Author Topic: Cubs in '20  (Read 49188 times)

guest61

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1290 on: December 12, 2019, 06:07:12 pm »
Depends on what they get back.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8430
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1291 on: December 12, 2019, 06:20:07 pm »
**IF** the "must-get-under-any-lux-tax-threshold" premise is true, then I think the status quo is the best option.  Keep Bryant and Contreras and Baez and Schwarber.  Keep Chatwood. 

The Cubs have won a bunch of games with the existing cast, and almost got in last year too.  If some guys play better and improve, and they get some luck, and some guys develop somehow, they might get into the playoffs with the status-quo roster. 

I think it's much less likely that they compete for the 2020 playoffs if selling Bryant or Contreras for money-relief and futures prospects. 


Plus "status-quo" isn't really a thing.  Even if they don't trade any of the big 4, the roster will still be significantly adjusted from what they opened with last year. 

Plus even if guys are the same, that doesn't mean they'll play the same.  Maybe Schwarber will be better.  Maybe Hoerner will be a whole lot different than Russell.  Maybe Happ will be different and better.  Maybe Q won't be 4.68-ERA bad again?  Maybe the bullpen won't lose so many saves?  Maybe Kimbrel won't be the worst pitcher in the league? 


You can bring the same core personnel back, "status quo", but the season won't play out the same. 

I don't accept any of the supposed givens (such as staying under the luxury tax threshold). They may be true, or they may not.  Who knows? Only Theo and his closest associates, I'm guessing. I'm inclined to think that others are speculating, even if it's somewhat informed speculation.

I do not expect the Cubs to stand pat over the winter. They won't trade Bryant (or Contreras) just to trade him. If they do not get a sufficiently attractive offer (whatever they believe that to be), he'll be back.  But it will be a different team, to some extent.

And if Darvish can be the pitcher for the full season he was for the second half (or something close), that would be a huge upgrade, even though Lester is likely to continue to decline. I think it's credible that Schwarber really did turn a corner and that he could repeat his second half, and that 2B and CF are reasonably likely to be better than last year (a relatively low bar). 

Big questions to me are whether the Cubs can strengthen their rotation after Darvish and Hendricks, how much of an improvement they can get at CF and 2B, how much they can improve their bullpen around the edges, and IF they trade Bryant, who will play 3B.
Like Like x 1 View List

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15854
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1292 on: December 12, 2019, 06:49:16 pm »
The Cubs had $400+ million in local revenues last year and that doesn't count the money coming in from Rickettsville.  They could easily afford many, many, many more bad contracts.

You need to define your definition of "afford".  If you are talking about the owners personal money, they certainly could afford it.  But if you are talking about room under the luxury tax, you are just kidding yourself.

They purpose of the luxury tax is to make it prohibitive for a handful of teams with unlimited resources, such as those in Los Angeles, New York, Boston and Chicago to spend there way into dominance.  There are substantial penalties for exceeding the limits for more than a couple of years that essentially eliminate that teams ability to compete over the long run.  And since most humongous contracts are for humongous years, teams have to consider that limit not only for this and next year, but for several years beyond.

Deeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16926
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1293 on: December 12, 2019, 06:57:39 pm »
What happens to the Cubs without Bryant?

Depends on what they get back.

Deeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16926
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1294 on: December 12, 2019, 07:01:23 pm »
You need to define your definition of "afford".  If you are talking about the owners personal money, they certainly could afford it.  But if you are talking about room under the luxury tax, you are just kidding yourself.

They purpose of the luxury tax is to make it prohibitive for a handful of teams with unlimited resources, such as those in Los Angeles, New York, Boston and Chicago to spend there way into dominance.  There are substantial penalties for exceeding the limits for more than a couple of years that essentially eliminate that teams ability to compete over the long run.  And since most humongous contracts are for humongous years, teams have to consider that limit not only for this and next year, but for several years beyond.

The "substantial penalties" are so transparently a drop in the ocean that even an unrepentant shill like Bleacher Nation won't defend them as a reason not to spend.  The luxury tax is an artificial construct initiated by the owners to give themselves a pretext not to spend.  Between the antitrust exemption (which should have been removed decades ago) and the beaten dog players union, baseball owners got an incredibly sweetheart deal - an effective salary cap without even the salary floor the NBA and NFL have.

brjones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25868
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1295 on: December 12, 2019, 07:31:05 pm »
Even if the penalties weren't so weak, the current luxury tax threshold is laughably low.

The Yankees had a $206 million payroll in 2005; the current luxury tax threshold is $208 million. League-wide revenues have increased from $4.7 billion in 2005 to $10.3 billion in 2018. Why is the luxury tax still set at a level that would've been appropriate 15 years ago when there was less than half as much money coming in to MLB every year?

brjones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25868
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1296 on: December 12, 2019, 08:17:10 pm »
The Cubs also received inquiries on Yu Darvish, who has four years at $81 million remaining. Perhaps when the best of the remaining free-agent starters vanish, Chicago will hear steadier requests for the righty.

https://nypost.com/2019/12/12/cubs-set-up-to-be-darlings-of-january-after-winter-meetings/

guest61

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1297 on: December 12, 2019, 08:20:09 pm »
Hmmmmmmm...

Playtwo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8788
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1298 on: December 12, 2019, 08:24:38 pm »
It makes no sense to trade Yu unless they're going to tear the whole thing down.  Which ain't happening (nor should it).

guest61

  • Guest
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1299 on: December 12, 2019, 08:31:29 pm »
Am I wrong in assuming you'd be lucky to get a pack of stale Reese Cups for Darvish since he's owed so much money?

Ill have to admit though that getting out from under some of our big contracts would be appealing.

If only someone wanted Heyward.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

JeffH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6158
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1300 on: December 12, 2019, 08:37:17 pm »
Ill have to admit though that getting out from under some of our big contracts would be appealing.

It really wouldn't.  One of the best things about the supposed payroll "crunch" is that it keeps Theo from spending money.

Theo's pretty bad at most things, but the thing he's worst at is navigating the free agent market.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Deeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16926
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1301 on: December 12, 2019, 08:46:07 pm »
Am I wrong in assuming you'd be lucky to get a pack of stale Reese Cups for Darvish since he's owed so much money?

Yes.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1302 on: December 12, 2019, 09:49:06 pm »
Depends on what they get back.

Go with your preferred trade.  Fried, Anderson and Waters.  Are they better in 2020?  2021?

Deeg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16926
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1303 on: December 12, 2019, 10:02:44 pm »
Are we better in 2020 because we traded Gleyber Torres for two months of Chapman?  Sometimes there's multiple levels to why you make or don't make a trade.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17347
Re: Cubs in '20
« Reply #1304 on: December 12, 2019, 10:41:28 pm »
Trading a prospect to win a World Series is slightly different then trading your best player While your team is still competitive and not rebuilding.