Let the crazy ideas begin here.

[Castor76]

Just read an article on ESPN about Boston wanting to get under the threshold next season. So the crazy idea is Bryant and Quintana for Betts and Sale. The Cubs would get the upgrade in players and Boston would get the salary relief they want.

Let the flames hit.

 

[Omeletpants]

WAVE GOODBYE TO THE SALARY CAP

 

[Raskolnikov]

If somebody offers me Betts...

I say yes.

 

[DanTown]

So the point of this trade is what exactly? The issue you have with Bryant is that he likely isn't going to sign an affordable, long-term contract so you trade him for a player in Betts who hits FA a year earlier? All to pay Sale 5/145 (at minimum)? A year after Sale lost 2 MPH on his fastball? I'd do Heyward, Q, and a prospect (not top 3 guys) for Sale. That's about my appetite for that contract.

 

[Castor76]

WAVE GOODBYE TO THE SALARY CAP

Well, there is no cap. Only a luxury tax threshold that I've said before I wouldn't care about as an owner. It would add about 30 M to the payroll but it would also be upgrades in both slots. The Cubs would have a rotation of Sale, Darvish, Hendricks, Lester, and then whatever farm arm they want to try or Chatwood.

 

[DanTown]

Well, there is no cap. Only a luxury tax threshold that I've said before I wouldn't care about as an owner. It would add about 30 M to the payroll but it would also be upgrades in both slots. The Cubs would have a rotation of Sale, Darvish, Hendricks, Lester, and then whatever farm arm they want to try or Chatwood.

Well you not caring about it as a owner would be the only one who acts that way.

Also, the Cubs for close to the same money would likely be in on Gerritt Cole. He costs a first but I'd much rather bet on him than Sale.

 

[Castor76]

So the point of this trade is what exactly? The issue you have with Bryant is that he likely isn't going to sign an affordable, long-term contract so you trade him for a player in Betts who hits FA a year earlier? All to pay Sale 5/145 (at minimum)? A year after Sale lost 2 MPH on his fastball? I'd do Heyward, Q, and a prospect (not top 3 guys) for Sale. That's about my appetite for that contract.

You get a guy in a bad year who still only had a 1.09 WHIP and struck out 218 while only walking 37 in 147 IP. He's on schedule to be ready to go for ST. Moving to the NL should help him with returning. You can't trade Heyward unless he agrees to it. Betts solves the lead off spot.

Betts
Rizzo
Baez
Schwarber
Contreras
Happ
Heyward
Hoerner

 

[Castor76]

Well you not caring about it as a owner would be the only one who acts that way.

Also, the Cubs for close to the same money would likely be in on Gerritt Cole. He costs a first but I'd much rather bet on him than Sale.

And you still have the lead off problem.

I said it was crazy, but it would be a trade that addresses the line up and the rotation in areas of major need.

 

[Omeletpants]

Well, there is no cap. Only a luxury tax threshold that I've said before I wouldn't care about as an owner. It would add about 30 M to the payroll but it would also be upgrades in both slots. The Cubs would have a rotation of Sale, Darvish, Hendricks, Lester, and then whatever farm arm they want to try or Chatwood.

Cap and luxury tax is the same thing in Epstein's mind and he was hellbent to stay under it this year

 

[Omeletpants]

You get a guy in a bad year who still only had a 1.09 WHIP and struck out 218 while only walking 37 in 147 IP. He's on schedule to be ready to go for ST. Moving to the NL should help him with returning. You can't trade Heyward unless he agrees to it. Betts solves the lead off spot.

Betts
Rizzo
Baez
Schwarber
Contreras
Happ
Heyward
Hoerner

You get rid of Bryant and Castellanos for Betts. Hardly an upgrade

 

[TL1961]

If somebody offers me Betts...

I say yes.

He's a Free Agent after 2020.

 

[Castor76]

You get rid of Bryant and Castellanos for Betts. Hardly an upgrade

He fills the lead off spot, which has been a hole in the line up for 3 years. Castellanos is gone. Even if he can be brought back, It still doesn't solve lead off spot. Sale also fills the need of a staff ace.

 

[Diehardfan]

Another four or five months of this shit. Dumbass fans trying to become a MLB GM.......

 

[Castor76]

Another four or five months of this shit. Dumbass fans trying to become a MLB GM.......

Nah, just twisting your nipples.

I think the Cubs will be fairly quiet this offseason. Maybe they trade Bryant away for prospects and use 2020 as a semi rebuild. I'm just tossing this out there to have something crazy to pass the time until ST is in full swing.

Maybe a more "reasonable" trade idea would be Q and a couple of prospects for Sale. That would cut Boston's payroll by about 15 M and raise the Cubs the same. That would save the Cubs about the 15 M that some have suggested using to go after Cole.

 

[DB012031]

Nah, just twisting your nipples.

I think the Cubs will be fairly quiet this offseason. Maybe they trade Bryant away for prospects and use 2020 as a semi rebuild. I'm just tossing this out there to have something crazy to pass the time until ST is in full swing.

Maybe a more "reasonable" trade idea would be Q and a couple of prospects for Sale. That would cut Boston's payroll by about 15 M and raise the Cubs the same. That would save the Cubs about the 15 M that some have suggested using to go after Cole.

1) Q isn't under contract next year unless the Cubs pick up his option and I doubt they would pick up the option just to trade him immediately. Maybe a deadline type move if they are out of the hunt but not before the season starts.
2) Why would the cubs pick up Sale and 6 more years of his contract at 30M, 30M, 30M, 27.5M, 27.5M and $20M in the final year. That is a horrible contract for a guy who's FB is losing 2MPH a year. That 4th year for Sale is a player option but Sale would be dumb to not pick it up as no one is going to give him a better deal at 34/35 years of age. If anything its Boston should be sending prospects and/or $$ to get out from that contract.

 

[Omeletpants]

1) Q isn't under contract next year unless the Cubs pick up his option and I doubt they would pick up the option just to trade him immediately.

Why not. Q is an inning eater and at $10m that's a bargain

 

[DB012031]

You get a guy in a bad year who still only had a 1.09 WHIP and struck out 218 while only walking 37 in 147 IP. He's on schedule to be ready to go for ST. Moving to the NL should help him with returning. You can't trade Heyward unless he agrees to it. Betts solves the lead off spot.

Betts
Rizzo
Baez
Schwarber
Contreras
Happ
Heyward
Hoerner

That's not entirely true about Heyward. His full No Trade clause expired after the 2018 season. He now only has limited No-Trade so he can be traded.

 

[DB012031]

Why not. Q is an inning eater and at $10m that's a bargain

I don't disagree at all. My point is the Cubs probably won't pick it up just to trade him right away. If anything, they pick it up and slot him back in as the # 4 starter and pray for that "Contract Year" type of performance.

 

[Omeletpants]

I don't disagree at all. My point is the Cubs probably won't pick it up just to trade him right away. If anything, they pick it up and slot him back in as the # 4 starter and pray for that "Contract Year" type of performance.

You still didnt answer "why not". An inning eater along with Bote/Happ/Almora might bring back a good player

 

[CSF77]

I think the point is Q has trade value..

Q at 10.5 Mil is a solid trade chip so pulling his opt just to trade him is perfectly logical.

The Cubs have the luxury of having Chatwood in the pen and he looks to be primed to start again after regaining his command.

So over all it is a perfectly solid choice to trade Q's last year of control.