With His Changing Profile, How Does Cody Bellinger Fit the Cubs' Needs for 2025?

[RandallPnkFloyd]

It feels like there's always an enigma in the center of the Cubs' positional core, somewhere--a player whose performance and fit into the team's long-term plans are both hard to suss out. Lately, the most inscrutable of the bunch is the man making more than any other 2024 Cub.

Image courtesy of © Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports

I loved so much about what Cody Bellinger brought to the table for the 2023 Chicago Cubs. Turning in his first 20/20 season while also producing his best overall offensive numbers since 2019 made the Cubs bringing him back an absolute necessity. A team short on bats needed Bellinger to return for 2024--to say nothing of the quality defense he provides at multiple positions.

Bellinger’s 2024 has been… not entirely what he or the team hoped. But it’s also been quite similar to what he provided last year. To break out my English teacher vernacular, it’s been rather paradoxical.

Many of Bellinger’s 2023 approach and contact trends have carried over. His swing rates are virtually identical. His contact rates, both inside and out of the zone, have fluctuated by less than 2 percent. His non-contact strike rate this year is 26.1%, against a 25.9% mark last year. It’s led to almost the exact same strikeout and walk outputs that we saw last year. Even with some of the underlying concerns over quality of contact and batted-ball luck, Bellinger has managed to turn in a very solid season. Except where he hasn’t.

That comes on the power side. Despite a 26-homer season last year, Bellinger’s overall ISO was still .218. For a player who has multiple .300+ ISO seasons to his credit, that wasn't an overly impressive figure. It's been a nasty surprise, then, to see it drop rather significantly even from there, this year. In 2024, Bellinger sports a .154 ISO. His HardHit% this year, at 32.0%, is nearly identical to last year. Not even at the height of his struggles in Los Angeles was it so low. Wavering quality of contact combined with an increased FB% has led to a bit less luck on the batted ball side this year, too.

At this rate, it would obviously be unreasonable to expect Bellinger to return even remotely to his former power output from early in his career. His body has simply been through too much. He has managed to evolve, however, and remains a very capable bat, thanks to his refined contact ability and occasional power. This is where my concerns over Bellinger’s value to this Cubs roster start to manifest, though--because "quality approach and occasional power" sounds an awful lot like, well, a lot of this Cubs roster. The Cubs need impact. 

The unique structure of Bellinger’s three-year deal offers him the ability to opt out after both 2024 and 2025. There was a point in the year where opting in seemed like a virtual certainty. But with a bit of an uptick in performance in the second half (123 wRC+, .207 ISO), there remains a chance he could look for the big payday that eluded him last winter, out on the market.

The unfortunate reality is that the Cubs should probably hope that he does. In a purely hypothetical sense, such a decision would offer the Cubs the most opportunity to seek legitimate impact via the trade market.

I previously discussed the inflexibility that the Cubs have in adding impact to their roster. Their left fielder is locked in. Essentially their entire infield is, as well. Their center fielder is on the come-up. You’re looking at right field (in the event of a Bellinger departure) and catcher as the only plausible areas where they could seek the upgrade they so sorely need for the middle of their lineup, without incurring major transaction costs or the added risk of redundant resource allocation. The latter also becomes eliminated if the front office decides Miguel Amaya has shown enough in the second half to get another crack at the starting gig in 2025.

This is where I start to struggle to navigate the idea of Cody Bellinger in the Cubs lineup moving forward. He’s so similar to the rest of their lineup. Steady approach. Good for occasional power. But he’s no longer the guy you can build around. If he chooses to opt in, the Cubs will have a quality bat in their lineup. However, they’re at the point where they need much more than mere quality. They need a star. And Bellinger walking in favor of a new contract provides them with the best chance to do it.

View full article

[Guest234]

Who is the "star" on the Brewers? Devon Williams?

[Bertz]

This is TT's hobby horse but having too many players is rarely a real problem.  If Bellinger opts in you can still add a bat to the 1B/OF/DH mix and have 6 players for 5 spots, with Bellinger's positional flexibility allowing you to be 2+ deep at each spot.  When we stop talking about on paper lineups and real games start that redundancy becomes incredibly valuable.

I would prefer Bellinger opt out, I don't think he's $20M better than Tauchman and so would like to have that money available to throw at the pitching staff, but Cody opting in is not especially messy.

[squally1313]

12 minutes ago, Bertz said:

This is TT's hobby horse but having too many players is rarely a real problem.  If Bellinger opts in you can still add a bat to the 1B/OF/DH mix and have 6 players for 5 spots, with Bellinger's positional flexibility allowing you to be 2+ deep at each spot.  When we stop talking about on paper lineups and real games start that redundancy becomes incredibly valuable.

I would prefer Bellinger opt out, I don't think he's $20M better than Tauchman and so would like to have that money available to throw at the pitching staff, but Cody opting in is not especially messy.

Do you think it matters to someone like Juan Soto? Genuinely asking. There's some part of me that thinks a pitch of 'we can give you the DH spot once or twice a week and a day off when needed' would be appealing, and then the other side is that the Cubs planning to give 135ish games to Happ/PCA/Suzuki/Belli/Soto/Busch becomes an issue in terms of a Dansby-type mindset or if he's got certain records in mind he's trying to attack.

Most likely it's just 'who is writing the biggest check' and I don't think someone like Soto would be concerned about 'winning a starting spot'. But I feel like it's somewhat analogous to a running back room situation and some players would bristle at the redundancy even when it's team-beneficial. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Do you think it matters to someone like Juan Soto? Genuinely asking. There's some part of me that thinks a pitch of 'we can give you the DH spot once or twice a week and a day off when needed' would be appealing, and then the other side is that the Cubs planning to give 135ish games to Happ/PCA/Suzuki/Belli/Soto/Busch becomes an issue in terms of a Dansby-type mindset or if he's got certain records in mind he's trying to attack.

Most likely it's just 'who is writing the biggest check' and I don't think someone like Soto would be concerned about 'winning a starting spot'. But I feel like it's somewhat analogous to a running back room situation and some players would bristle at the redundancy even when it's team-beneficial. 

I think it matters less to Juan Soto or Pete Alonso than it does to say, JD Martinez.  If you're paying a guy 9 figures you can do so with full knowledge of his preferences, which is then what you pay Counsell record money to marry with what's best for the team(note that Seiya DHing more than ever has not hurt his production or seemingly caused any acrimony).  But a guy who is less certain of his spot in the pecking order and/or is wanting to go to a good situation for his next contract may weigh that differently.  The good news is that there aren't a lot of those guys considering the main options are over the top(Soto, Alonso) or trade targets who you're only impacting their chances of re-signing(Vlad, Lowe, etc).  Mayyybe Santander especially given how he had to deal with so many bats around in Baltimore, but he's kinda playing himself closer to the Soto/Alonso tier.

[Bertz]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Do you think it matters to someone like Juan Soto? Genuinely asking. There's some part of me that thinks a pitch of 'we can give you the DH spot once or twice a week and a day off when needed' would be appealing, and then the other side is that the Cubs planning to give 135ish games to Happ/PCA/Suzuki/Belli/Soto/Busch becomes an issue in terms of a Dansby-type mindset or if he's got certain records in mind he's trying to attack.

Most likely it's just 'who is writing the biggest check' and I don't think someone like Soto would be concerned about 'winning a starting spot'. But I feel like it's somewhat analogous to a running back room situation and some players would bristle at the redundancy even when it's team-beneficial. 

I don't think a new guy is going to lose any playing time he wouldn't want to unless he comes in and faceplants, ESPECIALLY if it's Soto. 

I do think this situation is added incentive for Bellinger to opt out.  The number of CF at bats seemingly available to him in 2025 goes down the longer PCA plays at this level.  If his options are opt out this winter and get ~$100M or play another year and hope to put yourself in position for $150+, not being a primary CF would really put pressure on his bat to be 2023-esque to make the gamble worthwhile.

[chopsx9]

Let's give it to the end of the season and see.

[Stratos]

I think Bellinger is literally the exact same player he was last year.  His abilities haven't changed.  His exit velo and hard hit rate and running speed haven't changed.  The tools are still all there, he's a really good athlete.

He started a quarter of his games this year at DH including when he didn't need to earlier in the year, and started almost a third of his games last year at 1B (a position which has a negative positional adjustment when WAR is calculates) so his WAR is a little deceiving of his true value.  There's also value in being able to play multiple positions which isn't calculated into WAR.

He hasn't had the launch angle or HR groove like he did last year and I don't think anyone expected him to repeat the year he had last year.  He's still a good player.  They didn't really overpay because luckily they got him for 3 years max from Boras.  On a longer term deal he'd probably make around 24m AAV

I think ideally you 'd love to have most players you sign to substantial AAV contracts at FA market prices to only stick around for a year but i think 1 or 2 more seasons of Cody is totally fine.

[squally1313]

5 hours ago, Stratos said:

I think Bellinger is literally the exact same player he was last year.  His abilities haven't changed.  

...

He hasn't had the launch angle or HR groove like he did last year and I don't think anyone expected him to repeat the year he had last year.  

You can't argue both of these things. Launch angle matters, his is worse this year, and all of his actual and expected statistics are down pretty considerably because of it. Setting that aside, his defense rates out as worse, after being on track to spend more time in the outfield than last year, and his baserunning is worse. An actual 4.4 fWAR player (his results last year) cost you more than what we got him for, but it's totally fair to be disappointed that he's got to outperform the rest of his year to get to 2 fWAR this year. He seems like a good dude, he earned the contract and his right to make the decision. But from a team building perspective, I would like to free up his $27m and use it elsewhere. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

We can buy-out his player option for 2.5, right? 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

6 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

We can buy-out his player option for 2.5, right? 

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't make it a player option, the buyout is what he gets if he chooses to opt out.

[We Got The Whole 9]

Yeah I was definitely reading it wrong

[Stratos]

7 hours ago, squally1313 said:

You can't argue both of these things. Launch angle matters, his is worse this year, and all of his actual and expected statistics are down pretty considerably because of it. Setting that aside, his defense rates out as worse, after being on track to spend more time in the outfield than last year, and his baserunning is worse. An actual 4.4 fWAR player (his results last year) cost you more than what we got him for, but it's totally fair to be disappointed that he's got to outperform the rest of his year to get to 2 fWAR this year. He seems like a good dude, he earned the contract and his right to make the decision. But from a team building perspective, I would like to free up his $27m and use it elsewhere. 

My argument is that Bellinger's actual tools (physical athletic abilities) aren't any worse even if some of the statistical results have been worse.  Launch angle is not something largely determined by his raw physical tools, it's about mechanics, timing, intent etc.  This can change year to year and the stats can go up and down while his physical tools remain the same, which suggests he can possibly improve on this next year, and probably overperformed last year compared to what we should expect in an average year from him.

Similarly, baserunning value can go up and and down year to year for various reasons, but his sprint speed is the same as last year (actually ranks better this year) so is there any physical reason for this decline, or it is just some random variation, or changes in another variable outside his control like base-coaching (more or less aggressive sends etc)?

I don't see how his defensive abilities have necessarily changed either even if the stats aren't as good as last year.  He still has the same sprint speed and the arm strength is similar.  Defensive metric outcomes will vary year to year based on numerous factors including natural variation (luck) due to limits in sample sizes so a decline this year isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of a player's abilities declining, especially considering Bellinger only played 80 games in the OF last year and at different positions and will likely have about the same # of starts in the OF this season too.

I'm a big believer that teams should largely pay for tools (and skills that take many years to teach) and focus on evaluating those properly rather than getting overly reliant on the results on the field in a single season since those are far more variable.  I think the best front offices are able to best separate those and evaluate players most accurately.