Winter Meetings Thread

[Rcal10]

12 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Not when the asking price begins with Matt Shaw.

I have come around to agreeing with you on that. I wouldn’t offer Shaw in a trade for any pitcher with only 2 years of control left. But if he can be had for Cassie and maybe someone like Wicks, Brown or Assad I would be fine with him. They wanted Shaw at the TDL. But thjngs changed from that time. Shaw got more valuable and Gore less. They can get Bregman and keep Shaw. That would be what I would hope they would do, if they got Bregman. 

[Rcal10]

32 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think in that case, Alex Bregman. I have a lot of reservations on Bregman - but the Cubs, seemingly, don't. I also don't think they will punt on SP. I think it's either a trade and Bregman or a FA heavy class.

That is the most likely use of the money. But they could sign Okamoto, Suarez(RP) and Fairbanks and give themselves absolute. 

[Jason Ross]

14 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I hope so. 

I do think they are very good at identifying pitchers that they can work with and level up. And I do agree that the bullpen is generally a crapshoot and in a first luxury tax level reality, throwing elite level money at elite level guys is not the best use of resources. The games in April and May still count, and I'd like Jed to just wince and overpay for support come the summer, but for now, whatever. 

Ultimately I just want the money spent. They've earned the right to attack the middle ground of pitching production. Their ability to level up offensive production isn't quite at the same level to me. I know the offense was great last year, and I know it projects as above average now. Just...make it elite again. 

I'd love for them to make it elite again (offensively) but I don't think I see a path for that this year, at least initially. My best case scenario for the offseason has been:
1. Make the pitching elite by spending the bulk of the offseason buying up legitimate BP arms and one impact SP. Coupled with  Wiggins who could come up, and Steele returning, I think the Cubs can put together a top-5 rotation and a top-5 bullpen with their development

2. Hope that Caissie, Ballesteros can do enough but then if they don't buy a bat in July. Suarez was pretty cheap at the deadline, and you hope that there's another option like that in July. We learned last year pitching prices are a lot. Hitters are less so. 

[Rcal10]

36 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Theyll overpay someone 

Sure. They do that ALL THE TIME! 

[Cuzi]

4 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I have come around to agreeing with you on that. I wouldn’t offer Shaw in a trade for any pitcher with only 2 years of control left. But if he can be had for Cassie and maybe someone like Wicks, Brown or Assad I would be fine with him. They wanted Shaw at the TDL. But thjngs changed from that time. Shaw got more valuable and Gore less. They can get Bregman and keep Shaw. That would be what I would hope they would do, if they got Bregman. 

Just because things have changed from the outside doesn't mean it's changed from the inside.

The Nationals are not said to be shopping Gore. They are listening to offers with no rush to trade him. This doesn't sound like an organization backing down from the asking price much, if at all. He's still one of the better/best options available in the trade market, no matter how much I dislike the option of trading for him. They are going to use that fact to their advantage.

[Outshined_One]

17 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Not when the asking price begins with Matt Shaw.

I think a fair question is what Shaw's trade value actually *is* this offseason.

If you think "skipping town in the middle of a playoff race to attend GOP Woodstock" was a blip, there's something to be said for him being one of the most valuable young trade pieces currently on the market as a plus defender at 2B/3B with upside at the plate and six years of team control.  I think a reasonable outcome for his 2026 season has him around 3 fWAR, which would make him a Top 10 3B in baseball.  It's not unreasonable to predict him putting up a few 4+ fWAR seasons during that six years of control.

However, if you think he's closer to the hitter we saw the first half of the season in 2025 and that he's exhibited poor judgment that calls into question his commitment to baseball and also sets him up as a potential PR nightmare if he ends up on the wrong podcasts, then that's another story.

It's an interesting question.  As far as Gore goes, the fact that I'd give serious thought to a one for one swap with the Nats for Shaw tells me (based on my personal biases) that a more likely package would probably be something in the neighborhood of Shaw + B-level prospect for Gore, which wouldn't exactly excite me.

[Bertz]

11 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I'd love for them to make it elite again (offensively) but I don't think I see a path for that this year, at least initially. My best case scenario for the offseason has been:
1. Make the pitching elite by spending the bulk of the offseason buying up legitimate BP arms and one impact SP. Coupled with  Wiggins who could come up, and Steele returning, I think the Cubs can put together a top-5 rotation and a top-5 bullpen with their development

2. Hope that Caissie, Ballesteros can do enough but then if they don't buy a bat in July. Suarez was pretty cheap at the deadline, and you hope that there's another option like that in July. We learned last year pitching prices are a lot. Hitters are less so. 

Elite is a strong word but if the team signed Bregman they'd be looking at this lineup?  Steamer projected wRC+ in parentheses.

Hoerner (107)

Busch (122)

Suzuki (121)

Ballesteros (108)

Bregman (120)

Happ (114)

Kelly (100)

PCA (108)

Swanson (98)

With Shaw (107) as the 10th man.  There's not a 150 wRC+ monster anywhere but that's a lineup that will do some bludgeoning.

[ILMindState]

15 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

I think a fair question is what Shaw's trade value actually *is* this offseason.

If you think "skipping town in the middle of a playoff race to attend GOP Woodstock" was a blip, there's something to be said for him being one of the most valuable young trade pieces currently on the market as a plus defender at 2B/3B with upside at the plate and six years of team control.  I think a reasonable outcome for his 2026 season has him around 3 fWAR, which would make him a Top 10 3B in baseball.  It's not unreasonable to predict him putting up a few 4+ fWAR seasons during that six years of control.

However, if you think he's closer to the hitter we saw the first half of the season in 2025 and that he's exhibited poor judgment that calls into question his commitment to baseball and also sets him up as a potential PR nightmare if he ends up on the wrong podcasts, then that's another story.

It's an interesting question.  As far as Gore goes, the fact that I'd give serious thought to a one for one swap with the Nats for Shaw tells me (based on my personal biases) that a more likely package would probably be something in the neighborhood of Shaw + B-level prospect for Gore, which wouldn't exactly excite me.

I would say his value his higher than or at least equal to what Cam Smith and Paredes were last year.

[squally1313]

7 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

1. Make the pitching elite by spending the bulk of the offseason buying up legitimate BP arms and one impact SP. Coupled with  Wiggins who could come up, and Steele returning, I think the Cubs can put together a top-5 rotation and a top-5 bullpen with their development

Concerns with this are:

1. 'Buying up legitimate arms' - Per FG, the top 3 projected fWAR guys (and 7 of the top 10) are off the board already. You've got Suarez, Harvey, and Fairbanks, and after that you're real quickly getting into Justin Wilson/Drew Pomeranz (projected contract: 1 year, $4m)/Caleb Thielbar territory. And at that point, then you're just in pitch lab mode. Could they pitch lab it to a top 5 bullpen? Maybe, I guess. But that's development, not money. 

2. The Cubs ended up 17th in rotation fWAR last year. And that's with Boyd, Horton, Shota, and Taillon making 101 of those starts (and combining for 7.6 fWAR). Rea gave you 27 starts and 1.6 fWAR, and the rest of the team gave you 34 starts and (roughly) 1.1 fWAR. For simplicities sake, let's just replace Rea's workload with Michael King. He's projected for 29 starts and a 2.8 fWAR. As far as I can tell, the other 4 are staying in the rotation. The 30-35 starts by your 6-10 SPs, I'll be generous and say that with Steele (a somewhat proven commodity) and Wiggins (very much not the case), we can make that 1.5 fWAR. So with this plan, we're talking about adding, rounding up, 2 wins to the rotation? Move from 17th to 11th? Couple that with a step down from Tucker to the kids, and you're, 'best case' scenario, treading water? Treading water on a 92 win team is far from the worst thing in the world, but 

And just to avoid the conversation of mixing prior year results with 2026 projections, projections show improvement from Shota and Taillon, and show regression from Boyd and Horton. It roughly balances out. 

[Rcal10]

23 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Just because things have changed from the outside doesn't mean it's changed from the inside.

The Nationals are not said to be shopping Gore. They are listening to offers with no rush to trade him. This doesn't sound like an organization backing down from the asking price much, if at all. He's still one of the better/best options available in the trade market, no matter how much I dislike the option of trading for him. They are going to use that fact to their advantage.

Then you don’t do Gore. You move to the Marlins for Cabrera, or another term for another pitcher. I’m not advocating for anyone at this time. Not even suggesting they should trade for a cheaper controlled staring pitcher. I am just saying IF the Cubs did sign Bregman, it would stand to reason the pitcher they got would come via a trade. And, for me, that trade wouldn’t include Shaw. Go with Cassie, Brown and, if need be, additional B level prospects and see what they can get. I would imagine if they signed Bregman they would already know they can get a pitcher in a trade. And if that is the case, I hope Shaw isn’t involved. 

[Dfan25]

Alonso to the Orioles . Makes Bregman to the Cubs less of a possibility IMO .

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

Concerns with this are:

1. 'Buying up legitimate arms' - Per FG, the top 3 projected fWAR guys (and 7 of the top 10) are off the board already. You've got Suarez, Harvey, and Fairbanks, and after that you're real quickly getting into Justin Wilson/Drew Pomeranz (projected contract: 1 year, $4m)/Caleb Thielbar territory. And at that point, then you're just in pitch lab mode. Could they pitch lab it to a top 5 bullpen? Maybe, I guess. But that's development, not money. 

2. The Cubs ended up 17th in rotation fWAR last year. And that's with Boyd, Horton, Shota, and Taillon making 101 of those starts (and combining for 7.6 fWAR). Rea gave you 27 starts and 1.6 fWAR, and the rest of the team gave you 34 starts and (roughly) 1.1 fWAR. For simplicities sake, let's just replace Rea's workload with Michael King. He's projected for 29 starts and a 2.8 fWAR. As far as I can tell, the other 4 are staying in the rotation. The 30-35 starts by your 6-10 SPs, I'll be generous and say that with Steele (a somewhat proven commodity) and Wiggins (very much not the case), we can make that 1.5 fWAR. So with this plan, we're talking about adding, rounding up, 2 wins to the rotation? Move from 17th to 11th? Couple that with a step down from Tucker to the kids, and you're, 'best case' scenario, treading water? Treading water on a 92 win team is far from the worst thing in the world, but 

And just to avoid the conversation of mixing prior year results with 2026 projections, projections show improvement from Shota and Taillon, and show regression from Boyd and Horton. It roughly balances out. 

So, I'm going to do something here that is going to seem counterintuitive a bit, but I promise I have a reason; I'm going to avoid using fWAR. I actually don't think that fWAR entirely incapsulates what the Cubs do very well in two ways;
1. The Cubs have an elite defense which erases runs. The Cubs significantly outpitched their FIP and xFIP last year and their elite defense is a reason why. There's nothing to suggest the Cubs won't continue to be pretty elite defensively, and I think that factors into an elite pitching unit. Overall, consider them symbiotic. 
2. I've got an article dropping maybe in a day or so that explores what I think is a very undervalued and underrated aspect of the Cubs pitching staff and that is their unique and elite way of inducing infield popups. This is a new frontier of "FIP-beating". I'll make you guys read the whole thing to get the full picture, but the gist is this: pop-ups are about as guaranteed of an out as a strikeout, and the Cubs have a pitching staff that has a skill in inducing them. 

With these in mind, I think the Cubs have the building blocks for a pitching staff that generally runs in the top-5 of most categories. A SP group that includes (New impact FA), Steele (60% of the year?), Horton, Boyd, Imanaga and Taillon (three of which are top-20 in that all-important pop-up thing I'm talking about) is a good rotation. It's very deep. It lacks a Paul Skenes, but especially if you can solve the Imanaga velocity (there's a great tweet thread I'll post that explains the cut-off between like top-30 SP Imanaga and mediocre Shota) you could really have a near-elite run prevention team. Think of it almost like the offense Bertz posted; it might not have the top-end stud, but it's a group that wins with pretty excellent depth.

As it pertains to the BP, I'm at a point where if the Cubs are as interested in the BP as some of the non-Matt sources lead us to believe (Jed's words, Michael Cerami and Sharma/Mooney) I think we can hope they add another safe-reliever. I've come around to the Fairbanks idea based on his pitch profile more than I thought, but let's call it Fairbanks or Keller or Suarez (who I'm far more bearish on). You have a legit 7-8-9 in that case with Maton and Palencia, you have a team who's shown an ability to find guys, and you have enough young development that I think the Cubs will be able to find themselves at a point where once again, they have a run prevention BP. 

At the end of the day I don't expect the Cubs will be a top-5 fWAR unit here. But I do think there's a real path to a top-5 run  preventing staff that couples their defense that is coupled with a philosophy that is created to beat FIP. They have also seemed to want to add more whiff in there as well (which helps with the FIP but also in outs creation). 

[17 Seconds]

155m. was he expected to get that? holy moly

[Tryptamine]

Not that I wanted Alonso per say, but funny to watch even the Orioles be more aggressive than Jed

[Neuby]

11 minutes ago, 17 Seconds said:

155m. was he expected to get that? holy moly

$5M more than Schwarber, Alonso is a year younger.

[Jason Ross]

Heyman once again talking about the Cubs suggests that their top priority remains Tatsuya Imai.

[Cuzi]

7 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Not that I wanted Alonso per say, but funny to watch even the Orioles be more aggressive than Jed

Its truly embarrassing the way this team manages its operation.

Everything Jed does revolves around if the market likes the player he is trying to sign. If the market likes them he's going to bow out every time because the price is going to end up higher than his surplus calculations.

Ask him about going out and getting the players he needs to build a roster fit for October and you are left with the answer, "It depends on how the market values them."

Edited December 10, 2025 by Cuzi

[chibears55]

5 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Heyman once again talking about the Cubs suggests that their top priority remains Tatsuya Imai.

Probably looking at him as being Imanaga replacement after this season, probably offer him the same type of contract Imanaga had gotten  

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Probably looking at him as being Imanaga replacement after this season, probably offer him the same type of contract Imanaga had gotten  

That kind of a contract is almost assuredly not even in the ballpark of what Imai is going to get. Imai is a tier of a FA above that of what Imanaga was. He's 3-years younger, and has a higher ceiling. He's also far more "traditional" - Shota is a fastball heavy pitcher who throws 91mph - it's a weird profile. Imai sits 94-95mph and has a good slider. It's a much more traditional build. 

I think the low end on Imai is going to be in the $18m AAV for 5 years with absolutely no sliding scale like the Imanaga contract.  But I expect it'll be closer to something along the lines of 6-7 years and $22-$24m AAV. 

[Cuzi]

1 minute ago, Jason Ross said:

But I expect it'll be closer to something along the lines of 6-7 years and $22-$24m AAV. 

Live look at Jed Hoyer contemplating another 9 figure contract

[Neuby]

Something tells me the Mets are going to get Tucker or Bellinger 

[Dfan25]

Yeah , Imai is going to be costly folks . I think he goes for something like 150 for 6 and with the posting fee it will be around 175 .  I do think he is their priority right now .

Despite reports that he is meeting with teams next week , Boras said yesterday there are no visits schedule . They need to narrow the list before doing visits . Hopefully he won’t wait until the very end of the deadline 

Edited December 10, 2025 by Dfan25

[chibears55]

11 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

That kind of a contract is almost assuredly not even in the ballpark of what Imai is going to get. Imai is a tier of a FA above that of what Imanaga was. He's 3-years younger, and has a higher ceiling. He's also far more "traditional" - Shota is a fastball heavy pitcher who throws 91mph - it's a weird profile. Imai sits 94-95mph and has a good slider. It's a much more traditional build. 

I think the low end on Imai is going to be in the $18m AAV for 5 years with absolutely no sliding scale like the Imanaga contract.  But I expect it'll be closer to something along the lines of 6-7 years and $22-$24m AAV. 

That probably why the Cubs wont get him

[Jason Ross]

Just now, chibears55 said:

That probably why the Cubs wont get him

I don't agree with this. 

Jon Heyman is known to have ties to Boras. Now, you might want to say that Boras is planting the Cubs name there, and maybe, okay. But let's pretend for a minute that the Cubs' interest is legitimate. It's not a stretch; pitch wise he matches with a lot of what they look for, they love the IFA market, and the Cubs need an impact P. We have heard a few times the Cubs are more engaged at the top of the market and seemingly were willing to offer near $200m for Cease (maybe it's a we tried? but maybe it's just legitimately where they're at). 

If it's legitimate interest, the Cubs know what his price is. And they can't just sit there, wait for Imai, miss on Imai because despite every report and prediction of his market being likely over $100m the Cubs offered him some bonkers deal and still hope to realistically address their SP. 

The Cubs have yet to address SP yet. There's enough reason to believe the Cubs are legitimately interested. And in that case, they know what it'd take. So sorry, don't agree.

[squally1313]

29 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

So, I'm going to do something here that is going to seem counterintuitive a bit, but I promise I have a reason; I'm going to avoid using fWAR. I actually don't think that fWAR entirely incapsulates what the Cubs do very well in two ways;
1. The Cubs have an elite defense which erases runs. The Cubs significantly outpitched their FIP and xFIP last year and their elite defense is a reason why. There's nothing to suggest the Cubs won't continue to be pretty elite defensively, and I think that factors into an elite pitching unit. Overall, consider them symbiotic. 
2. I've got an article dropping maybe in a day or so that explores what I think is a very undervalued and underrated aspect of the Cubs pitching staff and that is their unique and elite way of inducing infield popups. This is a new frontier of "FIP-beating". I'll make you guys read the whole thing to get the full picture, but the gist is this: pop-ups are about as guaranteed of an out as a strikeout, and the Cubs have a pitching staff that has a skill in inducing them. 

With these in mind, I think the Cubs have the building blocks for a pitching staff that generally runs in the top-5 of most categories. A SP group that includes (New impact FA), Steele (60% of the year?), Horton, Boyd, Imanaga and Taillon (three of which are top-20 in that all-important pop-up thing I'm talking about) is a good rotation. It's very deep. It lacks a Paul Skenes, but especially if you can solve the Imanaga velocity (there's a great tweet thread I'll post that explains the cut-off between like top-30 SP Imanaga and mediocre Shota) you could really have a near-elite run prevention team. Think of it almost like the offense Bertz posted; it might not have the top-end stud, but it's a group that wins with pretty excellent depth.

As it pertains to the BP, I'm at a point where if the Cubs are as interested in the BP as some of the non-Matt sources lead us to believe (Jed's words, Michael Cerami and Sharma/Mooney) I think we can hope they add another safe-reliever. I've come around to the Fairbanks idea based on his pitch profile more than I thought, but let's call it Fairbanks or Keller or Suarez (who I'm far more bearish on). You have a legit 7-8-9 in that case with Maton and Palencia, you have a team who's shown an ability to find guys, and you have enough young development that I think the Cubs will be able to find themselves at a point where once again, they have a run prevention BP. 

At the end of the day I don't expect the Cubs will be a top-5 fWAR unit here. But I do think there's a real path to a top-5 run  preventing staff that couples their defense that is coupled with a philosophy that is created to beat FIP. They have also seemed to want to add more whiff in there as well (which helps with the FIP but also in outs creation). 

To your first point: I consider the defense an important and basically totally separate part of the overall quality of the team. They're going to, on the whole, raise the results of any pitcher, good or bad, over their expected results. That's a credit to Dansby, Nico, PCA, and the overall rest of the team there. It should absolutely be considered as part of a 'how good is the team' conversation, but I think it's somewhat in line with my point that like: between the defense, and Hottovy, and Zombro, we don't need elite pitching skill sets to get elite pitching results.

Spending on semi-elite pitching, which, we're down to 4(?) names now, and not just more or less locking in as much offense as possible and avoiding either the tale of two halfs Shaw question or the 'it turns out everyone sucks in their first 400 PAs' question with Caissie or Ballesteros seems backwards when you could make one or more of those guys redundant and use them as currency to a much bigger group of pitchers (above average to semi-elite, not getting paid free agent money). 

I'll look forward to your article. Curious on if you think this is an org thing, ie something that can be taught, or if it's just the profile of the pitcher they've been targeting. Boyd has been good in his career at generating pop ups, Taillon was terrible in 2024, the Cubs as a team were like 21st in baseball in 2024. Don't want to jump it though.

For the bullpen....I've stopped trying to figure out how to fix it. We've got an elite pitching development system and theoretically an elite manager to make those decisions. The rest is just sample size/sequencing noise.