Jason Ross

Tyson Miller was very good last year, that's insane. He's a lock for 7th inning stuff. Merryweather was signed to a split deal, and suspect the team trusts him far more as a potential MLB arm if he can get back to being healthy - we're a year removed from him being a really solid 7thj/8th guy. I'd probably rather have Keegan as well - he's had much more success at the MLB level in his time and isn't like he's much older. Counsell seems to trust Keegan to a degree. Rob Z is a near lock to be DFA'd. But past that, Killian doesn't have much of an argument over any other pitcher there and would be 0% surprised to see the team pick any or all over him.

I mean, there are some people I'd DFA before Killian, but there aren't many. Canario is out of options but he has more immediate need (the Cubs don't have a 4th OF'er once they dropped Tauchmann). I'm not a big Canario guy, but there's a lot quicker pathways to being MLB relevent for him than Caleb Killian at this point, and probably will only exacerbate this once the Cubs add to their bullpen (Jon Morosi tweeted yesterday that the Cubs are among the most active in that market). We have to divorce ourselves from the Top-100 prospect Killian looked like he was at the tail end of the 2021 season and accept that the 2025 version is a 28 year old middle relief prospect who hasn't shown a ton of growth. He might one day figure some things out, but we've been waiting years for him to develop chase and whiff pitches and it hasn't come yet. Don't DFA him immediately, but he's a lot closer to being DFA'd than he is making the Cubs OD-26.

So, I'll ask you this: do you think the Chicago Cubs are unaware of his career ERA? Because I'm fairly sure the Chicago Cubs have at, the very least, heard of mlb.com and know this. So maybe we should ask "why don't the Cubs care?" and that answer is almost assuredly "because they believe the 2024 version of Mathew Boyd is the version of Mathew Boyd that they're buying". Cleveland pitch-labbed Boyd last year and the post-TJS version of Boyd was a different beast. He displayed a much improved slider, better location, and a lower arm angle than he had most of his career. He used his very funky mechanics coupled with these new pitches to be a very effective starter. We're talking small samples of 40 IP here, but on a per-rate basis, there's nothing that stood out as "unrepeatable" if you buy into the new pitches sticking. He didn't have insane LOB% or relied on luck where he gave up a lot of hard contact that just resulted in outs. If we look at who he most compared to last year, it was Yuki Matsui, who was also really good. Now, Matsui came out of the pen, but I think the point remains - it isn't like what Boyd was doing was some smoke mirrors game. At $14.5m there is risk that Boyd will not pitch enough, I get that. He's managed <80 IP since pre-covid and we shouldn't just wash over that. But if we look at his IL history it's entirely tied to the elbow that he had fixed. While it's possible that he's just prone to getting hurt, it's also possible that all of this stemmed from an elbow that was never right, and now it is. But we need to stop acting like this is some horrendous contract, too. It's two years, it's pretty much align with predictions of his market, and if you get 2024 Boyd, even for like 110 innings, he's going to crush it. I'll wrap it up this way: Blake Snell just got $180m this offseason from the Dodgers. Sure, it's the Dodgers, but let's put that aside for a moment. He got $180m, and he pitched 104 innings last year. He's topped 130 IP once since 2018. His career line isn't very far off (30 K%, 11 BB%, 3.19 ERA, 3.35 FIP, 3.57 xFIP) than what Boyd did in 2024 (27.7 K%, 7.8 BB%, 3.29 FIP, 3.89 xFIP). If you really believe in Boyd, and even if he comes in at 105 IP, you get Blake Snell at $150m as your discount. That's a dream. There's reason why Matt Boyd got $29m over 2 years and Blake Snell got what he got, mind you (the risk of injury and limited sample size) but that is another way to look at this contract. This is a bit of a gamble, and I reiterate that I don't think it can be the big addition to the rotation...but the risk here is likely worth the gamble and then some.

I have no idea where you would get the feeling that he was being set up by Counsel to jump Wicks and Assad as the presumptive 5th starter. I guess we all see what we see, but I'm fairly certain you're on your own there. Caleb Killian is far closer to being DFA'd than the opening day roster, let alone a rotational spot, IMO. And I dont think he's akin to Robert's at this stage. Killian has a heavy fastball but he's never added any other chase and whiff pitch. He's going to be 28. He might find success as a mid bullpen arm somewhere, sometime, but I'm not interested in the Cubs having him in the rotation any time soon. They'd be in dire straits with Wicks, Assad, Brown, Horton, Birdsell and potentially Pearson as more interesting and/or reliable MLB arms as of today.

Killian is probably like. 8th, or 9th most likely to get starts. He's not very good. He's not very young. In fact, I still think it's fairly likely he's not on the 40-man come opening day.

That's a pretty hot take, Stratos. Would I have? I don't know, it's kind of hard to pretend we know what the big picture free agent plan looks like. We don't know what the pitching department is looking at with his pitch mix and what they think they can do. We don't have access to his medicals. Clearly predictions on his contract were right in that ballpark, so acting like "nobody" would have signed that deal is...extreme. It's like $2m AAV different from many predictions. Hoyer doesn't really seem like a guy who looks at a market and adds a 0 to the end of it, so I think it's also a bit hasty to act like Hoyer's out here overpaying on Boyd. This is probably exactly where his market is. I've said a few times I don't get this contract yet, and that I'm perplexed, but there's outcomes that make sense here. Like the Cubs feel internally good about how they stack up for Sasaki for some reason and Boyd's a great 6-man-guy, or like they think even if Boyd misses time, that they'll eventually have guys like Brown and Horton who can jump in more full time. There's almost assuredly another SP coming. If it's a Bryce Miller, yeah I'll be a little bummed by the rotation as I think there's too much of a risk there in thinking Boyd's going to give you 130+ IP and I'm not a massive Miller-upside-guy. But if they get someone who is clearly good enough to slot int the top-3, and you have Boyd's upside in the 4/5 spot? Yeah, that's not bad. There's plenty of middle ground between considering this to be flat-out stupid and thinking this is an absolute win. I'll be waiting a bit to see how the off-season plays out. It's probably best we continue to do this on every deal.

I've attached Michael Lorenzen's baseball savant page. This should be fairly damning evidence on him. This is among the worst pages you'll find for SP's in 2024 available - it's just not good at all. There's nothing he's doing particularly well there. It's true, that Lorenzen is more durable, and right handed, but being durable only matters if you bring value with that durability. The Cubs shouldn't want that profile anywhere near their rotation. Maybe Lorenzen is a pitch lab guy (even though he's already been a Driveline guy)! Maybe you get him and fix 'em up. even more But Boyd's already done that and showed success with it last year. And sure, I'm not sure he even gets to 80 IP...but I'll take those 80 over 140 of...this.

Perhaps. But Imanaga also had stuff+ data behind him that suggested there was a really good pitcher there (he was grading out better than Ohtani at the WBC) and that what he needed was a pitch mentality change to use his super funky fastball in a better and more Western way. Sugano doesn't have that behind him. You'd have to be really into your own models on him.

Depends on the upside you project Sugano. He was great the NPB but there's questions over whether or not that will translate to the Western game. Japanese pitchers sometimes experience innings limits themselves and it wouldn't be very crazy at all to be more in on the upside of Boyd even at 90-110 innings over Sugano at 125-135 innings.

Fair. But the Cubs already have a 4 win 2b and a 3 win OF'er in front of those guys. It's unlikely that a team is going to trade for Hoerner on full value right now and Bellinger certainly not. With a limited budget the Cubs can still: 1. Acquire another good SP 2. Sign 1-2 BP arms 3. Get a backup catcher. It's more likely that the best version of the 2025 Chicago Cubs uses Hoerner and Bellinger and then goes from there. The kinds of trades we want to make with those two probably just won't happen. I like Shaw and Caissie too! Probably as much as anyone. I just think they have some work to continue to do and there's no rush to make them the guy.

Thaiss is on a split contract and I don't think that's an accident. That reads "if I can't get a better 2nd catcher, I have one" moreso than "The Cubs are definitely viewing me as the backup". If they tendered him fully with an MLB contract maybe that was the case. But I think people are way over reacting to that. It's a contract the Cubs can shed with little financial issue and can easy improve on throughout the offseason. He'd be a pretty good 3rd C in Iowa. Boyd...well we'll have to see. 100 innings of Boyd as a #5 could be a great thing. I remain perplexed, but the 2nd SP will make or break that signing to me. Offseason is early. The trades will be the deciding factor. There's a lot of time. I expect at least one trade will be made within the next two weeks.

I'm not sure where people get this idea that someone has nothing left to prove, because I can find 5-10 things both of those prospects have yet to prove at Triple-A without blinking. Matt Shaw has 35 games in Iowa, or a little over a month of time. He's struggled against sweepers, doesn't pull the ball enough, and chases too often to be super comfortable with. He needs to show that he can elevate the ball more often with two strikes when he lessens the leg kick and he needs to show more definitive what his defensive future at 2b is. Owen Caissie needs to show improved game power (which he did in the 2nd half) coupled with the improved contact% he did in the first half. He needs to continue to show growth in RF defensively, needs to show that his approach isn't too passive. And he needs to continue to show that the LA and pull improvements can continue. I really like both. I'm about to write articles on both of them, and both will be very glowing. But look at the MiLB landscape right now. The very best prospects in the world have struggled to make impacts at the MLB level for partial seasons or longer. Jackson Chourio, Jackson Holliday, James Wood, Dylan Crews, Wyatt Landford....these are just some of the names of prospects who were universally considered to be better prospects who have taken considerable time to come around, if they have yet. Other than Shaw and Caissie being Cubs and these players not, what exactly would make us think that they won't have these struggles? You can let them play at one point, but the point shouldn't be the arbitrary point of "Opening Day" because "I want to see them". Better, make them absolutely, entirely, and definitively force the issue. An injury will occur and I guarantee both will come up in 2025. Make them force it. When teams force it, you get negative variance for extended periods, when the Cubs don't have a ton in the tank to absorb that variance.

That feels about right where I am at on what the next little bit entails.

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.