Chicago Cubs 'Not Done Yet'? Let's Hope Not!

[RandallPnkFloyd]

The Cubs have technically been active this offseason. In this case, though, 'technically' is not the best kind of 'active'.

Image courtesy of © David Banks-Imagn Images

The Chicago Cubs have addressed multiple areas of need this winter. They acquired a catalyst for their lineup in Kyle Tucker. They acquired a true closer in Ryan Pressly. They shored up the middle and back of the rotation via the signings of Matthew Boyd and Colin Rea. They checked a lot of boxes and, at worst, appear to be better than they were in 2024. 

And yet, I find myself continually staving off disappointment when looking at the broad picture of the offseason. 

With specific items crossed off the list—some of them more emphatically than others—and a coaching staff more suited to what manager Craig Counsell wanted around him, it seems like the Cubs did almost precisely what they set out to do from the jump. So why the feeling of apprehension as February draws near? 

This is where I landed: In spite of those additions—all of which have the ability to provide plenty of benefits for the Cubs—this is an organization still relying on the upside play. It’s a criticism we’ve held over Jed Hoyer with increasing frequency in the past year or two, and one that has lingered throughout a moderately busy winter.

The Tucker move is obviously a counterargument to this, unto itself. It was a big swing. We can fixate on the lack of hope as far as an extension goes or fall into despair over the fact that the Cubs won’t be in the mix for him on the free-agent market next offseason. We can and, frankly, we probably will, as the season wears on. But he represents a genuine aspect of improvement for the 2025 Chicago Cubs.

While his individual addition is key, though, it’s important to note that it’s not entirely without its own context in this discussion independent of the move itself. When the Cubs made the trade, I discussed the importance of the next move. The hyper-conservative front office took an uncharacteristically bold step. Was that a precursor to additional ambition? After all, when one looks out at the National League landscape, it’s top-heavy. The Dodgers, Phillies, Mets, and that team from suburban Cobb County, Georgia are not easy opponents to overcome. The same could be said of Arizona, Milwaukee, San Francisco and maybe San Diego. A single move, however impactful it may have been, wasn’t going to tip the scales in the Cubs’ favor. They needed more.

Yet, since the Tucker acquisition on Dec. 13, we’ve seen the Cubs sign Rea for the rotation, Jon Berti for the bench, and trade for Pressly to insert into the closer’s role. That's to say nothing of the smattering of minor-league deals for relief arms. Ultimately, beyond Tucker, though, we have a fringe starter, a journeyman utility infielder, and a 36-year-old reliever whose peripherals have wavered in the past couple of years. It’s an oversimplification on some level, but it still speaks to how uninspired the Hoyer-led group has continued to be since their bold move in mid-December. The scales haven’t tipped. The Cubs are barely even the favorite in their own division, let alone a threat to contenders elsewhere on the Senior Circuit.

They continue to be reliant on overperformance. Pete Crow-Armstrong doesn’t have a safety net if his development doesn’t continue in the right direction. Same with Michael Busch. Matt Shaw doesn’t have one either, with only a small handful of largely inexperienced glove-first types threatening a job that the front office insisted wouldn’t be handed to him. The bullpen should, somewhat organically, be better, by virtue of improved rotation depth. But remember when we heard about the team pursuing established arms for relief, instead of stocking up on reclamation types? Does Pressly quite clear that bar?

It's a negative read on what the team has done this offseason. I’m not ignorant of that. It likely undervalues someone like Tucker, downplays the upside of Shaw, and oversimplifies Pressly’s performance against peripherals that haven’t completely fallen apart (even if I have certain concerns). But as an individual who struggles to exist in the abstract, this is a team that has, yet again, turned a blind eye toward the option of building a roster with more tangible components than theoretical ones.

In a vacuum, it’s not a bad offseason. But roster construction doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The Dodgers rule the league. The Mets aren’t far behind. Arizona has made massive moves. The Georgia club should be healthy. We don’t have reason to suspect Philadelphia or Milwaukee are going away. When you combine the broader NL context with a continued streak of barely marginal improvements to a roster that needed much more, it’s hard to muster up enthusiasm—and that was before Tom Ricketts’ vomit-inducing comments about spending. 

There’s youth here. That comes with a certain level of apprehension on its own. But you also need sustained improvement from Miguel Amaya and sustained… anything from Dansby Swanson. Ian Happ can’t stagnate for the first two months of the season again. The rotation has its own limitations, despite opportunities for improvement at various levels of the market this winter.

This could still change. There are rumors of more moves in the air, some of which are tantalizing possibilities. For now, though, we wait, even as things keep happening; they don't quite fulfill our cravings. It's a special kind of purgatory, not unlike some of their other Chicago sports counterparts. And it’s wrought by, above all, a stubborn reluctance to cling to abstract upside to a more tangible ambition.

View full article

[Rob Grothman]

Lol They DFA Aries because they brought in "MLB arm", I said that was debatable.

Now they DFA Festa for Pressley? They DFA'd Vasquez too. I'd say about 25 teams could be in line to give Cubs nothing.

I thought Poles was bad. Hoyer doesn't have a clue

[Jason Ross]

12 minutes ago, Rob Grothman said:

Lol They DFA Aries because they brought in "MLB arm", I said that was debatable.

Now they DFA Festa for Pressley? They DFA'd Vasquez too. I'd say about 25 teams could be in line to give Cubs nothing.

I thought Poles was bad. Hoyer doesn't have a clue

None of these are players to concern ourselves with. David Festa was acquired for nothing, and was a player you probably wouldn't hate to have as a depth option (he's worked with new pitching guru Tyler Zombro in the past) but is also a "fixer upper" at best. Instead, they added Ryan Pressley who's been among the best relievers in baseball for a handful of years. Little down last year but still good. Are you suggesting we'd rather have David Festa?

Luis Vazquez is another player no one had on their Cubs-Bingo-Card until two years ago. His bat is very limited (like, he might struggle to get to 90 wRC+ limited) and while the glove is good, he's almost assuredly looking at a ceiling of "defensive-glove-only" backup type with a more realistic outcome of organizational up/down (in the way the Cubs have been using him). The Cubs have other types just like this (Greg Workman who also offers home run power, Vidal Brujan, Jon Berti) while also having prospects ahead of him such as James Triantos (capable of playing every position he does except SS). 

Much like worrying about Michael Arias these feel like weird hills to die on. There's small pathways forward for each player to do something in the MLB level, but the combination of Jon Berti, Colin Rea and Ryan Pressley, in a single season in Chicago are more likely to have a combined fWAR total above all three of the DFA'd player's remaining career fWAR combined. 

The Cubs need to be continuing to add! And they cannot just fullsale stop. But these guys are not guys that anyone should worry about. It's probable in a year we don't even remember their names.

[Rob Grothman]

3 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

None of these are players to concern ourselves with. David Festa was acquired for nothing, and was a player you probably wouldn't hate to have as a depth option (he's worked with new pitching guru Tyler Zombro in the past) but is also a "fixer upper" at best. Instead, they added Ryan Pressley who's been among the best relievers in baseball for a handful of years. Little down last year but still good. Are you suggesting we'd rather have David Festa?

Luis Vazquez is another player no one had on their Cubs-Bingo-Card until two years ago. His bat is very limited (like, he might struggle to get to 90 wRC+ limited) and while the glove is good, he's almost assuredly looking at a ceiling of "defensive-glove-only" backup type with a more realistic outcome of organizational up/down (in the way the Cubs have been using him). The Cubs have other types just like this (Greg Workman who also offers home run power, Vidal Brujan, Jon Berti) while also having prospects ahead of him such as James Triantos (capable of playing every position he does except SS). 

Much like worrying about Michael Arias these feel like weird hills to die on. There's small pathways forward for each player to do something in the MLB level, but the combination of Jon Berti, Colin Rea and Ryan Pressley, in a single season in Chicago are more likely to have a combined fWAR total above all three of the DFA'd player's remaining career fWAR combined. 

Ok so I guess I wasn't clear. Aries and Vasquez have ML careers coming. Are they going to be all-stars? Probably not.

I believe you under sold Vasquez's glove who can play SS. Also he hit .263 at AAA last year. He has a ton more upside over bust Brujon or Workman.

Rule 5 are never impactful unless Cubs get involved.

We have so many people on our 40 man roster that do not belong. Not like you didn't know this was coming. If someone is running out of options you need to move them. Or lose them.

To say those two have no value is silly. 

Had he traded Swanson, who didn't hit .263, and his 27 million contract or even Suzuki for nothing, we would say anything. 

I will say I told you so when Hodge replaces Pressley as closer by May 15th.

[Jason Ross]

17 minutes ago, Rob Grothman said:

Ok so I guess I wasn't clear. Aries and Vasquez have ML careers coming. Are they going to be all-stars? Probably not.

I believe you under sold Vasquez's glove who can play SS. Also he hit .263 at AAA last year. He has a ton more upside over bust Brujon or Workman.

Rule 5 are never impactful unless Cubs get involved.

We have so many people on our 40 man roster that do not belong. Not like you didn't know this was coming. If someone is running out of options you need to move them. Or lose them.

To say those two have no value is silly. 

Had he traded Swanson, who didn't hit .263, and his 27 million contract or even Suzuki for nothing, we would say anything. 

I will say I told you so when Hodge replaces Pressley as closer by May 15th.

Listen, I'm going to be as kind with this as I can be; the year is 2025 and we have far better ways to quantify baseball players than using batting average as a naked, single data point like you're doing. But for a moment, before we dig deeper into simply batting average, it probably good to note that Vazquez put up a .263 batting average, at a level below the Majors, while posting a .320 BABIP. That's not a great sign. What it means is that he carried a below average batting average, coupled with an above average BABIP. That's very hard signs that you've got a player who's already struggling to handle stuff and the quality of pitching. 

Diving deeper, his xWOBA, which is his expected wOBA based on the quality of hits was a .289. An MLB equivalent of that xWOBA is that of Ezekial Tovar, who posted the 122nd best wOBA last year (out of 129). We can also assume that number would decline sharply as the quality of pitching went up. His barrel% was a paltry 4%, his LA was 2% lower than that of MLB average, and he hit almost 50% of his balls on the ground! And this isn't a hitter who has a long track record of hitting, nor was it his first rodeo in Triple-A. He regressed. The under the hood is pretty ugly on his 2024 season in Iowa. 

Do I think Vazquez is super-dead as a prospect? No. But there's a pretty low chance he's going to stick on an MLB roster any time soon. and his bat is really bad. Frankly, I was probably being kind giving him a 90 wRC+ right now - that's probably a ceiling. At best you're looking at a 26th guy who's there to carry a glove and never hit and the most likely scenario is that he does exactly what he's doing - he bounces up and down from Triple-A as an emergency bench guy for a team, and then eventually is DFA'd only to rinse and repeat elsewhere. If by an "MLB career" you mean that than we agree, but if you mean that then I don't know what we're doing here lamenting his loss, either. 

We have already played this game with Michael Arias, but I implore you to do a little digging in on these prospects and learn how low of a chance these guys have at sticking. These are guys every team has floating around - some glove first infielder who you squint at and maybe they might hit enough to stick is normal. Hell, the Tigers just exposed Greg Workman for free in the Rule V draft and he's basically the same thing as Vazquez, except he hits home runs, too.

[Rob Grothman]

Well I can tell you put a lot of thought into that. Yet, you don't seem to get that what Hoyer does never makes any sense.

Traded his best prospect, his starting 3B on a team friendly contract, and Wisnewski for a one year rental of Tucker?

Traded Bellinger for nothing then gave them Aries too.

Hey why don't you throw some fancy stats at me on how bad he lost the Jackson Ferris/Hope-Busch trade?

After teasing Cub Faithful he is chasing free agent closers, he chooses a set up guy who lost his closers role a year ago and is 36 years old and insists on closing. Sounds like a plan. Nevermind Hodge's 1.88 ERA and sub 1.0 whip. Oops those are old stats.

Do you think it is possible 3 years in row? 83-79? Only stats that matter.Tucker and/or traded by deadline?

Thought I would be kind right back.

[Jason Ross]

9 hours ago, Rob Grothman said:

Traded his best prospect

No he didn't. He traded Cam Smith, a player every industry ranking except for BP has ranked below Matt Shaw (and a good handful have ranked 25+ spots or more below). So this is simply untrue. I've spent time breaking down why it's ridiculous for Shaw to be behind Smith anyways, and I'm not doing it again, but the reality is this - Shaw is a better prospect today by any measure you cant think of. Maybe Smith will be better later, but with the information we have now...the Cubs did not trade their best prospect.

Quote

his starting 3B on a team friendly contract

And replaced him with that very same top prospect, on an even more team friendly contract whom ZiPS, the leading projection system in the world, has projected in 2025 as being around just as good as Parades

Quote

and Wisnewski

First off, no, they traded Hayden Wesneski, and secondly...who cares? Wesneski is a 27 year old pitcher who still hasn't figured out how to get LHP out. He wouldn't even start in the Cubs bullpen. And they replaced him with Cody Poteet, who looks quite identical to the profile of Wesneski. 

Quote

for a one year rental of Tucker?

For a player who's coming off of a 180 wRC+ and is a top-10 position player in baseball. We'll see if we extend him. But here's the catch - if Tucker wasn't on a one year contract, he would have cost significantly more, and you're already throwing a fit. 

Quote

Traded Bellinger for nothing then gave them Aries too.

They traded Cody Bellinger for $20m in salary relief that they haven't fully used yet. I would agree that if the Cubs dump Bellinger and Ricketts pockets the money, that it will be a bit frustrating. However, Bellinger wasn't going to start over Happ (in LF), PCA (in CF), Tucker (in RF), Suzuki (at DH), or Busch (at 1b) so he was a superfluous player as well. 

And they didn't get "no one back". They got Cody Poteet back. If you want to say he's not a super exciting addition, that's fine, I don't think so either. But you can't then whine about losing Hayden Wesneski who is only a few years younger but has all of the same pitch qualities. So pick one - either the Cubs didn't get anything back for Bellinger or who cares about losing Wesneski?

And they didn't give them Michael Arias (not Aries) they DFA'd Michael Arias and the Yankees gave up cash considerations. The Cubs decided of all of the players they had, he was the easiest to part with. That says something - the Cubs decided they would have a better shot getting value out of David Festa, Gavin Hollwell, or Cody Poteet over him. And they're almost assuredly correct.

Quote

Hey why don't you throw some fancy stats at me on how bad he lost the Jackson Ferris/Hope-Busch trade?

Easy; one of these players has made an MLB debut, has been worth 2.3 fWAR, projects to be around 3 fWAR next year while the other two players have a combined 28 innings above A-ball. By the time either of them make an MLB debut Michael Busch will have likely racked up over five wins for the Cubs, if not more and there's no guarantee either Hope or Ferris even make the MLB, let alone are good. If they are - well good on the Dodgers, the Cubs still got a good MLB player for six years. How awful, huh?

This is mostly nonsense and complaining to complain. How do you think teams get better? Sincerely, do you think it's magic? One of the things they do is that they convert superfluous players into players that fill gaps, they get rid of mediocre to bad players and replace them with useful ones, and yes, sometimes they have to take prospects and move them for established players. Sometimes those prospects go on to be good, and many of the time, the fizzle out. The Cubs project like a high 80's win team right now, with some upwards mobility to get to 90...especially if they end up continuing to use that money from the Bellinger trade to improve the team. I don't want to defend every move Jed Hoyer makes, but complaining about these ones feels so damn silly. I might not always agree with Hoyer, but every move has defensible logic. Instead of acting like the Cubs are being run akin to the Rockies, maybe go looking for the logic - it's there.

But posts like this make me wonder what you do when you buy a dozen eggs. Do you look at them and think "man, I'd really like a omelet right now, but ugh, I'd have to crack a few? What if in 10 days I want another and I have already eaten them all?" Because that's all this is. "Man, I'm really bummed out we traded that very low level prospect out and got back an all-world player for one guaranteed year...what if in five years that prospect becomes a middle reliever!" 

[mul21]

13 hours ago, Rob Grothman said:

Well I can tell you put a lot of thought into that. Yet, you don't seem to get that what Hoyer does never makes any sense.

Traded his best prospect, his starting 3B on a team friendly contract, and Wisnewski for a one year rental of Tucker?

Traded Bellinger for nothing then gave them Aries too.

Hey why don't you throw some fancy stats at me on how bad he lost the Jackson Ferris/Hope-Busch trade?

After teasing Cub Faithful he is chasing free agent closers, he chooses a set up guy who lost his closers role a year ago and is 36 years old and insists on closing. Sounds like a plan. Nevermind Hodge's 1.88 ERA and sub 1.0 whip. Oops those are old stats.

Do you think it is possible 3 years in row? 83-79? Only stats that matter.Tucker and/or traded by deadline?

Thought I would be kind right back.

This has to be satire right? Between citing batting average and misspelling multiple player's names, I can't begin to take any of this seriously.

1908 already knocked this out of the park bullet by bullet, so I won't waste anyone's time doing it too, but you're conveniently leaving out A LOT of nuance in every single one of these thoughts, not to mention the inaccuracy.

[Rob Grothman]

Good I appreciate that. 

If you are going to use stats, to justify your stupidy, that include variables, then I will just keep laughing. So I mispelled some names.

Apparently you guys feel Hoyer is doing great job. Lol

Now let's watch and see who's right

[Rob Grothman]

Sorry

Had to come back for just one more.

I love Matt Shaw. I believe he will be Nico Hoerner with a LITTLE pop.

To compare Shaw with Cam Smith is laughable. What did you say low level prospect? 😆 🤣 

[squally1313]

2 hours ago, Rob Grothman said:

To compare Shaw with Cam Smith is laughable.

Age 21 seasons:

• Cam Smith: 32 games (15 in single A, 12 in high A, 5 in AA), 134 PAs, 7 HRs, .313/.396/.609, 179 wRC
• Matt Shaw: 38 games (20 in high A, 15 in AA), 170 PAs, 8 HRs, .357/.400/.618, 170 wRC

Seems pretty close to me!

[Jason Ross]

3 hours ago, Rob Grothman said:

Good I appreciate that. 

If you are going to use stats, to justify your stupidy, that include variables, then I will just keep laughing. So I mispelled some names.

Apparently you guys feel Hoyer is doing great job. Lol

Now let's watch and see who's right

The point of showing that you misspelled names is in the irony of the situation. You hand ring over losing these players, yet, cannot even bother to get their names correct. If you don't know basic things, such as their last names, it goes to suggest you probably don't know much about them as players, their skillets, floors or ceilings, which take far more effort than a simple spell check. 

We all make typos, that's fine. But it seems odd to consistently whine about losing players when you have little knowledge of them. 

[Jason Ross]

2 hours ago, Rob Grothman said:

Sorry

Had to come back for just one more.

I love Matt Shaw. I believe he will be Nico Hoerner with a LITTLE pop.

To compare Shaw with Cam Smith is laughable. What did you say low level prospect? 😆 🤣 

The low level prospects were the Wesneski, Vazquez and Arias types youre so attached to. Cam Smith is a pretty good prospect! But he's also done far less than Matt Shaw thus far. He has just five hits over A-ball and while he had a great start to his MiLB career, he was at lower levels and frankly, should have hit well there. 

Shaw was drafted higher, hit arguably better before Tennessee (considering his wRC+ in SB was higher and never saw the light of day at Low-A to help pad stats) and posted numbers in Iowa that would require Smith to really hit his 90-95% outcome to achieve in his first attempt at that level. It doesnt mean he cannot, only that you seem to not understand how hard it is for players of their age to post a 140+ wRC+ in Triple-A.

It's a good thing to remember that just 6 months ago, Cam Smith wasn't even a consensus top-10 talent in his *draft class* let alone this all-world uber prospect youre acting as if he is. People are far too high on Smith based on a handful of PAs at the lowest of levels of professional baseball. He was a college player in the ACC who played in the CWS, not an 18 year old prep hitter.

[squally1313]

On 1/29/2025 at 1:07 PM, Rob Grothman said:

They DFA'd Vasquez too. I'd say about 25 teams could be in line to give Cubs nothing.

Big news, the Cubs will have a chance to right their wrongs

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/02/orioles-designate-luis-vazquez-for-assignment.html