“According to JesseRogersESPN – expects the Cubs to keep Nico Horner and exceed the luxury tax threshold in 2026.”

48 comments

  1. Good. Nixing Nico for the sake of saving a measly $12M with the hopes that Shaw’s bat matches up for *marginally* less would’ve been the most dumbuck decision in recent Cubs history.

  3. Have we informed the Yankees yet? I’ll personally do it and seriously don’t mind.

  8. The penalty for exceeding the luxury tax threshold (when under the year before) is SO light. This is a non-issue for a club this size.

  9. It would be the most Scrooge thing ever to get rid of the most consistent hitter on the team just to stay under the luxury tax.

    On the other hand, we ARE run by 2 Scrooges so it isn’t impossible.

  11. The idea of trading one of your best players just to save a few million in luxury tax penalties was always funny to me

  14. Good. But if you’re going to exceed it, it makes the most sense to exceed it by more than a tiny bit

  15. Good. Trading Nico makes the team much worse in 2026 and not even necessarily better in the future considering rental players haven’t been getting huge prospect returns on the trade market.

    If the Cubs really want to trade someone, it should be Shaw, whose years of team control could make him a centerpiece of a blockbuster. Nico wouldn’t bring back that type of return. But keeping both of them (as much as I dislike Shaw) solves one of the Cubs’ biggest problems from last season: the bench.

  16. Good. Should’ve never been in discussions in the first place. Man is on a contract year and will be playing his heart out

  18. So, does this mean that by keeping Nico, we will exceed the luxury tax? Or with Nico we are still under it, but Jesse expects more signings to push us over?

  19. That would be awesome. Put Shaw in that UTIL role that Brujan sucked so bad at last year.

  21. That’s step 1.

    Step 2 is extend him. Preferably for life. Let’s get to work on that, please!

  23. Aren’t the Cubs still projected under the threshold? This would imply more spending, right?

  24. I think at this point a Nico trade would mean we are getting something incredible in return (top 15 prospect). I don’t think any team is willing to pay that price for a one year rental.

  25. Despite being skeptical that it’s true, I am choosing to believe this is now a closed issue.

  26. Has anyone checked on Tom? Are we sure he isn’t bound and gagged in a closet somewhere?

  27. I wish these “insiders” had to post their actual source. like does he have some inside information or is he just speculating?

  29. While we all hate the Dodgers one thing they’ve proved, whether for good or worse, is you’ve gotta spend money to compete and win. Nico is the glue and getting rid of him to avoid some taxes is a horrendous idea and to me makes the Bregman trade worthless

  32. Time for Shaw to start his conservative influencer career. “How my beliefs got me replaced by 2 better players: The story of a man who couldn’t hit a baseball”.

  33. Trading Nico would’ve been the dumbest fucking thing after getting Bregman. Loser shit and im happy they are just shutting that shit down

  37. Thank God. You don’t break up the best defense up the middle that the Cubs have had in the last several years. Even contenders need a solid defense to back up pitching and with Nico-Dansby- PCA – it’s set for the near future.

    I feel the pressure to find a trade was Jed over-thinking the possibility of losing Nico next year with nothing to show. The returns would be irrelevant/excessive since we’ve already signed Cabrera, Bregman and some bullpen arms. Now let’s see what Shaw may get before the deadline in July.

  42. Getting rid of Nico would undo any good thing the Cubs have done or will do this winter. You don’t get rid of a player like him when you’re trying to compete.

  44. Yeah I don’t know what people are talking about trading him. The Cubs have several contracts coming off the books next year. I fully expect they will go over this year and then reset next year.

Leave a Reply