On Bended Knee - The Rizzo Thread

[UMFan83]

The Anthony Rizzo Games Without a Dong-o-Meter: 9 GAMES

That doesn't sound too bad, until you realize that he's hit 1 in his last 16 games, and ONLY 2 IN HIS LAST 43 GAMES.

Has he been possessed by the drunken astral projection of Mark Grace?

He also has a .514 OPS at Miller Park this year. Unacceptable. Maybe he needs to go to the Dodgers to get him to play better.

[Brian]

I would see if he'd do something like 4/80 this offseason. He gets a raise over the next two option years and the Cubs can extend him without having to go into his later 30s.

[mul21]

I would see if he'd do something like 4/80 this offseason. He gets a raise over the next two option years and the Cubs can extend him without having to go into his later 30s.

Why? He's not a guy who's likely to age well. Being done with him after the 2021 season seems like a pretty good time to part ways.

[squally1313]

I would see if he'd do something like 4/80 this offseason. He gets a raise over the next two option years and the Cubs can extend him without having to go into his later 30s.

Why? He's not a guy who's likely to age well. Being done with him after the 2021 season seems like a pretty good time to part ways.

[Thed Hoyerstein]

I would see if he'd do something like 4/80 this offseason. He gets a raise over the next two option years and the Cubs can extend him without having to go into his later 30s.

Why? He's not a guy who's likely to age well. Being done with him after the 2021 season seems like a pretty good time to part ways.

[Cubswin11]

I would see if he'd do something like 4/80 this offseason. He gets a raise over the next two option years and the Cubs can extend him without having to go into his later 30s.

Yeah I’m definitely in to do something like this vs waiting until he’s a FA and having to sign him to like age 36. Juice up the options (and guarantee them) and then get him to sign on for 1-2 additional years after. Seems like a win win for everyone.

[squally1313]

I would see if he'd do something like 4/80 this offseason. He gets a raise over the next two option years and the Cubs can extend him without having to go into his later 30s.

Why? He's not a guy who's likely to age well. Being done with him after the 2021 season seems like a pretty good time to part ways.

It's really funny that this came after he fisted a pop up to no mans land in short left center that still probably should have been caught (and then he gets caught in a run down to end the inning, which is 100% on brand). I can't decide if that makes me love it more or less.

[Sammy Sofa]

Trading him on the back of these two VERY team-friendly team options the next two years is what makes the most sense to me (if we're talking from a brutally cold value assessment).

[Cubswin11]

Trading him on the back of these two VERY team-friendly team options the next two years is what makes the most sense to me (if we're talking from a brutally cold value assessment).

I don’t see that being the case. He’s likely more valuable to us than what he returns. Even if he only costs like $29 mil the next two years total on options. 1B aren’t valued that highly and then we’d have to replace him with some clod like Matt Adams or Mitch Moreland. I’d be surprised if Rizzo returned much more than a Cishek level RP, a top 100 but not top 75 prospect and a lotto ticket A ball prospect. Just give him 4/60-80 with 1-2 option years (either team, mutual or vesting based on performance benchmarks).

[Banedon]

Trade him out of the division....wait for him to get bad....trade for him....let "return to division magic" take effect....profit!

[Sammy Sofa]

Trading him on the back of these two VERY team-friendly team options the next two years is what makes the most sense to me (if we're talking from a brutally cold value assessment).

I don’t see that being the case. He’s likely more valuable to us than what he returns. Even if he only costs like $29 mil the next two years total on options. 1B aren’t valued that highly and then we’d have to replace him with some clod like Matt Adams or Mitch Moreland. I’d be surprised if Rizzo returned much more than a Cishek level RP, a top 100 but not top 75 prospect and a lotto ticket A ball prospect. Just give him 4/60-80 with 1-2 option years (either team, mutual or vesting based on performance benchmarks).

I'd move a more long term valuable internal candidate like Contreras to 1B if Rizzo was traded, or someone like Schwarber, who would hopefully benefit by playing a less defensively challenging position.

But that would suck if he doesn't have much value with two ridiculous team-friendly years left.

[Cubswin11]

Trading him on the back of these two VERY team-friendly team options the next two years is what makes the most sense to me (if we're talking from a brutally cold value assessment).

I don’t see that being the case. He’s likely more valuable to us than what he returns. Even if he only costs like $29 mil the next two years total on options. 1B aren’t valued that highly and then we’d have to replace him with some clod like Matt Adams or Mitch Moreland. I’d be surprised if Rizzo returned much more than a Cishek level RP, a top 100 but not top 75 prospect and a lotto ticket A ball prospect. Just give him 4/60-80 with 1-2 option years (either team, mutual or vesting based on performance benchmarks).

I'd move a more long term valuable internal candidate like Contreras to 1B if Rizzo was traded, or someone like Schwarber, who would hopefully benefit by playing a less defensively challenging position.

But that would suck if he doesn't have much value with two ridiculous team-friendly years left.

Carlos Santana had like two years and $17 mil left each year this offseason and basically went in a salary swap deal and some nominal prospect/other stuff movement, even Goldschmidt didn’t return much in his final year (a back end starter off a bad year) and Carson Kelly (85th overall prospect by Fangraphs this year). I just don’t think you’re getting a worthwhile return on Rizzo to even consider it, though I’d agree Willy/Happ/Schwarbs would be the route I’d go to plug 1B.

[The_Achiever]

I don’t understand the willingness to just move schwarber to first base. He’s never played it as far as I know and it’s not terribly easy to pick up. Having a bad defensive first baseman is excruciating, just ask the cardinals about the Jose Martinez experience.

I do like the 2 year extension to the options idea, although I don’t think 4/80 would cut it. He took a team friendly deal last time, i would think he’d be looking to cash in more than that.

[Sammy Sofa]

I mean, Rizzo is younger, more valuable, cheaper and wouldn't be leaving town on the back of losing his mind and smashing TVs in the clubhouse like Santana. Plus, like you said, Goldschmidt was traded in his final year; Rizzo for all intents and purposes has 2 seasons left.

I dunno; I just like to think he'd net a decent return.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don’t understand the willingness to just move schwarber to first base. He’s never played it as far as I know and it’s not terribly easy to pick up. Having a bad defensive first baseman is excruciating, just ask the cardinals about the Jose Martinez experience.

I'm looking at it more like moving a catcher to 1B as opposed to an OFer being moved to 1B, which seems to have a better track record.

I'd still rather move Contreras there most of all. I believe in his bat, and would love the win-win of getting him out of the meat grinder that is a career catching, and getting his framing out of there, which I most definitely do not believe in.

[Cubswin11]

I mean, Rizzo is younger, more valuable, cheaper and wouldn't be leaving town on the back of losing his mind and smashing TVs in the clubhouse like Santana. Plus, like you said, Goldschmidt was traded in his final year; Rizzo for all intents and purposes has 2 seasons left.

I dunno; I just like to think he'd net a decent return.

I just don’t think the return is anything special. I think you’re looking at the Goldschmidt trade +/-, controlled but flawed pitcher (Weaver), top 100 but not 75 prospect (Kelly Who was 85), and then you probably get one more prospect who’s a lotto ticket or low ceiling/high floor guy for the extra year.

[GaryWoods]

Trading him on the back of these two VERY team-friendly team options the next two years is what makes the most sense to me (if we're talking from a brutally cold value assessment).

I don’t see that being the case. He’s likely more valuable to us than what he returns. Even if he only costs like $29 mil the next two years total on options. 1B aren’t valued that highly and then we’d have to replace him with some clod like Matt Adams or Mitch Moreland. I’d be surprised if Rizzo returned much more than a Cishek level RP, a top 100 but not top 75 prospect and a lotto ticket A ball prospect. Just give him 4/60-80 with 1-2 option years (either team, mutual or vesting based on performance benchmarks).

I'd move a more long term valuable internal candidate like Contreras to 1B if Rizzo was traded, or someone like Schwarber, who would hopefully benefit by playing a less defensively challenging position.

Have you seen some of the throws to first lately, though? It's like we have three Shawon Dunstons on the infield. Replacing the 6'3" Rizzo with a shorter player at this point in time would concern me.

Castellanos is 6'4", though.

[Sammy Sofa]

Willson is listed as being just 2 inches shorter, so I wouldn't sweat that too much.

[Cubswin11]

I don’t understand the willingness to just move schwarber to first base. He’s never played it as far as I know and it’s not terribly easy to pick up. Having a bad defensive first baseman is excruciating, just ask the cardinals about the Jose Martinez experience.

I do like the 2 year extension to the options idea, although I don’t think 4/80 would cut it. He took a team friendly deal last time, i would think he’d be looking to cash in more than that.

He has 2, $14.5 million team options left. He’d be signing a 2/51 extension essentially while getting his options guaranteed. Idk, that seems pretty fair. For a guy who’d have to wait until he’s on the wrong side of 30 (he’ll be 32 as a FA and turns 33 during the year of his first FA year) and plays a position that typically doesn’t get paid great as guys hit 30+.

[JennieGarthAlgar]

Theo refuses to trade Almora, Happ or Schwarber but then goes and trades Rizzo? I don't see it.

[The_Achiever]

I don’t understand the willingness to just move schwarber to first base. He’s never played it as far as I know and it’s not terribly easy to pick up. Having a bad defensive first baseman is excruciating, just ask the cardinals about the Jose Martinez experience.

I do like the 2 year extension to the options idea, although I don’t think 4/80 would cut it. He took a team friendly deal last time, i would think he’d be looking to cash in more than that.

He has 2, $14.5 million team options left. He’d be signing a 2/51 extension essentially while getting his options guaranteed. Idk, that seems pretty fair. For a guy who’d have to wait until he’s on the wrong side of 30 (he’ll be 32 as a FA and turns 33 during the year of his first FA year) and plays a position that typically doesn’t get paid great as guys hit 30+.

It’s not bad but I could see rizzo looking at the deal goldschmidt got at 32 (5/130) and wanting that kind of security.

I want to keep him but think he could indeed be pretty washed up in those age 35/36/37 years though.

[ConstableRabbit]

Trading him on the back of these two VERY team-friendly team options the next two years is what makes the most sense to me (if we're talking from a brutally cold value assessment).

I don’t see that being the case. He’s likely more valuable to us than what he returns. Even if he only costs like $29 mil the next two years total on options. 1B aren’t valued that highly and then we’d have to replace him with some clod like Matt Adams or Mitch Moreland. I’d be surprised if Rizzo returned much more than a Cishek level RP, a top 100 but not top 75 prospect and a lotto ticket A ball prospect. Just give him 4/60-80 with 1-2 option years (either team, mutual or vesting based on performance benchmarks).

But if 1B aren't valued highly, why pay more than we have to for these cheap option years instead of waiting until he's a FA? We'll know more of what he is by then anyway.

I love Rizzo, TOOTBLANs be damned, but given how inflexible the team has been with the payroll, would rather spend that incremental money on actual holes on the roster.

[Cubswin11]

Trading him on the back of these two VERY team-friendly team options the next two years is what makes the most sense to me (if we're talking from a brutally cold value assessment).

I don’t see that being the case. He’s likely more valuable to us than what he returns. Even if he only costs like $29 mil the next two years total on options. 1B aren’t valued that highly and then we’d have to replace him with some clod like Matt Adams or Mitch Moreland. I’d be surprised if Rizzo returned much more than a Cishek level RP, a top 100 but not top 75 prospect and a lotto ticket A ball prospect. Just give him 4/60-80 with 1-2 option years (either team, mutual or vesting based on performance benchmarks).

But if 1B aren't valued highly, why pay more than we have to for these cheap option years instead of waiting until he's a FA? We'll know more of what he is by then anyway.

I love Rizzo, TOOTBLANs be damned, but given how inflexible the team has been with the payroll, would rather spend that incremental money on actual holes on the roster.

I’m fine with that too, but there should be an opportunity to extend him for a relative bargain in the next two offseasons if both sides are rational with where the team options are at money wise.

[squally1313]

I don’t understand the willingness to just move schwarber to first base. He’s never played it as far as I know and it’s not terribly easy to pick up. Having a bad defensive first baseman is excruciating, just ask the cardinals about the Jose Martinez experience.

I do like the 2 year extension to the options idea, although I don’t think 4/80 would cut it. He took a team friendly deal last time, i would think he’d be looking to cash in more than that.

He has 2, $14.5 million team options left. He’d be signing a 2/51 extension essentially while getting his options guaranteed. Idk, that seems pretty fair. For a guy who’d have to wait until he’s on the wrong side of 30 (he’ll be 32 as a FA and turns 33 during the year of his first FA year) and plays a position that typically doesn’t get paid great as guys hit 30+.

It’s not bad but I could see rizzo looking at the deal goldschmidt got at 32 (5/130) and wanting that kind of security.

I want to keep him but think he could indeed be pretty washed up in those age 35/36/37 years though.

Outside of general inflation, Rizzo doesn't really deserve that kind of contract, because he's just not at Goldschmidt's level. I get that he might not want to hit FA at 34 (vs 32), so maybe you make it 6/110 or something like that. But Goldy was coming off a 5.1 fWAR year (after 5.2, 4.9, 7.2 the three years before that). Rizzo hasn't been above 5 since 2015, and we're potentially looking at two straight years under 4.

[The_Achiever]

He has 2, $14.5 million team options left. He’d be signing a 2/51 extension essentially while getting his options guaranteed. Idk, that seems pretty fair. For a guy who’d have to wait until he’s on the wrong side of 30 (he’ll be 32 as a FA and turns 33 during the year of his first FA year) and plays a position that typically doesn’t get paid great as guys hit 30+.

It’s not bad but I could see rizzo looking at the deal goldschmidt got at 32 (5/130) and wanting that kind of security.

I want to keep him but think he could indeed be pretty washed up in those age 35/36/37 years though.

Outside of general inflation, Rizzo doesn't really deserve that kind of contract, because he's just not at Goldschmidt's level. I get that he might not want to hit FA at 34 (vs 32), so maybe you make it 6/110 or something like that. But Goldy was coming off a 5.1 fWAR year (after 5.2, 4.9, 7.2 the three years before that). Rizzo hasn't been above 5 since 2015, and we're potentially looking at two straight years under 4.

You’re right, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he has his eyes set on that benchmark anyway. I’m sure he’s thinking this next contract will be his last shot at a huge payday. Maybe they meet in the middle but I think he’s gonna want to get paid regardless.