Theory, why we held onto to prospects

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

It's looking at a roster realistically but horsefeathers you too

Ok, let’s toss insults and jokes aside. How is this realistically looking at the roster to not sign Tucker AND trade Happ? Happ has a NTC as well. All jokes and insults aside, I don’t see this as a very realistic scenerio. 

[Backtobanks]

5 hours ago, Donzo said:

Happ, Suzuki and Hoerner are FAs after 2026. Need replacements for them, hopefully Suzuki is resigned. Also looking at a lockout in 2027. I think that's a big part of Hoyer's (Ricketts) planning.

The top prospects are ready for MLB. Some of them will be traded, some will be depth- thinking the cubs will have a lot of young depth next year.

Probably an 80% chance Tucker is gone. That puts Cassie in RF with Alcantara/Long as RH backup. Long is the logical replacement for Turner, so maybe both Long and Alcantara can make the team. that's a lot of young depth. Triantos is a good replacement for Berti, or he could be traded.

Some nice young pitching should be ready next year, too. Birdsell will be looking for MLB playing time in spring training. We need to see how Wiggins finishes this year. He could be looking at a Horton trajectory- get 6-8 quality starts in Iowa then up with the Cubs.

Lots of options. It'll be interesting to see who's signed, traded and promoted.

I wish I could be as confident as some of you that 4-5 rookies and going to come up and replace solid ML players.

[imb]

Replacing Tucker with alcantara and Cassie would be a nightmare. I’ve watched more cubs this year than in the last 4 combined but my god what are we doing here

[Hot Sauce]

15 hours ago, Donzo said:

Happ, Suzuki and Hoerner are FAs after 2026. Need replacements for them, hopefully Suzuki is resigned. Also looking at a lockout in 2027. I think that's a big part of Hoyer's (Ricketts) planning.

The top prospects are ready for MLB. Some of them will be traded, some will be depth- thinking the cubs will have a lot of young depth next year.

Probably an 80% chance Tucker is gone. That puts Cassie in RF with Alcantara/Long as RH backup. Long is the logical replacement for Turner, so maybe both Long and Alcantara can make the team. that's a lot of young depth. Triantos is a good replacement for Berti, or he could be traded.

Some nice young pitching should be ready next year, too. Birdsell will be looking for MLB playing time in spring training. We need to see how Wiggins finishes this year. He could be looking at a Horton trajectory- get 6-8 quality starts in Iowa then up with the Cubs.

Lots of options. It'll be interesting to see who's signed, traded and promoted.

Happ will be the opening day LF next season and 2026 will most likely be his swan song at Wrigley. It might be an unpopular opinion now, but there's an argument to be made that Suzuki is replaceable after 2026. I don't want to see him in RF ever again. Ballesteros is tailor made to be a DH. Nico you absolutely must extend and keep. That should not even be a debate. He's playing the best ball of his career and should continue to be 4-5.5 WAR player for several more years. 

[Randall Simon]

8 hours ago, imb said:

Replacing Tucker with alcantara and Cassie would be a nightmare. I’ve watched more cubs this year than in the last 4 combined but my god what are we doing here

We're trying really hard to be competitive without being a contender. Because winning is not the #1 goal for this FO. Maximizing profit is. 

[Rcal10]

58 minutes ago, Randall Simon said:

We're trying really hard to be competitive without being a contender. Because winning is not the #1 goal for this FO. Maximizing profit is. 

Wish I could argue this, but I can’t. The trick is to show ownership that winning brings the most profit. Kind of the theory you have to spend money to make money. Don’t really think the Cubs ownership is that different than most when they put profit ahead of winning. I think 80% or more owners do that as well. 

[Geographyhater8888]

1 hour ago, Randall Simon said:

We're trying really hard to be competitive without being a contender. Because winning is not the #1 goal for this FO. Maximizing profit is. 

A lot of similarities to Reinsdorfs mid 2000’s Whitesox with even more complacency at winning 85 games thanks to the 6 playoff seeds. I think they want to be Braves, but the disparity between their net revenue and payroll is alarming. 

[Backtobanks]

3 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Wish I could argue this, but I can’t. The trick is to show ownership that winning brings the most profit. Kind of the theory you have to spend money to make money. Don’t really think the Cubs ownership is that different than most when they put profit ahead of winning. I think 80% or more owners do that as well. 

The 80% that worry more about profit than winning are probably small-to-middle market teams. We should be compared to the major market teams and not Sacramento/Oakland or Kansas City. 

[Donzo]

21 hours ago, Backtobanks said:

I wish I could be as confident as some of you that 4-5 rookies and going to come up and replace solid ML players.

Replace them as in taking their roster spots. It's an option and would probably be 3-4 to start he season. 

[Randall Simon]

7 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Wish I could argue this, but I can’t. The trick is to show ownership that winning brings the most profit. Kind of the theory you have to spend money to make money. Don’t really think the Cubs ownership is that different than most when they put profit ahead of winning. I think 80% or more owners do that as well. 

With the Cubs this isn't true. Our fans show up whether we win or lose. It's a blessing and a curse.  It seems TR realized this in 2018 or thereabouts, and stopped signing off on big FA signings. He knows that we'll sell out every game with or without a top 5 payroll. He got his WS. He clearly doesn't care about getting another one. 

[Backtobanks]

2 hours ago, Donzo said:

Replace them as in taking their roster spots. It's an option and would probably be 3-4 to start he season. 

The Cubs have been reluctant to call up top prospects rather than leaving them to play every day at AAA.

[Donzo]

18 hours ago, Backtobanks said:

The Cubs have been reluctant to call up top prospects rather than leaving them to play every day at AAA.

We're not talking about prospects working they're way through the ststem. These guys are AAA veterans.

The core group of Cassie, Ballesteros, Alcantara, Triantos and Birdsell have already been in AAA for two years. They are essentially blocked- Ballesteros needs more time for defense. Next year would be Long's 2nd season in AAA and appears ready the majors, too.

[CubinNY]

On 8/2/2025 at 3:34 PM, Transmogrified Tiger said:

• Given how little money is guaranteed beyond 2026, I find it hard to believe the team will be extra conservative because of the potential for a work stoppage or revamped CBA.  There's little they can do that would put them behind the 8 ball of any CBA outcome that is at all within reason.

I'm not following this point at all. Given how little money is guaranteed beyond 2026, suggests it's a pattern. The goal is to be in a better bargaining position for free agents/extensions post-strike/lockout. You are talking about a guy/family who, with a straight face, said, "We just want to break even every year". 

[CubinNY]

19 hours ago, Randall Simon said:

With the Cubs this isn't true. Our fans show up whether we win or lose. It's a blessing and a curse.  It seems TR realized this in 2018 or thereabouts, and stopped signing off on big FA signings. He knows that we'll sell out every game with or without a top 5 payroll. He got his WS. He clearly doesn't care about getting another one. 

The Ricketts are using the Cubs to finance Wrigleyville and Nazis. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

14 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I'm not following this point at all. Given how little money is guaranteed beyond 2026, suggests it's a pattern. The goal is to be in a better bargaining position for free agents/extensions post-strike/lockout. You are talking about a guy/family who, with a straight face, said, "We just want to break even every year". 

The pattern is at least partially coincidence, the idea that they were keeping their powder dry for the CBA expiration when negotiating with Seiya in 2022(one week after the current CBA was ratified) or that they might've given Taillon a 5th year if not for the CBA is silly.  It's also a goal that has diminishing returns, needing to replace like 9 different FA that you've staggered to one offseason hurts your ability to actually do that effectively.  

 

Lastly it's one that only makes sense on the margins and not for the most important player on the roster.  They traded for Tucker knowing his situation, and there isn't a laundry list of great players up for FA in 2027. It would be taking a somewhat logical idea(don't have *too much* guaranteed money post-CBA in case the spending landscape shifts significantly), and applying it to an absurd degree to say that we can't make a big commitment to the best player on the roster because of 2027 money.  And if we think Taillon and Suzuki are proof of that conservatism, then they've already broken it with Swanson!

[Bertz]

9 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

The pattern is at least partially coincidence, the idea that they were keeping their powder dry for the CBA expiration when negotiating with Seiya in 2022(one week after the current CBA was ratified) or that they might've given Taillon a 5th year if not for the CBA is silly.  It's also a goal that has diminishing returns, needing to replace like 9 different FA that you've staggered to one offseason hurts your ability to actually do that effectively.  

 

Lastly it's one that only makes sense on the margins and not for the most important player on the roster.  They traded for Tucker knowing his situation, and there isn't a laundry list of great players up for FA in 2027. It would be taking a somewhat logical idea(don't have *too much* guaranteed money post-CBA in case the spending landscape shifts significantly), and applying it to an absurd degree to say that we can't make a big commitment to the best player on the roster because of 2027 money.  And if we think Taillon and Suzuki are proof of that conservatism, then they've already broken it with Swanson!

They also tried to sign both Scott and Bregman through at least '27 last winter.

[CubinNY]

4 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

The pattern is at least partially coincidence, the idea that they were keeping their powder dry for the CBA expiration when negotiating with Seiya in 2022(one week after the current CBA was ratified) or that they might've given Taillon a 5th year if not for the CBA is silly.  It's also a goal that has diminishing returns, needing to replace like 9 different FA that you've staggered to one offseason hurts your ability to actually do that effectively.  

 

Lastly it's one that only makes sense on the margins and not for the most important player on the roster.  They traded for Tucker knowing his situation, and there isn't a laundry list of great players up for FA in 2027. It would be taking a somewhat logical idea(don't have *too much* guaranteed money post-CBA in case the spending landscape shifts significantly), and applying it to an absurd degree to say that we can't make a big commitment to the best player on the roster because of 2027 money.  And if we think Taillon and Suzuki are proof of that conservatism, then they've already broken it with Swanson!

You're arguing a position not taken. The fact that they signed Swanson in no way negates the pattern of their behavior. And I don't necessarily think they will let Tucker walk without a significant play for him. 

[CubinNY]

2 minutes ago, Bertz said:

They also tried to sign both Scott and Bregman through at least '27 last winter.

They were 6 million less on Scott. The Dodgers also gave him $20 million up front and $20 million deferred. 

They were 10 million less on Bergman, AAV, and gave him an opt-out after 2026. The Red Sox gave him an opt-out and paid him $10 million more.

Can we say they were serious? From a conceptual standpoint, I suppose.

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

They were 6 million less on Scott. The Dodgers also gave him $20 million up front and $20 million deferred. 

They were 10 million less on Bergman, AAV, and gave him an opt-out after 2026. The Red Sox gave him an opt-out and paid him $10 million more.

Can we say they were serious? From a conceptual standpoint, I suppose.

Cubs offered more money NOW to Scott and he chose the Dodgers. The deferred money he took actually make the Dodgers offer a lesser value than the Cubs. So with him, yes, they gave an honest solid offer. I mentioned before, with all offers being unique some players will like one over the other. In the case with Scott 4/$66 no deferred money would have actually been considered a better value for Scott than the Dodgers winning offer of 4/$72 but with a lot of it deferred. 

[Bertz]

18 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

They were 6 million less on Scott. The Dodgers also gave him $20 million up front and $20 million deferred. 

They were 10 million less on Bergman, AAV, and gave him an opt-out after 2026. The Red Sox gave him an opt-out and paid him $10 million more.

Can we say they were serious? From a conceptual standpoint, I suppose.

Cubs offered more by TVM to both

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Also the underlying implication is that for it not to matter in a convo about 2027 expenditure, the Cubs would be making offers they know for absolute certain won't be accepted, with the main upside being that it might pacify a small percentage of the fanbase when news dripped out about those offers.

[CubinNY]

10 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Also the underlying implication is that for it not to matter in a convo about 2027 expenditure, the Cubs would be making offers they know for absolute certain won't be accepted, with the main upside being that it might pacify a small percentage of the fanbase when news dripped out about those offers.

It's not a nefarious plot; it's their pattern. I think the Ricketts/Jed are content to offer what they believe is a fair value contract moving forward with an eye to what they think is going to happen after the lockout. I think they believed that if they signed Bregman, he'd not a Cub after 2026.

Edited August 4, 2025 by CubinNY

[Donzo]

4 hours ago, CubinNY said:

The Ricketts are using the Cubs to finance... Nazis. 

#ucking disgusting.

[CubinNY]

1 hour ago, Donzo said:

#ucking disgusting.

I’m not sure if you think the post is disgusting or the Ricketts are disgusting. But their candidate funding is a matter of public record. As is Papa Joe’s history, aka, the real money behind kids. 

[chopsx9]

This is absolutely neither here nor there but do you think if the front office were aware of the offensive step forwards that PCA, Suzuki and Busch seem to have taken to this point they still would have made the trade for Tucker?