Jason Ross

That much I have no information on sadly. But yeah, I do hope it's someone else they're interest in.

It isn't. In fact, people I trust (and to be clear again, no personal sources but this person does have them) are convinced they aren't signing him at all. I feel confident this is thoroughly debunked.

The Cubs appear poised to lose Kyle Tucker to free agency without a fight, and yet, the Cubs have a bigger hole to fill in their rotation than that left by their departing right fielder. Don't take my word for it, Jed Hoyer has been saying as much since November 11th at the general manager meetings in Las Vegas. More specifically than just pitching, what the Cubs truly need are strikeouts. The team has done a great job of getting the most out of what they have, finishing the season 10th in ERA (3.81) despite ranking 19th in fWAR. They have done this through a combination of an elite defense and Wrigley Field turning into a pitcher's haven. Still, their inability to strike out hitters and overpower them came back to bite them in the playoffs, as the team was clearly an arm or two short in the Milwaukee series. The fix is obvious: just add more strikeouts. In theory, this won't be a hard fix, as despite the excellent ERA, the team finished just 21st in strikeouts in 2025, so there's nowhere to really go but up. The problem is that while it's easy to identify the need to add swing-and-miss stuff to the pitching staff, almost every other organization in Major League Baseball is going to place the same importance on striking hitters out, making it an expensive endeavor. Thus far in the Jed Hoyer era, the Cubs have been far more value-focused than anything; a team consistently looking for a good deal and willing to wait out markets, rather than going and getting "their guy". This hasn't always been a bad thing; they've managed to build bullpens on a shoestring budget and have also found players like Matthew Boyd to round out their pitching, but it also means that acquiring known strikeout artists has proven to be difficult. If you were going to apply the same value-forward proposition to the 2025 free agent class, it'd be hard not to zero in on left-handed pitcher Ranger Suarez. The writers of DiamondCentric ranked the 30-year-old Suarez as our ninth-best player available, with a projected contract of five years and $110 million. While $110 million sounds rich on the surface, it's a much smaller projected number (and fewer years) than we have tied to remaining pitchers such as Framber Valdez and Tatsuya Imai (both are projected for six years and over $150 million in total dollars). The value begins to show itself when you take into account just how close Valdez and Suarez have been over the course of the last two seasons, and where we have the two projected in terms of free agent contracts: On the surface, it would seem, then, that signing Ranger Suarez to a five-year deal around a $22 million average annual value would be kind of a slam dunk, but I'm not so sure he's a good fit for what the Cubs need. In fact, he's a contract and a player I hope the Cubs stay far, far away from, despite a recent report from Mark Feinsand suggesting the Cubs are among the three most "serious" threats to sign him. It's not because I think Suarez is bad, but that going with the "value" option has been a bit of a bugaboo for the team in general, and has seemingly left them a player (or two) short in each of the last two seasons. Breaking from that mold (even just a little bit) feels like a necessary next step in climbing the MLB hierarchy. Even just beyond breaking an internal mold, I hold reservations on the pitcher himself. The first reason is that red flags are already popping up, with a backslide in velocity. As recently as 2023, the left-handed pitcher was averaging over 93mph on his fastball. Jump to last season, and he's bled two full mph off the pitch as he now sits at 91.2mph. The velocity bottomed out mid-season, around 89mph, between June and July, before jumping back up to the low-90s. Still, nothing suggests that 93mph is coming back without some serious intervention (whether medically or mechanically, I'm unsure). The decline in overall velocity hasn't been seen entirely in terms of his strikeout rates, as he has sat pretty neutral over the course of the last three seasons, with K%'s of 22%, 23.2%, and 23.2% over his last three campaigns, but the drop in velocity remains concerning. A pitcher who already does not generate much whiff and who does not add much in terms of extension is playing with fire. There will come a point at which a lowered velocity is going to catch up with a pitcher who's already hovering around league-average strikeout rates, and it doesn't feel like Suarez is too far from that as is. Not everything is terrible with Ranger Suarez, however. As noted in the chart above, he's shown an elite ability to limit contact, finishing last year in the 89th percentile or better for barrels, exit velocity, and hard hit rate. He gets a good deal of chase, too. In front of that elite defense, Suarez would probably look to be a pretty good pitcher at times! But does he really solve what the Cubs need right now? The answer is: not really, I really don't think so. The Cubs already have left-handed pitchers who use lower-velocity, deception, and movement to limit batted ball data, like Justin Steele, who will return from injury in the first-third of the 2026 season. They have another lower-velocity lefty in Shota Imanaga, and Jameson Taillon is essentially the right-handed version of a "limit-the-hitter to weak contact" type himself. Suarez's 23% rate is just a bit above league average for a starting pitcher, and his velocity is already below that of a league average starting pitcher (and even when we account just for left-handed ones). If the Cubs' biggest deficiencies in their rotation are strikeouts (21st) and they also lack some velocity (13th), then adding yet another pitcher like Ranger Suarez seems to be missing the point. Now is the time for a 92-win-Cubs team to stop worrying about surplus value in every single move. That isn't to say "ignore value entirely", but instead to suggest that a big-market team like the Chicago Cubs should occasionally get a little irrational about a guy they have to have. They've already missed on Dylan Cease, bowing out reportedly when the bidding got to $200 million, but just because they've missed on Cease shouldn't mean they need to give up on the pursuit of the almighty K. Tatsuya Imai projects to have a strong ability to strike out hitters in MLB. Other pitchers such as Michael King (27.6 K% since 2023), Joe Ryan (28.3 K% since 2023), Edward Cabrera (career 25.9 K%), and MaKenzie Gore (career 25.6 K%) remain available on the market in some fashion. There are likely other names that could become available or are available without even knowing, so these five shouldn't be the end of the discussion either. Ranger Suarez might not be a ticking time-bomb (though with the velocity decline, he might be, too), but he projects as a safer, more value-oriented signing that would improve the Cubs, but not likely in the way the team needs. The team needs to diversify a bit and become a little less reliant on great defense to make their pitchers look good; Nico Hoerner is an impending free agent in 2027, and Dansby Swanson took a bit of a step back last year - their defense isn't going to last forever. Dylan Cease on the contract he got would have looked very good at the top of the Cubs rotation with Cade Horton, but they cannot just allow that to be their one swing in terms of adding more whiff to their starting rotation group. They cannot simply rely on prospects to add what they need; Cade Horton looks like he'll help, and rookie Jaxon Wiggins may as well, but beyond those two, the cupboard is pretty barren in the system right now. So instead of using a ballpark and extracting every ounce of value, the Cubs should be looking to just "get a dude" for lack of better wording. Get a hoss, a stud, whatever you want to call him - bring in some strikeouts, even if it costs a little more. Sadly, Ranger Suarez, while a fine pitcher in his own right, falls short of that status in my mind. It isn't that he's a terrible pitcher; he's just not the right pitcher for the Cubs. What do you think of Ranger Suarez? Should the Cubs pursue the left-handed pitcher? Or are there other options for the Cubs that you'd rather have? Let us know in the comment section below! View full article

He's not. The Cubs are not signing him. I don't know what I'm supped to know here, but the Cubs aren't signing Gallen from what I've heard (just to be clear I don't have sources but know someone who knows some stuff)

Nightegale you Boob.

I don't think the Cubs will be connected to many. With $50m (or maybe a bit more) left to spend, they can only add either 1 big bat or 1 big arm via FA. The worrying over the offense, while it's fair to lament the loss of Tucker, is a bit overblown by fans. They were a top-5 offense last year overall and managed to be better down the stretch than people want to give credit to them. We shouldn't expect a top-5 offense losing Tucker, but it's probably going to be a top-10 unit next year as long as it gets just a bit of attention. Hoyer has also made it clear in interviews that the team is looking for pitching help. Ultimately, I wouldn't expect much connecting them to hitters for a while. It's probably a back burner thing. Even the Bregman thing feels like "well if we can't get, say, Imai, and Bregman is still around, maybe we try to get creative" versus "the Cubs put Bregman at the top of a wish list and are actively pursuing this route with vigor"

The team hasn't done anything of substance to handle their pitching. They need an impact SP and still a handful of BP arms, one of which you should be able to count on. Signing Bregman to, say $25m AAV will eat up half of what you have left and it'd be near impossible to acquire an impact SP and a BP on $25m. A trade would have to happen. Considering Shaw isn't a good enough hitter to be a DH, you wouldn't *have* to trade him...but he'd become the most odd-man-out.

Ian Happ was worth 2.8 fWAR and Matt Shaw was worth 1.5 fWAR. Alex Bregman was worth 3.5 fWAR and Tauchman was worth 1.4 fWAR. The difference between the two is ,5 fWAR but you're needing to add another $10m to Bregman, and another RHH platoon partner so you're spending $15m+ to get,,,what, one win? Not only are there far more efficient ways in terms of simple $$/fWAR (teams generally spend $8-$10m per win but the higher end of the scale is generally reserved for stacking wins, for example, a single player of 4 wins to 5 wins, as opposed to a one-off player of 1 win in total - these are cheaper) and stacking players in general, because your 3 players at an added $15 takes three roster spots as opposed to a simple two. Beyond that, the same issue crops up if you want to even just talk "Refnsnyder + Tauchman > Happ". Not only did Tauchman (1.5 fWAR) and Refsnyder (1.0 fWAR) in 2025 not equal Ian Happ's (2.8 fWAR) they did so eating up a second roster spot. They're cheaper, but when you begin hitting the ~90 win plateau, roster space becomes as important as fractional fWAR and the like. Really, the only thing this boils down to is Bregman was better than a rookie Matt Shaw, and duh, of course he was. But that doesn't have much to do with Ian Happ. Blame ownership for not spending more (I certainly do) but this isn't an Ian Happ issue. More importantly, Bregman has shown signs of decline in bat speed and while he didn't fall off a cliff, by the end of the season it was Matt Shaw (130 wRC+ post ASB) and Ian Happ (139 wRC+) who were far better down the stretch than Bregman (101 wRC+) and Tauchman (103 wRC+). Why is this important? Bregman and Tauchman both outhit their xwOBA by nearly .20 points here as Ian Happ under performed and Matt Shaw equaled it. Especially moving forward Happ and Shaw are the far better pair. So the two had a real cross-over point mid year and it's not shocking when we consider their xData. This crusade of "you don't have to pay a LF" is silly in general. LF had a 100 wRC+ league wide last year, this is below RF, 1b, and DH and SS was a 98 wRC+. It's basically a middle-road position offensively league wide. The Ian Happ hate is ridiculous. Happ is a good, albeit short of elite player, but he's been more than worth his contract, as a $61m contract asks you to be worth around something like 6 wins (on the high end of the scale) and 7.6 wins (on the low end of the war/$ scale). Happ has already been worth 6.4 wins and has not put up a season below 2.8 wins since the pandemic. Assuming he gets to at least 2.8 wins, he'll finish well above the 8 win mark. And yes, before we get back to the "LF shouldn't be paid argument" - fWAR is positionally adjusted. His contract has not been worth it, it's provided ample surplus value.

My assumption as of today is that he will fill a 4th OF role and somewhat of a a platoon situation with Pete Crow-Armstrong.

This is generally how I'm viewing the meetings as well. I think the Cubs are a "groundwork" team at the meetings and less of an "action" team at the meetings. For example that Kyle Tucker trade - I think a lot of leg work for that was done in Dallas last year. So whatever the Cubs do this offseason, I think the leg work will happen Monday-Wednesday but the fruits will pay off later. My guess is close to yours; I think we'll see one reliever added, the Cubs will be connected to at least one very fun name in one way or another (think like a Nightengale post that suggests the Cubs have had conversations with Detroit over Skubal) that never goes anywhere, and maybe a report that they met with Boras and Imai. Beyond that, I think the actionable items will be the week leading into the holiday where we see the trade they were really working on or the Imai signing pop.

Image courtesy of © Kamil Krzaczynski-Imagn Images For many consumers Black Friday and Cyber Monday signal the time period in which it is time to "shop until you drop", buying holiday gifts and presents for the people we find important in our life. While MLB team's don't have a Black Friday discount sale, they do have their own version of a spend-a-thon, and it's during the annual Winter Meetings. Every year, teams, agents and players gather for a few days in December, and because of the proximity to each other, many of the year's biggest free-agent deals and trades are consummated at this event. Last year, for example, Juan Soto signed with the New York Mets on the largest contract in professional sports history while in Dallas for the 2024 version of the Winter Meetings. Though that won't happen again, what this means is that the Chicago Cubs will likely take part in some of this action next week. What, then, should we expect from the North Siders? When: Monday, December 8th - Wednesday December 10th Where: Orlando, Florida Great news for anyone (like myself) who lives on the East Coast! Trades, signings and the like sometimes break at late hours during the Winter Meetings, and in years' past, when they have been held out West, it wasn't uncommon to wake up to breaking news. Just last year, the news that the Cubs signed starting pitcher Matthew Boyd broke at 3:21 am EST. So, while we shouldn't expect the action to entirely die down at night, we're probably in for a slightly-less-late new cycle than when they meetings have been held in San Diego or Dallas. Monday and Tuesday will be full of rumors, and Wednesday will have its' fair share of smoke, it will also be the day of the league's annual Rule 5 Draft, in which teams will begin to fill out their 40-man-rosters from other team's minor-league ranks. Not all is lost after Wednesday, as a slew of moves will happen afterwards, with the groundwork for them being laid over the course of the previous few days. A good example of this: the Cubs' eventual trade for Astros' outfielder Kyle Tucker, which happened shortly after the close of last year's Winter Meetings. How should you follow the action? Social media is your best friend and worst enemy for this. If you know who to follow and listen to (either on X/Twitter, BlueSky or YouTube) you can be among the first of your friends to break the news that something went down. Any of the big names, such as Jon Heyman, Jeff Passan, Jon Morosi, or Ken Rosenthal can be highly trusted to post the truth (Bob Nightengale of USA Today is a little more hit-and-miss than others). Some of the more local outlets that can be trusted include Brett Taylor and Michael Cerami of Bleacher Nation (and, if you're looking for non-Cub sources, every team has their own version of Bleacher Nation!), Jesse Rogers, Dave Kaplan or Bruce Levine. Be careful out there, however. Smaller accounts with low follower counts could simply be clout-chasing for clicks or trying to purposefully deceive. A good rule of thumb: always look to see who's following these accounts. Do they have anyone you've heard of following them? No? Best to read things with a heavy hand of "skepticism" then. It's a fun time. Rumors are going to fly fast. Just be careful — some of the hardest to spot are the fakes who are just a letter or so different in their screen name from someone you really trust. Just be cognizant and keep an eye out for the false flags, but have fun following the flow of rumors, too. What are the Cubs going to do with their rotation? There's a good chance that the Cubs will look to solve the hole in their starting rotation during these four days. While it seems unlikely that Japanese star pitcher Tatsuya Imai will sign during the Meetings, most of the rest of the starting pitching market is likely to heat up now that Dylan Cease has set the market. Framber Valdez, Ranger Suarez, Michael King and others who may be on the Cubs' radar will likely come off the board soon. Some have fear with how much the team is willing to spend regarding a recent handful of cost-cutting measures over at Marquee Sports Network, also owned by the Cubs' ownership group, but those fears are just that: fears (as of now). If these fears are a reality, it may push the Cubs into a trade-scenario where they look into cost-controlled starting pitching such as the Miami Marlin's Edward Cabrera or the Washington Nationals' MacKenzie Gore. A trade may not fully materialize at the Meetings, instead taking a day or two beyond Orlando to complete (like their trade last offseason), so it may be a few days before we see the fruits of their efforts on this front come to fruition. Don't be entirely shocked to hear at least one crazy report connecting the Cubs to someone like Tarik Skubal, either. While it's far-fetched and the price would be astronomical, there are those who speculate he could be available a year prior to hitting his own free agency. Could the Cubs enter this sweepstakes? Absolutely, even if it's unlikely. The Cubs still need to fill out a bullpen, but who will they get? The team jumped pretty quickly into the reliever market, nabbing righty Phil Maton a few days ago on a two-year deal, but the Cubs are clearly not done filling out their thing bullpen. While they were connected to Ryan Helsley, he signed with Baltimore over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, and reliever-ace Devin Williams is now off the board, taking his talents to the Big Apple, so the team is going to have to look elsewhere for help. A few names to follow in the back--of-their-pen search could be the Tampa Bay Rays' Pete Fairbanks, the San Diego Padres' Robert Suarez, or a reunion with Brad Keller. All three would require more than one year, but all three would add velocity and whiffs to a pen that needs it. Don't think the Cubs will only be looking for high-leverage help, though. Chicago needs to fill out their entire bullpen depth chart. They will probably look at some mid-level pitchers (i.e. Kyle Finnegan, Luke Weaver, etc), some left-handed pitchers to replace outgoing Caleb Thielbar and Drew Pomeranz, and some sleeper names, like reuniting with Mark Leiter Jr. or signing Evan Phillips, who is recovering from an injury and won't be ready until mid-year. When it comes to the relief market, I would assume anyone could be a fit. The Rule 5 Draft on Wednesday will also give the Cubs an opportunity to find some diamond-in-the-rough types as they look to round things out. In 2025, the Cubs selected Gage Workman, an infielder from Detroit, during this event. That did not work out for the team, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them find an arm they think they can mold into a useful bullpen piece. Are the Cubs looking to add to their offense? The Cubs are almost assuredly going to say goodbye to outfielder Kyle Tucker. The team does not seem interested in matching the free agent's price tag and instead appears happy to recoup the compensation pick. With young hitters Owen Caissie and Moises Ballesteros in the fold, as well, they seem poised to let the rookies take the designated hitter spot and run with it. That said, if the Cubs decide to go the trade route (moving, for example, Caissie in a trade for Cabrera) and move one, or both of their young hitters, could they find common ground with, say, Kyle Schwarber and bring the lefty home? Stranger things have happened! More than likely, however, the team will look into finding a Justin Turner replacement. Turner did post a 112 wRC+ against southpaws, but most would agree that his season left plenty on the table, and an upgrade would be in order. If the Cubs want another veteran, Paul Goldschmidt could make sense in this role. The team could also look to the IFA market, with two Japanese stars, Munetaka Murakami and Kazuma Okamoto, highlighting the class. Both offer power potential and the ability to play some first and third base. Neither projects as purely platoon options, and both would require commitments that appear to be well north of $15 million per year. Is the team looking to find someone who's capable of displacing Caissie or Ballesteros as their primary DH? Korean Infielder Sung-Min Song could be another intriguing IFA for the team. Song does not look to be as in-demand as his two Japanese counterparts, but offers a better glove and some surprising pop. The lefty wouldn't solve the team's platoon issue, but could add a fun option off the bench. The Winter Meetings will be a time in which, at least, some of these questions are going to be answered, but don't expect them all to be solved. Regardless of what happens, the Cubs will likely make a move or two. Matthew Boyd was signed last year and the framework for Kyle Tucker laid. Will this be as fruitful of a year? For the Cubs' sake, hopefully — the team cannot rest on their laurels and squander the 2026 season coming off a 92-win year. The time to add and improve is now. What do you think the Cubs will do during the Winter Meetings? Would would like to see them do? Sound off in the comment section below with your personal hopes, wishes and wants! View full article

It sucks out there. Frankly, I wish we could even go back to just a simpler time where we all were at least okay with saying that the Nazis were the bad-guys and not think twice-about-it.

Hey I support all of this. I can assure you, it's a hard line for myself to follow. I teach the Constitution to 8th graders every year. Reconciling how I feel as though our government and ideals are currently being stepped on, knowing that baseball players I root for support that stomping but also writing and podcasting and just loving baseball is a place I find impossible to find where I'm 100% happy with. Sadly, I'm not sure there is a place I could find where something isn't being stepped on.

Yeah, I get that. I think if we're talking about it as a purely human standpoint, if you disagree with his leanings, then that is fair. I have a hard time reconciling that, myself. Where I've come down on it is that; 1. I'm sure I disagree with many, and maybe a vast majority of baseball players on their leaning 2. Michael Busch, while he didn't take time off, was also photo'd with Kirk and I don't think I want to trade him So I'm at a crossroads where I find it hard to root for him as a human, but once I start getting to that point, I know that I'd probably have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, too, if I wanted to be consistent.

A reminder to everyone that Matt Shaw had a 130 wRC+ post ASB and after his largest mechanical change. His poor 8 games in the playoffs seems to be really weighing on everyone here. His wRC+ was better than Suarez, or Bregman, for example in the second half. Kim was terrible all year at the plate. Song does not project as an MLB starting player. As well, the Cubs finished top-5 in runs scored and even were a top-10 offensive team when Tucker struggled down the last two months. Beyond just that, these same discussions were had about Pete Crow-Armstrong last year and he rewarded the team with a 109 wRC+. We're jumping the shark here. Shaw doesn't need replaced as a starting player based on merit; he as roughly league average even if you just go back to May. He's better than a super sub. Yes, the Cubs should plan with a strong bench as @RandallPnkFloyd says, but a strong bench does not mean relegate Shaw to the bench, especially when the team needs most of the money invested in pitching.

There was at least a report recently that made it seem Imai was going to be taking visits this week and then signing at the Meetings. So if that's true, it would at least, hopefully, give the Cubs a second chance at biting the free agent apple if he comes off quicker.

Sigh. I probably would have done that deal. Here's to hoping they can either retain Keller or grab Fairbanks. Either would help complete the back end of the bullpen.

Michael Busch posted an 81 wRC+ against LHP last year. That's terrible. Now, there was some development late in the year, he hit a few home runs, and post June, there's some signs he's turned a corner. After June 14th, he had a 113 wRC+ against LHP, but it was done in 59 PA's. Generally speaking, this is not enough sample size to even say every data point of his is beyond the "stabilization" point (stabilization is when a data point is no longer affected by random outcomes). We also have to realize those were curated and heavily-data-induced PA's for the most part; they were specifically chosen for Michael Busch; he wasn't facing the best lefties very often. What this means is this: you can say that you'd like to see a little more of Michael Busch against LHP; I do too. Nothing, however, suggests the Cubs should just shrug their shoulders and not have a very defined platoon partner for him, too, Just because he gets more PA's does not mean he will be better; he will face more difficult LHP and his swing has changed in ways that helps more against RHP than LHP. Being a platoon hitter isn't a bad thing or a boogeyman now a days, it's just what a lot of players are. It's okay. Maybe he will become better against LHP but 60 PA's shouldn't signal a seismic shift.

Yeah, I'd sit with him in the one year mold. The split finger thing probably works for a year and you can likely re-mix more fastball heavy here or there to crate confusion and surprise. The Cubs have had success on primary fastball-splutter types like Shota (rotation) and Leiter Jr (bullpen) so I think they could probably find a good place for him. I wouldn't go insane if they didn't sign him, but he feels like a good one year reliever.

He is actually really good. I'd implore you to read all that, it would likely change your mind His issue isn't that he isn't good. It's that the Nationals are stupid.

Sure. But you didn't say "Hector Neris" you said the 2023-2024 bullpen. Yes, Neris was bad; the bullpen wasn't. Not every reliever will work out. Zombro is not a CC hire; he is an organizational hire. I also don't know why we wouldn't trust a David Ross hire. Where do you think Tommy Hottovy came from? He was here under Ross, too. Blowing leads is not really a great data point. Here's the thing; you can't blow a lead unless you have a lead, so good teams blow leads. The Dodgers, in 2023, had the 6th most blown leads but were a top-4 BP in terms of ERA. So I'm not sure any of that is useful data.

1. You answered most of your own question. 2. Tyler Zombro was not apart of the Cubs organization in 23-24 Also it should be noted, all of the complaining about the 2023 BP or the the 2024 BP: the Cubs had the 12th ('23) and the 13th ('24) best BP per ERA. The idea that the BP was a disaster in either of those two seasons does not bare fruit. Now, you *can* point to a lack of K's in the bullpen, and that they out-performed their xFIP, but you can also point to them as reasons for praise; they were able to get over performance and use their defense, so it's a bit of a "6 in one hand, half dozen in the other" argument.