Cubs Trade Candidate Breakdown: Nico Hoerner

[Jason Ross]

Nico Hoerner is a pretty darn good baseball player. His inclusion, especially on the defensive side, would help many major league teams. So why would the Cubs entertain the thought of trading him? And what could the Cubs expect to get back?

Image courtesy of © Rafael Suanes-Imagn Images

First things first: Nico Hoerner is a good baseball player. Semantics aside, he probably borders on being a very good baseball player. Over the last two seasons, Hoerner has been the fourth-best second baseman in baseball according to fWAR, checking in with 8.6 wins above replacement. He ranks above perennial All-Star Jose Altuve, as well as other quality players like Ha-Seong Kim, Xander Bogaerts (who is two years removed from a massive 11-year, $280m contract), Ozzie Albies (though this is aided by injury), and Luis Arraez. Hoerner primarily accomplishes this through his defensive acumen, as he's both fourth in DRS and OAA. His bat remains around 4% above league average, slashing .278/.341/.378. There doesn't seem to be any reason to suggest that he will suddenly become a bad player. 

Usually, it'd be strange to discuss why a team like the Cubs, who are looking to change their playoff fortunes, would be entertaining in trading a player of this caliber. Yet, we've seen a few reports, dating back to last summer, that the Cubs are internally open to the idea of doing just that. Most recently, in an article for ESPN+ readers, Jeff Passan broached the topic again, writing:

Quote

"Nico Hoerner, second baseman: The Cubs don't have to trade the 27-year-old this winter, but with Matt Shaw big-league-ready, they could use Hoerner to land a starting pitcher. Hoerner's ability to play shortstop appeals to teams interested in middle-infield help."

The reality of the Cubs' situation, especially with the Cody Bellinger opt-in, is that they remain a bit tied up in terms of how they could change their offensive output. Much has been made about the wind at Wrigley last year, and hoping that the offensive climate at home is more favorable is a viable option. But if the Cubs want to be proactive and make changes on their own, a bit of creativity will be needed. 

Enter Cub top prospect Matt Shaw. Currently ranked within almost every major publication's top 30 or so prospects, the former Maryland infielder is behind new acquisition Isaac Paredes at third and the aforementioned Nico Hoerner at second. While Shaw's bat has been excellent, his most likely home at the next level is at second base. Shaw showed a far more patient and selective approach 2024, posting better than a 140 wRC+ at Double-A and Triple-A. He's cruising through the Premier 12, setting records for RBI in a game while doing so. If Matt Shaw isn't ready now, he's almost assuredly going to be ready very soon.

Therein lies a creative solution: what if the Cubs, who have a built-in replacement for Hoerner, could dangle their starting second baseman for immediate upgrades elsewhere? It would most likely come in the form of a starting pitcher, whom the Cubs need. The problem here is twofold: how good would Matt Shaw need to be to make this kind of trade worth it, and who would be in the market to swap a second baseman for starting pitching help?

The first question isn't too hard to answer. While we shouldn't expect Shaw to be a four-win player immediately, it's probably not too difficult to imagine a world where Shaw is a pretty decent starting-level player pretty soon; let's say, for example, you project Matt Shaw to be about 5% better than league average offensively upon his call-up. He's an athletic and seemingly positive base runner who's likely bat-over-glove, though not a DH-level defender. Jonathan India, in 2024, posted a 108 wRC+, was a neutral runner, and was a -10 DRS/+1 OAA player, netting him 2.8 fWAR. Even if Shaw is a little worse defensively and a little better on the bases, getting to 3 wins if your analytic department likes him seems doable. That's about a net loss of a win, but you can make that up on the back end. 

Things get very narrow on the return as you'd need a team with poor production at second base (which isn't that hard), but it is also attempting to win now and has starting pitching depth to burn. Some teams fall into one category or the other, but Seattle might be the only one that falls into both. So, could you do a trade around Nico Hoerner for, say, Bryce Miller or Bryan Woo? How much more to get to George Kirby? Mathew Trueblood, here at NSBB, explored the Seattle Mariner's pieces here at NSBB previously, and each offers something different.

But what if Seattle isn't an option? If the Cubs can get very creative, perhaps the Cubs could channel a three-team trade with a team with prospects/young players of their own who need a second baseman. The Boston Red Sox, helmed by former Cub Assistant GM Craig Breslow, could offer a potential solution. Not only would there be a built-in connection between the teams, the Red Sox need a second baseman, and there is belief in the industry that they would be open to move Wilyer Abreu to open up right field for top-prospect Roman Anthony. If you could find a team that, instead, was deep in pitching and needed an outfielder, perhaps a very complicated three-team swap could be facilitated. 

In the end, finding a great trade fit for Nico Hoerner will likely prove difficult, but I don't think it's impossible. There are a lot of factors here; how good do the Cubs think Matt Shaw is right now? Can the Cubs find a partner for Hoerner that makes sense? But I think there's a narrow strip where the math works. Ultimately, it's hard to predict a trade will occur; a player will always be more likely to stay with their current team than move. But there's been enough smoke behind a potential Hoerner trade that I don't think it can be entirely ruled out if the Cubs are truly looking for a creative solution, either. 

What do you think about a potential trade involving Nico Hoerner? Can the Cubs find a partner where it would make sense? Let us know in the comment section below!

View full article

[Bertz]

I think the problem is that any Nico trade needs to immediately upgrade another area of the team.  For example:

Nico Hoerner (3.5 WAR) + Javier Assad (1.0 WAR) + Prospect Capital

for 

Bryce Miller (2.5 WAR)

plus

An open spot for Matt Shaw (2.0 WAR) and Nico's $11M salary coming free (1.0 WAR)

It makes sense!  Both teams improve and the Mariners get the clear best player in the trade.

The problem is how many of these situations can you find where a contender, or at least aspiring one, has a need at 2B/SS and a surplus that can immediately step in and help the Cubs?  You're pretty much limited to SP and C, positions where teams usually aren't super thrilled about parting with depth.

Theoretically I'm cool dealing Hoerner, but you start looking for specific landing spots and it gets dicey fast.  Like even the above, which I think works great on paper, falls through if Jerry DiPoto simply doesn't like Hoerner.

Edited November 16, 2024 by Bertz

[harmony]

Seattle PBO Jerry Dipoto probably likes Nico Hoerner but not at the cost of five years of right-hander Bryce Miller for the two years and $23 million remaining on Hoerner's contract.

Roster Resource currently lists Gold Glove winner Dylan Moore at second base for the Mariners. The 32-year-old Moore has a career OPS+ of 101, including an OPS+ of 108 this year when he posted 2.2 bWAR in 135 games. As a point of reference, Hoerner has a career OPS+ 100, including an OPS+ of 101 this year when he posted 3.7 bWAR in 151 games.

Seattle may well seek a second-base upgrade from Moore, who is under contract at $3.9 million next season. Moore may be better-suited for the utility role that brought home the Gold Glove.

The Mariners would need a rotation replacement if Seattle traded a starting pitcher. The cost of that replacement undermines any upgrade Hoerner might provide at second base even if Hoerner recovers from forearm flexor surgery.

Quote

Once Chicago’s players convene at their spring headquarters in Mesa, Ariz., in February, Hoerner will be assessed by the Cubs’ medical team and the ballclub will determine the next steps for their second baseman.

https://www.mlb.com/news/nico-hoerner-flexor-tendon-surgery-on-right-forearm

In a trade for Hoerner, Seattle might be willing to part with prospects whom the Cubs could package with their touted prospects in a trade for, say, White Sox left-hander Garrett Crochet. But in a win-now mode, the Mariners are unlikely to include Miller (or George Kirby, Logan Gilbert or Bryan Woo) in a trade for Hoerner.

Trivia: Hoerner teamed with Tommy Edman in the middle infield at Stanford when my daughter was a student there. I attended this game:

https://gostanford.com/boxscore/1452

[Jason Ross]

I'll offer a little pushback on the Mariners not wanting to trade a SP here for two reasons:

The first is that Dylan Moore is really bad. He compiled his way to two wins last year, but looking at his Savant data his offensive profile is essentially "at least I don't chase anything that isn't a strike?" and defensively, he was lucky to win a gold glove, posting neutral OAA and DRS numbers at 2b. His most comparable statcast seasons were to that of 2021 DJ Stewart and 2019 Matt Thaiss - sub 95 wRC+ hitters. Probably is looking down the barrel of a 1 win season if they let him start.

In terms of pitching, this is the perfect year to be set up in your top-4 and needing a back end guy. If the M's moved a Woo/Miller they'd still have the other, plus Kirby, Gilbert and Castillo. A Buehler, Segano, or someone would make a nice 5 there in a pitcher's paradise. If you're looking at Hoerner as a 2.5 win increase over Moore moving forward and think you can replace Miller's 2.8 or Woo's 2.3 fWAR pretty easily, I think the M's come out a winner there. Especially if the Cubs have to add a 45 FV or so prospect. 

The reality is Seattle's infield is garbage and they don't have a ton of paths forward to fix it. I don't want to say Seattle has to do it, they have options, but Jerry D loves a wheel and deal, and the Cubs/Mariners should probably match up somewhere. 

[LBiittner]

1 hour ago, harmony said:

Seattle PBO Jerry Dipoto probably likes Nico Hoerner but not at the cost of five years of right-hander Bryce Miller for the two years and $23 million remaining on Hoerner's contract.

Roster Resource currently lists Gold Glove winner Dylan Moore at second base for the Mariners. The 32-year-old Moore has a career OPS+ of 101, including an OPS+ of 108 this year when he posted 2.2 bWAR in 135 games. As a point of reference, Hoerner has a career OPS+ 100, including an OPS+ of 101 this year when he posted 3.7 bWAR in 151 games.

Seattle may well seek a second-base upgrade from Moore, who is under contract at $3.9 million next season. Moore may be better-suited for the utility role that brought home the Gold Glove.

The Mariners would need a rotation replacement if Seattle traded a starting pitcher. The cost of that replacement undermines any upgrade Hoerner might provide at second base even if Hoerner recovers from forearm flexor surgery.

https://www.mlb.com/news/nico-hoerner-flexor-tendon-surgery-on-right-forearm

In a trade for Hoerner, Seattle might be willing to part with prospects whom the Cubs could package with their touted prospects in a trade for, say, White Sox left-hander Garrett Crochet. But in a win-now mode, the Mariners are unlikely to include Miller (or George Kirby, Logan Gilbert or Bryan Woo) in a trade for Hoerner.

Trivia: Hoerner teamed with Tommy Edman in the middle infield at Stanford when my daughter was a student there. I attended this game:

https://gostanford.com/boxscore/1452

That's wonderful to have these memories!!!

[Bertz]

Dylan Moore is a nice short side platoon bat in a utility role.  Deluding yourself into thinking he's as good as Nico Hoerner would be like a Cubs fan deluding themselves into thinking they don't need frontline rotation help because of Javier Assad's superficially pretty ERA.

[harmony]

What is the current trade value of Nico Hoerner after the second baseman underwent flexor tendon surgery on his right forearm on October 11? Is an update on his prognosis available?

Baseball Trade Values assigns Hoerner a current surplus value of $19.4 million. What is curious is that BTV gave Hoerner a surplus value of only $14.1 million eight days before the surgery (and $13.7 million on August 25 and $37.2 million shortly before the trade deadline).

Seattle starters have these current BTV surplus trade values: George Kirby ($111.4 million), Logan Gilbert ($65.6 million), Bryan Woo ($47.5 million) and Bryce Miller ($47.2 million).

Of course no team adopts the BTV assessments in toto. Each franchise has an internal proprietary valuation system that may reflect a greater or lesser value disparity beween Hoerner and a Seattle starter. We all have the privilege of assigning appropriate weight to a systematic somewhat transparent valuation system and to the bald opinion of some anonymous dude on the internet.

Seattle reportedly has less than $25 million to spend this offseason. The Mariners would be unwise to use about half of that total in a trade of Miller at the league minimum for a two-year commitment and 2025 salary of $11.5 million for Hoerner coming off a concerning surgery.

Edited November 17, 2024 by harmony

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I like BBTV as an objective starting point, but there is simply no way in the world Hoerner has less than 20 million in surplus value.  He's a consistent 4 win player, that surplus number is closer to 60 than 20.  If a team wants to hesitate on their valuation for him because of the surgery, you simply hang on to your extremely valuable player.

[Jason Ross]

3 hours ago, harmony said:

What is the current trade value of Nico Hoerner after the second baseman underwent flexor tendon surgery on his right forearm on October 11? Is an update on his prognosis available?

Baseball Trade Values assigns Hoerner a current surplus value of $19.4 million. What is curious is that BTV gave Hoerner a surplus value of only $14.1 million eight days before the surgery (and $13.7 million on August 25 and $37.2 million shortly before the trade deadline).

Seattle starters have these current BTV surplus trade values: George Kirby ($111.4 million), Logan Gilbert ($65.6 million), Bryan Woo ($47.5 million) and Bryce Miller ($47.2 million).

Of course no team adopts the BTV assessments in toto. Each franchise has an internal proprietary valuation system that may reflect a greater or lesser value disparity beween Hoerner and a Seattle starter. We all have the privilege of assigning appropriate weight to a systematic somewhat transparent valuation system and to the bald opinion of some anonymous dude on the internet.

Seattle reportedly has less than $25 million to spend this offseason. The Mariners would be unwise to use about half of that total in a trade of Miller at the league minimum for a two-year commitment and 2025 salary of $11.5 million for Hoerner coming off a concerning surgery.

I would imagine a team isn't going to be overly concerned with the injury. Perhaps if you were under the impression that Hoerner was your SS going forward and you were worried about a fringe SS arm already...but as a 2b, this probably doesn't change his evaluation much. It sounds like he's going to be back before Opening Day or at worst just a couple of weeks after. 

BBTV is a decent starting point. But I also think it can get very funky very fast. Im not convinced Hoerner and Miller or Woo are that big of a difference in trade value as is. 

As TT said...if a team is really hammering the injury, then you keep him. But I'm just not convinced it'd be a major hurdle for a team who already liked Hoerner. 

Ultimately, as stated originally, I think he's likely to stick with the Cubs anyways. 

[harmony]

3 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I would imagine a team isn't going to be overly concerned with the injury. Perhaps if you were under the impression that Hoerner was your SS going forward and you were worried about a fringe SS arm already...but as a 2b, this probably doesn't change his evaluation much. It sounds like he's going to be back before Opening Day or at worst just a couple of weeks after. 

BBTV is a decent starting point. But I also think it can get very funky very fast. Im not convinced Hoerner and Miller or Woo are that big of a difference in trade value as is. 

As TT said...if a team is really hammering the injury, then you keep him. But I'm just not convinced it'd be a major hurdle for a team who already liked Hoerner. 

Ultimately, as stated originally, I think he's likely to stick with the Cubs anyways. 

Indeed this offseason the Cubs may not find a taker for Nico Hoerner because of the the injury concerns.

Steamer projects Nico Hoerner with a 2025 WAR of 3.0, which this year was valued at about $24.2 million, in 139 games. Prorated over two seasons of team control, a healthy Hoerner could be projected to be worth about $48.5 million. With the $23.5 million guaranteed Hoerner, a rudimentary calculation would leave Hoerner with a net value of about $25 million.

Durability is an efficiency targeted in the pitching market. Teams value a pitcher who eats innings, reducing the workload on the bullpen and perhaps even freeing up a roster slot. This year Seattle had four starters who pitched more innings than Shota Imanaga, who led the Cubs with 173.1 innings pitched. That's one reason why the Mariner starters are highly coveted ... and why they're likely to stay in Seattle.

[Jason Ross]

16 minutes ago, harmony said:

Indeed this offseason the Cubs may not find a taker for Nico Hoerner because of the the injury concerns.

Steamer projects Nico Hoerner with a 2025 WAR of 3.0, which this year was valued at about $24.2 million, in 139 games. Prorated over two seasons of team control, a healthy Hoerner could be projected to be worth about $48.5 million. With the $23.5 million guaranteed Hoerner, a rudimentary calculation would leave Hoerner with a net value of about $25 million.

Durability is an efficiency targeted in the pitching market. Teams value a pitcher who eats innings, reducing the workload on the bullpen and perhaps even freeing up a roster slot. This year Seattle had four starters who pitched more innings than Shota Imanaga, who led the Cubs with 173.1 innings pitched. That's one reason why the Mariner starters are highly coveted ... and why they're likely to stay in Seattle.

Generally speaking, I'll wait until ZiPS comes out for projection season. ZiPS > Steamer. As well, Nico hasn't posted a ~3 fWAR season since 2021, and that was due to sample size. He's been consistently at, or right next to the 4 fWAR plane for 3+ seasons (he was worth 1.5 fWAR in just 44 games in 2021. Hard to say if he'd have made it, but he was pretty darn good in those 40 games) and while, yes, he did pick up a knock, but he outperformed his first half in the second half (when he was presumably injured) and his best offensive month was September. I see no reason why we shouldn't be looking at another high 3's, low 4's season when it comes to WAR. It's why i think there's considerably more surplus value in the tank. On top of it, there's something to be said for compiling WAR. A 4 win player = 3 win player when we consider roster construction. Only one player can occupy a roster spot. 

I think you're putting a little extra on durability here from guys like Bryce Miller. I don't mean to devalue Miller here as I'm suggesting him as a Cub target, but while Miller was durable, there's probably projection to get him to something more. 21 pitchers made 180 IP (Miller was just at 180) and he finished 14th of 21 in xFIP and tied with Manaea for 15th in fWAR. He's a good pitcher, but he's merely good as of now, with some of that value tied up in his durability (it's a good part in how he got to 2.8 fWAR). I think there's more in there, but even his Savant page isn't a masterclass of high percentiles as of now. 

If we do, however, want to use STEAMER, it's probably fair to point out STEAMER has Miller in at a 1.9 fWAR for 2024. Similarly to Hoerner, that feels at least .5 fWAR low. But it isn't like he's running laps around Hoerner in present day value, and for a team like the Mariners who probably is going to have to get creative to find infield value, there's juice here to squeeze. 

In the end, I do think Hoerner and Miller are probably much closer to value than BBTV is making it seem. 

[harmony]

12 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Generally speaking, I'll wait until ZiPS comes out for projection season. ZiPS > Steamer. As well, Nico hasn't posted a ~3 fWAR season since 2021, and that was due to sample size. He's been consistently at, or right next to the 4 fWAR plane for 3+ seasons (he was worth 1.5 fWAR in just 44 games in 2021. Hard to say if he'd have made it, but he was pretty darn good in those 40 games) and while, yes, he did pick up a knock, but he outperformed his first half in the second half (when he was presumably injured) and his best offensive month was September. I see no reason why we shouldn't be looking at another high 3's, low 4's season when it comes to WAR. It's why i think there's considerably more surplus value in the tank. On top of it, there's something to be said for compiling WAR. A 4 win player = 3 win player when we consider roster construction. Only one player can occupy a roster spot. 

I think you're putting a little extra on durability here from guys like Bryce Miller. I don't mean to devalue Miller here as I'm suggesting him as a Cub target, but while Miller was durable, there's probably projection to get him to something more. 21 pitchers made 180 IP (Miller was just at 180) and he finished 14th of 21 in xFIP and tied with Manaea for 15th in fWAR. He's a good pitcher, but he's merely good as of now, with some of that value tied up in his durability (it's a good part in how he got to 2.8 fWAR). I think there's more in there, but even his Savant page isn't a masterclass of high percentiles as of now. 

If we do, however, want to use STEAMER, it's probably fair to point out STEAMER has Miller in at a 1.9 fWAR for 2024. Similarly to Hoerner, that feels at least .5 fWAR low. But it isn't like he's running laps around Hoerner in present day value, and for a team like the Mariners who probably is going to have to get creative to find infield value, there's juice here to squeeze. 

In the end, I do think Hoerner and Miller are probably much closer to value than BBTV is making it seem. 

Let's not forget that it's two years of Nico Hoerner at $23.5 million versus five years of Bryce Miller, next year at a league minimum salary followed by four arbitration seasons.

[Jason Ross]

10 minutes ago, harmony said:

Let's not forget that it's two years of Nico Hoerner at $23.5 million versus five years of Bryce Miller, next year at a league minimum salary followed by four arbitration seasons.

I havent. Conversely, how many players you can comfortably project as 4 win players will be available on the market for $10m per year over the next two seasons? 

For a team like the Mariners who don't have a lot of money to play with, there aren't a lot of avenues for that kind of value and improvements in an infield that's pretty bad. 

Like I said, I think BBTV can be a decent foundation at times. But I think they're probably $25-30m short on value for Hoerner. Perhaps Hoerner/Miller isn't a flat 1:1 swap, but the difference between the two probably isn't a gulf. Probably a decent prospect outside of the Cubs top 9 or so. 

Fine if you've got them at different places. But at the prices BBTV has Hoerner, then he's almost assuredly untradeable in that I'd never sell him for that valuation. There'd be almost no way to make up the difference in a way that would benefit the Cubs.

[Jason Ross]

I don't have the backing and the power of the Cubs analytical department: I'm a one man army and working with publicly available data, so the Cubs have a very strong edge on what information I can provide here, meaning, they might come to a very different conclusion. But, if we're digging into the things we have on Matt Shaw, it's hard to say there's many glaring, obvious flaws that would keep him away from that Jonathan India area pretty early in his career. 

Entering 2024, the book on Matt Shaw was that he was a bit of a free swinger, had a penchant to chase (and still make contact) with pitches out of the zone. This is reflective in his MiLB numbers in things like his walk rate. We don't have Statcast data for Double-A and below, but we do have his most recent stint in Iowa. It's only 150 PA's, but this is more than enough for numbers to stabilize and be a relevant sample size. In Iowa he posted a virtual league average contact rate (72% vs 72.8%) and posted better than league average in-zone whiff rates. He did chase a bit over league average, but was also thrown far more pitches out of the zone and non-competitive strikes relative to league average, so seeing that he held off on most of that stuff (while still chasing a little) is not much of a red flag. 

If we want to get further into the weeds, Shaw really struggled in those first seven or so games. I don't want to just delete data points, but if we chalk that up to "struggling at a new level", he posted a 163 wRC+ after that, with a contact rate of 75% and an in-zone whiff rate of just 14%. It's just something to note. 

More importantly, he was able to do damage against velocity, posting contact rates on fastballs 94+mph well over 80%. So a jump in velocity doesn't seem to be an issue for Shaw. If there's a red flag it's that he really struggled with sweepers. He's chasing them at a pretty high rate (over 40%) and laying off a good sweeper looks like a place for polish for the kid. Conversely, he hit sliders pretty well, so while the sweeper-slider and the traditional slider differ, they're not so different that there's not a foundation here. 

In terms of exit velocity he weas well over the league average for exit velocity, coming in right under 90mph as an average, while posting a LA over 14%. If you want to find some polishes, it's that he doesn't pull the ball a ton but I'll hit on that later. 

The biggest concern people seem to have with his offensive profile is "he looks funny" and there's some valid fears, but they're mostly hypothetical right now. Part of the reason I don't think he pulls as much is because he has such a funky setup with that toe-in. As well, the leg kick is funky and an outlier, but it isn't like we haven't seen outlier and funky batting step ups work. Shaw has shown an ability to tone the leg kick down with two strikes and has maintained exit velocity relative to league average (though does hit the ball more on the ground, but I also wonder if that's a function of two strike approach) so there's foundation for a leg kick change if need be - it wouldn't seem all of his power comes from the windup. 

Outside of these things, we know he's very athletic and it's highly probable he's going to add positive base running value. He's not going to be Pete Crow-Armstrong, but a +2-4 on the bases seems pretty do-able. Defensively, while there's little belief in his glove turning gold any time soon, none of the scouting suggests he's a butcher, DH level. 

I wouldn't predict him to come up and go ham right away, and we've seen the best of the best prospects take some time. Chourio, Holiday, Wood, Crews all had learning curves and Matt Shaw is probably going to have one. But he's done a really good job re-working the approach and has done nothing but crush baseballs. To date his worst run was a 70 PA, 120 wRC+ he posted at the very end of 2023 in Double-A. For an encore, he posted a 148 wRC+ where he improved across the board. 

End result: I don't want to predict a four win, 2025 campaign for Matt Shaw. But when I dig into things, there's not many places of concern for me. Sure, work needs to be put in on laying off the sweeper. And the leg kick is a curiosity and something we'll have to wait and see on (though you've got guys like Zach Neto who suggest those changes are do-able). I don't see a crazy path to Jonathon India levels. Maybe it takes 45 days to settle in (like Pete Crow-Armstrong?) but I'm pretty confident in his future. 

[Jason Ross]

As I explored in the article, I don't expect them to a be a 1:1 replacement on call-up. I do suspect learning curves and some issues, be it with sweeper's (though I should probably mention that his issues on sweeper's are in a 30 pitch sample size. So while it's notable, it could be a lot of things) or his leg kick, or something. It's just what we should expect with prospects right now. If the best prospects on the planet are struggling, we should assume they all will. 

I don't want anyone to think I'm pushing Hoerner out. He's a high 3's, low 4's win type of a 2b on a controllable contract. If we're handicapping everything, he's easily the betting favorite to be the better player in 2024. The math for how a Hoerner trade would work is pretty narrow. I don't think it's impossible, though. You just have to:

1. Really like the return

2. Believe in your scouting/analytical team's modeling of Shaw

There can't be many returns like that. But I don't think it's impossible, either. 

[squally1313]

But why can't we just trade Shaw?

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

But why can't we just trade Shaw?

We could, certainly! But the impotence of this article is based on the Jeff Passan rumor where the Cubs were considering a trade of Nico Hoerner (and diving back to the summer where his name came up once or twice). Not trying to sound like a jerk here, but it's not really the point of the article. This was to explore:

1. What the Cubs could get for Nico Hoerner
2. What the reasoning behind a trade like that might be

The Cubs should be willing to consider a handful of things this offseason. Trading Matt Shaw very well could be an option, and shouldn't be considered off-limits.

[squally1313]

Just now, 1908_Cubs said:

We could, certainly! But the impotence of this article is based on the Jeff Passan rumor where the Cubs were considering a trade of Nico Hoerner. Not trying to sound like a jerk here, but it's not really the point of the article. This was to explore:

1. What the Cubs could get for Noerner
2. What the reasoning behind a trade like that might be

Sorry, I wasn't trying to reduce/minimize the point of the article, that was more a (flippant) response to the conversation that had been going on in the responses. I certainly think it's important to dig into what the Cubs could get, but I also think you have to look at it in terms of the overall roster construction, where we are in terms of the win curve/goals for the near and long term future/etc.

Ultimately for me, where it falls out is that I look at Hoerner, Paredes, and Shaw, and I look at a team that seemingly should be trying whatever they can to win immediately (2025), and I see Hoerner as the most reliable option to produce value for the team in the near term future and also the one who would bring back the least amount in a trade (due to the contract length, mostly, but also this weird thought process he's slightly upscale Ryan Theriot). So fine to talk about what he can bring to the table in a trade, but also should have the conversation of 'should we do it?' (similar to your point #2) and I think the answer to that question is 'No". 

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Sorry, I wasn't trying to reduce/minimize the point of the article, that was more a (flippant) response to the conversation that had been going on in the responses. I certainly think it's important to dig into what the Cubs could get, but I also think you have to look at it in terms of the overall roster construction, where we are in terms of the win curve/goals for the near and long term future/etc.

Ultimately for me, where it falls out is that I look at Hoerner, Paredes, and Shaw, and I look at a team that seemingly should be trying whatever they can to win immediately (2025), and I see Hoerner as the most reliable option to produce value for the team in the near term future and also the one who would bring back the least amount in a trade (due to the contract length, mostly, but also this weird thought process he's slightly upscale Ryan Theriot). So fine to talk about what he can bring to the table in a trade, but also should have the conversation of 'should we do it?' (similar to your point #2) and I think the answer to that question is 'No". 

That's where we will have to differ. Again, a lot of this comes down to "just how good do you think Matt Shaw is?". I've tried to play it a bit coy, but I'll give you a hint...I think he's really good. And I know we do this with prospects a lot, and I'll admit, I get into a weird place with them at times....when you follow them as closely as I tend to, there's a bit of a bias which I totally understand. But when I dig into the data, I just don't see the flaws that make me hesitate. He's smoking every level he's facing right now. And in a repeatable fashion. As I've said, I'm a one man army and the Cubs have a lot more tools to make that determination...I'm just a guy. 

But what it brings me to is this: I do think there's permeations of the 2025 Cubs that are just as good with or without Nico Hoerner. I think those are pretty narrow and need to hit a very particular kind of math. You have to bring back value and be confident that Shaw is going to be good. I do think there are more versions of the Cubs being worse sans Hoerner, though and that pathway is probably not one that's going to come to fruition easily, or likely, at all.

No worries if your answers are "no" there, too. This was more an exploration of things like "could it make sense?" "how realistic is it?" and "what would you have to project Matt Shaw to be to have it make sense?"

 

[Tryptamine]

What we can all take away from this is that BTV is a horrible site and should never be used in discussing actual trades. In no world should Bryce Miller cost you Nico+Shaw+plus another roughly 8-10 million in value so a guy in the Cub top 15. With that mini rant out of the way, the only way I'm willing to move Nico is if #1, it allows you to bring in a pitching upgrade through the trade and #2 the cost savings, along with lots of already free money, allow you to add a significant offensive upgrade at 2B. Outside of that, I'm not sure how it makes sense. 

[squally1313]

7 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

That's where we will have to differ. Again, a lot of this comes down to "just how good do you think Matt Shaw is?". I've tried to play it a bit coy, but I'll give you a hint...I think he's really good. And I know we do this with prospects a lot, and I'll admit, I get into a weird place with them at times....when you follow them as closely as I tend to, there's a bit of a bias which I totally understand. But when I dig into the data, I just don't see the flaws that make me hesitate. He's smoking every level he's facing right now. And in a repeatable fashion. As I've said, I'm a one man army and the Cubs have a lot more tools to make that determination...I'm just a guy. 

But what it brings me to is this: I do think there's permeations of the 2025 Cubs that are just as good with or without Nico Hoerner. I think those are pretty narrow and need to hit a very particular kind of math. You have to bring back value and be confident that Shaw is going to be good. I do think there are more versions of the Cubs being worse sans Hoerner, though and that pathway is probably not one that's going to come to fruition easily, or likely, at all.

No worries if your answers are "no" there, too. This was more an exploration of things like "could it make sense?" "how realistic is it?" and "what would you have to project Matt Shaw to be to have it make sense?"

 

That's all good and I certainly respect the work you put into analyzing the players involved. Ultimately it still seems like the hypotheticals are based on some level of...I have a unique valuation of Player X and therefore Options A, B, C, etc are open if you accept these assumptions. Like, is it just the Cubs that would have these very optimistic views of Matt Shaw? A 'really good' Matt Shaw with 6 years of control is significantly more valuable than 2 years of Hoerner. Can he headline a Skubal deal? Does your thought process change then? 

I think ultimately where we diverge here is that you're much more willing to question the baseline understood valuations of discussed players and maybe even end up in positions where you think the rest of baseball is over/under valuing certain players, and I'm more interested in taking the numbers at somewhat face value (since the FGs and BBTVs and whatever of the world put way more time into this than I do) and figure out how to maximize overall production based on those. Not saying you're wrong! Just think that we are thinking about it differently. 

[harmony]

10 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

What we can all take away from this is that BTV is a horrible site and should never be used in discussing actual trades. In no world should Bryce Miller cost you Nico+Shaw+plus another roughly 8-10 million in value so a guy in the Cub top 15. With that mini rant out of the way, the only way I'm willing to move Nico is if #1, it allows you to bring in a pitching upgrade through the trade and #2 the cost savings, along with lots of already free money, allow you to add a significant offensive upgrade at 2B. Outside of that, I'm not sure how it makes sense. 

We all have the privilege of assigning appropriate weight to a systematic, somewhat transparent, valuation system versus the bald opinion of some anonymous dude on the internet.

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/valuing-major-leaguers

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/valuing-minor-leaguers

Edited November 18, 2024 by harmony

[Jason Ross]

9 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

That's all good and I certainly respect the work you put into analyzing the players involved. Ultimately it still seems like the hypotheticals are based on some level of...I have a unique valuation of Player X and therefore Options A, B, C, etc are open if you accept these assumptions. Like, is it just the Cubs that would have these very optimistic views of Matt Shaw? A 'really good' Matt Shaw with 6 years of control is significantly more valuable than 2 years of Hoerner. Can he headline a Skubal deal? Does your thought process change then? 

I think ultimately where we diverge here is that you're much more willing to question the baseline understood valuations of discussed players and maybe even end up in positions where you think the rest of baseball is over/under valuing certain players, and I'm more interested in taking the numbers at somewhat face value (since the FGs and BBTVs and whatever of the world put way more time into this than I do) and figure out how to maximize overall production based on those. Not saying you're wrong! Just think that we are thinking about it differently. 

I'm as big of a Tarik Skubal fan out there so the Tigers would be interested in talking there, for sure. I don't think they would be; they've recently extended a 2b prospect for the forseeable future and have Jace Jung at 3b, so their need for a Matt Shaw might not be in their top-needs. They have a few infield prospects in their system who are highly considered, as well. 

I don't mean to discount FGs work...no one here is a bigger fan of the fangraphs stuff - I grew up on their articles. BBTV...I've got a different feeling on. While I think they can be an interesting place to double-check whether or not we're being fair or not, I generally am not a fan of their model. 

But regardless, I just think that there's a way to get creative that includes trading Hoerner. It doesn't mean it has to happen, but sometimes I see people here immediately dismiss any trade of Hoerner as being unworthy. I don't think I have that feeling. It'd be hard to find a good move, but I do think a realistic move exists there, as hard as it may be to make that happen.

[Jason Ross]

9 minutes ago, harmony said:

We all have the privilege of assigning appropriate weight to a systematic, somewhat transparent, valuation system versus the bald opinion of some anonymous dude on the internet.

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/valuing-major-leaguers

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/valuing-minor-leaguers

Hey that's totally fine if you want to use that system. I'll be honest: I don't particularly love BBTV's model. It's an interesting baseline, but how they've come up with Hoerner at a $20m surplus is kind of hard for me to understand. 

For example, I think it's likely that Hoerner finishes with 3.5-4 wins per the next two seasons. If we want to be super conservative, factor in some injury time...let's call it seven wins. FA $/WAR  for free agents is somewhere in the region of $7.5 - 9m per player. So doing a little napkin math: 

As a 7 win player, we can assume that he'd be worth somewhere between $52.5m - $63m. Accounting for his contract, that's a surplus value of anywhere between ~$30m and $40m 

As an 8 win player, that number goes to $60m - $72m. Or somewhere between $40 - $50m in surplus value. 

Hoerner, over his last three seasons, has been worth 12,.8 fWAR, which is over the 4 win mark on average, per seasons, so there's a good chance that even 8 fWAR is low. 

Regardless, I struggle to see where BBTV is coming up with their evaluation. Perhaps they're leaning into a STEAMER projection more than I think is fair (as stated, he's been worth under 3.8 fWAR zero times in the last three years, so I think they're a win short). Or they're dinging him a bit more than I think is fair for the injury (regardless if the Cubs trade or keep him, I'm not overly concerned for a 2b with the nature of the injury). 

I'm perfectly fine if you're a BBTV guy. And while I understand we've just met, I try not to be an anonymous dude. I've been writing prospect evaluations on NSBB for around 1.5 years now. I'm certainly no Jeff Passan. I'm not a Mathew Trueblood either. Hell, I'm no Greg Huss or Greg Zumach. But I try not to be too anonymous, too! Promise, I try to use a pretty baseline and analytical view of things. 

[Tryptamine]

33 minutes ago, harmony said:

We all have the privilege of assigning appropriate weight to a systematic, somewhat transparent, valuation system versus the bald opinion of some anonymous dude on the internet.

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/valuing-major-leaguers

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/valuing-minor-leaguers

Seeing as how I'm not going to spend $25 to make trades on the website, we've gone over many trades over the last year on this website using BTV values before it became pay walled and a lot of them made no sense whatsoever.  It's a nice tool, but needs to be taken with a giant grain of sand and some common sense.