DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Bleacher Bums Forum
*****************************************************
#Post#: 504087--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘25
By: craig Date: December 12, 2024, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's been accurately noted that the Cubs have not signed any of
the big, long, mega-total contracts. I think that reflects a
couple of things.
1. Cubs D+D under Theo was awful, and didn't produce players
worthy. Yes, some posters wanted Cubs to give mega-deals to
Baez, Bryant, and maybe Arrieta or Contreras or Rizzo or
Schwarber. But in hindsight, it appears Cubs were not wrong in
hesitating to give those guys true superstar megadeals.
-Some of the big-deal extensions, particularly with smaller
markets, involve stars that they drafted. Keeping a guy that
you've got, can be different from winning a guy that you don't
have on the open market.
-Bobby Witt was drafted by KC, and got big bargain deal way
before he hit the market. Plus, his agent is not Scott Boras.
-It might be nice if the Cubs D+D's a guy who became a big
enough star to be worthy of a megadeal before he hit the open
market! Or perhaps acquired one in trade pre-market.
2. For several winters, Hoyer didn't think the situation was
right for chasing a mega-stud on the open market. I don't
disagree, for any of December 2020, 21, or 22. But that
situation is changing.
3. Open-market FA's are free. They don't often prefer a team
that hasn't won a playoff game since 2017, and hasn't won 84
games since 2019. If the Cubs start winning, that might change?
#Post#: 504089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘25
By: guest424 Date: December 12, 2024, 2:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Damn I don't like trading off 3 or 4 pieces for 1 year of Kyle
Tucker just to win the 2nd Wild Card.
#Post#: 504090--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘25
By: Fanzone Date: December 12, 2024, 2:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Craig: I think there's third, middle scenario: find out what
financial terms would be acceptable to Tucker and leave it for a
couple of months (including a starring role at the Convention to
be fawned over by adoring fans) to finalize the deal after he is
satisfied with the intangible things you mention. If the
numbers are acceptable, it's doubtful that something else would
override it, given the Cubs' reputation for treating their
players very well. .
#Post#: 504091--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘25
By: craig Date: December 12, 2024, 2:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree on that, Fanzone. Having something kinda sorta shaken
out, but giving him time to check out the intangibles, that
could make sense.
#Post#: 504092--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘25
By: craig Date: December 12, 2024, 2:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=DUSTY link=topic=647.msg504089#msg504089
date=1734034072]
Damn I don't like trading off 3 or 4 pieces for 1 year of Kyle
Tucker just to win the 2nd Wild Card.[/quote]
Agree on that, too, Dusty. Unless they think an extension is
realistic, it makes no sense.
But there are also pieces and there are pieces. Kinda depends a
lot on how much we care about the pieces, if anything was to
happen.
#Post#: 504093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘25
By: Fanzone Date: December 12, 2024, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Craig:
Regarding age 35. The Cubs' approach values shorter duration
over annual salary; they are willing to pay a higher annual
price to avoid longer commitments. So let's say they offered
close to Seager's total ($325 million) over a shorter
period--$40 million a year. Would Tucker turn that down and
take the chance that he could get a larger and much longer
contract next winter--maybe. Or maybe the Cubs would go to age
36-37?
There is another possible consideration here. The NHL used to
have these types of seemingly endless contracts that allowed
teams--most notably the Black Hawks--to circumvent the hard
salary caps. They eventually got rid of these contracts in a
collective bargaining agreement. That agreement not only
limited contracts to a maximum of 8 years, but provided for
retroactive recapture penalties on existing contracts in certain
situations. (I think Duncan Keith was one recapture case.) It
wouldn't surprise me if this was a big subject for MLB (along
with deferrals) after 2026.
#Post#: 504094--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘25
By: JR Date: December 12, 2024, 3:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't hold Hoyer in the highest esteem, but I have to figure
we wouldn't be discussing trading long term assets for one year
of Tucker without some commitment that we're going to make a
full effort to re-sign him. He's thankfully not a Boras guy, so
there's a non-zero chance he would sign if we made him a fair
offer during the season. The advantage of trading for him early
is that we have a full year to try to hammer something out, and
hopefully ties would go to us even if he reaches free agency.
#Post#: 504095--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘25
By: craig Date: December 12, 2024, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=JR link=topic=647.msg504094#msg504094
date=1734037212]I don't hold Hoyer in the highest esteem, but I
have to figure we wouldn't be discussing trading long term
assets for one year of Tucker without some commitment that we're
going to make a full effort to re-sign him. He's thankfully not
a Boras guy, so there's a non-zero chance he would sign if we
made him a fair offer during the season. The advantage of
trading for him early is that we have a full year to try to
hammer something out, and hopefully ties would go to us even if
he reaches free agency. [/quote]
Exactly. Makes no sense to pay the trade price unless you're
going to make a serious attempt to extend.
#Post#: 504096--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘25
By: Deeg Date: December 12, 2024, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=craig link=topic=647.msg504095#msg504095
date=1734039819]
Exactly. Makes no sense to pay the trade price unless you're
going to make a serious attempt to extend.
[/quote]
And everything Hoyer does makes sense?
I think we need to be realistic. This would be a contract that
far exceeds anything the Cubs have ever given out, and certainly
anything that Hoyer has even contemplated. He's expressed his
belief in the idea of winning without stars. I don't disagree
that we'd "try" but in practical terms it's extremely unlikely
we'd be serious players to get a deal done. Any trade for Tucker
should be evaluated in that context.
#Post#: 504097--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in ‘25
By: Ron Date: December 12, 2024, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Deeg link=topic=647.msg504096#msg504096
date=1734040384]
He's expressed his belief in the idea of winning without stars.
[/quote]
I don't recall this. I don't suppose you can provide an example?
It's an honest question - not saying it isn't true. There are
lots of things I don't recall or missed entirely. Maybe this is
one of those.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page