Jason Ross

I would say that none of these really make your argument for you. For Swanson, I think there was a good debate over "what is he?" because...it was hard to tell. He hadn't been as consistent as others. And in the end, each of these are at best anecdotal. Your argument really revolves around the idea that across the MLB, teams value defense less than offense. Like, yeah, Pete Alonso got 5/$155m, but he averages 3+ fWAR a season. Let's age regress him like others starting with his ZiPS this year: 3.7 (2026), 3.2 (2027), 2.7 (2028), 2.2 (2029), 1.7 (2030). This is a 13.5 fWAR total over 5 years. Using ~12m per win we get: $162m, or right in the ballpark of that data set above. If you want to make an argument that Nico Hoerner was undervalued by a little because he's more of a defensive player (let's say, getting on the short end of the $10.6 - $12.9m range) I'm not sure I'd fully disagree with you. I think biases are in play, and I think you could probably make that argument as at 13.5 fWAR, Nico was pretty close to the 10.6m per win marker with his contract (though I suspect there's a discount being given to the Cubs here, but I'll admit that's a guess). But even at best, your argument boils down to like, $1.5m per year here, which isn't like a really major difference. Over the course of a 5 year contract you're saving one-years worth of a mediocre bench player or reliever. If your argument is "the best players in the league like Juan Soto are really good hitters", I also don't disagree! The reality is that it is easier and there is a higher ceiling for oWAR over dWAR. But this is once again a bit of a different argument than "teams value one more than the other" because I don't think smart MLB orgs are doing that. They recognize that Soto is a 6+ fWAR player despite being a poor defender because he can compile so much oWAR, but it isn't that they're poo-pooing defense either. If that makes sense?

You keep saying this, but have provided no data. I literally just broke down how league wide spending is going, and how the league values fWAR in different tiered players. I also broke down the contract and what we could expect based on him per fWAR. For Hoerner to have not gotten even the lowest level of 2+ fWAR players you either would have to: 1. Believe that the league would have made him the least interesting 2+ fWAR free agent the league has seen recently - in which, I would like some reason other than feelings behind it 2. Believe he does not belong in that tier to begin with because you feel he's not going to average 2 fWAR over his 6 years (or accrue 12 total fWAR) - in which I'd love to see your regression model for Hoerner and why that would be. So until you can provide any sort of league wide data spending on oWAR vs dWAR from recent years and trends, you've really got not a single leg to stand on. Instead, it feels very much that you simply feel this way because there seems to be no trends I can find to support this. I can find some articles over the concept that date back, say, to 2017, but we're literally a CBA beyond that and almost a full-10 years. Spending patterns from 2017 are outdated and meaningless comparatively. Until then, the best course of action we have is using the spending trends we legitimately can see, and that puts expected contract somewhere in the range of the Fangraphs article I provided. Meaning not only was there no way he was ever getting $20m or less AAV, it's very possible the Cubs will find surplus value in this deal as long as he remains a viable MLB starting player through age 33 or 34.

Here is a recent article from Fangraphs exploring how free agents are being paid on the market currently. This goal of this article is to see how teams are valuing different tiers of players who hit free agency. What the article found is that players who are projected to be roughly 2 wins per year (or more) over the lifetime of their contract were being paid between $10.6m and $12.9m per win. Nico Hoerner's real world dollars will bring him in at $135m. Over his next 6 years, to average 2 fWAR per, feels very likely between the ages the Cubs just locked him up at. He's been worth 17.4 fWAR over his last four, which is a 4.3 fWAR average. So let's do a simple age regression starting at 3.5, where he loses .5 fWAR per. I'll note here this is a pretty low position, as it assumes his worst full-season of his career (his lowest fWAR to date is 3.8). This means we're looking at a regression of: 3.5 (2027), 3 (2028), 2.5 (2029), 2 (2030), 1.5 (2031) and 1 (2030) This gets you to 13.5 fWAR and I think is an incredibly pessimistic outlook for his ages-33 and 34. But this is also well above the 2 fWAR per year threshold as 12 fWAR would be that number to crack to put him in this tier of free agent. To get him to the 12 fWAR threshold to lower his FA expected dollars you'd have to essentially have him age regress out of being a starting player by age 32. If teams are willing to pay at minimum, the lowest level, at 13.5 fWAR, his contract should be around ~141m for six seasons. The Cubs signed him to a 6-$135m (accounting for deferred money and real-world dollars). So to recap: even if we assume a pretty negative view of his regression curve, and that teams would pay Nico Hoerner at the very bottom rung of what 2+ fWAR projected players are getting, he's still coming under the number we would expect. There's a bit of a "New CBA boogeyman" we can't account for. As next year's free agency is likely to be truncated and with at least a new CBA and some quirks to it it's unlikely to be world shifting (like I don't expect a cap/floor) and we probably won't really know what an offseason looks like until 2028. Hoerner would have hit FA next year, so there's some weirdness to his situation, I still think it's best to look at the world as we at least know it instead of some hypothetical mystery. If we assume that he'd have come closer to the $12m mark at 13.5 fWAR that puts his contract over $160m. And if we give him a less negative age regression, say one that starts at 4 fWAR, we're looking at 16 wins overall and the contract can adjust more. None of this sounds like having a "Hoerner Boner".

It's a great example of the limitations of OPS. OPS weights SLG higher than OBP which leads us to think PCA is a significantly better hitter. But with wRC+'s missing being to balance these on a similar playing field, we get two players who were instead identical production wise with very different styles. 2007 me would have been harping hard on why PCA was better. 2007 me would have been so wrong.

So one thing that we need to understand here on bat speed and EV: players who trade contact for power tend to lower their bat speed (this keeps the bat in the hit-box longer and gives them more swing control) thus dropping their EV. They further drop their EV as they trade K's (which have no effect on EV) for weak contact (which lowers our average EV). The idea that Hoerner could increase his power is possible. But we'd likely see an increase in bat speed, an increase in K's, and thus, EV's and hard hit% would go up. It doesn't always work out. Jake McCarthy with Arizona is good example of this. He traded power for contact last year and became a far worse hitter.

wRC+ is there to ignore biases. You have biases and they're clear here. Home runs = value to you. But Pete Crow Armstrong reached base at a .287 clip last year compared to Nico Hoerner who reached base far more often, with a .335 rate. wRC+ is there to take away your blind spots...which you have. We all do, it's not like a "you" thing, but wRC+ says they were both 9% better than league average. PCA does that by hitting a lot of home runs but doesn't get on base a lot. Hoerner doesn't hit home runs, but then gets on base a heck of a lot more. It's cool that Pete hits bombs, but it's really not cool that he gets on base well below league average. What Pete Crow-Armstrong does in year-3 is theoretical. There's no guarantee he gets better. What we can say is that despite Pete Crow-Armstrong out homering Nico Hoerner 41 to 14 over 2024-2025, the only two full years they have both played, Hoerner has been the better hitter. Hoerner's 6 years of free agency are going to be more expensive than PCA's 2 years of FA and 4 years of arbitration because of what you're buying.

Player A: 109 wRC+, 14 OAA Player B: 109 wRC+, 21 OAA These are 2025 numbers. One is Pete, the other is Nico. One cannot be glove first if the other is not.

We use "glove first" as a negative thing, and a "bat-first" player as a positive but wins are wins. Nico Hoerner is a stead 3.5-4 win player. Those sign for around $9-$11m per win.

It very well may be. In fact, it probably will be. But we have to remember that Hoerner is being bought out of 6 years of free agency while PCA was being bought out of four years of arbitration and two of free agency. PCA's arbitration and initial FA years are far more expensive, however, than Hoerner's initial FA years, even when we account for inflation.

On Nico; I'm not sure Id have done this one. In a vacuum, I think it's mostly fine. While I have concerns with defense/speed guys into their 30s, as a 2b, there is probably a little less concern as their is a little less defensive athleticism needed to play the position than say SS. Bat speed dips around 32 or 33 but Hoerner isn't a bat speed guy; I think his offensive profile mostly should age well. But what are they doing with Swanson over the next 3 years? Is the goal to have a 35 year old SS? Is Bregman playing 3b into his mid-to-lat 30s? 2b was a nice landing spot for either of them in the next few years and that's seemingly gone. Or is the plan to effectively swap them? Like is 30 year old Nico going to be the SS for a year or two? It feels like they are boxed in a little defensively while the left side ages out. But hey, big market teams can take some financial risks and if the Cubs want to actually act like a big team, which extending players does suggest they may be more willing to act like moving forward, than I will take a bit of a wait and see approach.

I'm not sure it means anything. They signed Swanson before Shaw was even in the system as an example. The team didn't fire their entire development team or anything. They signed four win players to fill out their infield. That's what big market teams do.

I don't want to take anything away from what Milwaukee has done. They've done more with less than almost anyone and have crushed played dev and drafting. That said, all of the boogeyman Brewer things are the exact things that we said about the Cardinals a decade ago. They seemingly always found pitchers under the couch cushions, had an army of 5'8" infielders and had prospects with massive upsides boiling just under the surface. But eventually that pixie dust wears out. You can't hit 1.000 on your best prospects, and eventually the "if we just wish upon a star on this guy" won't turn that pumpkin into a 4 win player any more. The Brewers are a good organization, they deserve their praise. But the division will always have another good team in it. That's just baseball. And at some point their luck will run out. It's likely that in 2036 that the pixie dust will have transfered from Milwaukee at some point in the next few seasons to another team. The Cubs will always have to overcome other good teams on the way to the top of they are going to win baseball games. As TT said, if all we look at is the best case scenarios everyone seems terrifying. But it's more likely something else occurs. The Cubs should do their thing, spend money like they can and hopefully continue to develop talent like they have recently. And they will be in positions to go to battle with whatever pixie dust teams they have to face in the division (and I say pixie dust teams because I don't foresee any of the other 4 spending big)

I do. I think he's a four-year guy for some team. Him and Seiya are probably the two best OF'er on the market.

They're not counting on a 2025 1st round draft pick who missed most of the year with an injury to speed run MiLB in one year to start in 2027...

6 years

Bring it on. All the dingers.

That's not a bad play from Matt. He made it look awkward but that wind is gnarly

Yeesh, Pete.

I think they have the worst defense in baseball this year. Not just because of the first inning, but across the board they suck defensively.

Because I assume my life is the Truman Show and I am the main character, I'm having a good morning so far. This can only mean that the Cubs will play and win today.

I won't bank on either, but both have reasonable arguments for why they might not stink, so let's be a bit patient. Carlson has spent years hurt. It messed up his swing and his body. But at 27 years old he isn't at a point age wise where his body is so broken he cant do it any more. The Cubs have liked him for a while and believe he's healthy. He was a good and productive MLB player for a few years. And as a fourth OF you can deploy him as needed. Conforto had good underlying data last year. The bat speed dipped, so if you want to red flag this, I think you can. But there is a reason a smart organization like the Dodgers player him as much as they did in 2025 and it isn't because they are cheap or actively trying to play on hard mode with 8 useful hitters. So while I won't say either are locks to make it a full season as useful players, both have very reasonable reasons as to why they might not suck, so let's maybe give it a bit before we decide they entirely do. Neither will play a ton and if they aren't good, neither seem likely to be kept. The Cubs have young players who could reasonably do their job if it doesn't work out

No. Kingery will be gone and Shaw will then head to the bench as the primary INF backup who also plays OF. I suspect that what will most likely play out is that Shaw and Carlson, not Conforto, will be your primary INF and OF backups.

Thankfully he'll probably barely play. Seiya sounds like he's going to be back pretty quickly and I doubt the team will find many PA's for Mr. Kingery in those 10 days - 2 weeks.

Both made OD.

I'll assume the Neely thing will end up like Arias and Canario as: interesting youths who were DFA'd and never reappear in a meaningful way, but it's a bit surprising after he looked better this spring. Maybe they can sneak him through, though.