Offseason Stuff

[CSF77]

Bryant will be getting somewhere around 18-20M right? The assumption is that Nick will get close to that number yearly as well. Don’t they need to get rid of some more to rest it though?

Here is my thought. Theo might be taking this as Bryant will demand 300M

Nick costs 100M

Happ is flexible so they could find PA's at 3B temporary.

This would also tie into them not offering Rizzo a extend. After he goes up they move Nick from RF to 1B and then plug in Davis and other home developed guys

 

[CSF77]

I've said this before Theo is hand cuffed by tax. The Ricketts pretty much will go over for a year if the team is needing a small boost to win it all. But going into this year I see this is a semi reset. Manager and tax.

 

[anotheridiot]

Here is my thought. Theo might be taking this as Bryant will demand 300M

Nick costs 100M

Happ is flexible so they could find PA's at 3B temporary.

This would also tie into them not offering Rizzo a extend. After he goes up they move Nick from RF to 1B and then plug in Davis and other home developed guys

Nick was projected as 4 years, 64 million.

 

[CSF77]

Nick was projected as 4 years, 64 million.

even better

 

[TL1961]

Here is my thought. Theo might be taking this as Bryant will demand 300M

Nick costs 100M

Happ is flexible so they could find PA's at 3B temporary.

This would also tie into them not offering Rizzo a extend. After he goes up they move Nick from RF to 1B and then plug in Davis and other home developed guys

Nick did well for teh Cubs in half a season. But he is nowhere near Bryant and Rizzo in all around talent.

And many who want Nick acknowledge it would mean trading Schwarber. Schwarber is pretty much an equal player to Castellanos and much cheaper right now. I love Castellanos' contributins to teh Cubs last year, and if it weren't going to mean losing Schwarber (or the others) it would be OK having him back. But he is not good on D, and in a best case scenario - best case - would force Heyward to CF full time between Nick and Kyle.

That is not a winning formula. The better the team was on D, the more successful they were. See 2016.

 

[CSF77]

Nick did well for teh Cubs in half a season. But he is nowhere near Bryant and Rizzo in all around talent.

And many who want Nick acknowledge it would mean trading Schwarber. Schwarber is pretty much an equal player to Castellanos and much cheaper right now. I love Castellanos' contributins to teh Cubs last year, and if it weren't going to mean losing Schwarber (or the others) it would be OK having him back. But he is not good on D, and in a best case scenario - best case - would force Heyward to CF full time between Nick and Kyle.

That is not a winning formula. The better the team was on D, the more successful they were. See 2016.

I put no credence into the rumor.

And I agree that Nick is not on the same talent level as Rizzo or Bryant.

It would be a cost cut going forward.

 

[Omeletpants]

I put no credence into the rumor.

And I agree that Nick is not on the same talent level as Rizzo or Bryant.

It would be a cost cut going forward.

Castelanous was the best player on the Cubs last year

 

[anotheridiot]

Castelanous was the best player on the Cubs last year

Nick came in and gave energy to the team, doubles machine, lots of emotion, basically did what Javy had to do on his own the entire first half. But then it was all about Nick and not much about Javy.

when it came out that he would probably be had for 4/64, I thought it was a no brainer. I sure hope they are trying to finalize a Heyward deal somewhere to free up the bulk of that money.

 

[CSF77]

Castelanous was the best player on the Cubs last year

It will come down to OBA. Nick is a attacker at the plate.

That and his D will keep him from breaking 20 AAV.


That said. If Theo's goal is laying ground work for the next 5 years. And the indications are appearing this way. Then signing Nick to a 6 year 20 AAV makes sense then. Trade Bryant. Move Happ to 3B and Heyward to CF. When Rizzo becomes short then trade him and move Nick to 1B and promote Davis.

To be clear Davis should be in A+ this year. SB he put up .305/.381/.525. so seeing how players of this talent will struggle some in their MLB promotion I expect MB->Tenn in 2020. 2021. Iowa and MLB taste 2022 full time MLB.

Rizzo: 20:$14.5M club option (or $2M buyout due 1/15/20), 21:$14.5M club option (or $2M buyout due 1/15/21)

So I'm expecting Rizzo to expect a Payday and to be honest it is 40% chance Theo does it. If Nick signs elsewhere to goes up to 75%.

I feel the reality in this situation is pitching holds more weight than hitting. And if you are going to invest heavy it should be into a TOR.

Hitting for the most part is far cheaper.

Not to mention in a series TOR > Premium hitting.

162 hitting > TOR.

Due to off days being able to front load a rotation.

So that is my opinion.

 

[Steve_A]

I've said this before Theo is hand cuffed by tax. The Ricketts pretty much will go over for a year if the team is needing a small boost to win it all. But going into this year I see this is a semi reset. Manager and tax.

The one thing I don't get is why the Ricketts care so much about the tax.
Tax shouldn't matter if they want a perennial winner on the field.
Even losing draft picks isn't a huge deal in a sense that Hoerner ain't a superstar
(compared to the likes of Nick Madrigal of his draft class)
and if the Cubbies are going to be perennial winners, the draft order will always be low anyway.
(Yes having talent in the farm is important but, it's not like they are going to be able to draft superstars anyway, and they'll need to focus on development anyway)

I know they are penny pinchers this year but baffled that
they can't get Sogard or someone like Teheran with the deals they've signed.
And the reported interest in Souza irks me more in a sense that
a life time .233 avg .323 obp is Descalso all over again.
(Yes he has more power but why is this team bothering to sign these guys)

 

[zack54attack]

So do they really have this secret deal with Nick or....?

 

[Steve_A]

So do they really have this secret deal with Nick or....?

Kinda torn on this even if true because of my love for Schwarbs.
Hate to see a home grown guy on the rise pushed out because of an incoming free agent.

 

[Castor76]

The one thing I don't get is why the Ricketts care so much about the tax.
Tax shouldn't matter if they want a perennial winner on the field.
Even losing draft picks isn't a huge deal in a sense that Hoerner ain't a superstar
(compared to the likes of Nick Madrigal of his draft class)
and if the Cubbies are going to be perennial winners, the draft order will always be low anyway.
(Yes having talent in the farm is important but, it's not like they are going to be able to draft superstars anyway and, they'll need to focus on development anyway)

I know they are penny pinchers this year but baffled that
they can't get Sogard or someone like Teheran with the deals they've signed.
And the reported interest in Souza irks me more in a sense that
a life time .233 avg .323 obp is Descalso all over again.
(Yes he has more power but why is this team bothering to sign these guys)

As someone who's stated before that other than the team clearing a profit, I wouldn't care how much was spent, I agree with this. Just look at what the Yankees did to themselves for the next few seasons. They have over 60M tied up in 2 players and a number of their young stars will starts arbitration soon. So they must be in the "Win a title in the next 3-5 and figure out the rest later." mode

 

[SilentLurker]

Cubs Apparently Can't Even Afford Eric Sogard, Which Signals Much Bigger Issues - Cubs Insider

Missing out on the opportunity to pay 33-year-old Eric Sogard $4.5 million isn’t really a problem for the Cubs. The problem is that they missed out on the opportunity because they apparently can’t afford that big a deal for anyone. If that’s truly the case, and every single bit of anecdotal...

www.cubsinsider.com

 

[CSF77]

The one thing I don't get is why the Ricketts care so much about the tax.
Tax shouldn't matter if they want a perennial winner on the field.
Even losing draft picks isn't a huge deal in a sense that Hoerner ain't a superstar
(compared to the likes of Nick Madrigal of his draft class)
and if the Cubbies are going to be perennial winners, the draft order will always be low anyway.
(Yes having talent in the farm is important but, it's not like they are going to be able to draft superstars anyway, and they'll need to focus on development anyway)

I know they are penny pinchers this year but baffled that
they can't get Sogard or someone like Teheran with the deals they've signed.
And the reported interest in Souza irks me more in a sense that
a life time .233 avg .323 obp is Descalso all over again.
(Yes he has more power but why is this team bothering to sign these guys)

It scales up for repeat offenders. This has been covered on web sites. Bleacher nation did a nice write up on what happens to teams if they go over again and again.

If they go over this year the same amount as last year. The hit is 10 mil. Last year was around 7 mil.

 

[CSF77]

Why the Chicago Cubs Are (Likely) Working to Get Back Under the Luxury Tax in 2020 - Bleacher Nation

I regret to note that a lot more goes into luxury tax planning than the tax, itself. If you want to understand what the Cubs are doing, understand this.

www.bleachernation.com

 

[Steve_A]

Why the Chicago Cubs Are (Likely) Working to Get Back Under the Luxury Tax in 2020 - Bleacher Nation

I regret to note that a lot more goes into luxury tax planning than the tax, itself. If you want to understand what the Cubs are doing, understand this.

www.bleachernation.com

Great piece. The actual number we're dealing with is different isn't it.
If you add all of the other benefits and such the total equates to something like 20 - 25 million.
Now I'm starting to understand why they want to get under it.
Having said so still don't like it.
The piece predicts a crazy off season next year but the free agent crop sucks next year so
I don't like the odds of this team being great next year either.

Do they really want to spend money on this class?
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/free-agents/2021/starting-pitcher/

 

[CSF77]

Great piece. The actual number we're dealing with is different isn't it.
If you add all of the other benefits and such the total equates to something like 20 - 25 million.
Now I'm starting to understand why they want to get under it.
Having said so still don't like it.
The piece predicts a crazy off season next year but the free agent crop sucks next year so
I don't like the odds of this team being great next year either.

Do they really want to spend money on this class?
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/free-agents/2021/starting-pitcher/

They can still pull trades to go over.

 

[Steve_A]

They can still pull trades to go over.

Yes but the farm ain't in the best of shape either isn't it?
Yes the Indians or some financially stuck team might want to dump like the Kluber case
but contenders rarely trade ace caliber pitchers .

Value of players have changed drastically over the years.
No ones trading away aces or potential ace prospects anymore imo.

 

[beckdawg]

Yes but the farm ain't in the best of shape either isn't it?

This isn't really accurate. It's the popular narrative but it's not really true. They had 34 prospect rated at a 40 or better by fangraphs late 2019 ratings. People will cite the dodgers as a strong developmental team and they had 32. Tampa is probably the deepest team in baseball and had 41. Now sure, truth be told the cubs lack some of the higher end guys you'll see in top 100 ranks. But they do have 3 guys who were already well regard in Ademan, Amaya and Hoerner. Alzolay is on that fringe border top 100 range. And that's before you mention the big risers from 2019 in Brennen Davis and Brailyn Marquez both of whom have super star ceilings it's just they are far more risky. And keep in mind that's before we even talk about what they would bring back trading Bryant and or Contreras. Also keep in mind the cubs are going to be strong in IFA markets to bring in talent.