Jason Ross

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.

That's the thing though - the "spread the money around" options are...drying up. And probably will dry up more as we go along. I'll say this; it could work, but it feels like trading Bellinger without a set plan feels...precarious as of now. With a few more of the options off the table, it feels like a situation you could come out the back end and be...maybe no better. Which isn't to say that there isn't a pathway there, but feels like something that I'd rather the team have a plan for.

Exactly. There are plenty of offseason outcomes I'll some version of "annoyed" about but Sasaki isn't one. The Cubs are seemingly going to put out the fullest court press they can here, but with the IFA rules, there's no version of brute forcing this, it's likely going to be more of an agility training course. Which in many ways may favor the Cubs moreso than brute force - unless he's just dead set somewhere.

Yeah, I've wondered that a bit too. There are some utility situations I understand. Like, say for example, the Mariners won't move off a young and controllable arm, and the White Sox are being stingy with Crochet. So you flip Bellinger for Castillo, then think you have a better chance to acquire a controllable hitter. We can debate the Bellinger/Castillo framework, but it gives the Cubs more creativity - you could conceivably bring in any hitter in that situation because DH would be wide open.

I'm still curious as to what the plan with Bellinger is. Clearly the team would rather reallocate that money, but I figured someone like Conforto was appealing in that you could spend half and *maybe* can't similar production. With him off the table, it's hard to find a fit I think the team goes after. Santander has the QO. Teoscar's market seems too hot. Profar feels like you'd have to super wait that out. The way the team has seemingly acted with Bellinger; begging him to opt out then making it clear they'd like to trade him makes you feel like "theres a real plan here". With Soto signing and options dwindling...I'm curious to see what they have had in mind.

I dont know how many did. And frankly, I don't care what teams in the past have done. If we lived life worring about what teams did 40 years ago, we'd still have bad hitters leading off under the guise that they're fast. Theres reasons we can debate whether or not Crochet is a good addition. I think "yeah but he's left handed!" Is probably last on that list.

Lets imagine the Cubs had 3 RHP in the rotation. Would you not want to add Dylan Cease to the rotation? Do you know that Crochet doesn't have any sort of issues with RHH? He's pretty split neutral. I'm not sure it would even matter.

The Crotchet thing appears to have been real,

This is probably true. But at some point the arrow has to be pointed at being better than just being favored to a win a division in which the Cubs should. with their financial advantage, be in contention to win most years. Waiting for value has plenty of utility. I think it's especially useful for teams like the Cubs have been the last few offseasons - they had a bunch of options to raise a floor here or there. But there also comes a time when stacking multiple wins in limited and specific roster spots is the goal, and I just can't find a better situation to do that than right now (and that can be through trade!). The Cubs are really primed to add a bang-on top-3 arm, or a 4 win hitter if they move off Bellinger. And yes, that value may not match the surlpus of waiting until mid-late-January. We can say that the Dodgers and the Braves aren't really realistic to catch in one offseason...and I don't disagree. But that's also been a pretty consistent place the Cubs have been in for a while and while I think they've done a pretty decent job building up the roster, it's also probably time to start making a turn in stacking offseasons where you start to catch those teams. Trading Bellinger to open up funds to keep bringing in Andrew Chafins', Michael Confortos and Mathew Boyds (just picking short term players who you can maybe wait out) probably isn't going to do that. They'll raise some floors here for 2025, but long term they won't be here, and probably don't really cut into any lead the Braves and the Dodgers have. Those players aren't bad, and some are necessary every offseason...I just don't think that can be the only way we look to improve this offseason, either. I'm not trying to throw a fit here, so know this isn't me being impatient...only stating that at some point these types of offseasons are going to begin to limit their utility in making ground up on the best teams. And I think the Cubs would have missed a real shot this offseason to start to cut into that deficient.

I'll be pretty upset if they go bargain bin hunting. At some point you have to try to add actual impact players. And the conditions are perfect right now to make a trade of impact or sign a FA of impact. You have tons of prospects. Probably too many at the same level. You have lots of the roster locked in, what youre missing is fairly specific. And you have a VP who's on the hot seat in that he has no contract for 2026. Hell, there is a generational type FA on the market - guys like Soto, at his age are exceedingly rare (and I dont want this to be a another "we didnt try for Soto rant", Im using this for a bit of emphasis, some oomf if you will). If *now* isn't the time you don't bargain bin hunt, then I don't know when you don't. And at some point the Cubs need to be something more than trying to be a more expensive version of Milwaukee. Feels like this is a good barometer to see what an aggressive Hoyer looks like. And I'd fear that if this is as aggressive he gets that this team will ever get to the heights it should. Im letting Jed cook for the time being. The Crochet thing was pretty creative. So I think they'll really shoot for some impact. Im just saying if they go the "wait till mid-Jan" route...I'd be concerned.

The Cubs feel like they are getting to a point where they need to pick a path. On one hand, the Bellinger sweeps has to be looking better - Adames and O'Neil off the board opens options. But it's probably time for them to kick off their path. It's nice to have options but there cones a point where you can't wait much longer and feels like with options dwindling at catcher, at OF and at SP, that they can't wait much longer. Go be the aggressor a bit

Not a terrible deal for either side. $26m AAV feels good but not exorbitant. Consistent 3-4 win guy.

They were listed as if they were the big players and teams to watch in the Sasaki sweeps.

Both Passan and Rosenthal have mentioned us with 5 other of the heavy hitters, specifically, in separate articles today alone. We get mentioned a lot. In articles like the one here, from Sharma and Mooney, I think he isn't mentioned because the Cubs offseason probably doesn't change with or without Roki. You probably see some sort of semi-6 man thing with him, as he's had some injuries and NPB guys don't have as much rest naturally. So he's probably not going to be a massive inning eater right away. Also, he's essentially free on the budget. So you do your offseason and if you get him, awesome, and if you don't, you don't.

Sounds like the Cubs are a real option. I've seen a few reports that the Sasaki sweeps could be done quick, but obviously his final signature will have to wait.

Cubs are mentioned specifically in here as one of the six teams to watch.

I think there's a little too much fear and panic. I don't want to get into defending "we trieds" but it's December 6th and the WM's haven't even happened. @Matthew Truebloodconfirmed that the Crochet stuff wasn't a nothing burger (if you haven't read his first page article on it, it's worthwhile) and that there was some real work done in that area. Clearly the Cubs were attempting to get a good (possibly very good) player into the fold. It hasn't worked out so far, but there's also a lot of time to go. That type of creativity is good to see. Hope he can continue to use it. The backup catcher thing is...a bit worrisome simply because of the lack of options. Jansen was horrid last year and saw a lot of his hitting metrics drop off significantly. Wouldn't be the craziest thing to think injuries caught up a catcher. He's a worthwhile gamble I'd have taken, but alas, I'll survive without him. They do need to fix that spot, and I too hope it's not a Matt Thaiss situation. Based on his split deal, it feels like the Cubs don't want to go that route if they don't have to (they were reportedly in on Danny Jansen). I'll let Jed cook here a bit longer before I'm afraid that the man headed into his contract season is running it back with the same ol' same ol'.

Yeah, George Offman said it wasn't happening and a few people have suggested the Cubs aren't trading Suzuki. I have zero concern they're trying to trade Seiya. He also has a NTC. Sherman is probably just confused, or working on bad information. It's been the only report on it.

Suzuki thing has been refuted a few times various places. It's almost assuredly bad info Sherman is working on. We should probably let that one go. The Jansen thing is a bit frustrating but could signal that the Cubs are focused on other things at the position.

Jansen - 1/$8.5m to Rays. Done deal per Robert Murray

Catching options running thin quickly.

I doubt they would hand it to him on a platter with like, Luis Vazquez or Miles Mastrobuoni as his competition - I think if you send an INF out, you have to get an INF in. But I do think that the infielder would be a speed bump type over anyone who stands a real threat. The goal, seemingly, is to shed some salary places to reallocate it elsewhere, and I would imagine they'd spend a low amount on that backup infielder (especially if they kept Triantos as a hedge for injuries). But I think that depends on how the Cubs are modeling Shaw internally. I think we'd see their confidence on Shaw based on who they brought in, so perhaps I'm downplaying it, too. On the Shaw/Caissie thing - I'm the biggest Caissie guy out there and I agree that I have more concerns with Caissie on OD than Shaw. Shaw just doesn't have many red flags right now - he's making a ton of contact, he's hitting the ball super hard, he's not hitting a massive amount of grounders, he's hitting velocity at Triple-A at a pretty excellent rate...if we want to find the "concerns" a lot of it comes down to "Idk, he looks funny and maybe that'll be an issue", which isn't necessarily to downplay the leg kick and the strange toe-in, but more-so to say that to date, it's been an issue...never. Not at any level prior. Not at Premier 12. MLB pitchers are the best in the world and they can exploit you like no other, so if it is exploitable, they'll do that. But he also wouldn't be the first guy who "looks funny" when he does things and still is successful. Other than that, it's "I'd like to see him pull the ball more" stuff and maybe he has an issue with sweepers (but it's pretty small sample size stuff and could just not be as big of an issue as the sample suggests. Worth noting, but nothing I'm terrified of yet). Caissie made a lot of swing adjustments last year himself. More power, more pull, more lift. Good things! But he sacrificed contact to do so. He dropped from around league-averagish to the mid-high 60%'s and while I chalk some of that up to learning how to embrace a new swing, I'd like to see him smooth that out more. Caissie has more data-specific things I can find as "red flaggy" than Shaw. I expect him to struggle more than Shaw at the next level because he doesn't have that excellent hit tool that Shaw has to help carry him a bit. I would expect both to struggle initially because prospects are just doing that more and more league wide and I hate pretending our prospects are special or different because they're ours. But I think Shaw comes out of the fog faster than Caissie, especially if we're starting them on Opening Day as starters.

As someone who lives eight hours a day, five days a week around 12-14 year olds...this is entirely accurate. Literally two days ago, at 3pm, a 14 year old boy in my classroom attempted to use a hot dog as a pointer during his Ted Talk. The school served hot dogs for lunch. Four and a half hours prior. He saved a nearly five hour old hot dog (and I'm sure it spent time in his pocket) just for that.