Jason Ross

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.

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.