Bertz

Yeah that's fair. I feel like "not the finishing piece" and "allowing them to act patiently" to me says that he's the complimentary guy, but the talk of building layers of depth and top non QO target would work the other direction. On the bat, that seems right? Let's say they come down with Swanson, Vazquez, and Brantley. This would be the position player group: C - Vazquez 1B - Mervis 2B - Hoerner SS - Swanson 3B - Morel LF - Happ CF - Bellinger RF - Suzuki DH - Brantley Bench - Gomes, Wisdom, Madrigal, one of Mastrobuoni/Mckinstry That's a full group. Madrigal making it to ST with the team in this scenario would feel unlikely, so they could add another player, but they'd still have Nelly (logical platoon option with Bellinger) or Higgins (Ross seems to like 3 catchers on the roster) in house that fit well on the end of the roster. I'd kind of guess if they do add a fourth position player it'll be someone low cost and highly specialized, like maybe a super fast outfield defense/baserunning threat, or a more defensive minded 3rd catcher than Higgins.

A couple of blurbs from Mooney this morning: I think this was talked about on here somewhere yesterday as likely, that the Cubs' to-do list has a bat on it but the ability for that guy to play 1B is more of a nice to have I take this as Taillon is viewed as being the "other" SP this winter, but they wanted to get it done now to make sure they didn't whiff entirely on the rotation. Are they planning to pull down their top guy via trade? Pablo Lopez?

Yeah Bellinger was not brought in with the intention of playing 1st. Is the flexibility nice, sure. There are certainly scenarios where Bellinger and Davis are both crushing it and that's a way to get them both into the lineup. But Bellinger's been one of the worst hitters in the league the last two years but has played monster enough defense to mostly compensate for it. They're planning on the latter continuing while trying to mitigate the former.

Dansby. Ah, good call!

If Jed's willing to blow past the LT, even with the caveat that it's predominantly with 1 year deals, he can make a very good team even with Swanson as the crown jewel. For example, something like Swanson Vazquez Corey Kluber Michael Brantley Adam Ottavino Taylor Rogers That plugs every hole on the roster with a legitimately good player. The defense would be fantastic and the offense would be good, though sorely lacking a "the guy." The pitching staff would be similar, I'd probably feel good with every pitcher we have on the mound except Hendricks (which there's no getting around). Probably about half the opening day Iowa staff too. Again though lacking a guy you'd throw out there in game one, or hell maybe even game two, of a playoff series. Is it the team you're gonna pick up to use in MLB the Show? Absolutely not. Is it going to win a lot of games? I really think so. It's not sexy, but loading up on depth and grinding opposing teams down really works (at least I'm the regular season...). But you've gotta spend. If you're punting on adding a star, you've gotta be buttoned up absolutely everywhere. Every horsefeathering inning and every horsefeathering plate appear needs to be taken by a guy you're happy to have on the roster. Otherwise you've gotta hope to get an unexpected superstar performance from internal options, or hope that the Cardinals faceplant. Neither is a smart thing to count on. Man, this would be such a depressing outcome. Upside is one year of potentially backing into a WC spot. The approach certainly has some problems, but I wouldn't view it as a one year thing. Quite the opposite really, it's kicking the can down the road again on doing something super fun in the name of sustainability. The main appeal is that you've kept the majority of your powder dry. You've signed no QO free agents, you've traded no prospects, and you've added less in multi-year FA contracts than you have rolling off the books a year from now. If Stroman indeed ends up opting out, you open next offseason $100M+ under the Luxury Tax. Given the prospects currently in the upper minors, plus that we'd essentially be swapping Heyward/Hendricks for Swanson/Taillon, we'd be starting next offseason at a baseline of closer to 85 wins than the 75ish they started this winter at. At that point $100M can do some real horsefeathering damage. But like the FO hasn't brought in a Star since Darvish right before horsefeathering ST 2018. That sucks.

If Jed's willing to blow past the LT, even with the caveat that it's predominantly with 1 year deals, he can make a very good team even with Swanson as the crown jewel. For example, something like Swanson Vazquez Corey Kluber Michael Brantley Adam Ottavino Taylor Rogers That plugs every hole on the roster with a legitimately good player. The defense would be fantastic and the offense would be good, though sorely lacking a "the guy." The pitching staff would be similar, I'd probably feel good with every pitcher we have on the mound except Hendricks (which there's no getting around). Probably about half the opening day Iowa staff too. Again though lacking a guy you'd throw out there in game one, or hell maybe even game two, of a playoff series. Is it the team you're gonna pick up to use in MLB the Show? Absolutely not. Is it going to win a lot of games? I really think so. It's not sexy, but loading up on depth and grinding opposing teams down really works (at least I'm the regular season...). But you've gotta spend. If you're punting on adding a star, you've gotta be buttoned up absolutely everywhere. Every horsefeathering inning and every horsefeathering plate appear needs to be taken by a guy you're happy to have on the roster. Otherwise you've gotta hope to get an unexpected superstar performance from internal options, or hope that the Cardinals faceplant. Neither is a smart thing to count on.

So to level set post meetings: - The Cubs seem to be the clear favorites for Swanson, and maybe not quite so clear but favorites for Christiam Vazquez - Correa seems to be on the table, but only Gordon Wittenmeyer is emphatically banging that drum so they're likely on the periphery - With Bogaerts signing in SD, the dual SS scenario appears dead - Since the Taillon signing, I don't believe we've seen a link to any other SPs except maybe Senga. So I don't think we have a great feel for how big they're going on the other SP - Post Bellinger, there haven't been any updates on the 1b/DH options being looked at, so again how big are they going here Things are at sort of an interesting point. If the team pulls down Swanson and Vazquez as expected, there's only a bit over $20M left to spend under the Luxury Tax. That's kind of an awkward spot for us on the outside, because it's enough that you could reasonably fill out the rest of the roster if you skimp, but like you'd be sacrificing quite a bit on the margins. Spending a bit of a premium on Taillon and Bellinger just to end up here doesn't seem very Jed-like, but it's a real enough possibility that you have to stay mindful of it. After all I think many of us said the same thing after the team picked up Cole Hamels' option in 2019, and we all know how things proceeded from there.

That's honestly like $100M more than I'd be willing to give Bogaerts. What an absolutely silly contract. Especially after Trea Turner's deal, and especially with how loaded the Padres were in the infield already. You have to wonder about a trade. I mentioned a week or two ago when the Padres SS rumors first picked up, but Machado with his opt out after this year would seem to be the most obvious choice. And while he's not a capable full time SS anymore he'd still fit most of what the Cubs are looking for. Similarly if Jake Cronenworth (assuming he can play left side of the IF) and Trent Grisham both make a lot of sense.

I think he was posted in the last few days? Sox must have bid WAYYYYY above the rest of the industry because these guys usually use almost all of their 30 Day window

I was one of if not the very highest on Clarke, and even I'm gonna chalk only losing him up as a huge win.

I think Turner and Brantley are the only two who I'd he comfortable being *the* bat if we sign Swanson. Maybe JD Martinez. I do hope we get some resolution on SS pretty quickly here, because so much of the other stuff is hard to evaluate without knowing what's happening there.

If I was hanging my hat on anything for the Cubs to coax out of Bellinger, it would be more about the health/athleticism stuff. The Cubs have the "High Performance" with all the sports scientists and such. Nico is probably the only notable MLB example, but a bunch of minor leaguers have gotten sufficiently yoked under their tutelage the last few years. It's not hard to see the team (plus the additionalsix months) getting Bellinger's shoulder back closer to 100% and Cody himself taking it from there.

I'm not the person who came up with this, I'm parroting others, but the one fun thing about Contreras to the Cards is that either A) Cardinals' pitching is about to go to hell or B) their pitching holds serve, which proves that the Molina intangibles devil magic is horsefeathers.

Assad would be in the minors. Sampson would probably be in the minors. Thompson would be the "swinger". Adbert would be a short inning guy as-is, but will probably be a multi-inning guy once they add veteran relievers. Yeah I think this is right. Sampson and Assad at Iowa, Alzolay and Thompson in the pen. Thompson will be a true long guy for like 3-4 inning stints, while Alzolay is more like a 2ish inning guy. After they sign the other starter and push Wesneski to Iowa as well, it'll be truly enviable depth. The bullpen depth isn't far behind either.

lol

Taillon is interesting. Good spin and command guy, which is a profile the Cubs have had success with. And unlike a lot of those guys Taillon actually has an above average fastball. What gives me pause is that the Yankees weren't able to bump him to the next level, and these dollars sort of imply a bit more production than he's generated the last two years. The Yankees are not the Dodgers/Guardians/Rays so that's not to say it's impossible there's more in the tanj, but the Yankees are one of the smart teams. Finances are interesting too. A lot more than you'd have expected for the "other" SP. Is that because he's the top guy, because the top guy will come via trade, or because indeed they're not beholden to the luxury tax?

This is what I'm nervous about. I like Swanson a lot, and I've been stumping for him. But he's not an impact bat, and so in my mind he was usually paired with a Bell or Abreu. Well those guys are obviously off the board now. There's lots of smoke around the Swanson/Bogaerts double whammy, and that would clearly address the issue, but unless/until both are in the fold I'm gonna be nervous. The second tier 1B/DH options (e.g. Matt Carpenter) work if we're getting a Correa, not a Swanson.

He's somehow just turned 30 despite being around forever, and there's some good stuff under the hood, but wowza

Baerga was first on Verlander....

I believe this would apply to the Cubs as well. If we haven't seen them yet by 12 it means they got a lottery pick

No reason to count on a turnaround. He's young enough and his struggles are so clearly tied to that specific injury that it's not hard to see a comeback, but there's no "a ha he was secretly really good last year!" under the hood. It's hard to grade this move until we see what else happens. If he's like the 4th biggest move we make I'll be ecstatic, but if the offseason ends up like Bellinger, Vazquez, Matt Carpenter and a bunch of pitching it is gonna be ugly next year.

Heyman is backing off but Susan Slusser is a total pro so her piping up probably confirms it