2019-20 Offseason Rumors/General Chit-Chat

[Cubswin11]

A little more foresight by ownership/Theo would've been nice, specifically before inking those Chatwood and Kimbrel deals. Like if this isn't just about Marquee being a flop, how was this not handled better before ending up with the plan of trading Bryant.

Exactly, the CBA has been in place for 3 years, the consequences of spending from that perspective are not a surprise. So either we have to believe that Theo was confident that the team would be so good that they'd be fine just taking an offseason to trim payroll(even as late as *this June* when he committed 37 million to Kimbrel), or ownership pulled the rug out from under them.

I strongly lean it was a kept in the dark/rug pulled out situation and/or business side horsefeathering up so bad with renovations and TV deal they didn’t or couldn’t keep money promises on future payrolls. I don’t believe he would’ve put himself in a spot to entirely sit out offseasons that included Manny, Bryce, Kershaw, Cole, Strasburg, Rendon, Arenado and some of these other clearly elite players.

[Regular Show]

I hate the Yankees and I hate teams that buy their way to a championship (which I know the Cubs didn't do).

No, that definitely was a huge part of what they did.

In the last 4 years the Cubs payroll was 12% over the Cards, 88% over the Brewers, 74% over the Reds, and 102% over the Pirates. We were the Yankees of the NL Central.

I'm okay with being the Yankees of the NL Central (we should be the Yankees of the NL Central).

I'm not okay with being the older version, high-spending Yankees of MLB.

[Deeg]

I hate the Yankees and I hate teams that buy their way to a championship (which I know the Cubs didn't do).

No, that definitely was a huge part of what they did.

In the last 4 years the Cubs payroll was 12% over the Cards, 88% over the Brewers, 74% over the Reds, and 102% over the Pirates. We were the Yankees of the NL Central.

Why is that the measuring bar?

[TomtheBombadil]

It might not be long before we see the Indians part with their franchise player, shortstop Francisco Lindor. The Indians have informed clubs that have pursued Lindor that they want their “best and final offers so they can make an assessment over the weekend,” Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic writes

Get it done, poopeaters!

[champaignchris]

A little more foresight by ownership/Theo would've been nice, specifically before inking those Chatwood and Kimbrel deals. Like if this isn't just about Marquee being a flop, how was this not handled better before ending up with the plan of trading Bryant.

Exactly, the CBA has been in place for 3 years, the consequences of spending from that perspective are not a surprise. So either we have to believe that Theo was confident that the team would be so good that they'd be fine just taking an offseason to trim payroll(even as late as *this June* when he committed 37 million to Kimbrel), or ownership pulled the rug out from under them.

I strongly lean it was a kept in the dark/rug pulled out situation and/or business side horsefeathering up so bad with renovations and TV deal they didn’t or couldn’t keep money promises on future payrolls. I don’t believe he would’ve put himself in a spot to entirely sit out offseasons that included Manny, Bryce, Kershaw, Cole, Strasburg, Rendon, Arenado and some of these other clearly elite players.

This seems like the most likely course of events. The only thing that makes me wonder about this possibility is that if ownership wasn’t being straight with Theo, there really wasn’t much reason for Theo to stick around after the 2018 season, when we presume the news came down that the purse strings were tightening.

He could have said, “I did what I came here to do,” had a great retirement ceremony, gotten a laurel and hearty handshake from the owner, and then within a year walked into pretty much any new project he could conceive of taking on. No one would have blinked at that.

[Backtobanks]

No, that definitely was a huge part of what they did.

In the last 4 years the Cubs payroll was 12% over the Cards, 88% over the Brewers, 74% over the Reds, and 102% over the Pirates. We were the Yankees of the NL Central.

Why is that the measuring bar?

We are a big market team in a division of mid-size market teams and outspend all of them by quite a bit every year. Fans complain when the Yankees or the Dodgers outspend their competition, but we've been doing it for quite awhile. Guys like Steinbrenner took his profits and put it into the team on the field while Wrigley used the Cubs as a tax write off.

[CubinNY]

In the last 4 years the Cubs payroll was 12% over the Cards, 88% over the Brewers, 74% over the Reds, and 102% over the Pirates. We were the Yankees of the NL Central.

Why is that the measuring bar?

We are a big market team in a division of mid-size market teams and outspend all of them by quite a bit every year. Fans complain when the Yankees or the Dodgers outspend their competition, but we've been doing it for quite awhile. Guys like Steinbrenner took his profits and put it into the team on the field while Wrigley used the Cubs as a tax write off.

In the last 4 years... What about the five years before that when they were intentionally sucking and filling Wrigley? They can go horsefeathers themselves. And also they should use their financial advantage like a cudgel, destroying the competition in their division because the competition gets extra picks and charity from the rest of the league that the Cubs don't get.

[Andy]

No, that definitely was a huge part of what they did.

In the last 4 years the Cubs payroll was 12% over the Cards, 88% over the Brewers, 74% over the Reds, and 102% over the Pirates. We were the Yankees of the NL Central.

I'm okay with being the Yankees of the NL Central (we should be the Yankees of the NL Central).

I'm not okay with being the older version, high-spending Yankees of MLB.

I am. Everyone in MLB is swimming in money, if the Cubs decided to swim in slightly less money and the rest of them didn't, that's their damn problem.

[jersey cubs fan]

Try telling a Pirates fan the Cubs didn't buy their way past them into the top of the NL Central and eventual World Series.

The Cubs huge payroll advantage provides tremendous leeway, not the least of which is the ability to brush off a bad contract that would absolutely sink a garbage team all by itself. The Cubs bought their WS title and they will have to buy their next one too. And they better get cracking or it's going to take several decades to get it done again.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

A little more foresight by ownership/Theo would've been nice, specifically before inking those Chatwood and Kimbrel deals. Like if this isn't just about Marquee being a flop, how was this not handled better before ending up with the plan of trading Bryant.

Exactly, the CBA has been in place for 3 years, the consequences of spending from that perspective are not a surprise. So either we have to believe that Theo was confident that the team would be so good that they'd be fine just taking an offseason to trim payroll(even as late as *this June* when he committed 37 million to Kimbrel), or ownership pulled the rug out from under them.

I think he significantly overestimated the market for some of his assets. He assumed teams would be showering him with high-profile prospects in offers for Bryant and has been resoundingly met with "meh."

[Transmogrified Tiger]

A little more foresight by ownership/Theo would've been nice, specifically before inking those Chatwood and Kimbrel deals. Like if this isn't just about Marquee being a flop, how was this not handled better before ending up with the plan of trading Bryant.

Exactly, the CBA has been in place for 3 years, the consequences of spending from that perspective are not a surprise. So either we have to believe that Theo was confident that the team would be so good that they'd be fine just taking an offseason to trim payroll(even as late as *this June* when he committed 37 million to Kimbrel), or ownership pulled the rug out from under them.

I think he significantly overestimated the market for some of his assets. He assumed teams would be showering him with high-profile prospects in offers for Bryant and has been resoundingly met with "meh."

There's just no way that he built the team with Plan A being trade Bryant for prospects(and Bryant is the only salary big enough to fix payroll ills). He committed 8 figures in 2020-21 to a reliever in June, combined with the rapidly approaching FA of the positional player core there's no way trading your best player to get under the tax was his first choice, because you know you're taking a step back when you do it even if they're showering him with prospect riches.

[SouthSideRyan]

I have no idea if any of this is accurate, but assuming it is, I found it pretty informative and pretty depressing on the motivations for the Cubs dropping payroll in 2020...though I guess the silver lining is that this article makes it seem like it would just be a one year dip.

https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/201 ... x-in-2020/

No, this still does not mean we should trade Kris Bryant.

The tl;dr is that going over the tax for the 2nd straight year is more like a ~25 million cost than a ~5 million cost, and doing so for a 3rd straight year is upwards of 50 million.

"Putting it another way: The system in place makes it much cheaper for the Cubs to have a $207 million payroll in 2020 and then a $250 million payroll in 2021 than to have a $209 million payroll in 2020 and then a $211 million payroll in 2021. It’s an absurd extension of the way these penalties are structured, but it’s true."

And then cut 35M from the 2022 payroll to get back under!!

[SouthSideRyan]

This is a difficult question because nobody really knows what the exact profit is that a team like the Cubs make after all the expenses, but what is a good guess as to what the payroll should be and one that would get people to go, 'OK, they spend enough.'

$300 million? $400 million?

This is going to be a bad take and not popular, but I don't want the Cubs to morph into the old Steinbrenner's Yankees where we buy FAs every offseason and outspend every team. Like if Mark Cuban bought the team and allowed the Cubs to spend as much as they see fit and didn't care about making a profit...

On the one hand I'm happy the players are getting more money and all the revenue is being put back into the team, but I would hate winning that way. Like it's awesome if we outbid the Yankees for Cole, but I personally would kinda hate this team if we kept doing that and had a payroll over $300 million.

I'm fine with a team near the luxury tax with times going strategically over. I want the luxury tax line bumped WAY up in the next CBA discussion. Next year it will start at $208M and then goes up to $210M. I'm hoping it gets bumped up to $240M in the next CBA since teams treat it as almost a hard cap.

I hate the Yankees and I hate teams that buy their way to a championship (which I know the Cubs didn't do). They should always be in the top 3-4 in spending, but I don't want them to be #1 in spending except in strategic, special offseasons.

Thumbs down button press.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Exactly, the CBA has been in place for 3 years, the consequences of spending from that perspective are not a surprise. So either we have to believe that Theo was confident that the team would be so good that they'd be fine just taking an offseason to trim payroll(even as late as *this June* when he committed 37 million to Kimbrel), or ownership pulled the rug out from under them.

I think he significantly overestimated the market for some of his assets. He assumed teams would be showering him with high-profile prospects in offers for Bryant and has been resoundingly met with "meh."

There's just no way that he built the team with Plan A being trade Bryant for prospects(and Bryant is the only salary big enough to fix payroll ills). He committed 8 figures in 2020-21 to a reliever in June, combined with the rapidly approaching FA of the positional player core there's no way trading your best player to get under the tax was his first choice, because you know you're taking a step back when you do it even if they're showering him with prospect riches.

Why is there no way?

[Sammy Sofa]

I think he significantly overestimated the market for some of his assets. He assumed teams would be showering him with high-profile prospects in offers for Bryant and has been resoundingly met with "meh."

There's just no way that he built the team with Plan A being trade Bryant for prospects(and Bryant is the only salary big enough to fix payroll ills). He committed 8 figures in 2020-21 to a reliever in June, combined with the rapidly approaching FA of the positional player core there's no way trading your best player to get under the tax was his first choice, because you know you're taking a step back when you do it even if they're showering him with prospect riches.

Why is there no way?

AKA

[Cubswin11]

[javy knows my name]

This is a difficult question because nobody really knows what the exact profit is that a team like the Cubs make after all the expenses, but what is a good guess as to what the payroll should be and one that would get people to go, 'OK, they spend enough.'

$300 million? $400 million?

My assumption is that there are more costs than we give credit for in running the team, so their break even point is probably well south of $300M.

That being said there are two big caveats there:

1. They definitely pocketed a ton of money from 2012-2015, and haven't turned around and dipped back into that money. They'll point to the renovations but that leads to...
2. A lot of their costs are building up equity. So it's not *really* a loss even of it's not straight up liquid profit

So ultimately. I don't *really* care about where that break even point is.

They use this excuse so much, and it makes me blind with anger. This is your landlord telling you he can't fix your light bulb bc his mortgage payments are too high.

[Regular Show]

If Betts does indeed get traded it greatly increases the chances of him reaching FA (especially if he gets traded to small-mid market team). I'd be okay with cost-cutting moves and austerity measures this offseason if the Cubs truly are committed to going all-out for Betts next offseason.

Also, they better announce a Baez extension before Cubs Convention or everyone is just going to be in a foul mood there.

[Backtobanks]

If Betts does indeed get traded it greatly increases the chances of him reaching FA (especially if he gets traded to small-mid market team). I'd be okay with cost-cutting moves and austerity measures this offseason if the Cubs truly are committed to going all-out for Betts next offseason.

Also, they better announce a Baez extension before Cubs Convention or everyone is just going to be in a foul mood there.

How much cost-cutting and austerity has to happen for the Cubs to acquire Betts next offseason? The budget will need to replace Lester and Quintana along with your desired Baez extension and raises (plus arbitration).

[TomtheBombadil]

How much cost-cutting and austerity has to happen for the Cubs to acquire Betts next offseason? The budget will need to replace Lester and Quintana along with your desired Baez extension and raises (plus arbitration).

TBF he doesn't say acquire

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The presence of those guys plus Arenado on the market makes it impossible to get good leverage for a Bryant deal

[Regular Show]

The Cubs can afford Betts if they don't mind being over the luxury tax line for the next few seasons and spending 300+ million to sign Betts next offseason. If you go to Cots Contracts you'll see they only have $58.5M marked for 2022 (declining the option on Kimbrel). Obviously, keeping some of the core will be expensive and arbitation raises and whatnot.

I don't think you can afford Bryant and Baez and Betts. I think Schwarber leaves as a FA. I think the Cubs will extend Rizzo even though it might backfire... I think the Cubs trade Contreras at some point or maybe work out an extension if he comes down on years/length. This is just speculation while talking with a friend, but we think Baez is looking for an 8-10 year deal and Contreras wants a 6-7 year deal and Bryant is looking for a 10 year deal. KB thinks he's going to be playing till he's 40 (and thinks he'll still be good) and said he doesn't know anything else besides playing baseball. That doesn't bode well for the Cubs...

The Cubs probably want to go 6 (with options) on Baez, 6 (with options) on Contreras and just 7-8 years on Bryant with opt-outs because Boras. They're having a lot of trouble getting any traction on these extensions. They've tried every offseason going back all the way to 2015 (for KB). Addison Russell turned down the one offered by the Cubs so it's a good thing in that instance.

The Cubs will have money to spend in the coming years if we don't lock these players up, but FA isn't a good path to contention IMO.

[Deeg]

There's absolutely no chance on Goc's green Earth the Cubs are going to try and sign Betts. You're 100% kidding yourselves.

[UK]

If Betts does indeed get traded it greatly increases the chances of him reaching FA (especially if he gets traded to small-mid market team). I'd be okay with cost-cutting moves and austerity measures this offseason if the Cubs truly are committed to going all-out for Betts next offseason.

Also, they better announce a Baez extension before Cubs Convention or everyone is just going to be in a foul mood there.

Charlie Brown lines up for his 8 FG attempt in a row with Lucy as his holder.

[Backtobanks]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1He7WB2TXeoGRjWmS3-pkTXz_kHh773JvhCXLVXxkTWg/edit#gid=1520401900

The Cubs can afford Betts if they don't mind being over the luxury tax line for the next few seasons and spending 300+ million to sign Betts next offseason. If you go to Cots Contracts you'll see they only have $58.5M marked for 2022 (declining the option on Kimbrel). Obviously, keeping some of the core will be expensive and arbitation raises and whatnot.

I don't think you can afford Bryant and Baez and Betts. I think Schwarber leaves as a FA. I think the Cubs will extend Rizzo even though it might backfire... I think the Cubs trade Contreras at some point or maybe work out an extension if he comes down on years/length. This is just speculation while talking with a friend, but we think Baez is looking for an 8-10 year deal and Contreras wants a 6-7 year deal and Bryant is looking for a 10 year deal. KB thinks he's going to be playing till he's 40 (and thinks he'll still be good) and said he doesn't know anything else besides playing baseball. That doesn't bode well for the Cubs...

The Cubs probably want to go 6 (with options) on Baez, 6 (with options) on Contreras and just 7-8 years on Bryant with opt-outs because Boras. They're having a lot of trouble getting any traction on these extensions. They've tried every offseason going back all the way to 2015 (for KB). Addison Russell turned down the one offered by the Cubs so it's a good thing in that instance.

The Cubs will have money to spend in the coming years if we don't lock these players up, but FA isn't a good path to contention IMO.

So you're saying we could be the NL version of the Angels. A team of 2 or 3 superstars surrounded by a bunch of role players and no pitching.