Several Big Issues with Potential Short-Term Alex Bregman Deal

The Alex Bregman whispers have been taking place at the periphery of the greater Cubs offseason conversation for a while now, but they’ve gotten louder and more central the longer the third baseman remains on the market. They became full-throated on Tuesday with a report from Bruce Levine that the Cubs have had “casual conversations” with Scott Boras about the possibility of his client doing a short deal with early opt-outs. So, basically, a more expensive version of the Cody Bellinger contract they just purged via sell-trade with the Yankees.

What’s funny about all this is that Bregman carries a lot of name recognition from his time with the Astros, but the Cubs just acquired a much better player from Houston at a lower cost. And very possibly an even shorter commitment, but I guess we’ll wait and see about that. Either way, it seems the hype around Bregman is derived from past performance that may not indicate future success. That is driving a projected price tag that I can’t see making sense for the Cubs due to a number of different factors.

The first is cost, which was projected to be at or above $26 million in average annual value for a deal of at least six years. MLB Trade Rumors went with seven years and $182 million while Kiley McDaniel of ESPN pegged it at six and $187 million. That latter figure would yield a $31.2 million AAV, mainly due to a premium on the shorter duration. If that’s true, and it certainly should be, what kind of annual markup would be required to coax Bregman into a three-year deal? I have to think Boras would want at least $33 million, but let’s just stick with $30 million for the sake of the following illustration.

The Cubs are at an estimated $198 million in CBT payroll and can easily add that much while maintaining a solid buffer below the first luxury tax penalty threshold of $241 million. But bringing on Bregman’s salary, even for just a year, would likely mean no more spending since the front office is almost certainly under a mandate to avoid an overage like the one they had last season.

We also need to acknowledge that the CBT payroll really only matters if the Cubs exceed penalty levels. By that I mean it’s not real money being spent by ownership. Though the team will never reveal its actual budget, it seems quite obvious that figure is smaller than last year’s $228 million. My guess is that it’s more in the range of $200-210 million in light of Marquee’s issues and whatnot. With a current projected payroll of $180 million, Jed Hoyer may have around $30 million left to spend.

We’re looking at roughly the same allocation either way, I just want to make sure we’re being cognizant of the different figures and their importance to the topic at hand. The budget situation means the only way to create more room for outside additions — another starting pitcher and high-leverage reliever are the obvious needs — would require another money-saving trade.

Nico Hoerner and Jameson Taillon have long been mentioned in trade rumors and remain the most likely to be dealt should Hoyer feel the need to clear space, both due to cost and “expandability.” I’m intentionally soft on that last word because it feels like there’s a disconnect when it comes to the idea of swapping very high floors for potentially higher ceilings. And in this particular case, I’m not sure there’s even a pathway for the Cubs to markedly improve in either direction.

Let’s first consider Hoerner being traded as the fallout from a Bregman deal. While I’m skeptical that a good deal involving the Gold Glove second baseman exists at this point, especially with his rehab from offseason forearm surgery still ongoing, we’ll just stick to the very basics for now. Bregman’s fWAR totals have decreased in each of the last three seasons, but he’s still at a very respectable 14 fWAR in that time. Hoerner is just slightly below that at 12.8, though he’s also three years younger and much cheaper.

Just comparing the two straight-up, do you see value in paying roughly three times as much for an older player whose production might be a wash? Projection systems have Bregman generating maybe one more win next season but his power from the right side easily outpaces Hoerner, which makes the source of the production far more valuable than the catch-all metric. That said, the Cubs would probably only be left with the savings from Hoerner’s contract to reallocate toward subsequent additions.

Now, maybe that’s not too bad if they’re able to swap him for a high-leverage reliever or a starter, but you’re out of your mind if you think the Mariners are parting with a young member of their young rotation. Luis Castillo is also out of the question due to his $21.6 million AAV. Likewise, I don’t know what team out there would be willing to swap a closer for a second baseman, especially considering a team trading for Hoerner is probably looking to compete in the near future.

Flipping Taillon instead would give the Cubs more savings, assuming they don’t have to eat much or any of his $17 million AAV/$18 million actual salary. But that, just like with Hoerner, would mean either trading him for prospects who won’t impact the CBT number or pulling off a deal that sees the Cubs landing a cost-controlled starter still on a rookie deal. Thing is, there’s no way in hell any team would do a trade like that for a player who’s anything better than a fringe No. 5 guy at best.

While Taillon isn’t going to pitch like an ace, his step forward last year could be matched this season if he continues to implement positive tweaks. Even if he simply maintains last year’s performance, the Cubs would need to get at least a mid-rotation type of guy just to break even or improve slightly. Sticking to that $30 million pool means signing Bregman and trading the full freight of Taillon’s deal would leave Hoyer with $12-13 million. In case you’re not up on the economics of today’s game, that ain’t buying a better starter than Taillon.

Jack Flaherty is looking at something in the $25 million AAV range, and he’s a guy whose only significant advantage over Taillon is that he’s four years younger. Not that it would matter since Flaherty and Bregman would combine for something like $55 million, putting the Cubs well past previous hypothetical budgets even with Taillon’s money coming off. We can gripe all we want about how that shouldn’t be an issue, but it’s not really helpful to ignore reality when talking about this stuff.

The fact remains that Hoyer assembled a roster that can really only be upgraded by either paying big money for superstars or by having prospects hit big. Barring a Tucker extension, we know the Cubs aren’t going the former route. Signing Bregman or Pete Alonso, even for shorter durations, could leave the front office unable to bolster other areas of need on the roster. And keep in mind that my calculations above all under-indexed for Bregman’s projected contract on three-year deal.

But hey, maybe my figures are way off and my estimation of Bregman’s performance is far too pessimistic. I just can’t see this as much more than Boras continuing to seek leverage for his client(s) as we inch closer to the start of spring training. And at the rest of letting team leadership off the hook, I think their best path to improvement is to sign a top remaining reliever and see if they can find a good deal on a solid starter.