Jason Ross

Yes. Especially in the offseason with players who may or may not be in the country.

Sign me up for A, with the belief it's likely probably B.

No, you worded it fine. I was just saying - the Cubs aren't going to trade Taillon at any point. I think he's here for the year. They might move a depth piece like Assad, but someone who's Taillon good probably won't be sold for savings now that they have enough money to sign a bat to almost whatever and stay under the LT.

Hoyer talked ad nauseum about not liking the prices at the deadline for SP's and depth in the rotation. I don't think they're moving Taillon for money if they move Asaad. Nor at the deadline.

I could see it if his market falls apart, but I have a feeling the Blue Jays like him a lot. Also some rumors the Dodgers could jump in on a short-term AAV thing. I suspect that the Cubs are more looking at Bregman and Bichette - hopefully the latter. I think if they got Bichette I'd be over the moon. He fits the team fairly well.

It could be Rojas. That would hurt a bit. Hernandez could fit that mold too. Or even a Southesene type. Hard to tell if this is speculation or reporting as well.

Yeah, I'd guess there isn't anything imminent on the FA front. The Cubs don't feel like a team who jumps the market and jumping the Bichette/Tucker/Bregman/Bellinger quagmire doesn't feel like them. That said, with the game of musical chairs currently, it feels like the team isn't going to sit it out entirely and will make real plays here (I think more on the infielders).

Horton threw less then that the year before, so while I wouldn't jump directly to Wiggins in, say,. May, I also wouldn't really count him out. I'd expect Colin Rea to be the first guy up, anyways.

I think the Cubs should be okay, generally speaking, depth wise. You'll have: Cabrera, Horton, Shota, Taillon, Boyd, Rea, Wiggins to kick off the year. Steele coming later. And you'd still have Brown, Wicks or Assad (who isn't traded) and Noland. The Cubs will probably have the innings. 2027 would be a little murkier but you'd still have Cabrera, Horton, Wiggins, and hopefully good FA wiggle room.

Assad being in there would track. Or Wicks.

I'm guessing Caissie, Long or Rojas, and lower level things.

He isn't.

Lets. horsefeathers, Go. That should make you feel good about a possible FA bat. There's plenty of money.

I know many have written him off, but a new curve would be a huge thing for Wicks.

I posted parts of this article from Sammon/Rosenthal in the Bichette thread as well, but because this portion deals with the Cubs and pitching, it's probably good to toss that part here: Full article There isn't a lot else there on this front, but worthwhile to add.

Rosenthal: the Cubs remain "in the mix" with Bichette and Bregman. Full article here If the Blue Jays really are more focused on Tucker, the game of musical chairs for Bregman and Bichette does seem to favor the Cubs more here. Enough to get one? Well...

What a "star" is or isn't is just an adjective. It's not important. If the Cubs spend $240m and get $270m in value, they're doing great. The issue isn't that the Cubs spend whatever% on these four players. And your post was complaining that 40% of their budget is spent on these four players. Make the argument then, that what the Cubs need to do is be somewhat inefficient somewhere because that's the biggest issue that faces Hoyer. It's that the Cubs are getting plenty of surplus value from these four players that what they should be doing is being somewhat inefficient elsewhere to secure a Bo Bichette, or a Dylan Cease, or through a trade where they give up prospects. You're dancing around the argument but you're still kind of missing it. The Cubs are good enough at being efficient that they are a large enough market, and should have enough ability to be somewhat inefficient in some places. Not for the sake of being inefficient, but that it's much harder to be as surplus-driven when the prices get bigger.

I agree with this general idea. I do think the Cubs are incredibly risk adverse right now and that is the real issue. It's meant that the bad contracts haven't been there; what's the worst deals the team has made under Hoyer? Trey Mancini? Tucker Barnhart? These are peanuts. It's why I always find it odd when people complain about the Cubs' trading habits or that the team is throwing money at the wrong players - one thing Hoyer really doesn't do is "miss". But in the same vein, to hit home runs, sometimes you have to risk missing and I think some of this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, too. It's why complaining about the Happ, Swanson, or whatever deals is not the right tree to shake. I'd like to see the Cubs finally pick a guy, though. I was personally hoping that was Imai, but it doesn't seem they loved him like I loved him. Maybe it'll be Bichette, who the more I think about the more I think they should love him. But maybe they'll never love anyone, and that's kind of the issue. I don't care, in a vacuum, if they don't love any single player (or mostly any single player), but you also can't love no one, ever.

Surplus value means that you get more value than you put in. We can generally track how much teams spend to get wins on the back end - it ranges from like $8-9.5m or so per fWAR. So to get 3 wins, you'd spend somewhere between $24m - $30m; generally stacking wins increases how much you'd spend (these are better players and it's harder to stack wins). It's not always this clean; when you sign a 5 year deal you are doing so knowing you'll get more value today than you will, in say, five years - as players age they get worse eventually, but you get the idea. Think of it this way. It's like spending $40 in groceries but you got what should normally cost $50; you got more food than you would normally get at that price. If the complaint is that the Cubs aren't spending their money well, complaining about these contracts isn't the place to do it at.

There is a very good chance all four of those contracts provide surplus value in 2026 and all have provided surplus since they've been signed. This isn't as big of a flex as you're making it.

I mean maybe but I don't really buy he's headed back.

I'm not necessarily saying it is or isn't a good move; there's real risk that Shota's fastball just doesn't get back. The appeal to authority is that the Cubs didn't do this willy-nilly or without knowledge that he would likely accept the QO - I don't think that's how the Cubs operate. I do think the Cubs knew what they were doing when they offered him a QO and they knew how likely it was he'd pick it up. As it pertains to Shota the pitcher; there's obviously a pathway to be pretty damn good still; the Chris Langin twitter thread explains what and how that could look. I'm not entirely convinced it'll happen - we're at an age where it wouldn't be shocking to see it not bounce back and Shota seems like a razor-thin guy with the velocity. So I don't want to just say "the Cubs know best" with Shota on that aspect. I trust the team is a good org when it comes to pitching, but sometimes, it just doesn't matter how good you are (the Rays couldn't seem to fully figure out talented pitchers like Shane Baz and Taj Bradley, as an example and we know they're a good org for arms) it just doesn't happen. Shota could be a top-30 guy, or he could be "don't start me in the playoffs" guy or something between. Ultimately, it'll depend on what happens here on whether or not I think it was a definite mistake but there's enough wiggle room moving forward for me to really know either way.

They probably won't. But I'm not sure that's a bad idea. Shota Imanaga will be 33-years-old next offseason and even if he has a top-30 year, we saw what a razor-thin line it is between top-30 Shota and "guy who might not start a playoff game". He probably isn't a great bet on a 3-4 year deal at that point, either.

To think Jed "wanted the draft pick" requires us to believe Jed Hoyer, the captain of value-focused signings, would have ignored everything that suggested it was likely he would accept it. It requires us to believe he was willing to gamble on a 1/$22m to get a comp-pick (one that would have been at the tail-end of the third round, a pick that while it has value, is not one that is great value). This is also why the report he was going to decline it was so surprising; everyone thought he was going to take it. So either Jed is that clueless and is now a gambler, or he's the same very calculated guy. It cannot be both, but you clearly want it to be both to fit your narrative.

No. We don't. Jed didn't want the horsefeathers draft pick. Jed thought Imanaga at 1/$22m was fine value, and if Imanga wanted to continue to bet on himself, he would have accepted the draft pick.