Winter Meetings Thread

[Bertz]

Start a new thread when actual moves happen this sort of thing is why the last megathread got nuked

[Neuby]

Milner gets 1.25M more than Theilbar got last year. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, grassbass said:

I don't need to fight this one out with anybody. The Cubs do have the financial resources to both win now and in the future. Our horrible owners are the reason people like you think we need to choose. 

That's what I was trying to get at... the intersection between maximum potential and maximum benefit.

Kind of like how we have to balance marginal revenue and marginal cost in economics to achieve profit/desirability. It is also like a PPF (production possibility frontier) when we are thinking about trade-offs.

Mathematically, we can optimize both.

[Cuzi]

5 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

As long as this doesn't stop them from adding another impact pen arm then that's fine. He's a solid if unspectacular fit for this pen.

On paper, there's only a couple "impact" pen arms left available. I suspect by the time the Cubs get their SP that those 2 will have signed elsewhere and the Cubs will be going with their patented quantity vs quality approach.

[Cuzi]

5 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

As long as this doesn't stop them from adding another impact pen arm then that's fine. He's a solid if unspectacular fit for this pen.

On paper, there's only a couple "impact" pen arms left available. I suspect by the time the Cubs get their SP that those 2 will have signed elsewhere and the Cubs will be going with their patented quantity vs quality approach.

[Backtobanks]

1 hour ago, Tryptamine said:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/12/nico-hoerner-drawing-trade-interest.html

 

Unless the return is huge, there is no way this makes even the slightest bit of sense. Yeah, you could probably get fairly similar production between 2B/3B from a combination of Shaw/Nico and Shaw/Bregman but it would also come at the cost of an additional 20M in payroll in 2026 and that's ignore the next 4 or 5 years they'd also have Bregman signed for.

My out-of-the-box take is that we go to the Yankees and see if they would trade Stanton for Swanson which would solve their SS problem and give us extra money ($9 million this year, $12 million next year, and $53 million after that ).  We get a DH that will probably hit 35-40 HR and frees up Ballesteros as trade bait.  Obviously, Hoerner moves to SS and possibly Shaw moves to 2B.  Use our truckload of trade assets (Alcantra, Ballesteros, Wicks, Assad, Brown, Birdsell, Long, Triantos, etc.) to get either Cabrera or Gore.  I would try to keep Cassie, Rojas, and Wiggins if possible.  Sign Imai or King using some of the money.  Talk to Texas about trading for Jung for 3B.  Sign Fairbanks as a closer.  Another possibility is trying for Lowe (for 2B) and Jax which would put Shaw in the pool of tradeable assets.

[Rcal10]

16 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

My out-of-the-box take is that we go to the Yankees and see if they would trade Stanton for Swanson which would solve their SS problem and give us extra money ($9 million this year, $12 million next year, and $53 million after that ).  We get a DH that will probably hit 35-40 HR and frees up Ballesteros as trade bait.  Obviously, Hoerner moves to SS and possibly Shaw moves to 2B.  Use our truckload of trade assets (Alcantra, Ballesteros, Wicks, Assad, Brown, Birdsell, Long, Triantos, etc.) to get either Cabrera or Gore.  I would try to keep Cassie, Rojas, and Wiggins if possible.  Sign Imai or King using some of the money.  Talk to Texas about trading for Jung for 3B.  Sign Fairbanks as a closer.  Another possibility is trying for Lowe (for 2B) and Jax which would put Shaw in the pool of tradeable assets.

Count me WAY OUT on this idea. 

[squally1313]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

I like this? Submarine RP with negative arm angle. Lots of horizontal movement. Big GB% guy. 106 stuff+. The fastball velo is horsefeathers but you get that with his arm angle. 

It's not as good as LHH Taylor Rogers but it's not far from it.

Below average IFFB rate....just saying. 

[Outshined_One]

55 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Start a new thread when actual moves happen this sort of thing is why the last megathread got nuked

The Winter Meetings are over, so I guess it's time for another one?

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Below average IFFB rate....just saying. 

Yeah, bit of a bummer there, but I also assume it's because of how many GBs. Usually high FB guys (Shota, Boyd) are my popup guys. 

[squally1313]

15 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Yeah, bit of a bummer there, but I also assume it's because of how many GBs. Usually high FB guys (Shota, Boyd) are my popup guys. 

I mean....are you maybe a little constructing a set of arguments that lets you talk positively about any Cubs pitching signing? Robert Suarez has been at 12.2% and 14.1% for IFFB the last two years. 

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

My out-of-the-box take is that we go to the Yankees and see if they would trade Stanton for Swanson which would solve their SS problem and give us extra money ($9 million this year, $12 million next year, and $53 million after that ).  We get a DH that will probably hit 35-40 HR and frees up Ballesteros as trade bait.  Obviously, Hoerner moves to SS and possibly Shaw moves to 2B.  Use our truckload of trade assets (Alcantra, Ballesteros, Wicks, Assad, Brown, Birdsell, Long, Triantos, etc.) to get either Cabrera or Gore.  I would try to keep Cassie, Rojas, and Wiggins if possible.  Sign Imai or King using some of the money.  Talk to Texas about trading for Jung for 3B.  Sign Fairbanks as a closer.  Another possibility is trying for Lowe (for 2B) and Jax which would put Shaw in the pool of tradeable assets.

Don't put Shaw in the pool of tradeable assets. As with any young guy, his preciseness will generally increase. And if we get extra money, we should distribute it among our loyal players to increase their willingness to stay. A problem with Boss Jed Tweed and the owners is that they are greedy.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Yeah, bit of a bummer there, but I also assume it's because of how many GBs. Usually high FB guys (Shota, Boyd) are my popup guys. 

Just curious--so you think that fly balls are more beneficial than consistent strikes? Do you think we should emphasize this as a team and champion Shota/Boyd? 

[Jason Ross]

46 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I mean....are you maybe a little constructing a set of arguments that lets you talk positively about any Cubs pitching signing? Robert Suarez has been at 12.2% and 14.1% for IFFB the last two years. 

In the nicest possible way; I think you should know me better at this point than to think I'd just defend anything the Cubs do blindly  I am on the optimistic side of things at times, and I do try to cut through some of the cynicism (not shooting a shot over the bow of anyone in particular, just general cynicism) with positivity. I try to find the positives of a signing or a player where and when I can, or maybe, just the logic behind it.

I also am not a single-issue-voter; I like popups! I don't think popups are the only thing. Popups are just an under valued aspect of pitching that the Cubs are certainly using to their advantage. From my article today:

Quote

 This obviously won't be the only factor a team like the Cubs will taken into account, but as we look for under-the-radar pickups, it's clear that this can matter in player evaluation.

I like Hoby Milner just fine though. He gets a lot of ground balls, ground balls, much like IFFB are FIP-Beater profiles; it should take advantage of the Cubs infield defense (and I stated yesterday, I think run prevention is a symbiotic relationship between defense and pitching).  He has the flat-arm-slot that Tyler Zombro clearly likes to work with. He's familiar with and is familiar to, Craig Counsell. He was tied based on fWAR as the 16th best LH RP in baseball. I'm not like over the moon here; I like him fine at 1/$3.75m for what he is; a useful LHP that fits into a competitive bullpen. 

I'll give you insight on my next project; I kind of like the guy they signed yesterday, Colin Snider for a lot of the same reasons! A value signing with enough green flags that for it's value and in a vacuum, I like the pitcher. But these are in a vacuum.

Bigger picture, if Hoby Milner is the best reliever the Cubs sign; I'll have issue that the Cubs didn't address the bullpen adequately, even if they should get some runway in that they have shown an ability to build a bullpen from spare parts. If the Cubs get, say, Pete Fairbanks or Brad Keller still, Milner is good value.  Honestly, I think in terms of players, the Cubs rarely acquire red-flag players, so I rarely take fault there. Where I do fault the team is in ambition at times. So you'll probably find that, like Milner, in a vacuum, I understand the player. 

[Geographyhater8888]

Have they signed really anyone since last winter with a $ figure north of Counsel’s $40 million? 

[squally1313]

11 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

In the nicest possible way; I think you should know me better at this point than to think I'd just defend anything the Cubs do. I also am not a single-issue-voter; I like popups! I don't think popups are the only thing. Popups are just an under valued aspect of pitching that the Cubs are certainly using to their advantage. From my article today:

I like Hoby Milner just fine though. He gets a lot of ground balls, ground balls, much like IFFB are FIP-Beater profiles. He has the flat-arm-slot that Tyler Zombro clearly likes to work with. He's familiar and is familar to, Craig Counsell. He was tied based on fWAR as the 16th best LH RP in baseball. I'm not like over the moon here; I like him fine at 1/$375m for what he is; a useful LHP that fits into a competitive bullpen. 

If Hoby Milner is the best reliever the Cubs sign; I'll have issue that the Cubs didn't address the bullpen adequately, even if they should get some runway in that they have shown an ability to build a bullpen from spare parts. If the Cubs get, say, Pete Fairbanks or Brad Keller still, Milner is good value.  

Re: Hoby Milner. He's fine. He's another guy who should be a bullpens 4th-5th best pitcher at best, we have two guys slotted above him, better guys are getting signed on a pretty much daily basis while PTR gets 4% interest on the $45m he's supposed to spend. He gets groundballs, he stays healthy, whatever. It's $3.75m.

Candidly, I thought your arguments on why the pitching staff is fine were a little (uncharacteristically!) weak. Pointing to the defense was irrelevant to me, they're going to help every pitcher. The pop up thing I'm not sold on. Like, using Justin Steele and saying he was 71st out of 360whatever qualified pitchers over a three year stretch and then having that be a counting stat where he was like 40th in baseball in innings pitched over that stretch isn't a thing. Here is his IFFB by year since 2022: 9.8%, 8.5%, 6.5%, 4.3%.

The Cubs were 19th in IFFB in 2024. If this is a Zombro thing, and we can just teach dudes to throw pop up generating pitches, then shouldn't we just get the best ones and then make them better with this special trick of ours (a la our defense)? If we need to or have been targeting them, why are our two relief pickups so far either exactly league average over his career (Maton) or markedly below (Milner). But, bigger picture, is this even really a repeatable skill set? Steele's numbers are above, Taillon has gone 9.5%, 6.8%, 14.2% in his years as a Cub. Maton, because I have his page up and it supports my argument, has gone 12.3%, 6.0%, 21.3%, 9.3% over his last four years. I don't know...I just don't see it as like, some plan to outsmart the market.

Bigger picture: I've made my frustrations known with how the front office has approached the last...12 months or so now (basically everything post Tucker). And I'm generally pretty positive. But I've been told all the offensive options are bad for one reason or another, and now I'm being told that defense and Zombro are basically going to take an average pitching staff and reliably turn it into top 5 production and....it kinda sounds like a hypothetical future Hoyer press conference where we introduce Zac Gallen as our third starter and justify the lack of any other legitimate moves. Overpay for someone, risk taking on a bad contract. It's fine. Exciting even. 

[Post Count Padder]

2 hours ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Can we get Leiter instead?

FWIW Leiter just signed with the Athletics for 1 year/$3 million

[Jason Ross]

34 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Re: Hoby Milner. He's fine. He's another guy who should be a bullpens 4th-5th best pitcher at best, we have two guys slotted above him, better guys are getting signed on a pretty much daily basis while PTR gets 4% interest on the $45m he's supposed to spend. He gets groundballs, he stays healthy, whatever. It's $3.75m.

Candidly, I thought your arguments on why the pitching staff is fine were a little (uncharacteristically!) weak. Pointing to the defense was irrelevant to me, they're going to help every pitcher. The pop up thing I'm not sold on. Like, using Justin Steele and saying he was 71st out of 360whatever qualified pitchers over a three year stretch and then having that be a counting stat where he was like 40th in baseball in innings pitched over that stretch isn't a thing. Here is his IFFB by year since 2022: 9.8%, 8.5%, 6.5%, 4.3%.

The Cubs were 19th in IFFB in 2024. If this is a Zombro thing, and we can just teach dudes to throw pop up generating pitches, then shouldn't we just get the best ones and then make them better with this special trick of ours (a la our defense)? If we need to or have been targeting them, why are our two relief pickups so far either exactly league average over his career (Maton) or markedly below (Milner). But, bigger picture, is this even really a repeatable skill set? Steele's numbers are above, Taillon has gone 9.5%, 6.8%, 14.2% in his years as a Cub. Maton, because I have his page up and it supports my argument, has gone 12.3%, 6.0%, 21.3%, 9.3% over his last four years. I don't know...I just don't see it as like, some plan to outsmart the market.

Bigger picture: I've made my frustrations known with how the front office has approached the last...12 months or so now (basically everything post Tucker). And I'm generally pretty positive. But I've been told all the offensive options are bad for one reason or another, and now I'm being told that defense and Zombro are basically going to take an average pitching staff and reliably turn it into top 5 production and....it kinda sounds like a hypothetical future Hoyer press conference where we introduce Zac Gallen as our third starter and justify the lack of any other legitimate moves. Overpay for someone, risk taking on a bad contract. It's fine. Exciting even. 

There's a lot to respond here. I'm going to do my best to respond to the most I can. 

On the pop-up thing, I really think you're not understanding the pop-up thing and my argument here. I don't think the Cubs are only targeting pop-ups. if I haven't been clear there, than forgive me. So I'll say this as clearly as I can to ensure we don't have this misunderstanding as we go forward: I do not think the Chicago Cubs are only targeting pitchers who induce pop-ups. Instead, let me reframe my article/point and what I'm saying I think the Chicago Cubs (and especially Tyler Zombro) teach/target a style of pitching that helps result in more pop-ups. Pop-ups, are an under valued guaranteed out, and can further help in run prevention in a way we don't traditionally think of. 

The cut-ride fastball that is preferred under Tyler Zombro tends to result in more pop-ups. I don't think the Cubs signed Matthew Boyd, for example because he gets popups, but because he has a fastball shape the Cubs like to work within. I won't tell you why Zombro prefers this pitch, never met the guy! I will insinuate this; if I'm picking up whiffs of this, I think people far smarter than me are definitely picking up whiffs of this, and I think Zombro is way smarter than me!

On the Justin Steele thing, I feel like you're doing me a disservice; I'm pretty clear here he's no where near Boyd in this - I pointed out he's useful in this area. It's true; he is. He gets a decent amount of pop-ups, he wasn't there last year, and he'll likely help. I think Zombro will continue to develop his pitches and he might even be a bit better! I think you're cherry picking that one a little in an...unfair manner. 

Quote

While Steele may not be the master of his craft as much as Matthew Boyd of Shota Imanaga are, he uses a cut-ride fastball that is useful in this area.

In terms of Jameson Taillon, I think he's a great example of what Zombro does. Here, look at the fastball both in horizontal movement but also usage rate.

His fastball has more horizontal break in 2025 over 2024. And well before he ever came to the Cubs in general, he was far less of a cutter on the fastball (not a cutter, but a cut-ride-fastball). We can visualize his jump in general with the Cubs here (I don't think Zombro is the only person who likes this pitch. The Red Sox like horizontal movement too, and that's Breslow. I think it's been happening for a while, but Zombro likes more of the flat arm angle). It feels like Zombro is an evolution from what we saw under Craig Breslow.

I don't think it's a plan to outsmart the market - I think it's baked into what the Cubs like. But I also think it's a cheap way to add some guaranteed outs, and while I don't think the Cubs are like, Moneyball'ing the world on poip-ups, as I said, if I'm catching on to this stuff, I 100% don't think it's gone past the Cubs and Zombro. I think they recognize that by cutting fastballs more, you can create better  batted ball data in your favor. One way that occurs naturally, is in increased IFFB. By looking at pitchers who use cut-ride fastballs, and thus, pitchers who get more IFFB's, we can also better look at profiles of pitchers the Cubs may target. 

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk (I recognize this is a lot).

[squally1313]

8 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

There's a lot to respond here. I'm going to do my best to respond to the most I can. 

On the pop-up thing, I really think you're not understanding the pop-up thing and my argument here. I don't think the Cubs are only targeting pop-ups. if I haven't been clear there, than forgive me. So I'll say this as clearly as I can to ensure we don't have this misunderstanding as we go forward: I do not think the Chicago Cubs are only targeting pitchers who induce pop-ups. Instead, let me reframe my article/point and what I'm saying I think the Chicago Cubs (and especially Tyler Zombro) teach/target a style of pitching that helps result in more pop-ups. Pop-ups, are an under valued guaranteed out, and can further help in run prevention in a way we don't traditionally think of. 

The cut-ride fastball that is preferred under Tyler Zombro tends to result in more pop-ups. I don't think the Cubs signed Matthew Boyd, for example because he gets popups, but because he has a fastball shape the Cubs like to work within. I won't tell you why Zombro prefers this pitch, never met the guy! I will insinuate this; if I'm picking up whiffs of this, I think people far smarter than me are definitely picking up whiffs of this, and I think Zombro is way smarter than me!

On the Justin Steele thing, I feel like you're doing me a disservice; I'm pretty clear here he's no where near Boyd in this - I pointed out he's useful in this area. It's true; he is. He gets a decent amount of pop-ups, he wasn't there last year, and he'll likely help. I think Zombro will continue to develop his pitches and he might even be a bit better! I think you're cherry picking that one a little in an...unfair manner. 

In terms of Jameson Taillon, I think he's a great example of what Zombro does. Here, look at the fastball both in horizontal movement but also usage rate.

His fastball has more horizontal break in 2025 over 2024. And well before he ever came to the Cubs in general, he was far less of a cutter on the fastball (not a cutter, but a cut-ride-fastball). We can visualize his jump in general with the Cubs here (I don't think Zombro is the only person who likes this pitch. The Red Sox like horizontal movement too, and that's Breslow. I think it's been happening for a while, but Zombro likes more of the flat arm angle). It feels like Zombro is an evolution from what we saw under Craig Breslow.

I don't think it's a plan to outsmart the market - I think it's baked into what the Cubs like. But I also think it's a cheap way to add some guaranteed outs, and while I don't think the Cubs are like, Moneyball'ing the world on poip-ups, as I said, if I'm catching on to this stuff, I 100% don't think it's gone past the Cubs and Zombro. I think they recognize that by cutting fastballs more, you can create better  batted ball data in your favor. One way that occurs naturally, is in increased IFFB. By looking at pitchers who use cut-ride fastballs, and thus, pitchers who get more IFFB's, we can also better look at profiles of pitchers the Cubs may target. 

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. 

I'm not trying to be unfair. If we can and are teaching pitchers to do this, then it really shouldn't impact the offseason decisions made by the front office. I'm less confident than you are that this is a super repeatable skill, but that's fine, we don't have to agree. If you think it's just another way for the Cubs to outkick their projections, that's not really a reason to not get the best projections possible in my ind.

Being difficult one last time: Justin Steele has been below the 2025 league average in IFFB every one of the last four years, and the part of the paragraph you left off included that he would improve their pop up generation (11.4% last year), and that he has been a very reliable pop up getter. You can't really call me unfair and leave off half the paragraph, right?

Bigger picture, none of this is meant to be a personal attack or anything like that. Love your work. Just...picking nits. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

There's a lot to respond here. I'm going to do my best to respond to the most I can. 

On the pop-up thing, I really think you're not understanding the pop-up thing and my argument here. I don't think the Cubs are only targeting pop-ups. if I haven't been clear there, than forgive me. So I'll say this as clearly as I can to ensure we don't have this misunderstanding as we go forward: I do not think the Chicago Cubs are only targeting pitchers who induce pop-ups. Instead, let me reframe my article/point and what I'm saying I think the Chicago Cubs (and especially Tyler Zombro) teach/target a style of pitching that helps result in more pop-ups. Pop-ups, are an under valued guaranteed out, and can further help in run prevention in a way we don't traditionally think of. 

The cut-ride fastball that is preferred under Tyler Zombro tends to result in more pop-ups. I don't think the Cubs signed Matthew Boyd, for example because he gets popups, but because he has a fastball shape the Cubs like to work within. I won't tell you why Zombro prefers this pitch, never met the guy! I will insinuate this; if I'm picking up whiffs of this, I think people far smarter than me are definitely picking up whiffs of this, and I think Zombro is way smarter than me!

On the Justin Steele thing, I feel like you're doing me a disservice; I'm pretty clear here he's no where near Boyd in this - I pointed out he's useful in this area. It's true; he is. He gets a decent amount of pop-ups, he wasn't there last year, and he'll likely help. I think Zombro will continue to develop his pitches and he might even be a bit better! I think you're cherry picking that one a little in an...unfair manner. 

In terms of Jameson Taillon, I think he's a great example of what Zombro does. Here, look at the fastball both in horizontal movement but also usage rate.

His fastball has more horizontal break in 2025 over 2024. And well before he ever came to the Cubs in general, he was far less of a cutter on the fastball (not a cutter, but a cut-ride-fastball). We can visualize his jump in general with the Cubs here (I don't think Zombro is the only person who likes this pitch. The Red Sox like horizontal movement too, and that's Breslow. I think it's been happening for a while, but Zombro likes more of the flat arm angle). It feels like Zombro is an evolution from what we saw under Craig Breslow.

I don't think it's a plan to outsmart the market - I think it's baked into what the Cubs like. But I also think it's a cheap way to add some guaranteed outs, and while I don't think the Cubs are like, Moneyball'ing the world on poip-ups, as I said, if I'm catching on to this stuff, I 100% don't think it's gone past the Cubs and Zombro. I think they recognize that by cutting fastballs more, you can create better  batted ball data in your favor. One way that occurs naturally, is in increased IFFB. By looking at pitchers who use cut-ride fastballs, and thus, pitchers who get more IFFB's, we can also better look at profiles of pitchers the Cubs may target. 

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. 

I'll agree with you on this one, just with a more moderated stance. I think that an increased IFFB can improve the metric in pop-ups, but I think that predictability is a factor that should also be considered with those types of pitchers. As @squally1313 has mentioned, IFFB is inherently volatile and can't be quantified over years in a consistent way.

The style of pitching should be more important, and if a certain style (like Zombro's/Boyd's) is beneficial for the Cubs, we can minimize a sort of baseball deadweight loss--by increasing those who can throw a specific type of ball. But @squally1313's argument underscores the idea that this metric cannot be reliable even on the individual level--the AROC of the line is negligible.

We should promote the beneficial style of pitching but diversify the types of pitchers for different situations, like someone who pitches like Jacob Misiorowski and also other reliable and consistent dudes. I think Boyd could refine his craft because he lacks consistency in terms of strikeouts, even in four months when he played 5 games each:

 

April	5	25	5.00
May	5	34	6.80
June	5	18	3.60
July	5	28	5.60

(Games, Strikeouts, Per Game)

Ultimately, we should balance our portfolio with risk and consistency as well as honing in a specific pitching style. This "index fund" approach will ensure overall consistency while maintaining reasonable area for growth.

(And if you like this content or want more data-based approaches, please like this...!)

Edited December 11, 2025 by The Cubs Dude

[chibears55]

3 hours ago, KCCub said:

 

Looks at fangraphs vFA 88 mph, shakes head

Hoyer starting to ramp up now, these were the guys he was talking to during the meeting. 🙄🙄🙄

[chibears55]

Unless I'm missing someone, looks like they now have 5 of 9 bullpen spots secured.

Assad/Rea, Maton, Hodge, Milner(L), and Palencia 

Likely 6 assuming they add another starter and both Assad and Rea will go to the Pen.

Need another lefty and late inning/closer 

[chibears55]

Among relievers signed to Major League deals this offseason only 2 have an average Fastball velocity under 90 MPH 

Phil Maton — 89.6

Hoby Milner — 87.6

 

Both are now Chicago Cubs

#HoyersWay

#CubsWay

[Post Count Padder]

2 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

Unless I'm missing someone, looks like they now have 5 of 9 bullpen spots secured.

Assad/Rea, Maton, Hodge, Milner(L), and Palencia 

Likely 6 assuming they add another starter and both Assad and Rea will go to the Pen.

Need another lefty and late inning/closer 

I would not be stunned if they bring back Pomeranz or Thielbar as the other lefty and then sign Fairbanks as the 8th/9th inning guy. It's not sexy but should get the job done. Missing out on Devin Williams really sucks.

[Bertz]

I actually don't think you need another lefty.  I wouldn't have been happy with either being the top lefty in the pen, but a Little or a Martin or TBD waiver wire addition can be the second lefty out of the pen.