Bryant loses grievance

JP Hochbaum

Active member
869
234
28
Looks like I am the first to say this, but hell no to a Bryant/Arenado swap.

Arenado screams of a player that benefits greatly from Coors. His away WRC+ is at 109, where Bryant is at 133+.

This would be a major blunder by Theo and I hope to god he is looking at those home/away splits.

We would essentially be getting a above average player for an MVP.
 

Castor76

Member
588
49
13
Looks like I am the first to say this, but hell no to a Bryant/Arenado swap.

Arenado screams of a player that benefits greatly from Coors. His away WRC+ is at 109, where Bryant is at 133+.

This would be a major blunder by Theo and I hope to god he is looking at those home/away splits.

We would essentially be getting a above average player for an MVP.
I agree unless someone wants to make the argument that the increase Arenado's defense versus Bryant's make up for the drop in offense. Outside of Coors the past 3 seasons, he's roughly a .270/.340/.500 guy. And his numbers in Wrigley, 41 PA, are just .256/.286/.564.

I don't understand the thought process of blowing up the team completely if they trade Bryant. It's not like we could have truly expected to keep all those bats from the 2016 team. Russell is already gone and basically flamed out in ways. The team is pushing the limits of the CBT. Trading Bryant now would bring as much return as you could realistically expect. A couple of other moves/luck and this team is just as competitive as they were before.
 

kerrywoodwins20

Harvey Weinstein's Biggest Fan
762
-936
13
Maddon tried his hardest to blow the World Series but the players bailed him out
Bingo. Maddon would be hated by most Cubs fans if one of those meatballs Chapman lobbed up there in the bottom of the 9th was turned around. Guy was exhausted and a lot of it was unnecessary.

Maddon was what the team needed in 2015 to ensure they got Zobrist and Lester. He also kept a team loose in 2016 that had a lot of pressure.

Besides for that, he was pretty bad at bullpen management and lineup creation. Routinely ignored logic and the numbers to go with his gut, usually didn't work out.
 

anotheridiot

Well-known member
5,941
793
70
Looks like I am the first to say this, but hell no to a Bryant/Arenado swap.

Arenado screams of a player that benefits greatly from Coors. His away WRC+ is at 109, where Bryant is at 133+.

This would be a major blunder by Theo and I hope to god he is looking at those home/away splits.

We would essentially be getting a above average player for an MVP.
That is the thing though, you trade for this guy who is a proven player instead of 4 prospects that you only hope you get back what you gave. This is really no different than the Arrieta and Darvish thing. We are offering a contract, here are the dollars, who is going to take it. We are pretty sure KB is gone. He is spewing about the cubs not only lying to him in 2015, they also lied during this grievance. It is going to cost extra to keep him, not a discount.
The reports out there are Colorado had really gotten a problem between the gm and Arenado, someone has to go. There are also reports that Colorado is willing to throw in 7-8 million a year towards that deal.
Downside is Arenado keeps his opt out and could be gone anyway.

For every cargo there is a lemaiheu. Maybe letting Bryant play 81 games at coors would get him to that 300 million dollar deal.
 

JP Hochbaum

Active member
869
234
28
That is the thing though, you trade for this guy who is a proven player instead of 4 prospects that you only hope you get back what you gave. This is really no different than the Arrieta and Darvish thing. We are offering a contract, here are the dollars, who is going to take it. We are pretty sure KB is gone. He is spewing about the cubs not only lying to him in 2015, they also lied during this grievance. It is going to cost extra to keep him, not a discount.
The reports out there are Colorado had really gotten a problem between the gm and Arenado, someone has to go. There are also reports that Colorado is willing to throw in 7-8 million a year towards that deal.
Downside is Arenado keeps his opt out and could be gone anyway.

For every cargo there is a lemaiheu. Maybe letting Bryant play 81 games at coors would get him to that 300 million dollar deal.
There is zero evidence that Bryant is gone or that he is upset with the Cubs. In fact, just after the hearing, he said no hard feelings.
 

Omeletpants

Chicks dig me because I'm groovy
Donator
25,161
-501
105
My favorite teams
Colorado Rockies Atlanta United FC Los Angeles Lakers, Orlando Magic, Phoenix Suns, Sacramento Kings Columbus Blue Jackets
Article in Sun Times about how Cubs were unfair to Bryant by holding him back
 

Raskolnikov

Well-known member
17,222
5,346
85
If you can get Aranado back AND money...

you should do that, especially if Bryant won't sign with Cubs. Let it be their problem.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
14,584
2,206
75
I still would do that deal strait. Splits are a fine argument but his D is GG which solidifies the IF D.

Now the biggest issue is lux tax going up to 223 m and sitting at the 228 2nd tier. So you really want to push off Chatwood in turn at that point. They have cheaper options for the #5/MR. Him for a 45 grade prospect is fine as long as they take on 100%.

After math would be lux tax around 211M. Little above where it was but not back breaking

But over all 15% chance this would go through. The fact that both teams want out of payroll binds makes this unrealistic
 

CSF77

Well-known member
14,584
2,206
75
IMO 3 team deal.

Cubs trade Bryant to Rocks
Chatwood to team B

Team B trades player/s to Rockies.

Rockies trade Nolan to Cubs.

No cash exchange.

Cubs move around 12.5 mil in Chatwood. That opens up payroll for the split deals they signed.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
14,584
2,206
75
IMO the Madden hate is pointless.

They won nothing for most of our lives. We got teased in 1984 and 2003. 2008 just showed you that the best in season team is not the best play off team.

I see it as not addressing the lead off as the down fall. That led Joe to tinkering. And that was a poor decision prossess of upper management. They decided to invest into pitching and to let their draft picks develop vs trading for a proven lead off.

The love affair with Almora was unjustified. He was never lead off material.

So as always the manager will have the target on his back. This time is really not justified because he won. At the end of the day his run was the best one sense 1969. And to be honest we might have to even look back further to see a team that won that much over a stretch.

So to disregard a manager in a winning run.

Here is the thing. A manager creates a climate for the players to find success in. Joe was really good at letting his players figure it out and to grow. The results speak for them selves. If we as in the fan dislike the activities involved too bad. That is your (our) personal issue.

So at the end of the day it was a lead off issue that led to Schwarber and Happ failing and demoting after. It caused Heyward to go into a non productive stint.

That was the issue and has been the issue sense Fowler left.

So get over it. Not much is going to change with David IMO. They lack a lead off still and that has to be the focus going in this year.
 

knoxville7

Master of karate and friendship for everyone
6,433
2,856
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Cubs Chicago Bulls Chicago Bears Tennessee Volunteers
The leadoff issue is why they supposedly had so much interest in Whit Merrifield. I still really would like him in a cubs uniform. Unlikely a deal can be made, though
 

kerrywoodwins20

Harvey Weinstein's Biggest Fan
762
-936
13
IMO the Madden hate is pointless.

They won nothing for most of our lives. We got teased in 1984 and 2003. 2008 just showed you that the best in season team is not the best play off team.

I see it as not addressing the lead off as the down fall. That led Joe to tinkering. And that was a poor decision prossess of upper management. They decided to invest into pitching and to let their draft picks develop vs trading for a proven lead off.

The love affair with Almora was unjustified. He was never lead off material.

So as always the manager will have the target on his back. This time is really not justified because he won. At the end of the day his run was the best one sense 1969. And to be honest we might have to even look back further to see a team that won that much over a stretch.

So to disregard a manager in a winning run.

Here is the thing. A manager creates a climate for the players to find success in. Joe was really good at letting his players figure it out and to grow. The results speak for them selves. If we as in the fan dislike the activities involved too bad. That is your (our) personal issue.

So at the end of the day it was a lead off issue that led to Schwarber and Happ failing and demoting after. It caused Heyward to go into a non productive stint.

That was the issue and has been the issue sense Fowler left.

So get over it. Not much is going to change with David IMO. They lack a lead off still and that has to be the focus going in this year.
I don’t hate joe. My response was to someone suggesting Ross was a reason the 2020 Cubs might not contend. Ross will have almost nothing to do with it.

Maddon was still a good choice in 2015. That said, having a clubhouse presence like Maddon and also having a manager who follows analytics and not weird gut impulse decisions would be the ideal scenario. Let’s hope Ross proves to be that guy.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
14,584
2,206
75
I don’t hate joe. My response was to someone suggesting Ross was a reason the 2020 Cubs might not contend. Ross will have almost nothing to do with it.

Maddon was still a good choice in 2015. That said, having a clubhouse presence like Maddon and also having a manager who follows analytics and not weird gut impulse decisions would be the ideal scenario. Let’s hope Ross proves to be that guy.
Ross should be able to get them performing at a higher level. But that doesn't magically create a lead off or a rotation that contends with the top teams in baseball.

So I believe it is best to play for a 2 year window and trade for needed parts.

My main issue with Joe was really tied to the lead off. 2015-16 it was stable and both teams were stable. They functioned. Then Theo did not address it in 2017 and the team has suffered for it ever sense. Same manager. So this is a Theo issue. Not a Joe issue.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
14,584
2,206
75
The leadoff issue is why they supposedly had so much interest in Whit Merrifield. I still really would like him in a cubs uniform. Unlikely a deal can be made, though
At this point it is better to see what Nico brings. He said that coming up aggressive was his plan going in to prove that he can hit MLB pitching. Right now he needs to control the strike zone and I believe that he ends up in AAA

I would lead off with Bote at 2B and let Nico prove that he has lead off tools in Iowa. If not then they really need to start making some trades to address it.
 

knoxville7

Master of karate and friendship for everyone
6,433
2,856
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Cubs Chicago Bulls Chicago Bears Tennessee Volunteers
At this point it is better to see what Nico brings. He said that coming up aggressive was his plan going in to prove that he can hit MLB pitching. Right now he needs to control the strike zone and I believe that he ends up in AAA

I would lead off with Bote at 2B and let Nico prove that he has lead off tools in Iowa. If not then they really need to start making some trades to address it.
Thing is, even if nico ends up being a stud at 2b, Whit can also play CF and lead off to allow nico to not have the pressure of hitting leadoff.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
14,584
2,206
75
Thing is, even if nico ends up being a stud at 2b, Whit can also play CF and lead off to allow nico to not have the pressure of hitting leadoff.
If there was any chance of a deal it would have happened by now.

I believe that we can expect:

Bote 2B
Schwarber LF
Bryant 3B
Rizzo 1B
Baez SS
Happ CF
Contreras C
Heyward RF

Then Almora and Souza in vs lefties for Schwarber and Happ or Heyward. Really depends on how the season goes. Descalso will also see some time at 2B. So expect a semi platoon depending on if production.

Descalso has been a .240 hitter for the most part with a .330 OBA. Bote .250 with a .340 OBA. So neither are ideal as lead offs but both come in with walk rates over 10%.

That is what I expect going into this season. Nico should get 300 PA at Iowa working on his approach and playing primarily 2B. They really need him to master both prior to promotion. Add to it they have Short at SS in Iowa who can fall into a UI role in 2021.

As far as CF goes Davis should be at MB. At SB in 177 PA he had a .305/.381/.525. so we are talking about a 30/30 talent. But he is raw still. Has to work on his base running and technique. He has gotten by on pure talent and his celing is the highest of all the Cubs hitters. So we are talking about a 70 grade player potentially if he hones his talent.

So I see him 3 years out due to the time investment needed. But we are talking about a impact talent pending for CF.
 

Top