Author Topic: Cubs in '20  (Read 49249 times)

Dave23

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12698
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1110 on: December 09, 2019, 12:24:39 pm »
I would have given Q's starts to Colin Rea and saved 9M, personally...

Bennett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7414
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1111 on: December 09, 2019, 12:26:18 pm »

method

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1112 on: December 09, 2019, 12:27:35 pm »
I think the narrative of Q's option was picked up to trade him is incorrect. If they are this salary constrained, they likely need him to plug into the rotation for that $ amount. Not going to find much on the FA market cheaper then him.


Bennett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7414
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1113 on: December 09, 2019, 12:27:50 pm »
Mark Gonzales  @MDGonzales  5m5 minutes ago
White not on 40-man roster

Mark Gonzales  @MDGonzales  5m5 minutes ago
Cubs also acquire LHP Conor Lillis-White from Angels as player to be named later in Tommy La Stella deal.

JR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13654
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1114 on: December 09, 2019, 12:28:28 pm »
26 years in the organization for Franklin Font?  Boy where does time go?

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13098
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1115 on: December 09, 2019, 12:38:42 pm »
I think the narrative of Q's option was picked up to trade him is incorrect.

Agree.  They picked up his option not to trade him, but because they still believe he's really good, and that a Q-Lester rotation is a good Nowacrat way to contend. 

brjones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25868
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1116 on: December 09, 2019, 12:42:27 pm »
Disagree.  But if so, then they should hurry up and trade his entire salary, **if** pursuing other FA's is being stalled until his salary that they just unnecessarily committed themselves to gets offloaded. 

I think the narrative of Q's option was picked up to trade him is incorrect. If they are this salary constrained, they likely need him to plug into the rotation for that $ amount. Not going to find much on the FA market cheaper then him.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying his option was picked up just so they could trade him...I'm just saying they could easily trade him if they wanted to. But I don't think they want to. I think they plan to move enough money so they can make some moves around the edges, and then try to compete next year. They still see Quintana the cheapest option for filling out their rotation adequately. Just look at Hamels--he got $18 million from the Braves. Quintana is five years younger and has been at least as good as (and probably better than) Hamels over the last three years. It's going to cost a lot more than $9.5 million to replace Quintana.

But if the Cubs did end up getting Fried (or someone like him) who they can reasonably count on to be at least a #3 starter for them next year, then Quintana's value to them changes. At that point, I think it's pretty likely that they'd rather have the $9.5 million to spend somewhere else.

Playtwo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8788
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1117 on: December 09, 2019, 01:00:11 pm »
Q will be more valuable to the Cubs if they add a solid #3 or better starter to the rotation, allowing Q to effectively be the 4th starter.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27253
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1118 on: December 09, 2019, 01:23:59 pm »
Q will be more valuable to the Cubs if they add a solid #3 or better starter to the rotation, allowing Q to effectively be the 4th starter.
So, adding a starter with a pulse moves Q to #4?

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1119 on: December 09, 2019, 01:30:48 pm »
If you had Darvish, Hendricks, Fried, #4,#5. 

I think you could make a decent argument that putting Lester at #4.  Signing Walker and letting him and Cotton battle it out at #5 and moving Quintana's money to the bullpen and CF would improve the team more.

method

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1120 on: December 09, 2019, 01:31:46 pm »
does that make up for losing bryant?

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1121 on: December 09, 2019, 02:19:24 pm »
No, trading Bryant is still stupid.  Trading Bryant to stay under the luxury tax is 10x worse.  If the Cubs got a really great return it would keep from stalking the Governor of Nebraska, but I'd still be ticked about it.

craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13098
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1122 on: December 09, 2019, 02:57:16 pm »
...Just look at Hamels--he got $18 million from the Braves. Quintana is five years younger and has been at least as good as (and probably better than) Hamels over the last three years. It's going to cost a lot more than $9.5 million to replace Quintana.....

Q hasn't been nearly as good as Hamels for either of the last two years.  Who cares about 3 years ago? 

"He's not that old" and "over X years" is part of the Q fallacy, I think.  We're not getting 2016 vintage Q; we're getting 2020 Q.  With almost 2000 pro innings, I think his arm is effectively "older" and more worn than is typical for his age.  Pitcher history is not the best predictor of future for a guy in physical decline; he's not the same guy anymore.  He's trying to get by with below-average, liability stuff, needing to survive on guts and veteran savvy .  He's been trending worse, and I'm hesitant to assume that's going to reverse. 

Going with a guts-and-savvy overachiever as an anti-awful back-end guy makes more sense if your defense, offense, and pen rock.  Settle for 4-5 anti-awful innings, and let the offense and pen win some of those mediocre starts for you.  But I'm kinda worried that a hypothetical post-Bryant offense with Bote starting at 3rd, Hoerner at 2nd, and some jag in center isn't going to consistently score a lot and win a ton of Q/Lester starts. 

O well, Theo is a big Q-fan, so I guess we'll just enjoy whatever he gives us, for better or for worse. 
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Deeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16926
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1123 on: December 09, 2019, 03:35:57 pm »
O well, Theo is a big Q-fan, so I guess we'll just enjoy whatever he gives us, for better or for worse. 


I know which one of those I'd bet on.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1124 on: December 09, 2019, 03:44:25 pm »
Agree.  They picked up his option not to trade him, but because they still believe he's really good, and that a Q-Lester rotation is a good Nowacrat way to contend. 

I'm not sure I understand the controversy here.  It seems to me that they picked up Quintana's option because they need someone in the rotation, and are not likely to get someone any near as good as Quintana for 9.5 million.  Craig - since you have often espoused the value of having an anti-awful player instead of an awful one, I assume you rate Quintana as awful.  If so, I don't agree.  He seems to me to be the very definition of an anti-awful fifth starter.

Nor do I see the logic in trading Quintana just to free up money for free agent players.  There isn't a chance in the world that the Cubs are going to be in on Rondon/Cole level players, and replacing him with another 9.5 million dollar pitcher probably wouldn't accomplish much.  And it is very likely that the Cubs are going to want to have about 15 - 15 million in reserve, just on the off chance that they need to bolster some area, as they did last season with Kimbrel.

The Cubs have made it clear that they are not going to go over the salary cap this year, and given the penalties involved, I think this is a reasonable decision.