NEWSLETTER
Thanks to a wide open spot at first base, a need for power, and last year’s extremely successful one-year pillow deal for Cody Bellinger, outgoing Phillies first baseman Rhys Hoskins has been a popular suggestion in free agency for the Chicago Cubs. It’s just one of those moves that seems sufficiently obvious on paper that there’s probably a little something to it.
Sure enough, there’s a little something to it:
The Cubs, depending on how the rest of the offseason shakes out, might be a perfect marriage here. Yes, they have theoretical options at first base (Matt Mervis? Christopher Morel? Patrick Wisdom?), but there isn’t a player who is clearly locked in. Yes, they have theoretical trade options (Pete Alonso?), but there is no certainty that a deal can get done.
So, then, in a world where the Cubs were to add another impact bat somehow, having Hoskins as that second addition could be a significant lift to the offense. A reminder that Cubs first basemen in 2023 combined to hit just .241/.299/.414/92 wRC+, a completely unacceptable line at the position if you want to have a consistently solid offense. League-average at the position in 2023 was .257/.334/.440/111 wRC+.
For his part, Rhys Hoskins is a career .242/.353/.492/126 wRC+. So, if he were that guy in 2024, the Cubs would see a massive, massive upgrade at the position.
Of course, none of this is happening without context on the other side. Hoskins is available because the Phillies are moving on at first base with Bryce Harper, who took over the position because Hoskins missed all of 2023 with a torn ACL.
Coming into his age-31 season, can you count on Hoskins to BE the guy he was before the injury? How much would you spend without knowing?
“Certainly, there’s potential for a pillow contract,” Hoskins’ agent Scott Boras said last week during Major League Baseball’s general managers’ meetings in Arizona, per The Athletic. “Rhys got a chance to really get ramped up, almost to be World Series-ready in Clearwater because the Phillies wanted to add him to their World Series roster. So he is way ahead of this conditioning thing and really very much back to full speed.”
Obviously there would be a deep dive on the medicals before signing a deal, but there’s going to be risk no matter what.
One big question is whether Hoskins would want a pure one-year deal like Bellinger last year (and the Cubs would assuredly prefer), or a multi-year deal, trading some of the possible future upside for a larger total guarantee than he could get on a one-year deal. Bellinger, three and a half years younger than Hoskins is now at the time he signed, was crystal clear in wanting only a one-year deal. Michael Conforto, however, who was a year younger than Rhys Hoskins is now, got a two-year deal with an opt-out in the middle as his Boras pillow contract. That’s probably the ideal for these types of players if they can get it: security in case they come back and don’t look great, but freedom if they come back and look like they were before the injury.
Will Hoskins have enough leverage to get a multi-year deal WITH an opt-out after 2024? If so, the calculus on him being a fit probably changes slightly, since the team is absorbing all the risk while capping the upside.
Of course, if you had a lot of confidence in his health, you might try to persuade Hoskins to take a three or four-year deal right now, with a much lower AAV than he could get on a one-year deal.
In the end, though, I think the Cubs probably look at their situation and strictly want a one-year deal. They’ll have a lot of money coming off the books after 2024, which might be a year they spike way over the luxury tax. They also do have Mervis – what if he really takes a step forward this year? – as well as Haydn McGeary behind him, and then the continued search for a defensive home for Morel. They might not want to lock anyone into the first base spot for multiple years at this moment, preferring instead to push in for 2024, and then re-evaluate.
Long story short: the fit and interest here seems to be real from the Cubs’ perspective, but my guess is that they would be much more interested in a high-dollar one-year deal rather than a lower-AAV multi-year deal. So if the latter is Hoskins’ preference, and/or that’s where his market goes, it may no longer be a fit.
Oh, and a bonus fun fact connection here, assuming John Mallee still gets added to the big league coaching staff even after the managerial change. Mallee was Hoskins’ hitting coach in Philadelphia in his younger days:
