Random cubs/baseball talks

TC in Mississippi said:

I think you're likely to see maybe a 10 year deal for Machado structured something like this:

Year 1: $35 mil
Year 2: $35 mil
Year 3: $35 mil (player opt out)
Year 4: $35 mil
Year 5: $35 mil
Year 6: $35 mil (player opt out)
Year 7: $13.5 mil
Year 8: $13.5 mil
Year 9: $13.5 mil
Year 10: $13.5mil

Machado will basically be going into his prime next year and he already has 2 6 WAR seasons under his belt. So what you're hoping for as the signing team is those first 3 years he gives you 6-6.5 WAR. That's around 18 for the first 3 years and even valuing WAR at $8 mil per (which is conservative for a player of his caliber) the signing team is getting a bargain. Now the player can then opt out before his age 30 season and if he's performing at a high level someone still might offer something like 6/$180 and BOOM! He earns another $21 mil more from his new team and nobody is going to be crying on the old one. Same thing with the opt out after year 6. He'd still be owed $54 mil but maybe someone would give him 4/$60 mil and again he makes $6 more million. Obviously I'm making some guesses but I think this is the type of thing you'll see with both Machado and Harper. The front loading makes it easier to swallow on the back end if the player doesn't opt out while giving the player an incentive to opt out.

Click to expand...

I think if the Nats said they are going to trade Harper, 22 teams would be on their jet to go talk to the washington front office. Machado, not so much. No way its starting at 35. There might be 35 in signing bonus, but not yearly salary.

TC in Mississippi said:

I think you're likely to see maybe a 10 year deal for Machado structured something like this:

Year 1: $35 mil
Year 2: $35 mil
Year 3: $35 mil (player opt out)
Year 4: $35 mil
Year 5: $35 mil
Year 6: $35 mil (player opt out)
Year 7: $13.5 mil
Year 8: $13.5 mil
Year 9: $13.5 mil
Year 10: $13.5mil

Machado will basically be going into his prime next year and he already has 2 6 WAR seasons under his belt. So what you're hoping for as the signing team is those first 3 years he gives you 6-6.5 WAR. That's around 18 for the first 3 years and even valuing WAR at $8 mil per (which is conservative for a player of his caliber) the signing team is getting a bargain. Now the player can then opt out before his age 30 season and if he's performing at a high level someone still might offer something like 6/$180 and BOOM! He earns another $21 mil more from his new team and nobody is going to be crying on the old one. Same thing with the opt out after year 6. He'd still be owed $54 mil but maybe someone would give him 4/$60 mil and again he makes $6 more million. Obviously I'm making some guesses but I think this is the type of thing you'll see with both Machado and Harper. The front loading makes it easier to swallow on the back end if the player doesn't opt out while giving the player an incentive to opt out.

Click to expand...

Even Heyward would bail on the tail of that deal.

chibears55 said:

More the reason why Almora should be playing more

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

2-5 against a tough righty, still say he can handle leading off. That first pitch in the final strike out at bat he had he watched it to the glove like he knew where it was going. But apparently he feels the need to see pitches and take walks. Just get on base with hits works too and that was the best pitch he saw during that at bat.

anotheridiot said:

I think if the Nats said they are going to trade Harper, 22 teams would be on their jet to go talk to the washington front office. Machado, not so much. No way its starting at 35. There might be 35 in signing bonus, but not yearly salary.

Click to expand...

Again you're front loading the deal. If he opts out after year three but puts up say 18 WAR in those three years you've gotten $144 mil in value for $105 mil. If he stays and puts up a little less WAR, say 14 WAR in those second three years which are still in his prime, you've gotten $256 mil in value for $210 mil and if he's still a viable player he will almost certainly opt out which is ideally what you want, but even if say he gets hurt in that 6th year and doesn't opt out his salary isn't going to gut your team on the back end, although the CBT hit will still have an impact. In essence it's a 10/$264 mil contract, with an annual $26 mil hit towards the CBT but it highly incentivizes the player to opt out. Bottom line is that I don't think he's getting a dime less than $250 mil and teams don't look to backload contracts anymore. This give the player a guarantee of $264 mil, which is what he'll look for, but makes the back end palatable and possibly even a non factor.

As far as value compared to Harper, I would agree that Harper will get more money and has the possibility of being a higher impact player, but that impact is not a foregone conclusion. Machado has been a more consistent player since 2014 with a lower high mark for WAR than Harper at 6.6 as opposed to 9.3 but also a higher "floor" WAR at 2.5 as opposed to 1.6. Cumulatively since 2014 through yesterday Harper has compiled 20.3 WAR to Machado's 20.2 making the totals almost identical. Again, I do think someone will pay more for Harper's potential impact but unless he does something dramatic in the next couple of months he isn't getting that $400 mil contract he's been expecting. I think it'll be closer to $350. When you're talking about those kind of numbers I think Machado is the safer bet at maybe $80 mil less.

This is interesting...
Not sure how good Offman sources are...
But
https://twitter.com/georgeofman/status/999310819417608192?s=19

Makes you wonder if Orioles are willing to make such deal sooner rather then later if return names are out..
Maybe Theo pushing it to happen sooner..

But Russell and two of these guys (assuming it 2) isn't that bad for the cubs

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Be interesting to see when and where Machado ends up.

Let's take a step back on the Machado talk:

The Cubs are basically 1st in the NL in offense (offensive score, wRC+, runs, wOBA, etc.), 23rd in pitching, and 3rd in defensive score. Machado does nothing for the starting pitching and Russell for Machado is a defensive step backwards. Russell is a legit GG-caliber SS while Machado, who has played 3B almost exclusively since coming into the league, looks to be a big question mark at SS (-6 DRS already and the worst SS in MLB with more than 300 innings). He gives the offense a boost but it won't have the kind of impact people think it will, especially if Rizzo continues normalizing (.854 OPS in May). So by trading for Machado, the Cubs fail to improve themselves at their greatest area of need, weaken themselves defensively (also hurting their pitching by extension), further deplete a farm system that's recently lost Torres, Jimenez, Candelario, etc., all for the chance to, at best, moderately improve their overall offense. And that, assuming Machado and Boras are set on going to FA after this season, is the price you pay for a rental.

Conceptually, that's what a Russell + prospects for Machado deal amounts to. Is that a deal that makes sense?

fatbeard said:

Let's take a step back on the Machado talk:

The Cubs are basically 1st in the NL in offense (offensive score, wRC+, runs, wOBA, etc.), 23rd in pitching, and 3rd in defensive score. Machado does nothing for the starting pitching and Russell for Machado is a defensive step backwards. Russell is a legit GG-caliber SS while Machado, who has played 3B almost exclusively since coming into the league, looks to be a big question mark at SS (-6 DRS already and the worst SS in MLB with more than 300 innings). He gives the offense a boost but it won't have the kind of impact people think it will, especially if Rizzo continues normalizing (.854 OPS in May). So by trading for Machado, the Cubs fail to improve themselves at their greatest area of need, weaken themselves defensively (also hurting their pitching by extension), further deplete a farm system that's recently lost Torres, Jimenez, Candelario, etc., all for the chance to, at best, moderately improve their overall offense. And that, assuming Machado and Boras are set on going to FA after this season, is the price you pay for a rental.

Conceptually, that's what a Russell + prospects for Machado deal amounts to. Is that a deal that makes sense?

Click to expand...

Not a chance. I want no part of him as a rental. I'd feel differently in FA.

Some of the mopes here are unbelievable. Hey, let's decimate the franchise that Theo and Co. built for a 3 or 4 month rental. Great!! What if he blows out an achilles running out a grounder on his first AB...what if he doesn't hit NL pitching like he did AL pitching (it happens)...what if he performs well but you get another major injury and guess what? You just traded away your depth.

This is not 2016. That team had a feel to it. Chapman was the final piece of the puzzle. Sorry to say, I'm not seeing it with this group. I am seeing it up north. Everything the Brewers do, falls right into place...there's something, almost magical when a team has that. The Cubs had it in 2016....the Astros and the Dodgers had it last year. I don't believe the Cubs have that magic this year and one player will not change that.

Diehardfan said:

Some of the mopes here are unbelievable. Hey, let's decimate the franchise that Theo and Co. built for a 3 or 4 month rental. Great!! What if he blows out an achilles running out a grounder on his first AB...what if he doesn't hit NL pitching like he did AL pitching (it happens)...what if he performs well but you get another major injury and guess what? You just traded away your depth.

This is not 2016. That team had a feel to it. Chapman was the final piece of the puzzle. Sorry to say, I'm not seeing it with this group. I am seeing it up north. Everything the Brewers do, falls right into place...there's something, almost magical when a team has that. The Cubs had it in 2016....the Astros and the Dodgers had it last year. I don't believe the Cubs have that magic this year and one player will not change that.

Click to expand...

Look, I would prefer Machado gets somewhere so we can move onto the next name that pops up.

Did we really need Chapman and Heyward to win the world series? That is a good question. Zobrist, maybe, he brought plenty of intangibles. Rondon had 18 saves the first half of the year, chapman ended up with 16. Dominant, yes, but I guess it just irks me that everything that Theo and Jed did still needed big investments. Would have been sweeter to win the series without these guys, then it would have been based on what Theo and Jed built thru the system.

If they want to move on from Russell, then it clears up the 10 starters we have just by dealing Russell. Baez to short, Happ and Zobrist share 2nd, 9 starters. I mean, dont these players want to be believed in? Alot of people want to see Alzolay make it as a starter here, but how will that ever happen? All they want to do is buy pitching and block anyone with a shot to be really good. If Joe did not abuse him in the playoffs he might have stayed here and losing Torres for the rental instead of a real good pitcher for 5 years still hurts.

I'm curious why Happ's name hasn't cropped up in this whole Machado idea. I'm not sure he's the guy I'd most want traded. But he is the guy that seems to have the biggest issue fitting. I see 0 reason to believe Almora isn't going to be the long term CF. He's taken that job and ran well with it. If they get Machado, one of Russell/Baez is your 2B. And Schwarber is hitting this year and is in favor with the FO. Happ isn't an every day RF and even if he were, moving Heyward IMO is impossible but at the very least is going to be incredibly difficult.

With Russell, even if Machado came in and took his job I think he makes more sense from a fit stand point because he's back up against Machado leaving in FA. Plus you can do interesting things like sitting Heyward vs LHP and playing Bryant in RF with some form of Baez/Russell/Machado at 2B/SS/3B. That would be one absurd infield defense. And if Heyward is no longer a mandatory almost every day player, he compliments Almora well as a back up CF with great defense. Almora crushes LHP and while he's getting better vs RHP, there's still likely some touch matchups you'd rather not see him in there for. Heyward could easily fill in for him in CF for those games.

Logistically it makes the most sense to me. What gives me pause is I'm not sure you want to trade Happ's bat right now. He has a .278 iso. And incase you think that's just a small sample size over his 547 career PAs his iso is .265. Bryant's career iso is .243. Schwarber's is .248. Rizzo is .216. That's some rather absurd power numbers. I just don't know how you make him fit.

If it was Machado for Heyward and pitching I would do that deal.

Move Bryant to RF done deal

beckdawg said:

I'm curious why Happ's name hasn't cropped up in this whole Machado idea. I'm not sure he's the guy I'd most want traded. But he is the guy that seems to have the biggest issue fitting. I see 0 reason to believe Almora isn't going to be the long term CF. He's taken that job and ran well with it. If they get Machado, one of Russell/Baez is your 2B. And Schwarber is hitting this year and is in favor with the FO. Happ isn't an every day RF and even if he were, moving Heyward IMO is impossible but at the very least is going to be incredibly difficult.

With Russell, even if Machado came in and took his job I think he makes more sense from a fit stand point because he's back up against Machado leaving in FA. Plus you can do interesting things like sitting Heyward vs LHP and playing Bryant in RF with some form of Baez/Russell/Machado at 2B/SS/3B. That would be one absurd infield defense. And if Heyward is no longer a mandatory almost every day player, he compliments Almora well as a back up CF with great defense. Almora crushes LHP and while he's getting better vs RHP, there's still likely some touch matchups you'd rather not see him in there for. Heyward could easily fill in for him in CF for those games.

Logistically it makes the most sense to me. What gives me pause is I'm not sure you want to trade Happ's bat right now. He has a .278 iso. And incase you think that's just a small sample size over his 547 career PAs his iso is .265. Bryant's career iso is .243. Schwarber's is .248. Rizzo is .216. That's some rather absurd power numbers. I just don't know how you make him fit.

Click to expand...

the simple answer is you make him fit by NOT bringing in new position players.

CSF77 said:

If it was Machado for Heyward and pitching I would do that deal.

Move Bryant to RF done deal

Click to expand...

Heyward has a full NTC through this year. Even if he waived that, why would a rebuilding team agree to take on that contract, no matter what the return? This isn't hockey where tanking teams still have to hit the cap floor.

fatbeard said:

Heyward has a full NTC through this year. Even if he waived that, why would a rebuilding team agree to take on that contract, no matter what the return? This isn't hockey where tanking teams still have to hit the cap floor.

Click to expand...

I know that. But trading away a controlled player with pitching prospects for a rental is dumb in general for the Cubs. All they are doing is making other teams stronger while weakening themselves.

What makes sense for the Cubs is shedding Heyward's deal if they do trade anything. The NTC is regardless.

Epstein essentially torpedoes Russell for Machado rumors:

https://670thescore.radio.com/media/audio-channel/theo-epstein-addresses-cubs-struggles

Question starts at 10:38

Accompanying article:

https://670thescore.radio.com/cubs-theo-epstein-manny-machado-trade-rumors-fantasy-land

Theo said the right thing. This whole business is disrespectful to Russell’s ability as a player.

Then need to take a quote from major league to heart vs look towards false idols

f*** you jobu. i'll do it myself.

CSF77 said:

Theo said the right thing. This whole business is disrespectful to Russell’s ability as a player.

Click to expand...

If they are talking..
He not going to tell everyone that

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

chibears55 said:

If they are talking..
He not going to tell everyone that

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Denial.

Not just a river in Egypt...