Jason Ross

On top of that, the Cubs are very much a team who tries to maximize every dollar (you can also read this as "prospect") they can. Spending on the bullpen has been something the team has essentially refused to do as well, instead going with the "create a RP" route versus "buy a RP" route. I find Josh Hader a very unlikely candidate for the Cubs as well.

We'll see. I have a feeling the Cubs will add a reliever, but it will be someone more established. The Cubs have a ton of dudes who have stuff and carry questions with them. Maybe if he's cheap, but I don't really think the Cubs will be the team there. Who knows, though.

Jon Lester was highly anticipated to be a Cub target as they headed into the winter of 2014/2015 due to the Red Sox/Epstein connection.

Wonder if it's Alonso they want.

Interesting to note the Cubs could make a trade to replace Bellinger. Does seem to suggest the Cubs are adverse to negotiating up with Boras clients. A bit concerning if you want them to sign Montgomery or Snell, however.

Mike did all of that in that article. With that said, you're right we shouldn't focus in on a single number, but the totality of Bellinger's batted ball data are really hard to predict as being repeatable for a 130 wRC+ hitter. Doesn't mean it's impossible, but it's highly unlikely. Either his batted ball profile will get better (and while the two strike approach effects some things, it doesn't seem to be just a two-strike thing. His EV with less than two strikes wasn't particularly good) or his wRC+ will likely take a decent hit. Not to "worthless" but likely from ~35% better than average to the 10-20% range.

I've got him pegged somewhere as a 110-120 wRC+ hitter (in that 10-20% better than league average area that the article mentions). Which just isn't good enough for me if we're going to play at 1b over the course of that six year contract as his position for like 70% of it (or even worse, DH). As a primary CF'er that's a different story, but I don't think there's a reason, right now, to believe he's going to play a primary amount of his PA's in the OF with the Cubs over the course of that six years baring a trade we can't see on the horizon. I think the Swanson deal is around where I'd pay him as an OF'er. 7/$175m or so. I would be shocked to see him sign 6/$135m-150m. He'll either get closer to what he's looking for, or go Correa short term, high AAV, multi-opt out and hope a second year of results are on the horizon to help him get to that $200M+ area. I think the least likely scenario is that kind of a contract.

Yeah, I'm probably more along these lines as well, as I just haven't paid any attention to his reporting outside of the Complex. I figure he's made some connections with scouts and the ilk being so well known for his CPX coverage, and why I didn't immediately throw this into the "speculation bin" without any one else providing more context for me. I figure he wouldn't want to upset anyone just saying stuff, which would hurt his access (likely) while at the same time knowing that scouts probably aren't the most "in the know" on the Cubs budget, too.

Here's a question that I don't have a concrete answer on: does AZ Phil have sources within the Cubs, or is he just a really good source of information for the Complex League? Has he any history of breaking information/sources/or anything connected to real information? I ask because he recently posted this, which suggests the Cubs have set the spending limit at the CBT threshold. Is this him speculating because of the lack of action? Or is Phil relaying some fairly concerning information? Not trying to doom-boner, but curious as to how connected AZ Phil is, as I'm honestly not sure. I've always used him as a killer way to follow the Complex and haven't paid attention outside of that. The reality is that if the Cubs aren't going above the CBT, the Cubs offseason is handicapped to hell.

Interesting hire and an interesting path to being the head of player development. Not super unlike Craig Breslow, really, when you consider he was a player who quickly was placed into the position of "Head of Player Development" despite youth/lack of experience. If there's one thing that Breslow had over Kanzler is that "smartest man in baseball" moniker following Ivy League educated Breslow, but I think that's a bit overblown. Going with a coach with hitting background over pitching background is also an interesting wrinkle. Assume Otero continues down a similar path as Breslow in terms of pitching dev, but Kanzler gives them bit of a hitting focus too.

Mike Petriello, who's among my absolute favorites, wrote a really, really good article on Bellinger today that I think should be read. It dives into his statcast data, what teams are going to look at, and what we can expect Bellinger to be if the batted ball profile of 2023 is the Cody Bellinger we get moving forward. Link to the article here.

James Paxton is purportedly meeting with the Mariners ownership group tonight. TIFWIW. but the guy who says he saw Paxton with the Mariners broke his last two contracts.

It might be an okay contract if a player was going to remain a 3 fWAR player over those 7 years. You usually want to get your surplus value up front to account for years on the backend, however. Signing a 3 win player to 7/$25m AAV probably isn't going to end up being a very good contract once you factor in aging, injuries and the like. Players rarely stay static 3 win players into their mid-30's (which isn't to say that players can't be 3 win players, only that aging curves suggest a 3 win player in his mid-late-20's will fall off some).

First off, welcome to NSBB! Secondly, while I think it's fine to point out World Series wins, I think it's important to remember that while the ultimate goal is a World Series, the more and more the playoffs increase in size and scope, the less and less a World Series should be what we define as "ultimate success". The playoffs, while an entertaining experience, rarely crowns the best team, but all the Cubs front office and spending can do is put out the best team on the field. Luxury tax spending certainly gives teams a strong floor, and while teams like Houston have managed to avoid the luxury tax, so have, for example, the Anaheim Angels, and I don't want to be them. In the end, I think the Cubs have a clue what they're doing, I don't think they're run by complete idiots top to bottom. I also think they rarely bring to the forefront the full bore of their financial advantage, either. Twice in a decade the Cubs decided to do, what resulted in a full tear down and spending could have helped avoid a second tear down (note: none of this is suggesting the Cubs should have dished out the contracts Bryant/Baez received, only that they could have spent more in the 2020-2022 seasons to avoid bottoming out). These don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think the Cubs are pretty decently run. I also think they would be aided if they were willing to spend more like a top-5 market.

Personal standpoint: I'd have him at the bottom of that group. Which on the surface sounds like I'm being a Cubs-rosey glassed guy, but I just don't love the upside. Don't think he's a SS. Questionable power. I think his floor is around that of a Shaw in that both have upside contact but iffy defense but the upside on Grissom is much less. Alcantara's pure upside is so huge and Caissie's bat, even as a strong side platoon, has so much potential. Still think he's a good prospect but I like our three more. Good writeup from a few scouts here can show you where industry folks sit: https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2023/12/mlb-scouts-take-on-vaughn-grissom-acquired-in-chris-sale-trade.html

Higher. He was 21 and put up a 135 wRC+ in AAA. There's some question on the overall power profile and if he's really a SS, but I'd put him in the 2nd tier of prospects. I'd have PCA (floor) and Horton (I think he's that good) above him. Grissom would live with the Shaw/Alcantara/Caissie group for me. Rank 'em at your pleasure.

I think the batted ball data is overblown by some, as I don't think it's a death knell, but it remains somewhat concerning. It paints the picture of someone who's likely to fall into that 110-120 wRC+ range instead of that 130-140 wRC+ range he was in last year. That's still a hitter, but less than the definitive mid-order bat he was last year. I think there are exceptions to the rules, but generally speaking, those exceptions are really hard to predict out their future. Bellinger appears to be able to succeed with less exciting statcast data, but how repeatable that is, and where the fall-off-point is, is hard to tell. Players on the extreme are super cool and fun, but far riskier, IMO. Seven+ year commitments on weird data...worries more more than a seven+ year commit on someone you can more reasonably predict out. But yeah, I think in the end, the Cubs best bet is to allow Bellinger to find greener pastures (pun intended). If his market never hits and you can get him on a $35m AAV for 3 years with an opt-out each season? Circle back. And I think that's a possibility, but isn't overly likely today.

If those are the four contracts I'd have to offer I'd pass. Three of those deals are incredible hard no's (the first three). Bellinger anything approaching $200m is far to risky for someone who's got weird batted ball data. That feels like "we have to keep him!" more than a prudent contract. And for a team who's petrified of 10 year deals, this feels like the absolute wrong 10 year deal to break that rule for. The closest thing I'd sign is that last deal, but even then, with the opt outs, you're throwing a ton of risk in there as opt outs are decidedly player friendly (which in terms of labor is good, but for this exercise, is not). End result unless the price comes down to the $160m-$170m range over 7 years (with no opt outs) or the Cubs can get in on a 2021-Correa-esque 3 year, very high AAV, lots of opt out type of a deal, I'd pass. I'm someone who wants the Cubs to take agency and make this their offseason, but Bellinger's asks feel quite out of whack with the type of player I expect him to be moving forward. Which isn't to suggest I think he's a bad player, but there's enough risk tied to his batted ball data, and enough premium placed on his ability to play CF (and yes, there will be opportunities for him to play CF, but other teams will, in theory, pay him like an all-time CF over 5+ years of a contract and I don't think the Cubs can commit to that as long as they're high on Pete Crow-Armstrong). The Cubs have waited the market out this much at this point, and while I have a lot of concerns with the Cubs (seeming) lack of agency in their plan, there's no reason to abandon that strategy to sign Bellinger to a $200m deal. If this is the path the Cubs want to take, then take it. See the "wait the market out" to the logical conclusion. Bellinger's market is already murky. The Giants have added a center fielder, the Blue Jays have added one as well. While I don't expect either team to be "out" their "must have" on Bellinger has lessoned. Outside of those two teams, other teams who may be interested are hard to fully identify. It may result in the Cubs not signing Bellinger, or another team massively overbidding and giving in to Boras, but this offseason should never have been "Bellinger or bust". If you want to wait the market out, you'll have to lose someone.

Eh, we'll agree to disagree a bit there. I think the Braves have done a pretty solid job, IMO. Not to say everything they've done is perfect (Chris Sale is a bit of an odd one, even with the money kicked in) and I think at some point having a deeper system would pay off (they've thinned that out a ton). But outside of that, I don't see a ton of unforced errors, either. Totally fine if you're not as big of a fan of what the Braves have done, though.

I'd have signed that Murphy contract all day long. It's really only a 3 year extension with a club option. They pre-paid his 3 years of control and then extended him until 2028 with an AAV of $15m. I'm not above criticism for any club (I do think they're going to get a little locked down here as TT said), but I'd have easily applauded the Cubs extending Murphy like that. Even if he falls off in his early 30's, $15m isn't a big LT hit. He just needs to be roughly starting caliber through 2028.

Braves acquire Chris Sale and $$ for Grissom+.

I doubt the Cubs run a true, "6 man" rotation where they have six settled starters who take consistent turns in the rotation. I do think the Cubs, through injuries, rest days, prospects and the like, will run some sort of hybrid rotation where guys will get some "rest days" here or there...etc. So I don't expect the Cubs will run a traditional "5 man" either.

Yeah, it just feels like he's speculating to me and connecting dots. I don't think there's much to report here, and more or less that Heyman's guessing based on Keirmaier and Lee signing with the Giants and Jays.

Never said it had to be in pen. And I acknowledged he had things to work on, Wicks isn't perfect. Sean Manaea has greatly underperformed his xdata his last two years and 250 IP. I don't think he's the kind of pitcher you sign to erase Jordan Wicks name from the rotation, either, regardless of what he did over his last handful of innings after adding a new pitch. Manaea is fine. I'll take the Cubs ability to turn Wicks into a quality arm in the rotation over them blocking him with a pretty sketchy arm on a multi-year contract. The Giants are a team who works with arms pretty well and they were the team who couldn't keep him in the rotation. Again, if the Cubs can sign him to be a swingman on a one year pact; sign me up. I have strong doubts Sean Manaea wants that kind of a contract and in that case, the Cubs and Manaea don't make a ton of sense to me.

I don't think that's fair here. I think you can say that the Cubs were put off by the $300m and we can debate that, but the Yankees and Mets were right there on Yamamoto and unlike Ohtani, it seemed his were well open. Unlike Ohtani, Yamamoto feels like it could have gone anywhere, as long as the money was right. The Cubs didn't even seemingly try with Yamamoto. Those lukewarm quotes from Hoyer were back during the Winter Meetings and that was well before his market kicked up. That's well too early for the Cubs to have had any idea that Yamamoto was going to LAD, too. I'm all for being fair to Hoyer and the Cubs pursuits. I'm fine with saying the Cubs tried on Ohtani, that they didn't have a real shot because of Shohei. Cool with saying they can still get stuff done. That sometimes they're really quiet. But nothing has come out even after the Yamamoto thing to give the Cubs this level of credit here. I don't think the Cubs put forth half a real effort once it became clear the price was going over $250m. We can debate whether that's the right choice to tie up that much money in a starting pitcher and that maybe the Cubs felt that way. But I don't think we can retcon the "well the Cubs really tried on Yamamoto" thing either. They seemingly didn't.