Jason Ross

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.

I'm trying to tell myself that there's something out there that I'm not seeing. That the reason for the silence on the Cubs end is because there's a really fun move that we don't know about. That there's a thing out there that's going to lynch pin all of this and we'll end up going "oh wow!". But then there's another voice that's pretty defeated laughing at that voice. And that one's starting to win.

Yeah, I'll admit being a bit frustrated on the lack of velocity in the rotation. Glasnow was tailor made for the Cubs lack of that. Sigh. This offseason has been a bunch of disappointments.

Always love Zumach's stuff. Honestly anyone from NSB. Todd even did the thing I really wanted to do, but just wasn't brave enough to do...put Cade #1.

Glasnow...never, it sounds.

So they didn't play their young players last year like Morel in the infield, and Mervis at all, so that they could play them this year instead, so they'll go after Soto next year? Love the optimism, but think you're huffing some hard hopium there.

Ah yes! Duh. Hell we can even add in MO Alou. I remember that being a big deal.

Add in Darvish and Kimbrel, IMO.

From Passan, thats a name drop. He doesn't accidentally bring up names. Passan is a professional. That doesn't mean they will sign him, it means there's likely some form of interest, in some way, shown by the Cubs. Is it a ton of interest? Are they actively hunting him? Maybe not. But Jeff Passan isn't the "throw a name out" because he feels like it type. And yes, Jed is tight lipped. But he's not immune to leaks. We heard the Cubs connected to Swanson plenty last season. It didn't come out of left field. The Cubs can work very quietly. But they're not complete ghosts where every move comes out of nowhere.

Yeah. I'm trying to find it in me to remain positive and having a good outlook, but I just don't understand what the Cubs would do with Wacha. He doesn't get ground balls. He doesn't have velocity. He doesn't really strike people out. He feels like someone who had his HR/FB% numbers suppressed by San Diego's ballfield. It feels like we have 2 or 3 middling arms who can slide into the rotation already. I don't even know if he makes sense if we trade someone like Wicks. Would I really rather have Michael Wacha in the rotation over, like Asad? He's going to get a rotation spot somewhere, and I bet he gets two years. I guess I don't see it. Maybe there's some kind of big trade brewing where the Cubs need a one year arm and Wacha would take one? Maybe it's just agents leaking things and trying to drum up interest? Just due diligence? Or speculation? I don't know. But if the Cubs do Michael Wacha it feels like Trey Mancini v2.0 where the Cubs will sign a player with some real underlying issues past his ERA to a two year contract and hate themselves for it later.