Jump to content
Can the Cubs keep racking up wins on the Mets? Join our game thread! ×
North Side Baseball

Rcal10

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,008

  • 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

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Rcal10

  1. Rcal10
    Would he have cost that much had the Cubs not released him. I know it is hindsight and am not ripping Jed for not keeping him. I am just saying how things played out he would have been a good fit now.
  2. Rcal10
    Good point. Right about now I wish they would have kept Tauchman. He would have been a nice lefty bench bat.
  3. Rcal10
    At one point I agreed with this comment. But after seeing the other contracts I am not so sure the Cubs didn’t put together a good faith contract that was better, o at least on par, than all of them until Boston changed theirs at the last minute. Tigers were said to be at $171M for 6 years. But they had deferrals. So not sure what that annual would be. But it wouldn’t have been what the Cubs AAV would have been. Also not sure if their opt out options. Astros held firm at 6/$156. That is the lowest annual. The Cubs at 4/$115 is the highest annual as well as a contract without referrals. I do think until the Red Sox upped their deal the cubs could have gotten him and I do not believe they offered a deal they knew he would refuse. What does surprise me about the Cubs offer is no opt out after year one. Has he signed that deal the Cubs would undoubtedly be over the LT in ‘26. Which is something most of us are not sure they will do. Also, I doubt they would have any chance at a Tucker extension had Bregman signed.
  4. Rcal10
    I would agree with this, but they could use a left handed bat off the bench. Problem is Canario is out of options. I don’t see them just letting him go. So maybe there is another trade in store. Maybe Canario for a guy not on the 40 man and Workman makes the team. Maybe Canario is added to Cassie and either Wicks or Assad (preferably Assad) and they get Cease😬. Workman makes the team.
  5. Rcal10
    I don’t think taking Suarez and his contract means the Cubs have to add to the deal.
  6. Rcal10
    I agree that it can’t hurt. And also, with Bregman they didn’t offer an opt out in year one. Which means they were going to pay him more than $30M in ‘26. That is the biggest question mark in a Tucker deal. Would they go over in ‘26 for Tucker. If they would for Bregman I have to think they would for Tucker. And before Boston came in last minute with their offer there was a chance he would have signed here. I sure some will suggest the Cubs only made an offer they knew he would refuse. But after reading more about other offers, I am not sure he wouldn’t have come to Chicago had Boston not stepped their offer up. Cubs AAV was better than the Astros and the Tigers.
  7. Rcal10
    Agreed, Bregman wasn’t the perfect fit. And probably not the perfect example of Tom needing to spend. But I am glad he is taking some heat. A few guys have written about the Cubs ownership and their failure to act like a large market. And they should be ridiculed for it. He is playing the fan base for fools. Fine if they don’t spend like the Dodgers or the NY teams but they should be a top 5 every year. And the LT line shouldn’t be the payroll cap.
  8. Rcal10
    Yes, the team gets to lower its CBT number and the player/agent gets to inflate his contract beyond what it really is present day. That is a wash. I just don’t see deferring money 10 years out so that you can live in a state better on income tax as something players would have move the needle on a deal. Especially players who have already earned hundreds of mililions of dollars. Once careers are over I can’t imagine someone saying they have to live in Texas or Florida, etc strictly so they don’t have to pay tax on a deferred yearly income of $2M. I have to believe a player will live where they are most comfortable with their family regardless of state taxes. I think choosing to defer money for that reason is way overblown.
  9. Rcal10
    Yes, lowering the CBT number is the advantage for the owners. I think it is a bigger owner advantage than a player advantage. Do you really think Bregman getting $2M a year for 10 years AFTER he makes hundreds of millions of dollars in his career, makes that big a difference to him if he has to pay 5% taxes on that $2M yearly? Even if the state tax is 10%. Do you rally think saving $200,000 on state tax, years after he retires after earning $300M in his career is the difference maker? If state tax was such a big deal why doesn’t anyone sign in California? Why not Texas from the start. Do you really believe all these players are going to move to states without a state income tax to save a few hundred thousand dollars a year after then already made $300M plus? I don’t. The deferred money is used as an owners tool, not a players tool, IMO. Lowering hr CBT is a huge advantage for owners. And it also allows players and agents to inflate the contract value.
  10. Rcal10
    I think he ends up with 250-300 PA Between maybe 10 off days for every outfielder/DH and filling in for Busch against tougher lefties and maybe 7-10 games at 3rd he could be in the lineup 3 days a week. I agree if there is an injury that takes someone out and puts them on the IL, most likely a minor league guy will fill that spot. But even so, there is going to be enough opportunities for Turner to step to the plate 250-300 times IMO.
  11. Rcal10
    I aimed higher😬 (Cease) But I agree, adding Robertson would round out a good off season.
  12. Rcal10
    He isn’t someone to get overly excited about. But who would be as a bench bat. I think he is about the best they could have gotten.
  13. Rcal10
    Nice bench move. Now just get Peller to blink and it turns into a very good (“A” grade)off season.
  14. Rcal10
    Cubs bench was terrible last year. If they can sign someone who puts up numbers better than league average for a bench bat, for not a lot of money, how is this not a good idea? Not every move has to be for a starter. We are talking about adding one guy at less than $5M to fill in for Busch occasionally against a rough lefty. Maybe also DH once in a while if Tucker moves to center to give PCA a day off. No, he isn’t going to be counted in as a key piece to the team, but it would be nice to have one above average bat in the bench.
  15. Rcal10
    I don’t know how they get there. I am sure there will be winning streaks and losing steaks but I can see 85 as a realistic number. Personally I have them at 86-87, but basically it is the same. With what both of us think, they can win 80-90 games and no one should be shocked. Things fall right they make 90. Things go poorly they are at 80. I would like to see a decent bat added and maybe another pen arm and they cut Merryweather. Might bring that win total up another game. And if they are contending at the TDL maybe adding a pitcher adds another win. They had a decent off season and should be a slight favorite in the division. But they should have done more.
  16. Rcal10
    I’ve already given up hope for Cease, so doesn’t matter to me what happens there. But I really hope the Cubs at least add either Turner or Canha and either Robertson, Chafin or Finnegan this week. I don’t see them doing much else, and honestly not even sure they do this.
  17. Rcal10
    I’m done discussing this with you any longer, here. It is getting boring. If you want to revisit this conversation in private when Tucker actually becomes a free agent I would be happy to do so. I would even be willing to put my money on his next contract having deferred money. So you just let me know if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
  18. Rcal10
    So 88 is your guess and people who are at 90 are insane? So are people at 86 insane too? I mean that is also only 2 away from your guess. PECOTA has them at 91. I agree they have to play well to get to 90. They probably also need to either add a starting pitcher or a young guy has to step up. Maybe both. But I would never suggest anyone who thought they could win 90 has to be insane if I had then at 86-87 wins with the current team. I would say any team projected to win 86 games can easily be an 81-91 win team.
  19. Rcal10
    It was originally when Jed seemed to suggest the team was not interested in deferrals. That comment has been lightened up a little. And I still do believe any contract Tucker does sign next year will have deferrals. So less of a concern because they Cubs may be willing to use them. Also, what is not being discussed here is the Cubs did not offer Bregman an opt out after year one. Which seems to mean they were good with him at $30M in ‘26 as well. That is actually a good sign that they may be willing to be over the LT next year knowing how much comes off the books in ‘27. Which could bode well for any Tucker contract. If they were willing to be over in ‘26 with Bregman I am sure it won’t be a problem with Tucker.
  20. Rcal10
    I understand your point and you are not wrong. But the fact is deferrals seem to be working now. They work for the team and the player. Bregman’s deal with the Cubs was right in line with this one. But he went to the Red Sox. Personally I think he did because it allows him a chance to have a better year in Boston than he wound in Wrigley. I think most big mega deals now will need to be a little creative. Seems to be the way they are going. The end result money will obviously matter, but if the Cubs line in the sand on contracts is deferrals it does have them playing at a disadvantage. The good thing is, I read that while they didn’t do it here it is not that much a rule as it is a preference. So maybe they will offer something like that if they need to, in the future.
  21. Rcal10
    I don’t know about the Bregman contract or if the Cubs could have offered more if they did some deferred money. But I would bet Tucker’s next contract will have deferred money in it. If the Cubs stick to what appears to be a refusal to defer money they will not have a chance at Tucker. It is a very good way to lower the AAV and still give the player a larger sum or money than a team not deferring money. It will be, once again, the Cubs trying to compete while they have a hand tied behind their back. I just do not understand this ownership and the way the insist on doing business and hurting their chances at getting top players.
  22. Rcal10
    They do not. But they still cost the owner money. And Ricketts doesn’t want to pay that money at any time. Which is why they will never got a top FA. And why they will lose Tucker. He isn’t just worried about the LT line. He is worried about every dollar he has to spend. Which adds to why he sucks.
  23. Rcal10
    I do think they will be close to 90 wins and maybe even win in the low 90’s. I also believe Shaw will be good. But they did not take full advantage of what they could have done to be dominate the division and be a real challenger to win the WS. If they were willing to go that high for Bregman I wish they would have had the same urgency with Burnes and signed him instead of Rea. IMO that would have made them a real threat to win a WS this year. And they could have done that and been under the LT line.
  24. Rcal10
    I get that. But I remember when this topic first came up and people were suggesting either Nightengale was wrong or Ricketts was wrong when he said he expects the number to end up close to the LT line. The explanation we got from someone here was both can be right. I think they can spend $20M and still have enough to make TDL deals on guys who might have a high salary. Now, that said, it absolutely doesn’t mean they will spend it. If they spend $20M now and added another $5M to $7M at the deadline both Nightengale and Ricketts could be correct. The problem is, I don’t see them spending that money. And really there isn’t much to spend it on if you believe Peller isn’t trading Cease. I think they may add a bat in a $5M or less contract and maybe a one arm, but I am not sure it is Robertson at $10M. Might end up Chafin at $5M. Tom still gets to pocket $20M - $25M. It is a win for Tom.
  25. Rcal10
    $220M in pure money spent is different than money when determine the LT. I think I saw that Nightengale could be right with that $220 figure and the Cubs would be at around $231 for LT purposes. It still absolutely sucks, but the Cubs might have closer to $20M to spend to get to Nob’s number and he still be right. I think in pure money they are just under $200M spent.
×
×
  • Create New...