Author Topic: Cubs in '20  (Read 49097 times)

Deeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16919
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1140 on: December 09, 2019, 07:47:19 pm »
Deeg, what's Freudian in davep's post.  I'm missing it.  Not doubting you, just want to nail the Dutch dummy myself.

He said “salary cap”.

JeffH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6154
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1141 on: December 09, 2019, 07:56:39 pm »
The idea that the Cubs have to trade Bryant to get under the luxury tax threshold is really not supported by the data.

Right now, the Cubs are at around $210 (lux tax basis), around $2 over the threshold.  And my calc is usually a little conservative.  And they can put together a legitimate, full 26 man roster with the players already here.  It may not be an "optimized" roster, but it would be a legitimate MLB roster.

I find it hard to believe that the Cubs would have done stuff like exercise the Quintana option and tender Almora if it meant that they had to trade Bryant.

If they trade Bryant (or Contreras or whoever), it will be a baseball decision.  It may not be with 2020 only in mind, but it will be a baseball decision.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 Informative Informative x 1 View List

chgojhawk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 998
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1142 on: December 09, 2019, 08:08:01 pm »
I would suggest the media is pretty accurate this year as it relates to the team. They are going all out to trade Bryant. They won’t give him away obviously but they do want to move him badly.

The original plan was to then go after Rendon but the World Series ended any chance of getting Rendon at a reasonable price.

Castellanos was never likely to be re-signed. He was deemed a one dimensional player who caught fire at the right time. The feeling is/was that while he is a good hitter, he isn’t the hitter that wore a Cubs uniform for a couple months.

Someone posed the over/under at 1 of the core players being moved. I took the over back then and will stick with that prediction. If it doesn’t happen it won’t be for lack of desire.
Informative Informative x 1 View List

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1143 on: December 09, 2019, 08:20:20 pm »
This is going to turn out as well as Mike Morgan, Jose Guzman and Greg Hubbard.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1144 on: December 09, 2019, 08:29:23 pm »
The idea that the Cubs have to trade Bryant to get under the luxury tax threshold is really not supported by the data.

Right now, the Cubs are at around $210 (lux tax basis), around $2 over the threshold.  And my calc is usually a little conservative.  And they can put together a legitimate, full 26 man roster with the players already here.  It may not be an "optimized" roster, but it would be a legitimate MLB roster.

I find it hard to believe that the Cubs would have done stuff like exercise the Quintana option and tender Almora if it meant that they had to trade Bryant.

If they trade Bryant (or Contreras or whoever), it will be a baseball decision.  It may not be with 2020 only in mind, but it will be a baseball decision.

I agree.  I suspect that if there were no luxury tax, they would still be trying to trade Bryant for many reasons. 

He is a free agent in, at most, two years, and he seems the least likely to be willing to sign at a number that is acceptable to the Cubs.  Allowing him to walk away with nothing but a draft choice would set the program back substantially.  And he can bring back a return that can still contribute to to team next year, and bring in a meaningful prospect or two that can help further down the line.  And the money they save from his salary next year can be used to bring in a useful free agent this season or next.

I doubt that the Cubs will trade him for less than what they feel is his fair value, but if they are going to trade someone, he seems to be the most logical.  But biggest question is whether or not they can get decent value for him until his free agency question is resolved.  One year of Bryant will bring back substantially less than two, and may make him more valuable in trade at trade deadline if there is someone that is in desperate need at that time.

By the way, DEEG is right.  I used the term salary cap rather than luxury tax.  I am not sure that there is a practical difference this winter, but it was not accurate.


brjones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25868
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1145 on: December 09, 2019, 08:38:50 pm »
The original plan was to then go after Rendon but the World Series ended any chance of getting Rendon at a reasonable price.

Too bad...because trading Bryant for young players and then signing the one player better than him on the market would've been the perfect strategy for this team.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1146 on: December 09, 2019, 08:56:08 pm »
I agree.  I suspect that if there were no luxury tax, they would still be trying to trade Bryant for many reasons. 

He is a free agent in, at most, two years, and he seems the least likely to be willing to sign at a number that is acceptable to the Cubs.  Allowing him to walk away with nothing but a draft choice would set the program back substantially.  And he can bring back a return that can still contribute to to team next year, and bring in a meaningful prospect or two that can help further down the line.  And the money they save from his salary next year can be used to bring in a useful free agent this season or next.

I doubt that the Cubs will trade him for less than what they feel is his fair value, but if they are going to trade someone, he seems to be the most logical.  But biggest question is whether or not they can get decent value for him until his free agency question is resolved.  One year of Bryant will bring back substantially less than two, and may make him more valuable in trade at trade deadline if there is someone that is in desperate need at that time.

By the way, DEEG is right.  I used the term salary cap rather than luxury tax.  I am not sure that there is a practical difference this winter, but it was not accurate.



This is the replace Greg Maddux strategy all over again. You don’t replace your best player and hope to compete anytime soon. The 2020 Cubs are unlikely to make the playoffs without Bryant if they don’t sign Rendon or Cole, which isn’t happening.

2021 the Cubs rotation is Darvish and Hendricks and then nobody. You have to rebuild the rotation and unless you sign Betts they offense is still crap. Trading Bryant closes the window.

Deeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16919
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1147 on: December 09, 2019, 09:04:48 pm »
I'm not convinced trading Bryant cancels 2020 until I see the return.  But if (and that's obviously a big if) Jesse Rogers' description is correct, I really do think it makes more sense to go whole hog with a rebuild.  If you're going to make payroll-driven trades for Bryant and Contreras which clearly won't feature any players as good right now coming back, and you aren't going to go out and spend in FA, the upcoming season is pretty much toast.  Truthfully it would be better to lose as many games as possible but they aren't going to go that far.  Trading Q and Darvish probably makes little sense as their salaries are pretty neutral at this point - the only way they'll get talent back is by eating a ton of salary and that's obviously not going to happen.  But Rizzo, Schwatber, Baez?  You can make the argument for keeping Javy and building around him but only if he signs an extension - and if the Cubs are blowing it up he's not going to do that.

guest61

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1148 on: December 09, 2019, 09:15:07 pm »
I read early today that we were in on Keuchel.

Ive been busy so Im not sure who said it but it was one of the big name reporters.

That dont sound like we're poor.

JeffH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6154
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1149 on: December 09, 2019, 09:15:35 pm »
I'm not convinced trading Bryant cancels 2020 until I see the return.

Agree 100%.  The problem is that we have MLB's worst front office making the decisions.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1150 on: December 09, 2019, 09:27:42 pm »
The Cubs aren’t going to get a player as talented as Bryant back in return. Whatever they get the Cubs are going to be subtracting wins, even if the return is all MLB talent. It didn’t work in 1994 and won’t work in 2020.

The Cubs to get better in 2020 or 21 just have to rebuild a pitching rotation and then find another star player. Seems simple enough.

guest61

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1151 on: December 09, 2019, 09:29:15 pm »
Maybe trading off some of our assets puts us under the luxury tax but doesnt it also rebuild our system?

It might suck but doesnt it also fix a problem?

guest61

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1152 on: December 09, 2019, 09:34:28 pm »
I just spoke to a well known agent in the Hyatt lobby and here is what he said to me: "Man, the Cubs are trying to move money and the White Sox are all in to try and compete. Talk about role reversal in the Windy City!"--Kaplan

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1153 on: December 09, 2019, 09:39:39 pm »
“Fixing” the Cubs system would be finding another Bryant or Baez. They aren’t getting that for 2 years of Bryant. The Cubs either need to be extremely lucky/good picking later in the draft or they need to get a top pick. Trading Bryant increases you stock of Ian Happ type guys who might be useful 2-3 WAR guys.

If you trade a 5 WAR player you need to replace him with a 5 WAR player or better. Bringing in 3 3 WAR players doesn’t make your team better. The only way to salivate 2021 would be to sign Betts and hope you can piece together a rotation, bullpen.

guest61

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1154 on: December 09, 2019, 09:48:56 pm »
Jordan Bastian
@MLBastian
Theo said the Cubs are not close to any deals right now. Said patience could be beneficial while FA market moves. That could set stage for trade market.--Bastian