Bleacher Bums Forum
General Category => Bleacher Bums Forum => Topic started by: Dave23 on November 02, 2023, 09:57:07 am
-
I think it was a box-score error.
-
This is hardly "hot stove", but in today's box score, I see Nicky Lopez playing for the Cubs. Hadn't realized he'd re-signed with us, or was still with the Cubs.
Is he playing for the Cubs? He signed with the Rockies, so he might just be on the other side today.
-
This is hardly "hot stove", but in today's box score, I see Nicky Lopez playing for the Cubs. Hadn't realized he'd re-signed with us, or was still with the Cubs.
-
Get the desire for bench depth but just seems a bit off to sign Conforto, Carlson, McCormick (plus Alcantara) for one roster spot.
Could be, sure, but also wonder if maybe Cubs still want to develop Ballesteros at catcher and want him to get catcher reps at Iowa for a couple or three months at Iowa before committing him to DH? Could also DH Suzuki more than now expected if keep two of the above OFers and they play the field.
Not advocating that but wonder if Cubs thinking of that possibility more seriously.
-
The Cubs 2025 bench waves hi........
-
Jed is reel reel smart. He ain't gonna keep no Comforto. That would be stoopid.
-
Having time off for rest is a good thing. Having a somewhat decent CF, you could also use that as a defensive replacement for Suzuki.
Conforto had a wRC+ of 83 last year. His baseball savant page backs up the the fact that his bat stinks. Unless he has an amazing turn around give me the bad offensive player that plays decent defense over the bad offensive player with bad defense.
-
...If PCA is going to be out for a while, Kevin Alcantara is your man.
That's how I see it. Alcantara can get to tomorrow's game. So *IF* PCA gets hurt, your replacement is Alcantara, unless you like Shaw or somebody else better. If PCA doesn't get hurt, he's going to play. No particular need to have a backup CF on the big-league roster when you can call i Kevin before the next game starts.
I realize that maybe Alcantara will be bad. Or that PCA might struggle so badly that you'll want to bench him sometimes against tough LHP.
-
I'd just like to have someone other than Happ than can play at least an OK CF. It doesn't have to be Alcantara.
I understand. It'll be interesting to see what Counsell chooses.
-
I'd just like to have someone other than Happ than can play at least an OK CF. It doesn't have to be Alcantara.
-
So you'd want to roll with a Happ, Suzuki, Conforto/Shaw OF? Again that seems like a bad idea for a pitching staff that is bulti on allowing contact.
No, I'd be happy with a PCA, Suzuki, Happ outfield with Alcantara at Iowa. For a couple innings, Palencia can stand out there and pick his nose.
-
So you'd want to roll with a Happ, Suzuki, Conforto/Shaw OF? Again that seems like a bad idea for a pitching staff that is bulti on allowing contact.
For fewer than ten games spread across six months that Counsell can hand pick based on what ballpark we're playing in and who's on the mound today? Sure, no sweat.
I think you're greatly overestimating and overvaluing the CF defense difference between Suzuki and Carlson/McCormick.
-
The occasional day off or, God forbid, the rest of the game after an injury to PCA. If PCA is going to be out for a while, Kevin Alcantara is your man.
So you'd want to roll with a Happ, Suzuki, Conforto/Shaw OF? Again that seems like a bad idea for a pitching staff that is bulti on allowing contact.
-
The occasional day off or, God forbid, the rest of the game after an injury to PCA. If PCA is going to be out for a while, Kevin Alcantara is your man.
Yes, I believe that to be the case.
-
By "emergency" do you mean a few innings or a few weeks?
The occasional day off or, God forbid, the rest of the game after an injury to PCA. If PCA is going to be out for a while, Kevin Alcantara is your man.
-
By "emergency" do you mean a few innings or a few weeks?
-
That would seem to be a bad idea.
Why? If he's not hurt, PCA is going to play >155 games.
-
Seiya may be the CF emergency backup plan.
That would seem to be a bad idea.
-
Conforto can't play CF, so he isn't a replacement for them. Unless they think Shaw can play CF, and I wasn't overly impressed with the few plays I saw of him in RF.
Seiya may be the CF emergency backup plan.
-
Conforto can't play CF, so he isn't a replacement for them. Unless they think Shaw can play CF, and I wasn't overly impressed with the few plays I saw of him in RF.
-
Maybe Counsell hasn't liked what he's seen so far from Carlson and McCormick.
-
I've got zero problems if Conforto makes the roster. He'd be just fine as a 4th/5th OF and bench bat and hopefully would have some good veteran clubhouse attributes going for him too.
-
Wow, did not expect that. Forgot he existed. Interesting how variant one player's age/success graph can look from others.
*First 6 seasons, only one with OPS+ below 122-148 range. Since turning 28, only once in 4 seasons above 100.
*Last year, he got a $17 deal from Dodgers; with their tax rate, they spent $35 on him. This year, minor-league deal.
*Interesting that even though he didn't even bat .200 last season, Dodgers still gave him 486 PA.
Hopefully Moises shows up soon, he comes in in great shape, and he comes in bat smoking.
-
Yup, minor league deal. No risk, no problem (unless he makes the roster undeservedly).
-
Cubs sign Michael Conforto for some reason. I mean, they do have zero lefites on the projected bench but Conforto has devolved into a pretty bad hitter generally, and a reverse-splits guy the past two seasons. He's also subpar defensively and pretty much only a LF now. Hopefully this is a minor league deal.
-
Tauchman to the Mets.
Edit: Minor league deal, wow.
-
Gallen deal supposedly $22/1, to match the QO that he declined. But, most of it is deferred, so the actual value will be less.
-
Projections already had them around 86 wins. There was never any real chance they were going to sign Gallen.
-
The dream is over…
https://x.com/ken_rosenthal/status/2022495179048128958?s=61&t=KXtv2THs2nUXxUqCADsfww
-
$2.5 M guarantee for Miller, plus incentives for 2027. Essentially a no-risk deal.
-
So he’s Temu Phillips…
-
Rotowire: Miller is likely to miss most, if not all, of the 2026 season after undergoing UCL and flexor tendon surgery Oct. 13, MLB.com reports. (10/20/2025)
-
Robert Murray @ByRobertMurray
Sources: Free-agent reliever Shelby Miller and the Chicago Cubs are nearing a multi-year major-league contract.
It takes a multi-year major league contract to sign Shelby Miller? The 35 year old journeyman who hasn't had the leverage to get paid more than $3 million in a season since 2018? Is there a different Shelby Miller that I'm not aware of?
-
I wonder why Gallen wouldn't just re-sign with AZ, and get the one-year opt-out from them? Wouldn't cost them a draft pick……..
Arizona Phil’s take on this is that AZ “loses” the #29 overall pick if it resigns Gallen whereas Cubs lose the #62 overall pick by signing Gallen. So, therefore, AZ has more to lose than do Cubs.
If Gallen signs with Cubs (or elsewhere) before the draft in July, AZ gets a comp pick at #29. Don’t get that pick if bring back Gallen. So. “lose” that pick.
That’s one way of looking at this. Makes some sense.
Rosenthal notes that Gallen possibly may end up with whatever team unexpectedly loses a SP to injury as pitchers ramp up usage. That might be the strategy at this point, as he obviously not satisfied with any of his current offers as of today.
Hoping that Cubs can sign him but probably bit of a longshot.
-
I wonder why Gallen wouldn't just re-sign with AZ, and get the one-year opt-out from them? Wouldn't cost them a draft pick, and to my recall they haven't spent a lot, have they? If they had money to pursue Bregman, if his deal had been a little cheaper, why not enough to afford Gallen? They are like $35 million below the Cubs in payroll, why not?
I've seen Padres mentioned as a Gallen possibility. They've lost Cease, Suarez, Arraez, but haven't really added anybody very significant, correct? Still, Spotrac already has their payroll still $20 above Cubs, so adding Gallen would tax them up higher. Maybe they wouldn't be too aggressive?
Atlanta has been mentioned, I think. They're less than $10 ahead of the Cubs in payroll, and Pecota has them as #3 team in baseball. Maybe they don't care about a 2nd-round draft pick, and would be happy to take a crack on Gallen at 1 year deal?
Each guy is his own man, and I don't know anything about Gallen. But I do recall the Belllinger-re-sign year, that some of the late-sign guys didn't start very fast. Gallen probably figures he's different, but I admit some reservations about signing a guy if he drags it out much longer. Maybe if you'd had him since January and had some ideas on how to help him, it would be one thing. But if he's rolling into camp late, will you be able to get the best out of him? Or maybe get the junky version, like when AZ signed Jordan Montgomery late. Part of me thinks Gallen might be well served to call Boras and say, lets get this done, what are the best offers you've gotten, I'd like to decide by Friday and get on with my season.
-
Bassitt to Baltimore, 1/18.5. They're out on Gallen now, presumably. If he'd sign a deal with no opt-out until after year 2, the Cubs might just do it.
-
Evan Phillips back to the Dodgers…1 year 6.5M…
-
Yeah, the absence of which may be telling.
-
A lot of times you can find Tread or the players tweeting out their velocity and spin data when they are free agents in the Wright class.
-
That sounds kinda like winning the NIT.
Do we get to hang a banner?
-
I think Zombro is a pretty good combo of communication skills, tech skills, and maybe analysis. Would be super cool if Cubs got lucky on one or two of these rehab projects, and kinda locked into the industry the sense that Cubs are the premium place for rehab optimization. Heh heh, if what the Dodgers are to big-league free agents, the Cubs could become to non-roster free agents! :):)
-
In the past several years, the Cubs have done a great job of bringing in rehab/reclamation projects into their relief corps (and occasional starters). But part of their success has been due to high volume. I haven't kept track, but I think that for every Chaffin/Keller, there have been three of four that fell by the wayside. Hopefully, their success will continue.
-
As one might guess, Wright has at least some history with Tread.
As fans, we have no idea what current scouting info the Cubs have. If his 2022 velocity, spin, and pitch shapes were hypothetically back in lab, I'm guessing he'd have gotten more league interest and would have signed sooner than start-of-camp. Also likely that he'd have chosen a team with less pitching depth. So yeah, kinda guessing that his present velocity and stuff is probably not back to what it was when he was successful.
Still, you never know with guys like this, and Zombro wouldn't support signing him if there wasn't something possible in the data? Sometimes over time and rehab, a guy does recover, and maybe adapts to what he can do now, even if it's variably different from or less than then? I'm always of the view that a starting pitcher can throw harder and with a better simplified pitch usage in relief. So I always think relief is the more plausible avenue for success.
-
Coors probably isn't the best place for Quintana.
Jesse Rogers @JesseRogersESPN
News: Veteran Jose Quintana is in agreement with the Colorado Rockies, sources tell ESPN. The 37 year old is back for his 15th big league season. The deal is pending a physical.
-
Trivia question: Who was the last 20-game winner in the majors?
Answer: Kyle Wright, and the Cubs just signed him to a minor-league deal. Went 21-5 for Atlanta in 2022 - which was also the only good season he ever had - then went down with a shoulder injury in ‘23 and didn’t pitch again until last season. Never made it out of the minors for KC and was pretty terrible there, but on a no-risk minor league deal, sure.
-
Can someone explain to me why we would not want Duran?
Dave, Dave, Dave. How often do we have to go through this? We have this head guy named Jed Hoyer...
Actually, we have no idea of the veracity of the claim, second Jed might have been distracted by Verlander signing for $13M to a team already committed to two huge pitching contracts, or they like Shaw that much and maybe we need to take a better look.
-
Can someone explain to me why we would not want Duran?
I think we would. We just wanted Early more. Duran and a good prospect is an offer I would have taken for Shaw, but that's the debate.
-
Can someone explain to me why we would not want Duran?
Think that Cubs want Ballesteros to be primary DH and that means Suzuki mostly in RF.
Then, of course, Cubs have gold glove caliber guys in CF and LF who will play almost every day.
So, not a big need for Duran. Not a great fit for this season.
And Cubs seem to be serious about using Shaw as a Zobrist-type guy in 2026. Remains to be seen if can actually do that but that seems to be the plan.
A year from now, perhaps Cubs more keen on Duran with potential FA outfield departures.
-
Can someone explain to me why we would not want Duran?
-
Thanks, deeg, yeah, Early versus Duran makes way more sense than Duran AND Early.
-
deeg, if true that's kinda amazing. Per Baseball reference, Duran's been 4.7 and 8.7 WAR over last two seasons. And won't be FA till 2029. That plus Early would have seemed a pretty rich ask. Which obviously may not have actually been true. Or, there might have been more in the reverse direction. (cubs wanted Duran plus Early; Sox wanted Shaw plus Conrad and Brown...). Who knows.
If it's actually true as is, Might speak to how much the Cubs really do believe in Shaw.
I think it was most likely Boston was pushing Duran as the headliner and the Cubs wanted Early as the headliner, not that they were asking for both (which would be pretty preposterous).
-
deeg, if true that's kinda amazing. Per Baseball reference, Duran's been 4.7 and 8.7 WAR over last two seasons. And won't be FA till 2029. That plus Early would have seemed a pretty rich ask. Which obviously may not have actually been true. Or, there might have been more in the reverse direction. (cubs wanted Duran plus Early; Sox wanted Shaw plus Conrad and Brown...). Who knows.
If it's actually true as is, Might speak to how much the Cubs really do believe in Shaw.
-
According to the Boston Globe the Red Sox offered Duran and a top-10 prospect for Shaw, but the Cubs were holding out for Early.
-
I would love to see the Cubs find a creative way to add Evan Phillips. That's a guy who could legit make a big difference down the stretch and in the postseason.
Yeah, but never know how conventional TJ surgery is going to play out the following season.
Unlike the quicker-recovery internal brace surgery that Justin Steele had in April, Phillips had full-blown TJ in June. Then, he hits free agency after 2026. So, with the big 2026 TJ question mark, probably would want a club option for 2027.
-
I would love to see the Cubs find a creative way to add Evan Phillips. That's a guy who could legit make a big difference down the stretch and in the postseason.
-
Harrison is going to be Priester 2.0
-
I really don’t understand that trade for the Brewers but I am not disappointed. While not a star, Durbin is the type of pesky hitter I hate facing. Glad he won’t be our headache until we play the Red Sox in the World Series this year. 😁
-
I'm glad the Red Sox didn't come after Shaw. I'm doubly glad Durbin is out of the division
-
8:25am: The Red Sox are acquiring infielder Caleb Durbin from the Brewers, reports Jeff Passan of ESPN. Milwaukee receives a three-player package including lefties Kyle Harrison and Shane Drohan as well as infielder David Hamilton, Passan adds. Boston is also picking up infielder Andruw Monasterio, catcher/infielder Anthony Seigler and a Competitive Balance Round B pick, per Will Sammon of The Athletic.
-
I wonder if Gallen will make his decision today before pitchers and catchers report.
Jeff Passan @JeffPassan
With pitchers and catchers reporting tomorrow for a half-dozen teams, players are flying off the board. This morning alone, deals that have been finalized, per sources:
RHP Nick Martinez to the Rays
RHP Erick Fedde to the White Sox
RHP Chris Paddack to the Marlins
More to come.
-
I was wondering yesterday what a 2 year deal for Evan Phillips would cost…
I've been wondering that all winter.
Maybe $4-5 million with a $12m team option and a $3m buyout?
-
I was wondering yesterday what a 2 year deal for Evan Phillips would cost…
-
Dodgers DFA Anthony Banda. He's been pretty good (and a bit lucky) the past two seasons and throws hard.
-
andujar signs with Padres, $4/1.
-
Skubal is going to win his arb case and be traded to the Dodgers.
-
Gutsy move with arbitration on Skubal still out.
-
Jeff Passan
@JeffPassan
·
8m
BREAKING: Star left-hander Framber Valdez and the Detroit Tigers are in agreement on a three-year, $115 million contract, sources tell ESPN. Valdez, 32, gets the highest AAV ever for a left-handed pitcher as well as the highest for a Latin American pitcher. Huge move for Detroit.
(With credit)
-
BREAKING: Star left-hander Framber Valdez and the Detroit Tigers are in agreement on a three-year, $115 million contract, sources tell ESPN. Valdez, 32, gets the highest AAV ever for a left-handed pitcher as well as the highest for a Latin American pitcher. Huge move for Detroit.
-
Kaiser-Falafel to the Bostons. Does that take them out on Shaw? IKF doesn't hit much but his glove is certainly valuable.
-
Big haul for the Cardinals.
-
Another IF off the board with Boston losing out.
-
It sounds like the Mariners are about to trade for Brendan Donovan in a 3-way trade with the Cardinals & Rays.
-
Why has no one else signed him? Do we have any idea how much it would take to sign him?
-
He’s an elite groundball pitcher. We have a GG defense.
-
Anyone know what he is asking? He is 32 years old. How many years does he want?
And at a time when many teams need strikeout pitchers, he isn't one. Does he want to be paid like one?
-
Where will Framber Valdez land?
Pitchers and catchers report in less than two weeks, and our Top 50 Free Agents Big Board shows just one name from the top 20 still unsigned: LHP Framber Valdez, at No. 5.
Valdez was our top-ranked pitcher on the board this year. Let’s take a quick look back at his career:
Two-time All-Star
Career ERA of 3.36 in 188 games (166 starts) from 2018-2025 (all with Houston).
1,053 strikeouts and 389 walks in 1,080 2/3 innings
Set an MLB record with 25 consecutive quality starts in 2022
An 8-4 record (4.34 ERA) in 17 postseason games (16 starts)
In 2023, no-hit the Guardians, facing the minimum 27 batters (one walk, later erased on a double play)
Appeared to intentionally cross up his catcher because he was mad about giving up a grand slam
*record scratch*
So why is Valdez is still unsigned? That last bullet point might explain it. A left-handed pitcher with those (other) bona fides doesn’t tend to linger on the market. It’s almost certainly why a free-agency video from his agency features ~80~ seconds of in-game highlights, then shifts focus for the remaining 23-and-change minutes.
from Athletic
-
Suarez to the Reds, 1/$15. Hell of a deal for them, they might be a threat.
Shaw to the Red Sox just makes so much sense.
-
Hoyer has shown aversion to players with character flaws since Milton Bradley, Chapman, and Russell caused some negativity. I think Valdez's incident with his catcher has cost him ooddles of cash. Reports are his agent is sending out packages portraying his popularity with teammates rather than his stats and accomplishments. It doesn't take much to become a pariah like Bauer.
We don't know to what extend Valdez is an issue behind the scenes. What we do know is nowhere near what we know with Bauer.
Presumably Bregman could give Jed as much insight about that as he could possibly want. That might be telling in its own right.
-
Hoyer has shown aversion to players with character flaws since Milton Bradley, Chapman, and Russell caused some negativity. I think Valdez's incident with his catcher has cost him ooddles of cash. Reports are his agent is sending out packages portraying his popularity with teammates rather than his stats and accomplishments. It doesn't take much to become a pariah like Bauer.
-
For Cubs and Valdez, guessing that the reluctance is contract length——not AAV/CBT.
-
It's too bad there are no links to the Cubs and Valdez. I mean, if they're legit considering Gallen they're prepared to go past the tax line anyway and Valdez is the guy who actually moves the needle. Maybe they really think he's toxic.
-
Two thoughts: 1. If offers were equal, probably smarter to sign with Sox. Get lots of AB, chance to rebuild his market for his next contract; and if he has a good season, he'll probably get traded to a contending team anyway, one which has some need for him so he'll get some ABs.
2. But kinda thinking that *IF* Cubs made the same offer, he'd have maybe taken the offer from the winning team, not the losing team? Most players like winning teams.
3. *IF* he chose Sox over Cubs, it probably reflects something about how much Jed is willing to spend for a backup OF.
-
And he signs with the Sox, 1 year $6 million.
-
Jon Heyman
@JonHeyman
·
12m
Free agent OF Austin Hays is said to be deciding this weekend where he will sign. Teams that have offered and/or expressed interes are the Reds, Rangers, White Sox, Tigers, Cardinals, Padres and Cubs.
-
I'm in the camp of signing Valdez and then shipping someone like Taillon or Boyd off for young talent to fill the system. A rotation of Valdez, Horton, Boyd (or Taillon), Imanaga, and Cabrera would be formidable, perhaps tops in the league. We don't need more #3's or 4's. Not to mention Steele's return.
You might get a prospect for Boyd but no way Taillon has surplus value. At best you’d get somebody to take him without having to attach a prospect yourself.
-
I'm in the camp of signing Valdez and then shipping someone like Taillon or Boyd off for young talent to fill the system. A rotation of Valdez, Horton, Boyd (or Taillon), Imanaga, and Cabrera would be formidable, perhaps tops in the league. We don't need more #3's or 4's. Not to mention Steele's return.
-
I'm arguing with myself. *IF* you add a pitcher, he replaces Assad. Maybe that's strategic? Send Assad, Brown, Hodge, Wiggins, Wicks, Little, and Neely to Iowa as nice option-able contingencies. .
Makes baseball sense to me to replace Assad with Gallen. Yes, Assad may just be as good or better a pitcher; but also possible that Gallen might just be better, perhaps significantly so. If Jed were to sign Giolito or Bassitt or Littell, the same reasoning would need to apply. Are those guys even as good or better than 3.45-career-ERA Assad, or with the Cubs defense and Wrigley will they actually be definitely better? Even if replacing Assad is a lateral move or a downgrade, does adding an Assad-quality guy available at Iowa make it more than worth it?
Scherzer, Nick Martinez, Aaron Civale, I kinda by then it's a no-brainer. Those guys are worse, and you're downgrading the big-league staff too much to replace Assad with one of them.
With the current roster, if healthy we've got 13 pitchers. Ten guaranteed big-league contracts and can't be optioned, only 3 or 4 have options: Horton, Palencia, and Assad. (Maybe Cabrera). Either way, Horton, Palencia, or Cabrera aren't guys you want to send down to make room for Nick Martinez or Max Scherzer.
So pretty much Assad is the top-13 pitcher that you might option. *IF* you want to sign an additional pitcher, it's to displace Assad on your preferred opening roster.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7005035/2026/01/28/chicago-cubs-offseason-progress-status/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983&userId=212065&source=dailyemail
"The Cubs aren’t done with their offseason", article headline. Mooney article.
Mentions a variety of pitchers, Gallen and beyond. Lucas Giolito (No. 30), Chris Bassitt (No. 31), Zack Littell (No. 37), Max Scherzer (No. 41), Walker Buehler, Jordan Montgomery, Aaron Civale, Nick Martinez, Justin Verlander range.
Personally, unless or until they already know we've got some injuries, I'm not sure I see the point in spending on guys like this beyond Gallen?
Gallen, yes. Maybe if they really think Giolito is ready to break out, I guess.
-Maybe if they get to camp, and find out that somebody's arm isn't right, I change my mind? (Last year, Birdsell and Assad were long-term injured before the first exhibition game, so maybe if that's Taillon or Harvey or Palencia, different story.)
*IF* Buehler or Montgomery or Civale or Martinez want to sign minor-league deals in which they really can get sent to Iowa after camp, yes, I love that. But you can only have 13 pitchers on the roster. *IF* you sign somebody from Gallen, Giolito, Bassitt, or Littell, they're on the roster.
-
Let Nico be Nico. Let Moises be Moises. If they ain't broke don't fix 'em.
-
Beats me. I think he's best when he uses *all* fields, including the pull side. Sometimes whacking an inside pitch or an inside breaking ball down the 3B line is a nice double for him, rather than trying to push an inside pitch into right. And given how far into right-center that center fielders play him, there is usually a lot of open space in left and left-center. Think he can kinda hit them anywhere and everywhere, go with the pitch.
-
Hoerner is a better hitter when he’s not focused on pull-in-air, IMO…
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8D6sbAmAbM
Hour long interview with Hoyer. He seems to be feeling pretty comfortable and confident. Not all that many questions about the actual 2026 team, really. No hint from that interview that he's still serious about Gallen or anything like that. He kinda sounded variably done. Also zero hint that any actual Hoerner-trade consideration. Interestingly, he seemed to kinda think that Hoerner has gotten better as a hitter as the season progressed, hitting the ball harder and more pull-in-air. I think that's true. (How about training Alcantara and Moises a little bit of that, hey??)
View that Shota's mechanics got disrupted, and his fastball didn't have the sail or deception. He admitted that with the Cubs contract situation, that he feels really flexible in terms of whatever modifications there will be in next CBA.
-
I don't know why anybody would think he's cooked when he's not old and his velocity's fine. Unless you suspect a hidden injury you'd have to think he's fixable, especially since his 2nd half was pretty good.
-
What is Jed saving it for? Pretty sure he's got some $$ left to spend. When I asked that question earlier, though, I knew he was saving it for something, some ticket or other, and he wasn't just saving to cut budget and leave it unspent. But now, with whatever variable amount remains, I'm not sure he'll spend it, or save it for a rainy day. I suspect that he's got some discretionary $$ that he's free to spend *IF* he finds a deal that he thinks will help; but that it's not use-it-or-lose-it; and if he doesn't get a somebody on a decent-value deal that he likes, he may well just leave that $$ unspent and save it for a rainy day.
Maybe Gallen is who he's saving it for, *if* on a deal Jed likes? Maybe it's Andujar? Or yeah, maybe he'll just save it.
Heyman mentions Az, Orioles, and Cubs as three teams interested in Gallen. Nothing new there. Suggests Gallen may decide fairly soon.
-Baltimore has been pretty prioritized on adding pitching. Trade a bunch for Baz, added Helmsley, resigned Eflin, Kittredge. But they've been in the rumor for pursuing one of the ticket pitchers all along, including Valdez. Guessing O's, Gallen, and Boras will wait till Valdez decides.
It's weird, but I am feeling a level of trust for the Cubs pitching scouting. I've always respected Hottovy, and he's often gotten decent results from questionable guys. And other than the ancient Neris and Pressly, Cubs scouting hasn't really whiffed on many of their pitching pickups? Boyd, Rea, Taillon, Steele they've done pretty well. Were kinda right on Luzardo. Horton and Wiggins too, guessing it's more than just amateur scouting looking at top picks. So, we're mostly used to thinking Cubs are dumb and always make bad decisions; but I'm kinda in a trusting mood regarding pitching? So, *IF* Cubs pitching scouting thinks Gallen is OK, and that they can get good production from him, I'm kinda duped into trusting them and hoping that *IF* they do sign him, that there are reasons to hope he might be pretty good, and might crack their playoff rotation? I also kinda like that Az is still favored to resign Gallen. If they just saw him be lousy with his 4.7 ERA, they should be the first to know that he's cooked. So if they don't think he's cooked, that kinda reaffirms the Cubs in thinking he isn't cooked?
https://x.com/MLBNetwork/status/2016285842591891751?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2016285842591891751%7Ctwgr%5Eda24ed5f0e5bb1f66e573e41ad5af2f58c8bfbad%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bleachernation.com%2Fcubs%2F2026%2F01%2F28%2Fcubs-zac-gallen-2%2F
-
Wow, Carlson was a top-20 prospect in most of the major media places for two years. 4-6 years ago, who'd have guessed he'd be a minor-league contract bust at this point. Good reminder that lots of young guys never do get better.
Carlson had a good not great rookie season and never really did much after that. My optimism is checked by the fact that he didn't exactly light up the minors, either. But as a flier on a minor league deal, great. Obviously some talent there and who knows, maybe somebody can unlock it.
-
Wow, Carlson was a top-20 prospect in most of the major media places for two years. 4-6 years ago, who'd have guessed he'd be a minor-league contract bust at this point. Good reminder that lots of young guys never do get better.
-
Cubs sign another former top prospect 5th OF candidate, Dylan Carlson, to a no-risk minor league deal. Unlike McCormick a switch-hitter, but much better from the right side. Can play all 3 OF positions but none of them as well as McCormick. No minor league options.
-
As I said, minor league deal. No risk, in effect.
-
Chas is a non-roster.
-
Nah, not a castoff so that's a no-go.
-
Cubs sign Chas McCormick, formerly good now bad ex-Astros OF, to a minor league deal. Jed remains absolutely obsessed with Astro castoffs. On the plus side, McCormick is pretty good all over the OF. But the bat has been absolutely unplayable the past two seasons.
So when does he go after Framber?
-
Cubs sign Chas McCormick, formerly good now bad ex-Astros OF, to a minor league deal. Jed remains absolutely obsessed with Astro castoffs. On the plus side, McCormick is pretty good all over the OF. But the bat has been absolutely unplayable the past two seasons.
-
Gavin Fien was the #12 overall pick in 2025 draft.
-
I don't think any of those Rangers guys were top 100.
-
Again, wowzer.
-
Per pipeline, those are 5 top-18 prospects. 2, 6, 12, 16, 18.
Rich haul for Washington in that trade, just like Brewers got a rich haul for Peralta.
-
What would have been for the Cubs? Shaw, Assad, Long, Brown, and Marting. Wowzer. Pass.
-
Robert Murray @ByRobertMurray
The Texas Rangers are acquiring MacKenzie Gore from the Washington Nationals for Gavin Fien, Alejandro Rosario, Abimelec Ortiz, Devin Fitz-Gerald and Yeremy Cabrera, according to sources familiar with the deal.
-
Taylor Rogers to the Twins…1 year 2M…
-
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?
-
I'm no expert on Gallen, but from his stats he would appear to be a good middle of the rotation type. I'm not sure that adds a large amount of value compared to the cost. Perhaps spend money on an additional bench bat or possibly a mid to late inning reliever.
-
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.
-
Does that take the Mets out on Valdez?
They're playing with Monopoly money, so I doubt it.
-
Does that take the Mets out on Valdez?
-
I wonder if the Brewers could get in on Gallen. I mean, even they can probably afford him.
-
Not sure what they want with Williams with Made in the wings.
-
Jeff Passan @JeffPassan
BREAKING: The New York Mets have acquired All-Star right-hander Freddy Peralta in a trade with the Milwaukee Brewers, sources tell ESPN. Deal is done. Top prospects Jett Williams and Brandon Sproat are headed to Milwaukee. One more big league pitcher will head to the Mets.
-
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
-
Hey Kap, when you say you are not sure they are done with moves do you believe these are just marginal/depth moves or something bigger?
David Kaplan@thekapman
Potentially something bigger.
Seems consistent with Levine, and the idea that Hoyer still has $$ to shop and browse, even if he's unlikely to buy anything bigger. "Not sure they are done" and "potentially something bigger" is less than expectant. But yeah, possible.
Who knows, but kinda fun to still have something significant possible. Re Andujar, I'd classify him more as a "marginal/depth" move.
-
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.
-
Well presented, reb. Agree 100%.
Good point that Andujar or Austin or not, adding a LH-hitting OFer might also be desirable, Tauchman or whomever.
As is, Moises is the only LH bench bat, and options guys like Triantos and Alcantara and Long, they are also all RH.
-
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.
-
Heyman and other national sources list the Cubs as being in on Miguel Andujar. Interesting in that there seems to be a lot of overlap with Austin and Shaw there - unless of course Shaw is traded. Andujar was probably pretty lucky last season but he does legit hammer lefties, and isn't a liability against RHP. Adequate at either OF corner and 1B and has actually played more at 3B than anywhere else, but makes Willi Castro look like Matt Chapman.
Guessing he might overlap with Shaw and Alcantara more than Shaw? Don't think Andujar has the defensive aptitude to be the primary utility infielder; or the backup CF.
Of course I think it's a longshot and that the Cubs will not sign him. But if they hypothetical did, I think one of the following might apply:
1. Maybe Austin's deal isn't guaranteed? Cubs could cut him in camp, and not need to pay full?
2. Otherwise Andujar would take Alcantara's spot. Shaw with his speed would learn CF, the easiest OF position to learn.
-
Heyman and other national sources list the Cubs as being in on Miguel Andujar. Interesting in that there seems to be a lot of overlap with Austin and Shaw there - unless of course Shaw is traded. Andujar was probably pretty lucky last season but he does legit hammer lefties, and isn't a liability against RHP. Adequate at either OF corner and 1B and has actually played more at 3B than anywhere else, but makes Willi Castro look like Matt Chapman.
-
Not to mention the connection between the two front offices…
-
I suggested the Red Sox several days ago, and now the big national names are starting to pick up on it. The fit is obvious especially after the Sox signed Suarez. They have young, controllable, major league-ready pitching with upside. They need middle infielders. There’s no reason these two sides shouldn’t at least be talking.
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2026/01/19/red-sox-matt-shaw/
Shaw trade talk, and Red Sox in particular, are totally speculative and unlikely to be a thing.
"But, hey, if the Red Sox are open to discussing some of their controllable young starting pitchers like Payton Tolle and Connelly Early..."
Q1: If Red Sox offered Payton Tolle for Shaw, would you say yes? I'd say yes in a minute.
Q2: If Red Sox offered Connelly Early for Shaw, would you say yes? Which of the two teams would be the team to say no if one of them suggested Shaw for Early? And how much additional value would need to be added to make it level? Like, if you thought Shaw wasn't enough, would like a Kepley or Ramirez be enough to level? Or, if you thought Shaw ws way too much to trade for an Early, would Boston adding somebody who'd fit into our top 8-15 range be enough?
I don't imagine any such trade will actually happen. Our infield is really shallow, so giving Shaw away would be Buildican, not Nowacrat, and Hoyer is win-now. But I admit I do have Buildican interest, given that Taillon, Shota, and Boyd are all so old. I think that *if* two teams kinda want to make a trade, but the value is somewhat unequal, leveling things with additional prospect(s) is always hypothetically possible.
-
MLB does not need a salary cap.
It is absolutely true that MLB does not NEED a salary cap.
Unless it wants the kind of parity that the NFL has.
If it does, it NEEDS BOTH a salary cap and equalized revenue streams. Without both, they will not get parity.
From the baseball fan's point of view, it is useless to want parity without also supporting BOTH a salary cap AND an equalized revenue stream. In today's world, it can't happen.
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2026/01/19/cubs-zac-gallen/
Heh, heh. Pretty remotely unlikely. But kinda fun to imagine!
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2026/01/19/chicago-cubs-sign-righty-trent-thornton/
Minor league deal. Tread guy. Bouncing back from injury.
-
I find it hard to warm up to a guy who is making elite money and who misses a lot of games and doesn't maintain close to elite play. It doesn't mean he's a bad guy but it doesn't hurt (me) much to see him go.
-
Dopey place to put this, and I'm sure Tucker will never read this. But I think some of the negativity towards Tucker within the media is really unfair. A good team is made up of different personalities. Does everybody need to be an extrovert and verbal team leader? Tucker was really good when healthy, really diligent, polite, nice, steady, by all accounts he was all-in on preparation and readiness, smart, fully engaged in film study, knows how to prepare. But, he's on the quieter introvert side, that's just him, and it doesn't compromise his readiness or his play at all.
I think it's unfortunate to denigrate a guy because he's on the quiet introvert side of the personality continuum. Also unfortunate *IF* a team unintentionally develops a culture where introverts are unwelcome, even if they may be really, really good.
(Not saying Bregman's leadership qualities won't add something that the quieter Tucker didn't add.).
-
Cubs sign Yacksel Rios to a minor league deal. 32, generally pretty bad with huge walk issues.
-
Yeah I read Bleacher Nation Summary.
They won’t have a loss in large enough in the 4th quarter to loss money.
That was the third quarter issued two months ago as Reb noted
-
Yeah I read Bleacher Nation Summary.
They won’t have a loss in large enough in the 4th quarter to loss money.
-
Was the Bryant absence addressed no thanks to the Rockies?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-5LOMFWsAEEv98?format=jpg&name=small)
-
Not hot stove but not sure where, Cub convention highlight during 2016 reunion panel, Cole to Mike Montgomery, "you were a first round pick" Pedro Stope interrupting, "what, you were a first round pick??"
-
"No, I believe that CBJ is referring to the financial report thru 9/30. That came out back in November. So, a partial year report. Final report is yet to come. Probably will show a loss." Reb quote
Yes, I was just giving CBJ the benefit of the doubt that he had inside info. But if he did, the 30 million 4th qtr profit would be non-baseball related.
-
That is a record quick filing for them! Typically they report late feb/March. Also, impressive that they would make 30 million in one quarter without playing a game.
No, I believe that CBJ is referring to the financial report thru 9/30. That came out back in November. So, a partial year report. Final report is yet to come. Probably will show a loss.
-
...I think this is my 37th convention......
That is awesome!
...Counsel was asked about the possibility of Shaw playing the OF. His response was essentially it is not a question, it's going to happen and has no doubt given his athleticism that he will be successful....
That's really interesting. Brings 3 questions to my mind:
1. CF or just corner? CF is traditionally viewed as the most important one, but also the easiest one to play and learn.
2. I wonder how good Shaw might get, and how quickly? Might his speed and athleticism get him to be as good or better than Seiya at some point durin the season? Like, versus LH pitchers, if Shaw wins the platoon DH spot, might Shaw instead play OF and let Seiya DH?
3. Last roster spot. If Shaw takes to outfield quickly, he and Alcantara are both RH guys with significant LH/RH splits. Is that spot necessarily Alcantara's, or might that change before the season opens?
I'm still wondering if they might add a LH-hitting outfielder, and give Alcantara some regular AB's at Iowa? Might be variably advantageous for both the big-league club, *IF* the LH-hitting outfielder can hit RHP better than Alcantara can; and might perhaps be advantageous for Alcantara's development. I know he's been in minors for many years, but he's still young, he's always been variably inconsistent within a season; and he hasn't yet learned how to tap into his power. I'm still thinking a lot of AB's might still help both his development, and enhance his trade value. Is it possible to make some adjustments such that he could pull-in-air more often, and boost his HR's? If he had a first-half HR-surge, such that all of his offensive numbers jumped way up, his trade value at deadline might be way different than is true today. Or if he had a season-long surge in HR production, maybe he could be considered in a 2027 outfield world in which perhaps Happ or Seiya, or both, were not re-signed?
-
Braves financials are in. No playoffs, lowest attendance since 2019. $311 revenue. $46 million dollar profit. The Braves payroll was higher than the Cubs.
That is a record quick filing for them! Typically they report late feb/March. Also, impressive that they would make 30 million in one quarter without playing a game.
-
Braves financials are in. No playoffs, lowest attendance since 2019. $311 revenue. $46 million dollar profit. The Braves payroll was higher than the Cubs.
-
Couple of things I heard at the convention. Counsel was asked about the possibility of Shaw playing the OF. His response was essentially it is not a question, it's going to happen and has no doubt given his athleticism that he will be successful.
Bergman has called all his teammates, already getting on PCA for his stat line, received the organization hitting philosophy taught in the minors so that he is consistent with helping young players, and asked for access to the Cubs complete database....
I think this is my 37th convention......
-
Sharma:
“there is also a belief within the organization that the Cubs value Hoerner — his defense, his intangibles and the whole package — more than any other team would.”
Sharma said above in context of trade rumors but I also wonder if might also apply to his free agency, with emphasis on “belief within the organization.”
I suspect that the Cubs would value him above most of the other teams when he becomes a free agent. However, the question isn't likely to be Hoerner's value to the Cubs, compared to other teams. But rather his value to the Cubs, compared to other options. To pick numbers at random, do the Cubs get more value to the team paying Hoerner at second base at 25 million per year? or do they get more value to the team by paying Shaw at second base at 1 million dollars per year, and use the 24 remaing dollars to pay a starting pitcher (or several relief pitchers).
-
Funny thing is that Dodgers averaged 106 wins in 2022-2023 but nobody considered them a “dominant” team because they were eliminated in NLDS both seasons.
Instead, folks said, what’s with the Dodgers: my goodness, all those resources and have won only one World Series in the last 32 years (and that was the truncated Covid season). Remember? Yes, went almost THREE DECADES without winning WS.
And, if Kiner-Falefa gets a better jump, the “so-dominant-we-need-a-cap stuff would be greatly diminished today.
Not to mention that 2025 Mets had a $338 M CBT payroll and couldn’t beat out the lowly Reds for final wild card spot.
Sure, the owners want a salary cap but not because of alleged competitive imbalance. We’ve seen lots of different teams in WS in recent years: 13 different teams in just the last 10 seasons! Just saw DBacks and Rangers in 2023–which seems like yesterday.
Fans, don’t be naive and fall for the owners’ line. They want a cap to weaken the Union, to have more control over their industry and a wide gamut of player-related current contractual obligations and, of course, to make more money and exponentially increase value of their franchises. That’s what the next cba fight is about, not competition or the Dodgers.
MLB is doing great. Attendance is great. Fan interest is up. There have always been lowly franchises since MLB came into being. A historical fact if you look it up. I believe that one team didn’t win for over 100 seasons! Think that was a big market franchise too!
Owners just want more and more and more. That’s their mission. Not just in baseball, of course. Don’t fall for their line. Anything having to do with Dodgers is just a pretext. Get real.
-
.... Yes, it’s harder for them all but welcome to the real world: some folks have advantages.....
2026 season will be very fun for baseball fans.
Couple thoughts:
1. I admit it could be fun for me. When you lose in the post-season, it's losing series that lasts a week. But the regular season has all spring training, the weeks/months ahead, then 6 months of tracking and perhaps enjoying. If the Cubs get to the NL championship series and then get beaten by the Dodgers, it will be a fun season for me. I'm old enough to remember 1984, that was super fun. 1989 was super fun, even if we got waxed in no time in playoffs. 2003 Prior/Wood season was super heartbreak, but it was really fun. and for me, 2015 when the Cubs were emerging as an elite team, that was really fun, "hey, we're just flat better than the Cardinals now...". So yeah, I'm not really in no-fun-if-we-don't-win-the-WS.
2. "some folks have advantages" is a dismissive comment, as if that's either normal or desirable. But competitive imbalance is not good for the game or for fans. Yankees dominating after the war 70 years ago, I can't imagine that was great for attendance. Dodgers dominating isn't good for interest in the game. And the level of Dodgers advantage is neither normal nor desirable; no other pro sports league in North America last half-century has that level of "advantage", and I doubt many in the world do.
I hope there will be some modifications that reduce the disparity and improve the competitive balance.
-
Sharma:
“there is also a belief within the organization that the Cubs value Hoerner — his defense, his intangibles and the whole package — more than any other team would.”
Sharma said above in context of trade rumors but I also wonder if might also apply to his free agency, with emphasis on “belief within the organization.”
-
As is obvious, none of my posts said anything about the Dodgers dominating more than any other ML team over any stretch. And even then, comparing their run to teams in the 50's and 60's is ridiculous.
Strawmen are fun though.
Well, Chris, you said Dodgers are so good that “there is no point watching” baseball anymore (unless a Dodgers fan) and that Dodgers have more talent collectively than “any team in history.”
But, now you say above, Dodgers not really all that dominant comparatively. Okay, fine, glad you have your thoughts in order on this.
Look, I get it that everybody gets over exuberant in the moment at times but there will be a fun baseball season in 2026, Dodgers will be hard pressed to repeat, and maybe Cubs will be outstanding too in 2026.
And glad you’re back following baseball.
-
MLB does not need a salary cap.
Even with a cap and a floor, there still will be a wide spending disparity between franchises.
NFL is different. Because they share basically all media revenues, they all have similar revenues and spend right up to the cap limits.
In the NFL, Rams moved from L.A. to St. Louis because, for a time, made economic sense to do that. Can you imagine Dodgers moving to St. Louis?
And no, Chris, plenty of MLB historical examples of clubs dominating the game waaaaay more than Dodgers these days. Yankees won 15 pennants and 10 World Series from 1947-1964. (And glad you've returned to following baseball after your 24 hour departure).
Dodgers are hardly a lock to get to and/or win WS. They are smart and have a cultural/geographic pipeline to Japan, both of which iare key to their success too. Dodgers are not ruining the game. There will be adjustments that address spending in next cba but dream on if you think smart teams like Dodgers aren’t going to be at or near the top with a new cba.
I probably didn't communicate well, but the point of my post was that we would not achieve parity in baseball until they have BOTH total revenue sharing among teams negotiated between the owners AND firm salary caps based upon revenue sharing negotiated between owners and labor.
One will not work without the other.
And neither side seems interested in either.
-
As is obvious, none of my posts said anything about the Dodgers dominating more than any other ML team over any stretch. And even then, comparing their run to teams in the 50's and 60's is ridiculous.
Strawmen are fun though.
-
The Rays have shown that a small market team can be successful. They are smart and diligent, a trait lacking in some other small market franchises. Yes, it’s harder for them all but welcome to the real world: some folks have advantages.
Except for the McCourt years, Dodgers have always been a very well-run franchise. Yankees too. So, let’s stop whining with the Boo-hoo-hoo and the “not going to watch baseball anymore” and over-reacting to what just happened in last 24 hours.
2026 season will be very fun for baseball fans.
-
MLB does not need a salary cap.
Even with a cap and a floor, there still will be a wide spending disparity between franchises.
NFL is different. Because they share basically all media revenues, they all have similar revenues and spend right up to the cap limits.
In the NFL, Rams moved from L.A. to St. Louis because, for a time, made economic sense to do that. Can you imagine Dodgers moving to St. Louis?
And no, Chris, plenty of MLB historical examples of clubs dominating the game waaaaay more than Dodgers these days. Yankees won 15 pennants and 10 World Series from 1947-1964. (And glad you've returned to following baseball after your 24 hour departure).
Dodgers are hardly a lock to get to and/or win WS. They are smart and have a cultural/geographic pipeline to Japan, both of which iare key to their success too. Dodgers are not ruining the game. There will be adjustments that address spending in next cba but dream on if you think smart teams like Dodgers aren’t going to be at or near the top with a new cba.
-
Bichette to the Mets puts additional pressure on teams looking for MI, and increases the likelihood of either Shaw or Hoerner being dealt, IMO.
Giants, at least, were rumored to be heavily in on Bichette. And once again they strike out in their attempt to land a big FA. Their fanbase is begging for any kind of move. Posey seems quite willing to take risks. Wonder if anything materializes there...
-
Last week after Cabrera, I mentioned preferring Tucker > Bichette > Bregman > Bellinger.
For Cubs budget limits, I'm not sure I don't think Bregman might not be better value? Obviously older, so might go over the cliff anytime. But part of me kinda likes having a guy locked for ≥3 years, and not having opt-outs all the time.
This is kinda dumb, but I admit I also like having the draft pick! Cubs farm is going to be super thin super fast, unless they restock. Having last year's draft picks click, that will be huge; and getting all your picks plus an extra one this draft, you really need to hit on some of these guys. I admit after Theo's farm vanished and couldn't replace anybody or fill any needs for cheap, I have some PTSD and I'm kinda Nowacrat-obsessed about not having that happen again. Really want/hope/need the farm can sustain some production.
Bichette is obviously way younger. But *IF* bregman doesn't decline for a while, he's got about as much HR production; higher OBP; better defense. If he doesn't decline (huge if), you might have a comparable/better player plus a draft choice for barely 2/3 the AAV.
-
I hope there is a very long shutdown and they come out of this with a salary cap.
I'm also disheartened by Tucker; dude is not good enough to elevate a team? Sad, little front runner.
The dodgers could probably form there own mini league between their roster and farm.
-
Poor guy…
-
Bichette to Mets, $126/3, so $42 AAV (pending deferrals), with opt-outs each year.
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2026/01/16/breaking-bo-bichette-to-the-mets/
-
I think the logic/analytics related to the Tucker 60 *4 contract is the value of the peak years of a players career. After all, Freidman comes from that data/value etc world. Those 10 and 12 year deals where they are paying 35/50 million a year from ages 35-40 are not getting that value in those later years. They are paying for ages 28-33. They would rather pay actual"value" for the prime years and avoid the later years when a player is likely a drag on payroll and sometimes even a roster spot. Obviously the two injury plagued years of Tucker made that more of a possibility that would be is only option despite what Deeg told me last month:)
-
Cubs re-claim no-hit infielder Ben Cowles. The lesser guy in the Leiter trade, who they foolishly added to the 40-man last off-season, only to be an auto-out at Iowa, and then got derostered late in the season. White Sox have again derostered him; I'm guessing he'll first in the Cubs de-roster line, but might clear waivers and get to Iowa.
-
Is it really even fun for them when they win?
This is exactly why MLB baseball is a joke. While I hate that the Cubs don’t spend like a large market team, there is really no incentive to do so. Might as well play to win 90 and hope to get lucky in October.
As long as the Dodgers are going to outspend everyone by $100 million or more, nobody should expect to be able to put together a comparable roster.
The Dodgers, Mets and Yankees have a substantial advantage over teams in smaller markets, not because they are in larger markets, but that they are able to keep the extra money to spend as they wish.
Football and basketball have solved this problem by revenue sharing between the teams, so large market teams do not have more to spend than small market teams. This, of course, depresses player salaries. They solved that problem by labor negotiations that put strict percentage revenue sharing between owners and players.
In baseball, meaningful revenue sharing between teams is given nothing more than lip service, and the player's union (and some owners) refuse to consider overall salary caps on each team.
Until this changes, many teams can not compete on a consistent basis, and a few teams can dominate on a persistent basis.
-
Giannis and the Bucks won the NBA championship a few years ago. Anybody can win, and fans of any team can hope that they'll make some good moves over time and become a true contender.
Unless you are a Bulls fan. There is no hope.
-
For old guys like Davep, Reb, and me, the hoopla over the Dodgers buying a pennant brings back memories of Yankee dominance pre-70s. Now you younger critters get to experience it. Every year it seemed that they would outbid everyone for some future star or they'd get someone from the Kansas City A's that confounded credibility. And everyone would gripe, but still root for their teams. The draft was supposed to fix all that, and it did for a time. Now, a salary cap? The big boys will figure out how to get around that too.
-
It would be one thing if other teams could spend like the Dodgers.
But they can’t. LA has far and away the most lucrative TV deal, and they are exempt from revenue sharing on it, unlike other teams with TV deals.
It’s completely appropriate for there to be some spread in payrolls, but when the underlying conditions are so broken something has to change.
Factor in lux tax, and LA is paying $120M/yr for Tucker. That’s more than a lot of teams’ payrolls.
Salary floor with penalties, and a cap need to be implemented.
-
CBJ, yeah, the fact that Jed had to educate Kenny and Tom on the benefits of deferrals…
really wish our business operations were smarter and more sophisticated than kids running a street corner lemonade stand :(
-
Dodgers didn't have a great 2B last year. I wonder if they shouldn't sign Bichette to stabilize that weak spot?
-
...it’s bad for the sport.
Agree.
-
I'm just a stupid self-centered fan, selfishly unconcerned about whether mlb owners can actually feed their families, or players; and not that prioritized with how owners/players need the law to protect them.
But I have to admit the competitive opportunity in the capped leagues is preferable for a fan. Bears can beat the Packers, because they played better, Caleb is better, coach is smarter, and Micah Parsons was injured. But everybody has a fair chance and opportunity. Kansas City has won super bowls. Giannis and the Bucks won the NBA championship a few years ago. Anybody can win, and fans of any team can hope that they'll make some good moves over time and become a true contender.
Obviously even in baseball money isn't everything, otherwise the Cubs would be to the Central what Dodgers are to the league.
But I'd love it if somehow there was some stronger parity and opportunity.
-
As was true last year, spotrac has Dodgers >$200M beyond the #2 with-lux-tax team.
-
A typical working stiff would love to have a job that pays $50k per year. That's $100k for two years.
For Michael Tucker, $100k is one plate appearance.
-
Wasn’t the rumor that the Cubs and Yankees were going to join with the smaller teams and go for a salary cap?
Like I’ve complained about the Cubs spending, but even the most optimistic amount that the Cubs are bringing won’t have them competing with the Dodgers at this level.
I think there are far better ways for the Cubs to spend their resources than what they are doing.
On bad at his job is Crane Kearney if Hoyer has to sit them down and explain how deferred money benefits the team?
-
The question is whether the cheap owners like Rickets, who outnumber the ones obsessed with winning, will gang up on them to try and legislate the parity they can't achieve in the free market.
-
Good for the Dodgers. They have money, they spend it. They're not scared of the toothless luxury tax. More teams could (and should) act like them.
Agree.
And it’s bad for the sport.
-
Then again, it would be negligent of me to forget the other big Cubs' signing this century, the 183M they gave Jason Heyward for his 9 WAR in 7 seasons.
We'll see if Bregman can match that, and we'll do so enthusiastically!
-
Folks of course get to root in whatever way they want (or even to drop out of baseball like Chris- GOODBYE!) but the capacity or need to be Miserable-When-Rooting is remarkable and fascinating.
You like pretending you're the smartest person in the room. Heads up, you're not.
The Dodgers have been in 5 of the last 9 World Series with 3 titles. They've made the playoffs 13 years in a row. They've won 9 titles in 68 years. The Cubs have won 1 title in 117 years.
The Dodgers now have more collective talent than any team in history. The Cubs overpaid for a guy who hasn't been elite in 7 years. At least we have that and your ability to whine about how others react to those facts to keep us warm this winter.
-
So ~$119/year under current CBA. Will next CBA make it more expensive, or less for Dodgers? Maybe they are locking in their advantage?
-
Jeff Passan @JeffPassan
Full details on Kyle Tucker's Dodgers contract, per ESPN sources:
- 4 years, $240 million guaranteed
- Opt-outs after Years 2 and 3
- $64M signing bonus
- $30M deferred
- $57.1M a year in net present value after factoring in deferrals -- a record by $6M+
A staggering deal.
-
Ken Rosenthal
@Ken_Rosenthal
·
11m
Net present value of Tucker’s deal will be $57M per season, beating Juan Soto’s previous record by more than $6M, sources tell The Athletic. Deferrals total $30M - $10M in each of last three seasons. First with deferred amount:
@JonHeyman
-
Obviously the Cubs were never going to be a factor (the Mets were in at least at $50M AAV if not more). That's fine, but also why it was such a dumb trade in the first place. We gave up way too much.
Well, on the one hand, Naysayers say Cubs “not trying to win” but when go very Nowacrat—such as Tucker trade—then they are stupid and get no credit.
Nice to have it both ways.
Of course, tune would have changed (for five minutes) if Tucker had a big game in the deciding Game 5 of NLDS but the Naysayers narrative will never change.
Folks of course get to root in whatever way they want (or even to drop out of baseball like Chris- GOODBYE!) but the capacity or need to be Miserable-When-Rooting is remarkable and fascinating.
-
……But Dodgers are OK with going kinda $126/year in actual costs?…..
This past 2025 season, Dodgers CBT payroll cost was $586.7 million including CBT tax.
Even with Tucker (and assuming a full $60 M payroll hit), Dodgers are currently under their pre-tax CBT payroll from 2025.
So, if Chris is opting out from watching baseball in 2026 because of the Dodgers, maybe he should have stopped watching a year ago???
-
I assume the $60/year is largely deferred and not really that. But, if it really was $60/year, the Dodgers would pay another $66 in tax, so that would be $126/year in cost. We worry that $~31 may be a little high for Bregman. But Dodgers are OK with going kinda $126/year in actual costs? I know, I know, shrink it some.... Tucker won't need to worry about playing defense with Wrigley's brick walls, or about the wind blowing in, or about having some cold games in spring or fall.
Obviously the Cubs were never going to be a factor (the Mets were in at least at $50M AAV if not more). That's fine, but also why it was such a dumb trade in the first place. We gave up way too much.
-
I assume the $60/year is largely deferred and not really that. But, if it really was $60/year, the Dodgers would pay another $66 in tax, so that would be $126/year in cost. We worry that $~31 may be a little high for Bregman. But Dodgers are OK with going kinda $126/year in actual costs? I know, I know, shrink it some.... Tucker won't need to worry about playing defense with Wrigley's brick walls, or about the wind blowing in, or about having some cold games in spring or fall.
-
Is it really even fun for them when they win?
This is exactly why MLB baseball is a joke. While I hate that the Cubs don’t spend like a large market team, there is really no incentive to do so. Might as well play to win 90 and hope to get lucky in October.
As long as the Dodgers are going to outspend everyone by $100 million or more, nobody should expect to be able to put together a comparable roster.
Except Toronto spent as agressively as any non-Dodger (or Mets, but they're a joke) team and only lost to them becaude they choked. And the only other team to lay a glove on them in the postseason was Philly, also one of the biggest spenders.
I don't buy the "Dodgers spend so much, just give up" as an excuse for the Cubs to be cheap-ass. If they spent like the Phillies or Jays they'd have a much better chance at an extended October run.
-
Tucker to the Dodgers
Of course.
-
Ummm, well then don't.
Thanks, Ron. I may take you up on that.
-
Good for the Dodgers. They have money, they spend it. They're not scared of the toothless luxury tax. More teams could (and should) act like them.
-
Gee, I was told here that the Dodgers weren't signing Tucker.
There is no point in watching this sport, unless you're a Dodgers fan.
Ummm, well then don't.
-
Gee, I was told here that the Dodgers weren't signing Tucker.
There is no point in watching this sport, unless you're a Dodgers fan.
Is it really even fun for them when they win?
This is exactly why MLB baseball is a joke. While I hate that the Cubs don’t spend like a large market team, there is really no incentive to do so. Might as well play to win 90 and hope to get lucky in October.
As long as the Dodgers are going to outspend everyone by $100 million or more, nobody should expect to be able to put together a comparable roster.
-
60M/year for Tucker.
Those months of futility really hurt him.
-
Willi Castro signs for 2/$12, exactly the AAV I predicted last year as the know-it-alls mocked as usual.
You nailed it!
-
Gee, I was told here that the Dodgers weren't signing Tucker.
There is no point in watching this sport, unless you're a Dodgers fan.
-
Tucker to the Dodgers
-
Heh heh, deeg, when I first read your post, I initially wondered if you were meaning that he'd signed with the Cubs! :):):)
I think he'd be a great signing at that number but the Cubs would obviously not have gone there without dumping salary first.
-
Heh heh, deeg, when I first read your post, I initially wondered if you were meaning that he'd signed with the Cubs! :):):)
-
Willi Castro signs for 2/$12, exactly the AAV I predicted last year as the know-it-alls mocked as usual.
No, that was me with that prediction in November:
“But then still in need of RH corner OF/DH (Refsnyder?) AND a utility guy in mold of Willi Castro. Say, another $10-12 combined”
-
So it's Know-it-alls vs. Naysayers?
-
Willi Castro signs for 2/$12, exactly the AAV I predicted last year as the know-it-alls mocked as usual.
-
.... Cubs aren't trading Hoerner without that class of overwhelming prospect coming back, that's the level it would take for Hoyer to listen. But nobody is going to offer that for one year of Hoerner. Conclusion: no Hoerner trade is plausible.
Cubs will be trying for the World Series this season.
Makes no sense to trade Hoerner for a prospect(s) when the WS is the priority. Prospect trade scenarios vis a vis Hoerner= waste of time.
But think that Shaw trade scenarios are different. Shaw has been bumped from a key role. Probably unlikely to be traded but could see a move with him.
-
I've dismissed Hoerner-trade rumors, and assume we should keep both Hoerner/Shaw. But yeah, I'd not say not a trade like that! :):). I'd love a move like that!
I suspect you've captured the context, though.... Cubs aren't trading Hoerner without that class of overwhelming prospect coming back, that's the level it would take for Hoyer to listen. But nobody is going to offer that for one year of Hoerner. Conclusion: no Hoerner trade is plausible.
Rosenthal also suggested Connelly Early as a name, and that seems more realistic than Tolle. Though still unlikely.
Hoyer has kind of boxed himself into this by trading for a pitcher instead of signing one and spunking $150M on a non-star player - he now has to consider trading his best player for both financial and baseball reasons. But I still say you don’t move Nico unless it’s truly an overwhelming offer, because the way the roster lines up it’s probably 2026 or bust.
-
Would be fun to get the Red Sox and Yankees in a bidding war over Nico.
Gratified to see the Naysayers excited about possible Hoyer moves.
Isn’t it amazing what a couple big moves will do?
-
Would be fun to get the Red Sox and Yankees in a bidding war over Nico.
-
$130/5. Who knows how much deferred, or options, or whatever.
It appears to be fairly straightforward, reportedly not containing any deferrals, opt-outs or no-trade protection.
-
$130/5. Who knows how much deferred, or options, or whatever.
-
The Red Sox have just signed Ranger Suarez, potentially making its young, cost controlled SP’s like Tolle more available…
-
Cubs got nothing for Bryant or Contreras. maybe Alcantara will turn into value, but fair chance he'll end up being kinda valueless too. Lucky on PCA for Baez.
Theo talked about trading some of those guys before they expired, but set outlandish trade expectations that nobody came close to paying. So the eventual trades ended up having the reduced leverage of 2-month rentals.
I wonder if Jed mirrored Theo's approach. Maybe he would have been more aggressive to trade sooner, and maybe favored accepting less exaggerated return than Theo fruitlessly demanded?
Wonder if his mindset with Hoerner is at all impacted by decisions and results from those scenarios past?
Also wonder how much extension discussion he's had with Excel about extending Nico? Different planets? Or might there be some similarity in valuation with mutual plausible interest in making an extension work?
-
Rosenthal has floated Payton Tolle as a potential return for Hoerner.
Likely just rampant speculation, or perhaps something the Cubs floated to Ken as an indicator of what their price is on Nico. But if that caliber of player is available for Hoerner, I think it's really difficult to justify keeping him...
I've dismissed Hoerner-trade rumors, and assume we should keep both Hoerner/Shaw. But yeah, I'd not say not a trade like that! :):). I'd love a move like that!
I suspect you've captured the context, though.... Cubs aren't trading Hoerner without that class of overwhelming prospect coming back, that's the level it would take for Hoyer to listen. But nobody is going to offer that for one year of Hoerner. Conclusion: no Hoerner trade is plausible.
-
https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/payroll/cubs
Roster resource, with $30.5 guess for Bregman, has Cubs $0.86 below lux1.
Rosenthal suggested between $30-31, but perhaps it's on the higher end of that? Boston article suggested Cubs deferral wasn't nearly as long as Boston's; so perhaps the value-reduction associated with Cubs deferral won't be as significant, and the AAV won't be as reduced as in some other cases? So guessing Hoyer is snugged up really close to the line.
Under current CBA, 2-peating only raises the tax rate by 10%, no big deal. 3-peat bumps it an additional 20%, so 20-30-50.
Maybe entering 2028, we'll be kinda glad if Jed was able to stay a little under this year, to reduce some tax. But also well possible that next CBA will look variably different. (Lux levels; progressive tax rates; any possible draft impact.). So good chance that being on either side of lux1 this year will have zero consequence down the road.
-
Rosenthal has floated Payton Tolle as a potential return for Hoerner.
Likely just rampant speculation, or perhaps something the Cubs floated to Ken as an indicator of what their price is on Nico. But if that caliber of player is available for Hoerner, I think it's really difficult to justify keeping him...
-
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/01/cubs-to-sign-alex-bregman.html
-
Didn't realize that. Oh, my reading was way off. He was a 1st round pick, not a 12th round pick. Then that's a more serious trade.
Sorry, got the two mixed up. They traded the meh one. Not easy to keep up with the Joneses.
-
*IF* the 40 fills, who are the most likely to get bumped off?
Justin Dean
Ryan Rolison
Gavin Hollowell
Ethan Roberts
Those guys all seem easily waivable, if you like somebody better.
The following seem less likely, especially with Riley just having added. But not sure with health or coachability etc. for Neely and Little; maybe they'll bounce back, maybe not.
Jack Neely, not sure on his health. Might he be a 60-day DL guy? I have no clue.
Riley Martin
Luke Little
-
1. So space for one more FA outfielder, maybe, or else another waiver claim.
2. Might want to leave one spot open, in case you give a 25-man spot to one of the non-roster pitchers?
3. Migjht depend on Steele. 60-day DL would open a spot for a non-roster.
-
Cubs claim OF Justin Dean, a small speed/defense OF with all of his options left. Can't hit, no power, and K's a lot, but takes a lot of walks so his minor-league OBP has been solid.
Once Bregman adds, 40-man will be at 39.
-
Didn't realize that. Oh, my reading was way off. He was a 1st round pick, not a 12th round pick. Then that's a more serious trade.
-
Weathers still has an option year. Think that's a nice upside move for Yankees. Probably he'll never be anything, but *if* he could stay healthy, and *if* their pitching development can maybe get more out of his good arm, that could end up being a win. Guys they traded were in their ≥15 spots in their farm rankings, and the drafted guys were like 12th or 14th rounders.
Jones was as high as #33 on the top 100 prospects lists before last season.
-
Ryan Weathers to the Yankees for Brendan Jones and 3 lesser prospects. Interesting move for them, and they may have more in the pipeline trade-wise.
Weathers still has an option year. Think that's a nice upside move for Yankees. Probably he'll never be anything, but *if* he could stay healthy, and *if* their pitching development can maybe get more out of his good arm, that could end up being a win. Guys they traded were in their ≥15 spots in their farm rankings, and the drafted guys were like 12th or 14th rounders.
-
Don't think either have refreshed their top 100 for the year. Expect he'll be meaningfully higher on both lists. FG has him at 27.
If the kid has enough talent to ranked at the back end of atop 100 without playing any minor league innings that is what the Cubs have to go after. They lack impact talent and unless you are trading with Padres the fully formed prospect doesn’t get traded. Risky for sure, but if the Cubs think he can eventually be a top 10 guy that is a home run. The question is why would the Giants trade that for 1 year of Nico.
-
Ryan Weathers to the Yankees for Brendan Jones and 3 lesser prospects. Interesting move for them, and they may have more in the pipeline trade-wise.
-
Short term is a key on that, I think. 3-years, maybe, for the offer? (Which obviously hasn't been accepted.).
Under current tax rates, $50/year would actually be $105/year for Mets, given 110% tax rate.
-
I know Kyle is well thought of, but this is nuts:
Outfielder Kyle Tucker, the top free agent available this offseason, has been offered a short-term deal by the New York Mets that is believed to be worth $50 million per season, sources told ESPN's Jesse Rogers on Tuesday.
-
Levine saying Cubs will explore 6 man rotation, depending on health.
6-ro makes so much sense for Cubs. Young guys (Horton, Wiggins), old guys (Boyd, Taillon, Shota, Rea), Japanese guy (Shota), injury guys (Cabrera, Horton, Wiggins, Steele, Boyd, Shota, Taillon, Assad), all of our guys who might be fall-starters have one or more factors that would appreciate 6-ro.
-
Don't think either have refreshed their top 100 for the year. Expect he'll be meaningfully higher on both lists. FG has him at 27.
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.
-
MLB.com and BA number 82 (last I saw for the latter, not a subscriber).
Don't think either have refreshed their top 100 for the year. Expect he'll be meaningfully higher on both lists. FG has him at 27.
-
Levine saying Cubs will explore 6 man rotation, depending on health.
They should do it irrespective of health.
-
Which tail are you referring to?
Because he’s top 50, maybe top 25.
MLB.com and BA number 82 (last I saw for the latter, not a subscriber).
-
Levine saying Cubs will explore 6 man rotation, depending on health.
-
Which tail are you referring to?
Because he’s top 50, maybe top 25.
-
Pasan saying Giants very interested in trading for a 2Bman, either Donovan or Hoerner.
I’d listen if Josuar Gonzalez is on the table.
No from me. Not trading Nico for a teenage prospect, even a guy at the tail end of the top 100. Shaw, maybe we can talk.
-
I have less then great thoughts on Bregmans cliff.
-
Kinda reminder of how quickly a really good player's value can drop off the cliff somewhere in his 30's. Heh heh, hope Bregman's cliff waits longer than Arenado's, and his decline when it comes is more gradual.
-
Mark Feinsand @Feinsand
RHP Jack Martinez, who was selected in the 8th round of last year's Draft, goes back to the Cardinals in exchange for Arenado, per source.
Cardinals are also paying $31 million of Arenado's remaining $42 million.
-
Passan, Heyman, and Feinsand are all saying the Arenado trade is done.
-
Athletic just shot a notification that that Cards and Dbacks are working on a Nolan Arenado trade
-
I'm with you, craig.
-
Pasan saying Giants very interested in trading for a 2Bman, either Donovan or Hoerner.
I’d listen if Josuar Gonzalez is on the table.
-
Notion that Bregman creates Bregman/Shaw or Hoerner/Shaw redudunacy doesn't make sense to me. Or that trading Hoerner/Shaw makes sense in a Nowacrat season.
A good team needs both starters and a backup infielder. If all can hit and play defense, win-win-win. Right now the roster is kinda set and complete (with possible exception of Alcantara). But if you trade him, you instantly create a hole at his backup spot. Are you wishing for Madrigal? Mastrobuoni? Nicky Lopez? Brujan? Workman? I'm not!!! Glad to have Shaw for that role.
If Shaw hits well enough to justify being a good starter, he will get loads of AB's. Great! And if Shaw does NOT hit much, we will not regret that he doesn't have to start everyday.
So to me, status-quo makes way better sense than a trade.
-
HotStove is a fun thread during the offseason. Heh heh, we can complain when Hoyer doesn't act fast enough, and speculate about what is he saving it for! But now that Hoyer is finished and the offseason work is done, I'll miss the HotStove stuff! Heh heh, Heyman and Passan will not be posting about which pitcher might sign a minor-league deal with the Cubs! Our days in the rumor stuff is done. It's been fun, now we'll just wait for that stuff for trade deadline. :):)
But yeah, at this point the roster is complete, other than perhaps the Alcantara spot.
-
Just to clarify, I DID NOT comment with "Wow" on this post. At least I certainly did not intend to do so. This has happened a couple of times where a reaction was shown by me that I never intneded. I blame Curt. :)
I was about to post that it is unfair to blame Curt for everything. But then I realized that he actually IS to blame for everything.
-
Someone on Mariners' twitter floated Matt Brash and Cole Young for Shaw. That's an interesting notion.
-
Most of this probably should be in the political board.
-
When was the last time a prominent active MLB player did something like this - Schilling 20 years ago, maybe? I mean, if it's so normal why don't a bunch of them do it?
You are incorrectly conflating two very different things. What has Shaw himself said that’s offensive toward any group or person that’s in any way in the Curt Schilling ballpark? As I understand it, when Shaw discusses publicly, he mostly talks about his personal faith in g-d.
Here are some examples of Schilling:
In August 2015, Schilling tweeted a graphic that compared the percentage of Muslim extremists to the percentage of Nazis in Germany in the 1940s. The tweet read: "It's said only 5-10% of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How'd that go?"
In November 2016, he tweeted a picture of a person at a rally wearing a shirt that read "Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required," calling it "awesome".
In March 2016, he suggested on a Kansas City radio station that Hillary Clinton "should be buried under a jail somewhere"
In January 2021, on the day of the U.S. Capitol attack, Schilling tweeted his support for the rioters, stating that people were "start[ing] a confrontation for s-h-t that matters like rights, democracy and the end of govt corruption"
-
I'm not really sure why Hoerner would be so anxious to play SS where he is just OK to good as opposed to 2B where he is outstanding.
-
I’m not making political judgment one way or the other.
Shaw spoke at a whatever Kirk’s wife’s rally was and allowed his picture to be used to promote it. He’s political.
When was the last time a prominent active MLB player did something like this - Schilling 20 years ago, maybe? I mean, if it's so normal why don't a bunch of them do it?
By contrast, the one time Bregman got involved was when he criticized T for attacking Lebron James. Bregman tweeted "LeBron is an amazing role model and has helped so many people. Embarrassing that our Pres. would tweet this… I’ll go back to sticking to sports. Sorry everybody". And that was the end of it. No speaking at events, no using his name and image to promote a party. It's not a matter of political opinions, it's a matter of personal conduct.
-
I think trading Hoerner would create a much larger outcry than trading Shaw.
I think that Ron is a master of understatement.
-
Also, the reason I suspect Hoerner will be traded as opposed to Shaw is simply he is a free agent, may want to play SS and the Cubs can't trade Smith, Caissie and Shaw within 12 months!
I think trading Hoerner would create a much larger outcry than trading Shaw.
-
I have been back and forth on this but I am clearly leaning toward they will keep Nico (unless there is an offer that blows them away) because of the uncertainty of trying to experiment this year and they will get a draft pick with a qualifying offer? I suspect Counsel will be sitting down with Shaw this weekend and bringing an outfield glove. If Bregman is worried about sharing an infield with Shaw he did not do his homework on most of the rest of the Cub's infield :)
I don't think anyone has said that Bregman is worried about sharing an infield with Shaw, by the way. The fact that he comes from a liberal Democratic family does not suggest that. There may or may not be an issue with Shaw's very public expression of his right wing politics with one or more members of the team, but none of us has any insight into that. I assume that other players woiuld not let that get in the way unless Shaw makes it an issue in some way.
-
I have been back and forth on this but I am clearly leaning toward they will keep Nico (unless there is an offer that blows them away) because of the uncertainty of trying to experiment this year and they will get a draft pick with a qualifying offer? I suspect Counsel will be sitting down with Shaw this weekend and bringing an outfield glove. If Bregman is worried about sharing an infield with Shaw he did not do his homework on most of the rest of the Cub's infield
Just to clarify, I DID NOT comment with "Wow" on this post. At least I certainly did not intend to do so. This has happened a couple of times where a reaction was shown by me that I never intneded. I blame Curt. :)
-
Also, the reason I suspect Hoerner will be traded as opposed to Shaw is simply he is a free agent, may want to play SS and the Cubs can't trade Smith, Caissie and Shaw within 12 months!
Just try them...
-
Also, the reason I suspect Hoerner will be traded as opposed to Shaw is simply he is a free agent, may want to play SS and the Cubs can't trade Smith, Caissie and Shaw within 12 months!
-
Hoerner did list Obama as one of his dream golf foursome.
[/quote]
That's why I said most!:)
-
There's a time when one needs to say "Enough." We have such divisiveness in this country that it's insane to be signing or trading people because of their political beliefs. If a player on any team begins to cause disunity on a team, yes, get rid of him, but just having those beliefs is insufficient cause. What's next? Getting rid of black players? Christians? Hispanic players? Non-religious? Time to stop before it's hard to root for anyone.
-
The "memorial service" was a political rally at a stadium with 50,000 true believers.
He also spoke at a "Turning Point" event where he shared the lectern with literal nazis.
Your comments reveal more about you than about Matt Shaw.
-
I’m not making political judgment one way or the other.
Shaw spoke at a whatever Kirk’s wife’s rally was and allowed his picture to be used to promote it. He’s political.
-
The "memorial service" was a political rally at a stadium with 50,000 true believers.
He also spoke at a "Turning Point" event where he shared the lectern with literal nazis.
Public figures sometimes have huge public turnouts. See Dr. King’s funeral, Muhammad Ali, Michael Jackson, various Popes, etc. People want to pay respects to those they admire, even if you or I have a different point of view.
That does not turn a memorial service into a “political rally” even though you personally don’t care for the person. That was the forum that the family chose for their memorial. We should defer to the family.
Perhaps we can flip the narrative and try to be respectful for a change? (hoping in vain, probably).
As to the “Turning Point” event, it is my understanding that was not a baseball forum. Doubtful that Alex Bregman will give a hoot about that in the Cubs clubhouse.
-
I agree in principle, Jimmer. You should be all in on 2026 with most of the core FAs after this season, and trading away arguably your best player makes no sense unless you're absolutely blown away. But on the off chance you are - Cam Schlitter, for example - I do think you have to at least consider it.
Trading Shaw, OTOH, makes sense from a baseball standpoint if he still has a lot of value after his so-so rookie season. As for the rest of the Cubs infield, well - Hoerner did list Obama as one of his dream golf foursome.
-
I have been back and forth on this but I am clearly leaning toward they will keep Nico (unless there is an offer that blows them away) because of the uncertainty of trying to experiment this year and they will get a draft pick with a qualifying offer? I suspect Counsel will be sitting down with Shaw this weekend and bringing an outfield glove. If Bregman is worried about sharing an infield with Shaw he did not do his homework on most of the rest of the Cub's infield :)
-
The "memorial service" was a political rally at a stadium with 50,000 true believers.
He also spoke at a "Turning Point" event where he shared the lectern with literal nazis.
-
I'm sorry. I did know he attended the Charlie Kirk memorial service. It just never occurred to me that anyone would consider a memorial service for someone who was assassinated for his political beliefs to be a "political Rally".
Some things are more important than games. Even professional games. I remember when Sandy Koufax was strongly criticized for refusing to pitch in the World series on Yom Kippur. I thought that was an honorable thing to do, although since I was not Jewish, it meant nothing to me personally.
If Bregman has a problem with that, that is HIS problem.
-
One more thought on Shaw and his priorities. Bregman, FWIW, is a confirmed anti-Trumper and that could be a source of friction with a zygote like Shaw being as vocal and flamboyant as he is regarding his political views.
There is ZERO factual support that Shaw is politically “vocal and flamboyant” in a baseball context——vis a vis his teammates or any other baseball context.
To my eyes, his political views are misguided but that’s his business. Notion that this would cause friction with Bregman is ridiculous.
-
One more thought on Shaw and his priorities. Bregman, FWIW, is a confirmed anti-Trumper and that could be a source of friction with a zygote like Shaw being as vocal and flamboyant as he is regarding his political views.
Edit: I wasn't aware of it until today but Sam Bregman, Alex' dad, is running for governor of New Mexico as a Democrat.
-
Keith Law said Shaw left the team to “attend a political rally.”
That’s a very, very peculiar way to describe attending a memorial service for someone you personally are close to and who died under tragic circumstances.
Charlie Kirk, a huge Cubs fan, lived in same apartment complex as Shaw the previous off-season and they texted regularly. Were friends. Don’t have to like Kirk’s politics to empathize with Shaw’s desire to attend the service. Asked for and received permission from Cubs and was supported by his teammates.
Given how Law twisted what happened as above, have to question Law’s comments about Shaw’s coachability, especially when we all know that Shaw changed quite a bit mechanically when he came back from Iowa. Also, a player does not become proficient defensively at a new position, as Shaw did, without an enormous amount of work and dedication to his craft.
So, think that what Law said is bunk virtually in its entirety..
As to a possible Shaw trade, reports last trade deadline were that Nats insisted on Shaw in the Mackenzie Gore talks. Shaw is a fit for Nats at 3B. Cubs could not do that back then but can now.
Nats were only NL team in 2025 with negative WAR at 3B. Incredibly, Nats also had negative WAR at 1B too in 2025. Hard to imagine a MLB team with negative WAR at both infield corners, but there you go. So, Johnny Long fits with Nats too.
Do Cubs need more quality SP? Here’s the biggest cliche in baseball: YOU NEVER HAVE ENOUGH PITCHING.
-
He had premission from the team. I believe his discussed it with teammate, Counsel and the front office.
Sharma and Mooney have not mentioned the coaching, but a lack of mentioning it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Just because he got permission doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Or that there weren't guys in the clubhouse who were pissed off (I think it's a lock there were).
I don't often agree with Law but he got to the point here. Shaw made his priorities clear.
-
Do we have any actual information about his leaving the team? Did he have permission? If he didn't, did they punish him for it. If not, why not?
And, of course, is there any independent confirmation of Law's comment.
He had premission from the team. I believe his discussed it with teammate, Counsel and the front office.
Sharma and Mooney have not mentioned the coaching, but a lack of mentioning it doesn't mean it isn't true.
-
Dave, theo used to always say stuff like that. No, the $5-10 kind of margin was NOT to cover IL's and callups, Theo, like Cots and Jeff were already assuming those in. Theo was already factoring in callups and IL's prior to the trade-deadline cushion.
dave, in the old CBA, there was draft-pick-related penalty for triple-luxing. You'd lose your#1 draft pick. That isn't true in current CBA. Even Dodgers or Mets don't "lose" draft picks, they just get one pick pushed back 10 spots, rather than losing it altogether. And Hoyer isn't anywhere close to that kind of consequence; Theo was afraid to repeatedly go over lux for draft-pick reasons, but that doesn't apply for Hoyer. And any such consequences will change again next year anyway.
I don't think the single time clearing lux two years ago was a mistake. That was just the consequence of signing Bellinger. Hoyer hadn't gotten into the playoffs yet, he wanted to, and thought signing Bellinger would give him a better chance. Didn't work anyway, obviously. But that's what pushed him over the lux line. The "extra" tax was maybe comparable to the signing bonus for a 20th-round draft pick, or less. Totally insignificant.
-
Do we have any actual information about his leaving the team? Did he have permission? If he didn't, did they punish him for it. If not, why not?
And, of course, is there any independent confirmation of Law's comment.
-
In his writeup on the Bregman acquisition, Law says off-the-record Cub sources have told him Shaw can be resistant to coaching...
"The Cubs now have one infielder too many, and they’re going to end up trading someone. The most obvious candidate is Shaw, whose rookie season was a disappointment at the plate thanks to some frequent mechanical changes and, according to people I’ve spoken to, resistance to help from the Cubs’ staff. He also made his priorities clear when he left the team during the pennant race to attend a political rally, missing a game the Cubs lost 1-0."
I don't know if selling high is possible on Shaw after a year with meh results and ghastly metrics at the plate. And other teams certainly know about his walkabout in the middle of a pennant race, which - as Law says - made his priorities clear. But he's young and cheap for six years, has defensive versatility, and could still develop into an average bat. I think he's a ticking time bomb personally, and would love to see the Cubs cash in on him now and let some other organization deal with him.
-
Dave, I did a poor job of explaining my explanation.
Salary for players on any of the major league ILs counts toward the luxury tax payroll. And, of course, salary for players replacing those who are on the IL counts toward the luxury tax payroll.
What I was trying to say is that most luxury tax payroll estimates (both professional and my own amateur attempt) anticipate that there will be players on the IL throughout the year and build in cost for players to replace those.
So you, and cots, and others include that in their projections. That certainly makes sense. But isn't that what Hoyer is doing, when he says that he wants to reserve 8 to 10 million dollars for last minute trades, etc. And it sounds like he made a poor estimate the year he accidentally went over the limit. I admit I am not sure that that is actually what he said, or how he said it.
-
In his writeup on the Bregman acquisition, Law says off-the-record Cub sources have told him Shaw can be resistant to coaching...
"The Cubs now have one infielder too many, and they’re going to end up trading someone. The most obvious candidate is Shaw, whose rookie season was a disappointment at the plate thanks to some frequent mechanical changes and, according to people I’ve spoken to, resistance to help from the Cubs’ staff. He also made his priorities clear when he left the team during the pennant race to attend a political rally, missing a game the Cubs lost 1-0."
-
....Shaw is different. He’s a 3B and 3B is now unavailable here. Trade him to somebody who wants him for 600 PAs at 3B. Maybe like the Michael Busch trade in reverse or, alternatively, for a very significant piece for 2026 and beyond. Would not be averse to bringing back Willi Castro for the utility role, who’s probably actually still a .700 OPS guy and not the poor performer he was here in 2025. Can play everywhere on the field, as we know.
Don't agree.
1. After the bat-speed and exit-velo type underlying numbers, I'm not sure he presently has big trade value? And we have no Nowacrat need other than the Nowacrat utility role that he fits.
2. *IF* you're dead set on trading him, I suspect his trade value might be better served by keeping him and having him show that he's an improved big-league hitter, ready to be an asset every-day bat.
3. Hasn't proved 2B yet. But I think if he's good at 3rd, he'll be able to be capable at 2nd as well.
4. I'm a big fan of keeping good prospects as utility guys. Every year, bench guys gobble **huge** volumes of AB's. *IF* he's a good player and becomes a good hitter, then I think he'll have plenty of value in utility. Perhaps super-utility. Having one that's locked in under club-control at low price, all the better. P2 has mentioned learning OF too. With his speed and athleticism, perhaps he could, even if arm is weak? I just think trading him now, when we don't really have a need other than utility bench, wouldn't seem wise. And yeah, *IF* he hits and proves himself as a bat, you'll always have opportunity to trade him later if you want. Just don't see it making any sense now.
5. Shaw seems a super hard worker and a smart, enthusiastic guy. Seems like a good personality to adapt to utility function, not a pouter.
-
I probably did a poor job of explaining my point. They can't predict in advance who might get hurt and have to be replaced, so if you have contractual obligations right up to the luxury tax limit, and if someone is injured and has to be replaced, does his salary paid while he is on the IR count against the luxury tax numbers?
I guess another way to ask it is, when Steele was on the IR for the entire year, did the money we paid him count in computing salary, or is it somehow excluded from the calculation? I have always assumed so, but I may be making a bad assumption.
Either way, as I understand Hoyer's point, if he doesn't carry a cushion below the luxury tax line, if at the trade deadline he wants to bring in a rental, he may not be able to do that if it puts him over the (self imposed) luxury line limit.
Dave, I did a poor job of explaining my explanation.
Salary for players on any of the major league ILs counts toward the luxury tax payroll. And, of course, salary for players replacing those who are on the IL counts toward the luxury tax payroll.
What I was trying to say is that most luxury tax payroll estimates (both professional and my own amateur attempt) anticipate that there will be players on the IL throughout the year and build in cost for players to replace those.
-
I'm just mean the 2025 offense is likely better than what the 2026 offense is going to be. The question is how big of a gap. Is Bregman a 120-130 wRC+ guy or is he sub 120. Will Busch drop down? What are Moises and PCA. Like there is a version of the 2026 offense being better, but that is a lot of things going right.
Yeah, agree. It could/should be less. Not sure it should drop that much, though? (Obviously who knows, and who knows with injuries).
Breg > Shaw
Tucker > Moises/Shaw/Austin
Shaw > Brujan/Berti/Castro
Not sure it should really drop that much, barring injury? But yeah, that kinda depends on guys like Busch, PCA, Amaya/Kelly, and Seiya not declining a bunch.
I think regression is likely. But personnel-wise, it almost ought to be better? A year of Bregman versus 2 months of Tucker; a year of more-ready Shaw in place of Brujan/Berti. Otherwise it's pretty much the same personnel.
-
IF Nico is traded, it won't be until AFTER this weekend.
-
tico and blue, I'm not sure how to process the 26 vs 25 stuff. One framework is to compare how things look now versus how they looked pre-2025. The other is to compare how things look now versus what we actually got in 2026. The real season often played out very differently than pre-season expectation.
Tucker projected great. But he basically didn't produce anything after mid-June. 22 HR, .844 OPS. Seiya should give more HR's, and almost as much OPS in RF. Possible that Moises/Austin/Shaw at DH might combine for more DH HR than the 22 HR that Tucker actually hit? Heh heh, Moises had higher OPS than Tucker! Maybe the actual production difference in RF/DH won't be significantly different?
Busch, my projection now is WAY higher than at this point last year. Doesn't mean he'll actually produce as well as last season. Projection can change a lot; but so too can actual performance?
Pitchers, nobody expected lots from Boyd. Or Horton. And nobody knew Assad, Steele, and Shota would all miss lots of season to injury. Likewise thoughts/projections for Hodge and Pressly were more hopeful than the reality. Again, what we anticipated entering the season ended up playing out very differently in the season. Who knows this time around?
But yeah, with the 11 starting pitchers we've got now, with only steele currently injured and that not for super long, projects to give better production than the actual 92-win rotation gave.
-
Dave, most luxury tax payroll calculations account for this.
I probably did a poor job of explaining my point. They can't predict in advance who might get hurt and have to be replaced, so if you have contractual obligations right up to the luxury tax limit, and if someone is injured and has to be replaced, does his salary paid while he is on the IR count against the luxury tax numbers?
I guess another way to ask it is, when Steele was on the IR for the entire year, did the money we paid him count in computing salary, or is it somehow excluded from the calculation? I have always assumed so, but I may be making a bad assumption.
Either way, as I understand Hoyer's point, if he doesn't carry a cushion below the luxury tax line, if at the trade deadline he wants to bring in a rental, he may not be able to do that if it puts him over the (self imposed) luxury line limit.
-
C, 1B, 2B, SS, LF, CF all the same 2025 to 2026.
3B: Bregman > Shaw
Bench: Shaw + 2 warm bodies > 3 warm bodies
RF: Suzuki < Tucker
DH: Ballesteros < Suzuki
Agree that offense is likely worse - hard to lose Tucker and upgrade in the process - but disagree that this offense isn't good. It's very deep 1-9 with talent on the bench. Easily above average, IMO.
Disagree that defense is worse. Tucker didn't really do much in RF, and while Suzuki will have his memorable gaffes, I don't know if the separation between the two is that significant? Meanwhile, Bregman is a stud at 3B, and Shaw is a great first glove off the bench. For me feels like a wash.
And I like our pitching in 2026 a lot more than 2025. Rotation and bullpen both upgraded. Significantly higher ceiling and more depth on both fronts.
Knowing what we did about the given players in 2025 vs what we know now in 2026, I like our roster better overall this year.
I'm just mean the 2025 offense is likely better than what the 2026 offense is going to be. The question is how big of a gap. Is Bregman a 120-130 wRC+ guy or is he sub 120. Will Busch drop down? What are Moises and PCA. Like there is a version of the 2026 offense being better, but that is a lot of things going right.
-
….Knowing what we did about the given players in 2025 vs what we know now in 2026, I like our roster better overall this year.
Cubs 2025 Pythagorean was 96 wins. Won 92. That was a very good club. One big Kyle Tucker homer in Game 5 of Division series away from NLCS.
Sharma has a piece up about folly of trading Hoerner when Cubs should be aiming for WS in 2026. Totally agree and hoping the Hoerner trade talk is the usual social media silliness. And don’t see any reason why Cubs can’t or won’t re-sign Hoerner when have less than $100 M committed to 2027 and beyond.
Shaw is different. He’s a 3B and 3B is now unavailable here. Trade him to somebody who wants him for 600 PAs at 3B. Maybe like the Michael Busch trade in reverse or, alternatively, for a very significant piece for 2026 and beyond. Would not be averse to bringing back Willi Castro for the utility role, who’s probably actually still a .700 OPS guy and not the poor performer he was here in 2025. Can play everywhere on the field, as we know.
-
This pretty much locks in the offense and they might tinker with bench. How would you compare the 2025 Cubs to the 2026 Cubs?
2025 offense- Tucker gives them edge. The Cubs have to be hoping first half PCA shows up for a majority of 26 and Moises can DH and be productive. It isn’t bad, but it isn’t good either.
2025 defense- Again this goes to 2025. People are getting older and Shaw was better at 3rd than Bregman. Tucker is better in RF than Seiya.
2026 rotation- clearly more upside than 2025, but the injury risks are a lot higher. Shota should hopefully bounce back. Steele is TBD. Cabrera how many innings will he pitch. Can his fastballs be fixed. Hopefully Horton or a Wiggins becomes an ace.
Bullpen: TBD. It will depend on who the Cubs dumpster dive for.
My initial reaction is I like the 2025 roster better, but I could be swayed the 2026 Cubs are a slight improvement if the rotation improves. I don’t think this team is an overwhelming favorite for the NL Central. If they make the playoffs could this team go to a World Series? Sure, because baseball is weird, but my guess is if the play the Dodgers they are a sweep waiting to happen.
This is a fine team. Spending more money is great. The Cubs should be shooting being something better and that isn’t what this team is. It will keep Wrigley full, should have a pretty decent shot at least being a wild card team. That will be enough for some.
C, 1B, 2B, SS, LF, CF all the same 2025 to 2026.
3B: Bregman > Shaw
Bench: Shaw + 2 warm bodies > 3 warm bodies
RF: Suzuki < Tucker
DH: Ballesteros < Suzuki
Agree that offense is likely worse - hard to lose Tucker and upgrade in the process - but disagree that this offense isn't good. It's very deep 1-9 with talent on the bench. Easily above average, IMO.
Disagree that defense is worse. Tucker didn't really do much in RF, and while Suzuki will have his memorable gaffes, I don't know if the separation between the two is that significant? Meanwhile, Bregman is a stud at 3B, and Shaw is a great first glove off the bench. For me feels like a wash.
And I like our pitching in 2026 a lot more than 2025. Rotation and bullpen both upgraded. Significantly higher ceiling and more depth on both fronts.
Knowing what we did about the given players in 2025 vs what we know now in 2026, I like our roster better overall this year.
-
I'm pretty comfortable and optimistic with the anti-awful depth for relief: Palencia-Harvey-Maton-Thielbar-Milner-Webb-Rea-Assad-Steele-Wicks-Brown-Wiggins
You left out your boy Hodge.
-
I'm more optimistic than most, I know. Let's go! Key reason is that I'm on the anti-awful train.
I don't see *any* holes or awful spots, rotation or position. See considerably contingency depth, for rotation, relief, catcher, and infield. OF seems the only thin spot to me? [If our worst problem is having Alcantara as 4th OFer and not having a LH OF backup, most teams have worse concerns....]
Average OPS in mlb was .719. In anti-awful world, I don't really anticipate any positional liabilities. Great defense at 6 spots, and even our worst hitter Dansby was still 105 in OPS+. Lineup is anti-awful across all spots, usually well into the asset area of the continuum.
I think OF may be thin. But I love Shaw for utility IF, huge upgrade on Brujan/Berti. Amaya/Kelly with Moises behind gives good catcher depth. So I think injury-coverage looks deep and beautifully anti-awful. (With possible exception in OF, where I still anticipate another guy getting added.).
Anti-awful depth for rotation: Horton-Boyd-Cabrera-Shota-Taillon-Steele-Rea-Assad-Wiggins-Wicks-Brown
I'm pretty comfortable and optimistic with the anti-awful depth for relief: Palencia-Harvey-Maton-Thielbar-Milner-Webb-Rea-Assad-Steele-Wicks-Brown-Wiggins
AND THEN ADD MY BOY HODGE!
So yeah, I'm thinking the depth coverage is good everywhere except for OF, and that we are pretty anti-awful across the roster. Might not win 92, who knows. But I think it's well possible to repeat 92 wins or add a few more. Very optimistic.
-
"Spend the money now" is a dangerous decision to make this early in the year.
As I understand it, if a player goes on the DL, the salary he receives still applies against the luxury tax line. If that is accurate, when someone such as Steel goes on the season long DL, the salary of the guy that replaces him adds to the projected salary cost. If you have spent up to the luxury tax line with your current team, any addition to the roster has to be an extremely low cost guy, or you go over the limit.
Same applies to trade deadline deals. As Hoyer has already mentioned, if you don't leave a safety margin in the budget, it becomes very difficult to trade for late season help, since almost anyone that will help your team will probably come with a sizable salary.
Of course, this is only important if staying under the luxury line is important to management.
Dave, most luxury tax payroll calculations account for this.
-
Mooney and Sharma gave a number on their podcast. I can't honestly remember.
If the trade Hoerner it is to clear money, hopefully they'll get a better return than what they got for Bellinger. Hopefully they don't trade him, but any extension now seems really unlikely.
-
"Spend the money now" is a dangerous decision to make this early in the year.
As I understand it, if a player goes on the DL, the salary he receives still applies against the luxury tax line. If that is accurate, when someone such as Steel goes on the season long DL, the salary of the guy that replaces him adds to the projected salary cost. If you have spent up to the luxury tax line with your current team, any addition to the roster has to be an extremely low cost guy, or you go over the limit.
Same applies to trade deadline deals. As Hoyer has already mentioned, if you don't leave a safety margin in the budget, it becomes very difficult to trade for late season help, since almost anyone that will help your team will probably come with a sizable salary.
Of course, this is only important if staying under the luxury line is important to management.
-
I just think for me, this is another move geared towards sneaking in the playoffs and hoping things break right. ... isn't going to move the needle much on an 88-90'ish win wild card type team that might win an early round postseason series but won't do much more than that. We're basically preserving the status quo ...
That's fair for sure. I admit I'm much more of a Kool-aid optimist. :):). [Heh heh, for baseball I try to be objective, but I also try not to suppress my 3rd-grader optimism! :):)] From both analyst and optimist perspective, I think kinda holding serve on a 92-win team isn't that fault-worthy a plan? 92-win team, with a chance to be variably better, might be kinda fun? Maybe very fun? (Obviously might also be variably worse. Who knows?)
Dodgers we aren't, obviously. But in playoffs, a 92-95-win team can win, sometimes against even better teams?
Things can change, too. Heh heh, in my 3rd-grader dreamworld, maybe Horton sustains as ace; Cabrera explodes into ace-dome; and Wiggins explodes into ace-dom? Suddenly our 3-man playoff rotation has 3 big-stuff aces? Hugely improbable, I get that, but who knows? [Entering 2016, some people thought Adam Warren might beat out Hendricks for 5th starter. Nobody assumed soft-toss #5-starter Hendricks would face and out-pitch multi-Cy Clayton Kershaw to beat the Dodgers and get into the World Series.] Sometimes improbably nice surprises happen for teams that have great seasons?
-
Will also keep the Cubs below the CBT...
Interesting. Under by little? Cots often uses some slightly different guesstimates, and present Cot's is guessing Bregman at $32.5, higher than Rosenthal suggests. But with Bregman listing at $32.5, Cots has Cubs $0.6 below lux1. Assuming Rosenthal has better info, such that Bregman is actually ~$30.5, that might put Cubs ~$2.6 below Lux1?
I have argued that keeping a $5-8 cushion is unwise. Spend the money now. But if they are already within $2.6 or less, that does leave little space.
1. Might still add a LH outfielder before season? I think that's quite plausible. Even if deferrals drop us below lux1 today, an OF signing might jump past lux1 before season anyway.
2. Might also make a deadline trade?
3. Even without adding anybody now or later, still a real chance that guys will earn bonuses that surpass lux1 anyway. Hunter Harvey, for example?
Note: Bregman addition and Caissie trade change the look from last month. reb has noted that Austin contract might not actually be guaranteed? If so, perhaps a chance that Austin's $1.25 might get kicked off, and add a little extra space? Just give RH-DH role to Shaw?
but yeah, I don't think lux1 matters much. Who cares?
-Obviously who knows what next CBA will penalize for stacking lux. Maybe come 2028, I'll change my tune, and wish a contending team wasn't facing 3-peat tax consequences....
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1epJfx2VlkhWd--kaoTLWkYHD2OEetroV73Us1pbefGM/edit?gid=1520401900#gid=1520401900
-
...highly unlikely Cubs trade Shaw for a reliever but is it conceivable Cubs still interested in MacKenzie Gore?
Shaw, Johnny Long, Assad or Wicks, a lesser fourth piece for two years of Gore?
I think that's unlikely. I kinda feel like ideas about trading Hoerner or Shaw for more depth pitching doesn't seem to fit the roster needs, as I perceive them. (Other posters, and perhaps Hoyer or Carter, obviously may perceive otherwise! As in all things, I may be wrong!)
But to me it seems we're already very deep in rotation guys and in pitching in general.
Rotation: Horton-Boyd-Cabrera-Shota-Taillon-Steele-Rea-Assad-Wiggins-Wicks-Brown. We've already got 11 guys.
I don't think it makes sense to be trading Shaw/Hoerner for pitchers who might not make the 3-man playoff rotation, or might not significantly upgrade relative to our regular-season 5th-starter. We've got enough pitching depth; and we've got enough guys with potential to earn 3rd-starter role in the playoffs.
Warren and Gil, don't see them beating out Shota or Taillon for rotation. Gore has flashed in given games. But he's a career 4.19-ERA guy, career-year ERA was 3.9, never a WHIP below 1.35, plenty of walks, plenty of hits, plenty of HR's. Gore has never ERA'd below 3.9, career 4.19; Assad has never ERA'd above 3.73, career 3.43.
Not definite that a 4.19-Gore is actually going to upgrade much relative to 3.43 Assad. Or to Taillon, or Shota, or Steele. Or to Wiggins, come October.
I think I'm good with leaving the rotation as is, and letting it rip.
-
Yankees twitter is buzzing about a Hoerner trade, though it’s not clear if there’s anything to it from our side. Supposedly for SP (Gil or Warren, which is a hard pass for me).
Hoerner for Warren/Gil sounds like the kind of stuff Yankee fans would dream up and that probably (hopefully) has no basis. Cubs won 92 games, Hoyer is in Nowacrat mode.
Seems improbable that a Nowacrat boss wants to trade arguably one of his best WAR players (and clubhouse chemists) for a depth pitcher who'll be #7 on your depth chart. In order to just create a big new hole at infield utility, and to commit 2B to an uncertain hitter who hasn't played that position that much yet.
-
I’m just a little curious if they are somehow still trying to add Bichette…
-
Just out of curiosity, where would we stand payroll wise if we add Bregman, remove Hoerner, and add a Gil or Warren?
Something like $220M?
If they want to talk Schlitter, sure. Warren or Gil are interesting but not for Nico when we’re trying to win in 2026 or bust. If there were still a top RP on the market we could talk about Hoerner and Taillon for Gil and their top 2 prospects or so, but again - what are we saving it for?
If they want a 2B type who doesn’t K much Shaw for Gil/Warren might be worth considering.
-
Honestly a bit surprised at the tone in here.
I just think for me, this is another move geared towards sneaking in the playoffs and hoping things break right. If this was a move to get us from 92 wins to 96 or 97, I'd be a lot more supportive, but since this is likely to be our big ticket move of the offseason, this isn't going to move the needle much on an 88-90'ish win wild card type team that might win an early round postseason series but won't do much more than that. We're basically preserving the status quo with this move at the cost of a contract that, even with the deferrals, isn't likely to age well at all.
Maybe we'll be surprised with another big splash move, which would change how I view Bregman a little bit, but that's just not how we've been operating lately.
-
Just out of curiosity, where would we stand payroll wise if we add Bregman, remove Hoerner, and add a Gil or Warren?
-
Yankees twitter is buzzing about a Hoerner trade, though it’s not clear if there’s anything to it from our side. Supposedly for SP (Gil or Warren, which is a hard pass for me).
-
Very happy to get Bregman but kind of remarkable Cubs replace a pre-arb guy at 3B making less than $1 M AAV for a guy making $30+ M at same position.
Cubs brass just love the Bregman package, obviously, and leaves open the question what they really think of Shaw? A gold glove finalist but is not going to be Cubs 3B for at least five years—probably never.
No, highly unlikely Cubs trade Shaw for a reliever but is it conceivable Cubs still interested in MacKenzie Gore?
Shaw, Johnny Long, Assad or Wicks, a lesser fourth piece for two years of Gore?
-
FanGraphs has the current 2026 Cubs the class of the NL Central offensively. They are quite a bit less enthusiastic about our pitching.
Just to be clear a lot of the projections aren’t out yet. They two that are out have the Cubs best hitter as Seiya with a wRC+ of 124.
-
Shaw. I like Shaw. I think he had a great second half which has been overlooked. He was demoted early, took it like a pro, and came back strong. I thought he made some incredible plays at third. But he's not better than Bregman. The only real concern I had with him is that old sophomore jinx at the plate. I think he could develop into a super sub, even learning the outfield and giving Busch a break at first, but moving around that much could impact his bat negatively. We'd have to be patient.
-
I'm really fired up. Jeff knows I'm on dope! :):). And I know you never know, and a million things could go wrong. But I'm optimistic and fired up that this could be a really good, complete team. Let's go!
-
FanGraphs has the current 2026 Cubs the class of the NL Central offensively. They are quite a bit less enthusiastic about our pitching.
-
To each his own. To me the question re the 2026 Cubs is how well they perform over the course of the season. Results are not determined by projections or statistical analysis of past performance.
I am pretty happy with the results of the off-season. I also happen to really like the makeup of this team but we'll just have to wait and see how things turn out on the field. Stuff happens. I hope to really enjoy the season. I expect there to be lots of opportunities for that, and probably lots of opportunities for disappointment over 162 games (and hopefully during the playoffs). But I do not intend to worry in advance about all the ways things could go badly. But that's just me.
-
Rosenthal is saying the AAV will be somewhere between $30-31 million. It depends on the amount of money, how far out the deferral is, the interest rate the Cubs are giving Bregman on the deferral. They put all that into a spread sheet and come up with a present day value of the deal.
The question about the 2026 Cubs is are they the clear favorites in the NL Central? I think that is the lowest bar a Cubs team should have to clear. I still think the answer is no.
-
Rosenthal says the deferred money is in the $65-70M range, pushing the real value of the deal to around 5/$150-155. That's certainly more palatable.
How does deferred money work? If the deal is 5/$175 and $65 is deferred wouldn’t that make the deal 5/$110? $22M per year sounds great! $30-$35M per year doesn’t sound as positive.
-
Will also keep the Cubs below the CBT.
The worry becomes will Rickett’s take the deferred money out of the budget of the teams in the future.
-
Rosenthal says the deferred money is in the $65-70M range, pushing the real value of the deal to around 5/$150-155. That's certainly more palatable.
-
I would love to trade Shaw for an impact reliever with a couple years of control.
-
This pretty much locks in the offense and they might tinker with bench. How would you compare the 2025 Cubs to the 2026 Cubs?
2025 offense- Tucker gives them edge. The Cubs have to be hoping first half PCA shows up for a majority of 26 and Moises can DH and be productive. It isn’t bad, but it isn’t good either.
2025 defense- Again this goes to 2025. People are getting older and Shaw was better at 3rd than Bregman. Tucker is better in RF than Seiya.
2026 rotation- clearly more upside than 2025, but the injury risks are a lot higher. Shota should hopefully bounce back. Steele is TBD. Cabrera how many innings will he pitch. Can his fastballs be fixed. Hopefully Horton or a Wiggins becomes an ace.
Bullpen: TBD. It will depend on who the Cubs dumpster dive for.
My initial reaction is I like the 2025 roster better, but I could be swayed the 2026 Cubs are a slight improvement if the rotation improves. I don’t think this team is an overwhelming favorite for the NL Central. If they make the playoffs could this team go to a World Series? Sure, because baseball is weird, but my guess is if the play the Dodgers they are a sweep waiting to happen.
This is a fine team. Spending more money is great. The Cubs should be shooting being something better and that isn’t what this team is. It will keep Wrigley full, should have a pretty decent shot at least being a wild card team. That will be enough for some.
I think the 2026 offensive is a bit better than you are suggesting. Yes, we lose Tucker, but for much of the 2nd half he was not productive. Bregman will give us a full season of competent ABs which is far more than we received from our 3Bs last year (especially in the 1st half of the year). I would like to think PCA will continue to improve but unfortunately I think he will be similar to Javy Baez and won’t learn to provide a more professional AB. I believe Moises will provide a lot of offense from the DH spot.
Seiya’s defense terrifies me. He can drop some routine balls. If we don’t pick up an OF I do think Seiya will lose a handful of ABs when Alcantara is forced into a game as a defensive replacement. While Bregman may not be as good as Shaw defensively, I don’t think Bregman will be a negative. He should be average or perhaps a bit above average.
Pitching…..hopefully Horton AND Wiggins can become aces. Hopefully Cabrera is healthy and can also become an ace. Hopefully Steele comes back quickly and regains his form. Hopefully Imanaga regains his form from the 1st half. Hopefully Boyd does the same. Hopefully Taillon remains really solid. There is a lot of “hopefully” in there but I think some are realistic and we do have depth in SPs.
Cade Horton
Justin Steele (expected back prior to the All-Star break)
Matthew Boyd
Jameson Taillon
Edward Cabrera
Shota Imanaga
Colin Rea
Ben Brown
Javier Assad
Jordan Wicks
Jaxon Wiggins
Our RPs are potentially a big issue but I felt the same way coming into the past season. On paper, I like Maton, Harvey, Palencia and Thielbar. I will keep my fingers crossed for a few of the others to pan out. Maybe Hodge can bounce back. Assad, Rea and Wicks in the bullpen throwing long relief? Brown? He is probably better suited as a RP
-
Honestly a bit surprised at the tone in here.
Was Bregman my first choice? No.
Was Tucker ever going to happen? No, I don’t think so.
Is $35M/yr an overpay? Yeah, probably. And my eyebrows go up, too, at the % allocation to Bregman and Swanson.
But we’ve always said it takes an overpay. And where I was just saying Bichette was perfect, others expressed concern about his defense. If you don’t like Bo’s D, and we’re honest about Tucker, Bregman is the guy, by default.
Sure, I have concerns about how Wrigley impacts Bregman’s power. But he’s a good hitter with a great approach, plus defense, supposedly great leader/clubhouse guy, etc.
Glad he’s a Cub.
And I’m glad to have been proven wrong. This move certainly exceeds my payroll predictions. I didn’t think the Cubs had this in them.
This pretty much locks in the offense and they might tinker with bench. How would you compare the 2025 Cubs to the 2026 Cubs?
2025 offense- Tucker gives them edge. The Cubs have to be hoping first half PCA shows up for a majority of 26 and Moises can DH and be productive. It isn’t bad, but it isn’t good either.
2025 defense- Again this goes to 2025. People are getting older and Shaw was better at 3rd than Bregman. Tucker is better in RF than Seiya.
2026 rotation- clearly more upside than 2025, but the injury risks are a lot higher. Shota should hopefully bounce back. Steele is TBD. Cabrera how many innings will he pitch. Can his fastballs be fixed. Hopefully Horton or a Wiggins becomes an ace.
Bullpen: TBD. It will depend on who the Cubs dumpster dive for.
My initial reaction is I like the 2025 roster better, but I could be swayed the 2026 Cubs are a slight improvement if the rotation improves. I don’t think this team is an overwhelming favorite for the NL Central. If they make the playoffs could this team go to a World Series? Sure, because baseball is weird, but my guess is if the play the Dodgers they are a sweep waiting to happen.
This is a fine team. Spending more money is great. The Cubs should be shooting being something better and that isn’t what this team is. It will keep Wrigley full, should have a pretty decent shot at least being a wild card team. That will be enough for some.
-
The biggest deal is that Hoyer went beyond his comfort zone to at least some extent (depending on the details of the deferred money). You can't win without taking chances and there is definitely risk in the Bregman acquisition. Kudos to Jed.
-
Ken Rosenthal
@Ken_Rosenthal
·
51m
Within: Per source, Bregman deal includes deferrals. Full details not yet known. But present-day value will be less than $175M. And annual luxury-tax charge will be less than $35M.
I'll be the first to admit that if the deferred money is enough to lower the true AAV meaningfully, that makes swallowing 5 years more palatable. It would also be encouraging that the Cubs are finally accepting they can use that scam just like every other big club.
-
What were we saving for? One good starter. Now we know! Wanted one ticket bat, signed one ticket bat. Now we'll see how the team performs.
Various thoughts:
1. One more move to make, add an outfielder. Over lux1, tax rate insignificant, so no $$ reason to scrimp there. But if they go with Alcantara, that's OK too. He might do a bunch of RF-defensive replacement, and give PCA some days off against tough lefties or when mired in slumps.
2. Cubs should have a REALLY good defense. Six spots really good, only RF and C aren't.
3. Bregman isn't a HR-slugger, and he's not in short-porch Houston anymore. I'd guess in the 15-20 range. But if he kinda pulls and uses left center, he might still get ≥20, maybe?
4. Terrific eye, good contact guy, excellent BB/K ratios. Guessing that isn't a quality that ages badly? Only one year below .350 OBP, and higher OBP than Bichette, usually.
5. This explains the spending game. What Hoyer was saving it for. He had the money, he wanted a ticket, logic to overpay and get it done. A year longer than ideal, AAV higher than ideal, but that's the price of FA. Having some overpay contracts, that's the way it goes. Don't think the few $$ matters in short term.
6. Ricketts cutting budget debunked. They won more games, they hosted 5 playoff games, they boosted spending. No surprise, and kinda as I expected.
7. Heh heh, blame Ricketts or blame Hoyer? Is Hoyer doing as best as possible, it's just Ricketts in the way? Hopefully Cubs will be good so failure and blame won't be primary wallow. But seems to me that relative to the division, Hoyer has such a big $$ advantage, that *IF* he can't make it work relative to the division, focus the blame on Hoyer.
-
Honestly a bit surprised at the tone in here.
Was Bregman my first choice? No.
Was Tucker ever going to happen? No, I don’t think so.
Is $35M/yr an overpay? Yeah, probably. And my eyebrows go up, too, at the % allocation to Bregman and Swanson.
But we’ve always said it takes an overpay. And where I was just saying Bichette was perfect, others expressed concern about his defense. If you don’t like Bo’s D, and we’re honest about Tucker, Bregman is the guy, by default.
Sure, I have concerns about how Wrigley impacts Bregman’s power. But he’s a good hitter with a great approach, plus defense, supposedly great leader/clubhouse guy, etc.
Glad he’s a Cub.
And I’m glad to have been proven wrong. This move certainly exceeds my payroll predictions. I didn’t think the Cubs had this in them.
Great description! I was saying that at this stage he is almost a better fielding, but less versatile, version of Ben Zobrist (but a bit better). A guy who gives you a professional AB, doesn’t K a ton, can hit some HRs but not a ton, should have an OBP in the .360-.370 range and a BA of .260-.275.
Hopefully he has a better wife.
-
Honestly a bit surprised at the tone in here.
Was Bregman my first choice? No.
Was Tucker ever going to happen? No, I don’t think so.
Is $35M/yr an overpay? Yeah, probably. And my eyebrows go up, too, at the % allocation to Bregman and Swanson.
But we’ve always said it takes an overpay. And where I was just saying Bichette was perfect, others expressed concern about his defense. If you don’t like Bo’s D, and we’re honest about Tucker, Bregman is the guy, by default.
Sure, I have concerns about how Wrigley impacts Bregman’s power. But he’s a good hitter with a great approach, plus defense, supposedly great leader/clubhouse guy, etc.
Glad he’s a Cub.
And I’m glad to have been proven wrong. This move certainly exceeds my payroll predictions. I didn’t think the Cubs had this in them.
-
ESPN on the Cubs splash moves. Both get a C+.
Cubs nab Bregman on five-year deal
The deal: Five years, $175 million
Grade: C+
There is an argument that Alex Bregman's name recognition exceeds his actual on-field value. His two-year peak with the Houston Astros came way back in 2018 and 2019, when he finished fifth then second in American League MVP voting. Since 2022, he ranks tied for 33rd in the majors in wRC+ (weighted runs created) among players with at least 1,500 plate appearances and 24th in WAR among position players. The only MVP votes he has received were four points and a 19th-place finish in 2022 and one point (22nd place) in 2023.
Cubs add to rotation in Cabrera deal with Marlins
Cubs get:
RHP Edward Cabrera
Marlins get:
OF Owen Caissie
SS Cristian Hernandez
3B Edgardo DeLeon
Cubs grade: C+
The Cubs' rotation before this deal was more good than dynamic, a description that could change with the addition of the talented Cabrera. With health and further fine-tuning in the command department, Cabrera retains top-of-the-rotation upside. The ultimate verdict on this deal will depend on how much of that upside is realized in Chicago. If Cabrera is a Game 1 or 2 postseason starter over the next couple of Octobers, we'll have our answer.
The Cubs' absence of a true No. 1 was illustrated by their lack of high-end strikeout projections. No one in Chicago's likely rotation before Wednesday was forecast to top Shota Imanaga's 21.4% figure in Steamer's context-neutral numbers. Cabrera's projection sits at 25.1%. He also projects to have the highest walk rate of the unit and allows too much hard contact, especially on his sinker. However, if Cabrera's command keeps trending in the right direction, his arsenal will become more of a difference-maker.
That is if he can stay healthy, a caveat that applies to all pitchers but is particularly relevant to Cabrera, who has been placed on the injured list nine times as a big leaguer -- at least once in each of his five seasons. He has gone on the shelf with elbow/bicep issues, blisters, a sprained ankle and, most notably, the shoulder problems that clipped his 2024 season.
-
Craig-The BA extended podcast talked about Alcantara quite a bit.
They noted that 2026 would be his EIGHTH season in minors (including washed-out 2020) and it’s very rare that players end up as productive major leaguers with that background. Talked about phenomenon of getting “stale” with longevity in minors. Better part of 2026 at Iowa would give Alcantara close to 1,000 PAs at AAA alone.
So, maybe time has come.
Granted, bench might be better balanced with a lefty bench bat from OF. Will be interesting to see how plays out.
-
This is way worse than the Dansby deal, IMO. He was like 28 when we signed him, and the AAV was a lot lower. If you go by the benchmark $8M/WAR estimate, Swanson has already earned well over $100 million of that deal. Does anyone seriously think Bregman is going to give you 22 WAR in his age 32-36 seasons?
Don’t tell CBJ how much Swanson value has earned so far.
As to Bregman, the guys who tend to maintain a high level well into their 30s are players with a favorable injury history earlier and who are “baseball rats” kind of players—always analyzing and adjusting. Adrian Beltre was like that.
Guessing that Bregman will be a 4 WAR per season player thru age 35. Not too sure about that 5th year at age 36. Happens all the time in free agency. You want the player: you probably have to give him one more year than ideal.
Manny Machado is under contract thru age 40 and his salary jumps to $39 per season after 2026. Think Machado will be good at age 35. Not to sure about those later seasons. Jose Ramirez figures to be good at 35. Think Bregman will be too.
-
reb, I think they'll still go after one outfielder.
1. Not sure Alcantara is quite ready to hit well, particular if used against both RHP and LHP.
2. Already over lux1, and tax is trivial. So no $$ reason that you need to go super-cheap on spare OF. If you spend $4-8, rather than $1.4, who cares?
3. Adding another OF, while having KA on reserve at Iowa, provides OF depth. Not sure who'd be next-man-up from Iowa if Kevin was in majors.
4. Biggest reason, in my mind, is Kevin's own development. I wouldn't see him getting AB's early in season. I think he'd be better served to at least start season at Iowa, and play every day. Maybe he'll never hit enough to be more than utility guy. But *IF* he both piled up Iowa AB AND showed improvement, both contact and HR-wise, you might suddenly be sure that you've got a value piece. Whether as a depth guy for us down the road; of a Seiya/Happ replacement option for next year; or as a trade chip. But I think his trade value will be way better if he's playing regularly, hitting HR's, and rolling a >.900-OPS at Iowa, than if he's getting only spotty AB's with the Cubs.
So I think giving him at least the early part of the season to optimize his hitting at Iowa is appropriate.
-
This is way worse than the Dansby deal, IMO. He was like 28 when we signed him, and the AAV was a lot lower. If you go by the benchmark $8M/WAR estimate, Swanson has already earned well over $100 million of that deal. Does anyone seriously think Bregman is going to give you 22 WAR in his age 32-36 seasons?
Don’t fall into the $/WAR BS. The problem with Dansby deal was he was perfectly fine player who was the highest player on the Cubs for 3 years. They then followed that up with an another perfectly fine layer who will now be the highest paid player on the Cubs. At least Dansby is getting closer to what he should be the 4th to 5th highest paid player on a team.
THE CUBS NEED A STARS, that is the problem. The Cubs finally got one and made the playoffs. Weird how that works.
The offense is going to be worse next year. The rotation might be better or it could be a huge injury cluster. The bullpen should be fine at some point, the question is how long does iake to get straightened out.
This team is fine. It will project for 85-88 wins. It will have a chance at the playoffs, but they won’t be significantly better than Brewers on paper.
This will make some people happy. Some of us want more and won’t be. Unless there is a huge over performance like PCA being the first half guy all year, Seiya being productive, Steele being healthy and great, Horton and Cabrera taking steps ahead and being healthy this team is just Dodger cannon fodder if they make the playoffs.
-
Guessing that Cubs off-season moves basically over, other than around the margins.
Roster is at 38, for those of you who were panicked a few weeks ago that 40-man was grievously low as an indicator of lack of talent.
Agree with Craig now that Alcantara likely makes the club as spare OFer. Formerly thought Cubs would bring in a veteran OFer and send Alcantara back to AAA but kinda doubt it now. Still possible but Alcantara has a lot of AAA ABs already and enough is enough.
So, bench is Amaya, Shaw, Austin, Alcantara, Ballesteros probably, including DH. With Caissie gone, Cubs will need Ballesteros bat from day one. If option Alcantara, could maybe see some interest in bringing back Tauchman.
-
This is way worse than the Dansby deal, IMO. He was like 28 when we signed him, and the AAV was a lot lower. If you go by the benchmark $8M/WAR estimate, Swanson has already earned well over $100 million of that deal. Does anyone seriously think Bregman is going to give you 22 WAR in his age 32-36 seasons?
-
I remember when I crapped on the Cubs signing Dansby. This is Dansby 2.0, only older without elite defense.
The problem is spending $60 million on 2 perfectly fine players when you could have had 1 excellent player for $10 million less.
-
With Bregman not attached to a draft pick loss and Cubs getting their SP via trade instead of a QO free agent, Cubs now will have two second round draft picks.
Hoping this draft is a pitching heavy draft. Pitchers, pitchers, pitchers with velocity and upside. Maybe take some chances with HS pitchers early.
2025 was OF heavy draft. Perhaps 2026 will be Pitchers heavy draft.
-
Those of us who you consider "naysayers" have been pretty clear all offseason that we thought spending a lot of money on him wasn't a smart move.
Okay, you have other preferences. But, predictably, if Bregman signed elsewhere and Cubs didn't outbid Jays, Mets, Dodgers for Tucker or Bichette and came in at $215 payroll, you’d be Naysaying on the Ricketts-Is-Cheap mantra.
Bregman is a consistent 4 WAR player with huge leadership skills. 5-year deal is not excessive. Cubs can do this because there are zero bad contract deals currently on Cubs payroll. Lots of money coming off after 2026 and more flexibility.
Cubs got the guy they wanted and paid big to do that. Will the Naysaying narrative change now?
Ha. Are you kidding???
My next prediction is that Naysayers still will find 2026 Cubs payroll too low. (Maybe should have paid Bregman $40 AAV).
-
……. It would be nice if there were some acknowledgement that the certainty that Hoyer would never outbid the competition on a major free agent was wrong.
Ron, seriously?
-
Naturally, if Cubs offered Bregman $30 AAV—and didn’t get him—our Naysayers would be naysaying Cubs as cheap.
Those of us who you consider "naysayers" have been pretty clear all offseason that we thought spending a lot of money on him wasn't a smart move.
-
We can make that call when we see what Tucker gets. But hard to overstate the importance of Tucker being over three years younger (never mind much better). A 7 year deal for Tucker is going to likely get you substantially less old guy depreciation.
I don't necessarily disagree. The Athletic ranked Bregman the #3 top free agent behind only Tucker and Bichette. It would be nice if there were some acknowledgement that the certainty that Hoyer would never outbid the competition on a major free agent was wrong.
-
$60 million in AAV on Swanson and Dansby. SNAFU.
LOL. Now, Ricketts is too big a spender!
Cubs now back again as CBT payer. Ricketts is a spendthrift. Too funny.
Swanson and Bregman not crowding anybody out. Cubs payroll commitment for 2027 is $90 M. That’s nothing. Plenty of room to maneuver.
Naturally, if Cubs offered Bregman $30 AAV—and didn’t get him—our Naysayers would be naysaying Cubs as cheap.
Can’t win.
Okay, some folks just preferred Tucker and Bichette. Why not wait and see what their total packages come to and see if you like those deals? Maybe you won’t.
-
There is paying big and paying big. There is a tad diffence beteween paying Tucker $40M+ for 7 or 8 years (which I gather is what is being predicted for Tucker) and $175M for 5 years for Bregman.
And last year Bregman got opt out provisions, but he reportedly did not this year.
It makes sense to prefer Tucker to Bregman, but it's not like their contracts were going to be remotely similar. Bregman $175M vs Tucker perhaps at least $280M. Sure, disagree about the choice between the two, but for once acknowledge that the Cubs beat out the competition for one of the top four free agent players. I don't remember many here (besides craig) predicting that the Cubs would outbid anyone for any of those guys.
We can make that call when we see what Tucker gets. But hard to overstate the importance of Tucker being over three years younger (never mind much better). A 7 year deal for Tucker is going to likely get you substantially less old guy depreciation.
-
Frickin’ Hoyer.
1. If you’re going to pay big, pay it to Tucker.
2. Really if we really wanted Bregman as a Cub, why didn’t we do the deal Boston did last year? That could have made a little more of a difference between a typical wild card team that needed luck to make a real dent in the playoffs and a team that could have really made some noise. This is just another “try to win 90” kind of move that doesn’t look great for the long haul.
Also good luck to Shaw on his new team.
There is paying big and paying big. There is a tad diffence beteween paying Tucker $40M+ for 7 or 8 years (which I gather is what is being predicted for Tucker) and $175M for 5 years for Bregman.
And last year Bregman got opt out provisions, but he reportedly did not this year.
It makes sense to prefer Tucker to Bregman, but it's not like their contracts were going to be remotely similar. Bregman $175M vs Tucker perhaps at least $280M. Sure, disagree about the choice between the two, but for once acknowledge that the Cubs beat out the competition for one of the top four free agent players. I don't remember many here (besides craig) predicting that the Cubs would outbid anyone for any of those guys.
-
Isn't that the same guy?
Bears game and a whiskey drink, but the could be the same.
Bregman’s projections are somewhere between 110-120 wRC+. My concern with him is he’s a guy who has just enough power. Sharma and Mooney said he’s more of a LF center guy, so he might not be a disaster since left center at Wrigley is short. If Wrigley saps his power than this is going to be an ugly 5 year contract.
-
Also good luck to Shaw on his new team.
We can only hope against evidence that we're smart enough for that to happen.
-
Frickin’ Hoyer.
1. If you’re going to pay big, pay it to Tucker.
2. Really if we really wanted Bregman as a Cub, why didn’t we do the deal Boston did last year? That could have made a little more of a difference between a typical wild card team that needed luck to make a real dent in the playoffs and a team that could have really made some noise. This is just another “try to win 90” kind of move that doesn’t look great for the long haul.
Also good luck to Shaw on his new team.
-
The Cubs did not finish 2nd or 3rd this time. They actually outbid the Red Sox. Imagine that.
"Red Sox are said to have been willing to go to five years for Bregman. They were outbid by the Cubs at that $175M mark," Cotillo wrote.
https://www.si.com/mlb/red-sox/onsi/boston-red-sox-news/why-red-sox-lost-alex-bregman-sweepstakes-to-cubs-pat3 (https://www.si.com/mlb/red-sox/onsi/boston-red-sox-news/why-red-sox-lost-alex-bregman-sweepstakes-to-cubs-pat3)
-
Well, craig's question of what they were saving the money for has been answered.
I'm pretty pleased with both the Cabrera and Bregman deals. Particularly Bregman. Clearly others will disagree.
An infield of Busch, Hoerner, Bregman and Swwanson makes me smile. Looks like the outfield will be Happ, PCA and Suzuki (with Alcantara as 4th OF?).
-
memo to Craig. I guess this is what he was saving it for.
-
$60 million in AAV on Swanson and Dansby. SNAFU.
Isn't that the same guy?
-
$60 million in AAV on Swanson and Dansby. SNAFU.
-
What's Shaw's trade value, I wonder? Maybe you can get a good long-term piece for him. Would much rather re-sign Nico.
Sadly that would require Nico to have a bad year because the Cubs won’t re-sign him if he has another big year (even with some contracts coming off the books).
-
What's Shaw's trade value, I wonder? Maybe you can get a good long-term piece for him. Would much rather re-sign Nico.
-
Ugh. Just add two years and give that to Bichette instead.
I'm absolutely mystified by this organization. I can only assume the Bregman thing boils down to a massive man-crush.
-
I truly don't understand what Hoyer is thinking. He won't go out of his comfort zone for a 28 year old star like Tucker. Or any other star player for the last 6 years.
But for good-not-great 32 year old Bregman? Sure, why not?
If the Cubs are really lucky, this deal doesn't look like a disaster until the third year.
-
Ugh. Just add two years and give that to Bichette instead.
-
Sounds like we got Bregman according to Heyman.
Rumor that it was a big overpay 5/$175.
-
Wouldn't it be funny to give a guy away and then end up spending big money to get him back? Very Cublike.
Sources: Yankees' negotiations with Cody Bellinger at an impasse
-
Suarez could well be the back up plan if miss out on primary target(s).
Batted .189 for M’s after trade deadline deal.
Primarily a DH with Cubs.
-
I'd take Suarez for two years over Bregman for five any day of the week.
-
One rumor out there is Hoyer may be waiting for the market on Eugenio Suarez to tank low enough to swoop in. Just reporting.
I saw that as well. It wouldn’t be my first choice (or second or third).
-
Agree with Craig that the hand-wringing over Bichette’s 3B (and especially 2B) defense is misplaced.
-
One rumor out there is Hoyer may be waiting for the market on Eugenio Suarez to tank low enough to swoop in. Just reporting.
-
I respectfully disagree on several of the recent posts.
1. Bichette will not be Hoerner/Shaw-caliber at either 2B or 3B. But don't presume he can't play either 2B or 3B at a good level or a world-series level. He was the regular SS for a world-series team this season, has been entrusted with >700 starts at SS. I expect he'll adapt to 3B or 2B and won't be a "huge mistake" problem at either position.
2. What are they saving it for? They went thrifty on relief to save money, for a purpose. They went thrifty on rotation, to save money for a purpose. They were 20th in scoring after all-star break. Hoyer stated that he likes to use chunks on starters, and that he has money to assemble a strong team. So I remain convinced that there is budget space and team willingness/desire to sign one of the four bats.
3. Some of the posts have suggested that Shaw is so good defensively, and he had a solid 2nd-half with some HR's, what's the point in adding Bichette or Bregman? Bichette would reduce the defense relative to Shaw, do we really want that? Bregman might require years such that by end of deal, he won't be great value, do we want to risk a non-great-value contract in 2030? Other posts have suggested that Bellinger isn't that hot outside of NY, and if you added Bellinger, would you want to use Seiya as DH, and take away Moises' chance to DH? So it seems posters are kinda suggesting don't bother with the four remaining bats, just go with what we've got and brush up with a utility IF and OF. I strongly disagree....
4. **Go get one of the four bats.** My preference is Tucker > Bichette > Bregman > Bellinger. But I think any of those four would help and would fit great. To have spent all off-season pinching pennies and "saving it up" for one of those guys, only to say "Nah, stick with what we've got" would be a failed plan and a super disappointing offseason. If you aren't going to sign one of the bats, then they should have kept Caissie's power bat. If they aren't going to sign one of the bats, then there would have been plenty of $$ to retain Keller or sign one of the pricy relievers. To pinch pennies on relief, to trade Caissie and pinch pennies on rotation, all of that only makes sense if the $$ you were saving in process gets applied to a semi-big bat. (Not like Bregman, Bichette, or Bellinger are real "power bats" or "big bats" or whatever, but all should be asset bats and all would hit at least some HR's.).
5. Acquiring 3B does not and should not necessitate trading Hoerner (or Shaw). Keep all three. Use your $$ to try to win now and into the future.
6. Every year, "subs" who are not primary starters get lots of AB. Past season was one of the healthiest, worst-bench, starters-playing-every-day seasons in recent memory. But there were still ~800 PA for non-starters. Most years, it's way, way higher than that. Point being, *IF* you acquire Bo/Breg and Shaw is bench, there are a LOT of AB's available. DH, 3B, 2B, SS-indirect, perhaps 1B? Not like Shaw is wasted and will never get AB. *IF* he hits like a guy you'd have liked as a primary starter, he'll have access to large numbers of AB. Not wasted at all.
6bThe same relates to "trade Hoerner to make room for Shaw". Keep them both, and have some depth for a rare change!
7. Same goes if you sign Tucker or Bellinger. Yes, that will definitely cut into Moises AB. But if it was hypothetically Bellinger signed, then injury or rest for any of Busch, Bellinger, Seiya, PCA, or Happ could be AB's taken by Moises. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to rest a guy, or a dinged guy, without the lineup falling apart? *IF* Moises shows he can hit, his potential to be first lineup-replacement for any of four positions plus DH gives him a lot of opportunity to help the team win the division.
Sign one of the bats!
-
Defense at 2B is crucially important. It would be a huge mistake to substitute Bichette for Nico there IMO.
-
If there's a team out there that wants to pay high on Nico after a career year, really hard not to listen, IMO. If you project his 2026 season at 4 WAR, taken against his salary of $11.67M, that's ~$25M of surplus value, which is, I believe, the surplus value of a top-50 prospect-type.
Bichette slots in so well at 2B. Sure, MI defense takes a hit vs Nico, but you still get a "SS" at 2B, and a Suzuki-lvl hitter (by wRC+), too.
-
Shaw was one of the three 3B finalists for NL Gold Glove (and one of the other two finalists—Ryan McMahon— isn’t even in NL anymore).
Would be very peculiar to move a guy like this off his position of value, particularly with a young player with a long career ahead of him.
Further, Shaw hit 11 homers in just 205 PAs in second half, slugging .522 in that period.
Still, I would very much want to see Cubs sign one of the four big FA bats. Offensively, Cubs need another thumper—aside from positional impact on Shaw.
Seems pretty clear that Cubs internal preference is Bregman. Team leader type and perhaps Cubs feel he will age well. I get that.
Aside from age compared to Bregman, Bichette vis a vis Matt Shaw might be a better fit for Cubs because guessing that Bichette might be amenable to DHing 60 games whereas Bregman will want to be a full-time 3B.
Bichette will be moving off his career position wherever he signs, so perhaps willing to be flexible so long as gets 150 starts and his 600 PAs.
So, Bichette 60 games starting at DH, Bichette starting 10 games at 2B with Nico at SS for a resting Swanson, Bichette maybe starting a few games back at SS, and another 10 games on days off as a starter.
That gives Shaw 80+ games to start at 3B. Can’t really do that with Bregman.
In any case, let’s get that bat.
-
I agree that the Cubs seem to be happy with the prospect of Shaw playing third base for them
Except
I also believe that they would like to add a power bat, and third base might be the only practical way to do that. First base is taken. Left field is taken. And unless they want to make Suzuki their full time pinch hitter, so is right field. That doesn't really allow a significant increase in power other than the third base position.
I also think that they are happy with Hoerner at second base, and are probably willing to extend him in a contract that they feel is reasonable. But they also have the option of trading Hoerner, and moving Shaw to second base, if they feel that they HAVE to add power somewhere. Which option they take (or any other options that we have not mentioned) probably depends upon a number of factors that are beyond their control, and so probably even the Cubs management are not sure at this point which direction they should take.
Personally, I would be quite happy for them to play this season with substantially their current roster, and find out more completely, how good Shaw and Ballesteros are, and what price it will take to extend Hoerner, or what he will bring in trade at the deadline, if that is appropriate. At the very least, they will go into the 2027 season knowing what the playing field will be under the new labor agreement, having a better idea how Wiggens will progress, and more information to base a forecast of the value of Hodge, Brown, and Conrad. And go into the off season with a free budget of about 200 million dollars to work with.
-
I would love for them to offer Nico a decent contract. I believe he loves being a Cub at Wrigley and would sign a deal for less than he might get in free agency if it was reasonable. If it is reasonable and he declines, then I'm wrong and we wave goodbye.
-
There seems to be some doubt about whether Bichette would be any more than fair defensively at 3B. If we acquire him, Shaw could start periodically while also potentially serving as a late inning defensive replacement.
-
I think the Cubs like Matt Shaw at third and I even recall Hoyer making a comment earlier in the off-season that he was surprised at all the chatter on them looking for a third basemen. I know they made an offer last year to Bergman but last year they had no real clear idea of Shaw as a 3rd basemen. But now they know he is an exceptional 3rd basemen which surprised even them. Clearly he hasn't answered all the offense questions but having a gold glove caliber 3rd base under control for six years has a lot of value. The chatter regarding their interest in Bergman is either coming from Boras or they are really considering the idea of moving Nico. I had not thought of the idea someone mentioned that Nico may have more value because of the ability to play SS. I would not be surprised if the Cubs made a 3 year extension offer to Nico and he turned it down believing he will have much bigger offers in free agency. That essentially gives the Cubs "permission" to see what his trade value is and provide an opening for Bergman. If they went to Bergman, they could move Shaw to second too....
-
Not really buying into recent speculation that Cubs interested in Bellinger.
Recall that a year ago expectation was that Bellinger would be helped playing in Yankee Stadium dimensions.
As it turned out:
(home) .302-365-544
(road) .241-301-414
And this from The Athletic:
The New York Yankees’ latest multi-year contract offer to free-agent outfielder Cody Bellinger featured an average annual value of more than $30 million a year as Bellinger’s camp continued to push for seven years, multiple sources briefed on the ongoing talks told The Athletic on Thursday.
-
Ah, got it! That explains.
Yep, CBJ got it!
-
"After the break, however, the team’s offense fell off markedly. ... The Cubs ranked only 20th in runs per game."
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6952845/2026/01/08/cubs-free-agency-hitter-bregman-bichette-tucker/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983&userId=212065&source=dailyemail
Thanks for the link. Seems like a good assessment to me.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6952845/2026/01/08/cubs-free-agency-hitter-bregman-bichette-tucker/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983&userId=212065&source=dailyemail
-
I'm not sure I agree. Exceptional defense is the Cubs' identity.
There is a lot of what ifs and best case scenarios to make that work. The downside needs to be considered too. Sign Tucker and up the floor, that is the best option present for the Cubs.
-
....A pretty decent SS with 30-40 SB and slightly above average offense is going to get pretty close to Dansby money. There is no way the Cubs can commit to paying $50 million to 2 defensive players with average offense, unless they are going to blow past and stay well above the CBT.
I'm not sure I agree. Exceptional defense is the Cubs' identity. Obviously $25 may exceed Hoerner's market, that's kinda high for a 7HR guy. But there are various ways to allocate budget. And if 4+ WAR is the actual all-encompassing value, perhaps market won't mind if that's despite no power. Beats me. But yeah, you can have some slightly-plus offense defensive studs blended in with some other better hitters. if he's worth what he's worth, that's independent of Dansby.
The ability to give raises to extend internal FA's depends on production from the farm and young players. If Cabrera is good, next year you could let Shota go, and his $22 could cover raises for both Nico and Cabrera. If Wiggins is dynamic, next year you could let Taillon go, and his $19 could cover some other cost increases. If Moises looks good and somehow adds some HR power, that could make it easier to let Happ or Seiya go, and free up $20 for other applications. Same for Alcantara, Long, and Conrad; maybe Conrad looks like a good slugger who could free up Happ's $20 soon? Or suppose we sign Tucker but Moises emerges, next year Tucker + Moises at combined cost would be comparable to 2025 Tucker + Seiya. I ramble, but there are varying ways to fill your roster. If we have capable young players replacing vet salaries, that's the way to go.
I'm also convinced that winning has some revenue benefits, and that many teams who win raise their payroll some to sustain success. So I do think bumping over the CBT is well plausible. And who knows what the CBT levels or structure will be under the new CBA: perhaps in future years there are zero draft-pick penalties; or perhaps lux1 will jump to $270 or something.
In the 2019 non-playoff team, Theo had $98M allocated to his veteran rotation (Lester, Hamels, Darvish, Chatwood, Quintana, Hendricks). He poured his dollars into experienced vet starters because his farm produced nothing. Maybe a crummy analogy, since that team didn't make the playoffs. But a boss can allocate his money in various ways, and I don't think extending Hoerner with an appropriate raise is precluded because it's too much allocation for defense. And second point, no team with budget limits is going to sustain long-term unless farm is able to produce capable low-salary guys to offset vet salaries, to offset raises for good veterans extending, as would be Hoerner's situation; or to offset raises for good players rising through their arb years.
-
A pretty decent SS with 30-40 SB and slightly above average offense is going to get pretty close to Dansby money…..
Dansby got $25 AAV for a lot of years.
Where is the precedent for a Hoerner type getting close to $25 AAV for a lot of years? Who?
As you say, Hoerner figures to be a “pretty decent SS” if gets the opportunity again. But what guys who barely get to 10 homers get that kind of money?
Power translates to money.
Perhaps if prime Ozzie Smith was around today but Hoerner isn’t Ozzie. Curious what no-power SS comps you see who have gotten this kind of money?
-
Not Tico, but I’ll try.
...The reason he’s be more valuable at SS is the positional adjustment. SS is worth 7.5 runs and second base is 2.5 runs. That is 0.5 WAR from just the positional difference. That is just tough to overcome....
Ah, got it! That explains.
-
Law's input is interesting. Yeah, that's what I'd understood as well, that Cabrera is 4-seam fast, but his 4-seamer isn't effective and gets hit hard fairly often. That the Cubs have liked him so much makes me wonder whether they see something in how he throws that, such that they think they can improve him? Whether that be pitch distribution, or sequencing, or whether they maybe believe a tweak in grip or dropping his arm slot might help?
I think part of the improvement story this year is that he reduced usage of the 4-seam, and increased use of sinkers. His stats show a groundball profile, which seems a great fit with our defense. Can see a high K-rate, combined with groundball profile, would seem appealing for Cubs. But yeah, hopefully they can kinda tweak up his 4-seam and get a little more out of it; and perhaps if that's more of an unexpected offspeed pitch that guys don't expect when they're thinking sinker/slider/curve, maybe he'll improve?
Guessing Hottovy and Zombo are fired up to take a crack at helping him.
Improving the fastball is doing something with the grip, arm slot, release point. The 2 seamer isn’t that much better than his 4 seamer. A lot of the improvement was a big drop in his walk rate.
Last year he was above average in his GB%, but it isn’t a heavy GB%. The same goes for his strike out rate. It is good, but not great. There is definitely an upside, but he has a pretty big downside too. The biggest risk factor for a pitcher is a previous injury and Cabrera has a ton of those. You can certainly hope for health, but how many 28 year old pitcher suddenly find health?
Bringing back Tucker seems like a stretch, but if they do I take back all my previous complaints of Hoyer and Ricketts. Bichette, Bellinger and Bregman don’t really move the needle for me. They make the Cubs better, but it is a serious downgrade from Tucker.
-
5. tico, sincere question. Shouldn't Hoerner have a lower, not higher, WAR value at SS? Given that defense and offense at SS is way better than at 2B? His DWAR should be lower at SS, given the much higher level of defensive capacity by big-league SS's, both starters and subs. Even replacement-level SS defenders are way better than replacement-level 2B's, just as it true for starters. And wouldn't his offensive WAR also be much reduced at SS, given the much stronger hitting profile of big-league SS's? (Average SS/2B OPS was .718/.689). Maybe I don't understand the WAR calculation correctly: but pushing Hoerner to position where both hitting and fielding norms are much better, shouldn't that reduce his WAR? Isn't his WAR so good because he plays a position where both hitting and defensive norms are lower, so at SS his WAR will drop?
Per Statmuse, average OPS for 2B and SS were .689 and .718. SS is stuffed with good hitters. Relative to starters, his .739 was 9th among 2B's, but would have been 14th among SS's. SS had seven guys above .800-OPS, 2B had only three.
https://www.statmuse.com/mlb/ask/what-is-league-average-ops-this-season-by-position
Not Tico, but I’ll try.
Hoerner would have a higher defensive value at SS. So you first have to look at his defensive play at each position. His last season at SS was 2022. He was 13 outs above average (OAA) at SS. In the 3 years since he’s played about 230 innings at SS and been 2 OAA (around 11-12 over a full season. His 3 years at second have been 13, 10 and 14. So the defensive value has been pretty close. The reason he’s be more valuable at SS is the positional adjustment. SS is worth 7.5 runs and second base is 2.5 runs. That is 0.5 WAR from just the positional difference. That is just tough to overcome.
A pretty decent SS with 30-40 SB and slightly above average offense is going to get pretty close to Dansby money. There is no way the Cubs can commit to paying $50 million to 2 defensive players with average offense, unless they are going to blow past and stay well above the CBT.
-
This article from the Athletic is interesting. It's saying that the reason some of the big money teams haven't signed the better Free Agents is that the luxury tax will double what they pay the guy. A 40M deal to Tucker would cost the Dodgers 80M, for example.
y Ken Rosenthal and Will Sammon
Jan. 7, 2026 5:00 am CST
Some team is going to sign Kyle Tucker. Ditto for Alex Bregman, Bo Bichette and Cody Bellinger. But most of the teams pursuing those hitters are among the game’s biggest spenders. For those clubs, the cost of adding a premium free agent will be approximately double the player’s salary.
Consider Tucker, whose contract might carry an average annual value of $40 million (The Athletic’s Tim Britton projected him to receive a $38.3 million AAV in a 12-year deal).
Any team that exceeds the base luxury-tax threshold for three or more consecutive years pays a 50 percent penalty for every dollar it goes above. Any team that exceeds the base threshold by $60 million or more pays an additional 60 percent surcharge.
The Los Angeles Dodgers qualify on both counts, so their penalty for signing Tucker or any of the other remaining free agents would be 110 percent. At a $40 million AAV, Tucker would cost them $84 million. At a $35 million AAV, the number would be a mere $73.5 million.
Not that the Dodgers necessarily care – they paid a record $169.4 million in tax after winning their second straight World Series title.
What You Should Read Next
Dodgers to pay record $169 million luxury tax bill after back-to-back World Series wins
Dodgers to pay record $169 million luxury tax bill after back-to-back World Series wins
The Dodgers' 2025 tax bill exceeds the payrolls of 12 separate MLB franchises this season.
Their signing of free-agent closer Edwin Díaz, whose AAV after deferrals is $21.1 million, will cost them $44.3 million annually.
The Toronto Blue Jays, a team known to be pursuing Tucker, already are above the highest threshold. But as a two-time luxury-tax offender, their penalty rate would be 90 percent. A $40 million AAV for Tucker would cost them $76 million.
Three other teams – the New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies and New York Yankees – are one major move away from the 110 percent bracket. The Phillies, within $4 million of the highest threshold, are closest, per Fangraphs. If they re-sign free-agent catcher J.T. Realmuto, they would pay 110 percent on most of his salary. If they added a top free agent on top of that, they would pay the full 110 percent. But after this season, they will gain considerable payroll flexibility.
The league and players essentially split luxury-tax proceeds. The tax obviously is only so much of a deterrent, an issue low-payroll clubs surely will want to address in collective bargaining if the sport continues without a salary cap. But the additional cost could be contributing to the delay in some of the top free agents signing.
For at least some of the game’s top spenders, every dollar counts.
Cubs in mix for Bregman and Bichette
Another reason for the logjam in free agency might be the reluctance of certain players to sign before others they are competing with in the market – a dynamic possibly in play with Tucker and Bellinger, Bregman and Bichette, Framber Valdez and Ranger Suárez.
Bregman, who turns 32 in March, is four years older than Bichette, but a number of teams view his leadership as a difference-maker. The Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs are among the teams talking to both players, according to people briefed on the conversations. The Blue Jays have been in touch with both, too, but now appear more focused on Tucker.
The Cubs’ interest in Bichette, first reported by Jon Heyman, stems from their desire to upgrade at third base – something the signing of Bregman also would accomplish.
Adding either player would create the potential for the Cubs to trade second baseman Nico Hoerner and move Matt Shaw from third to second. The Cubs also could keep Hoerner and make Shaw a superutility player, an alignment that would give them a better chance to win unless they dealt Hoerner for a quality starting pitcher.
Hoerner, 28, is set to earn $12 million in his final season before free agency. To this point, the Cubs have not fully explored his trade market. With so many infielders available – Bregman and Bichette in free agency, St. Louis’ Brendan Donovan and Arizona’s Ketel Marte in trade – teams are weighing multiple options. And the Cubs need not move Hoerner until they have greater clarity at third.
A better idea for the Cubs might be to extend Hoerner, who is coming off his best season and beloved in their clubhouse. The team has only $39 million committed for 2027 – $28 million for shortstop Dansby Swanson, $6 million for reliever Phil Maton, the rest in potential buyouts.
In addition to Bregman and Bichette, the Cubs continue to pursue a starting pitcher in both free agency and trade.
The delay on Donovan
Why have the Cardinals not yet traded Donovan, the player who can bring them the most in a deal? It comes down to a difference in perceived value. The Cardinals view Donovan as a star player while not all clubs see him that way, according to people briefed on the conversations.
Donovan, who turns 29 this month, offers many appealing qualities, from his swing decisions to his bat-to-ball skills, his defensive versatility to his makeup. But his career-best fWAR, achieved in 2024, was 3.2. Hoerner was at 4.8 last season, Marte at 4.6 – the latter in only 126 games.
Donovan also is under club control for only two more seasons, the second of which is threatened by a lockout. The Kansas City Royals remain among the teams interested, but if the Cardinals prefer premium young bats, the Seattle Mariners are perhaps the best fit.
Mets working trade market
The Mets hold some interest in the top remaining free-agent starters, including Valdez, but their focus is on first exploring trades, league sources said.
As of early Tuesday, no deal appeared imminent and people familiar with the discussions cautioned that things are slow.
The Mets are interested in both rentals and pitchers with club control. Thus, Tarik Skubal (Detroit Tigers), Freddy Peralta (Milwaukee Brewers), MacKenzie Gore (Washington Nationals), Edward Cabrera (Miami Marlins), Kris Bubic (Kansas City Royals) and Brady Singer (Cincinnati Reds) are all among the conceivable options.
The Mets boast one of the top farm systems. They are also open to dealing infielders Mark Vientos, Ronny Mauricio and Luisangel Acuña.
Orioles would punt another pick
Back in November, Orioles president of baseball operations Mike Elias signaled a shift in direction, saying he was “fully prepared” to forfeit draft pick(s) to sign free agents who rejected qualifying offers.
Just over a month later, the Orioles sacrificed a pick, but not for a free agent. They included one in their trade for right-hander Shane Baz – their Competitive Balance Round A selection, which is likely to be No. 34 overall.
The Orioles, though, are willing to lose another pick, knowing that will be part of the calculus if they sign Valdez or Suárez. As a revenue-sharing recipient, they would lose only their third-highest selection. They did not forfeit a pick for signing first baseman Pete Alonso, who was ineligible for a second qualifying offer after receiving one from the Mets last offseason.
The Orioles hold the seventh overall selection. Their second choice is likely to be No. 47. The pick they would lose is likely to be No. 85 – not high enough to be a deal-breaker for a potential top-of-the-rotation starter.
Justin Wilson mulling retirement
Veteran pitcher Justin Wilson, perhaps the best lefty reliever available in free agency, is considering retirement, league sources said. It is unlikely Wilson, 38, pitches in 2026 unless it is on a fair deal with a legitimate World Series contender. One major accomplishment that has eluded Wilson — who starred in the College World Series for winner Fresno State in 2008 — is a World Series ring.
Wilson produced a 3.38 ERA over 61 appearances last season with the Boston Red Sox, which lost to the New York Yankees in the Wild Card Series. Over his 13-year career in the major leagues, Wilson owns a 3.59 ERA/3.51 FIP.
Justin Wilson is likely to call it a career unless a compelling offer materializes from a contender.James A. Pittman-Imagn Images
With or without Wilson, Danny Coulombe is right at the top of the list of available lefty relievers, too. Coulombe, 36, is engaged with five teams, league sources said.
White Sox interested in Canning
In the market for another pitcher on a one-year deal, the Chicago White Sox expressed interest in late December in right-hander Griffin Canning, league sources said.
So far this offseason, Chicago has added lefties Sean Newcomb (one-year deal) and Anthony Kay (two-year contract). The rest of the rotation is set to feature Shane Smith, Davis Martin and Sean Burke. Newcomb can either start or appear out of the bullpen.
Canning is generating interest from other teams as well. A ruptured left Achilles tendon last June derailed Canning’s solid season with the New York Mets. Canning, 29, had a 3.77 ERA/4.04 FIP in 76 1/3 innings (16 starts).
With Allen, Brewers ahead of the curve
The Milwaukee Brewers got off to a head start on the trend of college coaches jumping to the major leagues when they hired Spencer Allen as a field coordinator ahead of the 2022 season. Allen, who spent the prior six seasons as Northwestern’s head coach, then became the Brewers’ director of player development, a position he held the last two years.
In a move that received high marks around the industry on Monday, Milwaukee announced Allen’s promotion to the major-league staff as first base coach.
By Ken Rosenthal and Will Sammon
-
I just saw this image on Twitter comparing two guys through their age 28 season. One was a Cub last year, the other is a Hall of Famer. As craig says, "what are they saving it for?"
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-G1aTbXsAAhtBU?format=jpg&name=small)
-
My preference is Tucker > Bichette > Bregman > Bellinger. You're saying you'd rather not, because Bo/Breg are imperfect and will get overpaid?
For me, it's Tucker >> Bichette >>>>>>>>>> Bregman or Bellinger.
I just don't get the interest in Bregman/Bellinger over the other two--is more financial flexibility half a decade from now really worth it?
MLBTradeRumors predicts Bichette will get 8 years, $208 million. They predict Bregman at 6/$160 million. If they sign for those contracts, Bichette will have 4 years, $104 million left when he's the same age that Bregman is right now. With Bichette, you're getting the back half of his prime now (instead of the start of his decline), and you're on the hook for fewer years/less money in the decline phase. You win twice by spending a little more.
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2026/01/07/cody-bellinger-next-cubs/
Cerami: "To be honest, I had a hard time believing it myself, but according to a source, the Cubs do have a legitimate interest in re-signing Cody Bellinger this offseason.
Possible that Yankees may wish to sign one or the other of Bellinger/Tucker, but not both? So if Tucker gets down below $75/year (with tax), maybe they'll sign him instead of Bellinger?
-
Dansby, Adames, Bichette all hit with power. Hoerner does not.
Maybe overlooking somebody but don’t see single-digit homer guys getting that kind of money. Examples???
A few teams will like Hoerner as a SS but unlikely to project him as an elite SS defender. Dansby hit free agency coming off hitting 52 homers in previous two seasons and established elite SS defense, not elite 2B defense.
Elite SS defense, coupled with power, is a rarified space.
Think Cubs can and should re-sign Hoerner when hits free agency. Batting average, baserunning, elite 2B defense. Clubhouse. He fits here. Bad idea to trade him—as a pending FA—for whatever prospect(s) can get for a rental.
Much rather have Tucker than Bichette or Bregman…..and leave current infield intact for several seasons.
-
As Craig is fond of saying, what are they saving it for?
I suppose one can be relieved that the cost wasn’t even worse, but the main draw with Cabrera is his salary. He’s certainly no ace. I’d he’s healthy he’s probably a #3 but when has he ever been healthy?
So what now? Bergman and Bichette are out there but both flawed players likely to cost more than they’re worth. Signing Bellinger for a third time would be a very Cub move, but the Yankees seem to want him back and really, are we going to get a player the Yankees want?
Saving it for one of Tucker, Bichette, Bregman, or Bellinger. Seems obvious! :). My preference is Tucker > Bichette > Bregman > Bellinger. You're saying you'd rather not, because Bo/Breg are imperfect and will get overpaid?
So, you're mad at Hoyer when he doesn't spend aggressively and sign guys; but you're going to fault him likewise if he does spend aggressively and overpays somewhat to sign guys?
We've been faulting him for years for his "intelligent-spending, good-value-signings desired" approach? Now if he drifts from good-value-signing and variably overspends to land Bichette or bregman, that's going to be unacceptable as well?
Heh heh, I hope he's willing to pay more than their worth to get Bichette or Bregman. Or Tucker. Or Bellinger. :):). Jed, make it so!
-
Craig is quite clearly hopped up on the dope. No offense, my brother.
-
RR has Cubs payroll now at $212.54.
Point of filling a SP slot with modest salary—by moving prospect trade capital—is to use remaining payroll on a bat. Cubs want both SP and a bat and getting both via FA always seemed impractical to me.
Aside from maybe Jays, not sure where Tucker gets his long-term deal. So, maybe Cubs back in the Tucker hunt?
For me, he’s best fit for Cubs. Let both Happ and Suzuki go after 2026 and fill LF in 2027 with pre-arb guy like Kepley, Alcantara, or Conrad. Pre-arb Ballesteros at DH. Pre-arb Shaw at 3B. First-year arb Busch and PCA. Modest priced Amaya at catcher. Pricey pitchers coming off books for 2027. And no bad veteran contracts on books. Big deal not having $30 M dead money on payroll.
What some viewed as alarming absence of established commitments can be viewed as a GOOD thing. Maybe Cubs can commit to $40 AAV for Tucker so long as not a super-long deal. Perhaps he gets that super-long deal, but seems like quite a few insiders not too sure about that. Cubs should circle back, maybe.
-
2023 ...~$230M. 2024 ... ~$240M. 2025 ... ~$231M. ...
I will be the happiest person on earth to see Rickett's spend more, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect the Cubs to budget more than $235M on 2026 payroll. Prove me wrong, Tom, please!!!
That would give the Cubs $27M before the $235M "limit," and they won't spend all of that coming out of spring - expect them to keep at least $5M powder dry.
If all this holds, hard to see how they fit in any FA bat better than Eugenio Suarez.
....Hoerner has averaged ~4.4 WAR since becoming a big league regular at 2B 4 years ago. Transplanting that production to SS increases the WAR total, assuming defensive outcomes remain steady. Assume there's a mild fall off in defensive outcomes (Nico's arm certainly profiles better at 2B than SS), but account for the positional adjustment from 2B to SS, and you're probably looking at that 4WAR as a "reliable" baseline at SS given how consistent Nico's game is.
In this context, I think all of Dansby, Adames, and Bichette this year are good contact comps for Hoerner. That's how I'd position if I were his agent. Hoerner's total payout will be smaller than Bichette, who will get more years, but I'd be very surprised if Hoerner's AAV is significantly less than $25M, especially when you factor in his dependability and intangibles.
Not looking to beat a dead horse, just enjoying the exchange :)
Same, tico, enjoying exchange! Fun to process, thanks! So I'll beat some more! :). Heh heh, if this is too long, just look at #5.
1. Again, we're just on different views for the spending. We hosted 5 playoff games. They spent $240 two inflation years ago, the lux line has inflated, and last year if Bregman had said yes $231 would have been $261. The $231 wasn't the budget, Hoyer just underspent the budget that he had. Two years ago with Belli, they went over lux, and didn't keep the $5M powder dry.
So yeah, I'm pretty confident that *if* Bregman, Bichette, or Bellinger take a deal, that bumping up to (or beyond) $240 is totally realistic. I expect it, actually. (I'm actually more worried about Hoyer. that he'd rather go with a weaker team at a lower payroll than give away an extra year, or concede an option, or bump the AAV a little bit, or whatever, to get one of the big tickets...).
1b. Bruce Levine is Cubs-enthusiastic and may know nothing. But back when we were at ~$204, prior to Harvey and Cabrera, he said a source told him they might have >$50 or even $60 still, and expected to at least get into the $240's. That may be baloney; but I'm guessing at least the $240's part is probably true, *IF* a deal seems right.
2. Heh heh, the only way to answer for sure will be *if* Hoyer goes and signs one of Bo/Breg/Belli or Tucker! Doing so will confirm that he has the budget allowance. (If he doesn't, we won't really know for sure if he once again underspent budget.) So Jed, make it unambiguous: sign one of the four remaining big tickets that pushes you near or beyond $240, and prove that you have that budget space! tico won't doubt it once you've proved it, make it happen Jed!
3. November Athletic guy projected Bichette at $26.5 AAV over 8 years, Breg at $28.5 over 6. Undoubtedly real deals will differ variably. But hypothetically $26.5 added to current $212 would still leave $5-6M powder below lux; Bregman's $28.5 would leave $3-4 powder.
4. This is me arguing with Jed, not with you, tico! But I think the $5M-powder-dry concept is dumb and obsolete? The prospect price for deadline pickups has super-exaggerated. With 12 teams in playoffs, not many sure sellers, and the supply-demand is terrible for buyers. 2nd, Cubs already have a million pitchers for depth, so the urgency to trade for Soroka/Kittredges should be low. So, use your powder now, for the whole season, rather than saving it for two months. Signing Suarez instead of Bichette now, to save powder for Soroka in August, that is foolish. Given the specific situation we're in right now, way better to spend it right now on one of Bo/Breg/Belli/Tucker. And finally, 3rd, who cares anyway if you do go over? 20% tax on overage. If you spend near lux-1 now, and trade-deadline over by $2M, is the $0.4 tax a reason to choose Suarez over Bichette now, or to trade away Hoerner? To avoid a $0.4M tax? Good grief! It makes zero financial or baseball-strategy sense! (Powder Rant over!!!)
5. tico, sincere question. Shouldn't Hoerner have a lower, not higher, WAR value at SS? Given that defense and offense at SS is way better than at 2B? His DWAR should be lower at SS, given the much higher level of defensive capacity by big-league SS's, both starters and subs. Even replacement-level SS defenders are way better than replacement-level 2B's, just as it true for starters. And wouldn't his offensive WAR also be much reduced at SS, given the much stronger hitting profile of big-league SS's? (Average SS/2B OPS was .718/.689). Maybe I don't understand the WAR calculation correctly: but pushing Hoerner to position where both hitting and fielding norms are much better, shouldn't that reduce his WAR? Isn't his WAR so good because he plays a position where both hitting and defensive norms are lower, so at SS his WAR will drop?
Per Statmuse, average OPS for 2B and SS were .689 and .718. SS is stuffed with good hitters. Relative to starters, his .739 was 9th among 2B's, but would have been 14th among SS's. SS had seven guys above .800-OPS, 2B had only three.
https://www.statmuse.com/mlb/ask/what-is-league-average-ops-this-season-by-position
-
As Craig is fond of saying, what are they saving it for?
I suppose one can be relieved that the cost wasn’t even worse, but the main draw with Cabrera is his salary. He’s certainly no ace. I’d he’s healthy he’s probably a #3 but when has he ever been healthy?
So what now? Bergman and Bichette are out there but both flawed players likely to cost more than they’re worth. Signing Bellinger for a third time would be a very Cub move, but the Yankees seem to want him back and really, are we going to get a player the Yankees want?
-
Law's input is interesting. Yeah, that's what I'd understood as well, that Cabrera is 4-seam fast, but his 4-seamer isn't effective and gets hit hard fairly often. That the Cubs have liked him so much makes me wonder whether they see something in how he throws that, such that they think they can improve him? Whether that be pitch distribution, or sequencing, or whether they maybe believe a tweak in grip or dropping his arm slot might help?
I think part of the improvement story this year is that he reduced usage of the 4-seam, and increased use of sinkers. His stats show a groundball profile, which seems a great fit with our defense. Can see a high K-rate, combined with groundball profile, would seem appealing for Cubs. But yeah, hopefully they can kinda tweak up his 4-seam and get a little more out of it; and perhaps if that's more of an unexpected offspeed pitch that guys don't expect when they're thinking sinker/slider/curve, maybe he'll improve?
Guessing Hottovy and Zombo are fired up to take a crack at helping him.
-
Law had an excellent interesting write up on the trade
-Cabrera, despite throwing 99, has mediocre fastballs in her get hit hard. If the Cubs can make them at least average then he’d have #2 upside. If they can’t the 2025 is probably as good as it gets.
-He also didn’t think that the Cubs gave up a lot, so medicals could be an issue. The other option is the Marlins just really loved Cassie and think they can add strength to Hernandez
-
Yeah, with Cabrera’s salary on the books that sounds right.
-
Current projected 2026 tax payroll is ~$208M.
My calculation shows that it's more like $212.
-
This is a stupid game to play given their health history, but imagining a rotation headlined for the next few years by Horton, Cabrera, and Wiggins is really exciting, and quite a change from the junkballer staff we've run for so long.
Then, if Zombrottovy can get Ben Brown right...
-
Yeah, I track. Agree to disagree. As said, I don't fully agree on all points. But as in all things, I may be wrong!!! :):)
1. My understanding is that there is space within Ricketts' 2026 budget to keep everybody and add Bo/Breg besides. You have argued previously that Ricketts is reducing budget this year: if true, I track that might make paying both Hoerner and Bo/Breg this season impossible. But I think paying both Hoerner and Bo/Breg this season is totally possible within the budget. As always, I may be wrong!
2023 tax payroll was ~$230M. 2024 tax payroll was ~$240M. 2025 tax payroll was ~$231M. Current projected 2026 tax payroll is ~$208M.
I will be the happiest person on earth to see Rickett's spend more, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect the Cubs to budget more than $235M on 2026 payroll. Prove me wrong, Tom, please!!!
That would give the Cubs $27M before the $235M "limit," and they won't spend all of that coming out of spring - expect them to keep at least $5M powder dry.
If all this holds, hard to see how they fit in any FA bat better than Eugenio Suarez.
Move Hoerner's $11M, and then you have the headroom for a Bichette or Bregman while keeping funds free for deadline acquisition. Or perhaps Hoyer can get an overage approved given any lux tax penalties would immediately reset with all the $$$ coming off the books after this year.
2. You argue that if Hoerner does match 2025, that he could cost ≥Bichette, given the SS capacity. I think that's doubly unlikely. Again, I may be wrong!
First, I suspect he won't quite match his 2025 WAR. Hoerner had a very good offensive season, BABIP season, and health season. Probably unlikely that he'll match or surpass that, some reversion seems more likely than not, including health. He was healthy all year, and that doesn't always happen; he'll lose some WAR if he's dinged more. My take is also that his defensive WAR was really high this past year, but my unsophisticated understanding is that defensive WAR has statistical variance, and some D-WAR reversion is likely. I may be wrong!
Second, I think that the market values offense and power. Few .739-career-year-OPS guys who make $200M or AAV $30. Bichette's OPS was 101 points higher than Hoerner, he's been a consistent good hitter, he's had multiple ≥20-HR seasons,, and he's 2 years younger than when Hoerner will hit the market. Even if Hoerner can repeat .739, I don't think he'll command the $200M-type deal that Bichette has been projected to land. But who knows, I may be wrong, we'll see.
Hoerner has averaged ~4.4 WAR since becoming a big league regular at 2B 4 years ago. Transplanting that production to SS increases the WAR total, assuming defensive outcomes remain steady. Assume there's a mild fall off in defensive outcomes (Nico's arm certainly profiles better at 2B than SS), but account for the positional adjustment from 2B to SS, and you're probably looking at that 4WAR as a "reliable" baseline at SS given how consistent Nico's game is.
In this context, I think all of Dansby, Adames, and Bichette this year are good contact comps for Hoerner. That's how I'd position if I were his agent. Hoerner's total payout will be smaller than Bichette, who will get more years, but I'd be very surprised if Hoerner's AAV is significantly less than $25M, especially when you factor in his dependability and intangibles.
Not looking to beat a dead horse, just enjoying the exchange :)
-
br, JR, Curt don't really love, trust, or believe in Caissie.
Yeah I'm with br and tico, etc. on Caissie's K rate. He's a nice prospect, and hopefully he mashes for the Marlins. Still, I'd rather hang on to Shaw or Ballesteros than Caissie, and Cassie does become expendable if we sign one of the big OF bats.
Caissie and a couple of B-C prospects for a young proven pitcher with club control and upside is a win to me.
-
That seems a lot less than what the Orioles paid for Baz, so I'm really kinda worried about the health implications for Caberea. Last year seemed to be pretty close to career high in innings pitched at 137. I really didn't go through his minor league totals and add it to his major league totals.
A nice pickup for sure. Now Hoyer needs to finish the rest of the team.
Yeah, I wonder if the prospect value exchanged is a reflection of the medicals.
I'm still flabbergasted by this deal and love it for the Cubs. Agree with br's concern on how Caissie's contact issues translate to the bigs. Thought he'd be plenty as the headliner, but with a strong supporting cast around him in a deal for a talent like Cabrera.
-
Other note: I think Counsell and Hottovy could have the chance to really pace their rotation.
Horton-Boyd-Cabrera-Taillon-Shota-Steele-Rea-Assad-Wiggins-Wicks-Brown, that's 11 guys who might hypothetically give you some competitive starts. Maybe not all, and Wicks and Brown will never start another game for the Cubs, they'll become full-time relief. But I think the Cubs are really deep. And some of those starters could be doing some long, long relief, too. So I think there's a world where Counsell could easily go with 6-man rotation; or could give any starter a two-week break in June and another break at start of August, and keep them all fresh? *IF* the offense can hit and score, I think Counsell could reall keep the innings modest for Horton and Cabrera in particular, and maybe Shota and Boyd as well?
I'm also a believer that pitchers who can pitch can get outs in rotation or relief; and in relief it's easier, more velocity, etc.. Optimistic that starters like Rea and Assad might be pretty solid in relief.
-
That seems a lot less than what the Orioles paid for Baz, so I'm really kinda worried about the health implications for Caberea. Last year seemed to be pretty close to career high in innings pitched at 137. I really didn't go through his minor league totals and add it to his major league totals.
A nice pickup for sure. Now Hoyer needs to finish the rest of the team.
Yeah, the value in prospect trades are hard to track for me. Baz has a lot of upside, 1st round guy. Maybe Orioles REALLY loves his potential, and think they'll unlock an ace? Or, I don't know their system, maybe the package they gave were a bunch of imperfect guys more like Triantos, Rojas, Alcantara, Hernandez guys, but none of them were really good? Beats me.
Obviously different teams have their own valuations. br, JR, Curt don't really love, trust, or believe in Caissie. But maybe Miami just loves him, and thinks his power/discipline combo is going to give them a 30-HR ≥.350-OBP ≥.820 OPS guy for years? Beats me. He might become that and more.
May also be that Hoyer's patience paid off? That he'd have needed to pay a LOT more when Baz got traded, but as the weeks have gone by, Miami didn't see anything better?
But yeah, obviously depends on cabrera staying healthy. He might not. He's never really been any good until this year; he still wasn't very healthy; didn't give many innings; and he still gave up a million HR's. Prior to this year he also walked a lot of guys, so he may be a wildman, and he's always been a HR factory. But Cubs pitching people think he's got a chance to be very good, so hope they are right. Heh heh, could have a playoff rotation of Horton, Wiggins, and Cabrera, with a bunch of stuff and a lot of velocity, who knows?
But yeah, sign Tucker, Bichette, or Bregman, and lets go!
-
Yeah that trade definitely works for me. I'm assuming that De Leon wasn't a significant IFA for us right? Lots of K's for him in complex league ball, so if anything, he still has work to do.
-
That seems a lot less than what the Orioles paid for Baz, so I'm really kinda worried about the health implications for Caberea. Last year seemed to be pretty close to career high in innings pitched at 137. I really didn't go through his minor league totals and add it to his major league totals.
A nice pickup for sure. Now Hoyer needs to finish the rest of the team.
-
Giving Hoyer his props, Cassie was really going to be a fifth wheel, a spare part.
-
Per Cots, around a little over $33 to first lux. $73 to the third lux line where tax becomes meaningful.
Cots would have us around $211 now, still well below the previous 3 years, or Theo's last two years.
Seems like that might be adequate for a Bregman (or similar) deal?
-
Per Cots, around a little over $33 to first lux. $73 to the third lux line where tax becomes meaningful. Cots would have us around $211 now, still well below the previous 3 years, or Theo's last two years.
In the pre-winter Athletic article, the guesses for Bichette , Bregman, and Tucker AAV were 26.5, 28.5, and 38.3. $212/8; $171/6; 460/12. Obviously those are just guesses, and Britton's guesses ended up being WAY excessive on the Japanese players. (The lack of buzz around Tucker suggests to me that $460/12 is going to end up WAY beyond what his reality will be.)
But the Bichette/Bregman guesstimates, even if they're a bit low, they'd both still fit under lux 1.
if Hoyer signed Bichette at Britton's $26.5, Cubs could still be $7 under lux 1. So if Bichette or Bregman were a little higher than that, there's still a little space.
Bump Shaw to utility, all Jed would need to complete the roster might be one OFer. Could sign a Tauchman-type guy, and still have some space for a trade-deadline pickup, all below Lux 1.
Only two years ago they exceeded lux 1, and last year they'd wanted to if Bregman had said yes. So, with a good team in hand, I don't imagine that Lux 1 really needs to be a showstopper. To go $5M over lux 1 would be taxed at $1M.
-
Who would like to update what the Cubs are likely to have available to spend to stay under the CBT after this deal?
-
Good deal, I've always been skeptical that Caissie's skills and strikeout rate will translate to MLB, so I think this will end up being a strong win for the Cubs in the end.
Hopefully there's at least one more big name coming to the Cubs this offseason.
-
Cabrera will be a fine pickup if he's healthy. I don't think it was essential to acquire an ace (something that's really hard to do) but rather they needed a solid #2 to complement what they already have. They should be projected to have one of the strongest starting staffs in the NL.
-
Hoyer should just sign Bichette or Tucker this week, and have everything ready to roll and fans all fired up and excited for convention! :) :)
-
Wait, it's just Cassie, Hernandez, and Edgardo De Leon??? Really?!
Wow, that's WAY cheaper than I expected! Fantastic! OK, I think I like that deal a lot!
So, still have Moises, Alcantara, Conrad, and Long. Fun!
-
Although I welcome him, he is still not the ace the Cubs need. Steele is not listed as part of the rotation, but Valdez would be the game changer.
-
Yeah, I track. Agree to disagree. As said, I don't fully agree on all points. But as in all things, I may be wrong!!! :):)
1. My understanding is that there is space within Ricketts' 2026 budget to keep everybody and add Bo/Breg besides. You have argued previously that Ricketts is reducing budget this year: if true, I track that might make paying both Hoerner and Bo/Breg this season impossible. But I think paying both Hoerner and Bo/Breg this season is totally possible within the budget. As always, I may be wrong!
2. You argue that if Hoerner does match 2025, that he could cost ≥Bichette, given the SS capacity. I think that's doubly unlikely. Again, I may be wrong!
First, I suspect he won't quite match his 2025 WAR. Hoerner had a very good offensive season, BABIP season, and health season. Probably unlikely that he'll match or surpass that, some reversion seems more likely than not, including health. He was healthy all year, and that doesn't always happen; he'll lose some WAR if he's dinged more. My take is also that his defensive WAR was really high this past year, but my unsophisticated understanding is that defensive WAR has statistical variance, and some D-WAR reversion is likely. I may be wrong!
Second, I think that the market values offense and power. Few .739-career-year-OPS guys who make $200M or AAV $30. Bichette's OPS was 101 points higher than Hoerner, he's been a consistent good hitter, he's had multiple ≥20-HR seasons,, and he's 2 years younger than when Hoerner will hit the market. Even if Hoerner can repeat .739, I don't think he'll command the $200M-type deal that Bichette has been projected to land. But who knows, I may be wrong, we'll see.
3. I'm also less convinced than you are that the Cubs will be unwilling to pay fair market for Hoerner, without a deep discount. They love him. They see and appreciate his defensive value every day. If market was to be like $26 AAV rather than $30 AAV, I don't see that as being intrinsically beyond the Cubs willingness or future budget capacity. (I may again be wrong. But if Delgado, Wiggins, and Steele look good, Cubs could clear off Taillon and Shota for $39 to help make space for $11 raise for Hoerner and other raises., etc..) I may be wrong...
4. I may see the lockout impact being less than you do. I expect that mlb teams, Cubs included, will anticipate there being a return to baseball, and a desire to win. I don't think lockout will end mlb! I also don't expect the lockout to last for all or even most of the season. I'm guessing the Cubs will still want to be competitive post-lockout, and probably won't fall way out of the top-10 in spending.
-
Wait, it's just Cassie, Hernandez, and Edgardo De Leon??? Really?!
-
Deal done.
3:28pm: The trade has been finalized, per ESPN’s Jeff Passan. Caissie is indeed the headliner for Miami’s return, he adds. MLB.com’s Christina De Nicola reports that minor league infielder Cristian Hernandez is also going to the Marlins in the deal. SportsGrid’s Craig Mish adds that young infielder Edgardo De Leon is the third and final prospect in the swap.
-
I don't think Nico-trade talk is remotely realistic. Or desirable either, from my view. I agree, we're not going to extend him now. Do that after the upcoming season.
*If* Nico has another career year, of course his price will be high for sure. But probably his year won't be quite as good, and his price on the market won't be overwhelming. Extend him then. Cubs love him. Counsell loves him. He's still only 28. He's the hardest of workers, so should keep himself in good shape, he's not going to get fat and lazy. And *if* the Cubs have a really successful year, he may want to stay, so equal-offers may go in our favor..
Hoyer is in Nowacrat win-now mode. Trading Hoerner would be inconsistent and implausible.
Hoyer has prioritized defense as the team's most defining identity. Trading Hoerner would deface that identity.
There is zero imminent financial pressure to trade Hoerner now. Hoyer has plenty of space for this year, to both keep Hoerner and to add whichever of Tucker-Bichette-Bregman he can get.
I don't think shopping Hoerner really makes any sense at all. I don't think Hoyer will seriously consider or want to do that at all. They won 92 games last year, I think they want to repeat or improve on that this year. Trading Hoerner for future prospects might help years out, but would not help this season.
If he repeats his 2025, Hoerner will cost about as much as Bichette, potentially more, given other teams valuing him at SS.
Cubs can certainly retain Hoerner for 2026, but I don't see how they justify extending, unless he gives a deep hometown discount.
*IF* the Cubs were to sign one of Bo/Breg, that replaces Hoerner's 2026 production, gets a year of production out of a contract before the lockout hits, and replenishes farm far better than the compensatory pick for Hoerner QO would.
Increases 2025 payroll, but there should be room in Rickett's budget, especially if they clear Hoerner's salary.
-
I like Shaw. We still need young position players to build around, especially if 1-2 key guys are getting sent to Miami, and Shaw was better in the second half. I also just plain like he didn't let his struggles at the plate affect him defensively at all. He wouldn't be the first player to have issues his first season and then go on to success. He's worth a second chance next season.
-
I would much rather trade Shaw than Rojas. I'm not a fan of Shaw.
-
I don't think Nico-trade talk is remotely realistic. Or desirable either, from my view. I agree, we're not going to extend him now. Do that after the upcoming season.
*If* Nico has another career year, of course his price will be high for sure. But probably his year won't be quite as good, and his price on the market won't be overwhelming. Extend him then. Cubs love him. Counsell loves him. He's still only 28. He's the hardest of workers, so should keep himself in good shape, he's not going to get fat and lazy. And *if* the Cubs have a really successful year, he may want to stay, so equal-offers may go in our favor..
Hoyer is in Nowacrat win-now mode. Trading Hoerner would be inconsistent and implausible.
Hoyer has prioritized defense as the team's most defining identity. Trading Hoerner would deface that identity.
There is zero imminent financial pressure to trade Hoerner now. Hoyer has plenty of space for this year, to both keep Hoerner and to add whichever of Tucker-Bichette-Bregman he can get.
I don't think shopping Hoerner really makes any sense at all. I don't think Hoyer will seriously consider or want to do that at all. They won 92 games last year, I think they want to repeat or improve on that this year. Trading Hoerner for future prospects might help years out, but would not help this season.
-
For me, it would take an "amazing" offer not merely a "good" offer to consider moving Nico. He brings a lot to the table.
-
As much as I like Nico, I agree…if we get a good offer, we should definitely consider accepting it.
-
Levine saying Shaw not involved, which makes sense, but good to have somewhat confirmed.
-
That’s my preference order as well.
We have also claimed Ryan Rolison off waivers.
-
Nico just had a career year. Don’t see the Cubs handing out big extensions to near-age-30 guys before we have labor market clarity, with the one exception being a potential signing of Bregman/Bichette.
Nico has the potential to be valued as SS on open market, further inflating cost. Cub system already thin before Cabrera trade, and we still have 40 man holes. Trading Nico and signing a bat clearest path to 2026 contention and long-term roster stability/cost control.
I’d 100% be proactively listening to offers on Hoerner.
-
My preference: Tucker > Bichette >> Bregman >> Bellinger.
Bichette has only once exceeded 24 HR. Hasn't hit 20 since 2023, and hasn't hit more than 20 since 2022. That's playing in the AL and not playing in HR-suppression Wrigley. So power-wise, if he was on the Cubs maybe he'd be less than Happ HR-wise, more than Michael Barrett? Not a big slugger.
Has not had OPS+ above 120's.
Swinger not a walker, so career OBP is .337, good but not amazing.
Career OPS .806, career-yeared at .840. We're not talking Soto or Guerrero here, so his contract should reflect good but not great. So yeah, he's not going to be a $40/year type guy. Why not sign him?
He's 27, so should give some good years during our contention window.
3B is different from SS, and he was well-below-average at SS. But I usually expect that any decent SS can adapt and become good at 3B or 2B. So Bichette could be the 3B for the future. Or *IF* you were unable to resign Hoerner for whatever reason, I also assume he could adapt and become a good 2b. Good fit defensively for us.
I'm in favor of a long deal. Long deals, AAV doesn't kill and as inflation proceeds, AAV looks increasingly favorable. Have some roster stability. Sign Bichette long, extend Hoerner, have some long-term stability with Busch, Hoerner, Bichette, PCA.
-
Disagree that trading Caissie points to Belli/Tuck. If we do sign a bat, I think one of Bo/Breg more likely.
2026 OF is Happ, PCA, Seiya. Mo is full-time DH. Hoerner traded to restock farm. That would be ideal, IMO.
1. If you're trying to win, no point in trading Hoerner. Keep Hoerner, add a good bat at 3B or RF either way, and lets have a great season. Can re-sign Hoerner after the season, he's still only 28, so he's got a lot of good career left. Get good, then stay good!
2. Your Happ-PCA-Seiya OF with Mo at DH could work really well. Particularly with Bichette at 3B, or Bregman. I think Tucker in RF would work fine, too, with Shaw still at 3rd and Seiya at DH, and Mo as depth bat.
Obviously we'll need to see whether Moises is still a Cub after this deal goes through, if it goes through.
-
Report that Caissie is going and speculation about Assad:
https://northsidebaseball.com/news-rumors/chicago-cubs/breaking-cubs-to-acquire-starting-pitcher-edward-cabrera-in-trade-with-marlins-r2443/
-
I’m guessing Caissie, Rojas, Long and perhaps another piece. Hope none of the 2015 drafted OFers. Maybe Anthony Bender in the deal if Cubs including a major league pitcher?
-
I'm guessing more value than that.
Yeah, probably something more like Rojas instead of Triantos, and a better arm.
Really hoping we hold onto Wiggins and Conrad.
-
Disagree that trading Caissie points to Belli/Tuck. If we do sign a bat, I think one of Bo/Breg more likely.
2026 OF is Happ, PCA, Seiya. Mo is full-time DH. Hoerner traded to restock farm. That would be ideal, IMO.
-
Thinking it's Caissie that headlines? Plus Triantos, Long, and a lottery-ticket arm?
I'm guessing more value than that.
-
Cabrera also is under club control through 2028, so that's definitely a nice aspect. Probably has plenty of upside to take things to another level too. Have to see what we give up, but in general, I don't hate this one. Just hopefully the extra dollars get well spent somehow.
https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/player/_/id/35703/edward-cabrera
-
Yeah, still $32M left just to nudge the first lux, which they can easily exceed.
Reb, you've been calling the "trade" approach, and I've been skeptical (and reluctant). You are vindicated! You called it. :):). Way to go. We'll see if the oft-injured Cabrera will pass his physical, obviously.
But yeah, that makes it pretty obvious they're gearing to sign a bat. In some ways this kinda flips the logic. If he traded Shaw in this deal, for example, Boras knows Hoyer is committed to either Bichette or Bregman. If he traded Caissie, and Moises, then you're kinda committed to Bellinger or Tucker, I think...
-
Alrighty, Jed, let's see what you've cooked up. Glad to see the Cubs be aggressive on the trade market, getting a premier target.
Thinking it's Caissie that headlines? Plus Triantos, Long, and a lottery-ticket arm?
Still need to spend quite a bit of $$$, we should be more prospect-limited than cash-limited.
-
Cabrera arb projection is $3.7 M. That’s about the same as Hoby Milner’s contract.
So, lots of money available to spend on a bat—if can pull that off.
-
Wow! Interesting. Timing included. We'll see if it happens, and if he fails his physical, as was true with Luzardo last year.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+Edward+Cabrera+a+groundball+pitcher%3F&rlz=1C5OZZY_enUS1175US1175&oq=Is+Edward+Cabrera+a+groundball+pitcher%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIJCAQQIRgKGKABMgcIBRAhGI8CMgcIBhAhGI8C0gEIODkyM2owajSoAgCwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Google AI on his stuff. Says Cabrera ranks as a top-quartile groundball guy, so that fits our defense. Says his fastball gets hit hard. He's fast, but sounds like it's his finesse offspeed stuff that actually gets K's and outs. Seems like an interesting upside guy.
can't imagine he won't cost a mint.
-
Jesse Rogers
@JesseRogersESPN
Cubs closing in on Marlins pitcher Edward Cabrera as they review medicals. Trade likely not to involve top tier pitching prospects going back, sources tell ESPN. Position player prospects likely to go.
@Michael_Cerami was first on trade being close.
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2026/01/07/breaking-the-chicago-cubs-are-finalizing-a-deal-for-edward-cabrera/
Does anyone have any knowledge of what Miami's likely Cub targets would be? Was Miami the team that asked for Shaw last year?
I would be pretty happy if Cubs sign Bregman and use Shaw as centerpiece for Cabrera.
-
Good bye, Farm System.
I assume Wiggins is the sole untouchable.
I expect Rojas to be part of this. Maybe Shaw if they have a great feeling about Bichette?
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2026/01/07/breaking-the-chicago-cubs-are-finalizing-a-deal-for-edward-cabrera/
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6948357/2026/01/07/mlb-free-agency-tucker-bichette-bregman-luxury-tax/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983&userId=212065&source=dailyemail
-
Hypothetical:
Bellinger => Yankees
Bregman => Red Sox
Suarez => Mets
Gallen => DBacks
Bichette => Toronto?
Tucker => Dodgers?
Framber => Philly?
Just guessing, as an exercise. Dumb thoughts:
1. Will any of these sign two tickets? Yankees or Mets, maybe? Yankees and Mets, of course, are >3-times lux, so any contract will get 110% tax. So, $30M for Bellinger, for example, is really $63. Yankees, One signing will get them back to last year's budget, but not much over. Mets are >$40 below last year's payroll, so two signings would inflate their payroll some. Why not, they're the Mets!
Toronto is only a 2nd-time repeater, and they aren't $60M over yet, so their next signing would be taxed in the 70-90% range, obviously if they sign two the second one will be 90%. And obviously after this season, assuming next CBA isn't that much different, a $35 signing now will maybe only cost $65 this year, but will be >$75/year next year.
2. Will any of them sign none? Maybe Dodgers won't, unless the price is sub-market, as always happens with Dodger deals? Tucker at $40 is effectively $84 with tax. Maybe they won't feel like doing that, and they'll just sit this winter out? Arizona is below last year's payroll, and is just below the Cubs. Maybe they'll pick up either Bregman or Gallen, but maybe after Gallen's 4.83 ERA and 15-loss 1-WAR season, they don't really think he's worth $23 anymore, and will sit out the tickets? Philly's payroll will already be increased once they re-sign Realmuto, and obvioulsy they're in the 110% tax range. So do they want to be investing $60/year in cats like Suarez or Framber? Maybe they'll be out?
3. Obviously there are other teams. Baltimore, Atlanta, Houston, Texas, Detroit, who knows?
4. Just trying to think about whether the competition might kinda run out, and if one of the 7 tickets might end up getting a soft market where Hoyer's wait-for-cheap might actually work? Any one of those 7 guys could help us, I think. But yeah, *IF* both Philly and Arizona sat out the big tickets, and Dodgers maybe didn't really love Tucker's slow bat-speed enough to spend $80/year on him, perhaps Hoyer will wait and wait, and eventually the last ticket standing will settle for a cubs deal?
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6941044/2026/01/05/mlb-offseason-latest-yankees-dodgers-mets-red-sox-blue-jays/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983&userId=212065&source=dailyemail
Rosenthal on each team's situation and needs. Teams do what they want, so he may be way off. But his info doesn't necessarily suggest there are many teams wanting/willing to spend big, or looking to do whatever-it-takes in terms of length for the big tickets. Kinda suggests picture where other teams are kinda Cubs-esque: if a reasonable deal becomes available, but not necessarily committed to paying whatever price. Supports the idea that things may continue to drag out for a long time.
Also interesting that there doesn't seem to be all that much Tucker buzz. Toronto mentioned, Dodgers. He mentions the same thought I've had, that LA would be personally nice for Tucker where he can slide in as the #6 guy and doesn't need to alpha. Mentions Bellinger as Yankees top priority.
Who knows.
In fairness to teams (including the Cubs), baseball has become a joke with teams like the Dodgers outspending by giant sums of money. The Dodgers, Phillies, Blue Jays, Yankees and Mets have the most expensive rosters. It shouldn't be a surprise that 4 of those 5 were among the best teams in baseball. The Dodgers payroll more than doubled 16 organizations.
So teams outside of those 5 can spend a huge sums of money on Tucker and still not be competitive on paper relative to the big spenders. Teams likely look for reasonable deals as overspending wouldn't seem to put them over the top and can hurt them down the road. Unless a team decides that they are going to spend in a fashion comparable to the big boys, what's the point in spending? You might as well save your money, hope to make the playoffs and get lucky because you aren't going to build a better roster.
With all of that said, the Cubs should absolutely be spending with the Top 5 or at least be a close 6th. Boston should be right there with the Cubs as well.
-
Caleb Kilian signs with SF.
With Canario gone to Japan, that closes the book on the Bryant trade…
-
And we basically don't know what we're doing.
-
LOL I wasn't trying to develop a Fox News vs. CNN debate. I was pointing out how even the best of fans, like Cubs and Cardinals, can lose patience and how costly it can be. If Cub fans boycotted the first series or two this spring, Hoyer would be gone. No need to tell me that won't happen, but we fans have power, we just love the team too much to use it.
-
On the continuum, plenty of 1st-percentile anti-Hoyerites! But maybe zero ardent 99th-percentile Hoyer advocates? Heh heh, maybe the "pro-Hoyerites" are kinda only 35th-45th percentile supporters? :):)
Yeah, I get the sense that any of us who are not in the anti-Hoyer camp are in the pro-Hoyer camp. It is possible to have mixed views on Hoyer, believe it or not.
-
It seems that the climate in our country is divisiveness. Now we have anti-Hoyerites and pro-Hoyerites. ....
On the continuum, plenty of 1st-percentile anti-Hoyerites! But maybe zero ardent 99th-percentile Hoyer advocates? Heh heh, maybe the "pro-Hoyerites" are kinda only 35th-45th percentile supporters? :):)
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6941044/2026/01/05/mlb-offseason-latest-yankees-dodgers-mets-red-sox-blue-jays/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983&userId=212065&source=dailyemail
Rosenthal on each team's situation and needs. Teams do what they want, so he may be way off. But his info doesn't necessarily suggest there are many teams wanting/willing to spend big, or looking to do whatever-it-takes in terms of length for the big tickets. Kinda suggests picture where other teams are kinda Cubs-esque: if a reasonable deal becomes available, but not necessarily committed to paying whatever price. Supports the idea that things may continue to drag out for a long time.
Also interesting that there doesn't seem to be all that much Tucker buzz. Toronto mentioned, Dodgers. He mentions the same thought I've had, that LA would be personally nice for Tucker where he can slide in as the #6 guy and doesn't need to alpha. Mentions Bellinger as Yankees top priority.
Who knows.
-
It seems that the climate in our country is divisiveness. Now we have anti-Hoyerites and pro-Hoyerites. As long as fans keep coming, nothing in the approach of the Cubs' front office is going to change. Here in Cardinal territory, the angst is palpable. 8000 fans a night didn't show for Cardinal games. I'm using numbers bandied about by the local media. They, the Cardinals, look at every ticket fee, concessions, and parking is worth $200. That's a loss of 130 Million dollars. The Cardinal and Cub fan bases are similar. If the Ricketts were to begin to realize the same impact, Hoyeritism would disappear because he'd be gone. That is a number of years off yet, I'm afraid.
-
Heyman reported today the the Cubs have "checked in on" Bellinger.
I wish they'd "check in on" Kyle Tucker instead. Or even better...just give him the best offer (that they can easily afford long term) and re-sign him.
Hoyer might be the best PBO in the league in checking in on people.
-
Cubs org is up against a frightening talent cliff over the next couple of years.
Most of our post-arb contracts expire after this year, with Dansby the only guaranteed contract in 2027. Barring a sweeping overhaul of the major league roster, our “competitive window” (aka praying for a wild card) likely closes after this year.
Signing Hoerner, Suzuki, etc. to extensions will further squeeze payroll, and we don’t have enough headroom as is. Most of our best minor league talent is expected to stick at the big league level this year, with very little depth behind Mo, Caissie, and Wiggins. ...
I’m really struggling to see how we field a competitive roster in 2027 and beyond, because the only way to reliably restock on talent quickly is to spend a **** ton of cash. ....
I'm more optimistic. Depends on youth movement for sure. Suppose PCA improves to .780. Caissie has the walks and HR's to be .760. Amaya .730. Moises .750. Shaw improves to .735. (League average was .719.) If those guys can look like solid average-or-better bats, you can have a pretty deep lineup. But if PCA is auto-out, and the other guys can't hit at all, it will be hard.
Success might help? *IF* we win ≥92, the youth bats look solid, and Horton-Wicks look dynamite, Hoerner-Suzuki might be happy to re-sign. Offers equal, stay home. But if it's a losing season, and the youth movement looks unpromising, those guys might prefer to find a spot with a winning team, and offers being equal they may prefer to move out? Winning helps a lot.
If there are guys you want to keep, none will cost huge raises. Happ and Seiya are already $19, their next deals might be higher, but they won't get $10 individual raises. If some of the young guys can look good, you can let some expiring veteran salaries go, to cover inflation on extending the expiring vets that you really want to keep. For example, maybe Hoerner and Seiya you want to keep, and any/all of Happ, Taillon, Shota, and Boyd you're fine to let go.
-
Heyman reported today the the Cubs have "checked in on" Bellinger.
I wish they'd "check in on" Kyle Tucker instead. Or even better...just give him the best offer (that they can easily afford long term) and re-sign him.
-
Cubs org is up against a frightening talent cliff over the next couple of years…….
I’m really struggling to see how we field a competitive roster in 2027 and beyond, because the only way to reliably restock on talent quickly is to spend a **** ton of cash. And we all know that’s not going to happen, especially with the lockout looming.
Cubs payroll commitment for 2027 is $55 M. You don’t think Cubs will have and spend a “ton of cash” when 2027 comes around? May well include some extensions.
There are zero bad contracts on the books. Three of the four IF spots are on board already. PCA and a bunch of interesting OF prospects. Amaya at catcher. Horton, Steele, a multi-year FA soon (hopefully). Perhaps Wiggins. And a ton of money to spend on top of the $55 M.
Yes, absence of percolating lower level prospects is concerning but can be addressed with a couple consecutive good drafts.
No need to be alarmist.
-
Cubs org is up against a frightening talent cliff over the next couple of years.
Most of our post-arb contracts expire after this year, with Dansby the only guaranteed contract in 2027. Barring a sweeping overhaul of the major league roster, our “competitive window” (aka praying for a wild card) likely closes after this year.
Signing Hoerner, Suzuki, etc. to extensions will further squeeze payroll, and we don’t have enough headroom as is.
Most of our best minor league talent is expected to stick at the big league level this year, with very little depth behind Mo, Caissie, and Wiggins. And while Kantro seems to do a great job with early round picks, prospects require time to develop. This is why trading 13 years of Smith, Paredes, and Wes for 1 of Tucker was always the wrong move, absent a plan to resign Tuck.
I’m really struggling to see how we field a competitive roster in 2027 and beyond, because the only way to reliably restock on talent quickly is to spend a shit ton of cash. And we all know that’s not going to happen, especially with the lockout looming.
-
Two years ago, Boras stretched his big 4 into mid-February (Bellinger), and the other three into March (Snell, Chapman, Montgomery).
Now that the Japanese deadlines have passed, it will probably be a long time for Hoyer to monitor and check-in-on. Heh heh, I won't. :) . But I could probably step away for a month and nothing other than rumors will be changed when January closes.
There's a pleasant thought. Thanks craig. Really something to look forward to. ;)
-
Well, Fangraphs projected 2021 Cubs at 75-87 (see link).
Only Pirates and Rockies projected worse in NL.
Did you even bother to read the link? A more accurate description is 1 projection model used at Fangraphs consider the Cubs going into 2021. Here is a quote from your link.
“ FanGraphs Depth Charts projections figure of 39%. The FanGraphs playoff odds sees the NL Central as a wide-open division. Other than the lowly Pirates, each team is projected for at least a 22% chance at playing in the postseason.”
Call Hoyer’s plan a reset, rebuild, tank whatever makes you fell best. It has produced 1 wild card series in 5 years and we have another cliff coming after next year. The Cubs have become what I feared when they signed Dansby. A team that shots for .500. The farm system is back to being mediocre, they might have a star in PCA or he might just be a really good player. The team has another cliff coming next year. The Cubs selling off free agents this year is going to be on the table again. The farm need to be restocked and they will still be behind the Brewers.
-
Two years ago, Boras stretched his big 4 into mid-February (Bellinger), and the other three into March (Snell, Chapman, Montgomery).
Now that the Japanese deadlines have passed, it will probably be a long time for Hoyer to monitor and check-in-on. Heh heh, I won't. :). But I could probably step away for a month and nothing other than rumors will be changed when January closes.
-
“Incompetent” was your word, not mine…
I’m giving credit to Hoyer for negotiating to acquire PCA.
Are you?
-
“Incompetent” was your word, not mine…
-
The incompetent Hoyer wanted Matt Allan, then Vientos…he had to settle for PCA…
Yeah, the ask was for Matt Allan, a top 100 overall prospect at the time——a pitcher that BA said had top-of-the-rotation projection and a floor as a #3 starter in 2021. Vientos was “discussed” and Mets ruled him out but not clear that he was the Cubs ask instead of PCA. And, of course, PCA had played only a total of 6 professional games at that point and was injured.
Kind of peculiar to say that Hoyer was “incompetent” when he got Sandy Alderson to give up PCA for Baez (and Trevor Williams) but this point of view is a revealing example of the mindset here, by some, to all things Hoyer
-
The incompetent Hoyer wanted Matt Allan, then Vientos…he had to settle for PCA…
I was curious who "disliked" this and was surprised to discover it was me. Except that I did not mean to do that. Then could not undo it. Apologies for that. Not that I particularly liked it, but still ....
-
The incompetent Hoyer wanted Matt Allan, then Vientos…he had to settle for PCA…
-
as i wonder after each non-move: What is he saving it for? Beats me. He's got months available to keep us waiting.
-Tico has suggested he's just in a budget-cut mode. We'll see. I think that's unlikely. But what do I know?
-reb has suggested Bregman. If Bregman/Boras wait till Feb 15, maybe Hoyer will wait with them? (And come in 3rd...).
-Perhaps no spending is better than any uncomfortable contract. So maybe coming in $20-30-40-50 under budget is preferred over a guy with an extra year? So if FA offers no "good" contract, he'll settle for no contract. Beats me.
I'm still convinced there is money to be spend, and the desire to improve the team with that. But what and when, I can only guess.
-
While I might not of have been a fan and was complaining about the spending. PECOTA projected them for 85 wins. Again not a tank.
Well, Fangraphs projected 2021 Cubs at 75-87 (see link).
Only Pirates and Rockies projected worse in NL.
I used the term “rebuild”——not “tank” which is a bit different.
Theo resigned a year early on his 10-year planned Cubs tenure because didn’t think fair to Hoyer to have him inherit a rebuild-in-progress. That happened after 2020 season. This is a quote from Theo’s departure statement in November 2020: “The organization faces a number of decisions this winter that carry long-term consequences; those types of decisions are best made by someone who will be here for a long period rather than just one more year.”
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/atc-2021-projected-standings-and-playoff-odds/
-
While I might not of have been a fan and was complaining about the spending. PECOTA projected them for 85 wins. Again not a tank.
-
The Cubs 2021 opening day lineup
Cubs
1. Ian Happ (S) CF
2. Willson Contreras (R) C
3. Anthony Rizzo (L) 1B
4. Kris Bryant (R) 3B
5. Joc Pederson (L) LF
6. Javier Baez (R) SS
7. Jason Heyward (L) RF
8. David Bote (R) 2B
9. Kyle Hendricks (R) P
Clearly a lineup built to tank.
Let me suggest that you may be conveniently forgetting a few things that seem to recall bothered you at the time.
Before 2021, Cubs salary dumped Darvish AND non-tendered Schwarber to save money. The rebuild was on. Even non-tendered low-cost Almora instead of arbing him.
Aside from Hendricks, the starting rotation was Zach Davies, Adbert Alzolay, Trevor Williams, Alec Mills, and brought back a low-cost Arrieta who signed for 1/5 of his 2020 salary.
Of course, mid-season they dumped everybody they could. The incompetent Hoyer managed to get a young CFer from Mets who just might work out going forward.
Yes, would count 2021 as a rebuild season.
-
Here are the terms of the Okamoto deal from Jeff Passan:
The deal is worth $60 million over four years with a $5 million signing bonus, a source told ESPN, confirming multiple reports. Okamoto will have a $7 million salary this year and $16 million in each of the following three seasons, according to the Associated Press.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/47491589/sources-japanese-3b-kazuma-okamoto-blue-jays-agree-deal
If the Cubs were not willing to beat that, they must not have been all that interested.
I hear they looked in on him though, so there's that.
-
I think the Cubs are pretty content with Shaw……
Think Cubs like Shaw but seems like would prefer to replace him at 3B with Bregman, if can pull that off.
That’s a curious thing, seems to me, for a budget conscious team. Prefer to replace a pre-arb guy making less than $1M with a guy who will cost perhaps $30M? Seems to me you don’t do that if you love the pre-arb guy.
If don’t sign Bregman, brass will be fine with Shaw at 3B going forward, sure.
I don’t really buy the “just move Shaw to 2B to replace Nico” stuff. Here you have a young Gold Glove finalist at 3B—a guy who just learned the position and played it superbly—and then you move him to another position? Who does that? Would be a very unusual move in baseball terms. Shaw should have a career as a 3B and I think he will. Exactly how that plays out remains to be seen.
Of course, Shaw’s status depends on the Bregman situation. Last season, Bregman did not sign until February 15. Sometimes, Boras just waits. But signing Bregman impacts acquisition of a pricey SP and unlikely that Zac Gallen is still available in February.
Thought all along that chance of signing Bregman at big bucks would mean trading for a lower cost SP instead of signing bigger bucks FA SP. Bregman on board could well mean trading Shaw to play 3B elsewhere. See Washington Nats.
Yeah, just sign Gallen AND Bregman but that means Cubs in $260 CBT range and we’re all skeptical about that. Surprise us.
-
2021 and 2022 clearly were rebuild seasons. We all know that. Not really fair to evaluate those seasons in terms of how many games did Cubs win.
The Cubs 2021 opening day lineup
Cubs
1. Ian Happ (S) CF
2. Willson Contreras (R) C
3. Anthony Rizzo (L) 1B
4. Kris Bryant (R) 3B
5. Joc Pederson (L) LF
6. Javier Baez (R) SS
7. Jason Heyward (L) RF
8. David Bote (R) 2B
9. Kyle Hendricks (R) P
Clearly a lineup built to tank.
-
The Tucker acquisition was a one-time “opportunity” to consolidate talent (ie gut the farm) save Hoyer's job, and was not resetting the bar on the offensive baseline for the Cubs.
Fixed that for you tico.
-
We are in year 5 of the Jed Hoyer show and he 1 wild card appearance to show for it. This is his 7th year being in charge if you include the Padres and it is still 1 wild card appearance.
Do you really need year 8? I don’t think Hoyer deserves all the blame, but if Ricketts is going to play with 1 hand tied behind his back, he is going to have to hire someone a heck of a lot than Hoyer to be good again.
2021 and 2022 clearly were rebuild seasons. We all know that. Not really fair to evaluate those seasons in terms of how many games did Cubs win.
For me, it’s a three-year Hoyer run so far in terms of putting a winning team on the field.
Year three was a 92 win club, and a really fun season. Job well done in year three.
The rest—going forward—remains to be seen.
-
Here are the terms of the Okamoto deal from Jeff Passan:
The deal is worth $60 million over four years with a $5 million signing bonus, a source told ESPN, confirming multiple reports. Okamoto will have a $7 million salary this year and $16 million in each of the following three seasons, according to the Associated Press.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/47491589/sources-japanese-3b-kazuma-okamoto-blue-jays-agree-deal
If the Cubs were not willing to beat that, they must not have been all that interested.
I think the Cubs are pretty content with Shaw. The Hoyer show doesn't give me much hope of annual improvement. The hope is to be good enough to make the playoffs and then catch lightning in a bottle. We will never be the most talented team because we won't draft at the top of the 1st round and we won't pay for the best proven players.
It may not be the worst strategy (as 4 wild card teams have won the WS in the last 15 years), but it is pretty damn frustrating when we are supposed to be a large market team and don't act like one.
-
Here are the terms of the Okamoto deal from Jeff Passan:
The deal is worth $60 million over four years with a $5 million signing bonus, a source told ESPN, confirming multiple reports. Okamoto will have a $7 million salary this year and $16 million in each of the following three seasons, according to the Associated Press.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/47491589/sources-japanese-3b-kazuma-okamoto-blue-jays-agree-deal
If the Cubs were not willing to beat that, they must not have been all that interested.
-
We are in year 5 of the Jed Hoyer show and he 1 wild card appearance to show for it. This is his 7th year being in charge if you include the Padres and it is still 1 wild card appearance.
Do you really need year 8? I don’t think Hoyer deserves all the blame, but if Ricketts is going to play with 1 hand tied behind his back, he is going to have to hire someone a heck of a lot than Hoyer to be good again.
-
I'm suspending judgment on Hoyer until I see what he does to improve the 2026 team. I have a certain amount of respect for the ways in which the organization has strengthened under him. But he has to show me that he can be courageous and aggressive when the situation demands it (as it currently does in my view).
-
Boo on Okamoto to Jays. Any chance we'll find we were one of the final three? :):)
It's been kinda assume Toronto would sign one of Bichette, Bellinger, or Tucker. Any chance this means they are pulling out on those guys?
Who knows, four months till season. Would be super fun if Hoyer's waiting game actually worked, and in the end Tucker had only modest market.
Think more than zero chance that length of Tucker deal might be far shorter than some have speculated. But, if a LOT shorter, probably likely that Dodgers swoop in with some kind of huge AAV deal with deferrals.
Hoyer likes Bregman’s overall package. At this point, think it’s Bregman or bust on an impact bat. More likely than not, he signs elsewhere but still a decent chance here. That’s how I look at it.
For some, being a diehard fan means that the head guy making the decisions is an idiot. Not just Hoyer and Cubs of course. There are Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, etc. etc. etc. fans like that too. We have a few here. Gets tiresome but plenty of room for everybody. All aboard. For me, Hoyer is a competent guy——outside the Top 10 of MLB decision-makers—but a workmanlike exec capable of putting a World Series team on the field. Okay by me.
-
Wonder how good Bregman's numbers would be away from Houston or Boston 81 games per season. Pretty nice ballparks for his profile as a hitter.
Bregman career slash line:
Home 268-367-471
Road 276-363-490
2015 w/Red Sox:
Home 246-347-414
Road 296-371-504
-
Wonder how good Bregman's numbers would be away from Houston or Boston 81 games per season. Pretty nice ballparks for his profile as a hitter.
-
Boo on Okamoto to Jays. Any chance we'll find we were one of the final three? :):)
It's been kinda assume Toronto would sign one of Bichette, Bellinger, or Tucker. Any chance this means they are pulling out on those guys?
Who knows, four months till season. Would be super fun if Hoyer's waiting game actually worked, and in the end Tucker had only modest market.
-
And keep in mind that with significant extra $ as a result of the playoff games.
-
Okamoto to the Jays.
We’re not adding a big bat vía FA.
The Tucker acquisition was a one-time “opportunity” to consolidate talent (ie gut the farm), and was not resetting the bar on the offensive baseline for the Cubs.
The 2026 Cubs will be less talented than the 2025 version, and payroll is likely to go down vs 2025.
-
Trying to get inside of Hoyer's mind to assess his motivations seems like a futilie and misguided exercise. But I think there are those here who have gone beyond simply disagreeing with Hoyer's judgement to something much deeper. That happened with Rickets with some (or at least one, for sure) when he first purchased the team. Hiring Theo, completely upgrading Wrigley Field and the entire Cub infrastructure, then winning a World Series did nothing to alter those opinions. I don't think there is anything Hoyer can do at this point to change the opinions of his most ardent opponents.
I'm not sure why those of us not in complete agreement need to be reminded of the utter disregard these folks have for Hoyer several times a day. This has been well established. But it's a free country (for a while anyway) and a free message board.
-
When it's a question of Hoyer's risk avoidance, is he avoiding hurting the team long term or avoiding endangering his job? It seems more like the latter. When he talks, I think he loves his job more than he loves the Cubs. I've always felt that way. The "let's just win enough to gain the playoffs" mentality may not be true, but if the evidence of Hoyer's behavior over the past few years were brought to a jury, I think they'd convict. JMO
-
Yeah, we don't really know with anybody. Which includes our young players. I suspect how 2026 plays out will depend more on how PCA, Caissie, Shaw, Amaya, Moises, Horton, Hodge, and Wiggins actually perform/develop than on which of the remaining FA's Hoyer signs. The last FA or two signed will impact the season less than how the other 30 guys do.
Blue doesn't see our youth as being that great, not on par with Bryant/Rizzo/Schwarber. I don't know. But. *IF* we're going to end up being really good, I think that will hinge on PCA/Horton/Busch/Wiggins-maybe being really good. And some from the Shaw/Moises/Caissie/Palencia/Amaya/Hodge group working out as being asset guys.
Who can know now, until things play out?
-
Like everyone(?) else, I'm frustrated and somewhat puzzled by the way the off-season has played out ... so far. And contrary to what some believe, I'm not a fan of Hoyer's conservative approach. I too wish he were more willing to take risks, which he clearly wants to avoid. I continue to hope that he will surprise everyone here, but it is hard for me to believe that anything he does will satisfy those who despise him.
Unless there is a surprising big trade, I don't see the Cubs getting a TORP and short of that, I don't see pitching being enough to outweigh improving the offense. So I am sort of with craig, wanting Hoyer to sign Okamoto. But I say that as a fan who is in no position to judge how good Okamoto is likely to be in MLB. I like Bregman and would be quite happy if becomes a Cub (again, thinking along the same lines as craig), but it seems likely that someone will outbid the Cubs for Bregman. Nevertheless, I'd like one of those guys to play 3B with Shaw being used in a trade for pitching.
But my opinions are admittedly less knowledge based than some others here. That said, what I cannot understand is the degree of certainty a few here have about how individual players/pitchers will or will not play out. As sophisticated as some here are, no one has access to the amount and depth of information or the analytical tools that the Cubs have. That doesn't mean I trust any decision Hoyer et al make, particulalry when decisions seem to be influenced so strongly by a conservative philosophy.
-
I'm not saying I expect to get Bregman, or want him as top priority. Just saying that if he gets $30-32 AAV for 3, 4, or 5 years, I won't fault Hoyer for that. That would seem kinda market appropriate for a 4-WAR type guy.
Personally I don't really want to wait on that, since we'll just come in 3rd and won't get him anyway. I'd prefer that they sign Okamoto today, and wrap up position hunting. Then spend the rest on Framber, Gallen, or Suarez and call it good.
But I'm as or more wary about the offense than the pitching. Adding a Bregman who'd give another position-asset bat, even if not great, would reduce my fear that we'll really struggle on offense. Bregman might upgrade 3B more than Gallen would upgrade Rea or Assad or Steele; and Shaw at utility might upgrade utility more than pushing Rea back into relief will upgrade the bullpen.
So if Bregman was to be the ticket, and they rolled with Horton-Boyd-Imanaga-Taillon-Assad-Rea-Steele-Wicks-Brown-Wiggins for rotation, it's possible that the rotation might end up being good. Perhaps by playoffs, Horton-Wiggins will make a really good 1-2 punch, with the best of the other 7 guys filling out the 3-man rotation.
Who knows? Likewise possible that you just sign Framber, and he ends up excellent. That Shaw steps up and hits .750-.760, that he's a 4-WAR guy himself, and that the offense is good without Bregman or Okamoto or any new big ticket. Who knows?
-
It's not just about being willing to go extra years (and dollars) for any name you want to pick out of a hat. It's a matter of doing it for the right guys.
-
Deeg, that's very fair. To make several counter-thoughts:
1. Arm bit, I don't care. Don't think it's significant.
2. I get not wanting to go beyond 3-4 years; I'd prefer not. But that's free agency. We fault Hoyer when he doesn't sign tickets. But then if he does give an extra year to get a guy, we fault that too. You are probably in perfect sync with Hoyer's mind! I think giving the extra year, and accepting that you'll have a crummy-value contract in 2030, that's FA and part of the price for being good in 2026, 27, and 28? Maybe winning now is worth losing some financial flexibility in 2030?
3. High 700's isn't great, I get that. Mlb average OPS at 3B was .701, overall .719. So .760-.795 range at 3B, there is value there, plus defense. High .700's with defense is ≥4 WAR. In 2024 Houston with it's HR-inflation, Bregman was 4.1 WAR with .768 OPS. Happ was 4.0 WAR with .762 OPS this year. So if you got Bregman in the .760-.795 range, with plus defense, you've got a good player, even if that's not MVP-level or anything.
4. Google AI suggests ~$8-9 per WAR. Not sure that's right, or that you or Hoyer would be willing to pay that rate. But $30M for a 4-WAR guy doesn't look like eggregious overpay?
5. Jorge Polanco got $40/2. If $20 AAV is market rate for guys like Polanco, obviously a Bregman could justify more.
-
With the deferments the actual value is closer to $30 than $40 but yeah, I don't see it.
-
He just opted out of a 40 per year deal. There is no way Homer pays for Bergman. None.
-
Bregman is probably a high-700s and trending down OPS guy for the Cubs. Also concerns about whether his arm will prove to be a problem at 3B as he ages. No way I would go more than 4 years on him and even that depends on the AAV.
-
Bregman has been a consistent 4 WAR player for last four seasons and he gets to 4 WAR by hitting 25 homers. So, that’s valuable anywhere on the infield.
The team leader stuff is significant—adds a bit of value over and above the 4 WAR. Power for guys like this can stay well into his 30s. So, great if can sign him.
Sure, Bichette probably would be more appealing but Bichette figures to get waaaaaay more guaranteed years and total package money.
Beats me why some folks getting ready to criticize Hoyer if he signs Bregman. Maybe just the usual Naysayism from the usual quarters. From my standpoint, likely a big plus...
I'm not sure. I'd like to add him. He's a good fielder, a good BB/K guy, a good OBP guy. BB/K is so good that he's only once had OBP sub-.350. So think he could be a kinda nice fit in the Tucker role, as a take-a-walk setup guy. I think the offense is at risk, so adding a consistent professional good-eye guy would protect the offense.
But yeah, guys do get older. What he has been is known; what he will be, not sure.
reb, You mention 25-HR guy. I'm less confident. He was only 23-26 HR over last three years in Houston, with it's short porch. Even Nico can hit HR's in Houston. Being older, and switching from Houston to Wrigley, I'd not expect to see 25 HR again. But yeah, if he could OBP at .350+ and slug at .420+, with 15-20 HR's, that would strengthen the lineup.
-
I'm the guy who's continued to hope to get two guys, both pitcher and bat, both via FA. And to do so at <$40-50 combined.
1. Imai plus Bregman, ≤$50. Closed.
2. Pitcher + Okamoto. ≤45. We'll see within the next day if that remains open. Don't think Okamoto will be super pricey, so think there's budget for that, assuming willing to go slightly over lux.
3. Bregman + lesser pitcher. Giolito-Bassett-Littell class guys, who won't cost as much or as long?
I assume Okamoto will choose elsewhere. Somebody else will offer a little more, or better options, or more length. And somebody else will offer a sure guaranteed starting job. Not sure Cubs can do that. If Shaw improves, Shaw might win primary 3B usage. I assume there are other teams (Pittsburgh, for example), where Okamoto would be written in and get a long leash within which to adjust.
My two-FA's preference may not happen, obviously.
1. Hoyer's budget might be too low.
2. Hoyer's budget might be high enough, but he may choose to underspend as he often does.
3. FA's may simply choose other places. All else kinda equal, why choose Chicago for tiebreakers?
4. FA bat + pitcher via trade. As reb has often noted, might sign Bregman and trade Shaw; or sign Bellinger and trade Caissie.
5. Bichette or Tucker => no $$ left for Giolito-Bassett-Littell type pitchers.
But yeah, I'd be glad if they sign Okamoto today and then go after one FA pitcher.
-
Well then you're not very good at reading comprehension.
Read and comprehended what you said. Think has more to do with Hoyer than with the merits about Bregman. Not really about Bregman age because you don’t even want a 3-year deal with Bregman. Just good old Naysayism re. Hoyer (and Ricketts) There’s a pattern here.
Of course, everybody entitled to whatever point of view, including Naysayism. Everyone entitled to be whatever kind of Cubs fan they want to be. Whatever Works for you. Carry on.
-
Beats me why some folks getting ready to criticize Hoyer if he signs Bregman.
Well then you're not very good at reading comprehension.
-
I just don't get why Hoyer may be willing to go (slightly) out of his comfort zone for Bregman. He's a good player, but he's not great at this point in his career. He'll be 32 years old for the entire 2026 season, so he's past his peak years and probably won't regain his peak 2018-19 form. Even if it's just a 3-5 year deal, it seems like a bad investment. If you're going to spend that money, spend it on Tucker. Or at least Bichette.
Bregman has been a consistent 4 WAR player for last four seasons and he gets to 4 WAR by hitting 25 homers. So, that’s valuable anywhere on the infield.
The team leader stuff is significant—adds a bit of value over and above the 4 WAR. Power for guys like this can stay well into his 30s. So, great if can sign him.
Sure, Bichette probably would be more appealing but Bichette figures to get waaaaaay more guaranteed years and total package money.
Beats me why some folks getting ready to criticize Hoyer if he signs Bregman. Maybe just the usual Naysayism from the usual quarters. From my standpoint, likely a big plus.
Only way can maybe see Hoerner traded is if Bregman signed. Similar value guys over last four years: do you want that value via 25 homers or via batting average/defense? Can argue either way.
-
You forgot lower total cost too
-
I just don't get why Hoyer may be willing to go (slightly) out of his comfort zone for Bregman. He's a good player, but he's not great at this point in his career. He'll be 32 years old for the entire 2026 season, so he's past his peak years and probably won't regain his peak 2018-19 form. Even if it's just a 3-5 year deal, it seems like a bad investment. If you're going to spend that money, spend it on Tucker. Or at least Bichette.
I think Bregman epitomizes what Hoyer sees as a "star". High floor, low ceiling, good nebulous "clubhouse presence". And a famous name, of course.
-
Az Phil speculates that the Cubs are looking at Hoerner trades because in the unlikely event they sign Bregman
I just don't get why Hoyer may be willing to go (slightly) out of his comfort zone for Bregman. He's a good player, but he's not great at this point in his career. He'll be 32 years old for the entire 2026 season, so he's past his peak years and probably won't regain his peak 2018-19 form. Even if it's just a 3-5 year deal, it seems like a bad investment. If you're going to spend that money, spend it on Tucker. Or at least Bichette.
-
Remember who we have doing the negotiating.
-
If the best Hoyer could get for a player the caliber of Nico was a pitcher like Assad or Wicks, it's time to support another team.
Yeah, that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
-
One year of control won’t bring a ton, but if that is the going value of a guy on team friendly contract with one year left maybe trade Wicks or Assad for that guy.
-
If the best Hoyer could get for a player the caliber of Nico was a pitcher like Assad or Wicks, it's time to support another team.
You can't ignore the value of payroll flexibility.
-
If the best Hoyer could get for a player the caliber of Nico was a pitcher like Assad or Wicks, it's time to support another team.
-
Az Phil speculates that the Cubs are looking at Hoerner trades because in the unlikely event they sign Bregman they'll go over their self-imposed limit without adding any SP. He speculates the return for Nico would be a BORP like Wicks or Assad.
-
I’m sorry, but refusing to beat 3/$60 with opt-outs is not “very aggressive”
Maybe Imai isn’t worth any more. Perhaps Hoyer will be vindicated.
But this was a small contract, and easy to beat.
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2026/01/02/will-cubs-pivot-zac-gallen/
Heh heh, Cerami's supposed sources: "Unfortunately, I can confirm Feinsand’s reporting that the Cubs were very aggressive suitors on Imai. So much so, in fact, that I had multiple sources who thought a deal was actually getting done yesterday (perhaps they were played by Scott Boras for leverage, I don’t know)."
-
I'll be optimist. Sign Okamoto and sign any one of the three pitchers.
Having four soft-toss finesse lefties in Valdez(Suarez), Boyd, Imanaga, and Steele seems kinda lefty-heavy. But does that really matter? Each one is different. And I don't imagine Wednesday's hitter, after thousands of pro AB's, will suddenly better know how to hit Wednesday's starter because he saw a lefty with different movement on Tuesday?
So I don't really object to signing one of the lefties instead of a righty.
Sign a good pitcher. Have him stay healthy and pitch well. Have his effectiveness enhanced by Cubs tremendous defense. Add Okamoto as a mid-priced bat to fill the roster. Hopefully he'll hit and be Suzuki-esque; or hopefully Shaw will emerge and one or the other or ideally both will be good.
-
You would think that a successful business person would understand that there are huge risks in being overly conservative.
-
He leaves it unspent because he's congenitally timid and risk-averse. You're not being unfair at all.
They signed Lester, too. How'd that work out? Zobrist?
-
Perhaps Hoyer will get a guy who'll end up being very good, and at a surprisingly decent price, and he'll end up vindicated. Hope so.
Heyward PTSD? Heyward was obviously their biggest signing, and he was a big liability for years. Did Heyward shape him?
Kenney said Hoyer left a lot of money unspent in 2021. Last year he ended up with $40+, but rather than using it on a ticket, he spent on Pressly and Turner and left a bunch unspent. Every year there is either a bunch unspent, or else because he doesn't apply cash to a ticket, he burns on Pressly-Turner-Neris-Mancini types.
If a good player's AAV is $3 too high, but the player is productive, how is that worse than leaving $10-20 unspent? Or worse than spending >>$3 on Pressly+Turner, or Neris, or Mancini?
Obviously I'm being somewhat unfair. Pressly, Turner and Berti weren't his only non-ticket guys last year. Rea, Kelly, and Thielbar were spread-it-around non-tickets too, and they all contributed.
But yeah, for last year, Rea+Pressly+Turner+Berti you'd have around $20, and add in the many unspent millions, there was enough to cover a pretty big ticket.
-
Trading multiple top prospects for Luis Castillo smells like a Hoyer move. Watch out for that rumor.
-
Craig- All reasonable questions once the off-season is over.
In the meantime, premature for now.
This is Hoyer's fifth (or sixth?) offseason in charge of the Cubs. It's not a premature judgment after 4 1/2 (or 5 1/2?) underwhelming offseasons. He's just bad at his job.
-
Yeah, but we'll get our revenge when we have all that dry powder at the trade deadline.
-
Craig- All reasonable questions once the off-season is over.
In the meantime, premature for now.
Premature is judgment/assumption that he's blowing it; or will waste his budget; or leave it unspent.
The sincere question "what is he saving it for" is not premature. Every guy he doesn't compete to sign because he's too expensive, while being miles below his budget, means he's trying to hold it for something better, no? Is he trying to hold out for one of the pitchers? Or for one of the bats? Is there still any chance that he'll sign two?
I'd been the one dreamy poster who seriously considered that he might sign both a pitcher and a bat, which would have explained being so super-cheap on bullpen and Austin; but with cheaper Imai gone, harder to dream with the remaining pitchers being more expensive. So yeah, guessing with so few guys left, saving it to sign both a ticket pitcher and a ticket hitter is definitely no.
At present, we're down to 7 significant FA's left.
3 pitchers: Valdes, Suarez, Gallen
4 players: Tucker, Bellinger, Bichette, Bregman.
reb, you have noted that we probably shouldn't expect Cubs to payroll with NY, NY, LA, and Philly. King, Imai, and Cease haven't gone to those big-revenue teams.
So part of the challenge is that with only 7 big-ticket FA's left, all of those big-money teams have held their ammo and are still in the mix. Plus of course Toronto is presumably going to sign at least one if not two; and Boston and Arizona among others are willing to spend big. Who knows what other teams are looking to improve and win, and are willing to do something "uncomfortable" in terms of extra length, earlier options, deferrals, higher AAV, etc. in order to get somebody.
So a LOT of competition left for the dwindling supply of tickets. Only 7 tickets left, the supply is not going to outlast demand.
-
The Cubs sure do like checking in.
They do it more than the entire Hilton Hotels gold club.
-
The Cubs sure do like checking in.
-
……lBichette has been mentioned by a couple of people here as someone in whome the Cubs were thought to have an interest. But I don't recall ever seeing this reported anywhere. Did I miss something?
MLBTR:
Three teams are now joining the Blue Jays and Red Sox in the race for Bichette’s services, as Jon Heyman of the New York Post reports that the Cubs, Yankees, and Dodgers have checked in on him.
-
What is he saving it for?
Which of the following would you prefer, if he's going to add two pieces:
1. Gallen + Okamoto
2. Valdes + Castro
3. Bregman + Chris Bassett
4. Tucker + Brujan
He's not adding two pieces. He may not add one piece of any signifigance. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and the cigar is either
5. Scherzer or Verlander on a 1-year deal
6. Wiggins, Ballesteros, and/or Caissie for someone like Cabrera or Lopez
5 & 6: Payroll lower than 2025. Gloat about how much financial flexibility they preserved.
-
A couple of questions for those who pay closer attention to these matters than I do:
First, am I misremembering when I think that Hoyer/Hawkins were saying early on that acquiring a starting pitcher via trade might be a better option?
Second, Bichette has been mentioned by a couple of people here as someone in whome the Cubs were thought to have an interest. But I don't recall ever seeing this reported anywhere. Did I miss something?
Thanks in advance.
-
Craig- All reasonable questions once the off-season is over.
In the meantime, premature for now.
-
Per Twitter Cubs were given the chance to exceed the offer but were uncomfortable with the AAV ....
Bid-winners always win either with AAV, options, or length. Cubs haven't won any bids thus far because they're alway unwilling or "uncomfortable" with at least one of those three factors. Happens again today.
As I say every time: so what are they saving it for?
In Dec 2022, Crane Kenney said: “The business is still healthy, and that left Jed (Hoyer) with a lot of money to spend this year – like last year, where he didn't spend all the money he had last year because he didn't see transactions that made sense to him”.
This was true last year, post-Bellinger; a lot of money that he didn't use.
He keeps saving it. To what purpose? Probably Gallen, Framber, Ranger Suarez, Bergman, Bellinger, and Tucker will all require deals that make him variably "uncomfortable". Is he really going to just pocket it again? Or just flush it on Pressly/Turner washed-ups? Or spend some uncomfortable $$ on a guy other teams want?
Jed, which matters more, winning or "clean books"?
Jed, which makes you most uncomfortable: options, length, AAV, deferral, or losing?
One wonders whether losing doesn't make Jed "uncomfortable".
-
….Called it last winter before the media was talking about it and I’m going to call it again: The Cubs payroll is going to go down.
Cubs current CBT payroll (per RR) is $21.5 M below last season’s official Cubs CBT payroll.
So, let’s see.
-
Thanks. So operationally, posting fee is based on guaranteed dollars. Even though player has option to walk away from the guarantee. Very interesting…..
https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/japanese-posting-system
-
Perhaps Hoyer is convinced that (considering who is currently available in free agency) acquisition of a top notch offensive player is more possible/will benefit the team more than acquisition of another starter. If this is to occur through free agency, presumably Bregman or Bichette would be the target. The options for Hoyer to make a major addition to the rotation have seriously dwindled.
-
Posting fee apparently is $9.675 M, plus 15% of any incentives that Imai reaches.
..So, it’s a very big one-year outlay (salary plus posting fee) ...
Thanks. So operationally, posting fee is based on guaranteed dollars. Even though player has option to walk away from the guarantee. Very interesting. I'd wondered whether Boras and Houston had used option to shrink the posting fee. But not so. Obviously we don't know what the year 1-2-3 salaries are. The AAV might be $18, but just as with NFL contracts, year 1 doens't have to be similiar to years 2 and 3. For example, hypothetically year one could be less, with years 2 and 3 larger, to offset the cost burden on Houston, and to reduce Imai's incentive to opt out.
Whatever, he's Houston's guy, not ours, so whatever.
-
Per Twitter Cubs were given the chance to exceed the offer but were uncomfortable with the AAV
Called it last winter before the media was talking about it and I’m going to call it again:
The Cubs payroll is going to go down.
Certainly possible that was the case. But just curious, who on Twitter? Goes without saying that most things on twitter are meaningless. So the specific source(s) is pretty relevant.
-
Per Twitter Cubs were given the chance to exceed the offer but were uncomfortable with the AAV
Called it last winter before the media was talking about it and I’m going to call it again:
The Cubs payroll is going to go down.
-
Shocking:
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman
Yankees and Mets were not seriously involved in Imai talks. Cubs were among teams in the mix before Astros won the bidding. Imai is on his way to Houston now.
(https://media.tenor.com/sAdlyyKDxogAAAAM/bart-simpson-the-simpsons.gif)
-
Wow. So with options, I wonder how the posting fee actually works? Is Houston obligated to pay the full posting fee based on the $54 guaranteed, plus a little more for options earned as time goes by? ~$10 to start? Or with opt-out, are they only obligated for the flat 20% on his first year?
Posting fee apparently is $9.675 M, plus 15% of any incentives that Imai reaches.
Obviously, if he has a really good season he will opt out after year one and then look for a deal far longer than the two guaranteed years remaining.
So, it’s a very big one-year outlay (salary plus posting fee) for a pitcher without a MLB track record….and if he’s a disappointment, on the hook for two more years at significant money. If he opts out, Astros get the comp pick but only if willing to commit to $22 M or so for 2027——not automatic.
Kind of funny how $150 M projection turned into something far less…….but good for the player too if he proves himself.
-
No one throws ground balls better than Valdez.
I’m sure we’re not interested, but he’s a perfect fit.
-
Who else is left in the 2nd-level of pitchers? Efflin and Mahle gone. So, Giolito, Bassitt? then looking at fossils like Q, Verlander, Scherzer type guys?
Note: there has been idea that Cubs should add a velocity K-oriented guy. Rather than another Ranger Suarez type finesse contact manager. Obviously everybody would like a big-stuff high-K guy, thus Cease got a big long deal. But given the Cubs defense, might it not really be a better value-per-dollar for the Cubs to get a groundball guy?
Financial flexibility for 2026, which will become 2027 and so on.
I take it back, my guess is Gallen because he might be more interested in a one prove it deal.
Bergman goes to D backs after they trade Marte.
The Cubs remain below the CBT.
-
3/$54 in guaranteed money for Imai. So $18 AAV.
Wow. So with options, I wonder how the posting fee actually works? Is Houston obligated to pay the full posting fee based on the $54 guaranteed, plus a little more for options earned as time goes by? ~$10 to start? Or with opt-out, are they only obligated for the flat 20% on his first year?
If they have to pay the whole thing, but only get a single year only to have him opt out looks kinda less great.
Would seem kinda a rip-off for the Japanese team to end up only getting 20% posting fee on first year, for guys who arrange contracts with 1-year opt-outs.
-
Who else is left in the 2nd-level of pitchers? Efflin and Mahle gone. So, Giolito, Bassitt? then looking at fossils like Q, Verlander, Scherzer type guys?
Note: there has been idea that Cubs should add a velocity K-oriented guy. Rather than another Ranger Suarez type finesse contact manager. Obviously everybody would like a big-stuff high-K guy, thus Cease got a big long deal. But given the Cubs defense, might it not really be a better value-per-dollar for the Cubs to get a groundball guy?
-
What is he saving it for?
Which of the following would you prefer, if he's going to add two pieces:
1. Gallen + Okamoto
2. Valdes + Castro
3. Bregman + Chris Bassett
4. Tucker + Brujan
4 minus Brujan.
We won’t get any of those players listed
-
3/$54 in guaranteed money for Imai. So $18 AAV.
-
What is he saving it for?
Which of the following would you prefer, if he's going to add two pieces:
1. Gallen + Okamoto
2. Valdes + Castro
3. Bregman + Chris Bassett
4. Tucker + Brujan
-
So Shoti has a higher AAV than Imai. Even if you think he’s a 3 or 4 that seems like a pretty decent deal for a 27 year old. If he’s better than you get a free comp pick next year. That is just depressing.
-
AAV isn't bad at all.
Suppose he's good this year and opts out. Houston could effectively get one effective $21/1 deal, and then maybe get a free comp pick after he ops out, if the contract doesn't have language precluding qualifying offer?
Hoyer loves 1-year deals. Surprised he wouldn't have liked something with this structure.
The modest of the deal perhaps also speaks to mlb scouting? Maybe they don't love him that much?
-
The viable back plan is hoping other teams went spend on a good player and they will fall into the Cubs lap.
-
Soon we'll learn that the Cubs were in the running til the last minute.
-
Chandler Rome @Chandler_Rome
The Astros are in agreement with Japanese right-hander Tatsuya Imai on a three-year contract, source tells @TheAthletic. The deal maxes out at $63 million and contains opt outs after every season.
-
I wouldn't like to accept those opt outs. But you must then have a viable alternative plan.
-
Jesse Rogers @JesseRogersESPN
Tatsuya Imai's deal with Houston is for 3 years with opt outs every year, sources tell ESPN. When terms are announced, it'll be the largest AAV for a Japanese pitcher coming over outside of Yamamoto.
-
Imai to the Astros according to Heyman and Passan.
-
I don't think anyone here knows much either, but the latest hot rumor for Imai is Atlanta.
-
Alexander Canario to the Seibu Lions:
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/12/alexander-canario-signs-with-npbs-seibu-lions.html
He's still 25, so he seems like a guy who could have a couple huge years in NPB and get a pretty big contract from a major league team in 2028 or 2029.
-
Find those guys? Figures, those guys? Fortunate, those guys? Fly those guys? Futuristic, those guys? I wish JR was clearer.
Keep trying CurtOne, you might hit on the right word eventually. (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji23.png)
-
Find those guys? Figures, those guys? Fortunate, those guys? Fly those guys? Futuristic, those guys? I wish JR was clearer.
-
Japanese twitter now buzzing with rumors that Imai is about to sign with...
The Dodgers.
F those guys.
-
Japanese twitter now buzzing with rumors that Imai is about to sign with...
The Dodgers.
-
Here's a likely representation of how that game of chicken would end. I don't think I have to mention which one is Boras and which one is Hoyer.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/D2LzDTeIrtYZNLptxo/200.gif)
I can't be the only one who starts thinking about Glass Joe watching this.
-
That will be the 6 million we fall short of signing Tucker or Framber or Bregman.
-
Heyman:
Hunter Harvey Cubs deal: $6M plus $1.5M incentives. $7.5M max.
-
Twitter verse baseball guys are suggesting that the White Sox have become a serious suitor for Imai due to the weakened market. If anything could get the Cubs to get off their collective ass perhaps this is what is necessary.
-
So what our offseason is going to boil down to is a game of chicken between Hoyer and Boras…
Here's a likely representation of how that game of chicken would end. I don't think I have to mention which one is Boras and which one is Hoyer.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/D2LzDTeIrtYZNLptxo/200.gif)
-
I think Hoyer has a deal with Boras to always list the Cubs as suitors, so that Maxwell Smart Jed Hoyer can say, "Missed by just that much."
-
Tucker's agent is Excel Sports, not Boras. Not that this is super relevant when it Cubs upcoming free agent planning, unfortunately.
-
So what our offseason is going to boil down to is a game of chicken between Hoyer and Boras…
Wonderful…
-
cubs can just schedule time blocks with boras. Every big ticket of Cubs interest is a Boras guy.
Japanese guys: imai, Okamoto
MLB Position guys: bregman, bellinger, tucker, bichette
MLB Pitchers: Framber, Gallen, Suarez
-
They're probably all meeting him and his agent in LA.
Yeah, that can make it work pretty easily. Boras can schedule a bundle of visits. That said, if I was Okamota or Imai, I'd want to actually visit the city, and the clubhouse, and the workout room, and all of that. Maybe that's already been done, it's just not been the agent/team visit? Or maybe Boras schedules 90-minute visits on Monday and Tuesday, and then they choose three city-clubhouse visits on New Years, Friday, and Saturday. Or maybe wintry cities don't want the guys experiencing their cities covered in snow, beats me.
-
Chunichi on Imai: "He has already interviewed with several teams," "The second interview will be held this week," according to insiders.
-
They're probably all meeting him and his agent in LA.
-
Yahoo reports Okamoto Kazuma is in the US and has meetings set up with the Blue Jays, Cubs, Red Sox, Diamondbacks, Padres, Angels, and Pirates.
Maybe it's not true, and he's already met with several of those teams past-tense.
But if it's actually true, his deadline is next Monday. Seems unwise to smash 7 visits into the last week. 7 visits, plus analyzing which feels best, which makes best fit baseball-wise, do I care about winning or not, and how much will each team offer... A whole lot of decision-making to jam into the very last week. Why not take that a little slower? How much focus and energy will I have if I'm popping to 7 different cities in 6 days or less? My brain might be fried by the last presentation.
-
Yahoo reports Okamoto Kazuma is in the US and has meetings set up with the Blue Jays, Cubs, Red Sox, Diamondbacks, Padres, Angels, and Pirates.
-
Heyman says on the radio that the Cubs are still in the mix somewhere on Imai.
-
Imai did a Japanese TV interview where he said he'd yet to receive an offer from any team.
This is Negotiating 101.
Here, you have a firm deadline, a date certain——unlike most other FA. Add to that a pinch of uncertainty about a player outside of MLB, until now.
Real negotiating will be at the 11th hour to the deadline. Maybe he signs day before deadline, as did Murakami. Or on judgment day.
-
Even Petzold of the Detroit Free Press reports that the Tigers are not in on Alex Bregman at this point.
-
Thanks to everyone who is providing information on player transactions. Much appreciated.
-
Eflin back to the O’s, 1 year, $10 million.
-
I wonder, do you think Hoyer and his crew celebrate with champagne and caviar when they make a huge signing like Hunter Harvey?
They're keeping the champagne on ice until Tucker signs with someone else and the Cubs lock in their precious second round compensation pick.
-
Imai did a Japanese TV interview where he said he'd yet to receive an offer from any team.
-
I wonder, do you think Hoyer and his crew celebrate with champagne and caviar when they make a huge signing like Hunter Harvey?
-
Hodge figuring out how to locate and throw some strikes, and be the 2024 version, that would be a humungous addition to the bullpen. For non-Dodgers teams, success seasons sometimes correlate to getting lucky on a couple of guys who might be good but can't be counted on. Some improbable possibilities working out. Cubs could use that for Hodge, or Wiggins, or Brown, or for that matter Harvey. Caissie and Shaw might also kinda be guys like that.
-
Wiggins isn't really competing with anybody but himself. If he's healthy and looks ready - and the Cubs are in contention - he'll be a mid-season callup like Horton.
Hodge is an interesting case. He and Palencia are the only incumbents with closing experience, and he was basically unhittable in 2024. There's no indication he's hurt. If he's throwing the ball like he did when he first came up, I don't see how you can possibly keep him in the minors.
-
Two followup notes:
1. Assad actually still has option year. Seems he's been around, and effective when he's pitched, for years. But yeah, I guess he still does have option, per Cots. So that could allow Hoyer to add one more guaranteed contract FA, at the expense of Assad. Seems unlikely, though?
2. "Competition" is a cliche value. But guaranteed FA contracts ≥$3.75 are not really "competing" in camp. Unless injured, they're in. Packing bullpen with old guaranteed FA's is not really conducive to "competition"? If you add another, such that all of Assad, Hodge, Brown, Little, and Wicks are Iowa bound no matter how good they look in camp, that isn't really "competition" at all, at least in camp. That said, they all know they will be competing to be effective and to get called up and to stay up, when injury or failure opens opportunity. And if you did option Assad just because he's got options, or whatever, having Assad, Brown, Wicks, and Wiggins all competing with each other at Iowa, and Hodge with whichever Snider and other non-roster guys, that could provide plenty of competition there.
-
I think Hoyer may be done for guaranteed-contract FA relievers? If you sign more, you're just going to have to cut one (or more), in the event none are disabled by season start.
With Hodge, Brown, Wicks, and Little all scheduled for Iowa, I feel like bullpen is already reasonably deep.
Present bullpen:
Guaranteed FA contracts: Harvey, Phil Maton, Webb, Millner (LH), Thielbar (LH) (5)
Palancia (6)
Rea, Assad (8)
Options: Hodge, Brown, Wicks, Little
Non-roster guy with some upside: Snider.
Yes, FA's are old or injury-prone or both. So I get they aren't all going to both make it out of camp and make it effectively into August. But Webb is the only guy under $3.75. Adding more guaranteed guys is pointless, if you're just going to force yourself to cut a guaranteed FA you just signed this winter. And I doubt Hoyer will feel like cutting ≥$3.75 guys based on 8 spring-training innings.
Point being, I think remaining bullpen additions will either be non-roster guys; waiver pickups who can be released easily; or FA's who can get released without full contract obligation.
-
Barely pitched last season and a 2 MPH velocity crater when he did. ...
Given that he only pitched 10 innings, not sure the velocity dip means a lot? Was down the first couple of innings, then less down the latter couple of innings. Hopefully he'll have it all back and can stay healthy. got some upside, I think.
-
ROFL, that's the guy Jed gives $6 million to.
Phillies and Mets looking like the finalists on Imai now. Mets also pursuing Valdez, not clear if they have a strong preference. Surprising not to see thee Giants connected to Imai but maybe they're playing it low-key.
-
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/47428030/sources-cubs-reliever-hunter-harvey-agree-1-year-deal
$6/1. Unexpectedly large, I was guessing as a health rehab guy, that he'd be cheaper. Interesting investment.
-
Barely pitched last season and a 2 MPH velocity crater when he did. Total lottery ticket but hey, it's not like we don't have money.
Okamoto down to Angels, Pirates, and a "mystery team" thought to be the Padres, according to reports.
-
Saw Hunter Harvey in D.C. when with Nats couple of years ago. Power pitcher throwing 98 then. Former O’s 1st round pick and a premier prospect 10 years ago.
As lightening-in-a-bottle type of guys go, he’s an interesting one. Could be a factor if everything aligns.
-
I haven’t seen the numbers but I like the bullpen addition of Harvey if the contract is reasonable. I am far more confident in him than some of our other bullpen additions.
-
Hunter Harvey is apparently signing with the Cubs pending a physical, per Will Sammon…
A little birthday present for you, Dave!
-
Hunter Harvey is apparently signing with the Cubs pending a physical, per Will Sammon…
-
Arizona beat reporter Dan Bickley says he hears Bregman to the D-Backs is basically a done deal.
Well, here’s another recent link below that says DBacks signing Bregman is a “longshot.”
“Done deal” OR “Longshot”?? Take your pick.
Bregman rejected a 6/$156 offer from Astros and a 6/$171.5 offer from Tigers a year ago, in order to take a higher AAV contract with a quick opt-out. Now, he has that and back on the market. This will likely be his final shot at big money.
Buster has talked about Bregman and Dbacks recently too. Bregman grew up in nearby New Mexico and now lives in Phoenix. Has small kids. So, may well be a player who, ideally, would like to play in his hometown. Don’t doubt that.
But, of course, Bregman is a Boras client. That typically means best offer. Dan Bickley expects Bregman to take a hometown discount to sign with DBacks. Maybe, but color me skeptical. Think they will have to show Bregman the money. And probably need to move Ketel Marte in order to make a competitive offer to Bregman. They will want real value for Marte, a superb player.
Could well be another case of Boras putting stuff out there to get other clubs to raise their offers. Will find out sooner or later.
Dbacks may well be the front-runner for Bregman, given the hometown ties, but skeptical it’s a “done deal.”
https://arizonasports.com/mlb/arizona-diamondbacks/bregman-long/3606714/#:~:text=D%2Dbacks%2DAlex%20Bregman%20deal,would%20be%20playing%20somewhere%20else.
-
Arizona beat reporter Dan Bickley says he hears Bregman to the D-Backs is basically a done deal.
-
…By avoiding a huge commitment to a reliever thus far this offseason — the Cubs have signed Webb, Phil Maton, Hoby Milner and Caleb Thielbar for $24.25 million combined — the club is presumably leaving more room in the baseball budget to potentially acquire an accomplished starting pitcher and an established hitter."..
Actually, it’s $17 (CBT) for the above four relievers—less than $17 if not counting buyouts—not $24.5.
Indeed, the entire bullpen may be less than $24.5 because the remaining current candidates are pre-arb (except for Assad and Rea who may or may not be relievers).
Not crazy about this approach. If it allows Hoyer to net a significant bat, on top of a very good SP, then okay. Let’s see the plan as achieved.
In any case, Hoyer seems to think that whatever off-season bullpen he puts together, it’s going to be very different as the season progresses—as happened in 2025. Risky, with the bullpen candidates on board now, I think.
-
Mooney uses the word "and", not "or", in between "starting pitcher" and "an established hitter". That's what I want to see. But I think logically, that also best explains the extreme scrimpo mode thus far. If looking for only one or the other, you'd not need to be so scrimpy.
"By avoiding a huge commitment to a reliever thus far this offseason — the Cubs have signed Webb, Phil Maton, Hoby Milner and Caleb Thielbar for $24.25 million combined — the club is presumably leaving more room in the baseball budget to potentially acquire an accomplished starting pitcher and an established hitter."
He also used the word "presumably".
-
For a good player who other teams want, the tricks are straightforward. Add an extra year; include earlier option(s); defer; raise the AAV.
Will Hoyer negotiate and give on one of those? I expect he knows he'll need to. I don't think he's going to sign Zac Efflin and call it a winter. Just like he gave the extra length for Dansby, he's probably going to need to give in one of those ways to get Imai or whomever. It isn't that complicated, I think they know they're going to need to.
Craig, you cited one example in six years of the Cubs paying market for a FA who was in demand. How much confidence should that really give you?
-
What does a given deal do for the team now and in the future? That needs to be a major consideration. It can't be only about how smart the deal is financially.
-
For a good player who other teams want, the tricks are straightforward. Add an extra year; include earlier option(s); defer; raise the AAV.
Will Hoyer negotiate and give on one of those? I expect he knows he'll need to. I don't think he's going to sign Zac Efflin and call it a winter. Just like he gave the extra length for Dansby, he's probably going to need to give in one of those ways to get Imai or whomever. It isn't that complicated, I think they know they're going to need to.
-
Merry Christmas, friends! In Christmas story, people had been waiting. Hopes realized, waiting answered, promises fulfilled, expectations fulfilled in unexpected ways. (Heh heh, I'll tie this in with Cubs!).
We Cub fans have been waiting too! Sooner or later, Hoyer will make a move. Who knows how expected vs unexpected it might be?
3+ months till season, so rather premature to judge. Next weekend has deadlines for both Imai and Okamoto, so maybe lots will be wrapped up. Or not, who knows.
I'm still pretty optimistic both that Imai will be the guy next week, AND that he'll end up being very good, even if not great.
I'm still expectant that there will be a variably significant position player as well. Maybe just Willi Castro type or less. But I think Okamoto might still be in play. Or maybe Bregman; and I'm still not even precluding Bellinger or perhaps even Tucker. As I've reasoned before, I don't think they really needed to be so thrifty on bullpen if there was no intent to spend beyond a pitcher and a low-priced utility guy. Were that true, they could have afforded more $$ on relief. But I reason that they thrifted on pen because they really do have hopes to land a variably significant player in addition to a pitcher. At *least* one big chunk to go, but very possibly two. And two could complete the roster.
How far they're willing to go, I have no idea. That may be dependent both on the player and the perceived value of a possible deal. Bregman was perceived as a possible value opportunity last spring, enough to expand the budget to make a come-in-3rd offer. Perhaps that same will be true this round: maybe Casto fits normal "budget" but Okamoto doesn't? Maybe Okamoto does, but Bregman doesn't? But maybe Hoyer is willing to stretch for Bregman if his price seems decent value, rather than being inflated long and high. Beats me.
-
Nuance and complexity, Deeg, nuance and complexity.
It’s a black or white world out there.
-
Man, if Hoyer has lost Ron...
Nuance and complexity, Deeg, nuance and complexity.
-
Boras is the agent for both Gallen and Imai. If he knows the Cubs will sign Gallen but only if they miss on Imai, that gives him quite an incentive to have Imai sign somewhere else.
-
Man if Hoyer has lost Craig….
Man, if Hoyer has lost Ron...
-
We won't really be able to seriously evaluate the Cubs' winter season until the dust settles. But gotta say, it does seem like Hoyer's very cautious approach is not looking all that encouraging at the moment. They surely have a plan, but as craig keeps asking, what are they saving the money for? Maybe we will be surprised by a major trade or a Bregman signing or something. Hope so.
-
Fairbanks to Miami for more dollars than club option declined by Rays that led to his release.
Apparently, Cubs not too interested. Ditto Keller.
Cubs have a strategy for the 2026 bullpen….and at this point I have no idea what it is.
Clearly, bullpen spending not a priority. Nothing new about that.
Either Cubs (1) basically done with bullpen or (2) going to trade for some kind of pre-arb or 1st year arb, modest cost back-end quality bullpen piece once SP and perhaps significant-bat-addition settled. If can get those pieces via free agency, Cubs will still have trade capital for a reliever. There are some very good low cost relievers out there that will require significant trade price.
Still almost two months before spring training to add bullpen. Would like to think another substantial bullpen guy on the way but dunno.
-
Just a reminder that Shamra - while not to the extent of a Brett or NSB Trueblood - is basically a party line guy. Said with Kap today that the Cubs would be interested in Imai if the bidding isn't "crazy - like $150 million". No one not carrying water for the club would call $150M for a 27 year-old ace out of Japan crazy for any large-market franchise.
This is a big part of the problem. Ricketts and Hoyer have peddled the narrative that the market is crazy and the Cubs are justified not paying market value for anybody. And they've been so relentless that for too many people it's just become an accepted reality.
Mooney and Sharma were on their podcast and they were discussing Imai. The current thinking is that the Cubs don't view him as an ace and that might be the view around the league as well. I have seen him mentioned as more of middle rotation type pitcher. They said if the bidding is above $150 million that they don't expect the Cubs to be in on him. They also added that $200 million deals in general is just something the Cubs won't do. It only takes 1 team to buy that Imai is going to be a stud and price the Cubs out.
-
The Marlins or Pirates would heartily approve.
Heck the Pirates have even signed Ryan O'Hearn and Gregory Soto, traded for Brandon Lowe and made an actual genuine attempt to sign Kyle Schwarber, which while altogether is nothing special is more than what the Cubs have done so far this offseason.
-
Just a reminder that Shamra - while not to the extent of a Brett or NSB Trueblood - is basically a party line guy. Said with Kap today that the Cubs would be interested in Imai if the bidding isn't "crazy - like $150 million". No one not carrying water for the club would call $150M for a 27 year-old ace out of Japan crazy for any large-market franchise.
This is a big part of the problem. Ricketts and Hoyer have peddled the narrative that the market is crazy and the Cubs are justified not paying market value for anybody. And they've been so relentless that for too many people it's just become an accepted reality.
-
What are we saving it for?
Mooney uses the word "and", not "or", in between "starting pitcher" and "an established hitter". That's what I want to see. But I think logically, that also best explains the extreme scrimpo mode thus far. If looking for only one or the other, you'd not need to be so scrimpy.
"By avoiding a huge commitment to a reliever thus far this offseason — the Cubs have signed Webb, Phil Maton, Hoby Milner and Caleb Thielbar for $24.25 million combined — the club is presumably leaving more room in the baseball budget to potentially acquire an accomplished starting pitcher and an established hitter."
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6915554/2025/12/23/cubs-jacob-webb-bullpen-signing/
Heh heh, while over-analyzing some speculative media guy's rushed-article wording, which doesn't prove anything obviously, I also note the "accomplished" and "established" phrasing. Which probably doesn't really apply to either Imai or Okamoto.
-
...So we have enough spare change for other teams' reject relievers? What are we even doing here???
What are we saving it for? Wait and see, I think.....
-
I'mma assume that's a rhetorical question.
-
Keller wanted to sign a below market deal with the Cubs and we're telling him no?
So we have enough spare change for other teams' reject relievers?
What are we even doing here???
-
This is one all-time boring offseason for the Cubs so far.
The Marlins or Pirates would heartily approve.
Webb is another perfectly fine signing, in a vacuum. A boring, competent contact manager who fits as your 5th or 6th-best reliever.
-
https://northsidebaseball.com/news-rumors/chicago-cubs/after-strong-cluster-of-small-moves-cubs-well-positioned-for-big-game-hunting-r2419/
"Before he signed with the Phillies for $22 million over two years, Brad Keller came to the Cubs and expressed a willingness to sign for less, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation. The Cubs passed."
With every non-move or K-mart move, I again wonder "what are they saving it for?"
Perhaps partly whiny; but mostly it's a sincere question. Saving for something big, but who? Saving for something, but just one or maybe a second significant move?
Or just saving in case of a bargain, but in the real world it will always be "that's too much", "that's too long", "our value model didn't really justify that much" for every good player? So the answer to "what are they saving it for" will be for nothing?
The link says for one big piece and $40M left to spend.
My guess the other day was $40 M to spend too but not sure how anybody could actually KNOW it’s $40 to spend. I’m just guessing.
A year ago, Bregman signed in mid-February with Cubs having an offer on table to him of $28 AAV. Cubs 2025 payroll would have been around $255 had he accepted. Reports were that Bregman was a special case for Ricketts and Hoyer re. payroll.. Maybe he is now a special case too. Who knows?
Very disappointing if true that Keller wanted to come back at less money and Cubs declined.
-
Present bullpen:
Guaranteed FA contracts: Harvey, Phil Maton, Webb, Millner (LH), Thielbar (LH) (5)
Palancia (6)
Rea, Assad (8)
Options: Hodge, Brown, Wicks, Little
Non-roster guy with some upside: Snider.
I think Hoyer may be done for guaranteed-contract FA relievers? If you sign more, you're just going to have to cut one (or more), in the event none are disabled by season start.
With Hodge, Brown, Wicks, and Little all scheduled for Iowa, I feel like bullpen is already reasonably deep.
I know the FA's are old or injury-prone or both. So, yeah, I get they aren't all going to both make it out of camp and make it effectively into August. But seems to me adding more guaranteed guys is pointless, and really Webb is the only guy under $3.75. Doubt Hoyer will see enough from any of the ≥$3.75 guys to cut them in camp.
Point being, I think remaining bullpen additions will either be non-roster guys; 40-man waiver pickups who can be released easily; or major-league-contract FA's who can get released in camp without full contract obligation.
-
With every non-move or K-mart move, I again wonder "what are they saving it for?"
Brain Roberts and Jake Peavy were seen singing "Go Cubs GO" at the Cubby Bear today.
-
https://northsidebaseball.com/news-rumors/chicago-cubs/after-strong-cluster-of-small-moves-cubs-well-positioned-for-big-game-hunting-r2419/
"Before he signed with the Phillies for $22 million over two years, Brad Keller came to the Cubs and expressed a willingness to sign for less, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation. The Cubs passed."
With every non-move or K-mart move, I again wonder "what are they saving it for?"
Perhaps partly whiny; but mostly it's a sincere question. Saving for something big, but who? Saving for something, but just one or maybe a second significant move?
Or just saving in case of a bargain, but in the real world it will always be "that's too much", "that's too long", "our value model didn't really justify that much" for every good player? So the answer to "what are they saving it for" will be for nothing?
-
This is one all-time boring offseason for the Cubs so far.
What? You think that deconstructing how Jacob Webb compares to Eli Morgan is boring?
Years ago, some guy got a PhD comparing Don Dillard to Dan Dobbek.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/dobbeda01.shtml
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/dillado01.shtml
-
Cubs sign Jacob Webb to $1.5 million with a club option for $2.5 million in 2027.
Webb was non-tendered the same day that Rangers also non-tendered Adolis Garcia and Jonah Heim in a veteran purge. Given Cubs 40-man roster room and Webb modest contract, seems like a potentially useful move.
This is sort of the Eli Morgan roster spot who Cubs non-tendered on same day as Rangers non-tendered Webb and projected to similar contract as this Webb deal.
-
Cubs sign Jacob Webb to $1.5 million with a club option for $2.5 million in 2027. Incentives can drive it up to $2 million and $3 million in 2027.
https://www.fangraphs.com/players/jacob-webb/19274/stats/pitching
This is one all-time boring offseason for the Cubs so far.
-
On what Cubs might do with Happ (and Suzuki) after 2026——think that development of Kepley and Conrad in 2026 will be a factor.
Some advanced college guys move very fast. Nick Kurtz and Cam Smith were drafted in 2024 and were big league regulars in 2025.
Kepley in particular might move fast with his OBP skill set. Guessing that will get a lot of AA ABs in 2026 and could be on cusp of big leagues sometime in 2027 if everything plays out as hoped. Love the notion of both PCA and Kepley side-by-side defensively—some serious OF range there and Kepley’s arm perhaps better suited to LF.
Of course, premature until see how Kepley hits at higher levels but could well impact Happ’s future here.
Conrad could move fast too. Will see.
2025 draft could have massive impact on Cubs future OF.
Cubs, of course, also drafted Josiah Hartshorn—who might be able to stay in OF. Had a RF arm. FWIW, Hartshorn $2M bonus was biggest 6th round bonus in the history of MLB draft, so Cubs really like this guy.
-
Cubs sign Jacob Webb to $1.5 million with a club option for $2.5 million in 2027. Incentives can drive it up to $2 million and $3 million in 2027.
https://www.fangraphs.com/players/jacob-webb/19274/stats/pitching
-
craig - I'm a bit surprised you seem to assume that the Cubs won't have both Caissie and Ballesteros on the 25 man roster to start the season. Caissie certainly seems to be a sure thing and Counsell raved about Ballesteros' ability at the plate. It certainly seemed like he expects him to be on the team next year, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
Ron, I was understanding Alcantara to have no options left and being on the roster. But with Alcantara having an option, that opens a spot.
Suppose we assume both Moises and Caissie, that really leaves just one utility infielder spot left.
-Austin-Caissie-Moises-Amaya/Kelly, that's 4, none with infield capacity. One spot left.
Reb had suggested having caissie or Moises but not both, and instead adding a good-hitting RH OFer type. *IF* they did add a good hitter, it wouldn't kill me if Moises got more developmental time at Iowa, to optimize his catching and to work on hitting with more power.
-
Never know, of course, but hard to see both Caissie and Ballesteros on opening day roster.
Possible that Ballesteros wins primary DH spot but guessing Cubs still want to see if he can make progress as a catcher. Not going to keep three catchers to open season, so that means Iowa.
If Caissie stumbles in April, don’t think Cubs will wait too long to switch DH to Ballesteros—and catching progress be d amned. Kind of a balance of interests there, I think.
-
Agree, Ron, I think Hoyer values character qualities a lot. Nico seems 100th percentile.
The Bregman flirtation has a lot to do with character and clubhouse impact.
Absent that component, would be very uncharacteristic of Hoyer to offer a player in neighborhood of $30M AAV to play a position currently occupied by a promising pre-arb player with less than $1M impact on payroll.
Probably won’t happen but seems like Cubs would like it to happen. Would be unusual allocation of resources but Hoyer values the character impact (plus obviously the skill set, above all).
-
Agree, Ron, I think Hoyer values character qualities a lot. Nico seems 100th percentile.
-
Thanks guys! If both Az Phil and AI agree, the question is answered definitively! Awesome!
Alcantara getting the extra option year, that's wonderful for roster flexibility. More importantly, I love that for Alcantara's career development. Perhaps one more year of Iowa AB 's will do nothing more than confirm that he doesn't have the contact skills or in-game HR-capacity to be a big-league starter. But I love getting another year of opportunity. It would be really good for him and the Cubs if he can improve and emerge as a good asset. Maybe even start to bash a bunch of HR's and emerge as a HR asset?
-
I admit to sometimes being a bit sentimental about (some) Cubs. I miss the days when it was not unusual for a player to spend his entire (or at least virtually entire) career with the same team. I value what seems to be Happ's very genuine pride of being and wanting to remain a Cub (as well as his obvious contributions over the years) so I hope a way can be found for him to remain a Cub for at least a couple more years (even if not a starter). Seems like he might well be open to a one or two year contract in order to remain a Cub. While Hoerner may not be as obviously attached to being a Cub, it seems to me that remaining a Cub would be his clear preference (as opposed to simply seeking the highest salary). I would be very disappointed if Hoyer does not try to extend him and succeed at doing so.
People have commented about Hoyer's lack of sentimentality and his lack of prioritizing character. I agree with the former but not the latter. I wish Hoyer were less cold blooded in his assessment of current players. But I do think he places a high value on character as it relates to the player fitting into the team and prioritizing team success rather than solely his individual achievement. Seems like there have been multiple reports over the years related to how much effort goes into understanding the personality and character of players, particularly but not solely in making draft decisions.
-
Happ was second among NL LFers in WAR in 2025.
-
According to AI:
"Yes, Kevin Alcantara has an extra minor league option year available for the 2026 season, thanks to early career injuries and time in rookie leagues, meaning the Cubs can still send him to the minors without him being exposed to waivers, making him likely to be on the 2026 Opening Day roster or a valuable trade chip with that flexibility."
-
craig - I'm a bit surprised you seem to assume that the Cubs won't have both Caissie and Ballesteros on the 25 man roster to start the season. Caissie certainly seems to be a sure thing and Counsell raved about Ballesteros' ability at the plate. It certainly seemed like he expects him to be on the team next year, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
-
ArizonaPhil says that alcantara has an option year in 2026.
When the Commissioner's office has a question about the rules, they contact ArizonaPhil for the correct answer.
-
I wonder if the upcoming expirings will be a little easier to extend? Bryant and Baez, they emerged as superstars early, and always expected superstar deals; but neither really was worth superstar contract to the cubs when their time came. Happ, Hoerner, Suzuki, those three guys are not the same types of guys, or in the same types of age. Hoerner is really good, but not sure that he's going to command a superstar deal, with superstar length? Happ certainly will not. So, maybe those guys will be a little easier to extend?
I'd like to think that Hoerner and Suzuki will be worth extending, and will do so on deals that aren't extreme. Happ, I'm kinda nervous that his bat and power won't age well, and I'd like to hope that we'd have other younger cheaper options. (Caissie, Alcantara, Conrad....).
But yeah, it would be really lame if for a guy like Hoerner they just let him walk.
I agree that Hoerner will be easier to extend, and I will be surprised of the Cubs do not extend him, perhaps even a 6 year deal. I doubt that they would go beyond that. They signed Swanson to 7 years, and I think they believe that it was well worth it.
I think Suzuki also would be easy to extend, as far as money is concerned. If he goes elsewhere, it might be because the Cubs will not guarantee him a non-DH position.
I think the Cubs would love to extend PCA to a 7 - 8 year deal. But I doubt that his agent would advise him to sign one at this point in his career to any non-Soto like contract.
I think that Happ would love to sign a new contract, at a not unreasonable salary. I hope the Cubs don't do it. A sub 250 batting average, and a sub 800 OPS should not be in left field. Left field or first base it the hiding place for slow footed sluggers that provide substantial power, and Happ substantial power is not part of Happ's game. Left field is where you park an Alanso or a Schwarber, where power production is most useful, and defense is least harmful. Happ's defense is great, but it does not provide enough utility to substitute for 40 home runs.
If the Cubs feel that the DH spot should be used as a resting space for regulars (something I disagree with intensely) I hope they give Ballesteros a full shot in left field. He would be better than Moreland in just about every respect, both offensively and defensively, in my opinion. And the Power may well develop as he gains experience.
-
I know Austin has a 40-man spot now but think he’s more of a non-roster type competing to make club on a “make good” basis. Just don’t see any big commitment to him as a key righty bat off the bench.
Not sure what is in his contract but very possible his $1.25 is not guaranteed and could be one of those cba-required severance pay deals if released during spring training.
That's a helpful point.
heh heh, it would be fun to have one of these guys who actually does end up hitting and being useful.
2025: Jon Berti, Justin Turner, Gage Workman, Brujan
2024: Garrett Cooper
2023; Luis Torrens, Eric Hosmer, Edwin Rios, Trey Mancini, Miles Mastrobuoni....
I'm just so used to Hoyer's end-of-bench fill-ins being so terrible that we just assume Austin will be about as productive and as short-lived as Cooper, Workman Berti, Torrens, Mancini, and Rios.
But it's not impossible that sometimes a guy comes over from Japan and might actually be good in his selective protect LHP-only role?
-
Alcantara has an option remaining for 2026.....
Ah, that completely changes my analysis, if true. Cots says he doesn't.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1epJfx2VlkhWd--kaoTLWkYHD2OEetroV73Us1pbefGM/edit?gid=1520401900#gid=1520401900
I hope you're right. Who knows what good one more year of full-time developmental AB's at Iowa might produce? Having the roster flexibility for a better hitter might be really useful, *IF* the guy can actually hit.
So *IF* KA can option at Iowa, they could replace him with a veteran.
An unlikely but not impossible alternative would be to replace him with Moises? Keep both Caissie and Ballesteros as lefty hitters on roster? At present, we don't really know how MOises and Caissie will do. Moises might just win that DH role, whereas Caissie might be overwhelmed by big-league pitching? Conversely, it's possible that Caissie will hit well, with HR power that Moises doesn't have. Spring training might not be sufficient to determine how that's going to play out, so, maybe keep both?
For example, suppose there are 6 games against RHP. Moises and Owen could each get 3 starts? Caissie could start twice in RF, giving Seiya two DH-rest games, plus get his third start at DH. Moises could get the other 3 DH starts. Each would get enough AB and opportunities to stay sharp and to keep developing. If Caissie's power makes him obviously preferable, after a while you can shift the relative usage, obviously, or vice-versa.
-
I know Austin has a 40-man spot now but think he’s more of a non-roster type competing to make club on a “make good” basis. Just don’t see any big commitment to him as a key righty bat off the bench.
Not sure what is in his contract but very possible his $1.25 is not guaranteed and could be one of those cba-required severance pay deals if released during spring training.
-
Alcantara has an option remaining for 2026.
PCA started 153 games in 2025. Not too many games left in CF beyond that.
Sure, it’s very possible that Alcantara fills a bench spot. But I doubt it. Think Cubs will bring in a veteran righty bat for bench.
-
...5-man bench (including primary DH):
1. back-up catcher
2. lefty primary DH, perhaps Caissie
3. Tyler Austin
4. righty-hitting OF/DH bat guy who is really good vs. lefties and can play OF okay
5. Utility IFer, preferably lefty bat or switch....
I've got Alcantara for spot 4. But interesting that there doesn't really seem to be room for both Moises plus Caissie. Part of me thinks it might be nice to have both, sharing some DH AB and kind of getting a share-time opportunity to compete for that role. But the roster just really doesn't have space for both. So kinda guessing that they'll compete in camp, and then maybe one will stay and other go to Iowa. Just for time, kinda thinking Caissie should get first shot. Plus obviously he has defensive-versatility value. Perhaps if he struggles and Moises hits at Iowa, they could switch who's up and who's down.
Perhaps that could change *IF* Alcantara gets traded. Then you could perhaps replace the Alcantara spot with Moises. Life without a backup CF on big-league roster. If PCA gets hurt at some point so that you need a CF, Iowa callup is available tomorrow. But when PCA is fresh, he can get all the starts at least for the first month or two. *IF* Alcantara had options, he could go down; but not the way it is.
-
Back to the question whether Jed values character and what how players view the organization. It certainly seems based on who he signs is that he does and that comments from players seem positive. I do wonder given that the Cubs will not likely extend any of their home grown players at year six ((except for a couple of years beyond) that has to be a negative for the players. ....
I wonder if the upcoming expirings will be a little easier to extend? Bryant and Baez, they emerged as superstars early, and always expected superstar deals; but neither really was worth superstar contract to the cubs when their time came. Happ, Hoerner, Suzuki, those three guys are not the same types of guys, or in the same types of age. Hoerner is really good, but not sure that he's going to command a superstar deal, with superstar length? Happ certainly will not. So, maybe those guys will be a little easier to extend?
I'd like to think that Hoerner and Suzuki will be worth extending, and will do so on deals that aren't extreme. Happ, I'm kinda nervous that his bat and power won't age well, and I'd like to hope that we'd have other younger cheaper options. (Caissie, Alcantara, Conrad....).
But yeah, it would be really lame if for a guy like Hoerner they just let him walk.
On the quality of conditions and the Cubs care and support for families, etc., I wonder if players don't realize how good they've got it until after they leave? Sometimes you assume it will be the same everywhere, until you leave and find out it isn't....
-
reb, I've got Kevin Alcantara for RH OF spot. He's out of options, no? Maybe he'll get traded, I know you've kind of been anticipating that. But until/unless, he's the guy. I kinda worry that he won't hit enough to be useful, but maybe he'll hit enough to be a good fit?
Alcantara had .984-OPS vs LHP at Iowa. That's pretty strong. So maybe if limited to LHP matchups, perhaps he'll actually hit pretty well, and be ready to be a capable mlb platoon-oriented guy? He's also young enough that perhaps he's just ready to take a developmental improvement step? Plus he played through a sports hernia last year, so maybe some of his productivity was limited by that, and if he's healthier that will also help him improve?
What he could provide, in the hypothetical that he hits enough and isn't an auto-out liability:
-PCA injury contingency in CF;
-Seiya-injury contingency in RF (vs LHP)
-PCA rest against some tough lefties
-Busch some rest against tough lefties, both Austin + Alcantra could play?
-If he hits well enough to be useful vs LHP, perhaps Seiya could sometimes DH against LHP, and let Kevin play RF and give Seiya a little rest from fielding?
Also possible that Alcantara might compete with Austin for some DH AB. I wouldn't expect Kevin to hit well enough to be the RH DH versus lefties, I'd expect that to be Austin. But if austin struggles and Kevin hits pretty well, maybe he'll just hit his way past Austin?
-
Back to the question whether Jed values character and what how players view the organization. It certainly seems based on who he signs is that he does and that comments from players seem positive. I do wonder given that the Cubs will not likely extend any of their home grown players at year six ((except for a couple of years beyond) that has to be a negative for the players. I do believe the little things they do well for the players as they built a first class locker room, batting cage, weight room at Wrigley along with developing a spring training facility in Mesa. I do know that our old rooftop we had to sell (Thanks Rham) down from the players parking lot they now use the first two floors as a player nursery and a family hangout before, during and after the games. So they probably seen as a family friendly place to play. They just will not sign long term deals for players near thirty. I believe Jed once was quoted as their is no such thing as a bad one year contract:)
-
That was Tyler Austin.
Maybe, but don’t think so. Here’s why.
5-man bench (including primary DH):
1. back-up catcher
2. lefty primary DH, perhaps Caissie
3. Tyler Austin
4. righty-hitting OF/DH bat guy who is really good vs. lefties and can play OF okay
5. Utility IFer, preferably lefty bat or switch.
Tyler Austin seems more of a Busch fill-in vs. lefties. Yeah, possible DH role if he really hits but is not a guy who signed based on getting a certain number of ABs. Just happy to get a shot. Limited track record in majors and might not even make the club.
A guy like Andujar has track record of crushing lefties, can play OF (and 3B in a pinch), and will be looking for a certain # of ABs that Cubs probably can give him.
-
quadruple lame-o?
-
I think it's pretty fair to have a particular number specified for a particular offseason. Reb's $240 guess would be another step down the payroll ladder. They've been locked in that same $230-240 range for the last 3 years, even as inflation happens annually and lux goes up every year. They were in that range back in 2019, so to be 7 years later and still stuck at the same threshold is lame.
Particularly given the revenues that were generated during this season. Since 2020, from most recent back, they've been 11th, 9th, 10th, 12th, and 15th in cbt. After the revenue season they just had, to just stay stuck at the same flat budget and settle in the 10th-15th range while other teams inflate past them, is lame. They won a bunch of games and created a ton of excitement in Chicago.
To just settle back and trade Tucker, Keller, and Pomeranz for 4.83-Gallen and Matos, and consider that a fruitful offseason, would be pretty lame.
What would it be if instead of Gallen it was Verlander on a 1-year deal?
-
I think it's pretty fair to have a particular number specified for a particular offseason. Reb's $240 guess would be another step down the payroll ladder. They've been locked in that same $230-240 range for the last 3 years, even as inflation happens annually and lux goes up every year. They were in that range back in 2019, so to be 7 years later and still stuck at the same threshold is lame.
Particularly given the revenues that were generated during this season. Since 2020, from most recent back, they've been 11th, 9th, 10th, 12th, and 15th in cbt. After the revenue season they just had, to just stay stuck at the same flat budget and settle in the 10th-15th range while other teams inflate past them, is lame. They won a bunch of games and created a ton of excitement in Chicago.
To just settle back and trade Tucker, Keller, and Pomeranz for 4.83-Gallen and Matos, and consider that a fruitful offseason, would be pretty lame.
-
That was Tyler Austin.
-
Refsnyder to Mariners.
Now, maybe Miguel Andujar for that righty bat bench role?
-
Trying to peg to a fixed number in a fluid environment makes no sense. There's a reason the CBT thresholds change year to year.
The theme from the board, and everywhere else I've ever seen complain about payroll and the Ricketts, is spend commensurate to market and revenue peers.
Whether the economics for the 6-7th teams on those fronts works out to $200M, $300M, or $400M, I don't care. But that's the level we should be at to leverage the competitive advantages of being a major market team.
This, this, this…1000x this!
-
Trying to peg to a fixed number in a fluid environment makes no sense. There's a reason the CBT thresholds change year to year.
The theme from the board, and everywhere else I've ever seen complain about payroll and the Ricketts, is spend commensurate to market and revenue peers.
Whether the economics for the 6-7th teams on those fronts works out to $200M, $300M, or $400M, I don't care. But that's the level we should be at to leverage the competitive advantages of being a major market team.
CBT threshold changes are minuscule year-to-year. As in $3 M per season. These threshold changes per season are a non-factor in “fluidity” of the marketplace.
A specific payroll number is important because the difference in spending from, say, the #5 payroll to #7 payroll can be very small. For example, the difference from #5 spender in 2024 to #7 spender in 2024 was only $4 M.
As in most every walk of life, the more specific, the better. Otherwise, we get a lot of general moaning and groaning.
Padres actually had higher CBT spending than Dodgers as recently as 2023. What matters is the specific spending and then it’s easy as pie to see where that ranks.
Are you really going to be upset if Cubs spend $265 CBT in 2026 but finish #7 spender because #5 spender outspent Cubs by $4?
-
My own guesstimate on most likely CBT payroll is that Cubs will be in the $240ish range in 2026.
Currently at $203.7 CBT.
So, let’s say Gallen at $22 AAV, Fairbanks at $9 AAV, Refsnyder at $4-5 AAV, new utility MIF at $4 AAV.
That about $242 CBT total, just under CBT tax.
The wild card is Bregman, who figures to be around $30 AAV. If you add him to mix, then everybody will be happy on the payroll albeit not everyone keen on Bregman. Then, delete MIF spending (with Shaw in that role).
Or, Cubs could then get the SP via trade and go from spending $22 AAV (Gallen) to $6 for the trade guy, thereby depleting farm system somewhat.
Of course, all guesswork and this remains to be seen—except for those of you who already know how the off-season will play out.
-
Trying to peg to a fixed number in a fluid environment makes no sense. There's a reason the CBT thresholds change year to year.
The theme from the board, and everywhere else I've ever seen complain about payroll and the Ricketts, is spend commensurate to market and revenue peers.
Whether the economics for the 6-7th teams on those fronts works out to $200M, $300M, or $400M, I don't care. But that's the level we should be at to leverage the competitive advantages of being a major market team.
-
Sharma/Mooney newest piece is skeptical that Cubs will spend big on a long-term FA starting pitcher, specially Imai.
That has certainly been Cubs recent history.
Possible that Imai doesn’t get the long contract he’s likely seeking.
But, assuming that he gets it, I wonder if Cubs might break from their recent mold given the dearth of pitching prospects on the farm (aside from Wiggins).
This would seem to be the exact time to bring in a youngish SP with upside and commit long-term. Obviously, Cubs brass keenly aware of the pitching shortcomings in the farm system—Hoyer acknowledged as much very recently.
So, possible that Sharma is missing something here.
Granted, perhaps most likely scenario is that Sharma is right and Cubs end up with Gallen but going to be interesting how this plays out.
-
Okay, let’s say $265-270. Anybody else?
-
I'll differ. $270.
$270 last year would have been 7th. Will be no higher this year wiyh inflation.
Tax bill for $270 was <$7 last year.
$270 gives space for two good players. $265 might be tight.
-
Really? I can't even imagine whom you'd be referencing. Basically every salary conversation I've ever seen on the board suggests Cubs should be spending near 5-6th overall, because that's what's commensurate with our market and revenue.
And yes, just like everyone else that's chimed in, were the Cubs to run a payroll that equated to 6th overall, that would make me happy.
I’m talking very specific dollar payroll for Cubs. Hard to pin down here. Folks often talk generally about should be spending more than teams X and Y but without a payroll number. That’s what I’m getting at.
Okay, so nobody has objected to a Cubs CBT payroll at $265ish in 2026 dollars. I guess that’s the number that will satisfy everybody here. The magic number. Right? Still time to differ. Anybody?
-
IFA has been a long standing problem and with the way deals are done it takes years to fix. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't.
When they target guys with velocity the get good results (Horton, Wiggins), but they have been looking to copy the Indians and adding velocity to control guys it has been paid off yet.
I look at the farm and prospects as ranges. The Cubs don't have any elite prospects, they have a lot of good to fair guys. The system is horrible, but it isn't great. It is kinda like the major league Cubs, mid.
-
The system would look much better if it had Cam Smith, Zahir Hope, Ferris and DJ Herz. And if Matt Shaw, Ballesteros and Horton were still in the minors. Their selections in the draft have improved greatly from what they were 10 years ago.
Their major failing, in my opinion, has been in the Latino free agent arena, where almost zero pitching has emerged. Partly due to their seeming obsession for signing only 16 year old shortstops.
Korean players are also almost non-existant. So far, pretty good on Japanese talent, considering their budget restraints.
-
FanGraphs has our farm rated 12th in the NL.
The 2025 updated rankings have that at 22nd with $144 million in value. The Pirates are first at $284 million. The Padres are last at $78 million. There are 6 teams at are grouped from $137 million to $153 million and 2 other teams at $161 million. Once Alcantara, Cassie and Balesteros loose eligibility the value of the Cubs farm is going to drop, a lot.
-
FanGraphs has our farm rated 12th in the NL.
-
Farm system looks concerningly thin to me. There's a reason we have so many open 40 man roster spaces.
You have talent that is major league ready. It isn't high-end, except maybe Wiggins, to it is close. I think it been rated in the mid-teens and I think that is fair. It isn't bad and it isn't great. It is what the Cubs need after the core graduated in 2015/2016, but the problem is the Cubs could really use a core of young talent and that isn't what this system is set up do.
-
and a good, but not great farm system.
Farm system looks concerningly thin to me. There's a reason we have so many open 40 man roster spaces.
-
But there are some folks here who will not give a payroll number that will “satisfy” them. Think that’s interesting among the fan base.
Really? I can't even imagine whom you'd be referencing. Basically every salary conversation I've ever seen on the board suggests Cubs should be spending near 5-6th overall, because that's what's commensurate with our market and revenue.
And yes, just like everyone else that's chimed in, were the Cubs to run a payroll that equated to 6th overall, that would make me happy.
-
Serious question, Play - what do you see as that nucleus? Hoerner, Suzuki, and Happ are all gone after this season. Swanson is a solid player who’s probably started his decline. Amaya is a total unknown. The pitching staff is basically Horton, pending FAs, and a bunch of question marks.
It's certainly possible taht Hoerner, Suzuki and Happ will be gone after 2026. But I don't assume that. Hoerner and Happ seem to be really happy with the Cubs and I think it's likely they will prefer to stay with them. And I think it's possible the Cubs feel the same way.
So the nucleus is PCA, Busch, and a couple of hopeful prospects pretty much - is that the foundation of a perennial contender? Or do you see it differently?
-
I was referring to the 2026 team. Clearly there are big needs beyond 2026 and hopefully Hoyer will have the resources and moxie to make the needed moves. I think it's possible that he will.
As a long time suffering Cub fan, it's hard for me to look at the current situation with anything but hopeful optimism.
Fair enough. I’d still say that as constructed it looks like the nucleus of a .500 team, but there’s still time to change that.
-
I was referring to the 2026 team. Clearly there are big needs beyond 2026 and hopefully Hoyer will have the resources and moxie to make the needed moves. I think it's possible that he will.
As a long time suffering Cub fan, it's hard for me to look at the current situation with anything but hopeful optimism.
-
I think it's tough to be an outstanding team when you lose your ace and your big time free agent underperforms. I'm not going to criticize Hoyer too much on outcome of the 2025 season. But it's very clear that the Cubs have the nucleus of a really good team but need to seriously fortify in specific areas- front end starter; late inning relief; and (possibly) the bench. This needs to be done without seriously depleting their young talent (which means spending money). My opinion of Hoyer will be shaped largely on what he does over the next few months.
Serious question, Play - what do you see as that nucleus? Hoerner, Suzuki, and Happ are all gone after this season. Swanson is a solid player who’s probably started his decline. Amaya is a total unknown. The pitching staff is basically Horton, pending FAs, and a bunch of question marks.
So the nucleus is PCA, Busch, and a couple of hopeful prospects pretty much - is that the foundation of a perennial contender? Or do you see it differently?
-
I think it's tough to be an outstanding team when you lose your ace and your big time free agent underperforms. I'm not going to criticize Hoyer too much on outcome of the 2025 season. But it's very clear that the Cubs have the nucleus of a really good team but need to seriously fortify in specific areas- front end starter; late inning relief; and (possibly) the bench. This needs to be done without seriously depleting their young talent (which means spending money). My opinion of Hoyer will be shaped largely on what he does over the next few months.
-
CBJ, you’re exposing the critical flaw of the ignore system…
I only respond because it has a decent question.
I’m not sure why the Blue Jays are viewed by some as a small market. They are the 6th largest market in baseball. Their finances are murky as Rogers doesn’t have to report a lot of revenue that is related to the Blue Jays (TV money from SportsNet, concerts/events at Sky Dome). Rogers has chosen that spending money on Blue Jays is going to lead to more profits for their share holders. The Ricketts family doesn’t agree.
I think everyone would be happy to have the 2015/2016 Cubs with a $120 and $171 million payroll bs what we have know. The problem is have a $200 million payroll and a good, but not great team and a good, but not great farm system. The only way to make the team is better is too spend more money and the Cubs aren’t doing that.
Last year’s team was better, but it still wasn’t great. The team had flaws going into the season and spending $20-60 million more would have made a huge difference. Just getting back to last years level of talent seems really hard.
-
….. Every credible estimate we have puts them behind only the Dodgers and the NY teams in value, and Forbes had them ahead of the Mets in revenue. Only shills and Rickettses claim otherwise. So their payroll should be behind only those three teams, level more or less with teams like Philly and Toronto (which actually have less franchise value). Obviously it’s going to fluctuate from year to year but over time, that’s where they should be.
Forbes says that the Mariners and Cardinals have higher franchise values than the Blue Jays and, therefore, from your point of view should be outspending Toronto.
NOBODY within MLB buys that. That tells you the fallacy of using these estimates to project what a payroll “should” be.
Forbes has Red Sox with slightly higher franchise value than Cubs. That’s the comp under your rationale. Funny how you and others never mention Red Sox. We know why, right? Doesn’t fit the narrative.
Mets and Phillies are special cases because their owners do not care how much they spend. John Middleton has said as much. According to Nightengale, Mets and Phils had huge accounting losses in 2025.
Would be nice if Ricketts would be willing to do that but he is part of large majority if owners who try to avoid that.
So, we should expect that Top 5 spenders “should” be Dodgers, Yanks, Mets, Phils, Jays.
Cubs tied with Red Sox for #6 and #7.
Then, there are the Braves—a club with officially reported revenues, not just estimates. Braves had over $600 M in 2025 revenues, including The Battery. $561 without——very close to Forbes most recent estimated 2024 Cubs revenues of $585. Possible that Braves are very similar to Cubs revenues. Hard to say.
Then, sometimes, another team owner decides to spend big for personal reasons. Before he passed, Padres owner Peter Seidler did that and his long-term commitments are still in play now. Padres still have a $262 payroll for 2026, at the moment. That will be coming down next few years.
Tigers former Tigers owner Mike Ilitch used to do that. Ditto for former Royals owner Ewing Kaufman. So, can expect the occasional big spender for personal reasons to compete with Cubs and Red Sox for #6 and #7 spending. Astros did that in recent years because they were perennial WS contenders.
Put another way, there is a context to team spending.
Whatever the context, it is disappointing Cubs when Cubs are spending $230. Hopefully, will be more in 2026.
-
Jeff Passan @JeffPassan
Full trade, per ESPN sources:
Red Sox get: 1B Willson Contreras and $8 million to cover part of his remaining $41.5 million in salary
Cardinals get: RHP Hunter Dobbins, RHP Yhoiker Fajardo and RHP Blake Aita
-
Hunter Dobbins is the headliner going back to St. Louis, apparently. Which is kind of… underwhelming?
-
Willson Contreras traded to the Red Sox.
-
If Cubs median over the next 6 years at 6th in payroll, I will be satisfied. If it's 11th, as it was this year, I will be dissasfied. If they spend $265 this year, I will be satisfied, happy, and optimistic. If they spend sub-lux this year, after a winning season, after 5 home playoff games, and after almost signing Bregman last year, I will be dissatisfied.
If they median at 6th in payroll over upcoming years, but the team still doesn't win a lot of games and doesn't have a lot of success within the division, I will not blame Ricketts, I will blame Hoyer. A $265-270 payroll is enough resource to build a winning team if you're a good boss. And a $265-270 payroll when others in division are <$160 is a huge advantage. If you can't do really well relative to the division with a $265 vs $160 payroll, blame Hoyer, not his budget.
If payroll is $235, sub-lux, but they still win >90 games, but get knocked out in postseason, I will not blame Hoyer, I will blame Ricketts.
-
His K rate is kinda scary, but that is a good gamble for the White Sox.
I think most people would be happy with that.
If the Cubs were bring up the core of the 2016 team I don’t think anybody would care what the Cubs payroll was. I just want a better team.
CBJ, you’re exposing the critical flaw of the ignore system…
I think it’s important to distinguish between “happy” and satisfied”. I would’ve very happy with the Cubs spending $265M pre-tax, because I know it’s never going to happen and it would be a pleasant surprise. I’d be happy if they spent right up to the tax line, because most years they don’t even do that, and they were way under this year.
I would be satisfied if they were right at #4-5 in baseball in payroll, where their value and profitability says they should be. Every credible estimate we have puts them behind only the Dodgers and the NY teams in value, and Forbes had them ahead of the Mets in revenue. Only shills and Rickettses claim otherwise. So their payroll should be behind only those three teams, level more or less with teams like Philly and Toronto (which actually have less franchise value). Obviously it’s going to fluctuate from year to year but over time, that’s where they should be.
-
Yes, an additional $25 M to payroll matters, say, from $240 to $265ish. Would like to see Cubs do that.
It can be one very significant player, which matters.
But there are some folks here who will not give a payroll number that will “satisfy” them. Think that’s interesting among the fan base.
Don’t think it’s realistic to plead that Cubs should be a Top 5 spender. Dodgers and Yankees, obviously. Mets and Phils because of Cohen and Middleton. And Jays, owned by a giant corporation and who have a country to themselves.
Economically, Cubs are most like the Red Sox.
But, as CBJ said, just give us a winner. Think that 92-win 2024 Cubs did that, albeit with a payroll that could have used that additional $25 M.
-
.Hypothetically, if Cubs 2026 CBT payroll is $265-270 M, would that satisfy EVERYONE here that Cubs are spending what they “should” be spending?...
Yes for me. But I'm not EVERYONE.
I do think the difference between $265-270 versus $231 (last years lux account) vs $201 (present estimated lux cost if they don't add any significant tickets) vs $142-154 (Reds, Cardinals, Brewers) all matter. Sure, reb, you can kinda say, "well, $25-30M, that's barely 10%, does that really make that much difference?" And blue can kinda say, Ricketts is making Hoyer play it like the Brewers, Hoyer's extra $90 doesn't really matter if he's trying to be a $240 Brewers/Tampa. But I think each of those increments make a difference.
If cap is sub-lux, there is only space for one more good starter. If it's $270, I think there would be space for two. With $270, could perhaps fit both Imai and Bregman, or Imai and Bellinger, and still hold your prospects for future use. If it's $235, there's room for just one ticket. The one extra guy could perhaps make a lot of difference? One extra Bregman might have gotten one key hit in Brewers series. One extra Imai might have gotten one extra well-pitched game, hypothetically? Obviously adding both Imai and Bellinger would not assure any great season, I get that. But I think adding two good players could really help, and could position the team with more depth and capacity to withstand the unpredictable challenges of a season.
-
Murakami to the White Sox. 2 years, $34 million.
His K rate is kinda scary, but that is a good gamble for the White Sox.A question:
Hypothetically, if Cubs 2026 CBT payroll is $265-270 M, would that satisfy EVERYONE here that Cubs are spending what they “should” be spending?
That figure likely would put Cubs #6 in CBT spending behind Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Phils, Jays.
I think most people would be happy with that.
If the Cubs were bring up the core of the 2016 team I don’t think anybody would care what the Cubs payroll was. I just want a better team.
-
LOL, the financial penalty for spending $275M looks less than $10M.
A question:
Hypothetically, if Cubs 2026 CBT payroll is $265-270 M, would that satisfy EVERYONE here that Cubs are spending what they “should” be spending?
That figure likely would put Cubs #6 in CBT spending behind Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Phils, Jays.
-
Murakami to the White Sox. 2 years, $34 million.
-
i focus on lux $$, not actual $$. do we know how Hoyer does it? Like, if cubs sign Imai too big deal, two Q's:
1. is posting fee included in any lux calculations?
2. Would Hoyer count the posting fee into his 2026 budget?
1. No
2. This is Ricketts, are you kidding? Jed's coffee service and the office toilet paper purchases counts towards the budget.
-
i focus on lux $$, not actual $$. do we know how Hoyer does it? Like, if cubs sign Imai too big deal, two Q's:
1. is posting fee included in any lux calculations?
2. Would Hoyer count the posting fee into his 2026 budget?
-
don't know anything about him, but he'd seem to kinda align with the Justin Turner RH pH/1B/DH wannabe profile. Cubs just signed Austin for that role. Obviously Austin is no safe thing. So I suppose Hoyer could hypothetically sign Malloy as competition for Austin, and keep whichever looks better in camp. Doubt it, but maybe.
Other factor with DFA guys, of course, will be options. Looks like Malloy has one left. So yeah, I guess could sign him, stick him at Iowa, and if Austin fails you'd have an option.
-
I don't think you want Malloy anywhere near the outfield, but I could still see Jed being interested.
-
Justyn-Henry Malloy DFA'd by Detroit. Formerly a very good prospect, .955 OPS at AAA last year, still only 25. Struggled in limited MLB time with a 32% K-rate, but has an .820 OPS against lefties. He's noww a 1B/DH only so that limits his value, but somebody will likely jump the waiver queue and make a trade for him.
Definitely seems like someone Hoyer would be interested in. He could add a former high-upside prospect who some of the fan base would get excited about. And he can play corner outfield...if he suddenly turns into a good MLB player, he could replace half of Kyle Tucker.
Remember Kyle Tucker? He played for the Cubs in 2025. He's the best free agent on the market, and Hoyer isn't even pretending to try to re-sign him.
-
Justyn-Henry Malloy DFA'd by Detroit. Formerly a very good prospect, .955 OPS at AAA last year, still only 25. Struggled in limited MLB time with a 32% K-rate, but has an .820 OPS against lefties. He's noww a 1B/DH only so that limits his value, but somebody will likely jump the waiver queue and make a trade for him.
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2025/12/20/relative-spending-luxury-tax-the-big-spenders-trade-values-and-other-cubs-bullets/
Brett at Bleacher Nation, on the prospect package Orioles gave for Baz. Baz had a 4.87 ERA this past year, 3.06 the season before. So there's for sure some upside, and he's got 3 years of control. But kinda some perspective on the "sign Bregman, trade for a pitcher" concept. Trading for Cabrera or Gore, will cost a LOT. Lets use our budget and sign a pitcher for zero talent loss, please? And sign him for more years of control than Gore's 2 years (minus lockout) please?
"*I’ve tried to do a little one-to-one with the Cubs to figure out very roughly what the equivalent package would be, and although it’s HIGHLY imprecise, the parallel is something like Ethan Conrad, Kane Kepley, Josiah Hartshorn, Cole Mathis, and a really good breakout top-20 system pitching prospect of the type the Cubs don’t really have. Even that feels like it isn’t as good as the package the Orioles actually gave up. So, imagine the Cubs giving up even more than that for three years of Baz, betting that he’ll finally break out. Yikes. Do not do that, Cubs. Just freaking spend some money on a free agent …"
The funny thing is, when the Cubs trade Wiggins, Ballesteros, and Caissie for someone like Baz Bert will be the first one out there spinning it as a genius move.
-
Nightengale tweets the final luxury tax payroll numbers for 2025: https://x.com/BNightengale/status/2002160286971916606?s=20
Among the highlights, Cubs were outspent as follows:
HOU - $16M
Bos - $19M
SD(LOL) - $46M
TOR - $69M
PHI - $139M
LOL, the financial penalty for spending $275M looks less than $10M.
-
Agree. If Imai is preferred target, having contingency fallbacks still available in case Hoyer misses is good.
-
If Feinsand’s sources are correct about the remaining SP market maybe taking a few more weeks to develop, that’s a good thing for Cubs.
Assuming that’s the case, try to sign Imai—and IF fail on that—then imperative to sign Gallen. Otherwise, as Craig notes, going to bleed prospects trading for a quality SP.
So, the Cubs off-season story is still unwritten.
Of course, the Naysayers already claim to know the outcome. Acyually, you don’t. Tempting to skip to the final chapter if don’t have patience……but this is baseball. Just have to wait. If you know similar-type Mets, Red Sox, Yankees fans right now: SAME STORY, Gloom and Doom.
Maybe the outcome will be disappointing, I have no idea. Remains to be seen, sorry. The off-season can be fun and interesting. Maybe try to enjoy??
,
-
Mark Feinsand:
With the asking prices in trades already exorbitant and the cost of free-agent pitching as high as it has ever been, the pitching market could take several more weeks to develop [emphasis supplied]. “So many teams need pitching, so the sellers and the agents aren’t feeling a time crunch to get deals done,” an AL executive said. “Position players like [Kyle] Tucker, [Cody] Bellinger or [Bo] Bichette may all sign before any of the starting pitchers do.”
The lone exception is Imai, who turns 28 on May 9…….Imai’s situation will have to be resolved by Jan. 2, when his posting window ends, so he could be the next high-end free-agent pitcher to come off the board.
-
..@JesseRogersESPN
In short, I think the market is weird for Imai. But I do not think they will sit on their hands. I do not know what they will do. They bowed out on King/Weaver/Keller. So your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps a feb short term thing if Imai does not happen?
Rogers is obviously totally guessing. Some media have connections or hear things, maybe. Zero indication that Rogers has done so, so he's probably as speculative as you or me. But his short comments kinda seem inconsistent, or hard to harmonize.
Won't-sit-on-hands and sit-till-feb are inconsistent. Sign Scherzer in Feb is totally sit-on-hands.
Obviously Rogers is just guessing.
But going really hard and signing Imai seems to be the best answer.
Not sitting on hands. Using budget. Getting guy you want. Get a guy who's reasonably young. Get some longer years of control. Imai-Horton-Wiggins, that could be a vibrant long-controlled rotation core for a long run. Let's get it done, Jed!
And keep your prospects (and add one supplemental pick).
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2025/12/20/relative-spending-luxury-tax-the-big-spenders-trade-values-and-other-cubs-bullets/
Brett at Bleacher Nation, on the prospect package Orioles gave for Baz. Baz had a 4.87 ERA this past year, 3.06 the season before. So there's for sure some upside, and he's got 3 years of control. But kinda some perspective on the "sign Bregman, trade for a pitcher" concept. Trading for Cabrera or Gore, will cost a LOT. Lets use our budget and sign a pitcher for zero talent loss, please? And sign him for more years of control than Gore's 2 years (minus lockout) please?
"*I’ve tried to do a little one-to-one with the Cubs to figure out very roughly what the equivalent package would be, and although it’s HIGHLY imprecise, the parallel is something like Ethan Conrad, Kane Kepley, Josiah Hartshorn, Cole Mathis, and a really good breakout top-20 system pitching prospect of the type the Cubs don’t really have. Even that feels like it isn’t as good as the package the Orioles actually gave up. So, imagine the Cubs giving up even more than that for three years of Baz, betting that he’ll finally break out. Yikes. Do not do that, Cubs. Just freaking spend some money on a free agent …"
-
I suspect the short-term Feb thing would be Scherzer or Verlander.
-
....Jesse Rogers
@JesseRogersESPN
In short, I think the market is weird for Imai. But I do not think they will sit on their hands. I do not know what they will do. They bowed out on King/Weaver/Keller. So your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps a feb short term thing if Imai does not happen?
Heh heh, the prospect of whiffing on everybody and then doing a "feb short term thing" is not a fun prospect. They've tried the "feb short term thing" last two years, with Bellinger which didn't work that well; and with Bregman who they didn't even get. So hanging out for that is an unappealing prospect. Who knows if any guys better than Pressly types will even Feb available, or guys who fit the Cubs? (Heh heh, it might be funny to do the "feb thing" and get Tucker or Bellinger! :):).
The "short term" tuff doesn't appeal. Hoyer likes operating so likes to remake the team every single winter. But having guys on 1-year and 2-year deals, or with optouts, I think that's problematic. Have a core that you know you're going to have for some year, makes planning and trades and stuff more logical.
-
Nightengale tweets the final luxury tax payroll numbers for 2025: https://x.com/BNightengale/status/2002160286971916606?s=20
Among the highlights, Cubs were outspent as follows:
HOU - $16M
Bos - $19M
SD(LOL) - $46M
TOR - $69M
PHI - $139M
-
I guess everyone is trying to get their deals done before they take the rest of the year off.
Well you've got to give credit to Jed since he at least got a head start on the rest of MLB by taking the rest of the year off before everyone else.
-
Frank Dicristofano
@Tank2526
·
7h
@JesseRogersESPN
keep seeing Cubs are signing Imai do you have any insight to this being true?
Jesse Rogers
@JesseRogersESPN
·
6h
Eh. Doubtful
Jesse Rogers
@JesseRogersESPN
In short, I think the market is weird for Imai. But I do not think they will sit on their hands. I do not know what they will do. They bowed out on King/Weaver/Keller. So your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps a feb short term thing if Imai does not happen?
-
Yahoo.jp quoting industry sources says "The Cubs have no chance of landing Imai in terms of financial power". It says the Yankees are "likely to win this time".
-
Hoyer is a problem. Ricketts is the problem. Hoyer can only succeed in an organization so expansive that they consistently spend at the top of the league - he's nowhere near good enough to do what the Rays and Brewers do. There are a few guys who could, but probably none of them want to work for Ricketts.
The easiest fix, of course, is an owner who cares about winning. Ricketts is the biggest problem because only a truly elite GM/PBO could win consistently as long as he's around, and there are very few of those.
Moccbomb on X is pretty solid.
https://x.com/moccbomb/status/2002059187875098705?s=46&t=Ys_vQAj1Yo46kkbTeBfq5A
That's not what I see in the Japanese press, who are generally more connected on these things than random American twitter accounts. We'll see.
-
I think you and I have differed in view, in two fundamental ways, re the team and Hoyer. (Sorry if I oversimplify or misrepresent...)
1. Your view has been that the problem is Ricketts and the budget; that Hoyer is smart, within Ricketts constraints; that replacing Hoyer would have been unlikely to help, and might hurt. The "problem" is not Hoyer, it's budget/Ricketts.
2. My view has been that Hoyer has not used his budget that well. If budget is hypothetically determinative, then with $100M budget advantage over division teams, he should have regular division success. Despite his budget advantage, that has not been true. I think he has not optimized his budget usage, and that a smarter boss might do considerably better even within Ricketts budget.
I think my view is: The Ricketts budget is a problem. The way the money is deployed is a problem. I also don't think Ricketts wants a high end free agents that will cost 8 years and $400 million even if you could fit them under the budget. I guess that is were we disagree. Firing Hoyer will just bring in another guy like Hoyer to try and do the Brewers/Rays model with a bigger budget.
The farm isn't good enough to value prospects. This isn't Bryant/Baez/Rizzo/Schwarber coming up.
-
Man if Hoyer has lost Craig….
Heh heh, blue, Like I say, I'm still optimistic and hopeful! I hope we'll get Imai and he'll do great for many years. Or we'll get Bregman plus acquire a pitcher with spare prospects, and it will work out really well. Our young players will improve and product. There's a huge opportunity to have a really good team, and to improve it a bunch over days/weeks ahead.
That said, Blue, being optimistic about the team is *not* equal to being convinced that HOyer is good.
I think you and I have differed in view, in two fundamental ways, re the team and Hoyer. (Sorry if I oversimplify or misrepresent...)
1. Your view has been that the problem is Ricketts and the budget; that Hoyer is smart, within Ricketts constraints; that replacing Hoyer would have been unlikely to help, and might hurt. The "problem" is not Hoyer, it's budget/Ricketts.
2. My view has been that Hoyer has not used his budget that well. If budget is hypothetically determinative, then with $100M budget advantage over division teams, he should have regular division success. Despite his budget advantage, that has not been true. I think he has not optimized his budget usage, and that a smarter boss might do considerably better even within Ricketts budget.
I also think that he has considerable executive freedom, with full authority to make baseball decisions within his budget. When he makes faulty decisions, that's on Hoyer. Likewise I think that the preference for short contracts with higher AAV over longer deals, I think that's Hoyer's executive decision, not Ricketts telling him whether player X could be 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, or 7 years.
No GM wins them all, of course. So I'd love to have my respect for Hoyer's baseball choices increase. Negativist me can say "traded Bellinger for reallocation money, which went to Pressly, Justin Turner, and Ricketts' pockets". Positivist can say "Boyd, Rea, Kelly, Keller, Thielbar, Pomeranz, that was some really good work and intelligent spending."
He's taken a path valuing prospects. That story hasn't completed.
I think Hoyer's capacity remains unclear. If a healthy number of the young guys emerge as good starters, Cubs could/should be very good for an extended window. If most of them really can't hit, it could be a different story.
-
Since I don't have Twitter anymore and they won't give you recent tweets without an account this was the second tweet down..
MoccBomb
@MoccBomb
Dec 8, 2023
Sources: Shohei Ohtani is set to sign with the #BlueJays the stunning move will have Ohtani north of the border. Hearing it’s a 10+ yr deal worth $600 million. Absolutely insane deal for Ohtani. Congratulations to the #BlueJays #MoccBomb
I just found it kinda funny. Please be right though and hopefully he's got some front end talent. Bleacher Nation did have something about the Yankees not liking their chances with Imai earlier.
-
Moccbomb on X is pretty solid.
https://x.com/moccbomb/status/2002059187875098705?s=46&t=Ys_vQAj1Yo46kkbTeBfq5A
Hope it works, hope it works! Two more weeks. I love having a closing date on the Japanese guys. Nice to know it's not going to drag forever. To my recall they always go to the end, but there's no intrinsic law that says a guy couldn't wrap it up days or week+ before the deadline.
Fun to get a positive Cubs rumor for a change!
-
Moccbomb on X is pretty solid.
https://x.com/moccbomb/status/2002059187875098705?s=46&t=Ys_vQAj1Yo46kkbTeBfq5A
-
I'm serious, what are we saving it for? I don't know. I hope (assume) that, eventually, we find out!
I think all of us understand the idea of budget. Tight budget is all I've ever know (parents, family, career, churches, altruistic organizations). Nothing unusual about a man needing to optimize spending within his budgets. Selective spending is a normal necessity for most people ever, in home life, career life, church life.
Should Hoyer's budget by $250-265? Sure, fault Ricketts if/when it isn't.
But what is Hoyer doing with the budget that he's got? He's got a bundle left... he's not spent it on Tucker or OF; on King; on Cease; or on Keller. He's got a budget, but he's far from the end of it. What is he saving it for? Is it Tucker, Bregman, Imai, Framber, or what?
*IF* it's Bregman or Imai, is he going to get one of them? Or, "they want an extra year, so going to save it?"
Welcome to the dark side Craig.
I've felt for a bit that is Imai or bust for the Cubs. I don't really love or want Bregman, but he might be an option that will make some people happy.
-
The trade market is active today.
Jeff Passan @JeffPassan
Trade news: The Baltimore Orioles are acquiring right-hander Shane Baz from the Tampa Bay Rays for outfielder Slater de Brun, catcher Caden Bodine, right-hander Michael Forret, outfielder Austin Overn as well as a Competitive Balance Round A pick, sources tell ESPN.
And...
Chandler Rome @Chandler_Rome
The Astros, Pirates and Rays are in serious discussions about a trade that would send right-hander Mike Burrows to Houston, infielder Brandon Lowe to Pittsburgh and involve multiple other players, sources tell @Ken_Rosenthal and me.
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
If trade is completed, outfielder Jacob Melton and right-hander Anderson Brito would head from the Astros to the Rays.
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Pirates also would receive outfielder Jake Mangum and left-hander Mason Montgomery from Rays
Plus, Phillies traded Matt Strahm to the Royals. I guess everyone is trying to get their deals done before they take the rest of the year off.
-
Jesus has parable where master entrusts money to three servants. Two of them use it well and are praised and promoted; one buries it, produces nothing, and is faulted. I hope Hoyer uses his budget to good effect and earns success, praise and respect. I fear he may be the faultworthy buried-it-produced-nothing servant?
Working within budget and spending smartly/efficiently, that's professional. Leaving chunks un-utilized, and spending poorly with what you do spend is not.
Hoyer's got a bundle to spend. Is he going to spend it, and effectively? I assume yes, so I'm still quite hopeful. But significant risk that he's just going to waste it.
Last year, he offloaded Bellinger to free budget to reallocate more effectively. But he didn't. He did *NOT* use that money on Bregman or Luzardo. Of the ~$20 (?) freed by the Bellinger offload, he basically buried a chunk and wasted the rest on Pressly/Justin Turner/Jon Berti. Not an effective reallocation.
Saving now to buy something more impactful later, that's great. No fault in that. But saving now to just bury it, that's not.
-
I'd have loved that contract. Just like I'd have loved Keller's. What are we saving it for? ....
Man if Hoyer has lost Craig….
I'm serious, what are we saving it for? I don't know. I hope (assume) that, eventually, we find out!
I think all of us understand the idea of budget. Tight budget is all I've ever know (parents, family, career, churches, altruistic organizations). Nothing unusual about a man needing to optimize spending within his budgets. Selective spending is a normal necessity for most people ever, in home life, career life, church life.
Should Hoyer's budget by $250-265? Sure, fault Ricketts if/when it isn't.
But what is Hoyer doing with the budget that he's got? He's got a bundle left... he's not spent it on Tucker or OF; on King; on Cease; or on Keller. He's got a budget, but he's far from the end of it. What is he saving it for? Is it Tucker, Bregman, Imai, Framber, or what?
*IF* it's Bregman or Imai, is he going to get one of them? Or, "they want an extra year, so going to save it?"
-
I would be stunned if Hoerner was traded.
Chances are low, but if we are going to be the Rays/Brewers that is what they do.
-
This off-season is going to come down to if the Cubs will be the highest bidder for Imai and there are questions of just how good he is. My expectactions remain low and that the Cubs will be a worse team in 2026 vs 2025 on paper. The really interesting situation is going to be 2027 when ever the lockout ends.
Committed money: $37 million
C- Amaya (A1)
1B- Busch (A1)
2B-
SS- Swanson (FA 2030)
3B- Shaw
LF-
CF- PCA
RF-
DH-
Ballasteros, Cassie and Alcantarra can all battle it out this year to see if they can be part of future.
SP1: Horton
SP2: Steele (A4)
SP3:
SP4:
SP5:
Bullpen: Maton, Palencia, Assad
Maybe: Hodge, Little, Brown, Wiggins, Martin, Roberts, Neely, Wicks
That is going to be a ton of holes and not a ton of sure things in the minors with around $194 million to get to the CBT. It would be nice if I made more faith in Hoyer that the Cubs could break out of the .500ish team that they so seem happy to build.
-
I would be stunned if Hoerner was traded.
-
BN is reporting that the Giants have reached out to the Cubs about Nico…
-
I've been mulling over some comments earlier this week regarding Hoyer, player relationships, Theo, and Nico. Who does Hoyer have a great relationship with? The only player that it seems he really pursued was Dansby. All others have been "business." Theo didn't just look at numbers, he also considered loyalty, chemistry, leadership, intangibles. It led him to seek out and sign Jon Lester, David Ross, Lackey, Fowler, etc. He trusted some prior relationships. I don't see Hoyer doing that. Take Nico. Underrated, but sometimes last couple of seasons, he was the only reason to watch. I particularly remember the Ryne Sandberg salute and Nico standing alone in the dugout, soaking it in. This guy is a Cub. I'm sure he would sacrifice a bit to remain one, but Hoyer is too blind to such things, I believe. Hoyer is making rooting for these guys harder and harder. JMO
-
I'd have loved that contract. Just like I'd have loved Keller's. What are we saving it for?
Yeah I'm not sure I would have hated it either. It's kind of an interesting contract in a way. It's a backloaded deal, so his higher salary years are his opt out years. Usually when a player opts out, they're looking for money and years, but 2 years and $53 million would be a large chunk of change to walk away from for a 31 year old pitcher. If he has another season with some injuries, he probably wouldn't walk away from Year 2.
That's probably a good example of a guy becoming pretty comfortable with a team he was traded to and giving them first dibs on re-signing him. I'm not sure he would have signed a similar deal with anyone else.
-
All in all that's just Boras being Boras though.
-
https://x.com/Boomskie/status/2001775747539882303?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2001775747539882303%7Ctwgr%5E63b3f4885e418c78dcd8307f2dc8eb522d013bc3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bleachernation.com%2Fcubs%2F2025%2F12%2F19%2Factivity-picking-up-again-wild-ifa-story-swing-speed-and-other-cubs-bullets%2F
I too am looking for someone to pay me $400 million over 8 years. Sounds like me and Belly have something in common then.
-
I saw that, and there’s absolutely no way Bellinger is seriously looking for that.
-
https://x.com/Boomskie/status/2001775747539882303?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2001775747539882303%7Ctwgr%5E63b3f4885e418c78dcd8307f2dc8eb522d013bc3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bleachernation.com%2Fcubs%2F2025%2F12%2F19%2Factivity-picking-up-again-wild-ifa-story-swing-speed-and-other-cubs-bullets%2F
-
Man if Hoyer has lost Craig….
He'll always have Brett.
-
Man if Hoyer has lost Craig….
-
Jed Hoyer is just really bad at his job. What's the point of "future flexibility" if you're never going to use it?
-
I'd have loved that contract. Just like I'd have loved Keller's. What are we saving it for?
Future flexibility.
Remember, the franchise has never been better positioned...
-
I'd have loved that contract. Just like I'd have loved Keller's. What are we saving it for?
Bad news in that Padres were not assumed to be big-ticket spend-whatever competitors. If there's only four guys left, and we're bidding against Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Baltimore, Mets, Detroit just to start with, and who knows whom else, how safe is it that Jed's conservative intelligent spending, never give an inflated above-calculated-value contract approach, is going to get one of the four guys left? Having Padres get him doesn't thin the competition pool.
-
Michael King goes back to the Padres. 3 years, $75 million.
I wouldn't have wanted the Cubs to give him that contract. But at the same time, it would be nice if Hoyer would make that kind of commitment for some player he likes. But he's too scared.
I would have been fine with that for King if it weren't for the opt-outs (which are after years 1 and 2 FTR - after year 3 wouldn't make much sense ;D ).
It's pretty much Gallen or bust for the Cubs at this point. That, or goodbye to what's left of the farm for a flawed MORP with 2 or 3 years of control.
-
Opt outs after Years 2 and 3 as well.
-
Michael King goes back to the Padres. 3 years, $75 million.
I wouldn't have wanted the Cubs to give him that contract. But at the same time, it would be nice if Hoyer would make that kind of commitment for some player he likes. But he's too scared.
-
In Japanese and not too detailed, but here are some splits for Austin in NPB. He continues to be much better against LHP.
https://baseball.yahoo.co.jp/npb/player/1900126/top
-
Baseball Ref has NPB main stats, but does not have any NPB splits.
Oh, sorry - misread that. Not sure, actually - I don't know an English website that has splits.
-
Baseball Ref has NPB main stats, but does not have any NPB splits.
-
Yeah, true for sure. The .884 OPS vs LHP is kinda impressive, though. And if he's kind of improved/developed since, that might be good. I wasn't able to find NPB splits, do you know how?
But yeah, most likely a kind of Patrick Wisdom only with less power. Low bar, but even Patrick Wisdom would have been better than Justin Turner.
Baseball Reference has NPB stats, but there's also a Japan baseball dedicated site.
20% of the 40-man is empty and we're swimming in money - it's a negligible risk move. And he's very, very unlikely to be worse than Turrner.
-
Johnny Long in the Justin Turner role is not a good idea. Needs to have more regular playing time to get a foothold in majors.
Agree with Ron that a prime candidate to be part of a deal…. for pitching.
-
At least he's cheaper than Mancini and Turner. Anything to avoid giving Long a shot, I guess.
Seems like Long is a good candidate for use in a trade?
-
Yeah, true for sure. The .884 OPS vs LHP is kinda impressive, though. And if he's kind of improved/developed since, that might be good. I wasn't able to find NPB splits, do you know how?
But yeah, most likely a kind of Patrick Wisdom only with less power. Low bar, but even Patrick Wisdom would have been better than Justin Turner.
-
It was a lot of years ago, and modest sample size, but in Austin's scattered mlb AB's pre-covid, he had huge splits. Might hypothetically have very small role, but might be way better than Justin Turner for a lot less cash.
.884 OPS vs LHP, .638 vs RHP.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=austity01&year=Career&t=b
Power is real, but a 36.9% K-rate when he was in the majors speaks for itself. Went down a lot in Japan, but we'll see if that's a matter of his development or facing less premium velocity.
-
It was a lot of years ago, and modest sample size, but in Austin's scattered mlb AB's pre-covid, he had huge splits. Might hypothetically have very small role, but might be way better than Justin Turner for a lot less cash.
.884 OPS vs LHP, .638 vs RHP.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=austity01&year=Career&t=b
-
At least he's cheaper than Mancini and Turner. Anything to avoid giving Long a shot, I guess.
-
Austin was once highly regarded by the Yankees…
-
There are basically two Jed FA signings, "Who the hell is that" and "Oh, didn't he used to be good". This checks the first box.
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2025/12/18/the-chicago-cubs-are-signing-a-star-slugger-out-of-japan-tyler-austin/
Cubs sign Japanese 1B/DH Tyler Austin. 34, $1.25. Has been pretty productive in Japan. .946 OPS over 6 seasons in NPB.
I imagine a shot to try the Justin Turner role: get a few 1B starts and maybe DH platoon with Moises/Caissie?
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=kazuma+okamoto+scouting+report&rlz=1C5OZZY_enUS1175US1175&oq=Kazuma+Okamoto+scouting+report&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyCggBEAAYgAQYogQyCggCEAAYgAQYogQyCggDEAAYgAQYogQyBwgEEAAY7wUyCggFEAAYgAQYogTSAQg3MTcyajBqNKgCA7ACAfEF-LHAq5ugl1HxBfixwKuboJdR&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:1aa7a42b,vid:fMZBoO_96Z4,st:337
Any interest in Kazuma Okamoto?
Questions for Japanese baseball followers.
1. Could he play some LF/RF, or is he just too slow and not athletic to really get used there? He's played a little outfield, but not much.
2. Is he a good enough prospect that he'll get guaranteed-starter roles from other teams? With only "versatility" and "earn-AB's" roles in mind, might Cubs be off his radar?
3. Will Okamoto be too expensive to fit as second ticket after the starting pitcher? I'd love Imai-plus-Bregman, add two good starters FA winter. But assuming that's too pricey for Hoyer/Ricketts, would Imai-plus-Okamoto be able to both fit? Or Gallen-Okamoto, or whatever?
My interest: *IF* Okamoto is actually hypothetically good enough to hit and to earn AB's, I think he could earn a LOT of AB's for Cubs. I'm much more interested in him for his potential hitting than in Willi Castro, who's hitting is so limited. Roles Okamoto could perhaps have, this year, and how "utility" could be covered even if his personal defense is limited:
a. 3B. *IF* he hits and Shaw struggles, might he start some games there?
b. Primary DH? Hopefully Moises and Caissie do great, but possible that Okamoto might flat-out beat them both out?
c. Platoon DH/1B. Caissie is strictly a platoon player, and not sure for Moises this young. Think Okamoto might get regular starts against LHP at DH, and some 1B starts also, even in absence of any injury.
d. 2B/SS injury. Okamoto can't play those. But if Shaw can play 2B, Okamoto can indirectly replace.
e. 1B injury. (perish that thought!)
f. LF/OF injury. Maybe Okamoto is anti-awful OK himself, and could play corner? But even assuming otherwise, Caissie is solid defensively. Caissie could play LF/RF and Okamoto could then pick up Caissie's DH AB's, in case of Happ/Seiya injuries.
So, kinda seems to me that Shaw and Hoerner provide infield flexibility defensively, Caissie OF. So a roster with Okamoto could indirectly have good depth/flexibility/injury-coverage. That is, *IF* Okamoto and Caissie can hypothetically hit, where you like having them in lineup.
5. Future: Happ is expiring. What if Okamoto hits quite well, and is actually not bad in LF? He and Caissie might provide some pretty strong post-Happ options?
The above analysis comps him to Suzuki. Probably he won't be as good, obviously; but even a Seiya-lite would be a way better bench addition that the Castro/Berti/Brujan auto-outs from last year. Assuming we don't have $$ for both a good FA pitcher AND Bregman, I'm wondering if Okamoto might be a little more affrordable, and might end up being a useful second signing after Imai/Gallen/King/Suarez/Framber?
Go with Imai-Okamoto, and key in with our second-level Japanese talent flow?
-
……They're not paying for Bichette or Bregman. Hoyer is too scared to sign either of them. I just wish the Cubs' pretend target was the younger, higher upside guy.
Cubs haven’t been linked to Bichette because most of the projections have Bichette getting eight years.
BA projects him at 8/$240.
No, Cubs not going there, especially for a guy moving to a new position. Maybe they should, but not too keen musing about something with no chatter.
Bregman is different. Think there’s a chance on him. Probably not going to happen but there’s chatter from good sources and can understand why Cubs interested. Seems like Bregman wants a 6-year deal and can’t see Cubs going there. Maybe nobody will. Doubtful that Bregman will be good beyond age 35, which is four years. Probably gets five.
-
You can talk all you want about flexibility but that's just spin, really. No other MLB clubs has fewer than 35 slots filled (as of a week ago). The Cubs left a bunch of guys unprotected and still got no one claimed. They have several guys they did put on the 40 who would certainly have gone unclaimed. They have a boatload of players hitting FA after '26 unlikely to be re-signed. At this point the depth of talent in the organization - from the front office down - is terrifyingly inadequate.
Cubs are thin in pitching prospects. Everybody knows that.
But not too concerned elsewhere. 1B, SS, 3B have lots of years of control. Amaya and maybe Ballesteros at C. PCA and a few very interesting OF prospects from 2025 draft, plus Caissie and Alcantara.
And if Horton stays healthy and Wiggins makes the jump impressively in 2026 and Cubs get that quality SP this off-season for multiple years, SP will be fine. Pitching outlook can change quickly. That’s baseball.
As to Hoerner, Happ, Suzuki, Kelly after 2026—you think you have a handle as to “won’t be back.” No you don’t. Remains to be seen.
As far as 40-man roster is concerned, generally not a lot of correlation between (a) quality of top prospects and (b) the 40-man roster. Mariners and Dodgers widely considered as having best overall prospects right now. Yet, Mariners have zero of their BA 2026 Top 10 prospects on their 40 man and Dodgers have just one.
Cubs will have close to 40 come spring training and it won’t mean much of anything—one way or the other—regarding “depth of talent” in the organization. You can judge that thru other means, not so much via the 40.
-
What are you suggesting the Cubs would do with their current 2B?
Deeg has already said this, but I'll also say it. Hoerner is a free agent next year. They're not going to extend him. He's coming off the best year of his career. This is the perfect time to trade him.
But it's all hypothetical. They're not paying for Bichette or Bregman. Hoyer is too scared to sign either of them. I just wish the Cubs' pretend target was the younger, higher upside guy.
-
What are you suggesting the Cubs would do with their current 2B?
There's chatter that multiple teams are interested in Nico, and he is an impending FA we're almost certainly not re-signing. Love the guy but cashing him in now at peak value and replacing him with Bichette isn't a terrible option. Alternatively, if Bichette is willing to play 2B maybe he's willing to play 3B for a year?
Of course all this is contingent on the Cubs being willing to sign Bichete. Which, well...
-
Bo Bichette is willing to play 2B:
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/12/bo-bichette-reportedly-open-to-playing-second-base.html
That probably means he's not getting much interest as a SS, and he's probably not going to sign as big a contract as expected. He's a much better target for the Cubs than Bregman, but that would mean that Jed Hoyer would have to spend on a riskier player. Jed, take on some risk.
What are you suggesting the Cubs would do with their current 2B?
-
Bo Bichette is willing to play 2B:
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/12/bo-bichette-reportedly-open-to-playing-second-base.html
That probably means he's not getting much interest as a SS, and he's probably not going to sign as big a contract as expected. He's a much better target for the Cubs than Bregman, but that would mean that Jed Hoyer would have to spend on a riskier player. Jed, take on some risk.
-
...still appears that Cubs in on Bregman and seems very unlikely that Hoyer has the budget for both Bregman and a big ticket SP.
Maybe Cubs not really in on Bregman, who knows. But, a year ago, Sharma said no way Cubs were in on Bregman—yet they were. Now, Sharma says Cubs are in on Bregman. So, gone feom being a skeptic to a believer. So, perhaps Sharma is correct about that now,
I wonder if the SP is actually going to come via trade…and not free agency. And/or a closer-type reliever via trade.
1. Agree, Bregman is certainly on the "big ticket" menu.
2. Cubs were "interested" and "in on" 50-100 guys, I think. Being "in on" Bregman doesn't mean odds are very high that he's the guy we end up making a best-offer for. But yeah, while not probable it's certainly possible!
3. Koolaid Craig, but I'd still like to dream that somehow budget will allow for two big tickets, BOTH Bregman AND a big-ticket pitcher! :):) Not realistic, I realize, but without known budget, not 100% impossible?
-Shaw fill the utility role, and fill bench just with kids/minimum-wage.
-Squeeze in one RH reliever somehow, or maybe not even.
-Roll with Palencia as closer; Maton and the two vet lefties; believe that you can fix Hodge and that he'll be good; and suddenly you could get by with existing bullpen, prospects, and minimum-wage non-roster guys. *IF* you stretched the budget to fit Bregman+Gallen, you wouldn't absolutely need to spread any other $$ around.
So yeah, I'd love for Bregman and starting pitcher, and don't complain about no other $$$ signings.
4. Very unlikely, though. Probably one big ticket, no more, no less. Whether that be Bregman, Bellinger, Tucker, or a pitcher. It's not going to be just Mahle and Willi Castro.
5. Agree, *IF* the single Ticket is Bregman, trading for the best pitching you can get from your pool of Alcantara/Long/Wicks/Assad/Brown is plausible. Not sure how good of a guy you'd get, but that's fun to imagine.
But yeah, there's going to be a big ticket, whether Bregman or other. Whoever it is, I hope he works out well!
-
I like having 7 open spots. (I wish we had more good prospects, but different issue). What do do with 7?
1. Sign 3-4 FA's. Heh heh, Imai, Bregman, Castro, Fairbanks! :) :) . Won't be those four, obviously, but 3 or 4 will go to FA's.
2. Use 2-3 for waiver guys. As other teams complete their FA additions, a whole bunch of 40-man rosters will get overfilled, so guys are going to get waived. Having 3-4 spots open mean the Cubs will be able to pick up some interesting guys. Hopefully there will be a few pitchers with both talent and options, and Cubs "infrastructure" will be able to create some value? I like that space to take some shots.
3. Save 1-2 for non-roster invites. Assume Hoyer will sign a group of non-roster guys. If things work, one of them will look good in camp, will make the roster, and will end up being productive. Having 40-man space provides opportunity.
So having the spots I think provides some fun opportunity to add/create talent.
You can talk all you want about flexibility but that's just spin, really. No other MLB clubs has fewer than 35 slots filled (as of a week ago). The Cubs left a bunch of guys unprotected and still got no one claimed. They have several guys they did put on the 40 who would certainly have gone unclaimed. They have a boatload of players hitting FA after '26 unlikely to be re-signed. At this point the depth of talent in the organization - from the front office down - is terrifyingly inadequate.
-
It’s not eight.
It’s seven open spots.
I like having 7 open spots. (I wish we had more good prospects, but different issue). What do do with 7?
1. Sign 3-4 FA's. Heh heh, Imai, Bregman, Castro, Fairbanks! :) :) . Won't be those four, obviously, but 3 or 4 will go to FA's.
2. Use 2-3 for waiver guys. As other teams complete their FA additions, a whole bunch of 40-man rosters will get overfilled, so guys are going to get waived. Having 3-4 spots open mean the Cubs will be able to pick up some interesting guys. Hopefully there will be a few pitchers with both talent and options, and Cubs "infrastructure" will be able to create some value? I like that space to take some shots.
3. Save 1-2 for non-roster invites. Assume Hoyer will sign a group of non-roster guys. If things work, one of them will look good in camp, will make the roster, and will end up being productive. Having 40-man space provides opportunity.
So having the spots I think provides some fun opportunity to add/create talent.
-
My concerns, obviously, are that "intending" to spend on a big-ticket starter doesn't mean you will.
1. the target may not choose you.
2. Other teams might badly outbid what you anticipated would be a winning bid.
3. Your assessment of a competitive bid might be dumb, given that your "value" calculations don't seem to factor inflation very well.
Also possible that Hoyer will sign his kinda-big-ticket (for-him), but the guy won't help all that much?
-How much did Neris or Pressly help?
-How much did Tucker help over the last four months?
-Gallen or Suarez have been good at times, and might be very good. But Gallen was worse than any of our starters last year. The guy Hoyer signs might end up basically Assad-esque?
-Imai might be really good. But maybe he'll be kinda middle-rotation guy, who knows?
-Bregman might be very good. But he might be kinda like adding an Ian Happ to the middle of the lineup. Will he do that much to make the offense go?
Hope Hoyer gets one or two good players, and that they end up playing really well and proving to be good values. And hope that PCA/Caissie/Shaw/Moises/Amaya can hit, so that the offense is strong.
craig displaying his unbridled optimism again.
-
I can't imagine there have been many cases where a team has had eight(!) open spots on the 40-man this late in the offseason.
It’s not eight.
It’s seven open spots.
-
My concerns, obviously, are that "intending" to spend on a big-ticket starter doesn't mean you will.
1. the target may not choose you.
2. Other teams might badly outbid what you anticipated would be a winning bid.
3. Your assessment of a competitive bid might be dumb, given that your "value" calculations don't seem to factor inflation very well.
Also possible that Hoyer will sign his kinda-big-ticket (for-him), but the guy won't help all that much?
-How much did Neris or Pressly help?
-How much did Tucker help over the last four months?
-Gallen or Suarez have been good at times, and might be very good. But Gallen was worse than any of our starters last year. The guy Hoyer signs might end up basically Assad-esque?
-Imai might be really good. But maybe he'll be kinda middle-rotation guy, who knows?
-Bregman might be very good. But he might be kinda like adding an Ian Happ to the middle of the lineup. Will he do that much to make the offense go?
Hope Hoyer gets one or two good players, and that they end up playing really well and proving to be good values. And hope that PCA/Caissie/Shaw/Moises/Amaya can hit, so that the offense is strong.
Jed is putting all his eggs in the basket of "guy isn't getting projected offers and we can poach him late" basket. But what if that doesn't happen? Let's be realistic - if the Yankees are in on Imai, we're not getting him. There are already reports King's price has risen above the paltry levels we're comfortable with. Is it Gallen or bust? If you sign him that's not the worst thing in the world. Indeed, if you have to overpay a little because there are no other options. But what if Gallen doesn't courtreously wait until all the serious clubs are sated before he signs - what then?
-
I can't imagine there have been many cases where a team has had eight(!) open spots on the 40-man this late in the offseason.
-
My concerns, obviously, are that "intending" to spend on a big-ticket starter doesn't mean you will.
1. the target may not choose you.
2. Other teams might badly outbid what you anticipated would be a winning bid.
3. Your assessment of a competitive bid might be dumb, given that your "value" calculations don't seem to factor inflation very well.
Also possible that Hoyer will sign his kinda-big-ticket (for-him), but the guy won't help all that much?
-How much did Neris or Pressly help?
-How much did Tucker help over the last four months?
-Gallen or Suarez have been good at times, and might be very good. But Gallen was worse than any of our starters last year. The guy Hoyer signs might end up basically Assad-esque?
-Imai might be really good. But maybe he'll be kinda middle-rotation guy, who knows?
-Bregman might be very good. But he might be kinda like adding an Ian Happ to the middle of the lineup. Will he do that much to make the offense go?
Hope Hoyer gets one or two good players, and that they end up playing really well and proving to be good values. And hope that PCA/Caissie/Shaw/Moises/Amaya can hit, so that the offense is strong.
-
That he has flinched at the $10+ relievers supports the logic that he intends to spend a big chunk on a big ticket starter.
Very possible. That might well be the case.
But, still appears that Cubs in on Bregman and seems very unlikely that Hoyer has the budget for both Bregman and a big ticket SP.
Maybe Cubs not really in on Bregman, who knows. But, a year ago, Sharma said no way Cubs were in on Bregman—yet they were. Now, Sharma says Cubs are in on Bregman. So, gone feom being a skeptic to a believer. So, perhaps Sharma is correct about that now,
I wonder if the SP is actually going to come via trade…and not free agency. And/or a closer-type reliever via trade.
-
….Theo quit mainly because he knew Ricketts' spending days were over and he wasn't interested in the kind of organzation the Cubs were becoming….
Let’s stop making stuff up…..enough baloney already.
As noted in the piece posted by CBJ, Theo said in his introductory presser in 2011 that he believed in staying for 10 years. He said that from the day he was hired. And that was length of tenure running Red Sox too. Theo initially signed with Cubs for five years and then signed a 5-year extension in 2016. There was a reason the extension was five years: 5 + 5 = 10. Left a year early to allow Hoyer to begin making changes that would impact future seasons when Theo would be gone in any case.
Nothing to do with how Ricketts was running the organization.
Theo in 2011:
"Bill Walsh of the 49ers said it best," said Theo. "After about 10 years in sports, there comes a time when you have to consider change for the benefit not only of the individual involved but also for benefit of the organization.”
-
Don't know what Hoyer's budget is, but he's got one. He's got a lot left to spend. He's wanting to spend what he's got as efficiently as he can.
If the remainder of his winter planning was to sign Mahle and Willi Castro, he'd not flinch at spending a $10+ chunk on a late reliever.
That he has flinched at the $10+ relievers supports the logic that he intends to spend a big chunk on a big ticket starter.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/2203590/2020/11/17/theo-epstein-letter-to-cubs/
"...I am excited about the Cubs’ future despite the obvious short-term challenges. This organization has myriad strengths, starting at the top. Tom and his siblings have managed to do exactly what they said they would do in their first decade: improve Wrigley Field, invest in the community, and put revenues back into the baseball operation to produce sustained winning and a World Series. It’s exciting to think what they can accomplish over multiple generations of club stewardship. Meanwhile, Crane Kenney and our talented partners in the business operation are poised to resume their track record of outstanding revenue growth when we move past the current crisis..."
He also talks about how his presence is going to get in the way of the tough choices that need to made.
-
Weaver also got 2/22, which I also would have done. Not a number that should have scared off a serious organization.
Theo quit mainly because he knew Ricketts' spending days were over and he wasn't interested in the kind of organzation the Cubs were becoming. I doubt sentimentality over breaking up the core had anything to do with it.
-
But my perception is that Jim Hendry connected personnally with players in a way that Theo and Hoyer do not.--Craig
BINGO
The other part about Hendry vs. Hoyer, for all of Hendry's faults, you never could question his competitive drive and his desire to put a real winner on the field as much as he could. If Hendry wanted a guy and had the budget and/or prospects to get him, he did his best to get it done. This try to get to 90 and sneak in the playoffs philosophy (sorry it's what it is) is just frustrating.
Also that Kyle Tucker trade to me now is just....ugh.
-
I'm not really interested in Jed's level of sentimentality. Just sign a damn frontline starter.
So you want him to be irrational in the market then? When has he ever done that?
-
I'm not really interested in Jed's level of sentimentality. Just sign a damn frontline starter.
-
Theo had some sentimentality for players if he was in the clubhouse or not. Jed does not.
-
I don't know the reality. But my sense was that Theo also kept totally away from players, too. He only interacted with agents. Maddon may have complained that Theo interfered with strategy decisions. But I think Theo, and Hoyer, kept totally out of the clubhouse, never actually talked to the players, and only talked to their agents.
-
Totally agree that while Jed doesn't seem very interested in the human side of things, Theo was a completely different cat and figured out creative ways to deal with - and persuade - human beings...which Jed seems incapable of (e.g. the signing of Lester to a contract conservative-minded Jed would very likely have deemed too much).
But, as we all know only too well, Jed is no Theo!
-
Are we taking bers on which guy we ALMOST get?
-
But my perception is that Jim Hendry connected personnally with players in a way that Theo and Hoyer do not.
Hoyer and this front office will not let feelings come into play. I don't think I'd through Theo in with that. When he stepped away from the Cubs, part of the reason was he couldn't bring himself to get rid of the core and Hoyer could. I think that is why Theo/Hoyer worked well together. Hoyer balances out Theo, but Hoyer didn't hire a Theo to balance him out, he just hired a mini-me in Hawkins.
Starting to get a little worried about the off season, it is seeming like it is going to be Imai or bust.
-
But my perception is that Jim Hendry connected personnally with players in a way that Theo and Hoyer do not.--Craig
BINGO
-
Boo boo boo.
-
Interesting that Thielbar > Pomeranz > Milner. I would not have confidently assigned that last month. Reminds me of how little I know.
My perception is probably dumb, and may be way off. But my perception is that Jim Hendry connected personnally with players in a way that Theo and Hoyer do not. Kinda guessing that if Hendry might have made an early and more personal appeal to Keller, we love you and appreciate and respect you, would you take $20/2 to come back with us? You've really thrived wth us. Or, like, we think a $20/2 offer would be pretty fair. But, just in case somebody outbids that, would you be willing to maybe check back with us and maybe give us a chance to match in case somebody gives you a $22/2 offer? I know it's free agency, so maybe you'd just rather be in Philly, I respect that. But in case you'd maybe prefer the environment with Counsell and Hottovy and Wrigley field, might you like to stay here and perhaps enjoy the status or having a chance to be closer?
-
Boo. I'd have paid $22/2 for Keller. Boo, boo, boo. Good grief, that's not much more than the two-year combo we paid for Neris + Pressly.
-
Keller gone.
-
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/12/phillies-sign-brad-keller.html
-
https://x.com/PJ_Mooney/status/2001312952758980889?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2001312952758980889%7Ctwgr%5Edf98a92f666b08f02ea7afb332d03f1b21bf7aed%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bleachernation.com%2Fcubs%2F2025%2F12%2F17%2Fhousekeeping-on-milner-thielbar-and-40-man-roster%2F
-
Should finish 2nd here…..golf clap for the effort?
https://x.com/cubszone/status/2001281729248518462?s=46&t=Ys_vQAj1Yo46kkbTeBfq5A
-
That’s a shame…
I'm kind of amazed the Cubs wouldn't match that. Maybe they're convinced last season was a mirage.
-
That’s a shame…
-
Pomeraznz to the Angels, 1/$4. I thought he'd get more than that.
-
On on off off off on on on off on
-
I asked Google AI about its mistakes and it said: “AI mistakes are often "weird" because they result from probabilistic math and pattern matching rather than genuine understanding.”
This is our Future.
-
Yeah, but you can explain to AI why it’s wrong and it’s very good natured about it.
Heh, heh.
-
What? AI makes errors?
Yeah, but you can explain to AI why it’s wrong and it’s very good natured about it.
-
That $2.75 may be an AI error! True!
What? AI makes errors?
-
That $2.75 may be an AI error! True!
-
$2.75
$2.75 is what Thielbar made ln 2025.
-
Thielbar for 2.75M is good business. Surprised he didn't get more.
-
$2.75
-
I think he's filling Pomeranz' spot. Pomerantz may sign filling Thielbar's spot.
-
Cubs re-signing Thielbar to fill the Thielbar spot.
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2025/12/16/alex-bregman-price/
McDaniel has upped his projection on Bregman from $160/5 to $170/5. Perhaps 6 years to lower AAV a little.
-
Just the usual small-ball blah, blah, blah. Unserious pap from an unserious team.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/author/patrick-mooney/
Mooney article.
1. Restates that he has no idea about budget.
2. Repeats Counsell quote from winter meetings, "never enough pitching".
3. Includes some Hawkins quotes I hadn't seen. Hawkins said those early prices have not created a sense of sticker shock. “Those always happen,” Hawkins said. “What’s the market rate for a deal? That’s the average, and there’s going to be some extremes on both sides. Typically, there’s not many players that are going off the board early that didn’t get a deal that they really liked, so you always kind of withstand that first rally." So, heh heh, having withstood the early reliever signings, is Carter comfortably setting up for another Neris or Pressly? :):)
4. Some fun gush on Wiggins. Hawkins described Wiggins as someone who “can jump out of the gym from an athleticism standpoint.” “A lot of explosiveness,” Hawkins said, “(with) a breaking ball that’s going to miss bats and a fastball that’s going to miss bats. He’s turned that up into the upper 90s and into the 100s. It’s really just about landing them and being consistent with the command." Hope he can stay healthy and make some progress with the command.
-
Merrill Kelly goes back to the Diamondbacks, 2 years, $40 million.
-
Interesting that controllable lefty relievers who throw ton of grounders and work with velocity (Zerpa and Ferrer) are getting nice returns in trades lately.
-
Ken Rosenthal
@Ken_Rosenthal
·
55m
Brewers acquiring LHP Ángel Zerpa for OF Isaac Collins and RP Nick Mears, source tells
@TheAthletic
. First on Royals’ end:
@ByRobertMurray
-
Dustin May to the Cardinals.
10 years ago, I'd be sure they were about to use their devil magic to get a Cy Young season out of him. But the Cardinals haven't been as good at that lately.
-
Mets sign Jorge Polanco to play 1B…2/40…
-
Rogers leads all relievers in IP since 2020 and it's not even close, with ERA and FIP both under 3. Perfectly appropriate contract for a big-market team trying to win.
-
Tyler Rogers, $37/3 with vesting option for 4th year which would make it $48/4.
Rogers had some kinda wildly variable media predictions.
-BA $44/3;
ESPN $27/3;
mlbtraderumors $18/2
Athletic/Britton not even top 50, behind guys with $17/2 and $20/2-type predictions.
-
If Valdez is okay, why isn't Trevor Bauer?
I'm looking for purple but don't see it.
-
Cubs seem to super-prioritize character. Love guys who can analyze with Hottovy. I wonder if he's even on their look-at list? Addison Russell seems the only publically-bad guy since Milton Bradley. 。。。
[/quote】
Aroldis
-
If Valdez is okay, why isn't Trevor Bauer?
-
He may be a decent guy who just made one colossally dumb mistake, but he seems to have to try very hard to convince people that's the case.
Given his age and the baggage, maybe you could get him on a 4-year deal. The velocity is still there for now, at least.
-
Cubs seem to super-prioritize character. Love guys who can analyze with Hottovy. I wonder if he's even on their look-at list? Addison Russell seems the only publically-bad guy since Milton Bradley. (Who knows off record, of course.). Of course, one bad chemist who keeps to himself can't poison 25 good guys. And ability to use a weirdo/problem-guy can help win championships, see Rodman with Bulls. But yeah, 8 months together, some bad chemist might be a pain. Heh heh, if Tucker or Pressly were still around, or Bregman was added first, could ask them!!!!
-
Ron Darling just mentioned the O’s and Cubs as best fits for Framber Valdez.
To paraphrase…”could you imagine that extreme groundball pitcher with guys like Shaw, Swanson, Hoerner, and Busch behind him?”
It’s really a perfect fit. Don’t overthink it, Jed…just do it…
He's already 32. He's another lefty contact manager. Not like the Cubs are signing him in a million years and obviously I'd take him, but there are other directions I'd rather go.
Interesting that Valdez and his team felt the need to send out a 20-minute video demonstrating that he's not a sociopath. He might not be getting the offers he's looking for.
-
Christopher Morel to the Marlins. Expected to play first base.
-
Ron Darling just mentioned the O’s and Cubs as best fits for Framber Valdez.
To paraphrase…”could you imagine that extreme groundball pitcher with guys like Shaw, Swanson, Hoerner, and Busch behind him?”
It’s really a perfect fit. Don’t overthink it, Jed…just do it…
-
I also wonder how the impending labor strike is impacting his market.
Assume there's a near full-year lockout. Bregman is angling for a mega-deal, he's not exactly young, and his days of being a +140 OPS hitter are behind him.
The team that signs him will get his year 32 season, could lose his year 33, and then get back on track for year 34. Teams are counting on the deal to perform better early in cycle than late, so this is consequential for Bregman suitors.
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to sign him. Think he fits the Cubs incredibly well.
But the labor issue has to factor into consideration in terms of his contract.
Think that the labor issue impact on free agency is overblown.
Not a non-factor but exaggerated, I think.
If assume “a near full-year lockout” then Bregman earns ZERO for that season. A 5-year deal turns into a 4-year deal. True, he still ages but perhaps mitigated by no wear-and-tear that season. Might even help some guys get fully healthy.
In any case, a lost season applies to everybody. If you trade for two years of control of MacKenzie Gore, you get one year. Three years of Edward Cabrera, you get two years. Pre-arb guys earn a year of seniority w/out their clubs benefiting from the pre-arb salary—because they’re not playing.
No pay but an eventual settlement always has earned service credit for the work stoppage period. If MLBPA can’t get that, then you’ll know the Union was broken….and enjoy the new salary cap!
-
Another factor with Bregman that may be making suitors nervous is that his arm strength is already at the lower end for 3B, and he'll be 32 at the start of next season. Will he be able to stay there for the length of a 5-year contract and, if not, can he play an where else besides 1B (where his bat would potentially be a liability)?
Bregman is throwing with more velocity now (82.3) than he did five years ago in 2020 (81.5).
A total non-issue (kinda like Shaw’s alleged “rag arm”).
If Bregman declines with age, it will be getting injury prone, or bat speed, or the like. His arm will be fine.
-
Sometimes, guys don’t really want to play for certain teams or cities.
Players with partial no-trade clauses designate certain teams don’t want to go to.
So, Bregman turned down 6/$171.5 from Tigers a year ago. Maybe he just didn’t want to play there, for whatever reason.
And Tigers were the only team offering lots of years. Cubs offered four. Red Sox offered three. Maybe if Cubs offered 6/$171.5 a year ago, he takes that.
He wants long-term…..to a place he wants to go. Maybe not so complicated. So, he takes a deal with a year-one opt out.
And he opts out. New season. New negotiation. Will see what happens.
-
I don't think I'm seeing the contracts for the FA's signed thus far, Cease, Schwarber, Alonso, to be suppressed or diminished at all by lockout? They seem inflated as per usual, maybe inflated even higher than normal inflation?
Bregman is his own case, so "acute" may be right. But, he's a Boras guy; Boras routinely set targets way beyond market value. Arrieta, Bellinger, etc.. Eventually he settles into whatever deal the market actually offers. And usually Boras stretches it out. Alonso taking a deal so fast, that's really surprising for a Boras guy. But I imagine Boras will take his time with Bregman, Bellinger, etc.. Its worked well for him, why mess with a successful approach?.
Because it's not always successful, for starters. It works a lot of the time but some of his clients have gotten screwed by that strategy.
-
I don't think I'm seeing the contracts for the FA's signed thus far, Cease, Schwarber, Alonso, to be suppressed or diminished at all by lockout? They seem inflated as per usual, maybe inflated even higher than normal inflation?
Bregman is his own case, so "acute" may be right. But, he's a Boras guy; Boras routinely set targets way beyond market value. Arrieta, Bellinger, etc.. Eventually he settles into whatever deal the market actually offers. And usually Boras stretches it out. Alonso taking a deal so fast, that's really surprising for a Boras guy. But I imagine Boras will take his time with Bregman, Bellinger, etc.. Its worked well for him, why mess with a successful approach?.
-
tico, wouldn't those factors apply to any of the FA's getting multi-year deals, wbo are past 30? Schwarber, Alonso, Diaz, Suarez? Do you think there deals have been pinched by the lockout? Those deals have mostly seemed to come in above projection, not under? Maybe all the media projections already calculated down their projections, though, beats me....
Sure, true for all older FA's, and FA's in general.
But I think Bregman's situation is acute. Feels like the separation between his view of his worth and the market's is larger than any of the other big FA's this winter.
-
bregman's lux-tax AAV was calculated at $31.7 for his 3-year Boston deal, I think? So if he was essentially walking away from $63.5/2 instead of $80/2, he's got a good shot to get more guaranteed dollars on a longer deal. And if he doesn't, I don't think he'll have lost much.
To repeat a thought from yesterday, *IF* he was available at your hypothetical 4/100, $25AAV, you wouldn't need to spend on a utility guy, Shaw could play that. So for the 2026 budget, adding a $25AAV but obviating a $7-8 utility-Castro AAV might not be that budget severe? And might improve two roster spots?
Another factor with Bregman that may be making suitors nervous is that his arm strength is already at the lower end for 3B, and he'll be 32 at the start of next season. Will he be able to stay there for the length of a 5-year contract and, if not, can he play an where else besides 1B (where his bat would potentially be a liability)?
-
Bruce Levine via Marquee’s Twitter
“If I was a Cubs fan, I would trust (Jed and Carter) more … I don’t think Hoyer, Hawkins, and the Cubs should be penalized for being successful without spending a lot of money
We have fallen from TheoMs version of success, to winning 1 wild card series in five years being a success. I miss Jim Hendry.
Consider the source on that one. Levine has been sipping the Kool-aid for years.
-
Bruce Levine via Marquee’s Twitter
“If I was a Cubs fan, I would trust (Jed and Carter) more … I don’t think Hoyer, Hawkins, and the Cubs should be penalized for being successful without spending a lot of money
We have fallen from TheoMs version of success, to winning 1 wild card series in five years being a success. I miss Jim Hendry.
-
Nothing deceptive about it…everyone is aware of the deferrals, and the bottom line is that he was being paid 80M for a 2 year contract.
-
The labor thing is hard to process. I wonder how many teams are planning to shut down for the whole season?
* 2022 lockout cost ~6 games?
*1995, ~18 games?
*1994 ~7 weeks plus postseason.
Past is past, who knows future. But I guess I'm wondering whether anybody is really planning to shut down the whole 2026 season? If the owners are making as much money as people say, do they really want to kill a full season when they're already doing pretty well with status quo? I'm kinda thinking that if they lose a few games or a few weeks, that's not as impactful as bagging the whole season. Would the prospect of a limited shutdown impact FA very much now, I wonder?
-
....It's deceptive to say Bregman walked away from 2/$80 - there were substantial deferrments that would have lowered that number considerably. Still, you wonder if he'll regret that choice. He might end up signing for something like 3/80 or 4/100, in which case even the Cubs might be involved.
bregman's lux-tax AAV was calculated at $31.7 for his 3-year Boston deal, I think? So if he was essentially walking away from $63.5/2 instead of $80/2, he's got a good shot to get more guaranteed dollars on a longer deal. And if he doesn't, I don't think he'll have lost much.
To repeat a thought from yesterday, *IF* he was available at your hypothetical 4/100, $25AAV, you wouldn't need to spend on a utility guy, Shaw could play that. So for the 2026 budget, adding a $25AAV but obviating a $7-8 utility-Castro AAV might not be that budget severe? And might improve two roster spots?
-
I also wonder how the impending labor strike is impacting his market.
Assume there's a near full-year lockout. Bregman is angling for a mega-deal, he's not exactly young, and his days of being a +140 OPS hitter are behind him.
The team that signs him will get his year 32 season, could lose his year 33, and then get back on track for year 34. Teams are counting on the deal to perform better early in cycle than late, so this is consequential for Bregman suitos.
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to sign him. Think he fits the Cubs incredibly well.
But the labor issue has to factor into consideration in terms of his contract.
tico, wouldn't those factors apply to any of the FA's getting multi-year deals, wbo are past 30? Schwarber, Alonso, Diaz, Suarez? Do you think there deals have been pinched by the lockout? Those deals have mostly seemed to come in above projection, not under? Maybe all the media projections already calculated down their projections, though, beats me....
-
I also wonder how the impending labor strike is impacting his market.
Assume there's a near full-year lockout. Bregman is angling for a mega-deal, he's not exactly young, and his days of being a +140 OPS hitter are behind him.
The team that signs him will get his year 32 season, could lose his year 33, and then get back on track for year 34. Teams are counting on the deal to perform better early in cycle than late, so this is consequential for Bregman suitos.
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to sign him. Think he fits the Cubs incredibly well.
But the labor issue has to factor into consideration in terms of his contract.
Again, I think the issue for Bregman is, who's going to pay him what he wants? Boston might, Detroit or the Cubs will never go 5/160 on him. Who are they bidding against besides each other?
It's deceptive to say Bregman walked away from 2/$80 - there were substantial deferrments that would have lowered that number considerably. Still, you wonder if he'll regret that choice. He might end up signing for something like 3/80 or 4/100, in which case even the Cubs might be involved.
-
Has Sharma said he has Cubs sources telling him sub-lux? I'm sincerely asking, I don't know, and if so hadn't realized. Levine is the only media person I've come across who has claimed Cubs sources indicating one way or the other. *If* Sharma has sources telling him otherwise, sub-lux, contrary to what Levine's sources supposedly said, that's interesting... and disappointing. Obviously Hoyer and Cubs are pretty silent on this. I've not had the idea that Mooney/Sharma are particularly inside-scooped with the Cubs? Good at thinking and speculating, much like many of our thoughtful posters here; but do they have inside sources other than what people say in public interviews? I don't know, maybe from podcasts that's more obvious and is so? Levine often supposedly hears things, most of which don't come true. But I'm kinda thinking he maybe does have a source? He had info about trade talks re Luzardo last winter that proved true, for example. So I'm kinda thinking he may have some info that might not be wrong? But obviously even if he has a source about what Hoyer has space to do, doesn't mean Hoyer will actually spend that all. *IF* he doesn't see deals that he likes, he might just pocket the money like he did last year and underspend his available budget.
Your point is also well taken that there are "additional positions to fill and you need up/down guys plus possible trade deadline guys", etc.. Cots has a bunch of money assigned for those, though, I think? So even with those sorts of things (other than actual trade-deadline moves), Cots still shows >$49M below lux prior to Milner.
-
Bregman opted out of 2 years at 40M per…what exactly is he looking for?
I also wonder how the impending labor strike is impacting his market.
Assume there's a near full-year lockout. Bregman is angling for a mega-deal, he's not exactly young, and his days of being a +140 OPS hitter are behind him.
The team that signs him will get his year 32 season, could lose his year 33, and then get back on track for year 34. Teams are counting on the deal to perform better early in cycle than late, so this is consequential for Bregman suitors.
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to sign him. Think he fits the Cubs incredibly well.
But the labor issue has to factor into consideration in terms of his contract.
-
Look, nobody knows. They’re guessing. Levine doesn’t know any more or less than Sharma or the others. All guessing based mostly on
their gut. Basically, worthless.
Cubs went over CBT in 2024. And, had Cubs landed Bregman in 2025, would have been over again. Based on needs, one might think they’ll be over. The roster math kind of points that way. But, I have no idea.
Last thing Hoyer would ever do in life is tell the media what Cubs payroll will be.
Yes, you are tipping your hand by telling everyone your "budget". I suspect their 2026 budget is less about CBA tax (if they did not go over in 2025) and more about 2026 $$ projections. And I suspect they have a surplus in 2025 given the home playoff games and that Marques's issues were likely priced in the 2025 budget. Still, I know they don't take long-term risk so if they go big it could be a trade with an existing locked in contract or a big AAV for lessor years.
-
….Outside of Levine I haven’t seen anybody thinking the Cubs are going above the CBT.
Look, nobody knows. They’re guessing. Levine doesn’t know any more or less than Sharma or the others. All guessing based mostly on
their gut. Basically, worthless.
Cubs went over CBT in 2024. And, had Cubs landed Bregman in 2025, would have been over again. Based on needs, one might think they’ll be over. The roster math kind of points that way. But, I have no idea.
Last thing Hoyer would ever do in life is tell the media what Cubs payroll will be.
-
Suppose:
Gallen $22
Keller $10
Thielbar Milner $3.75
Pomeranz $3.75
Castro $7.5
Sums $47.
Would fall below lux. Levine had reported sources telling upwards of $50-60 available.
Do you think some of those are too low? Beats me, if so, could easily just scratch the Pomeranz line, or replace Castro with somebody cheaper.
But yeah, assuming they neither do a surprising unexpected player move (Bregman) or trade (Cabrera), it doesn't really seem like that complicated of an agenda for Hoyer.
Imai could go higher, obviously.
CBT starts at $244. That gets you to $242 will additional positions to fill and you need up/down guys plus possible trade deadline guys. Unless the Cubs are going to be an above the luxury tax team it isn’t happening. Outside of Levine I haven’t seen anybody thinking the Cubs are going above the CBT.
Pointless speculative Q: Why Milner instead of Thielbar?
1. Cubs liked Milner better? At same price, they liked Thielbar less?
2. Thielbar liked elsewhere better?
3. Thielbar will get higher deal?
I never have much feel for market for old relievers.
Then how about Pomeranz. Is this his price-tag as well, or will he get more, or less?
He’s cheap and the Cubs love contact managers, but mostly he’s cheap. The Cubs maybe get 1 decently priced reliever, but they are disappearing fast. I think it is looking more like the Cubs are going to try and find the 2026 version of Drew, than pay Drew.
-
Pointless speculative Q: Why Milner instead of Thielbar?
1. Cubs liked Milner better? At same price, they liked Thielbar less?
2. Thielbar liked elsewhere better?
3. Thielbar will get higher deal?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Kind of a classic Cub move to sign the arch-typical LOOGY five years after they were legislated out of usefulness. Thielbar will get more money or two years, and probably both. Whenever the Cubs sign a guy the default reason is going to be "he was cheap". Milner throws 88 MPH (trending lower) and should never have a meaningful AB against a RH hitter. He is good against lefties, which is why he's probably at the very bottom tier of guys who can get a major league contract. In other words, right in our strike zone.
-
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/12/cubs-to-sign-hoby-milner.html
Active!
-
Guessing that Thielbar being four years older than Milner——perhaps more risk that Thielbar falls off a cliff in 2026.
Think that Pomeranz will get more because of K %.
-
Pointless speculative Q: Why Milner instead of Thielbar?
1. Cubs liked Milner better? At same price, they liked Thielbar less?
2. Thielbar liked elsewhere better?
3. Thielbar will get higher deal?
I never have much feel for market for old relievers.
Then how about Pomeranz. Is this his price-tag as well, or will he get more, or less?
-
I agree. Signing a top free agent free agent position player should not be considered unless the administration is willing to bust through the luxury tax line, and I have seen nothing to indicate that that is likely this off season. They should go after the best free agent starter they can get. And a trade of Wiggins would destroy their entire stragegy. The only way to have long term success is to develop your own top-tier players. Trading the only possibilities away just because they won't be of much help at the beginning of their MLB career makes that impossible.
Signing anyone is just hoping to make the playoffs and get lucky. Nobody on paper will compete with the Dodgers and other big boys. The Ricketts family is hoping to do enough to make the playoffs and hope that the better teams don't play well in the playoffs (which happens). We should be a .500+ team with a good shot at the playoffs. Then we cross our fingers and hope something strange happens and we win.
Baseball needs to do something because there can't be teams with payrolls 3-4X the payrolls of other teams.
-
That would likely put them over the luxury tax and I don't think anyone is thinking the Cubs are doing that....
Suppose:
Gallen $22
Keller $10
Thielbar Milner $3.75
Pomeranz $3.75
Castro $7.5
Sums $47.
Would fall below lux. Levine had reported sources telling upwards of $50-60 available.
Do you think some of those are too low? Beats me, if so, could easily just scratch the Pomeranz line, or replace Castro with somebody cheaper.
But yeah, assuming they neither do a surprising unexpected player move (Bregman) or trade (Cabrera), it doesn't really seem like that complicated of an agenda for Hoyer.
Imai could go higher, obviously.
-
Milner appears to be very strong vs LH hitters.
-
Yeah, Cubs fill the Thielbar spot by signing Hoby Milner.
Milner’s FIPs remarkably consistent past four seasons (low 3s each season) but erratic ERAs.
Pitched for Counsell in Milwaukee.
Guessing that, a year ago, Cubs might have preferred him over Thielbar but Milner signed with Rangers a week before Cubs signed Thielbar. Milner born in Dallas, HS in Fort Worth, college at U of Texas/Austin. Probably wanted to play in hometown a year ago.
Extreme GB pitcher (might be helped by Cubs inf defense), soft tosser, modest hard hit rate. Down a velocity tick in 2025. Four years younger than Thielbar.
40-man now at 32.
-
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/12/cubs-to-sign-hoby-milner.html
-
That would likely put them over the luxury tax and I don't think anyone is thinking the Cubs are doing that....
Thanks for Snider info. I like the dumpster diving.
*IF* Gallen plus Keller-Castro-Pomeranz-Thielbar went over budget (I don't think it would, but hypothetically...) they could easily skip one of the lefty relievers.
Last year they opened with just one lefty reliever, Thielbar. So they could skip having two. Or they could dumpster-dive for a 2nd one?
*IF* they hypothetically were to bring back one but not both of Pomeranz and Thielbar, I wonder which they'd prefer? Counsell has history with Pomeranz, and seeemd to trust him/use him more by end of year. So maybe he'd prefer Pom. Thielbar was really good end to end, and was more of a lefty specialist, I don't think Pom had much splits advantage against lefties. I could see either way. Heh heh, maybe whichever was cheaper would be Hoyer's more determinative factor! :):)
-
I'd have been happy with that Suarez deal. A strike-thrower with good K/BB in front of our defense, would have been very good.
None of the other reliever deals have seemed extravagant to me, either.
Willingly committing $22 to Shota makes $15/year seem pretty economical.
-
MLBN speculating that Suarez will setup for Iglesias…
Also stating that most clubs were at 2 years for him due to age, which is crazy to me…
-
Robert Suarez to the Braves, 3 years, $45 million.
Four of the five major projection sites had Suarez getting somewhat more than 3/$45.
Diaz, Williams, Suarez, Helsley—arguably the top 4 guys—have now signed.
-
Robert Suarez to the Braves, 3 years, $45 million.
-
He might literally finish his "activity" with one external SP, and bringing back keller, pom, thielbar, and castro, and call it budget quits?
That would likely put them over the luxury tax and I don't think anyone is thinking the Cubs are doing that.
Here is one of the first dumpster dives.
https://www.fangraphs.com/players/collin-snider/23307/stats?position=P
He's a Tread guy and the Cubs hired one their coaches last year. He was great in 2024 with the Mariners and not so good last year, but the secondary stats still weren't bad. The big thing was he lost 2 mph on his fast ball last year and if he can get that back he's really interesting. His fastball has an odd movement profile.
Here's more on his fastball if your interested.
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/collin-snider-has-quietly-been-one-of-the-mariners-best-relievers/
-
...“We have a real focus in a lot of areas,” Hoyer said. “It will lead to activity. I can’t tell you when.”
“We could have an active December,” Hoyer said. “We could have an active January....”
Obviously they can be very active with signing non-roster. We remember Keller more than Flexen, Trevor Richards, Ben Heller, Phil Bickford, Brandon Hughes, Brooks Kriske, Antonio Santos.
But one each of SP, RH reliever, LH reliever, and utility player, probably one more LH reliever, I'm not sure how "active" that would be? Especially if some of those are re-signing relievers or Castro.
He might literally finish his "activity" with one external SP, and bringing back keller, pom, thielbar, and castro, and call it budget quits?
-
Bullpen note: In interview this week, Counsell specifically referenced Porter Hodge. Don't recall the wording, but basically the priority of getting him back on track. Given how good he was two years ago, *IF* they can tweak him to control his stuff, adding "good" Hodge would be a huge addition.
Crazy how he came out of nowhere to become the closer; then almost as quickly went back from closer to forgotten. Could be a wildcard.
-
Schwarber and Alonso got 5 year/$150-155 million deals, so that is probably the baseline. It has been reported that he turned down a 6 year $170 million deal with the Tiger's last offseason. Boras is at least going to want to beat that with Red Sox money factored in.
-
Bregman opted out of 2 years at 40M per…what exactly is he looking for?
-
Good news - Dodgers rumored to be the frontrunners for Skubal.
Presumably if that happens they'll look to deal Glasnow, which is why his name has come up in rumors too. When he's healthy he's ridiculous but $29 million is a lot for a guy who probably gives you 100 innings, give or take.
-
When assessing whether a possible deal is "bad", finances cannot be the only lens. There is also the matter of what effect the deal would have on the performance of the team. You have to be willing to stretch on the finance side when the impact on the quality of the team is great enough.
-
Also, to Jed a "bad deal" is one where you pay market value. The quality of the player has no bearing on it.
Here's an Andrew Friedman quote from almost a decade ago: "If you're always rational about every free agent, you will finish third on every free agent."
Andrew Friedman must not understand the dynamics of baseball like Jed Hoyer does. What has that guy ever done?
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6880509/2025/12/10/what-were-hearing-cubs-winter-meetings/
“We have a real focus in a lot of areas,” Hoyer said. “It will lead to activity. I can’t tell you when.”
“We could have an active December,” Hoyer said. “We could have an active January. I don’t know. We’re not going to do bad deals just to do something quick.”
Q's:
Just save the bad deals for January-February? That's when Pressly, Neris, Turner, Mancini get signed!
Does Jed's value-calculation program factor inflation? Like, does he consider current deals "bad" because his computer is programmed based on prices from previous year and before? Is his computer often lagging behind, maybe?
Spoiler: yes.
Also, to Jed a "bad deal" is one where you pay market value. The quality of the player has no bearing on it.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6880509/2025/12/10/what-were-hearing-cubs-winter-meetings/
“We have a real focus in a lot of areas,” Hoyer said. “It will lead to activity. I can’t tell you when.”
“We could have an active December,” Hoyer said. “We could have an active January. I don’t know. We’re not going to do bad deals just to do something quick.”
Q's:
Just save the bad deals for January-February? That's when Pressly, Neris, Turner, Mancini get signed!
Does Jed's value-calculation program factor inflation? Like, does he consider current deals "bad" because his computer is programmed based on prices from previous year and before? Is his computer often lagging behind, maybe?
Article also repeats Cub interest in Cabrera.
-
Doesn't matter. We'll just miss out on him. Assuming we play our cards correctly.
I think there's a universe where we sign Bregman, because it's not completely impossible when our only two chances with top FAs are "market collapses" or "Wrigley discount". He's not giving Jeddo a discount but once you get past Detroit and Boston, it's hard to see that many more obvious suitors. Certainly at the numbers he's reportedly looking for. If Boston goes and gets a better player - which they're more than capable of doing - Bregman could be looking at a rough market.
Realistically, when your ownership and "brain trust" operates on a fundemantal principle of never paying market value for free agents, that's the only way you're ever getting one who's any good. Bregman is certainly a flawed target, but the really good ones are never going to have the challenges required to dump their into our tax bracket.
-
It's going to be tricky to greatly upgrade the position players. But it will be a travesty if they don't get a top starter.
I agree. Signing a top free agent free agent position player should not be considered unless the administration is willing to bust through the luxury tax line, and I have seen nothing to indicate that that is likely this off season. They should go after the best free agent starter they can get. And a trade of Wiggins would destroy their entire stragegy. The only way to have long term success is to develop your own top-tier players. Trading the only possibilities away just because they won't be of much help at the beginning of their MLB career makes that impossible.
-
What is the market for Bregman? He hasn't been an elite player in 7 years. His OPS in the second half this past season was .727
Doesn't matter. We'll just miss out on him. Assuming we play our cards correctly.
-
Tucker is getting 7 years minimum. Maybe as many as 10.
-
I have to admit that I am a bit confused with these "meetings", particularly Alonso. It is weird that all the players that would normally make sense do not make sense given who the Cubs have on their roster. Makes me think these are agent driven leaks or the Cubs are just doing their due diligence to understand the market. Bregman makes some sense (Especially if they don't intend on resigning Nico) but Jed and Counsel are on record that Shaw will be an important player for the Cubs in 2026. Where? If Tucker's market is to 3-4 years that would make the most sense now.
-
What is the market for Bregman? He hasn't been an elite player in 7 years. His OPS in the second half this past season was .727
-
I don't necessarily disagree that a big power DH would be nice, but would Hoyer of all people want to commit big money to a DH, 1B only defensively, on the wrong side of 30 if we were going to spend big on someone? I actually don't totally love that for where the Cubs are. It seems like we could put that spending power to something more useful if it was actually available.
I follow your logic. And I get that maybe people would prefer Ranger Suarez to Alonso. You may be right.
But if I want a big bat (I do), what really good, productive sluggers are available for $30/year? None. Sure, I'd rather have Bichette or Tucker, but are you getting them at $150?
I just think that scoring runs is what real contenders and playoff teams need to have. an extra big bat with slug and good OBP helps make the lineup work, and better enables you to keep scoring even when Happ or PCA happen to be off. Want a long, deep lineup so that guys can take turns being hot and carrying the team. Cubs offense wasn't that hot 2nd-half, and I think that *IF* they don't make the playoffs, it will probably be due to lack of offense, not defense or pitching.
I want a bat. Won't get that, and will just kinda need to hope that Shaw or Caissie or Moises turns into one. Alonso would have had a better chance, I think!
-
https://x.com/sleepercubs/status/1998901452618764779?s=46&t=Ys_vQAj1Yo46kkbTeBfq5A
Devin Williams wanted to be a Cub??
Not enough to give Jed his beloved Wrigley discount, apparently.
-
Acuna isn’t exactly Mr. Reliable…
-
Jon Heyman @JonHeyman
Mike Yastrzemski agrees to Braves deal. 2 years, plus option $23M.
Weird move. The Braves already have Profar, Harris, and Acuna in the outfield, and they have said they want to keep DH open so they can get both Drake Baldwin and Sean Murphy in the lineup regularly. That's a big commitment for a fourth outfielder. I wonder if they're getting better offers for Murphy than they expected.
-
Disagree. I think a big power bat at DH would be a great fit and change a lot. Scoring runs is going to be a challenge, and having a big bopper at DH with Suzuki in RF, and able to hit LHP, would be super advantageous.
In Counsell interview, he talked about Busch deserving opportunity to face LHP. I don't really love that, myself. Let him do what he's good at.
I don't necessarily disagree that a big power DH would be nice, but would Hoyer of all people want to commit big money to a DH, 1B only defensively, on the wrong side of 30 if we were going to spend big on someone? I actually don't totally love that for where the Cubs are. It seems like we could put that spending power to something more useful if it was actually available.
-
https://x.com/sleepercubs/status/1998901452618764779?s=46&t=Ys_vQAj1Yo46kkbTeBfq5A
Devin Williams wanted to be a Cub??
-
Yes, think that Bregman is a “special case.”
Hoyer said at the meetings he was surprised by all the 3B names reported as of “interest” to Cubs. I took that to mean no basis to the Suarez/Japanese 3B types. But, seems like Bregman is different because of the total package he presents.
Sure seems like Cubs may be looking for a bat—and not just a utility guy.
-
Yep that is funny. If we were to actually dole out a huge multi-year deal this offseason, why would it ever be to Alonso when we already have Busch at 1B? ...
Disagree. I think a big power bat at DH would be a great fit and change a lot. Scoring runs is going to be a challenge, and having a big bopper at DH with Suzuki in RF, and able to hit LHP, would be super advantageous.
In Counsell interview, he talked about Busch deserving opportunity to face LHP. I don't really love that, myself. Let him do what he's good at.
-
Talk is cheap. In one of Counsell's several interviews, there was reference to a zoom visit with Bregman, which he didn't deny, and in which he appreciated Bregman quite a bit.
So at least checking on position players, not just pitchers. Which I like hearing. Will they get an asset hitter? Almost certainly not. But man, the lineup would sure look a LOT more dangerous with one extra Alonso in it. And somewhat better with a Bregman.
Guessing "trade" rumors intersect with Alonso and Bregman discussions. If you'd signed Alonso for DH, Caissie could be included in a trade for a cheaper pitcher.
I have wondered whether perhaps Bregman is kind of a special case. Hoyer likes him, so *IF* Bregman was available at a favorable price, maybe Hoyer has space to spend higher and jump budget to do so? Maybe for Bregman, he could do both Gallen AND Bregman? :):):)
Just silly, non-Ricketts imagination, obviously; no way going to spend for two good FA starters.
But just to belabor Bregman, imagine you're anticipating $8 AAV on RH utility. Could look at Bregman not as $30 but as a $22, since Hoyer won't need to sign a Castro utility? Get better at both 3B and at utility, and maybe if Shaw improves he could do some RH platoon DH?
-
Jon Heyman
@JonHeyman
The Red Sox and Cubs were the other teams that met with Pete Alonso in Orlando Tuesday night. He was never spotted by media as he went through a side entrance and used a service elevator.
Yep that is funny. If we were to actually dole out a huge multi-year deal this offseason, why would it ever be to Alonso when we already have Busch at 1B? I'm sure Boston and the Cubs are at least happy to have the Tweet come out to make it look like they're trying, even when they're really not.
-
Jon Heyman
@JonHeyman
The Red Sox and Cubs were the other teams that met with Pete Alonso in Orlando Tuesday night. He was never spotted by media as he went through a side entrance and used a service elevator.
-
Having slow action in terms of pitching is good for Cubs, maybe? The longer it takes, the more chance to figure out whether you've got a shot at Imai or not?
-
Cubs make no selection in Rule 5 draft.
And no selection from Cubs system.
Cubs 40-man still at 31.
-
They’ll probably go all in on Tucker now…
Edit: Mets, not O’s…
-
Alonso to the Orioles, 5 years, $155 million. Mets lose Diaz and Alonso on back-to-back days.
-
Going higher, I think. Bullpen will get more.
-
1) Starting pitcher $22 million
2) Bullpen probably gets $12 million
3.) Bench $8 million
That gets you to a CBT of $233 million. If the Cubs are staying below the CBT that is all you can probably hope for.
-
So, assume:
1. we sign one big-5 pitcher. I'll use King because his name is shortest.
2. One hypothetically good RH reliever at some cost. I'll use Keller.
3. Two modest-priced lefty relievers. I'll just say Pomeranz and Thielbar.
That's probably enough and what they might do. Maybe another guaranteed Civale, but other than non-rostery-type Keller-wannabes, that might be it?
5 Rotation: Horton, King, Boyd, Taillon, Shota.
-Steele available in June.
5 one-inning late byllpen guys: Keller, Palencia, Matos, Pomeranz, Thielbar.
2 long/swing multi-inning relievers: Rea, Assad.
1 open bullpen competition spot.
That would seem a reasonable path, not overwhelmingly expensive. Like, suppose $22 on King, $11 on Keller, $7 for the Pomeranz and Thielbar or equivalents, ~$40. Could leave enough for a utility player or a RH hitter, or for some of the relievers to price up some. (Suarez?)
One competition-spot reliever from volume pool.
-Prospects Porter Hodge, Ben Brown, Luke Little, Jordan Wicks.
-Maybe a Civale-type hybrid Rea-wannabe, perhaps guaranteed?
-Maybe the usual pool of non-roster bounce-back candidates, of the wannabe-Keller style?
-
No safety in baseball, but offense was a challenge the second half and playoffs. Real chance that rolling with Shaw, Moises, Amaya as well as PCA, that the four youth hitters might be fine, but might also be a struggle. Chance that by the end, we'll say, "Man, this is a good, contending team. And it's got a chance to stay good and contend for a while." Also risk that we'll say "Man, this looks like a rebuild club, Shaw and Caissie and Amaya really aren't good hitters who you'd want all starting on a championship team." Who knows? But yeah, as a Buidican guy, it might be pretty fun if Shaw, Caissie, and Moises all emerge as solid-average or maybe better big-league hitters.
-
It's going to be tricky to greatly upgrade the position players. But it will be a travesty if they don't get a top starter.
-
......Just sign one of the top 5 FA SPs and start acting like a big-market team for once.
Agree, it doesn't really seem that complicated.
Plenty of money to sign one of the big-5 starters, if you aren't needing any other starter big-chunks.
From Counsell's interview, it sounds like he's pretty comfortable with just continuing the youth rebuild, and going with PCA, with Shaw, and with Caissie/Moises for the non-Suzuki spot. So if you aren't trying to budget for Bregman/Tucker, ≥$50-60 seems plenty for big-5 plus other pieces.
*IF* you sign Bregman or Tucker, that obviously changes budget, and also opens space to trade Shaw or Caissie. But assuming Tucker's off, no need to really nickle and dime on King or Gallon or Imai. Pursue the one you want, and if it's an extra year or a couple of extra million, so be it. Whether it's $20 or $25 or $30, none of those will really exhaust the $$.
-
Agree on Wiggins. To me I think he needs to be totally off limits.
Caissie, seems to me you can't trade him unless you sign somebody who's good to replace him.
In theory, Ballesteros could "replace" Tucker this year if Suzuki plays RF. The problem is that Happ and Seiya are both FAs and next year's crop is very thin on impact hitters, never mind possible labor uncertainty. They'd probably be in Conrad or bust mode, and that's a huge gamble on a guy who's never taken a professional AB coming off a season-ending shoulder injury.
I don't think trading any of Caissie, Ballesteros, or Wiggins should even be on the table. And no one else has that much value - it's a fantasy to think guys like Brown, Assad, or FFS Wicks woild bring back a locked-in rotation piece. Just sign one of the top 5 FA SPs and start acting like a big-market team for once.
-
From my point of view, trading Wiggins as a piece for a SP is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Maybe would feel differently if Cubs had another couple of other high-end pitching prospects but Wiggins is the whole show on the Cubs pitching prospect front.
Would be willing to include Caissie for the right guy (such as Gore) but not Wiggins. Also think that Brown, Wicks, Assad have value as trade pieces and would be willing to include two of them.
Agree on Wiggins. To me I think he needs to be totally off limits.
Caissie, seems to me you can't trade him unless you sign somebody who's good to replace him.
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2025/12/09/craig-counsell-speaks-bregman-steele-imanaga-busch-more/
Embedded is a 20+ minute Counsell interview. Very helpful to hear his input on things.
1. He was pretty positive/confident about Shota, that Shota will be better, and that they understand what was a little off. Having Shota be effective would be a huge piece of the pitching staff, we'll see.
2. Was asked about Steele, said everything seems to be staying on track. Definitely not opening day; but was confident that he'd be available first half.
3. Moises, said his development is not priority, helping the big-league team is higher priority. Which I took to mean that *IF* he hits well enough to contribute, he'll be with majors. But when asked basically if there was an injury in front of him, would he be able to catch? Counsell said he'd catch, yes. So basically seemed pretty clear that Moises as 3rd catcher, one injury away from being #2 catcher, is OK.
4. Counsell has a great way of talking about young players, and being willing to give them opportunity to play. So sounded pretty OK with going with prospects.
5. Referenced Tucker in pretty much the past tense, seemed zero uncertainty about whether he'd be back. Sounds done and gone.
-
From my point of view, trading Wiggins as a piece for a SP is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Maybe would feel differently if Cubs had another couple of other high-end pitching prospects but Wiggins is the whole show on the Cubs pitching prospect front.
Would be willing to include Caissie for the right guy (such as Gore) but not Wiggins. Also think that Brown, Wicks, Assad have value as trade pieces and would be willing to include two of them.
-
To me it still seems hard to be strong trade bidders without including Wiggins, Caissie, Shaw, or Moises.
*If* Cubs choose to shop Wiggins, they can be big-bidders on anybody. But if not, I just don't know that Alcantara/Long/Assad/Wicks/Brown can make that competitive a package for any high-end guy. Would be fun to be wrong.
And until/unless you sign Bregman or Tucker, you can't really trade Shaw or Caissie.
-
Orioles reportedly leading on Cabrera. Pray they save the Cubs from themselves.
-
FWIW Department:
Free agent splashes dominated the winter meetings spotlight Tuesday morning, but trade winds continue to swirl in Orlando. The Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs and San Diego Padres are all coming up often as teams that could make a deal soon. -- Jesse Rogers
-
If you think Yates has one more good season in him he'll certainly be cheaper this time.. His peripherals weren't as bad as his topline numbers last season.
-
yes, that's my point. To take Scott back for nothing, they need to pay us. How much do they need to pay us to offload their former closer? And might we still be interested, if the $$$ commitment is reduced sufficiently?
Keep in mind that Dodgers are paying a 110% tax on every dollar of Scott’s contract. So, even though his AAV hit is a bit above $15 M Dodgers are paying an additional $16.5 M per season for him.
Moreover, Scott’s contract runs three more seasons. Nobody—not even the Dodgers—is okay with that obligation if going to get the 2025 version of Scott going forward.
So, unless Dodgers internal assessment is that Scott has heck of a chance to recover the 2024 version, Dodgers would LOVE to find a taker for him, I would think, even if Dodgers have to pay a sizeable chunk of his contract. Remember, they save the additional 110% for every dollar unloaded, on top of the money going to Scott.
Possible that Cubs might have an interest if the dollars work.
What is Scott worth to Cubs, given the three-year obligation?
Depends on scouting assessment, right? What are chances will return to form? 20% 30% 50%? What are chances you’re getting a 4.50 ERA guy—for three years—who will pitch his way outside the “circle of trust”? Who wants that? Something in-between, maybe?
Hard for me to believe Cubs would go more than a 3/$20 obligation, plus moving a nominal trade piece. Why not just re-sign Pomeranz for less?
If Scott contract was for one year, would pay more of course. But, for three years? Risky, but interesting.
-
I doubt the Dodgers care enough to off load money. Maybe after the lock out if there is a salary cap.
I actually did think about trying to take Scott off their hands, because he's not old or obviously broken physically. But then I remembered the Dodgers don't GAF about how much they spend and Scott as a lefty specialist at $16M would be fine with them.
-
I doubt the Dodgers care enough to off load money. Maybe after the lock out if there is a salary cap.
-
$16M/year is too much for 90+% of non-closing RPs. With that said, I would trade Ed Howard for 1 box of baseballs.
yes, that's my point. To take Scott back for nothing, they need to pay us. How much do they need to pay us to offload their former closer? And might we still be interested, if the $$$ commitment is reduced sufficiently?
-
Ed Howard for Tanner Scott, if Dodgers aren't sending cash: Which side says no?
I'd assume Cubs say no. After Scott's lousy 2025, picking up 3 years at $16+ AAV is too much. Dodgers would need to give some value to be able to offload the remainder of his deal.
$16M/year is too much for 90+% of non-closing RPs. With that said, I would trade Ed Howard for 1 box of baseballs.
-
https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2025/12/09/more-from-jed-hoyer-including-the-cubs-interest-in-multiple-pitchers-who-can-make-starts/
Embedded is a 7-minute clip from Hoyer press conference, mostly about the relief situation. Limited willingness to bid strongly on relief pitchers seems unchanged. Would rather spend "chunks" on starters; volatility with relievers, etc.. In on relievers, but other teams may bid higher, we don't know. So, more intelligent to spend intelligently on Neris and Pressly... (No, he didn't say that, I'm just snarking in! :) :)
My thoughts:
1. I'd wondered (hoped?) that Counsell might have spoken into this, and perhaps persuaded to value relievers more. Counsell used 3 starters in playoffs, and pulled them each after a few innings. So I'd thought he'd maybe advocate for the increased value of quality relief for a team that thinks it's a playoff team. Apparently not.
2. "Chunks" on starters, sure. But price for relievers is way less. Diaz is barely $20, perhaps less once the deferrals come in? Williams was only like $17, right? Even high-end relievers are way down-priced and down-lengthed from starters. 3-year deals for Suarez and Keller might cost almost the same AAV combined as Ranger Suarez, who might get 4 years or even 5. Might you be better to get all high-lev innings, 130 of them from Suarez/Keller, at 2.6 ERA, versus Ranger Suarez at 150 innings at 3.6 ERA? Would $26 combined for Keller/Suarez be better than $22 for Shota?
3. But yeah, doesn't sound like my dream of signing both Suarez and Keller is in Hoyer's mind. :) :)
4. "Use chunks for starters" makes sense, sure. But reliever-chunks are smaller that good-starter chunks. Suppose Hoyer has $50 to spend; is he going to get both a playoff-SP and a good starting 3B or RF with $50 to use? Probably not. So if you use a $20-25 chunk for a pitcher, might you not have reliever-sized chunks left? Maybe use a reliever-chunk for a reliever better than Neris or Pressly?
-
covid was kantro's first draft. hired in fall, little chance to scout in spring. staff pretty much theo's old incompetents. i dont much fault kantro for that one.
FWIW, 5th rounder Koen Moreno is on the AAA roster. Can be taken in major league Rule 5 tomorrow but not the minor league phase.
And, of course, 4th rounder Luke Little is on the 40-man.
-
Have the Cubs issued a statement yet that they were in it for Diaz and Schwarber until the bitter end?
-
covid was kantro's first draft. hired in fall, little chance to scout in spring. staff pretty much theo's old incompetents. i dont much fault kantro for that one.
-
By the way, according to AZ Phil, Cubs did not place Ed Howard on the Cubs AAA off-season roster. That means he can be taken in the minor league phase of the Rule 5 draft on Wednesday. No strings attached. Ditto for the 2nd and 3rd rounders of that 2020 draft: Carraway and Nogwu.
Who was in charge of the draft that year?
-
Ed Howard for Tanner Scott, if Dodgers aren't sending cash: Which side says no?…
By the way, according to AZ Phil, Cubs did not place Ed Howard on the Cubs AAA off-season roster. That means he can be taken in the minor league phase of the Rule 5 draft on Wednesday. No strings attached. Ditto for the 2nd and 3rd rounders of that 2020 draft: Carraway and Nogwu.
-
The Dodgers would only be responsible for 1 year of deferred money if they traded him. The Cubs would have to take on any remaining deferred money, unless the Dodgers include money in the trade. Including money would increase the cost.
The obligation to pay the deferred money is determined by the parties to the trade.
Obviously, that matter would be a key component to trade negotiations.
For example, in the Radael Devers trade from Red Sox to Giants, the Giants agreed to take on all the deferred money. See link below.
If Dodgers and Cubs wanted to discuss a Tanner Scott trade, they can negotiate whatever they can agree upon. My guess is that Dodgers would be happy to unload Scott and would pay bulk of what is owed to him, including deferrals, for a relatively modest trade cost.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/boston-red-sox/news/insider-reveals-how-much-rafael-devers-contract-red-sox-dumped-giants/b6ff3915d1b02842a0e01cde
-
Good to see the Dodgers improving. I was worried about them.
-
3 years, $69 million for Edwin Diaz.
-
Ed Howard for Tanner Scott, if Dodgers aren't sending cash: Which side says no?
I'd assume Cubs say no. After Scott's lousy 2025, picking up 3 years at $16+ AAV is too much. Dodgers would need to give some value to be able to offload the remainder of his deal.
-
The Dodgers would only be responsible for 1 year of deferred money if they traded him. The Cubs would have to take on any remaining deferred money, unless the Dodgers include money in the trade. Including money would increase the cost.
-
Dumb Q:
1. If a guy gets traded, with a bunch of deferred $$ in his deal, does the receiving team take on all of the deferred responsibility?
2. Or is there freedom to negotiate how remaining costs get divided between sending and receiving team?
3. Regardless of deferred, is there always freedom for the sending team to take on some of the salary for a traded player? Or if the receiving team doesn't want full cost responsibility, you either can't make the trade; or you need to send your own bad contract in exchange; or you need to receive some offsetting value to make up for the bad contract, whether that be prospect or international money or whatever?
These Q's popped into mindb with Cubs having wanted Tanner Scott last year, Scott having failed, and Dodgers now signing a much better closer. Like, might Hoyer still like Scott and think Hottovy can fix him. But now trade for him at no talent expense; with 1 year of commitment gone so the remaining contract seems shorter to Jed; and maybe have Dodgers take on some of the cost?
-
Schwarber back to the Phillies, 5 years, $150 million.
Mets beat writer Will Sammon says Edwin Diaz is going to the Dodgers.
-
The Cubs are obviously going to have a weaker team to start 2026.
I think that's pretty much a given at this point.
The Naysayers are on the same page already…..and in early December!
Who would have thunk it?
-
Lineup should be worse, or perceived so.
-Actual Tucker was liability the last half, obviously. But April Tucker certainly was better than Caissie/Alcantara/Moises will be.
-Shaw was perceived as a hot prospect who had always hit. He didn't, much. Actual 2026 Shaw might end up as good or better than 2025 Shaw; but perceived expectations are much lower.
-
I think there's a pretty good chance that the opening day pitching roster is stronger in 2026 vs 2025.
Opening day pitching roster will surely be better than the 5/5/25 roster, by which point Steele, Shota, and Assad were off.
-
We need better than a Rea-type starter.
....Hoyer says Cubs are "definitely" still looking for another SP but also hybrid pitchers, citing Colin Rea as example...
"Looking" is one thing, actually signing another. But I wonder if the thinking is more "and" than "or". One from King/Gallen/Imai/Ranger/Framber, plus Aaron Civale as Rea-wannabe?
-
I think there's a pretty good chance that the opening day pitching roster is stronger in 2026 vs 2025.
-
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if we field a worse roster to start 2026 than we did to start 2025.
I think that's pretty much a given at this point.
-
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if we field a worse roster to start 2026 than we did to start 2025.
The Cubs are obviously going to have a weaker team to start 2026. They're not even trying to bring back Tucker. They have more flexibility in their future budget than any team in MLB, and they're just letting the best free agent on the market walk away.
Jed Hoyer is one of the worst POBO/GMs in MLB. The 2025 Wild Card series win is going to go down in history as the highlight of his career.
-
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if we field a worse roster to start 2026 than we did to start 2025.
-
We need better than a Rea-type starter.
-
....After signing veteran Phil Maton, Jed Hoyer believes Cubs will be in market for another high-lev reliever: "Whether we end up signing someone or not I don't know. Depends on how other teams value them, honestly. But we can definitely be in that market & we're obviously going to sign more relievers."
I wonder how high "high-lev" means? Like Neris or Pressly? Keller probably? Suarez? If they aren't going to sign Bregman or Tucker, part of me thinkg signing BOTH Suarez and Keller would actually be good use of cash.
-
So,
1. lots of confidence in Shaw for 3B.
2. Might be in market for high-lev reliever, but that depends on market and maybe Cubs won't.
3. Interested in starter, but also Colin Rea type.
Hoyer might save Ricketts a lot of money if Hoyer signs a Colin Rea for rotation; backs out of high-lev reliever market; spends nothing on 3B; and stays out of Tucker market. :):)
-
As noted, Jed is on record today as being surprised as to all the 3rd basemen being linked to the Cubs given what they think about Matt Shaw so it is likely just agents trying to create a buzz. However, is it all possible given how Shaw overperformed expectations defensively (including Jed) that they see him as a second basemen in 2027 and beyond if they can't resign Nico? I believe they love Nico but it could be a budget allocation issue. To be clear, I don't see this as likely as I think they love the idea of a Busch/Nico/Dansby/Shaw defensive infield for a few years.
-
From Megan Montrmurro
Hoyer when asked about Matt Shaw and what makes the Cubs confident in offense they saw from him in 2nd half instead of 1st half: "Honestly, I've been surprised by the number of media reports that link us to different guys. There's zero lack of confidence in Matt. Actually, I would say the opposite."
Shota Imanaga's return via the Cubs' QO "gave some clarity, as far as available dollars," Hoyer says of the rotation, "and we knew going in there was a possibility that could happen."
Hoyer says Cubs are "definitely" still looking for another SP but also hybrid pitchers, citing Colin Rea as example
After signing veteran Phil Maton, Jed Hoyer believes Cubs will be in market for another high-lev reliever: "Whether we end up signing someone or not I don't know. Depends on how other teams value them, honestly. But we can definitely be in that market & we're obviously going to sign more relievers."
-
Agreed. I think I would rather roll with Shaw (who improved over the course of the season) for nominal compensation and allocate funds elsewhere. This, of course, assumes that the funds will be allocated elsewhere and not in the Ricketts family bank accounts.
Shaw is a forest of red flags as a hitter. Maybe you give him first crack but you must have a legit plan B this time. And if you don't improve offensively at 3B, where do you? Also, he didn't improve so much as have one good month. He hit .222 in Sept./Oct. and absolutely disappeared in the playoffs.
Kyle Keller is a name to keep an eye on. MLB washout coming off four good years in NPB and likely cheap, fits Jed's profile. Plus might fool some casual fans into thinking he re-signed the good Keller.
-
Well, it all comes down to availability. Bregman might be that but you'd have to pay him $30+ into his late 30s. Okamoto is probably the best bet among the available options but I haven't seen the Cubs connected to him at all. Suarez is available, can play an adequate 3B, and wouldn't require a long-term commitment. His profile might not fit your ideal but 40 HRs is pretty useful too.
Agreed. I think I would rather roll with Shaw (who improved over the course of the season) for nominal compensation and allocate funds elsewhere. This, of course, assumes that the funds will be allocated elsewhere and not in the Ricketts family bank accounts.
-
Suarez is a good player, an asset. A 3-WAR player per season over the last four seasons.
The issue with him, seems to me, is allocating your assets. The projections for him are in $20-25 AAV.
Would rather see Cubs configure their assets differently. Not a matter of being a “fan” or not a fan of Suarez. It’s how do you spend your resources.
-
I'm sure I am in the minority, but I am not a fan of Suarez or hitters like him. They just seem to let you down when it is 2nd and 3rd with less than 2 outs. I would rather have a hitter that hits 15 HRs and can hit .280 with limited Ks. A Ben Zobrist type guy. I wish there were more professional hitters in baseball these days.
Well, it all comes down to availability. Bregman might be that but you'd have to pay him $30+ into his late 30s. Okamoto is probably the best bet among the available options but I haven't seen the Cubs connected to him at all. Suarez is available, can play an adequate 3B, and wouldn't require a long-term commitment. His profile might not fit your ideal but 40 HRs is pretty useful too.
-
I'd be OK with 2 years for Suarez. He's going to hit HRs at the very least.
I'm sure I am in the minority, but I am not a fan of Suarez or hitters like him. They just seem to let you down when it is 2nd and 3rd with less than 2 outs. I would rather have a hitter that hits 15 HRs and can hit .280 with limited Ks. A Ben Zobrist type guy. I wish there were more professional hitters in baseball these days.
-
Yeah, not super interested in Eugenio Suarez, at least at prices like that. Only hit over .236 once in last 6 years, was sub-.300 OBP last year, not for the first time. Not very interested in a Mendoza-line guy with sub-.300 BA, even with the power, unless he's variably cheap. Rather just take my chances with Shaw.
-
Can’t see devoting $20-25 AAV to Eugenio. Shaw was better than him after trade deadline.
Bregman is different. All-around star player who could fit in Tucker’s offensive slot. Skeptical Cubs would outbid Tigers-RSox for him.
-
heh heh, before reading the back half, I was thinking "does he mean Ranger or Robert?" Too many Suarez!
True. Not too interested in the other one TBH. Velocity cratering and doesn't miss enough bats. Ranger danger.
-
Cubs being linked to Suarez, who TBH I'd be more interested in at 2-3 years than Bregman at 5.
heh heh, before reading the back half, I was thinking "does he mean Ranger or Robert?" Too many Suarez!
-
I'd be OK with 2 years for Suarez. He's going to hit HRs at the very least.
-
Cubs being linked to Suarez, who TBH I'd be more interested in at 2-3 years than Bregman at 5.
I'd be pretty worried about either of them. I don't think Wrigley is ideal for Bregman and the back half of that contract (combined with Dansby's last few years) could give the Cubs a really rough left side of the infield in a couple years. And guys like Suarez who strike out 30% of the time are a real concern once they get into their mid-30s.
If they're going to spend on the infield, just pay for Bichette and put him at 2B. His injury history over the last 3 years is a little worrying. But because of that (and because almost no one who is willing to spend needs a shortstop this offseason), his contract is going to be closer to Swanson than Tucker. He's younger and should age better than the other two guys.
-
Hoyer quote from Sharma and Mooney’s latest, “ But we’re confident in our ability to find wins — and find wins for a cost that makes sense for us…”
He’s been the president and GM for 5 years, and has 1 wild card series win to show for it. I’m not sure where that confidence comes from.
-
Rosenthal reporting the Pirates made Schwarber an offer. What are the odds the Pirates give out a bigger contact than the Cubs? 60/40?
-
Cubs being linked to Suarez, who TBH I'd be more interested in at 2-3 years than Bregman at 5.
-
Assume Hoyer does NOT see space for both Gallen and a big-name position starter, not Bregman or Tucker, Bichette, Bellinger, or Alonso...
Then *IF* he signs Gallen or King in the more modest $22-24 range, what will he do with the other $30M?
Probably that can go in a flash. Keller-priced reliever, cheaper relievers, backup utility guys.
So yeah, we're probably getting only one starter, unless we indirectly get a starting 3B because Shaw hits his way to the bench.
Assuming we get only the one starter, then it seems to me there isn't that much budget pressure to scrimp on the starting pitcher. If you like Gallen or King best, sure, get your best guy. But *IF* you actually like Suarez better, I don't think you'd sign Gallen over Suarez because he's maybe $4M cheaper. Even if your pitcher is $25 or $28, instead of $22, I think you should still be able to fill out bullpen and utility with the remaining $30.
I wonder if there is any chance they'd look at one of the seemingly pricier relievers? BA has super cheap contract predictions for everybody, they have Gallen at $45/2 and Suarez at $75/3. So I think they're often way off. But like they have Robert Suarez at $54/3, and Diaz at $125/6. What if Counsell is telling Hoyer having a knockout bullpen is really the way for post-season, and regular season too? *IF* your scouting likes Suarez, what if you spend for BOTH Suarez and Keller? If everybody worked out, having Suarez-Keller-Palencia-Maton could hypothetically be a really safe and deep back-end bullpen. Keep everybody fresh. Don't need to press starters for innings. Be ready for playoffs.
I'm kind of bullpen-obsessed, but yeah Hoyer's not going to do anything like that.
-
Let the Tucker thing go. Absolutely no chance in hell he comes back.
-
Not sure how to imagine how pitcher fits into Hoyer's budget thinking. Suppose he hopes that both Tucker and Bregman prices will end up being pretty good value-per-dollar. Just for thought, I'll use Bregman.
Does Hoyer hope that he might fit both Bregman AND one of the big-ticket pitchers? If so, maybe Bregman + Imai would be too much. But Bregman with King, or Bregman with Gallen, could squeeze in? If he could fit in two starters like that, I'd be pretty fired up. I imagine that Tucker might cost enough more than Bregman that even Gallen+Tucker might be too much.
I also wonder how Hoyer handles budget. I kinda think only in terms of lux calculation. But if Hoyer is actually using real year-by-year costs, would $20-25M posting fee for Imai count against Hoyer's budget and knock off a reliever or two? No idea how that works.
-
Deeg, you made a great point earlier this week. If you target Imai, do you want to risk losing on him and having the others gone? Wait till January, Gallen-King-Suarez-Valdes are all gone, the Mets and/or Yankees end up bidding crazy high, or Imai just loves big New York even if you match or exceed their offers?
But yeah, don't imagine $80/4 is going to do it. I imagine Gallen will go over projections. Maybe more $90/4?
Unless you’re prepared to be the high bidder on Imai and seriously intend to make an offer he can’t refuse, I don’t think you can wait him out. You need an impact SP desperately and if all the other names are off the board, you’re screwed.
-
Deeg, you made a great point earlier this week. If you target Imai, do you want to risk losing on him and having the others gone? Wait till January, Gallen-King-Suarez-Valdes are all gone, the Mets and/or Yankees end up bidding crazy high, or Imai just loves big New York even if you match or exceed their offers?
But yeah, don't imagine $80/4 is going to do it. I imagine Gallen will go over projections. Maybe more $90/4?
-
Imai is the guy you want, but something in the neighborhood of 4/$80 is perfectly fine for Gallen. He's probably about on par with King as a consolation prize, even if their risk/reward profile is very different.
-
Pitching in Wrigley for half his starts and in front of our defense would certainly help in getting back to 2024 (and earlier) results.
He’s the Dansby Swanson of this years SP class, and would be a good fit, IMO.
-
Gallen was fine post AS, probably 90% of his normal self. His velocity hasn't started the inevitable decline yet. He's no sure thing but he seems like a pretty good bet to be closer to his '24 self than '25.
-
Yeah, high bidder usually believes or gambles that they'll get the best version back. Jays with Cease 4.55 ERA; Cubs with imanaga; Gallen's high bidder will think they can fix his 4.88 ERA; King's high bidder will think his injuries might be past flukes, and his stuff will hold up; Imai's high bidder will think his velocity will hold up, his recent improvement in control will be sustainable, and that his stuff is not Badler's mid-rotation guy but is high-end stuff.
Gallen may not be as good as Assad, we don't know. But that's the chance you take with a pitcher, and there's good reason to think he might bounce back. Cubs have done pretty well with ID'ing stuff in vet pitchers and helping them, and of course we've got a great defense which should help any pitcher. Gallen historically has tended to be something of a groundball guy, which would be a great fit with us, whether Shaw or Bregman were 3B.
-
Gallen was #3 in the 2023 Cy Young voting and basically hasn't missed a start in four years. He was terrible in the first half last season but he's still got a track record. $22M doesn't seem outlandish given what SP goes for these days.
-
Bob Nightengale .... said the Cubs were going to pay him $22 million for multiple years before he took back his post.
That's a little higher than the predictions. $80/4, $76/4, $45/2, and $42/2 are the four I'm seeing (traderumors, ESPN, BA, Athletic...)
Obviously an offer above projections might help explain a guy signing early, or going shorter by a year.
-
The Mariners have a history of getting a lot out of relievers, but it seems like they could've found a better deal for Harry Ford.
Great deal for the Nats—getting a very promising young catcher—but Mariners getting a gem in Ferrer.
Ferrer in 2025 was 94th percentile in velocity (97.7 avg), 99th percentile in ground ball rate, and 95th percentile in BB%. With a good infield defense behind him, he’s a shutdown-type reliever.
Had a .408 BABIP against right-handed hitters, which tells a lot about left side of Nats infield defense in 2025.
-
The Mariners have a history of getting a lot out of relievers, but it seems like they could've found a better deal for Harry Ford.
Robert Murray @ByRobertMurray
The Seattle Mariners are acquiring reliever Jose Ferrer from the Washington Nationals for catcher Harry Ford, according to sources familiar with the deal.
-
…Nightengale has updated his post to say that the Cubs are hopeful that they can sign Gallen...
Mooney has a piece up at Athletic with the more appropriate usage that Cubs are “targeting” Gallen, to wit, “In their wide-ranging search for pitching, the Chicago Cubs are targeting Zac Gallen as an option, according to team and league sources briefed on the negotiations.”
Interesting.
Guessing that Gallen will want an opt-out—probably after year one, as Gallen cost himself a lot of money because of his poor walk-year performance. Guessing maybe Cubs not keen on a year one opt-out.
Maybe won’t happen. If it does, kind of a high ceiling, low floor risk.
-
Bob Nightengale reported on Twitter that the Cubs were close to signing Zac Gallen, but it was immediately debunked by Passan. Nightengale has updated his post to say that the Cubs are hopeful that they can sign Gallen.
He said the Cubs were going to pay him $22 million for multiple years before he took back his post.
-
Having money to spend and actually spending it are not the same.
-
I was interested in Cheryl Ladd at one time. That went as far as this will.
I used to think that I would eventually end up with Raquel Welch. Who knows? Now that she has died, that might have actually improved my chances.
-
Turner: 14.7 fWAR
Swanson: 12.3 fWAR
OK, fair enough. I was using the WAR on Baseball Reference. But the basic point would remain, that Swanson's signing was not the lesser of the four options. Instead, even using fWAR, it was more valuable than if the Cubs had signed Correa or Bogaerts (and not that far behind Turner).
-
Turner: 14.7 fWAR
Swanson: 12.3 fWAR
Swanson: 13.6 bWAR
Turner 11.9 bWAR
-
https://x.com/670TheScore/status/1996593740899594485?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1996593740899594485%7Ctwgr%5E55805a05c10e11e839dbaf30bfda26a0518c39a7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bleachernation.com%2Fcubs%2F2025%2F12%2F04%2Fcubs-payroll-expectations%2F
Levine says, "there is, according to my sources, upwards of $50-60 million dollars yet to be spent on this year's payroll..."
We shall see. Having it doesn't mean they'll spend it, as we saw last winter and the Tanaka year before Lester. Plus $50 can go pretty fast. Enough for one good starter, but not really enough for two quality starters plus bullpen plus a utility player.
-
Turner: 14.7 fWAR
Swanson: 12.3 fWAR
-
There is hubris involved if management thinks they can consistently provide benefit to cheaper players that will allow them to perform like stars. It may work some of the time, but it's difficult to be competitive if you don't spend big when the opportunity (and need) is there.
-
I think the SP equivalent of Dansby would be King.
Yes. Still, there are 5 times as many starting pitchers in the game, and almost EVERY team has opportunity to upgrade relative to worst starter. So settling for the 4th best SS might almost be like settling for the 20th best starting pitcher! :)
Ron is certainly right, Dansby has given best WAR-value thus far of those SS's. It's not impossible that King might outproduce the higher-priced guys? Possible likewise that some cat like Giolito might magically stay healthy, lock in, and perhaps end up being just as good as the other guys only at much lower price, who knows.
-
Mooney/Sharma
They think the budget is closer to CBT, maybe around 2024 or a little higher. The 2025 budget was lower.
They Cubs are "in" on pitchting, but all their being "in" on has produced is Maton and a participation trophy for Cease. They couldn't say for certain that the Cubs being "in" on pitching will produce anything more.
-
Yeah, could easily/probably be like the shortstops year. Then, Cubs "interested" in Turner, Bogaerts, Correa. Settle for Dansby.
Now "interested" in Cease, Imai, King, Framber, Ranger, King. Settle for Giolito.
Using your example, if the Cubs "settle" for someone like they did with Dansby, with similar results, I won't complain. Of those SS, Dansby has the highest WAR of the group during the time he's been a Cub, and much higher than all but Turner,
-
I think the SP equivalent of Dansby would be King.
-
Yeah, could easily/probably be like the shortstops year. Then, Cubs "interested" in Turner, Bogaerts, Correa. Settle for Dansby.
Now "interested" in Cease, Imai, King, Framber, Ranger, King. Settle for Giolito.
-
Are they willing to pay top price for guys pricier than Taillon or Boyd?
No.
-
So, deeg, just to play Koolaid on Imai. What if his market isn't overwhelming?
1. Dodgers: Mutually interest not rumored.
2. BlueJays: Will they sign all five of Cease, Bichette, Tucker, Ponce, and Imai besides? With Cease and Ponce already in hand, with Glasnow and the rookie star, and with Berrios coming back, guessing Imai will not be their target?
3. Yankees: Talk about not spending a lot, payroll pinching. With Rodon expected back early, and Cole in due time, and Schmidt, is pitching where they want to spend? Lineup may seem a higher priority.
4. Mets: Williams, big jump to re-sign Diaz, big jump to re-sign Alonso, not necessarily the greatest experience with their Japanese starters past, maybe spend serious on Bellinger for CF, maybe they'll just go for Framber instead?
5. Phillies: Also have a big payroll, and may not be looking to expand that a lot? There's Schwarber to re-sign, he'll cost a bunch. Perhaps they'd rather resign Suarez? They don't have a history with Japanese stars, I don't think?
I have no idea, maybe Mets or Yankees will target Imai and blow Hoyer away. But thinking there might be a landscape where LA, New York, and Toronto teams don't end up prioritizing him. And *IF* they hypothetically don't, maybe Cubs will, and maybe Cubs seem like a good combination of fit between having supported Japanese players well, and having a good competitive window?
Also possible that while he can drag it out to Jan 2, perhaps he'll move a little quicker and kinda have his team decided by Christmas?
Hypothetically? Sure, anything's possible. But an elite FA SP going into his age 27-28 season? Those don't come along very often. Based on scouting and numbers, Imai probably comes in-between Yamamoto and Senga as a prospect, and Senga got 5/$75 as a 30 year-old.
Imai can say what he wants - if the Dodgers want him, he ends up there. The Giants are the logical "beat the Dodgers" option, they wanted Yamamoto and Sasaki bad, and despite their trying to tamp expectations down this time, they have money. The Tigers want him, and at this point are a more credible FA suitor than the Cubs. And in the end you have to figure the Mets and Yankees will both be in, with maybe somebody surprising - like Seattle (an attractive destination for Japanese players), who could sign him and trade for other help or prospects from their wealth of young SP.
Imai is an attractive, elite talent. He'll get something like 7/$160 or more, you can pretty much bank on it. 6 years at the minimum.
-
So, deeg, just to play Koolaid on Imai. What if his market isn't overwhelming?
1. Dodgers: Mutually interest not rumored.
2. BlueJays: Will they sign all five of Cease, Bichette, Tucker, Ponce, and Imai besides? With Cease and Ponce already in hand, with Glasnow and the rookie star, and with Berrios coming back, guessing Imai will not be their target?
3. Yankees: Talk about not spending a lot, payroll pinching. With Rodon expected back early, and Cole in due time, and Schmidt, is pitching where they want to spend? Lineup may seem a higher priority.
4. Mets: Williams, big jump to re-sign Diaz, big jump to re-sign Alonso, not necessarily the greatest experience with their Japanese starters past, maybe spend serious on Bellinger for CF, maybe they'll just go for Framber instead?
5. Phillies: Also have a big payroll, and may not be looking to expand that a lot? There's Schwarber to re-sign, he'll cost a bunch. Perhaps they'd rather resign Suarez? They don't have a history with Japanese stars, I don't think?
I have no idea, maybe Mets or Yankees will target Imai and blow Hoyer away. But thinking there might be a landscape where LA, New York, and Toronto teams don't end up prioritizing him. And *IF* they hypothetically don't, maybe Cubs will, and maybe Cubs seem like a good combination of fit between having supported Japanese players well, and having a good competitive window?
Also possible that while he can drag it out to Jan 2, perhaps he'll move a little quicker and kinda have his team decided by Christmas?
-
Yeah, Cubs are "interested" in lots of guys. Are they willing to pay top price for guys pricier than Taillon or Boyd? "Interested" is way different from serious about committing a winning bid. Especially for guys good enough to command long deal, if you're unwilling to go long.
-
Why would any of those guys not get the contracts they're projected to get? Wishing won't make it happen.
There's lots of chatter about the Cubs and King, and he's the sort of second-tier guy you could see Hoyer making his big stretch of the offseason. But the problem is if the Cubs are really interested in Imai (I'm hugekly skeptical, but just for the sake of argument say they are), King will likely be gone long before Imai signs. He's not even doing visits until after the meetings and top Japanese guys usually sign late. King will have multiple 3-4 year offers and given that he knows for the truly big teams he's likely a second choice, he'll probably grab one of those offers pretty early.
Yeah, true. Saving only to have the guy you saved for choose elsewhere, that's a bust. Kinda how Bregman went last winter. Your scenario about waiting until King is gone, only to miss on Imai, totally plausible. Probable? If Buster's thing is true, though, maybe King won't get hot action at start, either, and won't sign for a while either? Or, maybe his agent will figure let's wait till Imai decides, then losers on Imai might bid King up further? Makes sense for him to wait for bigger offer, that's what Boras usually does, and waiting never shrinks his offers I don't think.
But yeah,sometimes the market isn't strong. Darvish came for less than Theo or anybody had anticipated. It happens sometime. Athletic, ESPN, traderumors predicted Tucker for like $460, $418, and $400. And last spring I think you were predicting in the $450-600 range, maybe? Well beyond $400? But now, in Athletics front office poll, 10 or 16 front-office guys didn't think he'd even clear $400. Who knows?
But you're probably right, and Buster will probably be wrong if he's hearing soft bidding.
-
Mooney and Sharma say Cubs again interested in Bregman:
I was interested in Cheryl Ladd at one time. That went as far as this will.
-
...read the first three words of that and had tightness in my chest...
-
Cubs trade Nico Zeglin, not in their top-30 but a guy who had a great 2024 in the low minors, to Houston for international pool space. Also, MLB declares 13 Cuban players free agents.
-
Mark Feinsand
@Feinsand
·
4m
Full Red Sox-Pirates trade, per source:
Boston gets RHP Johan Oviedo, LHP Tyler Samaniego and C Adonys Guzman
Pittsburgh gets OF Jhostynxon Garcia (BOS No. 3 prospect per
@MLBPipeline
) and RHP Jesus Travieso
-
Yeah, Darvish, Bellinger, Cubs have tended to wait for market to be soft enough so that a guy doesn't get an offer higher than what management sees as decent value. Bregman last spring was similar deal. Obviously the wonderful Neris deal, and Mancini was kinda like that too.
1st, that means Hoyer isn't likely to be signing any starting-caliber guys next week. If they don't get offers better than Cubs, they'll wait variably longer in hopes that bids rise later. So I don't envision any big-scale moves next week. for cubs, that is. exception maybe if a player tells agent his wife wants this decided, so she knows before Christmas, has time for a cruise, and has time to look at luxury homes with husband before spring training pulls him away.
2nd, as you say, *if* bidding is soft, maybe that will provide some opportunity. we used to talk mongo dollars for tucker. last week I saw article where 10 of 16 front-office guys polled thought Tucker would come in below $400. Maybe Tucker or Imai or Bregman or King will end up settling for a price Hoyer will swallow?
Why would any of those guys not get the contracts they're projected to get? Wishing won't make it happen.
There's lots of chatter about the Cubs and King, and he's the sort of second-tier guy you could see Hoyer making his big stretch of the offseason. But the problem is if the Cubs are really interested in Imai (I'm hugekly skeptical, but just for the sake of argument say they are), King will likely be gone long before Imai signs. He's not even doing visits until after the meetings and top Japanese guys usually sign late. King will have multiple 3-4 year offers and given that he knows for the truly big teams he's likely a second choice, he'll probably grab one of those offers pretty early.
-
Mooney and Sharma say Cubs again interested in Bregman:
“Cubs have shown renewed interest in the All-Star third baseman, according to sources briefed on the club’s offseason planning….Whatever happens next — the Winter Meetings start Dec. 7 — it’s clear that the Cubs aren’t waiting around until spring training or focusing solely on the pitching side of the equation.”
-
That seems like a big opportunity for a team with a lot of money (and only one guaranteed contract on the books after 2026) to take advantage. It could be a game-changing offseason for that team.
Unfortunately...
Yeah, Darvish, Bellinger, Cubs have tended to wait for market to be soft enough so that a guy doesn't get an offer higher than what management sees as decent value. Bregman last spring was similar deal. Obviously the wonderful Neris deal, and Mancini was kinda like that too.
1st, that means Hoyer isn't likely to be signing any starting-caliber guys next week. If they don't get offers better than Cubs, they'll wait variably longer in hopes that bids rise later. So I don't envision any big-scale moves next week. for cubs, that is. exception maybe if a player tells agent his wife wants this decided, so she knows before Christmas, has time for a cruise, and has time to look at luxury homes with husband before spring training pulls him away.
2nd, as you say, *if* bidding is soft, maybe that will provide some opportunity. we used to talk mongo dollars for tucker. last week I saw article where 10 of 16 front-office guys polled thought Tucker would come in below $400. Maybe Tucker or Imai or Bregman or King will end up settling for a price Hoyer will swallow?
-
That seems like a big opportunity for a team with a lot of money (and only one guaranteed contract on the books after 2026) to take advantage. It could be a game-changing offseason for that team.
Unfortunately...
I have no insight into what Cubs actually will do in free agency.
But, Sharma said that Cubs were in on Cease until bidding got to $200 M. Exact Sharma wording is: “According to a league source, the Cubs were in on Dylan Cease but bowed out as the bidding reached the $200 million mark.”
If true, that does not sound like a team unwilling to spend for somebody really good. I don’t know—maybe Cease was a one off and Cubs don’t value anybody else.
Lots of guys will be signing soon, with the winter meetings coming next week and probably trades too. No clue what Cubs will do.
Think I’ll just wait and see how the off-season plays out. To those of you who already know, congratulations.
-
Buster is saying that a lot of free agents (aside from the very top guys) are not going to get the money they expect to get.
Of course, they will end up signing somewhere. But, at more modest dollars.
And that many clubs less interested in spending for free agents will fill needs via trade route.
If true (and beat writers Alden Gonzalez and Jorge Castillo agreed with Buster in their podcast discussion), that seems pretty significant.
The exception—they said— are the Jays who are going to spend. (Buster said Tucker’s agent should not let the Jays get off the phone).
That seems like a big opportunity for a team with a lot of money (and only one guaranteed contract on the books after 2026) to take advantage. It could be a game-changing offseason for that team.
Unfortunately...
-
Buster is saying that a lot of free agents (aside from the very top guys) are not going to get the money they expect to get.
Of course, they will end up signing somewhere. But, at more modest dollars.
And that many clubs less interested in spending for free agents will fill needs via trade route.
If true (and beat writers Alden Gonzalez and Jorge Castillo agreed with Buster in their podcast discussion), that seems pretty significant.
The exception—they said— are the Jays who are going to spend. (Buster said Tucker’s agent should not let the Jays get off the phone).
-
FWIW, Buster said on his Podcast today that he’s been asking around MLB….and what he heard is that, generally speaking, teams won’t be spending on free agents and that this Winter will be focused on trades. Said a handful of guys will get their money but “not good conditions” for free agents this Winter.
Not sure what that really means or what relevance it has?
Obviously there isn't a Soto or Ohtani this year. It's not going to be like Tucker-Correa-Bogaerts-DeGrom winter. And yeah, Ranger Suarez isn't really on planet with Fried or Yamamoto or DeGrom. So yeah, won't be the record-setting dollars or lengths as the last 3 winters. So, maybe when cats like Tucker and Framber are the best FA's available, that seems boring to media.
But, not sure that's really what he's meaning? I's not like Buster needed to ask around to know that Tucker isn't Ohtani or Soto.
But the guys who are FA's will not go unemployed. The baseball question of where Tucker, Alonzo, Bichette, Schwarber goes is still really baseball interesting.
Maybe he's saying that Dodgers, Yankees, Mets aren't planning to raise their payrolls a lot? If so, that might be good news in Cubs pursuit of Tucker, Bellinger, and Imai, beats me.
-
Emilio Pagan 2/$20 with an opt-out to remain in Cincy.
-
Ponce would definitely be in Hoyer's strike zone, as like his once a winter stretch target. But once a competitive teams gets interested he's pretty much priced out.
-
Agents must roll their eyes when the see Jed Hoyer's name pop up on their phones. They still have to answer it, but they know by now that they're not getting a serious offer.
LOL ESPN had an article lately on all the Free Agents and who was in the hunt. Of all the Free Agents, the Cubs were mentioned ONCE. It was Dylan Cease. On trades, another article, Cubs are mentioned not at all. I realize that means nothing, except even the country's writers don't see the Cubs doing anything either, so why should we?
BTW, when I mentioned Ponce and Fairbanks the other day, I didn't mean I hoped we'd get them, but that would be about Hoyer's speed. He can't even snag the low hanging fruit.
-
FWIW, Buster said on his Podcast today that he’s been asking around MLB….and what he heard is that, generally speaking, teams won’t be spending on free agents and that this Winter will be focused on trades. Said a handful of guys will get their money but “not good conditions” for free agents this Winter.
-
Sharma said, in effect, "the Cubs were in on Dylan Cease but dropped out when the bidding reached what everyone predicted it would reach".
For everything there is a season, turn, turn, turn.
Agents must roll their eyes when the see Jed Hoyer's name pop up on their phones. They still have to answer it, but they know by now that they're not getting a serious offer.
-
Sharma said, in effect, "the Cubs were in on Dylan Cease but dropped out when the bidding reached what everyone predicted it would reach".
Well, NO.
Actually, none of the major sites projected the Cease deal to reach $200 M—the point where Sharma says Cubs dropped out.
The Cease projections:
ESPN $145
MLBTR $189
Fangraphs $155
BA $160
Athletic $174
There’s an interesting discussion at The Athletic podcast “Roundtable” on why the heck Cease got as much as he did, which is puzzling to the commentators in that discussion and, as noted above, well above the Cease projections.
-
Sharma said, in effect, "the Cubs were in on Dylan Cease but dropped out when the bidding reached what everyone predicted it would reach".
For everything there is a season, turn, turn, turn.
-
Nuts. The Jay's are spending their WS money. Wonder if they would trade a pitcher.
Maybe with Cease and Ponce added, along with Gausman, Yesavich, Bieber already in hand, and Berrios expecting to be fully healthy, that kinda takes Jays out on Imay and King, etc.. May also be that if they spend for Bichette, they maybe won't also stretch max for Tucker?
-
Nuts. The Jay's are spending their WS money. Wonder if they would trade a pitcher.
-
Ponce to the Jays, 3 years per Rosenthal.
-
Deferring seems like win-win-win. What's the drawback? Some agents and players like those, but some agents don't like them? Or is it some teams that don't like them, and if so why?
-
Williams also gets a $6 million signing bonus.
$15M is deferred. So, present day value is about $43 M. 3/$43.
-
Devin Williams to the Mets, 3 years, $45 million. Mets are still trying to bring back Edwin Diaz too.
Williams also gets a $6 million signing bonus.
-
Devin Williams to the Mets, 3 years, $45 million. Mets are still trying to bring back Edwin Diaz too.
-
It's only two signings. But if pitchers cost more than expected this offseason, it's going to be a very bad winter for Jed.
LOL. How? It gives Jed the perfect rationale for sitting on his hands. I think he'll make a serious effort to resign Keller, but not much else.
-
BA projected Helsley at 4/$70. Athletic had him at $16 AAV for one year. Others were 2/$24 mostly.
Think that Helsley particularly difficult to project because of the erratic season he had in 2025.
Remains to be seen how others are valued. Most years, probably a safe bet that certain players get more than projected. Some will get less too.
-
Jed will definitely try to sign this guy.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/11/kohei-arihara-considering-mlb-return.html
-
Early Cease/Helsley deals are coming in higher than the media predictions. Guessing that will remain true for most desirable pitchers.
It's only two signings. But if pitchers cost more than expected this offseason, it's going to be a very bad winter for Jed.
-
That seems a reasonable deal, to me. I'd hoped he'd be a guy we'd get, and that Hottovy would be able to help him get the max out of his stuff. Oh well.
Early Cease/Helsley deals are coming in higher than the media predictions. Guessing that will remain true for most desirable pitchers.
My recall may be faulty, but I don't recall many significant deals getting settled by Thanksgiving weekend in years past, as with Cease/Helsley (and Maton too). I'm probably not remembering, maybe. But it would be fun if the market moved a little quicker this year, and most guys were mostly done by end of month.
-
2/28 with an opt-out.
Every time a good FA pitcher signs, apologists are going to say "eh, it's fine, the Cubs were never going to pay that", as if that weren't, you know, the problem.
-
Helsley to the Orioles, 2 year deal…
-
He a good pitcher. He going to be expensive, probably $100+ million and with the Cubs spending that probably limits future moves. It kinda of why I was opposed to going after Dansby. He's a fine player, but he a league average hitter, great defensive SS and he's going to be the most expensive player on the Cubs roster for the duration of his deal. That isn't an ideal use of resources.
The same goes for Suarez. He's good, he'd do well in the front of the Cub defense. The Cubs at some point need strike outs at least Cease would add that and he's right handed.
My other issue is just free agents in general this year. Cease and Suarez are going to into their age 30 seasons. You'll get them basically for 30, their age 31 season is going to be shortened/lost with a lock out and so then you are looking at age 32. Lester hit a pretty decline starting at 33, so you just aren't going to be getting as much bang for buck.
It would be completely different with somebody like Imai since he's 27, but I just have a hard time believing the Cubs are going to be at the top of the market.
-
Not sure I'm tracking re Suarez. What's the basis for the negativity? I assume it's low velocity combined with decline in velocity?
No idea what the price would be, versus other options. But as a strike-thrower, he'd seem to fit Hoyer's mode. His stuff isn't good enough for him to be a big ticket. But he's been a pretty good pitcher with pretty good control. I'd think as a groundball guy, Cubs infield defense would be a perfect fit for him. He doesn't give up a lot of HR's, so maybe Wrigley's HR-suppresion would be wasted?
-
No, just no.
-
Seems to be enough chatter about the Cubs and Ranger Suárez to think there's something to it. Nothing Jed loves more than soft-tossing lefty SP. Except maybe cheap guys on the waiver wire, so he might consider Suárez too expensive even though he fits the Cubs' profile to a T. He checks every box except for the fact that he's actually good, and that might be a deal-breaker.
-
Rumor on Sox talk was the ask was Sanders and Mule.
-
Well, considering reports are Jed wasn't apt to give up Ballesteros, Shaw, or Caissie, not sure what they could've gotten…
For a rental.
Would you, for a rental?
-
I'm not disappointed that we didn't get Houser as I don't think he is very good, but we certainly should have done better than we did.
Well, considering reports are Jed wasn't apt to give up Ballesteros, Shaw, or Caissie, not sure what they could've gotten. Wiggins' name was not mentioned on deadline day which makes me think other teams know something about his physical issue.
-
I'm not disappointed that we didn't get Houser as I don't think he is very good, but we certainly should have done better than we did.
-
The Cubs and Sox almost had a trade for Adrian Hauser. ‘ We worked really hard but didn’t quite get there.”Hoyer told me. Getz confirmed that they had conversations up to 30 min before the deadline.Getz said he thought they were close for the prospects they asked for.
https://x.com/MLBBruceLevine/status/1951082518754553978
-
How To Acquire Players After The MLB Trade Deadline
By Steve Adams | August 2, 2025 at 7:14am CDT
It still wasn’t that long ago that MLBTR kicked off by reminding longtime MLB fans (or explaining to new fans) how the dizzying rules regarding August trade waivers worked. It was a convoluted process — one that saw nearly every player in the league placed on revocable trade waivers at some point (heavy emphasis on “revocable”) — but one that front offices increasingly used as creative means to pull off significant acquisitions after the supposed “deadline.”
In reality, under the old rules, the first “trade deadline” was never the actual deadline — it just wasn’t as catchy to use the full term, “non-waiver trade deadline.” As time progressed, the month of August increasingly served as a means of swapping out higher-priced talents in waiver trades that were still quite noteworthy. If you’re seeing Justin Verlander, Andrew McCutchen, Josh Donaldson and others change hands in late August, just before the deadline for postseason eligibility — was the non-waiver deadline really a trade “deadline” at all? Not so much.
Back in 2019, Major League Baseball opted to quash the ever-growing process of August roster reconstruction. The league put an end to waiver trades that often served as a means of teams hitting the “eject” button on notable contracts and saw larger-payroll clubs take on those deals simply because they possessed the financial wherewithal to do so. MLB implemented a more concrete “true” trade deadline that prohibited players on Major League contracts — or any who were on a Major League contract but had been outrighted — from being traded after the deadline.
Does that mean teams can no longer acquire new players or address injuries as they arise? No, but their avenues to do so are substantially narrower. Here’s a look at how Major League front offices can still augment their roster now that the “true” trade deadline has passed:
1. Trades!
Wait, what? I thought we just–
Yes, we did. But it turns out that the “true” trade deadline is really only the “true” trade deadline for Major League players! Fun how that works, right? In all likelihood, you’ll still see several players change hands this month, they just won’t be very exciting. But, veterans who’ve been playing the entire season on a minor league contract and haven’t at any point had that contract selected to the 40-man roster or been on the Major League injured list are still fair game to be traded.
Will you see any huge, blockbuster names flipped? Of course not — but there are still some recognizable names eligible to be traded. Among the position players in Triple-A who have been enjoying above-average production are Christian Arroyo (Phillies), Ben Gamel (Angels), Yonny Hernandez (Mets) and Trey Mancini (D-backs) — just to name a few. It’s obviously not a star-studded collection of talent, but it’s feasible enough that a team could get some big league value from someone in this group (or from one of the numerous other former big leaguers who has yet to appear on a 40-man roster).
Those are just some of the former big leaguers who are eligible to be traded, so long as any player(s) going back the other way have also not been on a 40-man roster or Major League injured list. It’s common for August deals to be simple cash swaps, as well.
There were a handful of post-deadline swaps in 2024, though the majority of them involved minor leaguers who didn’t reach the majors. That wasn’t true across the board, however. Right-hander David Buchanan went from the Phillies to the Reds in exchange for cash. He wound up pitching a tiny sample of 3 1/3 innings in Cincinnati. On Aug. 31, the Braves traded Yuli Gurriel to the Royals, who immediately selected his contract and plugged him onto the roster. Gurriel appeared in 18 games for K.C. and slashed .241/.338/.296 in 65 regular season plate appearances; he made their playoff roster.
The most interesting post-deadline deal in 2024 actually came even beyond August. The Braves acquired utilityman Cavan Biggio from the Giants in exchange for cash. It was a surprising move, if only because Biggio actually had appeared in the majors that season. While many — MLBTR included — were of the belief that under the current rule setup, that prevented him from being traded, that wasn’t technically the case.
Biggio had been on a 40-man roster but had been designated for assignment by the Dodgers and released. Upon clearing release waivers, he signed a new minor league deal with San Francisco. Since that new minor league contract had not been selected to the roster at any point in the season — and was not a major league contract that had been passed through waivers and then assigned outright to a minor league affiliate — he again met the criteria to be traded. In theory, that makes any player who is released and signed to a minor league deal with a new organization eligible to be traded post-deadline.
Just to speculate a bit — and we haven’t seen this in the past, but it’s technically possible — teams can engineer minor league trades, so long as the players involved have not been on the 40-man roster at any point in a given season. It’s doubtful we’ll see any top prospects change hands in this regard, but it’s not expressly forbidden, either.
And, just to rain on your parade, no — teams cannot game the system using players to be named later. The rules pertaining to the “true” trade deadline made sure to include the following language:
“The Commissioner’s Office will prohibit any transaction (or series of transactions) that, in the judgment of the Commissioner’s Office, appears (or appear) designed to circumvent the prohibitions of Rule 9(b).”
Nice try, folks, but don’t get your hopes up.
Just remember, anyone acquired after Aug. 31 isn’t postseason-eligible with his new club, so minor swaps of any relative note will likely take place before the calendar flips to September.
It won’t lead to any exciting trades, but we’ll likely still see some trades this month. You’ll just have to wait until the offseason for the chatter on Sandy Alcantara, Mitch Keller, Joe Ryan, Pete Fairbanks, Jarren Duran and others.
2. Outright and Release Waivers
Revocable trade waivers are no longer a thing, but regular old outright waivers and release waivers are alive and well. Any time a player is designated for assignment now, the team’s only recourse will be to place him on outright waivers or release waivers. At that point, the other 29 teams will have the opportunity to claim that player … and the entirety of his remaining contract.
Of course, a team doesn’t need to announce a DFA or even announce that a player has been put on waivers. It’s fairly common for a team to just announce that a player cleared waivers and was outrighted to a minor league affiliate without ever publicly declaring a DFA. Players who are placed on outright waivers without being designated for assignment can continue to play in their team’s games. And, if a player clears waivers, he does not necessarily need to be assigned outright to a minor league affiliate. He can return to the active roster. In that sense, teams can use outright waivers as a means to try to jettison some unwanted money without necessarily committing to cutting the player if no other club bites. The 2021 Pirates did this with Gregory Polanco (granted, before simply designating him for assignment and releasing him a few days later).
An important reminder on waivers now that it’s the primary means of acquiring talent from another organization: waiver priority is determined based on overall record (worst record to best record) and, unlike the now-retired “revocable trade waivers,” is not league-specific. If the Rockies want outfielder Dustin Harris or lefty Bryan Hudson — designated for assignment by the Rangers and Brewers, respectively, following the deadline — they’ll have first crack. Next up would be the White Sox, Nationals, Braves, Pirates and so on — all based on the reserve order of the MLB-wide standings at the time (which is to say… the 28-80 Rockies are going to have first dibs all month long).
Teams who didn’t find sufficient interest in veteran players prior to the trade deadline and thus held onto them could eventually place those players on outright waivers in August, hoping another club will claim said player and simply spare the waiving team some cash. This is likelier to happen late in the month — when there’s less cash owed on those veteran contracts.
In 2023, we saw the Angels undergo a mass sell-off in hopes of dipping under the luxury tax. The Halos placed more than a quarter of their roster on waivers, with Lucas Giolito, Reynaldo Lopez, Matt Moore, Randal Grichuk, C.J. Cron, Hunter Renfroe, Dominic Leone and Tyler Anderson all hitting waivers. Giolito, Lopez, Moore, Renfroe and Leone were all claimed by new teams. Anderson, as with Polanco in ’21, went unclaimed and simply returned to the Angels’ roster. He’s still there two years later.
The 2023 Angels stand as an extreme example, but it’s feasible that a current fringe contender who’s not far over the luxury tax (or who simply wants to save some money) could do so again late this month.
As with any minor league trades, players claimed off waivers will only be postseason-eligible with their new club if claimed before 11:59pm ET on Aug. 31.
3. Sign Free Agents
Same as ever. Anyone who gets released or rejects an outright assignment in favor of free agency will be able to sign with a new team and, so long as the deal is wrapped up prior to Sept. 1, they’ll be postseason-eligible with a new team. It’s certainly feasible that a once-productive veteran enjoys a hot streak with a new club or fills a useful part-time role.
There aren’t many free agents of note still on the market — not after David Robertson signed with the Phillies last month. However, designated hitter J.D. Martinez has reportedly stayed in shape and remained open to signing. The Rangers are said to have made him a minor league offer earlier this summer. A contending club that either incurs an injury this month or simply didn’t find a deadline upgrade to its liking could conceivably roll the dice on Martinez.
The same postseason eligibility date applies to incoming free agents as well. As long as Martinez or any other free-agent additions are with their new organizations prior to Sept. 1 — they do not need to be on the 40-man roster at that point — he could make his way onto a postseason roster.
4. Scour the Independent Leagues
Roll your eyes all you want, but the Atlantic League, Frontier League and American Association (among other indie circuits) are all teeming with former big leaguers. Need a speedy fourth outfielder who can provide some late-game defense and baserunning during September roster expansion? A platoon bat off the bench? An extra southpaw to stash in the bullpen? There will be experienced names to consider.
Look up and down the Atlantic League leaderboards and you’ll find former big leaguers like Kyle Barraclough, Phillip Diehl, Dalton Guthrie and even Pablo Sandoval still rolling along. It’s unlikely anyone finds a true impact player on the indie scene, but then again, people cracked jokes when the 2015 Red Sox signed the aforementioned Hill away from the Long Island Ducks as a 35-year-old. He’s earned nearly $80MM and tossed more than 900 innings in the majors since joining the Red Sox under similar circumstances to the ones described here.
5. Look to Foreign Leagues
We don’t often see players return from the KBO, NPB or CPBL to sign with big league clubs midseason, but there’s precedent for it happening. There are also quite a few former big leaguers playing down in the Mexican League, creating another area for front offices to scout as they mine for depth options. Interest won’t be limited solely to former big leaguers, either. In 2022, the Mariners signed lefty Brennan Bernardino after a strong nine-start run in Mexico, watched him dominate through 12 2/3 innings in Triple-A Tacoma, and selected him to the Major League roster by the end of July. He made his MLB debut with Seattle in ’22, was claimed off waivers by the Red Sox earlier in ’23, and now carries a combined 3.47 ERA in 145 1/3 innings for the Red Sox from 2023-25. You never know!
-
NO
How do you really feel?
-
Yankees have reportedly released Stroman…
NO
-
I would prefer Cease (for reasons of fit and otherwise) but would love either one.
I must say, Hoyer’s deep-seated caution is generally a negative, but this is one instance where I consider it a plus. This was not the occasion to overpay and go all-in, and I’m glad we didn’t beat the offers for the likes of Keller and Bednar. Maybe for Suarez and Jax those were packages we might have wanted to match. Based on what the mediocre crop of rental SP was going for we can only assume the cost for the controllable guys - none of whom is a true TORP except Ryan - was comically ridiculous.
With both Horton and Brown facing workload management and Horton a guy you probably want to start a playoff game, it would be great if the Cubs could find some ingenious way to alternate them in the rotation for stretches while still keeping them stretched out enough to be useful as starters. But that would be a pretty tough ask.
I firmly believe that our Hot Stove season would have been significantly different if Jed didn't sign the extension.
-
Don't fetishize the prospects. We lost Gallagher? Draft another one next year.
Better yet, sign the MLB version of Gallagher via free agency and then draft another Gallagher next year.
-
Yankees have reportedly released Stroman…
-
Heh. That last paragraph was mine, not P2's. I meant to hit Quote, not Modify.
-
Im guessing that Hoyer doesn't look at this year as their one chance to be highly competitive. He likely thinks that the Cubs can be excellent for several years as long as they have good young players coming up from their minor league system. A massive overpay for a solid starter would have seriously compromised that approach and it's at least arguable whether the increased likelihood of winning the WS would have been sufficient justification.
Almost every online "expert" disagrees and feels that Hoyer fell short. Of course, it's not their money or job on the line.
-
Im guessing that Hoyer doesn't look at this year as their one chance to be highly competitive. He likely thinks that the Cubs can be excellent for several years as long as they have good young players coming up from their minor league system. A massive overpay for a solid starter would have seriously compromised that approach and it's at least arguable whether the increased likelihood of winning the WS would have been sufficient justification.
-
Some teams went overboard and we might pick up somebody in the DFA sweepstakes that helps a little. Tigers, for example, will be releasing bodies soon.
-
Yeah the Cubs should have never traded Torres for Chapman.
This year you have Boyd pitching like a Cy Young, Tucker for 1 year, PCA playing like a MVP. This is literally the year to be irrational. Having a playoff rotation of Shota, Boyd, maybe Taillon, maybe Horton, maybe Soroka is a fail. Just like going into the season with Shaw and no one else was a fail at third.
My worry for next year is Tucker walks. Free Agency is a starter on a short term deal, Castro and some bullpen guys. It will be a team that can compete for a playoff spot, but it won't be a good as this team. Then you let every walk after that year and you go into the look out with only Swanson as a big money guaranteed guy.
-
His Orioles remark was spot on…
-
Rosenthal rips new ones for Breslow and his mentor, Jed.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1951108197336703444
-
Another take on how Jed being Jed is a blessing and a curse.
Key sentence from this piece:
“What Hoyer needed to do at this deadline was become just a little irrational.”
NO! Being a little stupid is not a prescription for success.
-
Another take on how Jed being Jed is a blessing and a curse.
https://northsidebaseball.com/news-rumors/north-side-baseball/for-better-or-worse-chicago-cubs-jed-hoyer-is-who-he-is-r2035/?
-
Apparently, Willi Castro is batting 1,000 this season.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J78JjWBRhnU
-
There is clearly an assumption on the board that Tucker will not be back. At least one person has concluded that the fact that Caisie was not traded essentially guarantees that. Not sure why, since I doubt that neither the Cubs nor Tucker yet know with certainty whether he will br back. It is very reasonable to believe it to be extremely likely that he will not be back. But I keep getting confused about the readiness with which some are ready to conclude, apparently with certainty, various conclusions about the future.
I believe that there were two Top 100 prospects traded at the deadline. It’s rare. None at 2024 deadline.
So, to infer that the Cubs failure to trade a Top 50 prospect (Caissie) is indicative of anything other than it’s rare to trade a top prospect at the deadline is, well, absurd.
Very likely that Cubs will try to re-sign Tucker. Think Cubs will make a real effort. My guess is that likelihood of Cubs being successful at that is about similar odds of Dodgers winning the 2025 World Series or NL pennant: about 20.5% to 32.1% according to Fangraphs. Odds against it but could well happen. Maybe as low as 1 out of 5 chance or, at top end, about 1 out of 3. Just will have to play out. I know some folks think they know what will happen in the future. Actually, they don’t.
In any case, if Cubs fail to re-sign Tucker, it won’t be because they hung on to Caissie at the trade deadline.
-
There is clearly an assumption on the board that Tucker will not be back. At least one person has concluded that the fact that Caisie was not traded essentially guarantees that. Not sure why, since I doubt that neither the Cubs nor Tucker yet know with certainty whether he will br back. It is very reasonable to believe it to be extremely likely that he will not be back. But I keep getting confused about the readiness with which some are ready to conclude, apparently with certainty, various conclusions about the future. Seems to me that much about the future in baseball is far from certain. For example, I don't think anyone expected that at this point in the season the only team in MLB with a better record than the Cubs would be the Brewers.
-
No chance they'll spend the money it takes to get him. They need to save some money so they have the flexibility to make their big 2026 trade deadline move.
It's hard to see how the 26 payroll is even at face-saving level without at least one pretty major FA signing.
-
Except for the fact that he would be a fourth lefty starter, Valdez looks to be a perfect fit for the Cubs this offseason.
No chance they'll spend the money it takes to get him. They need to save some money so they have the flexibility to make their big 2026 trade deadline move.