Cubs fire sale

[adambr2]

I agree that Machado is a pretty good comp. Probably a lower half top 100 type plus some other decent B prospects with upside.

[bill hAll Star]

The Cubs are a losing team, 8 games back and buried in the Wild Card which all occurred before Hoyer talked about selling. They do have the hotel and rooftop bookings and subscription TV service to consider, which means they probably won’t trade all their World Series heroes.

 

However, Kris Bryant has expressed his desire to elect free agency. As mentioned previously he’ll bring back quality talent so I’d expect him to be traded.

 

Kimbrel’s trade value won’t ever be higher especially with a club option for 2022 so he’ll most likely be traded. Chafin, Tepera, Joc Pederson and Jake Marisnick are all on expiring deals and there’s no reason to keep them. They probably will trade poor Zach Davies if someone will have him.

 

Both Rizzo and Baez have stated they’d prefer to stay with Chicago but the money hasn’t been right, so I’d expect them to hang on to those players through the 2021 season.

 

If the Cubs are selling, they'd be foolish to not deal Rizzo/Baez if there are offers.

 

It has been clear that the Cubs have been smart about this unless one assumes they were going to have a $300+ million payroll with luxury tax 4 years from now.

 

Rizzo, Bryant, Baez were all instrumental players to their run and will be revered there forever...but I don't think the Cubs see the point in bringing any of them back.

 

It became clear the past 2-3 years that they could not win the division with those guys in their mid-late 20s. Now imagine all of those guys hogging a starting spot at age 34 in 3-4 years at an average of $25 million/year. It'll only get worse.

 

"Well, yeah, but they're the Cubs and should spend big" would be the rebuttal or most Chicago fan responses.

 

Problem there is if you are paying to keep Rizzo, Bryant, Baez...that means you should be all-in to try to keep winning. So now you add an ace pitcher for $40 million/year and you are already about to hit the luxury tax as an 83 win team.

 

The Cubs are better off tearing the rest down and starting over like they did in the early 2010s. They should trade all 3 if possible. And that does pain me to say given that I would love for them to invest heavily in 30+ year old position players that already all look to be on the decline.

[PeaveyFury]

 

The Cubs are better off tearing the rest down and starting over like they did in the early 2010s. .

 

Agreed completely. Best thing that could happen in this scenario from Milwaukee's perspective is for the Cubs to do a half-hearted sale here vs. getting the haul that they should for the 3-4 guys that could get them a pretty serious return.

[KeithStone53151]

I agree that Machado is a pretty good comp. Probably a lower half top 100 type plus some other decent B prospects with upside.

 

I thought Yusniel Diaz rated in the 20-30 range at the time. I could be wrong. But the others as noted were B level prospects. Also coming from the Dodgers system should mean more to a team than coming from most systems. They seem to develop talent better than other teams.

[KeithStone53151]

It has been clear that the Cubs have been smart about this unless one assumes they were going to have a $300+ million payroll with luxury tax 4 years from now.

 

As far as long term planning, the Cubs have not been remotely smart for probably 6-7 years.

[Simba2020]

I agree that Machado is a pretty good comp. Probably a lower half top 100 type plus some other decent B prospects with upside.

 

I thought Yusniel Diaz rated in the 20-30 range at the time. I could be wrong. But the others as noted were B level prospects. Also coming from the Dodgers system should mean more to a team than coming from most systems. They seem to develop talent better than other teams.

Diaz was #46 at the time. Kremer was the Dodgers 9th best prospect and Bannon would probably have been around #30 for a number of teams at the time. The other two guys were just guys.

 

I think Machado is a minor step up on Bryant but fairly close. I do think something around Turang a lower top-30 prospect and a couple of lottery tickets would be a fair offer. Turang and Small is too much as far as I'm concerned.

[Austin Tatious]

You guys should know that.

 

I get a kick out of the guys who think

 

Have enough self-awareness

 

You couldn't have just said, "I disagree and think Mitchell's stock is much higher than it was in preseason, and is worth more now than any rental the Cubs could provide?"

 

 

Ironic, how you handled it then, isn't it? You could have just said you don't think Mitchell has the value that I think he has.

[Jopal78]

 

If the Cubs are selling, they'd be foolish to not deal Rizzo/Baez if there are offers.

 

It has been clear that the Cubs have been smart about this unless one assumes they were going to have a $300+ million payroll with luxury tax 4 years from now.

 

Rizzo, Bryant, Baez were all instrumental players to their run and will be revered there forever...but I don't think the Cubs see the point in bringing any of them back.

 

It became clear the past 2-3 years that they could not win the division with those guys in their mid-late 20s. Now imagine all of those guys hogging a starting spot at age 34 in 3-4 years at an average of $25 million/year. It'll only get worse.

 

"Well, yeah, but they're the Cubs and should spend big" would be the rebuttal or most Chicago fan responses.

 

Problem there is if you are paying to keep Rizzo, Bryant, Baez...that means you should be all-in to try to keep winning. So now you add an ace pitcher for $40 million/year and you are already about to hit the luxury tax as an 83 win team.

 

The Cubs are better off tearing the rest down and starting over like they did in the early 2010s. They should trade all 3 if possible. And that does pain me to say given that I would love for them to invest heavily in 30+ year old position players that already all look to be on the decline.

 

From a pure baseball standpoint you’re right, but reality is a little bit in between. When the team owns a hotel across the street where they book at $700/ night on weekends during the season, it would likely hurt their occupancy rate to have a bunch of no names getting killed every night for the rest of the year and into next. Not to mention their rooftops, bar, restaurant etc.

 

Which doesn’t mean to say the Cubs will pay Rizzo and Baez whatever it takes. If that were so both would be resigned already given prior comments about preferring to stay in Chicago vs. free agency.

 

Obviously, if a team blows their Front Office away with an offer they’d move all of their “Big 3”. However with a realistic chance at resigning those two and their intrinsic value to the franchise I think they may go the way of the Nationals with Harper, let them play out their contract, make the Q.O. and take the draft pick if they can’t work out an extension.

[bill hAll Star]

 

If the Cubs are selling, they'd be foolish to not deal Rizzo/Baez if there are offers.

 

It has been clear that the Cubs have been smart about this unless one assumes they were going to have a $300+ million payroll with luxury tax 4 years from now.

 

Rizzo, Bryant, Baez were all instrumental players to their run and will be revered there forever...but I don't think the Cubs see the point in bringing any of them back.

 

It became clear the past 2-3 years that they could not win the division with those guys in their mid-late 20s. Now imagine all of those guys hogging a starting spot at age 34 in 3-4 years at an average of $25 million/year. It'll only get worse.

 

"Well, yeah, but they're the Cubs and should spend big" would be the rebuttal or most Chicago fan responses.

 

Problem there is if you are paying to keep Rizzo, Bryant, Baez...that means you should be all-in to try to keep winning. So now you add an ace pitcher for $40 million/year and you are already about to hit the luxury tax as an 83 win team.

 

The Cubs are better off tearing the rest down and starting over like they did in the early 2010s. They should trade all 3 if possible. And that does pain me to say given that I would love for them to invest heavily in 30+ year old position players that already all look to be on the decline.

 

From a pure baseball standpoint you’re right, but reality is a little bit in between. When the team owns a hotel across the street where they book at $700/ night on weekends during the season, it would likely hurt their occupancy rate to have a bunch of no names getting killed every night for the rest of the year and into next. Not to mention their rooftops, bar, restaurant etc.

 

Which doesn’t mean to say the Cubs will pay Rizzo and Baez whatever it takes. If that were so both would be resigned already given prior comments about preferring to stay in Chicago vs. free agency.

 

Obviously, if a team blows their Front Office away with an offer they’d move all of their “Big 3”. However with a realistic chance at resigning those two and their intrinsic value to the franchise I think they may go the way of the Nationals with Harper, let them play out their contract, make the Q.O. and take the draft pick if they can’t work out an extension.

 

Yes, it may be reasonable to try to get a QO and deal them next year, but given all 3 of those guys are likely going to get 3+ years (probably more like 5-7 year deals) - it doesn't make sense to plan on signing them again.

 

I'd take the lower hotel occupancy and trade it off for not being at the lux tax threshold in 2024 with a team of a bunch of washed up infielders.

[bill hAll Star]

It has been clear that the Cubs have been smart about this unless one assumes they were going to have a $300+ million payroll with luxury tax 4 years from now.

 

As far as long term planning, the Cubs have not been remotely smart for probably 6-7 years.

 

I think we sparred on this in the past and I'll agree that they may have chosen the wrong targets, but I do think there is a very specific time to overpay players and it is when you have a 3-4 year window of controllable, cheap players.

 

The Yankees seem to be OK almost always paying the luxury tax and sneaking under for a year or two. The other bigger markets are OK with it for 2-3 years.

 

So maybe the Cubs chose wrong on some (Heyward, maybe) but the one time I am OK overspending is if you have a Rizzo, Bryant, Baez, Contreras to build around for a small $ amount. Then you can overpay and know you're going to dip into luxury tax with Lester, Heyward, Darvish, etc.

 

In the end, the Cubs' demise was not having enough pitching come together at the right time. Hendricks was a great home-grown pitcher but that is honestly about it. Kimbrel was an overpay that somehow didn't pay off for 2 years.

 

This is also why I laughed at the Arenado move for the Cards. They already had an aging roster where they've dealt away minors depth. They're not a team that's going to go into the luxury tax often. So they dealt for Arenado to be an 80-85 win team and not much room to grow. Then they'll deal with 4 years of crap Arenado contract on the back end. Bad timing.

 

For the Cubs the timing was right, the players were not the best.

[JohnBriggs12]

Rizzo turned down an offer this past offseason from the Cubs that was around 3 years in the $45-50 million range. He thought he was worth Freddie Freeman type money. I think there's some bitterness on his part and his days will end with the Cubs either in July or September. Now there aren't a lot contending teams out there where Rizzo would be a significant upgrade but he would certainly be an upgrade for the Brewers. All the Brewers need to do is surpass any draft compensation the Cubs might get for his departure. Brewers even have a controllable young 1B they can include in the deal in Tellez (part of the reason I think they acquired him). Rizzo isn't what he was but he's still a quality hitter.

[StearnsFTW]

The Cubs probably don't even take the Brewers call unless Garrett Mitchell is the first words they hear.

 

if that's actually what the Cubs' front office should be the starting offer for 2 months of Kris Bryant, he's not getting traded. A developed prospect without Mitchell's talent ceiling or a couple young lottery ticket minor league arms seems more realistic at this point. This year's deadline is a buyer's market. And it wouldn't be 9 Million in remaining contract by the time a trade is made a few weeks from now - it would be more like $6M....and even a team like the Brewers would have no problem picking all of that up if it meant not including premium prospects in the deal. I'd imagine the Cubs would actually prefer to pay all of what's left to Bryant if it meant a better trade package return, though.

 

I've long thought that teams unloading veteran position players who are set to be free agents often get poor return in deadline trades compared to pitchers.

 

This is correct IMO.

 

Mitchell is obviously a no, I think everyone agrees on that.

 

I'd offer them Small. And I wouldn't feel great about it.

 

Bryant is a good player at this point, not some superstar.

[bill hAll Star]

Rizzo turned down an offer this past offseason from the Cubs that was around 3 years in the $45-50 million range. He thought he was worth Freddie Freeman type money. I think there's some bitterness on his part and his days will end with the Cubs either in July or September. Now there aren't a lot contending teams out there where Rizzo would be a significant upgrade but he would certainly be an upgrade for the Brewers. All the Brewers need to do is surpass any draft compensation the Cubs might get for his departure. Brewers even have a controllable young 1B they can include in the deal in Tellez (part of the reason I think they acquired him). Rizzo isn't what he was but he's still a quality hitter.

 

That's the right move by both sides.

 

If Rizzo wants to play to the very back end of his prime with you and give you another chance to see if you've got a contender but easily deal him if not, fine.

 

For Rizzo, at worst he can sign 1 year/$12-15 million deals for 4-5 more seasons. At best, he signs a 5 year/$90 million deal somewhere this offseason and he was right to pass on the Cubs' offer.

[PeaveyFury]

You'd have to think the Brewers would be ultra-interested in signing either Rizzo or Bryant to an extension, so I don't think it's crazy to think that it COULD be more than a rental.

[Jopal78]

Rizzo turned down an offer this past offseason from the Cubs that was around 3 years in the $45-50 million range. He thought he was worth Freddie Freeman type money. I think there's some bitterness on his part and his days will end with the Cubs either in July or September. Now there aren't a lot contending teams out there where Rizzo would be a significant upgrade but he would certainly be an upgrade for the Brewers. All the Brewers need to do is surpass any draft compensation the Cubs might get for his departure. Brewers even have a controllable young 1B they can include in the deal in Tellez (part of the reason I think they acquired him). Rizzo isn't what he was but he's still a quality hitter.

 

Rizzo is having a better year than Hosmer (SD), Bobby Dalbec (BOS), Yandy Diaz (TB), plus anyone Milwaukee has. That's half the contenders right there. Depending on how you want to define contenders Rizzo would be a significant upgrade at first base for the Yankees, Indians and Mariners as well.

 

Let's be honest, the Cubs aren't any good because their starting pitching and middle relief isn't any good. However, nearly all their hitters 1-8 are better than their counter part on the Brewers this year with the exception of Heyward v. Garcia, and with Contreras (defense) v. Narvaez being close. (Adames with Milwaukee has been better than Baez but in 120 fewer at bats as well). Anyways, if Chicago decides to break up their team there will be plenty of interest in these hitters.

 

In a town where the '85 Bears are still worshipped; it will take an owner and GM with some real stones to jettison their world series heroes and take the roster down to the studs. Not even the Brewers did it electing to hang on to their MVP Braun during their recent rebuild.

[reillymcshane]

It would be kind of fun to have Rizzo hitting for us in a pennant race.

[sveumrules]

However, nearly all their hitters 1-8 are better than their counter part on the Brewers this year.

 

That might be true 1-8, but if you include players 9-14+, the Brewers position player group as a whole has been more productive than the Cubs...

 

MIL | 96 wRC+ | +5.3 BSR | +20.3 DEF | 11.6 WAR

CHC | 97 wRC+ | -1.2 BSR | -1.9 DEF | 8.7 WAR

 

Not bad considering the Cubs are spending about 95 million on position players this year compared to only about 60 million for the Brewers, per SpotRac.

[reillymcshane]

Regarding Rizzo, I don't think the Qualifying Offer is much of an issue. Unless he improves significantly in the second half, I doubt the Cubs would give him a $19M QO. That's just seems a bit rich - but maybe I'm wrong.

 

The main thing that would drive his price up right now would be the fact that a team like Boston could really use him. He sort of fits perfectly for them as their first base production has been pretty bad - and they could use the lefty bat.

[PeaveyFury]

 

Rizzo is having a better year than Hosmer (SD), Bobby Dalbec (BOS), Yandy Diaz (TB), plus anyone Milwaukee has. That's half the contenders right there.

 

Just because this is true doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean those teams would have interest. San Diego is paying Hosmer gobs of money, and I'd be astounded if they chose to push him to the bench. Doesn't mean it won't happen, just that I think it's exceptionally unlikely.

 

Not even the Brewers did it electing to hang on to their MVP Braun during their recent rebuild.

 

Well, his no-trade clause likely limited that possibility in a lot of ways.

[Jopal78]

 

Rizzo is having a better year than Hosmer (SD), Bobby Dalbec (BOS), Yandy Diaz (TB), plus anyone Milwaukee has. That's half the contenders right there.

 

Just because this is true doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean those teams would have interest. San Diego is paying Hosmer gobs of money, and I'd be astounded if they chose to push him to the bench. Doesn't mean it won't happen, just that I think it's exceptionally unlikely.

 

Not even the Brewers did it electing to hang on to their MVP Braun during their recent rebuild.

 

Well, his no-trade clause likely limited that possibility in a lot of ways.

 

Then again there is not a team more "ALL IN" than San Diego this year, yet they find themselves in 3rd place in their Division with Hosmer's play having been awful. I suppose it comes down to how badly they want to win and only the ownership and GM can answer that question.

 

As for no trade clauses, they are nothing more than tools to give players leverage. Players don't want to work where they are not wanted, in fact the only player I can think of who exercised his no trade clause was Lucroy, and they still traded him anyways

[Underachiever]

I came to this thread because I wanted to know who the Cubs were "fire-selling." It appears that the answer so far is, No One. What am I missing?

[bill hAll Star]

 

Rizzo is having a better year than Hosmer (SD), Bobby Dalbec (BOS), Yandy Diaz (TB), plus anyone Milwaukee has. That's half the contenders right there.

 

Just because this is true doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean those teams would have interest. San Diego is paying Hosmer gobs of money, and I'd be astounded if they chose to push him to the bench. Doesn't mean it won't happen, just that I think it's exceptionally unlikely.

 

Not even the Brewers did it electing to hang on to their MVP Braun during their recent rebuild.

 

Well, his no-trade clause likely limited that possibility in a lot of ways.

 

Then again there is not a team more "ALL IN" than San Diego this year, yet they find themselves in 3rd place in their Division with Hosmer's play having been awful. I suppose it comes down to how badly they want to win and only the ownership and GM can answer that question.

 

As for no trade clauses, they are nothing more than tools to give players leverage. Players don't want to work where they are not wanted, in fact the only player I can think of who exercised his no trade clause was Lucroy, and they still traded him anyways

 

Saying the Padres are "3rd place in the division" is quite misleading. They're a top probably 7 or 8 team in baseball. I'd argue if they were healthier in the pitching staff they'd be top 3.

 

It's not their fault they are in with the Dodgers and now the Giants who seem to be back ahead of the curve in analytics (rebuilding up a bunch of "failed" high-upside pitchers) and/or stealing signs (a bunch of solid hitters having career years).

 

There are always reasons for signing guys when you aren't in a competitive window and/or when the guy is going to spend most of his contract beyond age 30. I'm glad it happens in most cases because otherwise everyone would be the Rays. That said, I'm sure lots of these teams when they are "all in" or are having their year regret having a guy that is now below league average at a position but is still owed $75 million dollars. You're kind of stuck there unless the guy gets a long-term injury or you have balls of steel to trade over the top of him and relegate him to a bench role/cut him.

[Jopal78]

 

Saying the Padres are "3rd place in the division" is quite misleading. They're a top probably 7 or 8 team in baseball. I'd argue if they were healthier in the pitching staff they'd be top 3.

 

It's not their fault they are in with the Dodgers and now the Giants who seem to be back ahead of the curve in analytics (rebuilding up a bunch of "failed" high-upside pitchers) and/or stealing signs (a bunch of solid hitters having career years).

 

There are always reasons for signing guys when you aren't in a competitive window and/or when the guy is going to spend most of his contract beyond age 30. I'm glad it happens in most cases because otherwise everyone would be the Rays. That said, I'm sure lots of these teams when they are "all in" or are having their year regret having a guy that is now below league average at a position but is still owed $75 million dollars. You're kind of stuck there unless the guy gets a long-term injury or you have balls of steel to trade over the top of him and relegate him to a bench role/cut him.

 

It cannot be misleading because it’s true, the Padres are in 3rd place. Moreover it is the whole point why they would have potential interest Rizzo. They went “all in” expecting to compete for the NL West; but if the season ended today they’d be playing a do or die game at Dodger Stadium against the reigning champions.

 

I agree 100% they’re more talented than a typical 3rd place team, but certain players (like Hosmer) haven’t met expectations and they didn’t anticipate a strong Giants team so they are what they are: a team expecting to be in first place, sitting in the 2nd wild card spot, looking up at two other teams in their division.

[KeithStone53151]

It has been clear that the Cubs have been smart about this unless one assumes they were going to have a $300+ million payroll with luxury tax 4 years from now.

 

As far as long term planning, the Cubs have not been remotely smart for probably 6-7 years.

 

I think we sparred on this in the past and I'll agree that they may have chosen the wrong targets, but I do think there is a very specific time to overpay players and it is when you have a 3-4 year window of controllable, cheap players.

 

The Yankees seem to be OK almost always paying the luxury tax and sneaking under for a year or two. The other bigger markets are OK with it for 2-3 years.

 

So maybe the Cubs chose wrong on some (Heyward, maybe) but the one time I am OK overspending is if you have a Rizzo, Bryant, Baez, Contreras to build around for a small $ amount. Then you can overpay and know you're going to dip into luxury tax with Lester, Heyward, Darvish, etc.

 

In the end, the Cubs' demise was not having enough pitching come together at the right time. Hendricks was a great home-grown pitcher but that is honestly about it. Kimbrel was an overpay that somehow didn't pay off for 2 years.

 

This is also why I laughed at the Arenado move for the Cards. They already had an aging roster where they've dealt away minors depth. They're not a team that's going to go into the luxury tax often. So they dealt for Arenado to be an 80-85 win team and not much room to grow. Then they'll deal with 4 years of crap Arenado contract on the back end. Bad timing.

 

For the Cubs the timing was right, the players were not the best.

 

That's fair to a degree. One thing I'll add, the Dodgers have been in a competitive window for a long time as well...yet they've made a point not to trade away guys they recognized would be elite talents. Bellinger, Lux, Smith, May, Urias, etc. The Dodgers surely recognized these players would actually be good, while also recognizing that Diaz was overhyped. Verdugo goes against that theory, but they were getting Betts so it's a bit easier to make peace with trading someone who's actually going to be good. The Cubs didn't do this with Jimenez/Cease/Torres/etc. The Dodgers admittedly are just way better at developing players than pretty much anyone else so they have more prospects to consider, but they didn't just go sell the farm for rentals every time they had a good record. The Cubs are a top 5 market and there's just no reason they couldn't operate like the Dodgers and have a 10+ year window of being reeeeeally good. Instead they traded away every top prospect they had for rentals and narrowed their window to 4-5 years.

 

Frankly, the other top 5-10 markets should be looking at how the Dodgers operated over the last 5 years and try to copy it. They've had 90+ wins every year since 2013 aside from last year(43-17) along with 1 world series(really should be 2) and should be a 90+ win team probably for the next 4-5 years with the talent on the roster.

[KeithStone53151]

I have a hard time seeing us make a trade with the Cubs. I'm also not certain they'll sell until I see it. I wouldn't want Baez at all but Bryant/Rizzo would both fit really well. Will be interesting to see if they sell and who and all that. I also agree Rizzo would be a really great fit in Boston.