NEWSLETTER
It struck me as one of the most important questions to ask Chicago Cubs President of Baseball Operations Jed Hoyer today, and the excellent Chicago media obliged, asking the question twice in different ways. Essentially, the question boiled down to this: are you guys able to spend in free agency now or what?
We knew the Cubs weren’t going to be spending big after the pandemic-ravaged season – “biblical losses” and what have you – but we also knew that there was a range of budget projections for 2021. With a lot of salaries coming off the books organically, and now with Darvish traded, it’s a pretty easy question to ask: is there now enough flexibility to at least add some of those lesser free agents from a free agent class that is pretty deep in “interesting” but “low cost” guys?
I *think* the answer was yes?
Heh.
I mean, I have to say it like that because both times he was asked, Hoyer stiffened a bit and kept things very general, offering a version of this: We know we have holes. We want to compete in 2021. We’re involved in free agency now. We’re talking to agents. The market is just slow.
Hoyer wouldn’t really take the bait on how the Darvish trade impacted near-term spending, instead falling back on making a point we all already knew to be true – the Cubs won’t be shopping among the elite free agents this offseason. He said it in a way that riled some folks up, but I don’t think the message was complicated: there will be a time to spend big on free agents again in the future, but right now is not that time. Honestly? I’m OK with it. Not because I am endorsing any kind of financial approach or punting on 2021, but instead because (1) the next two free agent classes are monsters, and I’d rather the Cubs were in a great position to spend then; and (2) this year’s class – and the financial uncertainty created by the pandemic and the looming CBA – offers a lot more short-term, low-cost, interesting-upside types. I’m OK with the Cubs exploring that pool this offseason, rather than the Bauer-Springer-Realmuto types.
But will the Cubs actually do it? I mean, will they actually repurpose $10 to $20 million on the big league roster on short-term free agent contracts? Sorry, you just weren’t going to get a crystal clear answer from Hoyer today. Part of that is his (and Theo Epstein before him) general reticence to discuss finances, because it doesn’t help you in negotiations down the road. They simply tend not to tell the world what they’re going to do financially.
But I can’t help but wonder if part of it was him not wanting to say out loud that moving Darvish’s salary out (and partially replacing it with Zach Davies) didn’t really open up any new flexibility, and instead just brought the Cubs back to a baseline. Let’s not forget, we believe the Cubs were one of the teams this offseason that simply didn’t know their baseball budget earlier this month. Heck, they still might not know! Hoyer might not have been able to answer the question yet, as insane as that is! Virus! Vaccine! Attendance! Drama!
So, anyway, the upshot here is that Hoyer was adamant the Cubs are involved in free agency. And he didn’t take the opportunity to say “things are tight, we can’t add much, etc.,” but he also didn’t take the opportunity to say, “yeah, now we have a little more flexibility.” He twice avoided going either of those routes.
Gut reaction is that the Cubs were always planning to shop in the low-cost, bounce-back, “interesting” free agent pool, and nothing about the Darvish trade changed that. If they can get a short-term bargain on Jose Quintana types (I offer his name only because he’s an example and a tier with which you have familiarity), then yeah, the money will be there for that.
