Jason Ross

The rosy version of this is that the two sides are engaged in a deep contract negotiation and just decided to file while they work through it. The negative version of this is that the Cubs are nickel and diming their new acquisition over a few million.

This is such small market mentality. The Chicago Cubs should, every year, run a salary next to, if not a bit above the LT. The LT is something that is getting larger each year. Now, there's some CBT stuff that's going to go down shortly again, but I think it's probably safe to assume that the LT ain't going backwards. Add in inflation, and we have story, after story, after story where within 2-3 years many of these mega deals are all of a sudden not that big. For example, remember when people were surprised about Corey Seager coming in above market projections? He currently sits 21st in baseball, It's taken two years for six contracts to sign above him, and will likely continue to move down the pecking order. By next year alone he could be outside of the top-25. Bryce Harper was another story - he's been almost a bargain when you see where he currently sits in AAV (outside of the top-30 already) What it mans is as time goes, the contract, even if it feels big now, will become a smaller and smaller fraction to the LT and compared to his peers. The point I'm making is this: Kyle Tucker doesn't have to be a 5+ win player every year with the further increase in contracts, the adding to the LT.... We also know that contracts have surplus value up front (at $40m, you'd be paying him for under five wins - wins are going around $9m+ on the market). So you pay more later, but inflation and the LT helps balance that loss out, as well. Lastly, Tucker has a pretty great skillset. He's got a great approach (a skill that ages well) and is not overly reliant on his athleticism. He's capable of moving off RF down the road, and could play 1b as he ages (and his bat will likely play okay). Is there risk? Sure. There's risk. There's literally risk getting in your car every day, there's risk getting out of bed, there's going to be risk signing someone to a 10-12 year deal. However, the risk here is the right risk. Just sign Kyle Tucker. Not only can the Cubs afford it, he's a really good player and a good bet to age well. There shouldn't be much of a debate here. If there is, you'll literally never sign a large contract. Ever. There is no such thing as a perfect player or a perfect contract. But Kyle Tucker is about as safe of a long term deal as you're going to find.

Yep. There's a handful of guys who will make the roster barring health and probably 2-4 spots that can go to the older, veteran pitch-model guys or could easily be cast off (low cost of acquisition, no long term commitment) for younger players forcing their way in.

Honestly? I think he's going to struggle a bit. And I think there's a bit of a road ahead of him in terms of developing as a pitcher in the Western game ahead of him. He does some things really well - namely, he throws super hard. But he's a very low spin (Lance Brodzowski has him in the bottom 10% of spin in the MLB) even with the smaller, tackier NPB ball and his fastball shape and location are pretty "meh". I think you've got to look at him as a BORP (like, say a #4) in 2025 who's going to struggle to give you more than 120-130 IP but by the end, could be a really damn good pitcher if he takes to changes immediately. Now that said, you 100% go hard after him regardless. You're not really signing Sasaki for 2025, you're signing him for 2026, 2027, 2028...and I think there's a lot of raw stuff there that a good pitching developmental team is going to get a TORP out of him. Remember, he throws really hard and with some tweaks to the shape, some repertoire tweaks there's a Logan Gilbert guy there (Gilbert is another guy who throws really hard but has super low spin rates). That feels negative, it's not meant to be, I just think he's a lot more raw than a lot of people are giving him credit for. Despite that, this is a "push all of your chips in" situation - especially considering the amount of chips you're playing with is basically "free". But I do think people are especially overrating how good Sasaki is going to be immediately. He's not a ready-made product like Yamamoto nor do the tweak seem as minor as Imanaga (basically, it was "hey dude, throw your amazing fastball up more!"). It is also why I think the Cubs will sign another SP no matter what. Get a Hoffman/Flahrety/Lopez to fill the current top-3 spot and then let Sasaki grow into it.

Two things: 1. 78 games isn't nothing, either. It's a large enough sample that all of the data is stable and not random. So it's small, but relevant. 2. Using projections here is a self-filling prophecy of some sorts. 2024 saw a shift in Tucker, as he hit for more power. But projections take data from his last few seasons, and his 78 games would thus be outweighed in those projections. If those changes stick, projections wont see it. So yes, his *projections* are in line with his career, but they always will be. If a change was made, that's not where you'd look to begin with. Ultimately you're underselling just how good Tucker is regardless. 5 win players don't grow on trees. There's no salary restrictions that should cause the Cubs to punt a potential extension here. Sign Tucker.

His market is quickly disappearing. Most teams who were after the biggest SPs have signed them already. The Yankees got Fried, LAD did the Snell thing, Baltimore is obsessed with acquiring #4 SPs... There's a decent chance he's going to come in decently under what people thought he'd get.

Could open up Flaherty as an option. His market is getting cloudy.

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