Jason Ross

It's likely that most of the moves the Cubs did, they did independent of Bregman. Bregman far more feels like a circumstance of opportunities, not a plan dating back months (for example, why they signed Rea). Remember, they were heavily involved, in say, Tanner Scott weeks ago - and move almost assuredly impossible to achieve added with Bregman under the Cubs supposed budget. It means that they've shifted *to* Bregman, and likely because they think they can now get him under budget and on a short opt-out heavy deal when prior, that was not possible. I dont think the Cubs have really "missed" out on anyone else for this. They have have gone Braiser, over like, Robertson, but that's probably it. They can still cycle back and sign a Mark Canha as of today if they so wish. They already signed a 3b option in Berti, so it seems like they didn't miss on Moncada...more they went in another direction. This just feels more like a chance to get Bregman because it now fits and the market seems available to be opportunistic on it more than anything else.

The "we shouldn't have traded for Kyle Tucker with only 1 year" thing has been discussed to death. This is not the NBA where sign-and-trades happen at this magnitude. Betts and Lindor took months to get done, and Matt Olsen signed in his hometown growing up. This type of expectation is beyond the pale. Tucker may still be extended, but you either trade for him pre-extension or you just never trade for a 5 win player with 1 year. If he had more control the price would have been 2x. Lastly, there is very little chance the Cubs will sign Bregman for a true long term deal, though complaining about Heyward here, and not noticing how good Swanson has worked out feels...weird. It's been reported over and over that the Cubs have extended creative deals, likely heavily opt-out laden. So that fear is almost entirely something you can shelve. It's a very small possibility.

So much so I had to double take thinking it was...literally anyone else.

Youre good! All of these tule changes have my head spinning constantly.

I think we're a ways off from a full replacement system of balls and strikes. What's been discussed has been an integration of the "challenge" system in which a limited amount of ball and strike challenges throughout a game is allowed, but most framing would remain. As well, even then, pitch calling, working with a staff, blocking...these soft/hard skills will remain behind the plate. When you couple Ballesteros' rapid development of his bat, and his remaining progress to be made defensively, it's pretty unlikely that the two meet - the bat just outpaces the glove that much but it's good enough that he'll likely be in the MLB well before his glove could catchup. As well, Ballesteros' body is probably not suited for be a 100-120 game starter for a long time in his career. And I think that's okay, too. It may extend his career by limiting the amount of damage done to his knees. If the Cubs can get 30-50 games of him behind the plate, that's already a big boost.

Excluding the Padres, who are in a weird ownership-battle between children that could involve lawsuits, I think Hoerner's contract is good enough and Hoerner is good enough that even teams who are signaling that they might not be overly interested in adding money would consider it. At $10m real world cash, and four wins, and signed for two years...that's a pretty darn good deal. I really wouldn't be surprised to see teams like a Seattle be interested in that contract for prospects if it came to it, despite the public signal.

Moises Ballesteros is one of the most unique prospects in baseball, both in terms of his looks and what he can do with his bat relative to his position. When might we see Big Mo in the Show, and what might he bring to the table? Image courtesy of © Cody Scanlan/The Register / USA TODAY NETWORK We continue today looking at the Cubs' top 20 prospects (as ranked by our readers here at NSBB), with Moises Ballesteros, who comes in at No. 4 on that list. Before you read about him, though, don't miss our previous posts on the current state of the Cubs' farm system, with my looks at some honorable mentions, the Cubs' Top Prospects #20-16 and the Top Prospects #15-11. #20 - Pedro Ramirez, INF #19 - Luis Vazquez, INF #18 - Michael Arias, RP #17 - Alfonsin Rosario - OF #16 - Drew Gray, SP #15 - Jonathon Long, 1B #14 - Fernando Cruz, SS #13 - Derniche Valdez, SS #12 - Alexander Canario, OF #11 - Cristian Hernandez, SS #10 - Brandon Birdsell, SP #9 - Jaxon Wiggins, SP #8 - Jefferson Rojas #7 - James Triantos #6 - Cam Smith #5 - Kevin Alcantara, OF 2024 Season Recap - Moises Ballesteros, C/1B Moises Ballesteros had another really fun season in 2024, cementing his name as one of the most exciting in the entire system. Already rapidly shooting through the system, enough that the 20-year-old started in Tennessee, Ballesteros didn't take long to settle in. In his first 68 plate appearances on the season, it became fairly clear that he wouldn't need to stay in Tennessee for the long haul, slashing .353/.443/.559, with a 198 wRC+, and walking nearly the same amount as he struck out. With great bat control, this was the best-case scenario you could imagine. Keeping up with that level of hitting would be nearly impossible, but the catcher would still manage a wonderful 137 wRC+ over the remaining 34 games he spent down at Double-A, posting nine home runs, nine doubles, and a triple in just under 60 games. More impressively, he had 39 singles compared to just 33 strikeouts - this is something you don't see often, even less so for someone his age. This would earn a promotion to Iowa for Mo Baller mid-way through June. At Iowa, some results were less exciting overall. Ballesteros would post a more pedestrian 106 wRC+ in Triple-A, seeing slight increases in his K% (over 21%) and a reduction of walks (around a 2% drop). However, he still had a .352 wOBA of .352 as a 20-year-old. So it could be argued that the wRC+ is also more impressive than first meets the eye. Reports on Ballesteros's defensive performance have suggested that improvements are being made. Throughout his time in the minors, we were occasionally shown him throwing out runners from behind the plate, which suggests that his arm strength is pretty good and that he's consistently making progress in the areas where he most needs it. 2025 Season Outlook and Scouting Report - ETA: 2025 As we enter the 2025 season, the Cubs will probably get a look at Moises Ballesteros at the MLB level. The bat is just too good to ignore entirely, and if the Cubs need a catcher or a DH, there will be a reason to think that Ballesteros will get a look there. You just don't find 20-year-olds with the approach that "Big Mo" has. However, a more compelling question rather than when we will see the portly catcher is in what capacity should we see him? As much as the bat plays, and we've heard positive movement defensively, the reality is that catchers and, generally speaking, baseball players just don't look like Moises Ballesteros very often. Perhaps it's a bit unfair to him to look at him through that lens, but as an outlier in that regard, it's probably something you can't ignore. With how fast his bat has progressed, it's also unsure if he will ever be given enough time to develop as a catcher long-term. Catching is one of those dark arts in the baseball world that takes time. You need a bit of cunning to learn how to steal strikes, the ability to call a good game, blocking, throwing... there's more that goes into being a defensive catcher than any other position on the field, and it takes time to marinate and meld that into a total package. But Ballesteros is hitting so well that, at some point, his ability to learn at lower levels will cease as he's called upon to play with the parent team, That is why I think the dream of Ballesteros being an every day, 100-game catcher is probably just that. It is a bit of a dream. How well would his body hold up in that role, and how would his glove hold up in that role? He has been a bit nervous. But also, it probably doesn't have to be so binary, either, to ask, "Is he even a catcher?" So I've come down on his best-case scenario in a role where he serves more as a 2nd/3rd catcher type - catching maybe two times a week while also shifting to first base and DH. The bat will play anywhere; it's that good, and you can still extract value a few times a week (maybe 30-50 times a year?) behind the plate, especially when you want extra thump. It'll probably also help increase the longevity of Ballesteros, helping protect his knees as he ages, which can sometimes shorten the career of hitters. Offensively, I want to point out a few things to pump our breaks on. While our 4th-ranked prospect shows an impressive approach at the plate, I'm not sure there's another elite offensive skill. His exit velocities sit more in the "good" not "great" territory, and the power is similarly in that 20 HR range rather than the 30+ range. That isn't necessarily a knock because a sum-of-the-parts argument must be made here. He's also young, so with age, development, and maybe a bit more body refinement, these things can get even better. Ultimately, we should all be excited. There's a good hitter here and a potentially great one. He will probably never be the de facto starting catcher, but I don't think he needs to be. And it's always fun to watch someone do something differently than everyone else. There just aren't many human beings like Mo Baller, and I'm excited to see him in Chicago when that time comes. View full article

Interesting. $3m to Moncada is very close to Berti's deal with the incentives factored in.

I know on the surface that a lot of people hate this Bregman in - Nico out (for prospects) idea, but I've tried to step back and examine it, and I think if we zoom out, there's logic behind it. Once again, the concept here is "flexibility". So how does it achieve that? - Currently, the Cubs could probably use a SP. If the Cubs accomplish the Bregman/Hoerner switcharoo, the Cubs don't change this math, probably, in any meaningful way. They can still have money under the LT (roughly $10m) to acquire, probably, any deadline deal SP you can imagine. On top of that, they recoup the prospects lost by signing Bregman and maybe then some - it could help pay for that SP at the deadline. - As well, this allows you to wait and see how prospects go. Matt wrote a cool article on Jordan Wicks. If you think Zombro can get Wicks' slider fixed, and say, mid-year. he's cooking, maybe you don't need that SP any more. By moving Hoerner for prospects, now you can fix another hole (say, that opened up via injury, or maybe you fix catcher if Amaya is tanking) in the event Wicks, Horton, Birdsell or Brown just run with a rotational spot and you don't need a SP as bad. - It gives the Cubs an offensive boost. Perhaps the two have similar value, but you can also see a pathway where if you get Bregman to change his swing decisions in a way closer to 2023-Bregman, you could conceivably add a win over Hoerner. - It shifts Matt Shaw to 2b. If we remain honest with ourselves, this is probably his best position, especially for his rookie season and settling his bat in. The bar is usually lower at 2b offensively. - The worry I see people having is that Bregman would opt out, leaving us with a hole, or maybe that the Cubs wouldn't be able to sign Tucker. And I get that. And there's a situation where you lose both. But that could conceivably open up a world of possibilities the next offseason in what looks like a pretty good free agent class. You could realistically be able to waltz into next offseason with a bunch of money once again, and a lot of flexibility. You could target Vlad, you could go after a SP like Gallen, or Cease...there's options. And you'd probably still have prospect capital. - This would also shift a need in 2027 to 2026. Currently we look to need to replace four starters in 2027...this would allow you to move that need a year up. Replacing four starters in one year is a lot of shopping. This helps you move that math around. It does create some risk. You do have less settled in the 2026 year than if you kept Hoerner. And you could possibly have Bregman have a terrible season and opt-in (though I think this feels pretty low). And I don't want to suggest that this is an amazing, super, uber awesome plan that I'd particularly do. But I also get this plan and can see the argument that this continues to give Hoyer flexibility within the 2025 season and beyond.

I know you're not arguing, no worries. I think we're just trying to show: 1. BBTV probably wouldn't be where we'd go to determine surplus value by highlighting these two. They have a very low value on Hoerner - they claim some sort of proprietary variables within their surplus value, and once we start adding their opinion in, you can mostly count me out. 2. That in a scenario where Clarke Schmidt was the trade, that the Cubs would need more returning from the Yankees to makeup that difference in value. 3. Instead, if it's some sort of a 1-1 swap for another SP, the Cubs would either need a better pitcher than Schmidt has been, or a pitcher with more control to offset that value. In the end, it's a like, almost a 100% moot point. Trueblood's article today made it pretty clear that a Hoerner trade seems to be focused on the prospect side of things for the time being. So I think any concern/worry/thoughts on Schmidt are probably wasted anyways.

You're far higher on Clarke Schmidt's trade value than I think it deserves. Clarke Schmidt is a somewhat interesting pitcher in terms of what he might do, but it's almost entirely theoretical at this stage. Normally, when we talk theoretical value, we usually are talking about, like, a 24 or 25 year old, not someone who's less than 30 days until his 29th birthday. His career fWAR is, essentially, the same as any one of the last three single seasons Hoerner has. I get seeing some interesting things with Schmidt, I can see them too. But Hoerner has age on his side, far less variance, and the cost between the two is $7m this year, and likely less next year (especially if Schmidt does well). Realistically, the only check box in Schmidt's corner is one year of control which is definitely not a nothing, but almost assuredly doesn't overshadow the significant variance difference in what they might be. Hoerner's a bang on high 3's-low 4's 2b, where as Clarke Schmidt is anything from "maybe an okay back end guy" to "maybe a 3 win SP" who's pitched a full slate just once in his career (and it was fine-ish but that's about it). I've had an issue with BBTV's surplus value on Hoerner dating back earlier this offseason in discussions with his value comparative to Mariner's SP and seeing it again reminds me how I think they have his surplus value significantly lower than it belongs at. I'd be much closer to KC's value myself.q

I don't think there's much of a worry that Bregman is going to head much further without signing. While I don't think position players face the uphill battle that pitchers do, we really haven't seen a position player work deep into spring training without signing for a while. The Cubs kick things off on the 9th, everyone is in by the 13th. It feels like if it doesn't happen today, I'd guess there's little/no chance he's going to wait this out past Sunday. Much like we saw Pete Alonso fall off the board yesterday, eventually Bregman is going to want to get a move on. He's got offers on the table (seemingly differently than Nick Pivetta who...talk about silence!). Whether it's Chicago, Toronto, Houston, Detroit. or Boston, he'll probably in camp right around the start somewhere.

Tucker spent some nominal time there in 2019 as well.

One of the things that I keep thinking about in my head is how Bregman kind of challenges a lot of what we discuss on the board - that there's no such thing as a perfect signing at a perfect time, that you get good players when you can, and that we wished the Cubs would act more like a big market team. And by signing Bregman, you hit these concepts (mostly). Is he a perfect fit/signing? Not really with Hoerner/Shaw but you can certainly argue he's an upgrade in a way (especially offensively), so get the good player when you can. Is he a super market efficient upgrade over Hoerner? Not particularly, you can probably assume both will finish around the same fWAR level, even if maybe Bregman has some ceiling that Hoerner doesn't. A big market team going for 90+ wins assumes more financial risk and is less efficient. I know there's an aspect of this that isn't fully hitting the "act like a big market thing" - it seems likely the Cubs will send Hoerner out for (somewhat) of a financial reason, and the Cubs are seemingly hoping Bregman opts out instead of adding a piece who would be around for a bit...so it's not a perfect parallel, but it's been something swirling around my brain the last few days as I try to examine this from every direction I can.

Yeah, that can really go a few ways. Bob's got the scoop (and he can do that). Bob's just wrong (and he can do that). Or Boras is trying to get someone to pony up the night after Alonso took a 2-year contract and before Bregman has to take another opt-out laden contract.

Listen, I'm the guy who's usually in the corner arguing with people about why fWAR matters, but you're taking it to a point where I think you've kind of lost the point of things such as fWAR. fWAR does great for determining value, but evaluating holes, and who we should feel comfortable with has to go past a simple "add the WAR, my guy!" argument. The issue is a-few-fold: first, as teams approach 90 wins and beyond, wins get more expensive. It's harder to improve and find those places to improve. Using recent PECOTA and ZiPS projections, the Cubs are moving themselves into that 90 win territory. What that means is arguing over a win here or there...it does matter as it becomes harder and harder to find those upgrades. Secondly, by losing Taillon, and inserting Javier Assad, you're making your pretty likely making you pitching worse. Yes, Assad had a pretty good ERA, but his FIP approached the 5.00 marker, his xFIP was 4.61 and as the season wore on he was far more hittable (seeing opposing hitters make far better and more consistent loud contact off him) but saw his ERA raise to his xFIP region. Taillon was nearly a full point better in FIP, half a point better at xFIP and he didn't see any discernable difference in seasons as Assad did. I don't think it's a question that Taillon is not only heartier as a pitcher, but I'm far more confident in what he is. He reduces variance. Beyond that, dropping a SP in a rotation that feels thin as is, further reduces the depth behind him. If you want to say that the Cubs have a bit too much in the range past Taillon (call it in that "depth" range of Rea, Assad, Wicks, Brown, Birdsell, Horton) area? I'd probably be fine with dropping an arm in this tier. The issue is that Taillon is clearly a tier in terms of "what we can expect for 2025" above this crew in that i don't think it's a question as to really what we're going to get there. Beyond Taillon it becomes quite murky in just what you've got. Sure, maybe Wicks' reworks the slider, stays healthy and is that guy who looked like a potential #4, but I'm not very confident in that right now. Maybe Cade Horton or Brandon Birdsell have the juice to stick in an MLB rotation in 2025, but rookies offer larger variance than Jordan Wicks - you're playing with fire. If you're willing to make that gamble, more power to you. The way the Cubs have operated all offseason suggests not only do they not agree with your assessment of Taillon vs Assad (they've been collecting arms like they were Pokemon) it makes it pretty clear that while you may be willing to take that gamble, the Cubs are not realistically going to see this as an option. The mantra to Counsell early in the offseason was that they were going to increase the pitching depth. It doesn't feel like you can both say you're adding depth and then trade one of your most reliable starters 4 days before ST kicks off and have meant it.

The Cubs current issue is that they probably don't have a strong enough rotation. I like the Steele/Shota 1-2, but past that, you're looking at a rotation that has Mathew Boyd and his injury woes (though you can certainly argue that his recent TJS will improve this - it's yet to be seen over more than a sample size of a partial season and shouldn't be fully counted upon), Colin Rea (who new studies on his arsenal suggest maybe there's some under current that makes him undervalued, but at best it's an argument in its infancy in terms of relevancy) and then a bunch of question marks like Javier Assad, Jordan Wicks, and Ben Brown. Jameson Taillon is someone you can more or less count on to give you solid #4 innings. He also has a limited no-trade clause. Trading Taillon seems like a near non-starter currently. There's no better option you can point to internally unless you're just banking on a Jordan Wicks type (which I like, but let's be real, he didn't have a great season last year due to health and some pitch mix changes) or a Javier Assad type (who fell off mid-year in a way Rea did as well). Maybe in December with a full slate of FA's, but then you are kind of robbing Peter (telling Taillon) to pay Paul (signing a replacement). In a vacuum, I'm not married to Taillon, but the Cubs need to be more settled in the rotation to be considering an outgoing there for my tastes. That's far too risky.

Can't tell if serious or not - I run all of the prospect stuff!

Alonso to Mets - 2 years with opt out

Schmidt has 4.2 career fWAR, and I think even being bullish on him and what you could do, you're probably thinking he's a 3 win guy at the top (which he's never done yet) - Hoerner is probably a 4 win guy and done that three times now (virtually). He's a little older than Hoerner. He does have one extra year of control which levels it out a bit, but yeah, Hoerner's got added value here almost assuredly.

While I don't know if it's a 1-1 swap or anything, the Yankees are a team that: 1. Could probably use 2b 2. Has pitching 3. The Cubs have recent trade history with over the last few years. More than once. Clarke Schmidt could be a name?

It feels like the Cubs are sincerely that high on Matt Shaw. And I guess I get it - if you're high on him you probably see him like ZiPS does - a near immediate 2-2.5 fWAR type with numbers good enough that he could legitimately win a RoY. There's plenty of outcomes there, positive and negative, but you'd assume if the Cubs further move Hoerner for something that the answer to how the Cubs view Shaw is "very close to how ZiPS does" which would explain their process. I wouldn't mind the Cubs giving him a bit more time myself. But I also trust the Cubs internal modeling more than me.

Jed Hoyer rarely makes a trade I hate. So I'm hoping that we can kill two birds with one stone - we upgrade the lineup a bit and also find that SP we're hoping to get with two swift moves. No promises that it all turns out peaches, but that's my hope here.