Transmogrified Tiger

I struggle to think that adding one bat after subtracting Bellinger isn't the plan. It doesn't strike me as logical or in line with how Jed has built rosters to say DH is an extension of the bench and that means we can't have a starting caliber hitter that doesn't have a primary position. I would take that to think that the person can't *only* be a DH caliber defender(a la JDM) though, and maybe it increases the likelihood of that addition having more positional flexibility(Castro, Lowe). The only other way that could hold true to me is if Jed sees that as the mechanism to break in the prospects, which for as bullish as I am on both the offense and the prospects themselves, seems like a fairly silly risk to take in a make or break season.

Sharma: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5984787/2024/12/10/seiya-suzuki-chicago-cubs-trade-talks/ And the article's kicker: "But at the moment, both Wolfe and team sources suggest such a move seems unlikely."

I think the subsequent commentary from other (better) reporters than Rogers puts this situation in a different light. But maybe more to the point, I don't think that Jed is going to let Seiya's preference for RF over DH drive the direction of the offseason that will define if he keeps his job.

FWIW, the interpretation of the Suzuki comments seems to vary on whose account you're reading. Rogers, Montemurro, and Bastian all tweeted about it and Jesse's was the only one who framed it in a particularly negative light(mildshock.gif). It did give the impression that Seiya isn't super jazzed about being a full-time DH, but I also would hesitate to go so far that it would be a blocker for other acquisitions. It's not hard to find defensive starts for corner OF and Wolfe isn't ever gonna say 'yeah he's a DH of course'.

Good stuff, I've liked Finnegan for a while but as a primary RP addition the HR made me antsy. It's good to know there's a reasonable tweak that should in theory help cut that down.

The draft lottery is today at 4:30 Central: https://www.mlb.com/athletics/news/2025-mlb-draft-lottery-odds?t=mlb-pipeline-coverage The Cubs have about a 1 in 150 shot at the number 1 pick, and some unknown (but fairly small) odds of moving up from #16.

Maybe! Maybe they think one or more of the AAA guys is plug and play, and they really like Wicks. Maybe some other suitor has a player they like even more where that potential trade off isn't necessary. I think most people in this thread would agree that it would be preferred to not trade Paredes or Busch. I also think it's very possible if not likely that in order to get a Tucker trade over the line that line needs to be crossed. Side note: See how this is a much more interesting and useful thread of conversation than just proclaiming everyone who had an opinion on what the *Astros* would require in trade are sheeple prospect huggers

I would love it if that deal were prospects instead, but the Astros still have a core under contract and are making noise about signing Bregman or a similar investment. If they love an Alcantara or Ballesteros that’s great, but especially given the likely competition for Tucker I think it’s very possible a completed deal requires subtracting from the MLB team.

That 20ish million all goes to Tucker if extended. Maybe you can delay the start of the deal(a little odd since he’d need to agree to arb terms first), but that creates friction by adding another post prime year which Jed(and objective evaluations) won’t like. If you don’t have an extension it feels like a ton of risky chair shuffling for not an enormous upgrade.

They are widely reported to need to cut salary before making any additions since they’re one of the teams in limbo with their TV deal. They’ll try to offload Vazquez and Paddack first, but Vazquez is very underwater and Paddack’s injury history may scare off the small market teams that might see him more palatable than FA options.

Tucker would certainly qualify as the big swing many have been hoping to see from Jed. I think it's probably more wishful thinking, but there are some breadcrumbs that it could be something to come to fruition. As mentioned upthread Tucker is a great target and doesn't have red flags that might make Jed more gunshy, his current team is decidedly not going to have serious extension talks, and he's not a Boras client so if that's something he wants there's a path to trade + extension. On the other hand, the Astros seem like they're not eager to give him away and are looking for a soft reboot, plus as an OF he'll have no shortage of suitors. Does a deal have to require a Busch or Paredes to get done? If you're doing that plus sending Bellinger away so you can take on Tucker's 15 million arb estimate, do you have the resources to make the rest of the moves you want to make plus adding a starting caliber position player? What about if the extension gets over the line and you've effectively gained AAV over Paredes + Bellinger in the process? I'm left with thinking this is a good enough fit that I could see this being where Jed tries to plant his flag, but also that there's enough hurdles that pulling it off would increase the complexity and difficulty of the remainder of the offseason to avoid diluting Tucker's impact too much.

Lopez's deal is backloaded so the AAV for the Cubs would be 21.75. He's a good pitcher and worth pursuing but it's unclear how motivated the Twins will be to make a deal for him(instead of clearing other salaries) unless you make it extra worth their while.

Relievers are mostly random number generators, the idea that you can pay a few million dollars more on a 1 year deal to lock in a floor of productivity is wishful thinking. Maybe it's partially true for that one year at the very top of the market where you also have to flip a coin for years 2, 3, 4, and beyond, but even those have a much higher failure rate than other acquisitions.

Kelly is dramatically better defensively, and he's reached much higher offensive heights. Kelly has 3 seasons of starter-level playing time and at least a 99 wRC+, and his wRC+ since leaving St. Louis(where he only got 131 PA across 3 seasons) is 90. Thaiss has never exceeded an 86 wRC+ in any season, but been more consistent about that 80s level.

Rogers describing this as done, I believe

'making progress towards a deal' has become writer speak for 'agreed to sign but I can't confirm 100%', so this seems to be pretty real

Do you earnestly believe that if Castillo were a free agent right now he'd get a deal similar to Snell's? Or are you working backwards from being a Mariners fan who wants to have the best possible outcome from their current player/potential trade asset?

So it's a Shota deal where a decently likely outcome is 800 million before incentives.

Don't be afraid to use start a new thread if there would be several posts of discussion about it, but this can be a home base for the week of the winter meetings. We'll be locking the non-Soto FA thread(which we don't want to turn into an offseason-long megathread) to avoid confusion.

As always, no one has a reason to deny the "[losing team] actually offered [more money/years/etc]" since it makes every party look slightly better, so it's probably best to pretend they're made up.

Conforto was my favorite FA Bellinger contingency, so that's a bummer. But if it took 17+ that's not as much savings on Cody to begin with.

What are you talking about, please read that post again if that's your takeaway. The point is not that the Cubs were tragically unlucky the last 2 years(though I think you can argue their 2024 level is a bit higher than 83 wins), it's that unlike recent offseasons(and most offseasons for every team) they don't have to replace the production of a Contreras, Stroman, Bellinger, etc just to get back to their previous level. That means if they make steady but unspectacular improvements, they're going to be considered the best team in the division and likely on par with the Philly/Mets/Arizona tier they've been a little short of the last 2 years.

If the Cubs do the same thing they did the last several offseasons, they will enter the season favored to win the division and probably projected within a win or so of every NL team aside from the Dodgers and Braves(who are not realistic to catch in one offseason). This is because 1) waiting for value is not the same as shopping in the clearance aisle(Bertz's examples, Swanson, Bellinger, etc) 2) the Cubs are very fortunate this offseason in that they don't have to replace any meaningful lost production and also didn't have significant overperformance to hedge against, so they don't have to play catch up just to get to last year's level.