Brian Kelder

Image courtesy of © Michael McLoone-Imagn Images In a sit down at the Winter Meetings attended by North Side Baseball, Craig Counsell may have tipped the Cubs' hand regarding their offseason plans. Of course, he didn't spell their plans out; that would not be the Cubs way. We can learn much by mining his key quotes, though, to see what nuggets can be gleaned. THE CUBS WON'T PAY MARKET PRICE FOR A NEW BAT Quote 1, from Counsell: "From a position-player standpoint, the loss right now is [Kyle Tucker], obviously. The rest of the group is back and likely with us. We did have young players that did contribute in a big way. I thought [Moisés Ballesteros] in September played like—he gave us the offensive production of Tucker, essentially, in the month of September. Between him and [Owen Caissie], who was unfortunately hurt for most of that month, those are two important players as we sit right now. There's not much to think about there." And later in the session: "But every young player is a contending team, too. Young players get, they have to get chances. They have to get chances. And the game, look around the league. I think that's one thing, that you have to give your young players opportunities. Your team is better for giving your young players opportunities." Takeaway: It seems clear that the Cubs are going to give opportunities to their in-house pieces. Counsell did acknowledge Kyle Tucker, his production, and the need to replace it. He also mentioned how Ballesteros basically put up Tucker numbers (.999 OPS, 2 home runs in 46 plate appearances) in September. Counsell's lament about Caissie's concussion in September echoed a talking point from Jed Hoyer this week; the Cubs want people to know that they were eager to see more of Caissie than they got to see in 2025. The Cubs do have budget constraints, and its not likely they will spend large amounts of it on a bat. They believe in their young guys, and Counsell will give them the room they need—or at least, he has the rationale for that course locked and loaded, should things break that way. So, Alex Bregman? Well, here's what Counsell had to say: "[Matt Shaw] is going to play a big part on this team. No question he'll have a big role and a big place on this team." This was part of his first question answered. He expanded, saying Shaw had a great second half and was a plus third baseman defensively by the end of the year. These comments don't lend themselves to the Cubs actively seeking upgrades, though again, there's an element of smokescreen to even a manager's remarks. THE CUBS WILL SPEND MORE HEAVILY ON PITCHING "We ended up pitching pretty well. But I think at the start of the season, it maybe wasn't the guys we expected to do it. It just shows—I think it's, get a bunch of good arms and kind of see what happens and have enough abilities to pivot when you have to during the season." " I think that's an important part of the season. But it's also something for us to just consider, is that the starting pitching injuries, it's significant. They can be very significant, and there's very few position player injuries that keep you out for the season. And it happens more on the starting pitcher side." As you can see, Counsell is mainly concerned with getting large amounts of quality arms to get through the season. This does make sense, for reasons we've exhaustively documented, and it's a very managerly thing to say. No one benefits more from a deep pitching staff than the skipper, who can avoid getting a hard time for overusing his trusted arms and knows he has many paths from Out No. 1 to Out No/ 27 each day. Look for the Cubs to allocate significant funds (or, perhaps, prospect capital) to the rotation and bullpen. It could be addressed by trade or free-agent signing. Either way, the team knows where it fell short last season, and is planning to address it. According to reporting, the Cubs have between $50 million and $60 million to burn this offseason. When you factor in Counsell's interview, it seems like pitching and depth pieces will be the focus—at least financially, and first. View full article

Image courtesy of © Steven Bisig-Imagn Images Rumors are swirling at the Winter Meetings, regarding possible Cubs interest in Eugenio Suárez. The powerful infielder, who is projected to receive a 3-year, $55-million contract by DiamondCentric, would add pop to the Cubs lineup. However, the team should refrain from allocating precious dollars from their budget to this player. If the Cubs’ budget were higher, of course they should sign Suárez. He would make the team better. However, given the reality of the team's payroll—namely, that they're probably capped somewhere south of $250 million and that Suárez would account for perhaps 30% of the money they'll be authorized to spend this offseason—they should choose a different course. FLAWS IN THE PROFILE Suárez is 34 years old, so a three-year deal would employ his services for his age-34, age-35, and age-36 seasons. We should not expect him to improve or, in Jed parlance, exceed projections, based on his age. STEAMER projects Suárez to post a 108 wRC+ next season, according to FanGraphs. Nearly all his offensive value comes from hitting home runs. Statcast data reflected a .212 expected batting average for him in 2025, and he had merely average bat speed (72.1 mph). He's one of the most strikeout-prone hitters in the league, and it's not because he works such deep counts. Another age-related factor is defense. Suárez has sometimes rated well at the hot corner, but in 2025, Statcast's Outs Above Average put him at -3, which is discouraging. When you also see his negative baserunning value, a picture is painted. Suárez is a one-trick pony. It’s a great trick—hitting home runs—but the Cubs need all-around contributors for the money they would be spending on him. Even if he spent some of his time at DH, rather than third, he'd be a bit too low in OBP to rank among the best in the game at that position. THE STREAKINESS As a team, the Cubs have had long stretches of below-average offense in each of their last three seasons, even while ranking well in overall seasonal production. Suárez does not help with that. In fact, his profile shows extreme valleys. While acknowledging that his peaks are quite high, the Cubs need to factor this into their equation. Last season (albeit after being traded to the worst park for hitters in baseball, in Seattle), Suárez could only tally a .189/.255/.428 line after the trade deadline. The ability to get that cold is a problem, especially for a team that already lacks consistency in their offensive core. This was just one season, and as previously mentioned, he was dealt to a team that plays its home games at T-Mobile Park. But in 2024, the streakiness was also a huge part of Suárez's narrative. His first half in that season was weak, with a mere .216/.302/.366 slash line and 10 home runs. The second half was better, but not as thrilling as the heater he had in the first half of 2025. WHO INSTEAD, THEN? That's simple. Keep Matt Shaw at third base. In his rookie season, Shaw posted an .839 OPS in the second half. This included a .522 slugging percentage. If he can get more consistent in his own right (a fairer expectation from a guy just entering his mid-20s), he could provide power himself. Any improvement from his 107 wRC+ projection from Steamer ("outperform projections," anyone?) would firmly place him in the top 10 third basemen in the league. Suárez wouldn't be a full-time third baseman for Chicago. He would likely fill time at first base and DH, as well. Moisés Ballesteros projects for a 108 wRC+, just as Suárez does. Chicago's internal options don't look much worse than the expensive outside hire that is Suárez. COUNTERPOINT: To be fair, hitting 49 home runs last year is an impressive feat. Suárez's last five homer totals go 31-31-22-30-49. In his stint in Arizona, he slugged an incredible .576. It's possible that he's found his true ceiling. He's known to be a solid locker room influence, as well. It's also a safer option than counting on youngsters like Shaw and Ballesteros. With the Cubs coming off a 92-win season, safety in projections would be a solid idea. Suárez's floor is certainly higher than the youngsters’. Suárez would be a flashy addition, but out of character for how the Cubs have operated under Jed Hoyer. It would be surprising for the Cubs to sign him, and ultimately, it would be detrimental to the roster as a whole. Let someone else pay a premium for the decline years. View full article

Image courtesy of © Patrick Gorski-Imagn Images Information surrounding Justin Steele has been sparse since his elbow surgery in April. We know he's back to throwing, but it's hard to predict whether he'll be back on a big-league mound by the end of April or only after the All-Star break. That leaves the Cubs with a lot of uncertainty to navigate as they try to improve their starting rotation. WHERE THE CUBS STAND Let's sketch out the Cubs' 2026 rotation, as it stands right now. Here are the likely starters, with estimates of the starts we can expect them to make Shota Imanaga:25 Jameson Taillon: 25 Cade Horton: 25 Matthew Boyd: 25 Justin Steele: 15 That's 115 starts, with 47 left to fill. The Cubs have over $50 million to spend to get to the luxury tax threshold. Keep in mind, though, that they also have only two key returning relief pitchers (three trustworthy guys, perhaps, after signing Phil Maton) and need to address the bench. The Cubs do have internal options, each with varying degrees of excitement. Javier Assad endured an injury-plagued 2025, but was recently tendered a deal. Jordan Wicks struggled in the major leagues in 2025, with a 6.28 ERA in just 15 innings, but still maintains a first-round draft pedigree and the potential to earn innings. Jaxon Wiggins, MLB.com's 67th ranked prospect, touched Triple A after torching the low minors (2.17 ERA across three levels, 97 strikeouts in 78 innings). The fifth starter, in a best-case scenario, would be Steele. He did start throwing on October 20: That gives Steele, who was projected on a 12-18 month recovery timeline, at least a chance to be ready opening day. In all probability, it will be at least a few weeks later than that, but the early returns are good. Given that he wasn't the most durable starter before the elbow finally gave way, the workload will need to be managed. The X-factor is Colin Rea, whom the team proactively brought back for 2026 and over whom they now have control for 2027, too. Rea is as unsexy as they come, but he also made 27 starts and sported a 3.95 ERA in 2025. He's a nice floor-setter for the bottom end of the rotation, and with Imanaga returning, Rea's presence might be enough to keep the team from feeling undue urgency to act. Between Steele's health, Assad's injury-wrecked 2025, Wicks's wobbliness, and Wiggins himself having had to be managed while recovering from his own Tommy John surgery, some of the younger internal options are risky. They could be seen as palatable, though, given the salary constraints the Cubs usually place upon themselves. With needs in the lineup and an entire bullpen to rebuild, the rotation could very well be set. WHAT DO THE CUBS NEED? That's really the crux of the issue for the Cubs. They need more innings to be covered. Horton, Boyd, Imanaga, and Taillon have had their issues with injury, and while none will need to be handled carefully in any specific way in 2026, it seems unlikely that they'll each stay healthy all year. The front office knows this; all offseason messaging has been about the pursuit of pitching. How many innings Steele will be able to contribute is a variable the Cubs can only loosely control or predict. They will, however, try to plan around it. WHO IS AVAILABLE? HOW MUCH MONEY DO THE CUBS HAVE? Most offseason reports have the Cubs with around $50 million to spend for their entire offseason. If most of this will go to the rotation, using the top 50 free agent tool on our umbrella site can be instructive. Here are some free agent targets the Cubs have been mentioned as being interested in, and their projected contracts: Dylan Cease: 6 years, $198 million: He's the big fish, and would take some sort of commitment by the Cubs to exceed the luxury tax for this season. He would be the ideal fit, though. Cease has taken the ball every turn in the rotation since he came up in 2019. This would be a big step to mitigate the workload concerns, and he gets swings and misses, too. Michael King: 4 years, $75 million: With an extensive injury history, he would be another risky arm to mix in with the rest. He's been an above-average starter for most of the last two and a half seasons, except that he missed significant time even in 2025. The third option might be to sign another player in the same bracket as Rea: a get-you-there guy, rather than someone who would actually start in October. Rea himself could be that guy, too, and then slide into the bullpen if and when the club reaches the postseason. If the Cubs can deploy a four-man playoff rotation of Horton, Steele, Boyd, and Imanaga—all at full health and performing at their best—they can be competitive even against the other top teams in the National League, though they would be underdogs. Signing arms like Chris Bassitt, Lucas Giolito, or Cody Ponce (the latter returning, this winter, from a career-altering stint in the Korean Baseball Organization) wouldn't excite fans, but they could chew through innings from March through September and then (as Bassitt did for the 2025 Blue Jays) become important out of the bullpen come October. The floor would be raised, but not the ceiling. Arguably, adding a high-priced starter would plug one hole, but open up another. Daniel Palencia and Maton are the only guys you can fully trust in the current bullpen, although Rea, Assad and/or Wicks could be utilized in relief roles at various points in 2026. They're losing (underwhelming) bench bats Justin Turner and Willi Castro and (whelming) middle-of-the-order bat Kyle Tucker via free agency. Much like a family with teenagers going to the grocery store, the budget can only withstand so much. Steele has to be treated as possible icing for a more substantial cake next year. The Cubs recognize a failure from last season: they ran out of capable arms in October. Only time will tell if they can fix this, and still address the rest of the roster with the money Tom Ricketts allocates. If they properly understand their rehabbing erstwhile ace, though, they'll at least buttress their rotation with someone who takes pressure off his recovery process. View full article

Image courtesy of © Robert Edwards-Imagn Images For the Chicago Cubs, when it comes to first base, Michael Busch will start for the next five years, health and skills permitting. After a tremendous 34-homer, 94-RBI season, we should expect him to man the position for the foreseeable future. The only nit to pick is his stats against left-handed pitching: a .207/.274/.368 batting line with only four home runs in 95 plate appearances. The recently-jettisoned clubhouse favorite Justin Turner sopped up some of those at-bats against southpaws in 2025 to varying degrees of effectiveness. With him now (likely) out of the picture, Cubs seem like a good fit for a right-handed bat who will be content playing on the short side of a platoon, but the opportunity to be creative is here if the Cubs want to upgrade in multiple areas. Note that we'll be using MLB Trade Rumors' expert predictions for each player's projected contract on this list. THE PERFECT FIT Paul Goldschmidt, Yankees: Projected contract of one-year, $8 million The 38-year-old veteran fits the lefty masher profile. He did, in fact, mash lefties last season to the tune of .336/.411/.570 line while a member of the Yankees. At his age, the market will not yield a major contract for him in years or dollars; he played last year on a one-year deal for just $12 million. After losing time to Ben Rice in New York, Goldschmidt reportedly wants a cleaner path to playing time in 2026 and is amenable to a short-term deal. The Cubs would be the perfect landing spot for him. There would be plenty of opportunities at the cold corner when Busch sits, as well as potential turns at DH from time to time. Goldschmidt would also be a perfect Justin Turner replacement in the clubhouse. All one has to do is Google the phrase "Paul Goldschmidt teammate" and page upon page of results pop up, all of them reflecting a positive impact. He would theoretically be the perfect fit for the Cubs roster on a one-year deal. Verdict: A perfect fit for what the Cubs would be looking for at this position in 2026. OTHER POSSIBLE FITS Kazuma Okamoto, Japan: Projected contract of four-years, $64 million Okamoto can play third or first and would be a theoretical fit that was already discussed on this fine website. His Cubs candidacy is tricky, especially because he'd be getting starter money for a utility or bench role. It's unclear is if he would be willing to come play in a non-full-time role; Matt Shaw seems established at third for now, and of course Busch is entrenched at first. Verdict: A great fit who would raise the talent in the lineup and add depth to the bench. Highly unlikely due to price tag and role questions. Josh Bell, Nationals: Projected contract of one-year, $5 million Bell is somewhat of a poor fit for the Cubs' needs. He only hit .151 against left-handed pitching this past season—at that number, Busch is a better option. Still only 33 years old, Bell may also be looking for a more consistent starting role like the one he had in Washington this year. If the Cubs are looking for Busch to get a breather and DH insurance for Moises Ballesteros, Bell could fit the bill. He's been known to have nuclear months at the plate as well. In September, for example, he slashed posted a 145 wRC+ with six home runs. He'd add another streaky layer to an already-streaky offense, but there's a lot of talent in his bat. Of course, streakiness can go both ways. In April 2025, Bell posted a .503 OPS. If such a stretch were to happen for the Cubs in, say, August of this year, the streak issue would be amplified. Defensively, Bell adds nothing of value. Verdict: Bell is the type of player Jed Hoyer signs only if the terms are in the Cubs' favor and other options fall flat. Not a likely player to target, but one that could fall to Chicago if the price is right. UNLIKELY OPTIONS Ryan O'Hearn, Padres: Projected contract of two-years, $26 million Historically a bat that is platooned against left-handed pitching, similar to Michael Busch. O'Hearn would be redundant, although he could fill in a corner outfield spot as well. Luis Arraez, Padres: Projected contract of two-years, $24 million Arraez simply doesn't fit the Cubs' analytic model on offense. It would be fun to watch him and Nico Hoerner in a home run derby though. THE SHOCKER Pete Alonso, Mets: Projected contract of four-years, $110 million Slugging from the right-hand side of the plate is a need. Extreme power is a need for every franchise. Pete Alonso fits both of these needs, but can only play first base. No, let's not start the Michael Busch to second base narrative again, but Alonso could make sense with some creativity. In 2025, Alonso hit for a higher average than the past two seasons, batting .278 after a few poor efforts prior seasons. The power has not fluctuated, though. Since 2021, he's totaled between 34 and 46 home runs every season. He's not a plate approach genius (53rd percentile walk rate), but not a whiff king either (40th percentile for strikeout rate). The Cubs do sorely need power, which Alonso would provide. The question is, of course, how they will value the profile of an aging first baseman. Alonso is represented by Scott Boras and is reported to be seeking a seven-year deal. With him entering his 30s, the question will be how hard the aging curve strikes. He's already a negative defender and baserunner; if the bat and power wanes over time, the decline phase would be a real burden at his proposed cost. It does not seem like the type of profile Hoyer tends to gamble on. Alonso would also make Michael Busch redundant and force one of them to DH more often than either would like, which is an issue with a roster that already has Seiya Suzuki and Moises Ballesteros. Verdict: Would be a fun, exciting signing, but unlikely given the risk and cost. Ultimately, Busch has earned the runway to start at first base. This front office, though, values optionality over pretty much anything else procedure wise. A veteran southpaw masher fits their needs. Anything more would be an interesting pivot for a team that has bigger holes to fill elsewhere on the roster. View full article

Image courtesy of © Patrick Gorski-Imagn Images This week, Shota Imanaga and the Chicago Cubs both declined their respective offer sheets on his contract option(s). What was unthinkable going into the season became a reality on November 4. Imanaga, at this time, is a free agent. The Cubs likely are telegraphing their plan for this offseason with this move. To make a long story short, they have been avoiding long-term deals (i.e., contracts that go beyond the 2026 season) for some time. Excluding Dansby Swanson and pre-arbitration players like Pete Crow-Armstrong and Matt Shaw, the Cubs are nearly bare of veterans after 2026. Using Spotrac's salary tracker page, only Swanson is signed after 2027. Ian Happ, Seiya Suzuki, Nico Hoerner, Jameson Taillon, and Colin Rea are free agents after this next season. Carson Kelly and Matthew Boyd have team options for next season; they also can depart after 2026. The Cubs clearly are not going to make any long -erm commitments to players until they know what salary structure they will be dealing with in the wake of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Keeping Imanaga around after his wobbly finish to the season for three more years doesn't track with Jed Hoyer's typical modus operandi. For jaded Cub fans, the question has to be asked: Where are we going with all of this excess payroll space? Is this just a salary dump, like Cody Bellinger? Will they repurpose this money at all? What can we expect this offseason? Well, they won't stand pat. Players will be added to this team. But the big splash, another move like Kyle Tucker, may not be in the cards. The Cubs don't pay that high of a salary to free agents, and they lack the prospects to pull such a blockbuster trade off. Don't expect a multi-year, high-dollar, flashy signing out of the front office this winter. They will seek to find value in the market as they typically do. This year, that resulted in now-staff-ace Matthew Boyd, but also in Jon Berti and Vidal Bruján, as an example of the downside of the strategy. They aren't averse to paying market value in the right circumstance and especially love finding shorter-term deals. This offseason looks to be one ripe for finding good players on one-year contracts, even at raised salaries. So, Imanaga's money will be redeployed in an effort to build a bullpen nearly from scratch (again) and finding rotation depth on the cheap (again). Think short-term, high-upside deals that mitigate the downside of long-running contracts. The front office values flexibility over blockbuster spending. Bigger deals that run the risk of serious damage to roster and payroll flexibility after the new CBA is put in place don't seem to be on the menu. The Cubs are designed to maximize optionality; develop and use prospects internally, strategically sign free agents that won't break the future budget, and manufacture a payroll that can easily be adjusted up or down as the need arises. It's reassuring and maddening at the same time. The glass-half-full view of this is that we probably won't see a team locked into a bad contract, hamstringing spending in the future. It's frustrating, though, as well, because ever since 2017, it feels like the Cubs never seem to be committed to putting the best product on the field no matter what. Instead, it seems the plan is to ensure profit margins while having a pretty good squad year after year. It's technically a solid way to build a team, but it certainly is more tedious. Fandom doesn't typically fall in love with values; we fall in love with players. Andre Dawson signing in 1987 is still remembered fondly today not because he gave the Cubs a tremendous discount, but because he brought "The Hawk" (and a MVP award) to Chicago. Ultimately, this is the hand Cubs fans have been dealt. The franchise has telegraphed their moves and plans to to be as flexible as possible in 2027 and beyond. The question is: Is flexibility really a plan, or the absence of one? View full article

Image courtesy of © David Banks-Imagn Images In a previous article (read it here!) we discussed the Chicago Cubs' pitching staff from 1984 to 1985, and what lessons the modern Cubs could take away from those 40-year-old mistakes. This piece will focus on the bats. Larry Bowa was a fill-in shortstop in 1984 and into 1985. The Cubs were waiting for superstar prospect Shawon Dunston to be ready. Dunston, a shortstop chosen first overall by Chicago in 1982, hit .790 with ten home runs his high school senior season in Brooklyn, New York. Blessed with a rocket arm, it was just a matter of time before he reached his own expectations of becoming a Hall of Fame player. Of course, Dunston did become enshrined in the Hall of Fame, but not in Cooperstown. He had a long career and was solid by statistical measures, was an All-Star and starter for the 1989 playoffs team. But he was not a difference-maker in 1985. That year, he had a .698 OPS and an 89 WRC+, 11 percent below league average. It wasn't until 1992 that he exceeded league average in that metric, after six seasons in the big leagues. He topped out in his career with 1.5 WAR, primarily due to offensive struggles. So, what does that have to do the current Cubs? Well, they are about to let Kyle Tucker and his production walk out of the door. The offseason is not here yet—time remains for them to add a veteran to replace him (or just outright retain Tucker). But the most likely scenario is youngsters like Owen Caissie and Moises Ballesteros absorbing those at-bats. Dunston, who was a higher level prospect than either one of the current ones, never had a major impact on the team until later in his career. The Cubs run the risk of betting their fortunes on young players who have a long learning ahead of them. And it doesn't stop with Caissie and Ballesteros. Pete Crow-Armstrong is no cinch to be a 30-30 guy ever again unless he fixes his plate discipline. Matt Shaw also had an uninspiring season in totality. Trusting young players to bolster playoff hopes is a large risk-one that backfired in 1985 (though not one hurt the championship team in 2016, admittedly). In the 1980s, the Cubs also ran back nearly the entire lineup. But look at their 1985 ages: Gary Matthews: 34 Ron Cey: 37 Keith Moreland: 31 Bob Dernier: 28 Jody Davis: 28 (old in catcher years) Now, look at some ages of the 2025 Cubs who are projected to return: Nico Hoerner: 29 Ian Happ: 31 Dansby Swanson: 32 Seiya Suzuki: 31 Carson Kelly: 31 This is an uncomfortable position the Cubs find themselves in. In 1985, Matthews, Cey, and Jody Davis could not replicate their 1984 efforts, contributing to their demise. Bob Dernier also fell victim to the BABIP gods and was not the same leadoff force. Playing guys into their thirties is risky. Look at that lineup for the modern Cubs; they could all be fine, but they also could age quickly. Father Time continues to be undefeated. I'm not smart enough to predict the future, but it is likely that a decline will hit players as they hit their 30s. Going into this season, and then extending them, runs the risk of the 1985-type cliff. This is a risky proposition to write, by the way. This could be horribly wrong. Caissie and Ballesteros could be awesome and nobody declines, leading to a special 2026. None of the players on the current Cubs listed are especially likely to decline, but the room for internal improvement among those veterans is also shoddy. There's no reason to expect this team to not make the playoffs in 2026, but it's hard to see them improving on their 2025 finish. Extending too many of these guys is the risk here. With Dansby Swanson locked up for three more seasons, the Cubs could become an old, lethargic lineup quickly. Long time fans will remember Ron Cey not as the solid defender he was in the 1970s with the Dodgers, but as a guy with a cool nickname (The Penguin) but no range and a declining bat. Keith Moreland was aging out of positions he could play and Larry Bowa hit 39 both in age and nearly his WRC (54 in 1985). The Cubs are in a tenuous position. They can't just let everyone go; there's just not enough in the system to replace them. But they can't simply stand pat and cross their fingers, especially seeing as so many guys (Hoerner, Crow-Armstrong, Kelly, etc.) may have just peaked. Jed Hoyer has a lot of tough decisions to make in this offseason and the next. If he chooses the wrong ones, we could be looking at another (smaller) teardown next summer as expiring contracts are dealt. If he presses the right buttons, Cub fans will be able to further trust him in the future. As it was in 1984 it is today, though. After you make a big jump, the second jump is even harder to make than the first one. The Cubs made that jump this past season; they need to be creative and smart (and probably spend lots of cash) to avoid the 1985 team's fate. They are nearing the runway. Can they stick the landing? View full article

Image courtesy of © Jeffrey Becker-Imagn Images It's an old sports adage that the final leap to true contention is the hardest to make. It's one thing to improve, like the 2025 Chicago Cubs, from 83 wins to 92. The next season is the key. Making the final leap is the most difficult one. For a (not so fun) example, let's look back 40 years into the past. The 1984 Cubs were flying high; 96 wins, an MVP season from young superstar Ryne Sandberg, and young prospects coming up like Shawon Dunston seemed to portend success. The entire rotation was brought back for the following year, including Cy Young Award winner Rick Sutcliffe (currently an announcer for ESPN) and future Hall of Fame righties Dennis Eckersley and closer Lee Smith. Wrigley was rocking, and surely this was the start of something special. Then, 1985 hit. While not an awful team, the '85 squad could only muster 77 wins, good for a fourth-place finish. A 13-game losing streak and a separate seven-game skid was too much to overcome. During that big losing streak, the entire five man pitching rotation was on the disabled list. Starting guys like 37-year-old Larry Gura and someone named Derek Botelho, the Cubs just could not build on 1984. Crowds by September were back in the 6,000 range and the excitement had fled. So, what can we learn from then? What did the 1985 Cubs do that the current front office can avoid? For starters, the 1984 Cubs featured Lee Smith in the bullpen, who remained a stalwart throughout his career. Beyond him, 31-year-old Tim Stoddard, 29-year-old George Frazier, and 32-year-old Warren Brusstar had solid years as well in 1984. In the offseason, Brusstar and Frazier were retained, while Tim Stoddard was allowed to walk to San Diego, the team that eliminated Chicago in 1984. The 1985 bullpen could not replicate their success. Frazier's ERA ballooned from 4.10 to 6.39 the following season. Brusstar's decline was even more pronounced; he almost doubled ERA his from 3.11 to 6.05. Stoddard, who regressed back to a 4.65 ERA in San Diego, was replaced by Lary Sorenson, who checked in with a 4.26 ERA. What does this mean for the current Cubs? Well, they can't count on aging pitchers with track records of spotty success to replicate career seasons. Caleb Theilbar is 38 years old; he's more likely to have a season like his 2024 (5.32 ERA) than continue a late career renaissance. Andrew Kittredge has a nine million dollar option that should arguably be picked up, but relying on him to be a late-inning fireman is probably a fool's errand. The bullpen can't be counted on to replicate these outlier performances. Jed Hoyer has long been great at putting together solid relief corps with minimal investment, but part of that formula has been excessive change year over year. I don't see a reason to mess with that concept for 2026. What else plagued those Cubs of 40 years ago? The rotation was beset by injury, and really, it was not easy to expect that. Sutcliffe had three consecutive 200-inning seasons before a hamstring tear the next season. Dennis Eckersley had ten seasons of over 150 before shoulder issues in 1985, and Steve Trout had no injury history to speak of until an ulnar nerve issue that season. Scott Sanderson was the only Cub with an injury riddled past, but he had a long career beyond that campaign. Looking at this past team and comparing it to this year's Cubs team is a difficult task. The 1985 Cubs were built around a solid staff who they thought would last through the season; the 2025 Cubs were built similarly. But Justin Steele broke, Shota Imanaga was hurt and never came back to full strength, and Jameson Taillon missed time. They were saved by Matthew Boyd and Cade Horton, both of whom carry their own injury history question marks. The Cubs need to be careful and not enter their season with the aforementioned players as their only options in the five-man rotation. There are higher-than-comfortable probabilities that all five miss time to injury. Cade Horton, for example, just pitched more innings than he has in his career, and has two major injuries in his recent past. Matthew Boyd similarly had an innings spike and was less effective as the year went along. It's not breaking news that the Cubs need to address their depth on the rotation. They will not have 30 starts from these five starters; they will need to supplement somewhere. The Cubs already are putting a ton of hope in Cade Horton's basket; some risk mitigation and additions would be beneficial. Even if it doesn't come in the form of an ace like Tarik Skubal or Hunter Greene, some more middle-of-the-rotation depth (á la Colin Rea) should be treated as a necessity, not a luxury. As you can see, there are some parallels between what the current and 1985 Cubs would try to do in the pitching staff. The bullpen will be a greater challenge to rebuild in numbers; the rotation will be a task in how to upgrade in quality and risk mitigation. As always, the rotation can make or break a season. It's up to Jed Hoyer to learn from the past and make the decisions that will make for a special future. While the names and eras change, the lessons are timeless. View full article

Image courtesy of © Ed Szczepanski-Imagn Images Often, teams enter the winter knowing that decisions about whether to offer arbitration to eligible players will be crucial to their plans. This off-season, however, that will be a relatively small part of the Cubs' planning. They have only four arbitration-eligible players. None project to be high-dollar signings, but in the Tom Ricketts era, every penny needs to be scrutinized, if not pinched. Of the four, two players feel like no-brainers, but each one is worth a brief discussion. Here's the list, along with the projections from MLB Trade Rumors for each player's salary via the arbitration system: Reese McGuire (5.110): $1.9 million Justin Steele (4.143): $6.55 million Eli Morgan (4.091): $1.1 million Javier Assad (3.027): $1.9 million Reese McGuire, C McGuire had his moments as an unexpected fill-in when Miguel Amaya went down with injury. Perhaps 'unexpected' is the wrong word, though; Amaya does have an extensive injury history. The veteran backup catcher's first game was electric. He hit two home runs in Cincinnati hours after his emergency call-up. That, however, was his zenith. McGuire ended with a .225 batting average and only a .245 on-base percentage, though he did continue to run into long balls on occasion. Advanced metrics paint a dire picture of his offensive skill set, too. His wRC+ was only 86, which is 14 percent below a league-average hitter. He did make major changes to his swing this year, and it now profiles more like left-handed José Ramírez (exciting!) or Kyle Massey (less so), after looking a lot like fellow backstops Jonah Heim (yuck) and Ben Rortvedt (double yuck) in 2024. However, he made disastrously bad swing decisions, leading to a low strikeout rate but a virtually non-existent walk rate and a lot of weak contact. There's no reason to think he will improve much at bat as he enters his 30s. McGuire is likely to leave the Cubs this offseason. They will hope for another solid season from starting backstops Carson Kelly and Amaya, and with more reps in Iowa, Moisés Ballesteros might just earn a look behind the plate in the majors. McGuire had some moments, but there's no chance the Cubs will pay $1.9 million to retain him. They might be able to trade him for an out-of-options reliever with upside or something, but either way, he will be off the roster by the start of December. Justin Steele, LHP A projected $6.55-million salary is enough to matter, given that Steele probably won't be back until at least midseason. It's not nearly enough to make the team consider non-tendering him, though. Steele underwent Tommy John surgery in April and should be ready for a significant contribution, but it'll come after a slow first-half ramp-up. There's no real decision to make here; Steele will be back at Wrigley as soon as he is healthy enough to toe the mound. The interesting question is whether the Cubs will view this injury as an opportunity to lock Steele up on a medium-length deal on team-friendly terms, rather than go year-to-year and pay a full-season salary for a partial season of work. The main area of concern with Steele is workload. He'll be treated much like Cade Horton was in 2025. We won't know how Steele looks until he's out there, of course, but there's no choice but to wait and see. Eli Morgan, RHP A mere $1.1 million seems a small price for a cromulent reliever. Questions remain on if Morgan is that, though. The right-handed relief pitcher could only total 20 innings on the season while battling elbow injuries. The decision on Morgan will be if he is worth a coveted 40-man roster spot throughout the winter. They may prefer to protect Rule 5-eligible players like Brandon Birdsell or James Triantos, if they are concerned another organization would select them. They also could non-tender him to free up his space for another reliever reclamation project. This one could come down to how much the front office feels they have to spend this winter. If the wallet is wide open, they could retain Andrew Kittredge (which would cost $9 million) and/or Colin Rea ($6 million), and that would likely squeeze Morgan out of the picture. If they foresee a tighter budget, Morgan's much lower salary (and the chance to have him under control again for 2027) might appeal to them. Javier Assad, RHP Like the other two pitchers in the list, Assad battled injuries in 2025. Assad hurt his oblique, then hurt it again, and never really got his footing. Unlike Morgan, however, Assad can start and pitch in relief. For what looks to be less than $2 million, he'll likely stick around for another season. At the very least, he's worth more than that on the open market, so he'd have trade value. It's hard not to assign significant weight to the fact that the Cubs left him off a pitching-hungry NLDS roster; they might like something they're offered for him more than they like the man himself. Non-tendering him, however, would be a bizarre choice. And that's it! The Cubs (probably) let two go and keep the other two around, and can then go about their bigger business, filling in the gap between their high-priced veterans and their rough-edged pre-arbitration stars. View full article

Image courtesy of © Mark Hoffman / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images By most measures, the Chicago Cubs had a successful season. Any season that results in 92 wins and a Wild Card victory can be considered a job well done. But this specific season, this postseason and the way it all played out, feels unsatisfying. The issue was the front office and manager, and the losses on the margins that felt as though they might have been avoided, or mitigated. In the end, it feels maddeningly as though the Cubs' goal wasn't a championship. Their goal, instead, was to keep the front office employed. Mistake 1: The Cody Bellinger Debacle After being dealt to the New York Yankees for soon-to-be waiver bait Cody Poteet, Cody Bellinger went on to hit .279 with 29 home runs and 98 RBIs. This was good, overall, for a wRC+ of 125, far above average and an improvement from his 2024 season of 109. Health played a factor in this; he avoided major injury in New York. Letting a good player go for monetary reasons is something a major market team that sells out every game and has their own TV network should never have to do. Aside from general rest days across the outfield and first base that Bellinger could have provided, here's a list of other times the left-handed power bat would have helped: Kyle Tucker could have rested for a few weeks when he was injured Bellinger was the guy that would have taken Justin Turner's at bats vs. left-handed pitching at first base. Pete Crow-Armstrong would have had more opportunity to rest, recharge, learn, and avoid left-handed pitching, if needed. Ian Happ could have been sat down in the playoffs, instead of having three hits and a .190 OBP in the Cubs' eight playoff games. Losing Bellinger forced the Cubs into playing their position players more than they would have preferred. The late-season offensive inconsistency was at least partially due to mental and physical fatigue. Since they cut the return in the trade before the season and still were $30 million below the luxury tax, Bellinger staying would have been much more helpful than what they did with the money saved—except for the Ricketts family, who had an extra $30 million in their coffers during their never-ending quest to break even financially. Granted, Bellinger landed in the perfect location for his skill set and would not have replicated his numbers in Wrigley. He was also expensive, and in theory, that money would have been repurposed. They did not do so, and the bench was an issue for the entire season. Obviously, it's not that simple. Once the team committed to bringing in Tucker, they didn't have an everyday role for Bellinger, and he would have been very unhappy as a part-time player, even if there should theoretically have been lots of ways for him to find playing time. The Cubs (rightfully) didn't really trust him to play center field anymore. One of Bellinger, Happ and Seiya Suzuki had to go, lest they create a major clubhouse issue, and Happ and Suzuki had no-trade clauses. They absolutely needed Bellinger-like offensive production; they just kind of cornered themselves into losing Bellinger himself, and failed to replace him adequately. Mistake 2: At some point, they had to add reliable innings. This could have been in the offseason, after Bellinger's money was shed. This could have been early on, when Justin Steele's elbow finally gave out. The trade deadline seems like it could have been a good time to do so, especially given their estimated payroll was far short of the luxury tax threshold. This one feels like penny-pinching. It was clear as the Division Series moved on that Craig Counsell had no trust in any starting pitching option besides Matthew Boyd (whom he arguably had too much trust in, starting him on short rest). But it's not really about the playoffs. Cade Horton, Boyd, Jameson Taillon, and Shota Imanaga were a good enough starting rotation to advance past the Brewers. Unfortunately, Imanaga was not the same pitcher after his hamstring injury. Horton had a non-pitching-related rib injury, but if he were that sick to cough enough to break a rib, clearly some rest was needed. (If he hurt it any other way, well, that's a separate issue.) Boyd was forced to go on short rest in Game 1 despite blowing past his innings total from the past four years at age 35. You may read these above points as bad luck, but they were predictable results. Steele's injury felt like an inevitability after two seasons interrupted by elbow injuries, and perversely, the team was too reliant on their pitchers to hold up. Nobody should have expected Boyd to pitch nearly 180 innings. Horton, despite keeping his pitch count down, predictably went down. The Cubs had to anticipate these guys wouldn't be available, and they just didn't—or else, they thought they'd be ok without them, which was also unreasonable. The Cubs had to get someone during the season who would have allowed more rest for the starters. Not having Horton and Imanaga at full strength was the deciding factor in the Brewers series. Whether it was money or prospect cost, the Cubs failed to support their solid pitching staff enough. Mistake 3: The Kyle Tucker Situation When it's all said and done, obtaining Kyle Tucker for Isaac Paredes, Cam Smith, and Hayden Wesneski feels like a deal that was designed to get Jed Hoyer an extension. Look at how this will now play out. Kyle Tucker leaves as a free agent. Suzuki goes to right field again for a year, until his contract expires. Owen Caissie, Moisés Ballesteros, and Kevin Alcántara battle for the Tucker at-bats. Now, the Cubs are looking at an offseason where they need a star bat, an elite starter, and an entire bullpen. This is the exact situation they were in last offseason. They spent elite prospect capital, in Smith (although it's not yet clear whether his talent will survive the abuse of being rushed to the big leagues; he was a Matt Shaw-first-half or Pete Crow-Armstrong-second-half level of awful after the break, without the defensive value) and a serviceable third baseman for one year of a player who has already wished his teammates the best of luck. The team had steadily built toward this kind of pedal-down move over the last two seasons, and it was time for it, but it's becoming clear how much it swapped the future for the present. Of course, Smith was clearly not ready to help this season, and the Cubs' recent track record in player development casts doubt on what they'd have gotten from him even in the long term. Isaac Paredes didn't fit New Wrigley and its constant wind-blowing-in home run suppression. Wesneski succumbed to Tommy John surgery. The book is still to be written on the Astros' return. Unfortunately for the Cubs, it seems like their portion is already written, and has been submitted to the editor. Even if Smith ends up a bust, the book for the Cubs will not be a best-selling blockbuster with movie rights attached. Smith, Paredes and Wesneski need not be the Cubs' business. But Tucker himself didn't produce enough, at the right times, to make the trade worthwhile. He proved unable to play well through injuries, and unable to avoid them, too. The Cubs have a ton of work to do to make the playoffs in 2026 and in the future. Replacing Tucker's production is job number one if they want the playoffs to be an annual thing, not just a one-off. The Tucker trade masked the lack of development that the Cubs have had in the system. Their minors are now ranked in the bottom half of the league; their assets after 2026 are ranked 19th by ESPN for future value. Trading Smith, who arguably has the most upside of any of them, was a risky move. For a team that is supposed to be future-focused, breaking their process for this was jarring. (Maybe it would have been less so, if Tucker had played just a bit better, especially after the break.) Ah, now that was therapeutic! It's time now to relax, enjoy the rest of the postseason and watch some Chicago Bulls and Bears action this winter. Given all the research about people and their lack of sports diversification, this is the healthy thing to do. We'll keep you posted, here at North Side Baseball, on the offseason happenings. Thanks for reading all season long. It's truly a privilege that so many people still read and choose to read my articles. Thanks again! View full article

Image courtesy of © Benny Sieu-Imagn Images Game 2 of the National League Division Series is a crucial matchup for the Chicago Cubs. Lose this one, and the squad will have to rattle off three consecutive wins. But if it results in a win, the Cubs can fly high into Wrigley in a best-of-three situation. Longtime Cubs fans will remember Ted Lilly in 2007, slamming his glove in frustration after giving up a home run in the process of going down 2-0 to the lousy Diamondbacks. Chicago would be swept in that Division Series, and the next year's team met the same fate, at the hands of the Dodgers. A win in this game means a series; a loss means the season is likely over. Game 2 in Milwaukee will hinge on the starting pitching. Shota Imanaga can have a short outing, and the team can still be successful. He absolutely cannot go off of the rails completely, though, like Matthew Boyd did in Game 1. If Imanaga gives up multiple runs in the early going, the Cubs' plan (and their season) will have been derailed. But let's think positive. Here's what it might look like if, in contrast with the bullpen-style plan Matthew Trueblood put forth earlier today, Imanaga works deeper into the contest. Shota Imanaga As the starter, he will not pitch to more than 18 batters, which is twice through the order. It's likely he will be pulled at the first signs of struggle or hard contact, but perhaps that eventuality can be warded off until the middle innings. Imanaga did face the Brewers three times this season, posting a 3.57 ERA, 0.85 WHIP, and three home runs allowed. Concern over the starting pitcher is warranted; he's struggled of late and the Brewers' 108 WRC+ against lefties is eighth in the league. His second half was unimpressive, with a 4.76 ERA. In September, it ballooned to 6.51. The Brewers aren't a home run-hitting juggernaut, though, and if he can maintain his control, the dingers can be held in check. Imanaga's velocity readings were up on all pitches against the Padres; maybe he can relax and give enough length to get to the later innings relievers. Counsell likely only would ask for five innings from him. The Craig Counsell Circle of Trust Colin Rea: Long relief (Aaron Civale pitched four innings and is likely out, Ben Brown and Mike Soroka's struggles rule them out of a close game). If Imanaga can't go five innings, look for Rea to cover the rest of those frames. If things go right, though, he could be withheld for work in Game 3. Daniel Palencia: The fire-balling reliever was a multi-inning guy in the Wild Card Series. He didn't allow a run, and held his velocity as he pitched. The off day on Tuesday means he can pitch, rest, and recover for the Wednesday night Wrigley tilt. Caleb Thielbar: Comes in to face tough left-handed hitting. If it's a dirty inning, he's the cleanup guy. You need to get through the sixth with some combination of Imanaga, Palencia and Thielbar, to set up the set-up men. Drew Pomeranz/Andrew Kittredge: They get the seventh and eighth inning; the order depends on the left-handed hitters coming up. Pomeranz has great splits when he enjoys the platoon edge this season. Brad Keller: Ninth inning guy. He struggled in a multi-inning stint in Game 3, so likely only a one-inning reliever at this point. The Cubs' risky move to start Matthew Boyd on short rest in Game 1 of the Division Series backfired. Fans are understandably worried about Monday night's game; the above plan gives them their best setup for success. Imanaga has been this team's lion for the last two years; they need him to roar again in Game 2. View full article

Image courtesy of © Kamil Krzaczynski-Imagn Images Defense never slumps. This is one of the old adages that coaches on every level preach. My high school coach in western Wisconsin preached it. I preached it as a varsity coach in my 20s. The Cubs are the embodiment of this axiom. In game two, the Cubs did not score. Pete Crow-Armstrong came up in the fourth inning, two outs, runners on first and second. The center fielder has been scuffling for months. At that time, he was striking out five of his first six at-bats in the postseason. Predictably, Crow-Armstrong failed to come through, weakly grounding out to first base. In game three, Matt Shaw stepped to the plate in a similar situation. Shaw ended the series with no hits in seven at-bats, striking out in five of them. None was as noteworthy as the sixth inning, with two runners on in a tight, tense atmosphere. Shaw did not rise to meet that moment and went down swinging, never looking like he had a chance. The Cubs left in two young, struggling hitters in tight situations. And it was the right call. Even when things didn't work out well, the managerial decisions here were sound. Counsell never blinked and left his struggling youngsters. When Craig Counsell speaks, he consistently emphasizes process over results. The Cubs have slavishly followed their process. Center Field has exclusively been Crow-Armstrong's domain, even when the hitting wasn't there. The defense was keeping him in the lineup. Matt Shaw has similarly been allowed to let his offense ebb and flow all season long, as long as his defense showed up every game. This was never going to change in October. Craig Counsell is a process-over-results manager. All season long, the Cubs have ridden the defense first. It's been the one constant this season and the main reason they won 92 games. There was no way that Counsell was going to compromise the defense. This time, the Cubs won the series against the San Diego Padres. The process was followed, and both players whom some fans clamored to be pinch-hit for made key defensive plays in their games. Matt Shaw, specifically, made a terrific play in the ninth inning in Game 3. Crow-Armstrong also made every play, giving fans a sense of calm any time a ball was hit to center. Nobody agrees with their manager all of the time. Craig Counsell, with his devotion to analytics, invokes a certain ire among Cub fans. But it is good to know what to expect going forward in the playoffs. Unless it's a ninth-inning, crucial at-bat, or tight spot, he will default to leaving his incredible defense intact. It paid off in the season, and it paid off in the Wild Card Series. Off to Milwaukee, where we shall see what twists and turns baseball hoists upon us. But we do know one thing: the defense is what has gotten the Cubs to this point. There's no need to change priorities now. They'll ride their gloves into Milwaukee and see what happens. View full article

Consistency. This award, the Cubs Hitter of the Year, will not go to the most exciting Cub. It won't go to the highest paid Cub. It won't go to a flashy acquisition who may or may not have a major calf issue. In May, the Cubs offense was flying high, and Kyle Tucker and Pete Crow-Armstrong were legitimate MVP candidates. Michael Busch was looking like the 2025 Leon Durham. For the first half, the team averaged over five runs per game. Based on a league average OPS of .720, the Cubs far exceeded that total as a group with a stellar .771. Then, the second half hit. These are not great trends: Batting Average: from .256 first half to .237 in the second OBP: 325 down to .311 SLG: .446 to .390 WRC+ Team total 108 at the time of this writing. The Cubs struggled in the second half, except for one man. For this award, there will be one person and one only who remained consistent for the entire season. The Hitter of the Year is Nico Hoerner. Just look at that. Never below a .284 batting average. Never below a .330 OBP. In a season marked with inconsistency of key players, Nico has been a pillar of safe production. But there's more when the numbers are dug into. With two outs: .321/.367/.425. Nico has kept innings alive With runners in scoring position: .370/.422/.459. He's performed in clutch situations. High leverage: .333/.375/.441. WRC+ only has Hoerner at 112, or 12% over an average hitter. He's the kind of hitter that is hard to measure in a catch all stat, though. Don't be fooled by the One Stat; Nico Hoerner has been the best and most valuable Cub hitter for the season. Also Considered: Carson Kelly: Kelly was projected according to ZIPS to have a slash line of .220/.298/.347 in the preseason. With five games to go, he crushed the projections with a .252/.337/.437. He also has 17 home runs, much higher than his projected 8. Kelly was incredible in April. He hit seven of his longballs in that month with 21 RBI and a .360 batting average. When Jed Hoyer took some heat for talking about "overperforming projections," this is exactly what he meant. Kelly couldn't maintain his historic pace, but those stats still count in the aggregate. Home run signing for Hoyer, and while he never really had a chance at this award he does deserve mention. Kyle Tucker: The favorite for this award until that pesky finger, and then that even peskier calf. A 22 home run, 25 stolen base season is impressive, and his 139 WRC+ is in line with his career norms. The Cubs got what they paid for, but not at the volume they would have hoped. One can only wonder if buyer's remorse has set in. Now, the debate and fascinating part of Tucker is that he's a free agent, and Cam Smith is a promising rookie with six years of control. It will be fascinating to see how much money free agency can net him, and how much risk teams will assume based on his last two season's injury risk. Time will tell this, but it is a guarantee his agent will not be able to hold the prestigious Northside Baseball Hitter of the Year award up as proof of worth. Other players had stretches that were notable, such as Pete Crow-Armstrong, Michael Busch, and Matt Shaw. Ultimately, though, their cold streaks were just too damaging to be considered. The Cubs have had a solid offensive season, just not a consistent one. Nico Hoerner was an outlier here; Craig Counsell surely enjoyed penciling his production in the lineup every day. An unexpected award, but it is truly a deserved one. View full article

Image courtesy of © Dennis Wierzbicki-Imagn Images The Cubs will have some interesting decisions to make with their postseason roster once September 30 rolls around. First and foremost: Will they have 12 or 13 pitchers? If they opt for 12, which seems likely due to only needing three starting pitchers (at least for the Wild Card Round), they very well might add an unexpected piece to the mix on the bench. Billy Hamilton had not played a major league game since 2023, where he played just three games for the Chicago White Sox. He spent 2024 and most of 2025 in the Mexican League. In 2024, on four different teams, Hamilton stole 80 bases, and in 2025, had seven swipes in limited playing time. There's no doubting that the speed is still there. The Cubs saw the speed, and convinced Hamilton to come to Iowa just in time to remain postseason eligible. He isn't pretending to be a hitter; Hamilton has only stepped up to the plate twice. He has played defense and stolen bases. This would be the role the Cubs would envision for the playoffs. If, in a tight game, someone who is speed challenged laces a single, there would be Hamilton, trotting out to the bases. Really, that's the only thing he would be asked to do. It's a roster luxury to have a pinch runner like Hamilton. Terrance Gore played this role for the Kansas City Royals in 2015 in their championship run. He also filled the role for the Cubs in 2018 and scored their lone Wild Card Game run. Unfortunately, due to the 13-inning game, he tallied two other at bats which were both strikeouts. Gore would be the nearest comparison for Hamilton. If the Cubs do add him for the Wild Card Round, they will have to ensure he's not at the plate in any key moments. Michael Martinez was never intended by Cleveland to bat with the World Series on the line in 2016; he was pressed into action as a defensive replacement. Hamilton absolutely cannot be placed in that situation. It would be ideal to have, say, Kevin Alcantara in that role, or someone else who could pinch run and also hit if needed. The Cubs roster is not optimized at this point. But, Hamilton could result in an extra run every time he plays, and in any given game that can be valuable. Time will tell, but don't be surprised if Hamilton runs the bases in a crucial moment in the playoffs. He could swing a game without even swinging a bat. The speedster's time on the roster would likely be as fast as his sprint speed, though. The Cubs will surely roster 13 pitchers for the NLDS, assuming they get that far. Hamilton would then be a fun luxury and historical footnote. And if the Cubs go all the way, Hamilton's ring will bling just as brightly. View full article