Levine: Alex Bregman Open to Short-Term Deals, Cubs Have Talked to Scott Boras About It

1 minute ago, Post Count Padder said:

Ok so at this point, if Boob's reporting is accurate, then hard no on Bregman and move on. I admit like everyone else I was excited about adding a big name to the lineup but the upgrade in terms of WAR is minimal and would cause some payroll issues. And after missing out on Alonso, I could see the Blue Jays just caving. Their 3B depth chart is Ernie Clement and Davis Schneider.

Now just bolster the bench and maybe add another reliever, though after Brasier it wouldn't surprise me if this is the pen we take into camp.

I think the pen is done. Just bench help, unless they can trade for a starting pitcher. If this is all they do they missed a chance at passing a MOR starter better than Rea. Decent off season, but could have been better. If they extend Tucker by adding to this years salary in the extension that would be good use of the money. But sadly I think the money not spend is going to end up in Ricketts pocket. 

27 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I don't think there's much of a worry that Bregman is going to head much further without signing. While I don't think position players face the uphill battle that pitchers do, we really haven't seen a position player work deep into spring training without signing for a while. The Cubs kick things off on the 9th, everyone is in by the 13th. It feels like if it doesn't happen today, I'd guess there's little/no chance he's going to wait this out past Sunday. 

Much like we saw Pete Alonso fall off the board yesterday, eventually Bregman is going to want to get a move on. He's got offers on the table (seemingly differently than Nick Pivetta who...talk about silence!). Whether it's Chicago, Toronto, Houston, Detroit. or Boston, he'll probably in camp right around the start somewhere. 

I'm still betting on Houston, like Alanso, he should go back if the offer is still on the table. 

Yeah, I think eventually he and the astros work something out. Really thought it would be Detroit for awhile there. 

18 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

If the Cubs could do a 1 for 1 Hoerner for Schmidt I would be all in on it. Cubs are also saving around $7M on the trade. Which they may need to do. 

No way I do that trade. 

7 hours ago, CubinNY said:

It's the Sporting News so take it with a pinch, but there is speculation that instead of Nico the Cubs would put Suzuki on the block to trade. I think I like that better.

If they trade any of them just for a money dump Ricketts is a cheap POS

4 hours ago, KCCub said:

 

If ole Bob is correct, then all our convos are moot lol. 

If we were all Bregman we wouldn't want the short term deal either.  But if the market and offer isn't there he has no choice.

I wonder what the plan is with the bench if they add Bregman.  Presumably it's Bregman in, Hoerner out, and the team is ~$10M short of the LT like we've presumed they'd end up for months. 

However, there's only two locked in spots on the bench currently: Kelly and Berti, and no money to address it further without eating into mid-season cash.

- Do you just roll internally regardless of fit?  Two of Canario/Brujan/Workman, and dump those guys as hitters at Iowa pop?

- Does essentially trading Bregman for Hoerner impact the makeup of the bench?  Since Bregman's not hurt like Hoerner, does Berti feel like adequate infield depth now?

- Are there any league minimum types that feel worthwhile?  Ty France at 1B?  Michael Taylor in CF?

8 minutes ago, Stratos said:

No way I do that trade. 

Really? You are the second person to think Nico for Clarke Schmidt is a hard no from the Cubs. What am I missing? I feel Cuzi loved Schmidt. Haven’t heard from him. Just curious, what does surplus value show these guys at? I am not saying you are wrong, I might be. I just thought Schmidt was more valuable. Keep in mind, if the Cubs got Bregman, I would rather no trade is made. I am only saying if one HAD to be made I thought this was fair. 

37 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Really? You are the second person to think Nico for Clarke Schmidt is a hard no from the Cubs. What am I missing? I feel Cuzi loved Schmidt. Haven’t heard from him. Just curious, what does surplus value show these guys at? I am not saying you are wrong, I might be. I just thought Schmidt was more valuable. Keep in mind, if the Cubs got Bregman, I would rather no trade is made. I am only saying if one HAD to be made I thought this was fair. 

I done some very basic table top math below that I think will paint the picture why you are seeing that response. 

*I gave Schmidt an Arb3 value of $5m and Arb4 value of $7m, which I'm guessing will be on the low end and bring his surplus down. Also, I gave him 1.5 fWAR for year 3 since ZiPS only had the next two seasons projected (1.8 and 1.5).

Hoerner - 7.7 (Projected ZiPS fWAR) x 9 ($9m per WAR) = $69.3m - $23.5m (Remaining contract) = $45.8m surplus

Schmidt - 4.8 (Projected ZiPS fWAR 3 years) X 9 = $43.2m - $15.6m (Estimated remaining contract) = $27.7m surplus

Again, very basic math to show surplus but this isn't the exact science. 

5 minutes ago, KCCub said:

I done some very basic table top math below that I think will paint the picture why you are seeing that response. 

*I gave Schmidt an Arb3 value of $5m and Arb4 value of $7m, which I'm guessing will be on the low end and bring his surplus down. Also, I gave him 1.5 fWAR for year 3 since ZiPS only had the next two seasons projected (1.8 and 1.5).

Hoerner - 9.7 (Projected ZiPS fWAR 2 years) x 9 ($9m per WAR) = $87.3m - $23.5m (Remaining contract) = $63.8m surplus

Schmidt - 4.8 (Projected ZiPS fWAR 3 years) X 9 = $43.2m - $15.6m (Estimated remaining contract) = $27.7m surplus

 

Again, very basic math to show surplus but this isn't the exact science. 

Just looked up both guys in surplus value. Clarke comes in at just over $20M and Nico about $23M. I think Nico is being overvalued by the Cub base. Again, I would rather just keep him. But you aren’t getting much better than Schmidt for him, if the goal is also saving money. 

22 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Just looked up both guys in surplus value. Clarke comes in at just over $20M and Nico about $23M. I think Nico is being overvalued by the Cub base. Again, I would rather just keep him. But you aren’t getting much better than Schmidt for him, if the goal is also saving money. 

Updated my calculations as I had fat fingered Nico's projected fWAR. Just curious of where you got that info? BTV is not well regarded btw if that's where.

7 minutes ago, KCCub said:

Updated my calculations as I had fat fingered Nico's projected fWAR. Just curious of where you got that info? BTV is not well regarded btw if that's where.

It is where I got it. That said, I think you are a little low on Schmidt and high on Nico. I think they are closer than you suggest. I also don’t think the Cubs get much more than a MOR starter. Maybe I am higher in Schmidt than I should be. I think he is going to be better than Tailon the from here on out. So, basically a #3. When you factor in his salary is only $3.6M this year and has 2 more years of control after this one. I don’t think they can expect more. 
Circling back, however, I would rather they not trade anyone. But if they had to move Nico and were to get a pitcher back while saving money, who is someone who falls within a few million in surplus value to Nico? Just looking for someone who would fit “value wise” so I can understand what should be expected for Nico. Doesn’t have to actually fit as a trade partner. This is just for my knowledge moving forward. Does Sanchez of the Phillies match? I am pretty sure Kirby and Gilbert don’t. 

19 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

It is where I got it. That said, I think you are a little low on Schmidt and high on Nico. I think they are closer than you suggest. I also don’t think the Cubs get much more than a MOR starter. Maybe I am higher in Schmidt than I should be. I think he is going to be better than Tailon the from here on out. So, basically a #3. When you factor in his salary is only $3.6M this year and has 2 more years of control after this one. I don’t think they can expect more. 
Circling back, however, I would rather they not trade anyone. But if they had to move Nico and were to get a pitcher back while saving money, who is someone who falls within a few million in surplus value to Nico? Just looking for someone who would fit “value wise” so I can understand what should be expected for Nico. Doesn’t have to actually fit as a trade partner. This is just for my knowledge moving forward. Does Sanchez of the Phillies match? I am pretty sure Kirby and Gilbert don’t. 

You're far higher on Clarke Schmidt's trade value than I think it deserves.  Clarke Schmidt is a somewhat interesting pitcher in terms of what he might do, but it's almost entirely theoretical at this stage. Normally, when we talk theoretical value, we usually are talking about, like, a 24 or 25 year old, not someone who's less than 30 days until his 29th birthday. His career fWAR is, essentially, the same as any one of the last three single seasons Hoerner has. 

I get seeing some interesting things with Schmidt, I can see them too. But Hoerner has age on his side, far less variance, and the cost between the two is $7m this year, and likely less next year (especially if Schmidt does well). Realistically, the only check box in Schmidt's corner is one year of control which is definitely not a nothing, but almost assuredly doesn't overshadow the significant variance difference in what they might be. Hoerner's a bang on high 3's-low 4's 2b, where as Clarke Schmidt is anything from "maybe an okay back end guy" to "maybe a 3 win SP" who's pitched a full slate just once in his career (and it was fine-ish but that's about it).

I've had an issue with BBTV's surplus value on Hoerner dating back earlier this offseason in discussions with his value comparative to Mariner's SP and seeing it again reminds me how I think they have his surplus value significantly lower than it belongs at. I'd be much closer to KC's value myself.q

54 minutes ago, KCCub said:

I done some very basic table top math below that I think will paint the picture why you are seeing that response. 

*I gave Schmidt an Arb3 value of $5m and Arb4 value of $7m, which I'm guessing will be on the low end and bring his surplus down. Also, I gave him 1.5 fWAR for year 3 since ZiPS only had the next two seasons projected (1.8 and 1.5).

Hoerner - 7.7 (Projected ZiPS fWAR) x 9 ($9m per WAR) = $69.3m - $23.5m (Remaining contract) = $45.8m surplus

Schmidt - 4.8 (Projected ZiPS fWAR 3 years) X 9 = $43.2m - $15.6m (Estimated remaining contract) = $27.7m surplus

 

Again, very basic math to show surplus but this isn't the exact science. 

So, if I am understanding this correctly, if Schmidt provided fWAR of 7.5 over the next 3 years that would amount to $67.5M. Minus his salary of $15.6M would put his SV around $51.9. Is this correct? What is the typical fWAR of a solid MOR starter? Is 2.5 a reach? Or is that decent? I am only asking because I am wondering if my difference of opinion is because I value Schmidt higher than what’s realistic. 

17 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

It is where I got it. That said, I think you are a little low on Schmidt and high on Nico. I think they are closer than you suggest. I also don’t think the Cubs get much more than a MOR starter. Maybe I am higher in Schmidt than I should be. I think he is going to be better than Tailon the from here on out. So, basically a #3. When you factor in his salary is only $3.6M this year and has 2 more years of control after this one. I don’t think they can expect more. 

Here's the projections. If they trade Nico straight up for Schmidt without a prospect coming back, I would be disappointed. Idk, maybe Schmidt breaks out of those projections and finds his groove in his age 29, 30, 31 seasons. But if they end up around that, count me out on that being the return for Nico. 

Schmidt:

Nico:

2 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

You're far higher on Clarke Schmidt's trade value than I think it deserves.  Clarke Schmidt is a somewhat interesting pitcher in terms of what he might do, but it's almost entirely theoretical at this stage. Normally, when we talk theoretical value, we usually are talking about, like, a 24 or 25 year old, not someone who's less than 30 days until his 29th birthday. His career fWAR is, essentially, the same as any one of the last three single seasons. 

I get seeing some interesting things with Schmidt, I can see them too. But Hoerner has age on his side, far less variance, and the cost between the two is $7m this year, and likely less next year (especially if Schmidt does well). Realistically, the only check box in Schmidt's corner is one year of control which is definitely not a nothing, but almost assuredly doesn't overshadow the significant variance difference in what they might be. Hoerner's a bang on high 3's-low 4's 2b, where as Clarke Schmidt is anything from "maybe an okay back end guy" to "maybe a 3 win SP" who's pitched a full slate just once in his career (and it was fine-ish but that's about it).

I've had an issue with BBTV's surplus value on Hoerner dating back earlier this offseason in discussions with his value comparative to Mariner's SP and seeing it again reminds me how I think they have his surplus value significantly lower than it belongs at. I'd be much closer to KC's value myself.q

Ok, thanks. Seriously I am not arguing with either of you. I am trying to learn about this. So, as I suggested with Schmidt, if another pitcher that scenerio would that be something rhenXhns should consider? Lower cost, a little more control and a decent MOR starter. Is that about what would be expected for Nico. Maybe Schmidt doesn’t fit that criteria. I like him, but I am not married to him. 

4 minutes ago, KCCub said:

Here's the projections. If they trade Nico straight up for Schmidt without a prospect coming back, I would be disappointed. Idk, maybe Schmidt breaks out of those projections and finds his groove in his age 29, 30, 31 seasons. But if they end up around that, count me out on that being the return for Nico. 

Schmidt:

Nico:

Yep, that is the problem. If the Cubs got Schmidt I would expect a MOR starter with 150+ innings. So taking him out of the equation I guess I should say the Cubs shouldn’t expect more than a MOR starter with maybe a little more control time left and at a cheaper salary, for Nico. I put Schmidt in that criteria. But not if he is only a guy who can be counted on for 100 innings. 

Not to muddy the waters even further, but I feel like you want to weigh short term production/projections over the longer term ones. A. They're more reliable, and B. a win now is more valuable than a win 3 years from now. If I wanted to overcomplicate the math, I'd weigh 2025/2026/2027 as like 50/30/20. 

7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Ok, thanks. Seriously I am not arguing with either of you. I am trying to learn about this. So, as I suggested with Schmidt, if another pitcher that scenerio would that be something rhenXhns should consider? Lower cost, a little more control and a decent MOR starter. Is that about what would be expected for Nico. Maybe Schmidt doesn’t fit that criteria. I like him, but I am not married to him. 

I know you're not arguing, no worries. I think we're just trying to show:

1. BBTV probably wouldn't be where we'd go to determine surplus value by highlighting these two. They have a very low value on Hoerner - they claim some sort of proprietary variables within their surplus value, and once we start adding their opinion in, you can mostly count me out. 

2. That in a scenario where Clarke Schmidt was the trade, that the Cubs would need more returning from the Yankees to makeup that difference in value. 

3. Instead, if it's some sort of a 1-1 swap for another SP, the Cubs would either need a better pitcher than Schmidt has been, or a pitcher with more control to offset that value. 

In the end, it's a like, almost a 100% moot point. Trueblood's article today made it pretty clear that a Hoerner trade seems to be focused on the prospect side of things for the time being. So I think any concern/worry/thoughts on Schmidt are probably wasted anyways. 

5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Yep, that is the problem. If the Cubs got Schmidt I would expect a MOR starter with 150+ innings. So taking him out of the equation I guess I should say the Cubs shouldn’t expect more than a MOR starter with maybe a little more control time left and at a cheaper salary, for Nico. I put Schmidt in that criteria. But not if he is only a guy who can be counted on for 100 innings. 

I'm sure 1908 is coming up with a better, more thought out post, but I think it comes down to we want to set our sights a little higher in terms of our one big SP move this season. In the scenario we are discussing (Nico being traded), that likely means Nico is moved for prospects instead of a SP. Then we turn around and move prospects for a higher end SP either before the season or more than likely at the deadline. Which is a lot of moving parts and one of the bear cases for signing Bregman. 

3 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I know you're not arguing, no worries. I think we're just trying to show:

1. BBTV probably wouldn't be where we'd go to determine surplus value by highlighting these two. They have a very low value on Hoerner - they claim some sort of proprietary variables within their surplus value, and once we start adding their opinion in, you can mostly count me out. 

2. That in a scenario where Clarke Schmidt was the trade, that the Cubs would need more returning from the Yankees to makeup that difference in value. 

3. Instead, if it's some sort of a 1-1 swap for another SP, the Cubs would either need a better pitcher than Schmidt has been, or a pitcher with more control to offset that value. 

In the end, it's a like, almost a 100% moot point. Trueblood's article today made it pretty clear that a Hoerner trade seems to be focused on the prospect side of things for the time being. So I think any concern/worry/thoughts on Schmidt are probably wasted anyways. 

Fair. Honestly I don’t want to trade Nico anyway. And, TBH, if signing Bregman only happens if they trade Nico I would rather they not sign Bregman. And I really hate the idea of Nico for prospects.

Two points, one on each side:

1. I agree with 1908 and KC that Hoerner is very undervalued by BBTV and we should ignore that.
2. The projections for Schmidt as shown above show 108 innings pitched, and I'm not totally sure what drives that number, but I was under the impression it was some sort of dynamic playing time projection analysis where he is coming in as the 5th/6th starter in the current Yankees rotation and that's just what normal fringe starters usually get in terms of innings. He threw 96 total last year and 159 in 2023 so he's capable of more. Basically what I'm saying if he got traded to the White Sox tomorrow he'd be their opening day starter, I would imagine his innings would go up (to that 150 IP number, maybe), and I would then imagine his projected fWAR would increase because I can't imagine his rate stats would take too much of a hit, right? Said another way, the rate stats give every pitcher some miniscule amount of projected fWAR per inning, and then it gets multiplied by how much they think he's going to play, which is somewhat a factor of the roster he's on. But I might be thinking about that wrong. 

14 minutes ago, KCCub said:

I'm sure 1908 is coming up with a better, more thought out post, but I think it comes down to we want to set our sights a little higher in terms of our one big SP move this season. In the scenario we are discussing (Nico being traded), that likely means Nico is moved for prospects instead of a SP. Then we turn around and move prospects for a higher end SP either before the season or more than likely at the deadline. Which is a lot of moving parts and one of the bear cases for signing Bregman. 

No, you did well explaining. As did 1908. I don’t see the point of signing Bregman if they have to trade Nico to make it happen. It gets even worse for me if they only get prospects for the enviable decline trade later in the year. For me, that is too many moving parts. Tarnish IF HE HAS TO BE TRADED, I want a guy useful now. Maybe Schmidt want the guy to target. All good. 

6 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Two points, one on each side:

1. I agree with 1908 and KC that Hoerner is very undervalued by BBTV and we should ignore that.
2. The projections for Schmidt as shown above show 108 innings pitched, and I'm not totally sure what drives that number, but I was under the impression it was some sort of dynamic playing time projection analysis where he is coming in as the 5th/6th starter in the current Yankees rotation and that's just what normal fringe starters usually get in terms of innings. He threw 96 total last year and 159 in 2023 so he's capable of more. Basically what I'm saying if he got traded to the White Sox tomorrow he'd be their opening day starter, I would imagine his innings would go up (to that 150 IP number, maybe), and I would then imagine his projected fWAR would increase because I can't imagine his rate stats would take too much of a hit, right? Said another way, the rate stats give every pitcher some miniscule amount of projected fWAR per inning, and then it gets multiplied by how much they think he's going to play, which is somewhat a factor of the roster he's on. But I might be thinking about that wrong. 

So if I am reading this right you are suggesting if Schmidt did throw 160 innings his value might be close to Nico. Is this correct? 

13 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Fair. Honestly I don’t want to trade Nico anyway. And, TBH, if signing Bregman only happens if they trade Nico I would rather they not sign Bregman. And I really hate the idea of Nico for prospects.

I know on the surface that a lot of people hate this Bregman in - Nico out (for prospects) idea, but I've tried to step back and examine it, and I think if we zoom out, there's logic behind it. Once again, the concept here is "flexibility". So how does it achieve that?

- Currently, the Cubs could probably use a SP. If the Cubs accomplish the Bregman/Hoerner switcharoo, the Cubs don't change this math, probably, in any meaningful way. They can still have money under the LT (roughly $10m) to acquire, probably, any deadline deal SP you can imagine. On top of that, they recoup the prospects lost by signing Bregman and maybe then some - it could help pay for that SP at the deadline.

- As well, this allows you to wait and see how prospects go. Matt wrote a cool article on Jordan Wicks. If you think Zombro can get Wicks' slider fixed, and say, mid-year. he's cooking, maybe you don't need that SP any more. By moving Hoerner for prospects, now you can fix another hole (say, that opened up via injury, or maybe you fix catcher if Amaya is tanking) in the event Wicks, Horton, Birdsell or Brown just run with a rotational spot and you don't need a SP as bad. 

- It gives the Cubs an offensive boost. Perhaps the two have similar value, but you can also see a pathway where if you get Bregman to change his swing decisions in a way closer to 2023-Bregman, you could conceivably add a win over Hoerner.

- It shifts Matt Shaw to 2b. If we remain honest with ourselves, this is probably his best position, especially for his rookie season and settling his bat in. The bar is usually lower at 2b offensively. 

- The worry I see people having is that Bregman would opt out, leaving us with a hole, or maybe that the Cubs wouldn't be able to sign Tucker. And I get that. And there's a situation where you lose both. But that could conceivably open up a world of possibilities the next offseason in what looks like a pretty good free agent class. You could realistically be able to waltz into next offseason with a bunch of money once again, and a lot of flexibility. You could target Vlad, you could go after a SP like Gallen, or Cease...there's options. And you'd probably still have prospect capital. 

- This would also shift a need in 2027 to 2026. Currently we look to need to replace four starters in 2027...this would allow you to move that need a year up. Replacing four starters in one year is a lot of shopping. This helps you move that math around.

It does create some risk. You do have less settled in the 2026 year than if you kept Hoerner. And you could possibly have Bregman have a terrible season and opt-in (though I think this feels pretty low). And I don't want to suggest that this is an amazing, super, uber awesome plan that I'd particularly do. But I also get this plan and can see the argument that this continues to give Hoyer flexibility within the 2025 season and beyond.