Update: Passan confirms trade done. Tucker to Cubs for Paredes, Cam Smith, Wesneski

[Cuzi]

1 hour ago, UMFan83 said:

This is what I was saying the other day about commenting on the Yankees sub.  Their fans had no idea why the Cubs would be trying to get Tucker since in their minds the Cubs aren't currently trying to win.  That's the perception a lot of baseball fandoms seem to have of the Cubs.

Well, it's not hard to blame them. Up until the Tucker trade they've been targeting buy low candidates. They've had a pretty good overall roster for 3 offseasons and the best moves they have made up until Tucker were a "meh" at best.

[Tim]

3 hours ago, Cuzi said:

Well, it's not hard to blame them. Up until the Tucker trade they've been targeting buy low candidates. They've had a pretty good overall roster for 3 offseasons and the best moves they have made up until Tucker were a "meh" at best.

Wait...The Cubs have had a pretty good overall roster for three offseasons? The 2022 team had:

• Nico
• Happ
• Seya
• Steele
• Stroman

and...whom? 

For as much as you complain about the team, the management, the roster, etc., I find it stunning to see you say this. If they had a "pretty good overall" roster in 2024, didn't they need to make some moves that were better than "meh" in 2022 & 2023? 

I'm so confused.

[Cuzi]

13 minutes ago, Tim said:

Wait...The Cubs have had a pretty good overall roster for three offseasons? The 2022 team had:

• Nico
• Happ
• Seya
• Steele
• Stroman

and...whom? 

For as much as you complain about the team, the management, the roster, etc., I find it stunning to see you say this. If they had a "pretty good overall" roster in 2024, didn't they need to make some moves that were better than "meh" in 2022 & 2023? 

I'm so confused.

The moves they have made in the last couple years leading up to Tucker:

Dansby Swanson - good player, 3rd or 4th on everyone's wishlist for the offseason at that particular spot. Cheapest option.

Cody Bellinger - Signed him as a clear bounce back candidate to trade at the deadline. Bounced back better than anyone could have hoped and kept him. Now trying to dump his contract because they gave him too much money.

Michael Busch - solid rookie year. Hopefully there's improvement offensively.

Jameson Taillon - Yay?

Shota Imanaga - Solid bet on NPB stunted value.

3B was ignored completely until they got Paredes - great move considering the cost to acquire. A lot of people questioned the fit, me included.

Flipped Paredes for Tucker - This is the first no horsefeathers we are going for legit top tier talent no questions asked move in Jeds entire career as PoBO, imo. Everything prior was a cost vs performance calculation.

[Tim]

7 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

The moves they have made in the last couple years leading up to Tucker:

Dansby Swanson - good player, 3rd or 4th on everyone's wishlist for the offseason at that particular spot. Cheapest option.

Cody Bellinger - Signed him as a clear bounce back candidate to trade at the deadline. Bounced back better than anyone could have hoped and kept him. Now trying to dump his contract because they gave him too much money.

Michael Busch - solid rookie year. Hopefully there's improvement offensively.

Jameson Taillon - Yay?

Shota Imanaga - Solid bet on NPB stunted value.

3B was ignored completely until they got Paredes - great move considering the cost to acquire. A lot of people questioned the fit, me included.

Flipped Paredes for Tucker - This is the first no horsefeathers we are going for legit top tier talent no questions asked move in Jeds entire career as PoBO, imo. Everything prior was a cost vs performance calculation.

Now defend the part where they had a, in your words, "pretty good overall" roster without using any of those moves that you don't care for.

[Clem Fandango]

The Ricketts have done everything in their power to make me care less and less and this team each year, but this move (thanks, Jed) rocketed my enthusiasm back up to levels I've not had in a long time. 

Edited December 14, 2024 by Clem Fandango

[Tim]

3 minutes ago, Clem Fandango said:

The Ricketts have done everything in their power to make me care less and less and this team each year, but this move (thanks, Jed) rocketed my enthusiasm back up to levels I've not had in a long time. 

Hey now...some are saying that the Cubs have had a pretty good roster for years now.

[Cuzi]

1 minute ago, Tim said:

Now defend the part where they had a, in your words, "pretty good overall" roster without using any of those moves that you don't care for.

They had pretty much every spot besides CF, 1B, and 3B. Happ and Suzuki in the corners. Hoerner at SS and what was looking like Madrigal at 2B. Contreras at C who they chose to avoid talking to like the plague. There was most certainly a core to build around. They've been choosing to build on the intelligent spending path and avoid going after the elite players, until Tucker.

[Clem Fandango]

Just now, Tim said:

Hey now...some are saying that the Cubs have had a pretty good roster for years now.

Pretty good at being milquetoast, maybe.

[Tim]

5 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

They had pretty much every spot besides CF, 1B, and 3B. Happ and Suzuki in the corners. Hoerner at SS and what was looking like Madrigal at 2B. Contreras at C who they chose to avoid talking to like the plague. There was most certainly a core to build around. They've been choosing to build on the intelligent spending path and avoid going after the elite players, until Tucker.

Contreras doesn't count since he was a FA after 2022. So they had three spots covered with actual players. They had two starting pitchers and...stuff on the mound. There's a reason they finished 74-88

[Stratos]

14 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Goldy probably wants too much. And they do need someone who can also play 3rd. 

It would be ideal for them if they had a bench guy who can play both 3B and 1B like Wisdom did, though hopefully plays both better.  Didn't seem last year like the Cubs want Busch to flop between 3B and 1B.  I think defensively he could do it if the throwing was adequate.

Not sure I can see a Goldschmidt type or anyone worth much money since they probably have other priorities like SP and relief.  We also have 5 MLB OF's right now and bunch of good hitting prospects in Iowa so no need for a DH signing.

 

[Stratos]

Hard to say this early in his career but I think its easily possible that Cam Smith was up there with Matt Shaw as the top prospect in the system.  He may even turn out to be better than Shaw.

Paredes is a projected 3.7 WAR player and they traded 3 years of him for 1 year of a projected 5 WAR player, plus Cam Smith and Wesneski.  We gave up all that for a 1 season improvement of 1.3 WAR on a team that already had 4 quality starting OF and a bunch of good OF prospects in AAA.

I think fans are biased towards hitting/offense.  If Dansby or Nico's value came mostly from the bat they'd be much more popular.  Preventing a hit with the glove that doesn't score doesn't show up for that player in the box score and its not as fun to watch.  Tucker is a really good hitter but WAR is the only thing relevant.

It's true that we're better next year though.  It's very possible Hoyer made this trade to try to save his job.  I still don't quite understand the math on this move.

[Rcal10]

6 hours ago, Stratos said:

Hard to say this early in his career but I think its easily possible that Cam Smith was up there with Matt Shaw as the top prospect in the system.  He may even turn out to be better than Shaw.

Paredes is a projected 3.7 WAR player and they traded 3 years of him for 1 year of a projected 5 WAR player, plus Cam Smith and Wesneski.  We gave up all that for a 1 season improvement of 1.3 WAR on a team that already had 4 quality starting OF and a bunch of good OF prospects in AAA.

I think fans are biased towards hitting/offense.  If Dansby or Nico's value came mostly from the bat they'd be much more popular.  Preventing a hit with the glove that doesn't score doesn't show up for that player in the box score and its not as fun to watch.  Tucker is a really good hitter but WAR is the only thing relevant.

It's true that we're better next year though.  It's very possible Hoyer made this trade to try to save his job.  I still don't quite understand the math on this move.

Was Paredes a 3.$ WAR projection with the Cubs? I would have thought more like 2.5-3.0. Regardless, IMO Fhcker for Paredes in the line up is a huge advantage to the Cubs. I think you are a little high on Paredes and low on Tucker when it comes to WAR. I would call it a 3 WAR gain. Then, I think this fan base is incredibly high in Smith. He had 115AB in pro ball. Had 5-8 of the balls he got hits in been caught I don’t think people would have been so high on him. Had he started slowly I don’t think anyone would care about him. But neither would the Astros. IMO the Cubs took great advantage of a young kid starting hot and having great value because of it. For everyone of these guys who does make it there are probably 5 or more who never become a solid everyday player. He was a guy in the  back end of the top 100. So many of them fail. Even guys higher up fail to amount to much. Yes, maybe he becomes the next Manny Machado or Fernando Tatis and we are all talking about what a terrible decision the Cubs made to get rid of him. But more likely than that, he turns into the next Keiboom or Robles, Brennan Davis, or Adell, or numerous other top 75 prospects at one point who we never end up hearing about. Cubs took a horsefeathers at greatness. I applaud them for that. Yes, they now need to sign him. And that’s not a sure thing. But they do have to try. 

[CubinNY]

9 hours ago, Stratos said:

but WAR is the only thing relevant.

To everyone, this is what I mean. 
 

To the poster- you can’t add WAR like that and equal a teams wins. It. Does. Not. Work. That. Way.

Edited December 15, 2024 by CubinNY

[Irrelevant Dude]

Looking over the Cubs payroll situation again, they don't have any significant (non-Tucker) money coming off the books after 2025.  If they want to keep enough money free for the possibility of Tucker re-signing, might that mean a primary focus on 1 year deals from here on out?

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Irrelevant Dude said:

Looking over the Cubs payroll situation again, they don't have any significant (non-Tucker) money coming off the books after 2025.  If they want to keep enough money free for the possibility of Tucker re-signing, might that mean a primary focus on 1 year deals from here on out?

I think if the Cubs sign a lot of 1 year deals, or maybe, cheaper arbitration guys (Jesus Luzardo) then it shows they may have that money earmarked. It might not, but it could. 

They could sign some multi-year guys and move off of guys again next year - Happ, Suzuki, Hoerner and Taillon would be mostly movable as they enter the last years of their deal and that could further clear money up. But everyone would mostly know they were doing that.

[Cuzi]

3 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Looking over the Cubs payroll situation again, they don't have any significant (non-Tucker) money coming off the books after 2025.  If they want to keep enough money free for the possibility of Tucker re-signing, might that mean a primary focus on 1 year deals from here on out?

Maybe they just do what a large market does occasionally and go over the tax for a single year since damn near the entire roster is off the books after 2026.

Edited December 15, 2024 by Cuzi

[SOFNR]

9 hours ago, Stratos said:

Hard to say this early in his career but I think its easily possible that Cam Smith was up there with Matt Shaw as the top prospect in the system.  He may even turn out to be better than Shaw.

Paredes is a projected 3.7 WAR player and they traded 3 years of him for 1 year of a projected 5 WAR player, plus Cam Smith and Wesneski.  We gave up all that for a 1 season improvement of 1.3 WAR on a team that already had 4 quality starting OF and a bunch of good OF prospects in AAA.

I think fans are biased towards hitting/offense.  If Dansby or Nico's value came mostly from the bat they'd be much more popular.  Preventing a hit with the glove that doesn't score doesn't show up for that player in the box score and its not as fun to watch.  Tucker is a really good hitter but WAR is the only thing relevant.

It's true that we're better next year though.  It's very possible Hoyer made this trade to try to save his job.  I still don't quite understand the math on this move.

Those projections you're looking at were quite different before the trade. I know Tucker was at 5.6 and Paredes was more like 3.2. Paredes is now getting a huge boost from playing at Minute Maid while Tucker is being penalized for leaving. But let's not get too wrapped up in projections and use some common sense here. Tucker put up 5 WAR for three straight years and then really broke out with 4.2 WAR last year in half a season. He had a 180 wRC+. He was as good of a hitter as Soto.  He might be on the verge of consistent top 5 player. Paredes last 3 years by WAR 2.4, 4.3, 3.4. Last year he had a 117 wRC+. Tucker has 6 years of hitting above 120. Paredes has 1. They really aren't that comparable. It's a guy possibly on the verge of superstardom vs a guy who's nice to have around.

Edited December 15, 2024 by SOFNR

[Bertz]

I think a few things are true

- The Cubs probably overpaid for Tucker.  You'd hope that's because they have every intention of extending him, it might also be because Jed's seat is hot.  But they overpaid.  That's fine though

- Because of the limits on roster spots and playing time, one 5 WAR player is worth more than a 3 WAR player + a 2 WAR player.  The degree to which this is true scales with how well rounded your team is (the Cubs' depth made a star particularly valuable)

- The value of a player is simply what the market will bear.  If the market has decided Paredes is worth X, even if he's such a good fit in Houston that he'll specifically be worth 2X there, you're still only getting back a little more than X in trade.  The corollary to this is that saying you're not going to trade a guy to try and preserve leverage is meaningless

[Stratos]

13 hours ago, SOFNR said:

Those projections you're looking at were quite different before the trade. I know Tucker was at 5.6 and Paredes was more like 3.2. Paredes is now getting a huge boost from playing at Minute Maid while Tucker is being penalized for leaving. But let's not get too wrapped up in projections and use some common sense here. Tucker put up 5 WAR for three straight years and then really broke out with 4.2 WAR last year in half a season. He had a 180 wRC+. He was as good of a hitter as Soto.  He might be on the verge of consistent top 5 player. Paredes last 3 years by WAR 2.4, 4.3, 3.4. Last year he had a 117 wRC+. Tucker has 6 years of hitting above 120. Paredes has 1. They really aren't that comparable. It's a guy possibly on the verge of superstardom vs a guy who's nice to have around.

Yes if the projections changed then that changes things a bit.  Also i'm not comparing Paredes and Tucker 1:1, obviously Tucker is clearly the better player.  We have to factor Tucker only signed for a year, and if he does extend it will be at more or less market prices.  We also have to factor losing Cam Smith (and also Wesneski), plus what we have in the org already.

When a player has a few months where they're hitting much better than usual it usually doesn't extend across a whole season the next year, they were usually just hot.  The one encouraging thing I see where Tucker could actually be breaking out is that he came back in Sept after missing a couple of months and hit even better than he did earlier in the year (which was still well above career norms).  But i think assuming he's now a top 5 player is a big stretch.  It's always possible but I wouldn't bank on it, its best case scenario and you don't project or make a bet on best case scenario, you bank on what's the most likely outcome.

[Stratos]

17 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Was Paredes a 3.$ WAR projection with the Cubs? I would have thought more like 2.5-3.0. Regardless, IMO Fhcker for Paredes in the line up is a huge advantage to the Cubs. I think you are a little high on Paredes and low on Tucker when it comes to WAR. I would call it a 3 WAR gain. Then, I think this fan base is incredibly high in Smith. He had 115AB in pro ball. Had 5-8 of the balls he got hits in been caught I don’t think people would have been so high on him. Had he started slowly I don’t think anyone would care about him. But neither would the Astros. IMO the Cubs took great advantage of a young kid starting hot and having great value because of it. For everyone of these guys who does make it there are probably 5 or more who never become a solid everyday player. He was a guy in the  back end of the top 100. So many of them fail. Even guys higher up fail to amount to much. Yes, maybe he becomes the next Manny Machado or Fernando Tatis and we are all talking about what a terrible decision the Cubs made to get rid of him. But more likely than that, he turns into the next Keiboom or Robles, Brennan Davis, or Adell, or numerous other top 75 prospects at one point who we never end up hearing about. Cubs took a horsefeathers at greatness. I applaud them for that. Yes, they now need to sign him. And that’s not a sure thing. But they do have to try. 

Not sure the projections before the trade.  Yes they may have changed.

Yes i agree, judging a guy based on wRC+ or OPS etc in a very small sample like Smith had is foolish.  But i'm more looking at the tools which are far more important.  MLB Pipeline has graded him at 50 power, which seems inaccurate.  He's a big strong guy with an athletic swing, and the Cubs minor league hitting coordinator recently said the upside on him could be a 30-HR guy in the MLB.  Smith has to be around a 55 or 60 on the power tool.  Fangraphs projects 70 raw power, which might be a bit much.

He's already rated at a 55 hit tool by MLB.com, he hit some HR to the opposite field in the minors, and his K% has been quite good so far at the levels he hit at.  Cubs minor league hitting coordinator also commented on how good he is at hanging in on curveballs.  These are some green flags to suggest at least a 50 hit tool.

A 50+ hit tool and potentially 60 power with his 50 rated glove at a position not the easiest to find good talent is a very good prospect.  MLB.com had Smith ranked below Triantos but it think that's pretty silly, Smith is a mid 1st rounder and Triantos was a 2nd rounder and Smith seems to have clearly better tools and upside.

[Stratos]

14 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think if the Cubs sign a lot of 1 year deals, or maybe, cheaper arbitration guys (Jesus Luzardo) then it shows they may have that money earmarked. It might not, but it could. 

They could sign some multi-year guys and move off of guys again next year - Happ, Suzuki, Hoerner and Taillon would be mostly movable as they enter the last years of their deal and that could further clear money up. But everyone would mostly know they were doing that.

If they resign Tucker and keep the rest of their Iowa top prospects I could see them trading Suzuki and Happ next offseason.  One of Alcantara/Caissie in corner OF, and one of them at DH.  I think they'd likely leave DH open for prospects and spend that money elsewhere.

If Tucker doesn't resign i think they likely keep one of Happ or Suzuki for 2026 and just take the QO, or trade them at the deadline if they suck.

[muntjack]

4 hours ago, Stratos said:

 

A 50+ hit tool and potentially 60 power with his 50 rated glove at a position not the easiest to find good talent is a very good prospect.  

Luckily,  Shaw is in the organization.   

I'm bullish on Smith but he wasn't even the Cubs' best 3B prospect.  They traded surplus for a middle of the order bat.  A great move.  

[Derwood]

Cubs now have the players picked 2st, 5th and 9th in the first round of the 2015 draft

[sweetpeteman]

Could also add the 2nd (Bregman), 3rd (Brendan Rogers), and 4th (Dillon Tate) as they're all free agents.

[We Got The Whole 9]

Derwood stays on the periphery and then pops in on the insiders like hes breaking news lol