Theory, why we held onto to prospects

[Jssanto]

I think we kept Cassie and Alcantarra as replacements for Tucker next year. I just don’t see Ricketts paying what Tucker will get.

I also think they feel the need to plan for post Happ years and that might even be 2026 even tho controlled thru 2027.

We will need an infielder soon to replace Swanson. Whether that be moving Shaw to SS and finding a 3 B guy (sure wish Ballesteros could play third) or finding a SS. When will Rojas be ready?
Finally, getting Assad, Taillon, and Hodge back soon is like trading for bull pen help so I think they were less motivated for pitching.

[17 Seconds]

i don't think swanson is going anywhere anytime soon

[Derwood]

Isn't Swanson signed for 4 or 5 more seasons?

[Bertz]

Even if we say that the team has no intention of holding onto Tucker (which whatever, I have no interest in arguing that) there's really not room for all four of the Iowa bats who are currently pounding on the door.

After this season you're replacing Tucker and Turner, who will combine for 800-900 PAs this season.  So that's two kids playing not quite full time.  Maybe you keep a third for injury and redundancy?  That still leaves a guy who you have no room for on next year's squad.

More room opens up after next season, but there's not a realistic way to hold out for that.  At least three of those guys are MLB ready *right now*, and the fourth isn't super far off.  You can't just hold their development in stasis and wait 20 months to give them their first extended shot at the big leagues.

This week was the perfect time to deal at least one.  It's not the end of the world to make a deal this winter, but it comes at the expense of not improving a team that has a decent argument for being the best in the NL.  

[PackLandVA]

I believe it's been mentioned in other threads, but Jed "Value" Hoyer is probably waiting for the off season to trade some of the minor leaguers.  The price of players should come down, probaby considerably. It doesn't help for this season's playoff push, but it sets them up to be buyers over the winter. And I agree that Tucker will be a Cub for 2 1/2 more months. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

I'd bet money that Jed is gonna trade Happ and not extend Tucker 

[muntjack]

10 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I'd bet money that Jed is gonna trade Happ and not extend Tucker 

I think this is correct

[Rcal10]

10 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I'd bet money that Jed is gonna trade Happ and not extend Tucker 

Shocking that you take the negative POV. You are always so positive. 

[Backtobanks]

2 hours ago, Derwood said:

Isn't Swanson signed for 4 or 5 more seasons?

For a ton of money.

[Backtobanks]

24 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I'd bet money that Jed is gonna trade Happ and not extend Tucker 

And then dumpster dive and put more money into Ricketts pockets,

[Post Count Padder]

Happ has a NTC and took less money to stay. Doubt he'd agree to be traded. He and Dansby aren't going anywhere. Dansby hasn't been hitting but is still gonna put up a 4 win season. 

Agree though that there won't be room for all the kids in Iowa next year. Something had to give. 

[Donzo]

Happ, Suzuki and Hoerner are FAs after 2026. Need replacements for them, hopefully Suzuki is resigned. Also looking at a lockout in 2027. I think that's a big part of Hoyer's (Ricketts) planning.

The top prospects are ready for MLB. Some of them will be traded, some will be depth- thinking the cubs will have a lot of young depth next year.

Probably an 80% chance Tucker is gone. That puts Cassie in RF with Alcantara/Long as RH backup. Long is the logical replacement for Turner, so maybe both Long and Alcantara can make the team. that's a lot of young depth. Triantos is a good replacement for Berti, or he could be traded.

Some nice young pitching should be ready next year, too. Birdsell will be looking for MLB playing time in spring training. We need to see how Wiggins finishes this year. He could be looking at a Horton trajectory- get 6-8 quality starts in Iowa then up with the Cubs.

Lots of options. It'll be interesting to see who's signed, traded and promoted.

[Chicago Al]

Does anyone else here think Hoerner should get extended when his contract is up? 

[WhyCantWeWin]

We are stuck with swanson for a long time bro

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, Post Count Padder said:

Happ has a NTC and took less money to stay. Doubt he'd agree to be traded. He and Dansby aren't going anywhere. Dansby hasn't been hitting but is still gonna put up a 4 win season. 

Agree though that there won't be room for all the kids in Iowa next year. Something had to give. 

Yeah Happ's not going anywhere, and the small chance he does go somewhere is contingent on Tucker being re-signed.  

[chibears55]

Looking at future contracts for the current position players, only Swanson has a guarenteed deal pass 2026.  

Happ Suzuki Hoerner and Kelly contract expires after 2026

Tucker deal expires this season 

PCA Amaya Busch and Shaw are all under team control for a few more years.

 

Upcoming Prospects. 

Caissie(23) OF, Ballesteros(21) C/DH, Rojas(20) 2B/SS

Alcantara (23)OF, Long(23)CI/OF, Triantos(22) 2B/OF

These are for now, the position prospects that are ready or almost ready to move up.

2026 position players under contract/control

C. Amaya Kelly

1B Busch

2B Hoerner 

SS Swanson 

3B Shaw

LF Happ

CF PCA

RF  ?

DH Suzuki 

UT

UT

UT

UT

 

Now with the upcoming possibility of a strike for 2027,  theres that possibility that Hoyer/TR decides this offseason that it best to stick with what they have under contract/control and just play out 2026 and depending on where theyre at deadline 2026, they could move expiring contracts of Happ Suzuki Hoerner and Kelly. 

Happ and Suzuki : easier to get a waiver of NTC at deadline if theres zero interest to extend. 

Tucker: I can see Hoyer/TR pass on resigning Tucker for the years and money it'll cost if the plan is to just get through 2026 and move the expiring contracts, and prepare for a strike in 2027.

Caissie: He obviously would be the likely candidate to replace Tucker in RF.

Ballesteros: 21 yo, is still young enough to keep in Iowa another year or at least until they move guys at the 2026 deadline. 

Alcantara: has an opportunity to be the 4th OFer in 2026.

Long: has an opportunity to be the Turner guy but can also play OF in 2026

Triantos: has an opportunity to be a utility player in 2026

Rojas: being just 20 yo, will likely be up in 2027 or 2028 and can be Hoerner or Swanson replacement 

So, I can now see why Hoyer may have been reluctant to pull the trigger on dealing any of his top prospects, as he could have been really looking ahead to 2027 and beyond.

He will have more controllable players and money to spend on FA after the 2026 and more so 2027 season as he wont have many players under contract after 2026.

 

This is just my thoughts and opinion on this matter.

[Rcal10]

58 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Yeah Happ's not going anywhere, and the small chance he does go somewhere is contingent on Tucker being re-signed.  

I agree with this. I am more bullish than most that Tucker will be resigned, but even being bullish I have it at 30%. I at least do not see it as a foregone conclusion he won’t be here. Then, if he is signed I can see them looking into moving Happ. But even then, he has to waive a NTC and I don’t feel the Cubs will give him away. The idea of just plugging in one of the bats in the minors to replace Happ and that guy being as good as Happ from the start is just not realistic to me. As we have seen the past few years, rookies(even highly rated ones, struggle.. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

3 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Shocking that you take the negative POV. You are always so positive. 

It's looking at a roster realistically but horsefeathers you too

[We Got The Whole 9]

I crashed out once a couple months ago at the offense and haven't been really negative about anything else this year. Not complaining about Happ or Swanson. Never said Shaw needed to be benched, or the joined the anti-Jed chorus, but yet im this overly negative guy all the time. 

 

 

[I owned a Suzuki]

Counter theory. Signing Tucker will hamper the Cubs ability to resign or sign other players for several years. So having a productive minor league system producing cost controlled will be  important. 

In my counter theory, Happ or Suzuki would have to be traded. Which would be difficult, but its my counter theory

[cubfansince77]

4 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I'd bet money that Jed is gonna trade Happ and not extend Tucker 

Doubtful on Happ...he has a full no trade clause. Most of us don't think they'll re-sign Tucker which I feel two ways  about 1) sucks cuz we'll end up trading Paredes and Smith for ONE year of Tucker. I generally LIKE Jed but he's painted himself into a corner on this one 2)Do I think Tucker is worth a mega deal? Not really: no player is worth 400-500 mil over 10 years, it screws up the whole salary structure of a team. Lastly, Tuck is a really good player but not a great one. He's just not.

Edited August 2, 2025 by cubfansince77

[Transmogrified Tiger]

• Especially given the other position players already on the roster, replacing Tucker if they don't sign him will be about getting the best hitter they can, regardless of position.  Caissie and Alcantara are not reasonable candidates for that mantle, the more likely explanation is that teams asks for multi-year SP were beyond the pale because none were moved.
• I'm not sure I follow why not signing Tucker and trading Happ would work in tandem.  If anything it's the opposite because the motivation for trading Happ would be financial and absent Tucker you have less financial pressures.
• Given how little money is guaranteed beyond 2026, I find it hard to believe the team will be extra conservative because of the potential for a work stoppage or revamped CBA.  There's little they can do that would put them behind the 8 ball of any CBA outcome that is at all within reason.

[Rcal10]

40 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

It's looking at a roster realistically but horsefeathers you too

👍 classy. Pretty sure that is not acceptable language. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

4 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

👍 classy. Pretty sure that is not acceptable language. 

You called me out, show receipts or shut up.

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

You called me out, show receipts or shut up.

Dude, I made a joke about you not being positive too often. Hardly something that should have had the response I got. Settle down.