General Offseason Priorities

[Bertz]

2 hours ago, thawv said:

If it wasn't a grave sin, then why did he stay below it leaving just enough room for additions?  They could have gone over much earlier, but chose to stay under.  Smyly's bonus' are going to put them over.  Maybe it's not a big deal, but either way, they are staying under in 2025 because of this. 

Paying Belli this kind of money is a huge mistake.  Just another Jed blunder. 

The Athletic reported immediately after the Bellinger signing that they were likely close enough to the LT that they would end up over with normal day to day roster churn.  This didn't sneak up on anybody, and even if Jed was painted into a corner by Boras on the exact structure of the deal (doubtful given how badly he got worked over on the subsequent Boras 4 signings) if it was some sort of deal breaker Jed could have cut some salary at the deadline.

Like you say it's a "strategic blunder" and some sort of fixable offense, what exactly do you think the costs are of going over the line?

[Rcal10]

15 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Because he's Bad At His Job, duhhhh

While I don’t feel Jed is nearly as bad at his job as some people do here and actually think he gets criticized more than he should, But, IMO going over the LT this year was a mistake and mismanagement.  Now the option is going over a second year in a row, where penalties get increased, or resetting and going under. In a year they really should put a good team in the field, I hate the idea of resetting. This is the perfect year to trade some minor league assets(who are probably at their highest value) to bring in major league talent and spend somewhat aggressively in FA. It would have been easier with less penalties if they weren’t over this year. So I do worry they will stay under. And they shouldn’t. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

13 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

While I don’t feel Jed is nearly as bad at his job as some people do here and actually think he gets criticized more than he should, But, IMO going over the LT this year was a mistake and mismanagement.  Now the option is going over a second year in a row, where penalties get increased, or resetting and going under. In a year they really should put a good team in the field, I hate the idea of resetting. This is the perfect year to trade some minor league assets(who are probably at their highest value) to bring in major league talent and spend somewhat aggressively in FA. It would have been easier with less penalties if they weren’t over this year. So I do worry they will stay under. And they shouldn’t. 

If they went 5 million over this year, they will pay 1 million in penalties.  If they go 5 million over again next year, they'd pay 1.5 million in penalties.  The penalties and their escalation are just not meaningful if you aren't significantly over the tax line.

[Bertz]

4 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

If they went 5 million over this year, they will pay 1 million in penalties.  If they go 5 million over again next year, they'd pay 1.5 million in penalties.  The penalties and their escalation are just not meaningful if you aren't significantly over the tax line.

Exactly.  There is a horsefeathers implication from the team going over by a little bit, but it's no mismanagement or incompetence, it's resources.  At this point it feels safe to say even in a championship window this team is probably going to top out $10-20M over the tax.

There is a smaller implication, which is that the team is probably not going to sign a QO free agent.  But honestly that's Jed's default status, this just seems to lock it in even tighter.

[Rcal10]

3 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

If they went 5 million over this year, they will pay 1 million in penalties.  If they go 5 million over again next year, they'd pay 1.5 million in penalties.  The penalties and their escalation are just not meaningful if you aren't significantly over the tax line.

What happens year 3? I get what you and others defending Jed are saying. It isn’t that big a deal. But all things equal I am pretty sure they would rather have been under this year. I don’t consider this an egregious offense and want to tar and feather Jed, like some do. But I do feel they should have stayed under this year. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

What happens year 3? I get what you and others defending Jed are saying. It isn’t that big a deal. But all things equal I am pretty sure they would rather have been under this year. I don’t consider this an egregious offense and want to tar and feather Jed, like some do. But I do feel they should have stayed under this year. 

In year 3(and any subsequent year they don't reset), if they are 5 million over the tax line they pay 2.5 million in penalties. This also scales even if they do plan to increase beyond 'just barely over'.  To quote myself from around the trade deadline:
 

On 7/22/2024 at 12:01 PM, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Take two hypotheticals of a 3 year sample:

A: under LT, 10 million over, 18 million over; 7.4 million in total penalties

B: 5 million over, 10 million over, 15 million over; 13 million in total penalties

 

In a budget where you're pushing 240-250 million in payroll to begin with, the penalties are not themselves a limiting factor.  You just set total spending target like 2% lower to account for them and don't worry about whether or not you inch over the line.

[squally1313]

I don't know what the mechanics would have been to push them back under once they got to midseason and didn't look like a playoff team. But like, Taillon probably could have gotten traded to save the (minimal) tax penalty. But then you're out a known starter for A. the slim chance you had at the playoffs this year and B. on a go forward basis. I really don't think it was as simple as some excel mistake. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

Should have left Neris to rot in March 😀

[Tim]

31 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

In year 3(and any subsequent year they don't reset), if they are 5 million over the tax line they pay 2.5 million in penalties. This also scales even if they do plan to increase beyond 'just barely over'.  To quote myself from around the trade deadline:
 

 

In a budget where you're pushing 240-250 million in payroll to begin with, the penalties are not themselves a limiting factor.  You just set total spending target like 2% lower to account for them and don't worry about whether or not you inch over the line.

What are the impacts on the draft and on international spending pools under this CBA? I know those were more of a deterrent than the financial penalty in past CBA's.

[Bertz]

20 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I don't know what the mechanics would have been to push them back under once they got to midseason and didn't look like a playoff team. But like, Taillon probably could have gotten traded to save the (minimal) tax penalty. But then you're out a known starter for A. the slim chance you had at the playoffs this year and B. on a go forward basis. I really don't think it was as simple as some excel mistake. 

I think if crossing the LT was some sort of grave job costing level error, you definitely make a Taillon trade, easy peasy.  

Timing probably made Bellinger un-dealable, but maybe some PTBNL focused deal could have been workable?

Smyly and Neris clearly didn't have major value, but probably could have been gotten rid of by using prospects.  For instance send the Yankees one of them along with Leiter and only get one prospect back instead of two.

Like any of the above may have been problematic, but not pulling the trigger on any of them kind of inherently implies the LT wasn't some huge job costing level issue.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

11 minutes ago, Tim said:

What are the impacts on the draft and on international spending pools under this CBA? I know those were more of a deterrent than the financial penalty in past CBA's.

AFAICT it's only the QO stuff that Bertz has highlighted.  If you lose a QO'd FA you get a pick after the 4th round instead of after the 2nd.  If you sign a QO'd FA you lose your 2nd & 5th best picks and 1 million in IFA money, instead of your 2nd best pick and 500k in IFA money.  So for the purposes of the 2025 Cubs, the difference is their 5th round pick and an additional 500k in IFA money lost if they sign a QO'd FA.

[Rcal10]

26 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

AFAICT it's only the QO stuff that Bertz has highlighted.  If you lose a QO'd FA you get a pick after the 4th round instead of after the 2nd.  If you sign a QO'd FA you lose your 2nd & 5th best picks and 1 million in IFA money, instead of your 2nd best pick and 500k in IFA money.  So for the purposes of the 2025 Cubs, the difference is their 5th round pick and an additional 500k in IFA money lost if they sign a QO'd FA.

I feel that is the bigger deterrent than the money. I also never felt it was a job losing move, to be over. I understand they may have had to trade Taillon to get under. And maybe Jed didn’t want to do that.  I just wish it was planned a little better. And maybe if they went over by $2M or whatever it was, and the money isn’t the issue, they should have gone over by more, to the max of the first penalty, and gotten a better player in the off season. I am not so upset about them going over. I am more unhappy that if they were over and not concerned about it they should have done a little more. 

[Tim]

43 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

AFAICT it's only the QO stuff that Bertz has highlighted.  If you lose a QO'd FA you get a pick after the 4th round instead of after the 2nd.  If you sign a QO'd FA you lose your 2nd & 5th best picks and 1 million in IFA money, instead of your 2nd best pick and 500k in IFA money.  So for the purposes of the 2025 Cubs, the difference is their 5th round pick and an additional 500k in IFA money lost if they sign a QO'd FA.

Thanks.

They may very well have no intention of signing a guy with a QO this offseason. If Cody opts in, they may leave the offense alone other than signing a catcher and breaking in a rookie or two. None of the catchers project to get a QO this offseason. Not too many relievers get a QO and the Cubs have been allergic to signing relievers to that kind of money, anyway. Which just leaves starters and the Cubs may prefer to do a trade or two to fill that/those spots.

(note - I'm not suggesting this is the right approach to the offseason, just that it could be Jed's)

Also, the fifth round pick and $500k in IFA money are real losses, but they're not that bad when compared to the impact that a high-end FA could have. So they just may not care all that much.

[Jason Ross]

28 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I feel that is the bigger deterrent than the money. I also never felt it was a job losing move, to be over. I understand they may have had to trade Taillon to get under. And maybe Jed didn’t want to do that.  I just wish it was planned a little better. And maybe if they went over by $2M or whatever it was, and the money isn’t the issue, they should have gone over by more, to the max of the first penalty, and gotten a better player in the off season. I am not so upset about them going over. I am more unhappy that if they were over and not concerned about it they should have done a little more. 

I don't even think that's a major deterrent. A 5th round pick is an extreme lottery ticket. This is a player whom almost every team has passed on four times, some have passed on them five, six or seven times depending on comp picks. They're not nothing but the likelihood any team is getting anything out of that pick is extremely low. Here are the last few selections in the 5th:

2023: Michael Carico 
2022: Brandon Birdsell
2021: Liam Spence
2020: Koen Moreno 
2019: Josh Burgmann 

As well, $500K in IFA is nice, but projecting out 16 year olds is...damn impossible. It's as much if not more of a lottery ticket than the draft many times. 

I think any team who says this is a deterrent is using it as an excuse, or is simply wrong in how much prospect clutching they're doing. It's not that I want to give those picks or players away...but give me an established MLB player over Liam Spence any day.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

A 5th round pick is also much more marginal a loss when it comes to cumulative draft pool than the 2nd rounders that folks are normally discussing in that cost/benefit calculation.  In this example they also give up the 2nd rounder, but the point being is that if you're okay with giving up the pick and pool for the 2nd, the odds are that you're going to be okay with the 2nd + 5th.

[Rcal10]

13 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I don't even think that's a major deterrent. A 5th round pick is an extreme lottery ticket. This is a player whom almost every team has passed on four times, some have passed on them five, six or seven times depending on comp picks. They're not nothing but the likelihood any team is getting anything out of that pick is extremely low. Here are the last few selections in the 5th:

2023: Michael Carico 
2022: Brandon Birdsell
2021: Liam Spence
2020: Koen Moreno 
2019: Josh Burgmann 

As well, $500K in IFA is nice, but projecting out 16 year olds is...damn impossible. It's as much if not more of a lottery ticket than the draft many times. 

I think any team who says this is a deterrent is using it as an excuse, or is simply wrong in how much prospect clutching they're doing. It's not that I want to give those picks or players away...but give me an established MLB player over Liam Spence any day.

Don’t teams over the luxury tax lose a second pick if they sign a guy who comes with a QO? If the penalty is only a 5th round pick I completely agree it isn’t a big deal and teams are just making excuses. I thought it was more than that. Or do they lose a 2nd pick if they are into the second tier of penalties. If all you ever lose is more money because the tax goes up and only a 5th pick than the Cubs could be and should be over the first tier every year. 

Edited September 19, 2024 by Rcal10

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Don’t teams over the luxury tax lose a second pick if they sign a guy who comes with a QO? If the penalty is only a 5th round pick I completely agree it isn’t a big deal and teams are just making excuses. I thought it was more than that. Or do they lose a 2nd pick if they are into the second tier of penalties. If all you ever lose is more money because the tax goes up and only a 5th pick than the Cubs could be and should be over the first tier every year. 

That second pick is the 5th round selection. Yes. 

[thawv]

6 hours ago, Bertz said:

The Athletic reported immediately after the Bellinger signing that they were likely close enough to the LT that they would end up over with normal day to day roster churn.  This didn't sneak up on anybody, and even if Jed was painted into a corner by Boras on the exact structure of the deal (doubtful given how badly he got worked over on the subsequent Boras 4 signings) if it was some sort of deal breaker Jed could have cut some salary at the deadline.

Like you say it's a "strategic blunder" and some sort of fixable offense, what exactly do you think the costs are of going over the line?

The cost would be about 320,000.  That's far from the issue though.  The issue is, they are not going over next season now. 

[chibears55]

Spotrac has them a million plus under still, who has them over ?

Edited September 19, 2024 by chibears55

[Rcal10]

10 minutes ago, thawv said:

The cost would be about 320,000.  That's far from the issue though.  The issue is, they are not going over next season now. 

Here is where you lose me. If it isn’t a big deal why won’t they go over next year? I agree that they probably shouldn’t have this year, but why does that doom next year, in your estimation? Apparently the penalties do not get that much worse. 
As I have said before, I do feel it was a miscalculation and at some point during the season it was realized they were over. And I also feel if that isn’t true, and they know before the start of the season, they would be over, I think it was a miss by the FO to not add a little more talent and go closer to the next line. That said, I am not sure why you now know they won’t go over this year. 

[Tim]

9 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Spotrac has them a million plus under still, who has them over ?

There are a lot of miscellaneous things that none of those sites can account for. Any benefits in the contracts count, so if the team flies spouses to games or any random stuff like that, if it is in the contract it counts against the cap.

fwiw, RosterResource has them about $689k above the limit:  https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/payroll/cubs

[Transmogrified Tiger]

13 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Spotrac has them a million plus under still, who has them over ?

Roster Resource has them about 600k over, but more importantly, Jed himself said they were probably going to be over.

[thawv]

16 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Here is where you lose me. If it isn’t a big deal why won’t they go over next year? I agree that they probably shouldn’t have this year, but why does that doom next year, in your estimation? Apparently the penalties do not get that much worse. 
As I have said before, I do feel it was a miscalculation and at some point during the season it was realized they were over. And I also feel if that isn’t true, and they know before the start of the season, they would be over, I think it was a miss by the FO to not add a little more talent and go closer to the next line. That said, I am not sure why you now know they won’t go over this year. 

History has show us that they are a very strict budget team.  To pay 30% penalty next season just doesn't seem like a Cubs thing to do.  They don't like to go over even one time, yet alone back to back seasons.  Hell, maybe they go over by 50 million next season.  But it just doesn't sound very Jed/Tom like.  Tom is all business, and has told us that their budget is the first level of the threshold.  So being all business, I don't think going over is part of their plan.  Especially with a .500 caliber team.  Now if they have a chance to win the WS, they may readdress the budget. 

[17 Seconds]

is this a message to jed?

 

Quote

“Yeah, I mean, we got to get better, man,” Counsell said. “The team we’re chasing is 10 games ahead of us. We got to get better. And we should be trying to build 90-win teams here. That’s like what you have to do. That’s a playoff standard. That’s what you got to get to, to be safely in the playoffs, safely in the tournament. Right? So from that perspective, we got a ways to go.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5780975/2024/09/19/craig-counsell-cubs-brewers-gap/

[thawv]

16 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Roster Resource has them about 600k over, but more importantly, Jed himself said they were probably going to be over.

It's mostly Smyly's bonuses that will kick in after the season.