Jason Ross

I'll speak for others, but my assumption has always been that "Swanson was the cheapest, and Hoyer always does the cheapest option" is the criticism. Where I think this doesn't hold up is in how the players have aged, and how much better Swanson has been than even I thought at the time. I'll freely admit I admonished the signing and didn't love it and I've been taken to the woodshed and been super wrong about it (and I'm happy to be wrong). But it seems like the Cubs also had their pulse on these players and maybe it wasn't just "years and money" but "who's actually going to be better". Where the disconnect comes is that I think people like blaming Jed for the signing but then don't want to give him credit for Swanson's actual success because he's not a great hitter and that they feel like it was lucky or something, but considering how well the team has been when acquiring players, it feels like they should have the track record where they get that credit, and yet, don't. But you crushed it here. This is a great breakdown of the players and there's little doubt so far, Dansby's been right there at the top of the list in terms of successes.

This is more speculation than reporting, but there does seem to be a gathering smoke-storm on the Imai stuff. While I don't really think any of it is definitive, it does seem like we're winding this thing down.

We can't know anything. But I think it's probably important to remember that people like Jon Heyman run on reputation; that's what reporting is. It's why when Jeff Passan tweets something we respond differently than what our friend Fancys Romero tweets above. We also haven't had anyone refute that report. I don't think Heyman puts that out there unless he believes it's true to a high degree, and while Heyman can kind of be a shill for owners or Boras at times, he rarely just reports false horsefeathers. This isn't a Bob Nightengale thing, for example. Can we take this as a stone-cold-fact? Fine, there's some level of "I don't know..." to it. But there's also zero reason to believe that report isn't true, either.

Yeah, Romero was the guy who had us connected to Suarez the other day, too. My best hope here is that he's just reading tea leaves and guessing.

To be clear, I'm not over the moon with Hoyer. I'm mostly willing to give him a pass on 2021-2023; he was essentially forced to gut the team mid-2021 due to "biblical losses" and the team in 2023 probably over performed what it looked like it'd have done. Rebuilding the roster is something I'll give you two years to get right. You can see that differently, but that's my viewpoint. Entering 2024, I felt the Cubs were a player short in the offseason, they missed the boat at the deadline, and deservedly, crashed on the back end. It was a team that had some negative variance but the Cubs didn't properly handle that. That's on Jed, don't disagree. 2025, the Cubs landed on their high end of projections. It's an imperfect roster; they missed on Scott and Bregman, ended a player short on the offseason and then couldn't get another useful piece at the deadline. Even if we're assuming SP prices were out of control, relievers were doable and two of the three players the Cubs acquired weren't useful in the playoffs. They also brought in players who did better than we expected - they get credit for that. Overall, it was a successful, yet flawed year in the sense that I don't think the Cubs optimized their output. When it comes to spending, the spending does give the Cubs a boost, but they've also been highly dependent on outside help as the farm system wasn't really producing much. I can't find many places where the Cubs are overspending right now; they're pretty much market value or surplus value on their contracts, too. So I think it's a bit overblown, but it certainly gives the Cubs an advantage and it's fine to point that out, too. We'll see what 2026 brings. At this point, when it comes to Jed I expect a few things: The Cubs will do well with player acquisition and they won't really miss The Cubs will likely not get the top-wishlisted player ever The Cubs will routinely be a player short The Cubs will be a pretty good and competitive roster Fans will be upset initially at many of the signings but later will turn out fine I'd like to be proven wrong at some point by their inability to get "the" guy they want or to close out a full-offseason or deadline without being a perceived player short.

Well, here's the issue; the Cubs did pony up for Shohei Ohtani it seems. They offered him a contract that would have structured things out in a way that he would have made more real-world-money by not using deferrals. I'm uninterested in playing any game where we create narratives around it in such a way where we are affirming our pre-conceived beliefs (for example "the only reason the Cubs offered that is because they knew he'd never sign it and was always going to the Dodgers". While it may be true, it also is just an assumption made by people with no knowledge, so let's skip on the narratives). Regardless, the point is this; the Cubs probably did offer him plenty of money. Ohtani wanted deferrals, the Cubs didn't do it. Why? Not sure. You say my post is "naive" because I pointed out that the Cubs make a lot of moves every year (they do) and that the Cubs brought in successful MLB players last year (they did) and that the Cubs had a successful year (success is subjective but I think we're jumping the shark when 92-wins and a playoff series win becomes beneath success in any fashion, especially for a team that was not considered an elite one at any point). I would say my post was realistic, finding the middle ground between the consistent whining while also pointing out counter claims (roster turnover, lack of killer ability to get the best players). I don't love Jed Hoyer. I don't hate Jed Hoyer. Jed Hoyer is generally fine at what he does, and yet feels flawed as well. He is what he is.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought your comment was about King. I misread!

I think we're forgetting how good Michael King is when he's healthy. From 2023-2024 when he was healthy, here is how he ranked among SP's: K% - 10th ERA - 4th FIP - 10th xFIP - 13th fWAR - 25 barrel% - 11th hardhit% - 2nd Yes, 2025 was an unhealth season, and yes, I'd like to be a little more sure that the 2023-2024 version of Michael King was coming back for sure. But let's also not act like this dude doesn't upgrade every rotation in baseball if he's healthy, because over the two years prior to 2025, he was inarguably a top-15 pitcher in baseball.

Fine, but let's be clear here; I didn't ask you if you liked Jed Hoyer. What I did was question your assertion that Jed Hoyer "says crap every off season and does nothing". It's pretty blatantly untrue. Again, you may not like Jed Hoyer, whatever, but that doesn't mean we get to just create a story to support it. Fact is, Jed Hoyer promises active offseasons and delivers on them. You might want to say that part of this is a self-perpetuating-truth, that because the Cubs don't sign players to lengthy contracts, that the Cubs have to be active - but that doesn't change that the Cubs and Hoyer kind of live by the words they say. And another fact is this; the Cubs generally do well in the off-season. They don't sign the big-free-agent, and that's a knock I think we all have with Hoyer, but they almost always do a good job in talent acquisition. We can not like Jed Hoyer all we want, but the 2025 team was almost entirely built by him and they won 92-games, a playoff series and were a game away from the NLCS. To act like that's nothing feels weird. And part of that 92-win-team was what the Cubs did last offseason. If you don't like Jed Hoyer; so be it (for the record, I'm pretty neutral on him). But let's also be real about what he says, and what he does. Jed Hoyer has made it clear over and over again that the rotation is a sticking point, and that strrikeouts in general are a thing they need to add. I don't know who they'll sign or trade for the rotation, and it might not be everyone's top-of-the-wishlist, but I'll say this; I'm confident that the Cubs will get a starting pitcher and based on their history, the starting pitcher will probably turn out just fine.

Does he? Now, you may not always like what his activity is but he says he's going to do things, and then does them. The Cubs won 92 games last year. He brought in two players who made all-star appearances for the team in a single off-season. We can debate about the Cubs willingness to extend Kyle Tucker, but we can't debate that the Cubs brought in two very useful pieces last year. The Cubs have pretty active off-seasons. In fact, they have pretty successful offseasons. They rarely make a mistake, and while they do come up probably a player short, the last three years have been win totals of 83. 83, and 92. They've won a playoff series last year and were one game away from an appearance in the NLCS. I won't sit here and say everything Hoyer does is perfect (it's not) but the gripes of "he doesn't do anything" are just unfounded, too.

The one thing I keep reminding myself is that if you wanted the Cubs to sign Tatusya Imai, this is probably the exact set-up you'd expect to see that happen: Cubs don't sign Cease Cubs do little of note at WM Reports that leave the Cubs out on King Cubs don't go top-end BP Little rumors on the Imai front in general on meetings, etc. That could also mean the Cubs are just doing what they've done at times, and will get outbid and left in a weird spot, so I don't want to go overboard or say it's happening, only that, I think if the Cubs were going to do that, this is exactly what you'd expect.

I think that probably is a good read on where the bullpen goes, yeah. It fits with how Hoyer/Hawkins talk about the bullpen and with Palencia, Maton, Thielbar, Milner, Stanek (or a Stanek-stand-in) and likely Rea you're looking at six somewhat stable and reliable arms. Gives the Cubs a little flexibility in terms of MiLB guys (Snider?) and young players to fill it out. The hope is that by going with those 3 for $15m instead of like Devin Williams, the Cubs may be signaling more of a willingness to spend on a big-FA player (one Devin Williams would either mean more BP spending or much more spaghetti-throwing). It's not my favorite bullpen plan ever,. but I guess it's not a disaster if the Cubs still grab Imai and a pretty good bat somewhere.

Hard to be mad about that. He clearly jelled well with the Cubs' and should be on a relatively easy one-year deal.

The Cubs could realistically end up with Alex Bregman, Tatsuya Imai or Ranger Suarez and have been loosely connected to Munataki Murakami, which is about half of those. I don't think the Cubs will be players in the Kyle Tucker, Bo Bichette (though, I guess if they're in on-Bregman it wouldn't be like, impossible?) or Cody Bellinger. And Framber Valdez wouldn't be the biggest shock if they were in on Cease and are in on Imai. So I'd say: Very realistically in on - 3 Kind of connected to, even though it feels a little weird - 1 Could maybe squint and see it - 2 Definitely no chance in hell - 2 But those "maybe squints" are pretty unlikely, too.

I continue to hope this is their plan A. No secret I've been a big Imai guy from the beginning, much of the research on how he'll translate seems to push me more into this territory. The Cubs have seemingly done well with NPB players when there hasn't been a lot of attention on the courting phase (Imanaga and Suzuki come to mind here) so I'm hoping with how kind of quiet it's been (who he's meeting, how close is he to signing, etc) that it bodes well.

Jesse Rogers and other ESPN discussed the shifting landscape of the offensive market in an article here. I think it's probably important from a Cub-centric-perspective for a few reasons: Their rumored price on Alex Bregman is not going down (this is Kiley McDaniel's prediction) The pitching market has not out-performed like the offensive-market has right now. Pete Alonso and Kyle Schwarber got more than what most people had them tabbed at, where as Dylan Cease artificially looks like he over-performed his AAV but with deferred money, it's mostly an accounting game. Most of the P market has followed relative expectation We know the Cubs don't like playing a game where they have their value on players pushed higher. That said, how it affects the trade market (the Cubs have position players to move) could also be affected. I'd really like the first actual shoe in the Cubs' offseason to drop; whether it's the hitter or the pitcher because I remain curious as to what the plan is (and no I don't think the plan is to basically punt the offseason or something - they're clearly cooking up some sort of plan whether it's the plan we want or not has to be seen).

I'm not trying to flex on you, I really just want to know why we don't consider what the Cubs did with veteran players last year, like Colin Rea, Brad Keller, Drew Pomeranz, and even mid-season trade players like Andrew Kittredge as the same as what they do with Cade Horton, and Daniel Palencia. I think they're birds of the same feather - getting the most out of a pitcher is getting the most out of them whether they've pitched MLB baseball for seven years or they're 22-years-old. It requires an organizational understanding of pitch movements, seam-shift wake...so many factors. I just think we have to move beyond the 2018-view of the Cubs and pitching where they used to be and where they are today. The failings (thus far) of Jordan Wicks and Ben Brown to grab ahold of a permanent MLB spot doesn't really lie in an organization that fails in drafting, scouting or development. It lies in lots of factors, but I don't think there's much proof right now that the Cubs organization is at fault for it.

Can you please explain to me what you believe the difference between what the Cubs did with Colin Rea (which was lower his arm slot drastically and change his pitch mix) to what the Cubs would do with, say, a young pitcher like Cade Horton is? You seem to want to create lines of distinction here, but other than "one person is older" I don't actually find that a useful line of distinction. Development is development in my book. There was also development on the farm this year from Jaxon Wiggins and Ryan Gallagher. It's true, the Cubs traded Ryan Gallagher, but that doesn't negate the development. If you would like to point out the lack of pitching in the Cubs minor league system, I don't think this is a developmental issue, but one exacerbated by trades (Jackson Ferris, Ryan Gallagher), promotions (Cade Horton) and an importance put on the draft on offensive players far more than anything. The Cubs will see a greater influence by Tyler Zomrbo, now earmarked as head of pitching development organizationally moving forward as well. Ultimately, your comment feels like an incredibly poor "gotch'a" comment that doesn't jibe with the reality of the Cubs' organization. It's a comment rooted in what feels like 2018, not the currently Cubs' pitching infrastructure of 2025 heading into 2026. And to be clear this is not me cheering on the front office but pointing out the realities of what the Cubs do well. I've got gripes with how the budget is set by ownership, how Hoyer has a lack of a killer instinct to go get a guy, and others, but that doesn't mean it bleeds over to how the Cubs are currently handling pitching, which they are doing a good job with.

This is a silly comment. If it's the Cubs "scouting,. drafting and development" explain Cade Horton - a player I know fans were pissy about at the time? A player they scouted back in the Covid-year out of HS, a player they drafted a few years later, and a player they have done significant work on in development. If it's the Cubs development scouting, explain Brad Keller, Drew Pomeranz, Caleb Thielbar, Daniel Palenica, and Colin Rea last year? Let's not be ridiculous. Jordan Wicks has dealt with injuries two years running and that's neither on the scouting, development or drafting departments. As well, while I think Ben Brown isn't as good as his xFIP suggests, I also don't think he's as bad as his ERA suggests. There are still plenty of MLB outcomes of both a healthy Jordan WIcks and Ben Brown moving forward. I cannot predict if it will happen, but even if it doesn't, it wasn't because of the Cubs "scouting, drafting and development" it'll almost assuredly be more because "most prospects fail at some point".

Man, I can't look away from Phillip Rivers starting a game.

The report that this is coming from names those three teams but it doesn't suggest they're the only teams. But that all three are competing. I think there's room for other teams to be involved based on the wording.

I doubt much has really changed on the Michael King market. Cease bested his FanGraphs crowd sourced AAV by $1m, Edwin Diaz hit it right on the spot, Devin Williams beat his by $1m. Merrill Kelly is the only really big increase on AAV ($4m). on the pitching side (hitters have outpaced their AAV more). I'd still expect him in the $20-22m AAV range (with $24m at the top).

Yeah, heard that one when he was on, Waddy and Silva the other day (I think?). I'm fine with the Cubs ending up with Michael King, as well. He hits a lot of markers with Cubs pitching recently; including the lack of truly a long term deal. In today's money he kind of sits around what Jameson Taillon signed a few years.

Interesting to see the Cubs not as involved there (based on the report) as you'd assume....