Bleacher Bums Forum

Cubs ranked higher than the Mets in both revenue and value in 2022 and 2023. We can’t compete with the Mets because Cohen is committed to winning and Ricketts is committing to maximizing profit. Anything else is apologist. That’s not to say Cohen has always made wise choices by any stretch, but that’s another topic.

One more point.

Listen to Rosenthal (and others) on Dodgers spending.

Says this all the time: Dodgers rarely pay retail price on veteran free agents (perhaps Snell is an exception).

Dodgers like younger guys. Bargains like the Betts deal and extension. Ohtani massive deferral. Player development. Dodgers really good at that. Massive revenues and really smart. The gold standard decade after decade (except during the McCourt ownership period).

Typically avoid paying retail. If disagree, go argue with Rosenthal.

Aside from their revenues, Dodgers have huge advantage: players want to play in L.A. And they want to play with an organization with a decade-after-decade-after-decade history of winning. Many players grew up in L.A. area or the region. Dodgers have tons of advantages based on history, location, revenues. And—glamour. Baseball is an entertainment industry too after all.

I'm still trying to figure the motive for alleged interest in trading Bellinger.  Is it to save $$ for more mid-level guys?  Or is it to make space for Caissie? 
1.  If Caissie, I admit I don't personally see the rush to bring him up, or to even assume that he's ready to play. 
2.  If it's cash for mid-levels, how many of those do we need?  $55 isn't enough, we need $83 for midlevels?   

I think it has to be br's "organizational positioning".  They're worried Bellinger will have a mediocre year and pick up that final $25 million player option for 2026. 

I actually forgot Bellinger had one more option for '26 until I looked it up the other day.  Otherwise, a guy like Bellinger on a one year deal, even if it is a little on the high side, isn't that bad to have around.  There's a reason why other teams are scared of touching that contract and probably why we're exploring letting it go.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5951131/2024/11/27/chicago-cubs-offseason-mlb-notebook/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983&userId=212065

Says Brown has been cleared for normal off-season throwing program. 

Yeah, that's a great point, br.  Don't need to be unusually smart to recognize that Ohtani, Freddy, and Betts can hit.  Or that Snell and Yamamoto can pitch. 

I'll wait to see what he builds before I judge.

Dusty, point well taken.  Last year, none of Hoyer's 4 significant moves were made before Jan 11 (Busch, Imanaga, Neris, Bellinger.). It's going to take a while. 

Two premises on this board have been that 1.  it's more than time for the Cubs to win; and 2.  that if Hoyer doesn't win this year, he's gone.  Conclusion is that this should be a pretty Nowacrat winter.  A second conclusion has been that if we're not spending big this winter, we'll be making major Nowacrat trade(s) from our prospect pool. 

I'm wondering whether some of those premises and conclusions might be wrong?  Might Hoyer still be very committed to his rebuild-through-the-farm plan?  Maybe he really believes in all six of Triantos, Shaw, Alcantara, Caissie, Cam, Ballesteros?  Maybe so much that he won't see any trade offers for them as being worth the price?  Even if those six guys might not help the big-league club all that much this year, he's still going to keep all six?  Just stay the course?

Whatever his faults, Hoyer seems pretty faithful to his convictions. Even if he knows that winning the division this year would help keep his job, maybe he's just convinced that keeping those six prospects is what's right for the organization, barring a great offer?  And his contract status won't change his choices? 

Prospects, like all things baseball, have uncertainty.  "For-their-age" gets used for young prospects whose performance hasn't actually been exceptional yet.  If you keep them for an extra year, but the performance doesn't progress, their is risk that trade-value deteriorates.  Kevin and Caissie will turn 23, *IF* performance plateaus, the HR-jumps don't happen, and the K's don't slow down, their status could slip.  (I think Longenhagen has already lowered Caissie's overall grade.). So, holding a guy too long can reduce his value.  But *IF* Hoyer believes in them, he may figure their value will only keep rising as they keep improving and proving themselves?