How I would approach the offseason

[CSF77]

What do you think Lindor is going to go for? He's literally in the same position as Bryant. And like I initially said, it's not like Cleveland has raked teams over the coals for prospects. Look at what they got for Clevenger who they arguably had more leverage with.

San Diego had better system depth to trade with and a more flexible payroll to make those choices. Add to it they are starting a winning window vs sitting at a point of change that the Cubs are in.

I still feel the best choice is to sit on Baez and let Bote take over 3B. 2022 is going to be a deep market for SS and Baez is going to have better options going head to head against. It would make more sense for him to take a extension then move to 3B when Ed Howard is ready.

Bryant ->prospects -> Lindor = Bryant => Lindor. = no change and 2022 nothing to show for it.

 

[knoxville7]

What do you think Lindor is going to go for? He's literally in the same position as Bryant. And like I initially said, it's not like Cleveland has raked teams over the coals for prospects. Look at what they got for Clevenger who they arguably had more leverage with.

As for Kimbrel, you're undervaluing reliever cost. Yes Kimbrel is making a decent amount of money but I literally addressed that by saying the cubs would need to eat a decent chunk of his deal to get anything of value but I also said that didn't matter so much because it's not like they are going to add a bunch of payroll via FA. As for his age.... it's literally a 1 year deal. That's exactly why it's an attractive piece if the cubs ate money. Any reliever of his ability is going to get multiple years.

Now I want to be clear, I don't think you're getting a top 100 guy for Kimbrel. But I mean is Kimbrel with eaten salary really less desirable than Shane Greene was in 2019? He netted detroit Joey Wentz and Travis Demeritte. Wentz is the #8 prospect in a pretty decent detroit system. Travis Demeritte looks more like a bench bat at best. Not a huge return by any stretch but I don't think Colorado would get a huge return for Arenado at this point either since the are dumping $100's of millions in contract on another team. There's no surplus value there for him because any team who would want him would want him at what they view his FA market value.

lindor has more value than Bryant in my opinion. He’s more talented and plays a higher premium position.

as far as Kimbrel, If we are going to pay a good chunk of his salary to trade him and he isn’t netting anything spectacular from a prospect perspective, then why bother trading him at all? Why not keep him for the year since you’re proposing they try and be a wild card team next year anyways?

I stand by the premise of my post that you can forget lindor and arenado. It’s not happening.

I’m all for trading Bryant for the best package you can find, but if you want to free up potential payroll for the future...trading for arenado doesn’t help that at all. They signed bote to a team friendly deal, let him take over 3B for a year or two. Is he a star? No. Is he a serviceable starting 3B? Yes. The guy was a part time player this past season and led the team in RBI. Yes, his average sucked...but, that leads me to believe he actually understands situational hitting. Something very lacking in the lineup

 

[CSF77]

I’m all for trading Bryant for the best package you can find, but if you want to free up potential payroll for the future...trading for arenado doesn’t help that at all. They signed bote to a team friendly deal, let him take over 3B for a year or two. Is he a star? No. Is he a serviceable starting 3B? Yes. The guy was a part time player this past season and led the team in RBI. Yes, his average sucked...but, that leads me to believe he actually understands situational hitting. Something very lacking in the lineup

He had a 92 wRC+ last year. In 711 career PA he has a 100. Which is league avg in value. He is a .338 OBA guy. SLG a little low for 3B at .422. So we are talking about a 20 HR player that hits .240. As of right now that is back up production. Could it get better? Sure why not. 2019 he had 356 PA and put up 11 HR's. 106 wRC+, That is acceptable. You add in 200 PA then 18 HR's is not a stretch.

 

[beckdawg]

lindor has more value than Bryant in my opinion. He’s more talented and plays a higher premium position.

as far as Kimbrel, If we are going to pay a good chunk of his salary to trade him and he isn’t netting anything spectacular from a prospect perspective, then why bother trading him at all? Why not keep him for the year since you’re proposing they try and be a wild card team next year anyways?

I stand by the premise of my post that you can forget lindor and arenado. It’s not happening.
.
I’m all for trading Bryant for the best package you can find, but if you want to free up potential payroll for the future...trading for arenado doesn’t help that at all. They signed bote to a team friendly deal, let him take over 3B for a year or two. Is he a star? No. Is he a serviceable starting 3B? Yes. The guy was a part time player this past season and led the team in RBI. Yes, his average sucked...but, that leads me to believe he actually understands situational hitting. Something very lacking in the lineup

Re: Lindor.... define "more value". Like yes in a vacuum I'd say Lindor is worth slightly more than Bryant. In terms of Bryant I think you could pretty likely get at least 1 top 100 player and 2 or so lessor pieces. I don't think that's any kind of crazy ask. Maybe if you find the right team you can grab more than that. As for Lindor... is he going to bring more than Machado did? LA gave up Rylan Bannon, Yusniel Díaz, Zach Pop, Dean Kremer and Breyvic Valera in a very similar situation and I'd argue Machado was a better value than Lindor at the time given he's a better bat and similar defensively. Diaz was the headline piece and was a top 100 guy. Kramer is the 13th rated prospect in baltimore's system. Pop is the 20th rated prospect in their system and Bannon is the 21st rated guy. Breyvic Valera was a bench bat.

So sure strictly speaking is Lindor maybe worth more than Bryant, yeah but functionally that difference isn't the difference between 1 top 100 prospect and 2 top 100 prospects. More than likely you're talking about similar level headline pieces with Lindor netting better secondary pieces which are still likely to be fringe starter players as prospects. That's literally the type of player someone Kimbrel would return which was my point to begin with.

As for Arenado/Bryant, the entire point of that sort of trade would be find a deal in which Colorado paid enough of Arenado's deal to make him a value to you. 2016-2019 Arenado put up 5 fWAR, 5.7, 5.7, and 5.9. The number I put on his deal was something in the $23-25 mil AAV. In FA, teams generally pay around $8-9 mil per fWAR in terms of contracts. At $25 mil you're essentially expecting him to put up 3 wins a year going forward and anything over that is value. If Arenado continues to be a 5 win player that is a lot of value left over. The point in having free payroll is to use it wisely. Bringing in Arenado in that type of deal would basically be getting a 30-40% discount on a free agent.

You suggest using Bote. Ok fine. Then what's your goal with the money you save? You see saving money to just save it doesn't really do anything. Ultimately at the end of everything that money has to go some where right? So let me ask you this.... how would you characterize the recent cubs FA signings? Would you say they have gotten good return on their money spent?

For me that's basically where that idea falls apart. I would much rather acquire players like Arenado who are making too much to be on a bad team. The reason for that is rather than you going out and paying market premium to sign whatever star FA is out there, you can basically feast on other teams mistakes. Now sure maybe Colorado wouldn't eat enough of his contract to make it worth your while in which case don't do the deal. My point is more it doesn't hurt to try to con them into eating money and making Arenado a value contract for you.

And it's not like you even have to hold on to him for the full 6 years. I don't particularly see an obvious long term solution at 3B for the cubs but let's say in the next year or so someone comes out and becomes one. If Arenado is putting up 4-5 win seasons at $25 mil a year that as a trade piece is far more interesting than a guy making ~$33 mil aav at 4-5 wins.

 

[beckdawg]

Let me put it to you this way regarding Arenado. I sat here on this board for literal years listening to people say the cubs should eat however much of Heyward's contract they had to in order to just get him off the team. No one cared about the return the cubs got they just wanted him gone. However, the thing is Heyward wasn't a terrible player. He basically was a 2 win player being paid more like a 3 win player. That often happens to free agents. If you had been a team looking for a right fielder and you had roughly $10-15 mil in your budget, a smart move would have been trying to get Heyward for next to nothing because you wouldn't be paying him to be a 3 win player. You'd be paying him to be the player he had been. And should heyward return to his ATL/STL form you suddenly have a huge value.

For me Arenado is the reverse of that situation. Assuming the cubs trade bryant they will need a 3B solution. There's no way i'd acquire him at the ~$33 mil aav he has left because you're expecting him to be a 4+ win player per season. But I'd easily be willing to pay him to be a 3 win player and hope he puts up more of the 5 win performances he has the past few years.

 

[CSF77]

Nolan Arenado 3b
8 years/$260M (2019-26)

• 8 years/$260M (2019-26)
  • signed extension with Colorado 2/26/19
  • 19:$26M, 20-24:$35M, 25:$32M, 26:$27M
  • Arenado may opt out of contract after 2021 season
  • award bonuses: $100,000 for MVP ($50,000 for second-fifth in vote). $100,000 for Comeback Player of Year. $75,000 each for LCS MVP, WS MVP. $50,000 for Silver Slugger. $25,000 each All Star, Gold Glove
  • replaced 1 year, $26M deal signed 1/31/19, avoiding arbitration, $30M-$24M (record 1-year salary for arbitration-eligible player)

To be honest if I am Col I am sitting on him if I don't get a return offer to my liking.

I just see Theo aiming at reducing payroll at this point and selling short and getting long term in return.

This is what the Yankees did in 2016 and they were right back in it with a cost effective strategy.

Beck. 3B is not a cravat as you are making it out to be. I believe Bote has been the back up plan for a while now and last year they tested Happ there to see if he was a option. Baez played 3B at a high level previous and Nico could slide over to SS while Bote moves to 2B.

There are options on the table internally that don't require mortgage

 

[knoxville7]

Re: Lindor.... define "more value". Like yes in a vacuum I'd say Lindor is worth slightly more than Bryant. In terms of Bryant I think you could pretty likely get at least 1 top 100 player and 2 or so lessor pieces. I don't think that's any kind of crazy ask. Maybe if you find the right team you can grab more than that. As for Lindor... is he going to bring more than Machado did? LA gave up Rylan Bannon, Yusniel Díaz, Zach Pop, Dean Kremer and Breyvic Valera in a very similar situation and I'd argue Machado was a better value than Lindor at the time given he's a better bat and similar defensively. Diaz was the headline piece and was a top 100 guy. Kramer is the 13th rated prospect in baltimore's system. Pop is the 20th rated prospect in their system and Bannon is the 21st rated guy. Breyvic Valera was a bench bat.

So sure strictly speaking is Lindor maybe worth more than Bryant, yeah but functionally that difference isn't the difference between 1 top 100 prospect and 2 top 100 prospects. More than likely you're talking about similar level headline pieces with Lindor netting better secondary pieces which are still likely to be fringe starter players as prospects. That's literally the type of player someone Kimbrel would return which was my point to begin with.

As for Arenado/Bryant, the entire point of that sort of trade would be find a deal in which Colorado paid enough of Arenado's deal to make him a value to you. 2016-2019 Arenado put up 5 fWAR, 5.7, 5.7, and 5.9. The number I put on his deal was something in the $23-25 mil AAV. In FA, teams generally pay around $8-9 mil per fWAR in terms of contracts. At $25 mil you're essentially expecting him to put up 3 wins a year going forward and anything over that is value. If Arenado continues to be a 5 win player that is a lot of value left over. The point in having free payroll is to use it wisely. Bringing in Arenado in that type of deal would basically be getting a 30-40% discount on a free agent.

You suggest using Bote. Ok fine. Then what's your goal with the money you save? You see saving money to just save it doesn't really do anything. Ultimately at the end of everything that money has to go some where right? So let me ask you this.... how would you characterize the recent cubs FA signings? Would you say they have gotten good return on their money spent?

For me that's basically where that idea falls apart. I would much rather acquire players like Arenado who are making too much to be on a bad team. The reason for that is rather than you going out and paying market premium to sign whatever star FA is out there, you can basically feast on other teams mistakes. Now sure maybe Colorado wouldn't eat enough of his contract to make it worth your while in which case don't do the deal. My point is more it doesn't hurt to try to con them into eating money and making Arenado a value contract for you.

And it's not like you even have to hold on to him for the full 6 years. I don't particularly see an obvious long term solution at 3B for the cubs but let's say in the next year or so someone comes out and becomes one. If Arenado is putting up 4-5 win seasons at $25 mil a year that as a trade piece is far more interesting than a guy making ~$33 mil aav at 4-5 wins.

you seem to over value Bryant IMO. But we will have to agree to disagree on that. Just like we will have to disagree on the return Kimbrel would net. I guess if the cubs trade one or both of them we will see who was closer to being right about their value

regarding using bote and the money you would save there. You ask what the goal is with the money you save like it HAS to be spent this offseason. Well, it doesn’t. It can literally be money saved for a year and lower the cubs payroll to get under luxury tax. I’m surprised you feel it HAS to be spent, like it can’t be saved?? It doesn’t have to be money blown in FA.

Again, forget arenado and lindor. It’s not happening

 

[beckdawg]

you seem to over value Bryant IMO. But we will have to agree to disagree on that. Just like we will have to disagree on the return Kimbrel would net. I guess if the cubs trade one or both of them we will see who was closer to being right about their value

regarding using bote and the money you would save there. You ask what the goal is with the money you save like it HAS to be spent this offseason. Well, it doesn’t. It can literally be money saved for a year and lower the cubs payroll to get under luxury tax. I’m surprised you feel it HAS to be spent, like it can’t be saved?? It doesn’t have to be money blown in FA.

Again, forget arenado and lindor. It’s not happening

So you don't think Bryant is worth a top 100 prospect? Weird take but whatever.

As for money, cubs will already be under the luxury tax. That's the reason they didn't spend money this past offseason. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with saving the money. Saving money in 2021 doesn't carry over to 2022 because teams are always going to have a soft cap with the luxury tax. I mean sure strictly speaking you are more flexible in future years but if you're suggesting money carries over that's not what is going to happen. Ownership will just pocket the money that isn't spent.

And yeah I do believe money you have should be spent. It's one advantage the cubs have that some other teams don't. I mean look if you don't like Arenado fine. But to sit here and say they should just sit on the money is a bit naive to me. Get creative and use that payroll. If you don't want to commit long term to a player like Arenado then work trades where you eat short term bad deals for prospects/comp picks. Just sitting on money doesn't do anything to make the cubs a better team.

 

[knoxville7]

So you don't think Bryant is worth a top 100 prospect? Weird take but whatever.

As for money, cubs will already be under the luxury tax. That's the reason they didn't spend money this past offseason. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with saving the money. Saving money in 2021 doesn't carry over to 2022 because teams are always going to have a soft cap with the luxury tax. I mean sure strictly speaking you are more flexible in future years but if you're suggesting money carries over that's not what is going to happen. Ownership will just pocket the money that isn't spent.

And yeah I do believe money you have should be spent. It's one advantage the cubs have that some other teams don't. I mean look if you don't like Arenado fine. But to sit here and say they should just sit on the money is a bit naive to me. Get creative and use that payroll. If you don't want to commit long term to a player like Arenado then work trades where you eat short term bad deals for prospects/comp picks. Just sitting on money doesn't do anything to make the cubs a better team.

not what I said. Weird take to put words in people’s mouths. i said you over value Bryant. You valued him as a top 100 guy plus a couple more decent prospects. How you manage to twist that into me saying Bryant isn’t worth a top 100 guy is disingenuous at best on your part.

you answered your own question in regards to why they won’t spend much this offseason...they want flexibility going forward. Adding guys on 8 years mega deals doesn’t do that.

 

[beckdawg]

not what I said. Weird take to put words in people’s mouths. i said you over value Bryant. You valued him as a top 100 guy plus a couple more decent prospects.

I'm putting words into someone's mouth?

In terms of Bryant I think you could pretty likely get at least 1 top 100 player and 2 or so lessor pieces.

Lessor pieces doesn't equate to decent prospects. The example I followed that with referring to the Machado trade was a bench bat who was a total throw in and 3 prospects being a 45 grade and 2 40 grade prospects. That's the value I put on a Lindor trade and specifically said I thought Bryant would be worth slightly less. I mean Trent Giambrone is a 40 grade prospect but I strongly doubt anyone is going to say he's a "decent prospect". 40 grade prospects are either relievers or bench bats most of the time or are just super young and haven't impressed enough yet.

Realistically I think the cubs would likely get a back half of the top 100 prospect and 2 40 grade prospects for Bryant. Maybe if they find several buyers they might get a half decent 45 prospect instead of one of the 40 grades but when I said "lessor pieces" I literally meant guys like giambrone who aren't thought of as "decent."

 

[CSF77]

Rotation:
Yu
Hendricks
Alzolay
Marquez
Mills

Pen:
Kimbrel
Jeffress
Wick
Wieck
Ryan
Winkler
Underwood
Tepera
Rea

Starting 9:

Caratini DH (arb 1)
Contreras C 8-10 mil most likely)
Rizzo 1B
Hoerner 2B
Baez SS (12 mil maybe in arb)
Bote 3B
LF
Happ CF (arb1)
Heyward RF
I would line up: Happ, Caratini, Rizzo, Contreras, Heyward, Baez, Schwarber, Bote, Hoerner

Bench:

Vargas UI
Amaya Back up catcher

Bryant 20 mil arb 4'
Schwarber 8-10 mil arb 3

I still see them pushing Davis to CF in 2022. He should be at Tenn in 2021 so this is not a stretch at all. This in mind they could offer Schwarber and keep status que and sell high at the deadline. His value is junk ATM.

Bryant can get a top 100 talent in return. 3B can be internalized. Baez should be extended due to him aging to 3B vs Bryant aging to 1B.

So I could just see them trading Bryant and pushing extensions on their arb cases. At that point just push Davis hard in 2021. If he is ready and Schwarber is holding good trade value pull the trigger. If not let him walk at year end.

They should extend Contreras, Caratini, Happ, Rizzo and Baez.

On a return for Bryant. They should target a LHSP prospect. Mills is the weak link here and they really need to address this externally.

so ya Theo has a few quality prospects sitting. 3 are in the top 100 right now and all 3 could take part next year. I'm pretty sure that the DH will go through and this could end up as the plan of action.

 

[knoxville7]

I'm putting words into someone's mouth?



Lessor pieces doesn't equate to decent prospects. The example I followed that with referring to the Machado trade was a bench bat who was a total throw in and 3 prospects being a 45 grade and 2 40 grade prospects. That's the value I put on a Lindor trade and specifically said I thought Bryant would be worth slightly less. I mean Trent Giambrone is a 40 grade prospect but I strongly doubt anyone is going to say he's a "decent prospect". 40 grade prospects are either relievers or bench bats most of the time or are just super young and haven't impressed enough yet.

Realistically I think the cubs would likely get a back half of the top 100 prospect and 2 40 grade prospects for Bryant. Maybe if they find several buyers they might get a half decent 45 prospect instead of one of the 40 grades but when I said "lessor pieces" I literally meant guys like giambrone who aren't thought of as "decent."

yes, you put words in my mouth. Enjoy your trade pipe dreams

 

[beckdawg]

yes, you put words in my mouth. Enjoy your trade pipe dreams

I asked a question, specifically whether or not you thought Bryant was worth a top 100 prospect. I asked this because you said I over valued Bryant. You apparently assumed I meant more than I did i.e. you're putting words in my mouth. As I explained, I think Bryant is worth a top 100 prospect and two more or less throw in type prospects.

So, frankly I fail to see how I ever put words in your mouth. For one thing I wasn't making a statement I was asking a question. For another, even if you viewed what I said as a statement rather than a question it's built off what you said. It's hardly my fault that you misinterpreted my valuation of Bryant's trade value.

The irony in all of this is that I was asking for clarification of what you meant while you just assumed what I meant. Whatever, I mean clearly you aren't interested in this discussion and haven't been from the start. Your first statement basically shit on the idea from the start. If that's your opinion then great. You're more than welcome to it but you're not exactly adding much to the discussion saying my ideas are bad.

 

[knoxville7]

So you don't think Bryant is worth a top 100 prospect? Weird take but whatever.

As for money, cubs will already be under the luxury tax. That's the reason they didn't spend money this past offseason. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with saving the money. Saving money in 2021 doesn't carry over to 2022 because teams are always going to have a soft cap with the luxury tax. I mean sure strictly speaking you are more flexible in future years but if you're suggesting money carries over that's not what is going to happen. Ownership will just pocket the money that isn't spent.

And yeah I do believe money you have should be spent. It's one advantage the cubs have that some other teams don't. I mean look if you don't like Arenado fine. But to sit here and say they should just sit on the money is a bit naive to me. Get creative and use that payroll. If you don't want to commit long term to a player like Arenado then work trades where you eat short term bad deals for prospects/comp picks. Just sitting on money doesn't do anything to make the cubs a better team.

I asked a question, specifically whether or not you thought Bryant was worth a top 100 prospect. I asked this because you said I over valued Bryant. You apparently assumed I meant more than I did i.e. you're putting words in my mouth. As I explained, I think Bryant is worth a top 100 prospect and two more or less throw in type prospects.

So, frankly I fail to see how I ever put words in your mouth. For one thing I wasn't making a statement I was asking a question. For another, even if you viewed what I said as a statement rather than a question it's built off what you said. It's hardly my fault that you misinterpreted my valuation of Bryant's trade value.

The irony in all of this is that I was asking for clarification of what you meant while you just assumed what I meant. Whatever, I mean clearly you aren't interested in this discussion and haven't been from the start. Your first statement basically shit on the idea from the start. If that's your opinion then great. You're more than welcome to it but you're not exactly adding much to the discussion saying my ideas are bad.

yes, you did put words in my mouth. Read the bolded. Sure, you asked a question...then followed it up with “weird take.” So yes, you assumed what I thought the value of Bryant was and put words in my mouth. This is basic English bro.

you also earlier said Bryant is worth a top 100 prospect and 2 lesser pieces. Now you’re changing the language to 2 throw in pieces. So yeah, based off what you initially said...I think you’re over valuing Bryant. But continue changing the goal posts. I’m done having this pointless conversation

 

[beckdawg]

yes, you did put words in my mouth. Read the bolded. Sure, you asked a question...then followed it up with “weird take.” So yes, you assumed what I thought the value of Bryant was and put words in my mouth. This is basic English bro.

you also earlier said Bryant is worth a top 100 prospect and 2 lesser pieces. Now you’re changing the language to 2 throw in pieces. So yeah, based off what you initially said...I think you’re over valuing Bryant. But continue changing the goal posts. I’m done having this pointless conversation

I asked you to clarify what you thought the difference in value between Lindor and Bryant was. You literally dodged the question and just said I over valued Bryant. If you want to claim I'm disingenuous and putting words in your mouth you had ample opportunity to answer the question yourself in your own words. I'm not even trying to take shots at you by saying that I'm just saying it's pretty difficult to have any sort of discussion when you wont elaborate on your view point.

I presented a past trade for I think an arguably similar player to Lindor with that Machado trade given both were quality left side of the infield guys with roughly similar lengths left on their contract. I also said I thought Bryant was worth slightly less than Lindor. Could I have been more clear when I said "lessor pieces"? I don't know maybe... I mean I thought when I used the example of the Machado trade it would have been evident that the pieces I meant were guys similar to Dean Kremer And Zach Pop. If you look up reports on Kremer his upside is a #4 starter and his floor is a long reliever and Pop is a pure reliever. I would strongly disagree with anyone calling those two "decent prospects".

You seem to want to make this personal and I honestly could care less. I was simply trying to understand your viewpoint from the start. That's why I asked you to define "more value" between Lindor and Bryant. It's why I asked if you actually didn't think Bryant was worth a top 100 prospect. I guarantee you there are people who would say Bryant isn't worth a top 100 prospect. Asking you that question wasn't me trying to put words in your mouth it was me trying to pin you down on what you actually felt because I still to this moment have no idea what you think the difference between Lindor and Bryant is trade value wise.

End of the day you don't give a crap about my idea. However, whether you like it or not it's entirely realistic that the cubs might want Arenado. To be clear that is from the pre-season but point is they seemingly considered it then so doing it now isn't unrealistic especially if the price is reduced because of a bad season.

 

[knoxville7]

I asked you to clarify what you thought the difference in value between Lindor and Bryant was. You literally dodged the question and just said I over valued Bryant. If you want to claim I'm disingenuous and putting words in your mouth you had ample opportunity to answer the question yourself in your own words. I'm not even trying to take shots at you by saying that I'm just saying it's pretty difficult to have any sort of discussion when you wont elaborate on your view point.

I presented a past trade for I think an arguably similar player to Lindor with that Machado trade given both were quality left side of the infield guys with roughly similar lengths left on their contract. I also said I thought Bryant was worth slightly less than Lindor. Could I have been more clear when I said "lessor pieces"? I don't know maybe... I mean I thought when I used the example of the Machado trade it would have been evident that the pieces I meant were guys similar to Dean Kremer And Zach Pop. If you look up reports on Kremer his upside is a #4 starter and his floor is a long reliever and Pop is a pure reliever. I would strongly disagree with anyone calling those two "decent prospects".

You seem to want to make this personal and I honestly could care less. I was simply trying to understand your viewpoint from the start. That's why I asked you to define "more value" between Lindor and Bryant. It's why I asked if you actually didn't think Bryant was worth a top 100 prospect. I guarantee you there are people who would say Bryant isn't worth a top 100 prospect. Asking you that question wasn't me trying to put words in your mouth it was me trying to pin you down on what you actually felt because I still to this moment have no idea what you think the difference between Lindor and Bryant is trade value wise.

End of the day you don't give a crap about my idea. However, whether you like it or not it's entirely realistic that the cubs might want Arenado. To be clear that is from the pre-season but point is they seemingly considered it then so doing it now isn't unrealistic especially if the price is reduced because of a bad season.

yet, you managed to misconstrue my statements to mean I don’t think Bryant is worth a top 100 prospect and have managed to continue dodging the fact you did put those words in my mouth. You could just own that you did so, but whatever.

the reality is none of us know Bryant’s current trade value, to act like you or any of us do is laughable. Bryant is worth whatever someone is willing to pay. If that includes a top 100 prospect then so be it. What I was arguing was the notion you seem to think we can trade Bryant and then trade those prospects for an Arenado or Lindor. Bryant won’t get the return necessary to get either of those guys is what I’m arguing. It’s a pipe dream. Good luck with that. I’d rather focus on attainable players.

 

[beckdawg]

the reality is none of us know Bryant’s current trade value, to act like you or any of us do is laughable.

I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt multiple times and see your side of this but then you say stuff like this. You initially said that I over value bryant and now say that none of us know his value and to suggest we do is laughable. If that's the case how is my OPINION of what he's worth over valuing him if none of us know what he's worth?

The reason why it mattered to me what value you put on Lindor is because the premise of your argument was effectively that you can't trade Bryant/Kimbrel for prospects and then in turn use those pieces to acquire Lindor and Arenado. I mean correct me if I'm wrong there because clearly you don't like me putting words in your mouth but that's what I've gathered from your statements. I flat out disagree. There are a number of reasons it may not happen but to suggests the value isn't there is just flat out wrong in my opinion.

I can literally cite recent trade examples if you would like and go in excruciating detail why it matters but I doubt you care. Simply put when the Yankees traded for Stanton it cost them a 40+ and a 40 grade prospect. Stanton was coming of a 7.3 fWAR season. Arenado is 3 years older, making about $5 mil more annually and hit .253/.303/.434(76 wRC+) last year. I already outlined what Machado went for as a comparison for Lindor's potential value. Kimbrel in my opinion is worth a 45 grade prospect if you eat some of his contract because the cubs gave up a 45 grade prospect for half a season of a 32 year old David Phelps. Kimbrel will be 33 next year.

So, simply put the "cost" in terms of prospect for Arenado and Lindor would likely be 1 top 100 prospect, a 45 grade, and 4-ish 40 grade prospects. If you get something like a top 100 prospect and 2 40 grade prospects for Bryant you're literally short 2 40 grade prospects. Strictly speaking the cubs would either need to get more out of Bryant/Kimbrel or get Arenado/Lindor cheaper than Stanton/Machado. But even if they didn't, 2 40 grade prospects is frankly nothing to make these trades happen. You're talking about guys like Trent Giambrone or really lower level guys with some potential like Fabian Pertuz or Luis Verdugo.

In other words, saying it's a "pipe dream" from a value stand point is just flat out wrong. I fully understand that Colorado may not trade Arenado in which case my argument is moot. But I don't know that and no one else outside the organization does either. What i do know is he was demanding a trade before the 2020 season and the cubs were reportedly interested in him. What I also know is in the past several trades Cleveland has made the returns have been viewed as lacking. They traded Kluber for Emmanuel Clase(40+ grade) and Delino DeShields(.252/.310/.318 in 2020). They traded Clevinger for Gabriel Arias(40+), Joey Cantillo(45), Owen Miller(40), Austin Hedges(great defensive C but career .198/.255/.356) , Josh Naylor (50) and Cal Quantrill(40).

With Lindor, Cleveland has almost 0 leverage because absolutely no one thinks they are going to re-sign him. So their options are ride it out one more year and take the QO or trade him. I see absolutely no way he returns more than Machado did given LA was loaded with prospects and lost Seager so they NEEDED machado as much as anyone could. And given Cleveland's recent track record in trades they are far more likely to go for quantity of players rather than a few elite prospects which may not make a ton of sense traditionally speaking but for an organization who has to let players like Lindor walk they need quantity to build up the next group of players.

 

[CSF77]

There is interesting speculation on a Col and Cubs swap. And to be honest here i am more for targeting Arenado over Lindor.

The only way I see this deal go through is if Chi trades Bryant for 1 top 100 player. Then adds in Amaya and and 2 players 45-40 scale.

That would be Top 100 return, Amaya, Roederer and Franklin.

With that return Col should be able to eat some of the deal.

 

[beckdawg]

There is interesting speculation on a Col and Cubs swap. And to be honest here i am more for targeting Arenado over Lindor.

The only way I see this deal go through is if Chi trades Bryant for 1 top 100 player. Then adds in Amaya and and 2 players 45-40 scale.

That would be Top 100 return, Amaya, Roederer and Franklin.

With that return Col should be able to eat some of the deal.

I think that's way too much for Arenado....way way way too much. I mean look at the Stanton trade I mentioned. That was Staton +$30 mil for Castro(more salary dump but not pure cash so they got a body to use) and Jorge Guzman(40+ grade) and Jose Devers(40 grade). You're not going to sit here and convince me a 30 year old Arenado coming off a 76 wRC+ season with a $33 aav left on his deal and an opt out after 2021 was worth more than a 27 year old Stanton coming off a year where he hit .281/.376/.631(158 wRC+) and a 7.3 fWAR season where his AAV was like $28 mil.

I mean those 3 plus a top 100 prospect is an insane return for a player who's already got paid. There's literally no surplus value on Arenado's contract. If you want another example, look at the Cano trade. That's way more complicated because Diaz was also in that trade and was arguably the best reliever in baseball at the time and had a bunch of control left. Even still that trade netted Kelenic and Justin Dunn and throw away parts. Dunn was a 35+ and I think you could argue Diaz straight up could have got Kelenic himself given the cubs had to give up Torres to get Chapman and the package the Yankees got for Andrew Miller. Cano himself didn't get much of anything.

Historically speaking, players like Arenado hold almost no trade value. And the thing is, Colorado has almost no leverage if Arenado does want out because he has an opt out after 2021 and I believe a full NTC. So, you're likely looking at a limited list of teams who'd even consider bringing him on at the $23-25 mil a year I suggested. That list grows smaller based on where Arenado wants to play.

I should also add from the team acquiring him stand point that opt out is a big deal. While I think it'd be crazy for him to opt out because he's very unlikely to do better than that deal, the team acquiring him can't assume that. So, you have to view him as more a 1 year rental that which also hurts the return anyone would be willing to offer colorado.

When I'm talking about trading for Arenado I am serious in saying I wouldn't give up any of the cubs top 6 prospects. If they want to talk about Chase Strumpf or maybe Ryan Jensen or Cory Abbott.... sure have a discussion. They mention anyone better than them they can **** right off in my opinion.

 

[beckdawg]

For what it's worth I'm trying to think of some other examples of vets who got paid and then got traded but it's not the most common thing for obvious reasons. Another I thought about was Toronto trading a 31 year old Vernon Wells for Mike Napoli and Juan Rivera. Wells was coming off a 126 wRC+ season 3.7 fWAR season. Napoli was a 2 win 28 year old 1B. Rivera was a 31 year old OF coming off a 96 wRC+ seasons of 0.5 fWAR.

Like I'm serious when I say players like Arenado are never traded for much.