Cubs 2025 Season Review/Offseason Preview Thread

[Geographyhater8888]

Cubs rank 26th in terms of % of revenue being invested in the team payroll ahead of the Marlins, Pirates, Whitesox and A’s, the usual suspects.

[Geographyhater8888]

7 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The Cubs finished five games behind the Brewers. Matt Shaw was worth 1.4 fWAR and Alex Bregman was worth 3.5 fWAR. The Cubs would have still finished behind the Brewers. They would have added two wins of value, it doesn't matter if Bregman was better than Shaw early, they finished here; that's their total value, it's all that matters in this discussion. 

And if we are to believe that the Cubs were going to trade Hoerner to offset the price of Bregman (I'm not sure for who, or what, or how at that point), there's a reality where the Cubs were made worse by trading Hoerner, who was better than Bregman anyways. 

There's lots of arguments that surround the Cubs being a player short for the 2025 season, but I think you're over rating what an Alex Bregman signing would have resulted in. 

That’s why you trade Shaw, not Nico. Because there was 2 months of Brujan, Berti and Workman who were all DFAd and missing Taillon and Shota for months long stretches forcing Ben brown to pitch every 5 games. Then add the wins from the pitcher they fetch for Shaw and who knows. If you wanted to cash in on Tuckers one year here that’s a decent path to take. 

Edited October 16, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

12 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

That’s why you trade Shaw, not Nico. Because there was 2 months of Brujan, Berti and Workman who were all DFAd and missing Taillon and Shota for months long stretches forcing Ben brown to pitch every 5 games. Then add the wins from the pitcher they fetch for Shaw and who knows. If you wanted to cash in on Tuckers one year here that’s a decent path to take. 

Brujan, Berti and Workman did not add up to a negative 3 fWAR at the 3b position. Combined they were less than a full win. The Cubs still lose the division by multiple games. 

Secondly, you seem to want to gloss over the Hoerner stuff, but the talk was offsetting the price spent on Bregman as to why the Cubs considered it. That's probably an important factor. Again, the return is a fictional answer with nothing but conjecture, however if the Cubs were looking to actually offset money than Shaw wasn't going to be traded. We can take what we want for that reporting, but it can't just be entirely ignored either. 

Even if we want to say "trade Shaw", what player do we think was available for a rookie that late in the off-season? What player would have tipped the scale more? It's unlikely that late into the off-season you are getting an established player for a rookie. What else might have been added? We begin running into a lot of what ifs here. 

Because of that, I'll say again, you are over zealous on your assumption that a Bregman signing gets the Cubs the division or beyond the NLDS. 

[Bertz]

Bregman fell off hard in the second half.  Shaw had a 130 wRC+ in the second half, Bregman had a 101.  Seems weird for the person whose pretty much whole thing is "but what has the offense done lately" to advocate for Bregman.

[Geographyhater8888]

34 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Brujan, Berti and Workman did not add up to a negative 3 fWAR at the 3b position. Combined they were less than a full win. The Cubs still lose the division by multiple games. 

Secondly, you seem to want to gloss over the Hoerner stuff, but the talk was offsetting the price spent on Bregman as to why the Cubs considered it. That's probably an important factor. Again, the return is a fictional answer with nothing but conjecture, however if the Cubs were looking to actually offset money than Shaw wasn't going to be traded. We can take what we want for that reporting, but it can't just be entirely ignored either. 

Once again, you are over zealous on your assumption that a Bregman signing gets the Cubs the division or beyond the NLDS. 

It’s Bregman+ a Mackenzie Gore or whoever you’d fetch for Shaw. My issue is more with ownership than Jed. I know he has his hands tied behind his back to varying degrees. A cost controlled starter you’d fetch for Shaw that the Cubs were in desperate of need of if you watched game 1 in Milwaukee. Once Horton broke his rib and Imanaga was unpitchable I’d say that increases their odds a bit. He was pretty much a key piece in all trade talks involving a true difference making pitcher.

Edited October 16, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Geographyhater8888]

14 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Bregman fell off hard in the second half.  Shaw had a 130 wRC+ in the second half, Bregman had a 101.  Seems weird for the person whose pretty much whole thing is "but what has the offense done lately" to advocate for Bregman.

Bregman and the starting pitcher Matt Shaw would net you. In theory. It’s about the process. My issue is with ownership putting a leash on Jed. Jed wanted Bregman too. How would he know Nico was going to have a career year? How would he know Tucker would go on the worst slump of his career and then miss the final month of the season because of injury? Bad trade too? Bellinger had a high fWAR and if you subtract the short porch and put him in Wrigley he’s down, 1 win? 
 

Edited October 16, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

40 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

It’s Bregman+ a Mackenzie Gore or whoever you’d fetch for Shaw. My issue is more with ownership than Jed. I know he has his hands tied behind his back to varying degrees. A cost controlled starter you’d fetch for Shaw that the Cubs were in desperate of need of if you watched game 1 in Milwaukee. Once Horton broke his rib and Imanaga was unpitchable I’d say that increases their odds a bit. He was pretty much a key piece in all trade talks involving a true difference making pitcher.

Let's look to how the Cubs handled the succession plan to Kyle Tucker for inspiration to see what they would have done to succeed an opting out Alex Bregman. I think it's becoming pretty clear to all of us that the Cubs are not going to win a Kyle Tucker sweeps this offseason and likely have been planning for that case in some fashion. They did not trade any of his direct successions, either at RF (Caissie, Alcantara) or at DH if they moved Suzuki back to RF (Ballesteros, Long). Matt Shaw was the direct plan here - Long can't play 3b well enough and they had already moved Cam Smith. Do we really think the Cubs were going to move off of Shaw? 

The answer is almost assuredly no. It's easy to say "well just trade him!" but the Cubs already opted not to trade for Gore at the deadline it's probably equally unlikely they'd have managed to make that swing including the Bregman succession plan during Spring Training. What the Cubs would have likely done with Matt Shaw is exactly what they did with the rest of these prospects; sent him to Iowa for a 2025 season. 

I'm not advocating the Cubs not flex financial muscle and add to their team, but you can make a compelling argument that based on how the Cubs operate that they're in a better position in 2026 having not done this. The Cubs don't typically make mechanical changes for players until they struggle and Shaw has enough data in Iowa for us to know he wasn't going to struggle there in 2025. We know what a rookie 2025 Shaw looks like and a rookie Shaw in 2026 looks very similar, almost assuredly. But instead of having a healthy and bashing Kyle Tucker in RF to offset, the Cubs will probably have a second rookie (be it Caissie or Ballesteros) in the lineup. As stated, the fWAR difference doesn't make up the Brewers amount of Ws and Bregman probably doesn't change much in the playoffs until you get to 4 PA's in Game 5 to hope for a different outcome.

All of this comes right back to the original point; you're over valuing the difference in 2025 outcomes by signing Bregman.

[Geographyhater8888]

12 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

 

I'm not advocating the Cubs not flex financial muscle and add to their team, but you can make a compelling argument that based on how the Cubs operate that they're in a better position in 2026 having not done this.
All of this comes right back to the original point; you're over valuing the difference in 2025 outcomes by signing Bregman.

Which is my fundamental problem. Jed is operating on the boundaries set by ownership, which me and everyone else takes issue with. 26th in % of revenue being spent on the team payroll is unacceptable.  

Edited October 16, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Which is my fundamental problem. Jed is operating on the boundaries set by ownership, which is me and everyone else take issue with. 26th in % of revenue being spent on the team payroll is unacceptable.

Sure, I have those frustrations too. But that's 100% moving the goalposts of what I responded to originally. Your point was not that the Chicago Cubs need to operate more like a top-5-market, but that Alex Bregman would have put the Cubs in the NLCS and would have won the division, which is just almost entirely factually untrue. 

I wish the Cubs had a different owner, I wish Jed had a bit more of a gunslinger mentality at times, but these are beyond the scope of your original argument. We live in a world where those things would have been true had the Cubs signed Bregman or not. 

If we want to live in an alternate universe where the Cubs signed Bregman, Shaw would have been no more expendable to Jed Hoyer. I think the Cubs spending limits hamstrings the Cubs in a way for sure, but Jed also operates in a very meticulous and value driven way. You made it clear Jed was still in charge of the club in your post, so no, I don't think that would have changed anything. 

[Geographyhater8888]

10 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Sure, I have those frustrations too. But that's 100% moving the goalposts of what I responded to originally. Your point was not that the Chicago Cubs need to operate more like a top-5-market, but that Alex Bregman would have put the Cubs in the NLCS and would have won the division, which is just almost entirely factually untrue. 

I wish the Cubs had a different owner, I wish Jed had a bit more of a gunslinger mentality at times, but these are beyond the scope of your original argument. We live in a world where those things would have been true had the Cubs signed Bregman or not. 

Because Jed offered Bregman a contract he’d accept and Tom said no. Too much money. So they lowered their offer and he chose Boston for more money and less years. That opens up the door for all these possibilities that Jed may or not have had in mind because his hands were tied. We complain about picking lanes, giving out a large contract to a third baseman was Jed picking a lane that was foisted by Tom. I simply spit balled some hypotheticals.

Edited October 16, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Because Jed offered Bregman a contract he’d accept and Tom said no. Too much money. So they lowered their offer and he chose Boston for more money and less years. That opens up the door for all these possibilities that Jed may or not have had in mind because his hands were tied. We complain about picking lanes, giving out a large contract to a third baseman was Jed picking a lane that was foisted by Tom. I simply spit balled some hypotheticals.

Right, but they're not hypotheticals based on how Hoyer acts. And again, it ignores the situation the Cubs would be in 2026.

Who is starting at 3b? Bregman has opted out. Who's starting in RF? Tucker is a free agent. The Cubs have no internal option for 3b like they do in the OF. Sure the rotation is already fixed, but this offseason is far more flush in rotational options. 

It opens a can of worms that really isn't being paid attention to. MacKenzie Gore had a 4.96x FIP post deadline. Bregman had a 101 wRC+ post deadline. While both would have added value prior to July, neither were looking like massive helps in the playoffs. Which once again dents the NLCS argument. 

You made it very simple but the equation is far more nuanced than "Sign Bregman...profit!". 

[Bertz]

8 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Because Jed offered Bregman a contract he’d accept and Tom said no. Too much money. So they lowered their offer and he chose Boston for more money and less years. That opens up the door for all these possibilities that Jed may or not have had in mind because his hands were tied. We complain about picking lanes, giving out a large contract to a third baseman was Jed picking a lane that was foisted by Tom. I simply spit balled some hypotheticals.

 

[Geographyhater8888]

26 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Right, but they're not hypotheticals based on how Hoyer acts. And again, it ignores the situation the Cubs would be in 2026.

Who is starting at 3b? Bregman has opted out. Who's starting in RF? Tucker is a free agent. The Cubs have no internal option for 3b like they do in the OF. Sure the rotation is already fixed, but this offseason is far more flush in rotational options. 

It opens a can of worms that really isn't being paid attention to. MacKenzie Gore had a 4.96x FIP post deadline. Bregman had a 101 wRC+ post deadline. While both would have added value prior to July, neither were looking like massive helps in the playoffs. Which once again dents the NLCS argument. 

You made it very simple but the equation is far more nuanced than "Sign Bregman...profit!". 

That was Jed’s idea. Sign Bregman. Maybe he wanted to sign Snell, Fried or Burnes. But Jed has to act a certain way due to circumstances out of his control. And Burnes would’ve made no difference with that injury. Either way he was forced to sign Boyd. Great pickup, but still a number 3 starter. 
But the whole point is that Shaw isn’t expendable which you explained to me. Point taken.

Edited October 16, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Rcal10]

51 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Because Jed offered Bregman a contract he’d accept and Tom said no. Too much money. So they lowered their offer and he chose Boston for more money and less years. 

 

42 minutes ago, Bertz said:

 

Exactly. Where is this idea that Tom didn’t agree to a contract with Bregman coming from? I never remember a report that said Bregman agreed to a deal but Rom wouldn’t sign off on it. 

[Geographyhater8888]

6 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

 

Exactly. Where is this idea that Tom didn’t agree to a contract with Bregman coming from? I never remember a report that said Bregman agreed to a deal but Rom wouldn’t sign off on it. 

This was reported by Jesse Rodgers on ESPN1000 at around the 9:27:00 mark on the YouTube livestream yesterday. I can’t find it on a Google search. Take it with a grain of salt if you want but to paraphrase Jed had a 5-7 year offer ready for Boras, Jed asked Tom for permission and he vetoed the initial offer. I only know the years. They lowered their price tag and he ultimately chose Boston. It wasn’t officially offered because he needed ownership’s permission. Maybe he has wrong information, but I don’t think Tom dwarves the benefit of the doubt here.

[Rcal10]

55 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

This was reported by Jesse Rodgers on ESPN1000 at around the 9:27:00 mark on the YouTube livestream yesterday. I can’t find it on a Google search. Take it with a grain of salt if you want but to paraphrase Jed had a 5-7 year offer ready for Boras, Jed asked Tom for permission and he vetoed the initial offer. I only know the years. They lowered their price tag and he ultimately chose Boston. It wasn’t officially offered because he needed ownership’s permission. Maybe he has wrong information, but I don’t think Tom dwarves the benefit of the doubt here.

I agree Tom does not get the benefit of the doubt. Just never saw this before. However, I agree with Jason that it wouldn’t have mattered last year. This year, maybe he is the big bat signing. But they need at least 1 TOR starter too. Maybe they don’t offer Imanaga a contract. Maybe they trade Tailon. Maybe they replace both of them with better pitchers. Trade for either Ryan, Gore, Alcantara, Cabrera or even Lopez then sign either Cease, King, Suarez, Valdez or Gallen. In that scenerio Horton is #3 and Boyd#4 until Steele gets back. Until then #5 is any of Rea/Brown/Wicks/Assad. They also have Wiggins waiting for a call up.
Even if they did sign Bregman or Bichette, I wouldn’t deal Shaw. He would be my utility guy who gets 3 games a week filling in around the infield and as DH. 

[I owned a Suzuki]

7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I agree Tom does not get the benefit of the doubt. Just never saw this before. However, I agree with Jason that it wouldn’t have mattered last year. This year, maybe he is the big bat signing. But they need at least 1 TOR starter too. Maybe they don’t offer Imanaga a contract. Maybe they trade Tailon. Maybe they replace both of them with better pitchers. Trade for either Ryan, Gore, Alcantara, Cabrera or even Lopez then sign either Cease, King, Suarez, Valdez or Gallen. In that scenerio Horton is #3 and Boyd#4 until Steele gets back. Until then #5 is any of Rea/Brown/Wicks/Assad. They also have Wiggins waiting for a call up.
Even if they did sign Bregman or Bichette, I wouldn’t deal Shaw. He would be my utility guy who gets 3 games a week filling in around the infield and as DH. 

You would have to trade something to get a TOR starter. Assuming Ballesteros and Caisse are part of the replacing Tucker plan. What else is left? I think Shaw is playing 140 games at 3rd next year and any pitching improvements will be FAs. Which from a Cub fan perspective means finding value in the secondary market

[CDM0481]

What has Bregman done the last six seasons that would warrant anything beyond a 2 to 3 year deal, especially at $40m AAV? He’s 32, and had a 2+ WAR vs Shaw, a rookie, who clearly got better over the course of season. Bregman is solid, but does anyone honestly believe  the Cubs would or should pay this guy $40m+ the next 4-6 years?

 

[CubinNY]

They need a functional bench and a lockdown reliever or two. Those are the hardest to find and least reliable commodities in baseball. 

It looked to me that they wore down as the season progressed and management wasn't comfortable enough to give days off to guys who needed it. It's a frustrating sport that only seems to be getting more frustrating as the owners collectively prepare for the next strike or lockout, aiming to grab even more of the pie. 

[DrCub]

4 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Cubs rank 26th in terms of % of revenue being invested in the team payroll ahead of the Marlins, Pirates, Whitesox and A’s, the usual suspects.

Is this a real stat?  If so, FTR.

[Rcal10]

47 minutes ago, I owned a Suzuki said:

You would have to trade something to get a TOR starter. Assuming Ballesteros and Caisse are part of the replacing Tucker plan. What else is left? I think Shaw is playing 140 games at 3rd next year and any pitching improvements will be FAs. Which from a Cub fan perspective means finding value in the secondary market

Well if you signed Bichette or Bregman that person would be the replacement plan for Tucker. So they can trade Cassie and/or Ballesteros plus lower level prospects to get a pitcher. Doesn’t have to be either of those guys anyway. Just responding to GH8888 regarding Bregman. If they seriously wanted him last year, this year shouldn’t be any different. But not at $ years and $40M a year, as someone else suggested. He would have to be a lower budget signing then Tucker. Maybe 5/$140M. Besides those two there is also Bellinger and even Alonso if he is ok as a DH, mainly. If they sign one of those guys the trade bait for a young, TOR/MOR starter would be Cassie/Ballasteros/Shaw/Alcantara plus lower prospects. Not all of them. But maybe a combo. 

[Rcal10]

38 minutes ago, CDM0481 said:

What has Bregman done the last six seasons that would warrant anything beyond a 2 to 3 year deal, especially at $40m AAV? He’s 32, and had a 2+ WAR vs Shaw, a rookie, who clearly got better over the course of season. Bregman is solid, but does anyone honestly believe  the Cubs would or should pay this guy $40m+ the next 4-6 years?

 

No one is suggesting giving Bregman $40m+ a year. Cubs certainly won’t not should they give him that. 

[Bertz]

48 minutes ago, I owned a Suzuki said:

You would have to trade something to get a TOR starter. Assuming Ballesteros and Caisse are part of the replacing Tucker plan. What else is left? I think Shaw is playing 140 games at 3rd next year and any pitching improvements will be FAs. Which from a Cub fan perspective means finding value in the secondary market

I think you can painlessly move one of the quartet of Iowa bats (Caissie, Ballesteros, Alcantara, Long) and one of the the Brown/Assad/Wicks trio this winter.  Realistically that fourth bat and third arm are going to spend most of the season languishing in Iowa if you keep them around.

Depending on how strict you want to be about defining "Top of the Rotation" and what the contract situation is of the guy you're targeting, I think that bat+arm combo gets you pretty far in a lot of trade convos. 

The better the name the more painful the convo, and the more likely you need to add a third piece of real substance.  That said short of like Paul Skenes I don't see much out out there that would absolutely require guys off the MLB roster or Jaxon Wiggins.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

38 minutes ago, DrCub said:

Is this a real stat?  If so, FTR.

It is.

[Cuzi]

It's like an entire NLC pact.