How Ryan Brasier Could Be the Key to Cubs' Pursuit of Alex Bregman (Yes, Really)

[Matthew Trueblood]

Here's hoping they didn't tamper with him...

Image courtesy of © Isaiah J. Downing-Imagn Images

During 670 The Score's weekly baseball show Inside the Clubhouse, host and baseball insider Bruce Levine made an interesting comment that we should all hope was slightly off base.

"From what I understand, they're talking to Brasier already, having been let go of by the Dodgers," Levine said. That would be Ryan Brasier, who was, indeed, designated for assignment Thursday.

Legally, though, the Cubs can't have contacted Brasier yet, because he's not a free agent. The Dodgers have until Tuesday to trade him, before they'd need to place him on outright waivers and give all 29 other teams a chance to claim him for his salary for 2025, believed to be $4.5 million. (He signed a two-year deal at this time last year worth $9 million, but details on what will be paid when in that deal are more sketchy than usual for modern big-leaguers.

If Brasier makes it as far as the waiver wire, rather than being traded, he could very well make it through unscatched. At this stage of the winter, there are a handful of similar free-agent relievers available at similar prices, and there are incentives in Brasier's contract that could push his earnings up as much as $2 million based on his health and availability. The Cubs' ideal scenario, then, is that he does clear waivers, becomes a free agent, and can be signed for the league-minimum salary of $760,000, with the Dodgers paying the rest of what he's owed. Obviously, the Cubs would have to win a free-for-all for his services at that point, but it'd be a boon if they could land him.

For that very reason, though, no team is allowed to directly contact Brasier right now. Hopefully, what Levine meant—or what a source meant, and he misconstrued—is that the Cubs have been in contact with the Dodgers about a possible trade. That's more plausible, and indeed, sources I spoke to said the team has talked to Los Angeles about him this offseason, though it wasn't clear whether that was before or after he was cut as a procedural move to make way for the Dodgers signing Kirby Yates.

A trade for Brasier would be a fine second-best option to having him slide through waivers, from the Cubs' perspective, because it wouldn't come with the risk that he's claimed or signed by some other team instead. It would probably cost a legitimate (though low-level) prospect, someone with more upside than Juan Bello (whom the Cubs gave up to get Ryan Pressly from the Astros). That would reflect the fact that Brasier will come cheaper than Pressly, financially, but also that the Dodgers are likely to have some alternative trade partners approach them about Brasier, who (unlike Pressly) does not have the ability to decide where he lands.

Why would the Cubs be willing to do that deal, though? It would certainly partially be about Brasier, himself. After all, he's developed a stout and effective four-pitch mix, with a four-seamer and slider he'll throw to both lefties and righties; a sinker for righties; and a cutter for lefties. Since the start of 2023, he's pitched 88 regular-season innings and 11 more in the playoffs. His 23.3% strikeout rate is good, but not great. However, his 6.9% walk and 1.7% home-run rates are sparkling, and he's held opposing batters to a .204/.262/.312 line. The cutter, in particular, has been huge for him.

Another part of the rationale, though, is what else getting Brasier might make possible. The Cubs feel a need to further reinforce their bullpen, but if they do so via free agency (David Robertson, Kyle Finnegan) or a more expensive trade (Robert Suarez), it will at least slightly encroach on their efforts to make any other upgrades to their roster. Trading for Brasier is a different story, though—especially if the Dodgers kick in some cash to ensure that Brasier's salary doesn't rise beyond about $4 million for the Cubs' purposes.

If that be the case, the Cubs could get a bit more serious about their pursuit of Alex Bregman. That's the key advantage to nabbing Brasier (or another lower-cost, higher-reward relief alternative, like Kendall Graveman) from the front office's perspective. Jed Hoyer is still not considering a long-term commitment to Bregman, but according to one source in another front office that has talked with Bregman's camp this winter, that might not put the Cubs at a disadvantage. The conflicting reports about whether Bregman was willing to shift from seeking a seven-year deal to a short-term structure turn out not to have been conflicting, as much as two different glimpses into a flexible process.

Bregman, according to two sources, is unwilling to settle for a short-term deal without getting a substantially better annual average value than he could command on a long-term one—but is open to that exchange of total value for short-term earnings, provided there's a real chance to win in his prospective landing spot and that he can feel confident of having a successful season there.

The Cubs certainly seem to pass that double test, which means that if neither of the teams (one being the Astros, the other currently unidentified) step up their six-year deals in terms of AAV or add a seventh year thereto, Chicago could be a viable suitoor on a deal much akin to the one Cody Bellinger signed last winter. Bregman might want to get more than the $31.35 million AAV on Rafael Devers's 2023 extension with the Red Sox, so one possible structure would be a three-year, $90-million deal in which Bregman is guaranteed $31.5 million in each of the first two years and $27.5 million in the third, with opt-outs after 2025 and 2026.

Right now, Chicago's payroll stands at roughly $180 million, so adding Brasier and Bregman at (say) $36 million would bring them right to the $215-million range that has appeared to be their target for some time. Their competitive-balance tax number is currently $198 million, so this would push them up to within about $7 million of the lowest threshold for the CBT—a threshold they will not surpass in 2025, under any circumstances. It's very, very unlikely that the team could add both Bregman and one of those more expensive bullpen pieces, given their spending constraints.

I've written recently about multiple reasons why they might not even want to approach that threshold so closely before the season begins. However, Hoyer has the option to use up what would otherwise be his in-season flexibility now, if he sees this as an opportunity too good to pass up.

Brasier and Bregman would complete the team's roster, pending a possible (though unlikely, as it would have to be cash-neutral or better, and they wouldn't want to give up more young talent along the way) trade of Nico Hoerner for a starting pitcher. Some have raised two valid questions about this potential path, so let me address them here.

1. Why, effectively, choose Bregman over Hoerner, when the former is almost 31 and the latter is three years and change younger—especially if it means getting more expensive? Wins above replacement be damned, Bregman is plain old better than Hoerner. Moreover, while Hoerner's youth makes it easy to forget it, he's only under contract for two more seasons, and it's unlikely that the Cubs will look to sign him to a second, more lucrative extension to keep him beyond 2026. His skill set won't age as well as Bregman's already has, and if there's an automated strike zone in our future, Bregman (who is set to magically shrink three or four inches this spring, when players are officially and objectively measured for the use of that zone in Cactus and Grapefruit League games) might get a big boost to his own aging proposition. It wouldn't mark a loss of medium- or long-term value, because Hoerner really doesn't have any, and the Cubs would go from NL Central contenders to serious World Series threats for 2025.
2. Why give up draft picks and international free-agent spending power to sign a player to a short-term deal? Shouldn't the Cubs only be willing to do that if it comes with long-term upside? I used to be of this mind, too, but have been talked into the notion that the team would (and maybe even should) give up those long-term assets to land Bregman in the short term. Hoyer gets a fixed payroll budget from the business side of the Cubs each year. It's based not on projected earnings for the coming year, but on revenues from the prior season, and it's not flexible (as some teams' budgets are) based on the possible emergence of an opportunity to invest for the long term or swing big for a championship banner. 
   
   That might not be a good way to do things, but it's what the Ricketts family has decided to do. Within that decision space, then, Hoyer has to consider whether signing (in this case) Bregman would materially improve the club's chances to win a lot of games and go to the postseason. If it will, then the extra money such a season would surely bring in justifies the loss of a couple lottery tickets on teenage talent. The upside of this paradigm is that success should be at least partially self-sustaining, so short-term moves that maintain agility from year to year and raise the likely earning power of the organization for the season appeal more to them than they might without considering the way their budget is determined.

The next few days are likely to be busy; teams and players are starting to get anxious about spots unfilled and spring training homes undetermined. The Cubs still aren't likely to land Bregman, but if they can snap up Brasier or a similarly solid reliever at a similarly great price, it will improve their chances—and things could happen quickly.

View full article