Offseason discussion/rumors

[brett05]

Whether or not Archer is the cause of it is pointless. Tampa bay's 2016 opening day payroll was $66.6 million. If you just count the 25 man roster and ignore the 15 other guys on the 40 man that comes in at $2.7 mil per guy. I certainly don't need to explain to you how little that buys. In 2017, Longoria and Forsythe will be making $20 mil combined. If we rerun that math, you're down to $2 mil per player for he other 23 guys. They have a number of guys now hitting arbitration and here's their expected values

Alex Cobb (5.061) – $4.0MM
Drew Smyly (4.154) – $6.9MM
Erasmo Ramirez (3.158) – $3.5MM
Brad Boxberger (3.109) – $1.5MM
Corey Dickerson (3.101) – $3.4MM
Brad Miller (3.094) – $3.8MM
Xavier Cedeno (3.060) – $1.2MM
Jake Odorizzi (3.042) – $4.6MM
Danny Farquhar (2.170) – $1.1MM
Kevin Kiermaier (2.131) – $2.1MM

That comes in at another $32.1 mil on top of the $25.08 mil committed to Longoria, Archer and Forsythe. In other words, if they just retain the 10 arbitration players and the 3 guys they have on contract they are at $57.18 mil and that's before you talk about filling the other 12 roster spots on a 68 win team. Even if you fill that with league minimum players that's another $6 mil. And you actually do have to pay the 15 other guys on the 40 man which is another $7.5 mil. So you're already at $70.68 mil without adding any external players. Tampa has never spent more than $77 mil in franchise history. Long story short, they aren't operating like other teams save for maybe Oakland and even Oakland had an $86 mil payroll last season. It's fine and dandy to talk about winning titles but they are running a business here and actually have to put out enough of a product to make a profit. As I mentioned they literally couldn't afford to give Castro $24.5 mil over 3 years to be their catcher. Tampa like Oakland can't afford to sit and wait on a talented guy in A ball via trade. Billy Beane has talked about this. The gist of it is that by the time they build up enough talent at the MLB level to be competitive, those players hit arbitration and Oakland can no longer afford them.

This leads to a point I've made all along. Teams like Oakland and Tampa have to get guys who can contribute today when they move pieces. For example, when they traded David Price, many felt the return was light. It ended up being a 3 team deal and they came away with Smyly, Adames, Nick Franklin for a Cy Young pitcher with 1.5 years of control. Smyly wasn't a top 20 prospect. Highest he ever got was #82 by MLB.com and no one else ever rated him in the top 100. Adames is now a top 25 guy but at that time of the trade he was an 18 year old in A ball. Franklin was a former top prospect who peaked at #44 but who was more of a buy low guy at that point after hitting .225/.303/.382 in 2013 and .128/.192/.170 to start 2014. Point here being that Tampa dealt easily the best pitcher on the market for 2 guys in Smyly and Franklin who had limited upside but who were MLB ready and for 1 lottery ticket 18 year old in A ball.

That's what you're not factoring in to this. Aside from the market limitations which have already been discussed, they have issues with needing bats in particular and needing MLB ready players because they can't afford free agents. If you want to make the argument that Sale nets considerably more that's fine but I think the Sox as a team are in an entirely different situation. At $114.5 mil the Sox had almost double the 2016 opening day payroll that the Rays did.

Pointless is you bringing Sale into the conversation about Archer.

Pointless is in essence "cutting" an afforable #1 pitcher with potential Ace for incomplete parts. Archer at this point is way more valuable than Price at the point of his trade.

But you keep trying to bait for some reason into a "fight" with your rhetoric whether you see that or not. I'm not interested.


I'd argue easily that they'd move Logan and Evan before they move Archer to be honest. Even for a team that is looking for offense, they move those two and get three guys in AA to be the next batch of hitters IMO.

 

[brett05]

I think you're missing the point. They cannot afford position players with money so Archer becomes the asset that gets them cost controlled guys to fill out their roster and produce. You're talking about a team with a $50-$65 mil salary here. So now they're not freeing up Archer's money to pay for guys but they are turning and asset into multiple assets.

And I get that, but they need the assets today. What is being offered in this thread is not today assets.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Right, I mean trades are complicated there's no argument there and the back end often makes a difference. While a big name moving is often the driver of a deal trades are at the core, as you alluded to, asset management. That said I wouldn't have a problem with an overpay for Archer. You're talking about a guy who would probably get $25 mil AAV on the open market being had for 5/$39 mil plus those assets including 2 option years to mitigate risk. It then also allows the Cubs to possibly pick up a pitcher in FA next year or even try to sign Arrieta if they so choose. The Cubs have a lot of money but not an unlimited budget, although in comparison to TB it seems that way, so all of that matters in terms of asset management.

 

[beckdawg]

If this was the case of trading for say Arrieta, I get it. The Twins can't use him properly more than likely. But Archer should be great thru 2021. That's long term short term, mid term value all over the place at cheap dollars. That's why even a team like the Phillies or the Marlins can't be counted out. An Archer in trade does not come along often at all. And with the shortage of quality pitching it's worth a look by any team..

This logic makes 0 sense to me. The twins lost a league worst 103 games. They weren't unlucky. They were out scored by 167 runs. They gave up the most runs in the AL last year. Let's humor your argument on 2 folds. A) let's say they were interested in Archer and B) let's say Archer also costs as much as you're suggesting. That means they easily have to give up 3 of Tyler Jay, Nick Gordon, Stephen Gonsalves and Alex Kirilloff. Those are their only 4 top 100 players. Then what? Archer could win 20 games for them and they still wouldn't be a playoff team and the talent they need to improve with you just dealt away. On top of that, Minny isn't the Yanks. They can't throw money around to fix all their problems and even if they could the next 2 FAs may be lean.

Even if Buxton, Sano, and Kepler reach their peak potential, you have 4 guys with thos 3 and Dozier and a number of holes all around the team. Joe Mauer isn't suddenly turning back into a 5 win player. And even with Archer their current staff is a 33 year old Ervin Santana, a 34 year old Ricky Nolasco, a 29 year old Kyle Gibson, and a 31 year old Phil Hughes. Those players aren't magically getting better with age.

Minny isn't a team on the rise. They are a team that just bottomed out. Buxton, Sano and Kepler could be building blocks but not if you trade away all the rest of the talent they have in their system for Archer. They are sellers right now trying to buy more young talent with MLB products.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

And I get that, but they need the assets today. What is being offered in this thread is not today assets.

In my scenario Montero, Soler and Candelerio are today's assets and Happ should be up next year. Montero is a one year temporary fix but should help a young pitching staff and if the Cubs ate $10 mil he's an inexpensive one. The only future asset is Clifton. Plus Tampa Bay can't, in any realistic expectation, compete in 2017 even with Archer because they lack too many pieces. Now if they move him the pieces have to gel, a couple more pitchers have to come up for them and Blake Snell has to become a TOR. All of those things are realistic and projectable but take time.

 

[brett05]

This logic makes 0 sense to me. The twins lost a league worst 103 games. They weren't unlucky. They were out scored by 167 runs. They gave up the most runs in the AL last year. Let's humor your argument on 2 folds. A) let's say they were interested in Archer and B) let's say Archer also costs as much as you're suggesting. That means they easily have to give up 3 of Tyler Jay, Nick Gordon, Stephen Gonsalves and Alex Kirilloff. Those are their only 4 top 100 players. Then what? Archer could win 20 games for them and they still wouldn't be a playoff team and the talent they need to improve with you just dealt away. On top of that, Minny isn't the Yanks. They can't throw money around to fix all their problems and even if they could the next 2 FAs may be lean.

Even if Buxton, Sano, and Kepler reach their peak potential, you have 4 guys with thos 3 and Dozier and a number of holes all around the team. Joe Mauer isn't suddenly turning back into a 5 win player. And even with Archer their current staff is a 33 year old Ervin Santana, a 34 year old Ricky Nolasco, a 29 year old Kyle Gibson, and a 31 year old Phil Hughes. Those players aren't magically getting better with age.

Minny isn't a team on the rise. They are a team that just bottomed out. Buxton, Sano and Kepler could be building blocks but not if you trade away all the rest of the talent they have in their system for Archer. They are sellers right now trying to buy more young talent with MLB products.

And Archer is young talent.

I think we are done here.

 

[brett05]

In my scenario Montero, Soler and Candelerio are today's assets and Happ should be up next year. Montero is a one year temporary fix but should help a young pitching staff and if the Cubs ate $10 mil he's an inexpensive one. The only future asset is Clifton. Plus Tampa Bay can't, in any realistic expectation, compete in 2017 even with Archer because they lack too many pieces. Now if they move him the pieces have to gel, a couple more pitchers have to come up for them and Blake Snell has to become a TOR. All of those things are realistic and projectable but take time.

In your scenario Montero is old and for all intensive purposes done. More-so if they get serious about automating the calls of balls and strikes. He is less than replacement value, he hurts a team now. Any value he has is to a team that is ready now because that's your only chance of getting any value at all out of him is this coming year. Soler's value has dropped tremendously who struggles with right handed pitching. At one time seen as a possibly great spec, he's a part time player that could very well get things going if given full time play. However his defense is not there which is something IMO clearly TB likes to have. He's also going to opt for Arbitration in 2018 which is going to hurt his value to a team like TB for the production Soler gives. But even if that piece is a given, Jemier has not shown he can play in the bigs as of yet. He could be a bust. Same with Happ and his defensive lack. Could be of no MLB benefit at all. I think the conversation starts with Soler, Candy, and Ian. I think Baez will be asked for in replacement of Ian. I think the Cubs pass as they have shown that they overvalue middle infielders. And with Baez that could well be justified. I just see better assets being offered to the Rays than that. We shall see what happens.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

In your scenario Montero is old and for all intensive purposes done. More-so if they get serious about automating the calls of balls and strikes. He is less than replacement value, he hurts a team now. Any value he has is to a team that is ready now because that's your only chance of getting any value at all out of him is this coming year. Soler's value has dropped tremendously who struggles with right handed pitching. At one time seen as a possibly great spec, he's a part time player that could very well get things going if given full time play. However his defense is not there which is something IMO clearly TB likes to have. He's also going to opt for Arbitration in 2018 which is going to hurt his value to a team like TB for the production Soler gives. But even if that piece is a given, Jemier has not shown he can play in the bigs as of yet. He could be a bust. Same with Happ and his defensive lack. Could be of no MLB benefit at all. I think the conversation starts with Soler, Candy, and Ian. I think Baez will be asked for in replacement of Ian. I think the Cubs pass as they have shown that they overvalue middle infielders. And with Baez that could well be justified. I just see better assets being offered to the Rays than that. We shall see what happens.

I don't agree with you but we will consider the dead horse beaten.

That said you have a bias towards holding on to known assets with as little known risk as possible. You also aren't thrilled by rebuilds so in a team like Minnesota which is obviously (to me an many other) in a rebuild you look for ways for them to compete. I get it. My biases are in the direction, heck I had been calling for a complete gut job of the Cubs organization when Theo Epstein was in still in short pants and Little League. I can't stand mediocrity and I love baseball so I like to see teams break it down some an build it right. That bias, more than any sort of a desired fleecing of TB, is the place I am coming from. The best trades are one where both teams win. I think the recent Taijuan Walker-Jean Segura/Mitch Haniger deal is one of those. The D-back are going through a rebuilding phase under a new FO and can afford to let Walker, a budding superstar develop as they are unlikely to compete for a couple of years. Seattle is going win now and has solved some position player woes. I love trades like that.

 

[beckdawg]

Pointless is you bringing Sale into the conversation about Archer.

Pointless is in essence "cutting" an afforable #1 pitcher with potential Ace for incomplete parts. Archer at this point is way more valuable than Price at the point of his trade.

But you keep trying to bait for some reason into a "fight" with your rhetoric whether you see that or not. I'm not interested.


I'd argue easily that they'd move Logan and Evan before they move Archer to be honest. Even for a team that is looking for offense, they move those two and get three guys in AA to be the next batch of hitters IMO.

Calling Happ and Soler "incomplete parts" is entirely disingenuous. Soler is a career .258/.328/.434 hitter and will be 25. There were a total of 38 OF in the majors last year who matched that OPS. Happ is a top 25 prospect who's hit .272/.362/.452 throughout the minors. As near ready MLB players go they are going to be some of the best out there which is why there is talk in the first place.

It comes down to this. They have to move someone. You can put whatever value you want on a player be it Longoria, Smyly, Forsythe, Archer.... whomever. But when you have to move someone you're not going to get peak value for a player. If they deal Longoria they may as well punt the next 3 seasons and trade Archer as well because they simply don't have the prospects to compete without him and only won 68 games with him. If they instead deal a lessor guy like Forsythe and/or Smyly that's really not going to fix their team. It solves the monetary issue but 1 year of Forsythe isn't going to return a big haul and given Smyly's down year/injury history I can't see him bringing multiple good prospects. In both cases, I think you'd be getting either a low level prospects with some talent or mlb ready players with a lower ceiling. And in the mean while, every year you have less control over Archer and his salary goes up. So, unless they land something that makes them competitive for the lessor guys what's the point?

And that's the catch 22 of it all. Archer is never going to be more valuable than he is right now whatever that value may be. While they certainly can wait if they don't like the offers they get, what's that accomplish? You're essentially playing chicken with someone being more desperate than the teams right now are in a market with relatively little pitching. I find it quite difficult to believe they get more later. Ultimately we can quibble about what the offers should be but I can't see that logic changing. And given that logic, it makes sense that they would deal Archer for whatever that best offer happens to be because of the pieces they have, Archer and Longoria are the only ones who will return star level pieces and of those two Archer is the easier one to replace internally with what they have not including trade return.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Sooo.....

Other than Archer. Any other names you guys like?

 

[beckdawg]

Sooo.....

Other than Archer. Any other names you guys like?

There's been some talk of AZ dealing some of their arms. Archie Bradley looks like he could use a change of scenery and he's unlikely to make their starting 5 rotation. If we're talking AZ i'd much rather gamble on him than Miller who I'd imagine AZ would rather trade. Also, AZ hired porter and a fellow former boston guy. Them being chummy with Theo might make sense as you would expect them to like some of the cubs choices in prospects be it Happ/Soler/whomever.

No idea on what it would cost. I mean I could throw a value up there but pitchers with his length of control rarely are traded when they have any upside. Feels like we're moving into a different way of teams thinking about trades though. 10 years ago someone with Archer/Sale level of control never was even considered in trades. I think and I'm not 100% on this but it might have to do with the youth movement in baseball. I've read a bit that the steroid era essentially propped up older guys so they had longer careers in the late 90's/early 2000's and sort of stunted the idea of young guys playing that you saw more in the 80's. That lead to the whole super 2 talk and service time jargon. Over the last year or so though we've seen a number of surprisingly quick call ups who have played major roles.

 

[brett05]

Sooo.....

Other than Archer. Any other names you guys like?

I heard good things about that Trout guy and that guy in LA...Clayton something or other.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

I heard good things about that Trout guy and that guy in LA...Clayton something or other.

Soler for Kershaw and prospects? Let Kershaw and Montgomery battle it out for 5th starter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chibears55]

Remember when I said Reinsdorf wont deal with the Cubs and some of you disagreed?

@TheCCO: #Cubs | White Sox Reportedly Not Willing to Trade with the Cubs bit.ly/2g2f7Wo #MLB



Jerry Reinsdorf*cannot stand the Cubs and has tried to make it as hard as possible for them to win a championship. Reinsdorf has watched the Cubs build one of the top organizations in the game and this year he saw them win it all while his team continued to struggle.

It’s been known for years that the Sox would not make another significant deal with the Cubs for the fear that it would help them win a World Series. And the Sox are still not willing to trade with the Cubs.

According to Buster Olney

, “the White Sox have told the Cubs they won’t deal with them.”



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[FirstTimer]

...brett continues to have the worst baseball thoughts ever....

The only good part of him posting his inane ramblings is that I get to read a tremendous response from beckdawg or TC.

 

[Omeletpants]

...brett continues to have the worst baseball thoughts ever....

The only good part of him posting his inane ramblings is that I get to read a tremendous response from beckdawg or TC.

We can't even have any peace in the off season

 

[beckdawg]

Remember when I said Reinsdorf wont deal with the Cubs and some of you disagreed?

@TheCCO: #Cubs | White Sox Reportedly Not Willing to Trade with the Cubs bit.ly/2g2f7Wo #MLB



Jerry Reinsdorf*cannot stand the Cubs and has tried to make it as hard as possible for them to win a championship. Reinsdorf has watched the Cubs build one of the top organizations in the game and this year he saw them win it all while his team continued to struggle.

It’s been known for years that the Sox would not make another significant deal with the Cubs for the fear that it would help them win a World Series. And the Sox are still not willing to trade with the Cubs.

According to Buster Olney

, “the White Sox have told the Cubs they won’t deal with them.”



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

Sounds fairly petty to me. I tend to believe a rising tide raises all ships. If the cubs are good, more people in chicago are interested in baseball and then might actually tune into the sox for more. Seems to me if you're so focused on another team not winning then you're not 100% focused on your team winning. And the end result is what? The cubs won the world series without trading with them. Guess that's just why I don't get that logic.

For my money, I think trading with anyone is fine. I can see the idea of being cautious in division as you see them for what 18 games a year? But other than that you should be making moves that get you closer not worrying about trying to set someone else back. Winning organization don't care if the other side also wins in a trade. They care about getting what their expectation for the trade were.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Sooo.....

Other than Archer. Any other names you guys like?

I'm going to break with beckdawg on this one as I kind of like Shelby Miller. That said I don't understand the inconsistency and if the Cubs don't understand it either, and don't see a change there then I don't want him either. The thing is that he has good stuff and can put it together from time to time like he did in Atlanta in 2015. I'd be talking to the Mets about Zack Wheeler as well although you would presume they'd want to hang on to him to rebuild some value. I'm sure matt harvey would be available at the right price but I don't really his makeup much. There are some fits with the Mets though in offering guys like Candelerio, Happ or Victor Caratini although with their OF glut it would be tough to complete that package for either guy. I'd also look at the Braves who were said to have fallen out of love with Sean Newcomb but maybe they'll be less likely to move him after the trade of Rob Whalen to Seattle. There's always Sonny Gray lwho the Cubs are known to like but I know some here don't love him. Maybe there some names I'm missing too.

 

[chibears55]

Sounds fairly petty to me. I tend to believe a rising tide raises all ships. If the cubs are good, more people in chicago are interested in baseball and then might actually tune into the sox for more. Seems to me if you're so focused on another team not winning then you're not 100% focused on your team winning. And the end result is what? The cubs won the world series without trading with them. Guess that's just why I don't get that logic.

For my money, I think trading with anyone is fine. I can see the idea of being cautious in division as you see them for what 18 games a year? But other than that you should be making moves that get you closer not worrying about trying to set someone else back. Winning organization don't care if the other side also wins in a trade. They care about getting what their expectation for the trade were.

That what makes Reinsdorf a moron. ...

Sox if they do trade Sales Abreu etc. are then focused on winning 3 to 5 yrs down the road not now..

So

If the Cubs have the best available prospects that could help them win in that time frame and be a fixture of their future team..
Why care what Sales or Quintana does to help Cubs win now. .
In 5 years they either won't be with Cubs or be making as much of an impact for them. .
But
Those prospects Sox got will just be getting started with their careers

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[ZOMBIE@CTESPN]

Remember when I said Reinsdorf wont deal with the Cubs and some of you disagreed?

@TheCCO: #Cubs | White Sox Reportedly Not Willing to Trade with the Cubs bit.ly/2g2f7Wo #MLB



Jerry Reinsdorf*cannot stand the Cubs and has tried to make it as hard as possible for them to win a championship. Reinsdorf has watched the Cubs build one of the top organizations in the game and this year he saw them win it all while his team continued to struggle.

It’s been known for years that the Sox would not make another significant deal with the Cubs for the fear that it would help them win a World Series. And the Sox are still not willing to trade with the Cubs.

According to Buster Olney

, “the White Sox have told the Cubs they won’t deal with them.”



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

this is why sox wont go anywhere with current ownership and management structure. You take the best deal on the table that helps you rebuild faster period.