The Cubs Will Absolutely, Unequivocally Re-Spend the Money They Saved on Cody Bellinger

[Matthew Trueblood]

I beg of you: stop saying "if." That's happening. And while the Cubs should spend more money, not less, trading their fifth-best hitter was the right move either way.

Image courtesy of © Charles LeClaire-Imagn Images

Reaction to the Cubs trading Cody Bellinger to the Yankees Tuesday afternoon has been, on balance, pretty critical. While a significant share of fans have shrugged and acknowledged the inevitability of the move, another significant share—and, to my eye, a disproportionate number of takes from media outlets with all the necessary information at hand to know better—have loudly balked at it, especially by wielding the most cutting two-letter word English gives us: "if". As in: "I guess we'll see if they spend all this money they just saved," or "If they turn around and add another starting pitcher and bolster the bullpen, then ok. But otherwise..."

That line of discussion is foolish, and I find that foolishness grating, because it's voluntary. The Cubs' salary situation is fairly transparent. After this trade, they have about $163 million on their books for 2025, in terms of real money they will pay to players, and their competitive-balance tax threshold number is around $180 million. As I've reported this fall, and as several other (frankly) more connected reporters have also suggested, the Cubs will spend around $220 million in real money this year. That's the real limiting number, though they also won't stack up that money in some strange, extreme fashion that leads to their stumbling over the $241-million tax line again.

Jed Hoyer can and will spend a good $40 million from here to Opening Day. It might be slightly less, if the team can't find a good way to spend those dollars. It might be even more, if another opportunity as juicy as the chance to acquire Kyle Tucker presents itself. That it will be any less than $30 million is unthinkable, though, and the implication that the Bellinger trade is a pointless salary dump reflects a focus on money to the exclusion of really understanding ball, on the field and in the clubhouse.

We should all be able to agree that the Ricketts family ought to spend more in annual payroll on the Cubs. As I've said several times, one of the perduring separators between the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, and Phillies and the Cubs is the willingness of those clubs to spend upwards of $280 million per year on players, while the Cubs break into a cold sweat at the notion of going to $250 million. I don't rise in defense of the Bellinger deal by way of excusing ownership's unduly careful spending. However, in this case, it's important to realize how little is lost by saving some money on Bellinger before pivoting to multiple major reinforcements of the pitching staff.

Firstly, Bellinger is just not that good a player at this point. That's unfortunate for the Cubs, and it means I was wrong, because I felt they should stop hemming and hawing and sign him to a longer-term deal last winter, coming off his impressive 2023. Although the deal he ultimately signed was player-friendly, they did dodge a bit of a bullet by not investing in him long-term. It looks like he's poised to resume some measure of decline, after his Chicago resurgence. It's true, though, and if we were to take his name and/or visage out of the equation, it would be easier to see it.

Bellinger not only injured himself playing center field for a second year in a row (and third out of four) back in April, but rated as a below-average defender there for the season. He doesn't belong in center field at all, as he enters his 30s, and that's important. As a corner outfielder and/or first baseman, there's a lot more pressure on his bat to be incontrovertibly above-average, and it's not at all clear that he meets that standard at this point.

Famously, Bellinger found all that offensive success in 2023 with batted-ball metrics that didn't quite support the results. He did, however, become excellent at avoiding strikeouts, and he still drew a fair number of walks. Combining those skills with the ability to lethally unload on mistakes in hitter-friendly counts made him a great all-around hitter, though the market still showed its skepticism when he hit free agency last winter. The bet on him for 2024 and beyond was rooted in the idea that he could remain that selectively aggressive, sustaining a very low strikeout rate while getting on base and generating ample power. The hope was that he would integrate his 2023 adjustments and end up bringing the hard-hit and barrel rates up, without having to give back all the new contact he found.

Instead (while he did replicate those marvelous strikeout and walk rates), Bellinger's contact quality only eroded further in 2024. He lost the ability to hit the ball to center or left field with any authority, but he also pulled the ball less often than he had previously. He hit (incrementally) more ground balls. Statcast released swing speed data, which confirmed what the eye test was telling everyone, anyway: Bellinger's bat speed is below average. Again, he still adapted well, and he fought his way to a fine season. The ceiling of his profile sagged much, much lower, though, as both offensive and defensive limitations came into sharper focus.

That's why he opted in last month, and it's why the Cubs were never going to get much in return for him, even if they had eaten more money. I would argue that they still should have done so, because I believe Will Warren is a better long-term pitching piece than Cody Poteet, but the difference between the two is as practically negligible as the difference between the $5 million they sent to the Yankees and the $10 million or more (all of which would have been loaded into the first year, in that case, rather than spread between 2025 and 2026) that the Yankees wanted them to kick in if it were Warren coming back.

It's also a neat summation of why the team simply didn't need him. Bellinger posted a 111 DRC+ in 2024, according to Baseball Prospectus, which is respectable. It trailed the 120 of Seiya Suzuki and the 117 of Michael Busch, though, and those are the two incumbents who play the positions for which Bellinger is best suited at this point. Ian Happ tied Bellinger at 111, but Happ (despite striking out much more) projects to hold up better than Bellinger: he has above-average bat speed and far better contact quality, plus elite plate discipline.

To that collection of corner outfielders, DH candidates and first basemen, the Cubs added Tucker (2024 DRC+: 141). It was time to get one player out of the way of the others in that group, and it was a no-brainer that it should be Bellinger. Trading Suzuki would have meant giving back too much of the upgrade represented by the Tucker acquisition. Sending out Happ (no-trade clause, deep roots with the organization, better defense and better offensive bedrock) was never a consideration. Nor was dealing Busch, who's still under team control for five years and was every bit the defender Bellinger is at first base by the end of his rookie season.

Keeping Bellinger around just as a contingency and rotational player would have been uncomfortable and bizarre. Not even the Dodgers spend $30 million on spare parts. We all wanted to see a genuine shakeup that would give the Cubs' roster a massive infusion of talent and a more modern feel; this is what that looks like. This was the right baseball move.

Again: don't stop pressing the Rickettses to spend more money. At the same time, don't waste breath or attention on the vague possibility that this was a salary dump motivated basically by profit margin. It was, rather, the right thing to do in the wake of the Tucker move, and it will facilitate big additions to the team's starting rotation and bullpen. They might add three more above-average pitchers under team control for multiple seasons before Opening Day, and that's expensive, and this move both clears the decks for those pursuits and eliminates a potential source of frustration or drama in the clubhouse, before it could develop.

Only the billionaires win when we get distracted by squabbles about money, and as fans, we only lose when we get tunnel vision on the payroll. Sometimes, wonderfully, we get good chances not to be thus burdened, and we can talk about the baseball reasons for and ramifications of a trade, rather than allocating all our energy toward kvetching about the business side of the game. Let's not squander this one.

 

View full article

[Jolee Bindo]

With that level of certainty you are undeniably putting your entire reputation on the line. IF the Cubs do not end up making a few more high profile signings I don't see how anyone can take any stock in anything you say again. Let's hope you're right.

[Brock Beauchamp]

55 minutes ago, Jolee Bindo said:

With that level of certainty you are undeniably putting your entire reputation on the line. IF the Cubs do not end up making a few more high profile signings I don't see how anyone can take any stock in anything you say again. Let's hope you're right.

Harsh! We have information the Cubs are highly likely to make at least one more significant move, likely for pitching. Of course, nothing is guaranteed but they're serious about acquiring more players.

[Jolee Bindo]

So I guess it turns out you were wrong. Further proof that just because you write about the Cubs doesn't mean you're any more knowledgeable than an average fan.

[Brock Beauchamp]

10 hours ago, Jolee Bindo said:

So I guess it turns out you were wrong. Further proof that just because you write about the Cubs doesn't mean you're any more knowledgeable than an average fan.

Actually, Matt was right.

The Cubs saved $22.5m by trading Bellinger.

The Cubs traded for Ryan Pressly ($14m) and Brasier ($4.5m), then signed Justin Turner ($6m) and Colin Rea ($1m). 

That's $25.5m.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

3 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Actually, Matt was right.

The Cubs saved $22.5m by trading Bellinger.

The Cubs traded for Ryan Pressly ($14m) and Brasier ($4.5m), then signed Justin Turner ($6m) and Colin Rea ($1m). 

That's $25.5m.

Ehhh. Their salary obligations went down $30 million year over year.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

The Cubs Will Absolutely, Unequivocally Re-Spend the Money They Saved on Cody Bellinger*
 

*But not the money they saved on Kyle Hendricks and Drew Smyly

[Jason Ross]

I think there needs to be some nuance here. On one hand, we did re-spend the money saved on Bellinger, as has been pointed out. The Cubs spent another $25m behind that deal, which essentially, re-spent that. There was also a concerted effort to spend more - the Cubs put forth competitive and lucrative deals to Bregman and Scott. These are all facts. 

Where the nuance needs to happen is that I think we can both absolve Hoyer to a degree in that they put forth competitive offers to both, and probably maxed out their ability to sign both (per Hoyer, he's stated he had to ask for the funs to make Bregman happen). I think any of their attempts to reuse that money, missing on any of them is defensible on their own merits. The Dodgers probably could have continued to outbid the Cubs on Scott, Bregman was given more than the Cubs likely could have offered (that's a Ricketts thing, probably). The Padres may not have been reasonable on Cease or King. 

But with nuance comes the general belief that, yeah, the Cubs don't get we-tried-points, so missing a few times, at some point it's on you to get it over the finish line. And for that I think it's fair to point out that the team feels like it just, isn't as complete as it could be. Perhaps they'll get there in July with the deadline and it'll all work out still, but you'd probably have liked to have gotten to that point sooner if possible.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

2 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think there needs to be some nuance here. On one hand, we did re-spend the money saved on Bellinger, as has been pointed out. The Cubs spent another $25m behind that deal, which essentially, re-spent that. There was also a concerted effort to spend more - the Cubs put forth competitive and lucrative deals to Bregman and Scott. These are all facts. 

Where the nuance needs to happen is that I think we can both absolve Hoyer to a degree in that they put forth competitive offers to both, and probably maxed out their ability to sign both (per Hoyer, he's stated he had to ask for the funs to make Bregman happen). I think any of their attempts to reuse that money, missing on any of them is defensible on their own merits. The Dodgers probably could have continued to outbid the Cubs on Scott, Bregman was given more than the Cubs likely could have offered (that's a Ricketts thing, probably). The Padres may not have been reasonable on Cease or King. 

But with nuance comes the general belief that, yeah, the Cubs don't get we-tried-points, so missing a few times, at some point it's on you to get it over the finish line. And for that I think it's fair to point out that the team feels like it just, isn't as complete as it could be. Perhaps they'll get there in July with the deadline and it'll all work out still, but you'd probably have liked to have gotten to that point sooner if possible.

I don’t think it’s at all meaningful to note that they re-spent the Bellinger just because of the sequence of the moves made when their total payroll went down from 228 million to 196 million . Ok great, yeah I guess I’m glad payroll didn’t go down to 173 million but if that was ever truly a possibility in anyone’s mind then the Cubs are in worse hands than we thought. If this org doesn’t want to pay the luxury tax (they should, but whatever), then they damn sure should be butting right up to the line every year. Instead we get Jed telling us “if we outperform expectations we could be a 90-win team” while sitting well under the tax threshold.

Edited March 28, 2025 by Bobson Dugnutt

[UMFan83]

4 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Actually, Matt was right.

The Cubs saved $22.5m by trading Bellinger.

The Cubs traded for Ryan Pressly ($14m) and Brasier ($4.5m), then signed Justin Turner ($6m) and Colin Rea ($1m). 

That's $25.5m.

Correct on the technicality that no one knew at the time that the Cubs were slashing payroll by $30m this year.

[imb]

I think when we eventually look back at the jed years, and this probably has as much to do with the Ricketts honestly, it's the timidity that really held us back.

Not to relitigate an offseason half a decade ago, but man it's hard to look at that Harper deal and not feel like signing him would have wildly changed the trajectory of how the team has been built since. Talent coalesces around stars, and all of these offseasons of swings and misses since then would have been so much different.

But anyway, Jed (or tom i guess, who knows. probably both) was too scared of that relatively paltry commitment. All the other Harper level stars since (this is my opinion but i think it's right) were never interested in chicago because by the time they hit the market, our Harperless roster looked pretty thin and there were clubs with better orgs, better ownership, better rosters and more money. Easy choice to make.

But anyway the timidity really has limited us in other ways too. It's easy to say "sign harper duh" but a lot of us have said the same thing about other FAs since whose deals do not look as appeaing anymore. For every "sign Harper" there was a "sign boegaerts" or "sign correa" (i did both I believe.) Looking back, we really came out OK on the SS market that year. Swanson is solid, still young, fits our team identity and isn't overly expensive. Hard to argue against that. But the point of a deal like that is to create flexibility to take a big swing elsewhere. But of course we didn't do that. Every offseason is full of these half-measures and "maybe you can squint and this guy runs into a 3 war season" signings and it's just not enough.

[17 Seconds]

4 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Actually, Matt was right.

The Cubs saved $22.5m by trading Bellinger.

The Cubs traded for Ryan Pressly ($14m) and Brasier ($4.5m), then signed Justin Turner ($6m) and Colin Rea ($1m). 

That's $25.5m.

this reminds me of Michael Scott using his per diem on souvenirs, then explaining that he'd use other money for his food

[Bobson Dugnutt]

9 minutes ago, 17 Seconds said:

this reminds me of Michael Scott using his per diem on souvenirs, then explaining that he'd use other money for his food

hahahaha 

[We Got The Whole 9]

58 minutes ago, Bobson Dugnutt said:

I don’t think it’s at all meaningful to note that they re-spent the Bellinger just because of the sequence of the moves made when their total payroll went down from 228 million to 196 million . Ok great, yeah I guess I’m glad payroll didn’t go down to 173 million but if that was ever truly a possibility in anyone’s mind then the Cubs are in worse hands than we thought. If this org doesn’t want to pay the luxury tax (they should, but whatever), then they damn sure should be butting right up to the line every year. Instead we get Jed telling us “if we outperform expectations we could be a 90-win team” while sitting well under the tax threshold.

Jed was told to stay ~200M. He said horsefeathers I still have 5 holes to fill. So he traded Cody and used his money to fill those holes. Technically it's true. They respent the money that they saved when they traded Cody.

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, Bobson Dugnutt said:

I don’t think it’s at all meaningful to note that they re-spent the Bellinger just because of the sequence of the moves made when their total payroll went down from 228 million to 196 million . Ok great, yeah I guess I’m glad payroll didn’t go down to 173 million but if that was ever truly a possibility in anyone’s mind then the Cubs are in worse hands than we thought. If this org doesn’t want to pay the luxury tax (they should, but whatever), then they damn sure should be butting right up to the line every year. Instead we get Jed telling us “if we outperform expectations we could be a 90-win team” while sitting well under the tax threshold.

The issue is that there are two competing issues here:

1. People who are trying to play "gotcha" with Matt

2. The discussion about Cubs payroll and their inability to have gotten a second impactful deal over the line.

The reason I point these out, is that my post was attempting to address both. There is no gotcha with Matt - his article - which is directly about spending the money saved from Bellinger is correct. Factually, the Cubs spent more than they saved with Bellinger. There is no gotcha there. Those using that argument is flat-wrong. So in that vein, it's 100% meaningful - and the reason I and others have pointed that out. 

I don't disagree that the Cubs should have found a way to get a second move done. If you'll go back and read, I addressed that entirely. I think any individual move, you can accept the Cubs missing on or understanding why. The reality with free agents is that agents have agency on their choice, and other teams have agency as well. I really don't blame Jed or the Cubs for missing on any specific move - Scott, Bregman, Sasaki. I do think a bigger point of the Cubs missing on a second impactful piece is something to bring up. I think it's fair to bring up the lack of spending the team does. Which is nuanced - I don't think Jed's plan when he traded Bellinger was to end up $20m under the LT - instead he took some swings and missed on them. Which is a harder thing to pin-point in the error of his way.

Ultimately, I think most of this will be for naught, though. As it stands, I still think the Cubs are the best team in the NL Central. I think they'll win the division. I think, come July, a second fairly meaningful piece will be added. We can quibble over how long that piece may be around for (a rental or something more long term), but I suspect the Cubs will add another SP, or RP, or bat that will move a needle. I don't think that absolves anyone entirely for putting the Cubs in a bit more of a precarious position than they maybe needed to be (a full year of Dylan Cease vs 2 months, for example) but will end up being one that is moot in that I think the final version of the Cubs will still win the Central and still have that second piece headed into the post season. 

[Bobson Dugnutt]

19 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

The issue is that there are two competing issues here:

1. People who are trying to play "gotcha" with Matt

2. The discussion about Cubs payroll and their inability to have gotten a second impactful deal over the line.

The reason I point these out, is that my post was attempting to address both. There is no gotcha with Matt - his article - which is directly about spending the money saved from Bellinger is correct. Factually, the Cubs spent more than they saved with Bellinger. There is no gotcha there. Those using that argument is flat-wrong. So in that vein, it's 100% meaningful - and the reason I and others have pointed that out. 

I don't disagree that the Cubs should have found a way to get a second move done. If you'll go back and read, I addressed that entirely. I think any individual move, you can accept the Cubs missing on or understanding why. The reality with free agents is that agents have agency on their choice, and other teams have agency as well. I really don't blame Jed or the Cubs for missing on any specific move - Scott, Bregman, Sasaki. I do think a bigger point of the Cubs missing on a second impactful piece is something to bring up. I think it's fair to bring up the lack of spending the team does. Which is nuanced - I don't think Jed's plan when he traded Bellinger was to end up $20m under the LT - instead he took some swings and missed on them. Which is a harder thing to pin-point in the error of his way.

Ultimately, I think most of this will be for naught, though. As it stands, I still think the Cubs are the best team in the NL Central. I think they'll win the division. I think, come July, a second fairly meaningful piece will be added. We can quibble over how long that piece may be around for (a rental or something more long term), but I suspect the Cubs will add another SP, or RP, or bat that will move a needle. I don't think that absolves anyone entirely for putting the Cubs in a bit more of a precarious position than they maybe needed to be (a full year of Dylan Cease vs 2 months, for example) but will end up being one that is moot in that I think the final version of the Cubs will still win the Central and still have that second piece headed into the post season. 

I’m not looking for a gotcha. Im pretty sure Jolee Bindo is the only one doing that in this thread. But if we’re looking at it in retrospect, as we are today, the accounting you and Brock are doing is rather pointless. Again, the net of it is the Cubs are down $32 million in payroll YoY. If you want to spend time figuring out under which couch cushion they found money for Justin Turner, by all means, go for it. You can say they spent the money that came off the books from Hendricks and Smyly. Or you can say they spent the money they freed up by trading Bellinger and his contract for a 30-year old middle reliever that they just DFA’ed. But they didn’t spend it all, and that’s a problem.

 

And for conversation’s sake, let’s accept what WGTW9 says and there was a $200 million cap on payroll, But there was an exception for their pursuit of Alex Bregman. So we have to also accept that Ricketts is open to listening when Jed makes a case, presumably that player X will help fortify the roster and push them past “well, shucks, hopefully we get some lucky bounces and stumble into 90 wins and win the division because the Brewers and Cardinals decided to punt the offseason” into more variance-proof territory. I don’t believe Bregman was the only option to further optimize the roster so Jed, in my opinion, is one or more of a) not persuasive enough b) not imaginative enough or c) not aggressive enough.

 

Personally, I’m with IMB in that he’s not aggressive enough.

[Jason Ross]

9 minutes ago, Bobson Dugnutt said:

I’m not looking for a gotcha. Im pretty sure Jolee Bindo is the only one doing that in this thread. But if we’re looking at it in retrospect, as we are today, the accounting you and Brock are doing is rather pointless. Again, the net of it is the Cubs are down $32 million in payroll YoY. If you want to spend time figuring out under which couch cushion they found money for Justin Turner, by all means, go for it. You can say they spent the money that came off the books from Hendricks and Smyly. Or you can say they spent the money they freed up by trading Bellinger and his contract for a 30-year old middle reliever tha they just DFA’ed. But they didn’t spend it all, and that’s a problem.

 

And for conversation’s sake, let’s accept what WGTW9 says and there was a $200 million cap on payroll, But there was an exception for their pursuit of Alex Bregman. So we have to also accept that Ricketts is open to listening when Jed makes a case, presumably that player X will help fortify the roster and push them past “well, shucks, hopefully we get some lucky bounces and stumble into 90 wins and win the division because the Brewers and Cardinals decided to punt the offseason” into more variance-proof territory. I don’t believe Bregman was the only option to further optimize the roster so Jed, in my opinion, is one or more of a) not persuasive enough b) not imaginative enough or c) not aggressive enough.

 

Personally, I’m with IMB in that he’s not aggressive enough.

That's fair on the Jolee thing - but you'll notice, I didn't quote you on that originally. You said we didn't need to bring that up, and I explained why I did. So I wasn't calling you out specifically. 

I will specifically address the last line because Cubs fans enjoy having their cake and eating it too when it comes to "aggressive enough" on Hoyer. Now, I'm not saying you particularly, but Cubs fans have lamented Hoyer all offseason for trying to save his butt, for trading Parades and Smith for just one year of Tucker. For saying that the Cubs aren't good enough for an all-in move. At the same time, some of these same people, and others, lament him for being not-aggressive enough. It can't be both. 

I posted this in another thread, but I'll continue it here, I don't think there was some $200 line, the Cubs tried to spend that money. That's not a plus, it's just a fact. They did. I think the plan with the Bellinger trade was two fold:

1. Trade Bellinger, a player who wasn't going to start at any specific position (RF, CF, LF, 1b or DH), clear $20m to use on players who would more readily contribute. 

2. Make one more impact move., 

The Cubs accomplished part 1. They traded Bellinger. They proceeded to add Turner, Braiser, Berti, Pressley and others. These will be players who will contribute to the team in various, and likely, positive ways. Part 2 is where they missed. I don't think for a lack of effort (they had a real good offer in on Scott, Matt's consistently reported the Cubs interest in Cease, and then there was the week of Bregman rumors).

The Cubs don't win games based on effort to improve, surely, though, also don't think the roster is currently, overly flawed or an issue. I do think they could probably use another SP, though with Brown over Rea, the team is prioritizing upside over stability and it's probably a better rotation than we expected. They could probably use one more high leverage reliever, but outside of Scott, there really wasn't a ton available who was so good you couldn't miss on. And maybe the amount of youth (Shaw, PCA, Amaya, Busch and a reliance on prospects as "next up") hinder the offense. 

If you want a positive it's that with this route the Cubs have a bit more flexibility. Let's say Brown takes that fifth spot and runs with it - a possible outcome for Brown for sure. Then maybe you gain more clarity and the rotation isn't some glaring spot that needed a Luzardo trade and now those resources can be used to fix elsewhere. Or maybe Brown is good to go for half a year as a starter, and you can trade for Cease much more cheaply as you move him to the pen to limit innings later. Or maybe the offense and the youth show stability and contribution, and you feel far more comfortable trading Kevin Alcantara or Owen Caissie than you did before in a bigger move. There's inherent risk involved, and I'm not saying it's the path I'd have walked, but my personal preference isn't always right, and I think there's some merit and logic. 

On the overall, I think we agree that the Cubs as an org probably don't put enough money into the baseball side of things. Hoyer's a weird one to evaluate. I think most of what he does has a pretty consistent, and obvious logic behind it. Individually, he rarely makes a bad move - his biggest blunders on a one-on-one basis have been essentially "he gave Mancini two years instead of one" or something like that. I think he's put together a good enough roster in 2025, but I think we also agree there's some variance there that could probably be cut out some. 

[Bobson Dugnutt]

21 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

That's fair on the Jolee thing - but you'll notice, I didn't quote you on that originally. You said we didn't need to bring that up, and I explained why I did. So I wasn't calling you out specifically. 

I will specifically address the last line because Cubs fans enjoy having their cake and eating it too when it comes to "aggressive enough" on Hoyer. Now, I'm not saying you particularly, but Cubs fans have lamented Hoyer all offseason for trying to save his butt, for trading Parades and Smith for just one year of Tucker. For saying that the Cubs aren't good enough for an all-in move. At the same time, some of these same people, and others, lament him for being not-aggressive enough. It can't be both. 

I posted this in another thread, but I'll continue it here, I don't think there was some $200 line, the Cubs tried to spend that money. That's not a plus, it's just a fact. They did. I think the plan with the Bellinger trade was two fold:

1. Trade Bellinger, a player who wasn't going to start at any specific position (RF, CF, LF, 1b or DH), clear $20m to use on players who would more readily contribute. 

2. Make one more impact move., 

The Cubs accomplished part 1. They traded Bellinger. They proceeded to add Turner, Braiser, Berti, Pressley and others. These will be players who will contribute to the team in various, and likely, positive ways. Part 2 is where they missed. I don't think for a lack of effort (they had a real good offer in on Scott, Matt's consistently reported the Cubs interest in Cease, and then there was the week of Bregman rumors).

The Cubs don't win games based on effort to improve, surely, though, also don't think the roster is currently, overly flawed or an issue. I do think they could probably use another SP, though with Brown over Rea, the team is prioritizing upside over stability and it's probably a better rotation than we expected. They could probably use one more high leverage reliever, but outside of Scott, there really wasn't a ton available who was so good you couldn't miss on. And maybe the amount of youth (Shaw, PCA, Amaya, Busch and a reliance on prospects as "next up") hinder the offense. 

If you want a positive it's that with this route the Cubs have a bit more flexibility. Let's say Brown takes that fifth spot and runs with it - a possible outcome for Brown for sure. Then maybe you gain more clarity and the rotation isn't some glaring spot that needed a Luzardo trade and now those resources can be used to fix elsewhere. Or maybe Brown is good to go for half a year as a starter, and you can trade for Cease much more cheaply as you move him to the pen to limit innings later. Or maybe the offense and the youth show stability and contribution, and you feel far more comfortable trading Kevin Alcantara or Owen Caissie than you did before in a bigger move. There's inherent risk involved, and I'm not saying it's the path I'd have walked, but my personal preference isn't always right, and I think there's some merit and logic. 

On the overall, I think we agree that the Cubs as an org probably don't put enough money into the baseball side of things. Hoyer's a weird one to evaluate. I think most of what he does has a pretty consistent, and obvious logic behind it. Individually, he rarely makes a bad move - his biggest blunders on a one-on-one basis have been essentially "he gave Mancini two years instead of one" or something like that. I think he's put together a good enough roster in 2025, but I think we also agree there's some variance there that could probably be cut out some. 

 

I think where I land on the Tucker trade is that it’s an odd one in a vacuum. I know there’s still plenty of time for an extension to come into place, but it’s hard to read tea leaves as of right now to  determine if that’s even in the plans for Jed. So at this point he should be viewed as a one year rental. 

My general thought is “in for a penny, in for a pound.” Because of Jed’s track record of successful FA in the middle tier, we’ve for the past two seasons had rosters populated with good but not great players. We’ve had a huge need for, in my opinion, not one, but two WAR monsters that could take this thing from slightly above .500 to a true contender (either a hitter or a SP, makes little difference to me). Tucker was one. We have him for a year. We should be maximizing our chances at a World Series while we have him in the fold, but we fell short of reeling in that second one.

I think one of the many ways Jed falls short of what we became accustomed to under Theo is that Theo would not have completed step 1 of the plan you outlined without knowing for pretty damn certain that he was going to pull off step 2. I’m thinking specifically of the Castro trade / Zobrist signing 1-2 punch that I think happened on the same day. To just fully whiff on adding an impact player in the subsequent three months after the Bellinger trade is a tough pill to swallow.

And I’m not even saying I think the Cubs will be bad! They’ll probably be a playoff team (for the first time in five years under Jed’s stewardship, mind you). But boy do I miss the days of building teams that are equipped to win 103 games even when the starting LF blows out his knee the first week of the season. Ya know, striving to be great instead of good and making sure your roster isn’t particularly susceptible to variance.

 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I would simplify this to 2 thoughts.  

One is that even though they technically spent Bellinger's outgoing money, they clearly did not spend to what Matt's expectation was.  He says pretty clearly that 220 real payroll was the expectation, and even accounting for midseason acquisitions there isn't a way to say that this was the way it was always intended to turn out given that real payroll is in the 190s.

The other is that there were plenty of folks who were concerned that trading Bellinger meant that there would be little to no additional spending of any type, and that this was another sign of ownership cheapness that wants to forever drive down the team's payroll.  That is clearly a big part of what Matt was trying to respond to, and while he was incorrect on the specifics, there's also little question that the spirit of the rebuttal is correct(they did in fact spend 30ish million AAV post-trade).

[Jolee Bindo]

In trading away Bellinger, the team inarguably made the team worse with the sole purpose of cutting payroll. The Cubs were 3rd in revenue last season. Inexcusable to be in a position where cutting salary is your main concern. It was sold to the fans by emphasizing the benefit of staying under the cap. However they are still about $30 million under the cap. You do not get to put the money they saved from Belli as being put towards new acquisitions when they are still this far below the cap.

As Cubs fans, many of us saw the writing on the wall that they would not be willing to spend enough to at least be right at the cap (although with the division so wide open at the moment it's inexcusable to not go over). When we voice these complaints, the author of this piece then insults us all and tells us what we are clearly seeing is wrong. They are not cutting the salary. He emphatically tells us it will get right back to where they were, despite all the team's history telling us otherwise. 

So yes, when they end up in fact spending 26th in the league in terms of payroll/revenue, I will let the author hear it. Especially when just a few games into the season it is already apparent that our bullpen is going to be a huge problem yet again.

As Cubs fans, we cannot be ok with ownership spending as little as they do, especially when they continue to bring in so much. Making articles like this excusing their spending will do nothing to improve the team in the future.