The Cubs Should Improve Their Offense By Embracing Michael Busch's Defensive Versatility

[RandallPnkFloyd]

I’m not typically the kind of person who is super engaged when Jed Hoyer speaks. It generally winds up in the same word salad-y, improve-on-the-margins end of the spectrum as the last time he spoke.

Image courtesy of © David Banks-Imagn Images

However, one small moment from the GM Meetings stands out as notable as it relates to the Chicago Cubs’ “first baseman of the future.” 

Of Michael Busch, Hoyer said: “Because we now know he can play first, he doesn’t have to work on it. He can move around a little bit. But the expectation is he’s playing first.” There was plenty else thrown in there with respect to Busch’s defensive development at the position, all of which was deservedly complementary. But that very small note of it all is of great interest to me. Because this was something I had already thought about. 

When the Cubs acquired Busch, I initially waxed poetic for long stretches about which position would best suit him. It was an entirely futile exercise, as the team plugged him into first base from the jump. But let’s not be too quick to forget that Busch does have at least some experience at other spots. The Los Angeles Dodgers gave him time at second, third, and left as a member of their system. 

I’m not sure how much any other position was considered despite the Cubs having a longer-term need at the hot corner at the time of the trade. Regardless, the defensive returns were likely better than anyone could have imagined in his first full year at the position. From 2021 to 2023, Busch spent exactly 22 games at first, 17 of which were starts. With the Cubs in 2024, it was 142 games (130 starts). Not only did he adjust well, he skyrocketed. Only seven regulars at the position finished with a better Fielding Run Value (1) than Busch, and only eight were better than him in Outs Above Average (2). 

For that reason, I’m not even remotely suggesting the Cubs casually bump Busch from the spot and turn him into some type of super-utility player. Nor am I saying the Cubs should go out and sign Pete Alonso and slide Busch over to the keystone. Let him continue his growth at the position. At the same time, what if we injected just a little bit of versatility into his game as a treat? 

The Cubs need to add impact offense. While they have a handful of needs on the mound, we have also seen how lacking an offensive catalyst in your lineup can turn a couple of sluggish games at the dish into extended runs of ineptitude. The glaring issue – aside from ponying up for what it could cost to acquire the archetype needed – is the team’s lack of flexibility as far as the roster goes. On paper, the infield is locked in (once Nico Hoerner returns from injury). The outfield is locked in. Barring a trade of someone like Cody Bellinger or even Ian Happ, it’s going to be difficult for the team to find space for what they need. 

So, instead of suggesting, I’m simply wondering. I wonder if they could sign someone like Alonso to split time at first and DH while Busch slides over for the former situations. I wonder if Busch’s rapid development makes them think he could handle second base and allow them to become more comfortable trading Nico Hoerner and/or some of their infield prospect depth in pursuit of an arm. I wonder if the team would be willing to upgrade on the infield and move Busch around a couple of times a week if it meant upgrading the offense in any meaningful way. You know, a pseudo-super-utility role. 

None of those scenarios are likely as they are written. Pete Alonso isn’t likely to accept a role as even a part-time DH, let alone as part of a regular split. The team isn’t likely to move Busch full-time or with any kind of regularity. This is why I’m not suggesting but merely wondering. 

The team’s lack of flexibility on a roster that needs at least one upgrade of significance lends itself to such queries. While I absolutely believe Jed Hoyer when he says that the organization views Michael Busch as a first baseman moving forward, we shouldn’t outright dismiss the idea of a bit of positional versatility. Because there’s value in that from an overall roster construction standpoint but also a winter transaction one. Perhaps it leaves them with just a bit more flexibility than they appear to have at present.

Again, we’re speaking in outlandish ideas here. But until Actual Moves come to fruition, it’s kind of all we have. 

View full article

[Rex Buckingham]

no

[mul21]

Perhaps worth revisiting at this point with the new vacancy at 3B.

[Bertz]

If you wanna give him 5-10 games over there cool, but he should not be an extensive part of the 3B plan

[Rex Buckingham]

still, no