NEWSLETTER
Bleacher Nation Drinks Old Style: Raise a glass with us! Join the community celebrating timeless traditions and refreshing flavors. Cheers to great times and Old Style beer!
WEIRD NEW CUBS RUMOR — Generally speaking, I think we’re beginning an interesting couple of weeks. Thanksgiving is behind us, the Winter Meetings lie just ahead (Dec. 9-12), the market is moderately active for MLB — at least, relative to some recent seasons — and the Cubs are, too.
Even excluding the minor-league, split, and waiver-wire deals (Phil Bickford, Matt Thaiss, Brooks Kriske, Rob Zastryzny), the Cubs have traded for a quality reliever (Eli Morgan) and signed free-agent starter Matthew Boyd to a multi-year deal. That’s a lot more than they did by this time last winter. And more to the point, I actually do like both acquisitions … at least, in isolation.
In context, however, it’s a bit of a different story.
There is plenty to like about the Morgan and Boyd deals if we thought they were the foundation upon which many and more significant blocks would be built the rest of the offseason. Instead, I fear that those might be THE guys they were targeting for each positional group.
In other words, if you could promise me that Morgan and Boyd would be, say, the fourth and fifth best acquisitions of the winter, that’d be solid! But I think there’s a better chance that they’re the second and third most impactful adds overall, with maybe one “big” move left to go (excluding absolute moonshots like convincing Roki Sasaki not to sign in southern California or convincing the Blue Jays they don’t actually want Vladimir Guerrero Jr.).
Could that — in addition to a full season of Isaac Paredes, Pete Crow-Armstrong, and Matt Shaw — be enough to propel the Cubs into the postseason next year? Sure, maybe. But it would also be an extremely disappointing starting position. And a frustratingly familiar one, at that. How many years of “maybe” should we have to endure? How many deals like Boyd’s do we have to examine closely to see the value?
Don’t get me wrong, it’s incredibly early and there’s a lot of offseason ahead of us. And for Jed Hoyer, this level of early activity is unusually frisky. But I am just not letting myself be led around by the nose anymore. When Jed Hoyer and Tom Ricketts show us that they’re serious about building a 90+ win projected team in the offseason, I’ll believe it. Until then, I refuse to buy in. I refuse to be patient and understanding. I’ve been burned too many times. And really, I’m sick of looking flat-out dumb defending their approach, coming up with contrived explanations for what’s going to come next.
After all the non-tenders, DFAs, and new signings, Roster Resource has the Cubs 2025 luxury tax payroll estimated at $201M. That leaves them with $40 million of cap space before the threshold. Technically. But practically, their spending capacity is probably closer to about $30-$32M, as they historically like to leave about $8-$10M available for in-season additions, bonuses, incentives, etc.
Last year, they didn’t leave enough space and went over by relative pennies, increasing their penalties for signing qualified free agents to the point where I genuinely can’t imagine they will.
New Cubs Rumor – “Most Active” for Relievers?
With all of that in mind, here’s that weird Cubs rumor I mentioned in the headline. According to Jon Morosi, the Cubs are one of the “most active teams in the industry” on relievers. I just don’t know what to make of that, given what they actually NEED.
As of today, I can count five “locks” for the Cubs bullpen (Porter Hodge, Julian Merryweather, Tyson Miller, Eli Morgan, and Nate Pearson). After those five, you can bet that one of the lefties will make it (they seem to like Luke Little, but there’s also the recently acquired RobZastryzny), bringing us to six of eight spots taken.
For those final two spots, I’m assuming at least one of the big swing starters/prospects enters the conversation (Ben Brown, Javier Assad, Jordan Wicks, Hayden Wesneski, Cade Horton, etc.), especially now that the Cubs have signed Matthew Boyd for the rotation. And I can name another eight pitchers on the bubble as probable and/or up-and-down guys as the year goes on.
My point? The Cubs have plenty of middle relief and depth. The only thing they actually NEED in this area is a sure-fire closer. And while there are a couple of solid names available in free agency (Tanner Scott, Jeff Hoffman), I just can’t see the Cubs changing their entire M.O. by handing out a 3 or 4-year deal to that tier of the market. I guess they could swing another trade, but they’ve already cashed in some prospect capital to add Eli Morgan. Is Jed Hoyer really going to double-dip like that for the bullpen? I doubt it.
You can never have too many quality relievers, so adding another arm is a fine idea. But like everything in this post, I just don’t have faith that their reported aggression is actually occurring within the tier they should be operating.
