Cubs Pre-Offseason Mega Thread

[squally1313]

13 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

You know he'd turn into Scott horsefeathers Rolen the moment he was traded to STL.  In other words:

I know this is objectively dumb, but similar to me preferring the White Sox being good because it's more entertaining....the idea of the Cardinals having a super-MAGA third baseman is wayyyy more fun than like, broken down, previously very cool Nolan Arenado. Give me a good villain. 

[Outshined_One]

Alright, alright, let's gently put the thread back on track here.

Where was I?  Oh right, trade Shaw to Sacramento.  They have some fun guys who are probably desperate to get out.

[mul21]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

Shaw's bat speed went up as the season went on, and anecdotally it felt like he really figured out his ideal approach (for stuff hard and up shoot it into the RCF gap, for stuff soft and low golf it right down the line).  He also looked really good in the OF after his rough April.

Dude's a horsefeathers and a dope but I do think he's probably a good player and from a field of play perspective feel comfortable assuming he'll be the primary in one of the COF spots.

You must have been watching a different end of season/playoff series than I did where I saw him flailing at pitches up and in that he had no chance at hitting.

[Jason Ross]

15 minutes ago, mul21 said:

You must have been watching a different end of season/playoff series than I did where I saw him flailing at pitches up and in that he had no chance at hitting.

A few PAs =/= overall approach. 

I think we can all agree he didn't look super great in those few games at the end of the season. At times, he was outright frustrating. I yelled at my TV over thar ****** bunt. It was a rough week for a lot of Cubs, especially the offense. But I also think we can point to some positives under the hood for Shaw as well that we can see when we zoom outside of a few PAs.

[Bertz]

17 minutes ago, mul21 said:

You must have been watching a different end of season/playoff series than I did where I saw him flailing at pitches up and in that he had no chance at hitting.

I mean yeah a guy who is wearing out the opposite field gap is going to get attacked up and in?

[squally1313]

Shaw went .194/.318/.306 in September with a .294 xwOBA. 

In the first half he had 130 ABs and 32.4%/38.1%/29.5% Pull/Center/Oppo. In the second half he had 43 ABs and went 34.2%/44.7%/21.1% Pull/Center/Oppo. His first half OPS was .737, his second half was .735. I'm just....not seeing these supposed changes. As a third or second baseman with an at least average glove? Sure. As a corner outfielder? Not seeing it yet.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Shaw went .194/.318/.306 in September with a .294 xwOBA. 

In the first half he had 130 ABs and 32.4%/38.1%/29.5% Pull/Center/Oppo. In the second half he had 43 ABs and went 34.2%/44.7%/21.1% Pull/Center/Oppo. His first half OPS was .737, his second half was .735. I'm just....not seeing these supposed changes. As a third or second baseman with an at least average glove? Sure. As a corner outfielder? Not seeing it yet.

I think this is mostly a function of getting more PA against RHP when Dansby went down(and having a slump against them simultaneously).  You pair him with next year's Conforto or a similar bet that can fake it defensively in the OF, and I think you can be confident he'll rake against LHP and you can further test him against RHP as his progress allows.

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Shaw went .194/.318/.306 in September with a .294 xwOBA. 

In the first half he had 130 ABs and 32.4%/38.1%/29.5% Pull/Center/Oppo. In the second half he had 43 ABs and went 34.2%/44.7%/21.1% Pull/Center/Oppo. His first half OPS was .737, his second half was .735. I'm just....not seeing these supposed changes. As a third or second baseman with an at least average glove? Sure. As a corner outfielder? Not seeing it yet.

So, I'll preface this with this: I wouldn't hand Matt Shaw a COF spot without some real other options (not Kevin Alcantara, I mean like someone I am fairly confident will be good), but league LF OPS was .714 and league RF OPS was .723. If he managed either of those OPS over a full year, he'd have been above average at both and I think there's some reason to be bullish on his defense at either position.

There's more caveats and things we can dive into: I'm not sure he's a killer against RHP, that there's some likely rust from his return and I think his PAs were more curated than anything, so his OPS on it's own probably looks better than it should in more full-time duty. On the flip side, wrist injuries can very much be lingering power-sappers for a while, which may have caused the poor September. 

But if we're going just on OPS, those OPS would have flown for COF spots last year using league data. So I'm not sure they're a red flag on their own. 

[Bertz]

Matt Shaw has a 118 wRC+ since the '25 ASB, and like there are aspects of that you can quibble with but also he's  24 and probably at least a +5 in the COF defensively 

[squally1313]

3 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I think this is mostly a function of getting more PA against RHP when Dansby went down(and having a slump against them simultaneously).  You pair him with next year's Conforto or a similar bet that can fake it defensively in the OF, and I think you can be confident he'll rake against LHP and you can further test him against RHP as his progress allows.

It still kinda feels like we're stretching too thin to try to make him sound better? He had 21 ABs against RHPs, 25 PAs, and had a 74 wRC against them. He has a career 82 wRC. 

2 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I'm not sure he's a killer against RHP,

I'll go a step further and say he's straight up not good against RHPs

 

3 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think there's some reason to be bullish on his defense at either position.

This seems pretty vague. He's got 209 games played and his defense, while noisy and all over the place, is net neutral. 

4 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Matt Shaw has a 118 wRC+ since the '25 ASB, and like there are aspects of that you can quibble with but also he's  24 and probably at least a +5 in the COF defensively 

There's not much support anymore for the concept of 24 being some infant stage of your baseball career. He has a .307 xwOBA in that stretch while having 35% of his PAs come against LHP (league average this year is 30%).

Short side of a platoon and backup infielder, sure, great, whatever. Getting significant at bats against RHP in a premium offensive position, where we got 127 wRC and 123 wRC from our starters last year, is a very large step back. 

[Jason Ross]

23 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

It still kinda feels like we're stretching too thin to try to make him sound better? He had 21 ABs against RHPs, 25 PAs, and had a 74 wRC against them. He has a career 82 wRC. 

I'll go a step further and say he's straight up not good against RHPs

 

This seems pretty vague. He's got 209 games played and his defense, while noisy and all over the place, is net neutral. 

There's not much support anymore for the concept of 24 being some infant stage of your baseball career. He has a .307 xwOBA in that stretch while having 35% of his PAs come against LHP (league average this year is 30%).

Short side of a platoon and backup infielder, sure, great, whatever. Getting significant at bats against RHP in a premium offensive position, where we got 127 wRC and 123 wRC from our starters last year, is a very large step back. 

So far, in just his first few hundred innings in RF, he posted a +3 DRS and a +2 OAA. We should be careful making declarative statements on fielding in short samples; outliers are still real in the world of defense. But considering it's not his "natural" position and it's been quite some time there, I think there's a very real reason to believe he's good. He's very athletic (91st percentile sprint speed) and he had an above average arm (55th percentile) last year. Him being good out there makes sense as long as he can figure out the instincts of the position.

In context only 5 (qualified) RF's had a better DRS and only 3 had a better OAA despite them playing 600+ more innings than Shaw. Shaw outpaces almost everyone in his small sample. Again, small samples and things can go up and down easily so I won't say "he's the fourth best defensive RF" or anything but I see no reason not to be bullish.

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

So far, in just his first few hundred innings in RF, he posted a +3 DRS and a +2 OAA. We should be careful making declarative statements on fielding in short samples; outliers are still real in the world of defense. But considering it's not his "natural" position and it's been quite some time there, I think there's a very real reason to believe he's good.

This is probably pedantic, but this feels like we're pointing in both directions here. Like, it not being his natural position isn't a good thing, right?

 

4 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

he had an above average arm (55th percentile) last year. 

Savant has average LF velocity at 87.4% and average RF velocity as 90.7%. Shaw was at 85.1%, which is seemingly only based on his throws in RF. That still shows up as above average arm strength for full time RFs (Lawrence Butler and his 85.4% is 56th percentile). Long way of saying it's fine for the spot, not an asset. And 'fine for the spot' starts you in the red in terms of defensive contributions. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

29 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

It still kinda feels like we're stretching too thin to try to make him sound better? He had 21 ABs against RHPs, 25 PAs, and had a 74 wRC against them. He has a career 82 wRC. 

Well we're talking about a month where had 46 PA total, it's gonna be noisy.  Despite that RHP struggle he still had a 131 wRC+ against LHP, which speaks to the point I was getting at that you can count on Shaw to mash LHP at a starting OF level, and with the appropriate hedge you can let him earn more time against RHP as his performance dictates.

[squally1313]

2 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Well we're talking about a month where had 46 PA total, it's gonna be noisy.  Despite that RHP struggle he still had a 131 wRC+ against LHP, which speaks to the point I was getting at that you can count on Shaw to mash LHP at a starting OF level, and with the appropriate hedge you can let him earn more time against RHP as his performance dictates.

Which is totally fine with me. Give him two starts a week, pair him with Happ, whatever. He's very far away from being an even below average corner outfield hitter against RHPs. 

Give Happ 1/$23m, or 4/$55m or whatever 'take a discount to retire as a Cub' you want to write up, bring back Conforto. You've got 3/4ths of two corner outfield platoons and probably $70m or more still to spend. Whether that goes to pitching or whether you want to splash on Arozarena to maintain the best offensive outfield in baseball (and solve the DH issue)....that can be figured out down the road. Going into next year with Shaw as a pseudo full time COF starter so that we can throw money at some new versions of Jameson Taillon (Tyler Mahle, as an example) would be bad. 

[Jason Ross]

47 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

This is probably pedantic, but this feels like we're pointing in both directions here. Like, it not being his natural position isn't a good thing, right?

 

Savant has average LF velocity at 87.4% and average RF velocity as 90.7%. Shaw was at 85.1%, which is seemingly only based on his throws in RF. That still shows up as above average arm strength for full time RFs (Lawrence Butler and his 85.4% is 56th percentile). Long way of saying it's fine for the spot, not an asset. And 'fine for the spot' starts you in the red in terms of defensive contributions. 

I think we're really splitting hairs here, overall don't you think? If I told you a rookie had a +3 DRS and a +2 OAA at any position, "I am bullish" on him at that position feels like a perfectly reasonable take, right? It just means optimistic. Now, Matt Shaw wasn't a "rookie" last year, but it was his first year at a position. In a small sample size, he did everything you could realistically ask of him from this aspect.

While OAA doesn't take arm into account, DRS, does. The sample size might be misleading, and with a larger sample, we could see this play out more, but during his time, DRS rated it neutral. 

If we're that concerned about his ability to make throws from RF, then LF is just as viable and just as open. LF has an even lower barrier of entry at arm strength. The further left, the less strong an arm is, the further right the more strong (per the chart below). LF is averaging 87.4 mph and RF averages 90.7. 

Ian Happ has been a well above average defender in LF. He was one of the strongest last year. His average throw from LF was 84.6 mph. Matt Shaw was 85.1 mph from RF. So if Ian Happ can do it, I see no reason Shaw couldn't. 

Basically, I do agree that his arm will be below average for either position. I would argue I don't find it instantly disqualifying for either, especially when he's already showing the possibility that his range/OAA/DRS would likely more than make up for any issues if they kept at those levels.

So with all of this, is there any reason we should be pessimistic about him handling a COF? 

 

[mul21]

26 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think we're really splitting hairs here, overall don't you think? If I told you a rookie had a +3 DRS and a +2 OAA at any position, "I am bullish" on him at that position feels like a perfectly reasonable take, right? It just means optimistic. Now, Matt Shaw wasn't a "rookie" last year, but it was his first year at a position. In a small sample size, he did everything you could realistically ask of him from this aspect.

While OAA doesn't take arm into account, DRS, does. The sample size might be misleading, and with a larger sample, we could see this play out more, but during his time, DRS rated it neutral. 

If we're that concerned about his ability to make throws from RF, then LF is just as viable and just as open. LF has an even lower barrier of entry at arm strength. The further left, the less strong an arm is, the further right the more strong (per the chart below). LF is averaging 87.4 mph and RF averages 90.7. 

Ian Happ has been a well above average defender in LF. He was one of the strongest last year. His average throw from LF was 84.6 mph. Matt Shaw was 85.1 mph from RF. So if Ian Happ can do it, I see no reason Shaw couldn't. 

So with all of this, is there any reason we should be pessimistic about him handling a COF? 

 

I think we should also take into account what we've seen with Happ, where converting to the OF from the IF resulted in a guy who's much more accurate with throws than most OF, even without the strongest of arms.  Not that Shaw will necessarily see the same results, but I think it's probably more likely than not.

[Bertz]

59 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

There's not much support anymore for the concept of 24 being some infant stage of your baseball career. He has a .307 xwOBA in that stretch while having 35% of his PAs come against LHP (league average this year is 30%).

Short side of a platoon and backup infielder, sure, great, whatever. Getting significant at bats against RHP in a premium offensive position, where we got 127 wRC and 123 wRC from our starters last year, is a very large step back. 

I mean the difference between 65/35 and 70/30 over that period is like 30 PAs.  If you fix that my back if the napkin math looks like it drops his wRC+ to 115?  

And 24 is not an infant but it's absolutely arrow up still.  The flattening of aging curves is largely about quantifying defense better, i.e. offense peaks late 20's defense peaks mid 20's.  For instance if you look at the pre-season ZiPs forecast for Shaw they saw him adding 15 points of OPS from 26 to 27.

Last year's outfield production is not walking back through that door, even if you pay a premium to bring back last year's outfielders.  Like it would be crazy to throw Pedro and Shaw in the corners and hang the mission accomplished banner but signing a gaggle of 33 year olds to completely block off the kids feels almost as bad in the opposite direction.

[Jason Ross]

13 minutes ago, mul21 said:

I think we should also take into account what we've seen with Happ, where converting to the OF from the IF resulted in a guy who's much more accurate with throws than most OF, even without the strongest of arms.  Not that Shaw will necessarily see the same results, but I think it's probably more likely than not.

Absolutely. Arm strength is just one data point. Accuracy is another. Below is where Dansby Swanson lies as a SS. 

He's one of the weakest armed SS in baseball. We shouldn't directly compare RF or LF to SS; shortstops make a lot more throws and the positions are different. They require different things. I also don't want to compare Swanson to Shaw; not saying Shaw is as elite as Swanson is defensively even beyond the position issues. 

Mostly, just pointing out that if Shaw was somewhat under the average arm-strength at the position that we have seen multiple players on the roster (Ian Happ, Dansby Swanson and Nico Hoerner) all who have below average arms for their position find sustained defensive success. Matt Shaw can find ways to overcome it; namely good jumps, athleticism and arm accuracy. OAA and DRS are already picking up on his ability to potentially do that. We don't have a large enough sample size to just accept it as 100% fact, but it's certainly a reason to believe he's got a skillset to be someone who can, as well.

[squally1313]

42 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think we're really splitting hairs here, overall don't you think? If I told you a rookie had a +3 DRS and a +2 OAA at any position, "I am bullish" on him at that position feels like a perfectly reasonable take, right? It just means optimistic. Now, Matt Shaw wasn't a "rookie" last year, but it was his first year at a position. In a small sample size, he did everything you could realistically ask of him from this aspect.

While OAA doesn't take arm into account, DRS, does. The sample size might be misleading, and with a larger sample, we could see this play out more, but during his time, DRS rated it neutral. 

If we're that concerned about his ability to make throws from RF, then LF is just as viable and just as open. LF has an even lower barrier of entry at arm strength. The further left, the less strong an arm is, the further right the more strong (per the chart below). LF is averaging 87.4 mph and RF averages 90.7. 

Ian Happ has been a well above average defender in LF. He was one of the strongest last year. His average throw from LF was 84.6 mph. Matt Shaw was 85.1 mph from RF. So if Ian Happ can do it, I see no reason Shaw couldn't. 

Basically, I do agree that his arm will be below average for either position. I would argue I don't find it instantly disqualifying for either, especially when he's already showing the possibility that his range/OAA/DRS would likely more than make up for any issues if they kept at those levels.

So with all of this, is there any reason we should be pessimistic about him handling a COF? 

 

Definitely splitting hairs. I just think we should be hesitant to bake in some added defensive value to his theoretical overall contributions as a corner outfielder. He can most likely handle the position just fine, but the median corner outfielder is underwater in terms of the defensive component of their overall value calculation. It's why the position demands the type of offensive production that I just don't think you can rely on based on what's happened in his career to date. 

[squally1313]

17 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I mean the difference between 65/35 and 70/30 over that period is like 30 PAs.  If you fix that my back if the napkin math looks like it drops his wRC+ to 115?  

And 24 is not an infant but it's absolutely arrow up still.  The flattening of aging curves is largely about quantifying defense better, i.e. offense peaks late 20's defense peaks mid 20's.  For instance if you look at the pre-season ZiPs forecast for Shaw they saw him adding 15 points of OPS from 26 to 27.

Last year's outfield production is not walking back through that door, even if you pay a premium to bring back last year's outfielders.  Like it would be crazy to throw Pedro and Shaw in the corners and hang the mission accomplished banner but signing a gaggle of 33 year olds to completely block off the kids feels almost as bad in the opposite direction.

Fair points in the top two paragraphs. To the last point....that's why I keep coming back to it being square peg round hole. Since ASB 2025 he's a 98 wRC against RHP. Setting aside the fact that he was a lot worse in 2026, and setting aside that the expected metrics on the whole think he's been overperforming, league average-ish, good against LHP, can competently handle one or two defensive positions that give you positive value add....that's a plenty valuable player.

We just....don't have those openings. He's not blocked by a theoretical Michael Conforto. He's blocked by Nico and Bregman. I know it's not as simple as swapping him out for a version of Matt Shaw that can't play defense but can hit RHP, so I'm fine keeping him around to take the starts against LHPs opposite Happ/Conforto and also being the backup infielder while only taking up one bench spot. But the most likely result of Shaw getting 500+ ABs in a COF spot is average defense and below average offense, and I think we can do better by going down a couple different paths. 

[Jason Ross]

12 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Definitely splitting hairs. I just think we should be hesitant to bake in some added defensive value to his theoretical overall contributions as a corner outfielder. He can most likely handle the position just fine, but the median corner outfielder is underwater in terms of the defensive component of their overall value calculation. It's why the position demands the type of offensive production that I just don't think you can rely on based on what's happened in his career to date. 

I think it's fair to say that he may not add defensive value. I do think it's important to point out that even if he's not "adding" value, he can "add value" comparative to his peers. Even if his DEF value is net neutral, if he's able to not be, like, a -5 out there (as most of his peers are or are far worse) it's a way to close the gap on his wRC+, too.

All of these are the reasons why I wouldn't hand him the starting spot, to be fair. But are reasons why I think I'd be very willing to give him a starring platoon role and some leeway to force his way as a starter if he can. 

[squally1313]

7 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think it's fair to say that he may not add defensive value. I do think it's important to point out that even if he's not "adding" value, he can "add value" comparative to his peers. Even if his DEF value is net neutral, if he's able to not be, like, a -5 out there (as most of his peers are) it's a way to close the gap on his wRC+, too.

Yeah....in his career, 640 PAs, 98 wRC, slightly overperforming the xwOBA and slightly above water defensively, gives you 2.2 fWAR. Certainly not terrible. But when you think about how a total of 9 full time corner outfielders gave you positive defensive value this year, and how Ian Happ, while almost assuredly being a negative player against LHP, still put up 2.6 fWAR in total....still seems better to at least go the platoon route. 

[Jason Ross]

26 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Yeah....in his career, 640 PAs, 98 wRC, slightly overperforming the xwOBA and slightly above water defensively, gives you 2.2 fWAR. Certainly not terrible. But when you think about how a total of 9 full time corner outfielders gave you positive defensive value this year, and how Ian Happ, while almost assuredly being a negative player against LHP, still put up 2.6 fWAR in total....still seems better to at least go the platoon route. 

Yeah, totally agreed. I think you got me when I was mid-edit: I think giving Shaw a platoon buddy, but also a little rope to force his way against RHP more is about where I'm comfortable at. He should have some real MLB talent with him; someone you're comfortable with having a floor against RHP. But giving him just enough PT against RHP initially that if he can show proof-of-concept against them, that he can earn more as he goes.

[Post Count Padder]

5 hours ago, Outshined_One said:

Alright, alright, let's gently put the thread back on track here.

Where was I?  Oh right, trade Shaw to Sacramento.  They have some fun guys who are probably desperate to get out.

Would absolutely do this. Though Soderstrom is probably too big an ask, and he and Butler are signed cheaply for a few more years, which is probably valuable to the A's.

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, Post Count Padder said:

Would absolutely do this. Though Soderstrom is probably too big an ask, and he and Butler are signed cheaply for a few more years, which is probably valuable to the A's.

But with the A’s you never know what they value. Didn’t they trade Contreras for Ruiz. I woulsnt mind Shaw for Soderstrom.