Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Rcal10

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,642

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

 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 Rcal10

  1. Rcal10
    Would the money they lose be next year? I mean conceivably they would have already spend this years money by now. Doesn’t really matter, I doubt they get Bregman.
  2. Rcal10
    It’s a dangerous game to play. There are a few other teams involved in the waiting too. So suppose the Dodgers make a deal with another one of those other teams. Now then Jays and the Padres have funds to spend. They can poach a Cubs prospect who is probably already not very happy with the Cubs for making him wait. And even if he is ok waiting, maybe the other offer is better. Cubs don’t get Sasaki, a top prospect from the Dodgers for some IFA money and also don’t get all the IFA they are expecting to get. Obviously this is the worst case scenario, but it very well could happen. Especially if this isn’t done in the next day or two.
  3. Rcal10
    It could also be teams that are in the Sasaki sweepstakes need more IFA money. Maybe the Cubs have discussed Cease with the Padres. Could be a part of the trade would be giving them some IFA money. Same with Toronto. Don’t they want to shed salary. If they are getting Sasaki, might Berrios be available? Again, maybe IFA added to whatever the Cubs might have to trade gets the deal done. Maybe with the Dodgers wantIFA money traded for one of their young pitchers who won’t be in the rotation once Sasaki signs with them. So many things it can be. But one thing I do believe is this is very unusual and because of that there is something going on. Might not have anything develop, but teams are waiting for a reason.
  4. Rcal10
    I know they aren’t signing him. But TBH, I was surprised at how balanced his numbers actually were. I just assumed he was much better in Houston. As I said, IMO, they have a better chance of extending Tucker then they do trading for Bregman. And the extension, now, is not very likely either.
  5. Rcal10
    I am not upset with management not extending those guys. Yes, that did work out well. I think the bigger issue is they has starts in their peak, and they were still good thru 19’, and did not add to them. The added fringe players or “value players” always looking to save a buck rather than give the team another quality player. That is what bothers me about management. They has young stars and decided to nickel and dime the rest of the team.
  6. Rcal10
    I wouldn’t br opposed to Pivetta, but I wouldn’t want a 1 year deal while giving up the draft picks. If the Cubs considered him I would rather see something like the Tailon deal or even the Stroman deal with the Yankees. If they are going to lose picks and IFA money I want someone for 3 or more years.
  7. Rcal10
    Again, his career slugging is better on the road than at home. I am talking slugging now, not homers. He has a higher slug for his career on the road. Slightly higher average too. He is actually pretty even. Last year he played better at home. But in 23’ he was a lot better in the road. Overall even. You can cherry pick numbers all you want. His actual career numbers say otherwise. They aren’t getting him anyway. But he will be a good player for someone, just not the Cubs IMO.
  8. Rcal10
    I actually think there is a better chance at a Tucker extension that the Cubs signing either Bregman or Pivetta. For those who know how contracts are calculated for tax purposes how would something like this go: Tucker gets a 12 year deal starting now. Year 1 at $18M, year 2,3,4 $46M and years 5-12 at $33M. He gets an opt out after 4 years. That would be a total of $412M over 12 years. Average of $34.25 annual. Without discussing my actual numbers because I know some will say too low or too high, does this do the following: LT number for the Cubs for 12 yrs: $34.25 Tucker 4 years at $156 ($39M Annual) Allows him to opt out at 31. He would have to beat 8/$256 at that time. If he is a star he can do that. If it does all of this, what is the downside for the Cubs organization? Even if he leaves the Cubs wont be paying someone until he is 40. If he stays, he is being paid like a star and what he will get on the open market. The only downside I see is to ownership having to pay him $46M annual for years 2 thru 4. Or is this not how it works? I know they can also work with deferred money too, but that really gets over my pay grade. I am just asking about straight 12 year deal with an opt out. Does this work as I suggested or am I wrong.
  9. Rcal10
    Agreed, he isn’t coming here. I am also very surprised that his numbers are pretty similar on the road as they are at home. Without looking I would have agreed with you. But his slugging is actually better on the road for his career.
  10. Rcal10
    Except his career splits show he is equal/better on the road than at home. The park isn’t why he is good. He is just good.
  11. Rcal10
    That would be shocking. I doubt it happens. Probably Boras just grandstanding, but it is interesting.
  12. Rcal10
    Perfect. Trade for Cease and Suarez, extend Tucker and call it an off season. Bench would be weak, but strong rotation, pen and line up.
  13. Rcal10
    To further explain. Let’s say the Cubs are going to give Tucker a 1 year deal at $17M this year and then they do a contract later giving him 10/$400M. That would mean this year he only goes $17M against the LT. But if they did it all at once and announced an 11 year $417M contract this years salary would be almost $38M a year, and it would be the same every year after. So instead of counting as $17M towards the LT this year Tucker would count as $38M. Which would be why the Cubs can’t spend what we think they can. I just used 10 years and $40M a year to make it easy. Nit my guess. I also was not responding to Bertz, more to chibear because he asked why it matters.
  14. Rcal10
    This is my fear. But if this does happen that means Jed has orders to cut payroll. And, IMO that is on Ricketts. The only way this would be remotely ok is if they had to do this to sign Tucker to a 12 year deal. Still wouldn’t be great use of their money, but at least it would make more sense.
  15. Rcal10
    A am certain we will never hear of a handshake agreement in place the entire time. Not saying they didn’t have one. I am saying we will never hear”officially” hear that.
  16. Rcal10
    This would be fine. My issue is I am not sure he does this. But if he doesn’t that will be because of orders from ownership, not because he doesn’t want to spend the money. If they fall way below the LT and their payroll is $20M short of last year, my blame for it goes to TR. if Jed makes bad trades or signings but gets the payroll to within $7M to $10M of the LT line I blame him. IMO even with this stupid line of the LT, there is enough money to make the Cubs a comfortable favorite in the central. Add a pitcher to slot ahead of Tailon, add a back end reliever and at least one bench bat. It can, and should be done. Whether it is or not, will determine my view of Jed and ownership for this season.
  17. Rcal10
    Getting back to what happens next, BN wrote a piece where it sounds like they are saying they don’t expect the Cubs to add a rotation piece. If that is the case, what are they doing with this $35M. Pocketing it? They can’t get to that number adding a pen arm and a bench bat or two. If they are not going to add a starting pitcher there has better be some big news at the convention about a Tucker extension. Come on now. This could get ridiculous very quickly if this ownership cuts payroll $25M to $20M from last year.
  18. Rcal10
    I think it is hard to criticize Hoyer or ownership on this situation. Sasaki was a long shot, at best. But I do think they are fair game to criticize the off season as a whole if they don’t do much more. If they add a quality starting pitcher and a back end pen arm along with some bench help it can still be a good offseason. So now is the time for the FO to get to work. If they don’t spend the $35M they can, and still be well under the LT, ownership and the FO deserves all the criticism they receive. There is no way this should be the finished product. I still think they will make moves. But they still might have to wait until Sasaki picks his team.
  19. Rcal10
    Excuse for what? Sasaki chose another team.
  20. Rcal10
    So you are saying there is a chance…..
  21. Rcal10
    Well that sucks. Looks like he is going to the west coast.
  22. Rcal10
    That is a good point. So if they sign IFA we know they know.
  23. Rcal10
    I agree. I just hope he informs the Cubs before the 15th. Obviously I want him on the Cubs. But I don’t want him to leave them hanging and then not take them.
  24. Rcal10
    Ok, maybe suggesting you were dreaming to think the Cubs will sign Flaherty was wrong. I do apologize for that. But, honesty I have no interest in Flaherty In a long term deal or a short team deal similar to Montgomery’s. But,my stance on the market has not been inaccurate. The market changes. He did want a 5 year deal originally. Just about 10 days ago he said he would consider a shorter deal. Like you said, the market went cold. With a shorter deal MOST LIKELY comes with a higher annual. No thank you. I happen to think he can get a much better.
  25. Rcal10
    This is not true as a response to my post. I was talking about losing out on the guys they have a handshake agreement with to sign with the Cubs in the 15th. The IFA that expect to sign. If Sasaki doesn’t eliminate the Cubs by then they will have to ask those guys to wait. They may not want to and the Cubs could lose them. That has nothing to do with being cheap.
×
×
  • Create New...