Cubs Won't Buy At Deadline (Duh?), Still Deciding How/If To Trade Complicated Contract Situations

The luxury tax thing is overstated I think.  The extent they appear to be over the line, if they are at all, is tiny.  Essentially any cost saving move probably drops them back under.  So like they don't need to move Bellinger or Taillon, honestly saving just like $2-3M on a Smyly or Neris is probably plenty.  So I'd guess the framing here is more to indicate that if someone does want to play ball on Bellinger or Taillon Jed's willing to pay down their '24 salary.

Speaking of Bellinger and Taillon, I think they are the big ones to watch.  Depending in what exactly you have planned for this winter you may prefer to have those salaries back in your pocket.

Otherwise I think we mainly see roster cleanup stuff, like for instance Canario *must* go if we want to wring any value out of him.  Lopez probably needs to go before 60 day IL stints start running out, etc.

20 minutes ago, Bertz said:

The luxury tax thing is overstated I think.  The extent they appear to be over the line, if they are at all, is tiny. 

Oh, it's tiny but once you start the clock on the luxury tax, it escalates year over year. I find it interesting the Cubs aren't thinking about getting back under it so that the clock doesn't begin this season.

14 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Oh, it's tiny but once you start the clock on the luxury tax, it escalates year over year. I find it interesting the Cubs aren't thinking about getting back under it so that the clock doesn't begin this season.

I don't know if this is the plan for certain, but the repeater penalties only become a concern if you continue to raise payroll and live well above the tax line.  Take two hypotheticals of a 3 year sample:

A: under LT, 10 million over, 18 million over; 7.4 million in total penalties

B: 5 million over, 10 million over, 15 million over; 13 million in total penalties

In neither outcome are there draft penalties, and you're saving less than 6 million in penalties across a 3 year span by ducking under this first year.  Plus in the Cubs case, after year 3 (2026) they have an easy opportunity to reset(Bellinger, Happ, Seiya, Taillon, and Hoerner all FA), so there's less of a slippery slope.  Not to mention a new CBA starts in 2027.

1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I don't know if this is the plan for certain, but the repeater penalties only become a concern if you continue to raise payroll and live well above the tax line.  Take two hypotheticals of a 3 year sample:

A: under LT, 10 million over, 18 million over; 7.4 million in total penalties

B: 5 million over, 10 million over, 15 million over; 13 million in total penalties

In neither outcome are there draft penalties, and you're saving less than 6 million in penalties across a 3 year span by ducking under this first year.  Plus in the Cubs case, after year 3 (2026) they have an easy opportunity to reset(Bellinger, Happ, Seiya, Taillon, and Hoerner all FA), so there's less of a slippery slope.  Not to mention a new CBA starts in 2027.

True, if you just barely stay over the threshold, I guess it doesn't matter much.

I'm curious as to whether the Cubs are looking at their AAA/AAAA guys as possible trade sweeteners in possible deals out there.  Maybe Taillon on his own won't bring back more than a handful of scratch-off tickets, but Taillon + Canario could possibly net a 45+ FV prospect from a team looking for a SP and a power bat off the bench.

Considering their current roster construction, it'd make sense to explore all options, plus the acquiring team would get a young player under team control in return along with the bigger piece.

Related to the Athletic article is this podcast hit with Mooney.  I listened to these two dingbats talk for 20 minutes so you all don't have to.  Not a ton of insight (shocker!) but the things that stood out:

- Jesse made it sound like Mark Leiter is definitely gone, and Neris might get moved too

- He mentioned Hoerner, Taillon, and Bellinger as guys who probably don't go anywhere but could, which tracks with other reporting.  However he mentioned Morel along with them, which I don't think we've heard any smoke around

13 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Related to the Athletic article is this podcast hit with Mooney.  I listened to these two dingbats talk for 20 minutes so you all don't have to.  Not a ton of insight (shocker!) but the things that stood out:

- Jesse made it sound like Mark Leiter is definitely gone, and Neris might get moved too

- He mentioned Hoerner, Taillon, and Bellinger as guys who probably don't go anywhere but could, which tracks with other reporting.  However he mentioned Morel along with them, which I don't think we've heard any smoke around

 

Seems incredibly counterintuitive to get rid of Leiter from a pen that has struggled so hard. Yes they have a lot of guys to be optimistic about, but Leiter is nails when he's not being pitched into the ground. The return would have to be something fairly significant..

1 hour ago, Tryptamine said:

Seems incredibly counterintuitive to get rid of Leiter from a pen that has struggled so hard. Yes they have a lot of guys to be optimistic about, but Leiter is nails when he's not being pitched into the ground. The return would have to be something fairly significant..

I think it's a good idea if 3 conditions are met:

1. The team, having access to their medicals, is not worried about Alzolay and Merryweather for next year beyond the general worry you have around hard throwing relievers

2. The team is going to embrace the 2nd half youth movement in the pen.  I want at least 3 and ideally 4 of Hodge/Bigge/Palencia/Kilian/Roberts/etc. in the pen at any given time, and use the opportunity to give those guys leverage opportunities even if they haven't totally earned them

3. Most important, and to your point, Leiter needs to return something legitimately fun.  Wesneski and Brown were not super highly rated in preseason lists, but both were mid-breakout when we acquired them and after a few hours of sleuthing it became clear they were very very legit returns.  I want someone back who we're all like "Leiter's great but if you can get THAT for a 33 year old reliever you totally have to"

Even though we have a couple-few guys who possibly need to DH soon, I want Rooker.

22 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Even though we have a couple-few guys who possibly need to DH soon, I want Rooker.

The ask is apparently pretty significant given that you'd have him for 3.5 more years. I mean if you can get it done using Caissie and other lower end parts, by all means. Rooker is pretty much who we hope Caissie becomes anyway.

10 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Even though we have a couple-few guys who possibly need to DH soon, I want Rooker.

That guy's bat looks like everything we planned on Morel becoming. 

I guess we kinda had same like thoughts?

Spooky 

I don't love a pure DH as the way to improve the team.  That said the A's are a team that is likely to just want value and not be picky about what it looks like, i.e. they see no difference between 2 quarters and 5 dimes.  Also his salary is nothing, even with his breakout we're probably talking $6-8M next year?  He's a major addition that you can do a lot on top of, which you can't necessarily say for a lot of the others.

2 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

A generic might see that and say “oh, they’ve quit on 2024,” but this sounds like the approach the most optimistic like myself have been preaching the whole time. We can pretend its happenstance or whatever when players acquired “for 2025+” just happen to take the 2024 team to another level :dontknow:

Yea, that's the hope at least. For example, if the Rays are set on dealing Paredes at this deadline and Jed/the Cubs are really interested in acquiring Paredes, then go ahead and make the move. Then you can turn around and flip Morel to the Sox for a Teel package, etc, and you have a true Buy/Sell deadline. 

I don't want Paredes. His success relies so much on a unicorn skill of pulling the ball directly down the line. I'm just still not sold on long-term success.

Then again, 3B is a wasteland for us and there's no obvious help on the way. I like Shaw, but he's not hitting for much power right now and probably needs another full year before he's ready.

I guess there's just no good 3B options as things currently stand.

2 minutes ago, Rob said:

I don't want Paredes. His success relies so much on a unicorn skill of pulling the ball directly down the line. I'm just still not sold on long-term success.

Then again, 3B is a wasteland for us and there's no obvious help on the way. I like Shaw, but he's not hitting for much power right now and probably needs another full year before he's ready.

I guess there's just no good 3B options as things currently stand.

Yea, that's why I prefaced it with "If he's Jed's guy, make it happen". Might have one shot at him this deadline, and if someone else trades for him, 3b options for next season get even slimmer. If Jed doesn't believe his unique hitting skill will translate well with the Cubs, then pass on him. I like Shaw, but he's not in the tier of "Can't block" prospect. Make him force his way on the field, that's a good problem to have if he does. 

I like Cuzi's idea too. I like the "failed prospect" SS turned into 3B concept. 

1 hour ago, TomtheBombadil said:

If I’m trading for a Rays IF its Walls

i'm going to fight! fight! fight! you for even suggesting this

Or you could move Busch to 3rd and go get Vladdy. Although that potentially could be an awful corner infield defense. 

Third base may end up be the defining choice for how long Jed's tenure ends up lasting.  Because of how the rest of the roster is shaped(established vets in the corners + Busch at 1B, glove first options at 2B, SS, & probably CF), it is the obvious place to make a big upgrade if you can at all.  But the position just doesn't have that league-wide, you're either paying through the nose for a Paredes and hoping he continues, paying all the dollars and a pick for Bregman for him to go back to juiced-ball/trashcan levels of production, or you're doing something more creative.  I don't have an objection to creativity, but it means by definition you probably can't count on that spot being a big bat, which means the margins in the rest of the offense are that much narrower.

12 minutes ago, sneakypower said:

i'm going to fight! fight! fight! you for even suggesting this

Team MAGA is the new market inefficiency?

1 hour ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Yeah, I’ve still got no interest in Paredes. In general I don’t care to shop for need unless the player is absolutely loaded up. There’s no 3B that rouses me. If I’m trading for a Rays IF its Walls 

This makes my tummy hurt

I've said this before, but I'd absolutely love to steal a 3B from Baltimore. Gunnar isn't moving off SS so they have Westburg, Holliday and Mayo(iffy defense) who can play 3B. The issue is, outside of Steele, I don't think there's any piece they could move to land them.

7 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

I've said this before, but I'd absolutely love to steal a 3B from Baltimore. Gunnar isn't moving off SS so they have Westburg, Holliday and Mayo(iffy defense) who can play 3B. The issue is, outside of Steele, I don't think there's any piece they could move to land them.

A combo of taillon/leiter?