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

5 hours ago, Stratos said:

I'm not sure 2 years of Nico for 1 year of Cease is a good trade.

I guess it depends on the alternative or the goal. Are we continuing to push chips in on this season where we have Tucker for 1 year and potentially Bregman with an opt out? Is the alternative Clarke Schmidt (random example) or prospects? I’m genuinely asking because I don’t know the goal. 

i don't know how i feel about it, but i think bregman is going to end up here

31 minutes ago, JD94 said:

I guess it depends on the alternative or the goal. Are we continuing to push chips in on this season where we have Tucker for 1 year and potentially Bregman with an opt out? Is the alternative Clarke Schmidt (random example) or prospects? I’m genuinely asking because I don’t know the goal. 

Playing a Jed Hoyer aspect here, there are a few ways that I think we can look at this this; but the way that I think makes the most sense is in the concept of "opportunistic". The Cubs have this feeling that they like to jump on things that they feel, more or less, fall in their lap. They like shorter contracts, they like cheaper relievers, they like things they don't have to pay heavily for. It's easy to call this cheap or lazy, but the positive spin on it is patience and value. 

So how do we look at this in that lens? First, Bregman on a contract with opt outs creates opportunity - the Cubs get a four win player without having to commit to six or seven years. They can get the best years left and let someone else pay for him if he opts out - or conversely, trade him like Bellinger before the contract runs out. It creates opportunity for the team to consider moving NIco Hoerner before he becomes a free agent - either now (perhaps an injury in ST opens someone up) or at the deadline. 

So my guess is that the goal remains the same for the front office - it allows them to maintain flexibility, it allows them to pivot, and it allows them to capitalize when other things may or may not be available. I'd guess that's the goal. I don't think a Hoerner/Cease deal makes sense for either side (the Padres are looking to shed payroll) but a situation where the Cubs trade Hoerner for either another MLB player from a team who doesn't want to drop out of the playoff race in July or some sort of hybrid three team swap (Hoerner for prospects, Cubs trade for another SP) feels on the table at any point. 

If they sign Bergman and trade Nico, it shows how much they believe in Shaw. I'd like them to keep Nico too, but I understand the limitations of the Ricketts budget. 

1 hour ago, 17 Seconds said:

i don't know how i feel about it, but i think bregman is going to end up here

I  not sure he will be signed by the Cubs. But I am sure Hoyer has done more than just made a one year offer to him and is, in fact, aggressively going after him. Maybe they won’t need to trade Nico. Maybe they defer some money and while the deal looks like 4/$116 because of deferred money the Cubs only show $23M towards the LT payroll. 🤷 Seems every move Jed makes he is banking money. Hopefully to spend elsewhere. And right now, elsewhere is Bregman. 

9 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Understood. Just saying at this exact point I'll take the financial flexibility over the potential change in low level prospects. And ultimately if the money ends up in Ricketts' pockets, I'm going to allocate most of that blame to Ricketts himself, not Hoyer painting himself into an unspendable corner or whatever. But I'm aware I'm a Hoyer apologist, so take that with a grain of salt. 

Actually I agree with you in this. I am just saying if it doesn’t pan out it sucks. I don’t think Hoyer messed this up, at all. He has put the Cubs in a good spot for adding a bigger piece by doing what he did. If it ends up in Ricketts pocket I completely agree this is all on Ricketts. Jed is allowing the Cubs some flexibility here. Besides Bregman, maybe the Padres come to their senses on what they want for Cease. He can still do that. Maybe the Cubs take Crononworth too? They can fit those two in. Honestly there are a lot of options. Castillo, Lopez, and any other higher priced pitcher on a team looking to save money may be available. If they don’t get Bregman they have the ability to take advantage of any situation that may come, provided this was not all done so Tom can save money. 

If Jed is smart (and I think he is), he's using Ricketts' well-publicized "cap" as leverage against both the Padres and the Bregman camp. Let both groups know/think that only one can fit in the budget.

If the Padres insist on Shaw, Hoyer says "great, we'll sign Bregman".
If Bregman insists on $35m AAV, Hoyer says "No problem, we'll just trade for Cease"

One of those two deals needs to get done though for me/Us/Fans to really feel excited going into this season.

My biggest concern with a Bregman signing is that it's likely to put them over the CBT again this year and that makes it much less likely that they sign Tucker to an extension.  I find it real hard to believe they would go over 3 consecutive years and in order to avoid that, as has been pointed out, you'd need to move some salary going into 2026.  I think that's a plausible route with 2 OF, 2 SP, and Shaw just sitting there waiting for a promotion in Iowa so it can likely be done without too drastic of a drop off in production.

6 minutes ago, Manny Trillos Brother said:

If Jed is smart (and I think he is), he's using Ricketts' well-publicized "cap" as leverage against both the Padres and the Bregman camp. Let both groups know/think that only one can fit in the budget.

If the Padres insist on Shaw, Hoyer says "great, we'll sign Bregman".
If Bregman insists on $35m AAV, Hoyer says "No problem, we'll just trade for Cease"

One of those two deals needs to get done though for me/Us/Fans to really feel excited going into this season.

I am sure he is working every angle. And, TBH, if Peller is reasonable, I would rather a trade for Cease. Gives them a lot of money, still, if they need to do anything else. The problem is you can’t make a team trade with you if they don’t like the return. 

This is not the Michael King thread, but I'm not totally sure why that idea stopped being discussed. Similar production as Cease but with a lesser reputation and the Padres threw some mutual option contract language into his deal this year to spread out the cost of the contract, but the last time a mutual option was actually used was like 2013. Go get him, maybe take on Suarez to reduce the prospect capital, and go into the year sans-Bregman but with a very deep rotation, payroll flexibility, and most of the prospects you have now. Probably room for a solid bench bat as well. 

I feel like things are playing out really nicely for Jed right now to add several pieces relatively inexpensively. I can't help but wonder if we hadn't stupidly crept over the CBT last season, if we wouldn't be able to go over this yr and add Bregman, Cease and Robertson. 

One can dream. 

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

This is not the Michael King thread, but I'm not totally sure why that idea stopped being discussed. Similar production as Cease but with a lesser reputation and the Padres threw some mutual option contract language into his deal this year to spread out the cost of the contract, but the last time a mutual option was actually used was like 2013. Go get him, maybe take on Suarez to reduce the prospect capital, and go into the year sans-Bregman but with a very deep rotation, payroll flexibility, and most of the prospects you have now. Probably room for a solid bench bat as well. 

I think the chatter died down a bit with how the Padres structured the deal. The mutual option is probably never getting picked up, but it tends to help how payments are made to these guys (with there being now, a buyout that would be paid at the end of the season). The Padres situation with the ownership is messy, and you'd have to think that by finding a way to help delay how those payments are made, makes him a more attractive player to keep over Cease who will be paid out in the entirety of 2025 and 2025 alone. 

It probably doesn't entirely exclude King from being traded but I do think that it makes the Padres much more interested in moving Cease if they were to move one of them, especially with just kind of how messy the Padres are at the top.

11 minutes ago, mul21 said:

My biggest concern with a Bregman signing is that it's likely to put them over the CBT again this year and that makes it much less likely that they sign Tucker to an extension.  I find it real hard to believe they would go over 3 consecutive years and in order to avoid that, as has been pointed out, you'd need to move some salary going into 2026.  I think that's a plausible route with 2 OF, 2 SP, and Shaw just sitting there waiting for a promotion in Iowa so it can likely be done without too drastic of a drop off in production.

I think they can keep it close enough to the CBT to make the accounting work. Hypothetically, we could be in the pennant race in July and still unload some salary. I could envision a scenario where we trade some higher priced pitching because we have the depth and have it not hurt us too much.

I'm also not concerned with trading Nico right now. If Shaw can hit, he's going to play. Shaw will likely start the year as the starting 2b and should get at bats vs. every opposing LHP. He can give everyone a rest in the infield plus you could slide Nico to SS when Swanson goes through one of his cold streaks.   

Would the cost of either Cease or King go down if they took Cronenworth too? He would be someone who could play all over the infield. With him the Cubs would still be well under the LT line. He also makes moving Nico next year easier because he would just then play 2nd. If Assad/Cassie/ Canario and a lower end 4th piece could get that done, would that be worth it? 

The idea has been floated that maybe the Cubs would sign Bregman and then trade Nico at some point to stay under the tax.

I just don't know that a Bregman for Nico swap makes any sense.  I think a 28 year old Nico versus a 31 year old Bregman is basically a wash, except that Bregman is going to be a lot more expensive.  I'm cool with Nico AND Bregman, but if it's Nico OR Bregman, then I would choose Nico.

57 minutes ago, mul21 said:

My biggest concern with a Bregman signing is that it's likely to put them over the CBT again this year and that makes it much less likely that they sign Tucker to an extension.  I find it real hard to believe they would go over 3 consecutive years and in order to avoid that, as has been pointed out, you'd need to move some salary going into 2026.  I think that's a plausible route with 2 OF, 2 SP, and Shaw just sitting there waiting for a promotion in Iowa so it can likely be done without too drastic of a drop off in production.

 I keep seeing  everyoneworried about 2026 and beyond, but isn't the new CBA coming in 2027 which could change how tax threshold dramatically.

2 minutes ago, MarkBellhorn said:

 

 I keep seeing  everyoneworried about 2026 and beyond, but isn't the new CBA coming in 2027 which could change how tax threshold dramatically.

This. Plus, we only have Nico signed for 2 more years, and I doubt they resign him anyways. 

6 minutes ago, MarkBellhorn said:

 

 I keep seeing  everyoneworried about 2026 and beyond, but isn't the new CBA coming in 2027 which could change how tax threshold dramatically.

You have to get through 2026 first. 

Right now payroll for '26 is about $185M (there's of course some wiggle room this far out).  $30M for Alex Bregman and $35M for Kyle Tucker for example would have the team already a smidge over the Luxury without any supplemental or complimentary moves.

It's not impossible the team runs a higher payroll next year.  The team did it once before in 2019, and 2026 has been the clear payroll spike season for a few years now.  But notice I said the team has done it once before.  15 years under Ricketts, one year where they significantly passed the cap.  Can't take for granted that's a move Jed has available to him. 

So if you sign a big multi-year deal this year, your options for next year are:

- Hope Tom's feeling generous

- Let Tucker walke

- Have an offseason where you do *nothing* of substance beyond adding Tucker

- Be backed into a corner where you have to trade payroll (and several of the prime suspects have no trade clauses!)

It's not an impossible situation, but it sucks.  And I'm not sure Alex Bregman is the move that feels worth putting yourself in that sucky situation.

38 minutes ago, Bertz said:

You have to get through 2026 first. 

Right now payroll for '26 is about $185M (there's of course some wiggle room this far out).  $30M for Alex Bregman and $35M for Kyle Tucker for example would have the team already a smidge over the Luxury without any supplemental or complimentary moves.

It's not impossible the team runs a higher payroll next year.  The team did it once before in 2019, and 2026 has been the clear payroll spike season for a few years now.  But notice I said the team has done it once before.  15 years under Ricketts, one year where they significantly passed the cap.  Can't take for granted that's a move Jed has available to him. 

So if you sign a big multi-year deal this year, your options for next year are:

- Hope Tom's feeling generous

- Let Tucker walke

- Have an offseason where you do *nothing* of substance beyond adding Tucker

- Be backed into a corner where you have to trade payroll (and several of the prime suspects have no trade clauses!)

While I agree with all this, I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

It really only becomes an issue if two things happen:

1. Bregman has a subpar year and doesn't opt out. (Bull case here is he puts up his 4.5 fWAR and goes to market again, $30m is freed plus a spot for Shaw has been opened.) 

2. Tucker signs with us. (I believe no matter what the financial situation is going into next season, you put your best offer on the table for Tucker. If he signs it and Bregman is opted in, then you deal with the consequences and make a Bellinger like trade to move salary.)

9 minutes ago, KCCub said:

While I agree with all this, I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

It really only becomes an issue if two things happen:

1. Bregman has a subpar year and doesn't opt out. (Bull case here is he puts up his 4.5 fWAR and goes to market again, $30m is freed plus a spot for Shaw has been opened.) 

2. Tucker signs with us. (I believe no matter what the financial situation is going into next season, you put your best offer on the table for Tucker. If he signs it and Bregman is opted in, then you deal with the consequences and make a Bellinger like trade to move salary.)

 

 

I like this. I think if they can get Bregman and still be far enough under the LT line they need to do it and worry about what happens in ‘26 aftee this year. The issue is can they stay under? As you said, they can always dump salary next year if he stays. They have plenty of guys they can move. And he may not stay. So why worry about that now? 

6 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I like this. I think if they can get Bregman and still be far enough under the LT line they need to do it and worry about what happens in ‘26 aftee this year. The issue is can they stay under? As you said, they can always dump salary next year if he stays. They have plenty of guys they can move. And he may not stay. So why worry about that now? 

I mean, for a lot of reasons. The big one being the outcome where the 31 year old coming off his worst year of his career continues declining and we're stuck with a much worse version of the Bellinger contract (likely with an NTC) and we have to dump actual talent just to free up the money to convince Tucker to sign with us while simultaneously hurting our 2026 chances (after the damage that a subpar Bregman and lack of financial freedom did to our 2025 team). 

Has there been any reasoning provided for Bregman's lack of walks last season?  The rest of his numbers appear to be mostly in line with previous seasons.  Strikeouts were consistent with where they have always been, but his walks dropped significantly.  If he had walked somewhere closer to his historical average, he would have been right up closer to a 5 WAR player.

6 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Has there been any reasoning provided for Bregman's lack of walks last season?  The rest of his numbers appear to be mostly in line with previous seasons.  Strikeouts were consistent with where they have always been, but his walks dropped significantly.  If he had walked somewhere closer to his historical average, he would have been right up closer to a 5 WAR player.

I'm so glad someone asked! I did a deep dive on his offense for a friend elsewhere and I can report back on what I've got. 

So looking at Alex Bregman's 2024 season, we see a few interesting things. The first is that Alex Bregman remains elite at limiting his swing and miss while also eliminating his chase rate. In theory, swinging and missing very little and not chasing pitches should result in a high walk rate (something Bregman has done in the past). Where Bregman changed last year is in that his swing rate in general increased - around 4-5% in almost every situation you can imagine - in the zone and in chase. He also saw an uptick in chase contact rate of 5%. In a weird sense, he made too much contact, which both limited his good contact rate (hitting chase pitches results, generally, in poor contact) and his walk rate, because he put balls in play, thus limiting his ability to work deeper counts and earn walks. The only place Bregman swung less? Meatballs, strangely enough.

Second half Bregman saw an increase in his power (and his pull rate) but a further decrease in his walks. 

So what's the solution? I think you have a hitter who is still seeing the ball well, and his ability to make bat to ball happen doesn't at all appear limited. What does seem to have taken a step up is his aggressiveness off the plate. If you can just get him to come back a bit inside of himself (his 2023 approach), then I think you're fine here. 

17 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I mean, for a lot of reasons. The big one being the outcome where the 31 year old coming off his worst year of his career continues declining and we're stuck with a much worse version of the Bellinger contract (likely with an NTC) and we have to dump actual talent just to free up the money to convince Tucker to sign with us while simultaneously hurting our 2026 chances (after the damage that a subpar Bregman and lack of financial freedom did to our 2025 team). 

Isn’t that rhe same with any higher end contract. What if Tucker is signed to a long term contract and at 31 he slips significantly? Aren’t the Cubs on the hook for several years of a bad contract? Bregman had a bad first half, but was very good in the seasons half. I think he will be fine. 

30 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I mean, for a lot of reasons. The big one being the outcome where the 31 year old coming off his worst year of his career continues declining and we're stuck with a much worse version of the Bellinger contract (likely with an NTC) and we have to dump actual talent just to free up the money to convince Tucker to sign with us while simultaneously hurting our 2026 chances (after the damage that a subpar Bregman and lack of financial freedom did to our 2025 team). 

Devil's advocate again -

You sign Tucker first and then worry about dumping salary/talent. And again, Tucker actually has to sign with us, which the odds are not in our favor here. If our big 2026 conundrum is signing Tucker to a 12 year deal but then having to trade one of Suzuki/Hoerner/Taillon/etc to free up salary, absolutely sign me up. 

On Bregman, we talk about him like he's a dying dog. He put up 4.1 fWAR last season, which would have been what, second on the team? He's projected for 4 fWAR again. You have to put some faith in Jed and crew here that they have a plan, and a backup plan, for each one of these scenarios. If they think they can structure a deal with Bregman that incentivizes him to opt out after year 1, you have to think that's the likely outcome. (Bellinger was a completely different risk)

The last part of your point is where my concern resides. How does signing Bregman impact our ability to land a TORP at the deadline. I'm in, and have always been in, the camp that a TORP needs to be priority one for a playoff push. With how Jed and crew talked all off-season about landing impact SP, I would think they have a plan for if they do sign Bregman, to still be able to add a guy you feel good about starting in the playoffs.