Jason Ross

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,

Yeah, that kind of sells me on it as well. You'd have to have a ready-to-go deal for someone else for me to really think it's a good idea and even then the deal would have to be a pretty good one.

The Cubs like to give additional rest where they can. As well, Boyd has been typically someone who averages under 5.5 innings per start and last year was more limited than even that. I think if we're expecting him to average in the low 5 innings per go (especially as the Cubs are seemingly building a deep bullpen) that 22-25 starts, and something around 120-140 innings is about the sweet spot for a relatively healthy Mathew Boyd in 2025.

To be fair, and this is weird to say about a 34 year old like Mathew Boyd...but I'm not sure we know what this version of Boyd's "ceiling" is. Boyd is a recent pitch lab guy, and may finally be healthy for the first time in his career. In terms of K%, BB% they were very close. Boyd even nudged him out in xERA. Now, it's noted that Boyd's in pretty limited sample sizes here and what is and what isn't sustainable over a full season should be wondered. But that's also kind of the point - what is and isn't capable for a new version of Mathew Boyd is pretty foggy. Ultimately, their ceilings over the next two years might be very close to each other. Both come with medical questionmarks, both come with recent poor runs, and both are coming off their best season in a while. Flaherty did it in more innings last year, but considering how the market treated him...it may be that the medical situation on him may be worse than Boyd, too. I'd love it if the Cubs lived in a world where their contract and what not was immaterial to them, but we don't live in that world. If the Cubs think their ceilings are around the same area, and what Boyd did last year is sustainable over, say, 130 IP, then his contract allows the Cubs to add another RP over what Flaherty's does. That does matter. I do have some reservations on the Cubs general pitching strategy, just so you don't think I'm humping Mathew Boyd's leg here - it does feel like they're going in a bit risky with Boyd and Rea as their additions to the rotation. I'd feel much better if the team had skipped, say, Rea and added a more consistent #3 type instead (Cease/King in a trade, or a multitude of other options). The hope going forward is that they can ride this out for a few months, can re-address the rotation in July and add that third piece when they feel prices are more adequate or they have a better view on things.

All true. But here's a difference; almost all of Mathew Boyd's injuries stem from his arm which was surgically repaired (TJS) recently. So there's a reason to believe that Boyd. especially over a two year span (regardless of his age) will bounce back much more healthy. Reports were that the Cubs were not the only team after Boyd. Similarly, it's important to note, the entirety of MLB organizations viewed Jack Flaherty enough of a risk that the best offer on the table, according to Flaherty, was a two-year contract (with opt out). Considering how good he was on paper, it's likely because teams have viewed his medicals as quite worrisome. I think it's pretty telling what Jack Flaherty got, on paper and without hitting incentive markers, is very close to that of Mathew Boyd.

Good on the Tigers for being able to wait that market out. Realistically there is *no way* the Cubs could wait the SP market out until today without signing another SP, so comparing this to Boyd feels...disingenuous. if not Boyd it'd have been another of those mid market guys like Sean Manea, to which Boyd compares pretty well to. More likely, because the Cubs got Boyd so cheaply we are still capable of signing a Flaherty/Bregman than it is holding us back from one.

Shaw for Cease would be significantly more than the Orioles got for a single year of Corban Burnes and is better than any single prospect that was moved for *two* years of Dylan Cease, let alone one. Maybe it's true that the Padres are this dullusuonal, or more likely, it's a simple negotiation tactic and Preller isn't insane. I'm not sure the Cubs and the Padres will find a trade there. But I think being realistic, everyone should know Matt Shaw isn't a reasonable trade for a single year of Dylan Cease. There will be a somewhat painful price to pay, but a top-20/25 prospect is above and beyond that price.

Law likes to be a bit of an antagonist.

Even then, there's a big discrepancy in value between Hoerner and Stroman. Enough that there is almost no trade to be had, even with a third party.

The Cubs are not trading Nico to the Yankees for Stroman. Stroman looks like toast and Nico is coming off a 4 win season.

The Bowden report gives a reason for why he hasn't signed one of those 5/6 year deals - they're a drop in yearly salary for Bregman over what he made last year. True or not, it would make some sense as to: 1. Why he hasn't signed yet. 2. Why he' entertain shorter deals, if yearly salary matters that much.

I took Bowden's words to be that the Jays are aggressive on Alonso and the Cubs are aggressive on Bregman. But I could be reading it wrong too.

Interestingly the Padres signed King today to a 2025 contract with a 2026 mutual option. We know those never get picked up but could be a way for the Padres to keep him and save 2025 money

Im cautiously interested in this. Ive been among the "Boras is using the Cubs" camp for a while, but at some point where there is smoke, there must be fire. I'm curious as to what the play is here, and what the Cubs plan is with Bregman in the event they sign him

The low level prospects were the Wesneski, Vazquez and Arias types youre so attached to. Cam Smith is a pretty good prospect! But he's also done far less than Matt Shaw thus far. He has just five hits over A-ball and while he had a great start to his MiLB career, he was at lower levels and frankly, should have hit well there. Shaw was drafted higher, hit arguably better before Tennessee (considering his wRC+ in SB was higher and never saw the light of day at Low-A to help pad stats) and posted numbers in Iowa that would require Smith to really hit his 90-95% outcome to achieve in his first attempt at that level. It doesnt mean he cannot, only that you seem to not understand how hard it is for players of their age to post a 140+ wRC+ in Triple-A. It's a good thing to remember that just 6 months ago, Cam Smith wasn't even a consensus top-10 talent in his *draft class* let alone this all-world uber prospect youre acting as if he is. People are far too high on Smith based on a handful of PAs at the lowest of levels of professional baseball. He was a college player in the ACC who played in the CWS, not an 18 year old prep hitter.

The point of showing that you misspelled names is in the irony of the situation. You hand ring over losing these players, yet, cannot even bother to get their names correct. If you don't know basic things, such as their last names, it goes to suggest you probably don't know much about them as players, their skillets, floors or ceilings, which take far more effort than a simple spell check. We all make typos, that's fine. But it seems odd to consistently whine about losing players when you have little knowledge of them.

Patrick Mooney of the Athletic reportedly had an article leak before it was ready to be published. Not a massive move, but appears the Cubs and Brandon Hughes have agreed on an MiLB contract.

That's probably fine. I'd like to get a Cease or a King, but the Cubs can probably wait until July to make another big trade. Grab Robertson, build a badass bullpen, and the team still goes into the season as the NL Central favorites on paper with ability to add throughout the year.

I'd imagine other teams would be interested. Seeing that the Mets are one.

If that's the case, then that's fine. The Cubs dont have to consumate a trade right now, either. So it doesn't really matter. Either the Padres and Preller will get real and the price on Cease will more mirror Burnes' did last year or they'll have to deal with their financial issues head on because no one on the planet is paying that price. I dont think their Shaw ask is anything more than an attempt to force the trade talks up, anyways. Classic "start high" move.

The Padres were reportedly being real weird on their initial demands on Soto last year (when, similarly, for financial reasons they needed to move off him), only to trade him for a price that came back down to much more "reasonable". I bet this is similar.

Fully agree with this, and especially that last paragraph. I think people are a bit down on their ability to get a guy signed and I do think that they should be able to move some money if need be. They will have four players on expiring contracts (Taillon, Hoerner, Happ and Suzuki) who should be all different levels of "moveable", They play a few different positions which should give the team some flexibility and all would have an immediate prospect replacement if need be, as well.

Would it be a 180? I don't remember the Cubs ever saying they refused to ever trade prospects ever. The Cubs have talked about sustainability, but let's say the Cubs do go ahead and further move an OF'er (Caissie or Alcantara) and even a SP (Jordan Wicks, Brandon Birdsell, Javier Assad - one of these guys). The Cubs youth and prospect depth at the upper level remains strong with: Matt Shaw - 2b/3b James Triantos - 2b/3b/OF Kevin Alcantara (OF) or Owen Caissie (RF/1b/DH) Moises Ballesteros (C/1b/C) With SP's and RP's that could include (minus one of these SP's): Cade Horton, Ben Brown, Brandon Birdsell, Jordan Wicks, Luke Little, Daniel Palencia, Javier Assad That's not even everyone as there are some more pop-uppy types like Jonathon Long who could maybe fill in at 3b, 1b, or LF. Beyond that, the Cubs have the entirety of their 2024 class (sans Cam Smith), and other young players such as Jefferson Rojas, Jaxson Wiggins... (including IFA's and other draft classes) to backfill these positions. There's immediate prospect depth at every position currently outside of SS (though with Swanson in tow, probably isn't immediately necessary and Shaw can likely handle it in a pinch) with plenty of options. The Cubs don't need their draft classes to provide immediate depth - any loss over the next year to two years can be filled within even after a trade for Cease or King with relative ease. It should also be remembered how quickly Shaw and Smith, the most recent two first round picks moved through the system. Matt Shaw has gone from draft day to the presumed starter on the Cubs in 18 months. Cam Smith was on a similar path (although there's reason to pause a bit there as we have a year before that would have been a reality). While I wouldn't expect that path to continue, but the Cubs have proven an ability to continue to find value.

The farm system will certainly take a hit, yes. However, the goal of a farm system is to supplement the major league roster - either through promotion and eventually taking jobs, or by being traded for established and current MLB talent. This is simply one of the ways to use that system. An all-in-approach either direction can be a franchise killer, either because prospect attrition rate (i.e. look at the Tigers over the last decade) or no prospects to take jobs. While it's fair to point out that the Cubs may end up trading Smith, and an OF'er and maybe a pitcher for players who won't be here next season, if they traded for players who had, say, an extra year of control, it would probably be double that cost. By trading for limited control, you limit your exposure on the back end with prospects leaving. The Cubs will also have drafts to continue to replenish the system. And if they miss on resigning Tucker and Cease/King, would get two compensation picks as well (the Cubs recent 2nd round selections include James Triantos and Jackson Ferris, two borderline top-100 types). As well, the Cubs have seemingly done well on their recent first round picks, snagging top-30 types in Shaw and Smith who immediately shot up rankings. A bit of trust is to be put into the Cubs drafting and developmental team currently. So while the Cubs may lose players, their ability to continue to replace them is seemingly quite strong.