Around the League: 2017 offseason edition / 2018 Season

Super said:
how much value do baez and schwarber have right now tho? baez has mostly been a lot of hype and a good WS, but he's about a 2-2.5 win player it seems. he could still improve of course, but his approach is atrocious. schwarber is coming off a rough season. it doesn't seem he's actually awful in the OF, but maybe he is. he should prob just be a DH somewhere. i think his value will rebound.

thank god the braves aren't on the hook for heyward at $20M+ per year. what a colossal mistake that would have been.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you would have to find the right buyer for Baez and Schwarber. Schwarber should be in AAA learning 1B. Baez is probably what he is. A team would need to be convinced that he would improve based on steady PT with one position.

To be clear though, I think the Cubs should trade both but NOT be concerned about what they get back being close to the Majors. If they can get better and more talent that is further away but carries a little bigger risk, then they should go for that. They are pretty set, for good or bad, over the next 2-3 years. It's after that where they will feel the sting of gutting their farm.

The major deals that they have done are defensible when viewed through the lense of the long suffering Cubs fan. But, the Chapman deal was extremely expensive in terms of cost benefit. The Q deal may be better but would have been much less impactful on the 2022 future of the Cubs IF the Chapman deal hadn't happened.
 
I think the opposite actually. I think they should trade Baez and Schwarber for upgrades to the major league club. Instead of signing Darvish, I think I would have tried to trade one or both Baez and Schwarber to the Indians for Carrasco or may be to the Rays for Cobb. Save that 125 million for next offseason when it might be put to better use.

Edit: oops, meant Archer, not Cobb.
 
Carp said:
I think the opposite actually. I think they should trade Baez and Schwarber for upgrades to the major league club. Instead of signing Darvish, I think I would have tried to trade one or both Baez and Schwarber to the Indians for Carrasco or may be to the Rays for Cobb. Save that 125 million for next offseason when it might be put to better use.

Edit: oops, meant Archer, not Cobb.
Click to expand...

I don't think either of them get Archer or Carrasco. Or even close, at least not presently. Are the indians trading carrasco anyway? i can't see why they would. guy was unreal last year and they're going to be a really good team again.
 
Super said:
I don't think either of them get Archer or Carrasco. Or even close, at least not presently. Are the indians trading carrasco anyway? i can't see why they would. guy was unreal last year and they're going to be a really good team again.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily straight up for either of those two pitchers, but certainly the focal point in a trade. Probably more unrealistic for Archer unless a 3rd team is involved, since the Rays appear to be in somewhat of a rebuild.

I thought I saw a report before the Brewers got Yelich where Domingo Santana to the Indians for Carrasco was gaining some ground. I'd have to think Schwarber and Baez hold as least much value by together as Santana holds individually. Baez himself is 3 WAR player and he just turned 25.
 
Carp said:
Not necessarily straight up for either of those two pitchers, but certainly the focal point in a trade. Probably more unrealistic for Archer unless a 3rd team is involved, since the Rays appear to in somewhat or rebuild.

I thought I saw a report before the Brewers got Yelich where Domingo Santana to the Indians for Carrasco was gaining some ground. I'd have the think Schwarber and Baez hold as least much value by together as Santana holds individually. Baez himself is 3 WAR player and he just turned 25.
Click to expand...

Santana for Carrasco would be an absolute steal for Milwaukee. Santana isn't nearly worth him, in my mind.

Baez had a 2.2 fWAR last year. As i said earlier, his approach is terrible and he's probably never going to be great with the bat. Chicago would have to add a lot, and I don't think they are even looking for pitching right now.
 
Super said:
Santana for Carrasco would be an absolute steal for Milwaukee. Santana isn't nearly worth him, in my mind.

Baez had a 2.2 fWAR last year. As i said earlier, his approach is terrible and he's probably never going to be great with the bat. Chicago would have to add a lot, and I don't think they are even looking for pitching right now.
Click to expand...

2.9 WAR on BR. And like 3.4 in 2016 I believe. Whether you like his style or not isn't super relevant. He still holds a good chunk of trade value as a pretty good offensive player that plays multiple positions pretty well.

In any event, it's not worth arguing over. This wasn't meant to be a probable scenario. I said I would have not signed Darvish and tried to trade Baez and Schwarber for a pitcher instead. So this was completely hypothetical and obviously not likely such trades would materialize now.
 
Carp said:
2.9 WAR on BR. And like 3.4 in 2016 I believe. Whether you like his style or not isn't super relevant. He still holds a good chunk of trade value as a pretty good offensive player that plays multiple positions pretty well.

In any event, it's not worth arguing over. This wasn't meant to be a probable scenario. I said I would have not signed Darvish and tried to trade Baez and Schwarber for a pitcher instead. So this was completely hypothetical and obviously not likely such trades would materialize now.
Click to expand...

ah true, wasn't tryna argue just discuss. but yeah i forgot the "instead of signing darvish" part.
 
Super said:
Santana for Carrasco would be an absolute steal for Milwaukee. Santana isn't nearly worth him, in my mind.

Baez had a 2.2 fWAR last year. As i said earlier, his approach is terrible and he's probably never going to be great with the bat. Chicago would have to add a lot, and I don't think they are even looking for pitching right now.
Click to expand...

If you read the Brewers boards they think Santana is too much to pay for Archer, much less Salazar haha.

There were never any rumors linking Carrasco to Milwaukee.
 
Details of the Darvish contract from MLBTR: "$25MM in 2018, $20MM in 2019, $22MM apiece in 2020 and 2021, $19MM in 2022, and $18MM in 2023. That allocation means that Darvish will face at least a four-year, $81MM decision (depending upon escalators) when his opt-out opportunity arises."

It seems like the Cubs have front loaded the contract in an effort to persuade Darvish to opt out after 2019, and to mitigate the risk of him opting in.

I've seen folks here suggest front loading contracts with opt-outs, and that looks like exactly what the Cubs have done.
 
Enscheff said:
Details of the Darvish contract from MLBTR: "$25MM in 2018, $20MM in 2019, $22MM apiece in 2020 and 2021, $19MM in 2022, and $18MM in 2023. That allocation means that Darvish will face at least a four-year, $81MM decision (depending upon escalators) when his opt-out opportunity arises."

It seems like the Cubs have front loaded the contract in an effort to persuade Darvish to opt out after 2019, and to mitigate the risk of him opting in.

I've seen folks here suggest front loading contracts with opt-outs, and that looks like exactly what the Cubs have done.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I like it. The club's preference would probably be a two year deal. If the player opts out, then that is great.

If the player doesn't opt out, you are at least in a better position than if the deal was backloaded.

Seems to me that front loading would always be better if you had the ability.
 
Southcack77 said:
Yeah, I like it. The club's preference would probably be a two year deal. If the player opts out, then that is great.

If the player doesn't opt out, you are at least in a better position than if the deal was backloaded.

Seems to me that front loading would always be better if you had the ability.
Click to expand...

Time to front load a monster Machado contract next year.
 
I suggested a front loading aspect on several occasions. It makes sense to incentivize the buy-out while paying for prime years
 
Southcack77 said:
Yeah, I like it. The club's preference would probably be a two year deal. If the player opts out, then that is great.

If the player doesn't opt out, you are at least in a better position than if the deal was backloaded.

Seems to me that front loading would always be better if you had the ability.
Click to expand...

I disagree and here's why:

For one, if you are signing someone where this is even an option, then you are likely trying to compete now, so less money 4-5 years down the road really shouldn't be a priority. Putting together the best possible team now is the priority, and having the payroll flexibility of a backloaded deal helps that.

Secondly, money now is always better than money later. 25 million 4-5 years from now won't be as much as it is now.
 
Carp said:
I disagree and here's why:

For one, if you are signing someone where this is even an option, then you are likely trying to compete now, so less money 4-5 years down the road really shouldn't be a priority. Putting together the best possible team now is the priority, and having the payroll flexibility of a backloaded deal helps that.

Secondly, money now is always better than money later. 25 million 4-5 years from now won't be as much as it is now.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the Cubs front loaded the contract enough to make an opt out a sure thing. At the end of the second year he will be 33 years old. A 4/81 contract with incentives plus a no trade clause is the top end of the market I believe for a soon to be 34 year old.

Darvish has a history of injuries. I think he will have to pitch 190 plus innings the next two years to make a team want to give him more than 81 million. I think the cubs will be paying all of this contract.
 
CrimsonCowboy said:
Yep. Knew I was forgetting someone. If next offseason is just like this, there’s going to be some real ticked off people and MLB may have a big problem on their hands.
Click to expand...

Youth and control are essentially the only thing that is valued right now. What this might lead to is that a whole restructuring of the CBA whereby young players are made free agents sooner and get paid tremendous amounts of money. This will lead to veterans (greater than 28) more valuable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top