Should The Cubs Make a Big Off-Season Splash + Kyle Schwarber Reunion? | Bleacher Nation Cubs

Should The Cubs Make a Big Off-Season Splash + Kyle Schwarber Reunion? | Bleacher Nation Cubs

Hey folks, welcome in to the BN Cubs podcast. I’m Brett Taylor. That’s Michael Sarami here to talk Cubs. Thanks as always to our sponsors at Anken Law. 3126 million injury law made personal. Uh Mike, let’s uh you know this we were talking off. Yeah, Mike. I was going with Mike because then I was gonna say Mike because I was going to say we’re talking off mic. Uh just I don’t know. I I think I thought I was going to be able to put something together quickly in my head about Mike and Mike and it Sorry, I caught you on it immediately. Yeah, you like jumped in. It was It was It was not going to happen anyway. So, this it was this this was better. Anyway, um, no, we were talking off mic um about how this time of the off season is always tricky in terms of like what you’re going to dig into topic-wise, whether on a podcast or for even content purposes because um, the real meat of free agency and trade season and all that is really still more than a month away. you know, we’ll get the the technical opening once the World Series concludes, but then you’ve got options decisions, you’ve got qualifying offers, you’ve got um the tender deadline, which is now, by the way, it’s like it’s in November. It used to always be December, which held things up even further. And so, rule five draft stuff and yeah, like all Yeah, the rostering deadline. It’s it’s all good stuff. I like all that stuff, but it makes for like this kind of discussion on October 23rd a little tricky. Well, this actually kind of leads into the one offseason thought that I did want to bring up. Oh, well, good. Do that right now. But I just wanted to I guess amplify that I’m not saying we don’t have good stuff to talk about for the podcast listeners. Um only because we do only that when we were talking off mic it’s like all right, we got to think a little harder about what we’re going to get into. So, I’m glad you have something, Michael. No, I do have one I do have one thing, and it’s um you know, it’s it’s hard to exact. It’s not hard to put into words, but it’s hard to know if I’m missing something. It feels as though, you know, this time of the year, there’s always nothing going on yet, like you said, because it’s we’re still pre-World series, even beginning. So, it’s not we’re not there yet. I do feel as though there’s and there’s no FBI raid with the mafia happening to touch Major League Baseball. Baseball. Yeah. Yet. Um Emanuel Class A, I guess, has his thing going on. We’ll see if there’s We’ll see if there’s some mafia ties there that emerge. That would be exciting. You’re getting a little Asalian American. I’m taking your excitement over the inclusion of mafia. You’re a little too excited. Um, listen. That is only the like, you know, the the editor in me where I’m like, “All right, there’s some angles here. There’s some angles here.” Um, no. So, here’s what I was going to say is does doesn’t it feel as though we are here’s what it is. I now I found the way in the entry point and that this might even be an article that I write later today. This again, this is the bleacher nation editorial uh workshop podcast brought to you by Incin Law. um the you know so when the Dodgers article about how they might be interested in Kyle Tucker this offseason um came out I feel as though the last few years there have been Cubs rumors like that that start sometime around the end of August where and then there’s like a little in September and then when the season ends there’s at least one thing like hey it might be this guy this year is who you know, and there hasn’t really been that. I don’t think it’s cuz the Cubs aren’t going to sign anyone or they’re not going to like I don’t think that’s I’m not making that argument at all. I just feel as though there’s a distinct lack of um you know, oh, I’m, you know, keep an eye on the Cubs and insert player X this off season. Good call. cuz Tucker Tucker was remember there was I remember there starting to be chitchat about that in like late August uh Septemberish about Tucker and and you could go back there’s a bunch of those. Yeah. And that’s been true other years. That’s that’s that’s a great point and it’s interesting. I mean part of it I suppose is something we’ve talked about before that the Cubs have not a lot of obvious openings. Um uh but you know what it’s going to be and I bet this will emerge soon. um is the some of the pitchers that we were talking about in July as possible Cubs targets and trade. I think that stuff’s going to start to surface again. Um, that’s a good call because because those are conversations that should happen and we know so the Cubs need to add starting pitching and we know uh they prefer all else equal to keep those shorter term if possible and one way to do that is to have trade talks on costc controlled guys. They did it last year with Lardo which didn’t you know end up coming to fruition but yeah would not surprise me. Mackenzie Gore, Edward Cabrera, Sandy Alcantra, Joe Ryan. Those were the four um that we talked about. And and with the exception of Joe Ryan, the other three trade value kind of went down arguably, right? Um I think Alcantra started performing well down the stretch. I got to look. You know what? This is frankly this is an article, too. The reason I know this Yeah, it is. You’re right. It is. The reason I know he improved a bit is because I thought about taking a little bit of a victory lap when I was saying, you know, the Cubs really like because remember he was struggling and I’m like, yeah, but you know, he’s coming back and like he might still turn it on and he’s one of the few guys who give you seven plus innings. Um that ultimately with all those guys, this is not a relitigation of the trade deadline because again, none of them were traded. And when the reports came out, uh, seemingly confirmed with a wink by Jed Hoyer about what those teams were looking for in trade, you know, it was egregious. You’re not trading Matt Shaw and Kate Horton for those guys. And in hindsight, it would have that might have been for only Mackenzie Gore for what it’s worth. I feel like we get a blanket. He gets a I’m not I’m not getting better, though. Oh, yeah. And like there’s no way the Marlins were asking for Kate Horton and Madro. No, there weren’t. I’m maybe, but I’m only saying they weren’t traded. So, it’s not just And the Cubs weren’t the only suitor, so it means that the price tags were very high. Um Um those are all interesting. So, yeah, I can see that stuff coming back up. That makes sense. Um I I do have a hard time imagining the Cubs pulling off another pricey trade after doing it last winter. Um, but but if you’re getting a guy for more than one season, that neutralizes it a little bit. And if you absolutely I I’m not suggesting I I’ll even include another name that I don’t think will happen but to illustrate my point without offending our listeners like you know if you have to trade u someone like Matt Shaw or Miguela it maybe it opens up opportunities in free agency that were not otherwise visible you know because we’re like well it’s so full up how are you gonna do this or or Owen Casey or you’re like so then Then there is more of an opening at right field or DH or whatever. And maybe that sort of kills two birds with one stone. You get a pitcher that you’re looking to acquire and then you open up the opportunity for your front office to go spend in free agency. And like in a way you’re you’re you’re getting two good players then, you know, two contributors immediately as opposed to banking on a prospect and signing a pitcher or whatever. um especially if you regard 2026 as a uniquely important year for com, you know, competitive purposes, both because of the the lockout that could come after, but also because of things that Michael has has written about that they’ve got a lot of guys that are there for 2026 and then some questions after that. I had a Brett thought the other day. Is winning next year more, less, or the same important for but but hear me out. If you’re the World Series winning team, but then the following season is partly cancelled, isn’t that going to eat into your like expected World Series earnings because of like increases in season ticket holders, merchandise? Yeah. All that stuff is like a big reason. Not that’s not the reason why you should win the World Series, but that is undoubtedly something to that, right? Or does it not matter? So, I could argue it cuts um two ways. Um because on the one hand, yes, everything you’re saying is correct that like you win the World Series, you win the World Series and then a month later everything shuts down and everybody is mad. Well, they’re not buying your jerseys and they’re not renewing season tickets and that, you know, there’s there’s a sting that goes into what you just accomplished. And I think that ultimately outweighs the second part which is if that next season is dinged significantly that will reduce the value of winning that year 2027 and it kind of extends the life of like having won the the most recent full season. Yeah. And you know what else why I’m dumb. you you will make more money by winning the World Series and then that goes into your coffers to help tide you over when 2027 is lost, right? So, you’d rather have maximum playoff revenue the last full year and then sure think all that, right? Like if you’re if you’re asking me today, Cubs can win 2026 or they can win whatever 2027 is, I’m taking 2026 without Yeah. I guess I mean do you think do you think Tom Rickettts feels as though he’ll make more like there’s just no reason I guess I’m sure they’re all thinking exactly what your question was to set this up. They’re all thinking okay if we do win it in 2026 how do we quickly maximize the value yeah right that’s the way to think about it and that’s what they’ll do. Yeah. Um um okay. So, you know, yeah, that was our freestyle entry. No, no real transition from this other than you wrote something else that I thought was really interesting uh this week at bleachation.com, Chicago sports website. Check it out. Uh you wrote about Danby Swanson and his performance with the Cubs in these first three years. uh the contract he signed with the Cubs um and just sort of how you evaluate that performance and I don’t want to just rehash what you wrote. So folks go go read that piece. It’s it’s um thoughtful and enjoyable, but it did make me think generally about how we talk about long-term deals and we’re heading into an off season. Um and so this this topic comes up a lot and it’s this sort of um marriage of the total guarantee, the number of years, the AAV, how it relates to the luxury tax, aging curves, uh level of competitiveness of the team, and what you’re ultimately they all point to the same thing, which is like what are you trying to accomplish when you sign who’s a big free agent this offseason that the Cubs might, you know, pursue that’s that’s gonna get a huge contract. Like we can be extreme that it’s Oh, Alex Bregman. Let’s let’s go. Alex Bregman is the Yeah. Yeah. Let’s say, you know, Bregman was going to get a I don’t think he will. Um but let’s say he was going to get Swanson deal. Seven years and 177 million. Um and that let’s say the Cubs are doing that now. I think the way you would evaluate that contract slightly different than the Swanson one uh because he was three years younger at the time. The team was a little more transitional at the time than they are right now. And I think you would um evaluate where you got the value of that Bregman deal differently than you did when you were looking at Swanson and you were like, “Was this a successful season?” Yes. Was this a successful season? Yes. I think with any team that’s signing Bregman right now, it’s it’s going to be weighted very heavily toward what do you get in 2026 specifically when he’s 32 or so. And you’re going to need like I don’t know, you’re going to need a full third of the war, maybe a half of the war of the, you know, value of that deal to come in that first season. And um yeah, and last thing and then I’m gonna kick it to you is what we have not seen from the Cubs of pretty much Tom Ricketts era. And I’m not saying it’s him doing it, I’m just saying Epstein Hoyer. We have not seen a lot of those deals where they are signed with long-term with an explicit understanding that you’re going to have to get the value in those first two years and then it’s like dead money. Now like Jason Hayward ended up being that back 26. That was not the point of that deal. Um, we’ve seen very few like that event. Yeah. No, you’re right. Um, and just to give people a little bit of context who hadn’t read it, what I did is I went back and and I knew that they had this at Fan Graphs, but at the time of Swanson signing his deal, they did one of those things where they projected his contract be, you know, telling the computer, project out his next six seasons and then estimate a contract based on these projections. And the contract that they spit out, I mean, it’s almost hilarious because it’s the it’s the snake eating its tail. Um, was $800,000 off. They had 176.2 million versus what which all that really means is that ZIPS was at the time similar to the IE system, right, the model were using. That’s the same thing. And so I liked using that though. And some people in the comment section were even like, well, there’s updated pro. I was like, I know, but I wanted to say like this is what the Cubs were expecting to get because the value was so identical. So these projections, not the contract, but the stats season by season are where that they what they were generally expecting. And to that end, for the first three seasons, he was like a little bit better offensively uh and overall in season one, and it was like a solid win. The second year, the offense was a little down, but the defense was up. Last year, the offense was up and the defense was down a little bit in the advanced metrics. And so ultimately they were like at or above their expectations through the first three years of the deal. You’re right though that this is that you know this is more of like you go along the way and he’s providing the value that you expect whereas that’s that’s not you know what a deal for I’m trying to think of a good example too. I mean, you know, maybe like maybe like what the Yankees did with Max Freed last year kind of like whatever the team that signs Pete Alonzo that’s his is going to be I think probably a great example of this because Swanson is probably a better bet to be like right at expectations year and year and year where because of so much of his value and those expectations will they’ll they’ll decline as he ages. they go down. But but meeting those is different than you know again you know Alonzo who you’re like we’re going to need you to hit 40 homers next year and 38 homers the year after that and then you might hit 30 and 20 and then all of your value is gone because that’s the only thing that you’re doing for us even though we signed you to a seven-year deal. Yeah, exactly. That’s interesting. Um, but I will say that even the Swanson deal, the sort of conclusion I landed on was like, hey, this is working out pretty good. It’s working out just fine. Um, you know, I know that’s like there was a there was I I also included this thought. It’s like, sure, we kind of had a little bit of hope that maybe that last Braves season before he hopped over where he Yeah. popped up offensively a little. Um maybe he was going to take a step forward maybe. But and it hasn’t been that. But you know what stinks by the way? He has been in such an extreme hard luck performer with the Cubs where like his I think this past season was his best, you know, expected production season and was not no like basically at league average. And you want to know part of the reason I think that is um he’s a I don’t mean this as an insult because it kind of works. He’s how many of his home runs are in the basket at Wrigley, right? So many. And Wrigley has been killed to right center. Yeah, exactly. And if the wind had been just the opposite, he could he’s already hitting 25 homers or whatever. He could have had monster seasons. He could have had like and and if you have a a shorts stop who’s a Gold shorts stop, we all know his defense is Gold Caliber. It is. And he hits 32 homers. Well, there suddenly like a little bit of a different story, right? Like and then it’s not that dramatic of a leap to get there because so many of his homers are borderline ones. you know, PCA or Michael Bush are hitting 415 foot blasts that maybe they should have been 425, but you know, Swanson’s at like 380 and it’s like, well, that’s either a fly out or a home run, right? And and in the metrics that are being used to calculate expected production, the wind isn’t really in there. And so it’s like, you know, right, and I mean, we know Wrigley has been playing hard that way for literally the years that he’s been here. Yeah. So, it’s, you know, that’s that’s kind of is what it is. But, well, to button this combo cuz I Well, I suppose that’s all set up to I don’t foresee the Cubs changing in terms of looking at those deals. I don’t think they’re going to be like going aggressive, you know, oh, we can really use this guy in 2026, but he’s going to take a six-year deal. Let’s do it and figure out the like I just don’t think that’s going to change necessarily. But what it reminded me of is the Alfonso Soraniano signing which was like the quintessential one of those. Perfect example. And it it was a deal that I’ve had to defend for years and years because what people remember is how poorly he performed in the later years and it’s like yeah but that’s not what that contract was. They signed him at 32 or whatever. Gave him a huge contract because that’s what it took to sign him. But it’s because they wanted him those first two years when they were going all push and they were great. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Like it was everything they hoped for and then you just deal with the the the the later on and like I think um the current front office and ownership are just not into that and we can debate. Well, you know what I know what’s crazy is there’s actually two levels of they’re not into that. And the first one is they’re not even doing the deals like that anymore. And the second one is what the Dodgers and the Yankees and the Mets and the Padres’s do. Uh which is once those deals get their value out of the first two years, they paper over it with more deals, right, down the line. So the Cubs are two rungs down for to be on the record for that because you know they’re signing Alfonso Sorano and then there’s and then doing nothing because you have to the the you know the amount sorry and 08. Yeah, but then there’s you know the next step. So they should be doing both. They’re doing neither as of now. And I suppose what they would say is since we’re not going to do the papering over thing, it’s better that we don’t sign those types of contracts, you know, and I think Thank you. You know what I’m saying? Like because otherwise I know. No, I’m not saying it’s good. I’m just saying that because then they can say, you know, well, you know, we signed guys like Dansancy Swanson because we want to still get value in years six and, you know, five, six, whatever. Um, you know, again, debatable. But if they’re not, I don’t know. The budget is budget and that’s just that’s just the way it’s going to be. You know what I’m what I’m moderately concerned about and it’s not happening this year into next year because there’s a lot of there’s not a lot of roster turnover at the moment. Um but you know, signing Matthew Boyd was great. Like obviously that worked out really well, right? But if if the type of deals the Cubs are going to focus on are like sort of shorter term, but the high end of shorter term, which I think that they can clean up in, frankly, it’s kind of like a being the biggest fish in the smallest pond if they’re willing to do that. Um, there’s a way to do that. Um, but it does lend itself to a lot less like longevity of, you know, uh, fandom for certain guys. And it’s like there there’s something about Danby Swanson like you go and you’re like well I could buy a Danby Swanson jersey right now, right? Are you really going to buy a Matthew Boyd jersey like he was great and he if he did like he was having an excellent, you know, it’s just I don’t know how much that matters. Maybe not at all. Maybe just winning is the only thing that matters. And maybe that’s true, but I don’t know. It something about it sometimes it’s like I just I just want those things. Um, I mean, and they would say that they want it, too, but it’s going to have to come from the Matt Shaws and the Peter Armstrongs and Michael Bushes, like guys that they bring along. And there is a lot of that. Don’t get me wrong. I mean, there there is. Um, but, uh, yeah, next year’s it’s going to be a weird it’s going to be a weird off season, not only because of the CBA, though that it’ll be a big part of it, but for the Cubs specifically, who have so many people locked in for 2026 and so many not locked in thereafter. I don’t know how you bridge that gap. It’s going to be it’s gonna be a weird offseason. And on top of everything, you know, some of the guys that you might even consider trading have no trade clauses. So, it’s like you you know, I don’t know how they how they get around that. Um, do you want to get into Kyle Tucker at all? Uh, sure. I don’t have um I know you Yeah, I just want to wrote about it. Yeah, go ahead. I don’t have a ton more to say on him until circumstances change, but I know I I I want to almost I wrote an article after our podcast last week where I was kind of doing the whole like, man, that sucked. That season sucked to Kyle Tucker because I that it was like a good thing to get off my chest and to see and to hear myself talking about and then go, okay, hold on a second now. All those things are true. Like and also the Cubs can’t just we as Cubs fans can’t just pretend that losing Kyle Tucker is like good riddance. It’s like, well, well, hold on. Like, there’s he still 25 bases, hit 22 homers, whatever it was. Had a 136 way to run scr five war or something like that. Five war like it’s I know it didn’t come in even enjoyable doses all the way. But that is not to say like, you know, Jed Hoyer and Tom Ricketts should just be like, “Oh, we don’t have to sign that guy now.” It’s like, well, hold on. I mean, he’s about to get a multiple hundred million dollar contract in all likelihood. That’s for a reason. And I guess I just didn’t want to lose sight of that. So, even if that is the end of that thought from my end, that’s fine. But I did want to reiterate that that I don’t want our apathy to swing too far away where it’s like you don’t want him on your team. You don’t not want him on your team. You don’t necessarily want him on your team for 10 years and 400 million maybe, but that’s a different story. Well, there’s a difference between recognizing um a player’s fit or not for a team in a given circumstance, given what the contract’s going to be, given the rest of the roster, all those kinds of things. You can on the one hand recognize that that that maybe the way things played out, it’s like, okay, maybe a separation is going to be appropriate. That’s not the same thing as saying this team is going to be better now that there’s a separation. Like, those are very different things. And I think the former is true at this point. Um, but it’s also true that, you know, for for the Cubs internally to match what they had, you’d have to assume that Sea Suzuki is going to have a great season next year as a right fielder. And you’re gonna have to assume one or both of Moises Bisteros and Owen Casey can be the DH and produce at least at say a Suzuki’s clip like and and I know that they have that potential and and so it’s this was another thing we were talking about that um it it is it is possible that the Cubs could simply be better internally just like that’s of course that’s possible. These are good good young players, but it’s not probable. Um, and when you are planning your team and you have the opportunity of an offseason to make your team what you want it to be, um, you don’t ride on possibility. You try to create probability. You actually just made me realize a point, too. There’s two ways to think about that. There’s pro possible or probable, better than last year. But that’s not really the question. It’s what if Kyle Tucker’s healthy all of next year then it’s are they going to be possible or probable better than what he would have been and that’s almost you know what I don’t they don’t they didn’t only have him for one more year though so that like to me then that gets into the discourse about like okay well having Tucker for 2026 means $300 million contract or whatever and that means other impacts on the roster in ways that you Because that’s the other thing to keep in mind on this for 2026 alone, even if you wanted it to be and say Tucker’s salary for 2026 is 35 million or whatever. Yeah. Right. You know, if the Cubs don’t have him, yeah, they don’t have that player, but they do in theory have 35 million that they can deploy elsewhere to try to make up for it, especially since the guys who would be replacing him internally are pre-arb, right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, okay, but there’s a good question. So, I would assume that to whatever anyone thinks, here’s what’s probably true behind the scenes. When the Cubs traded for Kyle Tucker, they knew it might only be a one season thing. But if you think that they weren’t thinking about an extension at all, I think you’re wrong. I think they’re probably like, “Listen, at a minimum, we’re going to be able to offer him I’m making up uh $250 million. I’m going really on the lower end to do you think that’s sort of um you know if if that has changed if they have changed their mind on their willingness to even make an offer let’s say which again I I don’t know if it’s going to be completely absent from that conversation but is are we talking about a Tanaka rollover fund uh situation um you know we had that money earmarked and now it’s gone it’s because this is different than show Otani which is I understood the arguments you made and I agree with them. Um that when they made him an offer that was $450 million, I don’t know, whatever whatever it was, they were involved at some level, right? Um that you don’t just go and hand out that money to anyone else because show Otani is it is his own enterprise. He creates Kyle Tucker’s not that. So if you were like, “Hey, we generally think we can budget for this.” Is it a little bit more like well listen maybe that maybe we’re not going to 100% but we can go up to 80% of that money that we were going to spend otherwise. I think their answer would be the budget was going to be the budget for the next five six you know when they’re you think that that wasn’t going to push them over in any way and they were just I think it was going to I think the opposite. I think it was if if and when they had signed Tucker, it was going to be well that’s a big chunk now that’s eaten up and we’re going to have to and and there is the way my understanding is the way the budget is projected out. It’s never it’s not finalized for a given year until like the the fall right before um and then it’s projected out in bands, you know, where it’s like here’s what we here’s the range that we think the revenue is going to be. Now, you signed Tucker long term, you might bump those bands slightly because you’re like, “Sure, we might be a better team. We might sell a little more merch. We might, you know, whatever.” Um, but I don’t think there was going to be some Kyle Tucker allocation, you know, like I just don’t I don’t think I think more it’s what how you set it up originally, which is when they traded for him, they thought, well, you never know how things are going to play out. Maybe it plays out in a way that he ends up having to take a deal that we’re like, “Yeah, we would just we would sign that within our budget, you know, 250 million, 10 years or whatever.” Um, and you know, the way things played out, I don’t think that’s changed. I think if I think they would still explore that whatever level of deal they already had thought was like, “Oh, here’s where our comfort zone is.” I just think they would have said, “We thought it was more likely he was going to have another monster year and price himself out.” Yeah. Well, I just think it’s hilarious that we’ve that that that there was the outcome where he has a monster year and prices himself out of the Cubs range and there’s an outcome where he has such an injury riddled season and priced himself under the Cubs range of interest and it’s like so what was the version of this that you kept him and there was none? I think it was I think it was kind of like the season that we just had, but he’s so loves Chicago and the the fans love him so much. Like everyone’s like, “We’ve got to make this work.” And then I guess and that just didn’t happen. Although So what you said was true, too. But at the same time, I I keep forgetting that the the the payroll is coming down. Uh not the payroll level, the amount of money that the Cubs have committed for next year is is going to be lower. um heading into the offseason and then in 202 by the way especially we let them off the hook a lot they were like 10 million under the luxury tax this year so it was already in my view artificially low yeah I think that was that was probably what they were just saving for the deadline right yeah just didn’t do anything right but I mean my point only is it’s coming down this off season from a level that’s already lower than where I think they should be annually. Sure. Um there’s also, you know, I wonder like if there’s going to be so many people are concerned about the changes to the CVA and I’d have to go back and look at this affecting, you know, what, you know, you need maximum flexibility heading in. And I again, I’ve said this a thousand times. The Cubs are going to be so freaking low in their payroll in 2027 that there’s almost nothing conceivable that they can do anywhere within the realm of their expectations that will make this an issue. However, even for the teams that it is true, do we think that there won’t be any even like one like a grandfathering in season or something? Like if there’s a cap, there absolutely has to be something. They’re not going to just make the Dodgers trade away 10 guys because they’re at 400 million. like there’s no way. So, I think there’d be a phasing, you know, multi-year phasing, but like I I am not actually sure that that to your specific point there, I’m not actually sure that the answer wouldn’t be. Yeah, actually the Dodgers would have to figure that out if there was a hard cap at like 350 million, which that’s very high, right? And then they’re at 360. Yeah, I could envision a world where it’s like, yeah, sorry, no, you actually have to What I don’t know about the other the the cap leagues, right? like say the NFL because the NBA one does have like a it’s almost like a my understanding not an NBA guy my understanding is it’s like a hyper extreme luxury tax type situation where it’s like there’s a cap but you can you can play well there’s also like rules about rules about who you can acquire. But in the NFL, my understanding is it’s a hard cap. How do you how’s that like I guess here’s the problem. It was it was never new, you know? It’s not like it doesn’t kick in. That’s true. They also have that restructuring of contracts thing that is part and parcel of NFL. Oh, maybe that’s what it would be is like, hey, you’ve got to come below this new hard cap, but so you’re going to figure out restructuring with guys to to I don’t the players union. Well, you got to make it worth their while. it it but it blows my mind honestly even when some NFL players do it cuz I’m like I’m sure that there’s aspects of it that we don’t know but sometimes you read those art you’re like so you’re just deferring your you mean like half of the Dodgers contracts already are ridiculous and not player friendly at all but somehow somehow even their own representatives are like yeah this is actually a great deal because I get to tell the world I just negotiated a $500 million deal for you even though it’s only worth 300 million. I don’t I don’t understand that. I also saw someone recently say that show Otani’s deal was the largest in history. I was like, well, no, Janotos was like significantly definitely better. So, I don’t know. Um it’s because the look and I’m not I’m not accusing anybody. I’m just saying financial literacy in I don’t know among everyone is like lower than it should be. And that’s I think a big factor. I I just you would think that the it’s so hard because the agents, you know, you think their best interest is getting the best deal for their player, but the actual best interest, their own best interest is getting the best perception of the best deal for their player. Exactly. And that’s the distinction that matters. Exactly. So, Exactly. Um Yeah. There’s not and whatever. I’m not casting aspersions on agents, but like it’s not like they’re going to put out a press release that says we just secured a $400 million deal for show Otani. It’s got a bunch of deferrals in there that uh but but this is the real value. It’s 400. No, they’re going to say we just got the biggest contract in the history of the universe and it’s 700 million. No asterisks, nothing. Um to be honest, his deal looks pretty good now. What? It’s a cheap It’s the cheapest deal in sports. I hate it. And I think I think about I don’t even I’m just Let me rephrase that. Forget deferrals. Let’s say he got 10 years and460 million. I’ll do you one better. Say he got 10 years and 700 million. It’s still an absolute steal because you know how much they’re making on him annually? I’ve seen 100 million. And like that’s not even the player performance. That’s how much he brings in the door. If that’s if that’s true though, if they’re making a hundred million, they’re they’re profiting off of him existing. Yes. Then then why wouldn’t any team they should be willing to pay him 100 million a year and they’re then you’re neutral. They didn’t have to. Well, because two reasons. One, because I don’t think we knew that it was going to be that much. I saw projections before he signed and it was like 50 million. I think it’s just been even more. And then two, LA. Yeah. There’s unique value there that wouldn’t be captured other places. You know, if he’s in Tampa right now, I don’t think he’s generating 100 million. But I could imagine the Mariners or Oh, for sure. There are Yeah. Um the Yankees. Maybe maybe New York. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Uh let’s let’s move to the to the um you know, because this will be part and parcel with all all that we’ve talked about already. Okay. This week’s next segment is called When I Find My Adre. Um, here it is. Oh, I knew who was Do you know who this segment is? Brought to you by Brett. Uh, I assume it’s still, it’s not the game, but I assume it’s still our wonderful Felco sponsors. Yeah, they’re the home renewal experts, and we are proud to partner with Felco. For almost 50 years, Belco has been transforming Chicago land homes with their windows, siding, doors, and roofing. Belco is family-owned and prides themselves in delighting their customers. With products made in the US and designed specifically for the Midwest, Belco offers a perfect balance of beauty and energy efficiency. I think next week and every episode going forward, I want you to like give me a character or an accent and I’ll read the ad read and that just blind. I I’m like, you’re going to say like Jamaican and I’m going to go Irish and I’m not going to be able to really, you know, hopefully nothing I try to make sure. Well, I’ll just try to make sure that I pick the most offensive thing possible because then it’s you doing I know you’re obsessed with Italian Americans, so you know Yeah. Oh, you read a book. Um, uh, this thing of ours. Uh, no. Basically, I watched the Sopranos and Godfrey. Uh, okay. So, um, the transaction that I wanted to talk about this week, now remember folks, this this area is not when we do these, I think for this offseason, it’s going to be like fun discussions as opposed to necessarily like things we think are definitely going to happen for the Cubs. Um, and so, uh, today’s is Kyle Schwarber because that’s fun to talk about an old beloved player with the Cubs who’s now hitting free agency. And I see out there a lot of clamoring among Cubs fans for like, how can we figure out how to bring him back? And so, I I wanted us to at least have that conversation of like, okay, if Cubs wanted to make this happen, what would that look like for bringing Kyle Schwarber back? Um, and how could they make it make sense? Uh, and that’s the conversation I wanted to have. Yeah. I mean, so it’s interesting because on the one hand, when I think about I’m looking at Kyle Schwarber’s stats from this year, he slashed 240, 365, 563, which was a 152 weighted rung graded plus. Um, by far his best. Uh, but last year he took a step up. It was 134. That was like a big difference. And then in 2021, his first year out of the Cubs organization, he had a 145. Um, but you know, there’s definitely a difference these last four seasons where he’s hitting 40 plus homers, 50 this year. Um, that’s a different fundamentally different player uh that a guy who’s just hitting 30 just I’m I’m, you know, that’s still a lot, but 30 homers and 130 versus 45 homers and 150 meaningful difference. The question really though, before I even get into fit and everything, I’m kind of curious what you think. Like, is he going to be this guy again? Like, his average in his OBP wasn’t materially better than it had been. His slugging was categorically different. I mean, it was a whole level up driven in large part by the dingers. Um. Right. Yeah. Yeah, I mean the question ultimately is like is he following the David Ortiz path where it’s like a guy who just because of the so so you’re you’ve got things fighting against each other which is like the physical aging that will slow you down. It just does. Okay. and you can fight that as best as you can. But what will what can and does improve for certain caliber of hitters is their um plate discipline and their their pitch selection and their ability to um which doesn’t just mean fewer strikeouts and more walks. Although it does, it can mean it keeps your power up because you are getting so much better at targeting the pitches you want in the areas you want and so that even as your bat speed comes down a little bit, you can still do so much damage. And I think that’s to to your question of like is he going to keep going on this? Um, few guys do, but some guys do. And that’s probably the question that teams are going to be asking themselves this off season. If you believed he was going to go that David Ortiz route and essentially be just as good at 38 as he is at 33, I think you’d have a team like the Cubs even. You know, like say they really believed that, then I think they do have to like figure out a way, hey, we might be more right on this than other teams and therefore we should figure out a way to make this work even if it’s going to like shock people the kind of deal that we’re going to do. Yeah. But the frustrating part there is something we’ve heard from players and agents a lot lately is that everyone’s offers are eerily similar because everyone’s projection systems right now are sure identical. um you know the zips thing that we talked about with Swanson at the beginning kind of like a not direct but yeah it’s rare that you would have an outlier opinion um you know on a guy like Schwarber where I don’t know everything’s there all the data is there all the you just it would be rare you know something that might be affected is the ballpark though and not just the wind but where he’s you know what I mean like there’s a reason um Isak Paradus and Houston you know made sense right? Like and Citizens Bank is a pretty homer friendly ballpark in general. Um yeah, I mean I think if you if you wanted to make the argument, it would look a lot like things that we’ve talked about on this pod and talked about before, which is that well 2026 is important for the Cubs. This is a case where they do need to do one of those deals where it’s like, hey, we know what we’re paying over these four or five years, but we really want to get it in 2026. Uh, and because Kyle Tucker’s departing, we have an opening at DH. You know, is going to play right field. We have an opening. We can’t assume that Moyesus or Owen are going to be great. We could use them to trade for a pitcher to like really make 2026 awesome. So, like I could start to put that argument together where it actually starts to be like, whoa, wait a minute, this makes a lot of sense. This is and if they effectuated all those moves, we would look back at it and say, “Oh, brilliant. Brilliant the way they coordinated all this stuff.” So that is that’s what the argument would look like. And it’s not crazy. It’s not a crazy argument. You know, I hate So, first of all, let me say this. Resigning Kyle Sharper just in isolation, in a vacuum, boy, that would be fun. It would be It would be fun. It would be exciting. It’d be cool. I’d love to watch watch him with the Cubs again. I would too. He is such he’s also frankly one of the may is this my Cubs fandom blinding me. Kyle Schwarber has become like one of the more visible faces of MLB. I know what you mean. And I don’t know why that is necessarily. I know he’s extreme. Guys who are extreme show up a lot more in highlights and stuff and and and he’s just seems like a he’s I don’t know. He does a fun rowdy boy and sort of gets Yeah. Um, you know, I think that the Cubs have a little bit of a a Gregmatic situation working with Schwber if they do get him where it’s like all of his best years were actually in Atlanta and we just got him at the beginning and the end and it’s like we claimed Kyle Schwarber. He’s ours, you know. Um, but I would think it would be fun. However, I also think this I also think two things. Um, I don’t have any idea how you work moist by the steros in, which is not a reason to not get Cal Schwarber. I’m just saying they are both left-handed DH’s because it’s not just about 2026. It’s right, you have Mo for many years and he’d be blocked in all of those years. Yep. And I also tend to just believe in Moises Bisteros. He’s God, when I see him swing, I’m like, I think this guy’s but he’s a very different hitter than Kyle Schwarber. And I don’t think people really understand that because I think they see his build and they think he’s just gonna be Kyle Schwarber, but it’s like not the guy he is really. Um, but it still would be a very useful bat to have. Um, and I just don’t know if the Cubs are going to let him catch much if at all. Um, it’s possible, I guess, but it just doesn’t it doesn’t feel like it’s headed in that direction. Maybe I’m wrong about that. And then maybe that opens up a whole lot of opportunities, right? But I don’t know. Don’t do you get that vibe? I guess we could pause there. Did he get a single? Did he get a single inning at the base? He did. I think he got I think he got an inning at first base. I don’t know if he got he maybe he got an inning behind. I think he I think he had to come in one time. Yeah, that might be right. But point there being the Cubs weren’t even interested No. in giving him like one start. Yeah, he caught one game um against the Cardinals September 28th. Um, oh that’s right. That everything was decided. Yeah, that’s right. Yeah. Um, so right. Exactly. Uh, so that is that. And then and I just also think that, you know, if you go and get Kyle Schwarber, you you do need to go trade Bisteros and or Casey and or Wiggins or whatever you’re doing to get someone big and good in the rotation for next year and like are they going to do that? I I don’t it doesn’t that it sounds like an exciting way to use your resources. And it it also sounds like not a way that Jed Hoyer really operates when he could probably look at the math and be like, “Yeah, Schwarber’s going to hit 40 homers and Beros is only going to hit 15, but Bosteros is going to hit 280, who knows?” And get on base around the same clip next year. Uh so we could spend no money and and and not even to save the money, but to spend it on something else. Spend it on a you know, another pitcher. that they want, you know. So, it’s like the options you’re putting to Hoyer is like spend your prospect capital and spend more money or spend less money and less prospect capital, right? And if the result is close, he’s not going to win. Think about it. And win 92 games instead of 93, right? Yeah. And that’s how they think about these things. And I’m not And that’s right. You know, that’s that is ultimately why I landed when I wrote about this. that’s why I landed that I just just don’t see the Cubs being serious pursuers. And part of this that we didn’t mention of course is that there are other teams that aren’t having to do this dance to figure out like how do we fit Kyle Schwarber and how does it make sense? It’s just like obvious like the Phillies for example and to them it’s just a matter of salary like you know we make him a big enough offer and so I think you’re competing against those teams. Um, and also reunions are super rare. You know, I’m not saying that there’s like hard feelings with Jake Artetta. Let me let me rephrase. Reunions that take place while a guy is still uh super desirable and has lots of options and stuff are rare. I I would like to see it. I think it’d be fun. I don’t know how it works and I think it necessitates a series of moves that the Cubs are probably just not all that eager to make. Yeah. Uh, and that’s and that’s probably the the thing, right? I mean, that’s and and let me put it. We’ve talked about two guys so far, Bregman and Shorer. I think the chances of getting Alex Bregman like of the I think the chances of Alex Breman playing for the Cubs next year are like a great deal higher than Kyle Schwber. Yeah. like 10x, you know, and that’s to to my mind making the fit work is easier um and more obvious. And we know that this front office for just about this team wants Alex Bregman. Like we already know that. So, um and we know that they have a a a a general disposition against um locking in a DH. like we didn’t we didn’t talk about that part that like they’ve not shown an interest in having a dedicated DH generally speaking not yet right in the entire era of of I mean I yeah NL era like they just that’s not sort of they had sea though but but that wasn’t they didn’t I I would argue that that wasn’t them saying you know we’re going to get Kyle Tucker because we want Seiya to DH you know that’s a difference um and even if we if we go back and look. I would say what it say started about maybe half of the games this year at DH and the Cubs had someone else for the other half. I think that was unplanned. I think but Sure. but if you get a dedicated DH that you’re you’re not moving him around to like cover for other guys. You’re like cuz like Kyle Schwarber isn’t sliding out to right field for it’s not happening. And and for what it’s worth too, um what you know, comparing like Alex Bregman again, just to to put a thought in there, not only can you coordinate like with Matt Shaw better because first of all, then you you kind of have a really nice um backup plan at second, short, and third between moving guys around like that can that can legitimately work. But you also do buy yourself the ability to evaluate Moises Bisteros and Owen Casey. um because one or both of them is going to play a huge role if they’re not traded on the 2027 team because Seiya and Hap uh are both and Nico but unrelated but you know are both leaving. Um, so suddenly there’ll be two corner outfield spots and a DH spot sort of open. And if you didn’t learn anything about those guys next year, it’s just going to be the same question going into and so the value of that information um is something that you could only gain by buying Alex Bregman, not by buying Kyle Schwarber. And so I think for that reason, maybe maybe not more than anything else, but like that’s a huge part of the reason I would say even if the two of them get the same contract, which is if you look at projections, it’s they’re they’re going to be in the same ballpark. Um I think me making the decision, not who I think the Cubs would decide, I think I would choose Bregman over Schwarber, even even if I think Schwarber is going to be offensively far more productive, which I do. And I have concerns about Bregman as he ages. um that weren’t delayed by his season with the Red Sox. Um so so this isn’t to be clear, this isn’t me necessarily advocating for Bregman specifically. I would say Okamoto is looking po more interesting to me right now as we talk about third base, but we’ll get to that. Um I have no idea what to expect from him though. All these guys, it’s like what are we gonna get? Yeah, you’re it’s it’s like show two years ago even. It was like Yeah, we had no clue. Who knew? Who who knew? No. And then what I remember, you know, with him, you’ll recall initially he’s he’s rumored to be posted and it’s like, okay, how much is he going to get? 100 150 million, whatever. Would the Cubs really do that? And then the Cubs are serious. And then he gets like potentially as little as like 50 million. And then I remember when that happened, I was like, “Oh, all right. Well, you know, it’s the tail’s wagging the dog. You kind of got to be like, “Well, okay, so maybe he’ll be like a decent four or five.” Um, and then obviously he was quite a bit better than that. And and what I would note there, this actually runs contrary to our point about Schwarber where there’s it’s hard to to to find extreme wins in free agency because the projections are all the same and the teams work on the same models. I think with Japan that’s a big difference. I think you do still have the ability to because there’s there’s so many other complicating factors when you’re translating that performance to the states and a person living in the United States and like there’s there’s so many more human factors that can affect play. Um, and so anyway, not to make this about that. I I only meant to say I’m not necessarily advocating Bregman. I’m just saying if they were choosing between Bregman and Schwarber, I think Bregman’s the better fit um for for this team going forward. So, that’s that’s the talk. That’s the little transaction corner on um on Schwarber and other fun ones like that. Um hit us up, by the way, if you’ve got if you’ve got sort of unlikely but interesting transaction ideas that you want to hear us talk about for the Cubs. We would we we would love to hear it. And Brett’s phone number is 555. It’s 555. Wow. It’s got a bunch of W’s at the end. I had to pay for that. Just only one O. Yeah, just one O. It’s Wow. Woo. Yeah. You know, you remember the Miguel Monto thing like with it was two O’s, right? He did W O. I think so. That’s Woo. Um, I think that’s what he was saying. I do a lot. You could tell I do a lot of like tweets and stuff that require adding additional letters to amplify. I often think about like which letter should be the one that that carries. Oh, I know what you mean. And and sometimes it feels like when you say it, it should be the vowel, but sometimes it’s like the consonant right after the vowel. Wow. Yes, because that’s the same. I wasn’t even thinking. Yeah, that reads as woo and then you’re like you get to the end and you’re like, “Oh, there’s a W.” When you’re saying it, yeah, wow. Actually, the W does carry quite a bit. Wow. Wow. Aren’t you glad you stayed? Yeah. Aren’t you glad, folks, you stayed for minute 53 of of the BN Cubs podcast so you could hear of our 30 minute BN Cubs podcast. our this is a it’s our weekly 30 minute podcast that somehow is never shy of 50 minutes anymore. Yep. Uh I’m Brett Taylor. That’s Michael Cammy. As I said, this is the BN Cups podcast. Wow. It is brought to you by our sponsors at Anken Law. 3126 million injury law made personal. And we appreciate you checking us out and stick with us this offseason. I think it’s um you know it’s a different vibe in any kind of sports podcast in the offseason, but it’s fun and I think you’ll get some interesting stuff from us. Uh, wow. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Including that. Uh, thanks. Take care.

Brett and Michael are back for the thirty-fifth episode of the Bleacher Nation Cubs Podcast (Presented by Ankin Law)! It’s that tricky part of the offseason where storylines are just starting to form, but there’s still plenty to dig into.

The guys discuss the Dodgers’ rumored interest in Kyler Tucker, and how it fits the trend of big-name players being tied to big Cubs offseasons—though major fireworks haven’t arrived just yet. They also look at the current roster structure and how few obvious openings the Cubs actually have.

Starting pitching remains an area of need, and the conversation turns to how the Cubs might approach it. Some of the arms discussed back in July could resurface as trade or short-term free-agent targets, as none of those pitchers ended up being moved at the deadline. While the team would likely prefer shorter deals, there’s also recognition that cost-controlled options could be appealing through trade. That said, it’s tough to imagine another big December splash just a year after the last one.

They also take a longer view, discussing Dansby Swanson’s performance three years into his seven-year, $177 million deal and what that contract looks like now that the first half of his tenure is in the books.

A special thank you to Ankin Law for sponsoring this podcast!
Visit Ankin Law’s Website ➡️ ankinlaw.com

=============================
Connect with us!
=============================
Follow Michael on Twitter ➡️ https://x.com/michael_cerami
Follow Brett on Twitter ➡️ https://x.com/brett_a_taylor
Follow Bleacher Nation on Twitter ➡️ https://x.com/bleachernation
Follow Michael on BlueSky ➡️ https://bsky.app/profile/michael-cerami.bsky.social
Follow Brett on BlueSky ➡️ https://bsky.app/profile/brett-taylor.bsky.social
Follow Bleacher Nation on BlueSky ➡️ https://bsky.app/profile/bleachernation.bsky.social

Visit our Website ➡️ bleachernation.com
=============================

=============================

Chapters:
00:00 – Introduction
03:11 – Cubs Not Linked to Big Names?
22:34 – Kyle Tucker Conversation (Again)
36:14 – Transaction Game

=============================

#mlb #chicago #cubs #chicagocubs