The Athletic: Cubs looking to be "Opportunistic"

3 minutes ago, SOFNR said:

Yah, Bergman over Nico is definitely no guarantee to add wins. He does improve the offense. But we've also reached a point in the offseason where Nico for improved starting pitching is a little more difficult to figure out. Just give me King and Robertson.

Yes. This is the answer for me as well. They can probably even sign a bench bat with the $5M to $8M they would still probably have available. 

I'm thinking Jed is gonna wait this out and I'm not sure how long Robertson will play along. 

Is it possible that Nico would be staying put, and Suzuki would be the one shipped out?  Suzuki has already stated his DH displeasure, his salary is higher, and Shaw could then play DH and learn the infield positions slowly.  Basically, we would swap Seiya for Bregman.  

26 minutes ago, BobbyD3 said:

Is it possible that Nico would be staying put, and Suzuki would be the one shipped out?  Suzuki has already stated his DH displeasure, his salary is higher, and Shaw could then play DH and learn the infield positions slowly.  Basically, we would swap Seiya for Bregman.  

Also pass. Offense gets worse, defense marginally better? If you buy into Bergman’s 2024 defense, then you have to buy into his much worse than Suzuki’s 2024 offense. 
 

moving a 3-4 win guy to bring back Bregman does nothing for me. For me, It’s either him filling out the budget, a king/cease-type pitcher and minor bench/pen improvements, or significant bullpen and bench improvements. We don’t need to move money to sign him, we would just have to pass on filling out the outskirts of the roster. Positives and negatives all around. 

I find it sad that you’d have to pay to read how much Jed Hoyer sucks, so the following link removes the paywall.

https://archive.md/rlqcC

15 hours ago, Bertz said:

Bregman’s not much (any?) better than Hoerner.  He's more offensively inclined but not really better.  If you do the Nico/Bregman swap the benefits are

- The lineup fits together way more nicely

- You presumably get something substantial back for Hoerner

- Nico is part of the "cliff" after 2026.  Happ, Nico, Seiya, Taillon, and Boyd all hit FA.  Not all of those guys are tough replacements, but there's something to be said about that much turnover all at once regardless of impact.  Bregman would presumably be on a 3 year deal with an opt out after 1, so swapping him in for Nico smooths out some of that roster churn

The cliff is the CBA expiring and Tommy Boy's directive to reduce expenditures (salaries) b/c they know it will be a long work stoppage as they ratchet up the pain to get costs down. 

19 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

The cliff is the CBA expiring and Tommy Boy's directive to reduce expenditures (salaries) b/c they know it will be a long work stoppage as they ratchet up the pain to get costs down. 

I’m not disagreeing with you but what does it matter what the teams salary is in the event of a work stoppage? Why would that add to Ricketts wanting to keep payroll low? Honest question. Granted, he wants to keep payroll low because he is a greedy, short sided, money hungry owner who doesn’t care about the fan base. Basically the average owner of 90% of all sports teams, as well as a typical billionaire. 

15 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I’m not disagreeing with you but what does it matter what the teams salary is in the event of a work stoppage? Why would that add to Ricketts wanting to keep payroll low? Honest question. Granted, he wants to keep payroll low because he is a greedy, short sided, money hungry owner who doesn’t care about the fan base. Basically the average owner of 90% of all sports teams, as well as a typical billionaire. 

If the CBA resets FA, arbitration, and control and they have a bunch of people they are paying based on the past and not on the new they will be paying more than they think they should. Also if there is a work stoppage they will not have revenue to pay when the work stoppage is over (in theory). 

39 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I’m not disagreeing with you but what does it matter what the teams salary is in the event of a work stoppage? Why would that add to Ricketts wanting to keep payroll low? Honest question. Granted, he wants to keep payroll low because he is a greedy, short sided, money hungry owner who doesn’t care about the fan base. Basically the average owner of 90% of all sports teams, as well as a typical billionaire. 

There are a ton of things that could change in the next CBA (salary cap or floor, how deferrals work, when FA happens, etc.) and not being tied to a bunch of existing contracts is desirable for management because then you can flex the muscle of the new CBA on players.  It's smart business management and extra ****** human behavior.

9 minutes ago, mul21 said:

There are a ton of things that could change in the next CBA (salary cap or floor, how deferrals work, when FA happens, etc.) and not being tied to a bunch of existing contracts is desirable for management because then you can flex the muscle of the new CBA on players.  It's smart business management and extra ****** human behavior.

Got it. Makes sense. However signing someone like Bregman or Flaherty for a few years with opt outs doesn’t really play much into what happens at the end of 2026. AND the Cubs main players are up for FA after that season already. Basically whatever else the Cubs spend this season has no bearing on their commitment during the lock out, unless someone really thinks the Cubs are going to now sign someone for 3 or more years. I don’t, and I do not see anyone suggesting that. I don’t think anything they do or don’t do now has anything to do with a potential work stoppage after the ‘26 season. I also do not agree that this will be a reason not to sign Tucker long term. No matter how or when they come to an agreement, he will be worth his contract. I think teams will be more leery of the mid level to good players, not the stars. But who knows🤷

58 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Got it. Makes sense. However signing someone like Bregman or Flaherty for a few years with opt outs doesn’t really play much into what happens at the end of 2026. AND the Cubs main players are up for FA after that season already. Basically whatever else the Cubs spend this season has no bearing on their commitment during the lock out, unless someone really thinks the Cubs are going to now sign someone for 3 or more years. I don’t, and I do not see anyone suggesting that. I don’t think anything they do or don’t do now has anything to do with a potential work stoppage after the ‘26 season. I also do not agree that this will be a reason not to sign Tucker long term. No matter how or when they come to an agreement, he will be worth his contract. I think teams will be more leery of the mid level to good players, not the stars. But who knows🤷

The entire point is to sign them to contracts that expire by 2026. There is a reason (big or small) why Jed is sitting and waiting for the "opportunities" to present themselves. 

19 hours ago, CubinNY said:

The cliff is the CBA expiring and Tommy Boy's directive to reduce expenditures (salaries) b/c they know it will be a long work stoppage as they ratchet up the pain to get costs down. 

I think Tom's just cheap with payroll now and nothing will change that besides losing butts in the seats and ratings, merch etc.

The Cubs as a business are emotionally dead inside and behave like a faceless corporation entirely interested in maximizing the bottom line.  They behaved the same before the last CBA.

17 hours ago, CubinNY said:

The entire point is to sign them to contracts that expire by 2026. There is a reason (big or small) why Jed is sitting and waiting for the "opportunities" to present themselves. 

Maybe they just prefer paying players in their primes as opposed to huge money for post-prime players?