Spring Training Moves/Transactions Thread

[CubinNY]

19 minutes ago, KCCub said:

Not sure where else to put this, but found it noteworthy -

 

"Thankful for Tom (Todd & Laura), spent a long time talking about the pursuit of him (Bregman). They were willing to sort of greenlight us pushing our budget".

Maybe I'm looking too much into those remarks, but there's some good and bad there potentially. The good is maybe Tom was willing to go over the Lux tax line. The bad is if that is true, maybe there was a world where Nico didn't need to be traded and we had a studly infield with a nice super util guy in Shaw, which makes missing out hurt more. 

They made a good offer given his demands. I suppose it's nice of Jed to thank Tommy Boy for allowing him to pursue great players. 

[17 Seconds]

jed's comments made it sound like they were done and that the remaining money was bregman or nothing. pretty bad.

[Irrelevant Dude]

Also of note, the Cubs aren't willing to offer deferred money.

Awesome.  We have ownership so obsessed with "clean books" that they are unwilling to exploit a loophole for a competitive advantage.

[Bertz]

2 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Also of note, the Cubs aren't willing to offer deferred money.

Awesome.  We have ownership so obsessed with "clean books" that they are unwilling to exploit a loophole for a competitive advantage.

Deferred money is not a competitive advantage lol

[CubinNY]

7 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Also of note, the Cubs aren't willing to offer deferred money.

Awesome.  We have ownership so obsessed with "clean books" that they are unwilling to exploit a loophole for a competitive advantage.

They will have minimal payroll obligations going into the next CBA. And you can safely bet they will hard bargain for a cap. I have no idea how they will accomplish this without opening their books for fair accounting and revenue sharing with the MLBPA.

Edited February 13, 2025 by CubinNY

[Irrelevant Dude]

3 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Deferred money is not a competitive advantage lol

Exploiting the system to squeeze in contracts at a lower luxury tax figure isn't a competitive advantage?  It certainly is for the Dodgers.  I'm not saying it's the answer to all problems, but taking the option off the table entirely shows how serious the Cubs really are about winning.

[Bertz]

3 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Exploiting the system to squeeze in contracts at a lower luxury tax figure isn't a competitive advantage?  It certainly is for the Dodgers.  I'm not saying it's the answer to all problems, but taking the option off the table entirely shows how serious the Cubs really are about winning.

It's very simple time value of money stuff.  There's no advantage.  It gives sticker shock, but it's very much above board.  That's why every time when the actual terms of the deals come out they magically equate to a deal more or less in line with expectations.

[CubinNY]

Their motto should be trying to win with one hand tied behind our back. 

[17 Seconds]

maybe I'm being a reactionary ninny, but I don't know how I feel about giving up cam smith for one year of tucker now that a) an extension seems unlikely and b) they kind of half assed the rest of the offseason outside of tucker

[Irrelevant Dude]

Just now, 17 Seconds said:

maybe I'm being a reactionary ninny, but I don't know how I feel about giving up cam smith for one year of tucker now that a) an extension seems unlikely

With future payroll obligations being what they are, there is no reason not to extend him at whatever cost is necesssary. whether that be now or after the season.

[We Got The Whole 9]

The Tucker move more or less gave them the division they haven't won legitimately in 6 years.

[JBears79]

Jed is the most unlikable GM ever. 

[s2obed]

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Jed stick around. He’s ownership’s puppet. 

[Irrelevant Dude]

24 minutes ago, JBears79 said:

Jed is the most unlikable GM ever. 

He isn't likeable or unlikeable.  He just comes across like generic corporate stooge #18.

[CubinNY]

5 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

He isn't likeable or unlikeable.  He just comes across like generic corporate stooge #18.

Right out of central casting. 

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

Their motto should be trying to win with one hand tied behind our back. 

Exactly. But that’s on ownership, not the FO. I think most of the anger of what this team does or doesn’t do should be directed more at Ricketts than Hoyer/Hawkins. Doesn’t matter who the GM is, he has to answer to ownership. And if they aren’t willing to spend, the GM can’t spend, period. 

[Rob]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

Deferred money is not a competitive advantage lol

Yes and no.

Deferred money on its own isn't a competitive advantage. The time value of money stuff sees to that.

However, some players have taken to heavily deferring contracts with the intent to move to a state without income tax prior to the big money coming in. In essence, they're dodging taxes on it.

Many expect those States such as CA being exploited by these contracts to patch their loopholes and demand state income tax based on the time the service was rendered rather than the time the money is paid. But right now, when offering deferred money, the teams in those states are also treated like FL and TX and other states without state income tax. That's a competitive advantage, surely.

I'm not sure what our tax laws look like. But if the same scheme is theoretically viable in IL then it would constitute a competitive advantage to offer income that will not be taxed by the State. Although, TBH, as a taxpayer, I'd be somewhat upset if they were taking advantage of it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Not deferring money as a rule could be a disadvantage if players are taking deals with deferred money over economically similar offers just so they/their agent can crow about the largest number.

[Bertz]

17 minutes ago, Rob said:

Yes and no.

Deferred money on its own isn't a competitive advantage. The time value of money stuff sees to that.

However, some players have taken to heavily deferring contracts with the intent to move to a state without income tax prior to the big money coming in. In essence, they're dodging taxes on it.

Many expect those States such as CA being exploited by these contracts to patch their loopholes and demand state income tax based on the time the service was rendered rather than the time the money is paid. But right now, when offering deferred money, the teams in those states are also treated like FL and TX and other states without state income tax. That's a competitive advantage, surely.

I'm not sure what our tax laws look like. But if the same scheme is theoretically viable in IL then it would constitute a competitive advantage to offer income that will not be taxed by the State. Although, TBH, as a taxpayer, I'd be somewhat upset if they were taking advantage of it.

This is great.  And I think it's worth noting that this is the extent of the impact, more or less turning a blue state into a red one tax wise.  It's something with marginal value and not the "one weird trick for giving Shohei Ohtani $70M a year" that causes so much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

(Also probably worth noting the Cubs deferred a bunch of Jason Heyward's deal....)

[Stratos]

Jed said exactly what one expects him to say, besides essentially saying Tom let him go slightly over the tax line this year for Bregman.

This team should be like 40 million over the first tax line regardless.

[17 Seconds]

7 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Jed said exactly what one expects him to say, besides essentially saying Tom let him go slightly over the tax line this year for Bregman.

This team should be like 40 million over the first tax line regardless.

I don't think he was saying that the Ricketts were letting him go over

[Rcal10]

53 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Jed said exactly what one expects him to say, besides essentially saying Tom let him go slightly over the tax line this year for Bregman.

This team should be like 40 million over the first tax line regardless.

Why is what Jed said exactly what one would expect him to say. If they were still active and looking to improve the team why wouldn’t he say they lost out on Bregman but they still have a lot of irons in the fire. Still some options to improve the team. They still have a good amount of money left and are working hard to add talent. He said none of that. He said exactly what one would expect him to say if they didn’t have a plan B to make the team better. So in a way, you are right, he did say exactly what is expected because they don’t have a plan B. Maybe a small add and that is it. And that sucks….

[Irrelevant Dude]

Remember the good old days when we considered the lower luxury tax limit to be approximately equal to the Cubs budget?  Turns out their budget is below that, and Jed can only approach the tax threshold with "special permission" from the Ricketts family.

This whole situation rings so hollow, with Jed repeatedly thanking the Ricketts family for opening up the pocketbooks enough to make an offer that was very unlikely to ever be accepted.  I hate that this ownership group has made me feel this way about the team, but it is infuriating to watch them continue to play this mid market horsefeathers with one of the most valuable teams in one of the largest cities in the country.

Edited February 14, 2025 by Irrelevant Dude

[squally1313]

1. As mentioned elsewhere, it's probably pretty standard for the ownership to get involved on any contract above $100m, especially in a situation where the GM has one year left. I don't think we necessarily need to read those comments as suddenly spending to the luxury tax budget being this concept that requires extraordinary permission. 

2. It seems like people have been saying that the offseason is over for like 3 months now, and it's still not, but....it's obviously pretty close, and IF there aren't any more moves, I'd say you probably got to assign some blame to Jed on how it ended? Like if you want to carve out this niche of waiting for the market to soften, fine, I see the logic, but....you have to finish the job. Just like I didn't think it was fair to blame Jed for not landing a huge name, if we go into the year $30m below the tax line I don't think it's fair to PTR to automatically assume he just dropped the budget by $30m. Jed meant to spend the money, as you could see in the Scott and Bregman offers. He just didn't close, and is currently left holding a stack of cash and a pretty tough path to turn that into good baseball players. 

Caveats: This is just in response to his comments today, which could/probably are worthless. And PTR deserves no benefit of the doubt. But...still. 

[Bertz]

20 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

1. As mentioned elsewhere, it's probably pretty standard for the ownership to get involved on any contract above $100m, especially in a situation where the GM has one year left. I don't think we necessarily need to read those comments as suddenly spending to the luxury tax budget being this concept that requires extraordinary permission. 

2. It seems like people have been saying that the offseason is over for like 3 months now, and it's still not, but....it's obviously pretty close, and IF there aren't any more moves, I'd say you probably got to assign some blame to Jed on how it ended? Like if you want to carve out this niche of waiting for the market to soften, fine, I see the logic, but....you have to finish the job. Just like I didn't think it was fair to blame Jed for not landing a huge name, if we go into the year $30m below the tax line I don't think it's fair to PTR to automatically assume he just dropped the budget by $30m. Jed meant to spend the money, as you could see in the Scott and Bregman offers. He just didn't close, and is currently left holding a stack of cash and a pretty tough path to turn that into good baseball players. 

Caveats: This is just in response to his comments today, which could/probably are worthless. And PTR deserves no benefit of the doubt. But...still. 

Yeah the payroll stuff seems whatever. I actually rolled my eyes at Jed's attempt at retconning the Bellinger saga.  I think payroll's legitimately down a smidge, I think Jed's just being his usual cagey self about what he can spend for leverage, and there's a bit of "well yeah of course an owner's going to be a big part of that convo" to the process stuff.  Mooney just tonight reiterated the look to add a Turner/Canha type and said and that "the front office never stops looking for more pitching."  So I'm not super worried that the wallet's literally empty.

 

I think from an execution standpoint, the rotation is obviously a guy short.  And Rea REALLY sticks out like a sore thumb.  I don't understand committing that money, and maybe more importantly that roster spot, to someone whose value seems to be mostly not being bad in a wide variety of roles.  That is a floor raising move you do when your pitching staff is paper thin.  On this team it seems inevitable that he spends large chunks of the season just in the way.  And if you're right that Jed is left holding a bag, then Rea could have very easily been Max Scherzer.

There's pressure on the team to have either absolutely nailed the Boyd signing or have one of the young SPs step up in a big big way.  Either are easy to envision, but jeez neither is something I'd want to count on in my walk year.