Potential Kris Bryant trade thread

[Deeg]

If the only goal is getting under, then yeah, that could work.

If getting under is only one goal ... and there are secondary goals (like staying competitive next year, rebuilding the system a bit, cleaning up the sheets for the future a bit), then things are slightly different (although I could buy an argument that Quintana at 2/21 would fetch higher quality than Darvish at 4/81).

Where are you getting 2/21 with Quintana? He's a FA in 2021.

[toonsterwu]

Ha my bad misread the contract last night.

[Bull]

Yes....Ricketts wants the Cubs underneath the lux tax. That's what is driving this. Very frustrating.

I agree with you, but not the post you quoted.
Teams have decided to treat the luxury tax as a salary cap. I think Ricketts is doing what he’s told.

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I agree with you, but not the post you quoted.
Teams have decided to treat the luxury tax as a salary cap. I think Ricketts is doing what he’s told.

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

oh [expletive]. they are greedy, self serving old white folk. nothing more to see then that

[Andy]

I agree with you, but not the post you quoted.
Teams have decided to treat the luxury tax as a salary cap. I think Ricketts is doing what he’s told.

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

Ricketts was allowed to buy the team as long as he was willing to participate in their newest version of collusion, and he was willing. So he may not have much pull but that doesn't mean he has any desire to run afoul of the party line, anyway.

[squally1313]

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

Ricketts was allowed to buy the team as long as he was willing to participate in their newest version of collusion, and he was willing. So he may not have much pull but that doesn't mean he has any desire to run afoul of the party line, anyway.

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

[biittner77]

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

Ricketts was allowed to buy the team as long as he was willing to participate in their newest version of collusion, and he was willing. So he may not have much pull but that doesn't mean he has any desire to run afoul of the party line, anyway.

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

[squally1313]

Ricketts was allowed to buy the team as long as he was willing to participate in their newest version of collusion, and he was willing. So he may not have much pull but that doesn't mean he has any desire to run afoul of the party line, anyway.

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

[champaignchris]

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

League-wide collusion except for the Yankees, who are some $50MM over the threshold.

But then the Yankees have been a useful bogeyman for the small-market teams for nearly 30 years.

[CubinNY]

I agree with you, but not the post you quoted.
Teams have decided to treat the luxury tax as a salary cap. I think Ricketts is doing what he’s told.

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

The Ricketts family was one of the prime proponents of putting teeth into the luxury tax penalties. Being an MLB owner isn't the same thing as being in a fraternity.

[Andy]

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

Collusion not to go over the luxury tax =/= collusion to not pay anyone at all.

[Bull]

Wait, are we trading Bryant to some non-MLB entity? Is there an agreement to have no one offer him a contract in two years when his team control is up?

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

Provided it doesn't cause them to go over the luxury tax more than two years in a row.

[Bull]

Trading him now so that they don't have to look cheap for not paying him in 2 years. Also some nonsense about how they tried really hard to get him to sign an extension but they couldn't so they had to try to make the team better by trading their best player.

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

League-wide collusion except for the Yankees, who are some $50MM over the threshold.

But then the Yankees have been a useful bogeyman for the small-market teams for nearly 30 years.

And, if I remember correctly it will be their second year in a row. Red Sox on pace to go over three years in a row. These are the only two teams to exceed it more than one year running.

[Cubswin11]

Yeah that's the part I'm mad about to. But this whole league wide collusion thing...I assume the team that would trade for him is planning on paying him, right?

League-wide collusion except for the Yankees, who are some $50MM over the threshold.

But then the Yankees have been a useful bogeyman for the small-market teams for nearly 30 years.

And, if I remember correctly it will be their second year in a row. Red Sox on pace to go over three years in a row. These are the only two teams to exceed it more than one year running.

Have the Dodgers or Giants gone over back to back or three times in recent history?

[Bull]

League-wide collusion except for the Yankees, who are some $50MM over the threshold.

But then the Yankees have been a useful bogeyman for the small-market teams for nearly 30 years.

And, if I remember correctly it will be their second year in a row. Red Sox on pace to go over three years in a row. These are the only two teams to exceed it more than one year running.

Have the Dodgers or Giants gone over back to back or three times in recent history?

Someone else will know better than me I'm sure, but I didn't think so.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You’re not getting 20 years of service time worth of near-ready, top-40 prospects for two years of Kris Bryant.

[KingCubsFan]

By....who? Who do you think is in charge here?

The owners, in collusion. But I don’t think Ricketts has a lot of pull among them as fairly recent member of the club.

The Ricketts family was one of the prime proponents of putting teeth into the luxury tax penalties. Being an MLB owner isn't the same thing as being in a fraternity.

Link?

[TomtheBombadil]

You’re not getting 20 years of service time worth of near-ready, top-40 prospects for two years of Kris Bryant.

It really is hilarious because that's the math people will go to - not so different a reaction from when the Royals traded for Shields...It's the Braves that would be losing lol

[KingCubsFan]

Anderson, Wright and Waters would be a good return. Not a fan of Riley.

[TomtheBombadil]

^^ For Contreras, yah. Anderson's got as much Phil Hughes potential as he does acedom, Waters could be switch hitting Lew Brinson (which I'd totally buy low on eventually), and Wright's mostly a tools and pedigree buy...Not really worth Bryant to find out. Even if the Braves threw in Fried that's only getting warmer rather than actually hot, still the Cubs should pass. Note: I'm the high guy on pretty much all these guys here or at least was until very recently

I was flipping through the Bill James Handbook for 2020 today and there's like 3 hitters with better projections than Bryant (.376 OBP/.893 OPS) and one of them is Rizzo (.396 OBP/.~900 OPS). The others I noticed were Trout and Bellinger....Oh...4 with Yelich

[toonsterwu]

Oy, I just don't love the Braves prospects as much as others, I guess. I think out of Pache/Waters, one of them will likely be a solid MLB OF, but I don't love either guy. I'm not that huge on Austin Riley. Honestly, the positional guy I really sort of like in that system is Braden Shewmake.

The pitchers are obviously talented, but I'm still a little bit wary of Ian Anderson. Tbh ... I still sort of like Kyle Muller. Mid-90's lefties are hard to find, but that command is a bit concerning.

It's an interesting concept. It's probably as good a deal as you could get. Hard to see many teams topping that. Still ... honestly, any Bryant deal needs to be about talent and not position. Hard for me to see the Braves offering up both Wright and Anderson ... I could easily see them fork over Waters and Riley, but a deal of Waters/Riley/One Arm? That doesn't entice me, and quantity will only help a deal oh so much (that is, if they toss in other guys). I'd probably talk myself into accepting Waters/Anderson/Wright.

Still sort of hoping on Phillies desperation to compete plus the fact that there's no guarantee they can get another guy to come as a FA after Trout resigned with the whole fan base pining for him. The arms aren't as good (heck, I don't particularly love any of their arms ... Maybe Medina would be my preference, but could easily see him end up in the pen), and that might be a sticking point for this FO based on the inability to develop said arms, but wishing on Alec Bohm is far more interesting to me than the Braves guys. Braves have the ability to put together a better overall package, unless the Phillies offered up say Kingery.

Heck ... if the Nationals could find a way to trade for a young arm to pair with Carter Kieboom and another piece, I might even prefer that to the Braves potential packages (assuming no young MLB players are coming in Braves deal besides perhaps Riley). Dunno, the Braves guys just don't interest me as much as they probably should.

[Cubswin11]

Yeah I agree. I like Bohm, Kieboom or Robles more than anything the Braves have to offer (pitcher or position player). I just hate going so pitching centric on a return for KB, give me a little more certainty with a position player. It’s too bad there wasn’t more certainty Bohm could stick at 3B because I like his bat the most of any name we’ve heard. But since it sounds like he’s COF/1B destined I think I want Kieboom the most. If we must go down this path, that is.

My two preferred packages right now would be:

1. Kieboom or Robles then 1-3 other things (depending on rank or whatever), 2-10 or so in their system is all pitching so 1-2 of those guys then maybe another guy or two below that.

2. Bohm, Spencer Howard and 1-2 more guys probably in their 12-20+ org range.

[Bertz]

Yeah I agree. I like Bohm, Kieboom or Robles more than anything the Braves have to offer (pitcher or position player). I just hate going so pitching centric on a return for KB, give me a little more certainty with a position player. It’s too bad there wasn’t more certainty Bohm could stick at 3B because I like his bat the most of any name we’ve heard. But since it sounds like he’s COF/1B destined I think I want Kieboom the most. If we must go down this path, that is.

My two preferred packages right now would be:

1. Kieboom or Robles then 1-3 other things (depending on rank or whatever), 2-10 or so in their system is all pitching so 1-2 of those guys then maybe another guy or two below that.

2. Bohm, Spencer Howard and 1-2 more guys probably in their 12-20+ org range.

Yeah I think Kieboom and stuff is probably the best realistic option. That's the one where you are taking the least severe step back the next two years (hell, there's probably a ~30% chance Kieboom + $18M is better THIS year), and in this kind of deal you're generally better off taking one A+ piece than 3 B+ ones.

I'd feel a lot better about the Braves if Pache was part of that menu. The bat has questions (though given his age none particularly concerning), but it sounds like he's a legit +15 defender in CF. He offers a comfortable floor that none of the Braves other options do, even if I like them all individually.

[TomtheBombadil]

Yeah I think Kieboom and stuff is probably the best realistic option. That's the one where you are taking the least severe step back the next two years (hell, there's probably a ~30% chance Kieboom + $18M is better THIS year), and in this kind of deal you're generally better off taking one A+ piece than 3 B+ ones.

I'd feel a lot better about the Braves if Pache was part of that menu. The bat has questions (though given his age none particularly concerning), but it sounds like he's a legit +15 defender in CF. He offers a comfortable floor that none of the Braves other options do, even if I like them all individually.

Like...on the baseball field or for the Ricketts? For the former - there's almost no chance in hell. For the latter - with the way fans are talking about Bryant this offseason as if he's just another player like any other maybe the Ricketts don't skip a beat on revenues so possibly

Bryant is the one A+ piece. Relative to Bryant every single player you guys are hot and heavy for is a scrub