Author Topic: Cubs in '20  (Read 49186 times)

Reb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5090
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #930 on: November 23, 2019, 04:20:23 pm »
Is this the new Jes Math, can I call it Reb Reality where Fried has variable service time. So if the Cubs are trading for Merrifield who has a guaranteed x number of years the Cubs prospects should be valued lower because the only have 4-7 years of service time?  I mean I think that would be a story that would get out at multiple outlets.

If we need a name for this, we should call all of this CUBluejays Obsession--kind of like those off-brand overpriced fragrances that are disappointing to the smell.

I'll say this one last time to address your "enthusiasm" for the point: from the hypothetical trade that somebody else posted and led to other variations of a trade, Max Fried would be the dominant player in a Bryant swap.  75% of Bryant value?  85%? 95%? 110%?  Whatever it might be, it's dominant, and, therefore, one less year of control lurks in the background.  That is a more significant background factor than a trade for a bunch of prospects, any one or more of which is less crucial to a trade.

It's a narrow point. It's background to a deal because nobody knows what a future cba will look like and is two years away anyway.  It would be a very small part of any trade discussion:  that's why "narrow" and "background" apply--which I've pointed out five times already.

It's a big deal to you, I get it.  Just splash on some of that off-brand fragrance and get over this.

guest61

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #931 on: November 23, 2019, 04:31:12 pm »
The next big deadline the Cubs have to make some big decisions is the non-tender deadline in 2 weeks.

I see the decisions the Cubs need to make centering around 5 players: Addison Russell, Albert Almora, Danny Hultzen, Tony Kemp and Duane Underwood.

How I expect this will play out:

Russell: non-tendered
Almora: kept, perhaps traded
Hultzen: non-tendered, re-signed to minor lg deal
Underwood: kept, perhaps traded
Kemp: kept--Bleacher Nation

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13098
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #932 on: November 23, 2019, 04:41:05 pm »
Is this the new Jes Math, can I call it Reb Reality where Fried has variable service time. So if the Cubs are trading for Merrifield who has a guaranteed x number of years the Cubs prospects should be valued lower because the only have 4-7 years of service time?  I mean I think that would be a story that would get out at multiple outlets.
Yes.  **IF** in a future labor agreement the union wins earlier FA, absolutely every prospect in every trade has appropriately diminished value.  No question that would impact the value of a prospect.  Losing one year of the club-controlled service would make a prospect variably less valuable.  Certainly five cost-controlled years is still highly valuable, but less so than 6. 

Not sure how much value would be lost.  From one view, it might be the least valuable of the cost-controlled years, in that the player is already well paid.  Bryant's year 6 will cost >$15M, years 1-3 cost almost nothing.  So in a sense losing that year isn't quite as hurtful.  On the other hand, for many clubs their players develop while in the majors; so they may be much better player in year 6, with a much more valuable and significant role on the team in year 6, that was true in years 1 and 2.  Often year 6 might be around the apex of a player's career, so losing one of his career-peak seasons might be pretty hurtful after all, even if he's getting paid. 

A common and obviously logical team-building perspective is value-per-dollar.  But still it's baseball-essential to just have lots of really good players, even if they are paid well.  I assume Oakland and Tampa had better value-per-dollar than Yankees or Astros, but without actually having better players, and thus they lost. 

Bryant may be beyond his best value-per-dollar years, but there should still be teams who want him just because he's really good. 

Reb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5090
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #933 on: November 23, 2019, 04:45:36 pm »
AZ Phil on the Cotton acquisition:

Back when he was healthy, Cotton featured a swing & miss plus-screwball, a CT FB that sat 92-94 T 95-96, a SL, and a CV, so he has the full array of pitches needed to be a starting pitcher (again... - IF - healthy).

Cotton does have two minor league options left so the Cubs can stash him at AAA Iowa and (if healthy) he could ride the Iowa - Chicago shuttle in 2020, but because he has accrued more than three seasons of MLB Service Time, he has Article XX-D rights, which means he can elect free-agency if he were to be outrighted to the minors.

And because he has spent so much time on the A's MLB DL/IL over the past couple of seasons (two full seasons worth of MLB DL/IL time) Cotton is eligible for salary arbitration (which is probably why he got DFA'd by the A's), so he is a possible non-tender candidate on 12/2, especially if the Cubs don't want to risk going to arbitration with him if he and the club can't agree on a 2020 contract.

Keep in mind that a contract awarded via arbitration (by rule) could not include a minor league split salary or performance bonuses, both of which may be a deal-breaker for the Cubs if they suspect Cotton will likely spend at least part of the 2020 season at AAA. It's very possible that given Cotton's recent injury history, the Cubs would prefer to pay him a low MLB base salary (like the MLB minimum) but with easily-achievable performance bonuses if Cotton proves to be healthy and able to pitch in MLB in 2020, together with a minor league split salary (probably somewhere around $250K) if he is optioned to AAA and spends at least part of the 2020 season at Iowa. 

So the Cubs have about a week to work out something with Cotton if they are averse to possibly going to arbitration with him and potentially getting stuck with a contract they don't like.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #934 on: November 23, 2019, 07:01:18 pm »
Another result of lowering protected years from 6 to 5 could be that teams keep players, especially high school-drafted players, in the minors longer.  Even when a 20 or 21 year old player does well when brought up to the majors, he usually doesn't do as well in his first year as he does in subsequent years, since the less time spent in the minors, the more OJT necessary in the majors, even when they are "almost" ready.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #935 on: November 23, 2019, 08:44:02 pm »
Bryant may be beyond his best value-per-dollar years, but there should still be teams who want him just because he's really good. 

Teams will want Bryant. Teams won’t want to give up top prospects or controlled major leaguers and pay Bryant’s arbitration years.

Losing 1 year of Control will still affect a players value, especially if they aren’t a super two. If Fried isn’t a super 2 his last year of control as a 3 WAR player is worth around $27. In arbitration he’d be about $12 million in salary so that would be about $15 million in surplus value or a fringe top 100 player.  That $15 million is almost half of the value that Bryant has in a trade. People may not like surplus value, but that is how teams value players.

This is why players like Bryant are hard to trade. They are really good and they help their teams win. They also make a lot of money.  Teams would be better off signing Rendon/Donaldson vs trading for Bryant and paying just slightly less in AAV + giving up controllable players and or prospects.  I’ll be more shocked if Bryant/Lindor or Betts get traded in the off season than if the Royals trade Merrifield.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2019, 08:51:42 pm by CUBluejays »

dallen7908

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #936 on: November 23, 2019, 09:26:54 pm »
Another result of lowering protected years from 6 to 5 could be that teams keep players, especially high school-drafted players, in the minors longer.  Even when a 20 or 21 year old player does well when brought up to the majors, he usually doesn't do as well in his first year as he does in subsequent years, since the less time spent in the minors, the more OJT necessary in the majors, even when they are "almost" ready.

Yes that makes sense although you have to believe the Union will want the start of the clock to be changed from the date a player hits the 40 man roster to x, y, and z seasons after a 16-yr old, HS, or college player signs. 9, 8, and 6 years?

Ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8430

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #938 on: November 26, 2019, 09:26:26 am »
Cubs are going to discuss an extension with Baez over the Winter Meetings according to Heyman.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #939 on: November 27, 2019, 01:33:42 pm »
Cubs claimed CD Pelham off of waivers from the Rangers.

Bennett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7414
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #940 on: November 27, 2019, 01:45:56 pm »
The 40 man roster is now at 38 with the addition of Cotton and Pelham.

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13654
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #941 on: November 27, 2019, 01:46:31 pm »
Pelham had 11.97 ERA in 42 games between Double-A and Triple-A last year.  Surely there's room for some improvement there.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #942 on: November 27, 2019, 05:16:19 pm »
He’s a lefty that averages 96 with a ton of movement. His control is problematic, but he’s likely somebody that they try and sneak through waivers at some point.


brjones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25868
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #944 on: November 30, 2019, 06:40:00 pm »
I don't think I agree with Bleacher Nation that there is a real decision to be made with Almora and Cotton. If the Cubs non-tender anyone but Russell, that's a bad sign for spending this offseason.