Article: Ranking the Four Scott Boras Guys as Cubs Free-Agent Fits

[Matthew Trueblood]

On a Chicago radio appearance Wednesday, ESPN's Jeff Passan predicted that the Cubs will sign "one of the four Boras guys" who remain atop the free-agent market and dominate the headlines of this dwindling offseason. Which one should it be?

Image courtesy of © Orlando Ramirez-USA TODAY Sports

Obviously, the focus for most Cubs fans over the last couple of months has been Cody Bellinger. It's Bellinger both the organization and the fan base know best, and Bellinger has been viewed as both the most likely and the best fit of this quartet. Two months ago, that was almost unquestionable, but a few things have changed. Let's update our preference list, shall we?

1. Blake Snell
At the beginning of this winter, Snell and the Cubs didn't seem like a good or likely fit. He was in position to demand well in excess of $200 million, after winning his second Cy Young Award in the last six years this past season. He has tremendous stuff, and his command might be underrated, but his approach makes him both frustrating to watch and hard to project. Moreover, he's not exactly a paragon of durability. Those two Cy Young campaigns are the only two in his career in which he's reached even 130 innings.

Yeah, we're past all that now. While Boras's style is to set a price and wait for the market to meet it, the probability of any team meeting his original one for Snell has plummeted. Snell's more likely to get a deal akin to that of Aaron Nola (seven years, $172 million) than to approach the Stephen Strasburg contract (seven years, $245 million) of several winters ago. With the Cubs having already reinforced the rotation with Shota Imanaga, they can afford to risk a few missed starts in order to land a true ace.

2. Jordan Montgomery
It's much less clear in which direction Montgomery's asking price has drifted as the hot stove has burned itself through. He entered the marketplace well south of Snell and Nola in terms of earning power, but because his chief strength (excellent durability, with the capacity to pitch 180-200 innings per year and take the ball every time his spot in the rotation) is the weakness of so many others in today's pitching landscape, Montgomery might only be getting more valuable as spring training draws near.

For reasons we discussed way back in December, though, he holds all kinds of appeal for the Cubs. This organization likes strike-throwers. They like guys who command the ball to both sides of the plate, and they even (anachronistically, almost) like a good curveball in a starter, rather than the increasingly popular sliders and sweepers that dominate the league. Add Montgomery to this rotation, and the innings the Cubs are projected to get from that unit rise significantly--as does the overall upside of the group. Signing Montgomery would also free up some trade capital for the team.

3. Matt Chapman
The argument against Chapman is simple: He's not an elite hitter, and signing him would cost a bunch of money and a draft pick. He'd make both Nick Madrigal and Patrick Wisdom strictly bench players, and rob the team of any real opportunity to get something in exchange for them if they decide to move on from them. He's not quite redundant, but he doesn't solve the lineup's remaining problems all that nicely. He'd block the position for Matt Shaw, for whom that's the clearest path to playing time with the parent club right now.

The argument for him is even neater, though: He's an elite defender. He's as good as Madrigal with the glove at the hot corner, and he's a much better hitter than Madrigal, even if he'd still hit sixth or seventh in an ideally constructed contender's lineup. He's no longer likely to get $150 million or so. A shorter-term deal is a very real option. Chapman would complete an infield defense that would Hoover up ground balls as well as any in the league, and he'd lengthen the lineup, although without solving the larger problem that the team's top hitters aren't imposing enough.

4. Cody Bellinger
Putting Bellinger this low feels wrong, but there's a reason why he's still a free agent. In fact, there are several, but let's focus on one: the Cubs have refused to pay Boras's asking price for him. Resisting those demands got much easier for Jed Hoyer when he traded for Michael Busch last month. With Busch in the mix, the urgency to bring back Bellinger--the need for that left-handed bat, the need for a first baseman--diminished significantly. It wasn't a leverage play. Busch is a great addition in his own right, without regard to Bellinger. It did still increase the Cubs' leverage, though, and it makes bringing in Bellinger less critical.

The other thing here is that, at this stage, Bellinger might not be the big investment the Cubs prefer to make in the lineup for the long term. Signing him makes it harder for Pete Crow-Armstrong, Alexander Canario, and Kevin Alcántara to carve out their roles (immediate or otherwise) in the outfield, or else it crimps and distorts the playing time allocations for Busch and Christopher Morel, since it seems the organization doesn't trust either guy at third base. It also forecloses the possibility of signing either Juan Soto or Pete Alonso next winter.

Perhaps the notion of the Cubs doing that sounds laughable, anyway, given Hoyer's reluctance to pay up the way those stars require when they hit free agency, but Bellinger's long-term home is first base. The corner outfield spots are spoken for in the short term. Make Bellinger a Cub for the next six years (or more) and you can cross the top two names on next winter's market off right away. It's a part of the cost that has to be considered.

Crazy though it might sound, there's a chance the Cubs could sign two of these players. In that case, though, it would almost certainly be Montgomery and Chapman. Montgomery is the only one of the four without a qualifying offer attached to him--the only one who wouldn't cost the team a draft pick. Chapman would, but if the team signed both Montgomery and Chapman but let Bellinger go elsewhere, they'd only lose a tiny bit of draft capital, because Bellinger would net them a pick just a round later than the one they'd lose for Chapman. Meanwhile, the team would get a lot better. They'd probably emerge as favorites in the NL Central, after all.

All four of these guys are appealing. Ranking Bellinger fourth doesn't mean he's not worth trying to sign anymore. Since the Busch deal, though, he's become less of a priority, and some alternatives have surpassed him in terms of desirability. The endgame of this offseason is upon us. Soon, the Cubs (and these four free agents, plus a bunch of others) need to make their decisions and their moves. There are still plenty of talented players available, but their availability is as much an indictment of the Cubs front office as it is a salve for the frustration of fans. It's time to make the big moves on which the team has waited as long as possible.

---

How do you rank these four remaining star free agents? Who would you want, if the team were to sign two of the four?

View full article

[CubinNY]

Each of them will have to play somewhere. Of the 4, I'd rather sign Montgomery. He best fits the Cubs needs.

[Bertz]

People are going to think you're hot taking but I agree with this...at least for 2024.  I think Tauchman & PCA is a better internal option in the immediate term than the group of guys fighting for time at 3B or #5 starter. 

I think also leading with a pitcher gives you the option to sign a Belt/JDM and cram a little more WAR onto the roster.  Conversely I don't think it makes as much sense to sign a $10-15M pitcher like Lorenzen in the scenario where Jed pulls down one of the bats.

I do still ultimately hope that we sign Bellinger of the four though.  For me the arguments for Bellinger being the guy are:

A) Age and profile.  A 28 year old position player is a safer long term investment than a 31 year position player or literally any pitcher

B) Soft factors.  The team loves him, he works well with the coaches, etc.  I think especially since it looks like these guys are all going to miss a chunk of ST this could matter particularly in the immediate term

C) Lineup Diversity.  Tying back to the Madrigal article yesterday, we've already got two players *very* similar to Chapman in the batter's box.  Bellinger's flyball/contact/patience combo is generally rare generally and certainly not already redundant on the Cubs

D) The possibility for a creative contract.  With Bellinger's wild career arc, and his very young age, I think he's the most likely to do something like the Carlos Correa deal.  If Bellinger proves last year wasn't a fluke he easily gets $250M+ next winter.  If he takes a step back but is still productive (3+ WAR), he much more easily gets Dansby Swanson money as he'll have proven '21/'22 Bellinger isn't coming back and also shed the qualifying offer

 

 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think you almost have to double the list, each player if the deal is 4+ years and each player on a 1-3 year deal w/ higher AAV opt-outs.  And even that's probably a bit of an oversimplification.  For me it's somewhat tiered:


Tier 1 (in rough order):  Bellinger 1-3, Chapman 1-3, Bellinger 4+, Snell 1-3

This is mostly about age, the multi-year head start Bellinger has on 2024+ productivity by being 28 is difficult to overstate even if others have a stronger roster fit.

Tier 2: Montgomery 1-3, Snell 4+

This is mostly about me not being a Montgomery believer, and a belief that Snell being a stuff monster can be worth investing in(very similar logic to the Glasnow fit)

Tier 3: Chapman 4+, Montgomery 4+ 

Again, Montgomery is the player I think we all look at in 12-18 months and go 'everyone wanted to give him how much?', and while a lot of the Chapman criticisms I see are overheated, I'm not enamored enough with his immediate outlook to want to lock in whatever he looks like at age 34 and beyond.

[We Got The Whole 9]

People should brsce themselves for Jed passing on all of them and letting his roster work itself out. He doesn't want to block the prospects and he doesn't want extremely long commitments to 4 war players. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

2 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

People should brsce themselves for Jed passing on all of them and letting his roster work itself out. He doesn't want to block the prospects and he doesn't want extremely long commitments to 4 war players. 

I think this is a probably fair point about Jed's mindset, but also the extremely long commitment has to come from someone else, and at this point I'm just not sure how many teams are going to push negotiations that far past Jed's comfort zone.  Especially for Bellinger who 1) Jed will likely be more willing to go longer on due to age and familiarity and 2) has a cheaper prospect cost for the Cubs than everyone else