Winter Doldrums Thread

[Post Count Padder]

Watching Fairbanks go to the Marlins is doubly frustrating. They're not contending AND it's a one year deal to a high end reliever. Something Jed prefers. How does this happen?

[Neuby]

Can't wait to trade prospect capital in July for medicore delivers who are hurt because the Cubs refuse to spend.

[Jason Ross]

11 minutes ago, Post Count Padder said:

Watching Fairbanks go to the Marlins is doubly frustrating. They're not contending AND it's a one year deal to a high end reliever. Something Jed prefers. How does this happen?

Fairbanks has some medical concerns and a fastball that's declined both in shape and velocity. I'm not against a Fairbanks signing but 1/$13m treats him AAV wise right under Williams. 

The hope is that the Cubs would rather have spent $13m between Thielbar, Maton, Webb, and Milner and then taking the remaining money and solving the rotation and a hitter. 

As much as we hate this, the Cubs have a budget set. That budget should be higher, but that's also the reality we exist in. Getting four relievers should allow the Cubs to better go big game hunting with the rest of the money. Had they spent $13m on Fairbanks, they would still need three+ more relievers and that could have made it so that with the budget, Imai, Bregman or whatever wouldn't be as feasible. 

[ILMindState]

33 minutes ago, Illiterate Scholar said:

The large expenditure has to be coming soon.

Gallen signing and a Shaw extension 

[tartan22]

27 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

As much as we hate this, the Cubs have a budget set. That budget should be higher, but that's also the reality we exist in. Getting four relievers should allow the Cubs to better go big game hunting with the rest of the money. Had they spent $13m on Fairbanks, they would still need three+ more relievers and that could have made it so that with the budget, Imai, Bregman or whatever wouldn't be as feasible. 

even with a hard cap at the luxury tax line set by ownership (which is stupid but a fixed reality that's been in place for some time), we have $240 million to spend. the baseball operations people should be able to find ~$15-20m in the budget for one high-end relief arm to shore up a long-standing team weakness, especially if the organization is so confident in its ability to find cheap reclamation projects to fill out the rest of the bullpen

you don't even have to get into the nebulous realm of "well, right now they can't spend money to address this need, because then they might not have money to make other hypothetical signings to address other needs." $240 million is enough money for a single established reliever. spending multiple seasons trying to field a competitive team without one is just bad resource allocation, full stop.

Edited December 24, 2025 by tartan22

[Jason Ross]

11 minutes ago, tartan22 said:

even with a hard cap at the luxury tax line set by ownership (which is stupid but a fixed reality that's been in place for some time), we have $240 million to spend. the baseball operations people should be able to find ~$15-20m in the budget for one high-end relief arm to shore up a long-standing team weakness, especially if the organization is so confident in its ability to find cheap reclamation projects to fill out the rest of the bullpen

you don't even have to get into the nebulous realm of "well, right now they can't spend money to address this need, because then they might not have money to make other hypothetical signings to address other needs." $240 million is enough money for a single established reliever. spending multiple seasons trying to field a competitive team without one is just bad resource allocation, full stop.

If the Cubs had $240m to spend this off-season, sure. They don't. They seemingly have $50m based on reports. They definitely needed 3-4 relievers, an impact SP and some sort of a hitter. Eating $13m of $50m leaves you with $37m to solve the rest of the team. 

Can you do it? Sure you can. But another $23m spent on a SP leaves you with $14m to solve the rest and you're basically at a point where the only two players you brought in were Fairbanks and Imai or King. That's not the worst, but the Cubs seemingly are quite good at extracting relief value. I'd rather the Cubs spend that $13-$15m on a hitter or something else. 

We can't live in this reactionary world where every time a team other than the Cubs does something we throw a fit. If we look back in March and the Cubs don't do much, I'll be right with y'all upset. Until then, I'm not going to be upset because the Cubs chose to spend $13m on the relievers they did as opposed to Fairbanks, who I don't really love. Or even Devin Williams who I think is really good, but as we have seen in 2024 and 2025 with very good relievers (like Edwin Diaz and Devon Williams, they're quite volatile. Also, look at Tanner Scott in 2025). 

We can't see the vision yet. I get it, we are all a bit impatient right now, but this is the MLB off-season and we should know by now the speed of which it goes by. So I'm firmly "whatever" on not signing Fairbanks. I think the Cubs BP is in a perfectly fine place right now, to be honest with you. 

We can continue to (and should) point fingers at Ricketts as to why this conversation exists in the first place, but beyond that, I just don't really care much about not signing Pete Fairbanks. 

[tartan22]

i'm not just talking about this season, or this one specific contract for fairbanks. we didn't just walk into this offseason and get handed $50m to spend. if the front office is of the belief that we don't have the resources available to pay the going rate for one high-end reliever this offseason, that's because of their failure to adequately budget. and the fact that we have to sign/trade for a high-end reliever is because of their failure to address this need at any point before now.

like, if you're going to be the team who doesn't even pretend to make a competitive offer for kyle tucker because you don't give out big nine-figure contracts, you shouldn't also be the team who won't give 3/$45m to a reliever. the conservative long-term team-building approach should mean we have more short-term flexibility, or more of an ability to splurge on a "luxury" player who doesn't actually bog down your books all that much.

ultimately, while we're not spending to the top end of our ability as a franchise because of ownership, we're also not exactly strapped for resources. the unwillingness to spend on the bullpen is 100% just a jed thing, not a "it's not in our means!" thing

[Guest]

Just now, tartan22 said:

i'm not just talking about this season, or this one specific contract for fairbanks. we didn't just walk into this offseason and get handed $50m to spend. if the front office is of the belief that we don't have the resources available to pay the going rate for one high-end reliever this offseason, that's because of their failure to adequately budget. and the fact that we have to sign/trade for a high-end reliever is because of their failure to address this need at any point before now.

like, if you're going to be the team who doesn't even pretend to make a competitive offer for kyle tucker because you don't give out big nine-figure contracts, you shouldn't also be the team who won't give 3/$45m to a reliever. the conservative long-term team-building approach should mean we have more short-term flexibility, or more of an ability to splurge on a "luxury" player who doesn't actually bog down your books all that much.

ultimately, while we're not spending to the top end of our ability as a franchise because of ownership, we're also not exactly strapped for resources. the unwillingness to spend on the bullpen is 100% just a jed thing, not a "it's not in our means!" thing

Now we have three people who write essays. This site, I swear, gets better by the day.

[tartan22]

also like...sorry if this makes me a cynic, but i'm not going to jump to "maybe we're not spending on a reliever because we're going to give $50m to an impact bat and starter instead :)" until i see them actually sign one (1) of those two types of players

unless we get a radically different approach to how this front office pursues desirable free agents, they should not be operating as if they will actually be the top bidder for players like imai or bregman. the flexibility to get guys like that on "good deals" is nice, but if you're not going to be aggressive about spending on them, then you shouldn't also be using them as an excuse to pass on more realistic opportunities to upgrade the roster

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, tartan22 said:

i'm not just talking about this season, or this one specific contract for fairbanks. we didn't just walk into this offseason and get handed $50m to spend. if the front office is of the belief that we don't have the resources available to pay the going rate for one high-end reliever this offseason, that's because of their failure to adequately budget. and the fact that we have to sign/trade for a high-end reliever is because of their failure to address this need at any point before now.

like, if you're going to be the team who doesn't even pretend to make a competitive offer for kyle tucker because you don't give out big nine-figure contracts, you shouldn't also be the team who won't give 3/$45m to a reliever. the conservative long-term team-building approach should mean we have more short-term flexibility, or more of an ability to splurge on a "luxury" player who doesn't actually bog down your books all that much.

ultimately, while we're not spending to the top end of our ability as a franchise because of ownership, we're also not exactly strapped for resources. the unwillingness to spend on the bullpen is 100% just a jed thing, not a "it's not in our means!" thing

The Cubs had the best ERA of any bullpen after May 1st last year. You're right, it's a Jed thing to not allocate resources to the bullpen, but it's also something the Cubs have shown the ability to get value out of despite it. They did so last year with a group of castoffs and players who started the year in the MiLB.

I wouldn't expect the top-run limiting BP again next year, but I would expect, regardless, the Cubs to put forth a very competent BP. They have a track record of solid BPs for shoestring budgets, and this year the Cubs haven't relied on the aged-closer. 

So again, let's wait and see how the Cubs spend the money they do have before we throw a fit about the BP. As of today, they look to have a solid group of arms there, even if it's missing one more definite guy. 

[Bull]

1 hour ago, Post Count Padder said:

Watching Fairbanks go to the Marlins is doubly frustrating. They're not contending AND it's a one year deal to a high end reliever. Something Jed prefers. How does this happen?

They must have really been frightened by those medicals.

[squally1313]

24 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

We can't see the vision yet

Sure. But what was the ultimate post Tucker vision last offseason? What was the vision at the trade deadline? How did that work out?

9 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The Cubs had the best ERA of any bullpen after May 1st last year.

I mean, and I mean this as a compliment…you’re better than this. The April games matters, and going 18-13 during a run of elite offense and losing out on the division to a team that went nuclear for 6 weeks matters.

92 wins is great. The core of this team that he painstakingly put together is great. Doesn’t mean there aren’t very valid criticisms on his past moves/non moves, and very clear evidence this offseason is shaping up in similar ways. 

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Sure. But what was the ultimate post Tucker vision last offseason? What was the vision at the trade deadline? How did that work out?

I mean, and I mean this as a compliment…you’re better than this. The April games matters, and going 18-13 during a run of elite offense and losing out on the division to a team that went nuclear for 6 weeks matters.

92 wins is great. The core of this team that he painstakingly put together is great. Doesn’t mean there aren’t very valid criticisms on his past moves/non moves, and very clear evidence this offseason is shaping up in similar ways. 

The Cubs bullpen transformed greatly in April. We cant both say "the BP in April wasn't good" without also noting that the team did a wonderful job replacing the issues as they went. The Cubs seemingly do a very good job of finding players who they're capable of playing up in the pitching. And just to remind you; this has been a basis of your argument all off-season about the Cubs pitching; you're aware of this too. 

When it comes to the vision, you're correct, but I have said multiple times that when the off-season is done, I'll judge it. I judged the deadline last year harshly. What I won't do is manufacture anger in December just because another team did something. If the Cubs don't get an impact SP or pass on the offense, don't think I also won't be angry. But getting upset because the Marlins signed a RP who has declining velocity and shape, while also being a bit of a medical red flag isn't where I'm jumping on the bandwagon, either. 

[Backtobanks]

15 minutes ago, Bull said:

They must have really been frightened by those medicals.

Or spending money.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, tartan22 said:

also like...sorry if this makes me a cynic, but i'm not going to jump to "maybe we're not spending on a reliever because we're going to give $50m to an impact bat and starter instead :)" until i see them actually sign one (1) of those two types of players

unless we get a radically different approach to how this front office pursues desirable free agents, they should not be operating as if they will actually be the top bidder for players like imai or bregman. the flexibility to get guys like that on "good deals" is nice, but if you're not going to be aggressive about spending on them, then you shouldn't also be using them as an excuse to pass on more realistic opportunities to upgrade the roster

Cynicism is usually rewarded. But besides that little piece of advice, I do think that this enhances the situation of Imai returning empty-handed. The Cubs are deterred by long-term, nine-figure contracts, and Imai, if he is a starter (which is debatable considering some recent news), will likely have an AAV of around $24M. Considering this, if the Cubs do want a long-term contract (which other users had previously expressed), this could easily veer into nine figures and the Cubs may, ultimately, take their monetary considerations above team performance.

I think Jason was correct with the idea that this is the offseason and is inherently not as hectic. However, with other teams more willing to spend on players than the Cubs at this point--namely, the Dodgers, Mets, and even the Yankees to an extent--this challenges the idea of validating "waiting" and hoping for the best until devastation hits. Hoyer's ideology is one of maintaining as much revenue as possible and, with Manfred Jr. being largely in the favor of the owners, I don't think this will change in the near future until the salary cap is considered more seriously, which would anger the players.

17 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The Cubs had the best ERA of any bullpen after May 1st last year. You're right, it's a Jed thing to not allocate resources to the bullpen, but it's also something the Cubs have shown the ability to get value out of despite it. They did so last year with a group of castoffs and players who started the year in the MiLB.

I wouldn't expect the top-run limiting BP again next year, but I would expect, regardless, the Cubs to put forth a very competent BP. They have a track record of solid BPs for shoestring budgets, and this year the Cubs haven't relied on the aged-closer. 

So again, let's wait and see how the Cubs spend the money they do have before we throw a fit about the BP. As of today, they look to have a solid group of arms there, even if it's missing one more definite guy. 

According to TeamRankings and MLB.com, the Cubs were the ninth in ERA last year in TOTAL. That doesn't signify that they were doing terribly by any means; however, it's more beneficial to look at a year in its entirety to minimize repetition of anomalies/outliers. Generally, yearly trends are more beneficial than monthly, etc., etc. They were tenth in 2024, 14th in 2023, and 20th in 2022, however. This may indicate a positive regression, but it seems to have been stagnating compared to the larger jumps in 2022 and 2023. 

I think that the bullpen should be seriously considered if Imai isn't signed. If he is, that will allow for diversity in terms of repertoires. However, if he isn't signed, the chances for sustainability are lower if we assume that the same pattern will ensue (constant addition of 30-year-old pitchers who we've been interested in). Their AQ (aggregate quadratic) has a higher x-value than Imai, for instance, which indicates a year past their maximum. I think it would be beneficial, as a team, for the Cubs to try an average about three years to the left of the maximum every year, but the trends might indicate a shift to the right.

15 minutes ago, Bull said:

They must have really been frightened by those medicals.

I don't think it was that--I think that it was because they are unwilling to spend.

9 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Sure. But what was the ultimate post Tucker vision last offseason? What was the vision at the trade deadline? How did that work out?

I mean, and I mean this as a compliment…you’re better than this. The April games matters, and going 18-13 during a run of elite offense and losing out on the division to a team that went nuclear for 6 weeks matters.

92 wins is great. The core of this team that he painstakingly put together is great. Doesn’t mean there aren’t very valid criticisms on his past moves/non moves, and very clear evidence this offseason is shaping up in similar ways. 

I think these are valid points. I don't think that the Cubs have a macroscopic future planned out rather than their fiscally contractive policies. And I do agree that the April games matter. However, there has been a BP trend in the recent years with the Cubs, and trying to isolate the variable of competitiveness (the next jump is harder than the last), they're doing decently. They may be stagnating, and I predict possibly 10th place next year if our repertoire isn't significantly diversified, but those are my thoughts. 

I think 92 is great, but we should be setting the bar *theoretically* higher for next season in terms of growth. I think that our younger players (Shaw, PCA, etc.) will carry the hitting milieu for a little while, but pitching is most in danger.

8 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The Cubs bullpen transformed greatly in April. We cant both say "the BP in April wasn't good" without also noting that the team did a wonderful job replacing the issues as they went.

When it comes to the vision, you're correct, but I have said multiple times that when the off-season is done, I'll judge it. I judged the deadline last year harshly. What I won't do is manufacture anger in December just because another team did something. If the Cubs don't get an impact SP or pass on the offense, don't think I also won't be angry. But getting upset because the Marlins signed a RP who has declining velocity and shape, while also being a bit of a medical red flag isn't where I'm jumping on the bandwagon, either. 

Yes, and I totally agree. But if those issues have been fixed along the way, I think that they should be incorporated into the larger picture (year-by-year). The AROC for the Cubs in terms of ERA has been trickling closer to zero. Granted, it is harder to move the ranks when you're closer to the top, but it also signifies that our potential is decreasing due to our fiscal policy. 

And I do think that we should also view the offseason when it is done under normal circumstances. This may be a logical slip to some, but I believe that Imai may be the cornerstone of the offseason--if we don't get him, the demand will decrease in terms of starting pitchers for the Cubs, because they already did not jump at a deal. Or, on the other hand, they could realize (highly unlikely) and become desperate for a decent SP/#2. I think realism and understanding past trends will help us predict the future--empiricism, not pessimism or optimism (or even cynicism!). 

[squally1313]

4 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The Cubs bullpen transformed greatly in April. We cant both say "the BP in April wasn't good" without also noting that the team did a wonderful job replacing the issues as they went. The Cubs seemingly do a very good job of finding players who they're capable of playing up in the pitching. And just to remind you; this has been a basis of your argument all off-season about the Cubs pitching; you're aware of this too

If you’re going to promise me that the cubs are willing to commit as many dollars as possible to needle moving offensive and starting pitching talent, much of which requires multiple years of commitment, then yes, hottovy/zombie a bunch of reclamation projects to death and I’ll be more than happy to live with the early struggles to get there. 
 

I, candidly, don’t buy that that is the case right now. That type of talent tends to be old, want years/opt outs/deferred money/etc, and also tends to be ‘overpaid’ by the general consensus math on salary vs production. If you’re going to keep yourself in the short term commitment pool, but continually ignore the biggest needle movers in that pool (elite relievers)….what are we doing here?
 

Yeah, Dylan cease or Kyle schwarber or Alex Bregman in 2031 is maybe scary for 2031 me. But 60% of your 2026 rotation being shota, Taillon, and gallen so that you can keep the books clear for…the 2031 version of those pitchers is scary right now. 

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

If you’re going to promise me that the cubs are willing to commit as many dollars as possible to needle moving offensive and starting pitching talent, much of which requires multiple years of commitment, then yes, hottovy/zombie a bunch of reclamation projects to death and I’ll be more than happy to live with the early struggles to get there. 
 

I, candidly, don’t buy that that is the case right now. That type of talent tends to be old, want years/opt outs/deferred money/etc, and also tends to be ‘overpaid’ by the general consensus math on salary vs production. If you’re going to keep yourself in the short term commitment pool, but continually ignore the biggest needle movers in that pool (elite relievers)….what are we doing here?
 

Yeah, Dylan cease or Kyle schwarber or Alex Bregman in 2031 is maybe scary for 2031 me. But 60% of your 2026 rotation being shota, Taillon, and gallen so that you can keep the books clear for…the 2031 version of those pitchers is scary right now. 

I understand that the Cubs haven't given us a lot of reasons to be positive, but at least for myself, this feels like a lot of premature worry. That isn't to say it might not be the case, but it also might not. And not in the "well anything is possible" way, but in the "Tatsuya Imai hasn't even signed yet and all of the teams you'd worry about sound like they are not going bananas for him". Like, there's a legitimate chance in 3 or 4 days the Cubs have already brought in Imai and things are very different. 

I won't tell anyone how to handle the off-season, but personally, I just don't have it in me at this point to just be worried all the time that they're not doing something. 

Which is where I'm at on Fairbanks. Check back in with how I feel about the off-season when camp breaks. If the Cubs sign Gallen and pack it in, you'll find me mostly upset at things (even if I think the Cubs can mostly fix Gallen). 

[chibears55]

22 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Sure. But what was the ultimate post Tucker vision last offseason? What was the vision at the trade deadline? How did that work out?

I mean, and I mean this as a compliment…you’re better than this. The April games matters, and going 18-13 during a run of elite offense and losing out on the division to a team that went nuclear for 6 weeks matters.

92 wins is great. The core of this team that he painstakingly put together is great. Doesn’t mean there aren’t very valid criticisms on his past moves/non moves, and very clear evidence this offseason is shaping up in similar ways. 

Until something drastic happens, this offseason is shaping up into exactly what I had expected going into it.

They stay as is with the everyday guys they have and rotation, and basically just add some pen arms, bench bats, and possibly a depth type SP or two. OD payroll will be around 220-225

Also, Even if Imai chooses them, that will be their only big addition and theyll likely be done adding outside of probably a couple low cost and or minor league contract depth guys.

 

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I understand that the Cubs haven't given us a lot of reasons to be positive, but at least for myself, this feels like a lot of premature worry. That isn't to say it might not be the case, but it also might not. And not in the "well anything is possible" way, but in the "Tatsuya Imai hasn't even signed yet and all of the teams you'd worry about sound like they are not going bananas for him". Like, there's a legitimate chance in 3 or 4 days the Cubs have already brought in Imai and things are very different. 

I won't tell anyone how to handle the off-season, but personally, I just don't have it in me at this point to just be worried all the time that they're not doing something. 

Which is where I'm at on Fairbanks. Check back in with how I feel about the off-season when camp breaks. If the Cubs sign Gallen and pack it in, you'll find me mostly upset at things (even if I think the Cubs can mostly fix Gallen). 

I generally try to share your overall approach, and have certainly preached it in the past. And, even in the event that this offseason does end up being a disaster, I’m not going to roll forward my frustrations and say the team is garbage and whatever else like you heard so much during a 92 win season. This is frustrating to me because there’s just…such a solid base there. You’re going to get 17 wins from paying Nico, PCA, Shaw, Busch, and Horton like $15m. Good job by Jed, but just…finish the horsefeathers job. 
 

I find myself replying to you mostly because I like you and respect your thoughts, but it’s also just a little bit frustrating that (almost) every other signing seems to be met by you with ‘he’s actually not that good’ and/or ‘he’s actually not that good of a fit’. I know we can’t sign everyone. And I know free agent signings, by the general nature of a salary cap-less market, are generally going to come in on the high end. Pete Fairbanks, who hasn’t had an ERA over 3.60 since before Covid, signed a one year deal for the amount of money that we ‘have’ to hold back to pay 2 months of a hypothetical trade targets salary to avoid paying an extra 20% on like $6m. A slightly diminished fastball shape or whatever does not make him worse than Ethan Roberts. 

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I generally try to share your overall approach, and have certainly preached it in the past. And, even in the event that this offseason does end up being a disaster, I’m not going to roll forward my frustrations and say the team is garbage and whatever else like you heard so much during a 92 win season. This is frustrating to me because there’s just…such a solid base there. You’re going to get 17 wins from paying Nico, PCA, Shaw, Busch, and Horton like $15m. Good job by Jed, but just…finish the horsefeathers job. 
 

I find myself replying to you mostly because I like you and respect your thoughts, but it’s also just a little bit frustrating that (almost) every other signing seems to be met by you with ‘he’s actually not that good’ and/or ‘he’s actually not that good of a fit’. I know we can’t sign everyone. And I know free agent signings, by the general nature of a salary cap-less market, are generally going to come in on the high end. Pete Fairbanks, who hasn’t had an ERA over 3.60 since before Covid, signed a one year deal for the amount of money that we ‘have’ to hold back to pay 2 months of a hypothetical trade targets salary to avoid paying an extra 20% on like $6m. A slightly diminished fastball shape or whatever does not make him worse than Ethan Roberts. 

On the same end, it's frustrating to come in here and read a full doom-boner party of everyone lamenting that the Cubs never spend money and suck. I get it, we are impatient and we are concerned that the Cubs may not do something. At the same time, I can barely say a decent thing about Jacob Webb or Collin Snider and what they can become without someone flying off the handle that they didn't sign Devon Williams as their only response. 

Here, I'll add some context; I don't hate Fairbanks. He has a fastball shape I think the Cubs could help as he has a lot of cut. He limits hard contact and probably doesn't need to strike everyone out. And there is no such thing as a bad 1 year deal. I wouldn't have minded the contract. 

I don't mean to horsefeathers on every contract someone else signs, but adding to the doom-boner pile isn't worthwhile or helpful. Me jumping in and simply agreeing with 9 other people doesn't do anything new. So someone needs to remind everyone that there is 2 months of an off-season to go, that his fastball shape has fallen off significantly two years running and there's medical red flags because it's true. And if it helps one person step off the ledge a bit then good. 

[Rcal10]

5 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I generally try to share your overall approach, and have certainly preached it in the past. And, even in the event that this offseason does end up being a disaster, I’m not going to roll forward my frustrations and say the team is garbage and whatever else like you heard so much during a 92 win season. This is frustrating to me because there’s just…such a solid base there. You’re going to get 17 wins from paying Nico, PCA, Shaw, Busch, and Horton like $15m. Good job by Jed, but just…finish the horsefeathers job. 
 

I find myself replying to you mostly because I like you and respect your thoughts, but it’s also just a little bit frustrating that (almost) every other signing seems to be met by you with ‘he’s actually not that good’ and/or ‘he’s actually not that good of a fit’. I know we can’t sign everyone. And I know free agent signings, by the general nature of a salary cap-less market, are generally going to come in on the high end. Pete Fairbanks, who hasn’t had an ERA over 3.60 since before Covid, signed a one year deal for the amount of money that we ‘have’ to hold back to pay 2 months of a hypothetical trade targets salary to avoid paying an extra 20% on like $6m. A slightly diminished fastball shape or whatever does not make him worse than Ethan Roberts. 

For the record, I wish they spent more money. But if they didn’t sign Fairbanks because they end up signing Imai or even Gallen when they otherwise couldn’t, if Fairbanks was on the team, I am fine with not having Fairbanks. They signed Webb for $11M less. He has also been solid the last 3 years and last year pitched more innings than Fairbanks. I don’t like they budget, but it is what it is. So within the budget Jed allocates the best he can. He does find cheap pen arms so he is sticking to that playbook. If he spends to about $8M to $10M short of the LT I will at least feel he did what he could.

[tartan22]

sometimes pessimism and frustration is justified. i also think it's stupid to complain about every single free agent who signs somewhere else, or to act like we've massively missed out on the SP/3B markets when there are plenty of options still left to sign.

but the reason i started grousing after the fairbanks signing specifically is because he was the last big-name bullpen FA left on the market, and his signing elsewhere is an affirmation that the front office is going to continue operating under the philosophy that it isn't worth it to pay the going rate for an established relief arm. i think that's bad roster-building, i think the lack of a go-to guy in the bullpen has hurt us even when we've (impressively) been able to cobble together a solid relief unit from spare parts, and i think now is a reasonable time to express your concerns about that approach to assembling a team

if it helps to mentally append a "but if they make a bunch of good moves later then i will be happy about that" to my posts, then go right ahead

[squally1313]

7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

For the record, I wish they spent more money. But if they didn’t sign Fairbanks because they end up signing Imai or even Gallen when they otherwise couldn’t, if Fairbanks was on the team, I am fine with not having Fairbanks. They signed Webb for $11M less. He has also been solid the last 3 years and last year pitched more innings than Fairbanks. I don’t like they budget, but it is what it is. So within the budget Jed allocates the best he can. He does find cheap pen arms so he is sticking to that playbook. If he spends to about $8M to $10M short of the LT I will at least feel he did what he could.

As for Webb or Fairbanks, why not both. Becomes a little bit of a self fulfilling prophecy when you steer away from elite relievers because you have so many bullpen spots to fill each year because everyone you signed last year was on a one year contract. Real ‘we’re all trying to find the guy who did this’ situation. 
 

agree with your last point. Just…haven’t been up at that level in quite a while. Prices have been too high, for a year now, apparently. 

[Cuzi]

9 minutes ago, tartan22 said:

i think now is a reasonable time to express your concerns about that approach to assembling a team

Someone made a comment a couple weeks ago and said these big long term signings are more a question of timing rather than ability.

The Cubs have a core of PCA, Busch, and Shaw in their pre-arb years and it seems like they are going to give a large amount of playing time to another one as a DH with either Caissie or Ballesteros. They have one player locked into a contract that pays them nine figures. Their starting 2B, LF, and RF are in the last years of their deal. They've got 2 more years of Justin Steele and developed Cade Horton to be a really good pitcher.

If now is not the time to capitalize on these young players making pennies on the dollar and throw some long term money at really good players, then when the hell is the right time?

Edited December 24, 2025 by Cuzi

[JunkyardWalrus]

2 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Someone made a comment a couple weeks ago and said these big long term signings are more a question of timing rather than ability.

The Cubs have a core of PCA, Busch, and Shaw in their pre-arb years and it seems like they are going to give a large amount of playing time to another one as a DH with either Caissie or Ballesteros. They have one player locked into a contract that pays them nine figures. Their starting 2B, LF, and RF are in the last years of their deal. They've got 2 more years of Justin Steele and developed Cade Horton to be a really good pitcher.

If now is not the time to capitalize on these young players making pennies on the dollar and throw some long term money at really good players, then when the hell is the right time?

When they had Tucker.