Bleacher Bums Forum

The Austin signing is pretty much a no-risk scenario.

They liked him, had a ton of 40-man room when signed, and got him ($1.25) for not much more than the MLB minimum salary ($780,000).

If end up signing somebody better (say, Andujar) and have no room for Austin—no problem. Out of options and goes on waivers and, if claimed, the claiming team pays the $1.25 salary. If not claimed, very likely will agree to report to Iowa because otherwise forfeits the $1.25 and not so bad to have AAA insurance at that price if need him later—even assuming, for sake of discussion, he has a guaranteed deal.

Don’t think Austin is a roster lock if Hoyer can get somebody more appealing.

If signed Andujar, think he would be primary DH against lefties and occasional 1B platoon guy when Counsell wants to DH Suzuki against a lefty.

Actually, in addition to Andujar, Cubs could use a lefty bat off bench who can play RF/CF——old friend FA Mike Tauchman maybe  a possibility.

So, bench of back-up catcher, Shaw, Andujar, Tauchman (and Ballesteros DH). That would cover a range of in-game possibilities. If can do without the lefty OF bench guy, then Alcantara probably makes club.

Of course, more likely no-Andujar and Austin makes club…but sure seems liked Cubs not done with bench given Hoyer’s recent remarks.  Another possibility is Randal Grichuk for the Alcantara spot.

40-man now had 23 pitchers and 17 position players.

I would take Andujar. He is a competent bat off the bench unlike some we have signed as bench guys in the past.  He doesn't strike out a ton (nor does he walk much).  He will put the bat on the ball.  Could bring some value as a bat off the bench with less than 2 outs and a man on third.

We'll see. He's a good prospect but the point stands - I'm not dealing Nico for an 18 year-old who's never played a minor league inning.

To me the equation with Nico and Shaw is totally different. If someone asks about Nico you make the ridiculous counter - Colquitt from the Yanks, Gilbert from the Ms, Eldridge from the Giants. Of course they probably say no but maybe 2% of the time they're desperate or love your guy so much they say yes, which is why you make the offer.

With Shaw, if someone is interested it's a baseball decision. Find a deal that matches up and makes sense for both sides. Preferably an impact pitcher who can help you this season.

Don’t think we’re trading Nico, but Josuar placed #30 on BA’s 2026 update

Not sure what they want with Williams with Made in the wings.

Does that take the Mets out on Valdez?

I wonder who all is in on Gallen?  Gallen should be Boras's biggest ticket left, right?  Or does he have Valdez too?  (I don't think so...). Maybe Boras will get Gallen finished by end of the month?

I imagine Gallen's in a tricky spot, probably not ideal for Cubs.  Wants a big long contract; but offers not rolling in after the year he had.  Well, then I want an early opt-out, so that *if* I bounce back, I can hit the market again soon.  Guessing Cubs (and others) are variably hesitant to combine one-year opt-out with comp-pick loss?  In Cubs case, with all three of Shota-Taillon-Boyd already expiring, not sure they'd love to have another 1-year-expiring option?  Or maybe that's Hoyer's dream, beats me.  But yeah, I'd guess Hoyer would prefer 3-year-deal with option after 2nd year.  Boras might not agree.  Also seems to me from a club perspective, *if* you're giving up a pick for a guy who might be a 1-year, I'd imagine you'd maybe suggest a reduced salary during that first year.  If I *don't* really want the player to opt away, and don't really want to give up a draft pick for just one year, maybe instead of a 20-20-20 $60/3, maybe you'd build it 14-23-23, or something like that?  Reducing 1st-year $$ kinda offsets loss of draft pick, if player opts out after 1.  And enlarging 2nd/3rd year gives player more incentive to stay?  Might make sense from team side; again Boras might not agree! 

Dumb Q, but I wonder how lux-tax process works.  If Gallen signed $60/3, that's $20 AAV.  But if first year was only $14 and he opted out after the first, would the Cubs retroactively get $6 trimmed from their lux payroll?  Or would it list as $14, and retroactively recalculate to $20 if he didn't opt out?  Perhaps some of the structure of Shota's deal with the more complex options was meant to work around some of that. 

Was Gallen’s 2025 an outlier, or the new norm? He was pretty awful most of the season.

Why not spend a little more and get someone less homer prone, with better control/command and the ability to work deep into games regularly?