Chicago Cubs Have "Renewed Interest" In Alex Bregman

11 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Being honest, I don’t see the Cubs getting Bregman either. But he isn’t getting $35M a year for 7 years. But this discussion was specifically what would happen if the did get him. My guess is he doesn’t even get over $30M a year unless it is heavily deferred. And he isn’t getting 7 years. Most likely 5, but maybe a team adds a 6th year.

If the Cubs want to get a good starting pitcher for a lower salary I can see Cassie or Mo dealt. Not Shaw, unless Bregman was added. And, we both agree that’s unlikely. 

Is there a team that will go over 4 years for Bregman? We know the Cubs won't.

10 hours ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Why would the Cubs sign an expensive 3B only to trade their better, significantly less expensive 2B?

Off-setting cost. Shrugs. I didn’t say it was a good idea.

9 hours ago, NorthsideAvenger said:

Is there a team that will go over 4 years for Bregman? We know the Cubs won't.

He will most likely get 5 or 6 years, I would guess🤷. When it is all said and done I wouldn’t be surprised if the Cubs never were in on him. 

21 hours ago, ILMindState said:

John Rocker

Hahahaha I'm mad I didn't make this one

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

He will most likely get 5 or 6 years, I would guess🤷. When it is all said and done I wouldn’t be surprised if the Cubs never were in on him. 

That I do believe. 

21 hours ago, ILMindState said:

John Rocker

LOL. 

On 12/6/2025 at 9:46 AM, Cuzi said:

I'm not trading Shaw for his "pitching counterpart." What do you even envision that being? Taj Bradley?

anyway, justin steele is already on the roster

Do we need to define the word “interest” for these conversations?  😆 

18 minutes ago, BKHoo said:

Do we need to define the word “interest” for these conversations?  😆 

Interest - held a zoom meeting 3 weeks ago.

47 minutes ago, BKHoo said:

Do we need to define the word “interest” for these conversations?  😆 

"interest" means- PTR instructs Jed to go check the couch cushions for any extra spare change in case an offer is about to be made

On 12/6/2025 at 1:03 PM, Rcal10 said:

I don’t think a big bat is there primary need at this time. I think it will be pitching. TBH, I am surprised they are mentioned with Bregman. 

Me too.  I mean does anyone really believe if the price gets near where it was last year the Cubs won't do the same thing they did last year Re: Bregman.  I don't. 

It wouldn’t be Cub offseason news without buzzwords like “interest” or “close to signing”. 

Shaw is a great and volatile dude and I'd hate to see him go. Honestly, I'm not too keen with Bregman at all. I think Nico can go because Shaw is new, and we need rookies to shoot the average age down and increase our sustainability.

53 minutes ago, JHBulls said:

It wouldn’t be Cub offseason news without buzzwords like “interest” or “close to signing”. 

The thing is, it's always pretty volatile off-season.

We need actually good pitchers, and Matt Boyd's performance was ridiculously low. (Sorry for the controversial opinion.) I don't think, ultimately, we'll sign him at all.

1 hour ago, The Cubs Dude said:

Shaw is a great and volatile dude and I'd hate to see him go. Honestly, I'm not too keen with Bregman at all. I think Nico can go because Shaw is new, and we need rookies to shoot the average age down and increase our sustainability.

😂😂😂😂 dumbest post I’ve ever seen.

4 minutes ago, Chicago Al said:

😂😂😂😂 dumbest post I’ve ever seen.

Not even close. While I don’t agree with him, there has been far dumber posts. 

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Not even close. While I don’t agree with him, there has been far dumber posts. 

True, let me rephrase… One of the dumbest posts I’ve ever seen.

27 minutes ago, Chicago Al said:

😂😂😂😂 dumbest post I’ve ever seen.

If you really think that this is the dumbest post you've seen, I'm sure that you haven't been engaged within a forum like this regularly, as there are those who share unqualified opinions and the like. I'm sure there's much worse. Come on, dude. If you want me to have articulated something different, here is the reasoning behind what I said:

The Cubs' average age is roughly 30, and that is pretty old within the realm of baseball. We need rookies like Matt Shaw in order to make the team younger and more prosperous, because the stats say that rookies... well... improve and become more specialized. If we traded him and he became a prospect, it would be doom for us.

Furthermore, the Cubs are one of the oldest teams in the MLB, and if we slowly age, it would be detrimental. Trading for names that have been around for a while will ultimately not help us expand our legacy, meaning that we have to make some short-term opportunity costs in order to maximize future potential.

I hope this clarified my stance. Much more quality, eh?

7 minutes ago, The Cubs Dude said:

If you really think that this is the dumbest post you've seen, I'm sure that you haven't been engaged within a forum like this regularly, as there are those who share unqualified opinions and the like. I'm sure there's much worse. Come on, dude. If you want me to have articulated something different, here is the reasoning behind what I said:

The Cubs' average age is roughly 30, and that is pretty old within the realm of baseball. We need rookies like Matt Shaw in order to make the team younger and more prosperous, because the stats say that rookies... well... improve and become more specialized. If we traded him and he became a prospect, it would be doom for us.

I hope that this clarified my stance.

So to clarify, the Cubs need players who aren’t over the age of 30 because that’s just too old for a player to be playing baseball. In order for the Cubs to prosper, they need youth. Forget about everything else.

3 minutes ago, Chicago Al said:

So to clarify, the Cubs need players who aren’t over the age of 30 because that’s just too old for a player to be playing baseball. In order for the Cubs to prosper, they need youth. Forget about everything else.

Pretty much. But we also have to trade for actually decent pitchers as well. We don't have to necessarily forget about everything else as if it was an opportunity cost or something that we needed to "sacrifice." I just believe that we should put temporary success after long-term thoughts, just for starters. We can't sacrifice Shaw, since he has potential and the curve generally increases exponentially in terms of success for rookies in general. Same thing for PCA, despite the fact that I do detest him. Honestly, dude, it's just a weighing of factors to determine how to act within a specific context.

1 minute ago, The Cubs Dude said:

Pretty much. But we also have to trade for actually decent pitchers as well. We don't have to necessarily forget about everything else as if it was an opportunity cost or something that we needed to "sacrifice." I just believe that we should put temporary success after long-term thoughts, just for starters. We can't sacrifice Shaw, since he has potential and the curve generally increases exponentially in terms of success for rookies in general. Same thing for PCA, despite the fact that I do detest him. Honestly, dude, it's just a weighing of factors to determine how to act within a specific context.

So the focus is on 2032, Carter is that you?

3 minutes ago, Chicago Al said:

So the focus is on 2032, Carter is that you?

I guarantee you that I am not.

We have to make our curve as exponential and as maximizing as possible for the future. However, we should phase this out distinctly in terms of gradually increasing ratios of less than 25:more than 25, not something abrupt.

1 hour ago, The Cubs Dude said:

Pretty much. But we also have to trade for actually decent pitchers as well. We don't have to necessarily forget about everything else as if it was an opportunity cost or something that we needed to "sacrifice." I just believe that we should put temporary success after long-term thoughts, just for starters. We can't sacrifice Shaw, since he has potential and the curve generally increases exponentially in terms of success for rookies in general. Same thing for PCA, despite the fact that I do detest him. Honestly, dude, it's just a weighing of factors to determine how to act within a specific context.

Cubs average age was raised a lot by old pen arms who aren’t on the team any longer. While that may have brought their average age to the highest in the league, the bulk of roster is not that old. They certainly are not the youngest, but they are far from old. Most of the Cubs age came from guys who are that important or not on the team any longer. Pomeranz, Theilbar, Brasier, Turner, Kelly brought the average age up quite a bit. And only Kelly is back. 

24 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Cubs average age was raised a lot by old pen arms who aren’t on the team any longer. While that may have brought their average age to the highest in the league, the bulk of roster is not that old. They certainly are not the youngest, but they are far from old. Most of the Cubs age came from guys who are that important or not on the team any longer. Pomeranz, Theilbar, Brasier, Turner, Kelly brought the average age up quite a bit. And only Kelly is back. 

I guess so. But we still can't get seasoned dudes like Bregman because we need to increase our pitching skill with moderately new dudes who have the perfect balance between young age and cognizance on the field.

Off-topic, but Rizzo holds a special place for me. I wish he had returned despite my philosophy for the team, but at least he is an honorary Cub retiree.

And I think PCA is immature and emotional, but we need him due to the strict necessity of lowering the age with people who can be decent--or claim to be.

Nico needs to go, bro.