Chicago Cubs 2026 Opening Day Roster Projection, v 3.0

I would be surprised if everyone is healthy and Assad makes the roster.  All indications coming from the team are that they are being, frankly, fanatical about stockpiling depth.  Even if there are a couple of spring training injuries I think you should assume no pitcher with minor league options aside from Horton and Palencia is breaking camp with the team.

I suspect Alcantara's not making the team either.  Whether it's also for depth concerns or because the team lacks confidence in him, the team adding both Carlson and McCormick feels telling.  One guy in that mold is just insurance, two feels like a signal.  That said Carlson's probably washed and McCormick can be stashed at Iowa, so Alcantara's got a better chance of breaking through than any of the Cubs' young pitchers.

On 1/29/2026 at 7:33 PM, Jason Ross said:

He's better using DRS, he's worse using OAA. It depends on which you'd like to use. 

And Shaw is on the upswing, not beginning to jump the shark.

6 hours ago, Arlen said:

And Shaw is on the upswing, not beginning to jump the shark.

Development is not linear. Simply because Shaw is young does not mean he is on the upswing. While the Cubs would certainly love that to be the case, plenty of young players peaked their rookie seasons and then fell apart. Shaw had about 1.5 good months at the plate and one good defensive data point. Bregman has been one of the best 3b in baseball and maintained that last year. There is no guarantee Shaw improves beyond where he is. 

Lastly, to "jump the shark" one must do something ridiculous for little reason because you're all out of ideas. The Cubs didn't do something ridiculous for little reasoning by signing Bregman. They signed a 125 wRC+ player. At best that's what you're hoping Shaw might become. So how is that the Cubs "jumping the shark"?

I suggest looking at the typical curve of the career history of good baseball players, Jason. They are both good baseball players, Shaw and Bregman. Good baseball hitter/fielders tend to peak in their 20's. Pick 10 very nice third basemen that are now retired. Look at when they peaked and when they tailed off. It's pretty much the same, whatever the position.

1 hour ago, Arlen said:

I suggest looking at the typical curve of the career history of good baseball players, Jason. They are both good baseball players, Shaw and Bregman. Good baseball hitter/fielders tend to peak in their 20's. Pick 10 very nice third basemen that are now retired. Look at when they peaked and when they tailed off. It's pretty much the same, whatever the position.

What you're describing is going to result in a likely case of survivor bias. If I picked 10 random hitters, there's a good chance I pick players who had long careers; we think of Scott Rollen a lot more then, Keston Hiura. And by doing that, I will only look at players who had a long career; it will create a data set that is incomplete.

But there in lies the issue; after posting a 140 wRC+ in his rookie season, Hiura looked like a player "on the up swing". But young players don't just consistently get better. And before we get further; Hiura was a top-15 prospect in baseball on FanGraphs, well above anywhere Shaw got and he still collapsed. 

That's the issue. You seem to want to only assume Shaw is going to get better. The MLB is littered with Keston Hiura types; good prospects who failed, he isn't a special story. Hiura's rookie season was head above heels better than Shaw and he bombed. So why can't Shaw? If I compare Shaw to his arc instead of whatever good 3b who played 15 years, it changes things by a massive magnitude. 

I'm not saying Shaw is Hiura or Rolen or anyone. What I'm saying is that we can't assume the good outcomes for a rookie just because they're the outcomes we want. For the Cubs' sake they should hope Matt Shaw does have a long career but they also cannot assume it. Alex Bregman has had a very good career. We already know that. And he projects to age strongly. 

On 2/5/2026 at 1:21 AM, Jason Ross said:

What you're describing is going to result in a likely case of survivor bias. If I picked 10 random hitters, there's a good chance I pick players who had long careers; we think of Scott Rollen a lot more then, Keston Hiura. And by doing that, I will only look at players who had a long career; it will create a data set that is incomplete.

But there in lies the issue; after posting a 140 wRC+ in his rookie season, Hiura looked like a player "on the up swing". But young players don't just consistently get better. And before we get further; Hiura was a top-15 prospect in baseball on FanGraphs, well above anywhere Shaw got and he still collapsed. 

That's the issue. You seem to want to only assume Shaw is going to get better. The MLB is littered with Keston Hiura types; good prospects who failed, he isn't a special story. Hiura's rookie season was head above heels better than Shaw and he bombed. So why can't Shaw? If I compare Shaw to his arc instead of whatever good 3b who played 15 years, it changes things by a massive magnitude. 

I'm not saying Shaw is Hiura or Rolen or anyone. What I'm saying is that we can't assume the good outcomes for a rookie just because they're the outcomes we want. For the Cubs' sake they should hope Matt Shaw does have a long career but they also cannot assume it. Alex Bregman has had a very good career. We already know that. And he projects to age strongly. 

You're making what is simple into something complex. Look at fielders/batters who play into their mid to late thirties. Then, look at their peak years. Pretty basic.

The answer to the problem you cite is to, a. scout and coach very, very well and, b. accumulate that excellent young talent instead of throwing it away in semi-desperate trades (e.g., Tucker). At the end, I'm not worried. It isn't me paying Bregman as he gets grayer.