Winter Meetings Thread

[Stratos]

11 hours ago, KCCub said:

$3.75m it is

 

 

Can he get out RHB?  He didn't last year.  Seems like an average reliever as long as the velo doesn't dip more.

[Stratos]

10 hours ago, The Cubs Dude said:

Don't put Shaw in the pool of tradeable assets. As with any young guy, his preciseness will generally increase. And if we get extra money, we should distribute it among our loyal players to increase their willingness to stay. A problem with Boss Jed Tweed and the owners is that they are greedy.

There's not much loyalty in baseball among either players or owners because a lot of money is involved.  It's just business, and that's fine.  Is what it is.  I'd likely bounce for an extra 10 million too.

[Stratos]

7 hours ago, Bertz said:

I actually don't think you need another lefty.  I wouldn't have been happy with either being the top lefty in the pen, but a Little or a Martin or TBD waiver wire addition can be the second lefty out of the pen.

That's been how they've been playing the 2nd loogy the last couple of years if memory serves.

[Stratos]

7 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

Switching gears, here is a killer article from Chris Langin on Tatsuya Imai. It's in Japanese, but the page is easily translated. If you want an article that better explains why I'm so sold on this guy, this is the article. 

Link to article

It's highly worthwhile. And I think you'll walk away as convinced as I am; this is the dude. 

Nice link.  It would be super interesting to know how the Cubs and most other teams value Imai.  It's really hard for fans to evaluate these Japanese guys except for articles like that.

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, mk49 said:

I agree 100%.  There were a few Robert Suarez trade talk last winter.  I wanted him, but not now.  He's another guy who learned pitching in Japan.  If I remember correctly, he played for 5 or 6yrs in Japan, before he joined the Padres.  I don't know what it is, but NPB probably has something for pitchers.  There are many good pitchers from Japan, but not many great fielders/batters.  Seiya must be more than decent as a batter from Japan.  I can only think Ichiro, Shohei and Matsui who were better.

I suspect it's because the Japanese hitters aren't as big/strong as in the Americas.  The Japanese pitchers aren't big/tall either but that matters less if you can still throw hard.

[Geographyhater8888]

7 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Guess we better hope Chibear is wrong about the payroll. Otherwise there is no way they can spend what Imai will cost and still have some cash to add another 7 players. Imai, alone might cost $25M a year. 

Why not just backload some of the AAV for when Happ and Taillon are off the books to stay under the big bad LT? That’s with the assumption they’ll extend Nico and Suzuki, who in my limited knowledge relative to other posters wouldn’t have a pay raise anywhere near the $ offset by letting Happ and Taillon walk. Those are only 4 of many other expiring contracts too.

Edited December 12, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

15 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Why not just backload some of the AAV for when Happ and Taillon are off the books to stay under the big bad LT? That’s with the assumption they’ll extend Nico and Suzuki, who in my limited knowledge relative to other posters wouldn’t have a pay raise anywhere near the $ offset by letting Happ and Taillon walk. Those are only 4 of many other expiring contracts too.

You can't back load AAV (annual average value). It's an average. It's just years divided by total price. So they could give all the cash at the back end, but the AAV is the same for LT purposes. 

[Geographyhater8888]

3 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

You can't back load AAV. It's an average. 

Wrong term used. Why not pay $15 million in year on on a 6/$150 hypothetical contract and defer some of that $10 million owed from 27-30 for example? Is this an option?

Edited December 12, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Wrong term used. Why not pay $15 million in year on on a 6/$150 hypothetical contract and defer some of that $10 million owed from 27-30 for example? Is this an option?

You can defer money, but it only changes the AAV in totality. So you can't really back load anything, it will remain the same yearly AAV. 

Beyond that, the Cubs seem to be steadfast in not offering deferred money. 

[Rcal10]

44 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

 

Beyond that, the Cubs seem to be steadfast in not offering deferred money. 

They sure seem to be. Does anyone know why? Have they even been asked about this. They appear to be refusing an advantage they can use to sign someone. 

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

They sure seem to be. Does anyone know why? Have they even been asked about this. They appear to be refusing an advantage they can use to sign someone. 

My best guess is that the Cubs prefer to be a "cash-in, cash-out" operation. They seem to be very focused on their year-to-year profits (remember, "biblical losses" in 2020, they also have been clear their other streams of revenue do not affect the Cub spending positively, though I think their overall loss in 2020 did effect it negatively) more-so than their franchise valuation. So even while that money may be worth less long-term, they want to avoid spending more money in a specific year down the road (the deferred money+that year's actual payroll), thus, would prefer to pay that cash out now to maintain an easy cash-in, cash-out flow. 

I don't have any proof of this, but just based on how they act, I just get the feeling this is what it is.

[thawv]

5 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

My best guess is that the Cubs prefer to be a "cash-in, cash-out" operation. They seem to be very focused on their year-to-year profits (remember, "biblical losses" in 2020, they also have been clear their other streams of revenue do not affect the Cub spending positively, though I think their overall loss in 2020 did effect it negatively) more-so than their franchise valuation. So even while that money may be worth less long-term, they want to avoid spending more money in a specific year down the road (the deferred money+that year's actual payroll), thus, would prefer to pay that cash out now to maintain an easy cash-in, cash-out flow. 

I don't have any proof of this, but just based on how they act, I just get the feeling this is what it is.

I think that it's a lot simpler than this.  They don't like long contracts.  Deferred money just makes the payout even longer.  Like you, I don't have proof of this, but if they don't want a guy on the payroll for 8 years, they certainly wouldn't want him for 12 years. 

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, thawv said:

I think that it's a lot simpler than this.  They don't like long contracts.  Deferred money just makes the payout even longer.  Like you, I don't have proof of this, but if they don't want a guy on the payroll for 8 years, they certainly wouldn't want him for 12 years. 

They paid Dansby Swanson for 7 years, they have never used deferred money, so I'm not sure this has anything to do with that. Long contracts don't require deferred money, either. On top of that, the Cubs offered a ton of money to Shohei Ohtani and the sticking point was not years, but that Ohtani asked the Cubs to present a contract that included deferred money and they refused. We can be cynical and just say "they were just offering lip service and never had real interest" but that feels a conspiracy theory too far for me here; I think they were purely genuine on their offers. It was nearly half a billion, they just refused to structure the deal the way Ohtani wanted (deferred money). And while he probably still signs in LAD regardless, it was the Cubs who put their foot down on the contract before that ever could happen. 

My assumption on long contracts is that is more of a Jed Hoyer thing and not a deferred money thing - I think Jed prefers to be "nimble" and able to change his roster over every few years. He will only offer long term deals on very special occasions.

Where as I feel the deferred money thing is a Tom aspect. For us, it results in both a lack of longer contracts and a lack of deferred money. 

[thawv]

10 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

They paid Dansby Swanson for 7 years, they have never used deferred money, so I'm not sure this has anything to do with that. Long contracts don't require deferred money, either. On top of that, the Cubs offered a ton of money to Shohei Ohtani and the sticking point was not years, but that Ohtani asked the Cubs to present a contract that included deferred money and they refused. We can be cynical and just say "they were just offering lip service and never had real interest" but that feels a conspiracy theory too far for me here; I think they were purely genuine on their offers. It was nearly half a billion, they just refused to structure the deal the way Ohtani wanted (deferred money). And while he probably still signs in LAD regardless, it was the Cubs who put their foot down on the contract before that ever could happen. 

My assumption on long contracts is that is more of a Jed Hoyer thing and not a deferred money thing - I think Jed prefers to be "nimble" and able to change his roster over every few years. He will only offer long term deals on very special occasions.

Where as I feel the deferred money thing is a Tom aspect. For us, it results in both a lack of longer contracts and a lack of deferred money. 

How do you think they would feel if Dansby's contract for the same exact money spanned out over 12 years?  The signing would have never happened. 

 

[Geographyhater8888]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

You can defer money, but it only changes the AAV in totality. So you can't really back load anything, it will remain the same yearly AAV. 

Beyond that, the Cubs seem to be steadfast in not offering deferred money. 

I understand that. If you pay the Japanese pitcher $12 million in 2026 and $29.3 million from 27-29 as part of a 6/$150 contract the AAV is still $25 million. My terminology might be part of the disconnect here. Many players are off the books at seasons end so to stay under the LT, could this possibly happen?

Edited December 12, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

Just now, thawv said:

How do you think they would feel if Dansby's contract for the same exact money spanned out over 12 years?  The signing would have never happened. 

 

Well, yeah, because no one was going to sign Dansby Swanson until he was in his 40s. That isn't really an argument here. 

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Geographyhater8888 said:

I understand that. If you pay the Japanese pitcher $12 million in 2026 and $28.33 million from 27-29 as part of a 6/$150 contract the AAV is still $25 million. And you’re saying this isn’t something that the Cubs will do to afford him and stay under the cap for 26 while many guys are off the books after next season and it’ll be easier to stay under the tax? 

The Cubs have made it pretty clear they have been uninterested in deferred money. I would not expect that to change.

[Geographyhater8888]

3 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The Cubs have made it pretty clear they have been uninterested in deferred money. I would not expect that to change.

Another question, what’s the expected price for Nico? I don’t really have a comp for a consistent 4.4 fWAR 2B with single digit home run power.

[thawv]

14 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Well, yeah, because no one was going to sign Dansby Swanson until he was in his 40s. That isn't really an argument here. 

Come on man!  Insert any player in his mid 20's and the deal is not going to happen for 12 years.  You're splitting hairs right now. 

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Another question, what’s the expected price for Nico? I don’t really have a comp for a consistent 4.4 fWAR 2B with single digit home run power.

Ketel Marte signed a 7 year extension headed into 2025 into his age-31 year. He was coming off a 6 win year, but that was kind of an outlier season outside of his 2019 6-win-year. Marte is more bat-first and probably has more safety net as he ages into a DH, but Hoerner has more glove and a better floor to stay at 2b. The wrench here is "what's the financial landscape of MLB in 2027 and beyond?" but for our exercise, let's ignore that wrench and pretend it's just similar to now.

So, Marte signed a 7/$116m deal - $16,5m AAV, and this is probably the basis for the Hoerner deal. A little less bat, a little younger. So I think 7 years and $18m-$20m AAV feels around "the right" space. Glove-heavy players (I.E. see Dansby Swanson) generally get a little less love on the market. And being a 2b, I don't think Swanson is a good comp. But ultimately, I think 7/$126 - 7/$140m is the range.

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, thawv said:

Come on man!  Insert any player in his mid 20's and the deal is not going to happen for 12 years.  You're splitting hairs right now. 

No I'm not. In fact, I don't even understand your argument. I'm talking literally deferred money. Not years. Not anything to do with years. You're either moving the goalposts of the conversation away from "The Cubs don't like deferred money" to something about long-term contracts (these are different ideas), misunderstanding the purpose of deferred money or something else, but frankly, I'm entirely unsure of what this conversation has turned into.

What exactly does signing Dansby Swanson for some made up contract of 12 years, a contract no one in the league was offering have to do with this?

[Geographyhater8888]

9 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Ketel Marte signed a 7 year extension headed into 2025 into his age-31 year. He was coming off a 6 win year, but that was kind of an outlier season outside of his 2019 6-win-year. Marte is more bat-first and probably has more safety net as he ages into a DH, but Hoerner has more glove and a better floor to stay at 2b. The wrench here is "what's the financial landscape of MLB in 2027 and beyond?" but for our exercise, let's ignore that wrench and pretend it's just similar to now.

So, Marte signed a 7/$116m deal - $16,5m AAV, and this is probably the basis for the Hoerner deal. A little less bat, a little younger. So I think 7 years and $18m-$20m AAV feels around "the right" space. Glove-heavy players (I.E. see Dansby Swanson) generally get a little less love on the market. And being a 2b, I don't think Swanson is a good comp. But ultimately, I think 7/$126 - 7/$140m is the range.

Also, his baserunning and range in the field won’t age quite like a power bat. If he played on the Phillies for example, would his war suffer to any marginal degree behind a pitching staff that induces less contact? 
Hes younger than Alonso, has a higher yearly war and projects to make significantly less so I assume it’s how Nico profiles into his 30’s?

Edited December 12, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[thawv]

5 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

No I'm not. In fact, I don't even understand your argument. I'm talking literally deferred money. Not years. Not anything to do with years. You're either moving the goalposts of the conversation away from "The Cubs don't like deferred money" to something about long-term contracts (these are different ideas), misunderstanding the purpose of deferred money or something else, but frankly, I'm entirely unsure of what this conversation has turned into.

What exactly does signing Dansby Swanson for some made up contract of 12 years, a contract no one in the league was offering have to do with this?

It's not an argument.  The team does not like long term contracts.  They would like it even less if they had to extend payment even longer, when the player is no long playing.  Any player!!

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Geographyhater8888 said:

Also, his baserunning and range in the field won’t age quite like a power bat. If he played on the Phillies for example, would his war suffer to any marginal degree behind a pitching staff that induces less contact? 

The Chicago Cubs had 497 balls that were hit to second base in 2025. The Philadelphia Phillies had 490 balls hit to second base. I don't think that's much of a concern. 

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, thawv said:

It's not an argument.  The team does not like long term contracts.  They would like it even less if they had to extend payment even longer, when the player is no long playing.  Any player!!

That is literally not the discussion at hand. The Dodgers deferred money on a three-year contract to Edwin Diaz. The Cubs would not have offered that deferred money on a three-year deal like the Dodgers, I am sure. Three years is not a long term contract.

You are moving the goal posts to some other random conversation - I'm confused as to why you are doing that. It does not have to do with the deferred money - deferred money can be used in long term deals but is not required to create a long term contract and as we have seen, is also used in short term deals as well. I disagree with your premise, but I'm not going to move the goalposts here and change the discussion.