Jason Ross

Tom is going to test them. If Tom can't do it, no one can.

Good news is that DH is easily replaced. And while we may not expect a 110 wRC+ at C, we can probably expect far better production at 3b, the bench, and many of our SPs have helium to beat projections. These things work both ways. On paper it's a team that's likely the 2nd or 3rd best team in the NL. It's a good place.

Keith Law just ranked him a top-50 prospect. It should be noted that Law is stubborn as hell and rarely changes his opinion, has been a high-man in Kevin for years but it doesn't erase his ranking, either. As stated previously, though, people are a little too down on Alcantara. I don't think he's a top-50 guy, but I also find these rankings to be less than useful. He's a good prospect, deserves to get a real shot to play in 2026 and likely will get that shot. Beyond that, the Cubs will still have to plan for the OF, but it's not a super hard position to find. They have plenty of options.

The Cubs are currently slated to have a prospect who has received some form of top-100 hype serve for the last four years as their 4th OF'er this year. The Cubs like view him as the first line. Secondly, the Cubs will still have plenty of money next offseason. They don't need to have a 1:1 internal plan for every position every offseason. They could also resign someone; Ian Happ loves Chicago and being a Cub. An extension shouldn't be ruled out there. And while it seems unlikely Jonathon Long ends up in LF, I don't think you can fully rule that out either. We'll see what they do there this upcoming year.

James Wood has far more control than Abrams or Gore. He's not on the table outside of the most outlandish offers.

Say what you want on Law, but the man is unflinchingly stubborn. In a way I admire it.

Alcantara was hurt last year. He's an above average defender in CF while being plus in the corners. I think people are far too down on him due to the injury and fatigue. He's been a top-100 prospect for a good amount of time. There is starting upside but a good chance of him being an MLB player as a 4th OF too. Totally fine to be a little skeptical, but also feels like we have swung too hard in that direction. This is a a great spot for him. He has the inside track to 4th OF duties this year but had a competitive player behind him to push. The Cubs can curate his PAs and surround him with a great lineup. They can also bring up a McCormack or trade for a replacement if he's terrible though June. But this is a good spot for the Cubs to break him in.

Yes. As a website and the writing team, we don't use Spotrac because of how inaccurate their MLB numbers are.

Spotrac is horrible for MLB contracts. Use Roster Resource from FG or Cots.

When Swanson got the contract he did, he was not on the same tier of players as the others. From 2019 (the year before covid) through 2022, his free agent year (and the same 4-year split I used) here is how he stacked up to the other players: Turner: 20.7 fWAR (1st among SS over that time) Bogaerts: 17.7 fWAR (3rd among SS over that time) Correa: 15.9 fWAR (5th among SS over that time) Swanson 13.9 fWAR (7th among SS over that time) When Swanson signed, almost half of that fWAR all came in a single season, the 2022 season. Teams were rightfully concerned that Swanson was not that good and he had just two full seasons where he was good (Swanson's other great year was the 2020 covid-shortened year but it was small sample). You're conflating teams paying more money to better players with "teams prefer offense". Swanson got the least amount of money because at the time, he was viewed as the fourth best shortstop. It wasn't because he was a glove-fist shortstop. Cody Bellinger just signed a 5/$162.5m deal with the Yankees. Pete Alonso and Kyle Schwarber's offensive ceiling are considered to be much higher, and yet it's Bellinger, who's defense is much better who is out earning both. You can make an argument pretty easily that Bellinger is the better overall player than Alonso, but it was Schwarber who equaled his fWAR last year. It just doesn't hold up. Better players get more money on the market. As Bertz showed, the ceiling for how-high an offensive value can go is just higher (more chances, etc.) which leads to the best players having good bats. But as we get to the point we're at, where Tucker and Hoerner have been, the ceiling isn't all that important. Realistically, their trade value should be pretty close. You can give a half win edge to Tucker, and you should, but in the course of a season, we're not talking immense value difference, either. And yes, I assume teams are running on analytical models. I don't think that's "vibes". I think suggesting teams value offense over defense is a vibe. It just doesn't look like that happens in the way fans think it does. Do I think teams might try to hold the Cubs feet to the fire about that in a negotiation? Sure! Teams look for any advantage they can get. It doesn't mean that I think teams would internally value the two as vastly differently as fans think they do, either.

"Clogging the bases" were the man's words. 2003 was a simpler time.

You said it was insane to expect the kind of return Tucker has, and yet on the field, the two players have shockingly similar value upon it. Trade value for one year of each should, then, be mostly the same. The Cubs have no reason to take anything less. Which is why what will happen is the Cubs almost assuredly won't trade him, making your argument about the return, moot. If the Cubs viewed it as the way you did, they'd treat him the way you are. And yet... Clearly the Cubs value defense here. That might tell us something about own own personal biases on how we view offense and defense. MLB teams are run on analytics, not vibes. They run on models that are proprietary but they're likely models that don't don't drastically differ from fWAR either. If we can see that the gap between Tucker and Hoerner is roughly half a win over the course of that one season, MLB teams can too. And that half of win isn't drastically going to change a trade return.

Fien was the 12th pick in the most recent draft, so I'd assume the Nationals are pretty high on him, as were the Rangers. But certainly risky for his age and profile.

Bertz did a great job explaining why this is the case. There is a higher offensive ceiling; but it doesn't mean offense is more important than defense. A run scored is no different than a run saved. They count the same. There is a reason why Kyle Schwarber, coming off of a much better offensive season than Alex Bregman is making about the same AAV. Bregman's defense makes up the difference. If offense was worth so much more, he'd be making more. More importantly, this discussion is not about long term contracts, but one-year value. How a team values a player like Tucker long term versus Hoerner long term is meaningless. An acquiring team in both scenarios is acquiring one year of value.

Yeah, the Mets are pretty good. They're probably with the Cubs as the 2nd/.3rd best roster on paper in the NL right now.

Sharma and Mooney have said the Cubs are listening multiple times for example. There are credible reports out there. Have been for a while. Do I think the Cubs are shopping either? I don't think they're shopping him. But there has been smoke that the Cubs were open to moving Hoerner for over a year now. And here's the thing about how the Cubs operate; when there's smoke, there is fire. We heard names like Bregman and Cabrera for over a year and the Cubs got both of them. They worked with the Marlins as far back as last offseason in trading Caissie to them; he ended up there. I'd take these reports as a very real possibility. But I wouldn't take any of them as a certainty.

Which is more disingenuous; using adjectives and opinions (such as "slappy hitting") or using a data point that is designed to encompass value? The reality is this; fWAR is designed exactly for this discussion. It takes offense, defense, baserunning, positional value and neutralized league data and compiles it into a single value. It takes out opinion of "slappy" and boils it down to a number. It's not a silver bullet, and fractional fWAR is often used in the wrong way but it's also a great way to even the playing field, take personal bias out and see how much value a player generally brings to the field. The point that I'm making is this: I think many people (and your post is indicative of this) don't understand just how good Nico Hoerner is because they look at his "slappy hitting" and ignore the overall picture. On the open market, I don't disagree that teams probably value what Kyle Tucker does in free agency as more valuable. He can transition from RF to 1b to DH and Nico Hoerner probably can't. Hoerner has more value tied to his legs and his glove. But when we're talking a trade for one year of value what Tucker is going to be in four years and what Hoerner will be in four years is immaterial; all that matters is what you're buying in that one year. And the value difference between Hoerner and Tucker in that one year is a lot closer than you're acting.

Is it? A reminder, both only had one year of control: Kyle Tucker's previous 4 years fWAR : 18.9 fWAR Nico Hoerner's last 4 years fWAR: 17.5 fWAR Tucker has a 1.5 fWAR advantage, but it's a lot closer than I'm sure many realize.

Well, in their defense, they claimed Shaw would bring back even more. So if Boston is in the market for a defensive-minded 2b the Cubs corner the market here. Hoerner would probably be the cheaper option. Ultimately, I think I'm becoming more convinced one of them will end up in Boston, but who knows what the Cubs could realistically get back.

Just for reference sake, Sharma and Mooney suspected that the Cubs would look to get something akin back to what they traded Kyle Tucker for in the event of a Nico Hoerner trade.

The amount of dislikes his posts getting are impressive; he racked up a -15 and a -12. The +/- on his posts are basically like looking at Nic Castellanos' DRS year to year.

ZiPS is a good system but these things can get a little wonky. Bregman is probably being dinged because of his shortened season last year where as Swanson is getting a jump because his xwOBA was actually very good. Horton is getting dinged because he wasn't a big xFIP guy last year. But all of that is important to remember. Swanson usually underperforms his xwOBA, so he's probably getting a little unfair benefit. Horton is a good bet, instead, to out play his projected fWAR if the progress over his last 44 innings is what we see in 2026. And Bregman can over perform that by staying healthy.

The "Lou Brock" trade thing is the most played out Cubs comparison of all time. Listen, Shaw is a fine player, but we have to stop equating any trade to the lopsided trade of "HoF player for scraps". We heard this nonsense last offseason with Cam Smith (who was by any metric bad last year). Matt Shaw had a fine rookie year. Defensively, according to DRS, a great year, according to OAA, far less impressive one. Offensively he had a good second half, and overall was, fine. But there's plenty of markers with batted ball that suggest he's probably got some red flags still. This also ignores the team isn't giving him away. Trading him will bring back equal compensation as viewed by the Cubs. So if they trade for, say, Peyton Tolle is a great prospect. And would be on par with that of Matt Shaw. If the Cubs traded for Tolle, then the "Lou Brock" trade doesn't make any sense. Let's be nuanced. Let's realize Lou Brock happened in 1964: over 60 years ago. The reason people keep coming back to "Lou Brock" is because in those 60 years there hasn't been another trade like that. That's important. The Cubs can trade young players and be just fine. Remember how trading Gleyber Torres was like Lou Brock? How about Eloy Jimenez? Jorge Soler? I've read the same argument 10x in a decade. If the Cubs trade Shaw, it almost assuredly won't be Lou Brock. More likely, it'll be at worst Eloy Jimenez.