What is it Eric Hosmer Does Here, Exactly?

Not to reduce this solid article too much here, but....

"someone they were able to add for a league-minimum salary".

That's kinda the whole point right? Feel like he's been lumped in with the Bellinger and Mancini deals when we are paying Hosmer a fraction of the money we're spending on those guys. The difference between any realistic Mervis projection and a very slightly above replacement level Hosmer over a few weeks stretch is essentially splitting hairs. If we're still having this conversation in the middle of May (which is contingent on Mervis continuing to mash), sure. Otherwise, we've got much bigger problems here. 

Hosmer is a hedge.  He was a hedge that other 1B/DH types might be too rich for them to add and they didn't want to do nothing in that space(they thankfully added Mancini).  He's a hedge that Mervis, an undrafted* 24 year old who was a complete non-entity a year ago, may not be ready for 500+ MLB PA this year.  And he's a hedge that the Cubs might have a way to help Hosmer himself, whether via mechanical changes or just riding a wave of rule changes he stands to benefit from to some degree.

11 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Hosmer is a hedge.  He was a hedge that other 1B/DH types might be too rich for them to add and they didn't want to do nothing in that space(they thankfully added Mancini).  He's a hedge that Mervis, an undrafted* 24 year old who was a complete non-entity a year ago, may not be ready for 500+ MLB PA this year.  And he's a hedge that the Cubs might have a way to help Hosmer himself, whether via mechanical changes or just riding a wave of rule changes he stands to benefit from to some degree.

I get this but guys better than Hosmer were available for not much more money. In today's game, it costs mediocre reliever money to sign a stop-gap 1B/DH type, I simply don't see a need to drop down to Eric Hosmer levels, particularly a franchise with the payroll capacity of the Cubs.

2 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I get this but guys better than Hosmer were available for not much more money. In today's game, it costs mediocre reliever money to sign a stop-gap 1B/DH type, I simply don't see a need to drop down to Eric Hosmer levels, particularly a franchise with the payroll capacity of the Cubs.

They signed one of them too, Mancini.  And once Seiya is back you'll probably see more of Wisdom/Rios at first, to say nothing of Mervis(or even Morel) pushing Hosmer off the roster entirely if the former keeps raking and the latter doesn't hit.  Hosmer playing 1B all year was never plan A, but he was always going to get the most potential time at the start of the season, even before Suzuki's injury.  If he doesn't catch fire(and for all the hand wringing already we're talking about 4 games) he's not gonna be long for the roster unless there's other complications that go beyond his roster spot.

2 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

They signed one of them too, Mancini.  And once Seiya is back you'll probably see more of Wisdom/Rios at first, to say nothing of Mervis(or even Morel) pushing Hosmer off the roster entirely if the former keeps raking and the latter doesn't hit.  Hosmer playing 1B all year was never plan A, but he was always going to get the most potential time at the start of the season, even before Suzuki's injury.  If he doesn't catch fire(and for all the hand wringing already we're talking about 4 games) he's not gonna be long for the roster unless there's other complications that go beyond his roster spot.

As long as they move on quickly if things go wrong, it won't be a disastrous move but for a team with payroll space and fringe competitor hopes, I feel they should aim higher in acquisitions.

I wholly get and support the Mancini and Bellinger signings. They help the team get better and have trade upside should things go awry.

Whereas I just don't "get" the Hosmer signing.

9 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I get this but guys better than Hosmer were available for not much more money. In today's game, it costs mediocre reliever money to sign a stop-gap 1B/DH type, I simply don't see a need to drop down to Eric Hosmer levels, particularly a franchise with the payroll capacity of the Cubs.

Can you name specifics? Santana put up a 102 wRC+ after two years of being a below average hitter and signed for 8x the money. Jesus Aguilar put up a .660 OPS last year in over 500 PAs. Franchy Cordero hasn't been an above average hitter since 2019. Are you talking Brandon Belt? $9m isn't 'not much more money' than $720k and kinda ruins any future Mervis has. 

Just now, Brock Beauchamp said:

As long as they move on quickly if things go wrong, it won't be a disastrous move but for a team with payroll space and fringe competitor hopes, I feel they should aim higher in acquisitions.

I wholly get and support the Mancini and Bellinger signings. They help the team get better and have trade upside should things go awry.

Whereas I just don't "get" the Hosmer signing.

I'm not gonna tell you the Hosmer signing is a masterstroke, but the investment here is equivalent to an NRI.  His name and that he started 4 of 5(partially because of an injury) games to start is probably giving greater weight to his importance than is really there.  Could they have spent more and gotten Wil Myers or Carlos Santana?  Maybe, but it seems clear the team is right at where they wanted to spend heading into the year(no coincidence the Hoerner extension starts next year so they don't go into the LT) so having your 1B depth be cheap and easy to part with if he fails/Mervis succeeds is just as much feature as bug.

1 minute ago, squally1313 said:

Can you name specifics? Santana put up a 102 wRC+ after two years of being a below average hitter and signed for 8x the money. Jesus Aguilar put up a .660 OPS last year in over 500 PAs. Franchy Cordero hasn't been an above average hitter since 2019. Are you talking Brandon Belt? $9m isn't 'not much more money' than $720k and kinda ruins any future Mervis has. 

Even though he doesn't profile as a typical first baseman, I'd rather have Donovan Solano for $2m. He has a lot more positional versatility, too, and I think low-power, high-average players will play up a bit in 2023.

3 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Even though he doesn't profile as a typical first baseman, I'd rather have Donovan Solano for $2m. He has a lot more positional versatility, too, and I think low-power, high-average players will play up a bit in 2023.

Zips projections:

Solano: .274/.326/.381

Hosmer: .273/.329/.409

Do we need another guy who can play the infield with the rest of the roster? He hasn't played in the outfield in 10 years. 

2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Zips projections:

Solano: .274/.326/.381

Hosmer: .273/.329/.409

Do we need another guy who can play the infield with the rest of the roster? He hasn't played in the outfield in 10 years. 

I just really dislike Eric Hosmer. Maybe it's irrational.

(not personally, just as a player)

I think Hosmer was a good idea in January that became a bit redundant when it became clear the team was happy with Rios' changes during ST.  But he's making the league minimum, once he goes from "a bit redundant" to "an actual problem" he'll get the boot.  

4 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I just really dislike Eric Hosmer. Maybe it's irrational.

(not personally, just as a player)

Yeah sure, totally fair. Just saying that the other options that are more or less on par financially are pretty much all in the same boat in terms of actual ability, even if they don't invoke such...frustration as someone so aggressively mediocre as Hosmer.

I feel weird taking up the banner, but I'm actually a fan of the Hosmer signing.

Let's get this out of the way early. The only reason that I like him at all is his league-minimum contract. And while there's no good reason for the Cubs to operate on the tight budget that they do, that's the reality of our ownership situation. And in that reality, guys on a contract like this can only be bad if they're performing below replacement-level or taking at-bats from better players.

And when it comes right down to it, Hosmer isn't likely to perform below replacement-level. He's not a great player, by any means. But he's an above-average defender, and he hits at a slightly better than league average clip. And to that point, given his extreme groundball proclivities, there's a good chance that the rule changes to the shift play to his benefit. He's not a good baserunner, but he's not Billy Butler.

So is Hosmer taking ABs from better players? It's certainly possible. Mervis may be better. But that's still a very open-ended question. There's likely no harm in trotting Hosmer out there until Mervis shows a little more. And it's not like the other guys Hosmer is competing with for ABs don't have their own question marks.

Hosmer is a steady enough known quantity with a little upside thanks to the new rules. And with his contract, he'll be out the door in a flash if he isn't living up to his end of the bargain, or if our young guys start mashing. He does no harm while holding the fort for a bit. Not bad for literally no additional investment above the league minimum.

I have no idea how the value math adds up, but his defense at first has been noticeable in a positive way.