Who in their right mind would take on the Heyward contract without the Cubs eating a significant portion of his salary? Wouldn’t that still count against a team from a luxury tax threshold perspective?

Just now, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

Who in their right mind would take on the Heyward contract without the Cubs eating a significant portion of his salary? Wouldn’t that still count against a team from a luxury tax threshold perspective?

The Giants apparently. I don’t understand it, a Schwarber package is not at all worth it for Heyward.

6 minutes ago, RockRaines said:

If they couldn’t unload. 

Seems like conflicting reports. Your source first said that Heyward and Schwarber “will be dealt”.  But now your source is claiming there’s a chance they might not be able to unload Heyward.

Sounds to me like this is nothing new at all. The Cubs would like to move Heyward in an attempt to sign Harper, but they might not be able to. 

1 minute ago, Sockin said:

The Giants apparently. I don’t understand it, a Schwarber package is not at all worth it for Heyward.

There would be more coming and going I bet, with Giants unloading Melancon's salary, etc.  I think the trade is more about just getting Heyward off the roster than it is freeing up his salary.

1 minute ago, Tony said:

None of us know this to be fact. 

Sure, no one can say anything with 100% certainty, but I have very good reasons to believe they can not add Harper without moving signicant money and that means Heyward or Darvish.

2 minutes ago, Sockin said:

The Giants apparently. I don’t understand it, a Schwarber package is not at all worth it for Heyward.

How do we know the Giants would be willing to take on the remaining $106M even if Schwarber was included?

2 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

How do we know the Giants would be willing to take on the remaining $106M even if Schwarber was included?

wouldn't be all 106 million...Cubs would likely pay half or so and take on Melancon.

1 minute ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

How do we know the Giants would be willing to take on the remaining $106M even if Schwarber was included?

Let’s just put this all into perspective. The Giants are going absorb the albatross that is Heyward’s contract just so they have the luxury of adding three years of Schwarber when they’re nowhere close to competing?  Even if they unload Melecon’s contract, what does that accomplish for them?  There would have to be other pieces coming back there way IMO.

Just now, fathom said:

wouldn't be all 106 million...Cubs would likely pay half or so and take on Melancon.

Wouldn’t paying half count against the luxury tax payroll amount or does that money just disappear completely? Also, taking on Melancon’s $14M per year doesn’t help the Cubs much over the next two years when they are already pushing 2018 Red Sox payroll levels.

Hopefully it costs them a lot.  I said it before, but all of the teams that can really use Harper,  the Cubs gain the least marginal gain from him. I would love to see them sink a record contract in to him, as it means the chances they improve the back of the pen like they really need go down.

6 minutes ago, fathom said:

wouldn't be all 106 million...Cubs would likely pay half or so and take on Melancon.

I don't think it would be that. I'd imagine it would be money for money. Something around Heyward, Happ or Schwarber, and Chatwood going to the Giants and Melancon and either Samardzija or Cueto going to the Cubs. If it happened I'd imagine it would be Heyward, Happ and Chatwood for Melancon and Cueto. A Darvish/Samardzija swap is also a possibility. 

Edited December 29, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

12 minutes ago, Sockin said:

The Giants apparently. I don’t understand it, a Schwarber package is not at all worth it for Heyward.

Not even close to enough.

I don’t know it as gospel but the source is reliable based on what they do and where they’ve been. I was shocked. Never thought they’d move Schwarber or Almora.  It also includes some prospect as well. Quite frankly if I was them I’d just add pitching. Their offense is plenty good. Add as many good arms as you can. 

8 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

Wouldn’t paying half count against the luxury tax payroll amount or does that money just disappear completely? Also, taking on Melancon’s $14M per year doesn’t help the Cubs much over the next two years when they are already pushing 2018 Red Sox payroll levels.

Again, don't think it's as much about luxury tax as it is getting rid of Heyward.  I also think Smith or Watson would be in the deal, as it's very odd they haven't added a lefty reliever yet.

6 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I don't think it would be that. I'd imagine it would be money for money. Something around Heyward, Happ or Schwarber, and Chatwood going to the Giants and Melancon and either Samardzija or Cueto going to the Cubs. If it happened I'd imagine it would be Heyward, Happ and Chatwood for Melancon and Cueto. A Darvish/Samardzija swap is also a possibility. 

Then they can’t add Harper.  They need to cut significant salary to have any chance at Bryce.

Possiblities to be moved to Cubs from Giants: 

Cueto: 3/68 left

Samardzija: 2/40 left

Melancon: 2/28 left

 

 

1 minute ago, fathom said:

Again, don't think it's as much about luxury tax as it is getting rid of Heyward.  I also think Smith or Watson would be in the deal, as it's very odd they haven't added a lefty reliever yet.

So if the cubs eat $10MM a year of Heyward’s contract, does that $10MM count towards the luxury tax payroll? I know you are saying the Cubs aren’t concerned about the tax but I’m sure every organization is to some degree. Just trying to understand how the tax works for retained salaries such as that. I honestly don’t know and not sure how much of a benefit it would be to deal a guy but retain a large percetange of his remaining contract.

Just now, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

So if the cubs eat $10MM a year of Heyward’s contract, does that $10MM count towards the luxury tax payroll? I know you are saying the Cubs aren’t concerned about the tax but I’m sure every organization is to some degree. Just trying to understand how the tax works for retained salaries such as that. I honestly don’t know and not sure how much of a benefit it would be to deal a guy but retain a large percetange of his remaining contract.

I’m pretty sure it does count against the luxury tax and there is zero chance the Cubs actually go past the second luxury tax threshold.

Did anyone have an answer for how much would count against their luxury tax if they Cubs ate, let's say, $80M in this deal? Does that entire $80M count against their luxury tax in 2019, or is it spread out evenly over the course of his contract? 

8 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Then they can’t add Harper.  They need to cut significant salary to have any chance at Bryce.

They could if they got a 3rd team involved who needs pitching and would be willing to eat Cueto's contract, while they take on Samardzija and Melancon who only have two years left. It isn't out of the question they go into the luxury tax for this year only, as they have Zobrist coming off the books after this season. They only have 81M committed in 2020, according to Cot's contracts. If they get rid of their arb guys(Schwarber, Happ, Almora) , they could do that to shed the long term money for short term money. 

Should they pick up Quintana's option next year, they'd have only $93M committed for 2020 +whatever Bryant and Baez get in arbitration. 

Edited December 29, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

The cubs will unload whatever it takes was what I heard. And Harper is waiting for it

1 minute ago, RockRaines said:

The cubs will unload whatever it takes was what I heard. And Harper is waiting for it

And no chance for the Sox to outbid it?  Or is the Cubs offer sufficient such that it doesn't matter to him if others offer more.

1 minute ago, RockRaines said:

The cubs will unload whatever it takes was what I heard. And Harper is waiting for it

This should do wonders for the Sox franchise in Chicago.   

Just now, Chicago White Sox said:

I’m pretty sure it does count against the luxury tax and there is zero chance the Cubs actually go past the second luxury tax threshold.

I thought so too, which is why I don’t understand the real tax benefit to trading Heyward if the Cubs are retaining a large amount of the remaining money or taking on large contracts like Shark and Melancon. I’d be shocked if the Cubs blew past the second luxury tax threshold of $226M. Their current projected team payroll is just under $210M per baseball reference.

2 minutes ago, RockRaines said:

The cubs will unload whatever it takes was what I heard. And Harper is waiting for it

How is Theo this dumb to think hes willing to dismantle what is currently working for them only to ignore their biggest weakness? Why not sign Corbin and then move these pieces?