You're the GM (Game)

[JimJohnson]

I have no interest in Harvey.

 

[CSF77]

I have no interest in Harvey.

Harvey was not a problem for them in the play offs. For the most part he shut down line ups.

He would be the #3 on the Cubs ahead of Lackey.

Now as far as the Cubs needs they need a LH pitcher at the back end of the rotation. IDK if it was Matz I would be fine giving up either Baez or Soler in a deal.

It would most likely be Baez as they opened up a roster spot for that MI UI type from the Castro trade. To me that roster move signaled that Baez was the primary trade chip.

 

[JimJohnson]

I'd prefer deGrom and syndy over harvey.

Matz is okay I guess but I'd prefer Cubs try to get one of the Indians pitchers, and that way, if Baez or Soler turn out to be a monster, at least they will be in the AL.

 

[chibears55]

Matt Harvey looks to be the guy the Mets will deal and the Cubs should try and work out a deal for him

Dodgers will probably try and deal for him too

 

[DanTown]

There's literally no need for the Cubs to pay for pitching in the off-season. They have the prospect pool and obviously some team(s) that have high demands now will obviously see them come down as their march to 90 wins ends up a march to 70 wins. And I think you need to have different options.

Right now every team in the AL Central believes they're going to be right there. Obviously a few of them probably won't be but one or two might be willing to move a cost controlled guy. And then of course, instead of them wanting guys that are ready today, the Cubs can use more of their future prospects and more of their non-MLB guys instead of MLB ready guys.

 

[beckdawg]

The Mets aren't trading a pitcher to the Cubs who look to be one of their chief rivals in the NL for a while and the cubs would likely feel the same.

I've never understood this logic. I don't believe teams function like this. You make moves because they help your team. If Soler/Baez help the Mets more than Matz does you make the move. Like wise, if Matz helps the cubs more than those two you make the move. You're playing against 13 other NL teams and 28 other MLB teams. Being hyper focused on one is pretty poor foresight because you can't really even predict your own future with certainty let alone another teams.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I've never understood this logic. I don't believe teams function like this. You make moves because they help your team. If Soler/Baez help the Mets more than Matz does you make the move. Like wise, if Matz helps the cubs more than those two you make the move. You're playing against 13 other NL teams and 28 other MLB teams. Being hyper focused on one is pretty poor foresight because you can't really even predict your own future with certainty let alone another teams.

I don't think it's an absolute but it absolutely is a consideration. The were talking on MLB radio a week or so ago about how the Mets ans Cubs are, in theory, well matched trade partners but that Sandy Alderson almost never trades within the NL unless it's with a rebuilding or non contending team. Steve Philips, a former GM, said that was sound strategy and he was the same way.

 

[JimJohnson]

I've never understood this logic. I don't believe teams function like this. You make moves because they help your team. If Soler/Baez help the Mets more than Matz does you make the move. Like wise, if Matz helps the cubs more than those two you make the move. You're playing against 13 other NL teams and 28 other MLB teams. Being hyper focused on one is pretty poor foresight because you can't really even predict your own future with certainty let alone another teams.

The only time you would do this is if you feel you're completely bending a team over dry. I remembers the Cubs use to do that to the Pirates all the time. If Theo felt he was bending a team over, I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate (i.e. deGrom and legares for baez). But if it's a fairly even trade, it's a good idea to trade elsewhere.

 

[beckdawg]

I don't think it's an absolute but it absolutely is a consideration. The were talking on MLB radio a week or so ago about how the Mets ans Cubs are, in theory, well matched trade partners but that Sandy Alderson almost never trades within the NL unless it's with a rebuilding or non contending team. Steve Philips, a former GM, said that was sound strategy and he was the same way.

For the strategy in general I just don't see how it's feasible to take that approach. Maybe some front offices do it and maybe that's why it's often such a pain in the ass for obvious trades to happen. But I can't realistically envision an environment where most front offices think like that because simply put there just isn't enough talent to go around the majority of the time. As this pertains to the mets, let's assume you're right. All that does is then move each team in a different direction. For example, the cubs talk to cleveland/Alanta/whomever while the mets look for young hitters some where else. You're not really accomplishing anything that way. And what if Soler(just using him as an example here) is the best player you're able to realistically get for whatever you're willing to trade? Are you really going to go with a player who you think is 80%(again just throwing out a number here) as good just to spite another in league team? That's where the idea falls down for me.

To put it blunt, if you're so focused on stopping another team from succeeding then your teams probably going to be shit. That's why I really cringe every time I hear meat ball fans in various sports talking about trading for player <x> so rival team <y> doesn't get them. If that player makes sense for your team then fine make the move. However, if you're making a move to essentially spite someone else then you're going to eventually have a team of mismatched parts that will fail. Ultimately, if you focus on making your team better at every turn it wont matter what someone else does if you're good at your job.

 

[knoxville7]

word on the street is cubs are looking to add a bullpen arm thru trade. if that's true then to me it means 2 things possibly. first off, I think soler and baez are both on the cubs opening day roster. second, I think that means the cubs like Warren as a starter

 

[85Bears]

word on the street is cubs are looking to add a bullpen arm thru trade. if that's true then to me it means 2 things possibly. first off, I think soler and baez are both on the cubs opening day roster. second, I think that means the cubs like Warren as a starter

I heard Theo on The Score this morning talking about Soler. He seemed to be very high on him and all but said they are not trading him. He told Soler not to listen to the trade talks, but to take them as a compliment. Of course this is Theo we are talking about. He could just be pumping up Soler's value.

I don't want to see them trade Soler or Baez. Not yet anyway. Let's start the season and see how it goes. I don't want to see them mess with the overall team's identity any more than they have. Yes, they've made definite improvements in player talent, but this group just seemed to gel last year, and I don't want to **** with that too much.

 

[knoxville7]

I heard Theo on The Score this morning talking about Soler. He seemed to be very high on him and all but said they are not trading him. He told Soler not to listen to the trade talks, but to take them as a compliment. Of course this is Theo we are talking about. He could just be pumping up Soler's value.

I don't want to see them trade Soler or Baez. Not yet anyway. Let's start the season and see how it goes. I don't want to see them mess with the overall team's identity any more than they have. Yes, they've made definite improvements in player talent, but this group just seemed to gel last year, and I don't want to **** with that too much.

im with you on that. im totally fine with sticking with a starting OF that has the potential to produce around 75 homeruns

 

[Raskolnikov]

What I don't understand is if you have a young arm projected for limited inning, or a fuckboy agent arm contested for innings coming off Tommy John...

Why the **** why the **** do you start talking about sitting them for the season in July? Why not start May April 15th in the minors like a delayed spring training, then they make their first MLB start May 15 or June 1st? And pitch in the playoffs?

The Nationals a few years ago absolutely make the playoffs without Strausburg pitching in April, and just maybe they win the World Series with Strausburg pitching in October.

I'm just baffled. If you are that worried about innings, start them delayed and if you miss the playoffs you errored just a little bit even further on the side of caution with their arm, which is supposed to be the point.

Rosenfuck can't figure this out? How much money does he make and he is resting players in September/October instead of April/May. I mean what the **** are we playing this game for? The regular season or championships?

There are plenty of young arms or reliever arms who want the chance to be starters you could look at in April and that search would possibly strengthen your team later too.

I'm just sick to my stomach this goes on and all it takes is delayed start, prolonging their off-season as if they were injured, which they kinda are, or your treating their tendon for the future, whatever, fucking do it right and don't exacerbate me with this shutting down talk in October.

 

[Omeletpants]

What I don't understand is if you have a young arm projected for limited inning, or a fuckboy agent arm contested for innings coming off Tommy John...

Why the **** why the **** do you start talking about sitting them for the season in July? Why not start May April 15th in the minors like a delayed spring training, then they make their first MLB start May 15 or June 1st? And pitch in the playoffs?

The Nationals a few years ago absolutely make the playoffs without Strausburg pitching in April, and just maybe they win the World Series with Strausburg pitching in October.

I'm just baffled. If you are that worried about innings, start them delayed and if you miss the playoffs you errored just a little bit even further on the side of caution with their arm, which is supposed to be the point.

Rosenfuck can't figure this out? How much money does he make and he is resting players in September/October instead of April/May. I mean what the **** are we playing this game for? The regular season or championships?

There are plenty of young arms or reliever arms who want the chance to be starters you could look at in April and that search would possibly strengthen your team later too.

I'm just sick to my stomach this goes on and all it takes is delayed start, prolonging their off-season as if they were injured, which they kinda are, or your treating their tendon for the future, whatever, fucking do it right and don't exacerbate me with this shutting down talk in October.

More crazy than when he posts on the Bear's forum

 

[brett05]

For the strategy in general I just don't see how it's feasible to take that approach. Maybe some front offices do it and maybe that's why it's often such a pain in the ass for obvious trades to happen. But I can't realistically envision an environment where most front offices think like that because simply put there just isn't enough talent to go around the majority of the time. As this pertains to the mets, let's assume you're right. All that does is then move each team in a different direction. For example, the cubs talk to cleveland/Alanta/whomever while the mets look for young hitters some where else. You're not really accomplishing anything that way. And what if Soler(just using him as an example here) is the best player you're able to realistically get for whatever you're willing to trade? Are you really going to go with a player who you think is 80%(again just throwing out a number here) as good just to spite another in league team? That's where the idea falls down for me.

To put it blunt, if you're so focused on stopping another team from succeeding then your teams probably going to be shit. That's why I really cringe every time I hear meat ball fans in various sports talking about trading for player <x> so rival team <y> doesn't get them. If that player makes sense for your team then fine make the move. However, if you're making a move to essentially spite someone else then you're going to eventually have a team of mismatched parts that will fail. Ultimately, if you focus on making your team better at every turn it wont matter what someone else does if you're good at your job.

In baseball this happens all the time. Look at the waiver wire and people putting in claims just to block other teams from getting certain players. I realize there is a difference between in season and out of season, but I think the point remains.

 

[beckdawg]

In baseball this happens all the time. Look at the waiver wire and people putting in claims just to block other teams from getting certain players. I realize there is a difference between in season and out of season, but I think the point remains.

I'm not sure these are even close enough to talk about. For one thing, "blocking" via waiver trades usually doesn't have you end up with anything. And even then it's a pretty risky play. For example, when Cole Hamels was put on waivers it's a no brainer to claim him. Who wouldn't want him? And the Phillies were never going to let him walk for free. However, not all players are that safe. You'll probably remember this more as a Sox fan but I seem to recall the Blue Jays just dumping Rios on them. I don't recall if that was "to block" another team from getting Rios or if kenny just wanted Rios. But that's the risk you play when putting these claims on questionable choices. So, if you're going to do it you damn sure better be comfortable taking the player(and usually the contract) on. And at that point, you're not making the move to stop another team, you're making it because you want the player.

This all isn't to say you shouldn't consider how other teams are built when making decisions on your team. I think you could make a strong case that the cubs approach this offseason was directly influenced by the Mets pitchers running through them. However, this again is addressing your team based on your weakness rather than attempting to make another team weaker. You quite literally can't stop all the possible moves a team can make to improve themselves. For example, the Mets clearly need bats. Are you going to sign and trade for anyone they are possibly interested in? Of course not, that's absurd. So, then why would you care when dealing with them yourself?

So, to make the argument of teams in the NL not wanting to trade with the cubs and making them better is pretty pointless to me because that's a two way street. Sure it stops them from being a little bit better but presumably if you're considering the trade in the first place it's because it makes your team better. And if you're not trading in league because of fear of making a good team better, how's that really much different than trading to the other league where you may end up facing that team in the world series? I understand the argument people will try to make but if you're going to be a team deserving of winning a championship you're not going to luck your way out of facing the best teams. So ultimately what matters is your team.

 

[CSF77]

In a radio interview on The 670 Score’s “Inside The Clubhouse” show, Theo Epstein said the Cubs are committed to Jorge Soler as a big part of their roster, CBS Chicago’s Bruce Levine reports. “We are putting our stock into his future,” Epstein said. “Barring anything [an overwhelming trade offer], he knows to ignore all the trade rumors and take it as a compliment.” Epstein praised Soler’s hitting potential and his offseason training, as Soler “is down to 225 [pounds] and is working hard on his quickness and flexibility” to improve his right field defense. The Cubs could add a defense-first backup outfielder, Epstein hinted, which probably isn’t a surprise given Soler’s inexperience and the questions about whether or not Kyle Schwarber can handle left field. Here’s some more from around baseball…

 

[CSF77]

I'm not sure these are even close enough to talk about. For one thing, "blocking" via waiver trades usually doesn't have you end up with anything. And even then it's a pretty risky play. For example, when Cole Hamels was put on waivers it's a no brainer to claim him. Who wouldn't want him? And the Phillies were never going to let him walk for free. However, not all players are that safe. You'll probably remember this more as a Sox fan but I seem to recall the Blue Jays just dumping Rios on them. I don't recall if that was "to block" another team from getting Rios or if kenny just wanted Rios. But that's the risk you play when putting these claims on questionable choices. So, if you're going to do it you damn sure better be comfortable taking the player(and usually the contract) on. And at that point, you're not making the move to stop another team, you're making it because you want the player.

This all isn't to say you shouldn't consider how other teams are built when making decisions on your team. I think you could make a strong case that the cubs approach this offseason was directly influenced by the Mets pitchers running through them. However, this again is addressing your team based on your weakness rather than attempting to make another team weaker. You quite literally can't stop all the possible moves a team can make to improve themselves. For example, the Mets clearly need bats. Are you going to sign and trade for anyone they are possibly interested in? Of course not, that's absurd. So, then why would you care when dealing with them yourself?

So, to make the argument of teams in the NL not wanting to trade with the cubs and making them better is pretty pointless to me because that's a two way street. Sure it stops them from being a little bit better but presumably if you're considering the trade in the first place it's because it makes your team better. And if you're not trading in league because of fear of making a good team better, how's that really much different than trading to the other league where you may end up facing that team in the world series? I understand the argument people will try to make but if you're going to be a team deserving of winning a championship you're not going to luck your way out of facing the best teams. So ultimately what matters is your team.

Agree. It is pointless to try to trade to weaken. Most trades are now good giving up future good and vice versa. Pitching for hitting is about filling each other's needs and finding a match up. Indivision I can see being a bar as the goal is winning the division.

 

[85Bears]

Indivision I can see being a bar as the goal is winning the division.

Yeah, in your own division I can see not wanting to make another team better as that lessens your chances of making the playoffs. However once you look outside your division, I just don't see how it matters. Using the playoff picture this year as an example, what if we avoided a trade with the Mets and instead made it with the Royals. So the Mets don't knock you out of the playoffs, but the Royals do. Or they don't. You can't predict right now who you're going to face in the playoffs - if you even make it.

However, I know teams do this all the time (avoid trading with team x or team y unless the trade is overwhelmingly in your favor). I just don't see how it really matters outside your own division. All that said...what we did to the Cardinals this year was just delicious.

 

[knoxville7]

Yeah, in your own division I can see not wanting to make another team better as that lessens your chances of making the playoffs. However once you look outside your division, I just don't see how it matters. Using the playoff picture this year as an example, what if we avoided a trade with the Mets and instead made it with the Royals. So the Mets don't knock you out of the playoffs, but the Royals do. Or they don't. You can't predict right now who you're going to face in the playoffs - if you even make it.

However, I know teams do this all the time (avoid trading with team x or team y unless the trade is overwhelmingly in your favor). I just don't see how it really matters outside your own division. All that said...what we did to the Cardinals this year was just delicious.