Post Winter Meetings Free Agency thread

[sweetpeteman]

It's also not the last minute to sign a deal. It's when they submit their offers that would be decided between by an arbitrator. They can still sign a deal or an extension at any time.

[Bertz]

12 minutes ago, Rob said:

I don't think it's so much that the Cubs wait until the last minute. Rather, I think that Jed values secrecy more than most, and so our front office is less inclined to leak things to the press.

I mean sure we're not tracking the actual documents getting submitted to the league office, but they drag their feet on getting this information out publicly on every single deadline.  And there's no strategic value to the secrecy around these administrative items.

[Bertz]

[Derwood]

Steele for under $7m is a.....steal

[JunkyardWalrus]

Odds on Jed taking Tucker to arb?

[Derwood]

Just now, JunkyardWalrus said:

Odds on Jed taking Tucker to arb?

Aren't the Cubs famous for almost never going to arb?

[Irrelevant Dude]

2 hours ago, CubinNY said:

and put in transactions 

Never give up the fight.

[We Got The Whole 9]

Take him to arb and effuse nothing but praise and advise the arbiters to do what's fair for the player. Engender some good vibes.

[Stratos]

11 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Two things:

1. 78 games isn't nothing, either. It's a large enough sample that all of the data is stable and not random. So it's small, but relevant. 

2. Using projections here is a self-filling prophecy of some sorts. 2024 saw a shift in Tucker, as he hit for more power. But projections take data from his last few seasons, and his 78 games would thus be outweighed in those projections. If those changes stick, projections wont see it. So yes, his *projections* are in line with his career, but they always will be. If a change was made, that's not where you'd look to begin with. 

Ultimately you're underselling just how good Tucker is regardless. 5 win players don't grow on trees. There's no salary restrictions that should cause the Cubs to punt a potential extension here. Sign Tucker.

We all know a 5 win player like Tucker is rare and very valuable. The question is how long does he stay a 5 WAR player?  Most humans are better athletes in their 20s than their 30s.

He was 27 this year.  If we sign him to a 10/400 extension (40m AAV) that starts when he's 29 and he regresses to a 4 WAR player when he's 31 and 3.5 WAR at 33 are we still good with that contract?  It happened to Machado and Pujols among many others and they were better than Tucker.

The payroll considerations come in the form of being able to eat some salary for an overpaid player in their mid/late 30s (and still win) in order to have peak Tucker early in the extension.

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, Stratos said:

We all know a 5 win player like Tucker is rare and very valuable. The question is how long does he stay a 5 WAR player?  Most humans are better athletes in their 20s than their 30s.

He was 27 this year.  If we sign him to a 10/400 extension (40m AAV) that starts when he's 29 and he regresses to a 4 WAR player when he's 31 and 3.5 WAR at 33 are we still good with that contract?  It happened to Machado and Pujols among many others and they were better than Tucker.

The payroll considerations come in the form of being able to eat some salary for an overpaid player in their mid/late 30s (and still win) in order to have peak Tucker early in the extension.

If he signed a 10 year deal wouldn’t it start now? He is 27. So why would he be 29 when it starts? Let’s use $40M as a number for 9 years after this one and $16M this one. So 10 years for $376M. Does that seem about right? If he is worth it and even more for the first 4 years and then the next 4 only plays at the level he is being paid, is it so terrible for 2 years he is being paid a little too much than what he is worth? They are a major market. They should be able to carry an inflated contract and still be good. High budget teams do it all the time. If you want great players, and I do, sometimes you also have to pay them when they are not so great. And, tbh, $37.6M annual might not be that much  of an k repay in 2032-2033. Bottom line is the Cubs can afford it. 

[Bertz]

9 minutes ago, Stratos said:

We all know a 5 win player like Tucker is rare and very valuable. The question is how long does he stay a 5 WAR player?  Most humans are better athletes in their 20s than their 30s.

He was 27 this year.  If we sign him to a 10/400 extension (40m AAV) that starts when he's 29 and he regresses to a 4 WAR player when he's 31 and 3.5 WAR at 33 are we still good with that contract?  It happened to Machado and Pujols among many others and they were better than Tucker.

The payroll considerations come in the form of being able to eat some salary for an overpaid player in their mid/late 30s (and still win) in order to have peak Tucker early in the extension.

I'm about as sympathetic as you're going to find on these types of arguments generally, but

A) 29 is still very much on the young side for a long term contract to start

B) the Cubs have essentially no money aside from Swanson tied up past 2026

C) Tucker's about as safe, consistent, and well rounded as you're going to get an opportunity to watch yourself to

Like if you say no to Tucker, you're pretty much categorically out on these sorts of deals broadly?  Because even the 25/26 year old who reach FA are starting to get 13/14 year deals, so you're not getting away from paying players in their late 30's unless you refuse to play the game entirely.

[Jason Ross]

26 minutes ago, Stratos said:

We all know a 5 win player like Tucker is rare and very valuable. The question is how long does he stay a 5 WAR player?  Most humans are better athletes in their 20s than their 30s.

He was 27 this year.  If we sign him to a 10/400 extension (40m AAV) that starts when he's 29 and he regresses to a 4 WAR player when he's 31 and 3.5 WAR at 33 are we still good with that contract?  It happened to Machado and Pujols among many others and they were better than Tucker.

The payroll considerations come in the form of being able to eat some salary for an overpaid player in their mid/late 30s (and still win) in order to have peak Tucker early in the extension.

This is such small market mentality. The Chicago Cubs should, every year, run a salary next to, if not a bit above the LT. The LT is something that is getting larger each year. Now, there's some CBT stuff that's going to go down shortly again, but I think it's probably safe to assume that the LT ain't going backwards. Add in inflation, and we have story, after story, after story where within 2-3 years many of these mega deals are all of a sudden not that big. For example, remember when people were surprised about Corey Seager coming in above market projections? He currently sits 21st in baseball, It's taken two years for six contracts to sign above him, and will likely continue to move down the pecking order. By next year alone he could be outside of the top-25. Bryce Harper was another story - he's been almost a bargain when you see where he currently sits in AAV (outside of the top-30 already) What it mans is as time goes, the contract, even if it feels big now, will become a smaller and smaller fraction to the LT and compared to his peers.

The point I'm making is this: Kyle Tucker doesn't have to be a 5+ win player every year with the further increase in contracts, the adding to the LT.... We also  know that contracts have surplus value up front (at $40m, you'd be paying him for under five wins - wins are going around $9m+ on the market). So you pay more later, but inflation and the LT helps balance that loss out, as well. 

Lastly, Tucker has a pretty great skillset. He's got a great approach (a skill that ages well) and is not overly reliant on his athleticism. He's capable of moving off RF down the road, and could play 1b as he ages (and his bat will likely play okay). 

Is there risk? Sure. There's risk. There's literally risk getting in your car every day, there's risk getting out of bed, there's going to be risk signing someone to a 10-12 year deal. However, the risk here is the right risk. Just sign Kyle Tucker. Not only can the Cubs afford it, he's a really good player and a good bet to age well. There shouldn't be much of a debate here. If there is, you'll literally never sign a large contract. Ever. There is no such thing as a perfect player or a perfect contract. But Kyle Tucker is about as safe of a long term deal as you're going to find.

[Rcal10]

9 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

This is such small market mentality. The Chicago Cubs should, every year, run a salary next to, if not a bit above the LT. The LT is something that is getting larger each year. Now, there's some CBT stuff that's going to go down shortly again, but I think it's probably safe to assume that the LT ain't going backwards. Add in inflation, and we have story, after story, after story where within 2-3 years many of these mega deals are all of a sudden not that big. For example, remember when people were surprised about Corey Seager coming in above market projections? He currently sits 21st in baseball, It's taken two years for six contracts to sign above him, and will likely continue to move down the pecking order. By next year alone he could be outside of the top-25. Bryce Harper was another story - he's been almost a bargain when you see where he currently sits in AAV (outside of the top-30 already) What it mans is as time goes, the contract, even if it feels big now, will become a smaller and smaller fraction to the LT and compared to his peers.

The point I'm making is this: Kyle Tucker doesn't have to be a 5+ win player every year with the further increase in contracts, the adding to the LT.... We also  know that contracts have surplus value up front (at $40m, you'd be paying him for under five wins - wins are going around $9m+ on the market). So you pay more later, but inflation and the LT helps balance that loss out, as well. 

Lastly, Tucker has a pretty great skillset. He's got a great approach (a skill that ages well) and is not overly reliant on his athleticism. He's capable of moving off RF down the road, and could play 1b as he ages (and his bat will likely play okay). 

Is there risk? Sure. There's risk. There's literally risk getting in your car every day, there's risk getting out of bed, there's going to be risk signing someone to a 10-12 year deal. However, the risk here is the right risk. Just sign Kyle Tucker. Not only can the Cubs afford it, he's a really good player and a good bet to age well. There shouldn't be much of a debate here. If there is, you'll literally never sign a large contract. Ever. There is no such thing as a perfect player or a perfect contract. But Kyle Tucker is about as safe of a long term deal as you're going to find.

Exactly. If a team is not willing to sign the mega deals that are the norm for the stars, they will never have stars. Even if they are home grown they will be gone as soon as they hit free agency agency. I understand (a little bit more)the POV of Stratos if the Cubs were not a major market, but they are. He is the perfect person to start acting like a major market for. And being $40M+under the LT they can afford to sign him now and take $37M as his LT salary instead of $17M, and still have $20M to spend on a pitcher.  Honestly now is the time to act big market. 

[Post Count Padder]

Cubs were granted an extra option year on Killian, for whatever that's worth.

[Derwood]

$40m in 2034 is worth a lot less than $40m in 2025. As long as it isn't backloaded, the decline in production will coincide with the decline in value of the contract

[Stratos]

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

If he signed a 10 year deal wouldn’t it start now? He is 27. So why would he be 29 when it starts? Let’s use $40M as a number for 9 years after this one and $16M this one. So 10 years for $376M. Does that seem about right? If he is worth it and even more for the first 4 years and then the next 4 only plays at the level he is being paid, is it so terrible for 2 years he is being paid a little too much than what he is worth? They are a major market. They should be able to carry an inflated contract and still be good. High budget teams do it all the time. If you want great players, and I do, sometimes you also have to pay them when they are not so great. And, tbh, $37.6M annual might not be that much  of an k repay in 2032-2033. Bottom line is the Cubs can afford it. 

He's probably going to want 10 years after his 2025 walk year.  Why would he sign for 9 years more when he can get more on the FA market?

[Stratos]

2 hours ago, Bertz said:

I'm about as sympathetic as you're going to find on these types of arguments generally, but

A) 29 is still very much on the young side for a long term contract to start

B) the Cubs have essentially no money aside from Swanson tied up past 2026

C) Tucker's about as safe, consistent, and well rounded as you're going to get an opportunity to watch yourself to

Like if you say no to Tucker, you're pretty much categorically out on these sorts of deals broadly?  Because even the 25/26 year old who reach FA are starting to get 13/14 year deals, so you're not getting away from paying players in their late 30's unless you refuse to play the game entirely.

So the question is whether these mega-deals for 29 y/o types are typically worth it?  Guys like Pujols, Rendon, Trout were money in the bank and still hit the skids.  A 10/400 deal at age 29, that's a lot of eggs to put in one basket with a lot of risk where the data isn't exactly in your favour.

[Dfan25]

nvm

Edited January 10, 2025 by Dfan25

[Jason Ross]

 

[Jason Ross]

The rosy version of this is that the two sides are engaged in a deep contract negotiation and just decided to file while they work through it. 

The negative version of this is that the Cubs are nickel and diming their new acquisition over a few million. 

[Dfan25]

And people thought the Cubs were going to try to do an extensión . This organization  is a joke .

[Dfan25]

1 minute ago, 1908_Cubs said:

The rosy version of this is that the two sides are engaged in a deep contract negotiation and just decided to file while they work through it. 

The negative version of this is that the Cubs are nickel and diming their new acquisition over a few million. 

I think they could have come to an agreeement for 25 and continue talks you  if that were the case . Could be wrong though 

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, Dfan25 said:

I think they could have come to an agreeement for 25 and continue talks you  if that were the case . Could be wrong though 

I said it was the rosy version. Not the logical one! 😞

[Bertz]

6 minutes ago, Dfan25 said:

And people thought the Cubs were going to try to do an extensión . This organization  is a joke .

https://www.mlb.com/news/ian-happ-wins-arbitration-case-against-cubs

https://www.mlb.com/news/ian-happ-cubs-agree-to-extension

[chibears55]

6 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

The rosy version of this is that the two sides are engaged in a deep contract negotiation and just decided to file while they work through it. 

The negative version of this is that the Cubs are nickel and diming their new acquisition over a few million. 

If he ends up leaving after 1 year, Hoyer should be fired for giving up a top prospect and 2 young players for him. 

It not like they're a Tucker's bat away from potentially going to a World Series or even the playoffs for that matter.