Chicago Cubs Have "Renewed Interest" In Alex Bregman

[Bertz]

I actually think you still trade one of Mo/Caissie unless someone (the Nats might?) absolutely insists on Shaw in a SP trade.

Shaw mashed lefties last year with a 125 wRC+, we have no adequate short term depth on the infield, and then of course Hoerner is in his walk year.  Shaw is much less redundant even after a Bregman signing than the lesser of Mo/Caissie.  Also randomly he's fast enough I bet he could back up CF if we gave him ST to learn.

[Cuzi]

Whatever Nico cost to extend, it's more than the Cubs seem to want to spend. Remember, we were talking about a Nico-less Cubs team last year because he was coming up in a lot of trade talks, allegedly.

I'm not trading Shaw for his "pitching counterpart." What do you even envision that being? Taj Bradley?

[KCCub]

8 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

I'm not trading Shaw for his "pitching counterpart." What do you even envision that being? Taj Bradley?

This all stems from last years TDL and rumored reports that a trade for Gore for example would start with one of Shaw/Horton and then you start adding one of Caissie/Mo in addition. So in theory, he would be the main piece in one of the difference maker SP trades. Now the question is have some of these teams lowered their asking price? Probably somewhat, but if one of these SP only needed Caissie/Mo as the headliner a deal would have been done already. 
More or less, if they sign Bregman (or another big bat) it’s probably taking Shaw as the main piece to get a frontline controlled starter. 

[Neuby]

It's interesting we've haven't seen a lot of rumors connecting the Cubs to any other bats besides Bregman. 

[Jason Ross]

11 minutes ago, Neuby said:

It's interesting we've haven't seen a lot of rumors connecting the Cubs to any other bats besides Bregman. 

I don't think the Cubs will be connected to many. With $50m (or maybe a bit more) left to spend, they can only add either 1 big bat or 1 big arm via FA. The worrying over the offense, while it's fair to lament the loss of Tucker, is a bit overblown by fans. They were a top-5 offense last year overall and managed to be better down the stretch than people want to give credit to them. We shouldn't expect a top-5 offense losing Tucker, but it's probably going to be a top-10 unit next year as long as it gets just a bit of attention. 

Hoyer has also made it clear in interviews that the team is looking for pitching help. 

Ultimately, I wouldn't expect much connecting them to hitters for a while. It's probably a back burner thing. Even the Bregman thing feels like "well if we can't get, say, Imai, and Bregman is still around, maybe we try to get creative" versus "the Cubs put Bregman at the top of a wish list and are actively pursuing this route with vigor"

[Rcal10]

3 hours ago, Cuzi said:

Whatever Nico cost to extend, it's more than the Cubs seem to want to spend. Remember, we were talking about a Nico-less Cubs team last year because he was coming up in a lot of trade talks, allegedly.

I'm not trading Shaw for his "pitching counterpart." What do you even envision that being? Taj Bradley?

It would be Shaw+ for a pitcher. Not just Shaw. Otherwise, as you said, doesn’t make sense. Supposedly he was asked about at the TDL last year. Something like Shaw+ for Cabrera, Gore or Ryan. 

[Cuzi]

5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

It would be Shaw+ for a pitcher. Not just Shaw. Otherwise, as you said, doesn’t make sense. Supposedly he was asked about at the TDL last year. Something like Shaw+ for Cabrera, Gore or Ryan. 

I'm not adding anything onto Shaw for any of those pitchers. 

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, Neuby said:

It's interesting we've haven't seen a lot of rumors connecting the Cubs to any other bats besides Bregman. 

I don’t think a big bat is there primary need at this time. I think it will be pitching. TBH, I am surprised they are mentioned with Bregman. I think the only way this happens is if they have a trade in place of some young players (pick 2 prospects and 1 pitcher from Shaw, Cassie, Mo, Long along with Brown, Assad, Wicks) for a controlled cheaper, potentially TOR starting pitcher. Otherwise I just don’t see them spending big money on a bat and still have to sign a FA pitcher. 

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, Cuzi said:

I'm not adding anything onto Shaw for any of those pitchers. 

Then you must really like Shaw and you also aren’t getting any of those pitchers. 

[Cuzi]

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

Then you must really like Shaw and you also aren’t getting any of those pitchers. 

Shaw has 6 years of control and ended the season putting up damn near all of his 1.5 fWAR in half a season.

I'm not trading that and some for a guy like Edward Cabrera that has used up nearly 4 years of service time and finally broke 100 innings pitched because he was finally healthy enough to accomplish that. Or MacKenzie Gore with 2 years of control left and is extremely overrated, imo. Joe Ryan is the closest thing to a mayyyybe, but I'm still not convinced I'm trading 6 for 2 and additional pieces for a Joe Ryan.

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, Cuzi said:

Shaw has 6 years of control and ended the season putting up damn near all of his 1.5 fWAR in half a season.

I'm not trading that and some for a guy like Edward Cabrera that has used up nearly 4 years of service time and finally broke 100 innings pitched because he was finally healthy enough to accomplish that. Or MacKenzie Gore with 2 years of control left and is extremely overrated, imo. Joe Ryan is the closest thing to a mayyyybe, but I'm still not convinced I'm trading 6 for 2 and additional pieces for a Joe Ryan.

That’s fair. But to get a controlled potentially front end starter the cost is going to be high. One advantage Cabrera has is he has 3 years of control to Shaw’s 5. (Didn’t Shaw lose one year of control last year?) 

[Cuzi]

1 minute ago, Rcal10 said:

That’s fair. But to get a controlled potentially front end starter the cost is going to be high. One advantage Cabrera has is he has 3 years of control to Shaw’s 5. (Didn’t Shaw lose one year of control last year?) 

Shaw has 6 years of control left. He is 10 days short of 1 year of service time.

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, Cuzi said:

Shaw has 6 years of control left. He is 10 days short of 1 year of service time.

Wow, I wouldn’t have guessed that. Actually that makes him more valuable. Maybe it would take just Shaw and one of the pitchers for someone. Save Cassie, Mo and Long. 

[Cuzi]

12 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Wow, I wouldn’t have guessed that. Actually that makes him more valuable. Maybe it would take just Shaw and one of the pitchers for someone. Save Cassie, Mo and Long. 

I'd rather just keep Shaw and trade Caissie/Alcantara/Mo/Long/insert name here.

If I'm trading Shaw and the pitcher coming back only has 2 years of control left, that pitchers metrics better look close to this

than this

[ILMindState]

3 hours ago, Cuzi said:

I'm not trading Shaw for his "pitching counterpart." What do you even envision that being? Taj Bradley?

John Rocker

[Rcal10]

21 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

I'd rather just keep Shaw and trade Caissie/Alcantara/Mo/Long/insert name here.

If I'm trading Shaw and the pitcher coming back only has 2 years of control left, that pitchers metrics better look close to this

than this

I would rather keep Shaw too. This is only talked about if the Cubs did sign Bregman. IMO that would lead to a Shaw trade. The same reasons you would rather keep Shaw and trade Cassie or Mo, is why Shaw was mentioned more at the TDL. Back to the original point, if the Cubs did sign Bregman I would assume there is a trade coming for a young pitcher. Who knows who they have to trade to get that pitcher. 

[JunkyardWalrus]

Signing Bregman, doesn’t preclude Shaw is gone, could be Nico with Shaw sliding to 2b, saving the large market team however much the difference is between Nico and Bregman this season

[Bertz]

I think it's worth noting that at the deadline Gore was pitching MUCH better, came with an extra playoff run's worth of control, and Shaw had not 111 wRC+'d his way through August/September,  and the Cubs weren't willing to include Shaw then.  I think I'm with Cuzi that it's Gore+ for Shaw not the other way around.

[Bull]

6 hours ago, Backtobanks said:

Unfortunately, it would take eating more than a little of Dansby's contract.  I don't think there would be much interest in a 33-year-old SS owed $81 million over 3 years.

Right, but owed $72 over 3, or traded for a not-great-not-awful contract on a similar (2-4 WAR) SP. Dansby was a 4.5 WAR player last year with 105 OPS+ and top tier SS defense. He’s not going to have negative value by the end of the year.

[chibears55]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

Wow, I wouldn’t have guessed that. Actually that makes him more valuable. Maybe it would take just Shaw and one of the pitchers for someone. Save Cassie, Mo and Long. 

I'd actually be surprise if they trade any of their ready/near ready prospects like Mo, Caissie etc. Or even Shaw,  especially without signing any hitters long term this offseason. 

With Happ, Hoerner, Suzuki, and Kelly all likely entering FA next offseason and going elsewhere, theyre going to need some home grown guys to fill needs over spending everything on FA for 5 positions that could be open. ( C, 2B, LF, RF, DH)

[Rcal10]

24 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

I'd actually be surprise if they trade any of their ready/near ready prospects like Mo, Caissie etc. Or even Shaw,  especially without signing any hitters long term this offseason. 

With Happ, Hoerner, Suzuki, and Kelly all likely entering FA next offseason and going elsewhere, theyre going to need some home grown guys to fill needs over spending everything on FA for 5 positions that could be open. ( C, 2B, LF, RF, DH)

Well we are in a thread talking about trading for Bregman. So there would be a bat added. I also think they will deal at least one young bat to add something else. We are not going to see Alcantara, Cassie, Mo, and Long all in the line up with Shaw after this year. At least I hope we aren’t. 

[ToolDRT]

Can we get a winter meetings thread going? Would be easier during work hours to read one thread instead of checking for new ones…

[chibears55]

3 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Well we are in a thread talking about trading for Bregman. So there would be a bat added. I also think they will deal at least one young bat to add something else. We are not going to see Alcantara, Cassie, Mo, and Long all in the line up with Shaw after this year. At least I hope we aren’t. 

I was talking more like Caissie, Mo, Shaw  being traded away, I know i put etc but I was just thinking along the line of prospects that are capable of being starters in the next 2-3 seasons.

Guys like Alcantara and Long are basically depth bench guys, they likely wont be bringing in much in a trade, especially a starting position player.

I dont see the Cubs adding Bregman, the guy walked away from 83+ mil the next 2 years in order to add years, im sure he looking to get a minimum of 7 years and likely close to 35 per., they might as well offer Tucker that if they're willing to go over 30 on one player.

Edited December 7, 2025 by chibears55

[Irrelevant Dude]

7 hours ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

Signing Bregman, doesn’t preclude Shaw is gone, could be Nico with Shaw sliding to 2b

Why would the Cubs sign an expensive 3B only to trade their better, significantly less expensive 2B?

[ToolDRT]

Yeah, I liked the Bregman fit last year when it seemed his market cratered and we just acquired Tucker. Don’t really want him on a 6 year deal at this point.