Jeff Alson

Obviously, the Cubs have to have a reserve who can play at least one of the 3B/SS/2B positions. Hoerner and Shaw have the flexibility to play multiple positions, but they can't give Swanson a day off unless somebody else can backfill behind them. The only option with the proposed roster is that Busch would play some 2B and/or 3B, but I think that is extremely unlikely.

I too was surprised by the $6 million contract for one year. Obviously the Cubs do think that they can either keep him healthy or at least get high-leverage innings in October. Time will tell. More important, I think this signing suggests that they will go past the first luxury tax threshold this year. My prediction is that they will sign both a starting pitcher and infielder (avoiding trading any of their key young players) which will take them above the threshold. They have shown a willingness to bounce around the threshold from year to year, and it will be very feasible to drop back under the threshold in 2027 with all the expiring contracts at the end of 2026. Finally, I was surprised by Matt's statement that "the Cubs have little chance of winning their division." Current NL pennant odds imply that the Cubs and Brewers are co-favorites to win the NLCD, each with a 30-35% chance to win the division. That would be similar to saying that a .325 hitter has "little chance" to get a hit.

This is a great article and the pictures are very helpful. My take is that as soon as Nico sees that it isn't a hard one-hopper, he should realize that the chances of getting a double play on a speedy runner like Frelick is extremely low. And getting the force at second isn't much better than taking the easy out at first as there is a good chance that Frelick will try to steal second and the Cubs won't throw through anyway (and in that scenario, the Cubs are worse off with the faster Frelick on second instead of the slower Vaughn). Given that trying to make the hero double play introduces risk on three levels (Hoerner picking the ball while sprinting, Hoerner having to make a perfect throw from an awkward position, and Swanson having to rush his relay), the risk outweighs the reward. Sometimes it just makes sense to make the safe, routine play and minimize risk.

Long bats right-handed, not left-handed.

An illuminating article. Swanson's .261 slugging percentage with RISP speaks for itself, and with 129 PA, there is no small sample size excuse. It has clearly gotten into his head, and Counsell has to permanently move him to 9th in the order. On the other hand, Hoerner is the one Cub who has proven that he can provide quality at bats with RISP. Accordingly, I would put him at 4 against lefties and at 5 against righties. What you lose with power, you more than compensate by with many more run-producing hits, especially when the infield is in with less than 2 outs, and far fewer strikeouts.

Also, Shaw is not hitting .222/.234/.289, but rather is hitting .222/.286/.360. More important, since the break, he has been a better-than-average hitter and, I believe, leads the Cubs in homers.

Jason, you are the first to suggest that Long is ready to be a "starting level MLB player" at a position that demands better-than-average offense. I think Hoyer would have jumped at the opportunity to get any kind of meaningful value for Long, particularly since it looks like Busch will cover first base for the next 5 years. Instead, I never heard even a peep about anyone valuing Long in that way. And Alcantara still seems to be more of a low floor/high ceiling project than someone ready to take over a full-time role on a contending team. Maybe another year will show that he is ready for 2027, when everything changes with Suzuki and Happ becoming free agents. On the other hand, I think there is more consensus about Caissie and Ballasteros being ready, and that is where your concept of depreciation is one relevant factor. If Tucker doesn't sign with the Cubs, which is certainly the most likely scenario given the number of teams that will be pursuing him, then I foresee Caissie and Ballasteros competing for Tucker's spot in the lineup (with the option of moving Suzuki back to right). The other would be a bench player, but one good hitter on the bench is hardly a waste given the prevalence of injuries in the modern game, the need to rest players once every week or two, and the occasional need for a pinch hitter. If Tucker re-signs, then I would foresee moving Caissie over the winter. While I generally agree with you about depreciation, I hardly think there would be much depreciation on a young player who spends an additional two months at AAA. His value could go down if he has a horrible two months, of course, but it could also go up if he continues his hot streak and shows that he can keep his K rate down for an extended period. I also think it is possible that, as an admitted "prospect guy," you over rate the Cubs prospects. I hoped that they could get reasonable value for Caissie, and I believe Hoyer did too, but you can't make other GMs value your prospects any more than they do. As you say, we weren't in the room.

Jason makes some valid points (such as prospect depreciation) and is more "rational" than a lot of Cub fans today, but his argument would have been stronger if he would have given some specific examples of how irrational he thinks Hoyer should have been. It appears that this was the most extreme starting pitcher sellers market ever. By my count, exactly one (Kelly) of the top 8 (Ryan, Gore, Cease, Cabrera, Keller, Alcantara, Gallen) playoff- caliber starting pitchers were traded. The Dbacks wanted young pitching for the rental Kelly and got 3 good pitching prospects from the Rangers. Jason, we probably could have gotten Kelly for Wiggins and Gallagher, would you have done that? I would not. The controllable options like Ryan, Gore, and Cabrera probably would have required 3-4 times more prospect capital. Jason would you have traded Wiggins, Caissie, Ballasteros, and Rojas for 2-3 years of Ryan, Gore, or Cabrera? I would not. Hoyer's rationality has led to successes and failures. The Baez trade may go down as one of the greatest trades in Cub (baseball?) history, and not resigning Bryant was brilliant. The Busch and Palencia trades, and the Suzuki, Imanaga, Boyd, and Kelly free agent signings have all been great. He even went irrational "just once" for one year of Tucker! Of course, lots of failures too, with Schwarber, Darvish, Pressley, Neris, and Quintana, and others. This is not 2016 where we are one player away from clearly being the World Series favorite. Even before the deadline, the Dodgers and Phillies and maybe the Mets would have been favored over the Cubs + a new starting pitcher. We are a top heavy system right now, and decimating it to improve our WS chances by a percent doesn't make sense to me.

I agree with Jason that prospects depreciate over time. But we will need a bench OF/PH in September and hopefully October this year, in 2026 we will need a starting OF unless we sign Tucker (maybe we have a 20 or 30% of signing him?), and in 2027 we may need multiple starting OFs. I support trading either Caussie or Alcantara, but not both. And I am fine trading anyone else outside of the top 5. But I disagree with trading multiple Top 5 prospects.

I agree with SB that we should not decimate the farm. Whether we are competitive in the playoffs is much more dependant on whether Tucker and Suzuki break out of their deep slumps (and to a lesser degree, Happ, Swanson, and Busch as well) than on whether we trade for the types of players available over the next 30 hours. And this is not 2016 where were clearly a playoff favorite and needed a closer to plug our one obvious hole. Even if trade a couple of out top prospects to get a #3 starter, a good reliever, and a bench bat we will be clear underdogs to the Dodgers and Phillies, and maybe others. The marginal improvement this year is not worth the prospect capital. I play poker, and the analogy would be calling a large bet when the odds are that you are the second or third best hand.

I completely agree. The Cubs have a .590 winning percentage, ahead of the Dodgers and Phillies and one game worse than the best record in baseball, and have playoff odds of over 90%. Who would have not taken that in spring training? Jed made two incredible starting pitching signings with Boyd and Rea. To criticize him for not anticipating injuries to 4 of the 5 incumbent starting pitchers, and not investing more in the #8 and 9 starters, simply because we are one game behind a team that is playing .600 ball, is ridiculous. I, for one, hope they don't overpay for a #4 or #5 starter who will be of little value in the playoffs. If they are going to overpay, my favorite target would be Suarez, moving Shaw to a utility role, or a top reliever, as both would add more value in the playoffs than a #4 or 5 starter.

Jason, that's a great point, that one way to avoid Ks is to make contact on "close" pitches. I guess another way to avoid Ks is to put the ball in play before you get to two strikes. What this suggests to me is that if Nico had a better command of the strike zone, he would strike out a little more (because it is impossible to have perfect command of the strike zone, of course), but also walk a little more and hit for a little higher average. One last thought. If it were Game 7, bottom of the 9th, tie game, runner on third, one out, infield in, Nico would be my second favorite choice to come up on the entire team, only behind Tucker.

Yes, I agree that Nico is what he is, a slightly positive offensive player (due to his base running) and a great defender. And this year a great hitter with RISP. But I remain fascinated that a player with such great hand-eye coordination and contact skills struggles with the strike zone. On the other hand, I just checked the stats for Arraez and he has an even higher chase rate than Nico, so maybe my whole theory makes no sense. I do remind myself that hitting a baseball in incredibly difficult and that it amazes me that hitters are as good as they are.

One of the great things about baseball is that we get to "play" manager and GM. I think it is a close call whether a #3/#4 starting pitcher like Kelly or Morton would help more than Suarez for the rest of the regular season, but I feel strongly that Suarez would be more important in the playoffs. The Shaw-to-Suarez shift provides huge benefits to the lineup every day (and we would finally have a true right handed hitting cleanup hitter vs lefties) while Kelly/Morton would only provide a small benefit over Taillon/Horton/Rea. With so few teams selling, the prices will likely be huge for Suarez and Kelly. I can't decide whether I would trade Caissie for a rental Suarez or not. I would not trade Caissie for Kelly.

Nico is having a great season with his excellent RISP, defense, and base running. His most surprising stat is his high chase rate. He swings at 32.6% of pitches outside the zone, worse than 80% of all batters, and as implied in the article, almost all of his strikeouts are on chasing pitches outside of the zone. If he could somehow command the strike zone better, he would hit well over .300 and walk more.

My point is that if Boyd and Horton aren't pitching in October, then the Cubs chances of making a deep playoff run this year are extremely low. even if we go all-in by destroying our farm system to trade for a couple of starters. This is very different from 2016 where we were the best team all year and had one very distinct need. This year, even with many of our offensive players having career years, we are simply one of several top teams, will be underdogs in the playoffs to the Dodgers and almost certainly to the Phillies as well even if we go all-in, and this doesn't justify destroying the farm system and weakening our chances in future years.

Gore would require at least 3 of the top 5 Cubs prospects, and probably more. I don't think the Nats want to trade him, and I don't want to destroy our farm system to get him. I used to think a starting pitcher was our top priority, but I have changed my mind, I think it is a right handed hitting 3B. Swanson has often batted 4th against lefties and 5th or 6th against righties, and while he has had a decent overall year, he is a weak hitter to be batting in those key spots for a playoff team, especially with his poor hitting with RISP. We need at least an average hitting righty 3B and then Counsell can choose between him, Swanson, Kelly, Amaya, and Hoerner for the key righty spots, depending on which players are hot. In the playoffs, with all the off days, most teams only use 3 starting pitchers all the time, and occasionally a 4th starter. Boyd and Imanaga are obviously our top two, and Taillon, Rea, Horton, and Brown give Counsell a group to choose from depending on healty and effectiveness, or the depth to go with a bullpen game, which some teams have been doing in the playoffs. Going all in for "top 3" starting pitcher would destroy our farm system, and going for an "innings eater" starter wouldn't change our odds much in the playoffs. With Steele out, we can't match the starting pitching of the Dodgers or Phillies or most of the other NL playoff teams, so instead I would rather focus on a deep offensive lineup, a great defense, and good base running. I believe a righty 3B and a good reliever with playoff experience would maximize our chances in the playoffs while maintaining most of our top prospects.

I completely agree with PVG that, when you look at their career data, Hoerner, Urias, Castro are comparable hitters, with OPS between .711 and .719. But, Hoerner is a great defensive player, while Urias is average-to-below-average and Castro is poor. And Hoerner is a good base runner, while Urias and Castro are at best average. When you think about possible playoff matchups with teams like the Dodgers or the Phillies, the only advantages the Cubs have are defense and base running, and it would be self-defeating to weaken themselves by moving or benching Hoerner who is, according to both bWAR and fWAR, the Cubs' third most valuable player. I will add two new perspectives. One, Hoerner is one of the best hitters in the league this year with RISP. He is particularly valuable with a runner on third and less than two outs, due to his low strikeout rate and ability to hit hard ground balls through drawn-in infields. Tucker is the only Cub player who I would prefer over Hoerner in that situation. Two, the fact that Hoerner is a very capable backup SS is very helpful from a roster makeup perspective, as the Cubs don't have to waste a spot on a weak hitting, backup SS as long as they have someone else who can play 2B. Urias hasn't played SS in 3 years and Castro has horrible defensive metrics at SS. Using Matt's own words, the bottom line is that Hoerner's "actual utility" "far outstrips" either Urias or Castro. I would take either of them as a bench piece, but not to replace Hoerner.

Great article. The chart was particularly educational for those of us who don't have access to the data. Freaky nonsense indeed. The technical term I have been using is unicorn. Even more impressive and incredible, last night's home run was off a lefty, against whom PCA has mightily struggled all year (.182/.213/.390/603), with just 2 walks in 81 PA. If he can continue to adjust and better control the strike zone against lefties, he just might get enough good pitches to hit that 35-40 home runs is indeed possible.

I enjoyed reading this well written article, but I want to add some points. You mention 4 variables that were not included in the quantitative analysis, but failed to point out that Hoerner has been the Cubs' best hitter with RISP, over .400 the last time I checked, higher than PCA. This means that all 4 of the omitted variables favored the bunt. And there was a 5th omission-- because there were 2 outs and because PCA has been red hot, the 3B was playing much deeper than usual for PCA (which is why his terrible bunt was successful!), so his expected success rate was higher than .400. We cannot quantify all these variables, but my guess is that the choice to bunt or not was fairly neutral. And I like that PCA was even willing to consider a " small ball" move and not let his decision be dictated by fan chanting or ego. That bodes well for the future decisions.