Nico Extended

[Jason Ross]

14 minutes ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

Wouldn't the Swanson situation amongst the 4 SS of his class be an example? He was the best defensively and received the least of the four?

Wouldn’t a Pete Alonso, 5/$155 be an example? Never put up a 4 fWAR year, but got more than Nico last off season? The Juan Soto deal? 

Maybe I’m cherry picking? 

I can agree I may be antiquated in my view of what a $20m/ should look like. You’re likely right. 

Doesn’t change he signed for (somewhat to much) less than most here thought, even if it was more than I wanted. 

I would say that none of these really make your argument for you. For Swanson, I think there was a good debate over "what is he?" because...it was hard to tell. He hadn't been as consistent as others. And in the end, each of these are at best anecdotal. Your argument really revolves around the idea that across the MLB, teams value defense less than offense.

Like, yeah, Pete Alonso got 5/$155m, but he averages 3+ fWAR a season. Let's age regress him like others starting with his ZiPS this year: 

3.7 (2026), 3.2 (2027), 2.7 (2028), 2.2 (2029), 1.7 (2030). This is a 13.5 fWAR total over 5 years.

Using ~12m per win we get: $162m, or right in the ballpark of that data set above. If you want to make an argument that Nico Hoerner was undervalued by a little because he's more of a defensive player (let's say, getting on the short end of the $10.6 - $12.9m range) I'm not sure I'd fully disagree with you. I think biases are in play, and I think you could probably make that argument as at 13.5 fWAR, Nico was pretty close to the 10.6m per win marker with his contract (though I suspect there's a discount being given to the Cubs here, but I'll admit that's a guess). But even at best, your argument boils down to like, $1.5m per year  here, which isn't like a really major difference. Over the course of a 5 year contract you're saving one-years worth of a mediocre bench player or reliever.

If your argument is "the best players in the league like Juan Soto are really good hitters", I also don't disagree! The reality is that it is easier and there is a higher ceiling for oWAR over dWAR. But this is once again a bit of a different argument than "teams value one more than the other" because I don't think smart MLB orgs are doing that. They recognize that Soto is a 6+ fWAR player despite being a poor defender because he can compile so much oWAR, but it isn't that they're poo-pooing defense either. If that makes sense?

[chopsx9]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

Fangraphs currently projects Hoerner to be worth 3.2 WAR in '27 and 2.8 WAR in '28.  Do the half a WAR per year decline thing and that's ~12 WAR for the life of his contract.  I'm not going to back of the napkin the inflation calc but $12-13M/WAR.

I don't think the Cubs signed Hoerner expecting his production to drop by equivalent of 1 WAR for next year or for his production to decline to the equivalent of 2 WAR in 2 years.  If they did they don't make this deal.  I'd certainly expect him to be better than that and I think the Cubs do as well.  There were certainly posts suggesting his contract would be in $30 million range - he did not take a 25% home town discount, he just didn't.  The Union would be raging.  In any case I think Hoerner is very good player, I think its a fair contract and I'm not upset at all that he is back.  I might not have done it but it is in no way egregious.

[chopsx9]

5 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

, but it isn't that they're poo-pooing defense either. If that makes sense?

Valuing one thing over another and "poo-pooing" aren't really the same thing though.

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, chopsx9 said:

Valuing one thing over another and "poo-pooing" aren't really the same thing though.

Based on how Junkyard has categorized "glove first" players and Hoerner not even being a $20m player, I'd say he has been, which is why I mentioned "poo-pooing". But I also don't necessarily blame him; I think defense is the one thing that has always lagged behind when it comes to our understanding of the game.

[javy knows my name]

5 hours ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

Love ya'lls narrative is 'second hometown discount' 'must have left money on the table' and not 'nico may not have been worth ($$) what I thought.'

You guys love your Hoerner boners. God bless ya. 

Go Cubs.

This is a comment a turd would make

[JunkyardWalrus]

58 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I would say that none of these really make your argument for you. For Swanson, I think there was a good debate over "what is he?" because...it was hard to tell. He hadn't been as consistent as others. And in the end, each of these are at best anecdotal. Your argument really revolves around the idea that across the MLB, teams value defense less than offense.

Like, yeah, Pete Alonso got 5/$155m, but he averages 3+ fWAR a season. Let's age regress him like others starting with his ZiPS this year: 

3.7 (2026), 3.2 (2027), 2.7 (2028), 2.2 (2029), 1.7 (2030). This is a 13.5 fWAR total over 5 years.

Using ~12m per win we get: $162m, or right in the ballpark of that data set above. If you want to make an argument that Nico Hoerner was undervalued by a little because he's more of a defensive player (let's say, getting on the short end of the $10.6 - $12.9m range) I'm not sure I'd fully disagree with you. I think biases are in play, and I think you could probably make that argument as at 13.5 fWAR, Nico was pretty close to the 10.6m per win marker with his contract (though I suspect there's a discount being given to the Cubs here, but I'll admit that's a guess). But even at best, your argument boils down to like, $1.5m per year  here, which isn't like a really major difference. Over the course of a 5 year contract you're saving one-years worth of a mediocre bench player or reliever.

If your argument is "the best players in the league like Juan Soto are really good hitters", I also don't disagree! The reality is that it is easier and there is a higher ceiling for oWAR over dWAR. But this is once again a bit of a different argument than "teams value one more than the other" because I don't think smart MLB orgs are doing that. They recognize that Soto is a 6+ fWAR player despite being a poor defender because he can compile so much oWAR, but it isn't that they're poo-pooing defense either. If that makes sense?

It's more ‘the highest paid players in the league are really good hitters.”

Alonso makes that 3 war with his bat,  but there isn’t a 3 war defender in the league (according to Fangraphs) to contrast. 

Yes, that makes sense. I guess that’s the my crux: the best defenders aren’t paid like the best offensive players, thusly defense is less valuable than offense, not that defense has no value. 

Anyway. Thank you for the thoughtful replies. I appreciate it.

 

[JunkyardWalrus]

1 minute ago, javy knows my name said:

This is a comment a turd would make

Seems the same could be said about this comment? 

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

It's more ‘the highest paid players in the league are really good hitters.”

Alonso makes that 3 war with his bat,  but there isn’t a 3 war defender in the league (according to Fangraphs) to contrast. 

Yes, that makes sense. I guess that’s the my crux: the best defenders aren’t paid like the best offensive players, thusly defense is less valuable than offense, not that defense has no value. 

Anyway. Thank you for the thoughtful replies. I appreciate it.

 

Any time! Man, I'm just jazzed to be talking baseball. It's good for the Cubs to be back. 

And you know, regardless of whether or not we think Hoerner is a scoosh under or overpaid, the good news is that the Cubs are actually spending money. 2-3 months ago the team had very little extended and guaranteed longer term. If they are going to start acting more like a big market, we all win.

[Post Count Padder]

2 hours ago, squally1313 said:

I’ll just chime in here and say that I do, in fact, love my Hoerner Boner 

Are we not all Happy and Hoerny? 

[Rcal10]

59 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

 

And you know, regardless of whether or not we think Hoerner is a scoosh under or overpaid, the good news is that the Cubs are actually spending money. 2-3 months ago the team had very little extended and guaranteed longer term. If they are going to start acting more like a big market, we all win.

This is the main point. Good to now be arguing if the Cubs paid someone too much. Nice to see them acting large market. 

I will agree that I found it hard to believe Nico would have gotten $30M a year. But I absolutely think he would have gotten $25M annual. So 6/$150. And it wouldn’t shock me if it was even a little higher. Only takes one team to value him that high. Especially if a team saw him as a SS.

He didn’t take a huge discount. He did leave money on the table if he plays as well this year as last, IMO. But he got security and being able to play where he must want to play. 

[Layoutman]

Watch Shaw breakout in a huge way after Nico's contract extension! 

Any no trade verbiage in the extension?  
 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

14 minutes ago, Layoutman said:

Any no trade verbiage in the extension?  
 

Full No trade.  In the practical sense it's for the first 3 years of the extension because he'd have 10/5 rights for the back half of the deal.

[Bull]

6 minutes ago, Layoutman said:

Watch Shaw breakout in a huge way after Nico's contract extension! 

Any no trade verbiage in the extension?  
 

This would not be a problem. If he's good enough to keep, he will get at bats. You can let one of Happ or Suzuki walk. If Suzuki walks you get a RHH bat first to platoon with Moises, and play RF when he isn't DH-ing and Shaw  keeps his current role, just a little more RF. If you let Happ walk, you sign a lefty bat first and do the same thing with Shaw in lefty, or right when Suzuki is DH-ing vs lefty opposing pitchers. 

Too many good players when you are facing FA with Suzuki and Happ is not a bad thing. 

[Stratos]

Let's say Happ and Seiya have solid years and both put up something between 3.0-3.5WAR this year.  What would each get in FA roughly (assuming no crazy collective agreement changes)?

I'm thinking something like 4/80 for either.  Id figure Seiya might get a bit more than Happ, maybe 4/85.

Would we want 1 or both at those prices?

Edited March 29 by Stratos

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

43 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Let's say Happ and Seiya have solid years and both put up something between 3.0-3.5WAR this year.  What would each get in FA roughly (assuming no crazy collective agreement changes)?

I'm thinking something like 4/80 for either.  Id figure Seiya might get a bit more than Happ, maybe 4/85.

Would we want 1 or both at those prices?

Yes and yes. I hope they get one of them done because replacing both in one offseason is gonna be tough.

[Geographyhater8888]

8 hours ago, Stratos said:

Let's say Happ and Seiya have solid years and both put up something between 3.0-3.5WAR this year.  What would each get in FA roughly (assuming no crazy collective agreement changes)?

I'm thinking something like 4/80 for either.  Id figure Seiya might get a bit more than Happ, maybe 4/85.

Would we want 1 or both at those prices?

Just one and preferably Suzuki. I don’t want to be on the hook for 30+ YO outfielders for another 4 years at those prices, and you’ve locked up a core still lacking any front line talent.
 

If Shaw is a disaster at the plate then that complicates things a bit. But if Shaw is okay but only as a solid infield bat then I’d explore trade options for starting pitching or corner outfield help. 

Edited March 29 by Geographyhater8888

[Geographyhater8888]

19 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

Based on how Junkyard has categorized "glove first" players and Hoerner not even being a $20m player, I'd say he has been, which is why I mentioned "poo-pooing". But I also don't necessarily blame him; I think defense is the one thing that has always lagged behind when it comes to our understanding of the game.

Nico is 18th in fWAR since 2022 at 17.4, Alonso lags way behind at 12.2 fWAR while 2 years older. The bias remarkable. Bellinger 6/$162, 3/$126 for Bichette who hasn’t posted an fWAR over 4 since 2022….

.

I’m sure they project their bats to age well and there’s a win probability component, more direct contributions to scoring, more consistent run sequencing potential with a top heavy lineup? 6/$141 for the leagues best baseman since 2022 is quite low. Swap Swansons and Nico’s power numbers with the same efficiency and Nico is a lot more expensive.

 

Edited March 29 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

3 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Nico is 18th in fWAR since 2022 at 17.4, Alonso lags way behind at 12.2 fWAR while 2 years older. The bias remarkable. Bellinger 6/$162, 3/$126 for Bichette who hasn’t posted an fWAR over 4 since 2022….

.

I’m sure they project their bats to age well and there’s a win probability component, more direct contributions to scoring, more consistent run sequencing potential with a top heavy lineup? 6/$141 for the leagues best baseman since 2022 is quite low. Swap Swansons and Nico’s power numbers with the same efficiency and Nico is a lot more expensive.

 

Right, but Bellinger is probably a good example of this. Bellinger over his last three seasons has a 125 wRC+ compared to Pete Alonso's 128 wRC+. I'm using the last three because Bellinger was really bad four years ago, but it also eliminates a 141 wRC+ season from Alonso which increases his wRC+ to 131. Regardless, in those three years, the HR difference is stark: 78 for Bellinger and 118 for Alonso. Bellinger is far more of a defensive asset than Alonso. ZiPS also sees this, giving Alonso a healthy 138 to 121 wRC+ projection in his favor despite their fWAR being very close on that projection.

And yet, the difference in AAV between Bellinger (27m per year) and Alonso (31m) is just $4m. If we grade them on similar regression models, the .5 slip each year based on their most recent ZiPS projection for 2026:

Pete: 3.8, 3.3, 2.7, 2.2, 1.5 = 13.5 over 5 years = 2.7 fWAR average
Cody: 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5 = 16 over 6 years = 2,6 fWAR average

These two contracts are very close. Cody got an extra year, but he's a few years younger. However, when we look at the ask of each, Alonso is being asked to average a little more per year, but the difference in AAV is $4m. It's not a massive change. And on total value, it's a difference under $10m.

If we were seeing some league wide trend that players who gain value more through their bats, I think these contracts would not be so similar. 

Bichette probably does not belong in this conversation, however. His contract is an opt-out heavy deal that very likely will be a one or two year deal with the goal to re-hit free agency. We should probably bin that one in a different discussion.

Overall, I think we may see slight biases towards home runs and offense, but I don't think there's some league wide trend where similarly valued players are being given significantly larger contracts. A few million AAV might be noticeable here or there, but even at $4m you're talking like the difference between a Hoby Milner.

[Geographyhater8888]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

Right, but Bellinger is probably a good example of this. Bellinger over his last three seasons has a 125 wRC+ compared to Pete Alonso's 128 wRC+. I'm using the last three because Bellinger was really bad four years ago, but it also eliminates a 141 wRC+ season from Alonso which increases his wRC+ to 131. Regardless, in those three years, the HR difference is stark: 78 for Bellinger and 118 for Alonso. Bellinger is far more of a defensive asset than Alonso. ZiPS also sees this, giving Alonso a healthy 138 to 121 wRC+ projection in his favor despite their fWAR being very close on that projection.

And yet, the difference in AAV between Bellinger (27m per year) and Alonso (31m) is just $4m. If we grade them on similar regression models, the .5 slip each year based on their most recent ZiPS projection for 2026:

Pete: 3.8, 3.3, 2.7, 2.2, 1.5 = 13.5 over 5 years = 2.7 fWAR average
Cody: 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5 = 16 over 6 years = 2,6 fWAR average

These two contracts are very close. Cody got an extra year, but he's a few years younger. However, when we look at the ask of each, Alonso is being asked to average a little more per year, but the difference in AAV is $4m. It's not a massive change. And on total value, it's a difference under $10m.

If we were seeing some league wide trend that players who gain value more through their bats, I think these contracts would not be so similar. 

Bichette probably does not belong in this conversation, however. His contract is an opt-out heavy deal that very likely will be a one or two year deal with the goal to re-hit free agency. We should probably bin that one in a different discussion.

Overall, I think we may see slight biases towards home runs and offense, but I don't think there's some league wide trend where similarly valued players are being given significantly larger contracts. A few million AAV might be noticeable here or there, but even at $4m you're talking like the difference between a Hoby Milner.

Nico fits into this at a 13.5 projected war when his deal starts. So it’s based on a projection model then. Okay. So Nico was underpaid relative to Alonso, which may it not have been a hometown discount or uncertainty over a looming lockout while entering free agency. That’s the closest 1:1 comparison we have for 2 opposite players who project equivalent production. Add Kyle Schwarber too.
 

I’m curious if he’d get maybe 8/$240  if he hit free agency after 2023 with his 2024-25 production matching  ZIPS projections, plus the additional 6 year regression model through 2031.  He’s alone as a top 20 position player from a war standpoint over a 4 and likely 5 year span with single digit home run rower. 

Edited March 29 by Geographyhater8888

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

This was cute

 

[17 Seconds]

On 3/28/2026 at 1:53 PM, JunkyardWalrus said:

Doesn’t change he signed for (somewhat to much) less than most here thought, even if it was more than I wanted. 

i think like 1 or 2 people thought he'd get a little more than he got and you're pretending like everyone was wrong and you were right. you were clearly out of touch with what he'd get

[JunkyardWalrus]

2 hours ago, 17 Seconds said:

i think like 1 or 2 people thought he'd get a little more than he got and you're pretending like everyone was wrong and you were right. you were clearly out of touch with what he'd get

Clearly.

[soccer10k]

On 3/27/2026 at 4:25 PM, chopsx9 said:

It means the agent is bad.  Nico may very well want to stay and may have said the Cubs are the only team he is willing to play for and has communicated that to his agent - who presumably would NOT communicate that to the Cubs.  However if a contract of $42 million more is that much of a sure thing then he has to get closer.   That's his job. There was no pressure to sign now.  I just don't think a $30 million was out there.

His job is to do what the player wants. If Nico goes to him and says he wants to stay in Chicago and he wants to sign basically before the season as long as the Cubs meet some sort of minimums for years/annual salary/total money, then that's what the agent does. He can say hey, I think I can get you more if you wait and test out FA, but if that's not what the player wants, that's not what will happen. 

I mean, rough estimate is Nico had made around $40M through 2026 before taxes. Pretty good money. But $130M guaranteed is life changing money. Lock that in and you don't have to worry about a down year depressing your value or a major injury. He's not a pitcher so that's less likely, but still happens. We live in a world where we see a lot of people prioritize the most money they can get over everything else. But not everyone does that, and maybe Nico is one of those people.

[chopsx9]

7 hours ago, soccer10k said:

His job is to do what the player wants. If Nico goes to him and says he wants to stay in Chicago and he wants to sign basically before the season as long as the Cubs meet some sort of minimums for years/annual salary/total money, then that's what the agent does. He can say hey, I think I can get you more if you wait and test out FA, but if that's not what the player wants, that's not what will happen. 

Any professional sport long term contract is life changing money, many of the short term ones as well.  $130 million is generational wealth.  Again the point isn't "more", it's the suggestion that there was $40+ million more.  I agree that Hoerner may have said he wanted to stay in Chicago and maybe Hoerner even threw out a number.   An agent is still going to negotiate for as high a number as he can get - that's what his pay is based on and that's his job and how he performs builds his reputation and his ability to sign more clients.  If the agent left $40 million on the table (25% of the contract) then he's a bad agent.  He doesn't need to actually test free agency.  Hoerner's not going to complain and send the money back to the Rickett's if the agent negotiates a better number.  Would he have gotten more - maybe, but I don't think the more equates anywhere close to $40million more.