Post Winter Meetings Free Agency thread

[Jason Ross]

19 minutes ago, Crusader said:

It’s really not. He used someone’s prime numbers vs another’s career numbers between players that play different positions. A more thoughtful post would have been prime numbers vs other prime numbers for projections. Even then it’s not a great comparison because productivity with aging is so greatly impacted with chronic injuries even between people with similar skill sets. That’s why players being productive near their 40s is so rare. Not only do they need a good skill set, but they need to age in a way where they avoid any nagging/chronic injuries, even the type that might not lead to IR time, and projecting that is a guessing game with a ton of risk involved with overly complicated team based intellectual property formulas to try to assess any of this.

We can play the "will Tucker have nagging injuries?" game and create narratives, but as of date, Tucker shows no signs of these. So while we can doom-boner it up and fear the unknown, we have his injury history and nothing on the list is concerning. All we can do then, is look at skill set and ask "is this a player who's skill set profiles as one who will age gracefully?" and I think the answer is a clear "yes".

There are plenty of players who are aging gracefully so far. Freddie Freeman has put up 30 fWAR from ages 29 to 34 so far, posting his best seasons at 32 and 33. Bryce Harper, a 1b/DH only has managed just under 12 fWAR from 29-32 so far with a 143 wRC+, which is right next to Tucker (and from ages 24-27, posted a 138 wRC+, which is spot on where Tucker's career line is). There's no sign of slowing down in Harper land. Jose Altuve has posted 25 fWAR from 29-34, is fresh off a 4 win season at age 34. His age 24-27 saw a 143 wRC+, or right next to that of Tucker. We should expect these players to start to decline in the next year or few, but they all have strong hit tools, and don't rely overly on hitting for power. They hit for power but don't use it as a riding skill - much like Tucker.

We can play this over and over. Yes, injuries can derail careers. Many of the leagues' best players, with solid skill sets age well if they can avoid the chronic injuries. If Tucker picks up chronic injuries, of course he won't age as well, but what is there to make us worry about that? Nothing at this other than the fear of the unknown. And if we're afraid of the unknown, then again, you will never sign a good player ever.

[We Got The Whole 9]

What if they hold down Hodge and work him as a starter in Iowa. I still see a hoss who can hold velo deep into games. If they could straighten out his strike-throwing he could be a damn good SP. I'm still leery in general of his propensity for walks.

[mul21]

25 minutes ago, Crusader said:

It’s really not. He used someone’s prime numbers vs another’s career numbers between players that play different positions. A more thoughtful post would have been prime numbers vs other prime numbers for projections. Even then it’s not a great comparison because productivity with aging is so greatly impacted with chronic injuries even between people with similar skill sets. That’s why players being productive near their 40s is so rare. Not only do they need a good skill set, but they need to age in a way where they avoid any nagging/chronic injuries, even the type that might not lead to IR time, and projecting that is a guessing game with a ton of risk involved with overly complicated team based intellectual property formulas to try to assess any of this. To do any projections without knowing both players medical history either is just silly on top of that.

You should probably go reread his post because he very much made career/age appropriate comparisons for the guys he used.

[Rcal10]

28 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think you answered your second question with your first. I don't think the Cubs traded for Tucker to cobble together a BP of replacement level players and guys who they need to fix. Where is the money they saved going? Probably, in part, to someone like Kirby Yates or David Robertson - a dependable back end reliever who can be signed to a one year deal.

I am no longer so sure they add a bigger arm to the pen. It has been the FO MO to try fixing pen arms. I am not convinced that changes. Festa and Thielbar might be the lefty and righty they added. If it means they spend some of that money extending Tucker and adding a solid starting pitcher that may work. But I have my doubts they are going to do that. 

[Jason Ross]

6 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I am no longer so sure they add a bigger arm to the pen. It has been the FO MO to try fixing pen arms. I am not convinced that changes. Festa and Thielbar might be the lefty and righty they added. If it means they spend some of that money extending Tucker and adding a solid starting pitcher that may work. But I have my doubts they are going to do that. 

The team has been chronically connected to almost every of the better RHH RP's in the offseason, either through more reputable people like Sharma and Mooney down to more spurious connections. The Cubs love to wait a market out and get the best value - and the entire back-end-RP-market is frozen. I very much suspect the Cubs will end up with at least one of Hoffman/Estevez/Robertson/Yates (though Hoffman could be seen as a SP).

[squally1313]

I think there's maybe a little confirmation bias in 1908's analysis just in that you're going to automatically lean towards the guys still performing because they're just much more present in the baseball landscape/conversation, vs someone like, say....Anthony Rendon (21.5 fWAR, 136 wRC from ages 26-29). But at the end of the day I come to the following conclusions:

-The evidence is on 1908s side generally, because Kyle Tucker is so good at baseball and when you look at comparables that high up you end up with a group of generally special baseball players)

-Even if you regress expectations a little bit further....I don't care. Nathan Eovaldi is making $25m a year in his late 30s to give you 2.5 fWAR. In 8 years that number is going to be $40m for that kind of production, which where Tucker will be. Oh he only might give us 1.5 fWAR? I'm fine with that because he'd have already given us 8 years of production.

[Bertz]

4 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Yeah you can kinda squint and see the larger bullpen strategy here. It's honestly not much different than the previous strategies (throw a bunch of young arms at the wall and see what sticks, go through some growing pains in April/May and by the end of the year you're probably fine). I don't think it's a strategy they should necessarily get credit for, those early games count and they are pretty consistently back of the pack in first halves under Hoyer, but I also don't think you can or should solve a bullpen by throwing multiple 8-figure contracts at it. They just need to do a better job of developing from within in bulk, so that you're not having to stash arms in AAA as starter depth, etc. 

The 2025 version seems to be like, but Also With Funky Veterans. None of these guys we've picked up are good, took any sort of capital to acquire, or should have any sort of major league guarantee. But, statistically, do you hope 3-4 perform well in spring training and can pitch well out of the gate? And then another 3-4 pitch poorly, can sneak through waivers, and get themselves right in Iowa when that first group inevitably goes bad? Maybe? It all looks a lot better with a big name at the top of the list, but there's still money for that and names out there. 

For sake of the numbers exercise, you basically have Hodge/Miller at the back, let's (a little generously) assume another written in ink guy, and then five of: Pearson, Thompson, Morgan, Thielbar, Merryweather, Rob Z, Ben Brown, LIttle, Neely, Aria, Palencia, Roberts, Festa, Hollowell, Bickford. That's 15 names, while keeping Assad, Wicks, Horton, and Birdsell as starters 5-8 (hopefully 6-9). It's to the point where it's in the pitching infrastructures hands to elevate some skill sets and make the best decisions, knowing that ultimately any sort of results to judge them on are going to be extremely small samples and based mostly on sequencing luck. 

I think the problem last year, almost as much as Alzolay/Merryweather/Neris all going bust right at the start of the year, was there not being anyone immediately ready to go at Iowa except Palencia.  So when things were really bad in late April/early May they couldn't even re-arrange deck chairs and hope it'd help.

This year it seems like the Iowa bullpen will be a unit where we can turn essentially immediately if things go wrong.  Like I think this is roughly what we're tracking towards for an opening day AAA bullpen

CL - Daniel Palencia

Setup - Jack Neely, Luke Little

Matchup Guys - Gavin Hollowell, Riley Martin

Middle Relief - Ethan Roberts, whichever two veteran Zastryzny/Festa/Heller types they can convince to stick at Iowa

That's a pretty solid crew of reserves.  Palencia, Little, and Hollowell are each guys I'd feel comfortable giving the ball to in April.  Neely's obviously got fun potential, and Roberts did quite well last year (mostly in garbage time to be fair).  There's also to your point the young starters.  Brown and Horton in particular would likely really eat out in the bullpen.

Shifting back to the MLB bullpen, I do think a legitimate closer is absolutely necessary to tie things together.  And I'm a bit wistful neither of Morgan or Thielbar are guys I have more immediate confidence in.  I like the acquisitions,  I see what they're going for, and they seem reasonably likely to work out.  But I would have liked two "name brand" types this winter to overcorrect from last year.  Unless they end up with a SP in the ~$25M range they had the resources to do so.

[Jason Ross]

10 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I think there's maybe a little confirmation bias in 1908's analysis just in that you're going to automatically lean towards the guys still performing because they're just much more present in the baseball landscape/conversation, vs someone like, say....Anthony Rendon (21.5 fWAR, 136 wRC from ages 26-29). But at the end of the day I come to the following conclusions:

-The evidence is on 1908s side generally, because Kyle Tucker is so good at baseball and when you look at comparables that high up you end up with a group of generally special baseball players)

-Even if you regress expectations a little bit further....I don't care. Nathan Eovaldi is making $25m a year in his late 30s to give you 2.5 fWAR. In 8 years that number is going to be $40m for that kind of production, which where Tucker will be. Oh he only might give us 1.5 fWAR? I'm fine with that because he'd have already given us 8 years of production.

There is survivor bias here, for sure. But when we look at Rendon, we again look at someone who's had injuries ravage him. He's been hurt again and again. Now, most of this is post-extension, so these things happen. And if we really want to go down the Anthony Rendon path - he's on record as saying he doesn't love baseball. So we can maybe question how that plays into here if we really want to skewer Rendon, but I'll pass on going down that road more than just pointing it out. 

So when it comes down to it, the injury thing is the risk you inherit when you sign these contracts. The risk exists, it's understood in the contract and it's just the life we live. With Tucker, you can look at his injury history and his game and at least come the conclusion that he's not someone who requires an exceptional level of athleticism like McCutcheon did to BABIP in the .350's, he's not someone with an extensive or nagging injury list, he doesn't have a skill flaw (like Baez)...so I feel very confident that the risk here is properly mitigated. It can never be zero. There's always what-ifs and unknowns. But generally speaking, you won't find a 28 year old player who has as few mitigations, IMO, as Kyle Tucker currently. And without a crystal ball, it's all we can do.

(Not disagreeing, more just expounding) 

[squally1313]

6 minutes ago, Bertz said:

This year it seems like the Iowa bullpen will be a unit where we can turn essentially immediately if things go wrong. 

Generally agree with your point but hoping it's not a case of expecting more than we should just because the names are newer. Like, is Gavin Hollowell just the 2025 version of Richard Lovelady? Is Matt Festa just Thomas Pannone, is X just Colton Brewer, etc etc

Splitting hairs here because no one really knows and no one will get the requisite sample size required to actually know. We seem to be throwing even more bodies at the pile than last year, just still have to find the ones that work. 

[LBiittner]

The Cubs, for once, stand tall and get the next best available hitter this side of billionaire Juan Soto and henny penny's are worried about his potential contract being a burden on the Ricketts 7 or 8 years from now??? Give me horsefeathers break.

[We Got The Whole 9]

I personally expect more than 5 war from Tucker if he stays healthy this year. I think it'll be more like 7 and there's a chance he posts 20 over the next 3 years and hits that 4-5 groove in his early-30s. He's just that great of a hitter. 

[Bertz]

17 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Generally agree with your point but hoping it's not a case of expecting more than we should just because the names are newer. Like, is Gavin Hollowell just the 2025 version of Richard Lovelady? Is Matt Festa just Thomas Pannone, is X just Colton Brewer, etc etc

Splitting hairs here because no one really knows and no one will get the requisite sample size required to actually know. We seem to be throwing even more bodies at the pile than last year, just still have to find the ones that work. 

No that's actually very fair.  I think anecdotally, all of the spare parts guys they've brought in this year have had very obvious reasons why they could work out (Ben Heller throws 96 with movement, Pitching Bot wants to have Matt Festa's babies, etc.), while those guys from yesteryear felt more like projects.  But that's anecdotal.

Less anecdotally I think the projections are more pleased with this bullpen too.  Like last year, when Dan Szymborski ran his ZiPS article the Cubs bullpen was projected for 2.9 WAR.  This was pre-Neris, so he'd bring it up to 3.4.  Of that 3.4, 60% was attributed to Alzolay, Merryweather, and Neris.  This year, before Thielbar and presumably with one more big-ish signing out there to be had, ZiPS has the bullpen at 3.6 WAR.  Hodge/Miller/Morgan, the current projected top 3 relievers combined for 45% of that WAR.  So I think the depth being better isn't just our fan-induced bias (though I don't want to celebrate too much no longer having a reliever projected for star-level production).

[Rcal10]

While I doubt the Cubs are working on an extension for Tucker, a lot of what they have been linked to this off season does point to it being possible. If they have $40M to spend with Tucker getting $16M they would only have around $20M if he signed a long term extension. Might explain cheap pick ups of Brujan, Morgan, Thielbar, and Festa. Might also explain the interest in Crochet and Luzardo. Get a cheaper pen and cheaper MOR-TOR starting pitcher and they can afford the extension. Probably not going to happen, but it would explain a lot. 

[Dfan25]

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Back to non Tucker talk, is it possible the Cubs filled heir pen with signing Thielbar and trading for Morgan and Festa? Is it possible they are doing this again without bringing in a dependable”ish” arm for some decent dollars? And if that is the case, where is this money they saved with Bellinger going to be spent? 

I think they will get 1 more , but Its more likely someone like Kyle Finnegan ( ok , but not elite ) than a  Yates . I could  see Hoffman on a 12 / 13 on AAV  as a SP  as well .  

Edited January 10, 2025 by Dfan25

[squally1313]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

Like last year, when Dan Szymborski ran his ZiPS article the Cubs bullpen was projected for 2.9 WAR...

It's a little funny that there's been this underlying tension around here on how relevant the advanced numbers are, fWAR specifically, and then Szymborski comes out and basically calls us a 90 win team today, 10 games better than the Brewers, 16 games better than the Reds, etc. Like....I guess we'll see how relevant they are! 

[Crusader]

3 hours ago, mul21 said:

You should probably go reread his post because he very much made career/age appropriate comparisons for the guys he used.

No, if you'd look you'd see that he was comparing Tucker's (age 21 - 27) stats to Justin Turner's (age 29-38) stats. It's right there in his post. "One of those is Turner from 29-38 and the other is Tucker." 

Stratos kind of hit that nail on the head about it being a cherry picked evaluation, and his response back was kind of talking out of both sides of his mouth. First, he said it was "inane" to suggest it was cherry picking. Then later admits to there being "survivor bias" as far as the players he was choosing for comparison.  Stratos, in his evaluation, was trying to pick a medium projection factoring in regression, and 1908's response was comparing Tucker to people that have aged remarkably well barring injury. In essence, it's an average projection vs a best case projection. 

Furthermore, regarding his evaluation, he makes a conclusionary statement to the effect of Tucker showing no sign of injury history to impact projection, and this is coming right after a season, where as a 27 year old, Tucker only played in 78 games because of a bone bruise.

Edited January 10, 2025 by Crusader

[mul21]

Just now, Crusader said:

No, if you'd look you'd see that he was comparing Tucker's (age 21 - 27) stats to Justin Turner's (age 29-38) stats. It's right there in his post. "One of those is Turner from 29-38 and the other is Tucker." 

Stratos kind of hit that nail on the head about it being a cherry picked evaluation, and his response back was kind of talking out of both sides of his mouth. First, he said it was inane to suggest it was cherry picking. Then later admits to there being "survivor bias" as far as the players he was choosing for comparison.  Stratos in his evaluation was trying to pick a medium projection factoring in regression, and 1908's response was comparing people that have aged remarkably well barring injury. In essence, it's an average projection vs a best case projection. 

Furthermore, regarding his evaluation, he makes a conclusionary statement to the effect of Tucker showing no sign of injury history to impact projection, and this is coming right after a season, where as a 27 year old Tucker only played in 78 games because of a bone bruise.

Got it, you aren't good at reading comprehension.

[Crusader]

8 minutes ago, mul21 said:

Got it, you aren't good at reading comprehension.

Bro, Tucker is 27 (total MLB stats 21-27). So comparing him to someone's stats from the ages of 29-38 means you're clearly not comprehending what's being written. As I said, if he wanted to show the two players are similar and have similar projection, he would have used stats from the same age based seasons to make that comparison (21-27). Not by comparing someone's prime to another's resurgence and then claim it's useful for projections.

Super good reading comprehension, mul.

Edited January 10, 2025 by Crusader

[Bertz]

58 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

It's a little funny that there's been this underlying tension around here on how relevant the advanced numbers are, fWAR specifically, and then Szymborski comes out and basically calls us a 90 win team today, 10 games better than the Brewers, 16 games better than the Reds, etc. Like....I guess we'll see how relevant they are! 

Just wait til April.  The haughty "90 wins huh" arguments from people unwilling to acknowledge strength of schedule are gonna be a blast.

[Rcal10]

Just now, Bertz said:

Just wait til April.  The haughty "90 wins huh" arguments from people unwilling to acknowledge strength of schedule are gonna be a blast.

Yes, April will be a rough ride. Happy to come out of it .500. And people will be complaining if they start slow. I agree about that. 

[mul21]

12 minutes ago, Crusader said:

Bro, Tucker is 27 (total MLB stats 21-27). So comparing him to someone's stats from the ages of 29-38 means you're clearly not comprehending what's being written. As I said, if he wanted to show the two players are similar and have similar projection, he would have used stats from the same age based seasons to make that comparison (21-27). Not by comparing someone's prime to another's resurgence and then claim it's useful for projections.

Super good reading comprehension, mul.

He didn't do that but whatever man.

[Crusader]

On 1/10/2025 at 12:18 PM, mul21 said:

He didn't do that but whatever man.

He absolutely did. It's literally in writing, (he even admitted to it later regarding how skewed Tucker's WAR stats would be using the Turner formula and instead later uses a comparison to 1b whose athletic profile is way different than Tucker's, but okay, whatever you say. Dude is using terrible people for comps.

Edited January 15, 2025 by Crusader

[Jason Ross]

21 minutes ago, Crusader said:

Bro, Tucker is 27 (total MLB stats 21-27). So comparing him to someone's stats from the ages of 29-38 means you're clearly not comprehending what's being written. As I said, if he wanted to show the two players are similar and have similar projection, he would have used stats from the same age based seasons to make that comparison (21-27). Not by comparing someone's prime to another's resurgence and then claim it's useful for projections.

Super good reading comprehension, mul.

Justin Turner had 318 PA's before his 29th birthday in the MLB. He had a sub 100 wRC+, and negative fWAR. Comparing Turner's pre-age 29 to Tucker is both unfair, nor relevant, as the Justin Turner we know today was not a thing yet. We could do that comparison, but by that level of measurement, Tucker runs such circles around Turner that we could conclude he'd be liable to put up 90 fWAR over his age 29-38 years.

Conversely, Tucker's fWAR of ~21 compares very favorable to both Goldschmidt ~20 and Freeman ~23 fWAR through ages 23-27. It should also be noted that Tucker's age 23 year, worth roughly 1.8 fWAR was the 2020 covid shortened season, which means he's unfairly penalized. Tucker posted a 143 wRC+ compared to Goldschmidt's 145 wRC+ and Freeman's 145 wRC+ as well. I already compared Santana's age 23-27 to Tucker in the previous post.

If you're going to worry about a bone bruise as a significant injury moving forward causing chronic issues...well then be my guest. That's ridiculous. That is not an issue that anyone should have any concern moving long term, and is easily dismissible. Both because it's not something that will be reoccurring (it was misdiagnosed causing the lengthy down time), nor did it effect him, as Tucker returned just fine as he had a 193 wRC+ after his return.

The point of my post was to show players who had similar skillsets and how they aged, not comparing them through their aged 27 season. But if you want that, there you go. 

[LBiittner]

3 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

What if they hold down Hodge and work him as a starter in Iowa. I still see a hoss who can hold velo deep into games. If they could straighten out his strike-throwing he could be a damn good SP. I'm still leery in general of his propensity for walks.

I love him because he is a Hoss. I'm hoping he learns the art of closing along side a savy vet.

Could he flourish as a 2 pitch starter? Fastball & sweeper and we'd be punting 2025 trying to stretch out his arm for 26.

[Bertz]

4 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

What if they hold down Hodge and work him as a starter in Iowa. I still see a hoss who can hold velo deep into games. If they could straighten out his strike-throwing he could be a damn good SP. I'm still leery in general of his propensity for walks.

I personally don't love it.  He did great against lefties last year, but with his two primary pitches being east -> west I think he'd probably get eaten up by lefties if forced to sacrifice velocity and go through the order multiple times.  Maybe a year from now if he's proven the strike throwing is permanent and the splitter becomes more than a ascent offering.

We do have a pretty interesting relief conversion candidate in house though:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5917662/2024/11/13/mlb-relievers-converting-to-starters

Quote

 

Nate Pearson, Cubs

Once Pearson ended up on the Cubs after the deadline, more than half of his appearances were longer than one inning, and none were on a back-to-back. That might be significant for a couple of reasons. For one, Pearson has struggled enough with health to think he shouldn’t be on this list. But maybe a stricter schedule with more rest will be the ticket to keeping him healthy. On top of that, it also stands to reason that the Cubs are keeping the door open for Pearson to start. Pearson isn’t known for his command, but he’s located his slider well at times, and he located his new sinker well enough to think that might give him a fastball he can spot. He only threw one splitter last year, but it showed promise, and some who have worked with him think it can be a real asset. Even without it, he’s got two elite breaking balls and enough stuff to handle the transition.

 

I probably wouldn't do it but it's worth considering.