of players then there's no urgency to pay the top end guys over $30 mil a year.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I'd be leery if i were a player to expect teams to offer more than $30 mil. That includes guys like Harper. I think the new CBA has created an environment where you really only have 10-15 teams trying to win and willing to throw money at the problem. The rest are in a race to the bottom to be as cheap as possible and acquire young assets. In particular, I think one thing you're going to see more of is what the Braves did where they'd find ways to eat contracts for prospects/comp. balance picks. If you think about it logically it makes sense. If you're not trying to win you have the payroll space and you can't acquire players easily.

A weird offshoot of this is you end up in situations where there is a surplus of guys at a position that historically wouldn't be the case. For example, look at the starting pitching market right now. In the past you might argue that a middling team from last year would make a strong play for Darvish/Arrieta. In fact some suggested the Phillies would do that. But near as I've seen they've not really been connected to anyone at all. And the thing is if you start to see a surplus of players then there's no urgency to pay the top end guys over $30 mil a year.

I don't think this is going to affect the true "star power" players. Signing a Harper or Machado isn't just getting an 6 plus WAR player it's getting a draw that will put butts in the seats. I was listening to Logan Morrison being interviewed the other day and he was pretty thoughtful about the whole thing. He called it the shrinking of baseball's middle class and I think he's right. When you're going to pay a guy $30 plus million and possibly risk luxury tax penalties you need more than a great player, you need a symbol. The guys who are going to be hurt going forward are guys who might be the best player available in a market but the market is no longer going to be graded on a curve. Who will be hurt the absolute worst are 1 & 2 WAR players who had been paid commensurate to the standard $8 nil per WAR figure we've seen for the last several years. those guys are going to start getting maybe 2 year deal for the same $6-$8 mil that they used to get for a year. I'll be shocked if guys like Machado and Harper don't get huge $300 plus million deals because they are true difference makers on and off the field.

 

[beckdawg]

I don't think this is going to affect the true "star power" players. Signing a Harper or Machado isn't just getting an 6 plus WAR player it's getting a draw that will put butts in the seats. I was listening to Logan Morrison being interviewed the other day and he was pretty thoughtful about the whole thing. He called it the shrinking of baseball's middle class and I think he's right. When you're going to pay a guy $30 plus million and possibly risk luxury tax penalties you need more than a great player, you need a symbol. The guys who are going to be hurt going forward are guys who might be the best player available in a market but the market is no longer going to be graded on a curve. Who will be hurt the absolute worst are 1 & 2 WAR players who had been paid commensurate to the standard $8 nil per WAR figure we've seen for the last several years. those guys are going to start getting maybe 2 year deal for the same $6-$8 mil that they used to get for a year. I'll be shocked if guys like Machado and Harper don't get huge $300 plus million deals because they are true difference makers on and off the field.

Just not sure I agree with that assessment. The marlins are literally doing everything they can to trade away "star power" players. And I don't see any of the people in the bottom 15-20 teams going out and signing that "name" FA. Like I said I think FA has basically become about those 10-15 teams that will spend. And most of those teams already have a franchise face.

Instead what we are seeing is more and more "super teams." There's a finite number of teams that are willing to pay those guys. Obviously we both could be right or we both could be wrong. Hard to say but I really wouldn't listen to much of anything anyone in the media is saying because no one saw this coming. My beliefs are more in regard to how the CBA is lined out rather than prevailing wisdom.

 

[CSF77]

Just not sure I agree with that assessment. The marlins are literally doing everything they can to trade away "star power" players. And I don't see any of the people in the bottom 15-20 teams going out and signing that "name" FA. Like I said I think FA has basically become about those 10-15 teams that will spend. And most of those teams already have a franchise face.

Instead what we are seeing is more and more "super teams." There's a finite number of teams that are willing to pay those guys. Obviously we both could be right or we both could be wrong. Hard to say but I really wouldn't listen to much of anything anyone in the media is saying because no one saw this coming. My beliefs are more in regard to how the CBA is lined out rather than prevailing wisdom.

It would be a age factor with Harper. He is going into that deal the same age Heyward was and Heyward’s deal looked very team friendly at that time.

Age is going to be the major factor in years. AAV is WAR based.

 

[CubsFaninMN]

I think it's going to get to the point where, as in most all other sports, no contracts will be guaranteed for more than 2 or 3 years. So you don't end up paying someone $15 to $20 million a year for three years after they completely go off-scale low. After a certain period, if you get released, you don't get paid.

I know the PA won't want to go with that, but if it's that or the owners just refuse to sign 32-year-old pitchers through their age 39 seasons, and they can choose to either retire in their prime or accept contracts that pay for expected career lifetime and not what Boras tells them to hold out for, then maybe it has to go that way.

After all, baseball is the only sport where tbe FA deal is looked at by the high-end players as a way to get guaranteed multi-millionaire paychecks for years after they can even hope to help a team.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I think it's going to get to the point where, as in most all other sports, no contracts will be guaranteed for more than 2 or 3 years. So you don't end up paying someone $15 to $20 million a year for three years after they completely go off-scale low. After a certain period, if you get released, you don't get paid.

I know the PA won't want to go with that, but if it's that or the owners just refuse to sign 32-year-old pitchers through their age 39 seasons, and they can choose to either retire in their prime or accept contracts that pay for expected career lifetime and not what Boras tells them to hold out for, then maybe it has to go that way.

After all, baseball is the only sport where tbe FA deal is looked at by the high-end players as a way to get guaranteed multi-millionaire paychecks for years after they can even hope to help a team.

Im not sure I agree, but whatever happens there will be a work stoppage before the next CBA gets signed. The players have been poorly represented and just got screwed and they’re the ones that make the sport . They really need someone like Boras in charge of the MLBPA, he’d never do it but someone of that mindset. Nobody pays to see owners.

 

[chibears55]

Am i the only one who thinks that if the cubs don't get Darvis Arrieta or any TOR type starter and end up with Monty or a BOR type starter that this was a failed off season and their basically punting the season away for contending for WS in order to hope they nab Harper next year?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

Im not sure I agree, but whatever happens there will be a work stoppage before the next CBA gets signed. The players have been poorly represented and just got screwed and they’re the ones that make the sport . They really need someone like Boras in charge of the MLBPA, he’d never do it but someone of that mindset. Nobody pays to see owners.

The best solution would be to get rid of the arb process and allow teams 4 years of team control. Abolish the whole delay process in general. If a team promotes a player that player takes on service time. When the timer clicks 4 years the team loses that player after the season (post season) ends. Nov 1 would be a fair date.

So a typical player would start his service time at 24 YO. 4 control years places him at 28 avg age when F/A hits. Right now the window is 29-32 when players gain F/A.

Now this would correct the age issue going on with players gaining F/A. It would make it a buyers market again. Initial control would be lessened and drafting should be based off of team revenue. It makes little sense to give a team that can push 200 mil the first pick just because they tanked a year. They can afford to pay in the new system. A small market team should get better picks to keep their budget in control. Add to it they can still trade control years for more prospects. That bit doesn't change. If anything with the easier access to quality F/A the prices should drop due to less demand in the market.

 

[Omeletpants]

Am i the only one who thinks that if the cubs don't get Darvis Arrieta or any TOR type starter and end up with Monty or a BOR type starter that this was a failed off season and their basically punting the season away for contending for WS in order to hope they nab Harper next year?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Yesa, I beleive you are the only one

 

[chibears55]

Yesa, I beleive you are the only one

So you think a rotation of Lester Quintana Hendricks Chatwood is good enough to win NLCS and WS

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

Add to it the whole lux tax should be abolished also. What should be enforced is profiteering. Basically teams that run for profit. Basically if a team runs over a set profit margin then they take on penalties that flow back into the system. Thus if a team can push a 120 mil payroll with their "avg" revenues (5 year avg would be fair) and they float a 80 mil revenue just to profit that year then they should take on penalties.

The thing is it is a sport. Not a business. If these owners want to turn a profit they should buy something else. That is just bad for the sport.

But the whole enforcing a payroll penalty is stupid.
If a team can pay 200 mil and run in the black they should not be punished for it. If anything they should be forced to do so vs fund a billionaire's lifestyle.