Matthew Trueblood

There's only one week left in the posting window for the second-best Japanese starting pitcher coming to MLB this winter, and the Cubs remain in the mix for him. Let's take a deeper dive. Image courtesy of © Rhona Wise-USA TODAY Sports While he won't sign for anywhere near as much money as the Dodgers recently gave Yoshinobu Yamamoto, Shota Imanaga is an exciting talent in his own right. No pitcher who appeared in last year's World Baseball Classic showed better raw stuff than Imanaga. His fastball was cranked up into the mid-90s, and spinning at the top of the zone with movement that no other hurler on Earth can match. He missed bats with his splitter, slider, and curveball. That international success was an affirmation of the impressive numbers he put up in NPB competition for the few years before that, and he further proved his excellence by having his best campaign to date in NPB last season. That said, the stuff Imanaga showed in shorter bursts and with the adrenaline of a postseason atmosphere in the WBC shouldn't be expected to translate perfectly to MLB. His average fastball velocity last year in NPB was more like 92 miles per hour than 94, where he was sitting in the WBC. That difference matters, obviously. So does the fact that, given Imanaga's stuff profile, his greatest vulnerability is to the home run. If that was true in NPB, it will certainly be so in MLB, and that could limit his upside. Still, we're talking about special stuff. Imanaga led NPB in strikeout rate in 2023, and that was with a more fastball-forward mix than we should expect to see him use in MLB. Even without average-plus velocity, he's going to have success and miss bats with his fastball, because the thing takes off like a jet at the top of the zone. Last year, 360 pitchers threw at least 200 four-seamers in MLB. Only one (Baltimore closer Felix Bautista) got more rising action on his fastball than did Imanaga at the WBC. We shouldn't expect Imanaga to sustain quite that much carry over a full MLB season, but he'd certainly land somewhere in the top five percent of all hurlers in this regard. The top 25 players on the aforementioned list of 360 got whiffs on an average of 23.7 percent of opponents' swings against the fastball. That's solidly north of 21.3 percent, the median mark for the league. In other words, carry on the fastball means whiffs, and Imanaga has carry, so he will get whiffs. The question will be whether he can accustom himself to pitching more carefully, to account for the fact that MLB hitters have more power and can punish even slight mistakes more thunderously than NPB hitters typically do. That means going to the fastball less often in traditional fastball counts, and showing sufficient command of his four or five other pitches to throw them for strikes on the edges of the zone. For Cubs fans who long for more swing-and-miss out of the starting rotation, Imanaga holds obvious appeal. He's likely to get a nine-figure deal, but he could be well worth that. He's going to rack up strikeouts, and he was tremendous at limiting walks in NPB. He'll have to give up a little of that zone-pounding mentality in order to adapt to MLB, but that might only let him strike out hitters more effectively. If he's a high-strikeout, low-walk, low-BABIP, high-home run rate guy, that's the sketch of an effective pitcher. It could take a broad range of specific forms, with the value he provides varying widely. A handful of similar hurlers to consider (from least to most exciting) include Drew Smyly, Kenta Maeda, Michael Pineda, Masahiro Tanaka, and Kevin Gausman. There's legitimate frontline starting upside, and if he can stay healthy on an MLB rotation schedule, the floor is relatively high. Imanaga has never made more than 25 starts or thrown more than 170 innings in a single season. In one reading, that's discouraging, because he certainly doesn't profile as a workhorse, the way a team might prefer a pitcher to if they're going to commit more than $20 million per year for five years. Given his size (5-foot-10, 176 pounds), that wouldn't be a fair expectation, anyway. In another reading, though, that means that the odometer on his arm is much less daunting than those of some other pitchers just entering their 30s. He might hold up unexpectedly well, just because he hasn't been asked to shoulder heavy workloads during his 20s. How much would you pay for Imanaga? Is he atop your list of remaining free-agent targets for the Cubs? View full article

Recently, we ventured deep into the wilderness of imagination, to try to understand why waiting into January doesn't dent the asking price of Scott Boras's top free agents. There is a huge-name free agent hurler out there, though, whom Boras doesn't represent. Image courtesy of © Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports It's not as though Josh Hader is represented by some hayseed lawyer out of the same rural slice of southern Maryland from which he himself hails. He's signed up with CAA Sports, the second- or third-largest agency for MLB players. It's just that, be it CAA or Wasserman or Octagon or anyone else, every agency other than the Boras Corporation loses some leverage as the calendar flips to January. It's not weird that that happens to everyone. It's only weird that Boras manages to be (almost) immune to that effect. When Hader hit the market in November, all the buzz was about his desire to top the record contract to which the Mets signed Edwin Diaz last winter. Díaz got the most money ever guaranteed to a relief pitcher, when he inked a five-year, $102-million deal in Nov. 2022. Here's the thing, though: Díaz was never a realistic goal at which to aim. Hader's platform season in 2023 wasn't as good as Díaz's 2022 was. Díaz is a mere two and a half weeks older than Hader, which means he was a full year younger when he signed his deal. Most importantly, though, Díaz was signing a deal at the Buy It Now price. Steve Cohen, the Mets' wildly aggressive and mega-rich owner, wanted to keep his beloved closer and the trumpets that became such a sensation alongside him at Citi Field in 2022, and he didn't care about shelling out several million more dollars than other teams would have given Díaz. Once Hader actually hit free agency (rather than being brought back by an overeager incumbent, which was never on the table in his case), $100 million was essentially off the table. Two months have passed since then, and while this winter's market for player talent has moved much slower than other recent ones, that much time depresses the asking price and shifts leverage away from a player and toward whatever teams have interest in him. At this point, I don't think it's at all certain that Hader will get a five-year deal. If he does, it'll come in at the same $16-million annual average value for which Kenley Jansen has been working for almost a decade. If he wants to eclipse that number and get closer to $20 million in AAV, he'll have to settle for a four-year term. We're starting to get into the realm, then, at which Jed Hoyer's ears perk up. Hoyer might not want to spend massive money on a reliever, but he's opportunistic when he senses good value. Much could depend on Craig Counsell, here. If Counsell gives the green light on Hader's makeup and clubhouse presence (which, by the end of his time in Milwaukee, were widely praised), then a four- or five-year deal worth a total of $80 million probably makes sense. A Cubs bullpen with Hader would be such a different animal than the current hodgepodge that it's hard to express it in simple terms. He's a very traditional closer who expects to be used pretty lightly, and that should and will restrict his value a bit. It's why he's not going to get Díaz money. On the other hand, slotting him into a low-maintenance, high-octane role shutting down games with ruthless efficiency in the ninth inning would free Counsell up to make more creative, versatile use of all the other arms already in the mix for Chicago. Adbert Alzolay is a good-not-great relief ace. As the second-best arm in a bullpen with an elite closer, he goes from fun to downright sterling. Stack Mark Leiter, Jr. and Julian Merryweather in with Alzolay, and you've got an impressive corps of setup men, plus the ability to rest them more often. As is true of signing an ace starter, bringing in an ace reliever pushes everyone else on the depth chart down one space, thereby making them all a bit more valuable. Hader comes with plenty of red flags. He has already gone through one or two miniature crises, as almost every great closer does during their careers, and while it's encouraging that he seems to have adjusted and moved past them, those rough patches leave us with vivid insight into his particular mortality as a great reliever. Despite careful usage and the lightest total innings load for which any closer can reasonably hope, Hader's fastball velocity dipped in 2023, and his slider velocity keeps climbing. Diminished velocity separation makes it harder to miss bats with either offering, especially when the arsenal is relatively limited. Hader has seen his release point creep upward, such that he's not creating quite as extreme a horizontal or vertical angle for hitters as he used to, and while doing that has maintained a steady vertical movement differential between his two crucial offerings, it's come at the cost of some horizontal movement gap. Changes like these can seem trivial for a starter with a deeper arsenal, or for any pitcher in his mid-20s. For a two-pitch reliever who turns 30 in April, they beget some genuine concern. That said, the man struck out 36.8 percent of opposing batters in 2023, and that was his worst mark since he was a rookie. It's a video-game number. He's become more walk-prone as he's adapted and (inevitably, because every reliever does almost as soon as they drive off the lot of their Triple-A apartment building) declined, but he's also become an adroit avoider of home runs. His stuff overpowers hitters and induces extremely weak contact. During his tenure in Atlanta, Hader only gave up home runs to 1.3 percent of opposing batters. That's less than half the league's rate. If the Cubs can get Hader for what I think they can now get Hader for, they ought to be interested. The fact that he rejected a qualifying offer and will cost whichever team signs him at least one draft pick does make him slightly less appealing, but then again, maybe you add that to the list of reasons why his leverage is evaporating. If he could be had for $75 million, so much the better. The Cubs would still need to do much more to finish a successful offseason, but as Hader waits, his value sinks. Hoyer will, eventually, smell blood in the water. What do you make of Hader's unique career and stalled free agency? At what price would he appeal to you? Let us know. View full article

In a minor move they hope will bolster their organizational bullpen depth, the Cubs have signed an erstwhile Red Sox reliever who spent time in both the Rays and Yankees organizations in 2023, before going to Japan to play for the Hanshin Tigers. Image courtesy of © David Richard-USA TODAY Sports It won't have anyone crossing Josh Hader or Robert Stephenson off their wish lists, and it's not even likely to be a big-league deal, but the Cubs have inked right-handed reliever Colten Brewer for 2024. Breaking the news on New Year's Eve: Brewer himself. In parts of five big-league seasons, Brewer has fewer than 100 innings pitched, and he spend the second half of last season overseas. Still, it's an interesting pickup, and a good fit for the Cubs' pitching predilections. Brewer throws a hard cutter, very much his primary fastball, rather than acting as a type of breaking ball. With that pitch sitting in the mid-90s and a curveball that can be nasty when he has command of it, he's not only broadly appealing, but exactly the kind of pitcher the Cubs like to target. If they could sign nothing but guys with unusual cut on their fastballs and a breaking pitch that paired well with it vertically, they would do so. Still, it's tempting to dismiss this move as mere filler. Brewer is over 30, has only rarely filled a regular role in a big-league bullpen, and is almost certainly signing a non-guaranteed, minor-league deal with an invite to big-league spring training. That doesn't move the needle, even by the low standards of relief pitcher signings. There's a little more meat on the bone than you might think, though. As you'd expect of a guy whose repertoire is mostly cutter-curveball, Brewer has historically had reverse platoon splits, across all levels of professional baseball. Righties had a higher OPS against him every year from 2018 through 2022, and it was often by a wide margin. When he's gotten hit hard or had major control problems, the trouble has mostly come against fellow righties. In 2023, though, right-handed batters were considerably worse than left-handed ones against Brewer. This data is only for the very limited time he got Stateside, and the samples are minute, but in 61 plate appearances, righties struck out 21 times, drew just four walks, and had an anemic .514 OPS against him. That could be random noice, but the strikeout rate suggests that there's something real there, and pitch data fills in the gaps. This season, Brewer finally found a slider with more lateral tilt and greater velocity separation from his cutter. Here's the year-by-year chart of his velocity by pitch type. He also got more horizontal movement and more depth on the pitch, relative to that cutter that stands in for a more typical pitcher's four-seam fastball or sinker. You can call it a sweeper, or not, but it was a different and more effective pitch than the previous sliders he'd tried. Brewer had spent spring training with the Rays, but the Yankees scooped him up just after Opening Day, and they excel at helping pitchers engineer just this type of slider transformation. Brewer got so comfortable with his newly redesigned slider that it took over for his curve as the primary breaking ball in his attack. There's still little chance that Brewer will emerge as more than a middle reliever, and given the Cubs' current bullpen options, he's no lock to so much as take the mound for the team in 2024. Still, considering the terrific success he had in Japan and the material changes he made this season, it's a nice little pickup. Presumably, the Cubs like the upside in his new breaking ball, and we know how nicely what he was already doing pairs with the Cubs' organizationl approach. What do you think of Brewer? Is there anything here? Would you rather have him or, say, Jose Cuas at the bottom of the bullpen depth chart in 2024? Speak your piece below. View full article

And I think Boras is thinking exactly the opposite: that a very long-term deal is in order. So, I'm with you. The Darvish deal, especially. That was insane. At least Machado is still in his prime, and had the opt-out to force their hand a bit. Still trying to figure out what he was thinking with Darvish.

This is right about where I'd land, too. I don't share Jed's automatic aversion to long deals, and to me, the batted-ball data has been overblown. But what I DO think is important and worrisome is that Bellinger just isn't a center fielder anymore. He was below-average out there last year, for me. He could still be solid in a corner, but the Cubs don't need him there. I think he's pretty much a first baseman, and for a first baseman, the offense isn't exceptional, even if you believe (as I generally do) that his real production last year is sustainable and that Statcast isn't destiny. I would just let him go, because I absolutely believe Boras gets a deal for him that outstrips what the Cubs would be willing to sufficiently support. But we'll see.

Say you're Jed Hoyer. For the next few minutes, make yourself Jed Hoyer, and pretend you're negotiating with Scott Boras. It's time to make a deal (or not) to bring back the best player on the 2023 Cubs. Image courtesy of © David Banks-USA TODAY Sports "Hi, Jed, it's Scott," Scott says, because apparently it's 1997 and you don't have his number saved on a digital screen that lights up before you answer the phone. "Cody Bellinger is really excited about the possibility of coming back to Chicago, but we have some other interest, some other offers, and I want to give you options based on the other deals out there." Look, are those other interested teams and juicy offers real? Who knows? If you did--if anyone did--Boras wouldn't be worth half a billion dollars just on the commissions he's raked in by pushing dozens of guys' net worth well into nine figures, in their own right. What Boras knows is what you, Jed Hoyer, know: the clock is ticking, The big names are coming off the board. The 2024 Cubs aren't any good right now, and while there are many ways you could bolster the roster between now and Opening Day, many of those avenues run right through Boras. You can't dodge him or defer this showdown any longer. You ask him what he's thinking. "Well, like I said, Cody's interested in being a Cub for years to come, so we want to discuss a couple of different structures that would make him pass up what the Mari---sorry, coughed there, what some other people we've talked to have offered," Boras says. Yeah, right. The Mariners aren't offering Bellinger what Boras wants for him. Ugh. Or are they? See, this is why he wins. God, why can't Octagon peel someone away from this guy now and then? You love the Octagon guys. They're easy. "We could make Cody a Cub for seven years for $196 million," Boras continues. "But I'm sympathetic to your position around the luxury tax, and I want to help you out there. We really feel excited about a potential structure where Cody and the Cubs make a long-term commitment to each other, for $220 million over 10 years." Oh. Oh, ok. See, that's not so bad. Look, you're not going to do either of those deals. But you knew this was going to be the range, when he eventually got real with you about numbers. Two years ago, he got Kris Bryant $182 million over seven years. That was from the Rockies, who massively outbid the rest of the league, and it's gone horrifically since then, but those aren't the kinds of facts you or anyone else can get Boras to acknowledge. He simply worms out of that trap, every time. No, what Boras is going to say is that the market has only inflated a bit since the Bryant deal, and that Bellinger is younger and more athletic than Bryant was back then. He's going to say Bellinger's injuries were more acute and less likely to affect his future than Bryant's were. He's only half-right, but he's going to turn that into 55 percent and win the staredown if you force one, so you have to meet him halfway. That seven-year, $182-million mark is his absolute floor for Bellinger, and he's very confident that he's going to come in higher than that. You like seven-year deals, so right away, that's where you gravitate. You're no A.J. Preller. Actually, Merrill got you an Obvious Shirt for Christmas that literally says, "NOT A.J. PRELLER," because you tell her so often what a fiend that guy is. You're not some desperate overbidder, trying to keep the competitive-balance tax number on a deal down so that you can sign another deal just like this next winter. Scott would love that, wouldn't he? He expects you to fork over this much to his clients every offseason. He doesn't think you know it, but he keeps making back-channel overtures to the Ricketts family, because he knows they're the ones who will crack and give in to him. On the other hand, this alternative structure doesn't just save you a couple million dollars. Depending on how Scott is willing to structure it, you could realize a full $6 million in annual average value savings, which means more actual dollars to spend as well as more flexibility around the tax thresholds with which you expect to flirt in the next several seasons. Paying Bellinger $28 million per year, given the likelihood that he's confined to first base for you within a year or two and the somewhat tepid batted-ball data underlying his power production from 2023, makes you pretty uneasy. This is no Dansby Swanson situation, where modest offensive production is no great worry. Cranking that salary all the way down to $22 million annually would line him right up with Ian Happ. That's not superstar money. In fact, you're a little surprised Boras is even interested at that price. He usually wants to lengthen a deal like this only if he keeps the AAV essentially intact. You decide to confer with your top baseball people, plus Carter Hawkins, for appearances' sake, and get back to him. Big mistake. Huge. Two days later, you re-connect with Boras, and the predictable has happened. "Hey, Jed," Scott says half-apologetically. "Our situation did change a little bit, here. A giant offer just came in." (Who does this guy think he's talking to? Leave the pun work on the little stool at the Winter Meetings, man.) "Cody was awfully impressed by the pitch we heard yesterday, and we need to adjust some of the terms we discussed." You almost hang up on the spot. This series of phone calls could be texts. It's not like you hadn't been doing this dance for a month, anyway. You were set on trying to talk him down from $196 million and getting Bellinger locked in at $185 million over seven years, with an option for 2031 that would push the deal to $200 million and give Boras his vanity number. This, you can just tell, is going to completely bork that plan. "We'd still be open to putting Cody back in your lineup for a long time, but we need to start our discussions at $203 million. We can do that over seven years, or we can make it $231 million over 11." Yeah. Well, naturally. After all, he's got the Mariners and the Giants in the frame, and he'll let Jon Heyman and whoever else wants to jump into the mix keep the Blue Jays alive as a possibility. The Angels are a possibility. He'll find a mystery team if he needs one. These numbers are pretty much as low as they're going to go. While everyone else's asking prices inexorably (if incrementally) fall as the winter wears on, Boras manages to hold his steady. Who cares if the rumors of $250 million or $300 million were always just anchors to drag the public discussion (and, by the relentless, irrational current of these things, the non-public parameters of negotiations) in his direction? Now, after he's successfully killed some time and let the market narrow your options for him, he's managed to work him way pretty close to those figures, and you lack the leverage to pull him back under the magic number of $200 million. He's really inviting you to pull the trigger on that bigger deal, though, with the new terms. Now, the shorter version of the deal results in a $29-million AAV for Bellinger, and the longer one is only $21 million. You hate to give him the satisfaction, but it's hard to swallow that big an extra payout per year just to avoid those last few years. God, are you going to have to confine the Preller t-shirt to around-the-house use? No. No, you've got your principles, and it's time to fight back a bit. Your leverage is thin, but it's not imaginary. You play your ace in the hole: Seven years, $189 million, but you'll offer Bellinger both a no-trade clause and a pair of opt-outs, after the second and fourth years of the contract. That would allow Bellinger to hit free agency again at 30 or 32, if he so chose. You're envisioning: $21 million in 2024 $27 million in 2025 $31 million each in 2026-28 $27 million in 2029 $21 million in 2030 That would mean passing up $141 million over five years if Bellinger opted out the first time, or $79 million over three years if he did so the second time. It's a lot of flexibility for him, and it really takes some of the fun out of this for you, but this structure would force him to think hard about walking away even if the next two years go well. Two years after that, he'd be a lot more incentivized to walk away, but by then, you figure that wouldn't be the worst thing. Plus, you could always circle back into the bidding if that happened. By then, you'd be in the habit of each other, right? Boras has read the text you sent with the rough terms, and he's got you on hold, but you're going to hear back soon. It's time to do your own pause-and-reflect. Let's you and I step out of our Jed Hoyer skinsuits, now. Let's do some thinking of our very own. That bit of hacky semi-fiction laid bare the basics of the pas de deux going on between Hoyer and Boras right now. Boras really is going to demand at least $182 million over seven seasons from any team interested in Bellinger. His case for Bellinger being more desirable than Bryant is imperfect, but it's going to hold up. Maybe even that is too rich for you. On Saturday, Bruce Levine said on 670 The Score that he envisioned the Cubs offering Bellinger only five or six years, at anywhere from $27 million to $30 million per year. They can dream, anyway, and they can draw their line there if they want. Bellinger will just end up on the Giants, or the Mariners, or the Angels, or the Blue Jays, or somewhere even more unexpected. You can opt to disdain and ignore price tags in the range I described here. But they are real. So, let's run down the deals I proposed in this exercise. 7 years, $196-203 million 10 years, $220 million 11 years, $231 million 7 years, $182-189 million, but with multiple opt-outs Are any of those deals interesting to you? Would you trade the extra few years of money that could be bad, or even dead, in order to keep AAV down and give the Cubs greater flexibility during the first few years of a Bellinger deal? Or would you want to keep the term and the dollars committed to a minimum, even if it meant yielding some of the upside of Bellinger's remaining prime seasons back to the player and his agent? That's the most interesting discussion left around his free agency, so jump in and help us have it. View full article

I like that thinking. I didn't want to strain credulity with an overly complicated proposal, but some multi-piece move involving Wicks or Brown does seem plausible (if remote) to me, too.

Right now, all eyes are on the Cubs' starting rotation. As the New Year draws near, they have yet to address a glaring need there. They have another glaring need, though, and there's one player who seems a perfect fit for it. Image courtesy of © Tommy Gilligan | 2023 Oct 7 Every winter, a handful of trades happen without having ever been on anyone's radar. In early 2015, the Cubs traded for Dexter Fowler, surrendering Luis Valbuena and Dan Straily in the exchange, and it came almost out of nowhere. Yet, it was the move that completed and lent synergy to that offseason, and to the 2015 Cubs as a whole. Fowler was only under team control for one year, but getting his on-base skills atop the batting order catalyzed the team in a way that would have had a lasting impact, even if he hadn't come back unexpectedly in 2016. That trade made sense for both the Cubs and the Houston Astros, and a sagacious baseball person could have predicted it, if their attention had been directed that way. At the time, though, it just wasn't at the forefront of anyone's mind. The deal almost perfectly coincided with the Nationals and Max Scherzer agreeing to a record-breaking free-agent deal. There had already been a flurry of moves that winter, including Ben Zobrist being traded to Oakland, and there were a few notable free agents left on the board. Many people were thinking about the upstart Cubs and Astros, but few were cognizant of the way they lined up in a trade. I think we have a similar situation on our hands, as 2024 dawns, with the Cubs and the Baltimore Orioles. Chicago has yet to do a blessed thing to address their roster needs for the coming season, but we well know that they won't remain so inactive during January. On the contrary, they figure to be in on several of the top remaining free agents--the names who have consumed so many fans' whole attention this winter, like Shota Imanaga, Jordan Montgomery, Cody Bellinger, and Matt Chapman. If they successfully address their rotation via free agency, though, they might do well to turn around and spin off some of their depth in that area to shore up another area of need via trade. The Orioles need starting pitching, badly. They, too, have watched the winter market play out more or less without them, having only signed Craig Kimbrel to stop the gap left behind by an injury to Felix Bautista. They have Kyle Bradish, who was a Cy Young contender (in a weak crop of them) in 2023, and they have Grayson Rodriguez, but they're shy on good options beyond those two. What they do have in abundance, though, are bats--including at least one who might be too close to departing for nothing for their comfort. Anthony Santander does a whole lot of things well. The 29-year-old venezolano is a switch-hitter with power and plate discipline, and he's been quietly sturdy from both sides of the plate for the last two seasons. Anthony Santander, Splits by Pitcher Handedness, 2022-23 Split PA AVG OBP SLG BB% K% v RHP 955 0.241 0.307 0.453 7 19.5 v LHP 348 0.272 0.359 0.495 12.1 25.3 The raw numbers against righties might seem underwhelming, but that's in the AL East, with deep center fields almost across the board and an unreachable opposite-field power alley at home in Baltimore. It's also the kind of line that goes from merely solid out of a typical hitter to downright delightful out of one who (be it by virtue of being a switch-hitter or for some other skillset-related reason) mashes against the other handedness of pitcher. Even without accounting for the latter, his wRC+ (where 100 is average and higher is better) against righties is 113, and against lefties, it's 142. Overall, Santander has 65 doubles and 61 home runs since the start of 2022. He's been about 20 percent better than an average big-league hitter. He's matchup-proof and ballpark-proof, because he doesn't strike out terribly often and hits the ball in the air hard enough and often enough to accumulate extra-base hits despite suboptimal conditions for power. He's a below-average runner and (though you can find defensive metrics to suggest the opposite) a below-average corner outfielder. Last season, Santander spent almost 50 games at designated hitter for the Orioles, and that's where he would fit best with the Cubs, too. He could certainly rotate with Ian Happ and Seiya Suzuki, keeping all three fresher by diminishing the time any need to spend in the outfield without taking their bats out of the lineup. He's played some first base in Baltimore, and could expand into that role with the Cubs, but he only truly adds value with what he does in the batter's box. Nonetheless, the value he would add--especially to the Cubs--would be tremendous. Whereas Happ is a switch-hitter who scuffles against lefties, Santander is one who pummels them. He brings the kind of power that the team needs to push Dansby Swanson down to the right place for him in the batting order. A Cubs lineup with Santander (even absent any other additions) could go: Nico Hoerner - 2B Ian Happ - LF Anthony Santander - 1B Seiya Suzuki - RF Christopher Morel - DH Dansby Swanson - SS Patrick Wisdom - 3B Yan Gomes - C Pete Crow-Armstrong - CF Thst's not a lineup without problems. It is, however, a lineup with speed, power, on-base skills, and strong defense up the middle, which is what Jed Hoyer has been trying to build for a few years now, with (generously) mixed results. Santander is only under team control for the coming season. MLB Trade Rumors projects him to earn upward of $12.5 million via arbitration in his fourth tour of that circuit. The Orioles love Santander as a clubhouse presence and lineup stabilizer, but they don't exactly need him the way the Cubs do, and they could use both the trade haul he should command and the money trading him would free up for other expenditures. That's how these two teams become an interesting fit. At the moment, the Cubs have a shortage of starting pitchers, not a surfeit. They might have enough arms, but they don't have good enough ones. That could change in a few days, though, as the markets for Imanaga and others shift into high gear. Already, we've seen Lucas Giolito come off the board this week. Spending via free agency to round out the rotation would leave the Cubs in a position of sufficient strength to consider trading one of their supplemental starters, even if that guy were under long-term team control. Javier Assad and Hayden Wesneski are the names that jump right into the conversation, here. Each has five years of club control left, and while both are more swingmen than potential aces, each has also demonstrated real upside, in both a starting and a relief role. It might take a small, lower-level prospect kicker to get a deal centered around Santander and one of those arms done, but even if so, it could make a lot of sense for the Cubs. With Justin Steele, Jameson Taillon, Kyle Hendricks, Jordan Wicks, Ben Brown, Cade Horton, and others in the mix, they can afford to jettison Assad or Wesneski to fill a need. Alternatively, maybe the Orioles would take interest in Drew Smyly, a serviceable veteran swingman in his own right. He's only under team control for 2024, and would represent almost no cost savings, so the Cubs would have to part with a pretty good prospect to even out the talent imbalance between Santander and Smyly, but if the famously far-looking Orioles front office is interested in slightly improving their roster balance in the short term while stockpiling more talent for the future, that framework could make some sense. One way or another, I will have an eye on Santander until spring training starts. While his name is almost nowhere in trade rumors and the O's disclaimed a desire to move him early this offseason, the fit between those two clubs and the value he could deliver to the Cubs are both too good to ignore. If a surprise trade is going to bolster the 2024 team, this just might be the one. What do you think of Santander as a trade target for the Cubs? Would you part with Assad or Wesneski and more to get a deal done? Sound off in the comments. View full article

The MLB offseason has gotten moving over the last fortnight, including a couple of substantial moves over the holiday. At last, we're seeing the market for free agents and trade candidates gain the clarity that can only come from a seemingly endless sea of options turning into an ever-narrowing river. Image courtesy of © Mark J. Rebilas-USA TODAY Sports The good news is that, with pitchers and catchers reporting in just seven weeks, teams have finally been forced to get serious and start making their commitments for 2024. In the past week, in addition to the Dodgers' blockbuster signing of Yoshinobu Yamamoto, we've seen Mitch Garver land with the Seattle Mariners and both Kevin Kiermaier and Isiah Kiner-Falefa sign up with the Toronto Blue Jays. The Padres signed Japanese closer Yuki Matsui, and catchers Tom Murphy (Giants) and Martin Maldonado (White Sox) each found new homes. The bad news, of course, is that the Cubs didn't sign any of those players. Fifty days after making a huge commitment to Craig Counsell, they find themselves as the only team in baseball not to have made an external addition to their 40-man roster so far this winter. As the team missed on guys like Shohei Ohtani, Juan Soto, and Yamamoto, it was relatively easy to explain away frustrations, because the likelihood of them landing any of those extremely high-priced, sought-after players was always low. Even if it felt like they could or should have tried harder, they probably wouldn't have ended up with any of those three, even if Jed Hoyer and company had pulled out all the stops. There were also some moves (like the Dodgers' trade for Tyler Glasnow, or the Cardinals' passel of veteran starting pitching signings) that didn't spark any real jealousy, because those players or deals would not have been good fits for the Cubs. You can't say that for the Garver deal, which puts him in Seattle for just $24 million over two years. Ditto for the very affordable five-year deal Matsui signed with the Padres--even if a five-year pact feels strangely bold for a lefty closer with some yellow flags around him as he transitions from NPB to MLB. It's a slow, steady thrum of movement, and maybe no individual transaction means the Cubs have missed their chance to make material improvements, but it's like the age-old paradox of the heap: at some point, perhaps without realizing it, we will realize that the team passed a critical point at which their options became too limited and they could no longer find their way to a successful offseason. Both Garver and Andrew McCutchen (who recently re-signed with the Pirates) were decent prospective fits with the Cubs, who need a more reliable bat at designated hitter. Lourdes Gurriel, Jr. could have been an even better one, and signed an affordable deal to stay with the Diamondbacks. Seth Lugo and Michael Wacha (each newly-minted Royals), Jack Flaherty (a Tiger), Nick Martinez (of the Reds), Sonny Gray (Cardinals), and Eduardo Rodriguez (Diamondbacks) all were various levels of interesting as rotation help, and taking them (in addition to Yamamoto, Aaron Nola, and Glasnow) off the list of potential targets does significantly affect the Cubs' ability to project the needed improvements to that unit. When I pass along the fun facts that have circulated about the team's non-spending this winter, it's partially tongue-in-cheek. The Cubs will make additions to their roster, and the timing of them really isn't as important as some make it out to be. I don't believe in signing free agents of real substance in the latter part of January, except in very special circumstances, because signings like those nearly always betray a lack of real conviction on the part of the team or a dissatisfaction with the market on the part of the player, and that usually augurs ill for the deal's outcomes. But there's a sliver of December and a full fortnight of January between now and the second half of January, and I expect the team to move before then. In one sense, fans are getting far too worked up over the sequence of events this winter. In another sense, though, there's something real fueling that anxiety, and it's worth discussing in frank terms. The thing is, Cubs fans (like almost all fans, and like almost all people, in their various ways and at various times) expect a lasting transformation this winter. They don't feel satisfied with their team, but they expect that to change, and not just incrementally or over a long period. They anticipate a shift so large as to constitute metamorphosis, and soon--a near-constant state of anxious hope only ratcheted up by the Counsell deal back in November. I don't think that was ever how Hoyer was thinking, and while he's smart enough to know that he needs to shore up portions of this roster, he doesn't seem at all interested in trying hard to meet the increased expectations of his fan constituency. He's said this all along, but fans frequently (and with some good reason) mistrust or dismiss those remarks. We like the shiny stuff. We like novelty. We like moves that give a sensation of change, especially after a season that ended in such frustration. Hoyer, by contrast, likes the team he put together last year, and believes in it more than Cubs fans do. He also thinks many of the improvements needed can and should come from within, with better deployment of the big-league roster and management of the grind of the season by Counsell and with continued wins in scouting and player development. He's hoping for major contributions from Pete Crow-Armstrong and other top prospects this season, and doesn't have the same attraction to more proven solutions at the Cubs' key positions of need that fans almost universally feel. It's ok to think he's wrong to have such faith, but it's there. It's ok to think his zeal for his own farm system and developmental infrastructure is unearned or premature, but our skepticism doesn't affect Hoyer. The Cubs will get better for 2024 between now and mid-February, but it might not be by enough for most fans' tastes. As the shelves begin to empty, it's becoming clear that while fans were trying to shop for a new home, a new car, or a whole new self, Hoyer is looking to buy groceries. Hey, we all gotta eat. View full article

Things figure to be quiet over the next several days, both for the Cubs themselves and here on the site. Let's talk a little baseball before we go. Image courtesy of © Jordan Johnson-USA TODAY Sports I do want to invite you to swing back in and explore our forums in the coming days. There's always good conversation happening there. We'll also have a fun couple of pieces from Matt Ostrowski during that time, reminiscing on the Cubs tenures of Mark Bellhorn and Matt Murton. Barring breaking news, though, we'll otherwise go quiet for the holiday. Before that happens, a few scattered baseball thoughts. Cubs Don't Seem to be in on Teoscar Hernandez In Ken Rosenthal's latest notes piece, he mentions two active suitors for free-agent slugger and outfielder Hérnandez, most recently of the Mariners. Those potential destinations are the Angels and the Red Sox. They make sense, and it's nice to see rumors picking up for guys like Hérnandez. When people have talked about the market opening up and accelerating after the signings of Shohei Ohtani and Yoshinobu Yamamoto, this is what they've been talking about. There are compelling, probably high-dollar free agents who have yet to be talked about almost at all, but who can now talk much more freely with teams. Admittedly, though, Hérnandez is not an ideal fit for the Cubs, who don't have an open corner outfield spot to dole out. He could rotate with Ian Happ and Seiya Suzuki through those spots and the designated hitter role, but it doesn't feel likely that either side will take an active interest in that particular move, given what we've learned about the Cubs' mindset so far this winter. Why I'm Not in on Jorge Polanco or Max Kepler for the Cubs As your friendly Minnesotan delegate to Cubdom, I feel an obligation to point out the flaws in a couple of proposed fits for the Cubs who currently play for my local nine. Several people have suggested that the team should look to acquire Polanco or Kepler from the Twins, and there's been one (somewhat wishy-washy) report of actual talks between the two sides. So, let's break these options down. Polanco, 30, is a second baseman whom the Twins moved to third base out of desperation late in 2023. It was ugly. He's not a left-side infield defender. Even at second, he's a bit limited, thanks to some lower-leg injuries and his age, but he'd be a fine fit for a Cubs team that didn't have Dansby Swanson or Nico Hoerner. This version of the Cubs has both, and thus, there's very little in the way of fit with Polanco. I love the switch-hitter's style and approach, and especially the fairly radical approach changes he's made to make sure his success is sustainable as his body has begun to rebel against him. He'll only cost $10.5 million in 2024, and there's a club option on his deal for $12 million in 2025. I wouldn't mind him as a DH, but the Twins' asking price for him will not work for a guy who's unlikely to notch an .800 OPS and has no defensive value for this particular roster. Kepler is the next verse in the same song. He's a great defensive right fielder, but Suzuki is there. He's played center field in the past, but didn't like it. He felt he had a harder time staying healthy at that spot, and that it stretched him too thin. When last the Twins asked him about playing it a substantial amount, he declined to do so. It's why that team has been active about reinforcing center the last two winters. He did have a very strong finish to 2023, and the talent to sustain that dazzling success is there, but Kepler has a very inconsistent offensive track record, too. There are flaws in his batted-ball profile, and there have been some in his approach, in the past. He's more likely to run an OPS in the .730s than one 100 points north of that, and that's just not that useful from a guy confined to DH in the context of the Cubs roster. He's also only under team control for one more season. The Cubs will make moves at some point. They will upgrade the 2024 roster. It's probably not going to happen until 2024 actually comes, though, and perhaps that's ok. Enjoy your holidays, everyone. By all means, tell me why I'm wrong about the would-be Twins targets in the comments. View full article

Fairly late on Thursday night, the Dodgers agreed to a monstrous 12-year, $325-million deal with right-handed Japanese ace Yoshinobu Yamamoto. The big three dominos of this offseason have fallen. What now? Image courtesy of © Yukihito Taguchi-USA TODAY Sports Those scrappy Dodgers are really starting to put something together. It was tough to figure how they'd get over the hump with just Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman, Shohei Ohtani, and Tyler Glasnow to fuel their World Series aspirations. Now, they finally have a high-priced star to stick into the mix, committing not just $325 million in salary to Yoshinobu Yamamoto, but another $50 million and change in the form of a posting fee. Yamamoto, 25, also has two opt-outs in this deal. Thankfully for the Cubs, the Dodgers only become a real problem for them if they first overcome the other four teams in their division and make it to the postseason. Given the overall structure of the NL right now, it's unlikely that the Dodgers will be a playoff opponent unless and until the Cubs beat someone else in a short series, so the team just needs to focus their energies on actually becoming the best team in the NL Central. Right now, even that would require some significant action. We've finally reached the point where, after what is likely to be a quiet period around the holidays, moves should start to happen in quick succession. There were three key dominos in this offseason market: Ohtani, Yamamoto, and Juan Soto. Now, all three have fallen, and that will bring clarity to conversations teams are having with top free agents Blake Snell, Jordan Montgomery, Cody Bellinger, and Shota Imanaga. Snell really isn't a Cubs target. While there is one way to frame things in which he seems a good fit for the team, it's never been a good fit. To Cubs fans, the need for more swing-and-miss from the starting rotation is glaring, but the Cubs themselves prioritize things other than whiffs when they shop for starters. The heat of Snell's market should work in the Cubs' favor; they're much more likely to target Imanaga or Montgomery. It's Imanaga whose market figures to move fastest now that Yamamoto is taken care of. With the Dodgers unlikely to pursue him now, the Cubs could be contending with the Giants, Yankees, and Red Sox for him, but he has to sign with a team by Jan, 11. Quickly, the player and his various suitors will need to gain some clarity. The exciting thing about Imanaga is that he combines the kind of high-strikeout upside Snell offers with good control. The big drawback is that he might run into home run trouble in MLB, at least in the short term. The other big knock-on effect here is that, since the Mets missed out on Yamamoto, they might turn their vision more fully toward 2025. Going all the way back to late July, they've been sending mixed (but broadly unenthusiastic) signals about their own feelings of viability for 2024. They made a serious bid for Yamamoto's services, but even as they did so, many maintained that they would pivot toward a longer-term focus if they couldn't land him. Will that mean that the Cubs revisit discussions of a Pete Alonso trade? It's not out of the question. Alonso is the kind of transformative offensive addition that has seemed out of reach ever since Ohtani and Soto each found other homes. It would be a short-term addition, but the impact in that one season of remaining club control could be enormous. Whether Jed Hoyer will have the stomach for the price new Mets president of baseball operations David Stearns demands in Alonso talks, however, remains to be seen. For most Cubs fans, losing out on Yamamoto will feel a bit less painful than not landing Ohtani, because the team more publicly backed away from the sweepstakes for him over the 10 days leading up to the move. There were several reasons why Yamamoto was my top free-agent fit for the Cubs, though, and he's the player who could have most helped the team for the short and long term. Alas, it long ago became clear that that wasn't to be. Now, at least the Cubs will be able to get down to brass tacks with potential partners on key acquisitions, be it Bellinger, Hoskins, Alonso, Shane Bieber, Josh Naylor, or others. Do the Dodgers' big expenditures bother you? What move are you most anxious to see the Cubs make, now that the market figures to open up? View full article

In important news for the maximization of the value of new manager Craig Counsell, the Cubs completed their coaching staff Tuesday. They'll enter 2024 with, in some sense, three pitching coaches in uniform each day. Holmes, the former longtime MLB reliever, was with the Rockies when Counsell came up in the late 1990s, and they played another year together in Arizona in 2000. Strittmatter, meanwhile, played with Counsell all the way up the chain of the Rockies' farm system in the 1990s. To be sure, these moves are Counsell-driven. He chose people he knows, and with whom he's comfortable. However, it's also well worth noting their core competencies. Holmes isn't one of those hyper-modern pitching gurus who can clearly and concisely communicate advanced concepts to the public, but in his recent role with the Orioles, he worked successfully with a front office obsessed with the analytical nuances and biomechanical edges that exist in the current game. He also developed a reputation as an ebullient and enthusiastic resource for the relievers under his charge. In Baltimore, Holmes was the assistant pitching coach. The Cubs already have one of those: Daniel Moskos, who works as an assistant to Tommy Hottovy. In effect, it seems as though Holmes will take over the role previously filled by major-league pitching strategist Danny Hultzen, who moved on to the team's front office. Getting a guy with substantial experience and a relationship with Counsell for that role is perfect. While in Baltimore, Holmes talked about how much he loved working with Brandon Hyde, whom he said was brilliant at sensing when pitchers needed a day off. Part of Counsell's excellence lies in doing that very thing, and he should feel comfortable communicating about such matters with Holmes. For his part, Strittmatter stayed in Colorado when Counsell was traded elsewhere in 1997, and he pretty much never left. He's coming aboard as the replacement for Craig Driver, who was (in turn) the replacement for Mike Borzello. That's a role the Cubs have prized and from which they need to get significant value. Counsell's Brewers teams consistently and massively outperformed the league average in terms of pitch framing from their catchers. Much of the credit rightfully went to the organization's catching coordinator, Charlie Greene, but Counsell also had Walker McKinven and Nestor Corredor on his coaching staff, working closely with Greene to ensure the developmental work they did in the minors with their backstops carried over to the majors. Strittmatter, who was last the Rockies' minor-league coordinator, seems to be Counsell's attempt to find someone he trusts to do the same things Greene or McKinven did for him for years. Coincidentally, Greene himself got promoted to the Brewers' big-league coaching staff earlier this month. (In fact, it was no coincidence. Counsell and the Cubs were ready to poach Greene by offering him this same role, and the Brewers had to act to keep him.) If Counsell can create the same synergy with old minor-league teammate Strittmatter as he had with Greene or McKinven, it could be worth a win or two to the Cubs, by itself. These are smart hires, not least because they figure to make a newcomer in the manager's chair more at ease with a coaching staff of which he inherited most members. The Cubs have resolved their uncertainty about who will teach and deploy their players for 2024. All that's left is to figure out which players they'll be teaching and deploying. View full article

At this point, it's not the waiting game of Yoshinobu Yamamoto's free agency that is holding up the Cubs' winter. Rather, it's the long dance they're doing with the Cleveland Guardians, about multiple potential trades that could set the direction of their offseason. Image courtesy of © Matt Marton-USA TODAY Sports There's no question that the Guardians are interested in trading Shane Bieber, who is set to make somewhere between $12 million and $14 million via arbitration in 2024 and hit free agency after the season. They won't trade him purely to shed that salary, though; they have other ways to manage their budgetary restrictions for the coming year. The Cubs, in turn, are interested in Bieber, but not at the cost of Christopher Morel or any of the top tier of prospects (Pete Crow-Armstrong, Cade Horton, or Kevin Alcantara) in their farm system. As the free agency of Shohei Ohtani and the trade markets of Juan Soto and Tyler Glasnow played out, these two teams circled each other and exchanged ideas about deals that would include Bieber, but also expand beyond him. Cleveland might have longer-term payroll constraints to consider, which could lead them to move first baseman Josh Naylor, closer Emmanuel Clase, or both. I've written about why Naylor and Clase would each be excellent fits for the Cubs, and I can directly report that the two sides have talked about permutations of deals that would involve each of these three players--though, as far as I know, not all three in any one deal. Let's take this from the abstract to the concrete. Here are three possible versions of a trade between the Cubs and Guardians, each of which is theoretically possible but (perhaps) none of which is actually likely. This way, we can better define what does and doesn't make sense for each side. The Clean Rental Cubs acquire Shane Bieber; Guardians acquire Alexander Canario and Brandon Birdsell One important thing to keep in mind, when trading with Cleveland, is that they are almost perpetually in a roster crunch. With a highly effective model-based approach to the draft and a solid operation in Latin America, the Guardians' farm system is almost always deep, but it's especially deep with guys who quickly fill up the 40-man roster. That model-centric draft strategy leads to a lot of college picks, and those guys become Rule 5-eligible sooner than high-school selections. Right now, Cleveland has a full 40-man roster, so (while they could always designate someone for assignment or make a separate move) they're not looking to take on multiple MLB-ready pieces in a trade for Bieber. This deal fits their needs neatly. Canario would slot right into an outfield mix that remains a disaster area, and Birdsell made six starts at Double A this season, but doesn't become Rule 5-eligible until after 2025. In the long run, Birdsell might need to move to the bullpen, and Canario might be a better platoon outfielder than everyday guy, but they each give Cleveland a nice blend of upside and surety, without straining their organizational logistics. The Cubs, meanwhile, can spare both players, as they each exist in areas of depth for the team. Bieber would slot in right alongside Justin Steele, Jameson Taillon, and Kyle Hendricks, in what would be a very flat but impressively deep starting corps. The Two-Birds, One-Stone Approach Cubs acquire Shane Bieber, Josh Naylor, and Myles Straw; Guardians acquire Kevin Alcántara, Ben Brown, Alexander Canario, Brandon Birdsell, and Haydn McGeary Crucially, this deal is not just about the Cubs filling two of their most urgent needs. It also doubles Cleveland's pleasure. The Guardians signed Straw to a five-year contract extension in April 2022, and they almost immediately regretted it. After he'd excited them with a season in which he batted .271/.349/.348 with excellent outfield defense, he's batted .229/.296/.284 in the two seasons since. Now 29, Straw is still a solid defensive center fielder, but that bat is unplayable, at least as anything more than a fifth outfielder. He's due $4.5 million in 2024, $13 million over the following two seasons, and then small buyouts on club options for 2027 and 2028. Such a deal wouldn't hamstring the Cubs, of course, but it's the kind of mistake the Guardians really can't afford. They've been looking for ways to get out from under it, although their desire to do so comes far short of compelling them to give up a prospect just to do so. In this trade, they get major value for both Bieber and Naylor, and they also clear Straw's contract from their books. The Cubs, of course, fill both their rotation and their first base void. Alcántara would be a major loss, given his tremendous upside, but the team's medium-term outfield picture is crowded enough to make it worthwhile. Notably, this deal amounts to stacking Naylor and Straw (bad contract and all) for Alcántara, Brown, and McGeary atop the first trade. That's a plausible structure, but whether the Guardians would actually take an interest in it depends on where they fall on the wide spectrum of industry opinions about both Alcántara and Brown. For what it's worth, Brown is a good fit for what Cleveland likes to target and do with young hurlers. The Moonshot Cubs acquire Shane Bieber and Emmanuel Clase; Guardians acquire Christopher Morel, Kevin Alcántara, Brody McCullough and Brandon Birdsell This will seem far too rich to most Cubs fans, which reflects the reality of the stalemate between the teams. The Cubs are willing to move Morel, but they view him as a very valuable trade piece. Other teams, including the Guardians, see him as desirable but not a premium chip. If a deal around Bieber and Clase came together, it would probably be because the Cubs capitulated on giving up one of their top three prospects (they'd sooner let go of Alcántara than Pete Crow-Armstrong or Cade Horton, at this stage) and met the Guardians halfway on Morel. Right now, the Cubs' most urgent need is for better pitching depth. This move would solve that in one fell swoop, and Clase's long-term, team-friendly deal would give it a long-lasting impact. With the losses of Morel and Crow-Armstrong, they'd then face an equally urgent imperative to shore up the offense (and the outfield), and Bieber and Clase would take up a good-sized chunk of their payroll, so the viability of it might hinge on the team's sense of their budgetary flexibility. Still, there are ways to make up for the losses of Morel and Alcántara via free agency, and the Cubs' organizational pitching depth is sufficient to cushion the blow of giving up Birdsell and McCullough. This version of the deal is the least likely, but it would have the greatest chance of setting up the Cubs to compete for a World Series in the short term, and it would simultaneously have the greatest long-term impact of any of these possibilities. What do you think? Are any of these moves you would endorse? What changes to these frameworks do you propose? Bring me any good thoughts. Bring me anything but screenshots of the Trade Values site. View full article

It's the holidays, Squally. Where's your generosity of spirit? He's a solid second guy!

Fixed! Lol. Can't BELIEVE the B-Ref linker defaults to a kid in a summer wood-bat semipro league instead of him. 😄