The Official 2020-2021 Hot Stove Offseason Thread

[Blarg]

3 hours ago, AngelStew43 said:

Upton has a no-trade clause, which we would have to buy out.

You can't buy out a no trade clause. 

[Stradling]

 

[angelsnationtalk]

38 minutes ago, Stradling said:

 

Imagine this 

[Docwaukee]

5 hours ago, AngelStew43 said:

I think most of us here would like to find a way to trade Upton and convince Albert to retire.  Upton has a no-trade clause, which we would have to buy out.  Albert is not retiring.  

Sign Bauer, sign Hand, sign Wong, sign Austin Barnes, and go over the tax threshold if we have to, it will only be for 1 season, since Albert will be coming off of the books.  

For myself, this is the best case scenario.

it wouldn't be for one season.  2 of their current rotation arms are set to be free agents at year's end.  Rendon and Upton get substantial raises in 2022 and they've got a bunch of arb raises coming or guys heading to arb for the first time.  Bauer and Hand will require multi year deals.  

 

[totdprods]

Darvish makes so much sense as a top target. Reasonable salary and contract length. Shouldn’t cost anything prohibitive in prospects. Might be a real good guy to have working alongside Ohtani. 

Short of Bauer, who I’m not sure is really attainable anyways, I honestly can’t think of a better realistic frontline arm to target this winter. 

[tdawg87]

1 hour ago, totdprods said:

Darvish makes so much sense as a top target. Reasonable salary and contract length. Shouldn’t cost anything prohibitive in prospects. Might be a real good guy to have working alongside Ohtani. 

Short of Bauer, who I’m not sure is really attainable anyways, I honestly can’t think of a better realistic frontline arm to target this winter. 

I agree that Darvish is a good target, but not sure what you mean by not costing anything "prohibitive in prospects". I think all the reasons you described for him being a top target are precisely why he's going to cost a lot. 3 years of relatively reasonable control, coming off an incredible year. The Cubs would be selling high, I think.

If we take out the Covid factor, why wouldn't Darvish cost all of our best prospects?

[angelsnationtalk]

Darvish makes sense if the Cubs eat some of the $. Giving a 34 year old pitcher $22M freaks me out. 

Might as well pay a little more $ AAV for Bauer to compensate for the extra 4 younger years. 

[Dtwncbad]

I apologize if the subject was covered elsewhere or more than once. . .

But does anyone have any ideas of how the timeline for this offseason will play out?  Under normal circumstances, we all somewhat know what to expect with timing of free agent signing activity, winter meetings brining trade activity, etc.

I really don't know what to expect.  Is there any reason to not be aggressive right now?

[Warfarin]

25 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I agree that Darvish is a good target, but not sure what you mean by not costing anything "prohibitive in prospects". I think all the reasons you described for him being a top target are precisely why he's going to cost a lot. 3 years of relatively reasonable control, coming off an incredible year. The Cubs would be selling high, I think.

If we take out the Covid factor, why wouldn't Darvish cost all of our best prospects?

I think his age and cost probably work against him, even after coming off a great season.  

On the open market, would a 34 year old pitcher be able to get a 3/60 deal, which is essentially what he has left remaining?

Maybe, but I don't think he'd get much more beyond that, which is probably why he won't cost too much in terms of prospects.

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, totdprods said:

Darvish makes so much sense as a top target. Reasonable salary and contract length. Shouldn’t cost anything prohibitive in prospects. Might be a real good guy to have working alongside Ohtani. 

Short of Bauer, who I’m not sure is really attainable anyways, I honestly can’t think of a better realistic frontline arm to target this winter. 

I think Kyle Hendricks seems like a better target than Darvish.

[Erstad Grit]

11 hours ago, angelsnationtalk said:

Imagine this 

This actually makes a lot of sense for both and looks fair to me.

Baez 11

Contreras 4.5 

Darvish 22

Does 37.5 million allow us to add another SP and some pen arms?

[Stradling]

16 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I think Kyle Hendricks seems like a better target than Darvish.

Not that it matters but he’s a local kid that grew up going to Angel games. One of his best friends worked with me.  I almost proposed a bigger deal that cost us Adell and some pieces for Darvish and Hendricks.  If you have to eat Kimbrels contract do it.  It’s not my money.  

[Dtwncbad]

That trade analyzer is fun.  And just for fun, look at how much talent you can ask for in a deal with the Cubs if you are willing to take on the Jason Heyward contract.  Heyward has been a bust for the Cubs, but he is still a useful 1.9-2.0 WAR player.  If that was the way to get some other impressive players, you gotta take a look.

[Dtwncbad]

Just now, Stradling said:

Not that it matters but he’s a local kid that grew up going to Angel games. One of his best friends worked with me.  I almost proposed a bigger deal that cost us Adell and some pieces for Darvish and Hendricks.  If you have to eat Kimbrels contract do it.  It’s not my money.  

I just hate Kimbrel.  I can't stand that stance he takes when he takes the sign from the catcher.  So obnoxious.  I would rather take on Heyward's contract.  He's still a useful player on a roster, just not a stud middle of the order hitter.

[Dtwncbad]

And whatever deal you try to make with the Cubs, try to get Rizzo.  

[totdprods]

37 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I think Kyle Hendricks seems like a better target than Darvish.

I imagine that due to his contract, his consistency, the fact the Cubs still need pitching, and the fact that he’s relatively ‘homegrown’ for them, they’d be much less likely to move him. And he’d probably command a better return. 

With Yu finishing second in CY race, no better time for them to sell high on that contract. Hendricks isn’t really prohibitive for them at all. And they should be able to bring back enough talent in other deals to motivate moving him even less.

Edited November 16, 2020 by totdprods

[Warfarin]

I think the Cubs are desperately looking for salary relief.

In truth, the team probably most primed to take advantage of the Cubs' situation is the Mets.  The Mets' owner has said he wants to essentially re-create what the Dodgers did when the Guggenheim group took over.  Famously, one of the first moves was they took on Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, and Josh Beckett for basically nothing - essentially, they alleviated the Red Sox of their huge contracts to get Adrian Gonzalez.

I could see the Mets doing something similar - taking on Jason Heyward, for the sake of acquiring several very good players for basically zero prospects.

[AngelStew43]

Blarg, I disagree.  No-Trade clauses can be bought out.  Everything has a price.  If we can move JUp, we would have to eat a large amount of what he is owed, or take back a similarly bad contract in exchange.  

Then, if that is done, we'd be looking for another productive bat to play a corner OF spot, or hoping that both Adell and Marsh are ready to contribute in 2021.

[totdprods]

55 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

I think the Cubs are desperately looking for salary relief.

In truth, the team probably most primed to take advantage of the Cubs' situation is the Mets.  The Mets' owner has said he wants to essentially re-create what the Dodgers did when the Guggenheim group took over.  Famously, one of the first moves was they took on Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, and Josh Beckett for basically nothing - essentially, they alleviated the Red Sox of their huge contracts to get Adrian Gonzalez.

I could see the Mets doing something similar - taking on Jason Heyward, for the sake of acquiring several very good players for basically zero prospects.

I don’t think Heyward is that big of a negative value. To some teams he will be, yes, but not all, so I think the Cubs, as desperate as they are, won’t necessarily need to purely salary dump him. Not that what you’re saying couldn’t happen but I don’t think it’s a sure thing.

[mmc]

Crazy that someone of Smyly's caliber gets this much, Arte better be willing to spend.

[angelsnationtalk]

1 hour ago, Erstad Grit said:

This actually makes a lot of sense for both and looks fair to me.

Baez 11

Contreras 4.5 

Darvish 22

Does 37.5 million allow us to add another SP and some pen arms?

The sum of those 3 contracts adds over $40M if i remember off the top of my head.

[Chuck]

14 minutes ago, mmc said:

Crazy that someone of Smyly's caliber gets this much, Arte better be willing to spend.

Yeah what a bummer. I thought he would be a great secondary piece to our rotation. 

3.42 ERA (10 ER/26.1 IP) in seven appearances, five starts. The southpaw struck out 42 hitters in his 26.1 innings, posting single-season career bests in strikeout rate (37.8%) and strikeouts per 9.0 innings (14.35), the latter of which led all major leaguers who made at least five starts. Smyly limited opposing hitters to a .198/.261/.297 slash line, all three of which were also career bests. Left-handed batters managed just three hits in 36 at-bats (.083) against him.The options are dissolving fast! 

Get to work Minasian! 

[Chuck]

 

[totdprods]

3 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

I agree that Darvish is a good target, but not sure what you mean by not costing anything "prohibitive in prospects". I think all the reasons you described for him being a top target are precisely why he's going to cost a lot. 3 years of relatively reasonable control, coming off an incredible year. The Cubs would be selling high, I think.

If we take out the Covid factor, why wouldn't Darvish cost all of our best prospects?

Speaking in comparison to Hendricks, who I imagine would cost more. Darvish absolutely would still cost a lot.

[Redondo]

38 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

The options are dissolving fast! 

Get to work Minasian! 

This