Tom Ricketts SUUUUUUUCKS

[Bertz]

1 minute ago, mul21 said:

The no money on the books thing is kind of baffling to me.  Like, I get not wanting to have a bunch of guys locked into long term deals because nobody knows exactly what the payroll rules/limitations will be going forward, but this weird need to have nothing on the books going into those negotiations is just weird and it feels like something a smart team could take advantage of.  It's not like guys will be getting paid when they're locked out so it's not some huge risk that could cost them millions.  

I think it's less the CBA and more Jed's job uncertainty.  Like the contracts they offered Scott and Bregman both passed into the new CBA.  My read is Jed's seat is warm enough that he just doesn't have a ton of latitude to extend money beyond his contract.  I think that's also part of why there's some unused money going into this season.  Jed doesn't get the benefit of going right up to the CBT line without special permission from Tom, because the line can be a bit of a moving target.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

3 minutes ago, mul21 said:

The no money on the books thing is kind of baffling to me.  Like, I get not wanting to have a bunch of guys locked into long term deals because nobody knows exactly what the payroll rules/limitations will be going forward, but this weird need to have nothing on the books going into those negotiations is just weird and it feels like something a smart team could take advantage of.  It's not like guys will be getting paid when they're locked out so it's not some huge risk that could cost them millions.  

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule on this.  They just offered Bregman a deal that went to 2028, they're going to offer Tucker a deal that goes beyond one year, the middle of the road outcome for Imanaga's maze of options is keeping him beyond 2026.  Plus of the 4 guys who were signed to bigger deals expiring after 2026, 2 of them I don't think they would've wanted to add an extra year regardless(a 5th year for Taillon or a 6th for an unproven Seiya).  I'm sure it's a factor in how it's played out, at least in the sense that in 2027 and beyond the rules will be different and they don't want to over-optimize for a landscape that won't exist then.  But I think the idea that they're trying to actively minimize 2027 money so owners can try to rake players over the coals is vastly overstated here.

[CubinNY]

Let's be honest: The Bergman deal was a two-year deal with the Cubs, and if he performs to standard, it will be a one-year deal with the Red Sox.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

3 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Let's be honest: The Bergman deal was a two-year deal with the Cubs, and if he performs to standard, it will be a one-year deal with the Red Sox.

Bregman had a good 2024, so the main thing depressing his market was the qualifying offer.  I'm really skeptical that 2 years later he's going to find a better deal worth opting out for heading into his age 33 season.  At a minimum that isn't the most likely outcome by a long shot.  Maybe if he has an especially good year banging doubles off the green monster the calculus is a bit different after a single year, but less relevant to this particular topic.  The idea that there's an edict to not have spending beyond 2026 so they carefully put an opt out for 33 year old Bregman to fall into their trap by exercising just doesn't make for coherent logic.

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Bregman had a good 2024, so the main thing depressing his market was the qualifying offer.  I'm really skeptical that 2 years later he's going to find a better deal worth opting out for heading into his age 33 season.  At a minimum that isn't the most likely outcome by a long shot.  Maybe if he has an especially good year banging doubles off the green monster the calculus is a bit different after a single year, but less relevant to this particular topic.  The idea that there's an edict to not have spending beyond 2026 so they carefully put an opt out for 33 year old Bregman to fall into their trap by exercising just doesn't make for coherent logic.

Lol, were you asleep for the Bellinger era?

[squally1313]

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

Lol, were you asleep for the Bellinger era?

The era where he didn't opt out and the Cubs were stuck with the remaining years of his contract?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

Lol, were you asleep for the Bellinger era?

Whose point do you think you're making by bringing up Bellinger, the player widely assumed to be a likely opt out that...did not opt out.

[CubinNY]

2 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Whose point do you think you're making by bringing up Bellinger, the player widely assumed to be a likely opt out that...did not opt out.

And then what happened?

[CubinNY]

In other words, is he on the Cubs team this year?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, CubinNY said:

And then what happened?

Bellinger was traded.  So apply that to Bregman, how are they clearing themselves of hypothetical opted in Bregman if the whole point is being free of obligations to lock the players out to extract maximum CBA concessions?  And more to the point, the point of view here appears to be that ownership is mandating no 2027+ spending but also they can offer 2027+ spending because they can just trade it before the date arrives?  So what type of limitation is that actually, if at all?

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Bellinger was traded.  So apply that to Bregman, how are they clearing themselves of hypothetical opted in Bregman if the whole point is being free of obligations to lock the players out to extract maximum CBA concessions?  And more to the point, the point of view here appears to be that ownership is mandating no 2027+ spending but also they can offer 2027+ spending because they can just trade it before the date arrives?  So what type of limitation is that actually, if at all?

They wanted Bergman for two years. They were willing to bet they could offload him if they needed to as they did Bellinger. That's my take. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, CubinNY said:

They wanted Bergman for two years. They were willing to bet they could offload him if they needed to as they did Bellinger. That's my take. 

Help me understand how this was supposed to play out then.  The idea is that they're going to go really hard in the next CBA negotiations, and they don't want big contracts on the books beyond that point because if they succeed then having those big contracts hurts their flexibility/bottom line, right?  

In order for that to be true, you either have Bregman opting out heading into his age 33 season, and making that choice days before a work stoppage.  Or he opts in and you trade him in the time before that point and the lockout?  Because if we agree on the premise, trading him after a work stoppage doesn't make sense.  The team will be operating under those new rules by then, and if the whole point was about optimizing your books to get the best CBA result possible, you've failed to clear Bregman's money before then.  Both of those seem really implausible to me, what am I missing?  

Instead, what I think is more likely is that if the team may have preferred to not have Bregman for all 4 years(or at a minimum worried less about the opt outs offered heading into age 33 or 34 season), but the CBA isn't the animating factor or close to it.  Instead it's a general preference that means they value shorter contract tenures, and are less interested in paying for Bregman's mid-30s in making an opportunistic attempt to sign him.  Throw in a dash of what Bertz mentioned about Jed's job security too for good measure.  That to me feels much more logical and still consistent with the front office/ownership SOP.

[CubinNY]

15 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Help me understand how this was supposed to play out then.  The idea is that they're going to go really hard in the next CBA negotiations, and they don't want big contracts on the books beyond that point because if they succeed then having those big contracts hurts their flexibility/bottom line, right?  

In order for that to be true, you either have Bregman opting out heading into his age 33 season, and making that choice days before a work stoppage.  Or he opts in and you trade him in the time before that point and the lockout?  Because if we agree on the premise, trading him after a work stoppage doesn't make sense.  The team will be operating under those new rules by then, and if the whole point was about optimizing your books to get the best CBA result possible, you've failed to clear Bregman's money before then.  Both of those seem really implausible to me, what am I missing?  

Instead, what I think is more likely is that if the team may have preferred to not have Bregman for all 4 years(or at a minimum worried less about the opt outs offered heading into age 33 or 34 season), but the CBA isn't the animating factor or close to it.  Instead it's a general preference that means they value shorter contract tenures, and are less interested in paying for Bregman's mid-30s in making an opportunistic attempt to sign him.  Throw in a dash of what Bertz mentioned about Jed's job security too for good measure.  That to me feels much more logical and still consistent with the front office/ownership SOP.

That's a generous interpretation, but it certainly is plausible. Perhaps the most credible is that Ricketts gave Jed parameters that he believed would likely not work for Bregman. 

Given Jed's recent comments of 1) going out of his way to damn with faint praise the Ricketts family for allowing him to pursue Bregman and 2) his measured choice of words explaining to the media- I think you/Bertz may be on to something about Jed's leash and also his frustration.  

Edited February 19, 2025 by CubinNY

[Rcal10]

16 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

That's a generous interpretation, but it certainly is plausible. Perhaps the most credible is that Ricketts gave Jed parameters that he believed would likely not work for Bregman. 

At one point I agreed with this comment. But after seeing the other contracts I am not so sure the Cubs didn’t put together a good faith contract that was better, o at least on par, than all of them until Boston changed theirs at the last minute. Tigers were said to be at $171M for 6 years. But they had deferrals. So not sure what that annual would be. But it wouldn’t have been what the Cubs AAV would have been. Also not sure if their opt out options. Astros held firm at 6/$156. That is the lowest annual. The Cubs at 4/$115 is the highest annual as well as a contract without referrals. I do think until the Red Sox upped their deal the cubs could have gotten him and I do not believe they offered a deal they knew he would refuse. What does surprise me about the Cubs  offer is no opt out after year one. Has he signed that deal the Cubs would undoubtedly be over the LT in ‘26. Which is something most of us are not sure they will do. Also, I doubt they would have any chance at a Tucker extension had Bregman signed. 

[thawv]

On 2/16/2025 at 1:17 PM, Derwood said:

See also: every other owner of sports teams

Exactly!  Very, very few owners put winning over profits. 

[Backtobanks]

5 hours ago, thawv said:

Exactly!  Very, very few owners put winning over profits. 

The owners that put winning over profits for the most part are owners of winning teams.

[CubinNY]

It's not an either/or situation. The owner calculates how much profit they want to take. They are all profitable. But it's a club more than a sport. The club makes the rules and pressures its members to follow them. 

In the case of the Ricketts, Wrigley is used to finance a lucrative empire with Wrigley Field as its centerpiece. The real product is Wrigley, and it's about as bankable as any product in sports.

The Ricketts 'break even" comment rubbish, is an aspirational assertion that they see in the future. 

 

[Hot Sauce]

Jed has all but come right out and said “I can’t do my job because of this cheapskate owner.” The Tucker trade is feeling more and more like an audition for a guy who knows he’s walking and wants to tell his suitors “look how creative I had to be with the constraints that were put on me.”

[CubinNY]

15 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

Jed has all but come right out and said “I can’t do my job because of this cheapskate owner.” The Tucker trade is feeling more and more like an audition for a guy who knows he’s walking and wants to tell his suitors “look how creative I had to be with the constraints that were put on me.”

Agree. 

[Brian707]

2 hours ago, Hot Sauce said:

Jed has all but come right out and said “I can’t do my job because of this cheapskate owner.” The Tucker trade is feeling more and more like an audition for a guy who knows he’s walking and wants to tell his suitors “look how creative I had to be with the constraints that were put on me.”

Yup,  Tucker being here beyond 2025 is a pipe dream. But hey, they probably will make the playoffs. That's the battle cry now. Jed is looking for his next gig. i don't blame him. PTR will find another guy to tow the company line

Edited February 20, 2025 by Brian707

[Rcal10]

16 minutes ago, Brian707 said:

Yup,  Tucker being here beyond 2025 is a pipe dream. But hey, they probably will make the playoffs. That's the battle cry now. Jed is looking for his next gig. i don't blame him. PTR will find another guy to tow the company line

I don’t agree regarding Tucker. The fact that the Cubs would have carried Bregman’s contract in ‘26 gives me hope they will spend past the LT line next year. And then after that the books are very clean. They may not get him, but I do think they will present a very competitive offer. To be clear, I am just suggesting it isn’t a pipe dream that the Cubs extend him. I think it is a realistic goal. 

[Cubfanintheknow]

Dodgers broadcasters today taking Cubs ownership to task based on Jed's comments about "budget constraints." They find it unbelievable as well.

[CubinNY]

42 minutes ago, Cubfanintheknow said:

Dodgers broadcasters today taking Cubs ownership to task based on Jed's comments about "budget constraints." They find it unbelievable as well.

Jed got a foot out the door already

[Backtobanks]

14 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Jed got a foot out the door already

Good riddance.  He let Tauchman and Canario (both extremely cheap) leave and now he doesn't have a backup CF. He bragged about Shaw and then spent months looking for a replacement/insurance for Shaw.  As for the bullpen, he believes in quantity over quality.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Jed sucks and always has.