Can We Use Past Cubs Decisions To Predict Which Starters They Will Pursue In Free Agency?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Patrick Mooney of The Athletic wrote a really nice piece about the Cubs' offseason pursuit of rotation arms. In it, he points out that historically, Jed Hoyer & Co. have avoided "bounceback" pitchers such as Luis Severino and Jack Flaherty. If they avoided that  kind of pitcher on a lesser prove-it deal, it makes even less sense for this front office to pursue those same pitchers on a multi-year contract.

Whereas the Cubs have shown interest, and ultimately signed, pitchers they believe can be workhorses with steady-but-maybe-not-great upside in Jameson Taillon and Shota Imanaga. In the case of Imanaga, the workhorse portion of that statement was certainly true but the performance level was beyond anyone's reasonable expectations.

A pitcher that fits that mold this offseason is Max Fried. While the 30-year-old's ERA slipped a little in 2024 (128 ERA+), he has started over 25 games in three of the past four seasons.

Give the article a read, it's a great early-offseason primer on how the Cubs might look at the rotation this winter.

View full rumor

[Bertz]

Max Fried is my favorite of the big money pitchers by a pretty decent margin.  His elbow needs to be looked at thoroughly (two forearm related IL stints the last two years), but he's pretty fantastic all around and my only objection to giving him Aaron Nola money is general fear of long term deals to pitchers.

I also like that Eovaldi got name checked, as I've had him on my list for a while.  I actually wanted him instead of Taillon but that pesky qualifying offer kept that from happening two years ago.

I don't see as much logic in the Buehler/Martinez tier.  The team does not seem likely to be hurting for innings unless they trade multiple young startoptions. I don't think expect they need two SPs.  And I'd be pretty shocked and upset with like Walker Buehler as our top SP option.  That does not feel like it reflects where this roster is currently at all.

[squally1313]

11 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Max Fried is my favorite of the big money pitchers by a pretty decent margin.  His elbow needs to be looked at thoroughly (two forearm related IL stints the last two years), but he's pretty fantastic all around and my only objection to giving him Aaron Nola money is general fear of long term deals to pitchers.

I also like that Eovaldi got name checked, as I've had him on my list for a while.  I actually wanted him instead of Taillon but that pesky qualifying offer kept that from happening two years ago.

I don't see as much logic in the Buehler/Martinez tier.  The team does not seem likely to be hurting for innings unless they trade multiple young startoptions. I don't think expect they need two SPs.  And I'd be pretty shocked and upset with like Walker Buehler as our top SP option.  That does not feel like it reflects where this roster is currently at all.

Definitely agreed on not wanting Buehler as the top option. Would push back a little on the notion that they have plenty of coverage, innings wise, internally. Had 860 innings by starters last year, and you're having to replace Hendricks (116) while ideally not wanting to lean on Assad (147) as much. I don't think you need to target a Buehler type to be your 6th/7th starters, but I would like 2 starters, one a step up from Taillon and one on close to the same ground. 

[CubinNY]

27 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Max Fried is my favorite of the big money pitchers by a pretty decent margin. 

Ditto. Plus the Dansby connection.

[Jason Ross]

I like Fried as well and think he'd be a nice get. He's left handed, and the Cubs are...heavy left handed, so if you want a complaint that'd be one. Another would be that there was some concern out there on the nature of his most recent injury and how it may effect him long term - though with him coming back, seeing a boost in K%, a reduction in HR% and improved xFIP, you can probably put those concerns to bed. Generally speaking, he's a really good pitcher and someone who would really improve the rotation. 

[Bertz]

5 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Definitely agreed on not wanting Buehler as the top option. Would push back a little on the notion that they have plenty of coverage, innings wise, internally. Had 860 innings by starters last year, and you're having to replace Hendricks (116) while ideally not wanting to lean on Assad (147) as much. I don't think you need to target a Buehler type to be your 6th/7th starters, but I would like 2 starters, one a step up from Taillon and one on close to the same ground. 

So i know we got man-handled by pitcher attrition this year, but two veteran starters feels like overkill.  Let's say we add that step up from Taillon guy.  This our SP depth chart on April 1 of next year to cover the #5 spot plus injuries:

Assad

Brown

Wicks

Wesneski

Horton

Birdsell

That is an entire additional rotation.  All of these guys last they were on the mound seemed major league ready.  All of these guys (pending bad news about Brown's neck) are supposed to be good to go for spring training.  5 of 6 hit the IL last year, with 3 of them being pretty lengthy stays, so I don't want to overstate the reliability.  But generally I'd be much more worried about the second FA's performance or the opportunity cost of the resources he would require than I would be about having an 11th starter I feel comfortable with.

Exception for Shane Bieber, he's impact-y enough and his 2025 innings number questionable enough that I'd be down.  And of course the calculus changes a good bit if we are dealing young pitching to address other openings.

[squally1313]

28 minutes ago, Bertz said:

So i know we got man-handled by pitcher attrition this year, but two veteran starters feels like overkill.  Let's say we add that step up from Taillon guy.  This our SP depth chart on April 1 of next year to cover the #5 spot plus injuries:

Assad

Brown

Wicks

Wesneski

Horton

Birdsell

That is an entire additional rotation.  All of these guys last they were on the mound seemed major league ready.  All of these guys (pending bad news about Brown's neck) are supposed to be good to go for spring training.  5 of 6 hit the IL last year, with 3 of them being pretty lengthy stays, so I don't want to overstate the reliability.  But generally I'd be much more worried about the second FA's performance or the opportunity cost of the resources he would require than I would be about having an 11th starter I feel comfortable with.

Exception for Shane Bieber, he's impact-y enough and his 2025 innings number questionable enough that I'd be down.  And of course the calculus changes a good bit if we are dealing young pitching to address other openings.

I had a whole thing typed out but ultimately what it comes down to is that I don't really want any of those guys being our #5 starter going into next year. All of them outside of Assad are probably limited to 100 innings next year, if that. Assad had a brutal second half, Wicks' 35 innings were worse on a FIP/xFIP basis than Hendricks, Horton had 5 middling to bad starts in AAA and then blew up. 

And it's really just a matter of where to spend this money. I'll change my plan if we get Soto or swing a trade for a Vlad or Tucker or whatever other high AAV middle of the order guy, but why not spend $40m of the $50m on loading up the rotation? I don't think the offense needs any more $10m-$15m guys. Either go big, elite bat (and then use the Iowa lineup to get a starter), or find a competent catcher and a lefty masher and dump the rest of your resources into the rotation. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

14 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I had a whole thing typed out but ultimately what it comes down to is that I don't really want any of those guys being our #5 starter going into next year. All of them outside of Assad are probably limited to 100 innings next year, if that. Assad had a brutal second half, Wicks' 35 innings were worse on a FIP/xFIP basis than Hendricks, Horton had 5 middling to bad starts in AAA and then blew up. 

And it's really just a matter of where to spend this money. I'll change my plan if we get Soto or swing a trade for a Vlad or Tucker or whatever other high AAV middle of the order guy, but why not spend $40m of the $50m on loading up the rotation? I don't think the offense needs any more $10m-$15m guys. Either go big, elite bat (and then use the Iowa lineup to get a starter), or find a competent catcher and a lefty masher and dump the rest of your resources into the rotation. 

I can appreciate that view, but I also don't think the group is that far behind the 8 ball from a workload perspective.  Only 126 pitchers league-wide hit 100 IP in MLB last year, having the 5+ rotation spots up with a group of guys who run the gamut in their likelihood to go to 150(Assad and Birdsell were north of 130 last year, Wesneski has hit 140, Wicks has hit 125) doesn't strike me as an intractable problem.

 

As for where the money goes, the bullpen is an obvious either/or when it comes to something like a 2nd SP.  You can also lean higher end on your main targets as needed.

[squally1313]

45 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I can appreciate that view, but I also don't think the group is that far behind the 8 ball from a workload perspective.  Only 126 pitchers league-wide hit 100 IP in MLB last year, having the 5+ rotation spots up with a group of guys who run the gamut in their likelihood to go to 150(Assad and Birdsell were north of 130 last year, Wesneski has hit 140, Wicks has hit 125) doesn't strike me as an intractable problem.

 

As for where the money goes, the bullpen is an obvious either/or when it comes to something like a 2nd SP.  You can also lean higher end on your main targets as needed.

First part is fair, assuming we don't get pitcher-attritioned on the front end as opposed to the back end like we did this year. Obviously you can't gameplan for a Steele injury, but the forearm injury in September and the thought that we're one of those away from Jameson Taillon, Third Starter as a team with playoff aspirations is pretty depressing.

As for the second part, I think dumping a bunch of money into the rotation also helps the bullpen. You go get two starters and keep Assad and Wicks stretched out either in the swing role or in Iowa, and then you tell Brown and Horton that they aren't starting this year and to go see how hard they can throw in two inning spurts. I'd rather go that route than throwing a dart at the 'FA relievers who gave you 1 fWAR last year' board. 

 

[Bertz]

2 hours ago, squally1313 said:

I had a whole thing typed out but ultimately what it comes down to is that I don't really want any of those guys being our #5 starter going into next year. All of them outside of Assad are probably limited to 100 innings next year, if that. Assad had a brutal second half, Wicks' 35 innings were worse on a FIP/xFIP basis than Hendricks, Horton had 5 middling to bad starts in AAA and then blew up. 

And it's really just a matter of where to spend this money. I'll change my plan if we get Soto or swing a trade for a Vlad or Tucker or whatever other high AAV middle of the order guy, but why not spend $40m of the $50m on loading up the rotation? I don't think the offense needs any more $10m-$15m guys. Either go big, elite bat (and then use the Iowa lineup to get a starter), or find a competent catcher and a lefty masher and dump the rest of your resources into the rotation. 

I think for me the freedom to swap out a young guy who is pitching like ass in contrast to how hard it is to swap out a veteran who is pitching like ass is a big part of the sales pitch.  If Assad's running an ERA of 6 to start the season he probably doesn't make it to May before going to the pen or Iowa.  If Nick Martinez is on a multi-year deal running an ERA of 6 he's probably pitching through it until July (we can scream "sunk cost" until we're blue in the face but this is how it works)?  Famous last words but I'm less worried about injuries forcing us to the 8th/9th/10th SP options, and if they do it feels like you just tip your cap and say it's not your year.

And then money/resource wise, I think if Bellinger opts in things are a bit tight this winter, so I'd be reticent to pay for "extras" like a second SP.  That said if Bellinger's gone it's easier.  The opportunity cost is things like upgrading our primary SP from Eovaldi to Fried, but admittedly it's not hard to fit that second SP in and it becomes a matter of preference.

[squally1313]

4 hours ago, Bertz said:

I think for me the freedom to swap out a young guy who is pitching like ass in contrast to how hard it is to swap out a veteran who is pitching like ass is a big part of the sales pitch.  If Assad's running an ERA of 6 to start the season he probably doesn't make it to May before going to the pen or Iowa.  If Nick Martinez is on a multi-year deal running an ERA of 6 he's probably pitching through it until July (we can scream "sunk cost" until we're blue in the face but this is how it works)?

Agreed that that is how that works, but the whole point of getting a Nick Martinez (not at all tied to him specifically, but going along with your example) is because he's (somewhat significantly) less likely to pitch like ass than a Javier Assad. Martinez just put up a year that was 3.5x better, fWAR wise, than Assad's best year (2024) in 5 less innings. Putting out a lesser pitcher because it offers more flexibility to swap him out for the guys that the lesser pitcher beat out for the spot is a good use of depth, but you risk emulating our bullpen revolving door in the 5th spot....you'll probably eventually end up with a solution, but what's it going to cost you in the meantime?