Jesse Rogers on Cubs Future

[Rex Buckingham]

Quote

The addition of a new television network in 2020 hasn't been the cash cow the team thought it would be, according to sources familiar with the situation. Meanwhile, private equity investment has ownership answering to more than just a handful of local minority investors like it did previously. The bottom line is more of a concern than ever, with some industry observers believing the Cubs won't sign a megadeal for a player before the next labor agreement is negotiated with the players after the 2026 season.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/43127317/mlb-2024-2025-chicago-cubs-offseason-kyle-tucker-cody-bellinger-spending-plan

I'm not sure I remember any discussion of PE buying into the Cubs... and this is not optimistic on Tucker re-signing

[CubinNY]

PE probably means a Ricketts shell company. 

[Jason Ross]

In defense to the Cubs, the idea that the Cubs will or won't sign a megadeal is coming from industry observers and less so from sources within the team, at least in this article. 

The Marquee thing is definitely something to monitor. I do believe I've seen a few places that the way the debt structure of the purchase is changing in favor of the Cubs (in terms of less payment) so that could either offset the Marquee stuff, or even make it more likely the Cubs can/will spend in the near future. 

If I were an industry observer, I'd say it's less likely that the Cubs throw down a megadeal, but that's because they haven't really done that at this point. So until they do it, the belief is always going to be that they are unlikely. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that regards. 

[Bertz]

The one singular positive thing you can say about Tom Ricketts is that every indication is that he's hands off from day to day decisions.  He gives Jed a payroll number, a number we all agree is too low, and then he lets Jed work.  This is not an Arte Moreno or Jerry Reinsdorf deal.

So there is little reason to believe the front office is flatly precluded from signing any sort of mega deal.  What a mega deal must do though is fit within the team's preexisting budget.  We know Tom isn't going to stretch payroll to be "what I originally gave you plus Kyle Tucker."  If he were willing to do that Bryce Harper would be our 1st Baseman right now.

Jed has twice in the last three months mentioned how clean the team's books are.  So combined with the fact that you logically don't make a deal like this only wanting it to be 1 year, to me it feels obvious the team will try and extend/re-sign Tucker.  Maybe they'll fail, Kyle's got agency here, but barring something unforeseen this isn't going to be a "don't let the door hit you in the way out" deal next November.  Tucker's not going to get Marcus Stroman'd.

I'll say too, and I've said this several times since the trade, but I think a canary in the coal mine for the prospects of Tucker being here long term is how much 2026 money Jed adds from here.  The team as of right now is at about $185M going into next year.  Tucker's going to take around $40M.  So if you add a Jack Flaherty or Luis Castillo this winter, next year's club would already be at the luxury tax with a hypothetical Tucker extension.  That does not feel like a position Jed would want to put himself in 10 months out, so I would read it as a bearish sign on how signable they think Tucker is.  Ricketts could hypothetically be planning for a significant payroll spike next year, but back to the article that's not a scenario I would bet on.

[Rcal10]

13 minutes ago, Bertz said:

The one singular positive thing you can say about Tom Ricketts is that every indication is that he's hands off from day to day decisions.  He gives Jed a payroll number, a number we all agree is too low, and then he lets Jed work.  This is not an Arte Moreno or Jerry Reinsdorf deal.

So there is little reason to believe the front office is flatly precluded from signing any sort of mega deal.  What a mega deal must do though is fit within the team's preexisting budget.  We know Tom isn't going to stretch payroll to be "what I originally gave you plus Kyle Tucker."  If he were willing to do that Bryce Harper would be our 1st Baseman right now.

Jed has twice in the last three months mentioned how clean the team's books are.  So combined with the fact that you logically don't make a deal like this only wanting it to be 1 year, to me it feels obvious the team will try and extend/re-sign Tucker.  Maybe they'll fail, Kyle's got agency here, but barring something unforeseen this isn't going to be a "don't let the door hit you in the way out" deal next November.  Tucker's not going to get Marcus Stroman'd.

I'll say too, and I've said this several times since the trade, but I think a canary in the coal mine for the prospects of Tucker being here long term is how much 2026 money Jed adds from here.  The team as of right now is at about $185M going into next year.  Tucker's going to take around $40M.  So if you add a Jack Flaherty or Luis Castillo this winter, next year's club would already be at the luxury tax with a hypothetical Tucker extension.  That does not feel like a position Jed would want to put himself in 10 months out, so I would read it as a bearish sign on how signable they think Tucker is.  Ricketts could hypothetically be planning for a significant payroll spike next year, but back to the article that's not a scenario I would bet on.

So if what you are suggesting is the case, and it very well can be, there will be no high dollar signing or a trade for high priced starting pitcher unless that high priced guy is on the last year of his contract or as a FA, he accepts a one year deal. Kind of the reason signing Buehler made some sense. This philosophy would also suggest they won’t sign Scott to close either. He would cost too much moving to next year.
I guess they can still trade for Cease, but then he most likely would not be extended. They can also trade for someone like Lopez but know they then have to trade either him or Tailon next off season, regardless of the return. I tend to agree they will not go over next year. 
Also, this way if thinking does open up the possibility of Verlander or Scherzer for one year. Not sure I like that idea, but they would probably sign for a year. 

[CubinNY]

It rings so hollow we will hear it for a year. 

[CubinNY]

PTR

[Eeyore]

Marquee was a stupid idea. It's biting the hands that have fed them for generations. When I was a kid it seemed like the white Sox were more popular. WGN staying on broadcast TV and going national while the white Sox went to pay tv was a huge reason that they became more popular. Large parts of the area didn't get cable. If people wanted baseball, they were going to watch the Cubs.

I'm sure that they could have bought a local channel that is also on cable and they wouldn't have this problem. I'm sure that they are one of those organizations that is driven to touch the hot stove because they're smarter than everybody else, but they would have learned. I'm sure that they're going to use their big brains and let their creativity blossom to just do what everybody else is doing and wonder why they're having all of the same problems as everybody else.

[Rcal10]

14 minutes ago, Eeyore said:

Marquee was a stupid idea. It's biting the hands that have fed them for generations. When I was a kid it seemed like the white Sox were more popular. WGN staying on broadcast TV and going national while the white Sox went to pay tv was a huge reason that they became more popular. Large parts of the area didn't get cable. If people wanted baseball, they were going to watch the Cubs.

I'm sure that they could have bought a local channel that is also on cable and they wouldn't have this problem. I'm sure that they are one of those organizations that is driven to touch the hot stove because they're smarter than everybody else, but they would have learned. I'm sure that they're going to use their big brains and let their creativity blossom to just do what everybody else is doing and wonder why they're having all of the same problems as everybody else.

When were the Sox ever more popular than the Cubs? When were you a kid? I am 64 years old and I don’t recall the Sox have never been more popular than the Cubs in my lifetime. 

[CubinNY]

26 minutes ago, Eeyore said:

Marquee was a stupid idea. It's biting the hands that have fed them for generations. When I was a kid it seemed like the white Sox were more popular. WGN staying on broadcast TV and going national while the white Sox went to pay tv was a huge reason that they became more popular. Large parts of the area didn't get cable. If people wanted baseball, they were going to watch the Cubs.

I'm sure that they could have bought a local channel that is also on cable and they wouldn't have this problem. I'm sure that they are one of those organizations that is driven to touch the hot stove because they're smarter than everybody else, but they would have learned. I'm sure that they're going to use their big brains and let their creativity blossom to just do what everybody else is doing and wonder why they're having all of the same problems as everybody else.

They make enough money yearly that their grandchildren's grandchlidren will never need to lift a finger. It's all a pack of lies. If it's not it's because they overextended themselves in their side projects and are using the Cubs to pay down the debt. Or they are terrible at business. Or a combination of two and three. But seriously, it's one. 

Edited December 24, 2024 by CubinNY

[SpongeWorthy]

6 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

When were the Sox ever more popular than the Cubs? When were you a kid? I am 64 years old and I don’t recall the Sox have never been more popular than the Cubs in my lifetime. 

bulk of the 90s prior to 98 outside of Chicago at least

frank thomas was a huge star and Jordan playing for the barons was a ton of exposure 

[SpongeWorthy]

Just now, SpongeWorthy said:

.

 

Edited December 25, 2024 by SpongeWorthy

[Rcal10]

4 hours ago, SpongeWorthy said:

bulk of the 90s prior to 98 outside of Chicago at least

frank thomas was a huge star and Jordan playing for the barons was a ton of exposure 

Maybe outside of Chicago. But I even doubt that. Definitely not in Chicago. Sox were always the team with a chip on their shoulder because they Cubs were the more popular team. A good day for the Sox fans was the Cubs losing. They didn’t care if they won, as long as the Cubs lost. 

[UMFan83]

13 hours ago, Bertz said:

So combined with the fact that you logically don't make a deal like this only wanting it to be 1 year, to me it feels obvious the team will try and extend/re-sign Tucker. 

They'll definitely try to resign him but I wouldn't be shocked if Jed made the trade knowing that they had maybe a 20% chance of actually getting something done.  Jed needs to make the playoffs next year, with a limited budget he needed to get creative to get a star on a relatively cheap contract.  It was a fairly steep cost in prospects for 1 year of superstar play but based on budget limitations it was an efficient way to get a 5 WAR player for $20m.

Or maybe I'm just way too cynical. 

[BigbadB]

Imagining the Cubs make it to the playoffs and make it a few rounds in, it will be a very ugly look to not have extended Tucker already, or to let him walk and "that's all you get". Most everyone will have accounted Tucker as being the reason they went from a middling team to a playoff team. 

[Stratos]

On 12/24/2024 at 8:42 AM, Rex Buckingham said:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/43127317/mlb-2024-2025-chicago-cubs-offseason-kyle-tucker-cody-bellinger-spending-plan

I'm not sure I remember any discussion of PE buying into the Cubs... and this is not optimistic on Tucker re-signing

Sharma and Mooney at the Athletic said they doubt they extend Tucker also.  But just speculation on their part based on part spending

[Stratos]

It's been over 10 years and Ricketts has never signed a megadeal.  It's probably never going to happen.

[Stratos]

12 hours ago, BigbadB said:

Imagining the Cubs make it to the playoffs and make it a few rounds in, it will be a very ugly look to not have extended Tucker already, or to let him walk and "that's all you get". Most everyone will have accounted Tucker as being the reason they went from a middling team to a playoff team. 

I think Ricketts would rather have 450m in his pocket than some disappointed fans.

[CubinNY]

Not that I’m doubting it, but it would be so horsefeathers stupid to trade away Cam Smith for one season of Tucker. 

[Irrelevant Dude]

On 12/24/2024 at 12:13 PM, Eeyore said:

Marquee was a stupid idea. It's biting the hands that have fed them for generations.

Marquee was a fine idea, but it came a few years too late for maximum impact.  What was the alternative to make the team more money though?  CSN Chicago, WGN, etc. weren't going to pay huge money to keep the Cubs rights.  It is a much different media landscape now and unfortunately the Cubs existing TV deal just came up at the wrong time compared to a team like the Dodgers who were able to cash in on franchise-altering money.  Personally, I would love for them to have gone the Chicago Sports Network route and put the network on free local TV, but I'm under no illusion that would have been a more profitable business model.

Seriously though, don't fall for the "Marquee isn't making money" nonsense.  The network probably isn't making AS MUCH money as they hoped, but the Cubs are still exceedingly profitable.  They will do everything in their power to hide that fact and keep baseball expenses down while continuing to grow the family empire.  Stories like the one linked above from Jesse Rogers wreak of the Cubs using the media as a mouthpiece to push the desired narrative.

[Stratos]

5 hours ago, CubinNY said:

Not that I’m doubting it, but it would be so horsefeathers stupid to trade away Cam Smith for one season of Tucker. 

How much trade value should a team give up to have exclusive negotiating rights for a year with a player who you're probably going to have to pay fair market value for anyways?  I would wager not a lot.

If I were the Cubs I wouldn't have made the trade, I would have raised the payroll by another 50m.

[UMFan83]

19 hours ago, BigbadB said:

Imagining the Yankees make it to the playoffs and make it a few rounds in, it will be a very ugly look to not have extended Soto already, or to let him walk and "that's all you get". Most everyone will have accounted Soto as being the reason they went from a first round playoff team to a World Series team. 

Obviously a little different since by all accounts the Yankees made a massive offer to keep him but I could totally see the Cubs making it to the NLCS and only making enough of an effort to extend him to make it seem like they tried. 

[thawv]

11 hours ago, Stratos said:

I think Ricketts would rather have 450m in his pocket than some disappointed fans.

It's about money and only money.  Winning is a secondary bonus.  The only time he ever cares about the fans is when they stop coming to games.  The family did not buy the Cubs to win baseball games.  They bought the Cubs to make a lot of money.  I'm not saying that Tom's wrong, but it does suck for the fans. 

[Rex Buckingham]

I think they did want to win a World Series - who wouldn't want to be associated with the Cubs breaking the "curse"?  But now that they've done that, I agree that it's all about milking the money cow dry

[Michael Busch Light]

This jives with what I have heard as well.