Kaplan: "...whatever it costs [the Chicago Cubs are] paying it and they want to keep [Kyle] Tucker..."

I could be thinking about it totally wrong, but I keep going back to the idea that a future with Kyle Tucker and a future without Kyle Tucker doesn't really change Ricketts' annual salary spend. Giving him $40m a year is not the same thing as saying that we'll be $40m over the first luxury tax line for the life of the contract. There's a 2026 crunch (that can be avoided by essentially making the team worse), but really after that it's just allocating a large percentage of future spend (that he's likely going to spend anyways) to one player instead of two or three. 

Having said that, it's maybe just a bit awkward to have Hoyer sitting there, unsigned beyond this year, theoretically 'leading' the negotiations. If Ricketts is still on the fence in terms of Hoyer, that's maybe added motivation to keep the books clean for the next GM?

9 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I could be thinking about it totally wrong, but I keep going back to the idea that a future with Kyle Tucker and a future without Kyle Tucker doesn't really change Ricketts' annual salary spend. Giving him $40m a year is not the same thing as saying that we'll be $40m over the first luxury tax line for the life of the contract. There's a 2026 crunch (that can be avoided by essentially making the team worse), but really after that it's just allocating a large percentage of future spend (that he's likely going to spend anyways) to one player instead of two or three. 

Having said that, it's maybe just a bit awkward to have Hoyer sitting there, unsigned beyond this year, theoretically 'leading' the negotiations. If Ricketts is still on the fence in terms of Hoyer, that's maybe added motivation to keep the books clean for the next GM?

Conversely, wouldn't you want to lure a new VP of Baseball OPs in with "oh yeah, we have a top-5 position player in baseball"? 

(Just spitballing to your last point as a point of discuission)

I've been pretty adamant I thought the Cubs would come to the table in good with Tucker at some point. So I'm glad we're hearing this. I think I agree with your first part fully. 

6 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I could be thinking about it totally wrong, but I keep going back to the idea that a future with Kyle Tucker and a future without Kyle Tucker doesn't really change Ricketts' annual salary spend. Giving him $40m a year is not the same thing as saying that we'll be $40m over the first luxury tax line for the life of the contract. There's a 2026 crunch (that can be avoided by essentially making the team worse), but really after that it's just allocating a large percentage of future spend (that he's likely going to spend anyways) to one player instead of two or three. 

Having said that, it's maybe just a bit awkward to have Hoyer sitting there, unsigned beyond this year, theoretically 'leading' the negotiations. If Ricketts is still on the fence in terms of Hoyer, that's maybe added motivation to keep the books clean for the next GM?

I think the argument you could make for that is that there could be some really significant changes to the business of baseball over the life of Tucker's deal.  The RSN model is fragile, and owners might succeed in a harder cap.  Tucker being the choice for whatever portion of Approved Spending Number X is not really a Ricketts decision, I agree.  Tucker representing a risk(whether that risk is 10% or 80%) that the roster is unviable because he makes up an untenable amount of a post-RSN hard cap is something that's more at the ownership level.

But the thing that I am struck by is that there is a very different tone on the Cubs landing a player with a contract of this magnitude than there has been.  Part of that is they haven't had him on the roster already, but it seems pretty clear that they are approaching this differently than past pursuits.  

8 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I think the argument you could make for that is that there could be some really significant changes to the business of baseball over the life of Tucker's deal.  The RSN model is fragile, and owners might succeed in a harder cap.  Tucker being the choice for whatever portion of Approved Spending Number X is not really a Ricketts decision, I agree.  Tucker representing a risk(whether that risk is 10% or 80%) that the roster is unviable because he makes up an untenable amount of a post-RSN hard cap is something that's more at the ownership level.

But the thing that I am struck by is that there is a very different tone on the Cubs landing a player with a contract of this magnitude than there has been.  Part of that is they haven't had him on the roster already, but it seems pretty clear that they are approaching this differently than past pursuits.  

I've used Hoyer's words this winter a lot, but I'll continue to point to them - he was very clear when speaking about Soto about how he viewed that type of a commitment and that it was something that was going to be a long term discussion. Then they acquired Tucker right after; a player who they would have a full year to negotiate with. 

30 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I think the argument you could make for that is that there could be some really significant changes to the business of baseball over the life of Tucker's deal.  The RSN model is fragile, and owners might succeed in a harder cap.  Tucker being the choice for whatever portion of Approved Spending Number X is not really a Ricketts decision, I agree.  Tucker representing a risk(whether that risk is 10% or 80%) that the roster is unviable because he makes up an untenable amount of a post-RSN hard cap is something that's more at the ownership level.

But in this scenario, that's not really a 'Ricketts is cheap' issue, right? It's either 'Ricketts is veering off from the other owners in terms of what he believes the business of baseball will look like in 3-5 years' or it's 'the concept of any team in baseball signing that magnitude of a deal is non-viable', which is tough to stand behind given the Soto deal, the Vlad Jr deal, etc. Like, yeah, sure, there could be caveats in there about grandfathered in contracts or whatever, but you'd think as everyone gears up for a labor negotiation the owners plan to present a united front, and these deals signed in the last 6 months tend to go the other way. 

20 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

But in this scenario, that's not really a 'Ricketts is cheap' issue, right? It's either 'Ricketts is veering off from the other owners in terms of what he believes the business of baseball will look like in 3-5 years' or it's 'the concept of any team in baseball signing that magnitude of a deal is non-viable', which is tough to stand behind given the Soto deal, the Vlad Jr deal, etc. Like, yeah, sure, there could be caveats in there about grandfathered in contracts or whatever, but you'd think as everyone gears up for a labor negotiation the owners plan to present a united front, and these deals signed in the last 6 months tend to go the other way. 

Kinda, the way that 'Ricketts is cheap' scuttles the deal is less by direct intervention, and more by having spending levels so low that Jed/future Cubs POBO can't handle the risk of that much of their payroll being tied up in a single player.

10 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Kinda, the way that 'Ricketts is cheap' scuttles the deal is less by direct intervention, and more by having spending levels so low that Jed/future Cubs POBO can't handle the risk of that much of their payroll being tied up in a single player.

Yeah fair, but that takes me back to my original point I guess. If he's projecting some hard cap future, he's obviously on a different page than Cohen, the Blue Jays owners, etc. If he's just going to keep spending stagnant or lower it on his own, then we have much bigger problems, but it also seems weird to seemingly sign off on the Bregman deal, especially with the existing 2026 commitments, but also still have some plan to gradually shrink payroll starting like...three years from now?

Shifting gears to the other side of this particular situation, if you're Kyle Tucker, why are you possibly in a hurry right now? You've been in Chicago for all of a month, and the next contract you sign is almost certainly going to be your last one. Everyone here understands the appeal, but he's probably had like four Wrigley games where the temp has been above 50. Give him a little time. 

With the amount of wasted money in horsefeathers FA (Villar, Mancini etc) Jed has loaded the roster with, I'd rather crunch a little and have a star, than spread jt around to mediocre players at the end of their careers (Simmons, Hosmer, that ****** catcher from Cincinnati I can't remeber)

Yes. Pay the star. You can always salary dump him in a few years, then DFA the PTBNL, or Poteet him, or whatever.

30 minutes ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

With the amount of wasted money in horsefeathers FA (Villar, Mancini etc) Jed has loaded the roster with, I'd rather crunch a little and have a star, than spread jt around to mediocre players at the end of their careers (Simmons, Hosmer, that ****** catcher from Cincinnati I can't remeber)

Yes. Pay the star. You can always salary dump him in a few years, then DFA the PTBNL, or Poteet him, or whatever.

Looks right over the heads of Carson Kelly, Matthew Boyd, etc to somehow bring up Trey Mancini and Jonathan Villar (released 34 months ago!) again.

2 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Looks right over the heads of Carson Kelly, Matthew Boyd, etc to somehow bring up Trey Mancini and Jonathan Villar (released 34 months ago!) again.

Ha! Sure, look how amazing those two, bargain bin signings have been for a single month! How could i have ever overlooked it. I'm simply not myopic enough, 

But. I'm not gonna start sucking dicks over 29 games of production vs the track record of Jed and Co, the group that hasn't produced a runner-up in the division during his tenure. Why wouldn't his track record count when I was, you know. addressing his track record in signings?

(34 months? My GOD! Sooo long ago... way back in... 2022?  Sooo not relevant.)