Winter Meetings Thread

[chibears55]

Here are some of the Cubs' longest contracts by length, including both current and historical deals:

Top Long-Term Deals (By Length)

Jason Heyward: 8 years, $184M (2016-2023)

Alfonso Soriano: 8 years, $136M (2007-2014)

Dansby Swanson: 7 years, $177M (2023-2029)

Jon Lester: 6 years, $155M (2015-2020)

Yu Darvish: 6 years, $126M (2018-2023)

Seiya Suzuki: 5 years, $85M (2022-2026)

Carlos Zambrano: 5-year extension (total 8 yrs/~$91.5M)

Jameson Taillon: 4 years, $68M (2023-2026)

Ian Happ: 3 years, $61M (2024-2026)

 

This is Hoyer 6th offseason as Cubs top guy, I think it safe to say either players dont want to commit to Hoyers offer or he's not big on offering contracts for more than 5 years, having only one accepting such deal.

Maybe seeing how it affected the team with Soriano and Heyward, scared him from making that kind of commitment 🤷‍♂️

 

[squally1313]

7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Teach me then. Do the Dodgers show $70M on their team payroll and get penalized for $70M a year or do they get penalized at the $42M. 

It's technically $46m but substantially the answer to your question is the second option. The point I was trying to make is that if we had signed a player to a 10 year/$460m deal that same offseason, we would be committing the same amount of money on the same date as the Dodgers are, and the player would be making, in present value, the same amount of dollars. 

[squally1313]

9 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Here are some of the Cubs' longest contracts by length, including both current and historical deals:

Top Long-Term Deals (By Length)

Jason Heyward: 8 years, $184M (2016-2023)

Alfonso Soriano: 8 years, $136M (2007-2014)

Dansby Swanson: 7 years, $177M (2023-2029)

Jon Lester: 6 years, $155M (2015-2020)

Yu Darvish: 6 years, $126M (2018-2023)

Seiya Suzuki: 5 years, $85M (2022-2026)

Carlos Zambrano: 5-year extension (total 8 yrs/~$91.5M)

Jameson Taillon: 4 years, $68M (2023-2026)

Ian Happ: 3 years, $61M (2024-2026)

 

This is Hoyer 6th offseason as Cubs top guy, I think it safe to say either players dont want to commit to Hoyers offer or he's not big on offering contracts for more than 5 years, having only one accepting such deal.

Maybe seeing how it affected the team with Soriano and Heyward, scared him from making that kind of commitment 🤷‍♂️

 

Just by way of context, going back to the 2021 offseason (the offseason after covid), there have been, per fangraphs, 25 free agent contracts signed that were more than 5 years. Dansby is one of them. The only teams with multiple deals over 5 years during that stretch are the Yankees (4), Toronto (2 including Cease), Texas (2), the Dodgers (3), Phillies (2), Mets (2), and Giants (2). Not saying that everything is fine, mostly just saying that your premise made it seem like these are more common than they are.

Now, obviously this doesn't include signing a team controlled player to a long term deal, which is another thing we haven't done. But that, to me, speaks more to the system falling apart at the end of the Epstein era than it does anything else. 

[BKHoo]

24 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Here are some of the Cubs' longest contracts by length, including both current and historical deals:

Top Long-Term Deals (By Length)

Jason Heyward: 8 years, $184M (2016-2023)

Alfonso Soriano: 8 years, $136M (2007-2014)

Dansby Swanson: 7 years, $177M (2023-2029)

Jon Lester: 6 years, $155M (2015-2020)

Yu Darvish: 6 years, $126M (2018-2023)

Seiya Suzuki: 5 years, $85M (2022-2026)

Carlos Zambrano: 5-year extension (total 8 yrs/~$91.5M)

Jameson Taillon: 4 years, $68M (2023-2026)

Ian Happ: 3 years, $61M (2024-2026)

 

This is Hoyer 6th offseason as Cubs top guy, I think it safe to say either players dont want to commit to Hoyers offer or he's not big on offering contracts for more than 5 years, having only one accepting such deal.

Maybe seeing how it affected the team with Soriano and Heyward, scared him from making that kind of commitment 🤷‍♂️

 

Wow when you out it out there like that it really makes you realize how much the current regime hates LT contracts.  Compare this list to LA, NYY, NYM, SD, Philly, Bos, even the Braves and you will notice a huge difference. 

[Rcal10]

30 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Not the most important thing but its $46M rather than $42M

But to the main point the deferrals lower the worth of the contract.  So the Dodgers are paying penalties on 46, but that's because Ohtani's contract is only *worth* 46.  No one is getting away with anything, no one is at a disadvantage (well...except California taxpayers), it's just simple accounting. 

The confusion is for all of history if we said a contract was "ten years, $700M" it meant that three things:

- The player would play with the team for ten years

- The team would pay him $700M

- The team would pay that $700M while the player was playing for them

 

With deferrals 1 and 2 stay true and 3 goes out the window.  But we'reconditioned on all three being true so it creates sticker shock.  Thankfully though his is math is VERY EASY and VERY COMMON to account for.  It's stuff you learn before the first midterm in a 100 level college finance class.  No player's agent is getting bamboozled here.  No rival teams have to Google "how to do a deferral".

You can explain with sounding so condescending. And I get all of what you are saying. That said, for whatever reason certain players want their contracts to look bigger than they actually are. Ohtani, as an example. And if agreeing to it doesn’t hurt the team in any way, why not do it for the player. Yes, my example of Ohtani making $70M over $42M(which you corrected me, should be $46M) is something that would never happen, because if there were no deferrals that figure would never be discussed. But honestly that is all you has to say instead of giving condescending replies. Just because you start it with “all due respect” doesn’t make your comments disrespectful. 

[squally1313]

11 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

You can explain with sounding so condescending. And I get all of what you are saying. That said, for whatever reason certain players want their contracts to look bigger than they actually are. Ohtani, as an example. And if agreeing to it doesn’t hurt the team in any way, why not do it for the player. Yes, my example of Ohtani making $70M over $42M(which you corrected me, should be $46M) is something that would never happen, because if there were no deferrals that figure would never be discussed. But honestly that is all you has to say instead of giving condescending replies. Just because you start it with “all due respect” doesn’t make your comments disrespectful. 

A. I don't think he was being condescending. 

B. This 'for whatever reason' thing people keep obliquely mentioning is....pretty condescending towards the players themselves? Like, man, why aren't the Cubs tricking these players into signing a billion dollar deal like everyone else? That's very clearly not how it works. 

[Bertz]

Just listened to Sharma and Mooney's podcast.  It's kind of funny, they frankly seem exasperated like a lot of fans because of how many disparate places they're hearing the Cubs involved but that none of them has gotten super concrete yet and also how many times we've been burned before.

I think the main concrete thing is they seem pretty convinced Jed likely won't do a three year deal for any of the remaining relievers.  $15M AAV sure but not three years.  Take that for what it's worth.

[Rcal10]

47 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

A. I don't think he was being condescending. 

B. This 'for whatever reason' thing people keep obliquely mentioning is....pretty condescending towards the players themselves? Like, man, why aren't the Cubs tricking these players into signing a billion dollar deal like everyone else? That's very clearly not how it works. 

Actually all that needed to be said was what you said in your response. I errored by not acknowledging he wouldn’t have ever gotten that sort of deal so the Dodgers shouldn’t have to pay tax on $70M. I appreciate your response. 
 

[squally1313]

18 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Just listened to Sharma and Mooney's podcast.  It's kind of funny, they frankly seem exasperated like a lot of fans because of how many disparate places they're hearing the Cubs involved but that none of them has gotten super concrete yet and also how many times we've been burned before.

I think the main concrete thing is they seem pretty convinced Jed likely won't do a three year deal for any of the remaining relievers.  $15M AAV sure but not three years.  Take that for what it's worth.

lol. It's why I put zero weight into 'X team has been in discussions with Y player'. There's like less than 300 free agents and all of these front offices are like 20 people deep. What else are they doing all day.

[Bertz]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

lol. It's why I put zero weight into 'X team has been in discussions with Y player'. There's like less than 300 free agents and all of these front offices are like 20 people deep. What else are they doing all day.

Compounding it too is I think too Jed's philosophy is to at least check in on everything, and that's before considering the idea of a source or a writer just outright lying. 

There's things that writers can do to raise the bar of how serious to consider something (I feel like the Bregman stuff is the most recent example) but yeah like you say if you're not casting a really wide net you're not doing your job.

[chibears55]

25 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

lol. It's why I put zero weight into 'X team has been in discussions with Y player'. There's like less than 300 free agents and all of these front offices are like 20 people deep. What else are they doing all day.

Why i was saying last week, most of time they just throw names out there in assumption cause it fits teams needs, not because there was actual talks from Jed to player/agent about a possible contract.

[squally1313]

3 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Why i was saying last week, most of time they just throw names out there in assumption cause it fits teams needs, not because there was actual talks from Jed to player/agent about a possible contract.

Or, to reverse it, Hoyer and team NOT talking to any above average free agent is pretty close to malpractice. It's one hotel complex and there's like 8 agencies total. 

[CubUgly]

56 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Just listened to Sharma and Mooney's podcast.  It's kind of funny, they frankly seem exasperated like a lot of fans because of how many disparate places they're hearing the Cubs involved but that none of them has gotten super concrete yet and also how many times we've been burned before.

 

I think we're all exasperated by "involved" because that really means nothing.  If and when the price tag or years get up there - we'll bail.  I can deal much better with the years restriction, for me it's the ridiculous self imposed barrier of the first level of the luxury tax.   It's VERY frustrating to me that this is an impediment year after year, because we all know it should not be.   I know it's understood - so we all discuss things based on this being the reality, but it's still ridiculous and tiring. 

[Cuzi]

2 minutes ago, CubUgly said:

I think we're all exasperated by "involved" because that really means nothing.  If and when the price tag or years get up there - we'll bail.  I can deal much better with the years restriction, for me it's the ridiculous self imposed barrier of the first level of the luxury tax.   It's VERY frustrating to me that this is an impediment year after year, because we all know it should not be.   I know it's understood - so we all discuss things based on this being the reality, but it's still ridiculous and tiring. 

You know what would create more space to work with before reaching that self imposed LT restriction? Not having a years restriction.

They are both stupid.

Edited December 12, 2025 by Cuzi

[chibears55]

20 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Or, to reverse it, Hoyer and team NOT talking to any above average free agent is pretty close to malpractice. It's one hotel complex and there's like 8 agencies total. 

Right and they can be talking about lesser players that they represent like the 2 relievers they just signed, not the big boys we hope that they would talk about.

[CubUgly]

10 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

You know what would create more space to work with before reaching that self imposed LT restriction? Not having a years restriction.

They are both stupid.

I can agree - to some extent - I can make several I think reasonable arguments against long contracts - but it's very nuanced and relative and not all long term contracts are bad - but I see your point, both can be stupid.  But if you are the Cubs IMHO one is more stupid than the other. 

[Rcal10]

19 minutes ago, CubUgly said:

I can agree - to some extent - I can make several I think reasonable arguments against long contracts - but it's very nuanced and relative and not all long term contracts are bad - but I see your point, both can be stupid.  But if you are the Cubs IMHO one is more stupid than the other. 

I understand the flaws in long term contracts. But major market teams should have enough resources to work around the last few years if those sort of deals. Yes, they normally look bad at the end. So I guess that principle is less egregious than their refusal to spend money beyond the LT line. However, Cuzi is correct, both are stupid. Maybe not equally stupid, but stupid, none the less. 

[Post Count Padder]

Since we're all craving an sort of interest or rumor or news...

I live in Philly and also follow the Phillies and a lot of Philly sports accounts and people are going a little nuts now because Imai just recently followed Zach Wheeler and his wife on instagram and she posted a story featuring a bunch of Japanese snack foods.

It is almost positively a big nothing burger but who the hell knows.

[Geographyhater8888]

26 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I understand the flaws in long term contracts. But major market teams should have enough resources to work around the last few years if those sort of deals. Yes, they normally look bad at the end. So I guess that principle is less egregious than their refusal to spend money beyond the LT line. However, Cuzi is correct, both are stupid. Maybe not equally stupid, but stupid, none the less. 

Just Look at Los Angeles. Pujols and Rendon were terrible investments for the Angels of Anaheim. Handing out big contracts can be very risky. 

Edited December 12, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Hot Sauce]

Just now, Tryptamine said:

Several days later and I'm still pretty annoyed the Cubs didn't pick up Finnegan on such a reasonable contract. Add him to this pen and I'm feeling pretty damn good about a 7th, 8th and 9th of Maton, Finnegan and Palencia. 

His decision may have just been his preference to stay with the Tigers rather than anything the Cubs didn't do.

[Bertz]

9 minutes ago, Post Count Padder said:

Since we're all craving an sort of interest or rumor or news...

I live in Philly and also follow the Phillies and a lot of Philly sports accounts and people are going a little nuts now because Imai just recently followed Zach Wheeler and his wife on instagram and she posted a story featuring a bunch of Japanese snack foods.

It is almost positively a big nothing burger but who the hell knows.

It's not crazy.  The Phillies rotation is good but it's thin. Most indications are that they're a little more focused on the outfield but it wouldn't be way outside of the Dombrowski playbook to say "horsefeathers it we're adding another ace."

I'll decide to focus on the positives which is that it almost certainly means Imai has started doing his visits.

[Cuzi]

51 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Just Look at Los Angeles. Pujols and Rendon were terrible investments for the Angels. Handing out big contracts can be very risky. 

You can pretty much count on every single one of these mega contracts ending under water.

However, the market is more than willing to eat the back end of these deals knowing that they are saving on the AAV up front to build a better team initially and then on the back end the contract will not be taking up as much of the tax limit because that threshold is going to continue to rise.

The Cubs are avoiding that market all together. So the best players are signing with other teams willing to pay market prices. Then the Cubs are left with paying over market prices on an annual basis to avoid the back end on lesser quality players. So they spend more of the budget on worse players. It makes no sense.

Lets avoid spending $35M on 1 player that gets us 4-5 WAR so we can turn around and spend $20-25M on 2 players each to get that 5 WAR.

Edited December 12, 2025 by Cuzi

[Geographyhater8888]

1 hour ago, Cuzi said:

You can pretty much count on every single one of these mega contracts ending under water.

However, the market is more than willing to eat the back end of these deals knowing that they are saving on the AAV up front to build a better team initially and then on the back end the contract will not be taking up as much of the tax limit because that threshold is going to continue to rise.

The Cubs are avoiding that market all together. So the best players are signing with other teams willing to pay market prices. Then the Cubs are left with paying over market prices on an annual basis to avoid the back end on lesser quality players. So they spend more of the budget on worse players. It makes no sense.

Lets avoid spending $35M on 1 player that gets use 4-5 WAR so we can turn around and spend $20-25M on 2 players each to get that 5 WAR.

I started out by saying Los Angeles on purpose as a joke. Yes, 9 digit figure contracts are why the dodgers are a dynasty. The rangers don’t win either without World Series MVP and $300 million free agent Corey Seager as recent examples.
 

If the goal is sustained 80 win seasons then spending $35 million on 2 players for an equivalent war means less years and total $ for long term payroll flexibility. It doesn’t seem like winning a World Series is the primary goal above all else.

Edited December 12, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[chibears55]

1 hour ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Just Look at Los Angeles. Pujols and Rendon were terrible investments for the Angels of Anaheim. Handing out big contracts can be very risky. 

Handing out 8+ year deals to players 32+ for past performances is plain dumb, offering up 8+ years to someone like Tucker for example isnt bad at all.

 

[chibears55]

54 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Lets avoid spending $35M on 1 player that gets us 4-5 WAR so we can turn around and spend $20-25M on 2 players each to get that 5 WAR.

That why their payroll is up there in top 5 to 10 every year is because of the multiple 15-25 per guys that they sign to 2 to 5 year deals, while avoiding the big signings for one or two stars.