Jason Ross

His posting window ends today. If he does not sign, he would return to the KBO. He could become a free agent next year with no posting necessary.

Neither Brujan or Workman are obstacles. Both are incredibly replaceable and DFA-worthy (or in Workman's case, returnable). The Cubs dont and wouldn't need a multi-player trade to upgrade or decide to move on from either. Sign Moncada, Solano, Canha? There goes one of them. Easily.

It'd be weird if articles were optimistic on Tucker. Tucker is going to be a tough sign - he's a very good player, who's never played in Chicago and the Cubs dont generally give out 7+ year deals. That doesn't mean it won't happen, but the odds are against it. The odds were against them trading for him, as well. Much of it is a self fulfilling prophecy though. He's going to sign a contract that's among the 5 or 10 largest so there's really no precedenct for almost any team here. I think the Cubs will engage him earnestly, however. And while it's hard to be *optimistic* about it, I feel there's a real chance. Secondly, I think its far more likely a trade happens for a SP. They didn't make a move for Luzardo but they were in heavily on him. It's unlikely they just give up there. But there's options so let's wait and see. There's plenty of time. This is an incomplete roster. People got worried when they didn't even bother engaging with Soto but they went and got Tucker. I wouldn't be worried that the team just said "well Luzardo or bust!" at SP. They'll have another. I feel pretty confident about that. As have Mooney and Sharma, the most connected of the bunch.

I'm not going on anything other than people who have reported what the Cubs can spend. That's not a thought or an assumption - that's real reporting from people who have real connections to the team. Nothing should have changed that math. The debt structure wasn't some new wrinkle or anything. So it doesn't make sense to doom boner and worry about some random idea that all of a sudden the math has changed because they signed Caleb Thielbar. Instead, it's probably the best to just...not even worry about their spending. They will probably still bring in those players, and spend around $30m or so more.

Well, what reason would Jed Hoyer have to not spend? That'...doesn't make sense haha. I mean I don't expect them to be a "massive" spender, but they're probably going to bring in: At least 1 SP At least 1 more BP guy 1 or 2 bench players (a 3b and a RHH 1b/OF) That's going to cost $30-$40m probably. So they won't sign a Bregman. But there's probably 3-5 more players coming in. So you can classify that as "massive" or not, but that's probably a baseline expectation.

The Cubs have been reported, over and over again, to be able to spend up to around $8-$10m under the LT. I think it's unlikely that any of that is what's going on - and more likely that the Cubs have other players they would rather spend the Bellinger money on.

Meh. He's okay, if you can bounce him back some. At age 37, there's no guarantee that will occur, however. Feels like a pretty low-ceiling signing and without a ton of upside. Not entirely hating on it, but with the options available, this one isn't much of a needle mover. Hopefully they bring in a far stronger option in the pen in a bit as well.

It actually very well could be the correct figures however. Players very regularly take the best deal. These leaks are likely not *lies*. At this point, Burnes nor any team has a reason to just outright make horsefeathers up. What they have the reason to do is skew the truth. Toronto, and Canada has very high tax rates. Arizona, conversely, much, much lower. So Corban Burnes gets the Arizona fans on his side by leaking the $240m offer - it sounds like he's turned down money. Toronto leaks the $240m offer because it makes a compelling "we tried" argument - he turned down more money. In reality, with taxes, he probably didn't turn down much at all, especially if one deal had an opt out (Arizona had an opt out) or if one was less years (we haven't really heard length of the other offers). In the end, everyone wins the media game - Burnes and Toronto.

Out of options. Was once a very highly regarded prospect but has been terrible in limited MLB action. Bounced around a bit from Tampa, to Miami and now with us. Wouldn't be surprised to see him DFA'd at some point and tried to be snuck down to Triple-A.

It won't be anything the player push for, however, as they know the owners won't open the books. I do expect owners to push for it. But because they know it's a cost saving measure on their end.

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.