Jump to content
North Side Baseball
  • Cubs News & Analysis

    Which of These Cody Bellinger Deals Would You Do?


    Matthew Trueblood

    Say you're Jed Hoyer. For the next few minutes, make yourself Jed Hoyer, and pretend you're negotiating with Scott Boras. It's time to make a deal (or not) to bring back the best player on the 2023 Cubs.

    Image courtesy of © David Banks-USA TODAY Sports

    Cubs Video

    "Hi, Jed, it's Scott," Scott says, because apparently it's 1997 and you don't have his number saved on a digital screen that lights up before you answer the phone. "Cody Bellinger is really excited about the possibility of coming back to Chicago, but we have some other interest, some other offers, and I want to give you options based on the other deals out there."

    Look, are those other interested teams and juicy offers real? Who knows? If you did--if anyone did--Boras wouldn't be worth half a billion dollars just on the commissions he's raked in by pushing dozens of guys' net worth well into nine figures, in their own right. What Boras knows is what you, Jed Hoyer, know: the clock is ticking, The big names are coming off the board. The 2024 Cubs aren't any good right now, and while there are many ways you could bolster the roster between now and Opening Day, many of those avenues run right through Boras. You can't dodge him or defer this showdown any longer. You ask him what he's thinking.

    "Well, like I said, Cody's interested in being a Cub for years to come, so we want to discuss a couple of different structures that would make him pass up what the Mari---sorry, coughed there, what some other people we've talked to have offered," Boras says. Yeah, right. The Mariners aren't offering Bellinger what Boras wants for him. Ugh. Or are they? See, this is why he wins. God, why can't Octagon peel someone away from this guy now and then? You love the Octagon guys. They're easy.

    "We could make Cody a Cub for seven years for $196 million," Boras continues. "But I'm sympathetic to your position around the luxury tax, and I want to help you out there. We really feel excited about a potential structure where Cody and the Cubs make a long-term commitment to each other, for $220 million over 10 years."

    Oh. Oh, ok. See, that's not so bad. Look, you're not going to do either of those deals. But you knew this was going to be the range, when he eventually got real with you about numbers. Two years ago, he got Kris Bryant $182 million over seven years. That was from the Rockies, who massively outbid the rest of the league, and it's gone horrifically since then, but those aren't the kinds of facts you or anyone else can get Boras to acknowledge. He simply worms out of that trap, every time. 

    No, what Boras is going to say is that the market has only inflated a bit since the Bryant deal, and that Bellinger is younger and more athletic than Bryant was back then. He's going to say Bellinger's injuries were more acute and less likely to affect his future than Bryant's were. He's only half-right, but he's going to turn that into 55 percent and win the staredown if you force one, so you have to meet him halfway. That seven-year, $182-million mark is his absolute floor for Bellinger, and he's very confident that he's going to come in higher than that.

    You like seven-year deals, so right away, that's where you gravitate. You're no A.J. Preller. Actually, Merrill got you an Obvious Shirt for Christmas that literally says, "NOT A.J. PRELLER," because you tell her so often what a fiend that guy is. You're not some desperate overbidder, trying to keep the competitive-balance tax number on a deal down so that you can sign another deal just like this next winter. Scott would love that, wouldn't he? He expects you to fork over this much to his clients every offseason. He doesn't think you know it, but he keeps making back-channel overtures to the Ricketts family, because he knows they're the ones who will crack and give in to him.

    On the other hand, this alternative structure doesn't just save you a couple million dollars. Depending on how Scott is willing to structure it, you could realize a full $6 million in annual average value savings, which means more actual dollars to spend as well as more flexibility around the tax thresholds with which you expect to flirt in the next several seasons. Paying Bellinger $28 million per year, given the likelihood that he's confined to first base for you within a year or two and the somewhat tepid batted-ball data underlying his power production from 2023, makes you pretty uneasy. This is no Dansby Swanson situation, where modest offensive production is no great worry. Cranking that salary all the way down to $22 million annually would line him right up with Ian Happ. That's not superstar money. In fact, you're a little surprised Boras is even interested at that price. He usually wants to lengthen a deal like this only if he keeps the AAV essentially intact. You decide to confer with your top baseball people, plus Carter Hawkins, for appearances' sake, and get back to him.

    Big mistake. Huge. Two days later, you re-connect with Boras, and the predictable has happened.

    "Hey, Jed," Scott says half-apologetically. "Our situation did change a little bit, here. A giant offer just came in." (Who does this guy think he's talking to? Leave the pun work on the little stool at the Winter Meetings, man.) "Cody was awfully impressed by the pitch we heard yesterday, and we need to adjust some of the terms we discussed."

    You almost hang up on the spot. This series of phone calls could be texts. It's not like you hadn't been doing this dance for a month, anyway. You were set on trying to talk him down from $196 million and getting Bellinger locked in at $185 million over seven years, with an option for 2031 that would push the deal to $200 million and give Boras his vanity number. This, you can just tell, is going to completely bork that plan.

    "We'd still be open to putting Cody back in your lineup for a long time, but we need to start our discussions at $203 million. We can do that over seven years, or we can make it $231 million over 11."

    Yeah. Well, naturally. After all, he's got the Mariners and the Giants in the frame, and he'll let Jon Heyman and whoever else wants to jump into the mix keep the Blue Jays alive as a possibility. The Angels are a possibility. He'll find a mystery team if he needs one. These numbers are pretty much as low as they're going to go. While everyone else's asking prices inexorably (if incrementally) fall as the winter wears on, Boras manages to hold his steady. Who cares if the rumors of $250 million or $300 million were always just anchors to drag the public discussion (and, by the relentless, irrational current of these things, the non-public parameters of negotiations) in his direction? Now, after he's successfully killed some time and let the market narrow your options for him, he's managed to work him way pretty close to those figures, and you lack the leverage to pull him back under the magic number of $200 million.

    He's really inviting you to pull the trigger on that bigger deal, though, with the new terms. Now, the shorter version of the deal results in a $29-million AAV for Bellinger, and the longer one is only $21 million. You hate to give him the satisfaction, but it's hard to swallow that big an extra payout per year just to avoid those last few years. God, are you going to have to confine the Preller t-shirt to around-the-house use?

    No. No, you've got your principles, and it's time to fight back a bit. Your leverage is thin, but it's not imaginary. You play your ace in the hole: Seven years, $189 million, but you'll offer Bellinger both a no-trade clause and a pair of opt-outs, after the second and fourth years of the contract. That would allow Bellinger to hit free agency again at 30 or 32, if he so chose. You're envisioning:

    • $21 million in 2024
    • $27 million in 2025
    • $31 million each in 2026-28
    • $27 million in 2029
    • $21 million in 2030

    That would mean passing up $141 million over five years if Bellinger opted out the first time, or $79 million over three years if he did so the second time. It's a lot of flexibility for him, and it really takes some of the fun out of this for you, but this structure would force him to think hard about walking away even if the next two years go well. Two years after that, he'd be a lot more incentivized to walk away, but by then, you figure that wouldn't be the worst thing. Plus, you could always circle back into the bidding if that happened. By then, you'd be in the habit of each other, right?

    Boras has read the text you sent with the rough terms, and he's got you on hold, but you're going to hear back soon. It's time to do your own pause-and-reflect. 

    Let's you and I step out of our Jed Hoyer skinsuits, now. Let's do some thinking of our very own. That bit of hacky semi-fiction laid bare the basics of the pas de deux going on between Hoyer and Boras right now. Boras really is going to demand at least $182 million over seven seasons from any team interested in Bellinger. His case for Bellinger being more desirable than Bryant is imperfect, but it's going to hold up.

    Maybe even that is too rich for you. On Saturday, Bruce Levine said on 670 The Score that he envisioned the Cubs offering Bellinger only five or six years, at anywhere from $27 million to $30 million per year. They can dream, anyway, and they can draw their line there if they want. Bellinger will just end up on the Giants, or the Mariners, or the Angels, or the Blue Jays, or somewhere even more unexpected. You can opt to disdain and ignore price tags in the range I described here. But they are real. So, let's run down the deals I proposed in this exercise.

    • 7 years, $196-203 million
    • 10 years, $220 million
    • 11 years, $231 million
    • 7 years, $182-189 million, but with multiple opt-outs

    Are any of those deals interesting to you? Would you trade the extra few years of money that could be bad, or even dead, in order to keep AAV down and give the Cubs greater flexibility during the first few years of a Bellinger deal? Or would you want to keep the term and the dollars committed to a minimum, even if it meant yielding some of the upside of Bellinger's remaining prime seasons back to the player and his agent? That's the most interesting discussion left around his free agency, so jump in and help us have it.

    Follow North Side Baseball For Chicago Cubs News & Analysis

    Recent Cubs Articles

    Recent Cubs Videos


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    squally1313

    Posted

    25 minutes ago, Stratos said:

    Those steamer projections suck imo.  Agree Happ is healthier.   But I think it's reasonable for Bellinger to put up around 115-120 wRC+

    You can make an argument for it. But the 108 wRC he's projected for is based on a .330 wOBA, which is one point off his .331 xwOBA last year. Happ's projections were regressed too.

    Transmogrified Tiger

    Posted

    Just now, We Got The Whole 9 said:

    Don't cave in to Boras. Eventually he will accept 6/150.

    This is the question for me.  If I can oversimplify in terms of total contract value:

     

    • 175+: Cody/Boras would likely accept, there doesn't appear to be any team particularly interested at this level
    • 130-175: Unclear if Cody/Boras would accept, they may prefer short term/opt-outs over this.  Unclear how many teams interested at this level, probably a few
    • 90-130: Cody/Boras may eventually accept on a short term/opt-out deal, likely a number of teams interested at this level

    Obviously there are shades of gray because you can have a larger guarantee that also has opt-outs, but I think that illustrates the tension.  No one wants to give Cody/Boras the top line number they want(or maybe close to it), and there's a lot of haggling on what they actually will accept once they start dipping below that line, since Cody/Boras may want to go well under it for a short term deal to be able to get the big top line number after another year.

    One thing that does work in the Cubs favor is they have maximum information on Cody, and Cody clearly loves playing in Chicago, so even in a shorter deal where we go from barely any aggressive suitors to many, they should still be in good position if they choose to do so.

    LBiittner

    Posted

    Painfully obvious, any projected BORAS contract forecast has to begin with a 2. Nuff said. 

    Transmogrified Tiger

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, LBiittner said:

    Painfully obvious, any projected BORAS contract forecast has to begin with a 2. Nuff said. 

    Maybe Boras can sweet talk Arte Moreno into overriding his GM or hold a seance with the ghost of Mike Ilitch or something, but demanding a total value that high isn't going to make an offer at that level manifest itself.  I'd say at this point given who the suitors are and how many have essentially shut themselves off from a contract of that size with other moves, I'd put heavy odds against Bellinger getting 200 million this offseason.  If he does it likely would come through some elaborate option/opt-out machinations.

    Bertz

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

    This is the question for me.  If I can oversimplify in terms of total contract value:

     

    • 175+: Cody/Boras would likely accept, there doesn't appear to be any team particularly interested at this level
    • 130-175: Unclear if Cody/Boras would accept, they may prefer short term/opt-outs over this.  Unclear how many teams interested at this level, probably a few
    • 90-130: Cody/Boras may eventually accept on a short term/opt-out deal, likely a number of teams interested at this level

    Obviously there are shades of gray because you can have a larger guarantee that also has opt-outs, but I think that illustrates the tension.  No one wants to give Cody/Boras the top line number they want(or maybe close to it), and there's a lot of haggling on what they actually will accept once they start dipping below that line, since Cody/Boras may want to go well under it for a short term deal to be able to get the big top line number after another year.

    One thing that does work in the Cubs favor is they have maximum information on Cody, and Cody clearly loves playing in Chicago, so even in a shorter deal where we go from barely any aggressive suitors to many, they should still be in good position if they choose to do so.

    This feels right.  I expect Jed is angling for the low end of door #2 or door #3, but it just takes one of the  Angels/Rockies/Nats to cave in and Boras to get what he wants.  I'll also say if Boras does agree to the third type of deal my confidence that Cody's Renaissance is for real will go up a little bit.

    LBiittner

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

      If he does it likely would come through some elaborate option/opt-out machinations.

    And Boras will consider it a win. And reap his %

    CubinNY

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, LBiittner said:

    And Boras will consider it a win. And reap his %

    Boras isn't the bad guy here. I don't get this with fans. 

    LBiittner

    Posted

    1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

    Boras isn't the bad guy here. I don't get this with fans. 

    I don't think he's a bad guy at all. He sets the parameters in the media. He says something along the lines : Belli will sign for 250m. And then gets no movement. He's perceived as being the beaver that built the dam . 

    Rob

    Posted

    I hate the billionaire owners. I like most of the players (or at least hate them less than the owners).

    If a player is ever in a position to take a bite out of one of the owners, I love that. And if Boras helps them do so, I'm a fan.

    • Like 1
    Joj

    Posted

    7 years, 200M.  Yeah, sure, that's fine.  Even though Bellinger's not really an elite hitter (everyone gets it), the Cubs don't have much leverage.  He's the best available option, by far, and the Cubs CERTAINLY DO have money to spend.

    I'm not losing any sleep when they eventually have to overpay by a few million or whatever.  After all, we've watched them underpay for too many years now.  And that's no joke.

    • Like 1



    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...