Jason Ross

Totally fair! My only pushback is that this isn't Jed making those moves, but me,. So while I agree, I'm not sure Jed would...seemingly, I would! But yeah, it was a lot. I was trying really hard to find a fair middle ground and it's really hard to think through what other teams want. Fair feedback!

I accept it's a lot to give up. To help make my case, I've added two RP's savant data's below. One of them is a hot RP that many are excited about this offseason and the other is Robert Garcia, who's got tons of control. It's a lot to give up, but you're getting a ton of cheap control and it fits into that "sustainability" mold. I've omitted their names, but you can find it in the spoiler below. Totally respect those who think I'm kind of giving up the plot for something I could sign for money. And thinking back, the easy answer is probably "just sign the FA". Probably trying to be a bit too creative and put a stamp on things, but maybe the Savant data can save me a bit here.

I really worked on that White Sox deal a lot. I'm not sure where to value someone like Crotchet. On one hand, he's really awesome when he's on the mound. On the other, he's yet to show being a workhorse and has a host of injury concerns in the past. As much as I hand fight BBTV at times, they had me pretty equal on value and a recent rumor was that the Dodgers' names popping up were Gavin Lux (who I'll admit being very luke warm over at this stage). Now, that's a Bob Nightengale special, but tried to use it as a jumping off point. It was a tough back and forth - I'd rather have Alcantara, Rojas, Cruz (and really, any of the young, 18/19 year old position players can be put here. I probably should have added that. Cruz was more a placeholder for a big upside young kid) and some fodder (really wasn't considering Canario and Wesneski as more than "these guys can play right now" add-ins. But I'd also accept I'm low or BBTV is leading me asunder, It's always really hard to find out what a team would or wouldn't trade. Not only do you have to figure out what they'd want, you have to assume what other teams may or may not offer.

Ah, I guess I misinterpreted that then! Alright!

Frankly, I'm surprised it took the Cubs this long to hire me as the GM of the Cubs. With an impressive resume that includes being a 10+ year adult-baseball-league veteran and someone who's won countless video game World Series (spanning back to the mid-90s), bringing me in was a pretty no-brain-move in my humble opinion. So, what would I do if allowed to run the Cubs this offseason? This series of articles is a primer for the release of our new "You're The Cubs GM!" tool, where you play the role of Jed Hoyer and build your own Cubs offseason. Please visit the tool here and join in on the fun! As I start my fever dream of being in charge of the Chicago Cubs' 2024-2025 offseason, I think it's important to mention a few things. First, I will use the luxury tax as my budgetary line. While I'd love for Tom Ricketts in this simulation to have deeper pockets, sadly, even this version of the owner is afraid of the Tax Man. I also think it's important to outline my goal this offseason - I want the Chicago Cubs to comfortably make the playoffs in 2025. I don't think there's enough juice in the squeeze to get this team to juggernaut territory to compete, on paper, with the Los Angeles Dodgers. Still, I also don't want to create a team akin to what the Cubs have been recently - an 83-win team that needed some positive variance to make the dance. I'd like to raise the Cubs a standard deviation into the next tier of teams. Preparing for Free Agency: The first matter is strengthening the 40-man roster and making hard decisions about players' futures with the organization. The team needs to become 40-man compliant entering the offseason. There's some fat to trim, and while some players have some promise, none are so good that I feel beholden to them in the organization. Non-tenders: Yency Almonte (RP), Colton Brewer (RP), Trey Wingenter (RP), Nick Madrigal (2B/3B), Patrick Wisdom (1B/3B/OF), Keegan Thompson (RP), Christian Bethancourt (C), Brennen Davis, (OF) Many of these will be pretty digestible non-tenders; Almonte spent most of last year hurt and can likely be replaced; Wingenter and Brewer aren't the types you bend over backward for, though maybe if you project positively with Wingenter and you have an open space, you can keep him around, Patrick Wisdom is seemingly hitting a cliff of production, Madrigal didn't work out, and I'm looking to upgrade catcher, so while Bethancourt had a really fun run, he's a causality of circumstance. Things get a little dicey when it comes to Thompson and Davis. I would look to resign both to MiLB deals, but I don't feel any of the two are needed on the 40-man. Thompson is probably the hardest choice here, but as he stares down his age-30 season, I don't feel beholden to him and would instead take a chance on a few other guys out there. I expect Davis to take me up on the offer, but I suspect that Thompson will look for greener grasses elsewhere. I almost non-tendered Matt Mervis, as well, but I allowed another move I made to inform my decision here. Pitching Wins Championships Division Titles: Looking at the team, my biggest goal this offseason is to consolidate wins with limited roster space. I estimate the Cubs have roughly $50 million or so to spend this offseason, and playing nice, I will save $5 million for the trade deadline. That means I've got roughly $45 million to play with and lots of prospects. The easy answer is to "throw money around in free agency." While I think Max Fried offers interesting value, I will try my best to sit out in the top tier of free agency. While I also throw my weight as hard as I can into Roki Sasaki, I realize I can't expect to win this. Instead, my first phone call is to someone in Chicago, Mr. Chris Getz of the Chicago White Sox. Trade: Cubs trade Kevin Alcantara, Jefferson Rojas, Ronny Cruz, Alexander Canario, and Hayden Wesneski to the Chicago White Sox for Garrett Crochet and Gus Varland Is it an overpay? Is it enough? I'm trying hard to think of this from the lens of the White Sox - they need some talent infusion into the organization as a whole. The White Sox are not a team that should be worried about carrying Alcantara on the 40-man as their 40-man swiss cheese. They also add two big-time lottery tickets in Jefferson Rojas and Ronny Cruz, who aren't anywhere near MLB-ready, but with how bad the Sox project over the next three years, they're probably fine with that. They also get two players who are capable of helping right now: Canario and Wesneski can slot in to eat innings, PAs, and have upside remaining. While I'm certainly not a major fan of Baseball Trade Values, this does give pretty equal value on both sides of the coin, and I feel, all things considered, that this is a pretty fair approximation. As the Cubs, I solve the biggest issue the Cubs have: a star talent. Crotchet will probably not be a 200-inning stalwart, but getting him from the high 140s to the low 170s seems reasonable, and his baseball-savant data lets you know that this guy has a "monster" written all over him. I get that for three years - so even if we're a little "injury concerned," it's not like I gave him $300 million over nine years (yet). Gus Varland is someone who has some interesting data and someone I'd like to get into the hands of the Cubs. His fastball is around 95 mph and has above-average velocity and movement. His secondary offerings are not particularly good right now; with that said, in 2024, one of the pitchers he was most like was Justin Steele, so I think maybe the Cubs can get something out of him. He looked pretty good in 26 IP at the MLB level last year. The White Sox probably don't care about a 28-year-old reliever, and the Cubs like guys like Varland. He felt like a neat little addition. Trade Jordan Wicks, James Triantos, and Jonathon Long to the Washington Nationals for Robert Garcia This is the trade that I'm not entirely sure about, but I'm going to hope it's realistic. The Nationals don't have much starting pitching at the top of their MiLB developmental system and have a decent but not great rotation. Sure, they could go to free agency, but I think the team could use a younger, controllable starter (to replace Patrick Corbin?). They also have openings around the diamond that someone like James Triantos could fit. He could play third, he can spell Woods in center, he can spell Garcia, and he could add some DH value. The Nationals love tools, and I think Triantos is pretty toolsy. Washington doesn't have much by way of first, either, and I could see the team loving Long's bat data as a third prospect in this kind of trade. Much of this is predicated on the idea that for the Nats, a team still likely to be behind three teams in the divisional pecking order, immediate 28-year-old relievers are less valuable than three younger pieces you can continue to build around. Once again, BBTV has given me an "okay, go for it!" in terms of value, so I will accept I'm not entirely off here. Maybe a Michael Arias also slides in here to go back to the Nationals? But I think I'm pretty close. Coming back is Robert Garcia, an absolute stud of a LHP in the bullpen. The Nationals, while young and looking to be better and better, are probably more in need of young players than a 28-year-old reliever, regardless of how good he is. The Cubs, on the other hand, need relievers. So even if they overpay a bit, they get a pre-arb reliever, which they'll have for years. He slots into the back end with Hodge, and there's a real 1-2 punch at the end. Cubs sign Nate Eovaldi to a 3-year, $60m deal (with an opt-out after year 2) I'm going to build a really good rotation, and we're going to win through pitching. Eovaldi will turn 35 at the start of 2025, but he's much of what the Cubs need: he's right-handed, he adds velocity, and while he's not a strikeout machine, he would add some oomph there. In this situation, I'm bringing him in as the #4 in a really good rotation. Eovaldi bumps Assad to the Smyly role, and the Cubs retain some depth with Ben Brown, Javier Assad, Brandon Birdsell, and Cade Horton. In this scenario, I will probably grab Triple-A depth for some players who could make starts if needed. Cubs sign Scott Alexander to a 1-year, $4m contract. Scott Alexander just keeps getting by. He's a heavy GB pitcher, and the Cubs have a great infield defense, so while Alexander continues to see his ERA outpace what his xFIP says he should be capable of doing, the Cubs are set up to be a good landing place for the lefty. He would slot in as the "second lefty" and be pretty replicable mid-year if you wanted to turn back to Luke Little (barring health). I'm unsure about Little's health and how much I can count on him from jump street. Let's Get Offensive: The Cubs' first order of business on offense is to solve the catching issue. I've worked through two big trades, so I will skip making a move for Shea Langoliers or Logan O'Hoppe. I don't think either is available and even if they were, they would be quite obtainable. Instead, I'll use some of my financial ability to bring in one of the free agents. Cubs sign Kyle Higashioka to a 2-year, $14m contract. The Cubs need some home runs, and it will be hard to find someone who can do that with the way the Cubs' offensive options are and where the holes are. Higashioka hit 17 home runs last year in limited time, and while he's not an offensive juggernaut, he'd add some launch angle and power to the catcher position for 80-100 games. He's not going to be a star, and he's not a great pop-time guy, but he really excels at pitch framing. In my opinion, he's the Yan Gomes of this offseason and would be a shrewd addition. Cubs sign Donovan Solano to a 1 year, $7m contract. Donovan Solano solves an issue on the Cubs bench: he hits LHP really well. As Solano enters age 38, he's pretty unlikely to get a starting gig and, therefore, would probably be happy to take a decent payday on a good team. He can play some third, some first, and DH as well, giving him a healthy amount of playing time, especially against LHP. Solano could play some outfield in a perfect world, but the free-agent market in this regard is pretty empty. So, I went with the next best thing. Overall Outlook and Other Odds and Ends I like the team and think it solves the issues best. Adding Garrett Crotchet gives the Cubs a player you can see hitting the 5+ win plateau with a healthy season, while Nathan Eovaldi creates a lot of depth and length in the rotation. It's hard to expect much better production from the #5 spot than Jameson Taillon. The Cubs do see multiple prospects leave the organization, and that hurts. Kevin Alcantara (BA #5), James Triantos (BA #7), and Jefferson Rojas (BA #8) are all lost, as are former top prospects Jordan Wicks and up-and-comers such as Ronny Cruz and Jonathon Long. From an internal perspective, the Cubs have some pitchers you hope to make a jump and have some internal replacements for the others. I retain Matt Shaw, Moises Ballesteros, Owen Caissie, and Cade Horton, and I still come in under budget to make a second big trade at the deadline if I want. Offensively, I'm asking for a few things to get me where I want to go. First, I assume the wind at Wrigley returns to "normal." Despite the added length at Wrigley, I'm putting a little hope into Isaac Parades finding his power stroke again and getting to 20-25 home runs. You hope Bellinger is more 2023 than 2024; you hope the progress from Pete Crow-Armstrong continues. It's not going to be a world-beater lineup, but it remains deep. With Bellinger opting in, there wasn't much to get creative with. Catching is still my least favorite spot on this team. Higashioka is kind of a "meh" addition, but he's a good enough short-term solution, and he allows the Cubs to go to Ballesteros if they are bullish on his defense. I think this is a team that enters 2025 as a real challenger in the NL Central. I'd have them on paper as an upper-80s win team with some variance, which could get to the low 90s. It's imperfect and not exactly the team I'd love to have, but given the constraints of coming in under budget with ownership, with Bellinger's opting in... this is the path in which I could create the best version of the 2025 Cubs while also ensuring a deep farm system. Opening Day Lineup: C - Kyle Higashioka 1B - Michael Busch 2B - Nico Hoerner SS - Dansby Swanson 3B - Isaac Parades LF - Ian Happ CF - Pete Crow-Armstrong RF - Cody Bellinger DH - Seiya Suzuki 1B/3B - Donovan Solano OF - Mike Tauchmann C - Miguel Amaya INF - Luis Vazquez Opening Day Rotation: Garrett Crotchet, LHP Justin Steele, LHP Shota Imanaga, LHP Nathan Eovaldi, RHP Jameson Taillon, RHP Opening Day Bullpen: Javier Assad, RHP Scott Alexander, LHP Nate Pearson, RHP Tyson Miller, RHP Julien Merriweather, RHP Ben Brown, RHP Robert Garcia, LHP Porter Hodge, RHP What do you think? Do you think this team has improved enough? Are my trades realistic? Did I overpay or underpay? Let me know in the comment section below! What do you think of this offseason plan? Do you think you can do better? Then build your own Cubs roster and hit the button below! Start Your Payroll Blueprint Now View full article

Jed hasn't specifically, or publicly, ruled out anyone. What we do have is a few reports, some from people close to the Cubs like Mooney/Sharma, that highly suggests that Corban Burnes, Juan Soto and almost assuredly, includes Max Fried, are not players the Cubs will pursuit. "Mid-tier" has been brought up a handful of times to describe which waters the Cubs will be swimming in when it comes to free agency. While I think there's a decent gap between Burnes and Fried, I don't think it's enough where anyone suggests Fried is mid-tier in the way that the difference between Soto and Santander has pushed him more to the mid-tier. (I don't mean any of this as a dirty word, either, as the Cubs have the ability to make trades to address the top-end of their needs). I would be very surprised outside of agent leaks to hear that the Cubs were seriously going after Max Fried unless for some weird reason his entire market dried up.

Someone made a post recently, maybe 7-10 days ago, that I responded to (maybe it was Post Padder?) about Kyle Higashioka. I responded to it kind of tepidly in regards to him but since then, I've taken some time to think about it, and I think I've come around on the idea of him being the guy I'd most like to target. He's a specialty player - currently he's a guy who's going to hit home runs and frame the baseball. His HR rate increased a lot last year, but so did his LA (looking at some video his hand movement changed a bit and I think that's helping here). He's quite good at getting to the barrel which allows him to pull the hell out of the baseball and just crank 'em. He's probably not going to do much more, however. But with the Cubs lineup, getting some HR power (and despite even splits last year, he's been more of a hitter against LHP, something the Cubs could also use) and framing makes sense. He's not going to make a massive impact, but I liken him a bit to when the Cubs signed Yan Gomes. You get him on a 2-year deal, and you give yourself the ability to bring up Ballesteros when you want either as a C or a DH.

I won't rehash too much of what others have said. TT did a good job, and almost assuredly better than anything I could have done, to explain what I agree with: I think BBTV does a disservice to both players in their modeling. I'm a big Cal Raleigh fan, he feels like he's among the more slept on players league wide - BBTV must be sleeping on him too. Regardless, cheers to the proper discourse. Welcome to the boards!

On the Zombro hiring, here's an interesting comment made from the Tread Athletics twitter.

The Cubs are leaning pretty heavily into the pitching side of things this offseason. First, the Japanese firm and now Zombro. Interesting to see the team place a heavy investment on that side of things. Not trying to read more into it other than I like the proactive nature.

Hey that's totally fine if you want to use that system. I'll be honest: I don't particularly love BBTV's model. It's an interesting baseline, but how they've come up with Hoerner at a $20m surplus is kind of hard for me to understand. For example, I think it's likely that Hoerner finishes with 3.5-4 wins per the next two seasons. If we want to be super conservative, factor in some injury time...let's call it seven wins. FA $/WAR for free agents is somewhere in the region of $7.5 - 9m per player. So doing a little napkin math: As a 7 win player, we can assume that he'd be worth somewhere between $52.5m - $63m. Accounting for his contract, that's a surplus value of anywhere between ~$30m and $40m As an 8 win player, that number goes to $60m - $72m. Or somewhere between $40 - $50m in surplus value. Hoerner, over his last three seasons, has been worth 12,.8 fWAR, which is over the 4 win mark on average, per seasons, so there's a good chance that even 8 fWAR is low. Regardless, I struggle to see where BBTV is coming up with their evaluation. Perhaps they're leaning into a STEAMER projection more than I think is fair (as stated, he's been worth under 3.8 fWAR zero times in the last three years, so I think they're a win short). Or they're dinging him a bit more than I think is fair for the injury (regardless if the Cubs trade or keep him, I'm not overly concerned for a 2b with the nature of the injury). I'm perfectly fine if you're a BBTV guy. And while I understand we've just met, I try not to be an anonymous dude. I've been writing prospect evaluations on NSBB for around 1.5 years now. I'm certainly no Jeff Passan. I'm not a Mathew Trueblood either. Hell, I'm no Greg Huss or Greg Zumach. But I try not to be too anonymous, too! Promise, I try to use a pretty baseline and analytical view of things.

I'm as big of a Tarik Skubal fan out there so the Tigers would be interested in talking there, for sure. I don't think they would be; they've recently extended a 2b prospect for the forseeable future and have Jace Jung at 3b, so their need for a Matt Shaw might not be in their top-needs. They have a few infield prospects in their system who are highly considered, as well. I don't mean to discount FGs work...no one here is a bigger fan of the fangraphs stuff - I grew up on their articles. BBTV...I've got a different feeling on. While I think they can be an interesting place to double-check whether or not we're being fair or not, I generally am not a fan of their model. But regardless, I just think that there's a way to get creative that includes trading Hoerner. It doesn't mean it has to happen, but sometimes I see people here immediately dismiss any trade of Hoerner as being unworthy. I don't think I have that feeling. It'd be hard to find a good move, but I do think a realistic move exists there, as hard as it may be to make that happen.

That's where we will have to differ. Again, a lot of this comes down to "just how good do you think Matt Shaw is?". I've tried to play it a bit coy, but I'll give you a hint...I think he's really good. And I know we do this with prospects a lot, and I'll admit, I get into a weird place with them at times....when you follow them as closely as I tend to, there's a bit of a bias which I totally understand. But when I dig into the data, I just don't see the flaws that make me hesitate. He's smoking every level he's facing right now. And in a repeatable fashion. As I've said, I'm a one man army and the Cubs have a lot more tools to make that determination...I'm just a guy. But what it brings me to is this: I do think there's permeations of the 2025 Cubs that are just as good with or without Nico Hoerner. I think those are pretty narrow and need to hit a very particular kind of math. You have to bring back value and be confident that Shaw is going to be good. I do think there are more versions of the Cubs being worse sans Hoerner, though and that pathway is probably not one that's going to come to fruition easily, or likely, at all. No worries if your answers are "no" there, too. This was more an exploration of things like "could it make sense?" "how realistic is it?" and "what would you have to project Matt Shaw to be to have it make sense?"

We could, certainly! But the impotence of this article is based on the Jeff Passan rumor where the Cubs were considering a trade of Nico Hoerner (and diving back to the summer where his name came up once or twice). Not trying to sound like a jerk here, but it's not really the point of the article. This was to explore: 1. What the Cubs could get for Nico Hoerner 2. What the reasoning behind a trade like that might be The Cubs should be willing to consider a handful of things this offseason. Trading Matt Shaw very well could be an option, and shouldn't be considered off-limits.

As I explored in the article, I don't expect them to a be a 1:1 replacement on call-up. I do suspect learning curves and some issues, be it with sweeper's (though I should probably mention that his issues on sweeper's are in a 30 pitch sample size. So while it's notable, it could be a lot of things) or his leg kick, or something. It's just what we should expect with prospects right now. If the best prospects on the planet are struggling, we should assume they all will. I don't want anyone to think I'm pushing Hoerner out. He's a high 3's, low 4's win type of a 2b on a controllable contract. If we're handicapping everything, he's easily the betting favorite to be the better player in 2024. The math for how a Hoerner trade would work is pretty narrow. I don't think it's impossible, though. You just have to: 1. Really like the return 2. Believe in your scouting/analytical team's modeling of Shaw There can't be many returns like that. But I don't think it's impossible, either.

Don't feel too much on an island: I'd have Thompson pretty high on the non-tender list myself. Feel like as a soon-to-be-30-year old, the Cubs can probably find some other way to use the 40-man, even if it's just to get someone they feel is a shade better than what Thompson offers, or someone they think with some new ideas they can make better than Thompson.

I don't have the backing and the power of the Cubs analytical department: I'm a one man army and working with publicly available data, so the Cubs have a very strong edge on what information I can provide here, meaning, they might come to a very different conclusion. But, if we're digging into the things we have on Matt Shaw, it's hard to say there's many glaring, obvious flaws that would keep him away from that Jonathan India area pretty early in his career. Entering 2024, the book on Matt Shaw was that he was a bit of a free swinger, had a penchant to chase (and still make contact) with pitches out of the zone. This is reflective in his MiLB numbers in things like his walk rate. We don't have Statcast data for Double-A and below, but we do have his most recent stint in Iowa. It's only 150 PA's, but this is more than enough for numbers to stabilize and be a relevant sample size. In Iowa he posted a virtual league average contact rate (72% vs 72.8%) and posted better than league average in-zone whiff rates. He did chase a bit over league average, but was also thrown far more pitches out of the zone and non-competitive strikes relative to league average, so seeing that he held off on most of that stuff (while still chasing a little) is not much of a red flag. If we want to get further into the weeds, Shaw really struggled in those first seven or so games. I don't want to just delete data points, but if we chalk that up to "struggling at a new level", he posted a 163 wRC+ after that, with a contact rate of 75% and an in-zone whiff rate of just 14%. It's just something to note. More importantly, he was able to do damage against velocity, posting contact rates on fastballs 94+mph well over 80%. So a jump in velocity doesn't seem to be an issue for Shaw. If there's a red flag it's that he really struggled with sweepers. He's chasing them at a pretty high rate (over 40%) and laying off a good sweeper looks like a place for polish for the kid. Conversely, he hit sliders pretty well, so while the sweeper-slider and the traditional slider differ, they're not so different that there's not a foundation here. In terms of exit velocity he weas well over the league average for exit velocity, coming in right under 90mph as an average, while posting a LA over 14%. If you want to find some polishes, it's that he doesn't pull the ball a ton but I'll hit on that later. The biggest concern people seem to have with his offensive profile is "he looks funny" and there's some valid fears, but they're mostly hypothetical right now. Part of the reason I don't think he pulls as much is because he has such a funky setup with that toe-in. As well, the leg kick is funky and an outlier, but it isn't like we haven't seen outlier and funky batting step ups work. Shaw has shown an ability to tone the leg kick down with two strikes and has maintained exit velocity relative to league average (though does hit the ball more on the ground, but I also wonder if that's a function of two strike approach) so there's foundation for a leg kick change if need be - it wouldn't seem all of his power comes from the windup. Outside of these things, we know he's very athletic and it's highly probable he's going to add positive base running value. He's not going to be Pete Crow-Armstrong, but a +2-4 on the bases seems pretty do-able. Defensively, while there's little belief in his glove turning gold any time soon, none of the scouting suggests he's a butcher, DH level. I wouldn't predict him to come up and go ham right away, and we've seen the best of the best prospects take some time. Chourio, Holiday, Wood, Crews all had learning curves and Matt Shaw is probably going to have one. But he's done a really good job re-working the approach and has done nothing but crush baseballs. To date his worst run was a 70 PA, 120 wRC+ he posted at the very end of 2023 in Double-A. For an encore, he posted a 148 wRC+ where he improved across the board. End result: I don't want to predict a four win, 2025 campaign for Matt Shaw. But when I dig into things, there's not many places of concern for me. Sure, work needs to be put in on laying off the sweeper. And the leg kick is a curiosity and something we'll have to wait and see on (though you've got guys like Zach Neto who suggest those changes are do-able). I don't see a crazy path to Jonathon India levels. Maybe it takes 45 days to settle in (like Pete Crow-Armstrong?) but I'm pretty confident in his future.

I havent. Conversely, how many players you can comfortably project as 4 win players will be available on the market for $10m per year over the next two seasons? For a team like the Mariners who don't have a lot of money to play with, there aren't a lot of avenues for that kind of value and improvements in an infield that's pretty bad. Like I said, I think BBTV can be a decent foundation at times. But I think they're probably $25-30m short on value for Hoerner. Perhaps Hoerner/Miller isn't a flat 1:1 swap, but the difference between the two probably isn't a gulf. Probably a decent prospect outside of the Cubs top 9 or so. Fine if you've got them at different places. But at the prices BBTV has Hoerner, then he's almost assuredly untradeable in that I'd never sell him for that valuation. There'd be almost no way to make up the difference in a way that would benefit the Cubs.

Generally speaking, I'll wait until ZiPS comes out for projection season. ZiPS > Steamer. As well, Nico hasn't posted a ~3 fWAR season since 2021, and that was due to sample size. He's been consistently at, or right next to the 4 fWAR plane for 3+ seasons (he was worth 1.5 fWAR in just 44 games in 2021. Hard to say if he'd have made it, but he was pretty darn good in those 40 games) and while, yes, he did pick up a knock, but he outperformed his first half in the second half (when he was presumably injured) and his best offensive month was September. I see no reason why we shouldn't be looking at another high 3's, low 4's season when it comes to WAR. It's why i think there's considerably more surplus value in the tank. On top of it, there's something to be said for compiling WAR. A 4 win player = 3 win player when we consider roster construction. Only one player can occupy a roster spot. I think you're putting a little extra on durability here from guys like Bryce Miller. I don't mean to devalue Miller here as I'm suggesting him as a Cub target, but while Miller was durable, there's probably projection to get him to something more. 21 pitchers made 180 IP (Miller was just at 180) and he finished 14th of 21 in xFIP and tied with Manaea for 15th in fWAR. He's a good pitcher, but he's merely good as of now, with some of that value tied up in his durability (it's a good part in how he got to 2.8 fWAR). I think there's more in there, but even his Savant page isn't a masterclass of high percentiles as of now. If we do, however, want to use STEAMER, it's probably fair to point out STEAMER has Miller in at a 1.9 fWAR for 2024. Similarly to Hoerner, that feels at least .5 fWAR low. But it isn't like he's running laps around Hoerner in present day value, and for a team like the Mariners who probably is going to have to get creative to find infield value, there's juice here to squeeze. In the end, I do think Hoerner and Miller are probably much closer to value than BBTV is making it seem.

I would imagine a team isn't going to be overly concerned with the injury. Perhaps if you were under the impression that Hoerner was your SS going forward and you were worried about a fringe SS arm already...but as a 2b, this probably doesn't change his evaluation much. It sounds like he's going to be back before Opening Day or at worst just a couple of weeks after. BBTV is a decent starting point. But I also think it can get very funky very fast. Im not convinced Hoerner and Miller or Woo are that big of a difference in trade value as is. As TT said...if a team is really hammering the injury, then you keep him. But I'm just not convinced it'd be a major hurdle for a team who already liked Hoerner. Ultimately, as stated originally, I think he's likely to stick with the Cubs anyways.

I'll offer a little pushback on the Mariners not wanting to trade a SP here for two reasons: The first is that Dylan Moore is really bad. He compiled his way to two wins last year, but looking at his Savant data his offensive profile is essentially "at least I don't chase anything that isn't a strike?" and defensively, he was lucky to win a gold glove, posting neutral OAA and DRS numbers at 2b. His most comparable statcast seasons were to that of 2021 DJ Stewart and 2019 Matt Thaiss - sub 95 wRC+ hitters. Probably is looking down the barrel of a 1 win season if they let him start. In terms of pitching, this is the perfect year to be set up in your top-4 and needing a back end guy. If the M's moved a Woo/Miller they'd still have the other, plus Kirby, Gilbert and Castillo. A Buehler, Segano, or someone would make a nice 5 there in a pitcher's paradise. If you're looking at Hoerner as a 2.5 win increase over Moore moving forward and think you can replace Miller's 2.8 or Woo's 2.3 fWAR pretty easily, I think the M's come out a winner there. Especially if the Cubs have to add a 45 FV or so prospect. The reality is Seattle's infield is garbage and they don't have a ton of paths forward to fix it. I don't want to say Seattle has to do it, they have options, but Jerry D loves a wheel and deal, and the Cubs/Mariners should probably match up somewhere.

Nico Hoerner is a pretty darn good baseball player. His inclusion, especially on the defensive side, would help many major league teams. So why would the Cubs entertain the thought of trading him? And what could the Cubs expect to get back? Image courtesy of © Rafael Suanes-Imagn Images First things first: Nico Hoerner is a good baseball player. Semantics aside, he probably borders on being a very good baseball player. Over the last two seasons, Hoerner has been the fourth-best second baseman in baseball according to fWAR, checking in with 8.6 wins above replacement. He ranks above perennial All-Star Jose Altuve, as well as other quality players like Ha-Seong Kim, Xander Bogaerts (who is two years removed from a massive 11-year, $280m contract), Ozzie Albies (though this is aided by injury), and Luis Arraez. Hoerner primarily accomplishes this through his defensive acumen, as he's both fourth in DRS and OAA. His bat remains around 4% above league average, slashing .278/.341/.378. There doesn't seem to be any reason to suggest that he will suddenly become a bad player. Usually, it'd be strange to discuss why a team like the Cubs, who are looking to change their playoff fortunes, would be entertaining in trading a player of this caliber. Yet, we've seen a few reports, dating back to last summer, that the Cubs are internally open to the idea of doing just that. Most recently, in an article for ESPN+ readers, Jeff Passan broached the topic again, writing: The reality of the Cubs' situation, especially with the Cody Bellinger opt-in, is that they remain a bit tied up in terms of how they could change their offensive output. Much has been made about the wind at Wrigley last year, and hoping that the offensive climate at home is more favorable is a viable option. But if the Cubs want to be proactive and make changes on their own, a bit of creativity will be needed. Enter Cub top prospect Matt Shaw. Currently ranked within almost every major publication's top 30 or so prospects, the former Maryland infielder is behind new acquisition Isaac Paredes at third and the aforementioned Nico Hoerner at second. While Shaw's bat has been excellent, his most likely home at the next level is at second base. Shaw showed a far more patient and selective approach 2024, posting better than a 140 wRC+ at Double-A and Triple-A. He's cruising through the Premier 12, setting records for RBI in a game while doing so. If Matt Shaw isn't ready now, he's almost assuredly going to be ready very soon. Therein lies a creative solution: what if the Cubs, who have a built-in replacement for Hoerner, could dangle their starting second baseman for immediate upgrades elsewhere? It would most likely come in the form of a starting pitcher, whom the Cubs need. The problem here is twofold: how good would Matt Shaw need to be to make this kind of trade worth it, and who would be in the market to swap a second baseman for starting pitching help? The first question isn't too hard to answer. While we shouldn't expect Shaw to be a four-win player immediately, it's probably not too difficult to imagine a world where Shaw is a pretty decent starting-level player pretty soon; let's say, for example, you project Matt Shaw to be about 5% better than league average offensively upon his call-up. He's an athletic and seemingly positive base runner who's likely bat-over-glove, though not a DH-level defender. Jonathan India, in 2024, posted a 108 wRC+, was a neutral runner, and was a -10 DRS/+1 OAA player, netting him 2.8 fWAR. Even if Shaw is a little worse defensively and a little better on the bases, getting to 3 wins if your analytic department likes him seems doable. That's about a net loss of a win, but you can make that up on the back end. Things get very narrow on the return as you'd need a team with poor production at second base (which isn't that hard), but it is also attempting to win now and has starting pitching depth to burn. Some teams fall into one category or the other, but Seattle might be the only one that falls into both. So, could you do a trade around Nico Hoerner for, say, Bryce Miller or Bryan Woo? How much more to get to George Kirby? Mathew Trueblood, here at NSBB, explored the Seattle Mariner's pieces here at NSBB previously, and each offers something different. But what if Seattle isn't an option? If the Cubs can get very creative, perhaps the Cubs could channel a three-team trade with a team with prospects/young players of their own who need a second baseman. The Boston Red Sox, helmed by former Cub Assistant GM Craig Breslow, could offer a potential solution. Not only would there be a built-in connection between the teams, the Red Sox need a second baseman, and there is belief in the industry that they would be open to move Wilyer Abreu to open up right field for top-prospect Roman Anthony. If you could find a team that, instead, was deep in pitching and needed an outfielder, perhaps a very complicated three-team swap could be facilitated. In the end, finding a great trade fit for Nico Hoerner will likely prove difficult, but I don't think it's impossible. There are a lot of factors here; how good do the Cubs think Matt Shaw is right now? Can the Cubs find a partner for Hoerner that makes sense? But I think there's a narrow strip where the math works. Ultimately, it's hard to predict a trade will occur; a player will always be more likely to stay with their current team than move. But there's been enough smoke behind a potential Hoerner trade that I don't think it can be entirely ruled out if the Cubs are truly looking for a creative solution, either. What do you think about a potential trade involving Nico Hoerner? Can the Cubs find a partner where it would make sense? Let us know in the comment section below! View full article

Burl is still a member of the Chicago Cubs organization. Missed 2024 with arm injuries. I don't see anywhere that his contract has been terminated since being activated from the 60-day IL, but also wouldn't be surprised to see his name pop up as an MiLB FA at some point either.