Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 60 of 75 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270 ... LastLast
Results 886 to 900 of 1114
  1. #886
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    I was just thinking about this. When Theo came in and it became clear they were tearing down to rebuild from the bottom up I was so excited. They were on a path to nowhere. The farm sucked. The MLB roster sucked. The FO had sucked. Now they had an actual plan and smart people executing it. I was pretty comfortable with them tanking and watching the farm system. Iíd watch The Mlb draft standings rather than the divisional standings and it was fine.

    Now, Iíd be pretty pissed to watch them tank. They could easily go into 2021 resetting the lux tax and be the overwhelming favorites to win the division again. Easily. This isnít a baseball decision at all. A tank now is 100% about money and that sucks. I wouldnít be nearly as patient this time. They have a much better MLB roster and a much better farm system than the day Theo walked in. If it happens, I wonít blame Jed, but itíll be annoying. The Cubs should not have to tank on purpose every decade.
    100% about money?

    This team isn't good enough. Period. They've survived by being in a very lack luster NLC that hasn't had a true stand out team since the Cubs from 2015-17. The Cubs haven't won a playoff series since '17.

    Damn near the entire starting 8 are on 1 year deals, and the last remaining major piece leaves the following year.

    Maybe you don't completely tear it down and sell everyone, but its crystal clear sweeping changes need to be made.

  2. #887
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    3,508
    So what are we looking for in a deal with the Nats for KB? Or any team I guess, Iím just using the Nats because of the report that they have interest in KB. How much money do yíall think we try to eat to get a better prospect? Even if we eat half, how much better of a prospect do we get if we didnít eat any, or maybe only like 5 mil?

  3. #888
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,292
    Quote Originally Posted by cuzi View Post
    100% about money?

    This team isn't good enough. Period. They've survived by being in a very lack luster NLC that hasn't had a true stand out team since the Cubs from 2015-17. The Cubs haven't won a playoff series since '17.

    Damn near the entire starting 8 are on 1 year deals, and the last remaining major piece leaves the following year.

    Maybe you don't completely tear it down and sell everyone, but its crystal clear sweeping changes need to be made.
    Itís absolutely about money. It would be incredibly easy in this market to upgrade this roster to make them an overwhelming division favorite and still be under the lux tax.

    They just have no interest in doing that.

  4. #889
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,292

    2020 Chicago Cubs Offseason Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by JD94 View Post
    So what are we looking for in a deal with the Nats for KB? Or any team I guess, Iím just using the Nats because of the report that they have interest in KB. How much money do yíall think we try to eat to get a better prospect? Even if we eat half, how much better of a prospect do we get if we didnít eat any, or maybe only like 5 mil?
    Thatís the question. If the answer is ďnoneĒ the you probably donít get much of a prospect back at all. If you take back someone like Daniel Hudson or toss in almost half the money then maybe you can ask for a top prospect who has failed so far like Kieboom or a decent non top 100 guy.
    Last edited by CP_414; 11-20-2020 at 07:10 PM.

  5. #890
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    3,508
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Thatís the question. If the answer is ďnoneĒ the you probably donít get much of a prospect back at all. If you take back someone like Daniel Hudson or toss in almost half the money then maybe you can ask for a top prospect who has failed so far like Kieboom or a decent non top 100 guy.
    To me, and you would know better than I would, I would think KB + half his salary to get Kieboom would probably be a win on our end all things considered. Like I just donít know if we can do better than that. I mean maybe we can, but I doubt it.

  6. #891
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,292
    Quote Originally Posted by JD94 View Post
    To me, and you would know better than I would, I would think KB + half his salary to get Kieboom would probably be a win on our end all things considered. Like I just donít know if we can do better than that. I mean maybe we can, but I doubt it.
    Even that might be a stretch, but the more you pay the more you get.

  7. #892
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,142
    Maybe get the Rockies and nats together since both have goals they are trying to accomplish. Rockies want to rid themselves of the Arenado contract, nats want a 3b RH middle of the order bat but with all the money commited to their rotation they canít take on Nolanís deal, so let the Cubs facilitate.

    Nats get: Bryant+Almora rights
    Cubs get: Arenado+cash(7m annual for 3years . Opt out bumped back 2 years, basically making him a 3yr 84m committed from Cubs.
    Rox get: Bote+Robles+Kieboom+Caratini

    Nats get their bat and a backup cf equivalent to Robles
    Rox get a starting cf, 3/5ths of a starting infield under contract for a long time. Bote in coors would be interesting.

    Then move Kimbrel in a deal to save money and dfa schwarber if no takers via trade
    Last edited by huff; 11-21-2020 at 11:36 AM.

  8. #893
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,292
    Quote Originally Posted by huff View Post
    Maybe get the Rockies and nats together since both have goals they are trying to accomplish. Rockies want to rid themselves of the Arenado contract, nats want a 3b RH middle of the order bat but with all the money commited to their rotation they canít take on Nolanís deal, so let the Cubs facilitate.

    Nats get: Bryant+Almora rights
    Cubs get: Arenado+cash(7m annual for 3years . Opt out bumped back 2 years, basically making him a 3yr 84m committed from Cubs.
    Rox get: Bote+Robles+Kieboom+Caratini

    Nats get their bat and a backup cf equivalent to Robles
    Rox get a starting cf, 3/5ths of a starting infield under contract for a long time. Bote in coors would be interesting.

    Then move Kimbrel in a deal to save money and dfa schwarber if no takers via trade
    I donít see that one. I donít think you can assume the Arenado would opt out so the Cubs financial commitment is larger than this. The Nats arenít giving up all that for a year of KB and a guy who is getting non tendered.

  9. #894
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,142
    Who cares if he doesnít opt out? At that point the financials would be way better for the Cubs and I think you might overvalue the two players the nats are sending. Glove first cf with flashes with the bat and a highly rated prospect that the shine is off of so for KB it seems legit to me value wise

  10. #895
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,292

    2020 Chicago Cubs Offseason Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by huff View Post
    Who cares if he doesnít opt out? At that point the financials would be way better for the Cubs and I think you might overvalue the two players the nats are sending. Glove first cf with flashes with the bat and a highly rated prospect that the shine is off of so for KB it seems legit to me value wise
    Just saying itís not 3/84. Itís 6/199 minus the cash you have coming over.

    I think you are overvaluing KBs trade value if you think the Nats will give up Robles + Kieboom for a year of Kb at $20 mil. To each his own, but I donít see that at all. Not sure what Almora adds to the trade. Heís an obvious non tender and minor league deal guy at this point.

    Iíd rather just cut Arenado out and take the Rockies side of that deal, and the Nats would probably rather cut the Cubs out and take Arenado and cash.
    Last edited by CP_414; 11-21-2020 at 01:53 PM.

  11. #896
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    3,620
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    This all true. All of it!

    Ricketts looked like a savior to us fans. "We finally have an owner who wants to win!" At least that's what I thought. And I think we were right......for awhile. It usually costs money to win like that, and I feel like money is now his driving force. From an owners standpoint, I don't really hold that against him. He's a typical greedy owner. I've made peace with that.

    Because we have a ton of money, the big city backing, good players, and a championship under our belts, there's no reason other than greed, that we can't retool, instead of rebuild. This one seems like it's not going to be as fun. But I'm ready for it.
    Another layer to this is we know the Ricketts family has been buying up a ton of property in the neighborhood right around Wrigley. I have to imagine with the pandemic they are getting absolutely rinsed on those investments right now.

    We saw over the past few years they bought the team so they could monetize the club via property investments and the TV network. Neither have worked out the way they were planning they would.

    We could really see them cut payroll costs even more than we are thinking due to these other losses. It's just very frustrating they were going to take the approach of "well the TV network and property stuff is not the CUBS money, it's a different business and so we can use returns to invest in the Cubs" and now that those other businesses are struggling it'll be "well, the Cubs are going to have to help pay for those other investment losses sine they're related."

  12. #897
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,739
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRealTI View Post
    Another layer to this is we know the Ricketts family has been buying up a ton of property in the neighborhood right around Wrigley. I have to imagine with the pandemic they are getting absolutely rinsed on those investments right now.

    We saw over the past few years they bought the team so they could monetize the club via property investments and the TV network. Neither have worked out the way they were planning they would.

    We could really see them cut payroll costs even more than we are thinking due to these other losses. It's just very frustrating they were going to take the approach of "well the TV network and property stuff is not the CUBS money, it's a different business and so we can use returns to invest in the Cubs" and now that those other businesses are struggling it'll be "well, the Cubs are going to have to help pay for those other investment losses sine they're related."
    This is a good way to look at it. I guess they CAN have it both ways!

  13. #898
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    56,606
    Mark Feinsand (MLB Nework) adds to the flury of reports on the Cubs this offseason:
    An American League executive believes Chicago will move at least two of the aforementioned group in an effort to save money and undergo a reset of sorts.

    ďMy sense is that the Cubs are very open [to anything],Ē the exec said.
    (That group was Bryant, Baez, Rizzo and Schwarber)

    ďThey seem to think a heavy restart could be in order,Ē a National League executive said.

    ďThey are open to all kinds of stuff,Ē the NL executive said. ďThey arenít a group afraid to make big moves.Ē

  14. #899
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,739
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Mark Feinsand (MLB Nework) adds to the flury of reports on the Cubs this offseason:

    (That group was Bryant, Baez, Rizzo and Schwarber)
    We may finally have an eventful off season.

  15. #900
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    28,005
    Gonna be hard to watch next year.

Page 60 of 75 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •