- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,848
- Liked Posts:
- 9,042
I misread the article. Thanks for the response. It was warm and heartfelt like all your post.
I misread the article. Thanks for the response. It was warm and heartfelt like all your post.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
So, if I'm reading the changes correctly... the best the cubs could get if Arrieta leaves next year is a 2nd and a 5th and that's only if he goes to a team over the luxury tax threshold. If he goes anywhere else he's just going to return a 3rd round pick. To me anyways that is a significant change and puts more pressure on the cubs to either sign a long term deal with Arrieta or trade him. Under the old system, if he was worth 2 top 100 type players and some change in trade, you would still get a top 40 pick for him leaving which lessened the loss as that is likely to be a top 100 player in the future. A 3rd round pick is a significant downgrade in talent and the money that comes along with draft slots.
I'm honestly wondering if the owners are going to regret this change. I feel like a better solution would have been you still get a high value pick but it no longer costs the team who signs the FA anything. That's sort of how the NFL handles it just tacking on 3rd round picks after players sign away.
Regardless, I really don't feel like the cubs can just let Arrieta walk if they aren't able to come to an agreement on an extension.
I'm honestly wondering if the owners are going to regret this change. I feel like a better solution would have been you still get a high value pick but it no longer costs the team who signs the FA anything. That's sort of how the NFL handles it just tacking on 3rd round picks after players sign away.
Regardless, I really don't feel like the cubs can just let Arrieta walk if they aren't able to come to an agreement on an extension.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,848
- Liked Posts:
- 9,042
My understanding is the players were still reluctant to sign this agreement. They wanted FA to mean free because so many players have been hurt by QO.
Also, my understanding is you can only be offered a QO once by a team. So, the Cubs couldnt have put a pick onto Fowler this year since they offered him a QO last year. Also, the only way to get the draft pick is if a player signs over 50 million and it depends on the market of the team.
From MSNBC:
There is one big win for both mid-tier free agents and teams: According to Rosenthal, only players who sign contracts of $50 million and up will cost their new team a draft pick, and that pick will depend on the market size of the signing team. In addition, a player can no longer be given a qualifying offer more than once. That’s huge for a player like Dexter Fowler: He had his market in the 2015 off-season destroyed by a qualifying offer from the Cubs, was essentially forced to sign a below-market–one-year deal and must contend with the qualifying offer once again this winter (albeit coming off a terrific season for a world champion). A player of his caliber—one not worth $50 million or more—now won’t see his chances of a big multi-year deal go out the window because of the qualifying offer and will only have to suffer through its market-limiting effects once. That’s good for teams, too: After all, punishing a team for trying to get better by signing a free agent is as anti-competition as it gets.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...ans-for-the-league-and-its-players/ar-AAkZhsm
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
All I'm really saying is cut the forfeit aspect of the QO process. For example, if a team wants Fowler and signs him they don't pay a draft pick to get him. Instead, the league just award the cubs a pick in the 30-40ish range like they already had been doing and don't forfeit the signing teams first round pick. To me that seems fairly win win for both the players and the teams. It protects smaller market teams who can't afford to bring back their FA's but it doesn't cost the players.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
Also apparently the all star game no longer will determine HF advantage in WS.
anotheridiot
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jul 15, 2016
- Posts:
- 5,935
- Liked Posts:
- 791
Yeah, I am trying to figure this out too. I thought last year was the very first year that some players actually accepted the qualifying offers when they were 15.6 million. That made me think this system might actually be working and its not much different than "franchise"tagging a player in football so they need to prove last year was not a fluke before doing the long term deal while giving the team some level of control. I dont know if this is going to force teams to sign their own players or not, it just seems like more reason for players to move. I mean they said Fowler did not get much interest last year because teams did not think he was worth the pick, which makes you question the salary.
I guess we will see next week if there is a plethora of signings or if teams like Kansas City will decide to move some of their core for actual prospects instead of getting a pick. Its interesting here because its where the cubs will be in 3-4 years.
TC in Mississippi
CCS Staff
- Joined:
- Oct 22, 2014
- Posts:
- 5,305
- Liked Posts:
- 1,816
I think this is going to mean a lot more trades, and I've been listening to MLB radio this morning and they feel the same. To be honest it could mean Arrieta gets traded this offseason but I think that would depend on being able to trade for an Archer or the like.
CSF77
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 18,667
- Liked Posts:
- 2,845
- Location:
- San Diego
It is going to cost Baez plus to get Archer.
TC in Mississippi
CCS Staff
- Joined:
- Oct 22, 2014
- Posts:
- 5,305
- Liked Posts:
- 1,816
You could very well be right and we have no idea whether they would do that. On the other hand it could be a quantity for quality swap like was discussed here the other day with Happ and Soler leading the deal and then you could add Montero (picking up much of his salary) who the Rays allegedly want. To be honest I have no idea but the idea of Arrieta walking and receiving only a 3rd round pick is troubling.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
My thought was basically that you probably get 70% of whatever Archer costs for Arrieta. I think they are largely equivalent talents on the field. The last 2 years Archer's been worth 8.3 fWAR to Arrieta's 11.1 fWAR. Arreita is 3 years older but given he's a health nut I think he'll age decently well. The main difference is the years of control. If that assumption is accurate, I think it presents some intriguing opportunities. First of all, Arrieta easily becomes a "cheaper" alternative to Sale/Archer types. Where as teams might want multiple top 50 prospects for Archer/Sale, you might be able to get Arrieta for two top 100 guys one being a top 50. In that respect, he basically under cuts the market on those two but they prop up his value higher more than it might ordinarily be.
I think the cubs are going to be in fairly hard on Archer if he's moved just because the years of control mainly. I'm not going to start another debate on his value but if Arrieta is 70% of Archer's value then you would essentially be talking about trading Arrieta + 30% for Archer which would seem like a win in the cubs book because instead of paying whatever Archer costs you're paying 30% of it. And the additional side effect here is that it presents them a chance to swap out misfitting parts. For example, you probably would be trading several bats that don't fit as well in the cubs system. Conversely, you might be able to to deal Arrieta to someone like Houston since I'm doubting they want to part with George Springer or Alex Bregman to acquire Sale/Archer. On the other hand, they probably would move guys like Francis Martes and David Paulino as the head line pieces to get Arrieta. You might basically be swapping Archer and Arrieta and with the prospect side you might be trading 2-3 good young hitters for 2 good young pitchers.
Even if you ended up with a net loss of talent, you might actual come away with more usable talent.
CSF77
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 18,667
- Liked Posts:
- 2,845
- Location:
- San Diego
Was listening to a Jessie Rodgers podcast. He said last year Baez couldn't get you Shelby Miller. This year Miller couldn't get Baez. So Baez is a high Sale right now. His value is peaking and they are not going to bench Zobrist.
He also thought if they were going to trade him it had to be for Archer. Even though his gut feels like they will not do it and will go with Montgomery.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
To me it would depend on the rest of the deal. I doubt the Rays would do Archer for Baez straight up which to me is a bit of a problem. If Baez had played a full seasons worth of PA's he'd have been worth around 4 fWAR last year. Think you can argue that his value wont go down at the very least. He's got 5 years of control just like Archer and he's actually cheaper than Archer over that period. Archer's only average 3.83 fWAR per year the past 3 years. And even if you go to RA9-WAR, he only averages 3.07 per year.
beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,750
- Liked Posts:
- 3,741
Man, they are going hard into renovations
TC in Mississippi
CCS Staff
- Joined:
- Oct 22, 2014
- Posts:
- 5,305
- Liked Posts:
- 1,816
The Rays need multiple pieces back in order for it to even make sense for them to move Archer which is why I tend to doubt that Baez would be part of a deal for him. Sure they'd want him but the fact that a deal with the Cubs including him would only bring back maybe 2 players would probably send them to another club or just not trade him. The Rays need multiple cost controlled pieces going forward if they're to build a pitching staff around Blake Snell and compete in a small market way. They literally can't afford to sign anyone.
CSF77
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 18,667
- Liked Posts:
- 2,845
- Location:
- San Diego
Baez would be a center piece.
I see where arodgers is coming from. Cubs committed to Zobrist and Baez is losing value as a back up. The iron is hot as it is going to be so sell now.
I see where arodgers is coming from. Cubs committed to Zobrist and Baez is losing value as a back up. The iron is hot as it is going to be so sell now.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 43,814
- Liked Posts:
- 52,948
I can't do it. There's almost no realistic scenario that makes me happy with a trade envolving Baez.
TC in Mississippi
CCS Staff
- Joined:
- Oct 22, 2014
- Posts:
- 5,305
- Liked Posts:
- 1,816
If they ever do a trade for pitching it's going to hurt. Theo is the guy who traded Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett and Derek Lowe after all. That said I'd be sad if Baez was moved, I'd be apoplectic if Schwarber was.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 43,814
- Liked Posts:
- 52,948
Agree that if they pull off "the big trade" it will hurt. That's why I wouldn't do it this year. I understand they need help for next year. But this year they're ready to repeat with a little more depth in the pen and back of the rotation. I'm not making any trade this year that busts up the core group we have now. No trades for Baez, Schwarber or Arrieta unless it's just too good to pass up. I'd focus more on moving Soler and some prospects for more depth. But if I'm Theo I ain't fucking with what ain't broke. :shrug:
PickSix
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 9, 2015
- Posts:
- 2,714
- Liked Posts:
- 1,396
How about in a deal for one of the White Sox lefties?
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 43,814
- Liked Posts:
- 52,948
Straight up? Sure.... but that ain't happening.
They'll rightly want a fortune for those guys.
Staff online NOW
-
bamainatlantaYou wake him up, you keep him up -
SilenceSModerator