Non Cub Offseason Transactions

[Rcal10]

22 hours ago, Dfan25 said:

Cubs made an offer to Moncada ) 3 million 

Since you posted this I wanted to ask, is this true or you just being sarcastic? I took it as you being sacrastic. But others have responded to you as if it was real. Did they offer him $3M? 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, Rcal10 said:

Since you posted this I wanted to ask, is this true or you just being sarcastic? I took it as you being sacrastic. But others have responded to you as if it was real. Did they offer him $3M? 

 

[Rcal10]

9 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

 

Thank you. I honestly wasn’t sure. 

[CubinNY]

I suppose we can talk about Bregman here now.

I'm happy for him. He got a nice contract. I find it funny and strange when fans say, "Boy, I'm glad we didn't sign him to a deal like that." Why does anyone care? The team obviously has the money to do it, or they wouldn't. And it makes the team better. It's good for Boston. 

[squally1313]

24 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I suppose we can talk about Bregman here now.

I'm happy for him. He got a nice contract. I find it funny and strange when fans say, "Boy, I'm glad we didn't sign him to a deal like that." Why does anyone care? The team obviously has the money to do it, or they wouldn't. And it makes the team better. It's good for Boston. 

Because we understand context and how doing one thing impacts other decisions. I feel like once a week I need to throw out this caveat that I'm aware the Ricketts have more money than I can ever fathom and they could have written a $50m check to Bregman every year for the next 4 years and have it not impact their lives one bit, and I would love to live in the world where that was their approach to owning a baseball team. I think they suck as people and as owners, and whatever else you want to see here to prove that, big picture, we all agree.

But we don't live in that world. Every single piece of evidence out there has the Cubs committing to staying at/just below the first luxury tax line in terms of AAV, or $240m. In that world, a $40m Bregman inevitably leads to other players getting traded away to get back to their stated salary goals. Bregman at $40m minus Hoerner minus anything else we can do with that net $28m minus really any financial flexibility going into the year minus the freedom we would have had if we didn't have to wait and see on Bregman opt ins the next two years, to me, makes the Cubs less likely to win baseball games. 

[Jason Ross]

20 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I suppose we can talk about Bregman here now.

I'm happy for him. He got a nice contract. I find it funny and strange when fans say, "Boy, I'm glad we didn't sign him to a deal like that." Why does anyone care? The team obviously has the money to do it, or they wouldn't. And it makes the team better. It's good for Boston. 

I think we have to address the contract two ways: 

1. I remain frustrated that the Cubs have a desperate need to act within the LT. The Cubs shouldn't need to act this way. The Cubs have the capacity to do more. And we should continue to call that out. The Cubs should not have to penny pinch and act like these contracts are impossible. It's horsefeathers. 

2. We also have to accept that regardless of calling that out, being frustrated, etc, that Tom Ricketts is who Tom Ricketts is. He's not going anywhere. He doesn't care what anyone thinks. And he's going to continue to put the Cubs on a controlled budget. In that aspect, we have to view any contract through that lens, as well. And I think it's fair to say "within the budgetary constrains that are here, that signing Bregman at that level probably isn't the best usage of that money". I think it's fair to point out that you may think it was the best use of that money too - but it's an understanding that the money is limited regardless. 

I sincerely wish Ricketts would open up the pockets. He's not a good owner, and he deserves no plaudits. At the same time, Jed Hoyer can only do what he can do within a budget. So there's a few ways to look at it. It doesn't mean anyone is necessarily complicit in Rickett's spending to acknowledge the second point - I'd argue it's being aware of the reality of the situation. 

[CubinNY]

Just now, squally1313 said:

Because we understand context and how doing one thing impacts other decisions. I feel like once a week I need to throw out this caveat that I'm aware the Ricketts have more money than I can ever fathom and they could have written a $50m check to Bregman every year for the next 4 years and have it not impact their lives one bit, and I would love to live in the world where that was their approach to owning a baseball team. I think they suck as people and as owners, and whatever else you want to see here to prove that, big picture, we all agree.

But we don't live in that world. Every single piece of evidence out there has the Cubs committing to staying at/just below the first luxury tax line in terms of AAV, or $240m. In that world, a $40m Bregman inevitably leads to other players getting traded away to get back to their stated salary goals. Bregman at $40m minus Hoerner minus anything else we can do with that net $28m minus really any financial flexibility going into the year minus the freedom we would have had if we didn't have to wait and see on Bregman opt ins the next two years, to me, makes the Cubs less likely to win baseball games. 

right. It sounds like sour grapes and people trying to be too smart. Why would you not want your team to have good players? Whatever, to each his own. Play Baseball Mogul on the website, it's fun I suppose. 

[KCCub]

Anxious to see what the final deferral numbers are -

 

Sox choose to block a better prospect than Shaw in Campbell, and pay a premium AAV (Well at least until the deferral luxury tax value is finalized). This is going to be a fun follow over the next 2-3 years to see how it plays out. 

[CubinNY]

I understand the Cubs situation and they made a very reasonable offer to Bregman. I'm not upset with the Jed or Tommy Boy. But I'm also not going to commiserate with billionaire owners about how much one of the best players in baseball is getting paid.  

[Transmogrified Tiger]

“Why would fans consider the reality of their team’s spending in deciding if a particular contract is a good idea” should not be a particularly difficult question to answer

[CubinNY]

14 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

“Why would fans consider the reality of their team’s spending in deciding if a particular contract is a good idea” should not be a particularly difficult question to answer

lol. I don’t want that good player he makes too much money is one helluva answer by a fan of a team who should care about winning. 

Edited February 13, 2025 by CubinNY

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I understand the Cubs situation and they made a very reasonable offer to Bregman. I'm not upset with the Jed or Tommy Boy. But I'm also not going to commiserate with billionaire owners about how much one of the best players in baseball is getting paid.  

No one here is doing that. The argument against signing Bregman isn't 'oh man, he's not worth that kind of money, he's just playing a game out there, etc'. If we work within the framework of a $240m budget, the corresponding moves required to accommodate this contract, to me, more than offset the value Bregman brings to the team in terms of winning baseball games. 

If we aren't working within a budget framework....then yeah, go get him. Go trade for Trout. Take Arenado off the Cardinals hands. Bring back Baez to be our defensive specialist late in games and just do cool tag stuff. Every post on here in regards to any particular player can just be 'Sure! Why not! There's plenty of money!'

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

lol. I don’t want that good player he makes too much money is one helluva answer by a fan of a time who should care about winning. 

No one has said this. People are not complaining that Alex Bregman makes too much money on this forum. They've said that it's okay that the Red Sox are the team who have chosen to pay him that amount, but from what I can tell, it's exclusively from a "we understand the Cubs have a budget" standpoint. No one likes the budget. And no one is rallying about MLB players making millions here. They're understanding that it sucks that the Cubs operate under a budget, but as long as they do, maybe they could use the money in a different way to better help the team win.

[CubinNY]

Just now, 1908_Cubs said:

No one has said this. People are not complaining that Alex Bregman makes too much money on this forum. They've said that it's okay that the Red Sox are the team who have chosen to pay him that amount, but from what I can tell, it's exclusively from a "we understand the Cubs have a budget" standpoint. No one likes the budget. And no one is rallying about MLB players making millions here. They're understanding that it sucks that the Cubs operate under a budget, but as long as they do, maybe they could use the money in a different way to better help the team win.

Did you read the locked forum? "he's getting paid like a 28 year old 8 war player". 

[Rob]

34 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

lol. I don’t want that good player he makes too much money is one helluva answer by a fan of a team who should care about winning. 

How many times last offseason did we see fans using pretty much this exact argument to try to justify giving into Bellinger's ~$200 million dollar demands?

Should the Cubs operate on the budget that they do? No.

Do they? Yes.

In the world in which we live, giving players too large of a contract constricts what they're able to offer to other players. Paying $40 million a year to Alex Bregman would, in all likelihood, put the Cubs in a position where they couldn't resign Tucker. Or if they did somehow manage to sign Tucker, it wouldn't matter, because there wouldn't be enough budget left over to field a competitive team around him and Bregman.

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, Rob said:

How many times last offseason did we see fans using pretty much this exact argument to try to justify giving into Bellinger's ~$200 million dollar demands?

Should the Cubs operate on the budget that they do? No.

Do they? Yes.

In the world in which we live, giving players too large of a contract constricts what they're able to offer to other players. Paying $40 million a year to Alex Bregman would, in all likelihood, put the Cubs in a position where they couldn't resign Tucker. Or if they did somehow manage to sign Tucker, it wouldn't matter, because there wouldn't be enough budget left over to field a competitive team around him and Bregman.

News flash, they aren't resigning Tucker either if he has a good season. 

[CubinNY]

If I were a slugger who was looking for my next big contract, I wouldn't sign in Detriot either. Their park is an awful hitter's park year over year. 

[squally1313]

59 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Did you read the locked forum? "he's getting paid like a 28 year old 8 war player". 

A. As far as I can tell, no one said that. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The closest thing I can find in the search is JDL saying: nobody expected a 4 WAR 31 year old to get paid like a 6 WAR 28 year old. 

B. Do you understand, in this hypothetical situation, that this type of complaining around here is not: oh man, thank god the Cubs owner didn't give the guy more than he deserved? Instead, it's more: oh wow, I think that was a bad use of a, for all intents and purposes, finite amount of money, and I think the Cubs (or the Red Sox, or whoever), could have used that same amount of money in a different way to put together a better overall baseball team.

[squally1313]

45 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

This cartoonish presentation of what it might be like if Der Burgets wasn’t front and center 24/7/365 is def a part of why the Ricketts get to behave like they do. “If we don’t regulate fan thought then they’ll just demand anyone and get it because thats how it works!!” Like no its not how it works so why are we pretending otherwise 

2nd edit: Aaaaaaalso I’d point out that tying together action with what fans demand to see is like… Yeah, I’ve been saying the various sports leagues and its very few owners are happy to oblige the overwhelming fan demand for always getting cheaper, younger 

Basically sports fans:

 

Like 90% of the good discussion around offseason transactions, team building, etc around here is people mostly agreeing on a set of financial guidelines, that we can't control, no matter how many random words we capitalize, and then trying to figure out the best team that can be built within those financial guidelines. You can debate the merit/value of the discussion, but here we are, in the Transactions Forum of a Cubs Message Board, where we've all been, for years. 

And then the other 10% of the time is like, you and CubinNY coming in and being like, 'well hey, what if those guidelines just didn't exist', or, lately, from you, 'it's actually all your guys fault that the guidelines exist in the first place'. It's like you're watching us all play HORSE in the driveway and then being like 'well why don't you just spell the word with more letters?'

[CubinNY]

14 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

A. As far as I can tell, no one said that. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The closest thing I can find in the search is JDL saying: nobody expected a 4 WAR 31 year old to get paid like a 6 WAR 28 year old. 

B. Do you understand, in this hypothetical situation, that this type of complaining around here is not: oh man, thank god the Cubs owner didn't give the guy more than he deserved? Instead, it's more: oh wow, I think that was a bad use of a, for all intents and purposes, finite amount of money, and I think the Cubs (or the Red Sox, or whoever), could have used that same amount of money in a different way to put together a better overall baseball team.

pedantic as always. The thread cop. 

Edited February 13, 2025 by CubinNY

[squally1313]

Just now, TomtheBombadil said:

I would submit fans have had a ton of say into the current, revamped economics if the sport. We beeeeeeeeeggggggggeeeeeed for a burget, a cap, and all these rules because Disney told us the workers are asking for all the moneyz 

Tom this is a horsefeathers message board with like 16 regulars, and anyone else ends up here through a Trueblood article, reads that, and then bails. Would it make you feel any better if we all voted to just have like, a default disclaimer attached to every post? "Tom Ricketts should spend more money on the team because he's an horsefeathers who can absolutely afford it and it's infuriating that he doesn't". And then, having got that out of the way, we could go back to what we were actually talking about. 

[squally1313]

6 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

pedantic as always. 

 

[CubinNY]

Here is a real gem:

"That’s just stupid, Boston."

[Derwood]

16 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Here is a real gem:

"That’s just stupid, Boston."

Spending $10M AAV MORE than Mookie Betts for Alex Bregman is, indeed, stupid. 

[Derwood]

Just now, TomtheBombadil said:

Please stop diarrheaing out this stuff. Its like childish. Mookie Betts extended (didn’t hit FA) half a decade ago

Yes but what does Disney 2.0 purple monkey dishwasher?