Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Cubs fire sale


 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Meh, them selling off is a good sign. That’s one less team to be concerned about. They’ve killed the “dynasty”. That’s one of Counsell and Stearns greatest accomplishments. They looked poised to be around awhile and the Brewers have had a heavy hand in destroying that. Edited by Brew4U
"This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine the cubs would want the brewers to overpay to participate in this.

 

I've never been able to actually determine if the 'not within the division' stuff is actually true or just the feeling of us fans.

 

Agreed, especially when a player is a short-term rental. Teams want the best deals for their rosters, and sometimes divisional foes offer those

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what they'd want for Kris Bryant? I am not saying Milwaukee should pay it but he is exactly what Milwaukee needs for a third hitter and utility player (3B, 1B, OF). When Wong returns, and Bryant hitting 3rd, the batting order and bench would be incredibly deep.

 

I think Turang and Small would be more than enough. Mitchell is definitely untouchable along with Ashby. I think the Brewers would be willing to part with Turang and Small in a Bryant trade.

 

Rizzo will probably come cheaper as he is having a bad year and I don't believe he would be a significant upgrade at 1B over what the Brewers have now. The most I would offer the Cubs for Rizzo would be Lutz and Brown. I don't think the Cubs will get good offers for Rizzo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine the cubs would want the brewers to overpay to participate in this.

 

I've never been able to actually determine if the 'not within the division' stuff is actually true or just the feeling of us fans.

 

Rentals and not super impactful guys...I don't think either teams cares much.

 

Players like Rizzo/Bryant I think they most certainly do care and if other offers are close they almost surely would ship them elsewhere. Now those players are rentals so it would be a bit different than if they were controllable, still, I don't think any team wants to help a division rival IF (IF) there are comparable offers.

 

I think there is more willingness in baseball though just because one player doesn't exactly catapult the other teams chances...nor are rebuild as common in other sports. Usually if you are selling off big in baseball you will be down for a few years and that player will never negatively impact you when it matters. In the NBA and MLB they certainly avoid such trades.

 

Rizzo would probably be the hardest to acquire. Long time Cub, hero of sorts being on the WS team, fan favorite, etc. If he came here and led us to a title that would look terrible for a guy they probably envision being a major component of their franchise after he retires. I think that is one guy they would definitely prefer to ship elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine the cubs would want the brewers to overpay to participate in this.

 

I've never been able to actually determine if the 'not within the division' stuff is actually true or just the feeling of us fans.

 

Agreed, especially when a player is a short-term rental. Teams want the best deals for their rosters, and sometimes divisional foes offer those

 

I'm not sure a deal to a rival within the division is possible for top tier players. Risks seem to high for both sides which would force the acquiring team to have to overpay way to much.

 

Hypothetical example but say Brewers trade for KB. If we went on to win the World Series with him playing a lead role, Cubs would face an unreal amount of local backlash. On the flip side of that, a WS is obviously never guaranteed. If we traded for him at the cost of a prospect like Ashby or Small and they went on to be a TOR starter and we lost in the divisional round with KB who then left in FA, how would that trade look from the Crew's perspective as they now have to face this Ace 5 times a year for the forseeable future?

 

These are obviously the two extreme outcomes, realistic outcome would probably fall somewhere inbetween, but the tail risk for both is a lot larger than just dealing him outside the division assuming offers are comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing I’d want to do is help the Cubs rebuild by giving them anyone of value. That’d be terrible to give up more than they’re worth and then see it thrown in our faces for many years.
"This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine the cubs would want the brewers to overpay to participate in this.

 

I've never been able to actually determine if the 'not within the division' stuff is actually true or just the feeling of us fans.

The lack of intra-divisional trades in sports period shows there may be some smoke to that theory. But there are a multitude of variables at play there. Tough to say for sure. But hypothetically not taking the best value offer because it came from a team within the division would be extremely foolish if selling. Maybe that happened before the analytical age.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure a deal to a rival within the division is possible for top tier players. Risks seem to high for both sides which would force the acquiring team to have to overpay way to much.

 

Hypothetical example but say Brewers trade for KB. If we went on to win the World Series with him playing a lead role, Cubs would face an unreal amount of local backlash. On the flip side of that, a WS is obviously never guaranteed. If we traded for him at the cost of a prospect like Ashby or Small and they went on to be a TOR starter and we lost in the divisional round with KB who then left in FA, how would that trade look from the Crew's perspective as they now have to face this Ace 5 times a year for the forseeable future?

 

These are obviously the two extreme outcomes, realistic outcome would probably fall somewhere inbetween, but the tail risk for both is a lot larger than just dealing him outside the division assuming offers are comparable.

 

Cubs fans would get over it rather quickly if the player(s) they are getting in return become good everyday players for them. Majority of the Cubs fans will probably even forget about the player that was traded as they jump for joy over their shiny new toy(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure a deal to a rival within the division is possible for top tier players. Risks seem to high for both sides which would force the acquiring team to have to overpay way to much.

 

Hypothetical example but say Brewers trade for KB. If we went on to win the World Series with him playing a lead role, Cubs would face an unreal amount of local backlash. On the flip side of that, a WS is obviously never guaranteed. If we traded for him at the cost of a prospect like Ashby or Small and they went on to be a TOR starter and we lost in the divisional round with KB who then left in FA, how would that trade look from the Crew's perspective as they now have to face this Ace 5 times a year for the forseeable future?

 

 

These are obviously the two extreme outcomes, realistic outcome would probably fall somewhere inbetween, but the tail risk for both is a lot larger than just dealing him outside the division assuming offers are comparable.

 

Cubs fans would get over it rather quickly if the player(s) they are getting in return become good everyday players for them. Majority of the Cubs fans will probably even forget about the player that was traded as they jump for joy over their shiny new toy(s).

 

Yah, not sure that would be the case. Every Cubs fan knows Rizzo/Bryant and love them more than their own children. Also consider the fact who they get into return is not only likely to flame out…but really unlikely to be something super noteworthy in the future, those guys won’t get big returns as rentals. You think Cub fans will care if some pitcher turns into a #4 pitcher? No, nor will they even remember how they got that player.

 

Imagine the Brewers trading Ryan Braun after a decade to the Cubs and then watching him hoist the trophy at Wrigley Field a few months later. Some marginal every day starter ain’t going to make that look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest issue facing a team like the Cubs who appear to have more than a handful of position player rentals they could be looking to trade is that it appears like there may be limited buyers at this year's deadline, and many of those buyers are already pretty well set at positions the Cubs have players to trade. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see them wait until the last minute to gauge whether they have a prayer at a wild card spot and then either trade hardly anyone or unload most for little perceived value in return because there just aren't enough guaranteed buyers at the moment. I can see Kimbrel being the most valued piece they have over all their position player rental options because of that.

 

The Brewers actually match up very well in terms of what positions/roster spots they may want to trade for - the question will be if other teams get into the mix to drive the prospect value price up for corner infield rentals like Bryant and Rizzo. I'd imagine Kimbrel and Chafin already have multiple teams after them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Cubs killed their own dynasty with impatience. I guess it's hard to say killed it because it never was a dynasty, but they looked set up for many years about 5 years ago.

 

They did win a WS out of it, so I can't say they didn't get anything meaningful out of it all, they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What killed the Cubs' potential dynasty was the fact it never should have been viewed as a dynasty to begin with - hindsight is the moves the Cubs made in order to get that WS win and immediately thereafter actually prevented a dynasty from happening. That's because most of their homegrown position players that were supposed to all be perennial all stars never really happened, Bryant had a meh last 4 seasons instead of building on the MVP year when they won the WS, and the Cubs using both dollars and prospects a few years ago to bring in veteran pitching wasn't ultimately worth it because their position player core wasn't good enough.

 

Guys like Happ, Russell, and Almora never lived up to the hype, and Schwarber was inconsistent enough before being dealt that never should have made trading position player prospects like Soler, Torres, Jimenez, etc. a good longterm organizational strategy. In many ways once they got to the top they made a bunch of bad decisions on who to keep and who to deal.

Edited by Fear The Chorizo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure they were ever really set up to be a dynasty. They were largely lead by old starters and the bullpen wasn't exactly a bunch of controllable stars. Sure, the offense was young and promising, but many of the young prospects that were coming up while they were good flamed out. Once their aces left or became ineffective and they added some poor long term contracts (or long term contracts got towards the back end) it all started to decline exactly as you would expect.

 

I think the Cubs goal was always to try and maximize their success right up till this point where Rizzo/Bryant/etc. were old/leaving. I don't think the Cubs were trying to build a long term dynasty so it isn't surprising it didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone talks about Small as the centerpiece of an offer. Why not a guy like Lauer who's controllable for 3 more seasons? Brewers could then find a veteran rental to take his place in the back end of the rotation the rest of the year.

 

#1 A team trying to do a rebuild doesn't want a low ceiling back of the rotation starter. They want potential.

 

#2 What is the point of trading Lauer instead of prospects and then go reacquire a starter using prospects? Why not keep the pitcher doing well for you and just trade the prospects for the guy you want in the first place. You didn't really avoid trading away prospects. You just added an extra step and added risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give up Lauer as he now looks to be something useful in our rotation? No thanks. He’s a young lefty… patience.
"This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Brewer Fanatic Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premiere Brewers community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of Brewer Fanatic.

×
×
  • Create New...