Sources: With Alex Bregman Negotiations Intensifying, Cubs Have Made "Creative" Multi-Year Offer

[Matthew Trueblood]

The Chicago Cubs are a bit more serious about their pursuit of the best remaining free agent than previously believed. Two sources familiar with the negotiation said Tuesday that the team has made a four-year offer to the Scott Boras client, with a unique structure.

Image courtesy of © Thomas Shea-Imagn Images

As I wrote Sunday, the Cubs have to proceed carefully, if they really do intend to reel in Alex Bregman to close out their impressive offseason. They have just over $35 million in remaining wiggle room beneath the lowest threshold of the competitive-balance tax, which is one of two distinct hard ceilings under which Jed Hoyer has to fit his payroll budget for 2025. There's a budget figure he received from the Ricketts family, which is just as concrete but unknown to us, and there's the CBT threshold, which he will not be allowed to exceed this year after creeping to the wrong side of the line in 2024.

So, right now, the Cubs have a "creative, potentially unprecedented" contract offer out to Bregman, one source said. The deal is believed to be worth around $30 million annually over four years, with multiple opt-outs. Bregman could end up with the right to opt out after any of the first three seasons of the deal, and the structure of the contract would be similar to the one the Cubs signed with Cody Bellinger (another Boras client) last February. Bellinger's deal essentially guaranteed him $30 million for 2024, $30 million for 2025, and $20 million for 2026, with the right to opt out after either of the first two seasons, but some money sloshes from one year to the next in the form of buyouts paid only if he triggers either opt-out clause.

A Bregman deal would be similarly (though perhaps less starkly) front-loaded, in an effort to accommodate both his and Boras's desire that he exceeds the $31.35-million AAV Rafael Devers earned on the long extension he signed with the Red Sox in 2023 and the Cubs' need to stay under the CBT line. That could include a counter-option for the Cubs on one of the opt-outs, allowing them to void Bregman's option by extending him for an extra year or two—similar to the decision they'll have to make this fall about Shota Imanaga's oddly-structured deal.

It could also mean that the fourth year is not fully guaranteed, but a vesting option contingent on health or playing time, with a big chunk of the money in Year 3 (2027, the season that could be affected by a work stoppage anyway) pushed out to Year 4 and divided into a guaranteed buyout and a hefty vesting value. One way or another, there's likely to be a wrinkle. That's because, if Bregman makes (say) $34 million in 2025 and then opts out, it could push the Cubs over the luxury tax line at the last moment, by changing whatever his AAV would be over four years to that higher number.

Astros GM Dana Brown referred to Bregman's time with the team in the past tense at a media luncheon Tuesday, sparking some speculation that Houston no longer expects Bregman to return. It's his long-time team that we know to have already offered Bregman a six-year deal, but if he wanted the one they offered, he'd already have re-signed with them. It's not clear whether the offer they made weeks or months ago is even still on the table.

Does that mean the Cubs are more prominent in the bidding for Bregman than previously thought? Not necessarily, but it's interesting. So, too, is the news that the Red Sox and Cardinals have re-engaged about a potential Nolan Arenado trade.

It's increasingly clear that no seven-year offer is forthcoming for Bregman. Even if it's true that he's received multiple six-year deals, seeing any such long-term deal rise to meet his asking price at this stage of the offseason is highly unlikely. The Cubs' offer is "a push," one source said, and the question is whether it will be a strong enough one to sell Bregman on reuniting with Astros teammates Kyle Tucker and Ryan Pressly—and adding a capstone to a roster already projected as the comfortable division favorite.

In almost any scenario, this deal would put the Cubs perilously close to the luxury-tax line. A signing, then, would make it much less likely that the team acquires another veteran reliever, unless it be someone they like on a deal worth less than $5 million. It would also prompt another round of rumors about trading Nico Hoerner, another topic I touched upon Sunday. Hoerner and his $11.67-million CBT number would be easy enough to move, but the Cubs probably wouldn't get as much for him in this scenario as they might have if they'd been more set on moving him in the early stages of the winter. They wouldn't necessarily have to trade Hoerner immediately, though. If they kept other expenses to a minimum, and assuming this potential deal is structured loosely with the CBT line for 2025 in mind, Chicago could go into the season with all of Hoerner, Bregman and Matt Shaw in the mix, likely asking Shaw to start the season at Triple-A Iowa, and then trade Hoerner in July.

We're getting ahead of ourselves. While the team has made a substantial offer, they're by no means at the finish line with Bregman. They do seem to have waited out his market well, though, in the sense that the decorated veteran is more open now to the kind of deal the Cubs were always willing to entertain than he was when they first began checking in. They value Bregman as a clearly middle-of-the-order bat (even after he showed signs of decline in the first half of 2024), a more experienced third baseman than Shaw, and a clubhouse presence. As much as they want to commit to young players (Pete Crow-Armstrong, Michael Busch, and Miguel Amaya are already written into the Opening Day lineup, albeit in pencil, and they would not have made the Isaac Paredes-for-Tucker trade if they didn't at least believe in Shaw as a long-term option at third), the team also sees Bregman as a clear upgrade over either Shaw or Hoerner.

Hoyer is trying to complete a lineup that would be different than that of the Dodgers, but not much less productive, overall—and is, yet again, trying some unusual things to get there. This deal could be wildly player-friendly, stretching a now-familiar but risky structure to a new extreme. However, it could also out the Cubs over the top, if it comes together in just the right form and they can create whatever other flexibility they require.

View full article

[Bertz]

(pending what a Nico trade return would look like)

[Stratos]

All Boras lies until it happens.

[Post Count Padder]

Are these your sources, Matt?

That would be a somewhat complicated deal and I don't love tying up that much salary with him.

[Stratos]

38 minutes ago, Bertz said:

(pending what a Nico trade return would look like)

With Nico/Swanson are coming off injuries i'd keep Nico if Jed can afford it.

Trading cheap 4 WAR for older expensive 4 WAR with a QO doesn't seem very smart for the Cubs.

Edited February 4, 2025 by Stratos

[Jason Ross]

I remain heavily on the fence here and can see arguments on both sides as to whether or not I want this. 

• The reality is Alex Bregman is a far more shelf-stable option at the start of 2025 than Matt Shaw. I really like Matt Shaw but his outcomes vary far more than Bregman in 2025. Especially during those first few months where the Cubs schedule is brutal.
• You can let Matt Shaw PCA his way into a lineup spot through injury (which will happen)
• It opens up a Nico Hoerner trade, either pre-season or even mid-season. It probably creates more options at the deadline, where a team (and I'm just using them as an example) like Seattle, who could be in the playoff race, wouldn't be willing to sell MLB pitching for prospects (and give up their playoff spot) but would be interested in ready-made MLB help. 
• It creates a situation where you move a potential offseason of needing to replace four starting players in Suzuki/Happ/Hoerner/Taillon and reduce it to 3, with either Bregman opting out and replacing him a year early, or you cancel the opt out and keep him in which you don't need to replace him at all.

On the other hand: 

• Matt Shaw's ZiPS projections make you think maybe he's going to be pretty good right away and the payoff will be minimal
• Bregman's offensive profile got weird last year and changed and I'm not sure how I feel about it
• It could make extending Tucker even more of a long shot as the team could decide this takes them out of that, and I'd rather have Tucker than Bregman every day and twice on Sunday

It's a weird spot. From a pure "fan" standpoint, it'd be a lot of fun to see the Cubs just do something cool, but being logical, it's kind of hard for me to decide exactly where I sit here.

[Tryptamine]

It would all entirely depend on what Nico was moved for, but Nico seems like a guy that is extremely undervalued by the majority.

[Stratos]

Matt Trueblood, where do the reports of the Cubs making a "creative multiyear" offer come from?  Is this a Northside exclusive?

[JunkyardWalrus]

13 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

 

On the other hand: 

• It could make extending Tucker even more of a long shot as the team could decide this takes them out of that, and I'd rather have Tucker than Bregman every day and twice on Sunday

It's a weird spot. From a pure "fan" standpoint, it'd be a lot of fun to see the Cubs just do something cool, but being logical, it's kind of hard for me to decide exactly where I sit here.

This here. 

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Matt Trueblood, where do the reports of the Cubs making a "creative multiyear" offer come from?  Is this a Northside exclusive?

These are sources Matt has. Matt's been writing for more than NSBB - including a few websites such as the Brewers and Twins equivalents to like. Bleacher Nation, as well as Baseball America. He's been spot on with the Cubs and O'Hoppe, the Cubs on Luzardo, and the Cubs/Crochet things. Those didn't happen, but it also doesn't mean they weren't discussed (all three were picked up on by the other major guys later). 

Needless to say, I think you'd file this away as; his sources are real. But as he's said, it doesn't mean it'll happen.

[Stratos]

2 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

These are sources Matt has. Matt's been writing for more than NSBB - including a few websites such as the Brewers and Twins equivalents to like. Bleacher Nation, as well as Baseball America. He's been spot on with the Cubs and O'Hoppe, the Cubs on Luzardo, and the Cubs/Crochet things. Those didn't happen, but it also doesn't mean they weren't discussed (all three were picked up on by the other major guys later). 

Needless to say, I think you'd file this away as; his sources are real. But as he's said, it doesn't mean it'll happen.

Ok thanks, i didn't see anything on twitter/BN etc

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Stratos said:

Ok thanks, i didn't see anything on twitter/BN etc

Matt's probably got different sources than those guys. For example, it was Michael Cerami who first had the Kimbrel trade before anyone. All about who ya know. 

[Stratos]

Its just hard for me to see a Bellinger-like Bregman deal making sense for Bregman unless he just got unlucky with a weak market for 3B this offseason, or Boras is just biting off more than he can chew.  Now is the time for Bregman to get a longterm deal, he'll never be in a better position.

But we know from Bellinger/Montgomery etc that if a Boras client is this deep into the offseason without a deal then Boras hasn't been getting the offers he thinks his client deserves, making a shorter term deal more likely.

Seems Boras consistently overvalues his clients and if no sucker bites they go shorter term/opt-out.  Looking at Soto and Snell its hard to argue with the results most of the time.

[TarzanJoeWallis]

1 hour ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

This here. 

Or maybe it is with the hope that it will help them extend Tucker if they bring in a friend. 

[Statyllus]

4 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

These are sources Matt has. Matt's been writing for more than NSBB - including a few websites such as the Brewers and Twins equivalents to like. Bleacher Nation, as well as Baseball America. He's been spot on with the Cubs and O'Hoppe, the Cubs on Luzardo, and the Cubs/Crochet things. Those didn't happen, but it also doesn't mean they weren't discussed (all three were picked up on by the other major guys later). 

Needless to say, I think you'd file this away as; his sources are real. But as he's said, it doesn't mean it'll happen.

Great detail on the Cubs financial structure for a possible Bregman signing. The only concern is that there’s too much detail for it to be leaked to media by Cub sources  - especially since the structure is no doubt viewed as a competitive advantage by the Cubs. That means that Boras sources leaked the structure for their own purposes. Boras likely wants to provide the media with the structure and a detailed explanation of it to ensure the media reports it as a clear win for Bregman and the Boras Corporation should the Cubs and Bregman come to terms - a 90% probability now. 

[Victor Reichman]

22 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I remain heavily on the fence here and can see arguments on both sides as to whether or not I want this. 

• The reality is Alex Bregman is a far more shelf-stable option at the start of 2025 than Matt Shaw. I really like Matt Shaw but his outcomes vary far more than Bregman in 2025. Especially during those first few months where the Cubs schedule is brutal.
• You can let Matt Shaw PCA his way into a lineup spot through injury (which will happen)
• It opens up a Nico Hoerner trade, either pre-season or even mid-season. It probably creates more options at the deadline, where a team (and I'm just using them as an example) like Seattle, who could be in the playoff race, wouldn't be willing to sell MLB pitching for prospects (and give up their playoff spot) but would be interested in ready-made MLB help. 
• It creates a situation where you move a potential offseason of needing to replace four starting players in Suzuki/Happ/Hoerner/Taillon and reduce it to 3, with either Bregman opting out and replacing him a year early, or you cancel the opt out and keep him in which you don't need to replace him at all.

On the other hand: 

• Matt Shaw's ZiPS projections make you think maybe he's going to be pretty good right away and the payoff will be minimal
• Bregman's offensive profile got weird last year and changed and I'm not sure how I feel about it
• It could make extending Tucker even more of a long shot as the team could decide this takes them out of that, and I'd rather have Tucker than Bregman every day and twice on Sunday

It's a weird spot. From a pure "fan" standpoint, it'd be a lot of fun to see the Cubs just do something cool, but being logical, it's kind of hard for me to decide exactly where I sit here.

 

[Victor Reichman]

Just now, Victor Reichman said:

 

I prefer keeping Nico than getting into another long term deal with Boras. Especially true with opt outs.

Give Shaw a chance or sign Bergman for a short term deal.  No more long term deals and once again, you never should buy a 1 yr rental like Tucker unless a long time deal is worked out before the deal.

Nothing against Bergman but he's 30 and a really good player, but not for $25-$30 mil a year.

 

[Rcal10]

29 minutes ago, Victor Reichman said:

I prefer keeping Nico than getting into another long term deal with Boras. Especially true with opt outs.

Give Shaw a chance or sign Bergman for a short term deal.  No more long term deals and once again, you never should buy a 1 yr rental like Tucker unless a long time deal is worked out before the deal.

Nothing against Bergman but he's 30 and a really good player, but not for $25-$30 mil a year.

 

How often is a guy in his last year traded where the team taking him in a trade already has an extension worked out for him? I would like that to be the case as well, but it isn’t reality. 

[ryanrc]

I still don't know why anyone would trade Nico when he's a helluva bargain. There's no need to move Nico to gain Bregman. If that's what it came down to, then it would be a no on Bregman. They are projected to produce similar WAR this year, and Nico is doing so on a team-friendly salary well below market. I see no reason to trade Suzuki either. He's a top 20 league bat (19th in OPS last year) with high contact and balanced splits! That's hard to replace!  

We could move Jameson Taillon, if it came down to moving someone for money. He's close to being "right priced", so it would be mostly a salary dump, but we could really use a shiny new 1b prospect. And, we are deep enough in starting pitchers that we could wait until mid-season to replace him with a new stud. People are totally forgetting about Cody Poteet, and the fact that he projects as well as Colin Rea NOW, and could easily have the upside of a Taillon in the future. And people should be optimistic that Assad develops a better strikeout pitch, like, this year, to solidify his mid-rotation potential. 

Still, I would GREATLY prefer to backload Bregman and just roll with what we have after signing him - for example, deferring part of his 2025 salary. 

Besides, we always have some dead/retained money falling off to aid the future budget. in 2026, 10 million - which will be more than enough to make a couple of bullpen moves next year. Other than that, our roster is already complete for 2026.

Edited February 6, 2025 by ryanrc