Offseason rumors/discussion thread

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,698
Liked Posts:
2,846
Location:
San Diego
Also read that he went primarily cutter with the Cubs. Nothing wrong with taking Kintzler and doing the same thing. Better talent and already stuck with him.
 

JimJohnson

Well-known member
Joined:
May 31, 2014
Posts:
5,190
Liked Posts:
913
Also read that he went primarily cutter with the Cubs. Nothing wrong with taking Kintzler and doing the same thing. Better talent and already stuck with him.

Kintzler was pretty bad with the Cubs. And he wasn't awesome with the Nats either.
 

JimJohnson

Well-known member
Joined:
May 31, 2014
Posts:
5,190
Liked Posts:
913
Giants are dangling Bumgarner out there, wonder what theyd want in return...

They can have Heyward Russell and Quintana [emoji16][emoji16][emoji16][emoji16]

I'm sure the Giants will be creamin' themselves to get that return.
 

Castor76

Active member
Joined:
Nov 2, 2018
Posts:
983
Liked Posts:
233
I'm sure the Giants will be creamin' themselves to get that return.

Considering what the Giants got from the corner outfielders last year, if the Cubs added Schwarber to the deal, they might go for it. Heyward would be a slight downgrade while Schwarber would be a 200 point increase.
 

JimJohnson

Well-known member
Joined:
May 31, 2014
Posts:
5,190
Liked Posts:
913
Considering what the Giants got from the corner outfielders last year, if the Cubs added Schwarber to the deal, they might go for it. Heyward would be a slight downgrade while Schwarber would be a 200 point increase.

They would want Heyward left out of the deal. Maybe Schwarber, Russell, and Q for Bum.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,698
Liked Posts:
2,846
Location:
San Diego
They would want Heyward left out of the deal. Maybe Schwarber, Russell, and Q for Bum.

I'm pretty sure that they are avoiding adding to payroll right now. This situation is highly unlikely.
 

JimJohnson

Well-known member
Joined:
May 31, 2014
Posts:
5,190
Liked Posts:
913
I'm pretty sure that they are avoiding adding to payroll right now. This situation is highly unlikely.

Schwarber, Russell, and Q add very little payroll. What are you talking about?

Or are you talking about the Cubs avoiding adding to payroll?
 

Castor76

Active member
Joined:
Nov 2, 2018
Posts:
983
Liked Posts:
233
They would want Heyward left out of the deal. Maybe Schwarber, Russell, and Q for Bum.

The idea for the Cubs would be to shed Heyward's contract, or at least half of it. Payroll wise, Bum and Q are almost a wash. Both are on the last year of their deals. If the deal had to include 50M to help cover Heyward's contract, it'd still be worth it to the Cubs. If the Giants wouldn't take Heyward, I'd see if they'd take Hamels instead of Q since it would clear more money.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,698
Liked Posts:
2,846
Location:
San Diego
Schwarber, Russell, and Q add very little payroll. What are you talking about?

Or are you talking about the Cubs avoiding adding to payroll?

Bingo. Giving away Smyly and letting Chavez leave are pretty solid indicators
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,698
Liked Posts:
2,846
Location:
San Diego
The idea for the Cubs would be to shed Heyward's contract, or at least half of it. Payroll wise, Bum and Q are almost a wash. Both are on the last year of their deals. If the deal had to include 50M to help cover Heyward's contract, it'd still be worth it to the Cubs. If the Giants wouldn't take Heyward, I'd see if they'd take Hamels instead of Q since it would clear more money.

Think Q is in opts.

The main issue with Q-> Bum is Schwarber is cheap power. Even if the plan was going after Harper all signs have been nil. Now Brantley is a ideal solution if they did this but again they have shown no desire to surpass tax.

The only thing that makes sense to me at this point is adding Miller or another pen arm via trade and try to deal out Chatwood in it. I get that and adding a quality prospect to facilitate it.
 

JimJohnson

Well-known member
Joined:
May 31, 2014
Posts:
5,190
Liked Posts:
913
Bingo. Giving away Smyly and letting Chavez leave are pretty solid indicators

I mean it's possible. But Cubs won't be winning another WS if that's their approach. They've got holes to fill.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,698
Liked Posts:
2,846
Location:
San Diego
Was in the system at one point already. He seems like a nice UI option.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
18,698
Liked Posts:
2,846
Location:
San Diego
I mean it's possible. But Cubs won't be winning another WS if that's their approach. They've got holes to fill.

If all of the talent performs to 2016 levels again:

They need a lead off.

They need a late inning arm due to Morrow’s injury risk.

In house they have Almora but he has not proven himself as every day.

They have Edwards but durability is always a concern with him.

Honestly I would have pulled a mulligan this year under their current situation but they extended Hamels and they pulled Strop’s opt.

Looking at it so far:

Smyly was to get a discount on Hamels. Simple enough. Chavez not worth 2 years on.

If they go over?: it would be to address the 2 main issues.

Here is a trade thought. Going off the Bum trade.

Mark Melancon rhp
4 years/$62M (2017-20)

4 years/$62M (2017-20)
signed by San Francisco as a free agent 12/5/16
$20M signing bonus ($12M at signing, $8M deferred)
17:$4M, 18:$10M, 19:$14M, 20:$14M
Melancon may opt out of contract after 2018 season
full no-trade protection
at signing, highest average annual value ever for a relief pitcher

Get him to wave. Pack him and Bum together. Cubs push Q, Chatwood, Schwarber, Russell. Add a prospect like Underwood or Mills if needed.

Then they sign Brantley

Brantley LF
Almora CF
Heyward RF
Bryant 3B
Baez SS
Zobrist 2B
Rizzo 1B
Contreras C

bench Torreyes, Happ, LaStella

That point I would work some minor trades for a back up catcher. Lefty in the pen maybe a in house fix.
 

Top