Transmogrified Tiger

The NRI comment was about the 26th roster spot, not about someone expected to carry any type of starting role. And Lowe can also hit enough to DH(and is a worthy addition even if Nico isn't traded) so I'm less concerned about that, but otherwise I agree with what you're saying. My broader point distilled is don't get rid of an existing starter to make room for a prospect, injuries and circumstance will do that on their own, and the prospects themselves have a low enough floor that you can't risk them as day 1 lineup fixtures. That plus the backup SS point is very much why I don't have any interest in trading Hoerner.

Yes we are? As mentioned above Busch is a break glass in case of emergency guy there, and the other guys on the 40 man(Vazquez, Madrigal, Mastrobuoni) are not even 2nd division starters at this point.

I think we're saying similar things. All teams need to integrate prospects to be consistently successful and that requires reps and bearing with some level of struggle. In fact I'm coming around to earmarking one bench spot for an NRI-caliber player on opening day knowing that one of the AAA crew will break that door down soon enough(maybe opening day!). But we also don't need to clear a pristine path for them on Opening Day, especially when Shaw has so little AAA time. Said another way, if you're getting rid of Nico, you need someone else adding in who has better short term expectations than Shaw(Brandon Lowe?) to avoid taking an unnecessary step backwards at the position.

I feel like we should try to learn from PCA's 2024 since so many people were ready to hand him the reins Opening Day so they can use resources elsewhere, which likely would've been very bad for the team's chances and possibly PCA's development. Shaw has proven a bit more at the AAA level than PCA had, but it's still just ~35 games and he doesn't have the defense/baserunning floor that PCA has.

Makes u think

yeah, Busch did play more 2B than other positions in the minors, but he was a college 1B and didn't get a full-time run out there for a reason. That said, I think there's situations where you can be okay putting him there(e.g. you want to stack LHH against the opposing pitcher and Shota is on the mound limiting GB and opposing LHH in the lineup), but it's more of a plan C type of thing and not something you trade Nico for.

Roster Resource has them about 600k over, but more importantly, Jed himself said they were probably going to be over.

A 5th round pick is also much more marginal a loss when it comes to cumulative draft pool than the 2nd rounders that folks are normally discussing in that cost/benefit calculation. In this example they also give up the 2nd rounder, but the point being is that if you're okay with giving up the pick and pool for the 2nd, the odds are that you're going to be okay with the 2nd + 5th.

AFAICT it's only the QO stuff that Bertz has highlighted. If you lose a QO'd FA you get a pick after the 4th round instead of after the 2nd. If you sign a QO'd FA you lose your 2nd & 5th best picks and 1 million in IFA money, instead of your 2nd best pick and 500k in IFA money. So for the purposes of the 2025 Cubs, the difference is their 5th round pick and an additional 500k in IFA money lost if they sign a QO'd FA.

In year 3(and any subsequent year they don't reset), if they are 5 million over the tax line they pay 2.5 million in penalties. This also scales even if they do plan to increase beyond 'just barely over'. To quote myself from around the trade deadline: In a budget where you're pushing 240-250 million in payroll to begin with, the penalties are not themselves a limiting factor. You just set total spending target like 2% lower to account for them and don't worry about whether or not you inch over the line.

If they went 5 million over this year, they will pay 1 million in penalties. If they go 5 million over again next year, they'd pay 1.5 million in penalties. The penalties and their escalation are just not meaningful if you aren't significantly over the tax line.

Nathaniel Lowe had a good xwOBA and a lot of red statcast numbers his big year too! Unsustainable doesn't have to be lucky or undeserved. Rooker is flirting with the highest single season BABIP since the pandemic, and that's not a leaderboard that has much in the way of repeat names, especially not those with as much swing and miss as he has. I generally think Cruz is a better pure hitter, but comparing to Nelson at similar ages might actually be a good barometer. He had one outlier BABIP season in Texas with a 147 wRC+, but was otherwise a 115-120 guy until his mid-30s. Maybe Rooker is a 140 guy now, it's not an idea that's completely without merit, but I think the smart money is that he's more of a good hitter having an incredible season that won't repeat for various reasons(age, unsustainable BIP, etc).

I am very wary of Rooker, or at least what to expect given his likely cost. I think there's a lot of Nathaniel Lowe risk, in that they are pop up successes, have one aberrant BABIP year and they can't return to that level again. 2023 Rooker is a player worth having too, but I'm not keen to pay through the nose to get the 30 year old arb years of Rooker when there are other options(Joc, Teoscar, Santander) I have similar expectations for that are available for fewer resources.

Full season of PCA, full season of (good) Paredes, non-negative value from backup catcher, Swanson and Nico are likely marginally better offensively, Amaya may exceed 82 wRC+/0.6 WAR, contributions from the best of the Iowa hitting prospects

farewell Cody, thanks for everything

Welcome!

Statcast says basically all of them are on 4 seamers, as a function of number of pitches it's 0.5% for the splitter and 1.7% for the 4 seamer.

Vote early, vote often, etc.

He just passed Corbin Carroll

Swanson just passed Trea Turner in fWAR for the season

This is also incorrect on all accounts. The idea that the Cubs' future spending is going to be affected by sneaking into the luxury tax by a couple million requires some logical leaps that are frankly absurd. They clearly signaled they weren't prioritizing 2024 when they traded away one of their more reliable relievers while being 6.5 games(and nearly as many teams) out when they started making moves. It would've been trivial to make an additional move to get under the tax line if it were meaningful to their future plans. Assuming it's a failure that is hamstringing future seasons requires assuming Jed(the guy constantly criticized for his conservatism) decided to go full bore on 2024 with the team in last place and did so by trading away a key player in the most problematic are of the roster. It's either that or maybe exceeding the tax line just barely doesn't really matter. And then again with Taillon, the two seasons he pitched matter, the shots they had at the postseason were real, every season is sacred, etc. But the price for a 'clearly better than Jameson Taillon' SP in the market is not set at what he's currently making. It'll take more money, more years, or most likely both. And the Cubs need a SP even with Taillon around, and adding several SP in an offseason is not an easy thing to do when 20 teams have designs on being competitive and everyone wants more SP at all times. You can't just flip a switch when you hit 80 wins(ignoring that Taillon is a big part of why they aren't still in your 70 win quadrant!) and make wholesale additions in a single offseason, the market does not work like that.

And they got 27 yards! (they did not convert 3rd and 32)

1. This is just plainly incorrect. The 'stars, then role players' mental model of team building some fans like to cling to isn't real. None of those players mentioned have comparable replacements available for less dollars or years, and if you can look at the FA class and think 'man I wish we had spent less so we can nab two more of these guys' you're looking at a different list than me. Plus this is not feasible in a practical sense, other teams have needs/desires too and you can't expect to add 5 role players in one offseason. 2. It'd be one thing to rue the Taillons of the world if the team had lost 95 games 2 years running, but they're on track to have a winning record both seasons despite having their share of adverse circumstances/injuries. Those seasons matter and they won those games and will miss the playoffs by a small margin. A small margin that can very easily be made up with the right offseason moves even if they aren't adding an inner circle HOF. Adding stars is often the easiest way to make a multi-win jump, but as Bertz illustrates it's far from the only way. And we should avoid the trap of assuming 2024 as the baseline for the team etched in concrete, especially given the way the season progressed for the bullpen, young hitters, etc.