Post Winter Meetings Free Agency thread

[LBiittner]

Not sure if his glove is worth a shot, but would Kiki hernandez be a good option to be a super sub for Jed? He's played every position except catcher although not necessarily well?

[chibears55]

Giants, BlueJays, Orioles,  Dodgers,  Cubs.

 

 

Edited December 24, 2024 by chibears55

[Stratos]

9 hours ago, Backtobanks said:

He's only played CF 5 times in his career too.  LOL

I think Tucker could play CF or 1B in a pinch, like how Busch played some 2B.  If Busch or PCA go on the IL I don't think he starts at those positions for weeks.  IMO they'd bring up Alcantara for CF, possibly Canario, and at 1B maybe Mervis and more likely they sign a bench bat this winter that can play 1B or the corners.

[Stratos]

59 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Giants, BlueJays, Orioles,  Dodgers,  Cubs.

 

 

I read this article, it's just speculation, no actual intel whatsoever.

Hard to see a fit here unless Ricketts goes over the tax line.

Edited December 24, 2024 by Stratos

[thawv]

10 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Plus there is no reason for better defenders to sit while he plays. Five a guy a day off from playing the field is one thing. Playing a worse defender as often as a GG defender is not practical. 
And do we know for sure he said that, or is that speculation? That is what I am uncertain about. 

This is his agent

 

"I think that if he was being posted in Japan and teams were presenting to them their opportunities and they said you could come here and be our full time DH, I don't think he would have signed with that team.”

Edited December 24, 2024 by thawv

[Rcal10]

8 hours ago, chibears55 said:

Giants, BlueJays, Orioles,  Dodgers,  Cubs.

 

 

Highly doubt the Cubs are remotely an option. But playing it out, if they did sign him you can forget about a Tucker extension. 

[thawv]

10 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Highly doubt the Cubs are remotely an option. But playing it out, if they did sign him you can forget about a Tucker extension. 

If we had to forget about signing Tucker because we got Burnes, it wouldn't be about money, because there's going to be tens of millions available heading in to 2027.  And that' with both of these guys already signed, and arb raise and 0-3 guys.  

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, thawv said:

If we had to forget about signing Tucker because we got Burnes, it wouldn't be about money, because there's going to be tens of millions available heading in to 2027.  And that' with both of these guys already signed, and arb raise and 0-3 guys.  

And then a bunch of bad players filling out the rest of the team. Besides that, if they did sign Burnes this year that would account for almost all the money they have available. Maybe they would get a pen arm for $5M. And that is it. I don’t see it, but maybe they try winning with starting pitching and defense. 

[thawv]

17 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

And then a bunch of bad players filling out the rest of the team. Besides that, if they did sign Burnes this year that would account for almost all the money they have available. Maybe they would get a pen arm for $5M. And that is it. I don’t see it, but maybe they try winning with starting pitching and defense. 

Well look at it this way.  Enter 2027, they are sitting at 48 million.  I'm just going to use 36 for Burnes, and 40 for Tucker.  It's just numbers to use.  That puts them at 124 million in payroll.  Even using a high number of 50 million in arb raises and 0-3 players, that's now 174 million.  That's way more than enough money to sign big time players on top of what they have.   Unless they made a trade to clear up payroll, this would put them over in 2026.  I personally don't think it's going to happen.  But the CBT threshold won't be the reason it doesn't. 

Edited December 24, 2024 by thawv

[LBiittner]

6 hours ago, thawv said:

Well look at it this way.  Enter 2027, they are sitting at 48 million.  I'm just going to use 36 for Burnes, and 40 for Tucker.  It's just numbers to use.  That puts them at 124 million in payroll.  Even using a high number of 50 million in arb raises and 0-3 players, that's now 174 million.  That's way more than enough money to sign big time players on top of what they have.   Unless they made a trade to clear up payroll, this would put them over in 2026.  I personally don't think it's going to happen.  But the CBT threshold won't be the reason it doesn't. 

My hunch 2027 is quite possibly up for grabs. The 3 tier penalty program as written today, will probably be altered. None of the spending castrations will hold water as currently written.

December 31 2026, The player association deal with mlb will cease to exist and the threat of a strike/work stoppage will be looming and it might lead to a new way mlb owners restrict their spending. 

[chibears55]

15 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Highly doubt the Cubs are remotely an option. But playing it out, if they did sign him you can forget about a Tucker extension. 

I didn't realize all they would lose because of the QO made to him, so I rescind,  he's definitely not an option here....

Corbin Burnes rejected the qualifying offer this offseason, which attaches him to draft pick compensation. So even if he wasn’t seeking a massive bag in free agency (we’re getting to that news in a second), the Cubs seem wholly unlikely to go there. As a reminder, because the Cubs were officially over the luxury tax last season, signing a qualified free agent would cost them their second *and* fifth-round picks in the 2025 MLB Draft (including those bonus slots), plus $1M in IFA bonus pool space.

 

[Rcal10]

8 hours ago, chibears55 said:

I didn't realize all they would lose because of the QO made to him, so I rescind,  he's definitely not an option here....

Corbin Burnes rejected the qualifying offer this offseason, which attaches him to draft pick compensation. So even if he wasn’t seeking a massive bag in free agency (we’re getting to that news in a second), the Cubs seem wholly unlikely to go there. As a reminder, because the Cubs were officially over the luxury tax last season, signing a qualified free agent would cost them their second *and* fifth-round picks in the 2025 MLB Draft (including those bonus slots), plus $1M in IFA bonus pool space.

 

You really think the deciding factor is because of the actual added penalty for going over the LT will be the reason they won’t sign him? If not for that one reason they would? I don’t think they will sign him, but there is no chance that added penalty matters. 

[thawv]

17 hours ago, LBiittner said:

My hunch 2027 is quite possibly up for grabs. The 3 tier penalty program as written today, will probably be altered. None of the spending castrations will hold water as currently written.

December 31 2026, The player association deal with mlb will cease to exist and the threat of a strike/work stoppage will be looming and it might lead to a new way mlb owners restrict their spending. 

I agree with this!!  Cap discussion is imminent. 

[Rcal10]

37 minutes ago, thawv said:

I agree with this!!  Cap discussion is imminent. 

I also agree with biittner as well. Something has to be changed. Not sure it is a cap, because I don’t think the players will like that. I think this is going to cause a significant stoppage in play before it will be figured out. There is no easy answer, but I don’t think the cap will do it. 

[CubinNY]

The players will do a cap if there is a floor and equitable revenue sharing. It’s the owners who can’t agree on that because they (Reinsdorf and Ricketts must of all) are greedy horsefeathers bags of puss and horsefeathers. 

[Cuzi]

3 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

The players will do a cap if there is a floor and equitable revenue sharing. It’s the owners who can’t agree on that because they (Reinsdorf and Ricketts must of all) are greedy horsefeathers bags of puss and horsefeathers. 

If a floor was put in place, you can rest assured the Cubs have been above that floor the entire time Ricketts has owned the team.

[thawv]

3 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I also agree with biittner as well. Something has to be changed. Not sure it is a cap, because I don’t think the players will like that. I think this is going to cause a significant stoppage in play before it will be figured out. There is no easy answer, but I don’t think the cap will do it. 

With a cap, there has to be a floor also.  If teams have to spend a minimum amount of money, I think most players would love that.  

[jersey cubs fan]

13 minutes ago, thawv said:

With a cap, there has to be a floor also.  If teams have to spend a minimum amount of money, I think most players would love that.  

Nope. Caps artificially suppress salaries and a floor will not satisfy the players. 
 

The luxury tax already suppresses salaries bit you can still see that owners can easily afford way above those artificial limits 

[thawv]

19 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Nope. Caps artificially suppress salaries and a floor will not satisfy the players. 
 

The luxury tax already suppresses salaries bit you can still see that owners can easily afford way above those artificial limits 

I disagree.  Players should love the idea that teams must spend a minimum amount of money on them. 

 

[LBiittner]

No worries on if Jed extends Tucker here. Jed will extend Tucker to a tremendously equitable deal beginning in season 2026. Because of the mlb player contract expiration at 2026 years end, jed probably already knows owners targets as well as players targets in a new collective agreement. Believe it, owners and management are not going into this blindly. Rest assured, jed has an idea what penalties if any, are being forecasted for future payrolls

[Rcal10]

28 minutes ago, LBiittner said:

No worries on if Jed extends Tucker here. Jed will extend Tucker to a tremendously equitable deal beginning in season 2026. Because of the mlb player contract expiration at 2026 years end, jed probably already knows owners targets as well as players targets in a new collective agreement. Believe it, owners and management are not going into this blindly. Rest assured, jed has an idea what penalties if any, are being forecasted for future payrolls

I don’t believe this to be true. But if it gets Tucker signed to an extension I am all for it. The reason I don’t think this is true is because I honestly do not think the owners have a clue how to fix this situation. They all have different agendas. What is good for smaller market teams the large market teams won’t like, and vice versa. This is strictly 30 different companies trying to agree to play under one set of rules. For teams like the A’s, Pirates, etc you can’t punish the big spenders enough for their liking. For the large markets, all punishment is too severe. I don’t see how any FO can forecast what future punishments will be. 

[Backtobanks]

3 hours ago, Cuzi said:

If a floor was put in place, you can rest assured the Cubs have been above that floor the entire time Ricketts has owned the team.

That's setting a pretty low bar when you have teams like the WS, A's, Pirates, etc.  

[jersey cubs fan]

2 hours ago, thawv said:

I disagree.  Players should love the idea that teams must spend a minimum amount of money on them. 

 

Okay, disagree then. The idea of a cap and a floor has been discussed for decades. It’s nothing new. Players don’t want a cap. 

[Jason Ross]

2 hours ago, thawv said:

I disagree.  Players should love the idea that teams must spend a minimum amount of money on them. 

 

A cap and a floor only makes sense with revenue transparency. The MLB had all sorts of anti-trust laws protecting them from doing just that. Any cap/floor without that would be decidedly anti-player and why the MLBPA has refused it for years. It is better for them to have free spending teams like the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees than it is to force the As to spend a tiny bit more. 

Owners will not open the books. They have no reason to do so.

[thawv]

25 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

A cap and a floor only makes sense with revenue transparency. The MLB had all sorts of anti-trust laws protecting them from doing just that. Any cap/floor without that would be decidedly anti-player and why the MLBPA has refused it for years. It is better for them to have free spending teams like the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees than it is to force the As to spend a tiny bit more. 

Owners will not open the books. They have no reason to do so.

I agree with all of this.  I'm just saying that it's going to be a topic for the next CBA