Should the Cubs Make 3 Qualifying Offers Next Month?

[Matthew Trueblood]

Image courtesy of Patrick Gorski-Imagn Images

It might not seem so at first, but the Cubs have a pretty straightforward decision on Ian Happ. After parts of 10 seasons with the club, Happ is due to hit free agency at the end of the World Series. Technically, that'll be the first time he's ever had the right to choose his employer for the following season. When Happ and the Cubs were last on the verge of this decision, in early 2023, Happ signed a three-year contract worth $61 million. That meant that he never became a free agent, and that the Cubs never extended him a qualifying offer. Thus, once the Series is over and he officially becomes a free agent, the team can still do so. They have to do it.

At first blush, that seems overly simplistic, and maybe even downright wrong. Happ had a rough 2026. He batted .218/.323/.412, and after June 1, those numbers were .210/.311/.375. He's 32 years old. That player is not worth $23.1 million, which is what the qualifying offer will pay players who accept it next year. As we all know, though, there's a lot more to the player and the situation than that. Happ is a good defensive outfielder, even if he increasingly gets that value from his arm and has fringe-average range. He still hit well against right-handed pitchers (.241/.358/.458 for the season, .231/.338/.420 after June 1). He's a beloved part of the clubhouse fabric and the community, and the team and the player went through the difficult but necessary process of his role being reduced already this season. If he comes back in 2027, there won't be the same feeling of obligation to bat him near the top of the order or play him every day as there was in 2026.

Only if the team is ready to spend big this winter (and beyond) can they afford to pay $23 million for a glorified platoon bat, even if he comes with added value as a leader and a fan ambassador. As we've already discussed this week, though, the Cubs need to be ready to spend big, anyway. They can and should take the risk that comes with extending the qualifying offer, because here's the other thing: Happ might turn down the offer, anyway. This year's free-agent class is barren; Happ is one of the better outfielders who'll be available on it. He's not in any position to get another three-year deal on the high side of $20 million per year, but if he were unencumbered by the QO, he could certainly find a three-year deal for more like $45 million, or a two-year pact around $38 million. Even if the Cubs hang the QO on him and dampen his market, he might prefer to look for a multi-year landing spot where the rest of his career can unfold. If he does, the team can collect a draft pick when he signs elsewhere—though, since they were luxury-tax payers this year, that pick will be relatively late, after the fourth round.

That extra pick is, of course, not a great reward for taking the gamble on paying a player $23 million and only offering him 450-500 plate appearances—not on its own, anyway. Again, there's non-performance value attached to Happ, but there's another consideration that makes the risk worth it for the Cubs this fall, too. They have two more candidates for the same offer, and when you extend multiple QOs that are declined, the benefits of each are incrementally greater than those of one by itself.

Seiya Suzuki is the no-brainer of the class, for Chicago. They would love to have him back for $23 million next year. That won't happen; he'll decline the offer without a second thought. After the best season of his American tenure, Suzuki is in line for at least a three-year deal, with at least a $20-million AAV, even accounting for the drag on his market once the Cubs give him a QO. The team should consider re-signing him, but for now, imagine a scenario in which they're outbid. In that case, Suzuki would net them one of those top-150 picks, which means a slightly larger bonus pool for their draft class. 

Then there's Matthew Boyd. As with Happ, this might be an unappealing idea at first, but pitching is enormously expensive, and the Cubs have to replace a whole lot of outgoing pitchers this winter. The two-year deal between the two parties that expires next month includes a mutual option worth $15 million, which is really a $13-million decision, because he'll be paid a $2-million buyout if it's declined. The Cubs will enthusiastically exercise their side of that option, but Boyd will decline his. At that point, the Cubs have the right to extend him a QO; he's never gotten one before. 

Boyd will turn 36 over the winter. He's somewhat likely to accept a QO, if the team offers him one. Still, it's an easy call to do it. He pitched better this year than Shota Imanaga did in 2025, after which the Cubs gave Imanaga a QO. He'd be an expensive fourth starter, and that's very much what the team needs to strive to make him on the 2027 club, but it'll be exceptionally difficult to find a starter as good as Boyd on the market for less money, especially on a one-year deal. A short-term deal should be particularly attractive to the Cubs, too, because next year, they won't get a full season from Cade Horton, and new top pitching prospect Cade Townsend won't ascend to the majors. By 2028, if this is going to go where the team desperately wants it all to go, it'll be because Horton and Townsend are in place atop the rotation. It would be nice to lock in a veteran starter for next season without committing significant dollars to that guy beyond 2027; Boyd offers a perfect opportunity.

The Cubs are guaranteed to see one player turn down a QO this fall, in Suzuki, and they're very likely to receive a draft pick (along with about $450,000 to spend) when he signs elsewhere. They're unlikely to sign anyone with a QO attached to them; their top free-agent targets should be hurlers (like Tarik Skubal and Freddy Peralta) who were traded during the season and are thus ineligible to receive one. This is an opportunity for a team with a weak farm system and a desperate need to reload it to snatch up to $1.3 million in extra spending power by handing out three QOs and having each declined. Even if Happ and Boyd each take their deals, the team will have some options. That would only represent a total of about $10 million more spent on those two players than they spent in 2026, and while it's arguable that neither is worthy of a raise, most of the ways they might replace either come with both even higher cost increases and as much or more risk.

Again, all of this hinges on the team being ready to spend north of $300 million in 2027, and to keep their payroll at that level for the foreseeable future. It's fair to doubt that the Ricketts family will authorize that. If they don't, though, the whole conversation about next year's Cubs is moot; the team is not positioned to win without huge spending. They might as well both demonstrate their understanding of that fact and take steps to ameliorate it for future seasons, by giving Happ, Boyd and Suzuki all the chance to come back on expensive but reasonable one-year deals—or leave the team some residual value as they head out the door.

View full article

[Bertz]

Happ to me feels like an obvious yes, even if payroll stays flat.  This FA market on the position player side is absolute dog water.  Your alternatives in the outfield are:

A) Overpay for Suzuki or Arozarena's mid 30's coming off of career years they clearly won't repeat

B) Buy low on a guy like Grisham or Ward or Varsho or Robert

C) Try to Voltron together an outfielder out of platoon bats

C wouldn't be the worst thing in the world most years, but feels like a bad idea when you're handing the other open OF spot to the internal youth options.  B I actually like, but you're either not saving a ton of money from Happ (Grisham, Ward) or buying really low which goes back to being too risky with the uncertainty around the other spot.

Boyd's where the real debate lies IMO.  It's partly a player evaluation question: how much of Boyd's decline (particularly in whiffs) was a temporary issue because of the freak knee injury and how much was permanent (whether for age or the knee)?  But it's also a money question.  The team probably needs 3 SPs this winter.  If you have $50M earmarked for those three pitchers, Boyd at $23M is a non starter.  If you have $90M, then he's a slam dunk.

I'd probably lean against extending the offer to Boyd.  The depth in the FA SP market is actually pretty strong, and I suspect payroll will be back in the $260M range.  But broadly I think it's a close enough call that either way the team goes I'll probably shrug my shoulders and say fair enough.

[Arlen]

Let Happ go, let the young guys duke it out for the job. We don't need a decent leftfielder. We need to find an excellent one.

[mul21]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

Happ to me feels like an obvious yes, even if payroll stays flat.  This FA market on the position player side is absolute dog water.  Your alternatives in the outfield are:

A) Overpay for Suzuki or Arozarena's mid 30's coming off of career years they clearly won't repeat

B) Buy low on a guy like Grisham or Ward or Varsho or Robert

C) Try to Voltron together an outfielder out of platoon bats

C wouldn't be the worst thing in the world most years, but feels like a bad idea when you're handing the other open OF spot to the internal youth options.  B I actually like, but you're either not saving a ton of money from Happ (Grisham, Ward) or buying really low which goes back to being too risky with the uncertainty around the other spot.

Boyd's where the real debate lies IMO.  It's partly a player evaluation question: how much of Boyd's decline (particularly in whiffs) was a temporary issue because of the freak knee injury and how much was permanent (whether for age or the knee)?  But it's also a money question.  The team probably needs 3 SPs this winter.  If you have $50M earmarked for those three pitchers, Boyd at $23M is a non starter.  If you have $90M, then he's a slam dunk.

I'd probably lean against extending the offer to Boyd.  The depth in the FA SP market is actually pretty strong, and I suspect payroll will be back in the $260M range.  But broadly I think it's a close enough call that either way the team goes I'll probably shrug my shoulders and say fair enough.

It's a really weird spot to be in that the QO has to go out before the CBA negotiations happen and you have some budget clarity.  That's the biggest question for me with an offer to Boyd.

[Rcal10]

33 minutes ago, Arlen said:

Let Happ go, let the young guys duke it out for the job. We don't need a decent leftfielder. We need to find an excellent one.

How does letting Happ go and letting the young kids duke it out provide the Cubs with an excellent left fielder? And why do they need an excellent one. Why can’t they use a left fielder who puts up a 3 WAR? Frankly, I don’t think there is a chance the Cubs don’t give Happ a QO. The question is will he take it. Boyd is the question mark to me. 

[Bertz]

20 minutes ago, mul21 said:

It's a really weird spot to be in that the QO has to go out before the CBA negotiations happen and you have some budget clarity.  That's the biggest question for me with an offer to Boyd.

Very true.  Then annoyingly in the opposite direction the CBA induced 3 month FA/trade moratorium means there's some added value of getting some guys in the door ASAP.

I think since they need SO MUCH pitching you probably plan to get at least 1 ideally 2 SPs and ideally an outfielder in hand before the break.  It's extremely unlikely the Cap/LT/whatever salary suppressing mechanism is south of about $250M, so call it $60-70M you can safely spend before the break?

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Very true.  Then annoyingly in the opposite direction the CBA induced 3 month FA/trade moratorium means there's some added value of getting some guys in the door ASAP.

I think since they need SO MUCH pitching you probably plan to get at least 1 ideally 2 SPs and ideally an outfielder in hand before the break.  It's extremely unlikely the Cap/LT/whatever salary suppressing mechanism is south of about $250M, so call it $60-70M you can safely spend before the break?

Can that get even 1) Happ, 2) Peralta, Holmes, King or Rogers and then a lower priced pitcher like 3) Peterson or May? I just think Happ will be back. Either accepting the QO or accepting a team friendly short term deal. 

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

No way I'm risking the QO to Boyd unless PTR is increasing payroll

[gflore34]

I did raise the question of Boyd' health not being all there, yet, I can't see giving him a QO.  He'll take it in a New York minute, I really do not want any part of him in a future Cubs' rotation.  If Jed's prioritizing swing and miss then, re-upping Boyd is complete 180.

[Bill Fogg]

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

How does letting Happ go and letting the young kids duke it out provide the Cubs with an excellent left fielder? And why do they need an excellent one. Why can’t they use a left fielder who puts up a 3 WAR? Frankly, I don’t think there is a chance the Cubs don’t give Happ a QO. The question is will he take it. Boyd is the question mark to me. 

Did you watch the Cubs play this year ? Did you really think Happ was an integral part of our success ? He has become a 'Rob Deer' type of player. Deer would hit in the .220 range with 20-30hr's on teams that were never in contention. He was sort of a 'fan favorite' so his career lasted probably longer than it should have. Happ [ age 32 ] is a popular fan favorite for the Cubs but the idea that he is worth $23 million/year is ridiculous, as would be the expectation that he would return to the offensive production he provided up until this year. I'm not a fan of Alcantara [ not ready but he's too young to give up on ] and we don't have any promising young outfield prospects. Conforto [ age 34 ] ,Taylor & Suzuki [ age 32 ], really don't have much upside [ although I wouldn't be opposed to resigning either one ]. In my opinion the 2 best solutions for the Cubs are :

1] Give Shaw the opportunity to win the left field position. He was a good defensive infielder who should convert to an excellent defensive outfielder [ keep in mind that Happ was an infielder early in his career ]. Shaw is also fast enough to be a stolen base threat and his speed on the bases and range in the outfield are assets. I have concerns about his 'wrist injury' that derailed his sophomore campaign that may not have been fully healed when he returned and whether it could be a long-term concern. If healthy the chances that he could provide more offensive production that the 2026 version of Happ is a strong possibility, especially at a drastically lower payroll that could be used on much needed pitching.

2] It appears that we don't have any major league ready outfield prospects in our system, we should look at making a trade with another organization that has a prospect that looks promising but is blocked by the outfielders on their league team. Michael Busch comes to mind. He was a promising 3rd baseman in the Dodger organization that was blocked by quality major league players. We acquired Busch in Jan 2024 from the Dodgers for Jackson Ferris and Zyhir Hope [ don't forget we also received Yancy Almonte in that trade ! ]. Although there was a significant drop in Busch's offensive production this year, I think it is too early to give up on him although I wouldn't mind the Cubs acquiring a right handed 1st baseman to platoon with to cut down on the number of at bats against lefties. 

    The point that I am trying to make about Busch is twofold : our minor league system does not have what we need as far as an outfielder. Although Shaw is a better infielder, I believe he could make the adjustment to a good defensive outfielder. Busch was 3rd baseman in the Dodger minor league system who made a smooth transition to 1st base. Let's give Shaw a chance but also hope our scouts can find a prospect in another system who we can swing a trade for like we did with Busch. Let's keep our fingers crossed that either one or both work out. In light of Happ's 2026 production the bar is not set very high.                      

[Rcal10]

9 minutes ago, Bill Fogg said:

Did you watch the Cubs play this year ? Did you really think Happ was an integral part of our success ? He has become a 'Rob Deer' type of player. Deer would hit in the .220 range with 20-30hr's on teams that were never in contention. He was sort of a 'fan favorite' so his career lasted probably longer than it should have. Happ [ age 32 ] is a popular fan favorite for the Cubs but the idea that he is worth $23 million/year is ridiculous, as would be the expectation that he would return to the offensive production he provided up until this year. I'm not a fan of Alcantara [ not ready but he's too young to give up on ] and we don't have any promising young outfield prospects. Conforto [ age 34 ] ,Taylor & Suzuki [ age 32 ], really don't have much upside [ although I wouldn't be opposed to resigning either one ]. In my opinion the 2 best solutions for the Cubs are :

1] Give Shaw the opportunity to win the left field position. He was a good defensive infielder who should convert to an excellent defensive outfielder [ keep in mind that Happ was an infielder early in his career ]. Shaw is also fast enough to be a stolen base threat and his speed on the bases and range in the outfield are assets. I have concerns about his 'wrist injury' that derailed his sophomore campaign that may not have been fully healed when he returned and whether it could be a long-term concern. If healthy the chances that he could provide more offensive production that the 2026 version of Happ is a strong possibility, especially at a drastically lower payroll that could be used on much needed pitching.

2] It appears that we don't have any major league ready outfield prospects in our system, we should look at making a trade with another organization that has a prospect that looks promising but is blocked by the outfielders on their league team. Michael Busch comes to mind. He was a promising 3rd baseman in the Dodger organization that was blocked by quality major league players. We acquired Busch in Jan 2024 from the Dodgers for Jackson Ferris and Zyhir Hope [ don't forget we also received Yancy Almonte in that trade ! ]. Although there was a significant drop in Busch's offensive production this year, I think it is too early to give up on him although I wouldn't mind the Cubs acquiring a right handed 1st baseman to platoon with to cut down on the number of at bats against lefties. 

    The point that I am trying to make about Busch is twofold : our minor league system does not have what we need as far as an outfielder. Although Shaw is a better infielder, I believe he could make the adjustment to a good defensive outfielder. Busch was 3rd baseman in the Dodger minor league system who made a smooth transition to 1st base. Let's give Shaw a chance but also hope our scouts can find a prospect in another system who we can swing a trade for like we did with Busch. Let's keep our fingers crossed that either one or both work out. In light of Happ's 2026 production the bar is not set very high.                      

You’re new here, so I will give you a little advise. When writing please don’t question another poster regarding their knowledge or if they watched the Cubs. Most here have watched them plenty. And that sort of narrative can lead to snarky responses. But to answer your question, yes, I watched pretty much every game.

I am not disagreeing that Happ had a bad year. But he did very well left handed. And he is an excellent outfielder.

Also, I was responding to the post that suggested get rid of Happ and let the “young guys”fight it out. And the reasoning was because we didn’t need an “decent” left fielder, we needed an excellent one. So again, how does leaving the position for the young guys on the team generate an excellent left fielder. 
There is no question in my mind about if the Cubs offer Happ a QO or not. They will. And the reasoning is if he is used correctly he can post a WAR of 3 or more again next year. Which makes his $23M contract fair value. Or, if he signs a team friendly deal, maybe he takes 3/$50M. So, again, he would be well with the contract. Honestly, the outfield market is so weak I wouldn’t be shocked if Happ didn’t that the QO and actually got a 3/$60M deal. 

[mk49]

My guess is that Boyd will be worth 1yr/$15m (the same as the mutual option) or 2yr/$26m.  So, no QO.  

[Matthew Trueblood]

10 minutes ago, mk49 said:

My guess is that Boyd will be worth 1yr/$15m (the same as the mutual option) or 2yr/$26m.  So, no QO.  

I think that's a fair raw valuation. Are you willing to risk paying a premium to avoid a longer-term commitment, though, while also knowing there's an upside to the gamble if the player turns down the offer? I think that's the real question. It's not all about ensuring you never pay more than a player is "worth," you know?

[mk49]

21 minutes ago, Matthew Trueblood said:

I think that's a fair raw valuation. Are you willing to risk paying a premium to avoid a longer-term commitment, though, while also knowing there's an upside to the gamble if the player turns down the offer? I think that's the real question. It's not all about ensuring you never pay more than a player is "worth," you know?

No, because Boyd will probably accept the QO.  And, I wouldn't like that.  

[Matthew Trueblood]

3 hours ago, mk49 said:

No, because Boyd will probably accept the QO.  And, I wouldn't like that.  

Fair enough. Just be ready, then. You know how little Hoyer likes to make long-term commitments to pitchers. They might let Boyd go, then end up paying a QO-level price to a pitcher who's *extremely* similar, for two years instead of one, all because he won't want to do a five-year deal for the tier of available arm better than that.

[Arlen]

On 10/7/2026 at 12:37 PM, Rcal10 said:

How does letting Happ go and letting the young kids duke it out provide the Cubs with an excellent left fielder? And why do they need an excellent one. Why can’t they use a left fielder who puts up a 3 WAR? Frankly, I don’t think there is a chance the Cubs don’t give Happ a QO. The question is will he take it. Boyd is the question mark to me. 

Qualifying offer for one year is OK by me, I'm presuming Happ will not accept it. I'm going by percentages that the Cubs can find someone that will hit as well or better, or by platoon. Then, let another defender come off the bench to protect leads. Happ is simply not great and will be 32. Let another franchise give him a fat multi-year contract, not the Cubbies.

[Jason Ross]

22 minutes ago, Arlen said:

Qualifying offer for one year is OK by me, I'm presuming Happ will not accept it. I'm going by percentages that the Cubs can find someone that will hit as well or better, or by platoon. Then, let another defender come off the bench to protect leads. Happ is simply not great and will be 32. Let another franchise give him a fat multi-year contract, not the Cubbies.

Ian Happ had the 17th best wRC+ of all LF'ers last year (min .300 PAs). Against RHP, only seven hit better. When we factor in defense and total offense, just nine LF'ers were more valuable. The only LF'er among those nine who is 100% available is Randy Arozarena, who is also a FA and this is the first time in half a decade he had a better overall season than Happ (last year he was .1 fWAR more but we're going to call this "virtually the same" as fractional fWAR is worthless to debate). 

I'm not advocating to sign Ian Happ to a five year contract in which we're paying him like an every day player here, but this idea that Ian Happ is so easily replaced is just not grounded in reality. The most likely scenario by letting Ian Happ walk is that the Cubs are going to be downgrading LF and I'm not sure people are understanding that right now. Even in a platoon situation, there just are so very few LF'ers who are going to be clear upgrades; just about anyone will be a downgrade.

[Matthew Trueblood]

56 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Ian Happ had the 17th best wRC+ of all LF'ers last year (min .300 PAs). Against RHP, only seven hit better. When we factor in defense and total offense, just nine LF'ers were more valuable. The only LF'er among those nine who is 100% available is Randy Arozarena, who is also a FA and this is the first time in half a decade he had a better overall season than Happ (last year he was .1 fWAR more but we're going to call this "virtually the same" as fractional fWAR is worthless to debate). 

I'm not advocating to sign Ian Happ to a five year contract in which we're paying him like an every day player here, but this idea that Ian Happ is so easily replaced is just not grounded in reality. The most likely scenario by letting Ian Happ walk is that the Cubs are going to be downgrading LF and I'm not sure people are understanding that right now. Even in a platoon situation, there just are so very few LF'ers who are going to be clear upgrades; just about anyone will be a downgrade.

I think that's 80% right. I do think we need to keep in mind that he's 32, with a skill set I don't think will age very well. I mean, you heard me, above: I think it's an easy call to make the QO. But I'd certainly be wary of a long-term deal with him, and I think you're probably *slightly* overselling the difficulty of doing better than 2027 Ian Happ? But the reality that it won't be that easy to do better than *2026* Ian Happ (or, certainly, 2022-25 Ian Happ) is probably the most important one to wrestle with.

[Jason Ross]

37 minutes ago, Matthew Trueblood said:

I think that's 80% right. I do think we need to keep in mind that he's 32, with a skill set I don't think will age very well. I mean, you heard me, above: I think it's an easy call to make the QO. But I'd certainly be wary of a long-term deal with him, and I think you're probably *slightly* overselling the difficulty of doing better than 2027 Ian Happ? But the reality that it won't be that easy to do better than *2026* Ian Happ (or, certainly, 2022-25 Ian Happ) is probably the most important one to wrestle with.

Oh yeah, the only "long term" commitment I'm making to Happ is one in which he understands that he's going to be used closer to a strict platoon hitter. He can come back for one year on the QO, or some sort of 2/3 year deal where he's taking a paycut. Good chance that isn't on the table, and fair for him. I get it. It's hard to want to be a platoon player and he can probably be a starter somewhere. I wouldn't blame him or the club. But that's where I'm valuing him as the Cubs if they gave me the reigns. 

As it comes to finding an upgrade, I think it'll be very difficult for the Cubs, though. At least a strict "Happ for player" upgrade in 2027. If we're looking for a RHP platoon guy, 13 OF'ers in baseball beat Happ's 127 wRC+ last year. Last year, 16 OF'ers in baseball beat Happ's 126 wRC+. When we combine the year, only 12 beat Happ. Of those 12, Springer and Arozerena are the only two FA's. 

That doesn't even factor in the defense. No one is close to Happ's LF defense (+10 DRS, +2 OAA) that is obviously available. Nor does it factor the laundry list of shopping they also need to do (SP, 2C, RF, DH). 

I think the Cubs *can* find better than Happ in 2027, but if its going to be better it feels like it's either going to be some sort of reclamation project (I.E. like a Jalen Duran as just an off the head example, not necessarily advocating for it) meaning there's real downside if it doesn't come off, or the team ends up robbing Pete to pay Paul and skimping more on their pitching (which feels...risky). So maybe to revise my words a bit: it's not impossible, but I think the prevailing outcome will be that the Cubs are going to take some sort of downgrade in LF. They can make up for it elsewhere, but in just "LF" terms, I think it's far more likely it's some sort of downgrade vs anything else.

[Rcal10]

33 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Oh yeah, the only "long term" commitment I'm making to Happ is one in which he understands that he's going to be used closer to a strict platoon hitter. He can come back for one year on the QO, or some sort of 2/3 year deal where he's taking a paycut. Good chance that isn't on the table, and fair for him. I get it. It's hard to want to be a platoon player and he can probably be a starter somewhere. I wouldn't blame him or the club. But that's where I'm valuing him as the Cubs if they gave me the reigns. 

As it comes to finding an upgrade, I think it'll be very difficult for the Cubs, though. At least a strict "Happ for player" upgrade in 2027. If we're looking for a RHP platoon guy, 13 OF'ers in baseball beat Happ's 127 wRC+ last year. Last year, 16 OF'ers in baseball beat Happ's 126 wRC+. When we combine the year, only 12 beat Happ. Of those 12, Springer and Arozerena are the only two FA's. 

That doesn't even factor in the defense. No one is close to Happ's LF defense (+10 DRS, +2 OAA) that is obviously available. Nor does it factor the laundry list of shopping they also need to do (SP, 2C, RF, DH). 

I think the Cubs *can* find better than Happ in 2027, but if its going to be better it feels like it's either going to be some sort of reclamation project (I.E. like a Jalen Duran as just an off the head example, not necessarily advocating for it) meaning there's real downside if it doesn't come off, or the team ends up robbing Pete to pay Paul and skimping more on their pitching (which feels...risky). So maybe to revise my words a bit: it's not impossible, but I think the prevailing outcome will be that the Cubs are going to take some sort of downgrade in LF. They can make up for it elsewhere, but in just "LF" terms, I think it's far more likely it's some sort of downgrade vs anything else.

I agree. If they don’t give Happ a QO, or if he declines it, the Cubs will be worse in left field next year. I think they will give him the QO. Whether he takes it or not is the discussion. He might get a 3/$60M from someone else. That isn’t what I would want the Cubs to do. If he accepts the QO fine. Maybe a little overpay, but not crazy. And it is only 1 year. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think there's a tension where if Happ is so likely to take the qualifying offer, then his likely FA deal (especially coming off his worst season with the bat in a half decade) should not be so intimidating in AAV or years that you can still sign him without the QO.  Using 25-30% of your money to spend on a 1 year deal for Happ strikes me as a disastrous way to use those resources, so I would only offer a QO if I was absolutely certain a decline was coming.  

For similar reasons, giving Boyd 23 million is a non-starter for me.  You can't continue to evolve the pitching staff to be less dependent on defense and guile, and at the same time give a 36 year old who sits 92(and missed 10 starts to boot) a huge chunk of cash that could go to a better profile with a similar AAV.

[Rcal10]

58 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I think there's a tension where if Happ is so likely to take the qualifying offer, then his likely FA deal (especially coming off his worst season with the bat in a half decade) should not be so intimidating in AAV or years that you can still sign him without the QO.  Using 25-30% of your money to spend on a 1 year deal for Happ strikes me as a disastrous way to use those resources, so I would only offer a QO if I was absolutely certain a decline was coming.  

For similar reasons, giving Boyd 23 million is a non-starter for me.  You can't continue to evolve the pitching staff to be less dependent on defense and guile, and at the same time give a 36 year old who sits 92(and missed 10 starts to boot) a huge chunk of cash that could go to a better profile with a similar AAV.

Boyd would be a bad risk to take. But I would be ok with a QO to Happ, whether he took it or not. They would still have enough money for at least 2 starting pitchers and maybe another in Peterson’s class of pitcher. That would be fine with me. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

21 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Boyd would be a bad risk to take. But I would be ok with a QO to Happ, whether he took it or not. They would still have enough money for at least 2 starting pitchers and maybe another in Peterson’s class of pitcher. That would be fine with me. 

I think that is likely an expectations vs reality thing where the money runs out quicker than you think.  Ideally they need to bring in 2-3 SP, 2-3 position player starters, a leverage bullpen arm, and maybe fill a bench spot or two depending on how you go about doing those.  The ~80ish million they likely have to spend goes pretty quick, even if you lean on Shaw/Pedro to be a full-time option, or trade from the farm to fill in a spot with an arb eligible option.  

More to the point is that from a resources standpoint, more should go into pitching than the offense, so by bringing back Happ on the QO you're not only making the whole plan harder, but you're cutting off other options for filling in the other lineup slots because you need to preserve the resources for pitching.  I don't think the upshot of a 2-3 win LF is worth locking that in at the outset of the offseason.

[Rcal10]

51 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I think that is likely an expectations vs reality thing where the money runs out quicker than you think.  Ideally they need to bring in 2-3 SP, 2-3 position player starters, a leverage bullpen arm, and maybe fill a bench spot or two depending on how you go about doing those.  The ~80ish million they likely have to spend goes pretty quick, even if you lean on Shaw/Pedro to be a full-time option, or trade from the farm to fill in a spot with an arb eligible option.  

More to the point is that from a resources standpoint, more should go into pitching than the offense, so by bringing back Happ on the QO you're not only making the whole plan harder, but you're cutting off other options for filling in the other lineup slots because you need to preserve the resources for pitching.  I don't think the upshot of a 2-3 win LF is worth locking that in at the outset of the offseason.

Fair. But, they have to put someone in left. It is going to cost them something. They aren’t filling all those spots you mentioned with dumpster dive guys and minor leaguers. So Happ might end up costing them $10M more than someone else. And he is probably better than anyone they would out there for less money. I am not saying they have to have him back. I am saying I would be ok with it, if he was

[mk49]

On 10/8/2026 at 11:37 AM, Matthew Trueblood said:

Fair enough. Just be ready, then. You know how little Hoyer likes to make long-term commitments to pitchers. They might let Boyd go, then end up paying a QO-level price to a pitcher who's *extremely* similar, for two years instead of one, all because he won't want to do a five-year deal for the tier of available arm better than that.

Excluding the 1st half of 2025, Boyd wasn't that good (ERA, xERA, FIP and xFIP all over 4.10).  He's definitely not worth $23m, IMO.  I'm hoping they will sign Peterson for 3yr/$39m.  More than likely, he'll pitch better than Boyd.  Peralta might take a shorter deal, because he basically sucked this year, except for Sep and the playoffs (so far).  Who knows what we'll get?  We might be surprised, disappointed or both.😄  Heck, if Shota accepts 2yr/$30m (highly unlikely), I'd take it.