2015 Cubs Offseason: Building a Winner Around David Ross

[ChuckD]

Fowler is back? Ok.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html

So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.

Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?

They had 5823 non-pitcher plate appearances last year.  There's plenty to go around.  No one needs to be traded and no one will be the odd man out.

Even if one cares about such things as "opening day lineup", they open in Anaheim with a DH.

This. By my count the Cubs gave Junior Lake,  Austin Jackson,  Mack Seizure, Mike Baxter,  and Alcantara 319 PA last year, and no doubt tried to actually avoid giving them anymore than absolutely necessary.  There'll be plenty of opportunities for Soler and Baez.

That's probably the best point yet that I haven't seen on the tweets.

Let's not forget about Herrera (132) and Denorfia (231).

And Chris Coghlan (440)

503 actually. And those PA's would be presumably taken by Heyward as the starter.

The point was that Soler and Baez will basically both be supersubs so it might be more optimal to trade them for pitching help as there won't be enough PA's for them.

[SKO]

Fowler is back? Ok.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/cubs-re-sign-dexter-fowler.html

So, at this point, Soler is the odd man out.

Would Soler, Baez and Hendricks make an attractive package to the Rays for a pitcher?

They had 5823 non-pitcher plate appearances last year.  There's plenty to go around.  No one needs to be traded and no one will be the odd man out.

Even if one cares about such things as "opening day lineup", they open in Anaheim with a DH.

This. By my count the Cubs gave Junior Lake,  Austin Jackson,  Mack Seizure, Mike Baxter,  and Alcantara 319 PA last year, and no doubt tried to actually avoid giving them anymore than absolutely necessary.  There'll be plenty of opportunities for Soler and Baez.

That's probably the best point yet that I haven't seen on the tweets.

Let's not forget about Herrera (132) and Denorfia (231).

And Chris Coghlan (440)

503 actually. And those PA's would be presumably taken by Heyward as the starter.

The point was that Soler and Baez will basically both be supersubs so it might be more optimal to trade them for pitching help as there won't be enough PA's for them.

I think Soler is still the long term plan, Fowler's asking price just fell to the point where it would have been dumb not to sign him on a team trying to ensure a pennant at all costs. Fowler will be gone in a year and Jorge will have had another year to develop and still be, what, 24?

I mean Jorge and Javy are both on the table if someone offers a top tier starter but I think we all agreed that if anyone was offering one of those for either of them they'd already be gone.

[Canadouche]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

[Quality Start Machine]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.

[CBStew]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.

Andre Dawson.  (After Andy Pafko and Ernie, maybe he was my favorite Cub. Well, maybe after Phil Cavaretta, Hank Sauer and Lou Boudreau)

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.

Andre Dawson.  (After Andy Pafko and Ernie, maybe he was my favorite Cub. Well, maybe after Phil Cavaretta, Hank Sauer and Lou Boudreau)

Except Dawson was dealing in a collusive atmosphere.

[Canadouche]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.

Andre Dawson.  (After Andy Pafko and Ernie, maybe he was my favorite Cub. Well, maybe after Phil Cavaretta, Hank Sauer and Lou Boudreau)

In Dawson's case, owners were colluding to destroy free agency and he was, I'm sure, compensated later after the lawsuit.

It's great, in any case, that the Cubs are a team that people want to play for. They really have the chance to build something significant, and long-lasting.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.

Andre Dawson.  (After Andy Pafko and Ernie, maybe he was my favorite Cub. Well, maybe after Phil Cavaretta, Hank Sauer and Lou Boudreau)

Also, did Boudreau actually play for the Cubs?

[CBStew]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

Ripken was a Hall of Fame caliber player, and his place in the MLB salary structure was significantly different. If he took less money, then any player looking for more than Ripken could hear from GMs, "Why should I pay you that, when Ripken only makes this?" I don't think any GM is going to throw their Romeo over Trevor Cahill, a guy who got DFAed multiple times last season.

Andre Dawson.  (After Andy Pafko and Ernie, maybe he was my favorite Cub. Well, maybe after Phil Cavaretta, Hank Sauer and Lou Boudreau)

Also, did Boudreau actually play for the Cubs?

No, but he had a fascinating career with them.  He was a broadcaster for them and left the broadcast booth to manage when Charlie Grimm unceremoniously quit, and then went back to broadcasting.  His record was anything but stellar as the Cubs manager, but you have to admire his commitment.

[Oleg]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.

Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats?  The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years?  Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table.  But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.

Who else?  make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.

[SKO]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.

Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats?  The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years?  Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table.  But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.

Who else?  make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.

If you are to believe Jon Heyman, both the Nats and Cards actually did offer Heyward the opt outs (although the Nats offered deferred money like they did with Scherzer), so fuck you, the best free agent on the market took less money to be a Cub than a Cardinal, and this narrative stands.

[Oleg]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.

Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats?  The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years?  Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table.  But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.

Who else?  make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.

If you are to believe Jon Heyman, both the Nats and Cards actually did offer Heyward the opt outs (although the Nats offered deferred money like they did with Scherzer), so fuck you, the best free agent on the market took less money to be a Cub than a Cardinal, and this narrative stands.

I'm good with it either way.

[SKO]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.

Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats?  The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years?  Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table.  But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.

Who else?  make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.

If you are to believe Jon Heyman, both the Nats and Cards actually did offer Heyward the opt outs (although the Nats offered deferred money like they did with Scherzer), so fuck you, the best free agent on the market took less money to be a Cub than a Cardinal, and this narrative stands.

I'm good with it either way.

Also you left the mouthbreather off of your list, and I have heard the Cardinals offered him more money than the Cubs did as well, but he wanted to eat chicken and drink beer with Lester again.

So I think it's fair to keep saying guys are taking less money to be a Cub.

[Quality Start Machine]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.

Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats?  The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years?  Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table.  But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.

Who else?  make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.

Having 4 guys (Bryant, Russell, Schwarber, Soler) in the lineup who are all years from free agency doesn't hurt either.

[Oleg]

Speaking of players accepting less to be a Cub, Trevor Cahill apparently had an offer to start for the Pirates, and there is some indication that he may have had a 2 year offer on the table (although he says he doesn't know about the 2 year thing), but he instead chose to stay in Chicago and pitch in relief for the Cubs.

Maybe I'm just totally ignorant, but when in the history of baseball have so many players knowingly taken less in order to be on a team? I read Cal Ripken's autobiography back in high school and he said that, as much as he loved playing in Baltimore, he owed it to the player's union to seek as much money as he could get, in order to ensure that a standard was set for other players in the league to earn more. Maybe that's a "concern" held only by players who draw top dollar, but it's still surprising that any player anywhere would take less than he could earn just to be in a certain place. It's extra surprising that so many of those players are Cubs.

I'm not sure that I'd read too much into the whole "taking less money" narrative.

Heyward: Reports indicated that he turned down somewhere around $200MM from The Cardinals and The Nats?  The Cubs gave him two opt-outs, which are probably worth a shitload of dough.
Zobrist: He left,...what, $4MM on the table over 4 years?  Sure that buys a lot of bibles but who knows how accurate those reports were or if the offers had shit like deferred money or whatever.
Cahill: If he really chose The Cubs one year, relief ace deal over a Pirates offer of two years to be a starter with their own pitching coach wizard, well, I'm, not sure how smart that really was.
Fowler: Sure, he left $20MM on the table.  But, the value of testing free agency next year is probably pretty damn valuable, too...maybe worth more than the $20MM he left on the table.

Who else?  make no mistake, The Cubs have a $150MM payroll this year and it's not because players are necessarily taking less but because The Cubs are just simply being creative with their contracts.

Having 4 guys (Bryant, Russell, Schwarber, Soler) in the lineup who are all years from free agency doesn't hurt either.

You need to add Baez to that group above (I assume that group is made up of guys who are pre-arb, although Soler is getting his anyway).  There are also others who playing for well-below market value, due to arbitration or otherwise: Arrieta, Rizzo, Warren, Rondon, Strop, etc.

And, one fairly expensive contract that is still on the books and the dude ain't even on the team anymore...EJax.