RandallPnkFloyd

One of the more exciting components of players' returns to spring camp is the first image of them in their new uniform. While the updated headshot in your MLB app is nice, the arrival of the new season makes the addition more real and provides a certain layer of excitement regardless of the caliber of the player. Image courtesy of © Rick Scuteri-Imagn Images / © Rick Scuteri-Imagn Images The 2025 Chicago Cubs feature no shortage of new faces. While they might not have pursued the extent we would have hoped in building up the newest iteration of their roster, they addressed several areas of need and increased their depth in crucial spots. The names below represent those new names that we’ll see both on a permanent basis and for at least a spell during the spring via the non-roster invite, perhaps even later on down the line. Position Players Kyle Tucker Acquired from the Houston Astros via trade in exchange for Hayden Wesneski, Isaac Paredes, and prospect Cam Smith. One of the most significant offseason acquisitions for any team, Tucker will be the Cubs’ everyday right fielder for 2025. He’ll likely hit in the two or three spots in the order, providing the catalyst this team largely lacked in recent years. No question about the role here. We’ll spend the entirety of 2025 pining for an extension. Carson Kelly Acquired via free agency on a two-year contract. While not as impactful as the Tucker addition, Kelly was perhaps the most important add that the team needed to make this winter. In need of a competent complement to Miguel Amaya, Kelly brings strong defensive metrics and a bat coming off one of its best seasons. We’ll dive in later as to what the split will look like, but expect Kelly to see plenty of time behind the dish, even after Amaya’s second-half emergence. Gage Workman Acquired from the Detroit Tigers via the Rule-5 Draft. A local product (read: local to me, the Arizona State graduate who also lives in close proximity to Workman’s Basha High School), Workman isn’t guaranteed to stay in the organization for long. A former switch hitter, Workman made some offensive strides in serving as a full-time lefty last season. His value resides in his defense, though, where he could provide some important infield versatility off the bench. If he can’t hang in the spring, he could wind up back with the Tigers before the exhibition season reaches its end. Jon Berti Acquired via free agency on a one-year contract. In the absence of true clarity behind the starting lineup, Berti’s addition was notable late in the winter. He has experience at six different positions as a utilityman, with the potential to serve as the backup for Michael Busch at first base. While he’s never reached the base-stealing mark he set in 2022 (41), he’s still an average hitter who can be relied on for any number of positions. Unlike his other versatile counterparts in the bench mix, he’s a lock for the ’25 roster. Vidal Bruján Acquired from the Tampa Bay Rays via trade in exchange for Matt Mervis & cash considerations. A similar skill set – and nearly identical positional splits – to that of Berti, Bruján was acquired following his being designated for assignment by the Rays. One does wonder that, given the similarity to Berti, it will combine with a lack of upside to make him something of a redundancy on the roster. If so, he may not be long for it. If someone like Workman or NRI receiver Nicky Lopez struggles throughout the spring, there’s a chance he could stick around a bit longer to cover some ground. Nicky Lopez (NRI) Acquired via free agency on a minor league contract & invited to Major League camp. The Naperville native is an intriguing piece of the spring puzzle. On one hand, the Cubs would appear to have plenty of light-hitting, versatile infielders on more stable ground with which to work in pursuit of a roster spot. On the other, few have the experience & subsequent defensive track record of Lopez. That could give him an advantage over Workman or Bruján, especially in matters of middle infield work. Reese McGuire & Carlos Pérez (NRIs) Acquired via free agency on a minor league contract & invited to Major League camp. Signed to minor league deals in December & January, respectively, the two are lumped together given the nearly identical role they were brought in for: depth. At least one of them will end up backstopping in Iowa if Amaya or Kelly sustain an injury while also providing a buffer. At the same time, each of Moises Ballesteros & Pablo Aliendo continue their development. Given that we saw the Cubs run four different catchers on their big league roster at various points last year, you can never have too much depth here. But we won’t see them at Wrigley unless it’s an emergency. Pitchers Matthew Boyd Acquired via free agency on a two-year contract. Signed very early in the offseason, the Cubs were clearly pursuing the upside play in signing Boyd. Despite middling results for most of his time as a starter in Detroit, Boyd was brilliant in his eight outings for Cleveland last season. He’ll slot into the latter portion of the rotation behind Justin Steele, Shota Imanaga, and Jameson Taillon. It's pretty straightforward here. Eli Morgan Acquired from the Cleveland Guardians via trade in exchange for prospect Alfonsin Rosario. In need of more stability out of the bullpen, the Cubs acquired just that in the former Cleveland reliever. While he outpitched his peripherals to a degree, he was brilliant in avoiding quality contact and stranding baserunners. He dealt with a pair of injury issues last year but had turned in consecutive seasons of over 60 innings in each of the two years prior. He’ll be a massive component of the relief corps this season. Cody Poteet Acquired from the New York Yankees via trade in exchange for Cody Bellinger. The underwhelming return in what ended up being almost a pure salary dump, one wonders how much we’ll see of Poteet at Wrigley Field in 2025. More directly, one doesn’t expect to see much of it. He’s worked almost exclusively as a minor league starter for the Marlins & Yankees for his career, and the assumption is that he will continue to serve that type starting this year. He could be in for a spot start down the line, but he’s near the back of the line for starting opportunities even following early injuries to Javier Assad & Brandon Birdsell. Colin Rea Acquired via free agency on a one-year contract. While we might’ve been hoping for someone with a bit more frontline capability as the Cubs’ other notable starting pitcher addition this winter, Rea’s skill set as a swingman will factor heavily into the 2025 team. Those early injuries could put him in line to grab some starts in April & May, with multi-inning relief appearances likely in the cards down the road. Caleb Thielbar Acquired via free agency on a one-year contract. Facing some uncertainty from the left side of the pitcher’s mound, Thielbar had been a steady presence out of the Minnesota ‘pen for a number of years prior to posting an ERA north of five in 2024. The Cubs are banking on some command issues & batted ball luck doing him in with their infrastructure, getting him back on track for the upcoming year. He'll get plenty of looks early as one of only two left-handed relievers on the 40-man. Ryan Pressly Acquired from the Houston Astros via trade in exchange for prospect Juan Bello. The Cubs entered the 2024-25 offseason wanting more experience at the back end of their bullpen. Pressly had recorded over 30 saves in each of the two years before Houston brought in Josh Hader before last season. There’s a bit of concern about the velocity & other peripheral factors. However, Pressly still avoids hard contact and generates plenty of groundballs for what should be a quality infield defense. Despite the presence of Porter Hodge, Pressly should get the bulk of the ninth-inning work. Ryan Brasier Acquired from the Los Angeles Dodgers via trade in exchange for a player-to-be-named-later or cash considerations. Squeezed out of the Dodgers’ crowded relief picture, the Cubs were more than happy to accommodate the arrival of Brasier following his DFA. He’s never quite gotten back to his 2021 brilliance, but his peripherals have remained consistent, and his command is effective enough that he doesn’t walk many hitters. Even with a slight dip in velocity last year, he should figure into the late-inning picture pretty regularly. Brandon Hughes, Ben Heller, Trevor Richards, Phil Bickford, Brad Keller, Brooks Kriske (NRIs) Acquired via free agency on a minor league contract & received an invite to major league camp. Save Kriske; each Cubs' reclamation project spent at least some time at the big league level in 2024. Converted outfielder Brandon Hughes will be the most familiar to Cub fans since, you know, they were the ones that converted him from outfielder to pitcher. He looked like a breakout candidate in 2022 before struggling with health and performance in ’23. He pitched to an ERA over eight in 15 appearances in Arizona last season. Heller is your classic good-velo-bad-command addition, having averaged 96.3 MPH on his fastball last year. Given the presence of his secondary pitches, that would be fun to rein in. Each of Richards & Bickford are largely two-pitch guys with plenty of MLB experience to their names. The spring should give us a good indication of what the Cubs might be trying to do with this crew. View full article

There's no All-Star blocking the path of the Cubs' top prospect to the hot corner this spring. Say that over and over to yourself, with varying inflections, and it can sound anywhere from exciting to terrifying. Image courtesy of © Rick Scuteri-Imagn Images As position players officially report to spring training for the Chicago Cubs, we now know that Alex Bregman will not be among them. Even for someone (such as myself) who has been highly critical of Jed Hoyer & Co. for being so risk-averse, it’s hard to find too much fault in their missing out this time. The Cubs’ reported offer tells us that they gave it the old college try, with his massive new AAV indicative of how much Boston had to overpay in order to lock him down. While the frustration is muted, though, it’s tough to argue against the continued presence of a slightly different emotion: concern. Matt Shaw now has no safety net. With or without Bregman, it was likely that Shaw was looking at a starting gig. There were going to be some logistical considerations had the team signed Bregman, which could have involved moving Nico Hoerner to offset some salary and, subsequently, maintain a clear path for Shaw. In that case, the team’s top prospect would still have a clear path to a starting gig. But in that particular scenario, Bregman’s offensive upside would have provided more overall compensation for any early shortcomings from Shaw than Hoerner can offer. The shape of his arrival would have been different, given Bregman’s more impactful offensive skill set and (thus) the reduced pressure to get production from Shaw. With Bregman, he would have batted eighth or ninth for much of the season. As things stand, if he hits the way they hope he will, he might end up batting fifth. The Cubs have indicated that they are not merely going to hand Shaw the keys to the third base gig, but it’s hard to imagine the team’s collection of light-hitting bench options supplanting him out of the gate. It’s his job to lose. While the clarity is a positive thing for a prospective contender, the current construction of the roster offers no contingency. If Shaw struggles to maintain his grip on the role, it’ll be a massive detriment to the team’s offensive output. Options that would’ve reinforced some stability existed this winter, outside of Bregman. Yoán Moncada was one. Josh Rojas was another. Either would have made sense, to slow down the aggression on Shaw’s timeline and provide some extra pop off the bench once he was ready to hit at the top level. Each also came with some level of versatility. Such an addition would have made me feel much more comfortable about the configuration of the big-league roster. Overall, though, it’s not as if there was a wealth of options. But given that those two specific hitters ended up with the non-contending Angels and White Sox, respectively, one wonders if the Cubs pushed as much as they likely should have to add a bit more short-term certainty to their roster. Of course, it’s entirely possible there were playing time considerations on the part of the players themselves that made that irrelevant from the start. Short of lying to them, it's hard to get players with a chance to start somewhere to take a bench gig instead. In any case, the current infield setup for the Cubs is going to feature Shaw on Opening Day, regardless of what team leadership might say publicly. If he struggles, we could see Jon Berti or Vidal Bruján or Gage Workman or even Nicky Lopez. Given the offensive shortcomings of each of those names, however, we are presented with two sides to the Matt Shaw coin. The first is the overly pessimistic one. If he struggles to the point where he needs to be demoted to regain traction as a hitter, the Cubs are likely to be in a precarious spot with their third base production. At that point, you’ll likely need to look outside the organization to strengthen the lineup, but outside of someone like Brett Baty, there aren’t a ton of obvious trade candidates who present an enticing level of even hypothetical upside at the plate. It would be an extremely problematic development for the Cubs, from a lineup standpoint. The other, more positive side is that Shaw’s run is going to be unfettered. Craig Counsell isn’t going to be tempted to give him a quick hook, given that he possesses superior offensive talent to those on the bench. He’ll have a chance to work through some things as needed. And we know he has the ability to adjust. So while there’s an element of apprehension associated with Shaw’s role, there’s also a certain positive anticipation, given the extended opportunity he’s essentially locked into at this point. None of this is new or mysterious information. Shaw is the third baseman. He might struggle. He might not. He might not struggle early, and then struggle later, and then stop struggling again. Few big-league arrivals give way to uninterrupted success. There’s an obvious risk inherent in this process. The fact that the Cubs have now officially missed out on Alex Bregman not only locks Shaw into the gig, but removes a potential safety net altogether. It's not too late to change that, but if they don't, the good news will be that Shaw has real promise. He might just make this decision look really good, in time. View full article

Regardless of what the big picture looks like for the Chicago Cubs and their 2024-25 offseason, the objectively positive development to emerge has been a focus on the big club. Rather than pining for prospects on the fringe of a breakthrough, there’s been earnest discussion on roster construction as it relates to what the 2025 roster will actually look like. That’s not to say that there hasn’t been an eye on the system, of course. It just hasn’t been the emphasis as it relates to the progression of winter. That is, at worst, an indication that a certain level of expectation exists for this group. Image courtesy of © Cody Scanlan/The Register / USA TODAY NETWORK An interesting byproduct of that, however, is that whatever prospect-centric narratives still exist in the mainstream have seen their volume condensed. Given his proximity to the third base job, we've heard plenty about Matt Shaw. We've also heard lots about Owen Caissie and Kevin Alcántara, whether as trade chips or in their varying standing within various top prospect lists. Even Ben Cowles and Jonathon Long have had a moment courtesy of their Arizona Fall League appearances. With that, the name James Triantos has seemingly faded from our collective consciousness. Even as, arguably, a top-five Cubs prospect, Triantos appears to exist in a sort of no man’s land in terms of relevance. He’s not Matt Shaw. Nor has he been as prominently mentioned as part of a trade package for a starting pitcher. He wasn’t a part of this year’s AFL contingent. Yet, Triantos stands to play a very important part for the Cubs in 2025. In one way or another. In a personnel sense, it isn’t entirely unreasonable to expect to see Triantos at the keystone at some point in 2025. A strong spring could put him in line to handle reps while Nico Hoerner recovers from offseason surgery. His skill set as a hitter would help the team to replicate what they could be missing in the latter’s absence. This is particularly true in Triantos’ ability to make contact. Triantos may not only be the best bat-to-ball-skills guy in the system but maybe in the organization. He carries a K% of just 14.5 throughout his time as a prospect, including a mark of just 11.1 between Double-A & Triple-A last year. It is important to note that there was a jump from under 10 percent in Tennessee before it jumped up upon his promotion to Iowa. But while the rate itself leaked just over 17 percent in Iowa, he’s shown a clear ability to adjust each time. Upon being drafted in ’21, Triantos posted K% rates over 16 percent in each of the Arizona Complex League & Low-A (in 2022). That gave him the time to adjust to pro ball. At the beginning of the following year, he cut it to around 10. In 2023, Triantos made the transition from High-A to Double-A. His strikeout rate rose by five percent between the two. But starting the year back in Tennessee for 2024, the rate fell back to under 10. Diving just a bit deeper, the contact trends bode even better for Triantos as a hitter. With the exception of his 109 PAs in the complex league back in ’21, Triantos has never posted a Contact% below 80. He was at 88.0 percent with Double-A last season and maintained at 84.1 upon his promotion. For comparison’s sake, there were 11 Cub hitters with at least 200 plate appearances last season. Only Hoerner, Isaac Paredes, and Mike Tauchman posted figures over 80. Even more notable is that 10 of those 11 hitters chased fewer pitches than Triantos, who expanded the zone to the tune of a 34.1 O-Swing% while in Iowa. That speaks to two things. One is the pure contact ability. The other is the refinement still needed in the approach. One has the ability to compensate for the other, though, and that Triantos has maintained high contact – and subsequent strong counting stats – speaks to such compensation. Given his outcomes, even if he needs to refine the approach, he may not have to tamp down the aggressiveness all that much. The one hitch in Triantos relieving Hoerner for even a short stretch is the matter of his defense. “Hitch” being a relevant term here, though, in that he has seen an uptick in quality since his transition over to second base. At worst, he’s fine at the spot. But when you’re talking about replacing a part of an elite middle infield tandem for even a small amount of time, one wonders what type of impact that gap could have. Ultimately, though, the strides he’s made on that side of the ball wouldn’t appear to have him as any sort of detriment if he were running out there in Hoerner’s absence. There is, however, another manner in which James Triantos could be an impactful part of the Cubs’ 2025 operation: the trade market. With the Cubs still being noted in connection with any number of available arms, his standing within the organization’s top prospects could leave him as a centerpiece of such a deal. Especially given his proximity to the top level. In today’s mode of organizational practices, many teams are moving players in the interest of finances. Meaning there’s an increased desire for upper-level prospects that could contribute in the short-term, rather than younger guys with an eye on projection. Triantos fits exactly the type of bill that that handful of teams desire. Which really means that in one way or another, it’s hard not to see the infielder being an important part of the equation for the 2025 Chicago Cubs. It’d sure be neat to see at Wrigley. The Cubs were 15th in Contact% as a group last season (76.9), and Triantos’ ability to contribute in exactly that facet could be valuable if Hoerner’s health status makes him a necessity. But we also know the Cubs have flirted with the idea of acquiring a starting pitcher that fits more of a “frontline” label than their other offseason additions. Either way, we can’t overlook James Triantos as part of this year’s equation. View full article

The Cubs have technically been active this offseason. In this case, though, 'technically' is not the best kind of 'active'. Image courtesy of © David Banks-Imagn Images The Chicago Cubs have addressed multiple areas of need this winter. They acquired a catalyst for their lineup in Kyle Tucker. They acquired a true closer in Ryan Pressly. They shored up the middle and back of the rotation via the signings of Matthew Boyd and Colin Rea. They checked a lot of boxes and, at worst, appear to be better than they were in 2024. And yet, I find myself continually staving off disappointment when looking at the broad picture of the offseason. With specific items crossed off the list—some of them more emphatically than others—and a coaching staff more suited to what manager Craig Counsell wanted around him, it seems like the Cubs did almost precisely what they set out to do from the jump. So why the feeling of apprehension as February draws near? This is where I landed: In spite of those additions—all of which have the ability to provide plenty of benefits for the Cubs—this is an organization still relying on the upside play. It’s a criticism we’ve held over Jed Hoyer with increasing frequency in the past year or two, and one that has lingered throughout a moderately busy winter. The Tucker move is obviously a counterargument to this, unto itself. It was a big swing. We can fixate on the lack of hope as far as an extension goes or fall into despair over the fact that the Cubs won’t be in the mix for him on the free-agent market next offseason. We can and, frankly, we probably will, as the season wears on. But he represents a genuine aspect of improvement for the 2025 Chicago Cubs. While his individual addition is key, though, it’s important to note that it’s not entirely without its own context in this discussion independent of the move itself. When the Cubs made the trade, I discussed the importance of the next move. The hyper-conservative front office took an uncharacteristically bold step. Was that a precursor to additional ambition? After all, when one looks out at the National League landscape, it’s top-heavy. The Dodgers, Phillies, Mets, and that team from suburban Cobb County, Georgia are not easy opponents to overcome. The same could be said of Arizona, Milwaukee, San Francisco and maybe San Diego. A single move, however impactful it may have been, wasn’t going to tip the scales in the Cubs’ favor. They needed more. Yet, since the Tucker acquisition on Dec. 13, we’ve seen the Cubs sign Rea for the rotation, Jon Berti for the bench, and trade for Pressly to insert into the closer’s role. That's to say nothing of the smattering of minor-league deals for relief arms. Ultimately, beyond Tucker, though, we have a fringe starter, a journeyman utility infielder, and a 36-year-old reliever whose peripherals have wavered in the past couple of years. It’s an oversimplification on some level, but it still speaks to how uninspired the Hoyer-led group has continued to be since their bold move in mid-December. The scales haven’t tipped. The Cubs are barely even the favorite in their own division, let alone a threat to contenders elsewhere on the Senior Circuit. They continue to be reliant on overperformance. Pete Crow-Armstrong doesn’t have a safety net if his development doesn’t continue in the right direction. Same with Michael Busch. Matt Shaw doesn’t have one either, with only a small handful of largely inexperienced glove-first types threatening a job that the front office insisted wouldn’t be handed to him. The bullpen should, somewhat organically, be better, by virtue of improved rotation depth. But remember when we heard about the team pursuing established arms for relief, instead of stocking up on reclamation types? Does Pressly quite clear that bar? It's a negative read on what the team has done this offseason. I’m not ignorant of that. It likely undervalues someone like Tucker, downplays the upside of Shaw, and oversimplifies Pressly’s performance against peripherals that haven’t completely fallen apart (even if I have certain concerns). But as an individual who struggles to exist in the abstract, this is a team that has, yet again, turned a blind eye toward the option of building a roster with more tangible components than theoretical ones. In a vacuum, it’s not a bad offseason. But roster construction doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The Dodgers rule the league. The Mets aren’t far behind. Arizona has made massive moves. The Georgia club should be healthy. We don’t have reason to suspect Philadelphia or Milwaukee are going away. When you combine the broader NL context with a continued streak of barely marginal improvements to a roster that needed much more, it’s hard to muster up enthusiasm—and that was before Tom Ricketts’ vomit-inducing comments about spending. There’s youth here. That comes with a certain level of apprehension on its own. But you also need sustained improvement from Miguel Amaya and sustained… anything from Dansby Swanson. Ian Happ can’t stagnate for the first two months of the season again. The rotation has its own limitations, despite opportunities for improvement at various levels of the market this winter. This could still change. There are rumors of more moves in the air, some of which are tantalizing possibilities. For now, though, we wait, even as things keep happening; they don't quite fulfill our cravings. It's a special kind of purgatory, not unlike some of their other Chicago sports counterparts. And it’s wrought by, above all, a stubborn reluctance to cling to abstract upside to a more tangible ambition. View full article

Say what you will about the kid, but he's a sparkplug. Image courtesy of © David Banks-Imagn Images With the exception of the two-year stretch when Dexter Fowler held it down, it seems like the onset of each year brings new conversation about the Chicago Cubs’ leadoff spot. A true, consistent leadoff hitter just feels like one of those things that has regularly eluded the organization. For the most part, this is a conversation we likely won’t lean too heavily on as the season approaches. It’s Ian Happ’s role to lose. Happ represents the most logical candidate for the top spot in the lineup, especially with Nico Hoerner’s availability somewhat up in the air in the short term. Happ is kind of exactly what the modern leadoff man looks like: a steady approach and subsequent on-base presence. Even if the speed isn’t there, a certain level of baserunning acumen is. His numbers are reflective of exactly that. Happ’s 4.12 pitches per plate appearance (P/PA) ranked 22nd of 131 qualifying players last season. His 27.1 Chase% was the 27th-best of roughly that same group. He was able to parlay that patience into the eighth-best BB% (12.2) and, as a result, a .341 OBP that sat 35th. There are some other intricacies at play, but as far as broad strokes go, Happ’s skill set is certainly best suited to continue in that capacity. But suppose the Cubs wanted to pivot toward something of a more traditional archetype in the top spot of their lineup. Say, more of a burner with a more aggressive (read: less developed) approach—someone who can serve as an absolute nuisance on the basepaths out of the gate. I am talking, of course, about Pete Crow-Armstrong. Crow-Armstrong did most of his work out of the 7-9 spots in 2024. He was specifically entrenched in the no. 8 spot, with 286 plate appearances there against 40 as the seventh hitter and 79 as the ninth. The timing of his breakout likely coincided with how successful he was in that spot, finishing with a 107 wRC+ as the team’s eighth hitter. Given the breakout itself, though, it stands to reason whether he represents a viable option to ride out in that spot, especially if the Cubs want to be a bit more aggressive on the bases earlier in games. Whether or not the skill set itself transfers, however, is the question in need of answering. Again, if we’re talking about a more modern concept of a leadoff hitter, it’s more about the approach than the speed. As a (barely) non-qualifier, Crow-Armstrong’s 3.46 P/PA sat 604th of the roughly 800 players that had at least one plate appearance in 2024. With that, it’s probably not surprising that his Swing% (59.2) was the fourth-highest of 207 hitters with at least 400 PAs. His Chase%, at 43.5, was the seventh-highest. Neither of those would be an issue if he was making contact, but his 73.2 Contact% ranked 156th, including one of the worst rates on pitches inside the strike zone (79.3). So it’s probably not a surprise that his OBP came in at a mere .286. While the eye test supported some growth at the plate, it’s clear that there is still more work to be done with respect to the approach. In June and July, Crow-Armstrong’s first two months of genuine run in center field, he maintained an overall Swing% of 61.5 and a Chase% that lingered around 48.0. His contact did jump up between the two months, however. He went from 68.4 percent in June to 74.1 percent in July. With that, his OBP grew from .192 to .232. August was where we saw the biggest improvement. His Swing% was cut to 56.0 percent and his chase rate fell to 36.0 percent. The contact rate bumped up to 79.5 percent and, subsequently, his OBP shot up (.375). Of course, things came back down in a big way in September, where his swing tendencies were nearly identical to June & July, with a contact rabte even lower. If that wasn’t enough, Crow-Armstrong’s Baseball Savant page illustrates a man who doesn’t quite know what he wants. Despite relative consistency in terms of the way he was being pitched, the month-to-month variance in his approach is stark. In each of June and July, he swung at breaking and offspeed pitches at a far higher rate than that of the hard stuff. That flipped in August, when he was more aggressive on the hard stuff than the other two. During September, he allowed breaking pitches to serve as the object of his desire at the plate once again. The difference in chase rate vs. breaking and offspeed and chase rate vs. fastballs is intense. Perhaps it’s somewhat obvious, then, that the fastball focus being dialed in August was part of what allowed him to experience as much success as he did. This all speaks to the idea that Pete Crow-Armstrong doesn’t have the maturity as a hitter quite yet to be considered in a leadoff spot. While he represents a somewhat archaic ideology for the spot, it would still be a somewhat ideal scenario for someone with his on-base ability to serve as the table-setter. For now, though, he’s best served in those spots that more often feature lower stakes. Plus, it’s not as if the Cubs are hurting for someone to fill the role admirably. Happ is more than capable given his own skill set, even if he doesn’t have quite the baserunning prowess of his outfield counterpart. It’s worth noting, however, that Happ’s contract extension only runs through the end of next season. Crow-Armstrong will still be pre-arb at that point, and very likely still in the organization. At that point, the Cubs could very well be searching for a new leadoff man. How the lefty swinger's bat matures over that span is going to be a fascinating development as far as the lineup – and the future of the leadoff spot along with it – goes. View full article

Though the Astros third baseman is clearly the better player before accounting for context, this is baseball, and context matters. Image courtesy of © Thomas Shea-Imagn Images As Alex Bregman’s free agency continues on into the new year, his name has floated into close-ish proximity to that of the Chicago Cubs. It’s logical. The Cubs don’t technically have a third baseman and thanks to the Cody Bellinger trade, they do have some extra cash to spend. Bregman is a third baseman who will cost a lot of cash. On paper, you can see why the Cubs have been mentioned. While the two make a sensible match in the abstract, however, a deal seems very unlikely in practice. Part of the Cubs’ motive in moving an infielder was to create some extra space for top prospect Matt Shaw. They did so, sending Isaac Paredes to Houston. Turning around and signing a big-dollar infielder exactly akin to Paredes (though better, to be sure) would be a bit inconsistent with their last couple of moves. There’s a logic to the connection on the surface, but additional context certainly doesn’t lend itself to the idea. Instead of Bregman, maybe the Cubs should be talking about another high-profile infielder, but one with more versatility and a lower price tag. Let’s talk about Ha-Seong Kim. Here’s a simple comparison between Bregman and Kim, from 2022 through 2024: Bregman: 2,014 PA, .260/.349/.449, 12.4 K%, 11.1 BB%, .188 ISO, 127 wRC+ Kim: 1,678 PA, .250/.336/.385, 17.9 K%, 11.0 BB%, .135 ISO, 106 wRC+ The advantage goes, of course, to Bregman. There isn’t a huge discrepancy in the slash lines, but Bregman has the notable power edge. While never reaching the 30-40 homer power we saw in 2018 and 2019, he’s hit at least 20 home runs in each of the last three seasons (74 in total). Kim has totaled just 39, topping out at 17 in 2023. They also represent two different types of approach. Bregman is coming off his most aggressive season at the plate since his rookie year (44.9 Swing%). He makes contact at a high rate despite that (88.5 percent) and didn’t experience a big uptick in strikeouts, either. Kim, meanwhile, has decreased his Swing% in each of his four seasons in Major League Baseball, bottoming out at 37.8% last year. His increase in Contact% (85.7% in 2024) can be at least somewhat attributed to that. So, too, can his strikeout rate, which is somewhat the result of working deep counts and a 23.7% called strike percentage. In a vacuum, Bregman’s the guy you want. But given the Cubs’ specific needs, this isn't an "in a vacuum" situation. When it comes to the Cubs' actual needs, you’re not losing a ton with Kim over Bregman. You still get a quality approach, plenty of contact, and the resulting on-base ability. You lose out on the some of the power, sure. But it’s not as if there’s this huge dropoff anywhere else. More importantly, widening the lens to take in their defensive profiles, Kim is exactly the type of infielder the Cubs should be targeting with their situation. Bregman has played almost exclusively third base to this point in his career, with an additional several hundred innings at shortstop (where he was below average, even at a much younger age). He’s lingered at average to above at the hot corner. There have been some reports he’d consider swapping positions (something that wouldn’t be necessary with the Cubs). On the other hand, Kim is someone who’s already done it—and done it well. With the Padres, Kim logged over 1,000 innings at second base, 2,500ish at shortstop, and almost 600 at third. He was elite at the keystone, above-average in his last work at third, and above average at the six. There’s a level of versatility already demonstrated here. Because of that (and because he'd cost so much less), there’s an argument to be made that while Bregman represents the objectively better bat, Kim represents the objectively better fit. The Cubs want to hand the third base job over to Matt Shaw with a solid safety net beneath him. But while the possibility of someone like Yoán Moncada still exists elsewhere in this conversation, they don’t have a contingency in place at present. Really, the same could be said for much of the infield. Vidal Bruján (can’t hit), Miles Mastrobuoni (can’t hit), Gage Workman (hasn’t played above Double-A and maybe can’t hit), Luis Vázquez (really can't hit) and Benjamin Cowles (might hit someday) represent the infield depth currently on the 40-man roster. Ha-Seong Kim not only represents a stopgap at third base that allows you to ease Shaw in more gradually, he also offers a high-quality contingency across the entire infield. If Shaw hits in the spring but Nico Hoerner isn’t ready due to his offseason arm surgery, you’ve got him for second base. When Dansby Swanson needs a blow—and we’ve seen him burn out or fight nagging injuries at times—you’ve got Kim for shortstop. At a much lower price and a much shorter term than the elder Bregman will command, that feels like a better deal. I’m not advocating for the Cubs not spending money to improve their roster. But the reality is that they’ll likely be a little more frugal with the extra wiggle room they’ve gained, in order to save some space for in-season acquisitions. They'd also like to direct some major resources toward reinforcing their pitching staff before the offseason is out. Projecting a deal for Kim is complicated given his injury status, but he'd certainly leave more room for that than signing Bregman would. When you consider the context, Kim would be an extraordinary addition to the Chicago infield. There's an important caveat to consider, which is the shoulder injury that ended his season prematurely and required surgery. But in providing a safety net for Shaw and serving as an effective utility option across the infield, the Cubs can enhance their roster stability substantially with a Kim signing. I also watch a lot of San Diego Padres games, for what that's worth, and I think he’s neat—a balanced and dynamic player. But from a roster construction standpoint, there’s a lot of logic here. I could talk myself into Ha-Seong Kim before I could talk myself into Alex Bregman. Less than a week into the new year, I must be losing my mind. Or? View full article

If the season started tomorrow, who would have the inside track to the division title? Image courtesy of © Jerome Miron-Imagn Images A common refrain surrounding the Chicago Cubs is that they still have plenty of work to do this offseason. That's objectively, true. We’ve heard their name in connection with a couple of arms, and it isn’t a stretch to see them acquiring an additional position player to lengthen the bench. There is certainly work to be done, and we should expect them to do it. But what if they don’t? Let’s pretend, for a moment, that the worst-case scenario unfolds. This is a world in which the Cubs are done. Maybe they add a reclamation arm or two. They scoop up a bench guy on a minor-league deal, at best. They’re certainly improved at this juncture, regardless. A National League Central contender, though, requires a bit more stretching of the imagination—especially when measuring them against the Milwaukee Brewers. Right now, the Brewers are the team to which the Cubs should be compared. The Cincinnati Reds remain interesting, given their additions to the pitching staff and a solid young core. But they need to prove it, the same way the Cubs do. Pittsburgh could prove to be a threat on some level, given their strength at the front of the rotation. Again, though, we haven’t seen that yet. The Brewers rule the Central. As such, it’s that group against which we should be measuring. While the Cubs have been able to generate some positive buzz with their winter, the same can’t necessarily be said of their rivals out of Milwaukee. The Crew lost Willy Adames to free agency, traded closer Devin Williams to the New York Yankees, and let some of their rotation depth reach free agency. But even with the additions of Kyle Tucker, Eli Morgan, and Carson Kelly, can we say beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Cubs are a better team than the Brewers? It's tough to say that, after finishing 10 games back of them in 2024. Milwaukee featured a top-six offense last year in terms of run production, utilizing exceptional on-base skills and efficient baserunning to compensate for a lack of power. Adames led the way in the power game while adding 21 steals of his own. They’ll suffer a bit there without him. Again, though, this isn’t a team that makes their bones with power hitting. They’ll take a walk and then run you into the ground, without a real need for power. They’ll also get a full season out of Garrett Mitchell, a returning Christian Yelich, and a post-breakout Jackson Chourio. If Rhys Hoskins can get a bit more batted-ball luck, he should compensate for some of the power lost in Adames’s departure. Regardless, though, they have lots of ways to beat you—lots of weapons: Brice Turang, Joey Ortiz, etc. Because of that, it’s very difficult to automatically declare this Cubs offense ready to surpass that of the Brewers, even with Tucker’s addition. Don’t get it twisted, though. The Tucker trade is a massive one for the Cubs. It’s almost impossible to overstate. He should, ideally, provide them with more power than they've gotten from any one hitter in several years, and another on-base threat. With Pete Crow-Armstrong showing positive signs in the second half of 2024 and the potential for Matt Shaw to be a full-time big-leaguer from the jump in 2025, there’s potential for the Cubs to hang in the get-on-base-and-steal game that the Brewers have perfected. The question is whether they can also outslug the Crew. The Brewers ranked only 18th in ISO last season (.155), but the Cubs were also a few spots behind them, at 21st (.151). Does the Adames subtraction work in conjunction with the Tucker addition to at least flip them? It seems possible. Throw in a fully healthy Seiya Suzuki in the DH spot and a definitely-for-real breakout from Miguel Amaya, and the potential is there. The possibility exists that the Tucker addition alone pushes the Cubs past Milwaukee on that side of the ball. Given how much the Crew excelled in their brand of offensive baseball, however, the only comfortable declaration to make is that the gap has narrowed. One advantage the Cubs did have over their rivals last year was in the starting pitching game. Chicago sat sixth in starting ERA (3.77) and ninth in ERA- (94). The Brewers, meanwhile, were 17th in starting ERA (4.09) and 16th in ERA- (99). Milwaukee has since lost Frankie Montas and Joe Ross, but they acquired Nestor Cortes and are primed to welcome Brandon Woodruff back into the mix. That gives them a front five of Freddy Peralta, Woodruff, Aaron Civale, Tobias Myers, and Cortes. Aaron Ashby and DL Hall look to be first in line for spot starts. That’s a strong starting group that should be improved, with depth that is high on upside, even if the ability to eat innings is still in question. Compare that to the Cubs. Justin Steele, Shota Imanaga, Jameson Taillon, Javier Assad, and Matthew Boyd figure to be the starting five on Opening Day, barring another frontline addition. Jordan Wicks and Ben Brown are the next men up, with Caleb Kilian and/or Cade Horton lurking if they can stay healthy and clear some developmental hurdles. The Cubs feature three starters who finished inside the top 50 in fWAR in 2024. Milwaukee has two, with the addition of Cortes. Woodruff was very much in that group in his last full season, as well. Of any phase, this is the most difficult one to separate. The apparent desire for the Cubs to add another starter before winter’s end could prove to be the separator. It isn’t as close on the relief side, however. The Brewers featured the second-best bullpen ERA last year (3.11), while the Cubs sat 12th (3.81). Not bad, considering the latter’s early-season woes in relief. Milwaukee held an edge virtually everywhere in the relief game, with the exception of strikeouts. But are they due for regression, following a year in which their opposing BABIP was just .266 and they stranded 78.1 percent of baserunners? Especially given some lackluster velocity & batted-ball trends? That's to say nothing of trading away their all-world closer. If there’s an argument in favor of the Crew here, it’s that they have a bit clearer a picture as far as their relief corps goes. We know the group should run deep. Trevor Megill, Jared Koenig, Joel Payamps, Bryan Hudson, Nick Mears, and Elvis Peguero should comprise a healthy portion of their ‘pen. Abner Uribe, Connor Thomas, and the aforementioned Hall should also be heavily involved. The Cubs are set to roll with Porter Hodge, Nate Pearson, Tyson Miller, and Eli Morgan, before you get into a bunch of question marks. Luke Little? Julian Merryweather? Ethan Roberts? Rob Zastryzny? Intrigue, sure. Reliability, not so much. The defensive aspect will be intriguing for both groups. The Cubs should be improved in the outfield, courtesy of Tucker’s addition (and, by extension, Suzuki’s continued subtraction). The middle infield is still elite. Michael Busch played an excellent first base in the second half. There’s almost no way they can be worse at third base, given that Christopher Morel won’t be manning the spot for half the season. As such, you really have to like the Cubs here. Milwaukee has an elite outfield, a very good second baseman, and an excellent backstop in William Contreras. They’re below average at first, lost their well-above-average-before-2024 shortstop, and have similar questions to what the Cubs have at third (without the benefit of “it can’t get any worse”). As buoyed as they were by their outfield play—and could very well be again in ’25—this is one area where the Cubs could be better. It's important to note that everything at this point in the offseason is an on-paper comparison. We haven’t seen new additions suit up for either team, with each side still likely to see another move or three before we hit the middle of February. But if the season was to start tomorrow, who would we consider to have the edge? The gap has narrowed on the offensive side, and maybe even flipped in the Cubs’ favor. But we saw too much good out of Milwaukee and too much average from the Cubs last year to make a firm declaration of Chicago's superiority. Starting pitching looks to be a dead heat. The Crew have the advantage in relief, courtesy of their clarity, while the Cubs have the defensive edge given their infield configuration. It’s close. The Cubs have drawn the gap to something more reasonable, but there’s still plenty of time for them to take the upper hand before the games start to matter. View full article

Yes, Sammy Sosa used performance-enhancing drugs. No, he was not made by them. Image courtesy of © RVR Photos-Imagn Images As we approach the end of December, there’s still work to be done for the 2025 Chicago Cubs roster. But it’s hard to label what’s unfolded thus far this winter as anything less than a success. In terms of the current team, you’ve got the addition of the legitimate star the team has lacked for a handful of years. From an organizational standpoint, the resolution to a decades-long dispute with former star Sammy Sosa covers a different portion of the spectrum entirely. I’ve long labeled Sammy Sosa as my favorite baseball player of all time. I am a child of the 1990s, so it’s not that hard to figure out. While the standoff between the team and one of its icons probably didn’t need to happen, there’s plenty to reckon with now that he appears set to come back into the organizational fold. Matt Trueblood covered some of these aspects–from Sosa as a questionable teammate to Sosa as a questionable person–in his initial writeup of the news. Given those factors and my proximity to the current state of the Cubs, I have also (somewhat naturally) pushed Sosa down into the very depths of my mind. But news of his apology and the subsequent invitation to next month’s Cubs Convention had me going down a rabbit hole of sorts. Just as Sosa has been painted with a broad brush in terms of his career narrative in a way that others from the Steroid Era haven’t, this also feeds into some overgeneralization from a purely statistical standpoint. My purpose here is to unwind some of that confusion. We have plenty of time to discuss the human components of Sammy Sosa. A dive into the numbers, though, illustrates a very different player than you probably remember, on either side of that 1998 season that turned out to such a hinge between two disparate halves of a career. The overgeneralization associated with Sosa’s career output lies in the power. The ’98 home run chase and the successive 60-plus home run seasons obviously skew things. He went for 66 in 1998, before rattling off totals of 63, 50, 64, and 49 in the four years after. He rounded out his Cubs career with totals of 40 and 35 in 2003 and 2004, respectively. He hit 545 as a Cub, finishing more than 30 ahead of Ernie Banks in 2,500-ish fewer at-bats. It’s the power that we remember, and it’s the power that skews the narrative. Because Sosa wasn’t solely a power guy. His talent was incandescent and irrepressible from a very young age, which is why he was a big-league regular at age 20. However, like most players who came up that young back then, he took a long time to figure out the majors, struggling through multiple seasons with Texas and the White Sox before landing with the Cubs in 1992. It wasn’t until 1993 that the breakout transpired. Even in those previous years with the Rangers and Sox, Sosa had flashed dynamic tendencies, both as a power hitter and as a base stealer. In 1990, he hit 15 homers (.171 ISO) and swiped 32 bags. It took another three years before his real breakout manifested, but even then, his first legitimately strong year came in the form of a 30/30 campaign. In 1993, he hit 33 homers and stole 36 bases, finishing among the top 15 in each category. The caveat with that first big year was that he also featured one of the highest K% marks (21.1) and one of the lowest BB% (5.9) among 150 qualifying players. In the two years that followed, Sosa went 20/20 and, once again, 30/30. He hit 25 and stole 22 in just 105 games in the strike-shortened 1994 season, before turning in 36 bombs and 34 bags in ’95. He bumped up the on-base dramatically in each year, courtesy of increased batted-ball luck in 1994 and a spike in his walk rate the following season. It’s that 1995 season that should attract particular interest, though. There is perhaps no point in his career where Sosa was as complete a player as he was that season. An All-Star and Silver Slugger receiving MVP votes, Sosa produced a slash of .268/.340/.500, while finishing with what would be the first of six different 5+ WAR seasons. By that measure, he was one of the 16 best position players in the sport. He followed that with another 5+ WAR campaign in ’96 (in only 124 games), driven by 40-home-run power, before “struggling” to a 36-homer, 22-steal ’97 season. From 1990 to 1997, Sosa slashed .257/.309/.473. He hit 203 home runs and stole 192 bases. He ranked 44th out of 424 qualifying position players in fWAR. Given some of the other well-rounded talent that emerged from the 1990s, it’s tough to call him elite in the all-around sense, but there was a very, very good baseball player emerging there. Of course, the years that followed were where things started to get murky, courtesy of the substances he now apologizes for using. That doesn’t mean that Sosa didn't do interesting things beyond his power explosion in 1998, however. He and then-Cubs hitting coach Jeff Pentland overhauled his swing ahead of the ’98 season, in order to cover the zone more effectively, cutting strikeouts and giving him the capacity to hit to all fields. The development bore at least some responsibility for his 66-homer campaign that year. Between 1998 and 2001, Sosa’s walk rate increased each year, topping out at over 16 percent in ’01. He was top 10 in hits across the 1998 to 2004 seasons; he became a more complete hitter. There’s a conversation to be had that isn’t entirely dissimilar to the one we’ve formed around Barry Bonds—that he didn’t even really need the juice. He was already a very good baseball player, even a great one. While it’s obviously not quite to the extent of Bonds’s situation, given the stronger and more sustained prior output on Bonds’s part, the reality is that Sosa wasn’t purely a power hitter. Nor was he only a power hitter because of PEDs. There were multiple tools in his toolbox, and a commitment to the art of hitting that I hope we can realize more now that he’s reentered the Chicago sports zeitgeist. I think those are the conversations that are worth exploring. PEDs have shifted the discussion to the idea that Sosa was overrated or “actually bad.” Either one is, of course, objectively untrue. There’s a lot to unpack now that Sammy Sosa is back in the fold. Some of those conversations—especially as we dig into the stuff that isn’t necessarily about on-field performance—are likely to be uncomfortable. Those conversations matter. But we’ll also be talking about Sosa heavily from a statistical perspective. This gives us an opportunity to examine what made Sosa such a force within the Chicago sports landscape. It certainly wasn’t just about the power, or whatever chemicals helped him augment it. View full article

They've carved a niche for a player they believe in. Now, they have to let him fill it on a permanent basis. Image courtesy of © Cody Scanlan/The Register / USA TODAY NETWORK There was a point (roughly a week ago) where it looked like the Chicago Cubs might have to rely on multiple prospects to serve as an all-important “X-factor” for 2025. That term, of course, refers to a specific component of the roster that could yield important production despite not being one of the “faces” of the roster. With very few obvious offensive choices on the market, there was a possibility that the team would have to rely on the likes of Matt Shaw, Owen Caissie, Moises Ballesteros, and Kevin Alcántara to bolster an offense prone to stretches of ineptitude. Within the last week, however, that line of thought has shifted. The addition of Kyle Tucker is massive. It also likely slows down the timelines of each of Caissie and Alcántara. Signing Carson Kelly to join Miguel Amaya behind the dish does the same for Ballesteros. While the offense could stand a bit of further supplementation (as just an abstract note), the team is now in a position where the “X-factor” label now applies to only one of those marquee prospects: Matt Shaw. The Cubs had eight players appear for at least one inning at third base in 2024. Isaac Paredes is now a member of the Houston Astros (having replaced Christopher Morel when the two were traded for one another). Patrick Wisdom is headed overseas to play in the KBO. David Bote signed a minor-league deal with the Los Angeles Dodgers. Nick Madrigal is a free agent, after being non-tendered. Of those who logged time at the hot corner, only Michael Busch, Miles Mastrobuoni, and Luis Vazquez remain in the organization. Busch is locked into the opposite end of the infield, while neither Mastrobuoni nor Vazquez projects to be more than a utility piece off the bench. That's a very long way of saying that this is Shaw’s job to lose. He enters the new campaign as a consensus Top-25-ish prospect, set to fill what now stands as a complete vacancy. Barring a signing of someone like Yoán Moncada or a surprise trade for Alec Bohm, you’re looking at Shaw as the top guy in 2025, with Rule 5 pick Gage Workman and the aforementioned utility options giving him support off the bench. Shaw’s hit-to-all-fields, quality-contact, efficient-speed skillset could make him a boon to an offense that could use a little bit of extra everything. Nevertheless, it’s a risky venture to install a prospect from Day 1 of a season. You’re hoping adjustments can be made on the fly, to prevent any kind of up-and-down scenario, while also keeping an eye toward optimism that they can be a key contributor. Hence the idea of an “X-factor.” In Shaw’s case, this presents us with an interesting discussion. On one hand, you’re going to compare him (somewhat naturally) to what was a very strong rookie class last season. Many of those top first-year names had the opportunity to suit up with the big club from the jump, with the risk inherent in the decision largely paying off for both contending clubs and non-contending ones. The other side of this is the runway. You obviously want to give Shaw room to struggle, grow, and learn, without it becoming a detriment to your team. What does that look like, sample size-wise? Opening Day 2024 featured 23 rostered players who were considered to be among the top prospects in their respective organizations. Ten of those 23 were on a major-league roster for the first time. Mileage varied on those who stuck around, but of the top 10 rookie finishers in fWAR, only Jackson Merrill and Jackson Chourio made their big-league debuts at the season’s outset. The remainder of the top names in that regard—including such prospects as Colton Cowser, Masyn Winn, and Joey Ortiz—had received at least a cup of coffee in the previous season. To compare Shaw to any individual situation from last year, in terms of context, would be imperfect. There is nary a spot in the multiverse where Jackson Chourio (after his pre-debut extension) wasn’t going to be on the Milwaukee roster on Opening Day. The San Diego Padres took a leap on Merrill more out of necessity than anything, given an obscene lack of outfield depth—only for him to absolutely explode as a shortstop-turned-center fielder. Neither represents a parallel situation to that of Shaw beyond prospect pedigree (and even then, it doesn’t entirely work; they were prospects of a slightly higher caliber). Ultimately, though, it can be interesting to see that comparison directly within the second part of the above discussion. You have a handful of first-year guys coming off a very successful freshman campaign. What could they teach us about the runway that Shaw could or should get? Here are six of the top seven rookies from last year in fWAR and their wRC+ by individual month (plate appearances in parenthesis). The only exclusion is the New York Yankees’ Austin Wells, given how different the positional context is for a catcher: Player Mar./Apr. May June July August Sept. J. Merrill (SD) 98 (110) 86 (89) 176 (108) 90 (90) 164 (109) 156 (87) C. Cowser (BAL) 182 (86) 70 (95) 92 (84) 162 (82) 106 (122) 117 (92) J. Chourio (MIL) 68 (106) 51 (68) 144 (80) 143 (88) 156 (121) 123 (110) M. Winn (STL) 120 (94) 121 (85) 87 (113) 101 (115) 127 (123) 69 (107) L. Butler (OAK) 88 (77) 11 (32) 13 (29) 241 (98) 146 (103) 115 (100) J. Ortiz (MIL) 125 (78) 167 (88) 110 (85) 22 (63) 79 (100) 102 (97) I’m painting with a very broad brush here, both in terms of using a comprehensive metric and stripping all other context (injury, roster, etc.). But the mixture is interesting. You have a handful of guys who started out hot (Cowser, Winn, Ortiz) and those who stumbled (Chourio, Butler). Merrill was largely fine early, before exploding during the summer months. Regardless of additional factors and when their adjustment transpired, each of these names finished as one of the top rookies in the sport last year. And only Butler was sent down for any extended period (roughly a month from May to June). For a fun (and still overly generalized) comparison, here are Shaw’s month-to-month splits (since minor-league splits aren’t available on FanGraphs, I’m just going to roll with OPS, courtesy of Baseball-Reference, for the sake of ease; Shaw was in Double-A from the start through July. Aug. 4 was his last game prior to his promotion to Iowa.): Player April May June July August September Matt Shaw .810 (75) .683 (119) .901 (97) 1.061 (59) .852 (93) 1.011 (80) Shaw came out hot in April and needed to adjust in May at a level (Double A) in which he had only 70 plate appearances the year before. The same was true in August. He was solid after the promotion, but took off in September once he’d settled into it. If we’re going to glean anything from Shaw’s OPS throughout the year, it’ll probably feature about the same level of overgeneralization as the names above. It’s a good thing I’m not trying to prove any point other than this: if you’re going to give Shaw a look, he needs the runway. Whether it’s a matter of a hot start and then an adjustment by opposing pitchers; a slow start with the adjustment needed from his debut; or any other combination of a stretch, if you’re giving him the look, then he should get the full look. Four of the six players above were on playoff teams. The Athletics’ offense was probably more potent than you realized. Only Winn played for a team with poor offensive production across the board. Regardless, each team above was willing to let things play out through various stretches (save Butler’s brief demotion). Shaw is set to fill a position of need. For that reason alone, he has the opportunity to be an X-factor for this team in the way that each of the above names was. Cowser & Ortiz did it from the jump. Merrill rounded into form as the year went on. Chourio needed a little bit of extra time before the breakout manifested. Each offense, though, had the pieces around them to survive while the adjustments took place. With Tucker now rostered and the DH spot potentially keeping Seiya Suzuki healthy enough to realize his offensive upside, they should be led by a couple of high-quality bats and a collection of solid (if unspectacular) ones. As such, that same type of infrastructure should be in place to allow Shaw the necessary time to adjust, whenever it comes. And given how long the Cubs rode out Christopher Morel’s brutal defense at third base, we have no reason to think that he won’t be given a long stretch over which to prove his mettle. View full article

Look, signing the rakishly handsome wayward former star derailed by injuries worked once. Maybe it's worth another roll. Image courtesy of © Rick Scuteri-Imagn Images Roughly a year ago, the Chicago Cubs were without a few things: A first baseman. A third baseman. A star. (Cash! Jobs! Hope! Wait.) Coming into this winter, we thought two out of the three had been settled. The emergence of Michael Busch and the (re-)addition of Isaac Paredes appeared to settle the corners for at least the next handful of years, even if the star had to wait. Now, though, the Cubs have a star. Alas, it came at the expense of some of that corner infield stability that they were able to finally realize, with Paredes now a member of the Houston Astros. I doubt you’ll find anyone with a grievance to air about it. In fact, I imagine most are downright chuffed at surrendering that third-base stability in the name of a Kyle Tucker addition. Regardless of the excitement there, however, the reality is that the Cubs now must return to the drawing board and fill their third-base vacancy anew. The broad assumption is that the job will eventually land with top prospect Matt Shaw. The Tucker trade—specifically, the subtraction of Paredes—appears to have made a Nico Hoerner trade less likely. This leaves just one infield spot available for Shaw’s impending breakthrough. He appeared at the spot more than 60 times in 2024, likely due to the Cubs having an eye on that very scenario playing out. It’s the most likely scenario, regardless of what the rest of the winter looks like. Contingencies are important, though. While Shaw will likely get the bulk of the opportunity to run out as the team’s Opening Day third sacker, there remains a possibility that the team examines a shorter-term option on the trade front or via free agency in case they’d like Shaw to get a touch more seasoning in Iowa to start the year. Neither market offers an abundance of enticing options, at least outside of an unrealistic Alex Bregman pursuit. But given that the team isn’t necessarily looking for someone to hold down the fort beyond 2025, there’s an old friend from across town who could maybe, perhaps do the job: Yoán Moncada. It wasn’t so long ago that Moncada was one of the game’s most intriguing prospects. Though we haven’t seen him at his best since 2019, it stands to reason that the former Boston Red Sox signee out of Cuba represents an intriguing stopgap at the position. Moncada’s upside has always been tantalizing. It’s why he was a centerpiece of the Chris Sale trade back in 2016. His 2019 season (wherein he finished with a .367 OBP, .233 ISO, and 139 wRC+) lends credence to such intrigue. While he was still an above-average hitter as recently as 2021, the power never really manifested that way again. Nevertheless, there’s still an approach there, as Moncada has cut his whiff rate and maintained a steady on-base rate in the subsequent years. In a Cub-specific context, the switch-hitting Moncada could provide value against right-handed pitching in particular. His career wRC+ against righties sits at 110, with an ISO of .180 and a walk rate at an even 10.0%. He’s made hard contact at a rate eight percent higher than against lefties (38.2 percent). Last year’s Cubs third basemen ISO’d .135 (25th), walked just 6.5 percent of the time (29th), and made hard contact at a 28.1 percent clip against right-handed pitching. Nor is it as if Moncada’s unplayable against southpaws. The strikeout, walk, and related on-base figures are all pretty similar. Ultimately, you’re sacrificing some power, but not much else. It’s a skill set that wouldn’t at all be out of place in the Cubs’ lineup. It could be an asset, even. That’s also to say nothing of his defense. Moncada has long been a solid defender, posting a Fielding Run Value of 6 and Outs Above Average of 8 for his career at third base. His worst full season in either metric came in at -1 (both in 2023), indicating that you’re getting at least average defense at the spot. Given how long the Cubs ran Christopher Morel out at third base last year, one imagines that the stability he provides on that side of the ball would be a welcome one for as long as he’s needed. Of course, you’d have to be foolish to throw out the ‘stability’ word in relation to Moncada, given how the health aspect of his game has gone in recent years. FOX Sports notes 19 different injuries since the start of the 2018 season. While not all required a trip to the Injured List, his game totals since 2021 read 144, 104, 92, and 12. That, my friends, is a significant caveat to attach to an argument in favor of signing anyone. If your goal is stability—even (or especially) as a contingency—it wouldn’t be prudent to rely too much on Moncada's ability to stay on the field, let alone perform at a level that would exceed that of Shaw while the latter makes his adjustment to the big-league level. I do, though, think that the right deal would make Moncada a good fit as a member of the 2025 Chicago Cubs. A one-year pact with a motivated player who could provide steady, solid play at a position of need isn’t an unwise investment. A risk? Yes. An unfounded one? Not even a little bit. It's slightly, pleasingly reminiscent of the gamble the team took on Cody Bellinger two winters ago. You’re not moving Michael Busch. Gage Workman isn’t getting a starting run. Shaw is the option at this point. And while it’s very likely that he’s on the cusp of breaking through to the top level, you can’t punt any alternative routes in favor of that sole solution. This is a 29-year-old player likely looking to rebuild some value, in hopes of getting a multi-year deal next winter. If you’re looking to give some breathing room to Shaw, Moncada represents just that—plus some upside. View full article

If you’ve followed my writing in this space for any stretch of time, you know that I’ve been clamoring for offensive impact since the jump. Over the last handful of years, the Chicago Cubs have been led by a collection of good baseball players. A group of hitters that serve largely as complementary bats but without a true catalyst to lead them. And it’s the source of a somewhat unquantifiable amount of their stretches of offensive ineptitude. Image courtesy of © Erik Williams-Imagn Images Friday’s trade for Kyle Tucker certainly changes things. Kyle Tucker is an elite baseball player. Since 2021, only a dozen players have been worth more fWAR than Tucker’s 19.1. Only nine feature a better wRC+ than Tucker’s 145. His K% (15.1) is among the 30 best out of more than 300 qualifying players over that time. His BB% (11.3) is in the top 40. His ISO (.247) is in the ten best, while his on-base percentage (.362) is in the top 20. He’s also stolen 80 bases and has been well above average on the defensive side. There is almost nothing that transpires between the white lines in which Kyle Tucker does not excel. Even in their success at the end of the 2010s, the Cubs didn’t have a player of this caliber. Sure, players like Anthony Rizzo, Kris Bryant, and Javíer Báez each possessed the capability of performing at an elite level. And there was a certain level of sentimental value associated with them. However, none of them were considered genuinely elite players over such a stretch as Tucker has in the last handful of seasons. This is an objectively extraordinary baseball player who now gets to play half of his games at Wrigley Field. My purpose here wasn’t necessarily to wax poetic over the Cubs’ newest addition. That’s a natural byproduct of the caliber of player we’re talking about here. Instead, there’s a worthy conversation about the narrative shift that this presents for the Cubs. An increasingly large segment of the Cub fan collective has been critical of the conservative nature of the organization’s Jed Hoyer-led front office. Even one such as me, who has self-exiled from social media, can still find this across various other media. It’s the prevailing criticism and one that made it seem as if this offseason would be yet another one of improving on the margins without instituting meaningful change to shift fortunes in 2025. While a singular trade can’t overhaul an entire narrative, this one does as much to rehabilitate the front office's perception as any individual could. What the Cubs had to give up wasn’t nothing. Isaac Paredes was supposed to be one of the steadier bats for ’25. Hayden Wesneski is projected to be a valuable arm, given his versatility. Cam Smith was a wildly exciting offensive talent for his short time in the system. Acquiring a top-tier player requires a certain level of discomfort. It’s that very discomfort that we did not feel Hoyer & Co. could accept in pursuit of meaningful improvement. But the Cubs were in a situation where almost no collection of players & prospects would be deemed “too much” in a trade for someone like Kyle Tucker. He changes the construction of this lineup from likely middling to possessing a certain level of potential. Instead of needing all of the pieces to come together at once for offensive success to occur, the complementary bats can thrive in their complementary roles. One player doesn’t make a team, but this one player should help the infrastructure around him to maximize their respective skill sets. Even with the offseason still in its relative infancy, the narrative surrounding this lineup changes immediately for the better. It's won all around for the team itself and the people responsible for its construction. At least from a narrative standpoint. And while there is logic in staying measured and not going in on any one season, certain things still have to happen for the front office to shed that negative perception and move in the direction of Jed Hoyer’s heralded “next great Cubs team.” It will require additional sacrifice, whether in terms of finances or prospects. There are additional steps here. What happened on Friday was important. What happens next isn’t any less. View full article

The Chicago Cubs made perhaps their most necessary move right at the outset of the Winter Meetings on Monday, as it was reported that the team was close to a contract with catcher Carson Kelly. Image courtesy of © David Richard-Imagn Images As the offseason got underway, we knew that the free-agent options behind the dish were slim pickings, both in terms of volume and overall appeal. The path to a signing quickly grew even narrower, with Travis d’Arnaud, Kyle Higashioka, and Danny Jansen each finding homes within the last couple of weeks. This left Carson Kelly the most desirable of the options on the market. The Cubs were able to quickly nail him down in the early hours of this week’s festivities in Dallas. While there are obviously areas of impact to which the team should seek to add throughout the roster, the signing of Kelly—or whichever of the above names would have hypothetically signed—is a crucial one for the 2025 Cubs, on a couple of different fronts. As things stood, the Cubs were prepared to roll into the new year with Miguel Amaya entrenched as the No. 1 backstop. He was to be followed by Matt Thaiss who, with any luck, would’ve been supplanted at some point during the year by Moises Ballesteros. But the former offers very little with the bat and we’re not quite sure where Ballesteros’s glove is going to be in the short term. The current construction offered too much uncertainty. Enter Kelly. From a defensive standpoint, it’s very possible that he was actually the best the market had to offer. Matt Trueblood looked at various options earlier today, with Kelly grading out as the most comprehensive catcher the market had to offer. Baseball Prospectus’s CDA metric had Kelly (1.8) 19th out of 65 catchers with at least 200 innings, trailing only Kyle Higashioka among available options and ahead of names like d’Arnaud, Jansen, and Amaya. Where he really excels is where Amaya doesn’t: controlling the running game. His Throwing Runs figure of 2.0 put him in the top six among that group of catchers, and his SRAA (swipe rate above average) puts him in the top seven. While Amaya showcased some defensive growth last year, a wholly solid defensive catcher who compensates in perhaps Amaya’s most problematic aspect is the perfect supplement. The other area in which Kelly will be a suitable no. 2 is on the offensive side of the ball. Despite Amaya’s improvements, the Cubs needed a complementary offensive catcher for two reasons. Reason 1: We don’t know how sustainable Amaya’s second-half breakout actually is quite yet. Reason 2: Amaya has notable reverse splits regardless. The Cubs needed a stable offensive presence who hits lefties well. Kelly is that. Kelly has gone for a 117 wRC+ against southpaws for his career (against 71 vs. right-handed pitching), with a .348 OBP and .207 ISO among the numbers. He’s not an overall upgrade, given that he’s only gone for a cumulative wRC+ of at least 99 in three of the last six years, but he’ll provide exactly the type of support that the team needed to add to Amaya in the short-term. There's also a bit of harmony in the way they each attack pitches, and the pitch shapes that do and don't work against them. Just for one example: Since the start of 2023, Kelly has a brutal .254 xwOBA on high fastballs in the zone, but Amaya's is a solid .343. On anything in the lower third of the zone, by contrast, Kelly's xwOBA is .314, against Amaya's .272. There are matchups the team should be able to play to maximize production from these two, above and beyond handedness. The possibility exists that Kelly not only supplements Amaya in 2025, but surpasses him. Such a sequence of events could throw the longer-term outlook behind the plate out of whack. That’s me being excited about the skill set as a supplement and a bit pessimistic on Amaya’s 2024 second half, and, as such, is not our concern at present. On paper, in the meantime, it’s sort of the ideal move for the current construction of this roster. View full article

As was largely expected, Juan Soto’s destination for 2024 and beyond was revealed on the eve of the Winter Meetings. With Soto now set to play his home games in Queens, the rest of the league can get busy on what should be a fairly active week. Image courtesy of © Ken Blaze-Imagn Images The Chicago Cubs, specifically, were never in on Juan Soto. It’s a hideous truth—he’s exactly the type of player that a team in this market, with this notable an offensive need, should have written a blank check for—but one to which we collectively resigned ourselves some time ago. Nevertheless, the signing does bear significant ramifications on the organization, both in the short and the long term. The first affected party is the most obvious: Cody Bellinger. The New York Yankees have reportedly long been hot for the Cubs’ outfielder/first baseman. Now that they have a glaring hole in their lineup wrought by Soto’s departure, he is perhaps the easy candidate to slide in as a new left-handed bat. With an existing void at first base and now one in the outfield, they are the team that could utilize him in the most effective ways, with Bellinger's power likely to benefit from playing half his games at Yankee Stadium. We’ve heard that the Cubs have shopped Bellinger heavily to date this offseason. But we’ve also been cautioned that the return could be minimal. Dumping Bellinger for the sole sake of creating payroll flexibility and giving a clearer path to some of your upper-minors bats isn’t entirely logical on its own, given the safety net he provides for the Pete Crow-Armstrong-Michael Busch-Seiya Suzuki portion of the roster. But it stands to reason that the Cubs could have gained a bit of leverage—on the Yankees, or on someone else—in the wake of Soto’s Mets signing. The team won't trade Bellinger unless they see a way that it can make them better; maybe the number of possible deals that satisfy that criterion just got larger. There’s also a similar angle here that provides a challenge for the Cubs. We don’t have a deep-rooted knowledge of other bats who could be had on the trade market. But with the organization seemingly preferring that route of adding talent to the roster, does this create competition for the Cubs in their own pursuit of an offensive upgrade? This component of the fallout is far murkier given that lack of knowledge, but it’s possible that the same leverage the Cubs might’ve gained in attempting to trade Cody Bellinger now exists elsewhere when they go asking. Ultimately, the transactional components of the Soto fallout run pretty deep. The markets have been largely busy on the pitching side thus far in the offseason (save the Willy Adames deal), but this was seen as the move that would open things up on the positional side. Whether it’s a trade of Bellinger or some other maneuver, we should expect some activity there that both involves and impacts the Cubs in the coming days. At the same time, we shouldn’t underestimate the impact this has on 2025. The Mets were a surprise contender in the run they were able to make in ’24. They’re not a surprise anymore, and are even less so with the Soto addition. That means you’re looking at the Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, and Atlanta as surefire contenders in the National League. Washington could make some inroads toward contention with supplements to their young roster. Out west, you’ve got the Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, and Arizona Diamondbacks, with the Giants also lurking. This is to say nothing of the NL Central, with Milwaukee the established contender and both Cincinnati and Pittsburgh on their way. This creates a massively complicated playoff picture on paper—one that could very well create a sense of urgency for Jed Hoyer and the front office that might not've been there before. Sure, the expanded Wild Card Series has opened up additional postseason opportunities. That picture runs so deep that the onus is now on the front office to not only make marginal improvements to the roster, but genuinely meaningful ones. Does Hoyer have that in his arsenal? We’ve heard buzz of potential trade talks and various activity. But Soto’s return to the National League puts the Cubs in a position where they have to pursue meaningful changes, which is a good thing for us, I suppose. However, it will also push Hoyer & Co. beyond their typical comfort zone. Of course, the Bellinger aspect comes first. Whether it’s the Yankees, Phillies, or any of the handful of other teams we've heard connected with them, one imagines that the Cubs will pivot to immediately pursuing their desired move in the coming days. But the impact runs far deeper in terms of the quality of additions made to the Cubs’ own roster in the impending stretch of time. It’s created a challenge for the organization to generate an actual presence in a massively crowded National League. Can they rise to it? View full article