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

Yes, You can explain Bregman’s aggressiveness on an attempt to put up numbers that translate into dollars. Now I don’t know if he’d use the same approach this season too. But it’s understandable. 

7 minutes ago, KCCub said:

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. 

I would think the only way that would happen is if they traded a bat for a pitcher. Kind of like the Lester for Cespedes deal back in 2014. Either Suzuki, Happ or Hoerner would have to be moved for a pitcher of equal salary. So most likely one of the corner outfielders would be moved and Shaw or another young guy would fill the spot in the line up. 

4 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

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. 

Tucker is 3 years younger and coming off the best offensive season of his career. Not exactly apples to apples. The 'very good' second half was still worse than Bregman's career average wRC. You sign Tucker (or any other elite player) to long term deals because you have to, and you hope you reap the benefits in the front end of the contract and hope those benefits (and inflation) are enough to stomach the back end. Bregman's walk rate being cut in half (consistent in the first and second half of 2024) without a corresponding benefit to his K rate is concerning. 

6 minutes ago, KCCub said:

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)

Bregman is a good player. He's not an elite player anymore. If we lived in a world where you could sign Bregman (ideally for one year) and not have it become much more likely that we'd have to trade Nico, and/or much less likely we could supplement the team midseason, then yep, fully in, let's go. But I don't think we live in that world. The signing eats up basically all your flexibility for the next 12 months. There's better uses of the money. 

Half of me thinks there’s better ways to use the money, the other half (as 1908 mentioned) has already gotten myself excited by this idea and now I don’t know what I want! 

4 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

Half of me thinks there’s better ways to use the money, the other half (as 1908 mentioned) has already gotten myself excited by this idea and now I don’t know what I want! 

Couldn’t have said it better myself. I think they can use the money better, but then the fan side of me gets excited for this season. If I trusted they would use the money for either a trade for Cease or someone like that, or if they really were able to sign Tucker to an extension and start it this year, so they extension takes up most of the money, IMO,’that would be better use. But I am not sure they can accomplish either of those things. 

11 minutes ago, ToolDRT said:

Half of me thinks there’s better ways to use the money, the other half (as 1908 mentioned) has already gotten myself excited by this idea and now I don’t know what I want! 

I keep sitting on the fence, but I come back to the final place of "Jed Hoyer doesn't do rash things". This is a team who has pined for flexibility and their ability to pivot. They also love to be opportunistic and patient. At times you can say to a fault. I can't always say I agree full heartedly with Hoyer, but everything they do has a logic behind it that you can eventually see. So I am trying to remain balanced in that I think the Cubs have l;ogic here. 

I think offensively, what plagued Bregman last year is both identifiable and probably pretty fixable. The Cubs have had recent successes in approach changes with Happ and Suzuki so I think you feel a little confident there. And while I wouldn't predict a five win season, I think a healthy Bregman probably settles in around four wins in his age-31 year even if the offensive production isn't a mirror of his previous best self. It's short of superstar, but probably north of "I'll opt out" if the contract can mostly convince him to do so. 

In terms of what it offers over Shaw, I'm a little less sure of it, but I think that can be used to argue both ways. What 2025 rookie Matt Shaw is can be a wide birth and this will help limit variance. If we're a little worried with the variance of the rotation depending on Boyd's health and Rea being decent enough (with the field not killing Shota Imanaga, for example) than Bregman will help swing that variance back into check offensively to a pretty decent degree. Even if he's just 2024 Bregman, that limits the outcomes. 

As @KCCubsaid, I think my biggest worry is how the Cubs continue to handle the rotation in 2025. The Cubs always seem open to new ideas and new paths forward (they pivoted from Christopher Morel mid season last year, for example) so the Cubs choosing to move Hoerner mid-year seems plausible, if not entirely obvious. But that's where I come back to "Jed Hoyer isn't rash" and assume there's a pivot/plan/something beyond "IDK, Bregman?". So it's why I am trying to sit with cautious optimism if they do sign Bregman. I'd have to appeal to authority a bit there, but I'd have to assume that much like we assume Tom Ricketts hasn't been replaced by a new, super-spendy doppleganger version, that Jed Hoyer probably isn't some super aggressive "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" VP of Ops, either. He's probably still Jed Hoyer and probably still has some things that could help him pull things off.

And I've said it once before but I'll say it again...throwing logic out for a moment and just being a meatball...it'd be real horsefeathers fun to see the Cubs sign Alex Bregman this late in the offseason. I know that's a meatball take and I really try to remain logical most of the time, but there's a little part of me that finds this just fun. Like yeah, maybe just get Mark Canha and call it quits but like...Bregman is kind of cool.

Everything else equal, If I were Bregman I'd want to sign with the Red Sox or Astros because of the hitting environment.  Cubs and Tigers would be much lower.

15 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Everything else equal, If I were Bregman I'd want to sign with the Red Sox or Astros because of the hitting environment.  Cubs and Tigers would be much lower.

Do you think post season play might be a concern?  I'd say his chances of playing in the post season are higher with Asttros and Cubs then the Tigers and Red Sox.

I, too am on the fence with Bregman. What would put me clear on the side of not doing it is if doing it, they have to trade Nico. If that is the case, I would rather sign a solid bench bad and save money for the deadline or to sign an extension for Tucker and/or PCA. 

2 hours 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.)

 

 

So I think these are good points and worth expanding on.

- Bregman's year one opt out is probably a good bit more likely to be exercised than Bellinger's.  The big reason IMO is age.  Bellinger's heading into his 29 season, so wanting to stick around and try for a better platform year was viable as 30's still not old for a FA.  Bregman will be entering his age 32 season next year, and would be entering 33 in '27.  Bellinger had a session that made opting out iffy and stayed put, while Bregman would have more urgency even with a comparable mild disappointment of a season

- Signing Tucker's not a guarantee.  That said, it's potentially a really strong FA class (a lot of pitching, so maybe it won't stay that way).  So you do want that money either way to pivot.  Much in the way that the Yankees "replaced" Juan Soto with Cody Bellinger and Max Fried

36 minutes ago, Bertz said:

 

- Bregman's year one opt out is probably a good bit more likely to be exercised than Bellinger's.  The big reason IMO is age.  Bellinger's heading into his 29 season, so wanting to stick around and try for a better platform year was viable as 30's still not old for a FA.  Bregman will be entering his age 32 season next year, and would be entering 33 in '27.  Bellinger had a session that made opting out iffy and stayed put, while Bregman would have more urgency even with a comparable mild disappointment of a season

 

I would need to see the contract language/opt outs before saying how likely it is either way. If it's heavily incentivized to persuade a year 1 opt out (front loaded or has a large buyout after year one, etc), he's likely opting out. We just don't know. Jed loves to get creative and push $$$ to the following year via buyouts. 

If it's a straightforward 4 year deal with non incentivized opt outs, yea I agree he's more likely to opt in.  

There are 3 outcomes I can be ok with for the rest of the off season. 

1. sign Bregman and be under then LT without trading Hoeener

2. Sign a bench bat (Cahna) and trade Assad and Cassie for Cease or King(Any pitcher who slots ahead of Tailon)

3. use the money saved to sign Tucker to an extension now. Sign Cahna. 

if all were available and Jed had to choose one direction, which would be the choice? 
 

I would choose 3. 2 is a close second. I would rather lock up Tucker now, worry about adding a pitcher at the trade deadline. My least favorite choice is trading for Bregman.                                       But I like these 3 better than signing Bregman and trading Hoerner, or only signing Cahna (or no one) and keeping $30M for potential trades at the deadline. 

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

if all were available and Jed had to choose one direction, which would be the choice? 

I would choose 3 and it isn't particularly close.

But I would be happy with any of those options.

2 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

I would choose 3 and it isn't particularly close.

But I would be happy with any of those options.

The only reason I say 2 is close is because they can do that and still then sign Tucker after the year. And 2 would give them the best team this year. That said, getting Tucker, long term now, is still most appealing to me. 

Pitching wasn't the problem last season. I get why ppl want to upgrade the rotation, we always want to upgrade there, but I'd rather upgrade the lineup, which was the achilles heel last season, and use our depth in the rotation, because we're richer there than most clubs. 

10 minutes ago, Randall Simon said:

Pitching wasn't the problem last season. I get why ppl want to upgrade the rotation, we always want to upgrade there, but I'd rather upgrade the lineup, which was the achilles heel last season, and use our depth in the rotation, because we're richer there than most clubs. 

We did though, didn't we?

• Catcher we went from Gomes/Amaya to Kelly/Amaya
• Third Base we probably didn't upgrade from Paredes, but on the whole last year our 3Bs generated -0.8 fWAR, and Shaw is projected for 2.1.
• Centerfield, PCA outproduced Bellinger last year in less ABs (obviously in the aggregate, not offensively)
• Right field we went from Suzuki to Tucker
• DH, we had Suzuki there for 60 games last year, then a mix of others (Morel with 29 games, Bellinger with 24, Tauchman with 20). Everyone listed besides Suzuki is worse than Suzuki, more starts for Suzuki here is an upgrade.

Meanwhile on the pitching we took Hendricks 24 starts (0.4 fWAR) and replaced them with Boyd and Rea. I'd argue replacing Assad (1.0 fWAR in 29 starts last year) with a 4 fWAR pitcher is more valuable (and less of a financial commitment) than replacing Shaw (2 fWAR) with Bregman (4 fWAR). 

2 hours ago, gflore34 said:

Do you think post season play might be a concern?  I'd say his chances of playing in the post season are higher with Asttros and Cubs then the Tigers and Red Sox.

If he signs a longer term deal, like 4 years, then that might matter and hitting environment not as much

So a few notes just to keep track:

- Jon Heyman thinks the Cubs have the best shot to land Alex Bregman
- Matt Spiegel confirms Cubs have real offer on the table (more support for Matt)
- Lisa, who Jeff Passan kind of tounge-in-cheek credited with Bellinger last year, who's a Twitter/X user also posted a Bregman/Cubs thing. 

Lisa needs braces 

Just now, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Lisa needs braces 

Dental plan!

Do we get a Nico trade break on twitter before Bregman is official ?

1 minute ago, MarkBellhorn said:

Do we get a Nico trade break on twitter before Bregman is official ?

 

I do not think there will be an accompanying Nico trade...at least not immediately...myself. Would guess that's much more likely in June/July than ST. But just a guess.

Delete 

Worth pointing out...

Here is Heymans interview.