squally1313

Generally agree with your point but hoping it's not a case of expecting more than we should just because the names are newer. Like, is Gavin Hollowell just the 2025 version of Richard Lovelady? Is Matt Festa just Thomas Pannone, is X just Colton Brewer, etc etc Splitting hairs here because no one really knows and no one will get the requisite sample size required to actually know. We seem to be throwing even more bodies at the pile than last year, just still have to find the ones that work.

I think there's maybe a little confirmation bias in 1908's analysis just in that you're going to automatically lean towards the guys still performing because they're just much more present in the baseball landscape/conversation, vs someone like, say....Anthony Rendon (21.5 fWAR, 136 wRC from ages 26-29). But at the end of the day I come to the following conclusions: -The evidence is on 1908s side generally, because Kyle Tucker is so good at baseball and when you look at comparables that high up you end up with a group of generally special baseball players) -Even if you regress expectations a little bit further....I don't care. Nathan Eovaldi is making $25m a year in his late 30s to give you 2.5 fWAR. In 8 years that number is going to be $40m for that kind of production, which where Tucker will be. Oh he only might give us 1.5 fWAR? I'm fine with that because he'd have already given us 8 years of production.

Yeah you can kinda squint and see the larger bullpen strategy here. It's honestly not much different than the previous strategies (throw a bunch of young arms at the wall and see what sticks, go through some growing pains in April/May and by the end of the year you're probably fine). I don't think it's a strategy they should necessarily get credit for, those early games count and they are pretty consistently back of the pack in first halves under Hoyer, but I also don't think you can or should solve a bullpen by throwing multiple 8-figure contracts at it. They just need to do a better job of developing from within in bulk, so that you're not having to stash arms in AAA as starter depth, etc. The 2025 version seems to be like, but Also With Funky Veterans. None of these guys we've picked up are good, took any sort of capital to acquire, or should have any sort of major league guarantee. But, statistically, do you hope 3-4 perform well in spring training and can pitch well out of the gate? And then another 3-4 pitch poorly, can sneak through waivers, and get themselves right in Iowa when that first group inevitably goes bad? Maybe? It all looks a lot better with a big name at the top of the list, but there's still money for that and names out there. For sake of the numbers exercise, you basically have Hodge/Miller at the back, let's (a little generously) assume another written in ink guy, and then five of: Pearson, Thompson, Morgan, Thielbar, Merryweather, Rob Z, Ben Brown, LIttle, Neely, Aria, Palencia, Roberts, Festa, Hollowell, Bickford. That's 15 names, while keeping Assad, Wicks, Horton, and Birdsell as starters 5-8 (hopefully 6-9). It's to the point where it's in the pitching infrastructures hands to elevate some skill sets and make the best decisions, knowing that ultimately any sort of results to judge them on are going to be extremely small samples and based mostly on sequencing luck.

So now we have 3 non-question marks. How is hoerner a question mark? League average hitter, elite defense, like clockwork, his entire career. Same for Swanson. That’s 5 to me. How many non-question marks should a team have before it can be considered a contender? And that’s with granting you a Busch, but I guess in that case any team that has a second year player has a ‘question mark’

If Ian Happ and Suzuki are question marks, how many players in the league aren’t question marks

Shota is a very outgoing personality and went 15-3 with a 2.91 ERA last year (Fernando rookie year: 13-7, 2.48 ERA), but yes, I'm sure Sasaki is totally capable of performing to the extent it bridges the gap between Shota's niche personality and Fernando-mania

And he did it in 78 GAMES! Do people not understand how insane his season was last year? The wRC difference between 2024 Kyle Tucker and peak Kris Bryant (2016) is bigger than the difference between 2016 KB and 2024 Isaac Paredes. In terms of raw, slash line production, the only Cub comparables in the last 40 years are Sosa and 2005 DLee. In terms of league-relative performance, it's 2001 Sammy and that's it. He's 6th in outfield fWAR since 2022. It's Judge, Betts, Soto, Yordan, and Julio, and on a per/PA rate he's better than Julio. That's a combined like 50 years and $2b of contracts (don't quote me on that). These guys aren't available. 80% of Kyle Tucker is an unrealistic goal for any of our outfield prospects. It's not 'not easy', it's almost impossible.

Yeah look how much everyone loved Kyle Hendricks this year!

Ran the quick math on the zips projections for the 3 teams and it's the Cubs at 48.6, Brewers at 42.8, and Reds at 32.6, so there's a pretty huge gap there, though this was obviously before Lux and his 1.5 fWAR came over. They HATE the Reds bullpen, -0.3 combined projection there. And they love DLC and McLain (9 wins combined) but think that Candelario and Encarnacion-Strand are only going to give them about 2.5 wins total from the corners (little more now with Lux I assume). Outfield is pretty uninspiring too. Rotation certainly has potential, but not a whole lot else there besides the middle of the infield.

Even more of a pass? Guy hasn't taken a major league at bad in three years and has a career .282 OBP. Giving him 20+ games with 3+ PAs just to carry a 9th bullpen guy seems to be significantly more creative than it's worth.

Matthew Boyd was more valuable than Lorenzen in 90 less innings last year. I'm sure Lorenzen didn't want to pitch out of the bullpen (Fangraphs has him slotted as fourth in the Royals rotation next year), and I'd put him at the very most as our 6th best option right now (Assad outpitched him last year) in a world where everyone expects us to sign a better starter anyways. He's fine for $7m I guess, but we don't need him.

I mean, the Cubs went into 2017, fresh off a World Series win driven by pitching and defense, needing to replace Jason Hammel and his all of 1.3 fWAR from a 103 win 2016 team. We could have done better than the assorted nonsense we went through pre-Quintana, but going out and getting some top line free agent to slot in behind Lester/Hendricks/Arrieta/just above Lackey would certainly not be at the top of the list. They made a lot of mistakes in those years after (most of them, in my opinion, in the lower levels of the system), but throwing this particular one on the Rickett's pile seems a bit excessive.

They can obviously fit a pitcher at a big 2025 salary. There's likely a one year crunch in 2026, and I think that's probably driving the push to stay under the cap this year and reset the count. But after 2026 they have roughly $80m (Happ, Seiya, Taillon, Boyd, Hoerner) coming off the books. They can absolutely have three guys taking up $100m of what will be a $250m first tier cap. I don't know if they necessarily want to lock in on a particular guy this offseason when they can probably go short term and still be pretty easy division favorites. But three guys making up 40% of our salary isn't that outrageous. You're basically just consolidating Happ and Suzuki into Tucker and then Taillon and Boyd into someone like Burnes or whatever.

Do we know that? Starting pitcher, backup catcher, the biggest trade of the offseason and then also the Bellinger trade and it's not even January.

I can maybe get on board with his defensive versatility, but he was a below average hitter in AAA last year and has a .264 OBP in almost 400 MLB PAs. Basically non-existent walk rate, K rates consistently above 20%. I generally trust Tom's finds, but it is a gigantic leap from what he's done to 'maybe he can take over for Hoerner next year'.

Well, sure, but that's not happening

This may sound defeatist, but if we don't get him....go to the Dodgers. It's not like we're going to competing with them for a wild card spot, yeah their chances of beating us in the NLCS go from 60% to 62%, who cares. Better them than the Mets, Padres, Giants in terms of the Cubs playoff chances.

There's certainly a little bit of a cliff at the end of 2026. But it's moving, slowly, in the right direction. Your starting 1B, SS, CF, (presumably) 3B, and C are all under control through at least 2029, your top two starters are here through 2027/2028, Wicks/Brown/Hodge are all potential big pieces with loads of control. I think there's a likelihood that they're going to feel pretty comfortable with the roster by the end of this offseason for this 2025-2026 stretch (while allowing for some internal/external additions), and probably shy away from locking themselves into a large contract on a good, not-elite guy such as Cease until they see where the holes are really going to be. Happ and Suzuki falling off after 2026 requires a lot of attention IF Caissie/Alcantara/Ballesteros don't pan out. Boyd and Taillon having 2 years left becomes a problem then (if not sooner) if Horton/Birdsell/Wicks/Brown don't turn into starters. Etc.

Sasaki is basically an incredible bonus that costs basically nothing to whoever ends up with him and should not impede or impact the decision making of the Cubs (or any other team) while they wait out his decision. Having both him and Imanaga in the rotation, to say nothing of guys like Boyd, Steele, and Luzardo that have battled injuries, would really lend itself to a 6 man rotation until you run into an inevitable injury. Also lets you really be comfortable letting someone like Ben Brown (or Horton) loose as a bullpen arm.

Some very quick back of the envelope math on Cubs and other teams of interest (they have yet to do any other NL Central team): Cubs 48.6 Braves 53.1 Phillies 42.2 Dodgers 56.5 Giants (without Adames) 39.9 Arizona 43.7

Luzurdo at 2.2 adds another win, but yeah, I guess pitching is a little lower than I'd like. Kinda drooling at the offensive projections though.

These are....really good, right?