Jason Ross

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,

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.