2020 MLB Thread (Covid shutdown Edition)

[1908_Cubs]

Here my question..
What will Theo feel as strong enough to be WS contenders ?

If they're say 10 games over in July battling for 1st or a WC spot, is that good enough to keep it together and or add..
Or
Will that be what puts them in a White Flag trade mode?

Guess what I'm wondering is, in Theo mind, would they need to be 5 plus games up for a division or WC spot or just in contention to not go in white flag trade mode

I think it has to go further than just "where in the standings" are we. It will likely be based on "how we got there". Are we 5 games up while out performing our pythag by 3-4 games? Do we have pitchers who's ERAs are out pacing their FIP? Are players like Marquez available and ready to aid?

If we are operating on the assumption that they're going to get under the tax, now or next year, and knowing, at least today that Bryant and Baez each have the next two years...you better have a damn good idea by July this year you're making the playoffs if you're going to go under next, and on their last season.

So it will likely be a conversation, a deep dive into the numbers, and a question of "how did we get here" as well.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[thawv]

They'll be under in that scenario because they lost 3/5 guys in their rotation in Quintana, Lester, and Chatwood. No one will miss Chatwood obviously, but just saying. Also pretty sure you're not accounting for arb increases. That money isn't gonna go far in regards to trying to fill 2 rotation spots anyway though. It'd be much better for the Cubs to get under this year rather than next so they could ideally spend that money on free agents or target higher AAV SPs in trades since the FA SP market doesn't look great for next year anyway.

Cot's has them at 93 million going in to next year, before Lester's 10 million dollar buy out. That's 103 million before I added 83 million in arb numbers. That gives them about 24 million to add to the team. Not that they would use it all, but it's there while still staying under.

[thawv]

I think it has to go further than just "where in the standings" are we. It will likely be based on "how we got there". Are we 5 games up while out performing our pythag by 3-4 games? Do we have pitchers who's ERAs are out pacing their FIP? Are players like Marquez available and ready to aid?

If we are operating on the assumption that they're going to get under the tax, now or next year, and knowing, at least today that Bryant and Baez each have the next two years...you better have a damn good idea by July this year you're making the playoffs if you're going to go under next, and on their last season.

So it will likely be a conversation, a deep dive into the numbers, and a question of "how did we get here" as well.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I think that this is exactly how he will determine if they are contenders or not. It's going to be more of how they got there, instead of where they are at. If they're winning with smoke and mirrors, they will see it.

[rcal10]

Right..
Just curious if he/Rickett uses that as a copout excuse to get under the threshold

If they're basically just there and not playing 600 plus ball with a big division lead, does he just start trading whomever to shed salary


Players definitely wont be happy if they're in contention and they decide it not good enough and start trading players

This is the main reason I would rather they just started the year under and dealt with the consequences. They can try to fill Q's spot with someone on the roster already or make a deal for a low priced pitcher at the BOR and go with either scenario. Then if they are in contention but don't make any moves, at least they are not dumping. They can always go with the excuse they didn't make changes because they have confidence in this group. Whatever the case, at least they would have to dump while competing. Standing pat and competing is better than dumping. If the real agenda for 20' is to get under the LT they should just do it. And that sure seems to be the agenda. If they also compete that is just a happy coincidence.

[PeanutPunch33]

Kimbrel was an indefensibly bad move.

[rcal10]

Kimbrel was an indefensibly bad move.

Hindsight is a great thing, isn’t it. Most loved it at the time. Most thought it was the FO and ownership stepping up. My guess is you even liked it. And now it is indefensible. Amazing! Also was too early for this statement. Of course if he pans out I am sure you will be saying what a great move it was.

[1908_Cubs]

Kimbrel was an indefensibly bad move.

One year of a mutli-year contract is not enough to make such a ridiculously strong stance. Last year, at this very time, "Darvish was an indefensibly bad move" could have been said. Then he had a very strong bounceback 2019, the 2019-2020 FA market hit, overpaying talent like Zack Wheeler, Dallas Kuechel, Gerritt Cole, and guys like Madison Bumgarner, and Ryu getting more than healthy contracts. Today, it's an incredibly defensible move. You could make an argument it's a fairly solid contract, in that Darvish at 4/$81m left on his contract is probably underpaid.

All Craig Kimbrel needs is a good year and it's entirely defensible. He had solid velocity and breaking stuff but seemed to be bit by injury and having issues with placement. Could an actual spring training and a regular year be the recipe to a bounceback? Doesn't seem like it's an impossible theory when you consider everything.

So yeah, maybe it's a bad contract in the end, and the Cubs swung and missed when they added the absolute best RP in theory off the FA market last year without having to trade for one. Or maybe it was a bad year and it'll have the same bouceback type Darvish did. Either way, making such a lop-sided and strong argument is pretty damn short sighted.

[PeanutPunch33]

Hindsight is a great thing, isn’t it. Most loved it at the time. Most thought it was the FO and ownership stepping up. My guess is you even liked it. And now it is indefensible. Amazing! Also was too early for this statement. Of course if he pans out I am sure you will be saying what a great move it was.

Nah actually I didn't like that move I wanted them to earmark some money to keep Castellanos..Success or fail Castellanos was my guy.

They made the move for Kimbrel well in advance of Castellanos. But I don't get why they went for a guy that was coming off a FA where nobody wanted him. You pay for future performance, not past.

Forgive me for saying this as it's sure to piss some people off..but mistakes of this Front Office are really starting to add up.

[1908_Cubs]

Nah actually I didn't like that move I wanted them to earmark some money to keep Castellanos..Success of fail Castellanos was my guy

So when the Chicago Cubs signed Craig Kimbrel on June 5th, you wanted the Cubs to save the money to keep Nic Castellanos, who was a member of the Detroit Tigers? You must have had some really good insight.

Cubs sign Craig Kimbrel on June 5th

Cubs trade for Nic Castellanos on July 31

[PeanutPunch33]

So when the Chicago Cubs signed Craig Kimbrel on June 5th, you wanted the Cubs to save the money to keep Nic Castellanos, who was a member of the Detroit Tigers? You must have had some really good insight.

Cubs sign Craig Kimbrel on June 5th

Cubs trade for Nic Castellanos on July 31

It didn't have to be Castellanos. I wanted them to earmark money for any upgrade in CF or RF this off-season. The fact that came here and led the team in OPS just makes it all the more laughable that they let him walk out the door.

Also, I clearly stated in my original post: "They made the move for Kimbrel well in advance of Castellanos. But I don't get why they went for a guy that was coming off a FA where nobody wanted him. You pay for future performance, not past."

[PeanutPunch33]

It's all a moot point though, Theo isn't going anywhere. But I'm convinced the Cubs will never win another ring under his watch. Convince me that I'm wrong.

[PeanutPunch33]

I get that Ricketts has been a pain (even though he's given Theo 220+mm to work with), I know that I have the benefit of hindsight and some of the moves looked good on the surface when they were made.

But after a certain amount of time those excuses get played out. I want a results-oriented GM and that's the standard I'm going to hold for a big market team that has unlimited resources. You can't use the same excuses every time a move doesn't work out.

[chibears55]

Kimbrel was an indefensibly bad move.

What???

2017 35 SVs 1.43
2018 42 Svs 2.74

Those were his last 2 full seasons

Last season he spent the offseason trying to get a deal done, had no ST, and was basically fast tracked to the Cubs once he signed the deal, pitching only 3 innings in Iowa before joining them.
I have no doubt that caused the injury he suffered at the end

This year, he had a normal offseason, a normal ST, and will be ready to go when the season starts..

I have no doubt that he will have a solid season closing out games for them..

[chibears55]

Nah actually I didn't like that move I wanted them to earmark some money to keep Castellanos..Success or fail Castellanos was my guy.

They made the move for Kimbrel well in advance of Castellanos. But I don't get why they went for a guy that was coming off a FA where nobody wanted him. You pay for future performance, not past.

Forgive me for saying this as it's sure to piss some people off..but mistakes of this Front Office are really starting to add up.

It wasn't that nobody wanted him

Owners weren't willing to pay him what he was looking for which I believe was at least 20 per for multiple years and give up the draft pick

[Bluefire]

Kimbrel was an indefensibly bad move.

You are partially right. Signing Kimbrel at the time he did was a "indefensibly bad move". No spring training, rushed through the minor league work outs, etc. That is bad. But signing Kimbrel in general, imo, was a good move. If Kimbrel had signed early and gone through spring training, he would been a good investment. Which is why I believe Kimbrel will be very good this year