Even After Giving Alex Bregman $175 Million, The Cubs Can Stay In The Free-Agent Market

[TomCent]

Image courtesy of © Katie Stratman-Imagn Images

The Cubs were standing on the edge of the diving board for most of the MLB free-agent pool this offseason, waiting to jump in. Then, they decided to cannonball into the deep end. Chicago's five-year, $175 million agreement with third baseman Alex Bregman creates an enormous splash that will produce many ripples.

One of the biggest resulting questions is Matt Shaw's future with the team. Is he a trade chip? Is he a utility player? Is he the new second baseman, with Nico Hoerner being shipped out? Another is whether the club will jump back into the market in the next month, and, if so, what will they target. That's what we'll dive into here.

Jed Hoyer and company might have some money to make more moves this offseason. They can thank the structure of Bregman's contract for that. Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reported last week that $70 million of the deal will be deferred, lowering the average annual value (AAV) for competitive-balance tax (CBT) purposes to around $30.9 million.

Cot's Contracts projects the Cubs' 2026 competitive-balance tax number to be $240.6 million, just below the first tax threshold of $244 million. Roster Resource has made a similar calculation, at $243.5 million.  

How could the Cubs add major-league free agents if they're up against the ceiling? First, The club stayed under the CBT in 2025, so it would pay the lowest penalties for going over it this year. They got permission to exceed the first threshold this year, in order to sign Bregman. Besides, there's plenty of time to subtract salary before the postseason calculations are made, like moving Hoerner's $12 million or Jameson Taillon’s $18 million.

So, where could the club's possible payroll flexibility be directed? Let's go group by group.

Rotation: The Cubs don't have a pressing need for an arm after acquiring Edward Cabrera in a trade with the Marlins. They can continue to shop for discounts, but it seems very unlikely that they’ll allocate any more money to this department of the roster.

Bullpen: The Cubs have already done a lot in the pen this offseason. They've re-signed Caleb Thielbar, added major-league free agents Hunter Harvey, Phil Maton, Hoby Milner and Jacob Webb, and signed a handful of free agents to minor-league deals. The club will keep shopping in this market, but with limited roster flexibility, it probably won't sign a higher-dollar veteran such as Seranthony Dominguez. Instead, they'll likely add depth relievers who have minor-league options, through lower-priced signings, trades and/or waiver claims.

Lineup: No Cody Bellinger reunion is forthcoming. All nine position player spots are accounted for, with Shaw or Hoerner manning second base. Manager Craig Counsell can employ a rotation at DH, with Bregman, Seiya Suzuki, Moisés Ballesteros and Tyler Austin as the primary options.

Bench: This is the other area where the Cubs can and should add. An outfield bat feels like the play, since prospect Kevin Alcántara is the lone backup on the 40-man roster. Harrison Bader has become too expensive after his 2025 season, but Austin Hays is still on the market. So are Miguel Andujar (to whom Chicago has been connected recently), Randal Grichuk, Tommy Pham and old friend Mike Tauchman. If Shaw or Hoerner are dealt, however, the need will shift to the infield. It’s unlikely the team will be comfortable handing an important backup role to either James Triantos or Pedro Ramírez, the incumbent options on the 40-man.

Signing Bregman was a splashy move that made the Cubs objectively better, but it didn’t solve all of their roster problems. They still need to get better on the margins. They must add a veteran hitter to supplement Ballesteros and Alcántara, or to improve on Austin, who hasn’t played in the majors in seven years. More pitching is a must, too. The Brewers aren’t going away, and both the Reds and Pirates are lurking in the division. The Cubs need to prepare for that fight now.

View full article

[Victor Reichman]

Any talk about trading Shaw would eventually bring us to comparisons of the Lou Brock trade.

He is excellent defensively, best speed next to PCA, hit 10 HRs in 2nd half and will improve his contact rate.

[Jason Ross]

21 minutes ago, Victor Reichman said:

Any talk about trading Shaw would eventually bring us to comparisons of the Lou Brock trade.

He is excellent defensively, best speed next to PCA, hit 10 HRs in 2nd half and will improve his contact rate.

The "Lou Brock" trade thing is the most played out Cubs comparison of all time. Listen, Shaw is a fine player, but we have to stop equating any trade to the lopsided trade of "HoF player for scraps". We heard this nonsense last offseason with Cam Smith (who was by any metric bad last year). 

Matt Shaw had a fine rookie year. Defensively, according to DRS, a great year, according to OAA, far less impressive one. Offensively he had a good second half, and overall was, fine. But there's plenty of markers with batted ball that suggest he's probably got some red flags still. 

This also ignores the team isn't giving him away. Trading him will bring back equal compensation as viewed by the Cubs. So if they trade for, say, Peyton Tolle is a great prospect. And would be on par with that of Matt Shaw. If the Cubs traded for Tolle, then the "Lou Brock" trade doesn't make any sense.

Let's be nuanced. Let's realize Lou Brock happened in 1964: over 60 years ago. The reason people keep coming back to "Lou Brock" is because in those 60 years there hasn't been another trade like that. That's important. 

The Cubs can trade young players and be just fine. Remember how trading Gleyber Torres was like Lou Brock? How about Eloy Jimenez? Jorge Soler? I've read the same argument 10x in a decade. If the Cubs trade Shaw, it almost assuredly won't be Lou Brock. More likely, it'll be at worst Eloy Jimenez.

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The "Lou Brock" trade thing is the most played out Cubs comparison of all time. Listen, Shaw is a fine player, but we have to stop equating any trade to the lopsided trade of "HoF player for scraps". We heard this nonsense last offseason with Cam Smith (who was by any metric bad last year). 

Matt Shaw had a fine rookie year. Defensively, according to DRS, a great year, according to OAA, far less impressive one. Offensively he had a good second half, and overall was, fine. But there's plenty of markers with batted ball that suggest he's probably got some red flags still. 

This also ignores the team isn't giving him away. Trading him will bring back equal compensation as viewed by the Cubs. So if they trade for, say, Peyton Tolle is a great prospect. And would be on par with that of Matt Shaw. If the Cubs traded for Tolle, then the "Lou Brock" trade doesn't make any sense.

Let's be nuanced. Let's realize Lou Brock happened in 1964: over 60 years ago. The reason people keep coming back to "Lou Brock" is because in those 60 years there hasn't been another trade like that. That's important. 

The Cubs can trade young players and be just fine. Remember how trading Gleyber Torres was like Lou Brock? How about Eloy Jimenez? Jorge Soler? I've read the same argument 10x in a decade. If the Cubs trade Shaw, it almost assuredly won't be Lou Brock. More likely, it'll be at worst Eloy Jimenez.

Yep, as long as they trade him for equal value I have no issue trading him. As you said, Tolle, would work fine. Then trade for or sign a utility IF. Not sure who exactly. But not that big a deal.