Jason Ross

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.

When I say margins, I mean more along the lines of building a really wonderful defense/speed team. Players who win on the margins. Sorry if that was unclear, I could have worded it better on second thought!

So I'll say this: I actually think Jed Hoyer is a good GM. I think he's got a good vision in his head, and I think he's really good at identifying margins-players. I think he can communicate his vision to others well. I think he's good at determining a market, and a value, and I think he's highly disciplined in that regards. My fear is that this is all Jed is, however, and that the thing he's missing is the thing Epstein had: he had the ability to get irrational about a player. Maybe to a fault (why I think Jed and Theo were a good pairing to begin with). If that's the case, then I still think Hoyer's a good GM...just maybe not for a large market team like the Cubs. There seems to be a hesitancy to go past that value in both trade and free agency, however. We'll see. I hope this is wrong. There's still time in 2023/24's offseason to change my perception of him.

I'll take a crack at the rest of the offseason or the plan right now: 1) I think the Cubs will trade for Shane Bieber. I'll guess Canario fits the bill here. My guess is that Jed likes the price on Bieber more than Glasnow. 2) I think they'll shortly (before Christmas) pick up a decent leverage reliever. Maybe Stephenson, but I bet lower than that. 3) I think the bulk of the FA work at this stage comes in January. I think they're going to wait this out. They'll grab another SP, like a Snell or a Montgomery if the market doesn't come together. They'll be out on Imanaga, however. McDaniel posted yesterday on ESPN that his contract is coming in higher than expected. Cubs don't do bidding wars. They'll wait out Bellinger, Chapman and Hoskins, too and grab at least one. Maybe two on higher AAV shorter deals if possible. If only one, they'll grab a lower tier of second bat. Belt, Pederson, Turner...those guys. DH types. But I think the FA stuff comes after New Years. This feels like a pretty conservative way to spend $60m+, in my books, which is how I'm starting to feel this team works. They're slow. They're patient (to a fault). They'll spend a decent chunk of money on the surface, but it'll all be on their terms.

Might not have to. Work in a mutual option for year 2 and a hefty buyout.

This guy contracts. Good thought.

Yeah the extension is pretty perplexing. Might be a combination of knowing they have the depth to baby him (this is more for the playoffs than, say, May) and that he's pretty fresh off TJS and likely has a handful of years (rates of reinjury usually take 6-7 years based on more recent studies) before they truly need to worry about another.

Nope. Been reported this kind of a move wouldn't stop them. Remember when Hoyer said it wasn't good to win the offseason? The Dodgers are winning the offseason and I have to say, I'm really jealous. I'd like to win the offseason like this.

The extension is something I agree with, I wouldn't be super excited about that. With that said, the trade itself? The Cubs should have been in on that. I'll be bummed about missing on Glasnow the 1 year guy.