You're the GM (Game)

[TC in Mississippi]

In an ideal world, everyone would be a free agent after every year.

No, because someone gets screwed there in almost every scenario. The organization gets it because they'd have to probably triple their front office staff to deal with the minutiae of annual free agency and the added cost having to pay value for a 1 year contract. You want to see a guy like Mike Trout make $70-$80 million/year? On the player's end the guys who aren't star players would get royally screwed because they'd assume full injury risk year to year. The high end guys would be paid for that risk but what about a guy making $1 million? 3 year contracts would have some of that inherent in it but players would still have some injury protection, salaries would go up based on performance and if contracts were staggered it wouldn't mean more bureaucracy in MLB organizations. To be honest the current system is the most fair to players in all the major sports if you're somewhere between average and very good but in lieu of a hard cap a 3 year system would achieve many of the same ends on the organizational end without completely screwing the players.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

First, any WAR over 2.5 and the WAR to salary value starts to break down. The further you push away from 3 the less value it actually has. I think using Heyward's salary based on WAR is out of place. He has too much WAR in defense and he is too high for it to hold up. I would rather not use that. We may disagree on this, I just don't think it holds up for him.

the value of signing a high dollar FA is not only what they add on the field. It is also that they lock down a position for years. This should allow you to use other resource for something different. If you get Heyward for 3 years you can't offset that dollar cost by trading minor leagues who fill the same role to fill other needs that were neglected by the money spent on RF.

This is why I think teams should want 6 years. A 1 year deal is a stop gap. 2 can be. 3 is too long. it is too hard to project players 3 years out so it is not a stop gap measure.

One of the biggest values to the Cubs in signing Heyward is they can trade Solar. So Heyward has the ability to improve RF and then by proxy improve pitching. If you get Heyward for 3 years it makes little sense because the value of moving Solar is not as great.

Heyward and his age are what make a 3 year deal bad. If you can get a 30 year old pitcher for 3 years that is good. A 26 year old you want for longer. The goal by a team should always be to capture as many of the peek years as possible without taking on the non-peek years.

We're going to disagree on how you weight WAR over the length of term. That's all good, we're all entitled.

On the Heyward front though they'd likely be signing him to play CF at least for a year or two. If Soler were to get moved you'd probably see some sort of a platoon system with Bryant and Coghlan both seeing time in RF and Bryant/La Stella/Baez seeing time at 3B. Of course all of it depends on who you move. If you move Soler & Castro the equation changes.

 

[czman]

We're going to disagree on how you weight WAR over the length of term. That's all good, we're all entitled.

On the Heyward front though they'd likely be signing him to play CF at least for a year or two. If Soler were to get moved you'd probably see some sort of a platoon system with Bryant and Coghlan both seeing time in RF and Bryant/La Stella/Baez seeing time at 3B. Of course all of it depends on who you move. If you move Soler & Castro the equation changes.

The problem with moving Heyward to CF is you lose a ton of his defensive Value. My guess is that in CF his defensive WAR would be .5. Just from your own basis that would be a very bad move if you are trying to gain salary to WAR value.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

The problem with moving Heyward to CF is you lose a ton of his defensive Value. My guess is that in CF his defensive WAR would be .5. Just from your own basis that would be a very bad move if you are trying to gain salary to WAR value.

Possibly. He should be able to improve there defensively over the small sample size that he played there last year. The point is that even if you move Soler you can cover RF, you can't cover CF and if you sign Heyward you can't afford a CF. They've got some tough choices to make.

 

[czman]

Possibly. He should be able to improve there defensively over the small sample size that he played there last year. The point is that even if you move Soler you can cover RF, you can't cover CF and if you sign Heyward you can't afford a CF. They've got some tough choices to make.

I think you can do both. Earlier in this thread I proposed some deals that did. It would take multiple moves.

 

[chibears55]

More to do with cash spent. They want to spend 4/60 on Shark. Shark wants his market value which is closer to 100 mil. They could get Lackey for much cheaper and for less years.

Now I feel that they are just trying to bridge to the farm. There are some quality options a few years out and some depth that is in development. In a few years the system should become more top heavy with quality arms.

Maybe i missed it but did Epstein tell everyone how much he wants to offer Samardzija snd did samardzija say how much he looking to get now....
I guessed i missed those interviews or are these guesses


Again, if their main objective is to sign a pitcher on the cheap end then as a fan im very disappointed.


9 out of 10 times cheap pitchers get you cheap results

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Maybe i missed it but did Epstein tell everyone how much he wants to offer Samardzija snd did samardzija say how much he looking to get now....
I guessed i missed those interviews or are these guesses


Again, if their main objective is to sign a pitcher on the cheap end then as a fan im very disappointed.


9 out of 10 times cheap pitchers get you cheap results

Ok, here is a hypothetical and you can tell me if you'd be disappointed, and I'm going to go with czman's thoughts about CF this time around:

Soler and prospects in a deal for Shelby Miller
Castro and Hammel dealt in a 3 team deal where the Cubs get Ender Inciarte and a solid pitching prospect
Samardzija signed for 5/$75 mil
Heyward signed for 6/$150 mil with opt out after 4 years

So you'd be looking at this (you could probably lead off with Heyward instead if you wanted):

Inciarte (CF)
Bryant (3B)
Heyward (RF)
Rizzo (1B)
Schwarber (LF)
Montero (C)
Russel (SS)
pitcher
Baez (2B)

Rotation:

Arrieta
Lester
Miller
Samardzija
Hendricks

That team likely wins the NL Central and would certainly be favored. You will have improved contact rate in the batting order and your defense at RF, CF and 2B while getting Baez' HR potential in the lineup. The rotation would be one of the strongest in the NL. The net payroll increase over 2014 would be less than $20 million allowing flexibility at the deadline. You also wouldn't block Almora because Inciarte can play any OF position and with Coghlan gone in 2017 you'd have improved your flexibility there and decreased pressure on Almora. You can operate within budget constraints and improve your team for 2016 and going forward. That's a better team than if you stood pat and signed a CF and David Price which would cost about $5 to $10 million more in 2016 than my scenario.

 

[brett05]

No, because someone gets screwed there in almost every scenario. The organization gets it because they'd have to probably triple their front office staff to deal with the minutiae of annual free agency and the added cost having to pay value for a 1 year contract. You want to see a guy like Mike Trout make $70-$80 million/year? On the player's end the guys who aren't star players would get royally screwed because they'd assume full injury risk year to year. The high end guys would be paid for that risk but what about a guy making $1 million? 3 year contracts would have some of that inherent in it but players would still have some injury protection, salaries would go up based on performance and if contracts were staggered it wouldn't mean more bureaucracy in MLB organizations. To be honest the current system is the most fair to players in all the major sports if you're somewhere between average and very good but in lieu of a hard cap a 3 year system would achieve many of the same ends on the organizational end without completely screwing the players.

The system would eventually balance out. People wouldn't continually pay a Mike Trout that much. Really I feel that no one should have more than the year. A pay for performance to me seems fair to all. The issue is, folks don't really want fair. They want protection and that protection to be paid by someone else. The player wants protection from injury or suckiness so they ask for a long term contract. The team wants protection so they get an insurance policy. And so on.

 

[DanTown]

Ok, here is a hypothetical and you can tell me if you'd be disappointed, and I'm going to go with czman's thoughts about CF this time around:

Soler and prospects in a deal for Shelby Miller
Castro and Hammel dealt in a 3 team deal where the Cubs get Ender Inciarte and a solid pitching prospect
Samardzija signed for 5/$75 mil
Heyward signed for 6/$150 mil with opt out after 4 years

So you'd be looking at this (you could probably lead off with Heyward instead if you wanted):

Inciarte (CF)
Bryant (3B)
Heyward (RF)
Rizzo (1B)
Schwarber (LF)
Montero (C)
Russel (SS)
pitcher
Baez (2B)

Rotation:

Arrieta
Lester
Miller
Samardzija
Hendricks

That team likely wins the NL Central and would certainly be favored. You will have improved contact rate in the batting order and your defense at RF, CF and 2B while getting Baez' HR potential in the lineup. The rotation would be one of the strongest in the NL. The net payroll increase over 2014 would be less than $20 million allowing flexibility at the deadline. You also wouldn't block Almora because Inciarte can play any OF position and with Coghlan gone in 2017 you'd have improved your flexibility there and decreased pressure on Almora. You can operate within budget constraints and improve your team for 2016 and going forward. That's a better team than if you stood pat and signed a CF and David Price which would cost about $5 to $10 million more in 2016 than my scenario.

Let's say you do the Hammel/Castro deal. Then let's say you go trade Montero to free up cash, then I'd go

Sign Heyward
Sign Zimmerman
Sign Lackey

Incarte - CF
Heyward - RF
Bryant - 3B
Rizzo - 1B
Schwarber - C
Soler - LF
Russell - SS
P
Baez/Coghlan - 2B

Arrieta
Lester
Zimmerman
Lackey
Hendricks

Why this route over your route: I'm not sure there's a place for Montero on this team at the salary he makes. He's making 14M but the Cubs at most probably are going to start him at most 100 games in 2016 (the plan is obviously Ross catches Lester then Schwarber is still going to get reps at C, especially to get a guy like Coghlan into the lineup). Obviously Contreras is a future part of that plan but he may even be ready for a call-up by some point in late 2016. Basically, Montero is a good player but when you're eating up close to 10% of the payroll, I'd like you to be more valuable than "starts 60% of the games and hits bottom third in the order".

My plan obviously calls for more starts for Schwarber/Ross but I'm not sure that's terrible if the money gets you a more "sure thing" in FA in Zimmerman and then you still have enough to get Lackey and Heyward. And while trading Soler makes sense to solve today's problem, there's still a chance you're trading a .280-20-90 guy for a #3 starter when you can simply sign a #3.

The way I look at is this:

I downgrade Montero for Schwarber defensively but get a better bat (Soler)
Soler is an upgrade defensively in LF over Schwarber, especially next to two top defensive outfielders
Lackey is probably close enough to Miller that trading Soler to get him doesn't make the deal worth it when you have freed up cash from trading Castro/Montero/Hammel
My opinion on Zimmerman vs Samardzija has been well stated

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Let's say you do the Hammel/Castro deal. Then let's say you go trade Montero to free up cash, then I'd go

Sign Heyward
Sign Zimmerman
Sign Lackey

Incarte - CF
Heyward - RF
Bryant - 3B
Rizzo - 1B
Schwarber - C
Soler - LF
Russell - SS
P
Baez/Coghlan - 2B

Arrieta
Lester
Zimmerman
Lackey
Hendricks

Why this route over your route: I'm not sure there's a place for Montero on this team at the salary he makes. He's making 14M but the Cubs at most probably are going to start him at most 100 games in 2016 (the plan is obviously Ross catches Lester then Schwarber is still going to get reps at C, especially to get a guy like Coghlan into the lineup). Obviously Contreras is a future part of that plan but he may even be ready for a call-up by some point in late 2016. Basically, Montero is a good player but when you're eating up close to 10% of the payroll, I'd like you to be more valuable than "starts 60% of the games and hits bottom third in the order".

My plan obviously calls for more starts for Schwarber/Ross but I'm not sure that's terrible if the money gets you a more "sure thing" in FA in Zimmerman and then you still have enough to get Lackey and Heyward. And while trading Soler makes sense to solve today's problem, there's still a chance you're trading a .280-20-90 guy for a #3 starter when you can simply sign a #3.

The way I look at is this:

I downgrade Montero for Schwarber defensively but get a better bat (Soler)
Soler is an upgrade defensively in LF over Schwarber, especially next to two top defensive outfielders
Lackey is probably close enough to Miller that trading Soler to get him doesn't make the deal worth it when you have freed up cash from trading Castro/Montero/Hammel
My opinion on Zimmerman vs Samardzija has been well stated

Not bad, but I really don't believe Schwarber is a catcher. Ever really, but certainly not in 2016. I think they plan on starting him once a week at C to keep him in the mix. The other thing is I really don't want Lackey and think the need for a cost controlled younger pitcher is urgent. I'm also not as high on Soler as others. I think he'll be a good player, maybe make an All Star game or two, but I don't see a great player. If he nets me a young pitcher that slots at #3 and could be your #2 in a couple of years I'm much happier.

 

[chibears55]

Ok, here is a hypothetical and you can tell me if you'd be disappointed, and I'm going to go with czman's thoughts about CF this time around:

Soler and prospects in a deal for Shelby Miller
Castro and Hammel dealt in a 3 team deal where the Cubs get Ender Inciarte and a solid pitching prospect
Samardzija signed for 5/$75 mil
Heyward signed for 6/$150 mil with opt out after 4 years

So you'd be looking at this (you could probably lead off with Heyward instead if you wanted):

Inciarte (CF)
Bryant (3B)
Heyward (RF)
Rizzo (1B)
Schwarber (LF)
Montero (C)
Russel (SS)
pitcher
Baez (2B)

Rotation:

Arrieta
Lester
Miller
Samardzija
Hendricks

That team likely wins the NL Central and would certainly be favored. You will have improved contact rate in the batting order and your defense at RF, CF and 2B while getting Baez' HR potential in the lineup. The rotation would be one of the strongest in the NL. The net payroll increase over 2014 would be less than $20 million allowing flexibility at the deadline. You also wouldn't block Almora because Inciarte can play any OF position and with Coghlan gone in 2017 you'd have improved your flexibility there and decreased pressure on Almora. You can operate within budget constraints and improve your team for 2016 and going forward. That's a better team than if you stood pat and signed a CF and David Price which would cost about $5 to $10 million more in 2016 than my scenario.

It a nice dreamed up scenario but we know it not gonna work out that way. ..

my expectation for this offseason is for this team to improve and be able to move to the next level

We know that from what they said, their looking to get

SP via FA
SP via trade
CF
Bullpen improvement

All im asking is that they get the best available player that they can get...
Im not saying spend crazy or trade the farm, just dont want them to settle for the bottom of the barrel like Lackey because he cheap if someone better was available to bring in..

i dont want to see that Price or Greinke signed for 25 to 28 per with another team because the Cubs didnt want to pay and instead signed a Lackey or Samardzija because they were cheaper ..

Now that said, i would accept that kind of scenario if they went out and brought in Jayson Heyward at his cost which would probably be around 20 per..

I just dont want to see them taking the cheaper routes on all counts unless the cheaper routes are young talented players that will make an impact

 

[DanTown]

Not bad, but I really don't believe Schwarber is a catcher. Ever really, but certainly not in 2016. I think they plan on starting him once a week at C to keep him in the mix. The other thing is I really don't want Lackey and think the need for a cost controlled younger pitcher is urgent. I'm also not as high on Soler as others. I think he'll be a good player, maybe make an All Star game or two, but I don't see a great player. If he nets me a young pitcher that slots at #3 and could be your #2 in a couple of years I'm much happier.

The Cubs play 11 games with a DH.
The Cubs are going to start Ross 32 times (when Lester pitches)

Let's safely say that 40 times, you can start David Ross at C.

if you keep Montero and don't catch Schwarber at all, Coghlan is going to get like 100-150 PA batting at the bottom of the order/PH unless you plan a full-time platoon for him. I understand "good of the team" but I can't imagine a guy being thrilled with that little playing time the year before he hits FA. So let's say you start Schwarber 40ish times, you're now talking about 80-100 starts for Montero. Why not trade for a very good defensive catcher (so technically carrying 3 of them) and then start Kyle at C and take him out when the team needs better defense.

I know Kyle was a negative with the bat but here's the thing: Montero was barely ok with the bat himself (his WAR offensive value was close to 0) and Montero was a 2 WAR player. I assume Kyle's offense at C is going to be massively more valuable than Kyle's offense in LF (it's much harder to find a decent hitting C than it is to find a LF) and then you have the fact you're replacing Montero's bat with Soler's. If Soler was last year Soler that's not much of a deal for the Cubs but if Jorge is ANYWHERE closer to 2014 Jorge (150g numbers of .292/.330/.573 with 30HR - 120RBI) than 2015 Jorge (150g numbers of .262/.324/.399 with 15 HR - 70 RBI), that upgraded bat (and the fact he's probably a better defensive LF than Kyle) makes the move worth it.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I'm just wondering why I care about Chris Coghlan. Nice little player. Might be a starter on a non contending team but I don't see how he figures. I wouldn't be shocked if he was moved this offseason.

 

[chibears55]

The Cubs play 11 games with a DH.
The Cubs are going to start Ross 32 times (when Lester pitches)

Let's safely say that 40 times, you can start David Ross at C.

if you keep Montero and don't catch Schwarber at all, Coghlan is going to get like 100-150 PA batting at the bottom of the order/PH unless you plan a full-time platoon for him. I understand "good of the team" but I can't imagine a guy being thrilled with that little playing time the year before he hits FA. So let's say you start Schwarber 40ish times, you're now talking about 80-100 starts for Montero. Why not trade for a very good defensive catcher (so technically carrying 3 of them) and then start Kyle at C and take him out when the team needs better defense.

I know Kyle was a negative with the bat but here's the thing: Montero was barely ok with the bat himself (his WAR offensive value was close to 0) and Montero was a 2 WAR player. I assume Kyle's offense at C is going to be massively more valuable than Kyle's offense in LF (it's much harder to find a decent hitting C than it is to find a LF) and then you have the fact you're replacing Montero's bat with Soler's. If Soler was last year Soler that's not much of a deal for the Cubs but if Jorge is ANYWHERE closer to 2014 Jorge (150g numbers of .292/.330/.573 with 30HR - 120RBI) than 2015 Jorge (150g numbers of .262/.324/.399 with 15 HR - 70 RBI), that upgraded bat (and the fact he's probably a better defensive LF than Kyle) makes the move worth it.

Not sure if you missed it but the word was that if they were to trade Montero it was to bring in someone who is an upgrade over him, which should tell you they have no plans on Catching Schwarber much unless it in an emergency situation. ..

upgrade would be more offensively , because we all know Montero is one of the better defensive Catchers in league

 

[chibears55]

The Cubs announced today that they have acquired left-handed reliever Rex Brothers from the Rockies in exchange for minor league lefty Wander Cabrera. Brothers, who was designated for assignment last week, will be added to the Cubs’ 40-man roster.


Cubs added another pitcher to the mix for a spring training battle for the bullpen. ...

Just wondering if adding all these arms is for a possible deal involving someone from their pen

 

[czman]

I don't think trading Monetro makes much sense. His ability to frame pitches was probably a huge reason why the Cubs stroke more batters than any other team. The Cubs defense is not elite so putting fewer balls in play helps. Plus I think strikeouts are more harmful than is regularly accepted. The other problem is my guess is Montero does not bring back much return. his contract is not great. His is outside of his prime. He is not a great bat.

Outside of pitch framing he is very average, but his contract does not pay him like that.

I think Montero has more value on the team than in a trade.

I always think of perceived value vs actual value to a team. I think Montero has more actual value to the Cubs than perceived value to another team.

 

[czman]

Let's say you do the Hammel/Castro deal. Then let's say you go trade Montero to free up cash, then I'd go

Sign Heyward
Sign Zimmerman
Sign Lackey

Incarte - CF
Heyward - RF
Bryant - 3B
Rizzo - 1B
Schwarber - C
Soler - LF
Russell - SS
P
Baez/Coghlan - 2B

Arrieta
Lester
Zimmerman
Lackey
Hendricks

Why this route over your route: I'm not sure there's a place for Montero on this team at the salary he makes. He's making 14M but the Cubs at most probably are going to start him at most 100 games in 2016 (the plan is obviously Ross catches Lester then Schwarber is still going to get reps at C, especially to get a guy like Coghlan into the lineup). Obviously Contreras is a future part of that plan but he may even be ready for a call-up by some point in late 2016. Basically, Montero is a good player but when you're eating up close to 10% of the payroll, I'd like you to be more valuable than "starts 60% of the games and hits bottom third in the order".

My plan obviously calls for more starts for Schwarber/Ross but I'm not sure that's terrible if the money gets you a more "sure thing" in FA in Zimmerman and then you still have enough to get Lackey and Heyward. And while trading Soler makes sense to solve today's problem, there's still a chance you're trading a .280-20-90 guy for a #3 starter when you can simply sign a #3.

The way I look at is this:

I downgrade Montero for Schwarber defensively but get a better bat (Soler)
Soler is an upgrade defensively in LF over Schwarber, especially next to two top defensive outfielders
Lackey is probably close enough to Miller that trading Soler to get him doesn't make the deal worth it when you have freed up cash from trading Castro/Montero/Hammel
My opinion on Zimmerman vs Samardzija has been well stated

Very close to what I proposed so I like it. Fundamentally I think Heyward can allow the Cubs to get a CF in a trade and the go after a top arm. That is why I like Heyward. Plus I worry about Solar staying healthy.

I will say though, I think if Solar can stay healthy he could be a really good player. The JD Drew affect is what I worry about.

 

[DanTown]

Three things to remember with Montero

1. He makes substantial money (14M the next two years) in comparison to the budget of the team
2. The Cubs not only have a part time C already (Ross), they also may want to move Schwarber there
3. The Cubs best/closest prospect not on the team is C Wilson Contreras
4. Montero is probably with the team at most two more years where as all the prospects/etc have five+ years control

The trade Montero thing has nothing to do with his on-field play. Montero was basically what I thought he would be but a lot has changed since that trade within the organization and the financial constraints of signing say Heyward and two SP makes it tough to afford everyone.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Three things to remember with Montero

1. He makes substantial money (14M the next two years) in comparison to the budget of the team
2. The Cubs not only have a part time C already (Ross), they also may want to move Schwarber there
3. The Cubs best/closest prospect not on the team is C Wilson Contreras
4. Montero is probably with the team at most two more years where as all the prospects/etc have five+ years control

The trade Montero thing has nothing to do with his on-field play. Montero was basically what I thought he would be but a lot has changed since that trade within the organization and the financial constraints of signing say Heyward and two SP makes it tough to afford everyone.

His contract is a fair one in regards to his fWAR. He's an excellent framer and he might be the perfect guy to help both Contreras and Schwarber. I envision Schwarber at C once a week or so in 2016 and the same in 2017. Contreras comes up in 2017 and is a mostly straight platoon with Contreras with Schwarber still learning. Maybe even move Montero at the deadline that year. 2018 Contreras is your primary catcher, Schwarber's there when you go heavily left handed and you get a defensive backstop for protection. Getting rid of Montero any earlier than next offseason makes the team worse IMHO.

 

[czman]

Three things to remember with Montero

1. He makes substantial money (14M the next two years) in comparison to the budget of the team
2. The Cubs not only have a part time C already (Ross), they also may want to move Schwarber there
3. The Cubs best/closest prospect not on the team is C Wilson Contreras
4. Montero is probably with the team at most two more years where as all the prospects/etc have five+ years control

The trade Montero thing has nothing to do with his on-field play. Montero was basically what I thought he would be but a lot has changed since that trade within the organization and the financial constraints of signing say Heyward and two SP makes it tough to afford everyone.

With as well as the SP played this year and as well as the Cubs player, are you willing to give Montero away for nothing. You may not get a return unless you eat a bunch of the money, if you do that you are not saving any money. That would be a huge risk to move him for nothing and then if Kyle falls flat on his face behind the plate the Cubs could be in a real jam.