Jason Ross

Rogers mentioned specifically Boston and Seattle in conjunction with Suzuki.

Yeah, I did take it as there was some juice to it.

There's a lot going on there, but I do think the Astros would possibly take one back. One thing I keep coming back to, and I admit, it could just me creating things out of nothing...but Jed doesn't give off the kind of guy who would sit down with Wolfe and Seiya and talk logistics and specifics on trade situations without a really big reason. Which gives me some thought that there's enough going on somewhere, that it makes sense to Jed to consider it. Maybe Jed's okay with moving out Seiya, not Bellinger and going that route, but I'd be a bit concerned with that. I don't know...most of this is talking me into and out of scenarios as I try to make heads and tails of it.

Fried about to pick. Yankees, Red Sox and Blue Jays

I wonder how this plays into the Kyle Tucker thing. Would the Cubs move off Bellinger and Seiya for Kyle Tucker? Is Tucker cool with being a DH more so than a position guy? Feels like there is a lot going on in Jed world.

He's 28, so I think it depends on if it kicks in in 2025 or 2026. Let's say for example it's a 2025: 12 years, with an AAV sitting in the $36-$38m. is what I'd guess. Probably an opt out in there, or some version of the Cole "opt out" where the Cubs can opt back in for an increased AAV. Maybe it gets closer to $40m.

Hoyer got a lot of flak yesterday for making a comment about Soto, but in that comment, he said that there would be situations they'd consider going big for someone. I think Kyle Tucker fits the mold more so than most. He's versatile in that he's an above average fielder who can also play some 1b down the road. He's a big hit tool guy, the Cubs covet those in recent years. He's not a platoon guy - he hits LHH and RHP just as well - this isn't a guy you worry about being a lefty. And I think his skill set ages gracefully, so Tucker at 35 is probably on the more useful side of 35, for example. Will he do it for Tucker? I dont know. But I think Tucker has a lot of the qualities that if the Cubs were going 10+ years than it'd be for a guy like him.

This Seiya information is weird. But also a bit interesting. What would have Seiya convinced he was headed for a time DH role? There's a few possibilities First, is that the Cubs have gotten no real bites on Bellinger. Thus having him move more to a DH space. Second, despite them working hard to move Bellinger, there's a replacement RF'er coming. You can make of that how you wish Seems like the Cubs have a lot of plates spinning right now.

I think you could probably get it done without one of these guys but it'd probably require a Parades or the Astros to be really into Kevin Alcantara (which they might be - that's a profile they've liked a bunch in the past). But I think we have to accept that a Tucker trade will hurt somewhere. But I'm okay with that.

Yeah, I can see Shaw carrying a lot of water here. He fits a bunch of the Astros infield prospects - strong hit tools, good power. I do wonder if his stance and tendency of pushing over pulling as much puts a bit of a damper on the Astros thoughts - with the Crawford boxes, someone who's more pull heavy could influence them. They also have Zack Dezenzo who they've rocketed through the system and has played part time at third. I won't pretend to be a Dezenzo expert, how he stacks up defensively and in his actual underlying processes....beyond me. But we can play that came with like Zach Cole in the OF as well and whether or not the Astros love him internally. I think the broader point is that I can see where the Cubs and the Astros have some real similar philosophies. They like similarly profiled prospects. They both have an aversion to long term contracts (why Tucker is available, potentially). It feels like this is a situation where they either make great partners or terrible ones.

I'll say this: I think Kevin Alcantara is a prime Houston Astros guy. Just looking at what they've seemed to like in the OF - there's a history of tallish, athletic OF'ers...tallish, athletic CF'ers (Springer/Siri) too. Alcantara feels on the surface to be very "Astro". And with a team lacking some OF depth, I can see them being interested . That's not to say I think the Cubs can get away with it being Alcantara and "stuff" but that I suspect that's a name that gets brought up if the two teams sit down.

If there's one thing that makes you think the Cubs would be invested in this, it's that I think Kyle Tucker has the right profile of the kind of player the Cubs shell out the contract for. Kyle Tucker is a plus fielder based on DRS and a pretty neutral fielder based on OAA - he's not a DH Kyle Tucker has a great approach. He's someone who has a good hit tool - this has been a hallmark of many Cub offensive finds., Kyle Tucker's profile feels like it ages well. He has wonderful barrel control, and fits into that "pure" hitter. He's the kind of guy you could see putting up a 115 wRC+ in the later years of his career still He's 28. It's not like we're looking at someone well into his 30's. He could eventually slide to 1b. He's logged some 1b time - it gives him a pathway as he gets older that isn't straight DH It's never easy to predict anything and it's always more likely that a trade doesn't happen than does. But the quotes from Hoyer are interesting as well: His comment about changing the offense through trade made it feel less like "we can change it by subtracting" but by adding. The Cubs remain steadfast in the trade market. The way Hoyer phrased not going after Soto made it seem like the Cubs would be willing to spend big sometime. You can take that as a cop out (and it probably was more so than anything) but it could fit in with a Kyle Tucker trade - as I said, I think his profile fits. If the Cubs were going to pay a guy, Tuck feels right up the alley. We'll see. But if you want to tea-leaf read, you can find where maybe it's a good fit. I fully expect Tucker to not end up in Chicago. But it doesn't feel crazy. The Cubs have been fairly insistent, it feels, on moving Bellinger. Perhaps, just maybe, the plan has been to run at Tucker.

There was probably no good answer to the question. He cant throw Ricketts under the bus and say they don't have the budget- he's in his last year of his deal, he won't rock the boat. He cant say he's not worth the contract and create bad blood with Boras or the rest of the league. He cant say anything about the player - we almost know how great Soto is. So the only comment is something dumb like this. That together the Cubs decided this wasn't a good plan. I kind of don't really blame him for the comment - he had to say a thing and like I said, feels like there's no good answer. I will give him *one* out...and that's if the Cubs are serious about trading for Kyle Tucker and then working on extending him earnestly. In that case scenario, you could argue that his comments were true and the Cubs thought it more prudent to spend $300-$400m on Tucker over $765m on Soto. We could debate that but it'd fit within the comments. All in all, pretty unlikely. But just saying...thats the one case scenario his comments might not be that stupid. But they were always going to be kind of dumb given the options in front of him.

James Triantos wasn't supposed to be one of the biggest HS prep-guys headed into the draft. He had a great senior year, rose up the boards. There's just a ton of prep guys so some of these players just don't get a ton of abilities to be seen. He might have been seen once or twice and if it wasn't his best day... As well, evaluators tend to be pretty neutral with the younger hitters, tending to gives grades more so in that 50-55 range, I feel. They're just so young and many are pretty bearish on outcomes until they start to show something (conversely every prospect on MLB.com feels like an all-star). With that said, here's what BA had on him:

When asked in a tweet if the Cubs were in on Crochet, Jesse Rogers said, "Yes, but not sure they're the fav or anything"

Amaya caught in 117 games last year but wasn't particularly good. With any sort of injury to Amaya, or if he doesn't hit like he did in July or August it's probably pretty likely that Kelly catches 60--80- games next year (barring health). Thaiss sucks. Kelly is useful. His $7m or whatever deal is likely just fine. The Cubs aren't so hard up for money they don't have that in the budget.

Based on the other catcher deals, I think it's fair to expect something that is around two years (possibly with one of those mutual deals which acts as a buyout) with a total number between $12-$14m. That's probably fine.

One of them is a good defensive player and the other isn't. Defense matters.

Kelly is fine.

Not a bad thing to hear. I like that concept.

They are lacking a bench, I don't disagree there (I probably could change my initial wording - I'll concede). However, the Cubs have $25m-$30m left to spend. That's more than enough for a BP arm ($10m or so), a backup outfielder $7m or so) and a backup catcher ($7m or so). You'd have plenty of prospect firepower to still add a SP. You can probably find a backup OF'er cheaper than $7m if you wait that market out - bring back Tauchmann, if you're so inclined. Again, I would like a defined plan here from the Cubs side of things. Bellinger is a good player, and a player who's worth probably three wins or so. While the Cubs could probably replace him and definitely need a bench and I feel like they can probably get most of the way there as is. If not all the way there. I'm not even accusing the Cubs of not having a plan., I stated my wishes. I'm not a massive fan of the "wait out the entire market" as the primary offseason battle strategy (and explained why in another post). If there's a positive, I don't think that they're going to do that as is - we've seen that they're reportedly interested in trades, Maddie Lee confirmed the Mariners/Sox three way thing was real (adding more validity to it). I think the Cubs have a creative spark this year and are not going to just aim at guys to fill out rosters or hope that they can get guys for cheap later.

Well...one I didn't filter out Joc...I left him in that group in the middle. So to be clear; I think Pederson is fine. I don't share optimism on Goldschmidt and feel like we're kind of seeing end-game Paul Goldschmidt. This isn't necessarily designed to be a "bash Goldy" post, but consider me 100% out on him unless it's like a Patrick Wisdom replacement. Regardless that's not the point of our discussion. The point is that they could spread that money out...but damn I think that's the wrong path with this roster. With limited places that need upgrading (right now, it's like SP and the BP, and if you trade Bellinger, you can add in one offensive player) the team isn't lacking for depth options. Sure, they'll offer value, and I don't think that the Cubs will be bad for it. But opportunity cost wise, this offseason is screaming for the Cubs to consolidate wins into those limited roster spaces. And they can still do that with trades - please don't get me wrong here, I'm aware there's a wide variety of things they can do! But I'm not a massive fan of moving one player for three on a roster that really needs impact in specific areas. It needs a front line starter, it needs a position player who's going to get 3-4 wins of value. I think that's the way forward. And they can maybe find one that way, but I'd really like to start eliminating variance by getting players you can really feel more confident on, too. So I have a bit of an uneasy feeling if they're looking to just trade Bellinger and spread it around. I'm okay trading Bellinger. I just...kind of hope there's a more specific vision?

Of the "spread the money around" while replacing Bellinger? Yeah, I'd say so. The issue isn't the number of players left but the quality. We can probably eliminate the top level - so like Fried and Burns barely count for this procedure. Then we have to ask "how likely are the Cubs to dip into the QO level?" While I don't want to say never the reporting on this has been pretty much indicating they aren't interested in going there. Maybe the math on that changes mid-January, but that's why I'd put it as "precarious". You're hoping that someone you like enough to sign has their market drop. I think as of now, it's probably far more likely than not that these are not on the current radar. Lastly, you have the "guys I don't think are an upgrade" group. Paul Goldschmidt has taken some massive hits to his satatcast data and has the look of someone who's lost steps As a lefty-masher off the bench? Maybe. As a Bellinger replacement? No thanks. (Just using a name here). So you're left looking at lagely the middle of that group. Like, do we think Gleyber Torres is going to be 2022 or 2023 Torres with the bat? Maybe he's a useful DH. You've got Joc Pederson, and while I think he's interesting, he's been pretty platoony (though it's gotten a bit better) and he's very locked into DH - not the worst thing but offers less lineup freedom. But there's just not a ton of this middle group you'd go and be quite excited about with the loss of the Confortos and the O'Niels. I'd probably have a different and wider feel on this group if we hadn't locked in Boyd - you could do a spread it out and just absolutely shove on the rotation and go cheap with Bellinger being gone, but with Boyd, I feel like the addition there has be more specific.