Cubs to sign Caleb Thielbar

[Rcal10]

I know a lot of people will be critical of this, but I wouldn’t be shocked if Ben Brown took over the Keller role in the pen. He could be very useful for 1 inning. And maybe even multiple innings. They might be done in the pen, which means they would have enough money for King or Imai and still sign Okamoto. 

[BKHoo]

Is the goal to be the oldest team in baseball?

[Cuzi]

9 minutes ago, BKHoo said:

Is the goal to be the oldest team in baseball?

The sky is about to fall after the 2026 season. We need to keep as much payroll available as possible. Right now there's just Swanson and Maton on the books for 2027.

Of course the rest of the league is acting like it's no big deal and is just throwing money around left and right, but they are going to be sorry next year. The Cubs clearly know a storm is brewing and they are apparently the only team in the league privy to this.

Prioritize the old/marginal players commanding 1 year deals and reap the benefits when all the muscle have to cut players next year to get under the salary cap.

Edited December 16, 2025 by Cuzi

[Petrey10]

Idk if they know a storm is brewing or not. My guess is they believe top end salaries will be drastically coming down. 
 

imo a new cba will never be agreed to if the top 5 payroll teams in 2026 get massive penalties. There will be a phase in period or adjustment of some kind. no way teams agree if they can’t support a team with what they got.

 

 

[Cuzi]

Top end salaries aren't coming down. You most likely wont see an extreme outlier like Ohtani or Soto for a very long time, but the scatter plot is still going to be trending up. That's simply how money works.

Edited December 17, 2025 by Cuzi

[Hunter]

I think that if anything, teams will end up benefiting from signing these deals before the new CBA. The Cubs are gambling on the opposite to happen and are going to look pretty dumb afterwards. 

[Cuzi]

I dont know if they are gambling on anything. I think they are just using this "fear of the unknown" as an excuse to squeeze every last penny out of the cash cow.

They can't seriously believe a salary cap is around the corner. The players union is never going to agree to a pay cut. No union would. And they don't have to. The owners lose out on way more than the players the longer a lock out carries on.

The only way salaries will go down is if the owners collectively agree to light their assets on fire and kill the league all together. Then a new league starts up with new financials.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

I dont know if they are gambling on anything. I think they are just using this "fear of the unknown" as an excuse to squeeze every last penny out of the cash cow.

They can't seriously believe a salary cap is around the corner. The players union is never going to agree to a pay cut. No union would. And they don't have to. The owners lose out on way more than the players the longer a lock out carries on.

The only way salaries will go down is if the owners collectively agree to light their assets on fire and kill the league all together. Then a new league starts up with new financials.

I think a salary cap is around the corner. Economically, this means that other contracts will be ignored and the Cubs will suffer a detriment. But it's likely the way management is going. 

[JHBulls]

All I read from the main board is “Cubs to sign Cal…”

So I am just going to pretend that Seattle tore up Cal Raleigh’s contract and we’ve signed him. 

[Guest]

Just now, JHBulls said:

All I read from the main board is “Cubs to sign Cal…”

So I am just going to pretend that Seattle tore up Cal Raleigh’s contract and we’ve signed him. 

The Cubs are being dumped.

No pun intended. 

[Petrey10]

1 hour ago, Cuzi said:

Top end salaries aren't coming down. You most likely wont see an extreme outlier like Ohtani or Soto for a very long time, but the scatter plot is still going to be trending up. That's simply how money works.

I mean ohtani and soto would be at “the top end” 

It’s my guess … a complete guess that… top end comes down… bottom end comes up significantly. They sell that as average player makes more on average. And there some type of contract rules implemented where dodgers can’t pull the deferred game. And the pirates can’t pull the cheapskate game. total salary dollars would increase.

 

 

just a guess
 

 

[mul21]

13 hours ago, The Cubs Dude said:

I think a salary cap is around the corner. Economically, this means that other contracts will be ignored and the Cubs will suffer a detriment. But it's likely the way management is going. 

There's never going to be a salary cap.  The owners would have to open up their books to prove what revenues are and there's no chance in hell they ever do that.  You have no idea what you're talking about as usual.

[Rex Buckingham]

32 minutes ago, mul21 said:

There's never going to be a salary cap.  The owners would have to open up their books to prove what revenues are and there's no chance in hell they ever do that.  You have no idea what you're talking about as usual.

seriously, these owners are making money faster than you can imagine... every single owner in baseball has the ability to spend far beyond the luxury tax level, but they mostly don't because it would cut into their precious profits. A Salary Cap would have to come with a floor, and the players union would likely demand it be way higher than the current LT number... 

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, mul21 said:

There's never going to be a salary cap.  The owners would have to open up their books to prove what revenues are and there's no chance in hell they ever do that.  You have no idea what you're talking about as usual.

First of all, Manfred would readily assent to a salary cap--he is the agent of the owners, and the owners will ultimately find it agreeable to calculate revenue in order to impose something that will ultimately permit them to pay less. The salary cap would also stab existing contracts in order to maximize the team's revenue.

Do you think that MLB players would strike? They would. But management is apathetic to their concerns. They don't realize long-term effects of boycotting, a highlight of the business cycle of sports.e

Nice ad hominem attacks that ultimately mean nothing. I would like to see you talk about the economic situations of a price floor/price cap, which are similar to a salary floor/salary cap. 

13 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

seriously, these owners are making money faster than you can imagine... every single owner in baseball has the ability to spend far beyond the luxury tax level, but they mostly don't because it would cut into their precious profits. A Salary Cap would have to come with a floor, and the players union would likely demand it be way higher than the current LT number... 

You're right, but do you think that the floor would be imposed simultaneously with the cap? Of course not. The cap would be imposed, the players would have their grievances, and the floor would be introduced. But in the end, the management is very tense with the players, and fans are hanging amidst all of this.

And Hoover--er, Hoyer--his profits are going to increase if there is an imposed cap. Manfred... would readily assent. You know how terribly he does with baseball, right?

[squally1313]

27 minutes ago, The Cubs Dude said:

First of all, Manfred would readily assent to a salary cap--he is the agent of the owners, and the owners will ultimately find it agreeable to calculate revenue in order to impose something that will ultimately permit them to pay less. The salary cap would also stab existing contracts in order to maximize the team's revenue.

Do you think that MLB players would strike? They would. But management is apathetic to their concerns. They don't realize long-term effects of boycotting, a highlight of the business cycle of sports.e

Nice ad hominem attacks that ultimately mean nothing. I would like to see you talk about the economic situations of a price floor/price cap, which are similar to a salary floor/salary cap. 

You're right, but do you think that the floor would be imposed simultaneously with the cap? Of course not. The cap would be imposed, the players would have their grievances, and the floor would be introduced. But in the end, the management is very tense with the players, and fans are hanging amidst all of this.

And Hoover--er, Hoyer--his profits are going to increase if there is an imposed cap. Manfred... would readily assent. You know how terribly he does with baseball, right?

Hey man, I've mostly stayed away from whatever this all is, but I will say that the combination of stating opinions as if they were facts:

28 minutes ago, The Cubs Dude said:

The salary cap would also stab existing contracts in order to maximize the team's revenue.

29 minutes ago, The Cubs Dude said:

They don't realize long-term effects of boycotting, a highlight of the business cycle of sports.

29 minutes ago, The Cubs Dude said:

You're right, but do you think that the floor would be imposed simultaneously with the cap? Of course not.

29 minutes ago, The Cubs Dude said:

And Hoover--er, Hoyer--his profits are going to increase if there is an imposed cap.

And then being like 'come on, debate me bro' just comes off as very grating. Based on what I've read, you're a high school student who has been interested in baseball for....a year, two years? And yet you constantly make it seem like you understand the business/economic side of this better than the rest of us, and then wonder why no one wants to engage with you. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Hey man, I've mostly stayed away from whatever this all is, but I will say that the combination of stating opinions as if they were facts:

And then being like 'come on, debate me bro' just comes off as very grating. Based on what I've read, you're a high school student who has been interested in baseball for....a year, two years? And yet you constantly make it seem like you understand the business/economic side of this better than the rest of us, and then wonder why no one wants to engage with you. 

During "debates," I get very interested. And this can seem like I'm being grating. In no way am I condescending, and I believe that the rest know baseball more than I do. But I am very heavily interested in economics and economic theory and have been on political forums for a long time now, discussing the economic side of things.

I'm a debate guy. No one can change that. It comes off that way because the majority of forums I'm on are debate forums.

I'll try to tone it down, dude, I guess, but thank you so much for the comment. And I hope you give me a chance like some others have.

[Rex Buckingham]

45 minutes ago, The Cubs Dude said:

You're right, but do you think that the floor would be imposed simultaneously with the cap? Of course not. The cap would be imposed, the players would have their grievances, and the floor would be introduced. But in the end, the management is very tense with the players, and fans are hanging amidst all of this.

And Hoover--er, Hoyer--his profits are going to increase if there is an imposed cap. Manfred... would readily assent. You know how terribly he does with baseball, right?

1. Yes, the floor would be imposed along with the cap. No way players agree to a cap without a floor. 

2. Why on earth do you keep talking about Hoyer's profits? He isn't making money based on how much the Cubs spend. He is almost certainly being told "here is your budget, don't you dare go over" and trying to build the best team within that budget (fair to argue with his strategy) but he's not getting kickbacks from the Ricketts family for spending below budget. 

[mul21]

1 hour ago, The Cubs Dude said:

First of all, Manfred would readily assent to a salary cap--he is the agent of the owners, and the owners will ultimately find it agreeable to calculate revenue in order to impose something that will ultimately permit them to pay less. The salary cap would also stab existing contracts in order to maximize the team's revenue.

Do you think that MLB players would strike? They would. But management is apathetic to their concerns. They don't realize long-term effects of boycotting, a highlight of the business cycle of sports.e

Nice ad hominem attacks that ultimately mean nothing. I would like to see you talk about the economic situations of a price floor/price cap, which are similar to a salary floor/salary cap. 

You're right, but do you think that the floor would be imposed simultaneously with the cap? Of course not. The cap would be imposed, the players would have their grievances, and the floor would be introduced. But in the end, the management is very tense with the players, and fans are hanging amidst all of this.

And Hoover--er, Hoyer--his profits are going to increase if there is an imposed cap. Manfred... would readily assent. You know how terribly he does with baseball, right?

You should go do a deep dive on baseball's anti-trust exemption before you talk about this any more.  You're so wildly wrong and out of your depth it's not even funny, and that's coming from someone with just a rudimentary understanding of all the intricacies.  The owners will never agree to a hard salary cap because they'd have to tell the players how much money they're actually making.  Full stop.  There is no further discussion.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, mul21 said:

You should go do a deep dive on baseball's anti-trust exemption before you talk about this any more.  You're so wildly wrong and out of your depth it's not even funny, and that's coming from someone with just a rudimentary understanding of all the intricacies.  The owners will never agree to a hard salary cap because they'd have to tell the players how much money they're actually making.  Full stop.  There is no further discussion.

If you talked to me in a more civil manner, I would respond with more details, but half is because I believe that regulations may force an evaluation of revenue, like the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 prohibited large acquisitions and mergers. I am talking in a conditional way--if the owners were provided with an incentive to reveal their revenues and if there is more regulation that is passed to impose the hard salary cap, perhaps with a floor later on. 

When you say "full stop," you're submerging yourself in your own viewpoint without considering that a hard salary cap may be introduced, and neglecting the viewpoint that some owners may view the cap as favorably:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2025/08/31/the-top-reasons-why-mlb-likely-pushes-for-a-salary-cap/

https://www.thesling.org/major-league-baseball-owners-are-agitating-again-for-a-salary-cap-this-isnt-good-news-for-players/

You're ignoring the notion of an opportunity cost--the fact that owners may be paying less if they reveal such information. It may go as you have said, but it certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility.

 

The MLB is a microcosm of the actual United States. 

[imb]

Listen, child, I am in no way condescending and it appears you don’t even know what that word means anyway

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

1. Yes, the floor would be imposed along with the cap. No way players agree to a cap without a floor. 

2. Why on earth do you keep talking about Hoyer's profits? He isn't making money based on how much the Cubs spend. He is almost certainly being told "here is your budget, don't you dare go over" and trying to build the best team within that budget (fair to argue with his strategy) but he's not getting kickbacks from the Ricketts family for spending below budget. 

Reaction to 1: I think the cap would be imposed first and then the floor would be imposed later after players complain due to their perception of being slighted.

Reaction to 2: I talk about Hoyer's profits because Hoover--oops, Hoyer--is the emblem of the Cubs organization and their mindset. I guarantee you that Hoover doesn't share an opposing philosophy compared to that of Ricketts. If anything, he agrees with the fact that less money should be spent. He agrees with the economic strategy, and he wants to spend below budget so that the organization can flourish.

But I do agree that there will be a cap and a floor eventually. I don't think they will be in a simultaneous manner, but it's highly likely that 2027 will be very much disrupted due to this economic side of things.

[Guest]

Just now, imb said:

Listen, child, I am in no way condescending and it appears you don’t even know what that word means anyway

Condescending is acting in a patronizing/superior way. And since you think I'm AI, AI would theoretically know all words within the dictionary.

Go find yourself useful. Find how the Chicago Cubs connect with the story Moby-Dick, maybe on how the turbulent waters symbolize the period between 1908-2016. 😄

On a more serious note, what do you think about caps/floors and how they will be imposed?

[Cuzi]

48 minutes ago, mul21 said:

You should go do a deep dive on baseball's anti-trust exemption before you talk about this any more.  You're so wildly wrong and out of your depth it's not even funny, and that's coming from someone with just a rudimentary understanding of all the intricacies.  The owners will never agree to a hard salary cap because they'd have to tell the players how much money they're actually making.  Full stop.  There is no further discussion.

The players already know what they are making. It's all behind closed doors.

[chibears55]

Keller 2 years with the Phillies 

[Rcal10]

10 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Keller 2 years with the Phillies 

That was reported and talked about almost  2 hours ago.