Cubs (Imanaga) vs Brewers (Ashby): 10/6/25, 8:08pm

[Geographyhater8888]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

The annoying thing on the Tucker front is that he's the top free agent and so the odds of any specific team getting him are slim, and in the (likely) event we don't get him, we'll never actually know how much of an effort we made to sign him. It would be malpractice to not make at least a token offer, but the details will be murky and sent through a PR machine and we'll all just be left trying to decide which of the talking heads we want to trust the most. We made this great offer for Bregman that Ricketts personally signed off on! The teams with the pitchers wanted Horton AND Shaw AND Caissie! All these reporters trade in access and know the rules of how it works. 

We can basically sleepwalk through the offseason and end up with a projected 87 win team, for better or for worse. We're at risk of falling back into the 2023-2024 trap where it's like...all of these guys are good, why take a risk? With the answer being that none of them are great. I don't know....I've been saying for like 10 months now that it's time for Jed to make some hard decisions and pick lanes on some of these players, and he's continually punted. But it seems like it's time again. 

It’s a jack of all trades master of none group of position players. It’s Jed and Tom’s mo with the hope that one of the pre arb youngsters becomes that dude. Outside of Horton I don’t think any exist.

[squally1313]

1 minute ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

It’s a jack of all trades master of none group of position players. It’s Jed and Tom’s mo with the hope that one of the pre arb youngsters becomes that dude. Outside of Horton I don’t think any exist.

I mean, PCA was 15th in overall fWAR this year. But at a certain point it's like....can you really make the whole plane out of Dansby/Nico/PCA type players? Will caveat/emphasize here that the 2025 Cubs were a very good offensive team overall, but you've got a year left on Happ and Suzuki, Tucker is contractually gone, and Shaw is thus far more in the glove mode than the slug mode. 

[squally1313]

6 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

I'm fairly certain sellers' price tags for the Cubs were outrageous and why not?  It wasn't a secret the Cubs were in a tough spot and desperate to improve their pitching. 

But that's Jed's job to a certain extent, no? Miami or whoever comes and (correctly) points out how badly the Cubs need pitching, sure. But the alternative is a bad team miles away from contention stuck with declining assets one curveball away from essentially having to pay for their rehab until they hit free agency. Or, in a simpler example, Jed was sitting there with Happ and Suzuki signed through 2026, PCA entrenched forever, and Caissie, Alcantara, and Ballesteros with 300+ PAs in AAA. That's 6 guys for 4 spots. Choose a lane. 

[Geographyhater8888]

9 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I mean, PCA was 15th in overall fWAR this year. But at a certain point it's like....can you really make the whole plane out of Dansby/Nico/PCA type players? Will caveat/emphasize here that the 2025 Cubs were a very good offensive team overall, but you've got a year left on Happ and Suzuki, Tucker is contractually gone, and Shaw is thus far more in the glove mode than the slug mode. 

And MVPete hasn’t been a thing since July. Assuming Tucker walks, If you look at the 11 other playoff teams, do we have a player who’d be the best on any of the 11 teams besides maybe the Reds? Constructing a team around defense raises your floor and that advantage is constricted to days where the wind is blowing and facing anemic offenses like the pirates.to a degree. Unless they add a true TOR starter who Isn't reliant on beating FIP it’ll be more of the same.

Edited October 8, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

But that's Jed's job to a certain extent, no? Miami or whoever comes and (correctly) points out how badly the Cubs need pitching, sure. But the alternative is a bad team miles away from contention stuck with declining assets one curveball away from essentially having to pay for their rehab until they hit free agency. Or, in a simpler example, Jed was sitting there with Happ and Suzuki signed through 2026, PCA entrenched forever, and Caissie, Alcantara, and Ballesteros with 300+ PAs in AAA. That's 6 guys for 4 spots. Choose a lane. 

I don’t blame Jed for not paying the cost at the deadline. I blame him for puttting himself in the position to have to trade for a starter and not realizing what the cost would be. He should have know trading for MOR/TOR (controlled) starting pitcher at the deadline would cost more than he was willing to spend, in the off season. So make a deal then don’t doesn’t get to the TDL.

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

But that's Jed's job to a certain extent, no? Miami or whoever comes and (correctly) points out how badly the Cubs need pitching, sure. But the alternative is a bad team miles away from contention stuck with declining assets one curveball away from essentially having to pay for their rehab until they hit free agency. Or, in a simpler example, Jed was sitting there with Happ and Suzuki signed through 2026, PCA entrenched forever, and Caissie, Alcantara, and Ballesteros with 300+ PAs in AAA. That's 6 guys for 4 spots. Choose a lane. 

Exactly. And even if we want to say "well the SP market was insane" (I tend to believe the price on Cabrera and Alcantara, from what Zumach has said, is within a price I would have paid, but let's for a moment assume that's not the case) then you pivot to RP. Let's say the Cubs had, Bednar instead of Taylor Rogers. Do you just BP game it on Game 1 instead? With the rest the Cubs BP had the day prior, and the next day, Bednar, Palencia, Thielbar, Keller, Pomeranz, Kittredge is likely enough to find 27 outs. But when you're missing Bednar and instead have four  versions of "long relief in losing games" (Soroka, Rea, Civale, Brown) it begins to limit the BP-of-death ability. 

Honestly, I think Jed Hoyer is a pretty good guy to have run a team, but his biggest flaw IMO is that he tends to stick to strongly to his valuations. 

[Geographyhater8888]

7 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Exactly. And even if we want to say "well the SP market was insane" (I tend to believe the price on Cabrera and Alcantara, from what Zumach has said, is within a price I would have paid, but let's for a moment assume that's not the case) then you pivot to RP. Let's say the Cubs had, Bednar instead of Taylor Rogers. Do you just BP game it on Game 1 instead? With the rest the Cubs BP had the day prior, and the next day, Bednar, Palencia, Thielbar, Keller, Pomeranz, Kittredge is likely enough to find 27 outs. But when you're missing Bednar and instead have four  versions of "long relief in losing games" (Soroka, Rea, Civale, Brown) it begins to limit the BP-of-death ability. 

Honestly, I think Jed Hoyer is a pretty good guy to have run a team, but his biggest flaw IMO is that he tends to stick to strongly to his valuations. 

And or budgetary constants makes keeping future assets more important than ever. Tucker walks and you’re stuck in the same place you were in 2023 spending on 3-5 WAR players with lots of defensive WAR to compete if you’re without a Cassie/Bellesteros. If Tom insists on a fringe top 10 payrol then he’s probably thinking a cheap position player group will add more flexibility to sign higher impact pitchers/hitters in the next few years, akin to the Theo years albeit with less young talent.
 

 

Edited October 8, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[gflore34]

13 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

And MVPete hasn’t been a thing since July. Assuming Tucker walks, If you look at the 11 other playoff teams, do we have a player who’d be the best on any of the 11 teams besides maybe the Reds? Constructing a team around defense raises your floor and that advantage is constricted to days where the wind is blowing and facing anemic offenses like the pirates.to a degree. Unless they add a true TOR starter who Isn't reliant on beating FIP it’ll be more of the same.

Even with his slumping bat PCA is easily the best CF'er on any NL team, it's not even close.  But, the best player, I see what you're saying.  A healthy Tucker is the best player on all but the Phillies and Dodgers.

Edited October 8, 2025 by gflore34

[Geographyhater8888]

5 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

Even with his slumping bat PCA is easily the best CF'er on any NL team, it's not even close.

Perhaps. Let’s see if he can sustain his aggregate production next season. And once again he’s needed especially for his defense because of a hittable rotation full of numbers 3 starters. Not to minimize his value but he’s a star if his bat returns or at least stabilizes to his full season owar.

Edited October 8, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

And or budgetary constants makes keeping future assets more important than ever. Tucker walks and you’re stuck in the same place you were in 2023 spending on 3-5 WAR players with lots of defensive WAR to compete if you’re without a Cassie/Bellesteros. If Tom insists on a fringe top 10 payrol than he’s probably thinking a cheap position player group will add more flexibility to sign higher impact pitchers/hitters in the next few years, akin to the Theo years. 
 

 

I'm going to premise this with this: I hate Tom Ricketts and I think he sucks. But I don't actually blame the budget fully here. The reality is that while I blame PTR plenty (ex. post covid-sell off, the 2017 budget drop, the fact he refuses to blow through an LT line ever) I don't think that budget reasons are ally a cause for how much we're seeing Hoyer keep the prospects. Frankly, regardless of budget, you don't need as many DH, 1b, and OF'ers as the Cubs kind of have right now. For example, what is the pathway for Jonathon Long to play with the Cubs? He's a 1b, but the Cubs have Busch. He didn't hit LHP particularly well despite being a RHH, so platoon at 1b isn't really in the data. He can't play 3b, LF or RF with any real MLB ability. At DH he's going to compete with Caissie, Ballesteros, Suzuki in some capacity. Yet, here we are. You can play this game a bit for most of the prospects, particularly, the offensive ones. 

I think a lot of this reason is that Hoyer has placed X value on Long, similarly, with Caissie, Ballesteros, etc, etc. and the value prop for Hoyer is that he has to equal out that value prop in a deal. There seem to be a lack of ability to get a bit irrational, either with money or prospects to make the thing really happen. And in part, I commend him for it! It's why his worst deals are like, Tucker Barnhart and Trey Mancini. But also probably why the Cubs will lack the ability to win a massive FA or swing a massive trade because to make those happen it's usually a requirement than some irrationality comes in. He can grab pretty good trades; Parades two deadlines ago, Kittredge. Even Tucker kind of falls short of massive in that he was a one-year thing on paper. 

[Geographyhater8888]

9 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I'm going to premise this with this: I hate Tom Ricketts and I think he sucks. But I don't actually blame the budget fully here. The reality is that while I blame PTR plenty (ex. post covid-sell off, the 2017 budget drop, the fact he refuses to blow through an LT line ever) I don't think that budget reasons are ally a cause for how much we're seeing Hoyer keep the prospects. Frankly, regardless of budget, you don't need as many DH, 1b, and OF'ers as the Cubs kind of have right now. For example, what is the pathway for Jonathon Long to play with the Cubs? He's a 1b, but the Cubs have Busch. He didn't hit LHP particularly well despite being a RHH, so platoon at 1b isn't really in the data. He can't play 3b, LF or RF with any real MLB ability. At DH he's going to compete with Caissie, Ballesteros, Suzuki in some capacity. Yet, here we are. You can play this game a bit for most of the prospects, particularly, the offensive ones. 

I think a lot of this reason is that Hoyer has placed X value on Long, similarly, with Caissie, Ballesteros, etc, etc. and the value prop for Hoyer is that he has to equal out that value prop in a deal. There seem to be a lack of ability to get a bit irrational, either with money or prospects to make the thing really happen. And in part, I commend him for it! It's why his worst deals are like, Tucker Barnhart and Trey Mancini. But also probably why the Cubs will lack the ability to win a massive FA or swing a massive trade because to make those happen it's usually a requirement than some irrationality comes in. He can grab pretty good trades; Parades two deadlines ago, Kittredge. Even Tucker kind of falls short of massive in that he was a one-year thing on paper. 

That’s part of it but Tom vetoed signing Bregman. Even during the Theo years they never topped $200 million in any free agent signing and settled for Lester when Scherzer was the better option. Theo also had more young talent at the MLB level allowing him flexibility to trade for Quintana and Chapman. 
 

What you proposed is 100% true I agree with that but I wouldn’t rule out budgetary reasons completely. Cubs farm system isn’t exactly rich with talent. They want “sustained success”, “2032” and this entails prospect hugging at the expense of fully committing to a win now approach. 

Edited October 8, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Rcal10]

18 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

That’s part of it but Tom vetoed signing Bregman. Even during the Theo years they never topped $200 million in any free agent signing and settled for Lester when Scherzer was the better option. Theo also had more young talent at the MLB level allowing him flexibility to trade for Quintana and Chapman. 
 

What you proposed is 100% true I agree with that but I wouldn’t rule out budgetary reasons completely. Cubs farm system isn’t exactly rich with talent. They want “sustained success”, “2032” and this entails prospect hugging at the expense of fully committing to a win now approach. 

I must have missed the story of Tom vetoing signing Bregman. When was that reported? He probably put a number on what he would spend, but did he actually tell Jed he couldn’t sign him? 
BTW, I agree with everything else you said. I just don’t know about that veto of Bregman.

Edited October 8, 2025 by Rcal10

[Geographyhater8888]

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I must have missed the story of Tom vetoing signing Bregman. When was that reported? He probably put a number on what he would spend, but did he actually tell Jed he couldn’t sign him? 

I don’t know the exact details but I know the Redsox paid an extra $5 million with a player option after 2025, Tom didn’t want to pay the luxury tax. I think he put a cap on the total $ amount.

[Jason Ross]

26 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

That’s part of it but Tom vetoed signing Bregman. Even during the Theo years they never topped $200 million in any free agent signing and settled for Lester when Scherzer was the better option. Theo also had more young talent at the MLB level allowing him flexibility to trade for Quintana and Chapman. 
 

What you proposed is 100% true I agree with that but I wouldn’t rule out budgetary reasons completely. Cubs farm system isn’t exactly rich with talent. They want “sustained success”, “2032” and this entails prospect hugging at the expense of fully committing to a win now approach. 

From reports, it wasn't that Tom vetoed Bregman. Reports are that the money was there to sign Bregman and the reason he went to Boston was the opt-out after year-1. The Cubs offered an opt out after year-2. This was the biggest reason why he isn't here.

[mul21]

22 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

That’s part of it but Tom vetoed signing Bregman. Even during the Theo years they never topped $200 million in any free agent signing and settled for Lester when Scherzer was the better option. Theo also had more young talent at the MLB level allowing him flexibility to trade for Quintana and Chapman. 
 

What you proposed is 100% true I agree with that but I wouldn’t rule out budgetary reasons completely. Cubs farm system isn’t exactly rich with talent. They want “sustained success”, “2032” and this entails prospect hugging at the expense of fully committing to a win now approach. 

That didn't happen.  He authorized a large deal and in present day dollars it was more than what Boston offered but Bregman picked them instead.  Their total offer after deferrals etc. was $90 million with an opt out in '25 and '26 while the Cubs was $120 million with opt outs in '26 and '27.

[Geographyhater8888]

1 hour ago, mul21 said:

That didn't happen.  He authorized a large deal and in present day dollars it was more than what Boston offered but Bregman picked them instead.  Their total offer after deferrals etc. was $90 million with an opt out in '25 and '26 while the Cubs was $120 million with opt outs in '26 and '27.

You’re correct. They offered more total money for less years though at 3/$120. Would he have put them over the tax? Tom explicitly wanted to stay under the tax and the Red Sox offer was offer was higher in terms of AAV.

Edited October 8, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Connor McConnor]

55 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I'm going to premise this with this: I hate Tom Ricketts and I think he sucks. 

Other than the World Series and the updating of Wrigley?  No small feats those.  

[Brian707]

1 minute ago, Connor McConnor said:

Other than the World Series and the updating of Wrigley?  No small feats those.  

Its like the 85 Bears. Should have won more than one. 

The Ricketts are terrible people and cheap

[Andy]

11 minutes ago, Connor McConnor said:

Other than the World Series and the updating of Wrigley?  No small feats those.  

The updating of Wrigley has made and will make them a metric horsefeathers ton of money. The fact that it also made Wrigley a better place to watch games was a side benefit.

[ILMindState]

4 minutes ago, Brian707 said:

Its like the 85 Bears. Should have won more than one. 

The Ricketts are terrible people and cheap

They should not have 2 tear down rebuilds within a 10 year period. 

They should not be scared of the luxury tax

They should be dominating a division in which they are the only big market team and 1 of the teams in the division is one of the worst ran teams in all of sports. It's a division where you're only competing against 3 other teams.

[squally1313]

6 minutes ago, Andy said:

The fact that it also made Wrigley a better place to watch games was a side benefit.

[Connor McConnor]

2 minutes ago, ILMindState said:

They should not have 2 tear down rebuilds within a 10 year period. 

They should not be scared of the luxury tax

They should be dominating a division in which they are the only big market team and 1 of the teams in the division is one of the worst ran teams in all of sports. It's a division where you're only competing against 3 other teams.

Like the Mets this year?  Spending a lot does not guarantee you a winner.  

I'm not defending Rickets. But we did win a World Series (after 100 years or whatever the timeframe was) with him as owner and Wrigley was a joke.  

They have been more competitive since he took over.  That is a fact.  

If you are under 40 , you have know idea how bad it was.   

My point was that he has done some positive things.  

[Geographyhater8888]

46 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

From reports, it wasn't that Tom vetoed Bregman. Reports are that the money was there to sign Bregman and the reason he went to Boston was the opt-out after year-1. The Cubs offered an opt out after year-2. This was the biggest reason why he isn't here.

That’s true. And matching Bostons offer would put them at risk of going over the LT either in 2025 or 26 depending on deferrals, something Tom explicitly wants to avoid. I should say he vetoed paying the LT.

[Brian707]

3 minutes ago, Connor McConnor said:

Like the Mets this year?  Spending a lot does not guarantee you a winner.  

I'm not defending Rickets. But we did win a World Series (after 100 years or whatever the timeframe was) with him as owner and Wrigley was a joke.  

They have been more competitive since he took over.  That is a fact.  

If you are under 40 , you have know idea how bad it was.   

My point was that he has done some positive things.  

Im over 40 and it was bad. Its better now but could be much better. They have done positive things and now their team is worth 10 times what daddy bought it for.

Lets not lick their boots

[Connor McConnor]

2 minutes ago, Brian707 said:

Im over 40 and it was bad. Its better now but could be much better. They have done positive things and now their team is worth 10 times what daddy bought it for.

Lets not lick their boots

Saying he did positive things is "licking boots"?  F off..