Cubs offseason rumors/transactions

[beckdawg]

$32,560,758 Is what they are under atm. That includes benifits etc.

Grimm is not included due to him in Arb still. And the catcher. I would put both at 2 mil right now. Grimm I would cut and go with Butler honestly. Rather have a 2 inning guy right now and he costs far less on the 25.

I would go 20 mil year 1 myself. That gives some flex. Now the tax goes up to 206 the following year. Another 9 mil to take on pay hikes. Wilson is the main loss. Now there will be some pay hikes going on so I don’t expect much addition going on honestly. And it is really not needed if they do sign Yu. But with the tax going up you would expect a uptick year 2 by 5 mil then it goes up to 209 the following but that point they free up from Zo’s 14 mil.

Can't just go with $32.5 mil. Realistically you probably want at least $7-10 hanging around for when you have to add guys to the 40 man midseason as well as potential trades. The talk seems to be 4 years on Darvish with the hope that someone will give him 5 at an AAV he likes. Knowing that actually makes this some what easier to project because we can look at past 4/5 year deals and compare.

If we look at just this year no starter has more than a 3 year deal. Chatwood got $12.6 x 3. Minor got $9.333 x 3. Last year the top contract for a starter was Rich Hill at 3x $16 with Ivan Nova being #2 at 3x $8.666. Nova to Minor seems like a good case of similar pitcher value adjusted for inflation which was a 7.5% increase. To get a 5 year deal you have to go back to 2015. Zimmermann signed a 5/$110 mil deal, Shark signed 5/$90 mil, Mike Leake and Wei-Yin Chen signed 5/$80, and Ian Kennedy signed 5/$70 mil. That amounts to a range of $14-22 mil AAV. If we increase that 15% for 2 years of inflation that comes out to a range of roughly $16-$25 mil though I think you could probably make the case that given where we are that 5/$110 mil Zimmermann got is probably out. If you drop down to the shark deal that range is $16-21 mil. I've been saying awhile I thought $22-23 mil was his range. That would be roughly the range of Shield's 4/$75 deal was adjusted for 3 years of 7.5% increase at roughly $23 mil AAV. Like wise the 5/$80 mil Anibel Sanchez got adjusted +37.5% for inflation would be roughly $22 mil.

The only anomaly I'm seeing here in the last 10 years was cliff lee in 2010 who got 5/$120 mil. However he was coming off a 7.0 fWAR season. Maybe you argue Lackey in 2009. He got 5/$82.5 mil which if you adjust 60% for inflation would be roughly $26 mil AAV in today's money. But 2009 seems like a very different time. The year prior AJ Burnett had got 5/$82.5 from the yankees also during the height of those two spending like drunk sailors.

Anyways, knowing that and how teams have priced 4/5 year deals over the past 10 years I think I'm pretty comfortable saying the upper limit of his market is probably $23 mil AAV. I think it's a fair argument to say he's worth more than that but if he were going to get that he would have signed already. And the fact we are this late in the offseason $23 mil AAV may be putting things too high. There were reports that the yankees earlier offered 7/$160($23 mil AAV) but pulled the offer after 48 hours. Think I've also seen reports of 5/$110 out there on him which is $22 mil AAV. Regardless, something in the $20-23 mil range seems plausible given all of that.

 

[CSF77]

What does that mean, "Wilson is the main loss"?

In payroll

 

[CSF77]

Can't just go with $32.5 mil. Realistically you probably want at least $7-10 hanging around for when you have to add guys to the 40 man midseason as well as potential trades. The talk seems to be 4 years on Darvish with the hope that someone will give him 5 at an AAV he likes. Knowing that actually makes this some what easier to project because we can look at past 4/5 year deals and compare.

If we look at just this year no starter has more than a 3 year deal. Chatwood got $12.6 x 3. Minor got $9.333 x 3. Last year the top contract for a starter was Rich Hill at 3x $16 with Ivan Nova being #2 at 3x $8.666. Nova to Minor seems like a good case of similar pitcher value adjusted for inflation which was a 7.5% increase. To get a 5 year deal you have to go back to 2015. Zimmermann signed a 5/$110 mil deal, Shark signed 5/$90 mil, Mike Leake and Wei-Yin Chen signed 5/$80, and Ian Kennedy signed 5/$70 mil. That amounts to a range of $14-22 mil AAV. If we increase that 15% for 2 years of inflation that comes out to a range of roughly $16-$25 mil though I think you could probably make the case that given where we are that 5/$110 mil Zimmermann got is probably out. If you drop down to the shark deal that range is $16-21 mil. I've been saying awhile I thought $22-23 mil was his range. That would be roughly the range of Shield's 4/$75 deal was adjusted for 3 years of 7.5% increase at roughly $23 mil AAV. Like wise the 5/$80 mil Anibel Sanchez got adjusted +37.5% for inflation would be roughly $22 mil.

The only anomaly I'm seeing here in the last 10 years was cliff lee in 2010 who got 5/$120 mil. However he was coming off a 7.0 fWAR season. Maybe you argue Lackey in 2009. He got 5/$82.5 mil which if you adjust 60% for inflation would be roughly $26 mil AAV in today's money. But 2009 seems like a very different time. The year prior AJ Burnett had got 5/$82.5 from the yankees also during the height of those two spending like drunk sailors.

Anyways, knowing that and how teams have priced 4/5 year deals over the past 10 years I think I'm pretty comfortable saying the upper limit of his market is probably $23 mil AAV. I think it's a fair argument to say he's worth more than that but if he were going to get that he would have signed already. And the fact we are this late in the offseason $23 mil AAV may be putting things too high. There were reports that the yankees earlier offered 7/$160($23 mil AAV) but pulled the offer after 48 hours. Think I've also seen reports of 5/$110 out there on him which is $22 mil AAV. Regardless, something in the $20-23 mil range seems plausible given all of that.

Age is the major factor in years. He will be 32 next Aug. Each pitcher is diffrent on when they start to decline but innings seems like a strong indicator.

Zimmerman might be the best Comp for Yu right now. Yu is a 1A right now. Zimmerman at the time was also. We can’t predict performance post signing. Zimmerman continues at the same level it is justified.

Take Heyward. Age wise it made sense. But for some reason his bat speed slows down going into his prime.

You can’t honestly predict production. You have to use avg WAR over a time span to find a AAV.

Now we can take other deals and lay it out like that but Yu’s value is along the lines of Johnny Cueto
6 years/$130M .

16:$15M, 17-21:$21M/year, 22:$22M club option ($5M buyout)

Now he maybe holding out for this and teams are asking 4 years at 21 AAV. age wise a 5 year deal still makes him 35 on opening day. It is not a age issue going on. If it a milage issue and they believe that he will decline younger due to it that is another story. But it is still crystal ball stuff and every pitcher declines diffrent.

 

[CubsFaninMN]

Well, SABRE Metrics *does* attempt to predict the progression of a player based on age, right? And while there are quite a few exceptions that prove the rule, you would normally expect a starting pitcher to remain effective through roughly his age 35 season at most, right? With some falling off below a contributing level earlier, and others -- especially those who develop new, effective pitches which cause less wear and tear on their arms, lasting longer. The guy who develops a knuckler that plays well can pitch into his 40s, whereas a fireballer like Chapman is often done and out by age 30.

Now that most major league front offices are pretty well onboard with the SABRE concepts, I think they are evaluating players, and especially pitchers, with an age projection filter applied first and only then additional filters, like innings pitched, get applied after that.

For example, getting sidelined for a year recovering from Tommy John surgery will reduce innings pitched going into your age 32 season, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll be effective an additional year later in age. The surgery and recovery period, as well as the general physical deterioration that comes naturally as you age, count as "mileage" just as much as the 180 to 200 innings another pitcher may rack up in that same age-year. So the age filter still tends to be the primary filter applied, when it comes to the length of effective career projected for a guy going into their age 30+ seasons.

So, regardless of agents who are still operating on the "maximum cash-in" model of free agency, front offices are now unwilling to pay for pitchers beyond their age 36 years at most. I mean, c'mon, if keeping yourself in great shape was the magic formula for bringing it at 95 mph until you reach age 38, you wouldn't have seen Arrieta lose 2 mph on his fastball last year. You just can't stand in the middle of a river and expect to stop it; age will out, one way or another. Especially for pitchers...

 

[TC in Mississippi]

So, regardless of agents who are still operating on the "maximum cash-in" model of free agency, front offices are now unwilling to pay for pitchers beyond their age 36 years at most. I mean, c'mon, if keeping yourself in great shape was the magic formula for bringing it at 95 mph until you reach age 38, you wouldn't have seen Arrieta lose 2 mph on his fastball last year. You just can't stand in the middle of a river and expect to stop it; age will out, one way or another. Especially for pitchers...

There is definitely more of a metric assessment going one, especially with what I would call "tier 2" players or everyday stars that may not be superstars or maybe guys that only reach that level for short periods of time. I still think that the "tier 1" players are still going to get 8-10 year contracts. One thing you have to understand is that years on a deal used to be given out as a way to balance out the money because fewer years means higher AAV and for mid market clubs (small markets are unlike to ever bid on these players) keeping that AAV lower was more important than hanging on to "dead" years in a contract. For example if you look at a star "tier 2" player going into his age 29 season, who you expect to compile 5 WAR for three years, 4 WAR for two years and then 3, 2 and 1 WAR in the following three years it's clear (assuming $8 mil/WAR) you would rather pay the guy 4/$128 mil or $32 mil AAV all things being equal but if you're running a $120 mil payroll it's pretty tough to devote 26% of your payroll to one roster spot regardless of value. In the past this club then might decide to go with the entire value of a deal, roughly $176 mil, and go 7 or 8 years even if you project him to be replacement level by year 8 because now his AAV is 20% of your payroll or below. That's hurt a lot of clubs though and they wander in the wilderness for years, Philly being a great example, and it might take them 6-8 years to compete again. Teams with fanbase issues aren't going to want to do that, and they still can't offer the guy his full value at the 4/$128 so now that value per WAR is lowered. You might now give a guy 4/$100 mil effectively lowering his value per WAR from $8 mil to $6.25 mil and then the guy will probably get significantly less in a new contract going into his age 33 season. The larger market clubs didn't used to be affected by this but the heavier penalties in the new CBA is going to have them operate in the same fashion as the midmarket clubs. So while a Harper or Machado still might get a 10 year deal with some dead years tacked on for balance, guys like JD Martinez are kind of screwed. Boras thought by upping the price on guys like Martinez and Arrieta would get someone to bite in the middle somewhere but so far his gamble hasn't paid off. Where this all goes we can't be 100% sure but it sure doesn't look like mid and lower tier players are getting anywhere close to $8 mil/WAR anymore and even the superstars aren't likely to be making $32 mil at age 38 or 39. It's a correction and one that I don't find entirely fair to the players but they agreed to the CBA and have to live with it, for now. The new CBA after 2021 is going to be bad and will likely have a a work stoppage.

 

[CubsFaninMN]

It hurts teams worse to have three 8-year contracts on the books, for example, and paying three basically retired/unusable players 25% of their payroll for three or four years. The Cubs were still paying a majority of Edwin Jackson's salary through 2016, for example, even as he was competing (poorly) against them...

 

[TC in Mississippi]

It hurts teams worse to have three 8-year contracts on the books, for example, and paying three basically retired/unusable players 25% of their payroll for three or four years. The Cubs were still paying a majority of Edwin Jackson's salary through 2016, for example, even as he was competing (poorly) against them...

The Jackson contact didn't really hurt the Cubs at all, as it turned out, because they weren't close to the tax threshold and had so many young players. It would have crippled a mid-market team and now with the stricter tax penalties deals like that will hurt big market teams in both money, and more importantly draft and international signing penalties. The Yankees ate a lot of bad money and were over the luxury tax for 15 straight years and in those years never had a losing season. They also lost no compensatory picks, no draft position and international signings were unaffected. The new CBA was designed to drive salaries down across the board and the MLBPA basically caved. The net affect is that the large market teams still have the clear advantage and get the added benefit of lower AAV's.

 

[anotheridiot]

cubs are probably close to a half a billion in revenue each year, this tax crap just cannot be an issue?

Again, who are we replacing with the next "stud" domican or cuban player? We had two they got rid of both. Who are we replacing and who is getting moved for prospects next year?

 

[TC in Mississippi]

cubs are probably close to a half a billion in revenue each year, this tax crap just cannot be an issue?

Again, who are we replacing with the next "stud" domican or cuban player? We had two they got rid of both. Who are we replacing and who is getting moved for prospects next year?

The "tax crap" is an issue for all teams. The Yankees and Dodgers got under the cap this year to "reset the clock". The problem isn't going over a year or two, but after that you can lose draft position, international signing money, tax thresholds at 40%, 50% and even 92% for going over $40 mil over. It's a salary cap more or less and it's important to manage the payroll.

 

[CubandBear]

"MISTER" Epstein to you!!

 

[CubsFaninMN]

The "tax crap" is an issue for all teams. The Yankees and Dodgers got under the cap this year to "reset the clock". The problem isn't going over a year or two, but after that you can lose draft position, international signing money, tax thresholds at 40%, 50% and even 92% for going over $40 mil over. It's a salary cap more or less and it's important to manage the payroll.

Yep. Take a $250 million payroll and add 92% of that as a luxury tax. All of a sudden, that half a billion in revenues doesn't even let you pay the coaching staff, goundskeepers and such, much less give you funds to continue to renovate your ballpark or pay any dividends to your shareholders.

 

[chibears55]

https://twitter.com/TheCubsReporter/status/955969480756252673

I believe somewhere in this thread i said Darvish probably preferred to go back to the Rangers ...

That was probably the offer he been waiting for, not the Twins

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

https://twitter.com/TheCubsReporter/status/955969480756252673

I believe somewhere in this thread i said Darvish probably preferred to go back to the Rangers ...

That was probably the offer he been waiting for, not the Twins

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I kinda doubt that. I’m pretty sure it is more about the years. If he has a 5 year offer around 22 AAV he most likely takes it if the team is a contender.

Nothing tells me that the Rangers are a contender with him. They were not with him last year and they have to play the Stroes head to head all year long. They are fighting for a WC spot vs more talented teams even with him. If anything adding him makes them a fringe aged WC team.

He goes back it would be a mistake

Cubs/Brewers/Twins I get. All 3 are near or in their primes. Those teams are a opertunity for rings over the contract duration.

 

[chibears55]

I kinda doubt that. I’m pretty sure it is more about the years. If he has a 5 year offer around 22 AAV he most likely takes it if the team is a contender.

Nothing tells me that the Rangers are a contender with him. They were not with him last year and they have to play the Stroes head to head all year long. They are fighting for a WC spot vs more talented teams even with him. If anything adding him makes them a fringe aged WC team.

He goes back it would be a mistake

Cubs/Brewers/Twins I get. All 3 are near or in their primes. Those teams are a opertunity for rings over the contract duration.

You doubt what??



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[CubsFaninMN]

https://twitter.com/TheCubsReporter/status/955969480756252673

I believe somewhere in this thread i said Darvish probably preferred to go back to the Rangers ...

That was probably the offer he been waiting for, not the Twins

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

The tweet quoted by the Cub Reporter account, with those pro-Rangers quotes, is supposedly from Darvish's trainer. Want to lay odds it's the *trainer* who prefers to stay in Texas and he's trying to get the Rangers to make an offer, so he can try to talk Yu into taking it?

 

[chibears55]

The tweet quoted by the Cub Reporter account, with those pro-Rangers quotes, is supposedly from Darvish's trainer. Want to lay odds it's the *trainer* who prefers to stay in Texas and he's trying to get the Rangers to make an offer, so he can try to talk Yu into taking it?

They should of asked the trainer for a little more info then , like what going on now and who has made legit offers

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Omeletpants]

They should of asked the trainer for a little more info then , like what going on now and who has made legit offers

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

LOLOLOLO. I get all my information at www.trainerrummors.com

 

[CSF77]

LOLOLOLO. I get all my information at www.trainerrummors.com

[video]https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/955658127956955137[/video]

 

[TC in Mississippi]

https://twitter.com/TheCubsReporter/status/955969480756252673

I believe somewhere in this thread i said Darvish probably preferred to go back to the Rangers ...

That was probably the offer he been waiting for, not the Twins

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

The Rangers never made a lick of sense in the Darvish derby. Even with him they're the longest of longshots in a very strong division and they'd be over $160 mil in payroll for what, a chance at fourth place? Maybe he wanted to go back, but they weren't going to make any sort of substantial offer.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I wouldn't expect any news today. MLB prefers that no big transactions happen on HoF induction day. Not to say a signing couldn't leak but it's not likely.