Is Alex Bregman Really Worth It?

[Brian Kelder]

The rumors are flying. There's no question that the front office means business. Clearly, there is at least some interest here. But the Cubs should not pursue the top remaining free agent unless they are willing to pay the luxury tax.

 

Image courtesy of © Troy Taormina-Imagn Images

Alex Bregman has had a long and productive career with the Houston Astros. He peaked in 2019, with 8.7 wins above replacement and a 167 wRC+. Without factoring in the sign-stealing scandal in which he admits to having played a part, there has been a decline offensively in the past three years. His wRC+ has gone from 137 to 126 to 118 since 2022. His 2024 walk rate plunge was particularly concerning. It could be a one-year outlier, but it did crater as he geared up for free agency. 

The main issue with adding Bregman would be the cost. Rumors are that he has a six-year offer that would total over $160 million. The Cubs, given their aversion to spending over the luxury tax, really cannot afford another infielder on a high-dollar deal that might not age well. So, if they were to sign Bregman to a (shorter, perhaps richer on a per-year basis) deal, what would happen next?

The Internet's Favorite Option: Sign Bregman, trade Nico Hoerner to balance out the payroll, Matt Shaw starts at second

WAR-wise, this is net neutral. The decrease in defensive value theoretically would be balanced out by the added power Bregman would provide. Matt Shaw, in this hypothetical, would man second base, which many scouts believe is his best long-term position anyway. Hoerner would net some trade return, to balance out the lost long-term value of surrendering draft picks to sign Bregman.

The Case For: The Cubs' lineup is really not a deep one, especially in terms of power. Bregman would address this and slot somewhere in the top four spots in the lineup. Nico would command some type of value, perhaps an arm or two to lengthen the pitching staff. Matt Shaw is ready, and slots more ably into the spot Hoerner would vacate than into the one for which he's currently projected.

This is a somewhat compelling argument. When you look at the OPS for Nico vs. Bregman (.722 to .856), the increase in pop would be massive. Matt Shaw is smothered in hype, and recently was given a top-20 global prospect ranking by MLB.com. He does deserve a chance to get at-bats at the major-league level. 

The Case Against: This risks overpaying for Bregman's decline years, complete with worsening defense, and could leave the team overly reliant on Shaw. Bregman already is showing signs of decline. Paying a premium price for his early and mid-30s doesn't seem to be how the Cubs should operate, given their budget. Shaw also is no sure thing; his floor is sub-replacement level. With Pete Crow-Armstrong's bat still in question, Michael Busch's scary projections for 2025, the catcher position, and the ever-present question of whether Dansby Swanson can recapture his 117 wRC+ from before he arrived on the North Side, the Cubs can ill afford another iffy proposition in the lineup. 

An Unintended Consequence: Even if we charitably assume Bregman signs for $25 million per year, that locks up $52 million in payroll on two infielders who are over 30. Their age suggests that simply living up to that spending is the best we can expect from Bregman and Swanson. Over 20% of the team's self-imposed salary cap would be taken by two players.

Kyle Tucker needs to be the only priority here. The Cubs have their linchpin, their star, the elite bat fans have been clamoring for since 2021. Any move that lowers the probability of his return needs to simply not happen. Tom Ricketts, he of the instantly infamous "break even" line, said in a recent interview that dollars aren't as big an issue to him as years. Assuming Tucker nets $40 million per season, there's no way the front office will be allowed to tie up $90 million dollars on three players. So Bregman on a long-term deal would be like Hubba Bubba: satisfying for a bit, but with a flavor that will fade as Tucker moves to greener pastures. The flexibility is necessary for the Cubs, if they want any chance of retaining Tucker in the deep green environs of Wrigley Field for the next decade and change.

Option 2: The Ricketts Operate Their Team the Way They Actually Should
This one is simple: sign Bregman, and do not trade salary to offset his addition. You then have the best infield defense in the game. Shaw plays the Javier Báez role from 2016, filling in when a day off is needed. All players get needed rest days, and Shaw gets needed developmental reps. Tucker's potential extension is not affected by these payroll constraints, and the Cubs commit to spending into the luxury tax. (Fans can dream, right?)

If Bregman does sign in Chicago, we can anticipate multiple opt-outs being involved. Those save the team extra years and/or dollars committed, but the added cost is increased risk associated with Bregman having any kind of decline, and eschewing his opt-outs while taking up payroll and roster space and returning too little value. We just saw a tepid result on this kind of deal, with Cody Bellinger in 2024.

In the end, the Cubs are not likely to land Alex Bregman. In that case, this pursuit will be but a footnote in the next book Joe Posnanski writes. This isn't a bad thing, long-term, for the Cubs. They should save their cash and go all-in on a Tucker extension. (Of course, there's no guarantee that Tucker is even open to such a deal, let alone willing to consider one at a price point that matches the Cubs' comfort zone. But that should be the goal.) Bregman isn't worth the risk and the amount of payroll space he will take up. Just let Shaw and Hoerner play, save some space for Tucker, and go over the tax for one season in 2026. With the amounts of salary falling off the books after that season, a tax reset would be simple.

Bregman is a fine player, but not at the price he wants or the cost of another solid player, like Hoerner. The Cubs have more pressing needs than the marginal upgrade Bregman would bring. Let's not bang the trash can for him any longer.

View full article

[squally1313]

Yeah agree with most of this. I would happily take Bregman, but I ultimately don't trust that a Bregman signing wouldn't lead to a Hoerner trade that makes you worse at the ML level and/or a significant hit to the chances we resign Tucker in the next 12 months, and both of those are probably deal breakers for me. 

[cubsguy20]

Get the deal done.

[Jason Ross]

I had discussed this elsewhere, though I'll consolidate my thoughts here, but I wonder if we're looking at a little bit of a "column A and a column B" situation with Bregman. We have heard words such as "flexibility" and "opportunistic" being used with how the Cubs operate, and I wonder if Bregman offers the Cubs flexibility and a version of being nimble (or if they see it that way). 

What I mean by that is that it allows the Cubs options - if they can get Bregman's AAV in under the LT, it gives the Cubs the chance to continue to allow themselves to explore, but not need to trade Hoerner. It could mean a swap for a pitcher later, or even prospects if they feel like Shaw is showing progress enough that the drop off isn't there. It could also offer them the flexibility to keep Hoerner being under the LT and let Shaw be the "Baez" type. And lastly it could offer the team flexibility in the injury department. A bit more of a long shot, but it could offer them the flexibility to deal Shaw (but with a Bregman deal heavily on opt outs and Hoerner being 2 years away from being lost, I do expect the team will want to keep him around as a replacement type for a position). It also gives the Cubs a bit of a safer floor with how they handle Matt Shaw - and lowers the variance. Jed spoke about how wins at higher levels That 90+ range) just cost more and this kind of exemplifies that in that regard. 

The Cubs are more than willing to patient, wait things out and they kind of operate on their own timeline in a way, and this might be a way to allow that to continue to happen throughout the season. 

[JBears79]

I dont think the Cubs need Bregman but id gladly take him. I just really dont want it to take us out of a potential Kyle Tucker extension. 

[JunkyardWalrus]

1 hour ago, JBears79 said:

I dont think the Cubs need Bregman but id gladly take him. I just really dont want it to take us out of a potential Kyle Tucker extension. 

This feels like the most important move for the franchise moving forward. 

[Rob]

If signing Bregman necessitates moving Nico this season, I don't see the point. I'd rather have Nico making much less and providing the same overall production.

For such an exchange to be worthwhile, we'd need a trading partner that is willing to give us a true top of the rotation pitcher in exchange for Nico. I don't see that happening, but I've been wrong before...

[squally1313]

6 minutes ago, Rob said:

If signing Bregman necessitates moving Nico this season, I don't see the point. I'd rather have Nico making much less and providing the same overall production.

For such an exchange to be worthwhile, we'd need a trading partner that is willing to give us a true top of the rotation pitcher in exchange for Nico. I don't see that happening, but I've been wrong before...

And that elite/semi-elite pitcher would need to also be making less money than Nico, because that was the whole point of trading him anyways. Which means dipping into the prospect pool to supplement Nico in that hypothetical trade, when instead you can just use the prospects to trade for a pitcher now and not have to give up as much talent because you're not as constricted on the financial cost. 

[Jason Ross]

41 minutes ago, Rob said:

If signing Bregman necessitates moving Nico this season, I don't see the point. I'd rather have Nico making much less and providing the same overall production.

For such an exchange to be worthwhile, we'd need a trading partner that is willing to give us a true top of the rotation pitcher in exchange for Nico. I don't see that happening, but I've been wrong before...

The way I've looked at signing Bregman, I do think it essentially gives the Cubs three options moving forward if it happens: 

Option 1: Cubs keep Nico, thus leaving Shaw as injury protection and someone you allow to essentially function as Javier Baez in 2016 

- This deepens the bench, gives you the best injury protection possible, while also helping limiting the variance from Matt Shaw's rookie season 

- This does make adding a SP at the deadline much harder if the Cubs are once again refusing to go over the LT. I do think a creative contract with Bregman will keep the Cubs under the LT, but it makes finding another SP who limits that exposure hard

- In this situation, the Cubs probably feel comfortable with their young SP's. Some mix of Cade Horton, Ben Brown, Jordan Wicks or Brandon Birdsell have impressed them enough that they'd be comfortable with them adding to the rotation. 

Option 2: Cubs find a Nico-for-SP trade

- This is a very narrow landing strip. But it probably allows the Cubs to be a unique trading partner that other teams cannot provide. The Cubs might be able to add prospects to help buy down the cost here, but I'd guess this is a situation with a more controlled and likely less expensive SP

Option 3: Cubs trade Nico Hoerner for prospects. They then buy a rental SP. *could be a three-team-trade as well

- This is situation that probably creates more moving parts, but seems do-able in some regards. 2b is going to be a position of need for a few contenders regardless - it's a thin position. You could even argue that the trade value you give up on control you can somewhat make up for by proving Hoerner's health. 

- This doesn't have to happen on July 31st but could realistically happen sometime early June or later.. It gives the Cubs a lot of run way. 

- You'd assume in this situation Matt Shaw is showing everything the Cubs would want, and it allows the Cubs to have Bregman/Hoerner as their 2b/3b during their super-hard-stretch at the start, while shifting Shaw in when things ease up a bit.

---

I don't want to suggest any of these as perfect, but I can see where the Cubs would have options moving forward regarding the infield and Nico moving forward. There's risk involved, and you might end up swapping the ability to trade for a SP later for a Bregman thing now, too. I'll avoid getting into 2026 implications with this post as well - I think that's a different beast all together. Essentially, I'm trying to put my Jed-hat on and how he might be looking at things.

[squally1313]

At the risk of minimizing your really well thought out post, there's a common trend there:

2 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

This does make adding a SP at the deadline much harder ... it makes finding another SP who limits that exposure hard ...

This is a very narrow landing strip ...

This is situation that probably creates more moving parts,  ...

 

I think that's a different beast all together. ...

I don't know. If those are your options (and I think they largely are), and they all come with some less than ideal implications for 2026 and beyond, I'd rather just overpay for Cease? His money falls off after this year and you're left with essentially the same pile of cash you'd need to extend Tucker, you're down someone like Caissie and a pitching prospect but you also aren't on the hook for like a 3/90 Bregman contract.

Caveat that I would do whatever it takes to get the price down on Cease (or go talk to Seattle again, or see if Miami wants to talk, etc). But the knock on effects of a Bregman deal feel like an overpay all on its own. Go get an elite starter. 

[Brian Kelder]

17 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

The way I've looked at signing Bregman, I do think it essentially gives the Cubs three options moving forward if it happens: 

Option 1: Cubs keep Nico, thus leaving Shaw as injury protection and someone you allow to essentially function as Javier Baez in 2016 

- This deepens the bench, gives you the best injury protection possible, while also helping limiting the variance from Matt Shaw's rookie season 

- This does make adding a SP at the deadline much harder if the Cubs are once again refusing to go over the LT. I do think a creative contract with Bregman will keep the Cubs under the LT, but it makes finding another SP who limits that exposure hard

- In this situation, the Cubs probably feel comfortable with their young SP's. Some mix of Cade Horton, Ben Brown, Jordan Wicks or Brandon Birdsell have impressed them enough that they'd be comfortable with them adding to the rotation. 

Option 2: Cubs find a Nico-for-SP trade

- This is a very narrow landing strip. But it probably allows the Cubs to be a unique trading partner that other teams cannot provide. The Cubs might be able to add prospects to help buy down the cost here, but I'd guess this is a situation with a more controlled and likely less expensive SP

Option 3: Cubs trade Nico Hoerner for prospects. They then buy a rental SP. *could be a three-team-trade as well

- This is situation that probably creates more moving parts, but seems do-able in some regards. 2b is going to be a position of need for a few contenders regardless - it's a thin position. You could even argue that the trade value you give up on control you can somewhat make up for by proving Hoerner's health. 

- This doesn't have to happen on July 31st but could realistically happen sometime early June or later.. It gives the Cubs a lot of run way. 

- You'd assume in this situation Matt Shaw is showing everything the Cubs would want, and it allows the Cubs to have Bregman/Hoerner as their 2b/3b during their super-hard-stretch at the start, while shifting Shaw in when things ease up a bit.

---

I don't want to suggest any of these as perfect, but I can see where the Cubs would have options moving forward regarding the infield and Nico moving forward. There's risk involved, and you might end up swapping the ability to trade for a SP later for a Bregman thing now, too. I'll avoid getting into 2026 implications with this post as well - I think that's a different beast all together. Essentially, I'm trying to put my Jed-hat on and how he might be looking at things.

Great comment.  Ever thought about writing???

 

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, Brian Kelder said:

Great comment.  Ever thought about writing???

 

Can't tell if serious or not - I run all of the prospect stuff! 

[ryanrc]

18 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

The way I've looked at signing Bregman, I do think it essentially gives the Cubs three options moving forward if it happens: 

Option 1: Cubs keep Nico, thus leaving Shaw as injury protection and someone you allow to essentially function as Javier Baez in 2016 

Option 2: Cubs find a Nico-for-SP trade

Option 3: Cubs trade Nico Hoerner for prospects. They then buy a rental SP. *could be a three-team-trade as well

 

Option 4: We trade Jameson Taillon instead of Nico Hoerner - ideally for a prospect who can cover first base as Busch's AAA backup, but a pitcher or catcher works as well.  We sign Bregman, and instead of trading our best prospects to San Diego, we wait for the ASB.

We then wait until mid-season to find a stud pitcher from a fire sale. Using the Taillon money, we would have about 20-25 million free to land a true difference maker, with cash left over for other moves if necessary. Using this approach, we can land a Dylan Cease level pitcher midseason for a lower cost. 

Our early season rotation would lean on innings eaters Rea and Poteet/Assad at the back of the rotation, and expecting injury to at least one major starter, our midseason acquisition would be a high stuff pitcher having a healthy season. 

Having moved Taillon, we can keep Tucker in 2026 AND Bregman AND Hoerner. Keep in mind 10 million in dead/retained money falls off the books, the tax level goes up 3 million, and so does the Pressly/Brasier contracts. Those shifts free up 26 million, in addition to the 20 million carryover from 2025 - that is more than enough to convert Tucker's 17 million contract into a 40 million contract, and also sign a couple of new bullpen arms or renew only 1 of Pressly/Brasier. 

Given the current market, Taillon is desirable at his current contract, which is fair and close to right-priced, compared to some lesser 2024 arms that are being paid 20 million plus. 

Edited February 6, 2025 by ryanrc

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, ryanrc said:

Option 4: We trade Jameson Taillon instead of Nico Hoerner - ideally for a prospect who can cover first base as Busch's AAA backup, but a pitcher or catcher works as well.  We sign Bregman, and instead of trading our best prospects to San Diego, we wait for the ASB.

We then wait until mid-season to find a stud pitcher from a fire sale. Using the Taillon money, we would have about 20-25 million free to land a true difference maker, with cash left over for other moves if necessary. Using this approach, we can land a Dylan Cease level pitcher midseason for a lower cost. 

Our early season rotation would lean on innings eaters Rea and Poteet/Assad at the back of the rotation, and expecting injury to at least one major starter, our midseason acquisition would be a high stuff pitcher having a healthy season. 

Having moved Taillon, we can keep Tucker in 2026 AND Bregman AND Hoerner. Keep in mind 10 million in dead/retained money falls off the books, the tax level goes up 3 million, and so does the Pressly/Brasier contracts. Those shifts free up 26 million, in addition to the 20 million carryover from 2025 - that is more than enough to convert Tucker's 17 million contract into a 40 million contract, and also sign a couple of new bullpen arms or renew only 1 of Pressly/Brasier. 

Given the current market, Taillon is desirable at his current contract, which is fair and close to right-priced, compared to some lesser 2024 arms that are being paid 20 million plus. 

The Cubs current issue is that they probably don't have a strong enough rotation. I like the Steele/Shota 1-2, but past that, you're looking at a rotation that has Mathew Boyd and his injury woes (though you can certainly argue that his recent TJS will improve this - it's yet to be seen over more than a sample size of a partial season and shouldn't be fully counted upon), Colin Rea (who new studies on his arsenal suggest maybe there's some under current that makes him undervalued, but at best it's an argument in its infancy in terms of relevancy) and then a bunch of question marks like Javier Assad, Jordan Wicks, and Ben Brown. Jameson Taillon is someone you can more or less count on to give you solid #4 innings. He also has a limited no-trade clause. 

Trading Taillon seems like a near non-starter currently. There's no better option you can point to internally unless you're just banking on a Jordan Wicks type (which I like, but let's be real, he didn't have a great season last year due to health and some pitch mix changes) or a Javier Assad type (who fell off mid-year in a way Rea did as well). Maybe in December with a full slate of FA's, but then you are kind of robbing Peter (telling Taillon) to pay Paul (signing a replacement). 

In a vacuum, I'm not married to Taillon, but the Cubs need to be more settled in the rotation to be considering an outgoing there for my tastes. That's far too risky.

[ryanrc]

Just now, 1908_Cubs said:

The Cubs current issue is that they probably don't have a strong enough rotation. I like the Steele/Shota 1-2, but past that, you're looking at a rotation that has Mathew Boyd and his injury woes (though you can certainly argue that his recent TJS will improve this - it's yet to be seen over more than a sample size of a partial season and shouldn't be fully counted upon), Colin Rea (who new studies on his arsenal suggest maybe there's some under current that makes him undervalued, but at best it's an argument in its infancy in terms of relevancy) and then a bunch of question marks like Javier Assad, Jordan Wicks, and Ben Brown. Jameson Taillon is someone you can more or less count on to give you solid #4 innings. He also has a limited no-trade clause. 

Trading Taillon seems like a near non-starter currently. There's no better option you can point to internally unless you're just banking on a Jordan Wicks type (which I like, but let's be real, he didn't have a great season last year due to health and some pitch mix changes) or a Javier Assad type (who fell off mid-year in a way Rea did as well). Maybe in December with a full slate of FA's, but then you are kind of robbing Peter (telling Taillon) to pay Paul (signing a replacement). 

In a vacuum, I'm not married to Taillon, but the Cubs need to be more settled in the rotation to be considering an outgoing there for my tastes. That's far too risky.

I vehemently disagree on several counts. 

 ADD THE WAR: We are quibbling over maybe 1-2 WAR difference between Taillon and Assad, or Taillon and Poteet. That's not a problem at all, if it means we get a 4 WAR Bregman. We have a crapton of backend starters right now that other teams would be happy to have, and the gap between them and "mid tier" starters is literally 1 measly WAR, versus a 2+ WAR Gap for Bregman/Shaw at 3rd, mainly due to teh glove difference. Furthermore, a midseason starter acquisition will ERASE the WAR difference between Taillion and Assad/Poteet, and furthermore will give us a better postseason pitcher than Taillon. 

Its a win-win. We come out ahead, not behind. And, we get to keep EVERYONE in 2026 except Taillion, who we will replace anyhow with a Cade Horton, or Brandon birdsell, or even Jordan Wicks. So many 2026 options, so many improving players....

Pitchers are not as reliable or worth quibbling over 1 WAR as a position player. their serious injury rate is approaching 40 percent! only your top 2 aces are worth sacrificing the elite multi tool sluggers. All other starters are just "get er done, dont get hurt" these days. The quality gap between a #3 and #5 is low on most competitive teams. 
 

[Rcal10]

7 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

The Cubs current issue is that they probably don't have a strong enough rotation. I like the Steele/Shota 1-2, but past that, you're looking at a rotation that has Mathew Boyd and his injury woes (though you can certainly argue that his recent TJS will improve this - it's yet to be seen over more than a sample size of a partial season and shouldn't be fully counted upon), Colin Rea (who new studies on his arsenal suggest maybe there's some under current that makes him undervalued, but at best it's an argument in its infancy in terms of relevancy) and then a bunch of question marks like Javier Assad, Jordan Wicks, and Ben Brown. Jameson Taillon is someone you can more or less count on to give you solid #4 innings. He also has a limited no-trade clause. 

Trading Taillon seems like a near non-starter currently. There's no better option you can point to internally unless you're just banking on a Jordan Wicks type (which I like, but let's be real, he didn't have a great season last year due to health and some pitch mix changes) or a Javier Assad type (who fell off mid-year in a way Rea did as well). Maybe in December with a full slate of FA's, but then you are kind of robbing Peter (telling Taillon) to pay Paul (signing a replacement). 

In a vacuum, I'm not married to Taillon, but the Cubs need to be more settled in the rotation to be considering an outgoing there for my tastes. That's far too risky.

Agreed. I don’t see how trading Taillon makes any sense. They need to add an pitcher, most likely, not trade one. 

[ryanrc]

18 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

The Cubs current issue is that they probably don't have a strong enough rotation. I like the Steele/Shota 1-2, but past that, you're looking at a rotation that has Mathew Boyd and his injury woes (though you can certainly argue that his recent TJS will improve this - it's yet to be seen over more than a sample size of a partial season and shouldn't be fully counted upon), Colin Rea (who new studies on his arsenal suggest maybe there's some under current that makes him undervalued, but at best it's an argument in its infancy in terms of relevancy) and then a bunch of question marks like Javier Assad, Jordan Wicks, and Ben Brown. Jameson Taillon is someone you can more or less count on to give you solid #4 innings. He also has a limited no-trade clause. 

Trading Taillon seems like a near non-starter currently. There's no better option you can point to internally unless you're just banking on a Jordan Wicks type (which I like, but let's be real, he didn't have a great season last year due to health and some pitch mix changes) or a Javier Assad type (who fell off mid-year in a way Rea did as well). Maybe in December with a full slate of FA's, but then you are kind of robbing Peter (telling Taillon) to pay Paul (signing a replacement). 

In a vacuum, I'm not married to Taillon, but the Cubs need to be more settled in the rotation to be considering an outgoing there for my tastes. That's far too risky.

Here's some more arguments: 
you paying 17 million dollars for a "maybe" 1 WAR bump over Assad or Poteet. Thats very expensive. on the other hand, Nico is worth significantly more than Taillon in WAR , for a much lower price. It would be pretty mindless to trade away Hoerner to Preserve 1 WAR in pitching for a potential 1-2 WAR drop at 2nd base in 2025, and a small financial return.   The dollars dont make sense. 

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, ryanrc said:

I vehemently disagree on several counts. 

 ADD THE WAR: We are quibbling over maybe 1-2 WAR difference between Taillon and Assad, or Taillon and Poteet. That's not a problem at all, if it means we get a 4 WAR Bregman. We have a crapton of backend starters right now that other teams would be happy to have, and the gap between them and "mid tier" starters is literally 1 measly WAR, versus a 2+ WAR Gap for Bregman/Shaw at 3rd, mainly due to teh glove difference. Furthermore, a midseason starter acquisition will ERASE the WAR difference between Taillion and Assad/Poteet, and furthermore will give us a better postseason pitcher than Taillon. 

Its a win-win. We come out ahead, not behind. And, we get to keep EVERYONE in 2026 except Taillion, who we will replace anyhow with a Cade Horton, or Brandon birdsell, or even Jordan Wicks. So many 2026 options, so many improving players....

Pitchers are not as reliable or worth quibbling over 1 WAR as a position player. their serious injury rate is approaching 40 percent! only your top 2 aces are worth sacrificing the elite multi tool sluggers. All other starters are just "get er done, dont get hurt" these days. The quality gap between a #3 and #5 is low on most competitive teams. 
 

Listen, I'm the guy who's usually in the corner arguing with people about why fWAR matters, but you're taking it to a point where I think you've kind of lost the point of things such as fWAR. fWAR does great for determining value, but evaluating holes, and who we should feel comfortable with has to go past a simple "add the WAR, my guy!" argument.

The issue is a-few-fold: first, as teams approach 90 wins and beyond, wins get more expensive. It's harder to improve and find those places to improve. Using recent PECOTA and ZiPS projections, the Cubs are moving themselves into that 90 win territory. What that means is arguing over a win here or there...it does matter as it becomes harder and harder to find those upgrades.

Secondly, by losing Taillon, and inserting Javier Assad, you're making your pretty likely making you pitching worse. Yes, Assad had a pretty good ERA, but his FIP approached the 5.00 marker, his xFIP was 4.61 and as the season wore on he was far more hittable (seeing opposing hitters make far better and more consistent loud contact off him) but saw his ERA raise to his xFIP region. Taillon was nearly a full point better in FIP, half a point better at xFIP and he didn't see any discernable difference in seasons as Assad did. I don't think it's a question that Taillon is not only heartier as a pitcher, but I'm far more confident in what he is. He reduces variance. 

Beyond that, dropping a SP in a rotation that feels thin as is, further reduces the depth behind him. If you want to say that the Cubs have a bit too much in the range past Taillon (call it in that "depth" range of Rea, Assad, Wicks, Brown, Birdsell, Horton) area? I'd probably be fine with dropping an arm in this tier. The issue is that Taillon is clearly a tier in terms of "what we can expect for 2025" above this crew in that i don't think it's a question as to really what we're going to get there. Beyond Taillon it becomes quite murky in just what you've got. Sure, maybe Wicks' reworks the slider, stays healthy and is that guy who looked like a potential #4, but I'm not very confident in that right now. Maybe Cade Horton or Brandon Birdsell have the juice to stick in an MLB rotation in 2025, but rookies offer larger variance than Jordan Wicks - you're playing with fire. 

If you're willing to make that gamble, more power to you. The way the Cubs have operated all offseason suggests not only do they not agree with your assessment of Taillon vs Assad (they've been collecting arms like they were Pokemon) it makes it pretty clear that while you may be willing to take that gamble, the Cubs are not realistically going to see this as an option. The mantra to Counsell early in the offseason was that they were going to increase the pitching depth. It doesn't feel like you can both say you're adding depth and then trade one of your most reliable starters 4 days before ST kicks off and have meant it. 

[ryanrc]

1 minute ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Listen, I'm the guy who's usually in the corner arguing with people about why fWAR matters, but you're taking it to a point where I think you've kind of lost the point of things such as fWAR. fWAR does great for determining value, but evaluating holes, and who we should feel comfortable with has to go past a simple "add the WAR, my guy!" argument.

The issue is a-few-fold: first, as teams approach 90 wins and beyond, wins get more expensive. It's harder to improve and find those places to improve. Using recent PECOTA and ZiPS projections, the Cubs are moving themselves into that 90 win territory. What that means is arguing over a win here or there...it does matter as it becomes harder and harder to find those upgrades.

Secondly, by losing Taillon, and inserting Javier Assad, you're making your pretty likely making you pitching worse. Yes, Assad had a pretty good ERA, but his FIP approached the 5.00 marker, his xFIP was 4.61 and as the season wore on he was far more hittable (seeing opposing hitters make far better and more consistent loud contact off him) but saw his ERA raise to his xFIP region. Taillon was nearly a full point better in FIP, half a point better at xFIP and he didn't see any discernable difference in seasons as Assad did. I don't think it's a question that Taillon is not only heartier as a pitcher, but I'm far more confident in what he is. He reduces variance. 

Beyond that, dropping a SP in a rotation that feels thin as is, further reduces the depth behind him. If you want to say that the Cubs have a bit too much in the range past Taillon (call it in that "depth" range of Rea, Assad, Wicks, Brown, Birdsell, Horton) area? I'd probably be fine with dropping an arm in this tier. The issue is that Taillon is clearly a tier in terms of "what we can expect for 2025" above this crew in that i don't think it's a question as to really what we're going to get there. Beyond Taillon it becomes quite murky in just what you've got. Sure, maybe Wicks' reworks the slider, stays healthy and is that guy who looked like a potential #4, but I'm not very confident in that right now. Maybe Cade Horton or Brandon Birdsell have the juice to stick in an MLB rotation in 2025, but rookies offer larger variance than Jordan Wicks - you're playing with fire. 

If you're willing to make that gamble, more power to you. The way the Cubs have operated all offseason suggests not only do they not agree with your assessment of Taillon vs Assad (they've been collecting arms like they were Pokemon) it makes it pretty clear that while you may be willing to take that gamble, the Cubs are not realistically going to see this as an option. The mantra to Counsell early in the offseason was that they were going to increase the pitching depth. It doesn't feel like you can both say you're adding depth and then trade one of your most reliable starters 4 days before ST kicks off and have meant it. 

yeah, as i said, none of that bothers me one iota, because we would have the money and resources to get another pitcher, silly. i already said so. we cvan upgrade over taillon if youre patient enough to wait for misdeasonl, and have a BETTER postseason team not a worse one. 

[ryanrc]

1 minute ago, ryanrc said:

yeah, as i said, none of that bothers me one iota, because we would have the money and resources to get another pitcher, silly. i already said so. we cvan upgrade over taillon if youre patient enough to wait for misdeasonl, and have a BETTER postseason team not a worse one. 

with a lineup like this, Im not worried. 

Happ
Tucker
Bregman ****MUCH BETTER THAN SHAW***
Suzuki
Busch
PCA
Swanson
Hoerner
Kelly

Imanaga
Steele
XXXXX MIDSEASON UPGRADE BETTER THAN TAILLION
Boyd
Rea
....etc etc etc.

Where's the fear? This is legit better than Shaw + Taillon in every way. It gives the GM more total WAR, more roster flexibility, and money midseason, than to pay 17 million for 1 measly war on the mound, sacrifice 2 war in the field/batters box, and a superior postseason rotation.... its a win/win, as is said- better total team for postseason, and you dont need to sacrifice a single future player to do it.  

[squally1313]

You need 900 innings from your starters. Steele gave you 135 last year, we can call that 150. Shota gave you 175. Optimistic, but fine. Boyd? 100 is probably optimistic, but sure. That's 425. A midseason trade for a better starter typically happens right around the deadline, using Jack Flaherty as an example, he threw 55 innings for the Dodgers last year. So let's just say you've got 450-500, or a little over half covered by those pitchers. 

Do we want 400+ innings to be covered by the rest of the pitchers on the roster? Assad and Rea are stretched out but clearly a level below Taillon, and even full, healthy seasons wouldn't cover the full need. Wicks threw 67 innings last year, Brown 55, Horton 34. Poteet 77.  What if Steele or Shota goes down? How are you covering this?

[SOFNR]

It's clearly been a priority to add pitching depth this entire offseason. I feel pretty confident any upcoming changes to the starting rotation will involve adding a pitcher, not trading away one of the 3 guys you feel confident will give you over 100 innings.