Offseason rumors/discussion thread

beckdawg · Oct 11, 2018

brett05 said:
For me I am not so sure. They've passed to date on doing so. They'll almost have to if they are going the FA route for pitching and their young stars approaching "real money" status rapidly.

The thing to remember is the way they've built their pitching in their farm system. They have literally like a dozen guys who probably end up some where between a #3 and a #5 starter. In other words, in the next 2-3 years it's an utter lock that you're going to be able to fill 3 of the 5 starters internally so you're really only talking about potentially spending money at the top of the rotation. If for example you say a playoff caliber team spends like $30 mil on a #1, $25 mil on a #2, $15 mil on a #3 and like $10 mil on a 4 and 5 that's $90 mil. On the other hand, if the cubs can continually pump out 3-5 starters you can pretty easily spend $25-30 mil on FA starters at the top of the rotation and continually trim down the older guys from #1's to #3's and so on by paying them more up front and making their value as they age better.

When you think about it in that manner from a development standpoint it is kind of intelligent. You're not risking all that teams do trying to find the next big pitching prospect. And while sure you may miss out on home grown Kershaw's and Sale's, you aren't dealing with all the busts that lead to those successes. And in terms of where in the draft the cubs are finding these guys it's not early. Obviously you're going to mix in guys like Lange/Little from time to time but Michael Rucker was an 11th round pick and he's almost certainly going to pitch in the majors. Hatch was a third round pick...etc.

The issue they have in my eyes is all of that hitting talent left a giant hole in their farm system from a hitting perspective. It's really not very pleasant above South Bend. You can probably count on one hand the number of guys who are realistically guys who stay at the MLB level their entire career. So, they really need to be able to ride this wave for 3-4 more years without dipping too much into hitting prospects in trades.

brett05 · Oct 11, 2018

beckdawg said:
The thing to remember is the way they've built their pitching in their farm system. They have literally like a dozen guys who probably end up some where between a #3 and a #5 starter. In other words, in the next 2-3 years it's an utter lock that you're going to be able to fill 3 of the 5 starters internally so you're really only talking about potentially spending money at the top of the rotation. If for example you say a playoff caliber team spends like $30 mil on a #1, $25 mil on a #2, $15 mil on a #3 and like $10 mil on a 4 and 5 that's $90 mil. On the other hand, if the cubs can continually pump out 3-5 starters you can pretty easily spend $25-30 mil on FA starters at the top of the rotation and continually trim down the older guys from #1's to #3's and so on by paying them more up front and making their value as they age better.

When you think about it in that manner from a development standpoint it is kind of intelligent. You're not risking all that teams do trying to find the next big pitching prospect. And while sure you may miss out on home grown Kershaw's and Sale's, you aren't dealing with all the busts that lead to those successes. And in terms of where in the draft the cubs are finding these guys it's not early. Obviously you're going to mix in guys like Lange/Little from time to time but Michael Rucker was an 11th round pick and he's almost certainly going to pitch in the majors. Hatch was a third round pick...etc.

The issue they have in my eyes is all of that hitting talent left a giant hole in their farm system from a hitting perspective. It's really not very pleasant above South Bend. You can probably count on one hand the number of guys who are realistically guys who stay at the MLB level their entire career. So, they really need to be able to ride this wave for 3-4 more years without dipping too much into hitting prospects in trades.

I agree with your assessments except for the valuation on the current pitching for the minors. The ceilings at best is 3-5 type starters and guys there have a higher flame out then top round picks. If, and that is a 20 point font IF, then it can work, but I doubt anyone is waging money on it. That IF is just too big. But this is where they are. A really solid young core that has one solid young core pitcher in Hendricks.

beckdawg · Oct 11, 2018

brett05 said:
I agree with your assessments except for the valuation on the current pitching for the minors. The ceilings at best is 3-5 type starters and guys there have a higher flame out then top round picks. If, and that is a 20 point font IF, then it can work, but I doubt anyone is waging money on it. That IF is just too big. But this is where they are. A really solid young core that has one solid young core pitcher in Hendricks.

Not sure you are disagreeing with me on the first part. I literally said they for the most part weren't more than #3's if things go right. I think I said in an earlier post I'd put most of the guys from A, A+ and AA on a continuum from Alec Mills to Kyle Hendricks. If everything goes right they are that not great stuff but gets the job done type starter like Hendricks or Mikolas was for the cards.

As for them flaming out more than top round picks... I don't think I agree with that at all. The problem with the type of players the cubs draft isn't that they flame out. They really don't. The problem is they may not have enough upside to make the majors but are 4A type depth. The reason is the cubs almost exclusively draft college starters. And when you're drafting a college starter after the first round you're probably not getting a ton of upside unless you uncover a gem. Now sure if you take high school pitchers late in the draft those bust all the damn time. But that's HS pitchers in general not just HS pitchers after the first round. And the thing is that if you are drafting college pitchers at the top of the draft the good ones are likely top 20 picks. They go so high because they are safe and the later you go it's not that they are less safe it's just they have far less upside.

Additionally, some percentage of college starters without upside are going to turn into Kyle Hendricks/Kluber types who just are better than people thought they would eventually be. I know I bring up the fangraphs prospect podcast a lot but it's really pretty insightful. One of the things they were talking about lately is they feel like in general the type of pitcher the cubs go after is undervalued by prospect ranking sites. The reason is they aren't trying to find useable players when doing rankings they are trying to find the best guy. Guys like Hendricks are very very useful to teams but he's never going to be the best pitcher in MLB or even the NL. And it's that disconnect that can skew people's view on a farm system IMO.

brett05 · Oct 11, 2018

beckdawg said:
Not sure you are disagreeing with me on the first part. I literally said they for the most part weren't more than #3's if things go right. I think I said in an earlier post I'd put most of the guys from A, A+ and AA on a continuum from Alec Mills to Kyle Hendricks. If everything goes right they are that not great stuff but gets the job done type starter like Hendricks or Mikolas was for the cards.

As for them flaming out more than top round picks... I don't think I agree with that at all. The problem with the type of players the cubs draft isn't that they flame out. They really don't. The problem is they may not have enough upside to make the majors but are 4A type depth. The reason is the cubs almost exclusively draft college starters. And when you're drafting a college starter after the first round you're probably not getting a ton of upside unless you uncover a gem. Now sure if you take high school pitchers late in the draft those bust all the damn time. But that's HS pitchers in general not just HS pitchers after the first round. And the thing is that if you are drafting college pitchers at the top of the draft the good ones are likely top 20 picks. They go so high because they are safe and the later you go it's not that they are less safe it's just they have far less upside.

Additionally, some percentage of college starters without upside are going to turn into Kyle Hendricks/Kluber types who just are better than people thought they would eventually be. I know I bring up the fangraphs prospect podcast a lot but it's really pretty insightful. One of the things they were talking about lately is they feel like in general the type of pitcher the cubs go after is undervalued by prospect ranking sites. The reason is they aren't trying to find useable players when doing rankings they are trying to find the best guy. Guys like Hendricks are very very useful to teams but he's never going to be the best pitcher in MLB or even the NL. And it's that disconnect that can skew people's view on a farm system IMO.

It could be, but I think more likely they are just minor league filler. Sometimes a filler does something, but not at the same rate as a top guy. I think we are saying the same thing though you are more optimistic that the Cubs have three pieces and I am more pessimistic that they have none and have to hit FA to acquire as they have been the past couple of seasons. (they'd do trade, but really have nothing to trade with)

TC in Mississippi · Oct 11, 2018

brett05 said:
For me I am not so sure. They've passed to date on doing so. They'll almost have to if they are going the FA route for pitching and their young stars approaching "real money" status rapidly.

The difference could end up being the $50 mil Fox payout coming and the new TV deal, not to mention the major renovations coming to their completion in the next six months. That could really change things and I don't think money is the issue. IFP money and draft picks being affected is why they won't go all pre-Friedman Dodgers and just blow by the CBT.

CSF77 · Oct 11, 2018

beckdawg said:
Was thinking about the cubs payroll situation and they are closer to the $246 mil limit than I realized. I say limit in that it's pretty bad penalty wise if they go over that but that's not really why I'm making this post. I was basically trying to find some ways for the cubs to slash a little payroll to free them up for other moves. Smyly I personally like as a pitcher but if he's in your bullpen making $7 mil/year he's pretty damn expensive. And while he could work cheaply as a starter like that the cubs seemingly would prefer to bring back Hamels in some capacity but that may inhibit their ability to sign a Harper or Machado.

Long story short, I'm wondering if you could package Smyly with Chatwood to say Oakland. Now look I know Chatwood is pretty shitty. But keep in mind the team I'm talking about here. This is Oakland who doesn't have much money to spend. Oakland had 2 starters throw 100 innings this year. Edwin Jackson threw 96 innings for them. The same Edwin Jackson that was cubs trash a few years ago. Brett Anderson threw 80 innings for them. The same Anderson that was cubs trash last year. They aren't above other people's trash.

Smyly on the other hand at $7 mil for one year is a pretty great bargain. So, he would make up a decent bit for Chatwood being a net negative. Effectively you would get 2 starters for $19.5 mil and only be tied down for 1 year on smyly and 2 on chatwood. ~$10 mil in FA doesn't get you much in terms of starting pitching. For example last year Jaime Garcia got a 1 year $10 mil deal. And theoretically if you're the cubs you might even be able to buy that down a few million dollars if the return wasn't terrible. Similar logic would also likely apply to Tampa who had 1 starter throw 100 innings this year(snell) and who had Smyly before.

Anyways, if you could theoretically clear that and then sign Hamels to like a 2-3 year deal at $15 mil/year you'd be saving roughly $5 mil and freeing some roster space to address better bullpen arms.

Looking at it just now.

I'm seeing it at 213.426M if they pull Cole. Q and Strop.

Kris Bryant – $12.4MM
Kyle Hendricks – $7.6MM
Javier Baez – $7.1MM
Addison Russell – $4.3MM
Kyle Schwarber – $3.1MM
Mike Montgomery – $3.0MM
Carl Edwards Jr. – $1.4MM
Tommy La Stella – $1.2MM

Tax is 206M So I see a few issues going in.

They are not going to pay tax on problems. So to start:

Russell has to be gone. I expect to be fending offers for (non)prospect level just to clear. Not offer arb as last case. That 4.3M will be in the lux.

2nd. I honestly agree with you on Smyly. 7 mil is too much for a pen arm. Not to mention a lux tax hit. Now they can go 3 ways here.

1. let Cole walk. Saves 20M Biggest savings but worst choice. Let Smyly start.
2. trade Q for prospects. Saves 10.5M. Let Smyly start.
3. Trade Smyly for prospects. Saves 7M

This could go any way. I just don't see them keeping all 3.

3rd: Chatwood. I really don't see them shedding that issue. That is one expensive long arm.

They could make some minor savings. Edwards not offered. Doubt it. Schwarber traded. Maybe on that but the savings is again min.

Regardless they would be 7 mil over tax with a team that got bounced. I just don't see them staying put here.

On your trade scenario:

Honestly I would target LAA. They are looking for durability. Smyly is a bad exchange in general because of his delay coming off. Montgomery would be a nice target for LAA due to his cost. But that is why you don't trade him. He costs little for a 6th starter.

So I would think of it this way: They need rotation depth. Cubs are 8 deep. So trade Q and Chatwood. I would target a few lower level arms. Maybe a MI. Nothing over the top due to them taking on Chatwood. That alone takes off 23M and allows Montgomery and Smyly to battle for the 5.

Now with that savings (and cutting Russell) it puts them 20M under tax. Now at this point if they want to offer Manny a mega it makes sense as they would be only going 10M into the lux.

beckdawg · Oct 11, 2018

CSF77 said:
3. Trade Smyly for prospects. Saves 7M

I don't think you're really getting much in terms of prospects for a one year rental. I think you might get someone who's top 200 in the right deal but to me that's really not that enticing. That's why the thought of packaging Smyly with a stinky asset made sense to me. For example, Chatwood with a top 200 prospect probably doesn't get any interest at all from teams IMO. You're likely still stuck with him.

On the contrary, Smyly if he were a FA could probably get $15 mil per. The 4 year $57 mil deal cobb got seems realistic. As such, 1 year $7 mil seems really really cheap and also so much safer. If you were to essentially cut another $8 mil off Chatwood and make his $12.5 mil $4.5 mil for next year he's probably worth that gamble. Obviously he has another year after 2019 which complicates matter some but if you're a team needing 2 starters and you can't just go out there and offer big money like a dodgers/yankee team I think it makes sense as a gamble.

Chatwood may look shitty and maybe he is but the cubs aren't a dumb front office. There's a reason they liked him enough to sign him so there's some talent there. It's just about making him cheap enough for someone to gamble on fixing him. In fact, if you're a rebuilding team I think it's kind of a smart move to potentially take on that. Just to throw a team out there, say you're Miami. What do you have to lose by making this trade? Maybe a little money you aren't going to spend on FA anyways. And if Smyly comes back great you have a fantastic trade piece in july. Likewise if you can some how fix Chatwood he would be an interesting piece in july.

JP Hochbaum · Oct 11, 2018

So is it possible to trade Chatwood and send over 10 million in cash to avoid the luxury tax?

CSF77 · Oct 11, 2018

beckdawg said:
I don't think you're really getting much in terms of prospects for a one year rental. I think you might get someone who's top 200 in the right deal but to me that's really not that enticing. That's why the thought of packaging Smyly with a stinky asset made sense to me. For example, Chatwood with a top 200 prospect probably doesn't get any interest at all from teams IMO. You're likely still stuck with him.

On the contrary, Smyly if he were a FA could probably get $15 mil per. The 4 year $57 mil deal cobb got seems realistic. As such, 1 year $7 mil seems really really cheap and also so much safer. If you were to essentially cut another $8 mil off Chatwood and make his $12.5 mil $4.5 mil for next year he's probably worth that gamble. Obviously he has another year after 2019 which complicates matter some but if you're a team needing 2 starters and you can't just go out there and offer big money like a dodgers/yankee team I think it makes sense as a gamble.

Chatwood may look shitty and maybe he is but the cubs aren't a dumb front office. There's a reason they liked him enough to sign him so there's some talent there. It's just about making him cheap enough for someone to gamble on fixing him. In fact, if you're a rebuilding team I think it's kind of a smart move to potentially take on that. Just to throw a team out there, say you're Miami. What do you have to lose by making this trade? Maybe a little money you aren't going to spend on FA anyways. And if Smyly comes back great you have a fantastic trade piece in july. Likewise if you can some how fix Chatwood he would be an interesting piece in july.

I wouldn't look at it as a return value. I would look at it as cost cut. That is why they add Q who is a quality SP. Chatwood is a maybe fix. Both are durable. But it would be a contract absorb by LAA who lost 3/5 of their rotation due to injury last year.

The problem with Smyly is very simple. He never made it back. No team will want to take on 7 mil that could end up like Darvish.

The biggest cost cut is letting Cole walk. And honestly he is worth paying lux on. Chatwood is not. Russell is not.

beckdawg · Oct 11, 2018

JP Hochbaum said:
So is it possible to trade Chatwood and send over 10 million in cash to avoid the luxury tax?

Well the cubs aren't going to avoid the luxury tax. It's just not going to happen. Trading Chatwood is about avoiding the worst tier of the tax which moves your draft pick down. As for your question, the cubs can add in money but whatever they add in costs them in the luxury tax calculation AFAIK. What I think you could do is cut say $3-5 mil off both years if it's what it took to get a trade done. In that sense you'd be saving roughly $12.5 and $7 mil from Smyly and Chatwood this coming year but adding back the difference you add in. And the next year you'd be saving like $12.5 mil minus whatever the amount you put in was.

beckdawg · Oct 11, 2018

CSF77 said:
I wouldn't look at it as a return value. I would look at it as cost cut. That is why they add Q who is a quality SP. Chatwood is a maybe fix. Both are durable. But it would be a contract absorb by LAA who lost 3/5 of their rotation due to injury last year.

The problem with Smyly is very simple. He never made it back. No team will want to take on 7 mil that could end up like Darvish.

The biggest cost cut is letting Cole walk. And honestly he is worth paying lux on. Chatwood is not. Russell is not.

I don't see them trading Q and would be pretty dumb IMO to do so. He pitched well to close the season and he's proven durable. I wouldn't trade that and risk it with Smyly and as I said I actually like Smyly. IMO if Smyly and Chatwood together isn't enough you add money to offset the cost to a team. If that isn't enough you add some throw away type prospects. Someone is going to be willing to gamble on Chatwood if he's cheap enough. I mean as I mentioned the A's gambled on Edwin fucking Jackson.

As for Russell I don't agree with your assertion he's not worth paying the luxury tax on. You couldn't get a player who has his potential for $6 mil in FA. And you're not going to get anything for him trade wise. I don't think you could even package him in with Chatwood and have it make a difference. There's 2 things at play here. 1) Whether or not the cubs think he's worth keeping. IMO if they were going to jettison him they would have already done it. They could have released him the day it happened and it wouldn't have cost them anything more than it does by them not offering him arbitration 2) How you weather the PR storm. If you assume he is going to be back, you're going to have to deal with the distraction. IMO that's another reason having Machado makes sense. I think there would be a lot less outrage if he were force into a bench role or being sent down to AAA for awhile. In other words, if he keeps his mouth shut and his head down I think the PR storm will eventually fade.

Now whether that's morally right or not is a judgement call by anyone. I'm sure some think he should never be allowed to play another MLB game. If you feel that way then this is likely a disgusting way to talk about things. Personally, I believe in redemption arcs. I believe you give people who make a mistake a chance to atone for that mistake and do their damnedest to make up for it.

fatbeard · Oct 11, 2018

Avoiding the luxury tax is not an issue for a year. Paying 22.5% on your excess payroll is not a big deal for the clubs that are capable of hitting the threshold. The problem is in the severely escalating penalties that hit when you go way over year after year (Up to 50% if you're over for 3 years in a row). That's a big reason why the FA market sucked last offseason; everyone was trying to get back under the threshold so their penalty would reset and they could splurge in the Harper/Machado market.

fatbeard · Oct 11, 2018

beckdawg said:
IMO if they were going to jettison him they would have already done it. They could have released him the day it happened and it wouldn't have cost them anything more than it does by them not offering him arbitration.

I don't think this is the case per the CBA. I think once MLB is made aware of an allegation team discipline is essentially sidelined until the investigation is completed and punishment is meted out by the league office or the player is exonerated. As Epstein noted, they couldn't even suspend Russell if they wanted to.

beckdawg · Oct 11, 2018

fatbeard said:
I don't think this is the case per the CBA. I think once MLB is made aware of an allegation team discipline is essentially sidelined until the investigation is completed and punishment is meted out by the league office or the player is exonerated. As Epstein noted, they couldn't even suspend Russell if they wanted to.

Suspending him isn't the same thing as releasing him. I see no reason why a potential suspension would stop you from releasing a player. A team doesn't even have to give you a reason they are releasing you. Suspension is discipline. Releasing a player isn't. So, sure I agree that the CBA probably stops you from discipline I can't imagine there's something in it suggesting you can't release a player whenever the fuck you want.

CSF77 · Oct 11, 2018

beckdawg said:
I don't see them trading Q and would be pretty dumb IMO to do so. He pitched well to close the season and he's proven durable. I wouldn't trade that and risk it with Smyly and as I said I actually like Smyly. IMO if Smyly and Chatwood together isn't enough you add money to offset the cost to a team. If that isn't enough you add some throw away type prospects. Someone is going to be willing to gamble on Chatwood if he's cheap enough. I mean as I mentioned the A's gambled on Edwin fucking Jackson.

As for Russell I don't agree with your assertion he's not worth paying the luxury tax on. You couldn't get a player who has his potential for $6 mil in FA. And you're not going to get anything for him trade wise. I don't think you could even package him in with Chatwood and have it make a difference. There's 2 things at play here. 1) Whether or not the cubs think he's worth keeping. IMO if they were going to jettison him they would have already done it. They could have released him the day it happened and it wouldn't have cost them anything more than it does by them not offering him arbitration 2) How you weather the PR storm. If you assume he is going to be back, you're going to have to deal with the distraction. IMO that's another reason having Machado makes sense. I think there would be a lot less outrage if he were force into a bench role or being sent down to AAA for awhile. In other words, if he keeps his mouth shut and his head down I think the PR storm will eventually fade.

Now whether that's morally right or not is a judgement call by anyone. I'm sure some think he should never be allowed to play another MLB game. If you feel that way then this is likely a disgusting way to talk about things. Personally, I believe in redemption arcs. I believe you give people who make a mistake a chance to atone for that mistake and do their damnedest to make up for it.

Only thing that You get for keeping Russell is a PR nightmare. Cubs are better off walking.

Smyly would have great trade value if he pitched. Right now most teams would be gun shy. 7 mil for?

That really just leaves Q. I don’t see Montgomery holding trade weight. Q does, Hendricks does. Lester does.

In a perfect vacume you pack up Chatwood and Russell and take back some A ball players but teams are not going to take on problems with out getting rid of a problem. Or take a good with a bad for a decent return.

Now I wouldn’t post this stuff if they were under lux after pulling Cole and Strop.

IMO not offering Russell ARB is the best solution that nets a 4M savings and moves away from a potential issue. You never know if a crazy decides to go off. Really not a position for the Cubs to be in. Not to mention the backlash if they push him out there. Media nightmare. The fact he didn’t fight it means he admitted guilt. Guild of lying. Not to mention what he did.

You can say 6M all day. Don’t matter.

Over all I’ll disagree with you. If they go into the lux it is to get better. Not preserve inadequate production.

beckdawg · Oct 11, 2018

CSF77 said:
Only thing that You get for keeping Russell is a PR nightmare.

If they go into the lux it is to get better. Not preserve inadequate production.

They have a PR nightmare regardless. If that were really the issue then why would you wait to release him? It's not like they are going to get bonus points for holding on to him until the arb deadline then releasing him. If that were the plan they would have already done it. Now to be clear, I would estimate he's on super thin ice but if he does everything they expect of him I fully expect him back.

As to the second point, you're just being willfully ignorant if you don't think he makes you better. Addison Russell is a better player than La Stella. He's a better player than Bote. If you want to argue Russell isn't a starter fine. I'm the one arguing for signing Machado to play SS remember. But to say he doesn't make a team better is seriously ignorant. I would suspect your argument would be the player he would be(bench bat) isn't worth the cost but that again is ignoring the fact that you're not going to find someone better in FA for that cost.

If you want to argue the difference between him and a cheaper bench player isn't enough that's one thing. But you're patently wrong to say he isn't better that the other options. Russell was a 3.4 win player in 2016. Bote isn't close to that... and neither is La Stella. It's not a question of being "better." It's a question of how much you want to spend on your bench.

Diehardfan · Oct 11, 2018

He's staying because they are not letting that kind of talent walk away for nada. I seriously doubt he'll be a lifelong Cub but they need time to rebuild his reputation enough where they can get some return on their investment.

beckdawg · Oct 12, 2018

Read something earlier that peaked my interest. I didn't watch the full presser from theo after the season but the thing I was reading suggested theo said some cubs weren't coming to the field ready to play. Given Passan's article I mention before if Theo actually did say that then it fits in well with that narrative.

TC in Mississippi · Oct 12, 2018

beckdawg said:
They have a PR nightmare regardless. If that were really the issue then why would you wait to release him? It's not like they are going to get bonus points for holding on to him until the arb deadline then releasing him. If that were the plan they would have already done it. Now to be clear, I would estimate he's on super thin ice but if he does everything they expect of him I fully expect him back.

As to the second point, you're just being willfully ignorant if you don't think he makes you better. Addison Russell is a better player than La Stella. He's a better player than Bote. If you want to argue Russell isn't a starter fine. I'm the one arguing for signing Machado to play SS remember. But to say he doesn't make a team better is seriously ignorant. I would suspect your argument would be the player he would be(bench bat) isn't worth the cost but that again is ignoring the fact that you're not going to find someone better in FA for that cost.

If you want to argue the difference between him and a cheaper bench player isn't enough that's one thing. But you're patently wrong to say he isn't better that the other options. Russell was a 3.4 win player in 2016. Bote isn't close to that... and neither is La Stella. It's not a question of being "better." It's a question of how much you want to spend on your bench.

I disagree that he'll be back. I think he's gone and I think everyone knows it around baseball. The reason why Theo won't release him now is that he still could add value to a trade. There is no guarantee they'll be able to move him but Theo will try. If he can't do it he'll be non tendered by the 12/1 deadline. I excpet this to be the most active offseason since the window opened.

chibears55 · Oct 12, 2018

TC in Mississippi said:
I disagree that he'll be back. I think he's gone and I think everyone knows it around baseball. The reason why Theo won't release him now is that he still could add value to a trade. There is no guarantee they'll be able to move him but Theo will try. If he can't do it he'll be non tendered by the 12/1 deadline. I excpet this to be the most active offseason since the window opened.

Agree .

There will be teams that would take Russell potential, control, and low salary .

Offseason rumors/discussion thread

Well-known member

867-5309

Well-known member

867-5309

CCS Staff

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

My favorite teams

Well-known member

CCS Staff

Well-known member