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

17 minutes ago, BigbadB said:

I just don't see why it can't be sign Bregman and call it an offseason. Don't trade anyone. Defer whatever amount necessary to stay within the cap, because the tax penalty is probably 2 or 3 times more costly than the deferred amount. And then you have a premium player like Shaw getting a bit more time in AAA, a beneficial upgrade to the roster by keeping Hoerner.

I get having clean books and all, but if you are only deferring what amounts to a middle reliever/back end of the rotation salary, so what?

I get this too. And if they did sign Bregman my preference would to go to camp as is. Don’t trade anyone. The issue is they would be so close to the LT number they would have very little to add anyone at the deadline. And I think they will need to add a pitcher. Of course, if they trust the young guys close to the majors, maybe that is when they come in. Or at that time they trade someone like Suzuki or Hoerner for the pitcher they need. Trades like that have happened before. It is just a tight rope they are walking in if they did that. 

22 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

I’d rather keep Suzuki. 

I like him too. That would be hard to do. But it isn’t just Suzuki versus Bregman. It is Suzuki and Rea versus Bregman and whoever they get in a trade for Suzuki, and maybe some additional money they can use at the deadline. Still a very hard decision. 

27 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I like him too. That would be hard to do. But it isn’t just Suzuki versus Bregman. It is Suzuki and Rea versus Bregman and whoever they get in a trade for Suzuki, and maybe some additional money they can use at the deadline. Still a very hard decision. 

Even if you're real optimistic about Bregman as a hitter and call him equivalent to Suzuki (126 and 118 wRC the last two years vs 128 and 138 wRC), you're basically just...improving third base defense by a little bit at the end of the day? The prospects, at a high level, wash out because whatever comes in for Suzuki probably has to go back out (or at least the equivalent value, switch some names out, whatever) to upgrade the pitching, and so ultimately you're going from 2/34 on Suzuki to 4/110 or whatever on Bregman, plus a mid-level 'rental' starter in a trade (if you aim higher, debit the farm system). 

Realistically though, you just made the offense worse and lost $12m-$15m in available money this year. Kinda just seems like a way to avoid some of it going back in RIcketts pockets without actually improving the team. BaseballTradeValue is very flawed but has Suzuki with basically the same trade value as Ryan Pressly. 

1 hour ago, ToolDRT said:

I’d rather keep Suzuki. 

100%. He makes the lineup way better. Frankly, i dont give a damn if he doesnt want to DH exclusively. Hes under contract and thats where he fits best on the roster. 

If we sign Bregman, trading Nico isnt off the table for me but id still like to keep him and ease Shaw in as the supersub. There are more than enough ABs to go around.

25 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Even if you're real optimistic about Bregman as a hitter and call him equivalent to Suzuki (126 and 118 wRC the last two years vs 128 and 138 wRC), you're basically just...improving third base defense by a little bit at the end of the day? The prospects, at a high level, wash out because whatever comes in for Suzuki probably has to go back out (or at least the equivalent value, switch some names out, whatever) to upgrade the pitching, and so ultimately you're going from 2/34 on Suzuki to 4/110 or whatever on Bregman, plus a mid-level 'rental' starter in a trade (if you aim higher, debit the farm system). 

Realistically though, you just made the offense worse and lost $12m-$15m in available money this year. Kinda just seems like a way to avoid some of it going back in RIcketts pockets without actually improving the team. BaseballTradeValue is very flawed but has Suzuki with basically the same trade value as Ryan Pressly. 

 

Honestly, I don’t want anyone traded if they get Bregman. That would be my first choice. And aside from that,mgettinf Bregman was my 3rd option on how I would be ok with finishing the off season. So you aren’t going to get too much push back from me on having to move anyone for him. I am just saying if they did have to trade Suzuki it isn’t as simple as Suzuki is better than Bregman so don’t trade him. The return matters. Again, I am not in favor of any trade. If they sign Bregman I hope they don’t have to move anyone. To me, I would rather look into improving the starting rotation and adding a solid bench bat, then signing Bregman. 

I’d prefer not to trade anyone. The Cubs have a fairly uninspiring bench. In 2016 we had ten guys for eight spots heading into the season and then our LF blew out his knee the second game of the season. Unless there’s a deal for a pitcher that’s just too good to pass on, I’d rather see them let things play out. 

I'd also prefer not to trade anyone. Hold everyone until the season shakes out, and then see what you need. Don't be afraid to trade before 11:59 PM on 8/31.

I wouldn't trade anyone either. Realistically Nico is the only guy you would want to turn to if Dansby is injured, that's incredibly valuable and could very well happen multiple times for all we know. I would also start mixing him into CF in case PCA just bottoms out with the approach. You wouldn't want to stick Happ or Tucker there. I am definitely feeling like I have been wrong about the team's approach to Shaw and they would prefer to let him get more seasoning (even though a 20 year old just netted a nice pick for their chief divisional rival); I disagree but it is what it is. They can make it work if they take a measured approach.

1 minute ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I wouldn't trade anyone either. Realistically Nico is the only guy you would want to turn to if Dansby is injured, that's incredibly valuable and could very well happen multiple times for all we know. I would also start mixing him into CF in case PCA just bottoms out with the approach. You wouldn't want to stick Happ or Tucker there. I am definitely feeling like I have been wrong about the team's approach to Shaw and they would prefer to let him get more seasoning (even though a 20 year old just netted a nice pick for their chief divisional rival); I disagree but it is what it is. They can make it work if they take a measured approach.

They haven’t signed Bregman yet. I would jump to conclusions about their opinion of Shaw. Maybe Nico will be out all of April. Maybe they like the idea of Shaw at multiple positions getting a few games a week. I think they are very high in Shaw. Maybe if they do get Bregman they will trade Nico. 🤷 I am with everyone else here in the best case scenario if they got Bregman. That would be they would keep everyone. But, TBH, I would rather they spent the money elsewhere, and passed on Bregman. 

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

2 minutes ago, KCCub said:

 

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

I’m fine with that. Move on. 

20 minutes ago, KCCub said:

 

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

Kinda feels like a last ditch effort to try and get a team to do something stupid. There is too much smoke out there. 

I think he ends up in Detroit.

Nightengale has not had a high profile gaffe yet this offseason.  Curious if this is that gaffe.

Even at his best though, he certainly doesn't get benefit of the doubt over mounds of local reporting.

29 minutes ago, KCCub said:

 

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

I mean this can be taken in several different ways and I'm not sure it's adding anything new. The 4 year deal the Cubs have reportedly offered isn't really a "short-term contract". It seems like he's always wanted a 6-7 year deal and he also has an AAV he'd like to hit. He's probably not going to get everything he wants. The benefit of the structure of the Cubs deal is he'd get more money up front and have the chance to opt out, probably every year, while still having some protection if he gets hurt or struggles. If some team is willing to pay him 30+ million over 6 or 7 years obviously he's going to take it, but nobody seems to be jumping at that chance. 

Yeah, that can really go a few ways. Bob's got the scoop (and he can do that). Bob's just wrong (and he can do that). Or Boras is trying to get someone to pony up the night after Alonso took a 2-year contract and before Bregman has to take another opt-out laden contract. 

At this point it's hard to believe there is any chance Bregman is getting 6 or 7 years unless he takes a massive hit on the AAV. If he is still holding out for 6 or 7 at 25+ per, he's going to be in for a long wait. I don't think he is going to do much better than Alonso did.

Just now, Thusly Boned said:

At this point it's hard to believe there is any chance Bregman is getting 6 or 7 years unless he takes a massive hit on the AAV. If he is still holding out for 6 or 7 at 25+ per, he's going to be in for a long wait. I don't think he is going to do much better than Alonso did.

 

Said it before but I could see him Chapman'ing into a longer deal as well. Hes a really good bet to provide long-term value, he just has some kinks pop up recently that he might need to iron-out before teams are ready to go all-in.

6 minutes ago, SOFNR said:

I mean this can be taken in several different ways and I'm not sure it's adding anything new. The 4 year deal the Cubs have reportedly offered isn't really a "short-term contract". It seems like he's always wanted a 6-7 year deal and he also has an AAV he'd like to hit. He's probably not going to get everything he wants. The benefit of the structure of the Cubs deal is he'd get more money up front and have the chance to opt out, probably every year, while still having some protection if he gets hurt or struggles. If some team is willing to pay him 30+ million over 6 or 7 years obviously he's going to take it, but nobody seems to be jumping at that chance. 

Yep. It's February 6th, you can't say that you want a 6-7 year deal AND that you want in excess of $30m/year. If it hasn't come yet, it's not coming. The long term offer (6/160) is presumably still on the table from Houston, or else you're looking at us and Boston I guess for the short term cash grabs.

I know Detroit is out there but I must have missed the stories on them drastically increasing their budgets. They ended up at $121m for CBT purposes last year and are already at $156m for this year with the Flaherty signing (which, cash wise, is front loaded). Obviously all these teams can afford it, but that's a big leap. 

21 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Yep. It's February 6th, you can't say that you want a 6-7 year deal AND that you want in excess of $30m/year. If it hasn't come yet, it's not coming. The long term offer (6/160) is presumably still on the table from Houston, or else you're looking at us and Boston I guess for the short term cash grabs.

I know Detroit is out there but I must have missed the stories on them drastically increasing their budgets. They ended up at $121m for CBT purposes last year and are already at $156m for this year with the Flaherty signing (which, cash wise, is front loaded). Obviously all these teams can afford it, but that's a big leap. 

Maybe the Tigers can trade us Flaherty in a slaerynsump so they can sign Bregman😬 sarcasm, in case the point is missed.

He'd be a nice to have, no doubt.  6 or 7 years?  Nice talking with you Alex/Scott, good luck.

16 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Maybe the Tigers can trade us Flaherty in a slaerynsump so they can sign Bregman😬 sarcasm, in case the point is missed.

Have to assume the medicals were real scary and appeal to authority on Flaherty, because using the money on him seems a lot easier than anything else we're currently discussing. 

Just now, squally1313 said:

Have to assume the medicals were real scary and appeal to authority on Flaherty, because using the money on him seems a lot easier than anything else we're currently discussing. 

I agree.

Is Bregman willing to pull a Kimbrall and sign mid season???  Is his camp hoping for a ST injury to pop up, causing a team to get desperate?  This feels like a gross misread of the market by Boras (AGAIN) resulting in a substantial loss for his client.  
I mean, I get it...this is probably his last chance at securing a big contract and he wants to cash in.  But lets be real here; Bregman is an aging player on the wrong side of 30 who's already shown signs of decline.  He's a smallish player who generates most of his value from his power, and he's played his entire career in a matchbox of a ballpark.  He's still a high quality add for the short term, but obviously, every team knows he's not a good bet long term.  

He should've taken the 6 year offer from Houston and avoided this headache.  

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. 

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.