Cubs trade Kittredge to Baltimore

[UMFan83]

you read that right, Cash Considerations is a 2 sport athlete! (Bulls joke)

Kittredge had a $9m option for next year so I'm guessing this is instead of just not picking it up.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2025 by UMFan83

[Bertz]

I commented this on Trueblood's post this AM, but I would suspect letting Kittredge go is a sign they're planning to swim in deeper waters.  If you wanted to build another bullpen on a shoestring you probably pick up this option and then make a handful of Caleb Thielbar and Eli Morgan type moves.

Personally I would have kept Kittredge AND gone after e.g. a Devin Williams.  But if you're shopping for two SPs maybe that's not doable....

[squally1313]

On the one hand it's November 4th and I'm generally optimistic about things around here.

On the other hand there have been two moves today in which talented but flawed pitchers were basically sent away for either cash savings or literal cash and after the last 12 months or so, I'm starting to be a little suspicious on the whole 'another sign we're saving bullets for the big names'

[sneakypower]

1/9 is going to seem like a steal if/when Airbender & Helsley get 4-year deals; it's hard to really care about this cheap-ass org.

[Manny Trillos Brother]

Surely they mean 4/$70m on Helsley, not $170m. 

Either way, I'd take the under on both years and total dollars after the darn near disastrous recent stints in NY.

I could take or leave the $9m for Kittridge, it's fine either way. I don't think at any point will we be longing for the Kittridge days though. 

[Post Count Padder]

I wasn't sure they'd keep him at 9 mil so that's whatever but I hoped they'd decline and work out something like 2/14. Annoying, but it's early in the offseason.

[Tryptamine]

5 minutes ago, Post Count Padder said:

I wasn't sure they'd keep him at 9 mil so that's whatever but I hoped they'd decline and work out something like 2/14. Annoying, but it's early in the offseason.

This. It's not a good look dumping all these contracts early on. It still way too early to have a real opinion on it, but I'm usually pretty pessimistic when it comes to Hoyer.

[Post Count Padder]

Just now, Tryptamine said:

This. It's not a good look dumping all these contracts early on. It still way too early to have a real opinion on it, but I'm usually pretty pessimistic when it comes to Hoyer.

Exactly. It's giving me cost-cutting moves of past offseasons. They basically gave him back to Baltimore for the cost of the buy out.

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

On the one hand it's November 4th and I'm generally optimistic about things around here.

On the other hand there have been two moves today in which talented but flawed pitchers were basically sent away for either cash savings or literal cash and after the last 12 months or so, I'm starting to be a little suspicious on the whole 'another sign we're saving bullets for the big names'

Yeah it's annoying because this is both how a very good offseason would start and also how a very bad one would start.  I'll also say IMO this does not point to the specific good offseason you want (big FA bat and trade for a cost controlled SP).  I feel like in that scenario you lock in these solid but unspectacular pitchers on solid but unspectacular deals.

If you do want a level set and a reminder that we don't really know what's coming I highly recommed revisiting the Matt Thaiss thread from last winter.  The usual suspects were all *very* certain they knew what it meant and it's quite funny in retrospect.

[CubinNY]

I'm ok with it. He's old and BP arms are volatile. 

I'm going to save all my thoughts until we see how things go across the league. 

[squally1313]

56 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Yeah it's annoying because this is both how a very good offseason would start and also how a very bad one would start.  I'll also say IMO this does not point to the specific good offseason you want (big FA bat and trade for a cost controlled SP).  I feel like in that scenario you lock in these solid but unspectacular pitchers on solid but unspectacular deals.

If you do want a level set and a reminder that we don't really know what's coming I highly recommed revisiting the Matt Thaiss thread from last winter.  The usual suspects were all *very* certain they knew what it meant and it's quite funny in retrospect.

Yeah I'm still (stupidly?) clinging to the thought process of 'if you're going to go big at some point, this is probably it'. Like, the factors to a big offseason to me are:

• Idealish spot on the win curve (check)
• A bunch of expiring money to avoid repeater penalties (check)
• Some ideal group of free agent targets (definitely not a check, but becoming less likely every year)

But also last season was super quiet on the FA front, and the trade deadline was garbage, and we have about 12 40-man spots to fill and a really dumb way to do it would be to just sign a bunch of modern day Justin Turner/Ryan Brasiers, but that's also the way to be able to point to a team salary number in the neighborhood of $200m without really making any sort of long term commitment/risk or really helping the team. 

Definitely think the only way to really judge this is in March, and I'm certainly going to laugh at everyone overreacting to the Reese McGuire replacement signing or whatever, but...after 4 months of 'it's actually fine we didn't use all our budgeted FA money, look at all these TDL bullets we have', I'm not really ready to assume Hoyer is just getting his troops in position. 

Edit: I'm also not super in love with the idea of opening up a bunch of spots for the GM who famously just waits for the talent that slips through the cracks. When you need one shortstop and there's four of them that all provide somewhat similar value and you can save $100m, fine. Similar on Bellinger/Chapman. When you need top end starters and a whole bullpen, maybe don't rely on the market being inefficient and scooping up what's left in February (or, even worse, July). 

Edited November 4, 2025 by squally1313

[Bertz]

6 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Yeah I'm still (stupidly?) clinging to the thought process of 'if you're going to go big at some point, this is probably it'. Like, the factors to a big offseason to me are:

• Idealish spot on the win curve (check)
• A bunch of expiring money to avoid repeater penalties (check)
• Some ideal group of free agent targets (definitely not a check, but becoming less likely every year)

But also last season was super quiet on the FA front, and the trade deadline was garbage, and we have about 12 40-man spots to fill and a really dumb way to do it would be to just sign a bunch of modern day Justin Turner/Ryan Brasiers, but that's also the way to be able to point to a team salary number in the neighborhood of $200m without really making any sort of long term commitment/risk or really helping the team. 

Definitely think the only way to really judge this is in March, and I'm certainly going to laugh at everyone overreacting to the Reese McGuire replacement signing or whatever, but...after 4 months of 'it's actually fine we didn't use all our budgeted FA money, look at all these TDL bullets we have', I'm not really ready to assume Hoyer is just getting his troops in position. 

Edit: I'm also not super in love with the idea of opening up a bunch of spots for the GM who famously just waits for the talent that slips through the cracks. When you need one shortstop and there's four of them that all provide somewhat similar value and you can save $100m, fine. Similar on Bellinger/Chapman. When you need top end starters and a whole bullpen, maybe don't rely on the market being inefficient and scooping up what's left in February (or, even worse, July). 

There was an Athletic article a couple weeks back with an interesting and relevant quote:

Quote

 

Hoyer certainly learned a lesson. But it may not be the one for which some are hammering him. Hoyer seems adamant that the prices at the deadline were unreasonable. A move would have cost him either Horton or Matt Shaw, two key contributors at times over the season’s second half.

“It is really difficult to do that midseason now,” Hoyer said of adding starting pitching. “And I think it’s becoming even more difficult with the new playoff format. There’s fewer sellers, there’s just many more teams that are in the race that have a chance and then even some teams that weren’t in the race made decisions to not trade.”

Hoyer knows there are two ways to solve this problem. It’s either through the draft — where the Cubs found Horton, Justin Steele and top prospect Jaxon Wiggins — or through free agency and trades in the offseason. The team nearly took care of the issue last winter. A deal for Jesús Luzardo was done, but the Cubs’ medical staff didn’t clear Luzardo and it was never consummated.

 

It's a little tough to parse if the mention of Luzardo was Mooney bringing it up on his own or something Jed said just didn't want that part to be on the record.  But the takeaway seems clear that Jed would like a do-over, not on the deadline but on the trade talks last winter.  

I expect Jed to be more aggressive than we're used to this winter, but still less aggressive than we want.  For instance:

- The team dumps Shota for a two SP winter.  Aggressive!  But the two SPs are Shane Bieber and Sandy Alcantara.  Good, very legitimate improvements, but my socks are still firmly on my feet 

- The team signs Devin Williams.  Aggressive!  But the rest of the bullpen is kids or "let Tommy Hottovy cook" types that require a Greg Zumach Twitter thread to get us on board

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

3 hours ago, sneakypower said:

1/9 is going to seem like a steal if/when Airbender & Helsley get 4-year deals; it's hard to really care about this cheap-ass org.

4/170 for Helsley? Huh?

[squally1313]

4 hours ago, Bertz said:

There was an Athletic article a couple weeks back with an interesting and relevant quote:

It's a little tough to parse if the mention of Luzardo was Mooney bringing it up on his own or something Jed said just didn't want that part to be on the record.  But the takeaway seems clear that Jed would like a do-over, not on the deadline but on the trade talks last winter.  

I expect Jed to be more aggressive than we're used to this winter, but still less aggressive than we want.  For instance:

- The team dumps Shota for a two SP winter.  Aggressive!  But the two SPs are Shane Bieber and Sandy Alcantara.  Good, very legitimate improvements, but my socks are still firmly on my feet 

- The team signs Devin Williams.  Aggressive!  But the rest of the bullpen is kids or "let Tommy Hottovy cook" types that require a Greg Zumach Twitter thread to get us on board

Interesting quote. I still don't totally buy the whole 'yeah, if we wanted anyone above Mike Soroka it was going to cost us Shaw or Horton and there was nothing we can do about it, just trust us'. But...at least he's acknowledging it. 

You kinda nailed it earlier. There's $80m-$100m (theoretically more!) to play with, and a ton of roster spots to fill. Players that will meaningfully move the needle of where we're at now are few and far between, and cost years in addition to dollars. So there's a very real worst case scenario where there's 4 worse versions of KIttredge at $5m each, 2 non-elite starting pitchers at like...$40m/2 year deals (Woodruff, the two you mentioned), and like...Ryan O'Hearn (the name doesn't matter so much as the vibe) to replace Tucker. And we're $15m lower than last year and maybe if you squint just as talented, but like...man. What a waste of time. 

[Jason Ross]

Sharma immediately threw cold water on the excitement for the potential BP in 2026 with an article today. 

To boil it down to a quick and digestible form; don't expect them to change who they are. Building from within, trading for an expiring contract and not setting the RP market seems like their plan. 

[Bertz]

13 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Sharma immediately threw cold water on the excitement for the potential BP in 2026 with an article today. 

To boil it down to a quick and digestible form; don't expect them to change who they are. Building from within, trading for an expiring contract and not setting the RP market seems like their plan. 

He did leave the door cracked

Quote

But league sources told The Athletic not to expect the Cubs to jump in on big-name free agent relievers, at least not early on.

But yeah this and Trueblood's article this morning have me very annoyed.  I don't think the "wait out the market" gambit works with a roster this complete.  Though I will say I suspect this means Shota's gone and we're getting two SP upgrades of substance.  The details matter a lot but I think that's one of the clearest paths towards having this team be better on April 1st than it was on September 30th.

[Jason Ross]

26 minutes ago, Bertz said:

He did leave the door cracked

But yeah this and Trueblood's article this morning have me very annoyed.  I don't think the "wait out the market" gambit works with a roster this complete.  Though I will say I suspect this means Shota's gone and we're getting two SP upgrades of substance.  The details matter a lot but I think that's one of the clearest paths towards having this team be better on April 1st than it was on September 30th.

I would argue though that even that door cracked is "business as usual". They were willing to do a Scott deal late in the cycle, but they rarely get aggressive and get a guy they like. 

Sadly, for anyone who likes aggressiveness, this is more or less who Hoyer is. It's pretty likely that this roster will be far from its final form into late January or early February again. I was hoping coming off a 92 win season would change that but it seems like, based on Sharma, that it'll be similar to the 2024 and 2025 off-seasons, as I read the tea leaves. 

I do hope that that belief only resonates with the pen, but who knows? That isn't to be doom and gloom, Hoyer has put together winning rosters, but just that it feels like we are getting a better and better picture each year of what it will always look like. 

[Rcal10]

14 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I would argue though that even that door cracked is "business as usual". They were willing to do a Scott deal late in the cycle, but they rarely get aggressive and get a guy they like. 

Sadly, for anyone who likes aggressiveness, this is more or less who Hoyer is. It's pretty likely that this roster will be far from its final form into late January or early February again. I was hoping coming off a 92 win season would change that but it seems like, based on Sharma, that it'll be similar to the 2024 and 2025 off-seasons, as I read the tea leaves. 

I do hope that that belief only resonates with the pen, but who knows? That isn't to be doom and gloom, Hoyer has put together winning rosters, but just that it feels like we are getting a better and better picture each year of what it will always look like. 

I hate ownerships stance on the budget. Absolutely hate it. Cubs should not be a team that worries about that. How can they spend so little compared to what they generate and justify that to the fans. They shouldn’t have to wait out the market to take whoever falls. They don’t have to be the Dodgers/Mets/Yankees, but they shouldn’t be far behind those teams. They should always be 4-6 in spending. I just don’t get it. It is going to be business as usual. Sure, based on peramiters ownership puts in place for Jed, he does a decent job. But it shouldn’t be this hard. I am not saying they have to get Cease and Tucker and spend on a few pen arms. But they should be able to target 1 or 2 guys and get them. Not have to wait and hope they drop. 

[Jason Ross]

37 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I hate ownerships stance on the budget. Absolutely hate it. Cubs should not be a team that worries about that. How can they spend so little compared to what they generate and justify that to the fans. They shouldn’t have to wait out the market to take whoever falls. They don’t have to be the Dodgers/Mets/Yankees, but they shouldn’t be far behind those teams. They should always be 4-6 in spending. I just don’t get it. It is going to be business as usual. Sure, based on peramiters ownership puts in place for Jed, he does a decent job. But it shouldn’t be this hard. I am not saying they have to get Cease and Tucker and spend on a few pen arms. But they should be able to target 1 or 2 guys and get them. Not have to wait and hope they drop. 

I hate ownerships' stance on budget, but part of this is who Jed is, as well. The Cubs were at least willing to consider spending around $20+m more last year had they signed Scott or Bregman. I'm not going to give Ricketts a parade for it, but I think it's important to note because I think it's likely the Cubs 2025 budget will probably mirror the 2026. That gives the Cubs $80-$100m to spend and not a lot of obvious places to spend it. Jed's aggressiveness is who Jed is. 

Again, not a doom and gloom, but this is who Jed has been and looks to be who he is. 

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

I hate ownerships' stance on budget, but part of this is who Jed is, as well. The Cubs were at least willing to consider spending around $20+m more last year had they signed Scott or Bregman. I'm not going to give Ricketts a parade for it, but I think it's important to note because I think it's likely the Cubs 2025 budget will probably mirror the 2026. That gives the Cubs $80-$100m to spend and not a lot of obvious places to spend it. Jed's aggressiveness is who Jed is. 

Again, not a doom and gloom, but this is who Jed has been and looks to be who he is. 

While I agree that Jed is someone who waits out the market, I feel he is this way because of ownership mandates. You are correct, they did offer Bregman a deal late. But we can’t count on players being available late. As I said, a large market team should target a guy and get him not wait out the off season. 

 

[macarthur31]

3 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

I hate ownerships' stance on budget, but part of this is who Jed is, as well. The Cubs were at least willing to consider spending around $20+m more last year had they signed Scott or Bregman. I'm not going to give Ricketts a parade for it, but I think it's important to note because I think it's likely the Cubs 2025 budget will probably mirror the 2026. That gives the Cubs $80-$100m to spend and not a lot of obvious places to spend it. Jed's aggressiveness is who Jed is. 

Again, not a doom and gloom, but this is who Jed has been and looks to be who he is. 

Jed has demonstrated aggression during his tenure - signing Counsell quickly in FA, trading for walk year Kyle Tucker... maybe the Bregman pursuit was "aggressive" in that he traded Bellinger to help pay for it with the fall-back plan was running rookie Matt Shaw out at 3rd base (even everyone knew that he needed to drop the high leg-kick batting swing).  Aside from those, I can't recall many more daring moves during his five years as EVP.  

For Tom Ricketts, this is a feature, not a bug.  

[Stratos]

I don't think they'll change their approach to the pen.  I don't think Kittredge points to anything other than they either 1. Had a prior agreement in place with Baltimore to send him back, or 2. They don't think he's worth 9 mil.  Given he's in his mid-30s and probably projects to a mid-3's ERA i would have declined on him as well.

All that declining Shota means is that they didn't think he was worth the 3 years.  I agree with that as well.  They can do better.

[Rcal10]

7 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I don't think they'll change their approach to the pen.  I don't think Kittredge points to anything other than they either 1. Had a prior agreement in place with Baltimore to send him back, or 2. They don't think he's worth 9 mil.  Given he's in his mid-30s and probably projects to a mid-3's ERA i would have declined on him as well.

All that declining Shota means is that they didn't think he was worth the 3 years.  I agree with that as well.  They can do better.

This is the second time I have heard the reference to an agreement with the O’s to send him back. I just don’t think teams do that, nor do I think it is allowed by MLB. And if this is something teams do can someone give me examples of this happening before. I have a hard time believing the Cubs and O’s are the first teams to dream this idea up, if it is something teams can use as a loophole when making trades. 

[Stratos]

55 minutes ago, macarthur31 said:

Jed has demonstrated aggression during his tenure - signing Counsell quickly in FA, trading for walk year Kyle Tucker... maybe the Bregman pursuit was "aggressive" in that he traded Bellinger to help pay for it with the fall-back plan was running rookie Matt Shaw out at 3rd base (even everyone knew that he needed to drop the high leg-kick batting swing).  Aside from those, I can't recall many more daring moves during his five years as EVP.  

For Tom Ricketts, this is a feature, not a bug.  

It depends on their needs. I think they were aggressive on Bellinger when they got him on the 1-year deal because there were no other similar options in CF.  They were aggressive on Counsell.  

But if there's half a dozen quality SP on the market and they just want one there's no need to be aggressive or overpay.  Just put a price on all of them and pick the one that comes in on the best contract.  They killed it with Boyd last year, and the Stroman deal was a good one at the time.

If they had a larger payroll I think they could be swimming in deeper waters much more easily.

[Stratos]

5 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I hate ownerships stance on the budget. Absolutely hate it. Cubs should not be a team that worries about that. How can they spend so little compared to what they generate and justify that to the fans. 

They don't care as long as people keep buying what they're selling.  We're loyal fans and have a beautiful ballpark.  This is the real Cubs curse.