Offseason rumors/discussion thread

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,915
If they are worried about clearing for 20M no way in hell they sign Manny etc.

The snart move is to axe Russell. Not offer Arb you save a chunk. Chatwood is another one that should be a prime trade.
Or you can look at it as not necessarily clearing payroll for Hamels but trying to make sure that they have the money to sign either Machado or Harper after picking up Hamels option

The guys i mentioned are expendable and Russell probably 99.9% gone
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,675
Liked Posts:
2,845
Location:
San Diego
Or you can look at it as not necessarily clearing payroll for Hamels but trying to make sure that they have the money to sign either Machado or Harper after picking up Hamels option

The guys i mentioned are expendable and Russell probably 99.9% gone

It was hinged on Clearing before resigning. So time wise it makes no sense to set a stipulation on a Friday deadline like this. It has nothing to do with Manny it has to do with moving unwanted contracts. Kintzler and Chatwood were assumed.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/1058186690743934976?s=19

My guess of players they could move to clear salary

Chatwood Smyley Kintzler Duensing Heyward Zobrist

Wont be Heyward for various reasons but the most of which is he's far harder to move. They don't need to clear that much money re: Hamels. Moving Kintzler or Duensing would be nice but I think they'd likely try to move Chatwood in some form. I think someone who's not competing will take a chance on him at the right price point. He's really not that different from guys like Smyly/ Nathan Eovaldi/Michael Pineda who teams gambled on buying low with injuries. You get him fixed this offseason and then he pitches even marginally well then you're doing a pretty quick flip in july to a contending team desperate for pitching.
 

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,915
Wont be Heyward for various reasons but the most of which is he's far harder to move. They don't need to clear that much money re: Hamels. Moving Kintzler or Duensing would be nice but I think they'd likely try to move Chatwood in some form. I think someone who's not competing will take a chance on him at the right price point. He's really not that different from guys like Smyly/Nathan Eovaldi/Michael Pineda who teams gambled on buying low with injuries. You get him fixed this offseason and then he pitches even marginally well then you're doing a pretty quick flip in july to a contending team desperate for pitching.
I was just putting a list of names that they could move from the ones under contract now..

Those were the most logical ones

But yes, i see it being more of the Kintzler Duensing types
 

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,915
It was hinged on Clearing before resigning. So time wise it makes no sense to set a stipulation on a Friday deadline like this. It has nothing to do with Manny it has to do with moving unwanted contracts. Kintzler and Chatwood were assumed.
But it does have everything to do with it ...

They need to clear space for Hamels to make sure they have what they need, to be able to sign Harper or Machado if they agree to sign with cubs

It like their planning on up to X amount to offer either of those two and need to make sure they stay within X amount on the others to stay in their salary plan for 19
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,675
Liked Posts:
2,845
Location:
San Diego
Not really.

They are imposing a limitation on themselves that is unrealistic. Most teams are clearing their 40 right now. This is the worst time to think trade to open payroll. Everyone is doing this. Teams are looking to deal at the winter meetings. So the whole we can’t sign Cole unless we dump is non sense when your back is up against the wall.

They are better off adding him and getting into the GM meetings looking to set up bad contract deals for the winter meetings.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
I think people are sort of overreacting to this trade news re: hamels and thinking that the cubs are some how cash strapped because of it. IMO the way to take it is they already dumped a ton of money into their starting pitching. I mean we know that Lester, Hendricks, Q, and Darvish are all back regardless. But they are currently on the hook with Smyly who was supposed to be a depth type starter and Chatwood who was supposed to be the 5th starter. My take is you have to move at least one of those guys before you talk about exercising Hamels option because what the **** are you gonna do with 3 starters for one rotation spot? And that's before you even talk about the healthy depth they have in Monty as well as Mills and Alzolay who can be effective #5 type depth in AAA.

Presumably the move here is to pawn of Chatwood however you can. You do that then bringing Hamels back makes more sense. Also, even if they do decline the option because they can't trade Chatwood soon enough there's always the option he hits FA, they find a deal for Chatwood and then Hamels and the cubs work something out. While I'm not sure Texas would be that happy about having to foot the buy out, I think this would be a more understandable case than the cubs just declining and then immediately re-signing him.
 

chibears55

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
13,554
Liked Posts:
1,915
I think people are sort of overreacting to this trade news re: hamels and thinking that the cubs are some how cash strapped because of it. IMO the way to take it is they already dumped a ton of money into their starting pitching. I mean we know that Lester, Hendricks, Q, and Darvish are all back regardless. But they are currently on the hook with Smyly who was supposed to be a depth type starter and Chatwood who was supposed to be the 5th starter. My take is you have to move at least one of those guys before you talk about exercising Hamels option because what the **** are you gonna do with 3 starters for one rotation spot? And that's before you even talk about the healthy depth they have in Monty as well as Mills and Alzolay who can be effective #5 type depth in AAA.

Presumably the move here is to pawn of Chatwood however you can. You do that then bringing Hamels back makes more sense. Also, even if they do decline the option because they can't trade Chatwood soon enough there's always the option he hits FA, they find a deal for Chatwood and then Hamels and the cubs work something out. While I'm not sure Texas would be that happy about having to foot the buy out, I think this would be a more understandable case than the cubs just declining and then immediately re-signing him.
My thinking is the cubs may look to unload some of the guys that are due to make a couple mil and probably wont make the team out of ST..

Kintzler etc...
Whether it now or later, doesn't really matter when they do it
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
welp problem solved....

Jerry Crasnick

@jcrasnick
The #Cubs are picking up Cole Hamels' $20 million option today, according to sources. In a related move, they're trading pitcher Drew Smiley to the #Rangers.

Curious what they got for Smyly. He's probably worth something half decent.
 

TC in Mississippi

CCS Staff
Joined:
Oct 22, 2014
Posts:
5,305
Liked Posts:
1,816
I think people are sort of overreacting to this trade news re: hamels and thinking that the cubs are some how cash strapped because of it. IMO the way to take it is they already dumped a ton of money into their starting pitching. I mean we know that Lester, Hendricks, Q, and Darvish are all back regardless. But they are currently on the hook with Smyly who was supposed to be a depth type starter and Chatwood who was supposed to be the 5th starter. My take is you have to move at least one of those guys before you talk about exercising Hamels option because what the **** are you gonna do with 3 starters for one rotation spot? And that's before you even talk about the healthy depth they have in Monty as well as Mills and Alzolay who can be effective #5 type depth in AAA.

Presumably the move here is to pawn of Chatwood however you can. You do that then bringing Hamels back makes more sense. Also, even if they do decline the option because they can't trade Chatwood soon enough there's always the option he hits FA, they find a deal for Chatwood and then Hamels and the cubs work something out. While I'm not sure Texas would be that happy about having to foot the buy out, I think this would be a more understandable case than the cubs just declining and then immediately re-signing him.

I would agree that the money thing is an overreaction. It's clear they're trying to stay under a certain level, but that doesn't mean that level is the CBT and it likely that it's the first high penalty threshold.
 

anotheridiot

Well-known member
Joined:
Jul 15, 2016
Posts:
5,935
Liked Posts:
791
welp problem solved....



Curious what they got for Smyly. He's probably worth something half decent.

Maybe something better than half decent? They basically saved them 6 million dollars in the process.
 

anotheridiot

Well-known member
Joined:
Jul 15, 2016
Posts:
5,935
Liked Posts:
791
Maybe not, Smylys deal was back loaded so it was 2+5 million, so basically a wash, other than getting a piece that might make their rotation
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
I would agree that the money thing is an overreaction. It's clear they're trying to stay under a certain level, but that doesn't mean that level is the CBT and it likely that it's the first high penalty threshold.

I just mean I think it's not an issue for them to go after a machado or a harper. Obviously they aren't going to say sign both. But i'd read some stuff suggesting they couldn't even sign one of them. My guess is they stay below the top penalty rate which is $246 mil if memory serves. They'd likely need to cut ~$10 mil more to get there with a $30 mil contract but that's not *that* hard to do.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
Maybe something better than half decent? They basically saved them 6 million dollars in the process.

I mean I don't think they are getting a top 100 prospect for him. But I could see the return being a useful bullpen guy for next year or a top say 20 prospect from the rangers' org.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
This is also kind of interesting

@jcrasnick
Follow Follow @jcrasnick
More
A footnote to the #Cubs #Rangers trade: Texas hired Shiraz Rehman as its new assistant GM in October after he spent 7 years in the #Cubs front office. So he was in an interesting position to assess the impact of the trade from both sides.

He was the guy who set up the cubs analytics stuff IIRC so presumably he might have been the one pushing the idea of signing Smyly to begin with because he's always been an interesting pitcher from a stat stand point.

Regardless, if the cubs get something of similar value to Rollie Lacy/Eddie Butler back I'm pretty happy with how all this played out. You'd basically be trading a year and a half of Hamels for Smyly.
 

TL1961

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 24, 2013
Posts:
34,990
Liked Posts:
19,094
I was looking forward to seeing what Smyly could do when they picked him p for nothing. But moving him so they could keep Hamels works for me.

I don't expect greatness from Hamels over the course of the whole season, but if he just essentially replaced our 5th starter....what's not to like? (Other than the salary, of course)
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,750
Liked Posts:
3,741
I was looking forward to seeing what Smyly could do when they picked him p for nothing. But moving him so they could keep Hamels works for me.

I don't expect greatness from Hamels over the course of the whole season, but if he just essentially replaced our 5th starter....what's not to like? (Other than the salary, of course)

While the salary kind of sucks this year given they likely need another move to shed some salary, a 1 year $20 mil gamble on him isn't a bad thing. Hell, they might even be in a position after the offseason to put a QO on him if he pitches well. I sort of prefer this path to an extension because eventually the cubs gotta let guys like Alzolay and ODLC have a shot in the majors. So, having a pretty set top 4 and being able to pull the 5 from the minors will be nice
 

anotheridiot

Well-known member
Joined:
Jul 15, 2016
Posts:
5,935
Liked Posts:
791
I was looking forward to seeing what Smyly could do when they picked him p for nothing. But moving him so they could keep Hamels works for me.

I don't expect greatness from Hamels over the course of the whole season, but if he just essentially replaced our 5th starter....what's not to like? (Other than the salary, of course)

well, they paid him 3 million dollars to rehab and play some minor league ball and then moved him because they could not afford him. So will this stop our yearly rehab projects?
 

anotheridiot

Well-known member
Joined:
Jul 15, 2016
Posts:
5,935
Liked Posts:
791
While the salary kind of sucks this year given they likely need another move to shed some salary, a 1 year $20 mil gamble on him isn't a bad thing. Hell, they might even be in a position after the offseason to put a QO on him if he pitches well. I sort of prefer this path to an extension because eventually the cubs gotta let guys like Alzolay and ODLC have a shot in the majors. So, having a pretty set top 4 and being able to pull the 5 from the minors will be nice

Pull the 5 that eventually turns into the 4 and goes right up the list would be really nice.
 

Top