Update: Passan confirms trade done. Tucker to Cubs for Paredes, Cam Smith, Wesneski

[jersey cubs fan]

Are they really going to arbitration with Tucker? 

[BigbadB]

7 hours ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Are they really going to arbitration with Tucker? 

Apparently. Definitely not how I would like to see this play out. 

[CubinNY]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are working on an extension, which is why the arbitration case didn't get settled.

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are working on an extension, which is why the arbitration case didn't get settled.

That would be AMAZING. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

I feel like there would be a little smoke around that if that were the case

[UMFan83]

3 hours ago, CubinNY said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are working on an extension, which is why the arbitration case didn't get settled.

We wouldnt be Cubs fans if we weren't malignantly optimistic I guess 

[CubinNY]

12 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

We wouldnt be Cubs fans if we weren't malignantly optimistic I guess 

it makes no sense, otherwise. 

[Dfan25]

4 hours ago, CubinNY said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are working on an extension, which is why the arbitration case didn't get settled.

Lindor agreed with the Mets before extending . Betts agree before extending .  I think its more likely than they arent interested in an extensión and they are trying to save every possible dollar for 2025.

. Hoyer doesnt even have a contract for next year . I doubt very much that he has the green light to do this kind of deal 

I think its a bad look for the organización TBH .

[Rcal10]

15 minutes ago, Dfan25 said:

Lindor agreed with the Mets before extending . Betts agree before extending .  I think its more likely than they arent interested in an extensión and they are trying to save every possible dollar for 2025.

. Hoyer doesnt even have a contract for next year . I doubt very much that he has the green light to do this kind of deal 

I think its a bad look for the organización TBH .

You are probably right. But I don’t think Hoyer not having a contract for next year matters one way or the other. It is going to ownership that is paying the contract. If they want him long term they can easily give him the green light, whether he makes it beyond 25’ or not is irrelevant. And I also don’t think ownership has to know Hoyer will be around behind this year to allow him to get a deal done. Bottom line is they will have to approve it, whether Hoyer is on his last year or he signed for 3 more years. 

[Dfan25]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

You are probably right. But I don’t think Hoyer not having a contract for next year matters one way or the other. It is going to ownership that is paying the contract. If they want him long term they can easily give him the green light, whether he makes it beyond 25’ or not is irrelevant. And I also don’t think ownership has to know Hoyer will be around behind this year to allow him to get a deal done. Bottom line is they will have to approve it, whether Hoyer is on his last year or he signed for 3 more years. 

I disagree . I think Hoyers status very much could be a factor in a decisión like this . A Tucker extensión would  be the biggest payroll commitment for the next 8-10 years

. I have a hard time believing Ricketts would allow a guy that he isnt sure will be the president in 2025 , make that important decisión .  
 

I think they would want , the longterm payroll as clear as possible , for a potencial new front office to work with .

 

 

 

 

[Irrelevant Dude]

6 minutes ago, Dfan25 said:

I think they would want , the longterm payroll as clear as possible , for a potencial new front office to work with .

Or maybe a new front office might like having a star in the middle of the lineup for the next several years.  Who cares about 8 years from now?

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, Dfan25 said:

I disagree . I think Hoyers status very much could be a factor in a decisión like this . A Tucker extensión would  be the biggest payroll commitment for the next 8-10 years

. I have a hard time believing Ricketts would allow a guy that he isnt sure will be the president in 2025 , make that important decisión .  
 

I think they would want , the longterm payroll as clear as possible , for a potencial new front office to work with .

 

 

 

 

Is it really a tough decision if you think Tucker is talented enough to be on the team moving forward? If anything, isn’t Hoyer wanting Tucker here long term, even if he might not be here past this year, a greater compliment to Tucker’s ability? Isn’t it really a money decision only? Ownership has the money. I think everyone knows Tucker is extremely good. So does Rickets want to spend the money or not? I just don’t see what difference it makes who is running the team after this year.  

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Or maybe a new front office might like having a star in the middle of the lineup for the next several years.  Who cares about 8 years from now?

Correct. I really doubt someone doesn’t take the job because they are burdened with Tucker’s contract moving forward. 

[squally1313]

1 hour ago, Dfan25 said:

I have a hard time believing Ricketts would allow a guy that he isnt sure will be the president in 2025 , make that important decisión .  

But he was fine with trading our starting third baseman (three years of cheap control) and a top 100 prospect for a guy with one year left before free agency (aka Hoyer's Save His Job year)?

[Bertz]

lol

 

[KCCub]

4 minutes ago, Bertz said:

lol

 

My heart stopped for a second when I saw that pop up on my feed. Killing me Jesse

[ToolDRT]

Getting Tucker for a year will go down as one of the dumbest moves I’ve seen as a cubs fan. 
 

okay, this might by hyperbole because I’m tired and can’t think straight. But it’s very dumb. 

[Dfan25]

Mike Rodriguez is all over the place with his sources , but every now and then , he gets something . Take this FWIW :