Jason Ross

A cap and a floor only makes sense with revenue transparency. The MLB had all sorts of anti-trust laws protecting them from doing just that. Any cap/floor without that would be decidedly anti-player and why the MLBPA has refused it for years. It is better for them to have free spending teams like the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees than it is to force the As to spend a tiny bit more. Owners will not open the books. They have no reason to do so.

In defense to the Cubs, the idea that the Cubs will or won't sign a megadeal is coming from industry observers and less so from sources within the team, at least in this article. The Marquee thing is definitely something to monitor. I do believe I've seen a few places that the way the debt structure of the purchase is changing in favor of the Cubs (in terms of less payment) so that could either offset the Marquee stuff, or even make it more likely the Cubs can/will spend in the near future. If I were an industry observer, I'd say it's less likely that the Cubs throw down a megadeal, but that's because they haven't really done that at this point. So until they do it, the belief is always going to be that they are unlikely. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that regards.

I suspect Kyle Tucker, who's proven more than capable as a fielder, and who has moonlit at 1b prior, can likely field the position decently for 10-15 games if the Cubs are deadset on accommodating Suzuki in RF some more. As TT mentioned, he's played plenty of CF in the MiLB.

Sounds like both the Rays and Cleveland were after Ceccone. Weird profile but when two good pitching orgs are after a guy, you wonder if there's something there.

I know this is going to sound like "I don't like it so I'm ignoring it" but I just don't really understand Logenhagen's rankings, and I haven't really been a fan of them for a bit. Many times they fly in the face of what many others think. It's nice to have a contrasting view at times, so I don't wan to dismiss them...needless to say, I'm not sure I share the same view.

Wait for 12 years. There's going to be a massive influx of "Liam for Liam" trades. Source: I work in a middle school

Jared Jones feels very unlikely, but I'd love to get that kind of arm talent. Man, that would be fun.

And would make sense as to why the money mattered so much in the Bellinger trade.

Curious to see the pivot. I feel like it'll be Buehler, they seem to like him and he feels like the RH version of Luzardo - upside, but also injury history and a poor(ish) 2024 that gives you cause for concern.

No. As much as I believe the Cubs can afford both Tucker and Burnes, I believe that the team is far more likely to attempt to extend Tucker than they are to drop $200m on Burnes. I think the team knows that realistically they're not going to drop $65m on two players next year. And I suspect that their plan is Tucker.

All I hear is Ben Badler talked to you. Details be damned.

Over the last few seasons, the Cubs have managed to extend two homegrown talents, in Ian Happ and Nico Hoerner. However, those extensions were short. Could the Cubs and Pete Crow-Armstrong find a middle ground on a longer-term deal? Image courtesy of © Sam Navarro-Imagn Images Pete Crow-Armstrong may have had a bumpy start to his 2024 season, being thrust into the starting center field role (probably) before he was truly ready for it. Through his first 147 plate appearances, he had a paltry 47 wRC+, striking out over 27% of the time, walking about 4% of the time and generally looking lost at the plate. However, something seemed to click for the athletic fielder, as his next 263 plate appearances saw a massive improvement. His wRC+ in that span was 111, as he lowered his strikeout rate to under 22% and walked just under 6% of the time. This was largely brought about by a small mechanical change, but it also reflected growth in understanding how to handle MLB pitching. Despite the slow start, it's clear that Crow-Armstrong belongs in the big leagues. While his growth at the plate was great news for the future of the Cubs, the team got an added benefit recently. Crow-Armstrong did not accrue a full year of service time by the end of 2024, meaning the Cubs control him through the 2030 season, not just 2029, Before anyone thinks this is akin to the Kris Bryant situation; I truly do not believe the Cubs engaged in service time manipulation. Rather, this is (mostly) a happy happenstance for the Cubs. It also may give the Cubs an unforeseen advantage: it could give Crow-Armstrong a reason to sign an extension, with free agency now another year away. Trying to figure out what an extension looks like, it's best to look at recent examples. In the offseason leading up to the 2024 season, the Milwaukee Brewers and the Detroit Tigers signed long-term extensions with two of their best prospects, Jackson Chourio (8 years for $82 million, with three option years) and Colt Keith (6 years for $26.6 million, with two option years). Neither offers a perfect parallel, as both were signed before they took a single MLB plate appearance. It's also fair to point out that Chourio was considered a better prospect than Crow-Armstrong, and Keith a lower-tiered one. One thing we can take away from both is that the teams generally sign them for their pre-arbitration and arbitration years, while getting the chance to earn past that. Maybe an even better player to look at would be the Pirates' Ke'Bryan Hayes, who signed his extension after some initial MLB success. Hayes was worth nearly two wins in 2021, due mainly to his glove, in a partial season. Entering the spring, he and the Pirates agreed on an eight-year extension worth over $70 million, which also included an option. Using these three data points, I feel confident in saying that the Keith extension is well below anything we could assume would work here. Not only was Crow-Armstrong considered the better prospect, he's already been worth 2,7 fWAR. Ultimately, I think the Hayes contract is light as well; he was not nearly as productive as the Cubs' center fielder when he signed his contract, and was also three years his elder. So I think the Chourio contract is the best foundation, but it would need to be tweaked. Things get a little tricky on the length of the contract. As it stands, the athletic defender is slated to turn 23 years old at the beginning of the 2025 campaign, meaning he will hit free agency at the age of 28, which is a very good time to hit the market, something both sides will be aware of. Looking at the other contracts, none went over two guaranteed years beyond their expected free agency, meaning we can assume any contract would take Crow-Armstrong through his age-30 season at the maximum (or eight years total). With that said, I think both sides would probably agree upon seven guaranteed. This would give Crow-Armstrong the ability to hit the market at age 29, instead of 30. Beyond that, I would expect at least one (but probably two) club option(s) in which the Cubs would further buy out his free agency, coupled with a buyout option. I've settled on a contract that would look something like this: a seven-year base, worth around $71 million (a rough breakdown of $49 million guaranteed prior to his would-be free agency, with his first year being bought out at $22 million). It would include two club options of around $27 million and $30 million, respectively, and a $4-million buyout for either season. That represents a $7-million raise (once buyouts are added) on Chourio's first six years, which is modest, but represents that Crow-Armstrong has some success at a higher level. Why would the youngster consider something like this? First, the added year of service time the Cubs have may cause him to more closely consider an extension to start his paydays sooner, eschewing the risks of going year to year. Using the recently acquired Kyle Tucker as an example, Tucker, using his estimated arbitration numbers this year, will have made around $32-$34 million in his pre-free agency time. Crow-Armstrong would equal that or better (assuming inflation) with this deal. It would be selling out a little free agency upside, but it would set a nice floor for a player who's highly reliant on his legs. Conversely, the Cubs could settle in on a known amount of money they'd pay to their up-and-coming center fielder. You'd be banking a bit on the second-half bat, but if he comes in even around 100 wRC+, Crow-Armstrong has the look of a guy who would be a great player most seasons. With inflation, this could allow the Cubs to get a bit of a discount on his free-agent years by paying him more in his arbitration years. They would have a way out if, for some reason, he fell off, as well. This isn't meant to be a scientific approach—only napkin math, assumptions, and using quick data points for comparison—but I also don't think I'm that far off with my guesses. It's probably a long shot. Crow-Armstrong may want to hit the market at 28 and bet on himself. He also may not believe that the reasons to guarantee a generational payday (injury and the six years of service left between him and the marketplace) outweigh the benefits of that shiny possible free-agent motherlode. However, with the Cubs gaining an extra year of service and the team seemingly being high on their speedy outfielder, I would expect them to at least approach Crow-Armstrong this offseason and discuss the possibility. What do you think? Do you think the Cubs and Pete Crow-Armstrong could come together for a contract extension? Is my offer high? Low? Let us know in the comment section below! View full article

I misunderstood the comment. I barely stay one step ahead of the 7th graders.

Man, citations kill me haha.

Oooh! Missed that! You're so on top of this I should have realized you beat me to it. Absolutely the king, my guy.

If there's one thing that I can say looking at the offseason *so far* is that it's been fairly well mapped and planned. For example, we wondered a lot about why Bellinger was being considered moveable. Maybe it was to open up funds. Or to reinvest in the SP depth. But considering reports that the Astros already looked into Parades at the deadline (after we traded for him) and that we went hard after Tucker (Hoyer's comments between Soto signing and trading for Kyle paint the story of a defined plan for a while to end up with Tucker) seems as though the team had this planned from jump street. I'll extend that plan to now. Or at least...plans, as it may be a plan A, plan B and plan C type thing. Im fairly confident that the team is setting themselves up fairly well this offseason. And I quite like the look of things. Excited to see where they have this money marked for.

Maybe. Maybe not. I hate saying this, but teams will break agreements with these kids in the case of Sasaki. I also wonder if throwing the entire IFA budget at him isn't necessary. If money was a sticker, he would have waited. This is, and has always been, about contract-number-2. Much like how Ohtani is cool with taking $1m and deferring due to sponserships, and I don't mean to suggest Sasaki is as marketable, but Sasaki may have enough sponserships in his pocket that he wouldn't need the whole thing.

On one hand, it's a little silly the Cubs are so wound up constantly over money. On the other, it likely means the money was worth more to the Cubs than the difference in Warren to Poteet, so they likely are going to spend most all of it.

Just $5m

Big IFA flip

Jed Hoyer got dragged a lot for his comments on Soto about sitting him out and making a choice about it. But these comments precluded those comments: Today Hoyer talked about the city of Chicago selling itself as well. I feel very confident that Hoyer traded for Tucker with the knowledge of what his market roughly was, and with an okay to offer him a contract in that market. I can't say how well it'll go, but I do think the Cubs sound very earnest on working to keep him.

I don't think this is unexpected - this is what you say. But it's nice to at least hear it, regardless. Just a little bit.

A really important quote from Jed Hoyer that I think has been painfully underreported as been this: This quote comes right before his quote about not going after Soto. And I think it was said on purpose. It says to me that the Cubs are serious about a Tucker extension. This feels like Hoyer giving everyone a preview that they'll make a real offer to him but it'll take a bit on both sides. I'm hoping it works out. Kyle Tucker should be in Chicago for a while.

Just guessing, but it might be because RHH who hit the ball in the air would presumably be hitting more pullside HR's (thus taking the defense out of it) but as LHP's leave the ball out, hitters going the other way and hitting it in play would require stronger RF defense?