Jason Ross

I think we have to remember that his job is on the line. I don't think there's a world where Jed Hoyer is so flippant about his job security or so deluded into thinking that Boyd can get to 150 innings that that will be the opening day rotation. It's really easy to be kind of down on where the Cubs see themselves in the pecking order of teams and their aspirations, but at some point there's going to be self preservation from Jed. Where I think we can debate on whether or not Jed Hoyer will be aggressive enough on whatever he adds to the rotation. Like, I could see him adding a cost-controlled pitcher who looks more like a #4 on paper, thinking that with the Cubs pitch lab they can fix 'em up to be better than that and save on the cost of prospects (Bryce Miller?). Jed sometimes has the feeling that he's trying to play 4D chess and I can see outcomes of whatever comes next being an example of that. I can also see him getting more self aware and really going and getting a better player, too. But I am confident that the Cubs aren't done adding to the rotation.

I really love Shaw and Caissie but neither should be relied upon Day 1 for a team who's in the state the Cubs are - just good enough that you can believe they can win the division but with plenty of negative variance opportunities to knock them back into the 80 win marker. Two prospects add to the variance and create even more potential negative outcomes. I think both players have futures that could be that of MLB starters or better. But with struggles likely, the Cubs need to aim higher and rely on them later in the year when injury strikes...not create whole sale openings for them as they finger cross their way through May hoping that it's just not so bad it sinks the Cubs into a pretty treacherous hole.

If there's any positive it's that the smoke on the Cubs FA dealings has been suggesting this was going to be the case. The real moves will probably happen via trade. It's not been the most exciting start to the offseason in Cubland but the trades will make or break it.

Oh I don't disagree. I'd love the Cubs to add a more offensive shifting piece as well. I think they've built a fairly solid lineup, but I retain that it lacks someone to carry the team through some of the tougher times. While even the best teams struggle with consistency (the myth of a consistent lineup just doesn't exist) I do think some of the best players help smooth over those rough patches and can steal you a win here or there during those more "slumpy" times. Instead, I'll hope they do that in the rotation with getting another guy who can help smooth over the variance which has been both a bug and a feature of the Cubs in 2023 (where I think their variance helped carry them into contention) and 2024 (where winds at Wrigley coupled with injuries and just some negative outcomes at times) helped hurt their contention. Boyd is going to add to varient outcomes simply because IDK what we're getting here and the comps for Boyd are pretty much non-existent (mid-30's, injury history, funk-ass mechanics, pitch mix...throw it into a mixer and he's pretty 1-of-1). Give me something I can bank on.

I think the dream of an offense-shifting-bat coming to the team is pretty dead, unless they off-load Bellinger. With limited space, and limited PA's, it's we're looking at a backup catcher who slots in as a 1a/1b type with Amaya (Higashioka or Kelley makes sense) above Thaiss and maybe a Wisdom replacement. I do think the Cubs will make a trade for a SP who's cost controlled. My hope is that they shoot particularly high here as someone who's not something you have to worry about being a bang-on-top-3 guy and someone who could even push an Imanaga or a Steele as their 2nd best arm in 2025. Especially with some uncertainty behind how much we can count on Boyd, that's kind of my "key to the offseason" at this stage. If the Cubs can bring in someone you feel confident there...I think the Cubs will be on pace to be a favorite in the NL Central. What I don't want is another arm that creates further variance for a team that feels like they've been riding a wave of variance for two years already. Boyd only adds to that variance. Get someone you can be confident on.

The Cubs aren't really good enough to roll with a bench of garbage. And even with your plan, probably aren't good enough. They have to win on margins and with depth offensively, if they experience any hit to that depth pre-June it's probably going to be not great. They don't have a bat you can count on to really carry the load, and dispersing it will matter. As will load management. They can probably achieve the same level of SP quality through a trade, while building a strong bench and bullpen to mitigate that better than signing taking what they have and throwing it at a Flaherty. And I'd argue using a few guys like Alcantara or Triantos in a trade, will better maximize their value than filling them on the bench. You can find pretty useful bench options without a super hard search, especially if you pick tools that work well with your current roster.

I'm on the fence on Boyd, but I'm fully out on Lorenzen. He'll pitch more but he's much worse when he does. He doesn't do anything particularly well and most of the things he does poorly. His best quality last year was average exit velocity, with him finishing in the 58th percentile. He was below 50% on every other baseballs savant metric with many things (such as chase, K%, whiff...) being below the 15% marker. Durability matters to a degree. But the Cubs need quality most right now. Someone else can take the plunge on a guy like Lorenzen. He's likely going to be not good.

I would. As of right now, the bottom of the rotation is probably plenty deep, with Boyd, Assad, Wicks, Birdsell, Brown, and Horton (and maybe Pearson!) all capable of taking starts sometime in 2025. With limited monetary resources, and a need to really bolster the back end of the bullpen, spending more to mix and match even more in that aspect is probably overkill and a mismanagement of funds.

Contract breakdown: 2025 - $7.5m base, $5m bonus 2026 - $14.5m 2027 - mutual option ($15m), $2m buyout

It's probably not realistic, though. I might not always love everything the team does, but they're not insane enough to consider Boyd a full-time rotational arm who's going 150+ IP. With that said, they probably have something like $26-28m left to spend. They will probably sign three more MLB players for BP and bench roles already. Even averaging a pretty paltry $5m-$6m, that's going to eat up most of that money. They would be able to do next-to-nothing with that remainder for a SP. I'd put the chances of a SP trade fulfilling the 2nd SP as something around, at least, 80/20 if not 90/10. If the Cubs were to sign another SP, it'd probably require the Cubs to dump most of Bellinger's contract. But they'd still need to replace him, too. Realistically, it's almost assuredly going to be a SP they trade for.

I think that's a pretty fair bet. But I also think any trade that was going to net the Cubs an MLB cost-controlled SP, meant that the Cubs were likely trading a Wicks/Birdsell/Assad as is, too. Considering that the Cubs were probably going to always trade for a cost controlled SP, I don't think this changes the equation other than to say that I think it's even more likely that the Cubs make that kind of SP trade now.

We have been through this already this offseason, man. The Cubs probably had low $50m under the LT to spend. Your numbers were wrong then, they're wrong now. Reports are that the Cubs will come in under the LT more than they did last year, with more breathing room. Likely $10m or so. $50-$10 = $40m, or so. Maybe add a few mil, or subtract it.

I'll add here to what I did else where, on its surface, I'll remain confused by this, but mostly because I cannot see the bigger picture from where I'm sitting. It's not that I think this is bad, but the Cubs position now feels more and more like they have to nail the second SP. It's clear, as @Bertz said that the Cubs will add two pitchers. It's also clear that with the money they have left, that will almost assuredly have to be accomplished via trade. If the Cubs can come away with a bang-on top-three pitcher that you can really be confident on, I think Boyd offers interesting value as an 80-100 IP guy who shares innings with guys like Birdsell, Horton, Wicks maybe Brown, Assad, etc in that #5 space, akin to how the Dodgers seemed to perpetually sign an Andrew Heaney or an Alex Wood type. Where I fear is that the 2nd SP will be more along the lines of a "fix-em" or a "build-em" type which I think creates a bit more of an uneasy rotation heading into 2025 than I'd like to see. I'd like to see the Cubs chase current value as opposed to surplus value every waking moment, and with the limited chances the Cubs have to really upgrade this offseason, the remaining SP really represents one of the biggest and easiest ways to do that. It may work out in the end, but it might not. And seeing the Cubs put a confidently very good team on the field would be preferable.

I think you're a lot higher on Bryce Miller than I am, because I would argue there are more free agent SP's I like more than Miller in a vacuum. I think he's a guy I've got as a low-end #3 but realistically, a guy you want more as a good #4 with some upside that you have to coax out. He's not particularly adept at pulling chase, whiff, limiting hard contact...his pitches grade out as good, but for some reason, these things don't follow. Miller's value to me seems more tied to control/.cost and less to immediate impact. But without turning this into a Miller debate, it's the brooder point I'm making is that the Cubs, as they sign a pitcher you cannot trust in Matt Boyd, now feel forced to trade for something you can really count on to be very good. And I'll be pretty disappointed with a plan that consistent, top-to-bottom of "we can fix'ems" if they go with a Miller profile instead. I think there's power in finding value that way and the Cubs need to do some of that. By signing a Matt Boyd today, it feels more like you really have to get past the fix-em and need something you know. Like I said, there's a lot going on behind the scenes, and the Cubs know their position infinitely better than I do. Maybe the trade is close, or they really like what they're getting close to. Or maybe they know the pitching market is about to speed run past this point. This kind of trade just really puts an emphasis on who the second SP is to me. As I stated originally, I remain quite perplexed. It's not necessarily I think this is bad, but the next move is going to be kind of what seals this move for me.

I hope that they feel like they have those machinations in place. I would say that it's probably pretty unlikely anything would get held up with Sasaki however. Even if you get him, he's probably going to be on some limitations on innings and a 6-man feels likely. You make the trade...then you worry about Roki. He won't sign until mid-January. Too much time for those foundations to change. I think you do your off-season regardless of Sasaki. Then you either win that or not.

He does only have so much control, totally agree. I think we can make a counter point, however, that it didn't have to be Matt Boyd. Boyd doesn't seem like a relative bargain for what he signed ($2/29m sounds about where you'd have predicted it) and the market didn't seem to be moving so fast that without singing Boyd right now that you'd be left holding the bag. It's hard to say what the undercurrents are here, and maybe the market is about to move fast and we just don't know from our position. But it does really force his hand. And I think it forces his hand to a point where the trade that has to come has to be pretty significant. Like, I'd say it has to be more than a Bryce Miller or a Clarke Schmidt. I could see a world where you brought in someone who was less a gamble (i.e. Nathan Eovaldi) and someone like that works as a guy who really adds length into the 3/4 spots together, but with even more money locked up, and even even less glaring roster fixes...it feels like the Cubs now have to go really into a "this guy is for-sure-pretty damn good" territory on who they round the rotation out with.

This is really going to force them to make a significant and consequential trade for a young, cost controlled SP. With that kind of a trade, I kind of understand Boyd, but it feels very much like the Cubs have put themselves into a corner here to make that kind of acquisition by signing Boyd then going the trade route. They must feel very confident of pulling that off. I'd prefer having that kind of a trade done before Boyd, as there probably just isn't enough money left to pivot substantially if they need to.

That just doesn't feel like a great usage of the $40m or so we have. He isn't a durable starter. He's overpaid as a Smyly guy in the pen. I don't really understand this. At all. Is this better than signing a Kikuchi or an Eovaldi for a little more AAV? He doesn't solve the need for some right-handed-ommph in the rotation, and adds another low-90's fastball velo LHP into the mix with other pitchers like that. It feels like a luxury signing, as Boyd can be effective. But you can't count on him for more than 80 innings and at $14.5m that's not a small amount of the money the team has available for those 80 innings you can count on him for. That's a lot of money per start-you-can-count-on for a team who doesn't feel like they have that kind of money laying around. Maybe he gets to more and the recent TJS fixed him! But he hasn't done that since pre-covid and at 34 I wouldn't make that gamble. Like, maybe this is your "Shane Bieber reclamation signing" but this feel expensive for someone at his age and his injury history. Maybe it signals a pretty quick exiting of other money (Hoerner/Bellinger seem to be the possibilities) or the Cubs are super sure for whatever reason they're getting Sasaki and want to build a 6-man rotation with a top-3 guy coming in super cheap, but if not, it leaves the Cubs with $25m or so and you still need BP help, a better rotational arm, and bench players and all you can really be sure of is you're getting 50-100 innings of production. In the vacuum of the offseason we have so far, it feels pretty far removed from what I'd consider things that make a ton of sense. There's a pretty scary world in which the Cubs acquire Matt Boyd as the mid-rotational arm addition, but I'm going to assume they're not that wacky. So I'm not going to really ruminate on that too much right now. They see the big picture right now that I don't see and the math can change quickly, but I'm pretty perplexed by this as of now. It's not exactly the same, but this feels like it could become another version of the Mancini/Barnhart/Smyly type of deal where it's not soul crushing money, but you just look back on it an and wonder if the money could have been much more effectively spent elsewhere.

But why do you think that? You have yet to provide a shred of reasoning behind your opinion. You say you think that, but why do you think that? That's important here. Is there data you're basing this off of? If so, please share. However, from where I'm sitting, it really feels like the reason you think that is something along the lines of "I'm a Cub fan, and Matt Shaw is a Cub prospect. The other prospects are not Cubs, thus Matt Shaw will do better". Maybe that's enough for you, but by god I hope that's not enough for the Chicago Cubs' decision makers to rush out and find a way to replace their already pretty damn good 2b. I'm a big Matt Shaw guy. Honestly ,when I look at the data, I think there's a lot to really like there. He makes a good amount of contact, and while the leg kick is a bit funky (I'm not entirely convinced the leg kick is an issue. Some guys do things funky), he tones it down with two strikes and still shows good EV's. He handles velocity really well. He crushes fastballs. He's killed it in the Premier12. And if you told me he ended up being a Dustin Pedroia of sorts...I'd probably believe you - I think he's got that kind of a profile. But he's almost assuredly going to be over matched for 60+ games like all of the other really good prospects in baseball have been and I can't find much of a reason to think that he's going to forgo that. He's a free swinger and pitchers are going to exploit that. He struggled on sweepers at Triple-A. It's small sample size, but he didn't do well against them. And his leg kick may very well be exploitable too - Zach Neto had a similar profile and he had to eliminate it. He could probably pull the ball more too - hitting opposite field home runs is not a strategy for sustained success at the MLB level and Shaw does that a bunch. Pitchers are going to exploit him like he's never been exploited before. I think he'll adjust, but it's probably going to take 45-60+ games of struggles to get there as pitchers adjust to him, and then he adjusts to pitchers. It almost assuredly won't take a week and magically he'll be fine. It's why rooting for Hoerner to be hurt for 2-3 weeks so Shaw gets a chance is a bit silly. Those will be weeks he's probably not particularly good during. It won't help the Cubs win. He doesn't play defense well enough to give him a floor during that struggle time. And the Cubs aren't good enough to just have a hole on the team.

So you expect him to be in a tier above most of those other uber prospects, because none of them have settled into anything yet. They've flashed, but settled into nothing. That's very outlandish. You do realize that, right? What exactly makes you think Matt Shaw will settle in fairly quickly when someone like Dylan Crews or Jackson Holiday didn't? There will be an injury. Hoerner is good for a trip to the IL every year, and he's hurt now. When was the last time the Cubs had a full season where an infielder didn't go down? And if the Cubs have the good fortune of having their 4 win SS, their 4 win 2b and their 3 win 3b be healthy for a full season? Guess what? Matt Shaw is going to be just fine. He's not going to wither and die because he was in Iowa. It's not going to make him not develop. He has less than 40 games in Iowa, Thaw. It will just delay your want to see Shaw in Chicago. That's it.

Again, I implore you to go look at what the best offensive prospects in the MLB did upon their call up. Then I want you to think "is it logical that Matt Shaw might also struggle initially?" then reconsider this opinion. Because the absolute best prospects struggled. We're talking uber prospects like Chourio, Holiday, Wood, Crews, Langford...all struggled. What's more likely? That Matt Shaw is not only better day 1 than Nico Hoerner (3-5% better than league average), but that he's also in some tier above all of those uber prospects? Or that Shaw will likely struggle for a while? Probably a few months? You're allowed your opinion, but I think it's probably a good thing to reflect on your opinion and see there's much evidence for it being a solid one. Because I think it's incredibly outlandish to hope that the 2025 Cubs start the season without one of their few bang-on players you can pencil in for four win talent just so we can play a rookie who probably won't hit the ground running, simply because it's very hard to do right now.

You keep moving the goal posts. The Cubs shouldn't do what you want, they should put the best team on the field. The best team in 2025 is almost assuredly with Nico Hoerner over Matt Shaw. We have discussed the potential of a Hoerner trade. If he was healthy, maybe a team trades you a mid rotation arm for him, but those teams are very limited. He's not healthy, it almost assuredly means there's even less teams. What trade do you think the Cubs can make here?

Matt Shaw is unlikely to be better than Nico Hoerner for a bit. Probably all 2025. Again, unless you think Matt Shaw is a top-3 2b, *right now*, than Matt Shaw isn't better than Nico Hoerner right now. *Maybe* he's better offensively. But he's not a better player or does he add more value. Go look at all of the best offensive prospects in the MLB. How many came up right away and were successful? Even the best of the best struggled for months on end. It would be a bad idea for the Cubs to force feed through a worse player *right now*. They're not good enough. We have things like fWAR that do a really great job at determine value. A far better job than you and I. And it's pretty unlikely Shaw is a 4 win player right now. It's very likely Nico Hoerner is. He's been one for all intents and purposes for three years now.

Three 2b have been worth more than Nico Hoerner the last three seasons. Youre entitled to your own opinion, but thinking Matt Shaw, today, is a top-3 second baseman feels like a pretty outlandish opinion. I didn't say you were "rushing" Shaw. I said you were in a rush to trade a four win player. The Cubs aren't so good that they should be dumping 4 win players or be in a rush to move them. As I said, if a really good trade offer comes in on Hoerner we can talk. But that feels pretty unlikely. Meaning the Cubs should be in no rush to make that happen.

Pete Crow-Armstrong was just fine doing the "wait until an injury opens up PT" plan. Shaw will be as well. Any injury to a 2b, SS or 3B will open up time for him. It'll be fine. We shouldn't be in such a rush to move in from a 4 win player. If a really good trade presents itself? Okay we can talk. But there is *literally* no rush.