With the Cubs/Mariners game not happening until 9:10 p.m. CT tonight, I thought I’d take a bit of time today to address something that’s bothered me recently.
To wit: The claims by many fans that “Tom Ricketts is cheap!”
Yes, it is true that the Cubs have not spent as much money as, say, the Dodgers or Mets. I’ll show later how the Dodgers have financial advantages that the Cubs do not. The Mets — how’s all that spending working out for them?
In fact, in recent years the Cubs have, in fact, spent money
to improve the team, and you can see that improvement in the 2026 edition.
Dansby Swanson was part of the four-shortstop class in the 2022-23 offseason that included Carlos Correa, Trea Turner and Xander Bogaerts. Swanson signed a deal for the least total money of those four — seven years, $177 million. Correa’s deal was for six years and $200 million with the Twins, and now he’s back with his original team, the Astros. Turner’s with the Phillies was for 11 years and $300 million. Bogaert signed with the Padres for 11 years and $280 million.
You can make an argument — and I am now going to make that argument — that the Swanson deal is the best of the four. Swanson has posted 16.9 bWAR in his four years with the Cubs, and of course he’s injured now and likely won’t add much (if anything) to that the rest of this year. That’s an average of 4.2 bWAR per season.
Since Correa signed that deal, he’s been worth 7.7 bWAR and been injured a lot more than Swanson.
Turner has posted 12.3 bWAR for the Phillies, which included a fifth-place MVP finish in 2025 and a batting title.
And Bogaerts has just 8.8 bWAR in San Diego and his power numbers are way down from his Boston days.
So yeah. I’m making the argument that Swanson’s deal was the best of the four, getting more value for less money.
And that’s part of my point here — you don’t have to just spend the most money to get the best performance.
Further, the Cubs did sign someone who was arguably the top free agent last offseason, Alex Bregman, for five years and $175 million, the highest AAV in team history. After a very, very, VERY slow start, Bregman has hit extremely well for the last few weeks — .306/.380/.582 (41-for-134) over his last 33 games with 10 doubles, nine home runs, 26 RBI and 27 runs scored. He’s at 3.8 bWAR and might have a 5 WAR season in him yet, and I’d bet by the end of the year his OPS will be around .800 (it’s currently .749). And he’s got a good chance to win his second Gold Glove.
So that’s not “cheap.” Right?
Further, the Cubs signed two cornerstones of the franchise to long-term extensions earlier this year. Nico Hoerner likely retires having never played a game for another team with his six-year, $141 million deal. Pete Crow-Armstrong’s six-year, $115 million extension sure looks like money well spent.
Think back a few years. What if Jed Hoyer had signed Anthony Rizzo, Javier Báez and Kris Bryant to extensions instead of breaking up the World Series core group, as many wanted the team to do at the time? What a disaster that would have been. Bryant’s Rockies deal is one of the worst free-agent signings ever, Báez has been mediocre in Detroit and Rizzo played one full year and two partial years in New York before having to retire, likely due to multiple concussions.
There is one player from that core that the Cubs should have kept around. Yes, of course Hoyer and Ricketts should have extended Kyle Schwarber instead of non-tendering him, one of the worst player personnel decisions in franchise history. Granted and stipulated.
But apart from that, if you’re calling Tom Ricketts “cheap,” why? The words “intelligent spending” have been mocked after Hoyer said them a few years back, but what’s wrong with doing that?
Here’s what I think, and I could be wrong, and please feel free to correct me if my perception is not right: It seems to me that many of the folks yelling “Ricketts is cheap” are likely saying that because they think the Cubs should just sign the most expensive free agent on the market with no regard to how that player fits the team, or budgets, or anything. Just spend the most! How’d that work out for the Dodgers with Kyle Tucker?
The example for next offseason, of course, is Tarik Skubal, generally recognized as the top free agent for 2026-27. Would YOU pay Skubal the $400 million deal he’s been rumored to be worth? I, personally, would not. Skubal’s a very good pitcher, no doubt, but I don’t see him as a generational talent like Clayton Kershaw, Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander are. And Skubal has an injury history. Yes, he’ll likely sign with the Dodgers, and while his three starts to date in L.A. have been good, I don’t see them as the overwhelmingly dominant thing that, say, Jacob Misiorowski is doing in Milwaukee. Just wait until Miz becomes a free agent — if the Brewers let him get that far. Milwaukee doesn’t spend much, as you know, but for Misiorowski, perhaps they will.
I mentioned above the Dodgers’ financial advantage. Of course, that comes not only from their 25-year, $8 billion TV deal, but from this:
The Dodgers have that from the bankruptcy filed by previous ownership 15 years ago — and yet they keep that advantage for another 13 years beyond now! An extra $66 million per year would certainly help the Cubs, no?
In any case, the Cubs’ luxury tax payroll, per Spotrac, currently ranks eighth in MLB, just a couple million dollars behind the Padres in seventh and $9 million behind the Red Sox in sixth. That doesn’t say “cheap” to me.
Tom Ricketts, Crane Kenney and Jed Hoyer have put together a strong, winning team and they all know how great the postseason atmosphere was at Wrigley Field last year. Here’s hoping for a longer postseason run from the not-cheap Cubs in 2026.
