Offseason rumors/discussion thread

[knoxville7]

It depends on the reason why they don't have money. For example, if all they are trying to do is avoid the $246 mil top end penalty for the luxury tax then no that doesn't work because the figure used there is the average annual value of the deal. So for example 10 years $300 mil would cost $30 miml per season toward the luxury tax. On the other hand if it's just literally a case of them not having the money this year then you can do that but more likely what you'd see is the team just deferring money until later. Stanton and Scherzer both have deals like this where they make interest essentially and it bumps their final number up higher than it would other wise normally be but year to year it doesn't change much. The most famous(infamous?) case of this is Bobby Bonilla who the mets are giving $1.2 mil ever july 1 until 2035.

Right on, thanks for the info. I was unaware of how they use aav towards the luxury tax, and not the actual 2019 salary. I knew someone on here would have more insight into that than I have.

 

[chibears55]

If Harper don't wanna play in Philadelphia then it don't matter if they offer 10 yrs

Like I said before, hed probably take a 2-3 yr deal at 35 or more per if he doesn't get the offer he wants from a team he wants to play on

 

[beckdawg]

Right on, thanks for the info. I was unaware of how they use aav towards the luxury tax, and not the actual 2019 salary. I knew someone on here would have more insight into that than I have.

Yeah I mean I'm not an expert by any means but it play a game called out of the park which does a lot of simulation of front office type stuff so that helps a bit with my knowledge there. But feel free in the future if you have questions to ask and I'll try to answer them.

 

[CSF77]

My point is I don't think he's going to win a job with the team out of ST. I strongly doubt given the win now aspect of this year for maddon that he's gonna **** around with Chatwood if he's still wild at all. I don't think what I just said is really that controversial. In fact, I'd argue it's the likely outcome. My point in all this is what do you do as an organization at that point? Normally yeah you cut bait on a guy and just eat the money or move him for whatever you can get. But he's said he doesn't want to be traded. And given where the cubs are financially, just eating $25.5 mil doesn't make much sense. So, the thought was if he doesn't wanna go some where else and the cubs don't really want to eat that kind of money, allowing him to go to AAA wouldn't be the worst outcome in the world.

A player on the 40-man roster playing in the minors is on optional assignment. There is no limit on the number of times a club may promote and demote a player during one option season. ... Also, a player who has accrued at least five years of major league service time may not be optioned to the minors without his consent

 

[knoxville7]

Yeah I mean I'm not an expert by any means but it play a game called out of the park which does a lot of simulation of front office type stuff so that helps a bit with my knowledge there. But feel free in the future if you have questions to ask and I'll try to answer them.

Much appreciated. I’m one of those baseball dinosaurs that relies on the eye test more than the analytics, so I’m sure I’ll have some questions about those too haha. I do think the defensive analytics hold a lot of water, not so much the others

 

[CSF77]

If Harper don't wanna play in Philadelphia then it don't matter if they offer 10 yrs

Like I said before, hed probably take a 2-3 yr deal at 35 or more per if he doesn't get the offer he wants from a team he wants to play on

Not going to happen.

7:38am: The Dodgers have jumped back into the Bryce Harper bidding and held a meeting with him as recently as last night, Jesse Sanchez of MLB.com reports (via Twitter). Dodgers officials, including manager Dave Roberts, were seen in Las Vegas to meet with Harper. Per Jeff Passan and Ramona Shelburne of ESPN (Twitter links), the Dodgers re-engaged with Harper’s camp two weeks ago, although at the time, they were still hoping to secure Harper on a shorter-term pact. Harper, however, has been seeking at least a 10-year deal and has not budged from that thinking, Passan notes.

 

[CSF77]

Re Chatwood

Cubs can't demote him. They can push him to the pen. Trade or release and pay him his contract anyways.

Chatwood can accept a AAA demotion. But it is 100% his decision.

So this is reality. The most likely scenerio is he is on mop up duty and has to earn better scenerio based off of performance. The Cubs are far better off building up value with him vs getting nothing in return except a min discount if a team signs him.

I really believe that they believe Chatwood will rebound.and it was a mechanic vs a loss of talent.

Worst case is phantom injury. Best case is he figures it out and becomes impactful.

 

[knoxville7]

Re Chatwood

Cubs can't demote him. They can push him to the pen. Trade or release and pay him his contract anyways.

Chatwood can accept a AAA demotion. But it is 100% his decision.

So this is reality. The most likely scenerio is he is on mop up duty and has to earn better scenerio based off of performance. The Cubs are far better off building up value with him vs getting nothing in return except a min discount if a team signs him.

I really believe that they believe Chatwood will rebound.and it was a mechanic vs a loss of talent.

Worst case is phantom injury. Best case is he figures it out and becomes impactful.

If chatwood ever finds some semblance of control, he will be an asset

 

[CSF77]

If chatwood ever finds some semblance of control, he will be an asset

And that is the Crux

 

[knoxville7]

And that is the Crux

For sure. If he wants to stay with the cubs as badly as it seems, maybe he would agree to go to AAA and work on it in a setting where he can’t hurt anything. Of course, like you said...it’s up to him if he will go or not

 

[beckdawg]

A player on the 40-man roster playing in the minors is on optional assignment. There is no limit on the number of times a club may promote and demote a player during one option season. ... Also, a player who has accrued at least five years of major league service time may not be optioned to the minors without his consent

Why are you telling me the rule? I know the rule. He doesn't have options hence why I wonder if he would consent in my question.

 

[CSF77]

Why are you telling me the rule? I know the rule. He doesn't have options hence why I wonder if he would consent in my question.

Better to ask why would he when he is not required to give up power.

This is more about power vs starting.

 

[CSF77]

The point being is the Union is most likely going to strike and this is a union member giving power away to ownership.

I doubt that he would.

His agent would argue against it.

The union would be against it.

So it won't happen. You are straw grabbing g here beck

 

[Castor76]

Better to ask why would he when he is not required to give up power.

This is more about power vs starting.

I can think of two reasons why he might consider taking the demotion. Firstly, the "good soldier" look as the time in AAA is "what's best for the team." Secondly, he could get regular work.

 

[beckdawg]

Better to ask why would he when he is not required to give up power.

This is more about power vs starting.

Did you even read the post? I literally walked through it. Chatwood gave an interview a day or two ago. He made the case that he has no interest in being a reliever and that he views himself as a starter. The interview then went to the question of whether he would demand a trade should the cubs not have a spot for him for obvious reasons given their current depth. He said he didn't want to be traded because he chose to be here and liked it here or something to that effect.

Those two statements are in direct contrast with each other. The only way they work is if he'd do something like I suggested which is accepting a DFA assignment until he either fixed himself or until the cubs needed him because of injury. As for your comments about the union, he's giving up nothing. He still makes his salary even if he accepts the assignment. Literally the only thing he would lose is maybe a shot at making some other MLB team. But if he can't even make the cubs opening day roster no one is going to offer him a MLB deal. He'd be taking a minor league deal anyways to hopefully latch on to some other team. So him accepting the AAA assignment for a team he chose to be with really isn't costing him anything. Also the union isn't going to give a **** about a player who is DFA'd. They are concerned with Harper/Machado types not roster fillers.

Now maybe he wouldn't accept the assignment. That's literally why I asked the question I wonder if he would. Maybe some team blows out an arm in ST and he can get cut and sign a MLB deal for the league min with them. Obviously that's possible. But if he's saying he wants to play for chicago and if we can agree he's likely to be a long shot to make the team... this is the only resolution that makes sense for him with the cubs.

 

[CSF77]

I can think of two reasons why he might consider taking the demotion. Firstly, the "good soldier" look as the time in AAA is "what's best for the team." Secondly, he could get regular work.

No. Being in a union myself I know first hand that this is a business decision. They will make ownership eat a contract before doing any favors.

There is no good solder. The war is between ownership and the players. The comish has screwed the players the last 2 CBA'S. Giving away free bee's is a pipe dream by the fans hoping to make Chatwood disappear.

 

[CSF77]

Did you even read the post? I literally walked through it. Chatwood gave an interview a day or two ago. He made the case that he has no interest in being a reliever and that he views himself as a starter. The interview then went to the question of whether he would demand a trade should the cubs not have a spot for him for obvious reasons given their current depth. He said he didn't want to be traded because he chose to be here and liked it here or something to that effect.

Those two statements are in direct contrast with each other. The only way they work is if he'd do something like I suggested which is accepting a DFA assignment until he either fixed himself or until the cubs needed him because of injury. As for your comments about the union, he's giving up nothing. He still makes his salary even if he accepts the assignment. Literally the only thing he would lose is maybe a shot at making some other MLB team. But if he can't even make the cubs opening day roster no one is going to offer him a MLB deal. He'd be taking a minor league deal anyways to hopefully latch on to some other team. So him accepting the AAA assignment for a team he chose to be with really isn't costing him anything. Also the union isn't going to give a **** about a player who is DFA'd. They are concerned with Harper/Machado types not roster fillers.

Now maybe he wouldn't accept the assignment. That's literally why I asked the question I wonder if he would. Maybe some team blows out an arm in ST and he can get cut and sign a MLB deal for the league min with them. Obviously that's possible. But if he's saying he wants to play for chicago and if we can agree he's likely to be a long shot to make the team... this is the only resolution that makes sense for him with the cubs.

You have to go by the CBA first. Can he demand one? Sure he can but that doesn't force ownership to do so. They can tell him that his roster spot is in the bull pen.


Here is what I believe happens.

Chatwood will be given a pen role.

Every thing else is based off of fate and performance.

That is it.

 

[Castor76]

No. Being in a union myself I know first hand that this is a business decision. They will make ownership eat a contract before doing any favors.

There is no good solder. The war is between ownership and the players. The comish has screwed the players the last 2 CBA'S. Giving away free bee's is a pipe dream by the fans hoping to make Chatwood disappear.

Because once you join a union all your personal freedom is given up. You have no choice ever again.

 

[beckdawg]

You have to go by the CBA first. Can he demand one? Sure he can but that doesn't force ownership to do so. They can tell him that his roster spot is in the bull pen.


Here is what I believe happens.

Chatwood will be given a pen role.

Every thing else is based off of fate and performance.

That is it.

You're assuming he pitches well enough that the cubs want him in their bullpen. My entire point is I don't see that happening. It has nothing to do with him demanding to go to AAA. What I see happening is he's not good enough to make the cubs opening day roster. At that point, you can't option him obviously. So, you either have to release him or you have to DFA him because you have no other options. It's at that point this discussion becomes relevant because the cubs are on the hook regardless for his money. So, is it that outlandish to see them approach him and ask if he'd be willing to accept a AAA assignment especially when we all know most MLB teams don't go through a full season without injuries to their starting rotation?

From his perspective he would have 2 options. Either A) he says **** that and hopes to find another job in a market that is moving glacially slow(Keuchel is way better and still has no contract) or B) he accepts the assignment and tries to work through his shit knowing that should any of the starting 5 get hurt he'd likely be the odds on favorite to be called up. Would you want to risk not finding a job in this market when you very well might pitch meaningful innings for a playoff team at some point in the 2019 season?

 

[CSF77]

Because once you join a union all your personal freedom is given up. You have no choice ever again.

If you have been in a real one. And I don't mean a food workers one then you will get it. We work under a contract between the players and the owners. Normally a player will not go against the Union contract.

The faster that you understand it iS a vs and not a us thing the better.