Along with this post, Tim Dierkes is holding a live Cubs-centric chat on Thursday at 9am central time. Use this link to ask a question in advance, participate in the live event, and read the transcript afterward.
The Cubs made a pair of significant signings, but still avoided the market’s flashiest free agents.
Major League Signings
- Dansby Swanson, SS: seven years, $177MM
- Jameson Taillon, SP: four years, $68MM
- Drew Smyly, SP: two years, $19MM. Can opt out of one year, $11MM with 100 innings pitched in 2023
- Cody Bellinger, CF: one year, $17.5MM. Includes $25MM mutual option for 2024 with a $5MM buyout
- Trey Mancini, DH/1B/LF: two years, $14MM. Can opt out of one year, $7MM with 350 plate appearances in 2023
- Tucker Barnhart, C: two years, $6.5MM. Can opt out of one year, $3.25MM after 2023
- Michael Fulmer, RP: one year, $4MM
- Brad Boxberger, RP: one year, $2.8MM. Includes $5MM mutual option with an $800K buyout
- Edwin Rios, 3B: one year, $1MM. Can be controlled through 2025 through arbitration
- Eric Hosmer, 1B: one year, $720K
- Total spend: $310.52MM
Options Exercised
- None
Trades and Claims
- Acquired IF/OF Miles Mastrobuoni from Rays for RP Alfredo Zarraga
- Claimed IF Rylan Bannon off waivers from Braves (later claimed by Astros)
- Claimed P Anthony Kay off waivers from Blue Jays (lated outrighted)
- Claimed RP Julian Merryweather off waivers from Blue Jays
Notable Minor League Signings
- Brailyn Marquez, Eric Stout, Ben DeLuzio, Roenis Elias, Nick Neidert, Ryan Borucki, Brad Wieck, Dom Nunez, Vinny Nittoli, Mike Tauchman, Jordan Holloway, Luis Torrens, Tyler Duffey, Mark Leiter Jr.
Extensions
- None
Notable Losses
- Willson Contreras, Rafael Ortega, Alfonso Rivas, P.J. Higgins, Franmil Reyes, Jason Heyward, Wade Miley, Michael Hermosillo
The Cubs kicked off their offseason with one notable change to the coaching staff, promoting Dustin Kelly to hitting coach. It’s been a high-turnover position for the Cubs over the years. Otherwise, manager David Ross’ coaching staff largely remained the same.
The Cubs had telegraphed their intention to let Willson Contreras leave, but in November made the easy choice to tender the one-year qualifying offer in order to lock down draft pick compensation. Contreras, of course, declined. Though an agreement with Contreras wasn’t in the plans, it soon became clear the Cubs would be active in free agency.
From the outset, the Cubs were known to have interest in the “Big Four” free agent shortstops: Carlos Correa, Trea Turner, Xander Bogaerts, and Dansby Swanson. Though Nico Hoerner did a fine job at shortstop in 2022, he was willing to move to second base, and the Cubs saw it as an opportunity to improve their up-the-middle defense.
As you know, the Cubs signed Swanson to the second-largest contract in franchise history. The Cubs’ choice will reverberate over the next seven years, so it’s worth examining how it unfolded.
Trea Turner was the first of the four off the board, reaching an 11-year, $300MM agreement with the Phillies on December 5th, the first day of the Winter Meetings. That total exceeded MLBTR’s $268MM projection by about 12%, which doesn’t seem too bad. But also consider that before Turner signed with the Phillies, the Padres reportedly offered $342MM, which topped our projection by about 28%.
Having left a reported $42MM on the table, it would appear that the suggestion of Turner’s strong east coast preference was accurate. I assume there was some number the Cubs could have come up with to convince Turner to put down roots in the Midwest, but to the extent that any of these contracts are reasonable, that number would have been less so. Turner was seemingly never really an option for the Cubs, but his signing established that Big Four shortstop prices would exceed preseason expectations. It also established that the Padres badly wanted a top free agent position player, having offered $342MM to Turner and reportedly around $415MM to Aaron Judge.
Agent Scott Boras later revealed that the Cubs were of one at least three teams that were “really after” Bogaerts. Unfortunately for the Cubs, Twins, and Blue Jays, the Padres wanted Bogaerts enough to reach 11 years and $280MM on December 8th. MLBTR was at $189MM for Bogaerts in October, so his total beat our projection by a whopping 48% and $91MM. I don’t know what Bogaerts’ second-best offer was. It’s possible that if bidding stopped in the $200MM range, the Cubs would’ve signed him.
The Cubs were presumably in on Correa to some degree, but at that point in the offseason he certainly seemed headed toward a contract well beyond their comfort zone. MLBTR had predicted $288MM for Correa. But five days after Bogaerts reached an agreement, Correa had a 13-year, $350MM deal with the Giants in place – pending a physical. That would’ve been 21% beyond our projection.
As of December 17th, the day the Cubs reached an agreement with Swanson, everyone still thought the Correa-Giants deal was happening. That same day, Mets owner Steve Cohen remarked, “We got there late” on Correa. Swanson seemed reasonable by comparison, with his contract exceeding MLBTR’s projection by about 15% and his total just above half of the initial Correa agreement. While Swanson was the consensus “worst” of the four shortstops, that’s less a knock on him and more to highlight how good the other three have been in their careers.
Even to reach $177MM for Swanson, the Cubs had to go out of their comfort zone. The contract runs through Swanson’s age-35 season, the type and length of deal they’ve been avoiding in recent years. Given a high strikeout rate and lack of walks, Swanson’s power carries his offense and should lead to a wRC+ in the 110 range. He’s very well-regarded defensively, winning a Gold Glove and leading shortstops by a wide margin in 2022 in Outs Above Average. The Cubs expect Swanson to be a clubhouse leader and a high-floor, strong defensive shortstop who will remain at the position for most or all of his contract.
It’s worth noting that since Swanson declined a qualifying offer from the Braves, the Cubs will forfeit their second-highest pick in the July amateur draft and have their international signing bonus pool reduced by $500K. This would have been true for Bogaerts or Turner as well. The Cubs lost the #49 pick in the draft for signing Swanson, but also gained the #68 pick for the loss of Contreras. Fans can welcome Contreras back to Wrigley in Cardinal red at a homestand in early May.
Three days after the Cubs reached agreement with Swanson, Correa’s press conference with the Giants was delayed due to an issue with his physical. The issue was later said to be Correa’s 2014 fibula fracture. The following day, Cohen and the Mets swooped in to make a $315MM deal, lopping off $35MM from the Giants’ price. The Mets, however, had the same concerns as the Giants, and by January 5th other teams were again getting involved.
It was at this point that, in theory, the Cubs could have jumped in and done what Cohen initially planned to do: install Correa as the long-term third baseman. But for a team that reportedly “loved” Correa as recently as November, the Cubs didn’t make him an offer his first time through free agency, after the lockout. And the Ricketts family not being nearly as impulsive or free-spending as Cohen, there’s no indication they tried to jump in after Correa’s physicals scuttled two separate $300MM deals. Plus, once the price tumbled all the way down to six years and $200MM, the Twins had clear advantages: they were the incumbent, and they’d have Correa continue playing shortstop.
So yes, the Cubs technically could have signed any of the Big Four shortstops. But given how things developed and knowing what we know now, it’s difficult to see how it could have been anyone but Swanson with the Cubs’ current ownership.
Most of the Cubs’ key signings took place in December, so it was a very busy month for president of baseball operations Jed Hoyer and GM Carter Hawkins. Throughout the offseason, the Cubs were known to be seeking two starting pitchers, one of whom might be Drew Smyly, who had good results for them over 106 1/3 innings in 2022. Smyly was indeed the secondary rotation signing, at a price matching expectations.
Though some early interest was professed for Kodai Senga in November, it seems Jameson Taillon was always the Cubs’ top free agent starting pitcher target. Taillon explained later to the New York Post’s Jon Heyman, “The Cubs made it clear from day one I was a top priority. If you can nerd-out and talk pitching with me, that really works for me.” It seems the Cubs’ pitching infrastructure talking points really did help, as the Phillies offered Taillon $72MM, but he took $68MM from Chicago.
While MLBTR did expect a four-year deal for Taillon, the contracts he and Taijuan Walker received moved the mid-tier market forward with their $17-18MM average annual values. Taillon, 31, is a solid mid-rotation arm, though I don’t think we can count on the Cubs getting him to miss more bats and raise his ceiling. The team still lacks an ace, but convincing Carlos Rodon, Justin Verlander, or Jacob deGrom to join the Cubs would’ve required an uncharacteristic overpay by the Ricketts family. The Rangers, another team that has been making improvements but still has less than a 2% chance at reaching the playoffs, did just that to lure deGrom.
The Cubs didn’t throw fans any curveballs in their choices to fill holes in center field and at catcher. The market for center field was thin, and the club moved quickly to sign Cody Bellinger to a one-year deal. The fit works for several reasons: his defense creates a decent floor for the Cubs, but the one-year term keeps the spot open for top prospect Pete Crow-Armstrong in 2024. For his part, if the 27-year-old Bellinger can bring his wRC+ back into the 110 range, a good multiyear deal should be waiting for him in free agency after the season.
Reports suggested the Cubs had interest in catchers such as Christian Vazquez, Omar Narvaez, and Sean Murphy. Once Vazquez and Narvaez went off the board, the Cubs opted for a defense-first addition with the more affordable Tucker Barnhart. Elsewhere the Cubs also worked around the edges, bringing in Trey Mancini with the goal of finding some pop. Mancini will spend time in the outfield corners, at first base, and at DH as needed. Given an opt-out after 2023, Mancini is seemingly hoping to rebuild value and re-enter the free agent market.
Eric Hosmer doesn’t provide power, but the Cubs brought him in anyway. The Padres are paying all but $720K of Hosmer’s $13MM salary this year, so it won’t be painful for the Cubs to pull the plug if Hosmer isn’t producing. It’s quite possible Matt Mervis hits his way into the lineup at Hosmer’s expense sometime in the first half. The club similarly made a modest addition at third base with the Edwin Rios pickup. Rios, at least, is on the right side of 30 and has shown big power in his limited big league exposure. Rios missed most of 2021 with shoulder surgery and much of 2022 with a hamstring tear, hence his affordable contract.
For much-needed bullpen help, Hoyer again attempted to identify bargain buys. However, he noted in January, “I do think the buy-low reliever market has been a lot higher than the past. It’s made that job difficult.” So far, Hoyer has matched up with a pair of righties: Michael Fulmer and Brad Boxberger. There’s been talk of adding a lefty, and Zack Britton and Mike Minor remain on the market with eight days left until Opening Day.
The bulk of the Cubs’ offseason comes down to a pair of long-term deals from the second tier of their respective positions in Swanson and Taillon. Those two should help, and it’s possible Bellinger and/or Mancini have resurgent seasons. On the other hand, the Cubs lost a very good catcher in Contreras. Overall, the Cubs look a little bit better on paper, though they remain lacking in star power.
For a club that has committed over $500MM in contracts over the last two offseasons, it still feels like the Cubs are being cautious. Owner Tom Ricketts expressed a willingness to exceed the competitive balance tax “in the near future,” but perhaps not by a lot. The CBT is set at $233MM this year, with the Cubs currently projected in the $219MM range. The CBT rises to $237MM in 2024, $241MM in ’25, and $244MM in ’26.
Assuming Marcus Stroman and Mancini opt out after the season, the Cubs’ projected CBT payroll for 2024 will be south of $100MM, leaving plenty of spending room for next offseason. While the Cubs have several interesting prospects, their farm system is not teeming with near-MLB-ready future stars, and it’s not clear exactly how Hoyer and company will pull the team out of its current rut.
How would you grade the Cubs’ offseason? (Link to poll)
Should of signed Abreu and resigned Contrares
Should have asked for “Hooked on Phonics” for Christmas.
Bellinger’s contract isn’t correct.
How so?
12.5 million with a 25 million option and 5 million buy out.
The initial amount reflects the guarantee. It’s inclusive of the buyout.
Tim I believe it’s 12.5MM w the 5MM buyout.
No it’s 17.5
The Cubs spent a lot of money while not improving all that much. I think the bar is set as a slightly better than .500 team.
I personally would have liked the Cubs to have grabbed JD Martinez or Bell over Mancini and I would have preferred not re-signing Smyly, instead giving the rotation spot to one of our young starters.
I do like landing Hosmer on the league minimum deal, like Bellinger (hate the contract amount), like Swanson, bullpen signings are okay. Rios could be a nice pick up at a million bucks with an option remaining.
I was thinking the same thing. That is an awful lot of moves to be mediocre. On paper there are a lot of ifs to begin with, but how is all of this going to work together….Hosmer and Mancini with Bellinger…aside from having them all healthy at the same time…how is this going to work alignment wise? Mancini is a far better at first and unless Hosmer is DH (which would have made sense for him about 5 years ago when you could still somewhat hit)
I’m a Tigers fan, and I didn’t mind seeing Barnhart go. He also can’t hit, and isn’t the defender he once was… Swanson is good, but 7 years for a 29-year-old SS… I don’t see this contract aging well.
What I’m getting at is the Cubs threw a lot of money around to get broken/aging players when they should have been looking to go younger. This team doesn’t have the pitching depth/overall health to compete….so why spend so much to be mediocre?
Hosmer is still solid enough defensively to man first. Bellinger is a great defensive center fielder and Mancini is pretty much a lock for everyday action at DH.
Hosmer isn’t a liability with the bat, he just lacks home run power you would expect from a first baseman. I would have much rather the Cubs land Martinez than Manicini but players get a choice. It’s the fact we were not even rumored to be interested in him that bothers me.
I wanted Bellinger from the jump, he and Hosmer both greatly improve out weakest positions from last season which speaks volumes about how bad we were at 1st and cf.
Problem I do see is 1.) I don’t love Mancini and two of Rios/Bellinger/Wisdom will most likely be in the line up at any given time, that’s a ton of strike outs. Happ is going to have to find a happy medium between cutting down strike outs and hitting for power because 15 from a comet outfielder isn’t going to cut it with our current team.
Hosmer is actually an awful defensive 1B.
The thought process from the Cubs is simple: spend money to placate fans who complain they won’t spend, but spend it on players they hope will have enough value to flip at the deadline when they aren’t competitive enough to win. It’s not an all out tank because they are still signing decent enough players and not going with complete scrubs, but they are still adding to the farm at the deadline. Then, when the next wave of prospects start hitting the bigs, they will add better free agents where needed.
Unless they totally tank, I think their deadline flipping days may be behind them. They may do better than we expect.
At least they won it all in 2016. Future doesn’t look that bright with Ricketts and Hoyer. Mid team.
““Big Four” free agent shortstops: Carlos Correa, Trea Turner, Xander Bogaerts, and Dansby Swanson. ”
Its like having the one of the Threes Stooges over for dinner, youre hoping for Moe, Larry or Curly, but when you open the door its Shemp.
I had to laugh at this mostly because I’m a Braves fan but also because I hated the 3 Stooges when I was a kid. Both of my younger brothers ganged up to exercise majority rule over the tv thus forcing me to either watch them or leave the room when (much to my disgust) one of their re-runs popped up. Spent a lot of time outside…………
Also, Bogaerts is a third baseman disguised as a stooge.
Suzuki was just cleared to resume normal BP
The Cubs had an interesting offseason in that they signed players that if everything falls into place could make them a playoff team and if every goes wrong adds a lot of dead weight. Not really sure what the goal for the Cubs is this year
Most accurate description of their off-season I saw on Twitter was: they signed Dansby Swanson and a bunch of guys who if you go their card in a pack of baseball cards, you’d say “meh”
Dansby Swanson in the pack would also be included as a meh. When I clicked on Taillon though that seems to be a solid under the radar signing. Pulling a 3.91 era in one of (if not the) best offensive divisions in baseball is pretty good and they signed him at a good price.
The Rotation will be the Cubs strength this season and they need to get Hosmer off of First Base and just use him as a DH or release him!
With Hosmer at First Base the infield defense is weaken!
Bullpen will be interesting and if they get a closer that can save games and two decent holders then the team will be very good in pitching.
Those complaining about Wilson C. departure should know he was long gone and truthfully the Cardinals will regret that signing.
The Cubs need to improve behind the plate via trade.
Third Base is a very weak spot and need to be filled.
Cubs can make the playoffs this year but don’t count on a Title.
“And Then There Were None”
– Agatha Christie, (name of her novel describing on how many more WS championships the loverable losers will win in the next 108 years).
If the Cubs were going to commit a large amount of money to a SS, they really should have tried to nab one of the big 3 and gotten at least some actual bang for their buck. The Swanson deal was a massive overpay that I think the Cubs will regret sooner than later. His defense isn’t really good enough to justify paying so much for such a mediocre career hitter. It’s way too early to call the contract a bust for certain, but I cringed the moment the Cubs signed him and he’s looked quite bad in Spring Training. I predict it will be Jason Heyward all over again, basically. They may have just been better off extending Baez, who I think could possibly still be the better overall player than Swanson going forward.
Rival executives have the Swanson signing as one of the best signings of the off-season. He’s progressively gotten better and his contract ends at his age 35 season. Swansons spray chart even suggests a slight raise in power numbers moving from Atlanta to Chicago.
Baez on the other hand is going to opposite direction.
You can predict the Heyward signing, I’m going to say he hits 25 home runs, drives in around 80 and plays solid defense.
The only player, based on the contract they received, I would have rather had is Correa but the Cubs already had Swanson locked up before the Correa disaster. Turner and Bogaerts are both a couple years too long and I love Trea Turner.
I think the Cubs got the most value contract-wise.
The most value, contract-wise is Turner. I’m a Braves fan and I love Dansby, but 177M for 7 years is an overpay. At 25M per, I would have expected a short term contract, no more than 3 or 4 years, for 7 years it should have been a 21M – 22M average.
That being said, Dansby will make the Cubs better. I don’t even care what his BA or OPS is.
There are 2 major points that many people are missing when they try to predict where the Cubs are now, entering the 2023 season 1) people are totally underestimating the strength of the Cubs pitching. Starting and relievers. Taillon and Wesneski and possibly Assad are capable of making a huge difference – and the Cubs bullpen now with Fulmer and Boxburger joining the number of young arms coming through the system, will surprise a lot of people. 2) Swanson was signed because although the Cubs have a nice number of OFers and corner IFers on the doorstep, they do not have a SS anywhere near MLB ready. Signing a SS was a necessity.
I hear that it was very highly rated by Anthopolos.
Baez contract was awful. Most bigger contracts aren’t good. I liked Swanson better than most. Saved over 100 compared to Turner. Don’t have to worry about Fenway stats. Has the wife playing there. Good looking and likable. Sounds like he is a leader. They needed a star and if he isn’t one they could market him as one. The non baseball stat benefits help. Red flag ATL didn’t seem to fight to keep him.
they’re not great, but dang 2% to make the postseason? that ain’t right!
Swanson use to play for the Braves that had a pretty solid line up. Not sure what the Cubs have for Swanson in their line up for him to look like he is worth that contract for this upcoming season unless they plan on going for Othani in the off season.
It’s a mixed bag of signings. Evolution not revolution.
Some are medium/long term signings, others placeholders until the kids are ready or until they can sign upgrades.
So who is the hairy beast master in the above picture please?
That’s either Kip Winger… or Dansby Swanson. Tough to tell them apart!
Finally no more Heyward contract. GRADE: A.
Heyward may be gone, but the contract is not. Cubs are still paying him.
Yup, Cubs are paying him $22 M to play for the Dodgers I’m 2023
To steal someone else’s phrase, this is exactly what “Mediocrity by Design” looks like. For a team with such a large fan base and deep financial resources, this roster is a joke. Their so-called major signings are an overpriced shortstop who’s never had more hits than strikeouts in a full season, an okay starting pitcher, and a bunch of random washed-up white dudes. Few owners have squandered goodwill to the same extent as the Ricketts family.
@Doug, they were not spending to b mediocre. Their only 2 new long term commitments were a solid arm for rotation and a top 10 SS. It establishes a solid core to build around up the middle in Swanson/Hoerner. The rest of the signings, all have potential to b valuable trade deadline pieces to deal. Just cus they could spend $ does not mean they should have. They need to se what young talent they re gonna build around at this point. In the mean time they brought inalot of proven vets on 1 year deals or with options and all could bring back nice returns in a trade later on.
I appreciate your optimism but respectfully don’t believe that it’s warranted. Just because Swanson is being paid like a top ten shortstop doesn’t make him one. The Cubs will be lucky to get a few bags of balls in trades for the veterans they’ve signed. “Just because they could spend money doesn’t mean they should have.” is music to Tom Ricketts’s ears. Assuming any of their prospects actually pan out, they’re all at least two, maybe three, years away. The Cubs assembled teams like this all the time during the 1990s: seemingly good enough to bring fans out to Wrigley Field (well, until August at least), but not good enough to contend. If this isn’t spending to be mediocre, then I don’t know what is.
A few years away? I was under impression Hoerner, Rios, Madrigal, Wisdom, Morel, McKinstry were all on Cubs roster. And Fulmer, Smyly, Mancini have all proven to have some trade value. And if Bellinger rebounds to any semblance of his former production he ll have loads of value. Hosmer on a league minimum contract has trade value as well for any contender dealing with injuries or low production.
Besides, what other two free agents could they have signed regardless of cost that would have made them legitimate contenders?? Let’s be honest here, the Cubs have not hit that point where they have enough talent that they only need to add a few key pieces for viable shot at contending or a deep playoff run.
The first group of names you mentioned prove my point about “Mediocrity by Design.” A serious contender wouldn’t have any of those guys as starters (with the possible exception of Hoerner) and maybe not even as bench players. Rios? Sure, give him a shot because I actually like that signing. But the fact that the Dodgers let him go for nothing just shows how much more talent they have in their system versus that of the Cubs. If your second group has so much trade value, why were the Cubs able to sign them so easily on the cheap? Answer: Because no one else wanted them. Hosmer has no trade value because he lost the ability to hit a long time ago. His low salary doesn’t make his lack of offense any more attractive. The Cubs could have signed any of the other free agent shortstops who were available instead of Swanson. That alone would have moved them closer to contender status. If you believe that the current Cubs team isn’t capable of a deep playoff run (and I’m inclined to agree with you here), why waste money on second-tier and third-tier free agents at all? I’d rather they just tank as they did in 2012-2014 since there’s really not much difference between a 60-win team and an 80-win team. The moves the Cubs have made are designed to convince enough casual fans that they’re trying to contend, which will hopefully result in (overpriced) ticket sales. The more that this approach is rationalized, the more likely that seasons such as 2016 will be the exception and not the rule. Cubs fans deserve better.
It’s obvious you do not like Swanson. He was the 2nd best SS based off WAR last year and is coming off two consecutive great seasons. Who would u have preferred they sign Correa with the questionable medical stuff? Turner who turned down more $ from Padres to play in Philly where he desired to go? Bogaerts who seemed quite content going to the Padres? Swanson came cheaper then all of them and he was likely the only one they had a shot at aside from Correa.
And while the players I mentioned might not b elite, they still need to b given the opportunity to see what they have, that is the point in building where the Cubs stand.
As far the 2nd group, the reason those players chose the Cubs opposed to other teams was playing time. They re all out to prove themselves and can only do so on a team they know they’d have a starting job. You mention how much better the Dodgers farm system is, well the way to restock a farm system is having tradeable assets at the deadline. That’s exactly what Cubs lined themselves up to do.
I get that waiting for a team to rebuild is frustrating. That is where the Cubs stand tho. They could have went berserk on free agent market and they likely would still not b contenders.
Swanson had an OPS+ of 99 in 2021, meaning he was a below average hitter that year. That’s not a great season however good his defense may have been. Yes, he was a good player overall in 2022 (in what will likely go down as his career year), but that doesn’t necessarily help the Cubs going forward. He’s been in the Major Leagues since 2016. The fact that it’s taken him this long to have one “great” season doesn’t bode well for sustained success in the future. As I’ve mentioned before, he’s never had a full season in which he had more hits than strikeouts. That might be acceptable for someone who hits 40+ home runs per year, but it’s not for a defense-first shortstop, especially for the kind of money the Cubs are paying him.
Yes, I would have preferred any of those other free agent shortstops as they are all vastly superior players. There’s no reason why the Cubs couldn’t have offered a deal similar to what the Twins gave to Correa, a contract that does a good job of addressing his injury risks. (Speaking of injury risks, you don’t seem to have a problem with all the money the Cubs threw at cancer survivor and two-time-Tommy-John-surgery-recipient Jameson Taillon.) What you say about Turner and Bogaerts are counterfactuals. We don’t know what they would have done had the Cubs offered them more money than the Phillies and Padres. The Swanson signing is a classic Cubs move: They’re too cheap to give elite money to an elite player, and then they give too much money to an above-average player instead. If Swanson had been the second-best or third-best free agent the Cubs had signed, I’d be fine with the move. Instead, Swanson was their biggest free agent acquistion. Not a good allocation of resources, especially for a season in which they’re not expected to be serious contenders. Assuming that the Cubs will be a good team in 2024-2026, I’d rather have Correa, Turner, or Bogaerts as the shortstop based on their much better track records.
I have no problem with Hoerner or even Rios. Madrigal and McKinstry have been given opportunities to see what they have. What they have ain’t much. Morel might turn out to be a decent utility player, but more likely he’ll be Arismendy Alcantara 2.0 given his prodigious strikeout numbers. We’ve seen what Wisdom can do: even more strikeouts, the occasional cheap home run, and decent defense at third base. He has no business being a starter for a contending team.
I realize that you think those players in the second group are valuable trade chips. They’re not. Maybe Jed Hoyer will get lucky and fleece some other team in an exchange for one of them. But it’s more likely that he’ll just get a middling prospect who never makes it to the Major Leagues. Some of the prospects he acquired in 2021 look like they have the potential to be good. Keep in mind, however, he traded away the Cubs’ core players (Rizzo, Bryant, and Baez) to acquire them – not players they got off the free agent scrap heap such as Mancini, Boxberger, etc.
It’s not waiting for the Cubs to rebuild that I find frustrating. It’s HOW the Cubs are rebuilding that I find frustrating. If they’re going to shell out millions of dollars for free agents, I’d rather they pay more for players who are likelier to help them in 2024-2026 than the overrated Swanson and Taillon, who’s a #3 starter at best. And their postseason results notwithstanding, the shelling-out-for-a-bunch-of-mostly-good-free-agents approach worked out quite well for the Cubs in 2007 and 2008.
Madrigal has played in 140 MLB games and McKinstry 120. Taillon they signed to a 3 year deal, it’s not as though it is a risk that will burden them for close to a decade. 2 separate teams agreed to a deal and backed out with Correa over medical’s, that is unprecedented. As for Turner and Bogaerts they were not going to sign with Cubs.
You are just proposing they should have spent $ for the sake of spending $. They only gave 2 significant commitments after this season. They also have some intriguing young players. Next off season they ll likely b even more involved in free agent market. I know it’s not exciting for fans, but the team is being built methodolically and they started with an emphasis on up the middle defense. As far as rebuilding a team goes they had a very solid off season. They did not just spend $ to spend $. They built with a plan and an eye on the future. And whether u like the signings of Taillon and Swanson or not, it shows they are not afraid to commit $ on pieces that fit the teams vision.
At their best in the minor leagues, Madrigal and McKinstry have shown themselves to be high average hitters with little power. They aren’t exceptional defenders (and that’s putting it mildly for Madrigal) or baserunners. Spraying singles around the field is their only tool, Since these two have little else to offer, teams can’t give them a long leash to prove themselves if they’re not hitting right out of the box.. 100+ games in the Major Leagues is more than enough time to show they can do this. So far, they haven’t.. Madrigal and McKinstry bear all the hallmarks of being AAAA players. Guys like them are a dime a dozen and should not be considered major building blocks for an organization serious about winning.
As for the Taillon deal, I don’t hate it. But he’s an innings-eater, nothing more. As you point out, the Cubs didn’t give him a long-term deal, which means he’s probably not even going to be around if and when the Cubs are competitive again. Taillon is precisely the kind of pitcher a team signs when the plan is to be mediocre for the immediate future.
Sure, Correa would have been a risky signing. But a smart team willing to take a chance on his upside would give him a contract just like the Twins did. The Cubs had a chance to show some creativity here and didn’t.
You continue with counterfactuals about Turner and Bogaerts. Unless you can point to official statements from them or their agents stating that they weren’t going to sign with the Cubs no matter what, you don’t know that.
I am not proposing – and never have proposed – that the Cubs should spend money for the sake of spending money. I started this thread lamenting that the Cubs expended significant financial resources on players who just aren’t that good.. You’re the one who asked what other free agent signings could have made them legitimate contenders. I did not claim that any would. Instead, I took the position that if they were going to splurge on any of the four available shortstops, it should have been anyone other than Swanson based on their career statistics. Similar to Taillon, Swanson is precisely the kind of shortstop a team signs when the plan is to be mediocre for the immediate future. Both of these signings are classic spending-money-for-the-sake-of-spending-money-type moves. If the Cubs weren’t going to spend really big on this last class of free agents, I think they would have been better off not spending at all.
Yes, the Cubs have a few intriguing young players, but their minor league system is not that highly regarded by professional baseball writers who know a lot more than either of us. So far, Matt Mervis is the only prospect who has performed well above the AA level. I’ll start to get excited about the next wave of Cubs homegrown talent when they have a bunch of International League All Stars in Des Moines. The fact is that most prospects don’t pan out, so it’s best not to depend on them becoming core players like so many Cubs fans seem to be doing right now.
Maybe the Cubs will be more involved in next year’s free agent market. I hope you’re right about that as long as they spend intelligently.
I think you’re being much too accepting of the propaganda that the Cubs front office is spewing out. There is no evidence that Hoyer et al. are building this team methodically like Theo Epstein did during the 2012-2014 period.. The Cubs could have easily had good up-the-middle defense without outlaying so much money on the overpriced Swanson who – and I’ll beat this dead horse one more time – epitomizes spending money for the sake of spending money.. If he and Taillon fit the Cubs’ vision, then this team is in dire need of an optometrist.
I’m fascinated by this offseason. It seems the Cubs went all in on up-the-middle defense and added another pitcher in Taillon (to go along with Hendricks and Stroman) that induce ground balls and soft contact. Throw in the tall grass and the infield should be very strong.
The key question is can they score enough runs? Unless they get unexpected turnarounds from a few veterans, the answer is almost certainly no. It feels like an “Ohtani or bust” 2023-24 offseason, and I don’t like our odds of signing him.
The minors are going to have to start providing offensive help because the list of 2023-24 free agents on the offensive side are weak outside of Ohtani.
All in all, some promise, lots of questions, and an uncertain future. A familiar place for us Cubs fans.
I was telling some Cubs’ fans it would not surprise if the Angels either part ways with Othani or Trout due to the fact they will both cost a lot of money along with Rendon’s contract. Lets say the Angels want to keep Othani over Trout due to being on the west coast that caters to the Asian market, then Cubs have the money to take on
Trout’s contract with giving up prospects to trade for him and have him be a DH to keep him from being on the DL for 40 to 60 games a year. Rendon’s contract is unmovable due to his history of being hurt. This is just my analysis so it could be wrong but makes sense it a bizarre way.
one small problem with any trout trade, is getting past that pesky 10&5 rule and him agreeing to any trade.
Solid 75 win team
Love our offseason. It shows we are moving in the right direction. We may surprise some people but if we don’t we should be better and soon our group of prospects will be ready to mix in with the veterans. Two years from now we will be in a great position..but I could see us keeping up with the Cards this year. Either way we could’ve done real worse. Love the Swanson signing..Trey Mancini too. Let’s go Cubbies.
I can see 81-85 wins this year. With some opt outs and the potential to sign a guy like Ohtani or Burnes, plus the young arms continuing to improve, the pitching staff should be solid. The team has more depth in pitching right now than they have had in decades. The young bats are on the way too. Mervis and Davis will be up this year, PCA and Caissie in 2024, Alcantara and Christian Hernandez in 2025. The future is very bright
B. Was going to be a C. They brought in a lot of average above average talent and seemed to fill most holes. B is because it was enough to convince a lot of their fans that they are a 500 team or even a shot at the playoffs. I imagine the casual fan that just pays their cable bill or attends games has a higher percentage of optimism.
These cubs aint gonna compete. Didn’t trade contreras and Schwarber wasn’t offered a contract.
One GM away from being competitive.
Fans won’t care anyway since Wrigley is fully open.