Ian Happ The Cub Vs. Ian Happ The Trade Candidate

[Brandon Glick]

Image courtesy of © Michael McLoone-Imagn Images

Ian Happ is so much more than just the longest-tenured member of the Chicago Cubs. He's now a four-time reigning Gold Glover in left field, a remarkable achievement considering the team had no idea where to put him for the first five seasons of his career. He's also got a career 116 wRC+ and 20.6 fWAR to his name, not to mention a few clutch postseason hits that span across the last relevant Cubs core and this one.

In a vacuum, Happ is one of the most consistent players in the sport. He's been above average at the plate without fail, posting a wRC+ figure between 106 and 132 in every season of his career. Narrow the scope to just the last four seasons, and that margin becomes impossibly thin; Happ's wRC+ hasn't fluctuated more than six points since the start of 2022, sitting between 116 and 122. He's also been worth a reliable amount of WAR in that span, contributing between 2.8fWAR and 3.7fWAR to the cause every season.

On the surface, he's as dependable as it gets. He plays 150-plus games per campaign—a mark he hasn't fallen below since 2021, when he played in 148 contests. He walks a ton, working a 13.2% free pass rate since 2023. He plays quality defense in left field. He's no superstar, but he's the kind of franchise "glue guy" that puts in the work and gets the job done on an annual basis, no questions asked.

Except, if you know anything about Happ, you know he's really one of the streakiest hitters in the sport. On just a month-to-month basis in 2025, his performance looks like what the main character would achieve in a C-student's high school interpretation of Jekyll and Hyde on a baseball diamond:

• March/April: .722 OPS, 108 wRC+
• May: .684 OPS, 98 wRC+
• June: .779 OPS, 115 wRC+
• July: .638 OPS, 86 wRC+
• August: .835 OPS, 134 wRC+
• September: .892 OPS, 148 wRC+
• October (Postseason): .490 OPS, 31 wRC+

If you were to get even more granular and take a look back at his individual games and series, the contrast would be even more stark and unnerving. Seriously, go and look through North Side Baseball's repository of Happ-related articles—it won't take long before you find two diametrically-opposed pieces using equally-valid evidence to support extreme hypotheses about Happ. Here's one from Aug. 10 reassuring Cubs fans that everything would be all right after a disastrous July, and here's one literally two weeks later vouching for Happ to be benched for top prospect Owen Caissie.

Over the course of a 162-game season, you can live with peaks and valleys if the end result is reliable and predictable. In the one-mistake-and-you're-out environment of the playoffs, though, it's harder to swallow that pill. Happ may have hit two (seemingly, at the time) crucial home runs against the Brewers in the NLDS, but he also struck out in 39.4% of his plate appearances in October. That just won't fly.

However, that's not necessarily the reason the Cubs should consider trading Happ this winter. Nor is the fact that top prospects Owen Caissie and Kevin Alcantara (who is out of minor league options) are banging on the door and in need of playing time in a crowded outfield picture. This is purely an argument about long-term planning, which the Cubs haven't done the best job of in recent years.

As things stand, the only guaranteed money on the books after the 2026 season is the remaining $81 million on Dansby Swanson's contract. Yes, there are various options and players bound to earn millions of dollars via arbitration, but the only payout the Cubs will be forced to make in 2027 as of this moment is for Swanson. That obviously means that there's plenty of room for a long-term contract or two or three to be added to the payroll this offseason, but it also means the Cubs aren't taking any risks when it comes to the impending 2027 lockout. They've structured the roster in a way to ensure that, no matter what happens in next year's CBA negotiations, they won't be caught off guard.

In a pragmatic sense, what that amounts to is the fact that a vast majority of the veterans on this roster are due to become free agents in a year's time. Right now, that list includes:

C Carson Kelly (mutual option)
C Reese McGuire
2B Nico Hoerner
LF Ian Happ
RF Seiya Suzuki
SP Jameson Taillon
SP Matthew Boyd (mutual option)
SP/RP Colin Rea (club option)

That's a comical amount of talent to lose in one offseason, and you can be sure the team will at least broach the extension conversation with a number of those players. But, seeing as everyone on that list besides Hoerner is already at least 30 years old, it might be time to start consolidating the roster. The Milwaukee Brewers have been pulling this trick for ages -- they've traded Corbin Burnes, Yovani Gallardo, Devin Williams, and now potentially Freddy Peralta when they were one year out from free agency -- and have made it out unscathed every time. And each of those players were dominant pitchers in their prime, a decidedly more valuable asset than Happ is right now with his one year of control remaining at a $19 million salary.

It doesn't have to be Happ of course. I maintain my belief that trading Jameson Taillon while the iron is hot after his second-half performance could yield long-term dividends, Hoerner is probably too valuable to move thanks to his defense and contact skills, but Suzuki could bring in a nice return from a team in need of power if the Cubs don't mind purging all of the Japanese talent from their roster in the same offseason.

And this doesn't have to be the path the team takes. They can commit to this roster for 2026 and go all-in on their last year of certainty before the CBA expires. But, that would require a level of commitment that this team hasn't been accustomed to in quite some time—it'd be several steps further than how they treated 2025 with the Kyle Tucker trade.

Given his inconsistencies and the team's directionless path forward, trading Happ may be a necessary evil. The Cubs wouldn't need him to bring back top prospects in a deal (they'd certainly prefer major-league-ready talent, especially on the pitching side), and his excellent defense, switch-hitting prowess and season-long reliability would tempt a lot of other teams in trade talks, especially given how barren the outfield market is in free agency after Tucker and Cody Bellinger.

It feels wrong to suggest given his importance to Chicago as the last remaining piece from 2017 and before, but Ian Happ might be better suited as a trade chip than a Cub this offseason.

View full article

[Named After Maddux]

Ian Happ has expressed a commitment to be in Chicago and while that doesn’t mean he would never waive his no trade clause, I think the power of that NTC would significantly hamper any possible return

[Clark_Addison]

Such a bad take on all this....

Teams directionless path....seriously I would say just the opposite. I don't think Jed walks on water (and I never liked the Happ extension at all) but to say he has set this team on a directionless path is crazy. 

Lots of big league ready prospects with veteran presence all over the roster and lots of payroll room to last years payroll (let alone to luxury tax level) is a good combo and sounds like excellent planning. What Jed does with it will be the real question and his long term legacy will be based on it as well. 

The fact you write an article about trading Happ and don't completely say this is a nonsense article as Ian Happ has a full NTC and loves Chicago and the chance of him waiving it is near zero. Would I like them to find a way to trade Happ this off-season....yes. Do I think it will happen? No! I would say less than 1% chance and it would take Jed going to him and telling him he would be in a platoon next season and he should expect to start 80-90 games for Ian to say ok, then trade me. I honestly think there is a better chance that Jed extends Happ this off-season (please don't do that Jed) then trades him. 

[Rcal10]

11 hours ago, Clark_Addison said:

Such a bad take on all this....

Teams directionless path....seriously I would say just the opposite. I don't think Jed walks on water (and I never liked the Happ extension at all) but to say he has set this team on a directionless path is crazy. 

Lots of big league ready prospects with veteran presence all over the roster and lots of payroll room to last years payroll (let alone to luxury tax level) is a good combo and sounds like excellent planning. What Jed does with it will be the real question and his long term legacy will be based on it as well. 

The fact you write an article about trading Happ and don't completely say this is a nonsense article as Ian Happ has a full NTC and loves Chicago and the chance of him waiving it is near zero. Would I like them to find a way to trade Happ this off-season....yes. Do I think it will happen? No! I would say less than 1% chance and it would take Jed going to him and telling him he would be in a platoon next season and he should expect to start 80-90 games for Ian to say ok, then trade me. I honestly think there is a better chance that Jed extends Happ this off-season (please don't do that Jed) then trades him. 

Quick question. What was wrong with the original Happ extension? You said you were against it. Why? He has absolutely outperformed the contract dollars. Not sure about another extension. I agree with you there. But for the right price he would be fine another 3 years. That said, I would be fine moving on. 

[Clark_Addison]

I didn't like paying that much for a LF and committing that many years. Left field is the easiest position to fill on the baseball field and I would rather use it for a rookie like Owen Caissie, or a vet on a 1 year deal or 2 vets to platoon in LF.  Has he overall outperformed his contract sure, but would rather commit those dollars to another position. 

[Clark_Addison]

On 11/17/2025 at 5:24 PM, Rcal10 said:

Quick question. What was wrong with the original Happ extension? You said you were against it. Why? He has absolutely outperformed the contract dollars. Not sure about another extension. I agree with you there. But for the right price he would be fine another 3 years. That said, I would be fine moving on. 

Let me give you a perfect example. We had Mike Tauchmann.  Good OBP decent overall numbers and we could have kept him and started him in LF the last 3 years and platooned him with a RH power bat for far less money and then used the savings to pay for Bregman or go another SP. I would take Mike Tauchmann and will use a recent name Refsnyder as the RH bat if we could just replace them with Happ for 2026 and use that money to go the extra needed to get Tucker, Bregman, Imai, Cease.  One reason we can't spend the extra to get these top FA's is we have so much payroll locked up in guys like Happ. Happ is a very good baseball player and if he could play 3B (I wish they would have tried at some point as he was a middle infielder) that contract would  be fine. 

[Rcal10]

On 11/22/2025 at 5:43 AM, Clark_Addison said:

Let me give you a perfect example. We had Mike Tauchmann.  Good OBP decent overall numbers and we could have kept him and started him in LF the last 3 years and platooned him with a RH power bat for far less money and then used the savings to pay for Bregman or go another SP. I would take Mike Tauchmann and will use a recent name Refsnyder as the RH bat if we could just replace them with Happ for 2026 and use that money to go the extra needed to get Tucker, Bregman, Imai, Cease.  One reason we can't spend the extra to get these top FA's is we have so much payroll locked up in guys like Happ. Happ is a very good baseball player and if he could play 3B (I wish they would have tried at some point as he was a middle infielder) that contract would  be fine. 

Ian Happ has averaged about a 3.8WAR over the last 4 years. I don’t care what position he plays, that is very good. Your example probably nets the Cubs about 2 WAR for left field. And those two guys instead of Happ probably saves the Cubs maybe $10M a year. That $10M was not what stopped the Cubs from adding anything last year and it won’t this year. Aside from that, Shaw had a decent WAR anyway. So if Happ could play 3rd, which then you would feel he is worth it, they would be losing Shaw’s WAR to gain Tauchman/Refsnyder’s WAR and paying $10M+ for that instead of league minimum. And Happ’s WAR would go down playing 3rd base. It just doesn’t make sense. 

[Clark_Addison]

On 11/25/2025 at 11:50 AM, Rcal10 said:

Ian Happ has averaged about a 3.8WAR over the last 4 years. I don’t care what position he plays, that is very good. Your example probably nets the Cubs about 2 WAR for left field. And those two guys instead of Happ probably saves the Cubs maybe $10M a year. That $10M was not what stopped the Cubs from adding anything last year and it won’t this year. Aside from that, Shaw had a decent WAR anyway. So if Happ could play 3rd, which then you would feel he is worth it, they would be losing Shaw’s WAR to gain Tauchman/Refsnyder’s WAR and paying $10M+ for that instead of league minimum. And Happ’s WAR would go down playing 3rd base. It just doesn’t make sense. 

Add less than $10M to Bregman's offer and the Cubs would have been better last year with Tauchman and a RH bat platoon partner and Bregman vs Happ/Shaw. Probably still enough to have added money somewhere else to improve. LF is just not the place to spend big money. 

[Jason Ross]

56 minutes ago, Clark_Addison said:

Add less than $10M to Bregman's offer and the Cubs would have been better last year with Tauchman and a RH bat platoon partner and Bregman vs Happ/Shaw. Probably still enough to have added money somewhere else to improve. LF is just not the place to spend big money. 

Ian Happ was worth 2.8 fWAR and Matt Shaw was worth 1.5 fWAR. Alex Bregman was worth 3.5 fWAR and Tauchman was worth 1.4 fWAR. The difference between the two is ,5 fWAR but you're needing to add another $10m to Bregman, and another RHH platoon partner so you're spending $15m+ to get,,,what, one win? Not only are there far more efficient ways in terms of simple $$/fWAR (teams generally spend $8-$10m per win but the higher end of the scale is generally reserved for stacking wins, for example, a single player of 4 wins to 5 wins, as opposed to a one-off player of 1 win in total - these are cheaper) and stacking players in general, because your 3 players at an added $15 takes three roster spots as opposed to a simple two. 

Beyond that, the same issue crops up if you want to even just talk "Refnsnyder + Tauchman > Happ". Not only did Tauchman (1.5 fWAR) and Refsnyder (1.0 fWAR) in 2025 not equal Ian Happ's (2.8 fWAR) they did so eating up a second roster spot. They're cheaper, but when you begin hitting the ~90 win plateau, roster space becomes as important as fractional fWAR and the like. 

Really, the only thing this boils down to is Bregman was better than a rookie Matt Shaw, and duh, of course he was. But that doesn't have much to do with Ian Happ. Blame ownership for not spending more (I certainly do) but this isn't an Ian Happ issue.

More importantly, Bregman has shown signs of decline in bat speed and while he didn't fall off a cliff, by the end of the season it was Matt Shaw (130 wRC+ post ASB) and Ian Happ (139 wRC+) who were far better down the stretch than Bregman (101 wRC+) and Tauchman (103 wRC+).  Why is this important? Bregman and Tauchman both outhit their xwOBA by nearly .20 points here as Ian Happ under performed and Matt Shaw equaled it. Especially moving forward Happ and Shaw are the far better pair. So the two had a real cross-over point mid year and it's not shocking when we consider their xData.

This crusade of "you don't have to pay a LF" is silly in general. LF had a 100 wRC+ league wide last year, this is below RF, 1b, and DH and SS was a 98 wRC+. It's basically a middle-road position offensively league wide. The Ian Happ hate is ridiculous. Happ is a good, albeit short of elite player, but he's been more than worth his contract, as a $61m contract asks you to be worth around something like 6 wins (on the high end of the scale) and 7.6 wins (on the low end of the war/$ scale). Happ has already been worth 6.4 wins and has not put up a season below 2.8 wins since the pandemic. Assuming he gets to at least 2.8 wins, he'll finish well above the 8 win mark. And yes, before we get back to the "LF shouldn't be paid argument" - fWAR is positionally adjusted. His contract has not been worth it, it's provided ample surplus value.

[Clark_Addison]

On 12/6/2025 at 6:12 AM, Jason Ross said:

Ian Happ was worth 2.8 fWAR and Matt Shaw was worth 1.5 fWAR. Alex Bregman was worth 3.5 fWAR and Tauchman was worth 1.4 fWAR. The difference between the two is ,5 fWAR but you're needing to add another $10m to Bregman, and another RHH platoon partner so you're spending $15m+ to get,,,what, one win? Not only are there far more efficient ways in terms of simple $$/fWAR (teams generally spend $8-$10m per win but the higher end of the scale is generally reserved for stacking wins, for example, a single player of 4 wins to 5 wins, as opposed to a one-off player of 1 win in total - these are cheaper) and stacking players in general, because your 3 players at an added $15 takes three roster spots as opposed to a simple two. 

Beyond that, the same issue crops up if you want to even just talk "Refnsnyder + Tauchman > Happ". Not only did Tauchman (1.5 fWAR) and Refsnyder (1.0 fWAR) in 2025 not equal Ian Happ's (2.8 fWAR) they did so eating up a second roster spot. They're cheaper, but when you begin hitting the ~90 win plateau, roster space becomes as important as fractional fWAR and the like. 

Really, the only thing this boils down to is Bregman was better than a rookie Matt Shaw, and duh, of course he was. But that doesn't have much to do with Ian Happ. Blame ownership for not spending more (I certainly do) but this isn't an Ian Happ issue.

More importantly, Bregman has shown signs of decline in bat speed and while he didn't fall off a cliff, by the end of the season it was Matt Shaw (130 wRC+ post ASB) and Ian Happ (139 wRC+) who were far better down the stretch than Bregman (101 wRC+) and Tauchman (103 wRC+).  Why is this important? Bregman and Tauchman both outhit their xwOBA by nearly .20 points here as Ian Happ under performed and Matt Shaw equaled it. Especially moving forward Happ and Shaw are the far better pair. So the two had a real cross-over point mid year and it's not shocking when we consider their xData.

This crusade of "you don't have to pay a LF" is silly in general. LF had a 100 wRC+ league wide last year, this is below RF, 1b, and DH and SS was a 98 wRC+. It's basically a middle-road position offensively league wide. The Ian Happ hate is ridiculous. Happ is a good, albeit short of elite player, but he's been more than worth his contract, as a $61m contract asks you to be worth around something like 6 wins (on the high end of the scale) and 7.6 wins (on the low end of the war/$ scale). Happ has already been worth 6.4 wins and has not put up a season below 2.8 wins since the pandemic. Assuming he gets to at least 2.8 wins, he'll finish well above the 8 win mark. And yes, before we get back to the "LF shouldn't be paid argument" - fWAR is positionally adjusted. His contract has not been worth it, it's provided ample surplus value.

Crusade....that's funny. I like Ian Happ, is a very good player. Don't hate him at all. You are taking one option they could have gone and that I made an example of to show another way and running with it (really, really far to prove your thought....) It could have opened up many other options. Bottom line spending on LF is not a smart way to allocate budget dollars.   Spend me another novel if you must, but it is not the best way to do it unless your team is spending $300m or more can justify it. 

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, Clark_Addison said:

Crusade....that's funny. I like Ian Happ, is a very good player. Don't hate him at all. You are taking one option they could have gone and that I made an example of to show another way and running with it (really, really far to prove your thought....) It could have opened up many other options. Bottom line spending on LF is not a smart way to allocate budget dollars.   Spend me another novel if you must, but it is not the best way to do it unless your team is spending $300m or more can justify it. 

It doesn't "open up" other options, though. By using 3 players to supplement 2 positions you actively close options. There are only 26-roster spots. Your plan got the Cubs an extra 1/2 of a win, at an inflated price, and spent three roster spots to do so. It's just a bad plan. But hey, I guess the Cubs spent less money in LF, so point proven, right? 

Happ is actively providing surplus value. You don't need to spend $300m to understand how that's a good thing. His contract is floating value, not underwater. If it were below surplus value you'd have a point. Since it doesn't, you're just objectively wrong. Surplus value means it is a good way to spend money. You've spent less money to get more value. 

[Clark_Addison]

10 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

It doesn't "open up" other options, though. By using 3 players to supplement 2 positions you actively close options. There are only 26-roster spots. Your plan got the Cubs an extra 1/2 of a win, at an inflated price, and spent three roster spots to do so. It's just a bad plan. But hey, I guess the Cubs spent less money in LF, so point proven, right? 

Happ is actively providing surplus value. You don't need to spend $300m to understand how that's a good thing. His contract is floating value, not underwater. If it were below surplus value you'd have a point. Since it doesn't, you're just objectively wrong. Surplus value means it is a good way to spend money. You've spent less money to get more value. 

Yes we used that 26th spot so well last year and go so much "surplus value" out of it to not want a RH power platoon bat to go with a guy like Tauchman (just one example). Are you really arguing over the 26th roster spot being so important that we can't use it to platoon a spot? Happ has had surplus value, doesn't mean we couldn't have spent that money better. Surplus value, WAR etc, all good stuff but you can't say that we wouldn't have been better having another RH power bat in the lineup last year. We struggled against LH's and Turner was not a power bat anymore.