Olney: What missing out on Alex Bregman says about Cubs’ unwillingness to spend
-
Buster Olney
Hurricane Milton wrecked the Tampa Bay Rays’ ballpark last fall, leaving them without a stadium. For this season, they will play their home games in the Yankees’ spring training facility, which has a capacity in the range of 11,000 fans.
And yet the Rays have outspent the Chicago Cubs in free agency this winter.
Which says so much more about the conduct of the big-market Cubs than about the Rays. Last week, the Cubs were outbid by multiple teams for the services of All-Star third baseman Alex Bregman, and the question that should hang over the franchise is: why? Why aren’t the Cubs spending more?
Owner Tom Ricketts provided no answers last week when he briefly stopped by camp in Arizona, told the players that it was a privilege to play for his organization (according to manager Craig Counsell) and then left without speaking to reporters. Jed Hoyer, the team’s head of baseball operations, cited the club’s budget when asked about the Bregman bidding. The Cubs dangled a four-year, $115 million deal that left them outbid significantly by the Tigers and Astros, and Bregman chose a three-year deal with the Red Sox, partly to give himself the option of testing the market again next fall since the deal includes two opt-outs.
Nothing about the Cubs’ offer could’ve given them a legitimate shot at landing a player who would’ve been a perfect fit. The Tigers offered the most total dollars on the table; the Astros offered a chance for Bregman to continue his Houston legacy, without being tapped for state taxes. The Red Sox deal offered the highest average annual salary with contractual flexibility. It was as if the Cubs wanted Bregman to play for less money and the privilege of being part of their organization.
But it’s hard to see that being appealing enough to convince someone like Bregman, who has played in the postseason in every year of his career and aims to continue that tradition. Despite the fact that the Cubs are playing in baseball’s land of opportunity, the incredibly weak NL Central, they’ve given no indication that winning is actually a priority. Making money seems to be the modus operandi.
This all comes at the end of a winter in which Ricketts already made headlines for his comments about the Cubs’ inability to keep up with the sport’s top payrolls when he told 670 AM in Chicago that “it’s really hard to compete” with the Dodgers. In that January interview, he said that fans “think somehow we have all these dollars that the Dodgers have or the Mets have or the Yankees have and we just keep it. Which isn’t true at all. What happens is we try to break even every year, and that’s about it.”
But that doesn’t really align with the available numbers from Sportico’s MLB team values rankings. The Cubs’ franchise value, as assessed by Sportico, was at $5.3 billion as of last season. That’s the fourth highest in Major League Baseball, and more than three times greater than the combined value of the Brewers ($1.6 billion), Reds ($1.5 billion) and Pirates ($1.4 billion). The Cubs’ revenue generated last season, as estimated by Sportico, was at $502 million, the fourth highest in the majors, behind the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox.
With the draw of Wrigley Field, the Cubs’ ability to generate income is Teflon-coated, especially compared to other teams that didn’t spend much this winter. The Rays’ situation is fragile; it’s really tough for fans to get to and from the Marlins’ park; and even Cardinals’ fans have vacated their park in recent years because of the team’s lackluster play. But even in the worst years, the Cubs draw. It’s one benefit of playing in the third-largest market in the nation.
And yet the Cubs’ payroll will be significantly lower than last year. Per Sportico, the Cubs are in line to spend $186 million in player salary, or nearly $30 million less than last year.
Sure, the Cubs traded for All-Star right fielder Kyle Tucker from the Astros — for one year, perhaps, because Tucker will be a free agent in the fall — but the front office seemingly had to move Cody Bellinger and his $27.5 million salary to make that happen. Tucker will make $16.5 million.
The Cubs swapped for Ryan Pressly, after the Astros agreed to pay down some of his salary. Colin Rea was signed for $5 million. And the Cubs signed Matthew Boyd to a two-year, $29 million deal.
The storm-ravaged Rays? They landed shortstop Ha-Seong Kim for $29 million over two years and signed catcher Danny Jansen to a one-year, $8.5 million deal. With those two contracts, Tampa Bay spent more in free agency than the Cubs.
Yes, the Cubs’ overall payroll currently sits just above $185 million compared to $72 million for the Rays, but in a crucial offseason for the franchise, Chicago has elected to spend like its small-market counterparts. And, yes, the Cubs do have reason for hope in 2025, but also likely not enough star talent to stand toe to toe with the National League’s best.
The defense is excellent — Dansby Swanson and Nico Hoerner are exceptional up the middle, and the outfield of Ian Happ, Pete Crow-Armstrong and Tucker will probably be the best in the majors. A signing of Bregman would’ve given the Cubs another lockdown defender, another Gold Glove contender feeding into a distinct style. The Dodgers might have the most prolific offense; the Phillies have a great group of veterans; Ronald Acuna Jr. and Spencer Strider will be back for the Braves; the Mets added Juan Soto — but with a high-end third baseman, the Cubs could have been the best run prevention team in baseball, which often translates well in the postseason. And Bregman would’ve improved an offense that was so inconsistent last year.
Instead, the financially mighty Cubs chose to effectively stand down in the bidding for Bregman, content to fall somewhere in the range of 12th to 14th among the 30 teams in their payroll size, and they have a roster that feels unequipped to take on the teams that were willing to spend.
Ricketts can rightly expect the best effort from his players. But sadly, he has not reciprocated. The Cubs players — the Cubs fans — deserve better.
-
Ryan S. Clark
BOSTON — Other than the game itself, both Canada and the United States were talking about President Donald Trump hours before playing one another in the NHL 4 Nations Face-Off championship game.
Trump was a topic of conversation for both teams Thursday with many Team USA players speaking about the call they shared with the president with Team Canada sharing some of its thoughts about Trump once again stating that Canada would become the “51st state” in the country.
“It was awesome. It was one of the cooler experiences I’ve had,” Team USA’s Vincent Trocheck said of the Trump phone call. “Having the president of the United States call your team about a hockey game just seems kind of crazy but it’s pretty cool.”
Team USA and New York Rangers forward J.T. Miller echoed a similar sentiment.
“Pretty cool. It was so awesome to hear the support,” Miller said. “It’s a pretty big deal for us to take time out of his schedule to talk to us. It’s just another one of those things where we’re pinching ourselves this tournament. It’s been really fun so far to see the support from everybody up to the president is pretty wild.”
Miller said that Trump told the team to enjoy the moment and have fun with it with Team USA defenseman Zach Werenski saying he “kind of blacked out” because of the significance of the moment.
Team USA received a call from the President this morning to wish them luck ahead of tonight’s #4Nations championship game. pic.twitter.com/he1kIgUVGW
— USA Hockey (@usahockey) February 20, 2025
A reporter then asked Miller if Trump mentioned making Canada the 51st state.
“I don’t think he brought that up,” said Werenski, who plays for the Columbus Blue Jackets. “He left that one out.”
Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier Thursday that he planned on calling Team USA while later adding that “on toward victory tonight against Canada … will someday, maybe soon, become our cherished, and very important Fifty First State.”
With political tensions already in place prior to the 4 Nations, those feelings have only amplified with hockey as its latest avenue. It started with fans on both sides booing during each country’s respective national anthems.
It further escalated during the first Canada-U.S. game last Saturday. There were three fights in the first nine seconds of a contest which ultimately ended with the U.S. winning 3-1 in Montreal. The game itself became the talk of the North American sports landscape and only added to the anticipation of a potential rematch, something Canada secured Tuesday with a 5-3 win against Sweden.
Canada coach Jon Cooper was asked if the political discussion regarding the two countries has entered the dressing room.
“Other than the talk of [Canada becoming] the 51st state and then somebody saying, ‘Wow, we’d have one hell of a hockey team,'” said Cooper, who is the head coach of the Tampa Bay Lightning.
Cooper then further elaborated on the subject.
“Let’s be honest, you’d never get what’s going to be contested tonight,” Cooper said. “The political side of things, we feel [that] for everybody on our side of things. But for us to come here and to be in that room, it’s going to be more for us to win that game, then sit there and debate what the game means. We have to go out there and represent our country and make them proud. If we accomplish that, then I think we accomplish what we want to, which is to make Canadians proud.”
ESPN’s Greg Wyshynski contributed to this report.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports11 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway