Fitting Cody Bellinger into the 2025 Cubs Roster, If We Must

[RandallPnkFloyd]

He's not a bad player, but he's not a good fit, either. How do you solve a problem like a likable former MVP?

Image courtesy of © Isaiah J. Downing-Imagn Images

Even with a brief run of success at the end of August into September, it was always going to be a stretch for the Chicago Cubs to be playoff-bound. If you’re like me, you’ve been thinking about the 2025 Cubs for quite a while. With the team’s postseason hopes set to come to an official end within the next handful of days, though, we can start to do so in a bit more earnest fashion. With that, there’s one very significant piece of the discussion at the forefront of the offseason: Cody Bellinger.

There’s been a bit of waffling over Bellinger’s potential value, should he decide to re-enter the free-agent market this winter by exercising his opt-out provision. That's bound to be the case when you’re talking about one of the higher-profile potential free agents. With Bob Nightengale recently reporting that Bellinger is “fully expected” to opt in, however, it’s time to grok just what that looks like for the Cubs.

Bellinger has turned in a solid, if unspectacular 2024 campaign. He’s been above-average by wRC+ (114), and has sustained most of the gains he made last year in his contact and approach. The difference, however, lies in the power. Last year, Bellinger hit 26 homers and posted a .218 isolated slugging. Both were his highest marks since 2019. This year, he sits at 18 and a .168 ISO.

There are a handful of factors we could examine as to why, but our focus here isn’t directly on Bellinger’s offensive output. Overall, we can classify it as… fine. Any number of teams would take that production, even with some subtraction from his 2023 power output--especially when you combine it with his versatility. As of this writing, Bellinger has appeared at first base, center field, and right field on regular bases, plus shorter stints as the DH. He’s been roughly average at each spot, by most analytical measures.

A steady, versatile bat with occasional power is a profile that has some appeal. But assuming Bellinger doesn’t exercise his opt-out–as is currently the industry expectation–is he actually a fit for the 2025 Chicago Cubs? The question is defined more by the emergence of certain players around him, rather than by any shortcoming of Bellinger himself. It’s a logistical question that also lends itself to a financial one, given the payroll context associated with an opt-in. 

The logistical one, though, is the more interesting one for me.

As frustrating as the season has been from a contention standpoint, the emergence of Michael Busch and Pete Crow-Armstrong have been exciting. The former would surely get some down-ballot Rookie of the Year votes in less robust rookie classes, thanks to his 20-homer season and increasing maturity as a hitter. The latter has captured fans' imaginations, thanks to a 10/25 season and an explosive second half. Jovial as we may be over their respective developments, it’s precisely those breakouts that are starting to squeeze Bellinger out of the picture. 

When Bellinger re-upped with the Cubs, the expectation was that he’d man center until Crow-Armstrong was ready. From there, he could move onto the dirt. Busch’s emergence instead pushed Bellinger over to right field. That, in turn, forced Seiya Suzuki into a more consistent role as the team’s designated hitter--although, that part works out nicely, since Suzuki wasn't looking especially viable in right field anyway.

It’s a configuration that we could reasonably expect to carry into 2025: Bellinger back via (in essence) opting in, Busch and Crow-Armstrong each being pre-arb, and another two years on Suzuki's contract create a lot of inertia that would tend to keep them all where they've been lately. From there, you’re locking in the young guys, making Suzuki a full-timer at DH, and rolling Bellinger out in right almost every day, occasionally rotating him elsewhere only to spell the others or get off his feet.

It’s a scenario that strips the Cubs of any flexibility, however. For one, the splits aren’t so stark in their contrast that you’re regularly moving Bellinger in or out of anywhere other than right, unless it’s a day off or a specific arm that you’d like the others to avoid. Additionally, right field offers the team perhaps their best chance at upgrading the offense in the grander way this team needs to seek this winter. Bellinger’s return would hamstring that effort--and not only on paper. 

Which means that, objectively, the best thing to do about Bellinger’s apparent return would be to turn around and trade him. It frees them up to make meaningful additions elsewhere, while giving specific players on your roster who are more crucial to the long-term future a little more freedom to operate. You’re then able to seek out meaningful additions that the lineup needs to generate a more sustained offensive product. Of course, that comes with a major caveat: the contract itself.

I generally try to stay out of financial discussions, but it’s hard to imagine too many teams being eager to take on Bellinger’s $27.5 million figure, given his lack of power and the fact that so few were willing to give legitimate pursuit last winter. Nor are they going to seek out Suzuki’s $19 million, given his rapid trajectory toward DH-only territory and his no-trade clause. So even moving one to open some flexibility in terms of adding impact talent to your roster seems like an extremely unlikely scenario.

The logistical question feeds into the financial one. And one question plus one question equals a problem for the Cubs. They have to navigate their current, unsatisfactory roster construction by attempting to add an impact bat to a spot that doesn’t exist, by moving one of a couple of contracts that nobody is likely to want, all while operating within an internal model that appears to be conservative to a fault. Therein lies the very obvious problem with Cody Bellinger’s impending return.

It’s (for me, at least) feeding into a rather negative perception of an otherwise quality baseball player. If anything, though, it’s more condemnation of the organization than criticism of the player. Because, again, Bellinger is fine. Unfortunately, this team needs to add a player that is multiple levels above fine, so that they may match the offensive output of their contending counterparts in the National League. And while they could do it with a full season of this late-season Crow-Armstrong or this impressive version of Michael Busch, relying on upside is exactly what sank the Cubs in another year of non-contention. 

Ultimately, it’s not so much that Bellinger’s return is a minus for the organization, as it is that leadership is ill-equipped to navigate what comes next.

View full article

[Original Ivy Walls]

If Bellinger stays, then the dominos begin.  A) Suzuki is not a 90-win, starting RF'er where he needs to succeed at the DH spot. B) Moving Busch over to his more natural position at 2B, at wRC+ (109), where he appears to be an improvement over Hoerner, who is league average at wRC+ (100); what could be the value of being 28 years old and signed at $11.7m thru 2026 and WAR of 3+.

That begs the question in RF: Please hope that the Cubs pony up and sign Soto to a 10-year $800m plus contract.  Dream, yes, plan; all it takes is money and commitment. 

That means the Cubs work to bring up Shaw and Cassie and that plump catcher. 

 

 

[squally1313]

13 minutes ago, Original Ivy Walls said:

Moving Busch over to his more natural position at 2B

Busch was graded at 30 for fielding going into this year on the back of playing mostly second base in the minors. The glass half full side of things can point to his improvements and say he's just a drastically better fielder now, the half empty view is that first base is truly that much of a step down, difficulty wise, from a middle infield position, and whatever offensive upgrade you'd get there (depends on the metric: wOBA and wRC look to be substantial step ups, xwOBA not so much) would be given away (and maybe then some) defensively. 

I don't know. I feel a lot better about Bellinger than I did a month ago but still prefer all of Happ, PCA, Suzuki, Busch, and Hoerner over him as consistent options. We've tried, and failed, two years in a row to have the offensive plan be 'good all over, great nowhere'....but if Bellinger opts in maybe it's the best route and then you just go sign two of Flaherty/Burnes/Eovaldi and/or go prospects for pitching? Like, yeah, good but not great was the plan going into this year, but that was with us hoping on Morel at third and Madrigal in the opening day starting line up. Whereas Bellinger as your starting right fielder next year probably projects as your 8th best offensive starter. 

I'd still rather Bellinger opt out and we get creative on an elite bat. But $60m and a bunch of blocked prospects (behind an offense that's been 5th in fWAR in the second half) gets you at least 2 legitimate starters, some pen stability, and ideally a Carson Kelly. Steele/Shota/Mariners pitcher/Flaherty/Taillon with Assad/Brown/Horton there as support/amped up pen work is significantly improved over where we are now, and there's still plenty of money for the pen and a catcher after that. 

[squally1313]

Just now, squally1313 said:

We've tried, and failed, two years in a row to have the offensive plan be 'good all over, great nowhere'....but if

fully aware this is basically me here:

[Transmogrified Tiger]

yeah, Busch did play more 2B than other positions in the minors, but he was a college 1B and didn't get a full-time run out there for a reason.  That said, I think there's situations where you can be okay putting him there(e.g. you want to stack LHH against the opposing pitcher and Shota is on the mound limiting GB and opposing LHH in the lineup), but it's more of a plan C type of thing and not something you trade Nico for.

[squally1313]

Plus Busch wasn't 'blocked' in the Dodgers organization if they truly considered him a second baseman. Gavin Lux put up a decent but by no means good year in 2022 and then missed all of 2023 with an injury. Busch could have definitely fought for that job if they thought he was consistently playable there. Lux was their 9 hitter on opening day and has never had good defensive metrics.

In a world without Nico (presumably with Shaw), I'm fine putting Busch there occasionally to protect Shaw early on or in situations TT talked about. But downgrading at first base just to downgrade at second (with the upside of whatever Hoerner gets you offsetting that) doesn't appeal to me.

[mul21]

44 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

In a world without Nico (presumably with Shaw), I'm fine putting Busch there occasionally to protect Shaw early on or in situations TT talked about. But downgrading at first base just to downgrade at second (with the upside of whatever Hoerner gets you offsetting that) doesn't appeal to me.

What if that world is a Mariners pitcher (Nico+ trade), Soto in RF and Shaw/Busch at 2B?

[Bertz]

Every trade Hoerner scenario I've seen either grossly overestimates how confident we can be in Matt Shaw's near term production or feels like this, swapping out getting cheaper for improving offense:

 

Edited September 20, 2024 by Bertz

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, mul21 said:

What if that world is a Mariners pitcher (Nico+ trade), Soto in RF and Shaw/Busch at 2B?

Would certainly live in really any world where Soto is a Cub, but I think any trade with Seattle for a major league established pitcher has to include premium offense (or at least premium offensive potential) going the other way. They're going to miss the playoffs not because of the rotation, but because of the offense. Would think they would prefer the Shaw/Caissie/Alcantara's of the world vs a glove first guy. And in a win now world (beaten by Bertz above), give me Nico's surefire production over Shaw's potential if we're making clear upgrades in Soto and the rotation. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

4 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Every trade Hoerner scenario I've seen either grossly overestimates how confident we can be in Matt Shaw's near term production or feels like this, swapping out getting cheaper for improving offense:

 

I feel like we should try to learn from PCA's 2024 since so many people were ready to hand him the reins Opening Day so they can use resources elsewhere, which likely would've been very bad for the team's chances and possibly PCA's development.  Shaw has proven a bit more at the AAA level than PCA had, but it's still just ~35 games and he doesn't have the defense/baserunning floor that PCA has.

[Bertz]

4 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I feel like we should try to learn from PCA's 2024 since so many people were ready to hand him the reins Opening Day so they can use resources elsewhere, which likely would've been very bad for the team's chances and possibly PCA's development.  Shaw has proven a bit more at the AAA level than PCA had, but it's still just ~35 games and he doesn't have the defense/baserunning floor that PCA has.

Yeah I've been as guilty of this as anybody, but this widening AAA/MLB gap thing is just something we all need to mentally adjust to.  You're no longer a phone call away the second you graduate from AA.

[squally1313]

1 minute ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I feel like we should try to learn from PCA's 2024 since so many people were ready to hand him the reins Opening Day so they can use resources elsewhere, which likely would've been very bad for the team's chances and possibly PCA's development.  Shaw has proven a bit more at the AAA level than PCA had, but it's still just ~35 games and he doesn't have the defense/baserunning floor that PCA has.

Eh....I think there's a decent counterargument that dudes are just going to struggle for a block of games when they reach the majors and PCAs month in AAA this year didn't really do anything to his development one way or the other.

Totally on board with the argument that a team aiming for 90+ wins shouldn't count on a prospect from the jump, especially when you have established and reliable value there. But don't think there's some foolproof way to avoid that initial adjustment period, and you just hope when we bring up a guy and he works through it you don't have, hypothetically, historically bad catching production and nothing from shortstop or third base. 

[Tim]

The answer here is clearly this:

• sign Soto to play RF, pushing Bellinger to 1B
• Trade Busch + Nico to Seattle for one of their starters, pushing Shaw / Madrigal / Triantos / Mastro to 2B
• Trade for Vlad Jr. whether Toronto wants to trade him or not, pushing Bellinger to the bench
• Sign Kelly for C

That gives a lineup with:

• CF - PCA
• DH - Suzuki
• RF - Soto
• 1B - Vlad Jr.
• LF - Happ
• 3B - Paredes
• SS - Swanson
• C - Amaya / Kelly
• 2B - Shaw / etc.

Then Bellinger becomes your extra bat and you rotate through positions for off days. If everyone is healthy, everyone gets 88% of the PA's. But be more aggressive about putting guys with nagging injuries to the IL and playing the healthiest options.

(this wasn't entirely serious, in case it wasn't obvious)

[squally1313]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Eh....I think there's a decent counterargument that dudes are just going to struggle for a block of games when they reach the majors and PCAs month in AAA this year didn't really do anything to his development one way or the other.

Totally on board with the argument that a team aiming for 90+ wins shouldn't count on a prospect from the jump, especially when you have established and reliable value there. But don't think there's some foolproof way to avoid that initial adjustment period, and you just hope when we bring up a guy and he works through it you don't have, hypothetically, historically bad catching production and nothing from shortstop or third base. 

Looking through the top rookies this year,

• Jackson Merrill got zero games in AAA, had a wRC in the low 90s through May, then blew up. 
• Jackson Chourio got 6 games in AAA at the end of last year, had a terrible April and May, then blew up
• Austin Wells got 33 games in AAA last year, 20 games in the majors last year (decent), had a bad April and May, and then blew up
• Colton Cowser got 87 games in AAA last year, a brutal 26 games in the majors last year, a very good April, bad May, and then mostly good the rest of the year.

Nothing definitive here, but haven't seen someone in a while that comes up and immediately establishes themselves, regardless of the amount of time in AAA.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

1 minute ago, squally1313 said:

Eh....I think there's a decent counterargument that dudes are just going to struggle for a block of games when they reach the majors and PCAs month in AAA this year didn't really do anything to his development one way or the other.

Totally on board with the argument that a team aiming for 90+ wins shouldn't count on a prospect from the jump, especially when you have established and reliable value there. But don't think there's some foolproof way to avoid that initial adjustment period, and you just hope when we bring up a guy and he works through it you don't have, hypothetically, historically bad catching production and nothing from shortstop or third base. 

I think we're saying similar things.  All teams need to integrate prospects to be consistently successful and that requires reps and bearing with some level of struggle.  In fact I'm coming around to earmarking one bench spot for an NRI-caliber player on opening day knowing that one of the AAA crew will break that door down soon enough(maybe opening day!). But we also don't need to clear a pristine path for them on Opening Day, especially when Shaw has so little AAA time.  Said another way, if you're getting rid of Nico, you need someone else adding in who has better short term expectations than Shaw(Brandon Lowe?) to avoid taking an unnecessary step backwards at the position.

[Tim]

8 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I think we're saying similar things.  All teams need to integrate prospects to be consistently successful and that requires reps and bearing with some level of struggle.  In fact I'm coming around to earmarking one bench spot for an NRI-caliber player on opening day knowing that one of the AAA crew will break that door down soon enough(maybe opening day!). But we also don't need to clear a pristine path for them on Opening Day, especially when Shaw has so little AAA time.  Said another way, if you're getting rid of Nico, you need someone else adding in who has better short term expectations than Shaw(Brandon Lowe?) to avoid taking an unnecessary step backwards at the position.

We're not low on options to play 2B within the organization if you're looking to ease in Shaw. 

[squally1313]

3 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I think we're saying similar things.  All teams need to integrate prospects to be consistently successful and that requires reps and bearing with some level of struggle.  In fact I'm coming around to earmarking one bench spot for an NRI-caliber player on opening day knowing that one of the AAA crew will break that door down soon enough(maybe opening day!). But we also don't need to clear a pristine path for them on Opening Day, especially when Shaw has so little AAA time.  Said another way, if you're getting rid of Nico, you need someone else adding in who has better short term expectations than Shaw(Brandon Lowe?) to avoid taking an unnecessary step backwards at the position.

Yeah makes sense, I just think that, unfortunately, 'integrate' means writing their name in ink in the lineup for three months. I'm less excited about a Brandon Lowe situation, especially on a competing team, because then there's added pressure for Shaw and there's added pressure for Counsell to lean on the reliable 2 fWAR dude. 

Injuries happen, that's what got PCA his shot. But I think I'm more willing to work around a potential Matt Shaw sized black hole at the bottom of the order for a couple months, especially in a world where Nico is traded for a significant upgrade and he's not following a .440 OPS catcher.

That said, this was probably an unnecessary devil's advocate on my part because ultimately just give me Nico Hoerner and his 3-4 wins for the next two years.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

1 minute ago, Tim said:

We're not low on options to play 2B within the organization if you're looking to ease in Shaw. 

Yes we are?  As mentioned above Busch is a break glass in case of emergency guy there, and the other guys on the 40 man(Vazquez, Madrigal, Mastrobuoni) are not even 2nd division starters at this point.

[Tim]

4 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Yes we are?  As mentioned above Busch is a break glass in case of emergency guy there, and the other guys on the 40 man(Vazquez, Madrigal, Mastrobuoni) are not even 2nd division starters at this point.

You were talking about having an NRI-level guy on the roster. They qualify.

In the event that Hoerner is shipped out and we're trying to make the landing soft for Shaw, I'm not wild about spending money on someone like Lowe unless that player can also back up SS. We're going to have to have someone on the roster that can play a legit SS if Swanson gets hurt. Right now, that's Hoerner.

If Nico is traded, our backup IF has to be able to play there. Shaw can probably fake it for a while, but I wouldn't want that additional pressure on him out of the gate. So if we're spending money on another IF option, let's have it be someone who can play a legit SS if the need arises.

Or we can just keep Nico and have Shaw break into the lineup through a Zobrist-type role.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, Tim said:

You were talking about having an NRI-level guy on the roster. They qualify.

In the event that Hoerner is shipped out and we're trying to make the landing soft for Shaw, I'm not wild about spending money on someone like Lowe unless that player can also back up SS. We're going to have to have someone on the roster that can play a legit SS if Swanson gets hurt. Right now, that's Hoerner.

If Nico is traded, our backup IF has to be able to play there. Shaw can probably fake it for a while, but I wouldn't want that additional pressure on him out of the gate. So if we're spending money on another IF option, let's have it be someone who can play a legit SS if the need arises.

Or we can just keep Nico and have Shaw break into the lineup through a Zobrist-type role.

The NRI comment was about the 26th roster spot, not about someone expected to carry any type of starting role.  And Lowe can also hit enough to DH(and is a worthy addition even if Nico isn't traded) so I'm less concerned about that, but otherwise I agree with what you're saying.  

My broader point distilled is don't get rid of an existing starter to make room for a prospect, injuries and circumstance will do that on their own, and the prospects themselves have a low enough floor that you can't risk them as day 1 lineup fixtures.  That plus the backup SS point is very much why I don't have any interest in trading Hoerner.

[Rob]

Lowe is somebody I didn't think about, but he'd be a perfect fit.

Trade for a Mariners SP (probably Castillo) + Vlad Jr. That'll probably require moving Busch, Nico, and prospects. Sign Lowe and one of the veteran catchers.

• LF - Happ
• 1B - Vlad Jr.
• RF - Bellinger (or throw money at Soto if Bellinger opts out)
• DH - Suzuki
• 2B - Lowe
• 3B - Paredes
• SS - Swanson
• CF - PCA
• C - Amaya/Kelly (or insert your other favorite borderline starter)

Shaw and Ballasteros would be well-positioned to help at midseason or in the event of injuries to the starters.

• SP1 - Steele
• SP2 - Castillo
• SP3 - Imanaga
• SP4 - Taillon
• SP5 - Assad / Wicks / Etc...

Probably still needs some relief help, but that's a solid team.

 

[squally1313]

Couple things on the above:

• What's the story on Lowe's options? Basically has team options for $10m the next two years per Cots. Was worth 2.9 fWAR last year, 2.2 this year. That seems like an easy decision to pick that up but I know the Rays operate a little differently.
• That roster above is significantly more offensive, but you're basically netting 1.7 fWAR on current year production with the Vlad/Busch (5.6 v 2.6) and Nico/Lowe swaps (3.5 v 2.2). Kelly is an upgrade but a separate conversation, as is Castillo
• Do we have enough cash for this? Castillo comes in at $22m, Vlad is at $19m this year and will get a raise, let's call those two $45m. Lowe with that player option is $10m, Kelly is probably around there as well. So there's $65m less Nico's $10m and we've picked up one starter and no bullpen help. Offensive is....4ish wins better, starters are marginally better (2.3 fWAR for Castillo this year), but you're basically capped out, needing to extend Vlad and down whatever prospects you need to throw in addition to Nico and Busch. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

28 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Couple things on the above:

• What's the story on Lowe's options? Basically has team options for $10m the next two years per Cots. Was worth 2.9 fWAR last year, 2.2 this year. That seems like an easy decision to pick that up but I know the Rays operate a little differently.
• That roster above is significantly more offensive, but you're basically netting 1.7 fWAR on current year production with the Vlad/Busch (5.6 v 2.6) and Nico/Lowe swaps (3.5 v 2.2). Kelly is an upgrade but a separate conversation, as is Castillo
• Do we have enough cash for this? Castillo comes in at $22m, Vlad is at $19m this year and will get a raise, let's call those two $45m. Lowe with that player option is $10m, Kelly is probably around there as well. So there's $65m less Nico's $10m and we've picked up one starter and no bullpen help. Offensive is....4ish wins better, starters are marginally better (2.3 fWAR for Castillo this year), but you're basically capped out, needing to extend Vlad and down whatever prospects you need to throw in addition to Nico and Busch. 

1. Lowe's options are surplus value so there's little doubt that they'd get picked up.  Us talking about him as a trade target is pretty proof positive that if the Rays don't want to pay him the 8 figures they can get something for their trouble.

2. IMO, Vlad + Castillo I don't think *requires* Nico or Busch.  Castillo has little surplus value and the point of trading him is about freeing up money more than making a specific acquisition.  If the Jays decide to trade away Vlad they're signaling a step back in 2025(so Nico makes no sense), and while it's possible they may want Busch I'm guessing they'd want to gamble on upside more so something like Alcantara may be preferred(and 1 year of Vlad at 25 million is unlikely to get 2 pieces of that caliber).

3.  Short answer, yes.  Assuming you don't give up a locked in roster player/guaranteed contract in the trades, you can trade for Castillo, Vlad, and Lowe, then use 25 million on a FA C and a couple relievers and basically be where you are now.  You may have to make a marginal cost decision like running with an NRI/prospect roster spot instead of Wisdom's 3+ million, but that's the level of sacrifice we're talking about.  However, if you're trading for Vlad and not trading away Nico, the need for trading real assets for Lowe loses some luster.

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

3.  Short answer, yes.  Assuming you don't give up a locked in roster player/guaranteed contract in the trades, you can trade for Castillo, Vlad, and Lowe, then use 25 million on a FA C and a couple relievers and basically be where you are now.  You may have to make a marginal cost decision like running with an NRI/prospect roster spot instead of Wisdom's 3+ million, but that's the level of sacrifice we're talking about.

This is in a Bellinger-opt out world, right? Castillo is 20, Vlad is low 20s, Lowe is another 10.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, squally1313 said:

This is in a Bellinger-opt out world, right? Castillo is 20, Vlad is low 20s, Lowe is another 10.

Correct, I edited to say that Lowe is a bit of an indulgence if you aren't giving up Nico, and if Bellinger is still around he's pretty wasteful.  In the Bellinger opt-in case you can maybe see if you can use the resources you would've used for Lowe on a reliever or catcher to bridge the salary gap between Bellinger and Lowe.  That'd be pretty tight though, and I think an overly simplified offseason model is that they aren't going to have three 20M+ AAV 'additions',  including Bellinger.