For Better or Worse, Chicago Cubs' Jed Hoyer Is Who He Is

[Jason Ross]

Image courtesy of © Kamil Krzaczynski-Imagn Images

As the MLB trade deadline concluded on Thursday, the Cubs' efforts kind of landed with a thud. I don't mean to sound fully negative. In fact, if you want my honest opinions up front, I don't think the Cubs made any bad trades leading up to the deadline at 5 PM Central. But regardless of how I feel about every trade individually, Jed Hoyer is likely to face a lot of criticism in the following days (and perhaps weeks, months, maybe years) for how the Cubs handled themselves. There will be articles (such as this one) written. There will be reddit posts, blogs, posts on our forums at North Side Baseball... it won't go unnoticed, to say the least. For better or worse, this was a microcosm of the Jed Hoyer experience. The man is who he is. 

"Jed Hoyer never orders delivery, he always picks up his pizza." I sincerely wish this was my own pithy turn of phrase, but one of our other, more clever writers (aye @matto1233) at NSBB mentioned it as the clock struck midnight on the deadline, and I think it's the perfect way to explain what happened. Hoyer is nothing if not a pragmatist. If he can drive himself to Domino's and avoid a $3 charge for delivery and a further $4 for a tip, the man will make that drive in rain, sleet, snow or sun. To Hoyer, $7 is $7 ,and his gas spent will total far less than $7. He does that math regardless of anything else about the situation. Value is value, afterall.

To put it in baseball terms, Hoyer is someone who fervently sticks to his own valuations and does not budge. This can be a good quality. For example, as I have mentioned already, I liked every trade that occurred this deadline. The highest-ranked prospect the Cubs lost profiles as a fourth or fifth outfielder (Christian Franklin), and the closest thing to a real organizational loss was someone who hasn't blown out the candles on their 18th birthday cake quite yet (Wilfri De La Cruz, the cost for Andrew Kittredge). And in return for that smattering of prospects ranked 10th and beyond organizationally, the Cubs received four players who undoubtedly make their roster better, in utility man Willi Castro, starting pitcher Mike Soroka, and relievers Taylor Rogers and Andrew Kittredge. The Cubs knew what each player was worth, and they paid a pretty fair price for them. On the surface, this is nothing but a good thing.

This is Hoyer's best trait as a leader of an organization; he really gets it when it comes to valuation. Hoyer will rarely, if ever, be fleeced on any trade, or in any free agent negotiation. His biggest misses have been short-term deals or small overpays. To date, I don't think he's made a single disaster of a move. You may quibble with a valuation here or there, but quibble is really all you can do. We can nitpick, but never truly find massive fault or a move that feels illogical or emotional. 

Arguably, though, Hoyer's pragmatism runs so deep that it sometimes becomes a problem. He's so principled in his approach that it sometimes becomes untenably rigid. Driving to Domino's is fine if it's nice out and you have the time. Paying the delivery fee makes sense when you're on a time crunch. We can see these issues play out during the deadline. The Cubs definitely needed an upgrade in the starting rotation, and while I like Michael Soroka as a neat little buy-low type, there were obviously bigger fish in the water that were ultimately passed on—despite the Cubs' unique situation, in being both a team of needs and means to acquire. Why is that? Almost assuredly, it's because Hoyer felt the value proposition of trading the prospects required outweighed the return.

The deadline is a pressure cooker by nature, made only more intense with the expanded playoff system. Nowadays, more teams are in the thick of the chase and fewer teams are obvious sellers. It creates an even more difficult dynamic; it's almost always going to be a seller's market. It forces those who aren't obviously selling to decide if they truly have the guts to go for it—if they can stomach the price of admission to the playoffs and potentially, the World Series. While pragmatism may win the day as a seller (the Cubs came away with Pete Crow-Armstrong and Kevin Alcántara for rental hitters in 2021 under Hoyer), it makes life very difficult for the buyer, because it requires the pragmatist to go beyond their beliefs many times to make the big swing occur. If you want to truly make your team better, you have to be a bit irrational.

On one hand, none of the exciting, controllable starting pitching was traded today, and if you want to suggest that prices were just too high, that's entirely your prerogative. Hell, Hoyer said as much in his press conference. It is true that MacKenzie Gore, Joe Ryan, Edward Cabrera, and even Sandy Alcantara all remained with their organizations. The Cubs were asked for Matt Shaw and/or Cade Horton in specific trades, which sounds egregious. You can also point to Dylan Cease, potentially the best rental who was tenuously available, not being traded, if you so will. But regardless of these players not being traded, there remained the potential for each to have been traded, had the Cubs been just a bit more irrational than the rest. Would it have required the Cubs paying a premium? Probably, but the Cubs could have afforded that premium, if we are being honest with ourselves. 

As it stands, the Cubs kept many prospects who have no clear path to a big-league role. Even if they do not retain Kyle Tucker in the offseason, there would be only one starting position obviously available for the quartet of Owen Caissie, Moisás Ballesteros, Jonathon Long and Alcántara. That's too many names, all of whom will be ready for the next step in their development. If the Cubs re-sign Tucker, well, it's even harder to figure out where they will all go. I understand not wanting to gut the system, but prospects have depreciating value. Is Caissie ever going to have more value than he did today? What could he possibly do between now and December to raise that profile? It's probable that any one of these names will have less value moving forward than they did today, so while the cost of acquisition may be high now, if each prospect is less valuable, are you really saving anything? 

What Hoyer needed to do at this deadline was become just a little irrational. Sure, $7 is $7, but it's raining outside, Jed, and you're really tired. Let someone bring you the pizza this one time. Splurge a little. I can hear Donna Meagle and Tom Haverford from the great sitcom Parks and Recreation, screaming at Hoyer to "Treat Yo'self!" Would a controllable starting pitcher have cost 15-20% more than they should? Maybe it would have, and yes, that would be (on paper) a "bad" trade from a value standpoint, but you pay that premium now and you worry about that overage in a few years. I'm not asking Hoyer to become A.J. Preller (who, in this instance, is likely ordering DoorDash at peak hours from McDonald's, despite living literally right next to the establishment), but only to step out of his shell once or twice and be just a little irrational. 

Ultimately, I don't think the deadline was a disaster. Each individual trade was fine. The Cubs didn't get taken to the woodshed in valuation by the Twins, the Pirates, the Nationals or the Orioles. But they also didn't address their most glaring need, which was to lift the ceiling by improving the front end of the rotation. Instead of having a Ryan or a Cabrera, the Cubs will hope that Soroka will be better the third time through the lineup, and that there are no more injuries of consequence. They will continue to lean on Colin Rea and need to hope that Jameson Taillon comes back healthy and ready to go right away. Being a little irrational would have solved that issue.

Had the Cubs gone too far, even if it was an "overpay" by some dumb model like Baseball Trade Values, that irrationality would still have provided the 2025 Cubs (and beyond, considering the pitcher was controllable) a better foundation to make the playoffs and continue to win baseball games. They would have paid too hefty a price on paper, but also would be a better baseball team—now and, probably, over the next few years. The Cubs draft fairly well; they develop players fairly well. It's possible they would have replaced that added fee on their own. The Padres and Dodgers live on this mantra, with an unfettered confidence that they will just recreate what they sell. Perhaps the Cubs should believe in themselves just a little more this way, too.

This was Hoyer's trade deadline, for better or worse, and for better or worse, this is who Hoyer is. He will never be the guy to get egg on his face at the deadline, but he's unlikely to ever be the guy who makes it (whatever it is at that specific time) happen. This is who he is, and will continue to be; it's both a blessing and a curse. So while I may not hate anything he did individually, this deadline feels like a missed opportunity. Hoyer will tell us that the prices were too high (in fact, he already has), and I'll probably believe him. They probably were too high, from a pure value standpoint. But sometimes, it's just nice to have a delivery pizza, and I wish Hoyer was willing to treat himself to a Gore or a Ryan. Just once. 

---

What did you think of the Cubs deadline in 2025? Do you think the Cubs will be able to hold up the rest of the year? Should they have spent more for a controlled starter? Let us know in the comment section below.

View full article

[SB in SC]

The unanswerable question is would Hoyer have handled this differently if he had not received the extension??

[Jason Ross]

22 minutes ago, SB in SC said:

The unanswerable question is would Hoyer have handled this differently if he had not received the extension??

While I can't be 100% sure, as I am not Jed, I am very confident that his extension has no change in his philosophy. I know people like to theorize that the Kyle Tucker trade was made to save his job, but I think the trade was fair value heading in both ways (yes, even with out an extension now, then or in the future, that's just the price of admission). Why do I say that? Look at the rest of the offseason. Did he make any other big play? Not really; he went with Boyd and Rea for the rotation, he wouldn't get into a bidding war with the Dodgers for Scott, and he held out all offseason hoping Bregman would be left with out a dance partner and could sign for a short term contract. It's all straight out of the Jed Hoyer playbook.

I'm not even bashing any of those decisions here, generally speaking, in a vacuum, every thing he does is pretty good and logical. But where I eventually have gotten with him is that I wish just every so often, something that he did was just a little more illogical. I'm not asking him to be stupid, but I would like to see him be just a bit more of a cowboy at times where he's willing to overpay to acquire the guy he really wants. Sometimes the best moves you make are the ones you don't, but there comes a point where you can't just not make all of the moves, too.

I am a big believer that regardless of his job status, the man does things in his way. He has his values, his principles, and that's just that. 

[gflore34]

Beyond the question about extension in hand, I wonder what his course of action might have been had Tallion and Asaad not be nearing returns.  I believe he's banking hard on those returns and might have gone into deadline with a more kick the tires approach.

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

Beyond the question about extension in hand, I wonder what his course of action might have been had Tallion and Asaad not be nearing returns.  I believe he's banking hard on those returns and might have gone into deadline with a more kick the tires approach.

I do think that probably played a role in the Cubs not grabbing an Adrian Hauser type. But I would guess that his pursuit of the biggest fish would have played out in a similar way regardless of those two. Neither Taillon or Assad are good enough they belong  written into a playoff rotation in permanent marker, and while I think both are useful MLB arms, neither are overly impactful.

[Jeff Alson]

Jason makes some valid points (such as prospect depreciation) and is more "rational" than a lot of Cub fans today, but his argument would have been stronger if he would have given some specific examples of how irrational he thinks Hoyer should have been.

It appears that this was the most extreme starting pitcher sellers market ever. By my count, exactly one (Kelly) of the top 8 (Ryan, Gore, Cease, Cabrera, Keller, Alcantara, Gallen) playoff- caliber starting pitchers were traded. 

The Dbacks wanted young pitching for the rental Kelly and got 3 good pitching prospects from the Rangers. Jason, we probably could have gotten Kelly for Wiggins and Gallagher, would you have done that? I would not.

The controllable options like Ryan, Gore, and Cabrera probably would have required 3-4 times more prospect capital. Jason would you have traded Wiggins, Caissie, Ballasteros, and Rojas for 2-3 years of Ryan, Gore, or Cabrera? I would not.

Hoyer's rationality has led to successes and failures. The Baez trade may go down as one of the greatest trades in Cub (baseball?) history, and not resigning Bryant was brilliant. The Busch and Palencia trades, and the Suzuki, Imanaga, Boyd, and Kelly free agent signings have all been great. He even went irrational "just once" for one year of Tucker! Of course, lots of failures too, with Schwarber, Darvish, Pressley, Neris, and Quintana, and others.

This is not 2016 where we are one player away from clearly being the World Series favorite. Even before the deadline, the Dodgers and Phillies and maybe the Mets would have been favored over the Cubs + a new starting pitcher. We are a top heavy system right now, and decimating it to improve our WS chances by a percent doesn't make sense to me.

[Jason Ross]

18 minutes ago, Jeff Alson said:

Jason makes some valid points (such as prospect depreciation) and is more "rational" than a lot of Cub fans today, but his argument would have been stronger if he would have given some specific examples of how irrational he thinks Hoyer should have been.

It appears that this was the most extreme starting pitcher sellers market ever. By my count, exactly one (Kelly) of the top 8 (Ryan, Gore, Cease, Cabrera, Keller, Alcantara, Gallen) playoff- caliber starting pitchers were traded. 

The Dbacks wanted young pitching for the rental Kelly and got 3 good pitching prospects from the Rangers. Jason, we probably could have gotten Kelly for Wiggins and Gallagher, would you have done that? I would not.

The controllable options like Ryan, Gore, and Cabrera probably would have required 3-4 times more prospect capital. Jason would you have traded Wiggins, Caissie, Ballasteros, and Rojas for 2-3 years of Ryan, Gore, or Cabrera? I would not.

Hoyer's rationality has led to successes and failures. The Baez trade may go down as one of the greatest trades in Cub (baseball?) history, and not resigning Bryant was brilliant. The Busch and Palencia trades, and the Suzuki, Imanaga, Boyd, and Kelly free agent signings have all been great. He even went irrational "just once" for one year of Tucker! Of course, lots of failures too, with Schwarber, Darvish, Pressley, Neris, and Quintana, and others.

This is not 2016 where we are one player away from clearly being the World Series favorite. Even before the deadline, the Dodgers and Phillies and maybe the Mets would have been favored over the Cubs + a new starting pitcher. We are a top heavy system right now, and decimating it to improve our WS chances by a percent doesn't make sense to me.

So a few things:

You're right, the Cubs might not be a single individual player away from the WS like in 2016, but nothing I advocated here would suggest I wanted the Cubs to overpay for a rental. MacKenzie Gore, Joe Ryan, Edward Cabrera would have been here beyond 2026 - so it's just as much about helping today, but the next year and the the next year. I don't think the Cubs should have jumped for eight starts of Shane Bieber and thrown Jaxon Wiggins in the fire because you're right, we aren't one specific player away right now (though I do think a top-3 SP makes this team far more formidable in the playoffs in the interim and team who you could see ending up in some pretty advantageous spots).

Secondly, I refrained from specifics because I was not in the room. Would I have traded a few of Caissie, Wiggins, Rojas and Ballesteros for those arms? You bet your ass I would, Jeff. I'm the prospect guy and I would! Here's the thing; while all of those prospects have cool upsides, we way overrate how likely they are to get there. Most of those names will fall far short of whatever you've convinced yourself they might be. Prospects fail more often than they hit their 80% outcomes and most of those players will probably be "fine" as regulars. Part of the job of the team is to identify those players to the best of their ability who have the best shot at being good, but also which ones won't. 

Here's how irrational I would have gotten - if it meant keeping multiple top prospects, for the right pitcher, I would have considered using Cade Horton in a trade. I know, I know, it's sacrilege, but hear me out. First, you may not know this, but I was on a pretty small island in 2022 of very happy people with the Horton selection while many believed the Cubs had simply become enamored with him due to a good two starts in CWS - I like him a lot. But especially in an event where the Cubs were likely to shut him down in 2025 or move him to the pen, by trading Horton for, say Gore (as the lead piece) you lose little innings and value immediately. 2026 would see the return of Justin Steele, and you'd have Gore, Steele, Boyd, and Shota. Now, I'll preface this by this trade would have had to have kept Wiggins, and internally you'd had to believe Wiggins was 2026 ready, but then mid-year you have Wiggins do the 2025-Hortont thing. Your rotation is fine. Your depth is still there with Assad, Birdsell, Sanders and Wicks. It's not a deathknell. 

Would that have sucked a little? You bet'cha! And it's just one idea, though I think it highlights my point here - if you want to make things happen, it hurts almost every time. The Dodgers, the Yankees, the Padres and the Phillies do things every year that hurt, but they are also consistently improving themselves. The Padres have traded away tons of talent and survive. I don't need the Cubs to go full Preller, but a little Preller would probably be good for Jed. The Cubs improve but rarely by magnitudes. I don't need the Cubs to trade every prospect - but they do need to get over this idea that the value has to always be 1:1. Sometimes you trade too much, but as they say "a bird in the hand..." We have been waiting for a controlled SP since last deadline, and yet, nothing. Thus far, there have been no two birds in the bush.

[gflore34]

Is it possible Jed over values Cassie, etc.?  Hence, leading to him being reluctant to take a risk?

I wouldn't have traded them for rentals, there I don't blame Jed, but, I would have traded any of the top prospects for, say, Joe Ryan.  Traded them with absolutely no reservations.

Edited August 1, 2025 by gflore34

[Jason Ross]

Just now, gflore34 said:

Is it possible Jed over values Cassie, etc.?  Hence, leading to him being reluctant to take a risk?

Based on all of the trades the Cubs make, and almost all of the signings, one thing I trust is that Jed Hoyer is very good at accurately placing value on baseball players. I have rarely hated any move he's made and even the bad ones are just a few million dollars here, or a sightly prospect quibble there. I trust he's got a pretty fair value on Caissie. 

I just suspect that Jed Hoyer is very inflexible in how he values things to go beyond what he feels is fair. In similar molds, I suspect Andrew Friedman, and AJ Preller value players well, but they have more (and in the case of Preller, maybe a bit too much) of an ability to know when the right time to go a bit beyond their value to simply ensure they get their guy. 

Jed has always felt like he's just unflinching in that aspect. Which leads to the Cubs never being hosed in a trade, but probably why the last two years at the deadline, the Cubs were unable to swing a needle shifting move.

[We Got The Whole 9]

Maybe this is the offense next year lol

 

C - Amaya/Kelly

1B - Busch/Long

2B - Nico

SS - Swanson

3B - Shaw

LF - Caissie

CF - PCA 

RF - Alcantara 

DH - Mo

 

Triantos

Fodder 

 

 

 

 

[Arlen]

LIKE: 

• Long range view for excellence over the years.
• Keeping sports inflation down
• Trying-out and keeping the best prospects

DISLIKE:

• Pundits trying to make money by pushing the teams they haunt to overpay and toss the future away for immediate jazz.
• Throwing Cam Smith away for one season of Kyle Tucker.

Go Ricketts, Go Ricketts-disciplined Hoyer. Go Cubs Go.

PS: God bless you, Jason, you could have edited your article down by about 40% to avoid redundancy.

Edited August 1, 2025 by Arlen

[Jason Ross]

18 minutes ago, Arlen said:

LIKE: 

• Long range view for excellence over the years.
• Keeping sports inflation down

DISLIKE:

• Pundits trying to make money by pushing the teams they haunt to overpay and toss the future away for immediate jazz.

Go Ricketts, Go Hoyer. Go Cubs Go.

Controllable talent is not "immediate jazz", and I cannot understand how you could possibly read the 1,700+ words I wrote in the article, or the subsequent 500 in responses here and come to that conclusion. Prospects are assets, you use some for your roster, and you trade others. 

Let's do a quick exercise and assume the Cubs don't resign Kyle Tucker for a moment. I'll even go as far as to pretend that it's a Tucker choice and not a Ricketts issue (which, I'll be honest, I don't believe would be the case). This opens up RF or DH, depending on what you do with Suzuki. Where exactly will the Cubs play the following players
1. Owen Caissie - who will at that stage have 1,100 PA's in Triple-A
2. Kevin Alcantara - who will be on his last option year and have 600+ PA's in Triple-A
3. Jonathon Long - who will have 600+ PA's at Triple-A
4. Moises Ballesteros - who will have 800 PA's at Triple-A

I am curious as to where you think all four will go at this stage. 

That is four people for one spot. Now, you might say "put some on the bench!" which, okay, but that's a weird usage of assets. Bench players aren't difficult to find, and are relatively cheap. If you view these players as starting level MLB players (remember, you don't want to trade them for "immediate jazz") then playing them for 200 PA's next year is wasting what they could be. If instead you view them as backups, well then, might as well trade them for immediate jazz, huh? None will improve their stock in Triple-A or have much more to do there, so placing them back in Iowa is not a particularly great idea, either. Either they perform and you go "yeah but he's at 800+ PA's" or they don't and it's red-flag city.

Do you expect the trade value of the controlled SP market to come down? This is the same market the Cubs waded into this offseason by engaging with the White Sox, the Mariners and the Marlins and could not find an acceptable price then, with prices being presumably too large. How much more value do you expect Owen Caissie or Kevin Alcantara will have? What if, let's say, Caissie has a mediocre month, or one where he strikes out a bunch again? Then what? 

This is the issue with passing on the market once again. The Cubs have consistently kicked the can down the road, and by this offseason will start to get into a point of diminishing returns as is. So, if not yesterday, when do the Cubs address their needs?

[We Got The Whole 9]

11 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Controllable talent is not "immediate jazz", and I cannot understand how you could possibly read the 1,700+ words I wrote in the article, or the subsequent 500 in responses here and come to that conclusion. Prospects are assets, you use some for your roster, and you trade others. 

Let's do a quick exercise and assume the Cubs don't resign Kyle Tucker for a moment. I'll even go as far as to pretend that it's a Tucker choice and not a Ricketts issue (which, I'll be honest, I don't believe would be the case). This opens up RF or DH, depending on what you do with Suzuki. Where exactly will the Cubs play the following players
1. Owen Caissie - who will at that stage have 1,100 PA's in Triple-A
2. Kevin Alcantara - who will be on his last option year and have 600+ PA's in Triple-A
3. Jonathon Long - who will have 600+ PA's at Triple-A
4. Moises Ballesteros - who will have 800 PA's at Triple-A

I am curious as to where you think all four will go at this stage. 

That is four people for one spot. Now, you might say "put some on the bench!" which, okay, but that's a weird usage of assets. Bench players aren't difficult to find, and are relatively cheap. If you view these players as starting level MLB players (remember, you don't want to trade them for "immediate jazz") then playing them for 200 PA's next year is wasting what they could be. If instead you view them as backups, well then, might as well trade them for immediate jazz, huh? None will improve their stock in Triple-A or have much more to do there, so placing them back in Iowa is not a particularly great idea, either. Either they perform and you go "yeah but he's at 800+ PA's" or they don't and it's red-flag city.

Do you expect the trade value of the controlled SP market to come down? This is the same market the Cubs waded into this offseason by engaging with the White Sox, the Mariners and the Marlins and could not find an acceptable price then, with prices being presumably too large. How much more value do you expect Owen Caissie or Kevin Alcantara will have? What if, let's say, Caissie has a mediocre month, or one where he strikes out a bunch again? Then what? 

This is the issue with passing on the market once again. The Cubs have consistently kicked the can down the road, and by this offseason will start to get into a point of diminishing returns as is. So, if not yesterday, when do the Cubs address their needs?

They'll trade Happ and Seiya for pitching help and put Caissie in LF and Mo at DH, then Alcantara at RF. The OF defense will get a significant boost and they will get those 3 spots fill for 1.5m.

[Jeff Alson]

Jason, you are the first to suggest that Long is ready to be a "starting level MLB player" at a position that demands better-than-average offense. I think Hoyer would have jumped at the opportunity to get any kind of meaningful value for Long, particularly since it looks like Busch will cover first base for the next 5 years. Instead, I never heard even a peep about anyone valuing Long in that way.

And Alcantara still seems to be more of a low floor/high ceiling project than someone ready to take over a full-time role on a contending team. Maybe another year will show that he is ready for 2027, when everything changes with Suzuki and Happ becoming free agents. 

On the other hand, I think there is more consensus about Caissie and Ballasteros being ready, and that is where your concept of depreciation is one relevant factor.

If Tucker doesn't sign with the Cubs, which is certainly the most likely scenario given the number of teams that will be pursuing him, then I foresee Caissie and Ballasteros competing for Tucker's spot in the lineup (with the option of moving Suzuki back to right). The other would be a bench player, but one good hitter on the bench is hardly a waste given the prevalence of injuries in the modern game, the need to rest players once every week or two, and the occasional need for a pinch hitter.

If Tucker re-signs, then I would foresee moving Caissie over the winter. While I generally agree with you about depreciation, I hardly think there would be much depreciation on a young player who spends an additional two months at AAA. His value could go down if he has a horrible two months, of course, but it could also go up if he continues his hot streak and shows that he can keep his K rate down for an extended period.

I also think it is possible that, as an admitted "prospect guy," you over rate the Cubs prospects. I hoped that they could get reasonable value for Caissie, and I believe Hoyer did too, but you can't make other GMs value your prospects any more than they do. As you say, we weren't in the room.

[Jason Ross]

22 minutes ago, Jeff Alson said:

Jason, you are the first to suggest that Long is ready to be a "starting level MLB player" at a position that demands better-than-average offense. I think Hoyer would have jumped at the opportunity to get any kind of meaningful value for Long, particularly since it looks like Busch will cover first base for the next 5 years. Instead, I never heard even a peep about anyone valuing Long in that way.

And Alcantara still seems to be more of a low floor/high ceiling project than someone ready to take over a full-time role on a contending team. Maybe another year will show that he is ready for 2027, when everything changes with Suzuki and Happ becoming free agents. 

On the other hand, I think there is more consensus about Caissie and Ballasteros being ready, and that is where your concept of depreciation is one relevant factor.

If Tucker doesn't sign with the Cubs, which is certainly the most likely scenario given the number of teams that will be pursuing him, then I foresee Caissie and Ballasteros competing for Tucker's spot in the lineup (with the option of moving Suzuki back to right). The other would be a bench player, but one good hitter on the bench is hardly a waste given the prevalence of injuries in the modern game, the need to rest players once every week or two, and the occasional need for a pinch hitter.

If Tucker re-signs, then I would foresee moving Caissie over the winter. While I generally agree with you about depreciation, I hardly think there would be much depreciation on a young player who spends an additional two months at AAA. His value could go down if he has a horrible two months, of course, but it could also go up if he continues his hot streak and shows that he can keep his K rate down for an extended period.

I also think it is possible that, as an admitted "prospect guy," you over rate the Cubs prospects. I hoped that they could get reasonable value for Caissie, and I believe Hoyer did too, but you can't make other GMs value your prospects any more than they do. As you say, we weren't in the room.

I don't think I'm over valuing Cubs prospects when I say that the Cubs should overpay to get what they want. If anything, I think that shows I'm probably valuing them less than fans who defend the process of keeping the prospects, wouldn't you think?

Kevin Alcantara probably can show little in 2026 that is going to make anyone more confident about him. He will be 24, and repeating Triple-A for a third time. Any positives from next season will be met with heavy scrutiny; his age is no longer working his direction nor will his data. Sure, if he makes more contact on breaking balls that's not a bad thing, but is it just because he's 24 and doing it for a third time? He's kind of MLB ready by opening day - you either see what he is or isn't, but there probably isn't a good route to that with he and Caissie. 

Jonathon Long is also likely ready. His batted ball data is extremely good. I've got questions on power potential (as a 1b/Dh at 18-25 home runs the landing strip is narrow) but that's not going to be answered in Iowa by next year. There is no path for him currently that isn't as a short side platoon and his splits skew towards him being better against RHP. 

And while none of these guys on the bench is a complete waste, it's a misuse of funds. You aren't saving much financially by paying Jonathon Long as your backup 1b - you're saving $3-$5m; it's an easy price to both find and pay bench players. Rookies you feel have starting potential should be starting, as they are saving you more money and thus are a better value prop. By instead taking your prospects and flipping them for useable assets and then just signing a utility player, you make your team better - the Cubs cannot sign an impact SP for $5m. We cannot fear the future so much so that we ignore these holes just because we're afraid we might lose a good player.

Lastly, these prospects outside of Alcantara don't lend themselves to a modern MLB bench as is. With the modern DH, you have effectively four bench places for the entire team. The Cubs have two catchers, so what versatility is Ballesteros bringing on the bench? He's LHH and hasn't hit lefties well, so he can't platoon with Busch. He can't play anything other than C/1b, and any one can DH and defensively at catcher is well, well beyond Amaya and Kelly currently. Long is effectively a 1b/Dh who hits RHP better as well - he might moonlight 5-7 games at 3b, but that's it. This cannot be an effective MLB bench. 

It leads the Cubs to a very difficult position. These prospects are too similar in age, ETA and lack versatility among themselves. They don't fit the current roster nor will they fit it better in 2026. Prospects should be seen as assets first and foremost, and some of those assets need to be rearranged in a better way. The Cubs can't really keep both Caissie and Alcantara. They can't really keep both Long and Ballesteros. Two of these four make sense, all four do not. 

2025 will suffer for the Cubs keeping assets that will be unlikely to add much. 2026 will suffer similarly if they further refuse to move off of them. By 2027, the Cubs system will look very different; they have drafted three new OF'ers, they will see more popup prospects as well. What they lose, they should feel confident in recreating shortly.

[Arlen]

On 8/1/2025 at 9:48 AM, Jason Ross said:

Controllable talent is not "immediate jazz", and I cannot understand how you could possibly read the 1,700+ words I wrote in the article, or the subsequent 500 in responses here and come to that conclusion. Prospects are assets, you use some for your roster, and you trade others. 

Let's do a quick exercise and assume the Cubs don't resign Kyle Tucker for a moment. I'll even go as far as to pretend that it's a Tucker choice and not a Ricketts issue (which, I'll be honest, I don't believe would be the case). This opens up RF or DH, depending on what you do with Suzuki. Where exactly will the Cubs play the following players
1. Owen Caissie - who will at that stage have 1,100 PA's in Triple-A
2. Kevin Alcantara - who will be on his last option year and have 600+ PA's in Triple-A
3. Jonathon Long - who will have 600+ PA's at Triple-A
4. Moises Ballesteros - who will have 800 PA's at Triple-A

I am curious as to where you think all four will go at this stage. 

That is four people for one spot. Now, you might say "put some on the bench!" which, okay, but that's a weird usage of assets. Bench players aren't difficult to find, and are relatively cheap. If you view these players as starting level MLB players (remember, you don't want to trade them for "immediate jazz") then playing them for 200 PA's next year is wasting what they could be. If instead you view them as backups, well then, might as well trade them for immediate jazz, huh? None will improve their stock in Triple-A or have much more to do there, so placing them back in Iowa is not a particularly great idea, either. Either they perform and you go "yeah but he's at 800+ PA's" or they don't and it's red-flag city.

Do you expect the trade value of the controlled SP market to come down? This is the same market the Cubs waded into this offseason by engaging with the White Sox, the Mariners and the Marlins and could not find an acceptable price then, with prices being presumably too large. How much more value do you expect Owen Caissie or Kevin Alcantara will have? What if, let's say, Caissie has a mediocre month, or one where he strikes out a bunch again? Then what? 

This is the issue with passing on the market once again. The Cubs have consistently kicked the can down the road, and by this offseason will start to get into a point of diminishing returns as is. So, if not yesterday, when do the Cubs address their needs?

Good analysis, but chances are, only two will be good MLB players, and perhaps one of them a big star. Jed Hoyer can't know which ones those are.