KCCub
-
Posts
1,082 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by KCCub
-
Yep. I'm not necessarily pro signing Bregman, just wanted to play devil's advocate against the bear case scenarios and show that, hey, signing Bregman could actually be pretty cool and end up good for us.
-
If ole Bob is correct, then all our convos are moot lol.
-
Yep. They can absolutely add the "fluff" to his contract to incentivize a likely one year opt-out if that's what they ultimately want. It seems like if Bregman happens, trading Nico for prospects is the likely path. I know many don't like that path, and I'm not sure I do either, but that is a path that can lead to Bregman's bat (This matters for playoffs more than anything when arguing Nico vs Bregman's value being a wash over a full season), Shaw playing 2b, and using prospects at the TDL to land that #1 or #2 playoff starter we need.
-
-
-
Red Sox could use a 2b. They do have Campbell though, who would be similar to Shaw. I just don’t understand why they won’t sign Bregman themselves instead of trying to make Arenado work.
-
Yankees keep coming to mind for me as well. As you said, Schmidt, Gil, etc.
-
I would need to see the contract language/opt outs before saying how likely it is either way. If it's heavily incentivized to persuade a year 1 opt out (front loaded or has a large buyout after year one, etc), he's likely opting out. We just don't know. Jed loves to get creative and push $$$ to the following year via buyouts. If it's a straightforward 4 year deal with non incentivized opt outs, yea I agree he's more likely to opt in.
-
Devil's advocate again - You sign Tucker first and then worry about dumping salary/talent. And again, Tucker actually has to sign with us, which the odds are not in our favor here. If our big 2026 conundrum is signing Tucker to a 12 year deal but then having to trade one of Suzuki/Hoerner/Taillon/etc to free up salary, absolutely sign me up. On Bregman, we talk about him like he's a dying dog. He put up 4.1 fWAR last season, which would have been what, second on the team? He's projected for 4 fWAR again. You have to put some faith in Jed and crew here that they have a plan, and a backup plan, for each one of these scenarios. If they think they can structure a deal with Bregman that incentivizes him to opt out after year 1, you have to think that's the likely outcome. (Bellinger was a completely different risk) The last part of your point is where my concern resides. How does signing Bregman impact our ability to land a TORP at the deadline. I'm in, and have always been in, the camp that a TORP needs to be priority one for a playoff push. With how Jed and crew talked all off-season about landing impact SP, I would think they have a plan for if they do sign Bregman, to still be able to add a guy you feel good about starting in the playoffs.
- 470 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- alex bregman
- matt shaw
- (and 1 more)
-
While I agree with all this, I'm going to play devil's advocate here. It really only becomes an issue if two things happen: 1. Bregman has a subpar year and doesn't opt out. (Bull case here is he puts up his 4.5 fWAR and goes to market again, $30m is freed plus a spot for Shaw has been opened.) 2. Tucker signs with us. (I believe no matter what the financial situation is going into next season, you put your best offer on the table for Tucker. If he signs it and Bregman is opted in, then you deal with the consequences and make a Bellinger like trade to move salary.)
-
It’s mainly a salary dump and will depend on if the Cardinals chip in any cash or not. He’s owed 3/$52m and projected for 3.1 fWAR (ZiPS) this season. The return won’t be a lot, but it won’t be nothing either
-
They've been shopping Yoshida. They desperately want to move Devers off of 3b. They've also weirdly floated Casas out there as a trade candidate for pitching as well. I also don't understand why they want Arenado so bad. I would rather just give Bregman the 6 years at his age than trading assets for 3 years of aging Arenado -
-
I'm just actually shocked with how this is playing out.
-
I think the silver lining is they've put together a good enough team that can get us to the TDL in a good spot as currently constructed (With the idea that they are still going to add to the margins with some of the remaining budget, Robertson, bench bat, etc). As much as I want a true TORP now, I can understand waiting until the deadline if the off-season demands are just to elevated for the guys who might be available - Cease/King. At least at the TDL you can get someone you know is healthy, and other, more appealing options might become available.
-
They're really expecting me to be in mid-season viewing form with the first 4 being 5am, 5am, 9pm, and 9pm. Prediction: A lot of coffee will be drank.
-
First 6 against Snell - Yamamoto - Burnes - Gallen - Kelly - Pfaaddt/Rodriguez are going to be fun (Or not).
-
The "fluff" that gets tacked onto these contracts for AAV manipulation makes the Boyd - Flaherty compare seem closer than it actually is. At the end of the day, the contracts are - Flaherty 1/$25m Boyd 2/$29m Flaherty next season is being paid as a top 10ish SP in actual $$$. Boyd is making a backend of the rotation salary. ZiPS DC has Flaherty at 2.3 fWAR and Boyd at 1.7 fWAR (In 40 less IP). Dollar for dollar spent, it's hard not to see why Boyd is likely to be the better ROI.
-
-
-
Solid deal on Stanek -
-
Cross Stanek off the list
-
Love the breakdown, thanks for putting in the work!
-
-
Playing 2b > Altuve to LF
