Jason Ross

Warren is interesting. It's small sample, but his stuff (shape, velocity, etc) most compares to: 2024 Michael King and 2024 Bryan Woo. As well, Brandon Pfaadt makes the top-5 (for transparency, so does Jakob Junis and Jonathon Cannon). So I think it's not too hard to look at Warren and think "well I'm getting in on the ground floor if I trust my developmental team". I think he's a nice return on Bellinger, probably better than I was expecting if the Cubs keep the money-eaten to a minimum. But I'm also totally fine sending him on to Houston, who also likes to develop pitchers and lower the overall cost on Tucker for the Cubs.

The plot thickens.

Well...no. Let's put it this way: You trade Parades + Smith + Something else to the Astros for Tucker You trade Bellinger to the Yankees in a pure salary dump Net: Kyle Tucker for Parades, Smith, Bellinger + Things You trade Suzuki + Parades + Smith to the Astros for Tucker. You keep Bellinger Net: Kyle Tucker for Parades, Smith, Suzuki You're not really changing the math here. Yeah, Suzuki is probably better than Bellinger. So much better that you pass on Tucker? Obviously if the Cubs can get Will Warren, then let's change the math. But that's the math on a Bellinger salary dump.

Getting Warren for Bellinger + Eating like $5m would be a killer return.

It's only too much if you're expecting a return on Bellinger. If you're giving Bellinger away...it might still be worth it.

Yeah, there's still some utility with it. I think my issue with that is: 1. I think the team is worse if they send Suzuki to Houston and keep Bellinger. Belliinger is the better fielder, but the worst option at DH. And I'd like to keep Suzuki's bat. Is it enough to cancel the entire trade? Probably not. 2. It's kind of pedantic, but Parades, Suzuki and Smith feels...heavy for 1 year of Tucker. And I guess you'd trade Bellinger for next to nothing, so it's kind of 6 in one hand and half a dozen in another in any other way... So I think you can be okay in the end. It's just not my favorite.

Sure. But I think we have to accept that those talks did happen. Jon Morosi, Bruce Levine, Maddie Lee all mentioned the Cubs had talks with the White Sox about Crochet. Trueblood, multiple White Sox guys (the equivalent of their version of BN) said they had talks including the three-team thing. There's a hierarchy of reporting, and yeah Zanolla probably ran with some lower-tier stuff in terms of "how close" it was. But someone named KatyPerrysBootyHole broke the Quintana trade, so it ain't like a kid having a scoop is the craziest way a Cub-White Sox trade has broken this decade, let alone, ever. Chris Cotillo was Jacob Zonolla once - a kid with a twitter account and some scoops. He's one of the best beats on the Sox out there. Credit to Zonolla as well...he was on the O'Hoppe thing and that was also confirmed by Sharma/Moioney a few times. I agree, I do think it's unfair to say every pundit having us as a favorite was wrong. I think the truth resides in the middle. There were real talks between the Cubs and the White Sox. But I think we just a bit of a sneak peak into all of those trade talks that happen that we never hear about. Like I bet there were a few insane trade talks the Cubs were involved in at some very, very conceptual levels this weekend and we never heard a peep. I think we agree at the heart of it - I just want to defend the kid a bit for having some real information. Even if it's not information everyone else would run with.

I don't think Jed "bungled" Crochet, to be fair to him. If you check out Trueblood's account of the events, it eventually came down to the White Sox and Mariners being unable to agree on compensation on their legs of the three-team-trade and the Cubs refusing to pay the transactional difference between the two. The White Sox and Cubs had been unable to find ground and they brought in Seattle because they knew Hoerner was useful in that way. As with all trade rumors, they're complicated, and most trades don't happen. I also don't think that equates to a bungle. Sometimes teams get together, other times they don't. Considering the price Crochet went for, I think it's probably okay to say "maybe that wasn't the move".

The kid wasn't wrong. Multiple people - our own Mathew Trueblood, as well as more well known beats have picked up the story. There was talks between the Cubs, Mariners and White Sox in regards to that trade.

I do wonder if that's a bit of the plan post-Tucker, is that next offseason is to move off those two a bit. Or at least, that the Cubs should retain internal options still. Assuming Parades goes and Shaw replaces him internally, perhaps next offseason is the year where Triantos is installed in at 2b or Cam Smith (if not traded) is destined for 3b, moving Shaw to 2b. SP could go to Horton, Birdsell, a transition piece like Brown/Hodge/Pearson from the pen. Just spitballing there, though, and trying to replicate a similar 2024 offseason (in the vein of Tucker/Cease).

Maybe, but I tend to think that some of the crosstown stuff is really just driven by the fans less-so-than-teams. I think if the Cubs had offered a similar package but done so a week ago, before the Red Sox went there, Crochet would be a Cub. I doubt the White Sox would have turned that equivalent package down and thought "man, oh, man, that's a good offer but because Dave Kaplan might say something I better ask for more or just trade him for less to another team!" But in the end, I don't blame him for not sending that package. The Cubs don't have three other universal top-10 guys like the Sox do right now, so losing a Shaw hurts a bit more - especially if you're thinking he's going to take over for Parades in a Tucker trade. I like Crochet a bunch! And I think for the Sox it made sense - both Sox.

That's fair. I'm not giving credit to him for getting Tucker, yet. But at the same time, I think Hoyer isn't acting within the same personal limitations he's had in the past...so I'm going to give him some time to cook here before I decide Breslow has balls and Hoyer doesn't.

Maybe. We'll see - there's a decent chance in the next two days the Cubs ship out two starting players, and some prospects, to shuffle things around for the second best player on the market. That'd be pretty ballsy to me.

I think any trade that the Cubs complete will make them believe that by the end of the offseason, they will be better. We should not need to worry about it. The Cubs aren't shooting from the hip here and hoping it magically works - they'll have some sort of a plan. Whether it's that they think Shaw can handle 3rd, or that they're going to turn themselves to grab a SP with the prospects they saved... The belief will be that a Tucker trade makes them better by OD.

That's probably on the low end. It depends on how you view Teel. There's plenty in the industry who think he's a borderline top-20 guy, and others (like Jarret Seidler) who think he's more of a top-50 guy. I think if you see Teel like Seidler, that probably fits. If you see him more like a top-20 guy, then I think Shaw/Smith/Wiggins/Long might fit.,

Today is get away day, yes.

Players can be added to the Triple-A reserve team for a specific amount of money. I believe it works just like the MLB version - if they do not stick at Triple-A the entire season they are returned. But it's a lot easier to keep a guy stashed in Triple-A.

How out of touch with reality do you think Jed Hoyer is? I get that we all have this negative feeling about everything, but Jed Hoyer lives on planet Earth. If you and I know that he'd never once consider that, then so does Hoyer. I think we have to give some understanding that while Hoyer hasn't shown that ability in the past, that he also understands value and what a player needs. I think we also have to understand that he probably wouldn't trade these assets without that understanding or some belief he can offer a market value deal.

Even more so - for all of the bashing Hoyer took for his comments on why he didn't attempt to sign Juan Soto, there's plenty in there that makes you believe he would try to sign Tucker. Say what you want about Jed, he's usually pretty transparent when he talks. People laughed when he said that the Cubs made a choice internally not to pursuit him and that they would consider a large market value for someone else - it was 24 hours later we saw how deep they were on Tucker. I don't think that's an accident. I don't think it's an accident he said that, and I don't think it's an accident that Tucker also plays the same position. Listening to those quotes back, it sounds much more like "we feel better about acquiring Kyle Tucker. We would consider a market value contract for him" with the added context.

Most of the rumors will say that, yes, but I think he has to say that. By saying "I want to be a free agent" he's really saying "pay me like a free agent". If he says "I' am open to an extension" it says "I'd be willing to take a discount" to some. The messaging from Tucker and his camp will almost assuredly continue to be that. The Cubs will continue to say they see this as a 1-year trade, largely because we have to separate trade from extension. I do contend that the Cubs wouldn't move these kinds of assets without any thought that an extension was possible, or that they were so out of touch with reality that they don't understand what his market value is. They most likely will attempt to engage him and his reps during the next few months on seeing how well they can work towards a market value extension. Overall, it's probably fair to assume the most likely scenario is that he'd be here for one year. But that we can also be logical and understand why he's saying what he's saying, and that the team is probably not doing this with an eye on just one year, too.

Why are people still latching onto this *one* report where the Astros asked for both guys? Jed was pretty open with the fact that he's almost assuredly coming back as a Cub and multiple reports have suggested the Cubs dont want to include him. This is how negotiating works: you ask the moon and hope to land among the stars. They're so very unlikely to trade both, and it shouldn't require both if we look at what teams have paid for similarly valued one-year players. Juan Soto went for less 365 days ago, and we all agree he's a better player. Another indication they're not including Suzuki; they're getting close to sending Bellinger out. Trading three starters away would put the Cubs in a pretty big bind. Theyre also on record stating they don't want a primary DH which limits any ability to replace a third starter. It all but eliminates guys like Joc Pederson as a fall back. That Cubs match up amazingly with the Astros. They want a corner INF who's MLB ready and we know they love Parades (they were close to getting him in July). The Cubs have the deepest farm system at the Triple-A level in baseball. It may not be deepest overall but at the Triple-A level it probably is. They want SP? We have depth there too. I understand people wanting to limit their own disappointment if it doesn't go down, but the Cubs have a better offer than the Yankees right now according to almost every report. They have more to offer than the Yankees, who have no obvious corner INF to give. They have a VP of Baseball Ops who has a good reason to make this happen. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen - it's always more likely a trade doesn't come together than it does. But we should probably stop inventing reasons why it won't, too, just to satisfy our own wants to limit disappointment.

Other than not wanting to be hurt if the Cubs don't get him, is there any reason you believe this? I dont mean that rudely, just wondering if I'm missing something or if it's just tempering your own expectations To put it simply, the Cubs have better things to offer. The Yankees may be motivated but it seems Hoyer is too. I think the Cubs will get this over the line.