Jason Ross

Which is more disingenuous; using adjectives and opinions (such as "slappy hitting") or using a data point that is designed to encompass value? The reality is this; fWAR is designed exactly for this discussion. It takes offense, defense, baserunning, positional value and neutralized league data and compiles it into a single value. It takes out opinion of "slappy" and boils it down to a number. It's not a silver bullet, and fractional fWAR is often used in the wrong way but it's also a great way to even the playing field, take personal bias out and see how much value a player generally brings to the field. The point that I'm making is this: I think many people (and your post is indicative of this) don't understand just how good Nico Hoerner is because they look at his "slappy hitting" and ignore the overall picture. On the open market, I don't disagree that teams probably value what Kyle Tucker does in free agency as more valuable. He can transition from RF to 1b to DH and Nico Hoerner probably can't. Hoerner has more value tied to his legs and his glove. But when we're talking a trade for one year of value what Tucker is going to be in four years and what Hoerner will be in four years is immaterial; all that matters is what you're buying in that one year. And the value difference between Hoerner and Tucker in that one year is a lot closer than you're acting.

Is it? A reminder, both only had one year of control: Kyle Tucker's previous 4 years fWAR : 18.9 fWAR Nico Hoerner's last 4 years fWAR: 17.5 fWAR Tucker has a 1.5 fWAR advantage, but it's a lot closer than I'm sure many realize.

Well, in their defense, they claimed Shaw would bring back even more. So if Boston is in the market for a defensive-minded 2b the Cubs corner the market here. Hoerner would probably be the cheaper option. Ultimately, I think I'm becoming more convinced one of them will end up in Boston, but who knows what the Cubs could realistically get back.

Just for reference sake, Sharma and Mooney suspected that the Cubs would look to get something akin back to what they traded Kyle Tucker for in the event of a Nico Hoerner trade.

The amount of dislikes his posts getting are impressive; he racked up a -15 and a -12. The +/- on his posts are basically like looking at Nic Castellanos' DRS year to year.

ZiPS is a good system but these things can get a little wonky. Bregman is probably being dinged because of his shortened season last year where as Swanson is getting a jump because his xwOBA was actually very good. Horton is getting dinged because he wasn't a big xFIP guy last year. But all of that is important to remember. Swanson usually underperforms his xwOBA, so he's probably getting a little unfair benefit. Horton is a good bet, instead, to out play his projected fWAR if the progress over his last 44 innings is what we see in 2026. And Bregman can over perform that by staying healthy.

The "Lou Brock" trade thing is the most played out Cubs comparison of all time. Listen, Shaw is a fine player, but we have to stop equating any trade to the lopsided trade of "HoF player for scraps". We heard this nonsense last offseason with Cam Smith (who was by any metric bad last year). Matt Shaw had a fine rookie year. Defensively, according to DRS, a great year, according to OAA, far less impressive one. Offensively he had a good second half, and overall was, fine. But there's plenty of markers with batted ball that suggest he's probably got some red flags still. This also ignores the team isn't giving him away. Trading him will bring back equal compensation as viewed by the Cubs. So if they trade for, say, Peyton Tolle is a great prospect. And would be on par with that of Matt Shaw. If the Cubs traded for Tolle, then the "Lou Brock" trade doesn't make any sense. Let's be nuanced. Let's realize Lou Brock happened in 1964: over 60 years ago. The reason people keep coming back to "Lou Brock" is because in those 60 years there hasn't been another trade like that. That's important. The Cubs can trade young players and be just fine. Remember how trading Gleyber Torres was like Lou Brock? How about Eloy Jimenez? Jorge Soler? I've read the same argument 10x in a decade. If the Cubs trade Shaw, it almost assuredly won't be Lou Brock. More likely, it'll be at worst Eloy Jimenez.

Juan Cruz. He was neck-and-neck with Mark Prior, and having those two hit would have been a ton of fun.

I think we are going to have to shift how we view these arms and their role in the team. I don't think players fit into neat and nice boxes. Colin Rea might be a "reliever who can go longer" but I also don't think he's going to be limited to "long relief". Now, I don't think the Cubs will open with Assad and Rea in the bullpen regardless (Assad has options) of what happens, but relievers are having to fit multi-role situations now a days more and more. A 6-man rotation is already going to be new. We should expect most everything behind it to not follow convention. If you're running an extra SP, having guys who can go more in the BP is going to be required. There are less arms for that job now.

Cubs connected to Andujar today. Doesn't make sense, unless of course, they trade an infielder.

I don't see the point in blocking Alcantara with a bench OF'er. This is the pristine way to break in a young player; in a deep lineup that isn't asking him to be a star and allowing you to truly curate his PA's. It's unlikely that the difference between any major outcomes in 2026 will hinge on him; and it's not like he wouldn't be replaceable mid-year. The team has done what it needed to at the deadline offensively; Candelario, Parades, Castro. Clearly they won't pay up for a SP, but if Kevin is struggling in July, "4th OF'er" isn't a pricy addition.

Yeah this is a pretty brutal offseason for Philly all things considered. It just doesn't look good at all for them. They aren't entirely horrible, but it feels like they've missed across the board this year.

Realmuto to Phillies - 3/$45m

There are plenty of baseball reasons to consider Shaw. He's a fine baseball player now, but his batted ball data wasn't great on the season. Part of that is because high contact players have mediocre batted ball data, but his defense may be overblown by DRS (OAA didn't love him as much) and getting a Peyton Tolle isn't like you're selling him short - Toille is nasty and he's the kind of guy you want in your org. You can find backup infielders far more often than you can than Tolle, for example. The price on Shaw should be exorbitant, but with Bichette and Tucker off the board, teams have little in the way of starting infielders to consider.

Honestly, that Bregman contract looks like really solid $/Year value. No shot at Tucker or Bichette as players, but $30mAAV for him on 5 looks really solid.

My best guess will be that the players will sell out IFA as they always do. Owners will want as many revenue streams as they can; I'm guessing more playoff games, more ads on uniforms/hats. Players will fight the good fight on the cap and accept harsher punishments on the LT (whatever they might be) to offset it. And maybe they'll get a win on something like more players will be in that "bonus arb pool" or something.

Right. As I said; they're the favorites. I also gave them the credit for spending. That wasn't a comparison of the positions of the two rosters. Only to say: I'm not going to wave goodbye to the 2026 season quite because they signed Tucker. The Dodgers are very good, but baseball has the ability to be fairly random in small samples, too.

Good reminder; while I expect the Dodgers will be just fine in the regular season once again, they were just a few outs away from losing the World Series last year to a team no one really thought was going to be in the World Series pre-season. From a "uses their resources like they should" stand point, I applaud the Dodgers, but the playoffs are not a place in which the best team always wins. Funny things happen in short sample sizes. I'd handicap them as the favorites but they aren't the massive un-stoppable force that I think some believe they could be. That isn't to downplay them, but to speak to the randomness of how the playoffs function.

It's early. I can't read. Whoops

I think there are a lot of people are going to be very surprised when there is no salary cap coming. Because I don't think one is coming; I think the owners will push for one as a guise to get other things. But a cap requires open books, revenue sharing and a floor, and there's no chance in hell they actually want all of that. The Dodgers are likely going to be fine in this regards. Instead what we'll see is more cost cutting measures (like we are seeing in how the MLB is limiting what data is allowed and how centralized MiLB and amateur data is), more profit streams (do ya like those helmet ads in the playoffs? They're coming to the regular season) and stronger limitations in going over the LT (to reduce spending artificially, but without it being a "cap" so that there doesn't have to be a floor or open books). But realistically. LA will be alright (they make so much money they don't care that Tucker is costing $125m - the penalties will likely be fine to their bottom line) and there isn't a cap coming.

Yep. This post was made prior to that coming out. Less deferred money than I expected.

I'd bet my life there are deferrals. But I'm sure the AAV is probably close to $50m or more.

4/$240m Opt out year 2.

While that may be what teams are trying to get, the Cubs don't have to allow him to be traded for that. The reality is, his value is very strong via trade. A team trading for him has to match the Cubs price, not the the other way around.

Ah yeah, I think he didn't get the service time last year for a full year. Think he just missed it.