Cubs, Giants Discussing Nico Hoerner Trade

[Rcal10]

16 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Overpay. The Redsox will overpay with if what I’m reading is true.

Ok, I agree. But TBH, I hope they just keep Hoerner. If Red Sox want to overpay for Shaw, have at it. 

[Geographyhater8888]

11 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Ok, I agree. But TBH, I hope they just keep Hoerner. If Red Sox want to overpay for Shaw, have at it. 

I’d hate it too. The difference between having Shaw and Brujan/Castro/Berti etc as a utility guy is probably worth at least 3 extra wins.

[Rcal10]

10 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

I’d hate it too. The difference between having Shaw and Brujan/Castro/Berti etc as a utility guy is probably worth at least 3 extra wins.

I don’t agree with this. It isn’t like we know Shaw will be a great utility bat. He might not be any better than those guys. And if they traded Shaw, maybe they pick up a decent utility guy. I don’t think Shaw, used as a bench bat/utility guy, is that hard to replace for the ‘26 season.
Again, they have to get an overpay to make that happen. So I am fine keeping him. I just don’t think that if they traded him they would expect to win 3 less games. 

[Geographyhater8888]

17 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I don’t agree with this. It isn’t like we know Shaw will be a great utility bat. He might not be any better than those guys. And if they traded Shaw, maybe they pick up a decent utility guy. I don’t think Shaw, used as a bench bat/utility guy, is that hard to replace for the ‘26 season.
Again, they have to get an overpay to make that happen. So I am fine keeping him. I just don’t think that if they traded him they would expect to win 3 less games. 

Shaw has hit at every level in the minors. He came on strong in the second half too. He may or may not ever be a 115 wRC+ guy but even at +100, his glove and baserunning is more valuable than that -1.2 fWAR from Berti Castro and Brujan. The net effect should be at least 3 wins alone and additional wins when you plug Bregman in as your every day third baseman and part time DH. Addition by subtraction and then some is where I’m going with this.

Edited January 23 by Geographyhater8888

[squally1313]

4 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Shaw has hit at every level in the minors. He came on strong in the second half too. He may or may not ever be a 115 wRC+ guy but his glove and baserunning is more valuable than that -1.2 fWAR from Berti Castro and Brujan. The net effect should be at least 3 wins alone and additional wins when you plug Bregman in as your every day third baseman and part time DH.

This is just not how utility players work. Where is Shaw supposed to get significant PAs? This whole outfield experiment is theoretical at this point (and we have McCormick, Carlson, Alcantara there to fill the other bench spot and take backup OF PAs anyways), and he's worse than every single one of our starters, especially in the infield. 

This isn't so much to debate the talent level of Shaw, though 'came on strong in the second half' is doing a lot of lifting (is PCA going to be terrible this year?). It's that his role on the 2026 roster at this moment isn't important, can be filled by someone else for very cheap with minimal impact, and turning him into pitching is an avenue worth exploring. 

Berti and Castro both were better in 2024 (and Castro better pre-trade) than Shaw was in 2025. Maybe Hoyer is just cursed on picking up backups. Or maybe it's really hard to get like, 5 PAs a week and maintain the same level of success, and we should bake that into our expectations for Shaw-as-utility-guy going into this year. 

[cl smooth]

How many at-bats are we expecting Shaw to get each week during the season?

[Tryptamine]

If he can play 2B,3B and SS I'm thinking 300-350 PAs, if he can play OF too then 400-450

[Geographyhater8888]

53 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

This is just not how utility players work. Where is Shaw supposed to get significant PAs? This whole outfield experiment is theoretical at this point (and we have McCormick, Carlson, Alcantara there to fill the other bench spot and take backup OF PAs anyways), and he's worse than every single one of our starters, especially in the infield. 

This isn't so much to debate the talent level of Shaw, though 'came on strong in the second half' is doing a lot of lifting (is PCA going to be terrible this year?). It's that his role on the 2026 roster at this moment isn't important, can be filled by someone else for very cheap with minimal impact, and turning him into pitching is an avenue worth exploring. 

Berti and Castro both were better in 2024 (and Castro better pre-trade) than Shaw was in 2025. Maybe Hoyer is just cursed on picking up backups. Or maybe it's really hard to get like, 5 PAs a week and maintain the same level of success, and we should bake that into our expectations for Shaw-as-utility-guy going into this year. 

I would guess he’ll see a lot of action vs Lefties. There’s injuries and rest days as well. They made it work with both Zobrist and Javy without a universal DH where you plug in Bregman. You have a projected future starting caliber infielder with team control who’s hit at every level and was a top 20 prospect. I expect more production from him than any career utility guy that flopped as a Cub.
I don’t think any trade should be off the table, especially if you plan on extending Nico for $125 million or whatever he’s seeking then go nuts. It’s more likely they’d trade Nico which is why I’m advocating Shaw as a utility bench bat assuming Nico isn’t moved and walks at seasons end. 

Edited January 23 by Geographyhater8888

[Tryptamine]

He is so absurdly underappreciated

[JunkyardWalrus]

15 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

You said it was insane to expect the kind of return Tucker has, and yet on the field, the two players have shockingly similar value upon it. Trade value for one year of each should, then, be mostly the same. The Cubs have no reason to take anything less. Which is why what will happen is the Cubs almost assuredly won't trade him, making your argument about the return, moot. If the Cubs viewed it as the way you did, they'd treat him the way you are. And yet...

Clearly the Cubs value defense here. That might tell us something about own own personal biases on how we view offense and defense. 

MLB teams are run on analytics, not vibes. They run on models that are proprietary but they're likely models that don't don't drastically differ from fWAR either. If we can see that the gap between Tucker and Hoerner is roughly half a win over the course of that one season, MLB teams can too. And that half of win isn't drastically going to change a trade return. 

I’m not arguing how the CUBS view him, not sure why you continue to.

My argument, remains, how the other 29 teams evaluate him in prospect capital. 

I’m arguing the rest of the league will laugh their asses off if that’s what Jed's ask is and Nico stays put.

You haven’t given me an example of a defensive player with a league average bat nettting anything worth the Tucker package. (Berz mentioned Andres Gimenez, who netted a poorman’s Michael Busch, which I don’t think is really the point he believes as it relates to equalling the Tucker package) to back up your claim they are valued the same by other front offices. 

I’m not waiting for one. 

Your argument is that analytics claim their values are similar, thusly all other MLB teams should view them this way as well.. I don’t know, that feels like ‘vibes’ to me without showing instances. 

I believe history has shown time and again that bats command more cash and prospects to acquire than gloves. You believe that all fWARs are created somewhat equally? Man, that’s fine. You’re obviously more read up on suchness. But I don’t believe they are, nor do I think front offices do across the league have acted in such a way.

An example!  

Dansby, the best defensive SS in the game got 7/177, which, consequently, was the least of the deals signed by the four Short Stops in his class. I think that says something pretty clearly. (It’s the largest contract for the Cubs, yeah, they value defense. I doubt Nico is traded, I bet Jed agrees with you, and history shows us he does. That’s never been my argument.)

I’d love for Nico to net us 3 years of a first tier, starting 3b,  a top 50 ish prospect and a song. I’d love to be proven wrong. 

We’ll see. 

[Bertz]

A good offense gets ~6200 plate appearances in a season.  That's essentially 10 full time (600 PA) players and one more bench guy.  So figure this team has

- 7 full time guys: Happ, Suzuki, Hoerner, Busch, Swanson, PCA, Bregman average 600 PAs each

- Some of these guys will get more than 600 PAs, looking at Swanson/Hoerner particularly, but IMO that's counterbalanced by Busch/PCA getting a bit of platoon support plus inevitable injury

- Kelly, Mo, and Shaw probably play semi full time, averaging 400 PAs a piece.  Kelly on account of being a catcher, Mo on account of being fairly strictly platooned.  I agree with Geography that you probably play Shaw mostly every day against lefties and then he gets more scattered time moving around againsy righties

- That leaves 250-300 PAs each for Amaya, Alcantara, Austin.  That feels about right?

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, Bertz said:

A good offense gets ~6200 plate appearances in a season.  That's essentially 10 full time (600 PA) players and one more bench guy.  So figure this team has

- 7 full time guys: Happ, Suzuki, Hoerner, Busch, Swanson, PCA, Bregman average 600 PAs each

- Some of these guys will get more than 600 PAs, looking at Swanson/Hoerner particularly, but IMO that's counterbalanced by Busch/PCA getting a bit of platoon support plus inevitable injury

- Kelly, Mo, and Shaw probably play semi full time, averaging 400 PAs a piece.  Kelly on account of being a catcher, Mo on account of being fairly strictly platooned.  I agree with Geography that you probably play Shaw mostly every day against lefties and then he gets more scattered time moving around againsy righties

- That leaves 250-300 PAs each for Amaya, Alcantara, Austin.  That feels about right?

Honestly, without injuries keeping guys out a long time, I don’t see more than 300-350 AB from Shaw. Why would he be the DH against a lefty? Why not Austin? If Busch is going to play more against lefties wouldn’t Austin take the DH spot. I realize Shaw has value, but I think 3 wins is an a bit high. And why couldn’t they plug in someone else who could be just as good or close.  We are talking about a bench bat for the ‘26 team. If it gets them Tolle, as an example, they then have a staring pitcher for ‘27. Maybe it gets them more. Maybe a lower level minor league prospect and Shaw gets the Cubs Tolle and Abreu. How many wins does Abreu add to the Cubs? Again, the ask has to be high to do it. I would just rather they deal Shaw instead of Hoerner. He is easier to replace.
By logic of losing 3 wins if they trade Shaw, wouldn’t they lose more trading Nico? Shaw has to play second. They lose a few games there,’going from Nico to Shaw. Then a different utility man replaces Shaw.and they lose the 3 games being mentioned if they traded Shaw. In theory Shaw should bring more back than Nico, so they would lose Nico and a solid utility guy, because Shaw would be at second, and not even get as much back. Trading Nico makes no sense to me, unless they are doing it for payroll. And they said they aren’t worried about that. 

[Jason Ross]

26 minutes ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

I’m not arguing how the CUBS view him, not sure why you continue to.

My argument, remains, how the other 29 teams evaluate him in prospect capital. 

I’m arguing the rest of the league will laugh their asses off if that’s what Jed's ask is and Nico stays put.

You haven’t given me an example of a defensive player with a league average bat nettting anything worth the Tucker package. (Berz mentioned Andres Gimenez, who netted a poorman’s Michael Busch, which I don’t think is really the point he believes as it relates to equalling the Tucker package) to back up your claim they are valued the same by other front offices. 

I’m not waiting for one. 

Your argument is that analytics claim their values are similar, thusly all other MLB teams should view them this way as well.. I don’t know, that feels like ‘vibes’ to me without showing instances. 

I believe history has shown time and again that bats command more cash and prospects to acquire than gloves. You believe that all fWARs are created somewhat equally? Man, that’s fine. You’re obviously more read up on suchness. But I don’t believe they are, nor do I think front offices do across the league have acted in such a way.

An example!  

Dansby, the best defensive SS in the game got 7/177, which, consequently, was the least of the deals signed by the four Short Stops in his class. I think that says something pretty clearly. (It’s the largest contract for the Cubs, yeah, they value defense. I doubt Nico is traded, I bet Jed agrees with you, and history shows us he does. That’s never been my argument.)

I’d love for Nico to net us 3 years of a first tier, starting 3b,  a top 50 ish prospect and a song. I’d love to be proven wrong. 

We’ll see. 

When Swanson got the contract he did, he was not on the same tier of players as the others. From 2019 (the year before covid) through 2022, his free agent year (and the same 4-year split I used) here is how he stacked up to the other players:
Turner: 20.7 fWAR (1st among SS over that time)
Bogaerts: 17.7 fWAR (3rd among SS over that time)
Correa: 15.9 fWAR (5th among SS over that time)
Swanson 13.9 fWAR (7th among SS over that time) 

When Swanson signed, almost half of that fWAR all came in a single season, the 2022 season. Teams were rightfully concerned that Swanson was not that good and he had just two full seasons where he was good (Swanson's other great year was the 2020 covid-shortened year but it was small sample). 

You're conflating teams paying more money to better players with "teams prefer offense". Swanson got the least amount of money because at the time, he was viewed as the fourth best shortstop. It wasn't because he was a glove-fist shortstop. 

Cody Bellinger just signed a 5/$162.5m deal with the Yankees. Pete Alonso and Kyle Schwarber's offensive ceiling are considered to be much higher, and yet it's Bellinger, who's defense is much better who is out earning both. You can make an argument pretty easily that Bellinger is the better overall player than Alonso, but it was Schwarber who equaled his fWAR last year. 

It just doesn't hold up. Better players get more money on the market. As Bertz showed, the ceiling for how-high an offensive value can go is just higher (more chances, etc.) which leads to the best players having good bats. But as we get to the point we're at, where Tucker and Hoerner have been, the ceiling isn't all that important. Realistically, their trade value should be pretty close. You can give a half win edge to Tucker, and you should, but in the course of a season, we're not talking immense value difference, either.

And yes, I assume teams are running on analytical models. I don't think that's "vibes". I think suggesting teams value offense over defense is a vibe. It just doesn't look like that happens in the way fans think it does. 

Do I think teams might try to hold the Cubs feet to the fire about that in a negotiation? Sure! Teams look for any advantage they can get. It doesn't mean that I think teams would internally value the two as vastly differently as fans think they do, either. 

[Rcal10]

Rather than trade Hoerner I would like to see Shaw for Tolle then sign Rengifo. Small loss on the bench, maybe. Sign Nico to an extension and Tolle takes a rotation spot in ‘27. If not Tolle, Red Sox have a few other pitchers of interest. 
I realize Shaw hit at evey level, but his hard hit rate was terrible. He might just be a guy who hits around league average. Not bad, but not great either. Rengifo gives you league average hitting and can play all over the infield. So, again, not a great loss in ‘26. And you have Tolle instead of Shaw after this year. And they keep Nico moving forward. 

[Geographyhater8888]

28 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Honestly, without injuries keeping guys out a long time, I don’t see more than 300-350 AB from Shaw. Why would he be the DH against a lefty? Why not Austin? If Busch is going to play more against lefties wouldn’t Austin take the DH spot. I realize Shaw has value, but I think 3 wins is an a bit high. And why couldn’t they plug in someone else who could be just as good or close.  We are talking about a bench bat for the ‘26 team. If it gets them Tolle, as an example, they then have a staring pitcher for ‘27. Maybe it gets them more. Maybe a lower level minor league prospect and Shaw gets the Cubs Tolle and Abreu. How many wins does Abreu add to the Cubs? Again, the ask has to be high to do it. I would just rather they deal Shaw instead of Hoerner. He is easier to replace.
By logic of losing 3 wins if they trade Shaw, wouldn’t they lose more trading Nico? Shaw has to play second. They lose a few games there,’going from Nico to Shaw. Then a different utility man replaces Shaw.and they lose the 3 games being mentioned if they traded Shaw. In theory Shaw should bring more back than Nico, so they would lose Nico and a solid utility guy, because Shaw would be at second, and not even get as much back. Trading Nico makes no sense to me, unless they are doing it for payroll. And they said they aren’t worried about that. 

My 3 wins analogy was addition by subtraction. Unless Shaw completely flops then we’re subtracting one of the worst benches in baseball (Brujan/Castro), below replacement level production with Shaw. Third base is set unlike last season but DH is basically an experiment. He’d spend a lot of time at third base vs lefties with Bregman DHing, in theory and there’s injuries and rest days to account for too. Two 30+ YO infielders will need off days playing in wrigley day games during the summer. That’s where Shaw will get the bulk of his at bats. 
This has nothing to do with a trade. I’m only speaking of how much better are we are at third base and infield depth from 2025 assuming no one is moved. 
But if they do trade Shaw for a great return and give Nico $125 million or whatever he’s seeking then I’ll have no complaints either.

Edited January 23 by Geographyhater8888

[Rcal10]

10 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

My 3 wins analogy was addition by subtraction. Unless Shaw completely flops then we’re subtracting one of the worst benches in baseball (Brujan/Castro), below replacement level production with Shaw. Third base is set unlike last season but DH is basically an experiment. He’d spend a lot of time at third base vs lefties with Bregman DHing, in theory and there’s injuries and rest days to account for too. Two 30+ YO infielders will need off days playing in wrigley day games during the summer. That’s where Shaw will get the bulk of his at bats. 
This has nothing to do with a trade. I’m only speaking of how much better are we are at third base and infield depth from 2025 assuming no one is moved. 
But if they do trade Shaw for a great return and give Nico $125 million or whatever he’s seeking then I’ll have no complaints either.

Got it. We are on the same page. Don’t trade Nico and only deal Shaw if they get a great package and reign Nico, and can get a solid bench guy, like Rengifo. Before last year he was better than league average for 3 straight years. 

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

This is just not how utility players work. Where is Shaw supposed to get significant PAs?

Would be a mistake to assume Bregman, Swanson, and Nico don't get injured this year.  Shaw adds depth as a bench backup.  Do we want replacement or sub-replacement production if one of those guys is out for a month and a half,? eg a Brujan or Mastrrobuoni type getting daily PAs?  Do we want a hole at 2b next season if Nico walks?

Trading Caissie took away backup depth for this year and starting options for 2027 if/when FAs walk.  So we want to do it again?

We could maybe get like a 1.5 WAR upgrade at SP if we trade Shaw due SP, but also a 1.5 or 2 WAR or so downgrade on the bench seeing what the Brujan/Mastrobuoni types put up.  So what's the point?

[Hot Sauce]

This forum will not soon forget the contributions (or lack thereof) of Vidal Bruján. lol

[squally1313]

5 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Would be a mistake to assume Bregman, Swanson, and Nico don't get injured this year.  Shaw adds depth as a bench backup.  Do we want replacement or sub-replacement production if one of those guys is out for a month and a half,? eg a Brujan or Mastrrobuoni type getting daily PAs?  Do we want a hole at 2b next season if Nico walks?

Trading Caissie took away backup depth for this year and starting options for 2027 if/when FAs walk.  So we want to do it again?

We could maybe get like a 1.5 WAR upgrade at SP if we trade Shaw due SP, but also a 1.5 or 2 WAR or so downgrade on the bench seeing what the Brujan/Mastrobuoni types put up.  So what's the point?

Why is this a binary choice between a theoretical above replacement Matt Shaw and the 2025-only version of Vidal Brujan? There aren't any other options out there that can give us replacement level production?

Like, no one would argue that the players signed to be bench players turned out well. But they were mostly all signed coming off of much better seasons (seasons that look like 2025 Matt Shaw). So either

• Hoyer is the worst GM ever at signing utility guys because he inevitably picks one on the brink of collapse, 
• we've maybe just hit some bad luck (while ignoring Carson Kelly, McGuire...maybe he can only do catchers?),
• maybe there's a penalty to your production when going from getting every day PAs to being called on once a week or brought in cold in the late innings against top relievers (which would apply to Shaw too)

We traded Caissie, which hurt our backup depth and starting options for 2027 offensively, to give us a 2026 and beyond starting pitcher, where we also have a few impending FAs. A Shaw trade would do the same, because right now our 2027 is three pitchers. 

[Neuby]

Baseball is going to baseball and Shaw will end up with close to 500 at-bats.

 

 

[squally1313]

10 minutes ago, Neuby said:

Baseball is going to baseball and Shaw will end up with close to 500 at-bats.

 

 

I mean, maybe. Last year we had 9 guys with over 400 PAs. After that, no one had more than 200. Maybe we want to give our starters a little more rest. Or maybe it's more likely than not just probabilistically that one of Bregman/Swanson/Hoerner goes down with a serious injury. 

Not having Shaw around would make 2027 and beyond a little trickier. But I think you can recreate 2026-utility-Shaw, or close to it, pretty easily, and solve some other current and/or future problems in the process. 

[Bertz]

 

 

Gordo works for NESN so not a total rando

[Cuzi]

The Nationals threw out there that they are listening on offers for Abrams.

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

Not having Shaw around would make 2027 and beyond a little trickier. But I think you can recreate 2026-utility-Shaw, or close to it, pretty easily, and solve some other current and/or future problems in the process. 

It would be trickier, but I assume if the Cubs did trade Shaw they would get in return someone they would count on in ‘27. So they lose Shaw for ‘27 and beyond, but get the guy they got in a trade. So if it is a pitcher, that is one rotation spot they don’t have to spend money on in ‘27. Then they can  actually sign Hoerner or Suzuki, or both again, because they are getting cheap pitching. I also agree with you that they can get a utility guy who can put up similar numbers to what Shaw would put up. I don’t see trading him hurting them much, if at all, this year. As long as they get good value for Shaw, they can deal him. And if they don’t that is fine too. Go into the season with him as utility. 

[Geographyhater8888]

21 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Why is this a binary choice between a theoretical above replacement Matt Shaw and the 2025-only version of Vidal Brujan? There aren't any other options out there that can give us replacement level production?

Like, no one would argue that the players signed to be bench players turned out well. But they were mostly all signed coming off of much better seasons (seasons that look like 2025 Matt Shaw). So either

• Hoyer is the worst GM ever at signing utility guys because he inevitably picks one on the brink of collapse, 
• we've maybe just hit some bad luck (while ignoring Carson Kelly, McGuire...maybe he can only do catchers?),
• maybe there's a penalty to your production when going from getting every day PAs to being called on once a week or brought in cold in the late innings against top relievers (which would apply to Shaw too)

We traded Caissie, which hurt our backup depth and starting options for 2027 offensively, to give us a 2026 and beyond starting pitcher, where we also have a few impending FAs. A Shaw trade would do the same, because right now our 2027 is three pitchers. 

Last year 6 different players started over 150 games. Partly due to injury luck and partly because of the unplayability of our horrific bench. The second half offensive slump I’m sure was mostly variance and and maybe or maybe not a lack off days for the every day position players causing fatigue. After trading for Castro  the rest days increased. 

The great injury luck isn’t a guarantee nor is it a slam dunk they’ll replace Shaw’s production with another experimental utility bat. Shaw wouldn’t be coming off the bench cold because he’d likely see consistent playing time if he lives up to his projections. No need for in season try outs.
 

If you can get a haul for Shaw then fantastic but he’d be the main guy unlike years past and be a valuable contributor. With DH being a question mark he’ll get his opportunity against left handed pitchers with either Bregman or Suzuki moving to DH with Shaw playing third or corner outfield. 

Edited January 24 by Geographyhater8888