It's July, and the Cubs Need to Be Extremely Proactive Sellers

[Matthew Trueblood]

Losing a series in Milwaukee over the weekend was the best thing that could possibly happen to the 2024 Chicago Cubs. They needed it, the way a person battling addiction needs to find rock bottom. The first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one. The Chicago Cubs are bad. Now, they can go about the business of becoming good.

Image courtesy of © Michael McLoone-USA TODAY Sports

Little mystery remains, because the choices the front office made this winter amounted to running back the same roster that won 83 games last season after a miraculous July turnaround that made them into contenders until the bottom fell out in September. The sample with which the Cubs front office can and should evaluate their own team is not half a season, but a season and a half, and that needs to be enough for them to see the obvious: they're not going anywhere with this group.

That's not to cast aspersions on any of Nico Hoerner, Justin Steele, Ian Happ, Seiya Suzuki, Cody Bellinger, Jameson Taillon, or even Dansby Swanson, individually. That group just doesn't add up to an adequate core around which to build a legitimate or long-term winner, given the shape of the rest of their roster and aging curve's gravity beginning to tug some of them in the wrong direction. They're a very good supporting cast waiting only on the superstar around which the whole thing can revolve, but because this front office is eternally, deleteriously conservative, they aren't getting that player. They missed two chances to acquire such a player this winter, and the evidence that they even tried especially hard is mixed, at best.

Jed Hoyer does not have it in him to add the kind of talent missing from this team, and despite so many revampings and reallocations that we've all lost count, the organization remains unable to develop their ostensibly promising young players into that kind of talent, either. The success stories (Ben Brown, Javier Assad, Jordan Wicks, Hoerner) all have to be qualified and caveated, while the failures (Hayden Wesneski, Miguel Amaya, Pete Crow-Armstrong) feel and appear abject. There's still time for all of those players, and a dozen others who have yet to debut, to take big steps forward, but the consistent improvement and the occasional breakout that good development organizations get from talented young players remain elusive for the Hoyer-run Cubs, as they were for the second half of the Theo Epstein Era.

This weekend, the team needed to look no further than into the other dugout to see the team they have wanted (and, perhaps, ought) to be. The Brewers are multi-talented. They've been nimble and opportunistic, picking up Willy Adames and William Contreras in trades when hardly anyone else even realized they were available; Christian Yelich in a blockbuster trade the likes of which the Cubs last attempted with Nomar Garciaparra; and Rookie of the Year candidate Joey Ortiz in a trade for a player they had under team control for one more season. They've developed relief pitchers as successfully as the Cubs did for the decade prior to this season, but whereas the Cubs do it by finding guys with funky secondary skill sets and little velocity, they do it with guys who then strike out 30% of opposing batters and throw in the upper 90s.

Most of all, because the Brewers not only have a fecund farm system but turn players who were not premium or high-bonus prospects into potential stars, they have a few of them on very team-friendly long-term deals. Freddy Peralta is still under team control on two team options after this season. Jackson Chourio, 20, could be retained at reasonable salaries until he's 30, if the Brewers want him for that long. They've done excellent scouting and player development, good coaching, and most importantly, proactive, fearless front-office work, across two and a half regimes. They're miles ahead of the Cubs, and not just in the 2024 NL Central standings.

The Cubs, of course, had plenty to hold their attention in their own dugout Saturday, when the latest defensive calamities from a team theoretically built around defense prompted Justin Steele to explode into an expletive-laden exhortation as he stomped down the steps after a two-run inning. In that frame, Hoerner failed to execute a rundown properly, but Christopher Morel ensured the miscue would cost the team an out by flubbing his reception of Hoerner's tardy throw. Pete Crow-Armstrong didn't quite make a play that would have been extraordinary from an average center fielder, but which a player who had a .395 OPS for the month of June had better make in order to be a big-leaguer. 

Steele was right to be upset, but any satisfaction Cubs fans could find in his release of an emotion many of them have been feeling for weeks was extremely short-lived. On Sunday, another out-not-made by Morel (not an error, not quite even a misplay; just a ball that an above-average third baseman makes into an out, but on which he was nowhere close to doing so) and a fly ball Happ followed around the world but never could catch helped seal Kyle Hendricks's miserable fate, as the magic of Hendricks's June un-swoon faded and the Brewers crushed two home runs against him.

It would be excruciating for the Cubs' decision-makers to have to lean into another rebuild, but they would be foolish not to sell--and sell aggressively--before this month ends. This would require a lot of proactivity and cleverness, and it's not clear that Hoyer is any more capable of that than he was of building a winning team. His only successful sell trades were, ultimately, reactive, and despite the ugly standings, these would have to be proactive.

Already, we've brought you pieces advocating trading one of Happ and Suzuki; dealing Hoerner; or even getting value for Steele, while they can. Expect us to continue discussing those topics throughout the next 30 days. We'll also muse about whether the team can get any value in exchange for Héctor Neris, Drew Smyly, Mark Leiter Jr., or Tyson Miller, or even escape part of their financial obligations to one of the first two; what trying to trade Bellinger (with his complicated, player-friendly deal) would look like; and who should get the playing time trading any of those players might create. The team needs more information to make better decisions about key players for their future, so they had better make sure that those players have room in the lineup, rotation, or bullpen down the stretch.

Most of those players are under team control well beyond this season, though, and a few of them have contractual situations that will make moving them difficult. The best guess is that Hoyer won't do very much, but it is the official editorial position of this website that he had better do so. The Cubs are bad in 2024. They probably won't be especially good in 2025, but there's still some room to make progress toward that goal by being aggressive immediately. If they sit on their hands and hope for things to get better, things will, instead, get much worse. There is a perfectly good chance that the next good Cubs team is five or six years away, and unless the front office wakes the [pick your word] up, that chance will only increase over the coming months.

View full article

[CubinNY]

4 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I’ll say it again: this buy/sell binary some of yous are obsessed with pretending exists for unknown reasons is as made up as Bigfoot or the tooth fairy. It’s much lamer and more poorly thought out than imagined to be by proponents, which is why nobody obsessed with selling can get too specific about for what (just the boring crutch that is Future). It’s temper tantrum nonsense from comfortables that plays *into* the hands of the disgusting entities that own so-ciety 

Tom, nobody knows what the horsefeathers you are talking about. But let's pretend we do for a minute. Recent history (the last 50 years) shows that teams out of contention trade MLB players for "the future". 1in 1984 The Cubs traded a young Joe Carter and Mel Hall for Rick Suttcliffe (just one example). 

It's something teams do regularly. Now you can argue with the new playoff system many teams will not be looking to sell much or buy much. Or that too many teams are in contention that the market will be frozen. But that's a different argument.

You can also argue that the Cubs don't have much to sell that will bring back anything thing of value for the "future". But that's a different argument too. 

So, it may not be a binary outcome (your strawman), but let's not pretend that we live in a world that doesn't have teams selling off veterans for the future. 

[Matt W]

Matt, assuming the biggest macro issue remains the lack of star power:Which “valuable” assets , big-league level and farm, are you most willing to part with to acquire an elite bat?

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

This doesn't have to be a fire sale. In fact, pulling off a firesale with this roster would be quite a feat. There are a ton of long- or mid-term assets and moving all of them would be a challenge.

What Hoyer needs to do - and I think this is the point of the article - is accurately judge which players should be moved to improve the club long-term. That's not all of them. It might only be one of them, though it seems Hoyer should aim higher than that low bar.

Teams can sell and compete the following season, they just need to make the right decisions and be aggressive with their choices. The Cubs have many players with value in trade and as the roster is currently constructed, they're somewhat expendable. Make the right choices, pick the right guys, and this can be an on-the-fly retool.

[Tryptamine]

I'm already on record that Cody needs to be traded and I'd love to sell high on Taillon. I'd also be open to moving Nico, and to a much lesser degree, Steele. Steele would require some kind of ridiculous borderline unreasonable haul for me to be ok with. Perhaps in the offseason, but not right now, I'd also be game for moving Morel. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Selling as a concept exists to make tomorrow better in exchange for making today worse.  In the current playoff environment, at the deadline it means mostly trading expiring contracts, of which the Cubs only really have Hendricks.

 The number of players that will make 2025 or 2026 better by trading away is incredibly small and does not include Hoerner or Taillon.  It probably doesn’t include Bellinger either.

 

 Therefore, a more aggressive sell means having a view that the team needs 2.5+ years to be truly competitive.  This strikes me as absurd and indefensible, especially given the aforementioned playoff environment.

[mul21]

15 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Selling as a concept exists to make tomorrow better in exchange for making today worse.  In the current playoff environment, at the deadline it means mostly trading expiring contracts, of which the Cubs only really have Hendricks.

 The number of players that will make 2025 or 2026 better by trading away is incredibly small and does not include Hoerner or Taillon.  It probably doesn’t include Bellinger either.

 

 Therefore, a more aggressive sell means having a view that the team needs 2.5+ years to be truly competitive.  This strikes me as absurd and indefensible, especially given the aforementioned playoff environment.

Are you saying you're in favor of waiting this team out and hoping for positive regression to the mean?  The math certainly says that's probably the right move based on career histories, but between the injuries and luck this year, I'm not sure I have faith in staying the course.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

4 minutes ago, mul21 said:

Are you saying you're in favor of waiting this team out and hoping for positive regression to the mean?  The math certainly says that's probably the right move based on career histories, but between the injuries and luck this year, I'm not sure I have faith in staying the course.

Like Tom I think people get too wrapped up in buy vs sell as a binary distinction.  Make moves to make next year better, if they come with making 2024 better too i don’t think that’s throwing away value given the team’s talent and the bar for the wild card.

[sneakypower]

the Brewers were perfectly willing to sell off the best closer in baseball without meaningfully affecting the near-term future, and in the process obtained the centerpiece for acquiring William Contreras & Joel Payamps a few months later; similarly again they also parlayed their ace into a lineup fixture and top-100 P prospect

it's uninspired thinking to want to cling for dear life to your stable of 2-win whatever vets bc you're too afraid of whatever's behind door #2 not meeting that same standard, imo

Edited July 1, 2024 by sneakypower
*

[Jason Ross]

The trade I keep coming back to is the Blue Jays trade for Jose Berrios in 2021. Toronto was 52-48, but they were also in fourth place, in a stacked AL East and almost 5 games out of a WC spot. It's a bit different considering the Jays were probably closer to making the playoffs in 2021 than the the Cubs are in 2024. but they made that trade for the next few years. 

Who's the Cubs Berrios? I don't know. But I'd like to see the Cubs get creative. I'm not against exploring a Taillon trade to open up some money. Bellinger, if a team is willing to give up something decent. Moving a Happ or a Suzuki, if you can. Moving a reliever like a Miller, or a Neris (if someone wants to buy him turning it around). Not a full-fire-sale, just see what's out there. I'm fine moving some of these guys while also trying to buy some talent for the future at the same time. 

All of the moves I'd be making would be with an eye on competing in 2025. I think you can do both; trade some of these decent, fringe guys and also use prospect depth to maybe acquire something a little more long term. 

[mul21]

Need to get BackToBanks or whatever his name was to send us some 3 way deal options. 

[CubinNY]

1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Like Tom I think people get too wrapped up in buy vs sell as a binary distinction.  Make moves to make next year better, if they come with making 2024 better too i don’t think that’s throwing away value given the team’s talent and the bar for the wild card.

How is that possible?

[squally1313]

4 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

How is that possible?

I think you still have the roster crunch everyone wanted them to take care of in the offseason. While I assume people were hoping that the major league roster would perform better and it would be a logical conclusion to trade from the farm and bolster the major league roster....you could still do that in the next month or so if you're picking up talent with multiple years of control. Dumping major league talent (almost all of it with multiple years) means you're either making the logjam at AAA worse or you're back to getting a bunch of teenagers and relying on guys like PCA, Caissie, Shaw, etc who realistically aren't going to be any better in 2025-2026 than the guys you already have.

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

How is that possible?

Not to speak for TT, but let's say the Cubs trade...Taillon to clear money (that we have assurances will remain in the budget next year). Maybe it's a Happ or a Suzuki. You know, just someone who makes $15-20m. But let's say they also make their version of a Jose Berrios trade like the Jays did in 2021; they were 4th place in the AL East and 5 games out of a WC spot and brought in a controllable SP for the next few years. I'm not going to speculate exactly who that is, I think any trade like that would be a bit of a shock. 

But that'd be a way you could do both: you trade some now and you add some for later. That's just a rough outline...there'd be more. Just...stuff like that. I don't think it has to be all one or all the other.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

How is that possible?

Archetypes might look like the Busch trade, the Arrieta trade, or (least likely), trading for a pending FA you intend to immediately extend.

[Bertz]

Part of the thing with the idea of selling is what are you getting back?  Maybe there's a Harry Ford for Nico Hoerner deal to be had, but outside of potentially catcher how likely are you to be getting anyone that you'd slot ahead of the current crop of prospects in the upper minors.  Maybe Steele could get you one of the Orioles' kids, but like TT mentioned thinking the team needs to tear things that far down to the studs is, to put it nicely, heavy on vibes and light on evidence.

I am on team trade Taillon.  I think he's a league average-ish starter getting heavy positive variance this year after getting heavy negative variance last year.  I'd much rather have that $17M back even if it means you can be a little less aggressive in dealing from the stock of young pitching in your search for a bat.

To further ape TT I think any other trades are about getting back to contention immediately in 2025.  Some of that can be in the form of selling, e.g. dealing Neris so that his option isn't our problem and to open opportunity for someone like Hunter Bigge.  Some of that may be more of a traditional buy trade, like Chris Morel for someone with much less team control but much better roster fit.  But dealing guys like Happ or Hoerner or Steele feels like either a pretty fundamental misreading of the situation or excessive confidence in the viability of needle threading.

[Billy62]

     I try to separate the two mindsets that I have. The first is the fan. I've been a Cub fan for over half a decade and sadly losing seasons have been more plentiful than winning seasons. Then there is my mind, which sometimes, not always, overrules my heart. This season started out promising. The team was hitting, scoring runs, the pitching, especially Imanaga was off the hook, and the bullpen was solid. My misapprehension at the fact that the team was so quiet this past winter seemed to have been a waste of time. Now were witnessing the all to familiar "June Swoon" only this time it started in May. Yes, there have been injuries, but there always are. Except here, our lack of depth on the roster tells an even sadder story. If it was just a couple of things that could be tweaked to bring us back to competitive ball again that would be one thing. The amount of close games on the face value of it makes it appear possible. But it runs deeper than that. The DFA of Gomes, in order to bring Nido on board is just an example. To me it was like getting rid of an orange to make room for another orange. It wasn't going to fix the team. Then their is the lineup in general. Not bad ballplayers, but far too many of the same type. A lot of strikeouts and empty outs in exchange for just a little bit of thunder, and practically nobody working at advancing the runners, scoring runs, and having big innings.  A bullpen that surrenders half or better of their leads in the 8th and 9th innings. So much so that a closer is part of the need, when we thought that had already been addressed. I don't want it for sure, but I don't think this team can be fixed as is. Do we become sellers? or do we buy on a limited scale to fix this team? I think if we find one, an established closer is a must. Neris is by far too much of a roller coaster ride to take the ball with a one-run lead into the 9th. He more often than not will surrender at least one run, sometimes several, too the point where I am not comfortable when he appears late in games. I think we have a solid lead-off contender in Hoerner, but struggle in finding a high contact, high average #2 man to move him along. I know Ryne Sandberg's are few and far between, but that is the kind of hitter we need. Then you have Busch, Morel, Happ, Suzuki and Swanson, all decent players on their own, but all basically similar. A lot of swing and miss, a little thunder, and an inability to consistently move runners and extend innings. So it appears that a roster change is inevitable. So it pains me to give up on yet another season, but I don't think this roster can do it on their own. I remember a quote from David Ross a season or two ago. He said "an out has to be an out." Prophetic words as of late. Giving any team 4, 5, or more outs in an inning is nothing short of dangerous, and is costing us ballgames. Justin Steele's explosion in the dugout was as much for the players as it was the front office. Before you can bake a cake, you have to break some eggs. I'm still watching the games, but smiling far less often.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

20 hours ago, sneakypower said:

the Brewers were perfectly willing to sell off the best closer in baseball without meaningfully affecting the near-term future, and in the process obtained the centerpiece for acquiring William Contreras & Joel Payamps a few months later; similarly again they also parlayed their ace into a lineup fixture and top-100 P prospect

it's uninspired thinking to want to cling for dear life to your stable of 2-win whatever vets bc you're too afraid of whatever's behind door #2 not meeting that same standard, imo

Coming back to this now that I'm not on the road, if the Cubs had an elite closer I'd be fine with cashing in on that value given bullpen volatility, but they don't.  Burnes they waited til he was on the cusp of free agency after multiple years of rumors.

But to bring this back to the Cubs, I would group these possibilities into 2 different buckets.  One bucket is the players who are clearly above the '2-win whatever' standard and are the types of players you are likely to simply hemorrhage value by trading.  Steele and Hoerner are in this boat primarily, and while I'm willing to admit there's a narrow path to a Bellinger trade working out, I simply don't think he will have any reasonable trade value so we should prefer to bet on his demonstrated ceiling and the possibility he doesn't opt out.

The other bucket is players who are good and not overpaid, but have a high enough dollar amount that they will not have significant trade value without eating significant money(specifically *future seasons money*), which eliminates a big part of the point of trading them to begin with.  The idea of trading Taillon, Happ, or Suzuki will outstrip the reality.  I also don't find it compelling that simply clearing the money puts you on a path to being better.  Freeing up money while creating additional holes is generally a video game mindset that doesn't work out, as it requires unrealistic hit rates from prospects and in free agency.

Beyond this group though, I don't have a problem not being precious with trading players, especially given that the positional and offensive balance isn't particularly fine tuned at the moment.  Morel, Tauchman, Amaya, Assad, Wicks, even Brown or PCA in the right move I can get behind, to say nothing of the positional prospect group in the high minors.