Free Agent Harrison Bader is a Strong Target for Cubs' Outfield Bench Role

[Matthew Trueblood]

Jed Hoyer intends to upgrade the Cubs' bench before spring training begins next month. One of the best ways he could do so would be to sign a former center-field stalwart for the team's chief rivals.

Image courtesy of © Wendell Cruz-Imagn Images

Now a few years into the peripatetic phase of his career, Harrison Bader had a fine but forgettable 2024 campaign with the New York Mets. In 437 plate appearances, he batted .236/.284/.373, with 12 home runs and 17 stolen bases. That's as underwhelming as it sounds, even if you give him more credit than defensive metrics did last year for his defensive chops in center field.

The very fact that Bader, 30, can acquit himself in center has to count for something. The Cubs need a strong backup and potential platoon partner for Pete Crow-Armstrong, and Bader still seems able to be that guy. His numbers were disastrous against lefties in 2024, but for his career, he's a .249/.315/.461 hitter against southpaws. He's never really been a platoon guy—the 35% of his plate appearances that came against lefties in 2024 was the highest share of his career—and it's possible that the reason he's still a free agent is a belief and hope that he'll find a full-time job somewhere.

He won't. Whenever he becomes more amenable to a part-time role, you could see the Cubs pounce, because Bader would be a great fit as the fourth outfielder behind a group that includes two lefty hitters (Crow-Armstrong and Kyle Tucker) and a switch-hitter (Ian Happ) who has generally been much better against righties during his career. Bader also has some upside, yet, and should one of the starters go down for a prolonged period, he could capably handle stepping into a full-time job for a stretch. In such a scenario, the Cubs might prefer to give an extended look to one of Owen Caissie or Kevin Alcántara, but Bader would give them insurance, matchup value, and flexibility, especially in case the need for a replacement comes earlier in the season than they care to promote either of their top outfield prospects.

Right now, I'm working on a parallel plane, on a piece about the relationship between swing speed, swing acceleration (i.e., how quickly one can get the bat up to that final speed), and swing length, for Baseball Prospectus. In the process, I searched for hitters who showed the ability to generate very high swing speeds with short swings, even a handful of times, in 2024. Bader is one such player. He had five swings with a speed of at least 75 miles per hour and a swing length under 6.5 feet, showing that his bat speed hasn't yet faded in any meaningful way. Happ had the most such swings by a Cub, at seven, and that was in far more playing time than Bader got.

I also developed a way to estimate the swing acceleration we would expect based on a hitter's swing speed, and Bader was in the top quartile of the league (right next to Seiya Suzuki), with swing acceleration about 25 feet per second per second better than we would have expected based on his swing speed. He needs to make better swing decisions, but one thing I discovered is that good accelerators usually can do that, because their ability to get the bat up to speed faster lets them start a hair later without losing the ability to hit the ball hard. With good coaching, Bader is a candidate to improve substantially at the plate in 2025.

Investing in the bench makes sense for this team, because they have so much youth in their projected lineup. With Matt Shaw, Miguel Amaya, Michael Busch and Crow-Armstrong set to start most days, the team is embracing some risk that these players' development will prove the wrong kind of non-linear, and a player with a track record and a balanced skill set like Bader's can be especially helpful. It would be just one small move in what still needs to be a series of them, but the team should try to bring in Bader.

View full article

[Irrelevant Dude]

No.

[Rcal10]

Just now, Irrelevant Dude said:

No.

Just curious…. Why “no”? 

[Tryptamine]

10 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Just curious…. Why “no”? 

He's not good. On a bench filled with guys who cannot hit, adding another guy who is all glove no bat wastes a roster spot and payroll.

[Bertz]

If the team wants to add 3 bench guys instead of 2 to compensate for some of the lost oomph in the bullpen after missing on Scott, you could do worse than Bader.  That said two of the last three years he's been worse against lefties than righties, so he's not necessarily still equipped to be that strong compliment to PCA that a younger iteration of Bader would have been.

I have been surprised at how little attention a veteran backup CF has gotten.  It seems likely that will be Brujan or Canario to open the year.  Is it a resource thing, where they'd like a CF but want to fill other holes first?  Is it a situation where they want PCA facing lefties for his development?  Is it confidence that Alcantara will be up before too long?

[thawv]

I we not considering Suzuki the 4th OF'er and Canario the 5th OF'er right now?  I can't imagine picking up Bader without DFA Canario.  They are not carrying 6 OF'ers 

[Matthew Trueblood]

2 hours ago, thawv said:

I we not considering Suzuki the 4th OF'er and Canario the 5th OF'er right now?  I can't imagine picking up Bader without DFA Canario.  They are not carrying 6 OF'ers 

They absolutely should and probably will trade or DFA Canario, anyway. He's out of options, he can't make enough contact to get to his power, and he can't play center field. 

[thawv]

1 minute ago, Matthew Trueblood said:

They absolutely should and probably will trade or DFA Canario, anyway. He's out of options, he can't make enough contact to get to his power, and he can't play center field. 

That would have to happen if they added Bader.  It's a shame that he ran through 4 options, and never got a chance in the bigs.  His trade value is essentially nothing today.  He's played quite a bit of CF in the minors.  Are you saying that he's not a viable option because he's just not good there?  I still think that he can play 15+20 games there against tough LHP.  

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, thawv said:

That would have to happen if they added Bader.  It's a shame that he ran through 4 options, and never got a chance in the bigs.  His trade value is essentially nothing today.  He's played quite a bit of CF in the minors.  Are you saying that he's not a viable option because he's just not good there?  I still think that he can play 15+20 games there against tough LHP.  

I would say he isn’t the answer for the bench. I would hope they did better than Canario. Yes, he would be dfa or used as a piece in a trade. 

[CubinNY]

We don’t know a thing about Canario in MLB. DFA him for Harrison Bade is dumb. 
 

But they dumped their utility player because they thought he was making a few million more than he should be making so smart might not be an option. 

[Rcal10]

3 hours ago, CubinNY said:

We don’t know a thing about Canario in MLB. DFA him for Harrison Bade is dumb. 
 

But they dumped their utility player because they thought he was making a few million more than he should be making so smart might not be an option. 

What exactly has Canario done to be given a spot on the major league roster, other than run out of options? Isn’t the goal to be the best team they can be in ‘25? If they spend $3M to $8M on a bench bat that can play the outfield, with major league experience I would be fine letting Canario go. That said, I would rather use him as maybe a second or third piece in a trade then dfa him. But I don’t want him on the roster if they can get someone better as a FA. Maybe him and Assad to SD for Suarez? Sign Bader, Joe, Grichik or Cahnu for the bench. 

[CubinNY]

At some point in time the Cubs need to score runs to win. 

[Rcal10]

18 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

At some point in time the Cubs need to score runs to win. 

I agree. And if the Cubs think Canario on the bench gives them a better chance at scoring more runs, I am good with him there. I am not fine with him there because if he isn’t there they either have to dfa him or trade him. If they like someone is better in the outfield then they do need to move him. I would rather in a trade, but if that can’t happen then dfa him will not bother me. I wish this wasn’t their options. I wish he had another year where he can stay in AAA. But he doesn’t. So tough decisions need to be made. I happen to think there are better options out there than Canario. 

[ryanrc]

51 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

At some point in time the Cubs need to score runs to win. 

THIS.

The Cubs media has been droning on and on about finding pitching upgrades, while all the top teams last year outhit the Cubs - all of them.

[ryanrc]

22 hours ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

No.

Here's why this won't work. 

1) Bader wants to play full-time, and with his sky-high dWar, he can. Some team will play him full time. He earned it. I think he'll end up on a team in the "Cards tier" of competition in 2025 as a starter, but with a multi year contract. 
 

2) He would cost north of 12 million to be a seldom used injury sub. 

3) He would take too many glove reps from Suzuki, and Suzuki won't like that. Suzuki wants to prove he's a real fielder next year, and with his history, he  will probably succeed at that. He was a plus fielder before he bulked up to bat in the MLB, and he can return to being one. 

4) He would be a detriment at the  plate no matter who he was replacing or when, so he wouldnt even be given many chances. Can we pa $12 million plus for a guy who never sees the field?

5) our team slugging would fall. its already a MAJOR problem. We should only bring in guys that improve our offense, not hinder it.  

6) His splits don't match our team needs. We need a power hitting lefty killer off the bench to replace Canario, or else we run with Canario. The main job of our 5th OF is to pinch hit, not pinch glove - and to do so, he must be BETTER than a starter - in this case, PCA would be the one coming off the field for Canario, and Harrison Bader doesn't motivate us to get PCA off the field. 

 

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, ryanrc said:

Here's why this won't work. 

1) Bader wants to play full-time, and with his sky-high dWar, he can. Some team will play him full time. He earned it. I think he'll end up on a team in the "Cards tier" of competition in 2025 as a starter, but with a multi year contract. 
 

2) He would cost north of 12 million to be a seldom used injury sub. 

3) He would take too many glove reps from Suzuki, and Suzuki won't like that. Suzuki wants to prove he's a real fielder next year, and with his history, he  will probably succeed at that. He was a plus fielder before he bulked up to bat in the MLB, and he can return to being one. 

4) He would be a detriment at the  plate no matter who he was replacing or when, so he wouldnt even be given many chances. Can we pa $12 million plus for a guy who never sees the field?

5) our team slugging would fall. its already a MAJOR problem. We should only bring in guys that improve our offense, not hinder it.  

6) His splits don't match our team needs. We need a power hitting lefty killer off the bench to replace Canario, or else we run with Canario. The main job of our 5th OF is to pinch hit, not pinch glove - and to do so, he must be BETTER than a starter - in this case, PCA would be the one coming off the field for Canario, and Harrison Bader doesn't motivate us to get PCA off the field. 

 

Well thought out. I don’t agree with all of it, but I appreciate you took the time to answer “why not Bader. “ And if he cost $12M and he wants and expects a full time job, I absolutely agree with you that he has no place on the Cubs. But, IMO if they believe Canario isn’t the answer as a back up they shouldn’t carry him just because he is out of options. If they believe he can hit and play the outfield and give PCA a day off I am fine with him being the back up. I just don’t want the Cubs to pass on a bench bat they feel is a better addition to the team than Canario just because Canario is out of options. 
Maybe Bader doesn’t work(probably doesn’t if he can get the money you suggest), but there is still Cahnu, Grichik and probably a few guys they can trade for. None would play center. But I think in that scenario they would move Tucker to center and probably play Suzuki and the bench guy they signed at DH and RF. 

[Bertz]

42 minutes ago, ryanrc said:

THIS.

The Cubs media has been droning on and on about finding pitching upgrades, while all the top teams last year outhit the Cubs - all of them.

On a park adjusted basis the Cubs offense was better than their pitching last year.  On top of that they've added Kyle Tucker, and you'd expect that the worst of Amaya/Busch/PCA's growing pains are in the rear view mirror.

[ryanrc]

25 minutes ago, Bertz said:

On a park adjusted basis the Cubs offense was better than their pitching last year.  On top of that they've added Kyle Tucker, and you'd expect that the worst of Amaya/Busch/PCA's growing pains are in the rear view mirror.

1) we already fixed the "pitching problem". The Hendricks effect should not be underestimated. Cubs were #6 in rotation ERA, even with a terrible Hendricks (-1.6 WAR). Replacing him with Boyd, and Smyly with Rea, already gets us back into the wining circle at starting pitching.  

2) Cubs were 20th in slugging, and not a top 10 team in runs. That's awful, sorry, that's not contending strategy- they must do better. I don't care how you adjust it based on ballparks, or how elite your pitching is or fielding is, if you're still not able to produce above league average runs to actually win against a Dodgers, Yankees, or Phillies. Thou shalt hit. Kyle Tucker gets us back to reasonable, but this WAR improvement is alone NOT enough to cement a real, and I mean real, hitting team. We need an elite hitting bench player like Randal Grichuk in the 5th OF position before I can envision beating an elite team like a Dodgers or Phillies. Grichuk was the elite lefty killer of all baseball last year, and he's affordable to us. Bader actually doesn't do jack for us in the pursuit of offense, because more glove doesnt do much when the 5th guy never sees the field, can't pinch hit, can't be expected to take reps from our 3 gold glove starters, and does nothing to help when you're already losing the game. Glove WAR only really counts if you're in the lead- something Hoyer hasn't figured out yet. He overvalues glove WAR relative to bat WAR, because the latter counts under all situations. 

3) I wrote an article about how Busch is definitely our guy and not a problem, and I mentioned PCA will take a step up as well. However, that only gets us to a marginal post-season power profile. We still dont have a real answer to teams that have 3 WAR hitters at the catcher, or 4 war hitters at 3b. Shaw as a rookie cannot be expected to be a plus slugger, period.... so we must make up for that missing war with our bench somehow. Bader would likely lose us multiple key games, not win them, compared to a Grichuk. 

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, ryanrc said:

1) we already fixed the "pitching problem". The Hendricks effect should not be underestimated. Cubs were #6 in rotation ERA, even with a terrible Hendricks (-1.6 WAR). Replacing him with Boyd, and Smyly with Rea, already gets us back into the wining circle at starting pitching.  

2) Cubs were 20th in slugging, and not a top 10 team in runs. That's awful, sorry, that's not contending strategy- they must do better. I don't care how you adjust it based on ballparks, or how elite your pitching is or fielding is, if you're still not able to produce above league average runs to actually win against a Dodgers, Yankees, or Phillies. Thou shalt hit. Kyle Tucker gets us back to reasonable, but this WAR improvement is alone NOT enough to cement a real, and I mean real, hitting team. We need an elite hitting bench player like Randal Grichuk in the 5th OF position before I can envision beating an elite team like a Dodgers or Phillies. Grichuk was the elite lefty killer of all baseball last year, and he's affordable to us. Bader actually doesn't do jack for us in the pursuit of offense, because more glove doesnt do much when the 5th guy never sees the field, can't pinch hit, can't be expected to take reps from our 3 gold glove starters, and does nothing to help when you're already losing the game. Glove WAR only really counts if you're in the lead- something Hoyer hasn't figured out yet. He overvalues glove WAR relative to bat WAR, because the latter counts under all situations. 

3) I wrote an article about how Busch is definitely our guy and not a problem, and I mentioned PCA will take a step up as well. However, that only gets us to a marginal post-season power profile. We still dont have a real answer to teams that have 3 WAR hitters at the catcher, or 4 war hitters at 3b. Shaw as a rookie cannot be expected to be a plus slugger, period.... so we must make up for that missing war with our bench somehow. Bader would likely lose us multiple key games, not win them, compared to a Grichuk. 

I’m fine with Grichik. But what is his cost? And wouldn’t he rather be in a team he sees more starts? He would be a great bench bat. 

[ryanrc]

52 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Well thought out. I don’t agree with all of it, but I appreciate you took the time to answer “why not Bader. “ And if he cost $12M and he wants and expects a full time job, I absolutely agree with you that he has no place on the Cubs. But, IMO if they believe Canario isn’t the answer as a back up they shouldn’t carry him just because he is out of options. If they believe he can hit and play the outfield and give PCA a day off I am fine with him being the back up. I just don’t want the Cubs to pass on a bench bat they feel is a better addition to the team than Canario just because Canario is out of options. 
Maybe Bader doesn’t work(probably doesn’t if he can get the money you suggest), but there is still Cahnu, Grichik and probably a few guys they can trade for. None would play center. But I think in that scenario they would move Tucker to center and probably play Suzuki and the bench guy they signed at DH and RF. 

if we didnt have the money to burn, Canario would be the smallball logic choice. no problem. But with 40 million and nothing to spend it on except closer and bench, you spend it on slugging-= elite hitting off the bench is key for facing a Dodgers. without it, you're toast. glove first teams can't beat juggernauts. however, plus glov, plus running, plus pitching, plus hitting teams can beat anyone on any given series. Cubs are very close to having plus stats at every dimension of the game, and thats what you need to win in the postseason and upset giants. more glove is not valuable, but more bat is very valuable to us. we are jacked ans tacked with gold glove talent already, 

[CubinNY]

Jed et al. like "gloveWAR" because it is less expensive and is of the mistaken belief (as are others) that all WAR is created equal. It is not. 

[Jason Ross]

22 minutes ago, ryanrc said:

1) we already fixed the "pitching problem". The Hendricks effect should not be underestimated. Cubs were #6 in rotation ERA, even with a terrible Hendricks (-1.6 WAR). Replacing him with Boyd, and Smyly with Rea, already gets us back into the wining circle at starting pitching.  

2) Cubs were 20th in slugging, and not a top 10 team in runs. That's awful, sorry, that's not contending strategy- they must do better. I don't care how you adjust it based on ballparks, or how elite your pitching is or fielding is, if you're still not able to produce above league average runs to actually win against a Dodgers, Yankees, or Phillies. Thou shalt hit. Kyle Tucker gets us back to reasonable, but this WAR improvement is alone NOT enough to cement a real, and I mean real, hitting team. We need an elite hitting bench player like Randal Grichuk in the 5th OF position before I can envision beating an elite team like a Dodgers or Phillies. Grichuk was the elite lefty killer of all baseball last year, and he's affordable to us. Bader actually doesn't do jack for us in the pursuit of offense, because more glove doesnt do much when the 5th guy never sees the field, can't pinch hit, can't be expected to take reps from our 3 gold glove starters, and does nothing to help when you're already losing the game. Glove WAR only really counts if you're in the lead- something Hoyer hasn't figured out yet. He overvalues glove WAR relative to bat WAR, because the latter counts under all situations. 

3) I wrote an article about how Busch is definitely our guy and not a problem, and I mentioned PCA will take a step up as well. However, that only gets us to a marginal post-season power profile. We still dont have a real answer to teams that have 3 WAR hitters at the catcher, or 4 war hitters at 3b. Shaw as a rookie cannot be expected to be a plus slugger, period.... so we must make up for that missing war with our bench somehow. Bader would likely lose us multiple key games, not win them, compared to a Grichuk. 

I think it's important to note that Bertz is talking about park adjusted offense, and for the Cubs this is probably an important factor. Wrigley Field suppressed offense all season, regardless of team and leaned incredibly like a pitcher's park. The Cubs didn't have a top-20 SLG on the season, sure, but their ISO was 10th on the road last year compared to their home ISO which was 27th. Teams generally hit better at home to begin with, so this is a stark difference and very much something to keep in mind. Unless you're under the impression that Wrigley Field is going to turn into a hardcore pitcher's park, some of this is going to occur naturally. 

While I think the Cubs could use to add a little power to the bench, with Tucker, the field regressing to the mean, and some progression from youth, the Cubs are probably on pace to be a much better team offensively than their 2024 suggests.

(I'll also say I think defensive WAR matters just as much as offensive WAR in terms of game flow, but I'll leave that for someone else)

[CubinNY]

35 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

 

(I'll also say I think defensive WAR matters just as much as offensive WAR in terms of game flow, but I'll leave that for someone else)

This is all I'm going to say about that - If Soto were an all-glove average hitting OF with a cannon arm he wouldn't be making a quarter of a billion dollars over the next decade. 

Some things are hard to quantify and prone to measurement error, defensive value in baseball is one of them. 

Edited January 23, 2025 by CubinNY

[Transmogrified Tiger]

5 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

This is all I'm going to say about that - If Soto were an all-glove average hitting OF with a cannon arm he wouldn't be making a quarter of a billion dollars over the next decade. 

Some things are hard to quantify and prone to measurement error, defensive value in baseball is one of them. 

If there existed(and it were possible to be) a +60 defender with average offense, I think you might be surprised.  Defensive measurement isn't perfect, but the difference you're describing is one of opportunity.  The top 20ish hitters in the game create more runs of value than it's reasonable to expect one player could prevent defensively.  Beyond that level, there's far less difference.

[Jason Ross]

19 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

This is all I'm going to say about that - If Soto were an all-glove average hitting OF with a cannon arm he wouldn't be making a quarter of a billion dollars over the next decade. 

Some things are hard to quantify and prone to measurement error, defensive value in baseball is one of them. 

So, there's two issues with this:

1. This is as clear of a "goal post move" as there is. The point I was responding to, very clearly, was game flow WAR - OP was discussing some idea that defensive WAR doesn't matter if you're not winning. That is very specifically what I was discussing - you've entirely changed the conversation here. I'm not saying that to be a jerk, only pointing out that we're having a different discussion than the one I brought up and wanted to note that.

2. You are correct, an 8 win defensive player wouldn't be making as much, as long, as Soto. But a lot of that also has to deal with aging and how players are expected to age. Defense is much more tied to athleticism which falls off at a much younger age. Secondly, offensive players, in their twilight, can move to DH much more easily than say, an amazing shortstop may be incapable of becoming a 1b (due to size or their bat just not playing up there). There's a reasonable expectation that Juan Soto will remain a viable, and fairly good DH into his mid-30's. It's less likely that defensive players retain value with age. Teams are more willing to go years for a player like Soto. I do agree. 

It however, does not change the idea that a player, who would be capable of accruing enough defensive and positional value fWAR to equal that of Juan Soto in any given year, would be as equally as valuable during that individual season.