Jason Ross

Greenfield has some sources it would seem. Might be a busy night. Buckle up?

Worth pointing out...

I do not think there will be an accompanying Nico trade...at least not immediately...myself. Would guess that's much more likely in June/July than ST. But just a guess.

So a few notes just to keep track: - Jon Heyman thinks the Cubs have the best shot to land Alex Bregman - Matt Spiegel confirms Cubs have real offer on the table (more support for Matt) - Lisa, who Jeff Passan kind of tounge-in-cheek credited with Bellinger last year, who's a Twitter/X user also posted a Bregman/Cubs thing.

She's probably nothing but she did have some post about Bellinger signing last year. So maybe she's on it again.

The way I've looked at signing Bregman, I do think it essentially gives the Cubs three options moving forward if it happens: Option 1: Cubs keep Nico, thus leaving Shaw as injury protection and someone you allow to essentially function as Javier Baez in 2016 - This deepens the bench, gives you the best injury protection possible, while also helping limiting the variance from Matt Shaw's rookie season - This does make adding a SP at the deadline much harder if the Cubs are once again refusing to go over the LT. I do think a creative contract with Bregman will keep the Cubs under the LT, but it makes finding another SP who limits that exposure hard - In this situation, the Cubs probably feel comfortable with their young SP's. Some mix of Cade Horton, Ben Brown, Jordan Wicks or Brandon Birdsell have impressed them enough that they'd be comfortable with them adding to the rotation. Option 2: Cubs find a Nico-for-SP trade - This is a very narrow landing strip. But it probably allows the Cubs to be a unique trading partner that other teams cannot provide. The Cubs might be able to add prospects to help buy down the cost here, but I'd guess this is a situation with a more controlled and likely less expensive SP Option 3: Cubs trade Nico Hoerner for prospects. They then buy a rental SP. *could be a three-team-trade as well - This is situation that probably creates more moving parts, but seems do-able in some regards. 2b is going to be a position of need for a few contenders regardless - it's a thin position. You could even argue that the trade value you give up on control you can somewhat make up for by proving Hoerner's health. - This doesn't have to happen on July 31st but could realistically happen sometime early June or later.. It gives the Cubs a lot of run way. - You'd assume in this situation Matt Shaw is showing everything the Cubs would want, and it allows the Cubs to have Bregman/Hoerner as their 2b/3b during their super-hard-stretch at the start, while shifting Shaw in when things ease up a bit. I don't want to suggest any of these as perfect, but I can see where the Cubs would have options moving forward regarding the infield and Nico moving forward. There's risk involved, and you might end up swapping the ability to trade for a SP later for a Bregman thing now, too. I'll avoid getting into 2026 implications with this post as well - I think that's a different beast all together. Essentially, I'm trying to put my Jed-hat on and how he might be looking at things.

I keep sitting on the fence, but I come back to the final place of "Jed Hoyer doesn't do rash things". This is a team who has pined for flexibility and their ability to pivot. They also love to be opportunistic and patient. At times you can say to a fault. I can't always say I agree full heartedly with Hoyer, but everything they do has a logic behind it that you can eventually see. So I am trying to remain balanced in that I think the Cubs have l;ogic here. I think offensively, what plagued Bregman last year is both identifiable and probably pretty fixable. The Cubs have had recent successes in approach changes with Happ and Suzuki so I think you feel a little confident there. And while I wouldn't predict a five win season, I think a healthy Bregman probably settles in around four wins in his age-31 year even if the offensive production isn't a mirror of his previous best self. It's short of superstar, but probably north of "I'll opt out" if the contract can mostly convince him to do so. In terms of what it offers over Shaw, I'm a little less sure of it, but I think that can be used to argue both ways. What 2025 rookie Matt Shaw is can be a wide birth and this will help limit variance. If we're a little worried with the variance of the rotation depending on Boyd's health and Rea being decent enough (with the field not killing Shota Imanaga, for example) than Bregman will help swing that variance back into check offensively to a pretty decent degree. Even if he's just 2024 Bregman, that limits the outcomes. As @KCCubsaid, I think my biggest worry is how the Cubs continue to handle the rotation in 2025. The Cubs always seem open to new ideas and new paths forward (they pivoted from Christopher Morel mid season last year, for example) so the Cubs choosing to move Hoerner mid-year seems plausible, if not entirely obvious. But that's where I come back to "Jed Hoyer isn't rash" and assume there's a pivot/plan/something beyond "IDK, Bregman?". So it's why I am trying to sit with cautious optimism if they do sign Bregman. I'd have to appeal to authority a bit there, but I'd have to assume that much like we assume Tom Ricketts hasn't been replaced by a new, super-spendy doppleganger version, that Jed Hoyer probably isn't some super aggressive "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" VP of Ops, either. He's probably still Jed Hoyer and probably still has some things that could help him pull things off. And I've said it once before but I'll say it again...throwing logic out for a moment and just being a meatball...it'd be real horsefeathers fun to see the Cubs sign Alex Bregman this late in the offseason. I know that's a meatball take and I really try to remain logical most of the time, but there's a little part of me that finds this just fun. Like yeah, maybe just get Mark Canha and call it quits but like...Bregman is kind of cool.

My push back on this would be this; developing prospects takes time, and while the Cubs certainly didn't do this as often as we'd have liked during the previous developmental team captained by Jason McLeod, the Cubs have really only had three years (2021-2024) to develop later round talents. If there's a positive, it's that early signs suggest the Cubs are doing better in this regard. James Triantos and Owen Caissie are both second round picks. The Cubs drafted (and should be given credit to a degree) both Jackson Ferris and Zyhir Hope (2nd and 11th round picks respectively). They've also have players like Brandon Birdsell (5th round), Luke Little (5th round), Porter Hodge (13th round - under previous regime) who should play roles with the team. And it's this crew that was able to rework previous later round pick Justin Steele into something useful. I think we're seeing that the Cubs are doing much better in this regards currently.

I'm so glad someone asked! I did a deep dive on his offense for a friend elsewhere and I can report back on what I've got. So looking at Alex Bregman's 2024 season, we see a few interesting things. The first is that Alex Bregman remains elite at limiting his swing and miss while also eliminating his chase rate. In theory, swinging and missing very little and not chasing pitches should result in a high walk rate (something Bregman has done in the past). Where Bregman changed last year is in that his swing rate in general increased - around 4-5% in almost every situation you can imagine - in the zone and in chase. He also saw an uptick in chase contact rate of 5%. In a weird sense, he made too much contact, which both limited his good contact rate (hitting chase pitches results, generally, in poor contact) and his walk rate, because he put balls in play, thus limiting his ability to work deeper counts and earn walks. The only place Bregman swung less? Meatballs, strangely enough. Second half Bregman saw an increase in his power (and his pull rate) but a further decrease in his walks. So what's the solution? I think you have a hitter who is still seeing the ball well, and his ability to make bat to ball happen doesn't at all appear limited. What does seem to have taken a step up is his aggressiveness off the plate. If you can just get him to come back a bit inside of himself (his 2023 approach), then I think you're fine here.

I think the chatter died down a bit with how the Padres structured the deal. The mutual option is probably never getting picked up, but it tends to help how payments are made to these guys (with there being now, a buyout that would be paid at the end of the season). The Padres situation with the ownership is messy, and you'd have to think that by finding a way to help delay how those payments are made, makes him a more attractive player to keep over Cease who will be paid out in the entirety of 2025 and 2025 alone. It probably doesn't entirely exclude King from being traded but I do think that it makes the Padres much more interested in moving Cease if they were to move one of them, especially with just kind of how messy the Padres are at the top.

I had discussed this elsewhere, though I'll consolidate my thoughts here, but I wonder if we're looking at a little bit of a "column A and a column B" situation with Bregman. We have heard words such as "flexibility" and "opportunistic" being used with how the Cubs operate, and I wonder if Bregman offers the Cubs flexibility and a version of being nimble (or if they see it that way). What I mean by that is that it allows the Cubs options - if they can get Bregman's AAV in under the LT, it gives the Cubs the chance to continue to allow themselves to explore, but not need to trade Hoerner. It could mean a swap for a pitcher later, or even prospects if they feel like Shaw is showing progress enough that the drop off isn't there. It could also offer them the flexibility to keep Hoerner being under the LT and let Shaw be the "Baez" type. And lastly it could offer the team flexibility in the injury department. A bit more of a long shot, but it could offer them the flexibility to deal Shaw (but with a Bregman deal heavily on opt outs and Hoerner being 2 years away from being lost, I do expect the team will want to keep him around as a replacement type for a position). It also gives the Cubs a bit of a safer floor with how they handle Matt Shaw - and lowers the variance. Jed spoke about how wins at higher levels That 90+ range) just cost more and this kind of exemplifies that in that regard. The Cubs are more than willing to patient, wait things out and they kind of operate on their own timeline in a way, and this might be a way to allow that to continue to happen throughout the season.

Yeah, on it's own it's a perfectly fine deal. I like Braiser in a vacuum. I do think there's an interesting bit on price/timing/etc as well. It seems unlikely that the Cubs are going to save $30m under the LT on the whole. Whether it's a Bregman play, saving for a trade of a SP and a bench bat, or even saving for a possible Tucker extension, I do think that most of that money is going somewhere. Should be a fun experiment to see where.

I think we have to look at this in one of two ways: 1. The Dodgers couldn't find a single taker on Braiser for his full salary, and thus, to get the Cubs to take him, offered to eat his contract down to $2.8m. While the Cubs liked this, it isn't because they're trying to save every penny they can. (I.E. Bregman). This was the best offer for the Dodgers. 2. The Cubs specifically targeted Braiser and his contract (over others like Robertson, Finnegan, etc) and maybe even bought down his salary even further on purpose (by adding better PTBL names, perhaps?) for a specific, money saving purposes (I.E. Bregman) The timing makes it seem like it could be connected to their pursuit of Bregman but maybe it's just the timing on Braiser alone.

Playing a Jed Hoyer aspect here, there are a few ways that I think we can look at this this; but the way that I think makes the most sense is in the concept of "opportunistic". The Cubs have this feeling that they like to jump on things that they feel, more or less, fall in their lap. They like shorter contracts, they like cheaper relievers, they like things they don't have to pay heavily for. It's easy to call this cheap or lazy, but the positive spin on it is patience and value. So how do we look at this in that lens? First, Bregman on a contract with opt outs creates opportunity - the Cubs get a four win player without having to commit to six or seven years. They can get the best years left and let someone else pay for him if he opts out - or conversely, trade him like Bellinger before the contract runs out. It creates opportunity for the team to consider moving NIco Hoerner before he becomes a free agent - either now (perhaps an injury in ST opens someone up) or at the deadline. So my guess is that the goal remains the same for the front office - it allows them to maintain flexibility, it allows them to pivot, and it allows them to capitalize when other things may or may not be available. I'd guess that's the goal. I don't think a Hoerner/Cease deal makes sense for either side (the Padres are looking to shed payroll) but a situation where the Cubs trade Hoerner for either another MLB player from a team who doesn't want to drop out of the playoff race in July or some sort of hybrid three team swap (Hoerner for prospects, Cubs trade for another SP) feels on the table at any point.

My best stab at it would be something akin to this: Matt Shaw continues to either do everything asked for him in Iowa, making progress in the exact ways you'd hope, or being forced to play real time shows hes mostly ready. The Cubs are good enough in which they feel comfortable taking a slight hit from Hoerner to Shaw, or don't feel as though the drop off is concerning. They're capable of moving Hoerner to a contending team in need a of a 2b (either through injury or ineptitude). I'd assume it's for prospects but we did see a Morel-for-Parades swap so maybe it's not impossible to get MLB for MLB talent, but lets be safe and assume prospects. The Cubs then trade for their favorite rental SP and come away feeling they profited making more on a Hoerner trade than the subsequent SP trade while confident in Shaw the rest of the way. It feels like a narrow landing strip of course. But the Hoerner trade scenarios always have been. What I'll say is that Hoyer always feels a bit calculating in that there's a patience and a willingness to wait things out. He doesn't give off rash vibes. So I'd guess that if they end up with Bregman that the plan is to keep Hoerner but continue to be opportunistic in that they'd be open to moving him sometime in the year. You'd assume there'd be a market for him at almost any moment, and a pretty decent one. So the question would come back to Matt Shaw and just how the team feels about what he's capable of doing and how far the drop is.

It's possible. I do think any Bregman deal makes it fairly likely that Hoerner is traded...eventually this year. Which would further clear up some more wiggle room under the LT. I'm interested in what the Cubs are going for here. Feels like we should know Bregmans choice in the next day or so. But I've felt that way for almost 3 or 4 days. So who knows?

I wonder if this is how the "creative deal" plays into it. Bregman could be making more than $30m, but through vesting options, how they structure the money, etc that they could get the AAV under $30m still.

Yeah, there's a bit of a push and pull there. You'd obviously hope that between now and then that the Cubs would be pretty comfortable with their prospect depth to take one of those positions. And the Cubs are set up that they'd have a top-100 guy behind any one of those - either Kevin Alcantara, Owen Caissie, Cade Horton, Ben Brown (though probably more of a RP), Jordan Wicks...and then you've got guys like Brandon Birdsell too. If you build a good enough team around them (assuming you'd get something pretty decent back for most of these guys), you can probably afford some rookie looks.

It'd probably make things more difficult. With that said, the only money on the Cubs books past 2026 is Swanson, so it would come down to the Cubs willingness to be above the LT next year. They could, conceivably, find some money to offset that in 2026 - trading Hoerner's $12m and Jameson Taillon's $18m would, conveniently match the $30m, and probably wouldn't be an impossible task as long as they stay healthy and productive (both would be in their last year).

In a vacuum I'm cool with Braiser. He's a pretty good and useful arm. Velo drop last year, but you'd hope the Cubs could squeeze a bit back out of it if he's heathy. It was a calf strain, so you hope that the arm is just fine.

In theory a Cease trade helps the Cubs more. But it requires the Padres to be realistic, and if they're not being realistic, then it becomes an unrealistic outcome for the Cubs, as well. I'd like to think the Padres would have to get real with it, but they might not get there in the next little bit, and there's no guarantee the Cubs end up winning that anyways. I made my thoughts on Bregman clear in the Trueblood article, but I can see an argument here for moving for Bregman when you can, giving yourself a more defined outcome over Shaw up front, and then giving yourself the freedom to explore a Hoerner trade over the next four months or so, and how they looks could be many things, perhaps a team who's rich in pitching has an infield injury mid-year and you can MLB-for-MLB swap, or maybe it's a three-team-swap where Hoerner is traded for prospects, and a SP comes back. Maybe a team who was concerned about the injury has their worries dissuaded with a healthy three months. I don't think it'll happen in the end. But I can see outcomes where Bregman makes sense. And horsefeathers it, I'll say this too - the Cubs signing Alex Bregman would be flat out fun. It would be. And maybe it'd suggest the Cubs were just a little over playing the poor-card. (but I also suspect that wouldn't be the case and logic suggests some course correction on the back end),

Matt's probably got different sources than those guys. For example, it was Michael Cerami who first had the Kimbrel trade before anyone. All about who ya know.

These are sources Matt has. Matt's been writing for more than NSBB - including a few websites such as the Brewers and Twins equivalents to like. Bleacher Nation, as well as Baseball America. He's been spot on with the Cubs and O'Hoppe, the Cubs on Luzardo, and the Cubs/Crochet things. Those didn't happen, but it also doesn't mean they weren't discussed (all three were picked up on by the other major guys later). Needless to say, I think you'd file this away as; his sources are real. But as he's said, it doesn't mean it'll happen.

I remain heavily on the fence here and can see arguments on both sides as to whether or not I want this. The reality is Alex Bregman is a far more shelf-stable option at the start of 2025 than Matt Shaw. I really like Matt Shaw but his outcomes vary far more than Bregman in 2025. Especially during those first few months where the Cubs schedule is brutal. You can let Matt Shaw PCA his way into a lineup spot through injury (which will happen) It opens up a Nico Hoerner trade, either pre-season or even mid-season. It probably creates more options at the deadline, where a team (and I'm just using them as an example) like Seattle, who could be in the playoff race, wouldn't be willing to sell MLB pitching for prospects (and give up their playoff spot) but would be interested in ready-made MLB help. It creates a situation where you move a potential offseason of needing to replace four starting players in Suzuki/Happ/Hoerner/Taillon and reduce it to 3, with either Bregman opting out and replacing him a year early, or you cancel the opt out and keep him in which you don't need to replace him at all. On the other hand: Matt Shaw's ZiPS projections make you think maybe he's going to be pretty good right away and the payoff will be minimal Bregman's offensive profile got weird last year and changed and I'm not sure how I feel about it It could make extending Tucker even more of a long shot as the team could decide this takes them out of that, and I'd rather have Tucker than Bregman every day and twice on Sunday It's a weird spot. From a pure "fan" standpoint, it'd be a lot of fun to see the Cubs just do something cool, but being logical, it's kind of hard for me to decide exactly where I sit here.

Killian has all of the signs of someone who just isn't good enough for the MLB level. He's well over 250 IP at the Triple-A level, so while his Triple-A stats look good on paper (especially over his last 35 innings there last year with good ERA, FIP and xFIP) we have to remember that he's not just a repeater, he's on double-repeater status as a 27 year old. Digging deeper, his K% remains relatively unimpressive over even his best run (22%) and while he's fixed his walk issue he developed in 2023, he has yet to progress on his offerings to create anything that will consistently generate strikeouts. We can once again see that with a paltry sub 15 K% in his 10 innings back in the majors last year. It's small sample size, but he's had a few runs now and every time he gets promoted it's the same thing - the K's just vanish. They'll probably keep him throughout the first bit of next year as he has an option, but he's probably a "break glass in case of emergency" type at this stage unless Zombro is able to finally get him to develop a chase pitch. He's not entirely a dead-man walking as a prospect, but we're quickly approaching "I'm not sure the Cubs are going to unlock anything extra there" territory, and as is, he's kind of that prototypical up/down org depth guy,