squally1313

Those are two pretty dramatically different numbers though right? The final luxury tax number was $228m per Cots, $227m per FG. Something in the $200m-$210m range, while a bigger decrease than last year, wouldn't be as 'horrendously bad' optics wise, but still basically just mean $30m for the bullpen and then $20m-$30m for an average starter and a Justin Turner replacement. Basically all I'm saying is that they've lost some of the benefit of the doubt that I've been giving them, and I'm also a little more skeptical than maybe some others around here on taking Cubs reporters trading in access' word for the competitiveness of deals they didn't sign, and the prices on trades they didn't make. It's a long offseason and it should be judged in March, not at Thanksgiving. But...I've given enough credit to Jed for building a good base. Time to show any sort of evidence he can finish the job.

Interesting quote. I still don't totally buy the whole 'yeah, if we wanted anyone above Mike Soroka it was going to cost us Shaw or Horton and there was nothing we can do about it, just trust us'. But...at least he's acknowledging it. You kinda nailed it earlier. There's $80m-$100m (theoretically more!) to play with, and a ton of roster spots to fill. Players that will meaningfully move the needle of where we're at now are few and far between, and cost years in addition to dollars. So there's a very real worst case scenario where there's 4 worse versions of KIttredge at $5m each, 2 non-elite starting pitchers at like...$40m/2 year deals (Woodruff, the two you mentioned), and like...Ryan O'Hearn (the name doesn't matter so much as the vibe) to replace Tucker. And we're $15m lower than last year and maybe if you squint just as talented, but like...man. What a waste of time.

Yeah I'm still (stupidly?) clinging to the thought process of 'if you're going to go big at some point, this is probably it'. Like, the factors to a big offseason to me are: Idealish spot on the win curve (check) A bunch of expiring money to avoid repeater penalties (check) Some ideal group of free agent targets (definitely not a check, but becoming less likely every year) But also last season was super quiet on the FA front, and the trade deadline was garbage, and we have about 12 40-man spots to fill and a really dumb way to do it would be to just sign a bunch of modern day Justin Turner/Ryan Brasiers, but that's also the way to be able to point to a team salary number in the neighborhood of $200m without really making any sort of long term commitment/risk or really helping the team. Definitely think the only way to really judge this is in March, and I'm certainly going to laugh at everyone overreacting to the Reese McGuire replacement signing or whatever, but...after 4 months of 'it's actually fine we didn't use all our budgeted FA money, look at all these TDL bullets we have', I'm not really ready to assume Hoyer is just getting his troops in position. Edit: I'm also not super in love with the idea of opening up a bunch of spots for the GM who famously just waits for the talent that slips through the cracks. When you need one shortstop and there's four of them that all provide somewhat similar value and you can save $100m, fine. Similar on Bellinger/Chapman. When you need top end starters and a whole bullpen, maybe don't rely on the market being inefficient and scooping up what's left in February (or, even worse, July).

On the one hand it's November 4th and I'm generally optimistic about things around here. On the other hand there have been two moves today in which talented but flawed pitchers were basically sent away for either cash savings or literal cash and after the last 12 months or so, I'm starting to be a little suspicious on the whole 'another sign we're saving bullets for the big names'

I kinda agree that it's too hard to thread the needle of picking up half of the top of the free agent pitching market, especially given Jed's uber amounts of....we'll call it patience, to be generous. So go sign a bat, even if it's an overpay, even if it's not a perfect fit. None of these pitchers are slam dunks, really any 9 digit player on the market is going to come with question marks. But signing a big bat to round out the line up unlocks the ability to use the young bats to trade for a pitcher, which is, theoretically, a much bigger market of quality pitchers than the 4 that generally get named as free agents.

Agreed on him being at fault for putting us in that position. Agreed on misreading what the market would be in the offseason. Disagree on looking at what Bieber has done and what the Blue Jays have done with Bieber and being like 'nah, that's pretty irresponsible'.

I don't know, this is the kind of mindset where, if Bieber would have blown up or never gotten healthy, we wouldn't have been saying 'well you never know' or 'that's only with the benefit of hindsight'. Bieber gave them 7 starts of a 3.57 ERA in the regular season which we probably didn't need, and 17 innings with a 3.57 ERA in the postseason that we almost definitely could have used. We've been at home for 2 weeks, they're one game away from the World Series. If we point to trades not working out as proof of why we shouldn't do trades and then when they do work out we take a position of like 'well, who knows, might not have worked that way for us'....you're basically just saying you aren't typically willing to trade future for present. 'Had they lost to the Mariners...' They didn't. He gave them them 9.2 innings of 4 earned runs while the Cubs watched from home after starting Drew Pomeranz and Jameson Taillon in a 5 game series. Sorry, kinda ranting at this point.

Yeah, which, if anything, is probably just going to lead to them leaning harder into their castoff plan. I've given up trying to solve the bullpen. It's the BABIP of roster construction.

The 2024 bullpen got better as the season went on, similar to 2025, just started from a worse spot and didn't get much above average (19th all year, 14th in the second half). I'm fairly comfortable saying the audition method is just The Cubs Method at this point, for better or for worse, and looking at the big money acquisitions last year I don't know if getting a theoretical lockdown arm is a better strategy. It's basically just strength in numbers plus Hottovy magic. Which is...fine, I guess. I just wouldn't allocate a big number to the pen when sorting out the rest of the budget.

Certainly see the red flags in Suarez, I just think his profile is so markedly different from everyone else on the team that he would almost balance out the lineup by him being so unbalanced himself, while still giving you a good glove in the field. Alonso hit the piss out of the ball this year, 93.5 EV after a previous career high of 91, 54.4% hard hit% after a previous career high of 47.3%, 8th in baseball in xwOBA. It's probably dumb to have your best two hitters be 1B-only, but if we're looking for 150-200 PAs at first against LHP anyways, it's not as redundant. Having said all that, agree with your last point in that Tucker is by far the best option of the hitters.

Yeah, I think in a vacuum, feel out what kind of pitching you can get for a Shaw-led package, and then feel out what kind of pitching you can get for a Ballesteros/Caissie-led package, pair the return from a Shaw package with Suarez and pair the return from the second package with Alonso, and see which one you like better. Busch Suzuki Happ Suarez/Alonso Dansby PCA Hoerner Shaw/Ballesteros/Caissie Kelly/Amaya

I think it's likely because getting 191 PAs, which would be almost exclusively against LHPs, is probably worse for his development as a potential full time starter than getting 600+ PAs in AAA. Veteran guys for that role just aren't that expensive, and it's pretty unlikely that the salary difference between a different version of Justin Turner or even someone like Goldschmidt and Long is going to make or break other moves.

The Cubs finished second in baseball in outfield fWAR, so I guess the implication here is that....they were supposed to be this good, hence the multiple 'C's?

Matt Shaw and Nico Hoerner ended the year with the exact same slugging percentage. Is he a slugging second baseman?

Which, to be fair, is Ricketts' probably ideal position to be in. But I get your point. Works better if paired with a Hoerner extension, Taillon trade, etc, to soften the blow.

Eh, the Tucker trade was good in my opinion, regardless of what happens from here on out. We're in a win now stretch with a bunch of blocked prospects, and we've already got Horton/PCA/Busch/Amaya/maybe Shaw locked in with a ton of controlled years. Trading for multiple years of Skubal would have cost PCA plus more. Paying for multiple years of Skubal would cost (reportedly) $400m. One year costs a blocked prospect or two and $15m-$20m.

Thoughts on: Sign Eugenio Suarez to some 3/$60 type deal (will be 35 next year, coming off a 8/$79m deal), give him an opt out if he wants it, front load it. Trade from the Shaw/Ballesteros/Caissie group to get Skubal, knowing you have all the money in the world to sign him to a long term deal that kicks in once Taillon/Happ/Suzuki/Hoerner fall off. It doesn't have to be Shaw that goes in the trade, Suarez' defensive metrics fell off and he can start as the de facto DH and is essentially the backup infielder with the flexibility of Shaw and Hoerner. Or you trade Shaw and just slot Suarez in and go with Ballesteor/Caissie as DH/RF Your offense takes a small hit but adds righty power, and we get to roll out the best pitcher in baseball without having to take on a ton of 2026 salary commitment. Spend 2026 working on Skubal/Hoerner/PCA extensions. I'd prefer a bigger bat than Suarez but anyone better than him is probably going to require a much longer deal. Having a rotation of Skubal (L)/Horton (R)/Steele (L)/Boyd (L) down the stretch is pretty nice to think about.

I don't know if I agree with the overall concept, but I think the order in which you listed them is correct in the sense that the Cubs should be looking to go sign the best bat possible as soon as possible, create some redundancy wherever that bat ends up playing, and then deal from that strength. I'd prefer the bat to be in an outfielder/DH mold rather than a 3B role, because I think Shaw the player is a lot more valuable to the near term Cubs than someone like Caissie or Ballesteros. But go get someone and then let Hoyer and Hottovy find some pitching in the trade market with the then-superfluous young talent.

The 2025 offense, as a whole, doesn't need improving. Replacing Kyle Tucker, who is either 1a or 1b in terms of offensive ability depending on how you view Busch, with either Caissie or Ballesteros, who performed either equally or worse than Matt Shaw at AAA, should be viewed as a significant downgrade and probably lowers the overall offensive production (inclusive of defense and baserunning) from 3rd to somewhere in the 6th-8th slot.

Extremely half-assed internet research: Suzuki has a NTC, but would assume if there's a list of teams he's willing to waive it for, the Dodgers would be on it. The Dodgers currently have Kike Hernandez in left after Conforto bombed out, and both of them are bad and free agents at YE anyways. The Dodgers don't need Suzuki (or anyone else), but 1/$19m for a left fielder is pocket change to them. The Dodgers, on the pitching side, have Snell for 4 years, Glasnow for 2, Shohei/Yamamoto/Sasaki for forever, and then there's Emmitt Sheehan (2.1 fWAR, 2.82/2.93 ERA/FIP in 73 IP/12 starts) and Gavin Stone (2.1 fWAR, 3.53 ERA/4.01 FIP in 140 IP/25 starts coming off October 2024 TJ surgery). Adding one of those guys to the pitching mix with control through 2029 and clearing $19m off the books makes someone like Tucker much more palatable, and then you still have Caissie/Ballesteros/Long to figure out pitching and fight for a DH spot.

I follow the logic on all this, and I'm not sure I've thought through a specific plan that flips the script and does better, but the above team basically is swapping Tucker for Caissie and then Alcantara for Rea, and then picking up a fringe win or two between Goldschmidt and Williams. That seems....sorta status quo? Which is not bad, it's a 92 win team, you're avoiding the big contract, etc. I think I'd just rather go down the path of keeping the offense elite and balancing it a little bit so that we aren't mainly defensing our way to all the WAR. Tucker lets you find the highest bidder for Caissie and Alcantara, Bichette, Bregman, or even Suarez lets you find the highest bidder for Shaw. On one hand, as I said earlier, it's not like you can just snap your fingers and make a trade. On the other, your top end pitching options expand a lot from the group of Cease/Ranger Suarez/Valdez/King. And if we're being honest, part of the reason I want a bigger offensive splash is to save Jed and Tom from doing the thing I really don't want them to do, which is to turn a 21 year old Ballesteros into a full time DH right off the jump because he's cheap and probably an above average hitter.

In this plan are you comfortable with the pitching options mostly coming from free agency? Don't think Long gets you anywhere close to the talent level you're looking for. Given the order of operations you'd basically be going into free agency with: Shota - the main question here but the one you have to decide on first. 3/57 seems steep, which means it's out of their hands Horton Boyd on essentially a one year deal (mutual option for 2027 but those rarely vest) Taillon on a one year deal 1.5ish years of Steele Probably Rea on a one year deal Assad/Wicks/Brown/other assorted mediocre innings eaters A likely limited Wiggins, who still has to clear the AAA hurdle That seems low on both high level talent and ability to fill innings past 2026, Shota impacts that and having to make that decision first in the offseason can guide the plan, but him likely having consecutive player options takes the decision out of Jed's hands. I know it's not nearly as easy as it sounds to just trade for a cost controlled starter, but I'm still leaning towards signing a bigger bat and then jettisoning some of the AAA offensive talent for similarly valued arms.

But you would think facing better pitching would result in an uptick in strikeouts or a decrease in walks, as those are typically the best metrics in determining the quality of pitching.

Brewers, the regular season, play the game the right way, just relentlessly attack you offense: 9.1% BB rate, 20.3% K rate, .145 ISO... .305 BABIP Brewers, the post-season, least hits over a four game stretch in franchise history offense: 9.0% BB rate, 21.3% K rate, .147 ISO... .231 BABIP It's such a dumb sport why do I like it so much