Jason Ross

I've come around a bit on Bieber and think there's some hope for him. While certainly the velocity decline is concerning, I think there's some bounceback there potentially. He sat out a few months with inflammation. You'd have to have a pretty extensive physical performed there, and be confident he wasn't about to explode, but if the inflammation is gone then it wouldn't be shocking to see the velocity return (in some fashion). I know it wasn't there in his last two starts of 2023, but that's a pretty small sample and it wouldn't be shocking to see him not be at 100% yet right off the bat. He's also out at Driveline right now doing work. His curveball and slider have kind of fallen into each other with velocity and shape. A fix to separate the two (more of a sweeper to create horizontal movement) could help recapture some secondary stuff. He's only signed as a one year thing right now and I'd not be super jazzed on an immediate extension unless the Cubs are already seeing the velocity back, but I think there's some hope there. Not enough I can speak to it being fixed, it's all behind the scenes stuff we can't know, but like I said, I'd have a bit of hope.

That's why I used BBTV. We can debate it all we want, but BBTV thinks that Alcantara/Brown/Canario is a gross overpay. Like almost 3x the value. So while I think we're prone to underrating trades, I don't think we're underrating it that much here.I think BBTV is pretty sketch...but that Straw deal is doing a lot of work. He's been a sub 70 wRC+ hitter for a while and was .4 fWAR last year. Still has 3/$18.7m left. It's rough.

I respect Matt but I think he's pretty high on the Cubs side of the Bieber/Naylor trade. Reports today from the Guardians side of things are that the G's are not impressed by offers for Bieber and that teams are treating him like a salary dump. Canario+Birdsell is probably a good bit above a pure salary dump, even if I have reservations on Canario. Myles Straw is legitimately a salary dump. I'm sure you know my high skepticism for BBTV, but BBTV thinks Brown and Canario for those three alone is a rejected trade on the Cubs side because of how much of a dump contract Straw is. We can debate that, but I doubt the Cubs would need to give up both Alcantara and Brown, on top of Canario if they're taking Straw back. I'd guess they might need to give up a bit more than simply Brown/Canario, but I'd guess it'd be well south of Kevin Alcantara to get it done. Once we take Straw and his putrid contract out, then we're getting closer to a trade where the Cubs would have to part with better and better prospects.

Matt Mervis is 25 years old and will be essentially 26 come opening day. Hayden McGeary is interesting enough. Neither are prospects the Cubs are going to be worried about blocking. They very much could sign a long term option and block either of those two.

If there's one thing to point to about Ricketts not attending the panel, historically it's one of the least attended events at the Con. We'll see if it means anything towards the Cubs doing much in the offseason, but I think it might just be a coincidence and one where the Cubs just axe it because it's not popular.

While not directed at me (at least, I don't think I've been throwing a temper tantrum, but maybe I need to be more self reflective) I know I've been vocal that the Cubs don't appear to have a clear and defined plan, so I do want to clarify my feelings. I do think the Cubs have a plan. but where my frustrations lie is in the seemingly lack of agency, the Cubs plan has. Clearly, I can't know the plan for the offseason as sadly, Jed forgot to CC me on that email (which I find rude, frankly), but as an outside observer and how the offseason is being framed by those who are close to the Cubs, it's hard to tell where the Cubs plan to have much agency in their offseason. Seemingly, the Cubs offseason plan from here on out is "wait the market out, sign the guys who's market doesn't materialize". And there's an argument to be made that maybe the Cubs don't see any difference between all of the players out there in the second tier so they'll be happy with anyone they can get in that tier,, so this allows for the Cubs to maintain flexibility and get guys in on cheaper contracts, which fair, if that's the case. On the other hand, if your plan is "sign the players others don't want" then I wonder who do you actually like? Where my fear is is that there's a fine line between an offseason in which the Cubs come away with a bunch of smart spending and flexibility and another that is highlighted with prospect hoarding and indecisiveness in the name of those two things. Right now, maybe the market isn't moving super fast, however a bunch of teams have dipped into the secondary tier and come away with players on perfectly acceptable contracts/trades, so it's not like it's impossible to have gone in there. And while I don't think the Cubs are doing nothing it's not like the Cubs couldn't have accomplished something by now either. There comes a point when you have to have a plan and attempt to execute it past "maybe a few guys will slip through the cracks and we can hoover 'em up" and my fear is that I'm not sure the Cubs have the aggressiveness to accomplish something like that. None of that is to say I want the Cubs to spend ridiculously and overpay, just that I question how much agency the Cubs are giving themselves versus how much is being put on other teams. I hope my fears are misplaced. I don't mean to sound like I'm doom-bonering, or throwing a tantrum, only expressing my fears that the Cubs aren't being run in the way I'd necessarily like to see the Cubs run.

We'll have to see what they do with the pitching. Their behavior in the hitter's market may be exclusive to hitters, but also, may not be. The Cubs very well may have a "wait and see" approach there, too. For whatever reason, they didn't get Glasnow. They didn't get Nola, though he seems like he was likely going back to Philadelphia. They didn't jump in on Gray. They also are the only major market not invested in the Yamamoto market. When many of these markets miss on Yamamoto, it's likely many will turn to Imanaga, Snell and Montgomery. Are the Cubs going to show agency here? Or will they, once again, wait it out and see? The Cubs are not a team who seemingly gets into bidding wars for players, so I think it's fair to wonder how they're going to handle that market as much as the offense.

I don't think the lack of action is the only thing helping that feeling, though. The reporting on how the Cubs are going about this (and from multiple areas, national and local) is playing a pretty large factor in this, as well. And I don't think the Cubs comments (from Hoyer, from Carter, etc) are helping much, either. And we can question how accurate the reporting is. Both Nightengale and Mooney/Sharma have reported the Cubs interest in the Lee market (which wasn't something we had heard about all ofseason) so there's probably more action that's happening behind the scenes. With that said, it also kind of feels like the Cubs aren't operating with a defined vision of X, Y and Z and are more than happy to hope they can get one of X, Y or Z for less than market rate; which isn't bad business in theory, but also isn't really how you'd expect a team with the market size of the Cubs to act, either.

Mooney also wrote another article in The Athletic. I think this line sums it up best: "Simply put, the Cubs are always looking for good players on good deals on their terms." He mentions the Cubs will be interested in Imanaga once Yamamoto chooses a team. They were in on Lee before he signed in SF. They expressed no interest in Candelario. But nothing seems immanent per the article. Another quote from the article: "To understand the slower pace and the shifting expectations for this offseason, you have to remember the Cubs want to create lanes for their top prospects, preserve roster flexibility and maximize their financial resources." For lack of a better way of explaining it, the Cubs feel like they're going to be the catfish of the offseason, as they sit back and wait for other teams to make their moves and hope things they want fall to them. Which, in theory isn't bad, but also makes me feel like there isn't a real "plan" here. The vision seems to be less on specifics and more on "get players cheaper than you might normally get". Which feels like the opposite of a big market. For those who subscribe to the Athletic, article sourced here.

Per Nightengale: "The Chicago Cubs are in talks with agent Scott Boras about signing free-agent first baseman Rhys Hoskins" "The Toronto Blue Jays have emerged as the favorite for Cody Bellinger with the Cubs still in the hunt." Source to USA Today

I doubt anyone is considering the Cubs to build around Madrigal. With that said, Madrrgal being a decent, defense first option at 3b for half a season (provided the Cubs address both 1b and DH with 120+ wRC+ hitters) is...okay along with the others getting PAs. Not great, but I'll survive.

Levine suggested a "240-250m" "payroll" (though unclear if that was just legit payroll or LT) even without Ohtani about 2 weeks ago.

The only thing I'll add without rehashing it all is this: I doubt this will be a spring-time decision. With the Cubs potentially being a landing spot for Matt Chaman if his market tanks, with the Cubs potentially bringing in two bats (one for 1b, and one for DH)...I think it's likely the Cubs will either give him more latitude than just spring, or be in a place to move him in a trade prior to him ever getting the spring. None of this is to say how the Cubs see him, just that I don't think it'll be a spring training choice. The Cubs are likely to bring in two hitters this offseason and many of those combinations will either take up the 3b or the DH position (for example, Hoskins+Belt/Naylor, or Chapman+Hoskins/Belt/Naylor,...). There are also situations, where they go Bellinger/Hoskins where it may allow them to decied in the spring, only that I think the most likely scenario is that the Cubs will likely have made a choice on his ability to handle 3b prior to Arizona with how the offseason may go.

I don't think the Cubs would do that, no. The Cubs have been pretty concerned with public perception, IMO. Bauer, regardless of price, influences that.

That's a pretty disappointing offseason, in my book. I know I've been captain pouty lately, but I just can't help but be unenthused by that team. It's a team that's better than last year but is so far away from being anything worth being overly excited about.

I don't disagree with this. Chapman feels like the wrong player for what the Cubs need. With that said, I can hear the argument being that the Cubs specialize in ground ball pitchers so by getting Chapman and his glove they can better maximize their pitching staff. This keeps the ball in Wrigley on those windy days where it blows out and Chapman's batted ball profile makes him a good fit to bounce back. I don't like it, but it feels like I've seen this movie before.

He didn't. Though on the flip side, the batted ball data on Chapman is really good, so a situation where Chapman is a 115 wRC+ hitter is pretty decently on the table for the next 2-3 years. And it wasn't like Swanson wasn't one year removed from a 99 wRC+ (which, I think we all kind of forget when we look at his 2023...he had a 104wRC+ last year and was kind of very close to his 2021 level).

Yeah, I went with the "play two 3b, and no 2b" lineup. Good thing they didn't hire me to manage the Cubs.

Toronto and San Francisco remain teams I think make sense. That said, there's a ton of parrels to him and Swanson and it's hard to ignore.

I can't count. man. I teach social studies for a reason.

Rosenthal today: "Teams are inquiring about Ben Brown and Hayden Wesneski, a pair of righties the Cubs acquired in separate trades for relievers David Robertson and Scott Effross at the 2022 deadline. The Cubs are not necessarily inclined to move either. But like the Giants, their willingness might increase if they add a veteran starter. The improvement of the Cubs’ farm system, ranked sixth by Baseball America at midseason, creates newfound possibilities. To upgrade its offense and/or pitching, the team might be open to parting with young pitchers besides Brown and Wesneski as well as infielder/outfielder James Triantos, the Arizona Fall League offensive player of the year. Outfielder Pete Crow-Armstrong, right-hander Cade Horton and shortstop Matt Shaw might be the only Cubs’ prospects who are untouchable. As with so many other clubs, much depends on what the Cubs accomplish — or fail to accomplish — in free agency. Ten days before Christmas, so much remains unresolved. But one way or another, trades are coming, all across the industry. It just might take a little more time."

I think that's the exact kind of deal he wants to give. "“I’ve been pretty open, I don’t love the idea of long deals,” Hoyer said. “It’s hard to see into the future that well. You’re betting on human beings with bones and ligaments and all those different things. But certainly there’s times when a player’s talent (makes) it make sense to do that. So, yeah, in theory, you’d love to keep deals shorter. If you have to pay a little more per year, I think it makes sense to do that, to make your future that much more nimble. But there are times when it makes sense to (go longer).”" So he goes high on the AAV, lots of opt outs. It's exactly how he sees things.

Ugh. Let me re-assess my guess from last night a bit: 1. Trade for Bieber/Naylor. Canario, Triantos + 2 deeper prospects with upside (maybe Ben Brown is needed?). Cubs extend Shane Bieber for 4/$88m shortly after. 2. Trade for a leverage reliever using some prospect depth from the 11-30 range. Mervis makes a lot of sense here 3. Cubs sign Chapman, not Bellinger, to the high AAV/opt out heavy Correa deal. 3/$90m with opt outs every year. Lineup on OD looks like: Happ/Suzuki/Naylor/Chapman/Swanson/Morel/Gomes/Madrigal/Tauchmann Rotation: Steele/Bieber/Hendricks/Wicks/Taillon

The word irrational wasn't chosen for it's truest definition of the word, but the way Andrew Friedman used it. Essentially, that unless you get "irrational" or go beyond what you were originally comfortable with, you'll always finish second on every player you want. And yes, Theo was irrational in that sense. Torres for Chapman was an overpay. A necessary overpay, but an overpay. And while I still think on the day of the trade the Cubs had logic behind Jimenez/Cease, we could also claim that was a bit of an irrational overpay. Let's also not forget, while we typically remember that Heyward was a "seven" year contract, to get that done, the Cubs offered one of the earlier opt-outs; essentially letting Heyward walk after just a few seasons if he was still good (sadly didn't work out). They won a bidding war with Boston for Lester. In some aspects, like a deadline deal for a true WS favorites, there are things that Hoyer hasn't been in a position to do yet, but others of these he's been in a position to make, and has yet to do that. No one has asked the Cubs to buy high and sell low. No one here is confused as to how this works. Let's stop moving goalposts of my post. My post isn't a misunderstanding of how being a VP of baseball ops should work in theory, it's questioning whether or not Jed Hoyer has the killer instinct to go out and win bidding wars for elite talents, has the stomach for the types of trades in which real prospect capital is leaving for real established MLB talent, which are two things you need if you're going to run a top-5 market in baseball. Thus far, even when he "wins" a free agent contract like Swanson, I think it would be fair to ask "who exactly was he bidding against when that contract was signed?" There was some maybe rumored interest from LA and maybe some rumored interest from Atlanta...but did the Cubs win that so much as Swanson and the Cubs were the best remaining fit? It's been a quality piece of business in year one, and I'll concede that, and it's not the point of that question. The question is the process. Jed Hoyer's managed to sell a lot of people on his vision. That's great. I say this as someone who's defended Hoyer many times in the past...his vision is waning on me, If you want to keep believing in the process, that's fine and your choice. But Jed Hoyer wouldn't be the first, or the last, guy in charge of a franchise who simply didn't have the killer instinct to take a good enough team above that level, either, and he's starting to wade into that territory for me. There's offseason left to accomplish things, but the Cubs haven't shown any initiative to acquire the types of impact talent that was available, either in FA or trade, in long-term contract land or trading for players with one year left. At some point the Cubs need to begin to be okay with trading from their prospect capital, with being okay at going after the best of the best. There will never be a perfect player at a perfect time. It's time for Jed Hoyer to get a little irrational.