Let's Take Quick Stock of Cubs' Payroll Situation, Including Considering What It Means for a Kyle Tucker Trade

[Matthew Trueblood]

It's probably gotten easy to lose track of the Cubs' spending power, as rumors distorted by imperfect information have muddied the water with regard to their 2025 payroll plans. Let's reset a little bit.

Image courtesy of © Charles LeClaire-Imagn Images

Firstly, and this is not an estimate the team has put out publicly but I've talked to several people and am comfortable giving this general range: the Cubs intend to spend between $220 million and $235 million on their total payroll for 2025. They also want to stay below the competitive-balance tax threshold, but in this case, that won't be the main focus. The high end of their budgetary range is a bit south of the $241 million that marks the first threshold for the tax anyway, so they'll expect to come in below it.

That's important to know. Here's the next key fact, in sequence: As things stand right now, including projected arbitration salaries and the Matthew Boyd deal from last month but not including the as-yet-unconfirmed Carson Kelly deal, the Cubs project to have a payroll right around $175 million. It's probably safer to call that $180 million, but that's the range. In other words, they can comfortably add anywhere from $40 million to $50 million more in 2025 payroll from here. If we assume they do get a deal done with Kelly and that he'll make somewhere just south of $10 million, we can say they have a solid $40 million with which to work, but probably no more.

To get from here to where they want to be on $40 million isn't quite as easy as it sounds, though. Public remarks by Jed Hoyer and Carter Hawkins have made it fairly clear that the team still wants to add a starting pitcher and at least one solid reliever. We also know they are aware of the need to upgrade the offense, partially because Seiya Suzuki might not be willing to act as a regular DH. Those are high-dollar menu items, and obviously, they do not intend to just throw cash at the problem.

Let's sketch out what they might do, though. We know they're in heavy on Kyle Tucker, should that trade actually materialize. While the possibility of that remains slim (and while visions of Brian Roberts and Jake Peavy should dance in your head today, as a prophylactic against premature excitement), it's a real possibility. That would be a coup, not least because it would end up being something like cash-neutral. The team would send out either Cody Bellinger or Suzuki in the process, and even if they gave up both Suzuki and Isaac Paredes and took back Ryan Pressly along with Tucker, that would add very little to their total payroll. It would cost them a lot in young talent, of course, but it would still be a game-changer, because it would leave that $40 million untouched. It could then be directed toward the aforementioned starter and reliever.

Imagine, even, that the Cubs end up spending an eight-figure sum on Kyle Finnegan, as we're roughly guessing they will with Kelly. That would still leave them positioned to absorb as much as $25 million in order to bring on board a starting pitcher to complete their depth chart. There are any number of ways to do that, and they'd probably like to do it cheaper, but that amount of money would give them endless paths forward. A deal that nets them Luis Castillo of the Mariners would still be on the table in such a scenario, for instance.

Assuming the Tucker deal remains just a nice dream, the needle needs some more careful threading. Any alternative move would come with some amount of added cost, and would mark a smaller upgrade to the positional corps. In such a case, though, they could turn all their attention and their expendable prospect capital toward acquiring Garrett Crochet, after all. He's cheap enough monetarily to have the same liberating effect on the rest of their key to-do list items as landing Tucker would have, but in a different way. 

The only substantial risk here is that, of the huge web of possibilities the team has cultivated over the last few weeks, they fail to bring any of the big things to fruition. The hurdle there isn't money; that's the good news. While the Ricketts family could and should spend much more money on the team each year, this offseason will be defined by what the front office does next. As this review should tell you, they won't be held back from anything they're seriously interested in by finances. Instead, they'll succeed or fail based on their ability to convert the possible into the actual, rather than letting these cool rumors turn into the next round of excruciating and (eventually) boring hypotheticals.

View full article

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think it's worth getting very specific about if we're talking about nominal payroll or luxury tax payroll for these purposes.  

Thankfully there aren't any huge backloading considerations for existing contracts, but the calcs can still make a difference.  That 180 million you quoted is basically nominal payroll(guarantees + arb estimates + pre-arb buffer to fill the roster), but not inclusive of the roughly 20 million of player benefits, Minor league 40 man salaries, and pre-arb bonus pool payments that count towards the luxury tax.

This matters because if we're talking about the ceiling being 235ish *in relation to the luxury tax line*, a nominal payroll of 235 would put them about 15 million over the tax line.  But if 235 *luxury tax* payroll is the ceiling, then Jed has 35 million on the absolute high end to spend, and a mere 20 million on the low end.

[Statyllus]

There are many Deadly Sins committed by Cubdom. The most grievous is believing money is the reason the Cubs don’t routinely win the NL Central. Pirates, Reds, Brewers, Cards don’t usually depend on out spending the Cubs to win. Here’s the Chicago Cubs dirty little secret. Cub leadership routinely makes decisions that don’t produce positive results. The fans and Hoyer would be better served if they simply focused more on improving baseball decisions (see Brewers and Guardians).

[Jason Ross]

28 minutes ago, Statyllus said:

There are many Deadly Sins committed by Cubdom. The most grievous is believing money is the reason the Cubs don’t routinely win the NL Central. Pirates, Reds, Brewers, Cards don’t usually depend on out spending the Cubs to win. Here’s the Chicago Cubs dirty little secret. Cub leadership routinely makes decisions that don’t produce positive results. The fans and Hoyer would be better served if they simply focused more on improving baseball decisions (see Brewers and Guardians).

It's probably a bit of column A and a bit from column B. I think at times, they could make better decisions. But every other team you listed here also gets benefits (the Cardinals sometimes) from being revenue sharing teams. They get more picks, and other bonuses. The Cubs benefit is being from a huge market. They could stand to make better choices at times, but not flexing their financial muscles enough, is a detriment and fighting with an arm tied behind their back, too.

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, 1908_Cubs said:

It's probably a bit of column A and a bit from column B. I think at times, they could make better decisions. But every other team you listed here also gets benefits (the Cardinals sometimes) from being revenue sharing teams. They get more picks, and other bonuses. The Cubs benefit is being from a huge market. They could stand to make better choices at times, but not flexing their financial muscles enough, is a detriment and fighting with an arm tied behind their back, too.

Yes. I have said this many times. The only advantage they get is they are a large market so they can and should spend big. When they don’t they are choosing not to take advantage of the one advantage they have.