Chicago Cubs 2026

#4      
EyeoftheIllini
Hunter Harvey staying healthy might be a huge key to Cubs success. The other RPs they’ve signed aren’t exactly power arms, so he could play a big role.
 
#8      
Warren Carter Fanclub
suburbanILLINI said:
Imai would have cost money which is a no-no in Tommy's book
Click to expand...
Middle market mindset.
Wait until the money of the new White Sox owner kicks in. They'll probably be outspending the "just want to break even each year" Cubs. :cry:
Ricketts doesn't realize the 2016 honeymoon is over. If they're done spending, he better not show up for the Cubs Convention.
 
#9      
Seppuku
Warren Carter Fanclub said:
Middle market mindset.
Wait until the money of the new White Sox owner kicks in. They'll probably be outspending the "just want to break even each year" Cubs. :cry:
Ricketts doesn't realize the 2016 honeymoon is over. If they're done spending, he better not show up for the Cubs Convention.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing/reading comments like this and I just don’t get it. The Cubs have been consistently top-10 in payroll since 2016 and have signed many players to big contracts. They have pursued some big names and missed (often for now reasons out of their control—like Ohtani simply wanting to play in LA).

As it stands right now, they are no. 9 in payroll for 2026, very close to the next 4-5 teams above them and far ahead of “middle market” teams.

Do people want them to sign players to big contracts just to show that they’re big spenders?

No one that was/is free agent this year (including Kyle Tucker) is worth a large contract. Do we need another albatross contract like Hayward just to show willingness to spend big?!
 
#10      
Second place is 1st loser
The problem is that it's the Dodgers, Mets, Phillies, Jays, Yankees.......the everyone else.

The Cubs have a payroll of $205,307,380
The Dodgers have a payroll of $342,182,413
The Marlins have a payroll of $80,516,666

The Cubs are actually closer is spending to the Marlins(dead last) than the Dodgers(first).

There's 5 tiers in the top 10:

Dodgers ($342.2M)
Mets ($303M)
Phillies ($301.5M)

Jays ($280.7M)
Yankees ($280.1M)

Padres ($255.1M)
Braves ($250M)

Red Sox ($234.8M)
Astros ($234.1M)

Cubs ($205.3M)

There are significant drop offs in payroll for each tier.

While you're correct, they are in the top 10, it's miscinceiving and as the free agents come and go, they won't play with the top spenders.
 
#11      
Grandpa
Seppuku said:
I keep hearing/reading comments like this and I just don’t get it. The Cubs have been consistently top-10 in payroll since 2016 and have signed many players to big contracts. They have pursued some big names and missed (often for now reasons out of their control—like Ohtani simply wanting to play in LA).

As it stands right now, they are no. 9 in payroll for 2026, very close to the next 4-5 teams above them and far ahead of “middle market” teams.

Do people want them to sign players to big contracts just to show that they’re big spenders?

No one that was/is free agent this year (including Kyle Tucker) is worth a large contract. Do we need another albatross contract like Hayward just to show willingness to spend big?!
Click to expand...
No, we need to sign a good player even if we have to pay him. Heyward's peak was about .260. Mid power, meh RBIs. Bad signing.
The chart showing money made and % returned to players has the Cubs near the bottom. That chart has been everywhere.
 
#12      
Gary J
Grandpa said:
No, we need to sign a good player even if we have to pay him. Heyward's peak was about .260. Mid power, meh RBIs. Bad signing.
The chart showing money made and % returned to players has the Cubs near the bottom. That chart has been everywhere.
Click to expand...
Heyward was expensive. But his defense and quiet leadership brought the Cubs a World Series.
 
#13      
Warren Carter Fanclub
Seppuku said:
I keep hearing/reading comments like this and I just don’t get it. The Cubs have been consistently top-10 in payroll since 2016 and have signed many players to big contracts. They have pursued some big names and missed (often for now reasons out of their control—like Ohtani simply wanting to play in LA).

As it stands right now, they are no. 9 in payroll for 2026, very close to the next 4-5 teams above them and far ahead of “middle market” teams.

Do people want them to sign players to big contracts just to show that they’re big spenders?

No one that was/is free agent this year (including Kyle Tucker) is worth a large contract. Do we need another albatross contract like Hayward just to show willingness to spend big?!
Click to expand...
#9 in payroll and how much in revenue? I guarantee it's higher than #9. And if it's not, it's because they made a bad investment with Marquee.
Right now we are projected to get 82 wins. Are you happy with that?
I'm not saying that we just sign guys to sign them. It's not my money but what is the problem with going a little over the luxury tax for a year? We didn't last year so there would be no extra penalty this year. Everything will change in 2027 so why not go over a little this year?
The only reason we went $500K over in 2024 was a miscalculation.
This team appreciates millions and millions every year. Poor Ricketts.
"Pursuing" big names means NOTHING.
 
Last edited:
#17      
MikeTisdale
Seppuku said:
I keep hearing/reading comments like this and I just don’t get it. The Cubs have been consistently top-10 in payroll since 2016 and have signed many players to big contracts. They have pursued some big names and missed (often for now reasons out of their control—like Ohtani simply wanting to play in LA).

As it stands right now, they are no. 9 in payroll for 2026, very close to the next 4-5 teams above them and far ahead of “middle market” teams.

Do people want them to sign players to big contracts just to show that they’re big spenders?

No one that was/is free agent this year (including Kyle Tucker) is worth a large contract. Do we need another albatross contract like Hayward just to show willingness to spend big?!
Click to expand...
No they should not spend money just to spend money (which seems to be the Mets strategy and that hasn't worked for them), but to consistently be in the 9-12 range for payroll in the 3rd largest market (and crying poor while doing it) is inexcusable.

The Rickett's leveraged themselves buying all the real estate around Wrigley and now they're stuck with a sub tax payroll for the foreseeable future. They're lucky to be in the division they're in with a bunch of small market teams (albeit smart ones, with Milwaukee doing what they do with low budgets and the Cardinals being hot for 2 decades before the last few years).
 
#19      
bdutts
Seppuku said:
Do we need another albatross contract like Hayward just to show willingness to spend big?!
Click to expand...
Certainly don't want albatross contracts but they need to be paying payroll tax 2 out of every 3 years. Sure, they are always "in on" free agents but yet don't seem to be able to close the door on them. Wonder why that is?

Labor issues aside after the 2026 season, why shouldn't the Cubs sign both Tucker and Bregman?
 
#20      
bdutts
Here's another take on the payroll versus revenue. Made up by a Brewers fan so not sure how accurate it is but he/she explains where the data comes from:

MBL Revenue versus Payroll
 
#21      
Seppuku
bdutts said:
Certainly don't want albatross contracts but they need to be paying payroll tax 2 out of every 3 years. Sure, they are always "in on" free agents but yet don't seem to be able to close the door on them. Wonder why that is?

Labor issues aside after the 2026 season, why shouldn't the Cubs sign both Tucker and Bregman?
Click to expand...

Because one (Bergman) hasn’t done much in few years to justify his price tag, and the other (Tucker) will be demanding long and expensive contract and his numbers last year in Cubs are huge ref flag?! I don’t understand why people are fixated on paying players for who they were not who they are now… neither one of these two players is worth the what they’re asking for.

Again, to all those calling out the Cubs management, who in the last 2-3 years you think the Cubs had a realistic chance at getting and they did not pursue?! Soto is NOT worth $765 (ask the Mets); Ohtani was not coming here (see his K with LA)..

Between 2016-2020, Cubs were top-5 in payroll every year (couple of times top 2 or 3). Then they went much needed rebuild for 2 seasons. So, it’s only been 2 seasons of being in spending mode. So, I ask again, who is it that Cubs should have pursued and did not?
 
#24      
Warren Carter Fanclub
Seppuku said:
Because one (Bergman) hasn’t done much in few years to justify his price tag, and the other (Tucker) will be demanding long and expensive contract and his numbers last year in Cubs are huge ref flag?! I don’t understand why people are fixated on paying players for who they were not who they are now… neither one of these two players is worth the what they’re asking for.

Again, to all those calling out the Cubs management, who in the last 2-3 years you think the Cubs had a realistic chance at getting and they did not pursue?! Soto is NOT worth $765 (ask the Mets); Ohtani was not coming here (see his K with LA)..

Between 2016-2020, Cubs were top-5 in payroll every year (couple of times top 2 or 3). Then they went much needed rebuild for 2 seasons. So, it’s only been 2 seasons of being in spending mode. So, I ask again, who is it that Cubs should have pursued and did not?
Click to expand...
Pursuit is not the defining issue. Spending is the issue. And I'm not thinking of Soto or Ohtani.
Imai went for WAY less than anticipated. He has a very high ceiling. I'd take a chance on him rather than Gallen. Are you happy with the starting pitching they have going into the season? A lot of injuries and question marks.
The point is: Ricketts crying poor is a joke. Take a look at the charts referenced above. And that doesn't even reference appreciation.
 
Last edited:
Back