Chicago Cubs 2026

[bdutts]

The Schwarber decision was horrifically bad and depressing of course

Hindsight is always 20/20, no?

His last year with the Cubs, he played 59 of the 60 games with 224 PA and hit a robust .188 with a slugging % of 0.393. I can see why they declined to offer him 8.5M or whatever the qualifying offer was at the time, especially with no full time DH in the NL yet (came in 2022 but they experimented in 2020). IMO, they gambled twice and lost: 1) I think they thought they'd be able to resign him at less than the qualifying offer because they figured no one else would offer more and 2) They failed to realize that the NL would adopt the full time DH two years later. Two strikes and you're out!

I don't know who they were after in 2021 in place of Schwarber but I'm sure they thought they could replace his production and to be honest, it's hard to think they couldn't.

It's hard to place value on a DH. His best WAR year was 2025 with 4.6. For comparison, Ian Happ's best WAR year was 2022 with 4.3.

 

[ChiefGritty]

Hindsight is always 20/20, no?

His last year with the Cubs, he played 59 of the 60 games with 224 PA and hit a robust .188 with a slugging % of 0.393. I can see why they declined to offer him 8.5M or whatever the qualifying offer was at the time, especially with no full time DH in the NL yet (came in 2022 but they experimented in 2020). IMO, they gambled twice and lost: 1) I think they thought they'd be able to resign him at less than the qualifying offer because they figured no one else would offer more and 2) They failed to realize that the NL would adopt the full time DH two years later. Two strikes and you're out!

I don't know who they were after in 2021 in place of Schwarber but I'm sure they thought they could replace his production and to be honest, it's hard to think they couldn't.

It's hard to place value on a DH. His best WAR year was 2025 with 4.6. For comparison, Ian Happ's best WAR year was 2022 with 4.3.

I mostly meant it was bad in an outcome sense than a process sense necessarily, but I do think the front office and ownership were in a misguided change-for-change-sake mood in that moment and there was a sending a message to the clubhouse element in cutting Schwarber.

Because remember, they did NOT refuse to offer him a QO, he was not a free agent, they non-tendered him when he was still arb-eligible. That was a dumb thing for a big market club to do.

That was right when Theo left, Covid, the Marquee launch was going badly, and it was becoming crystal clear the burgeoning dynasty wasn't happening. The vibes were bad at that moment.

But in the bigger picture, the three worst position player moves by Theo/Jed in 15 years are probably that, the Heyward signing, and trading DJ LeMahieu for Ian Stewart? That's as close to spotless as you're ever going to get.

 

[champaignchris]

Hindsight is always 20/20, no?

His last year with the Cubs, he played 59 of the 60 games with 224 PA and hit a robust .188 with a slugging % of 0.393. I can see why they declined to offer him 8.5M or whatever the qualifying offer was at the time, especially with no full time DH in the NL yet (came in 2022 but they experimented in 2020). IMO, they gambled twice and lost: 1) I think they thought they'd be able to resign him at less than the qualifying offer because they figured no one else would offer more and 2) They failed to realize that the NL would adopt the full time DH two years later. Two strikes and you're out!

I don't know who they were after in 2021 in place of Schwarber but I'm sure they thought they could replace his production and to be honest, it's hard to think they couldn't.

It's hard to place value on a DH. His best WAR year was 2025 with 4.6. For comparison, Ian Happ's best WAR year was 2022 with 4.3.

Joc Peterson was Schwarber’s replacement. They sold it as Joc would put up the same numbers as Kyle and be $3 million cheaper.

To give the Cubs some credit in the Schwarber decision, they were hardly the only team to put way too much stock in pandemic year performances, both good and bad.

 

[DeonThomas]

I mostly meant it was bad in an outcome sense than a process sense necessarily, but I do think the front office and ownership were in a misguided change-for-change-sake mood in that moment and there was a sending a message to the clubhouse element in cutting Schwarber.

Because remember, they did NOT refuse to offer him a QO, he was not a free agent, they non-tendered him when he was still arb-eligible. That was a dumb thing for a big market club to do.

That was right when Theo left, Covid, the Marquee launch was going badly, and it was becoming crystal clear the burgeoning dynasty wasn't happening. The vibes were bad at that moment.

But in the bigger picture, the three worst position player moves by Theo/Jed in 15 years are probably that, the Heyward signing, and trading DJ LeMahieu for Ian Stewart? That's as close to spotless as you're ever going to get.

I don't think it's fair to criticize the Schwarber move by the Cubs. If you look at all the guys we could have signed, it would have buried us for a decade if we had gone after even 4 of them. How would you like to be stuck with: Baez, Bryant, Arrieta, Lester, Rizzo, Soler, Almora and Fowler --- on top of Jason Heyward? Even Contreras has been only moderately successful on a consisstent basis.

Schwarber was the only superstar, and it was impossible to discern at the time.

 

[Second place is 1st loser]

I mostly meant it was bad in an outcome sense than a process sense necessarily, but I do think the front office and ownership were in a misguided change-for-change-sake mood in that moment and there was a sending a message to the clubhouse element in cutting Schwarber.

Because remember, they did NOT refuse to offer him a QO, he was not a free agent, they non-tendered him when he was still arb-eligible. That was a dumb thing for a big market club to do.

That was right when Theo left, Covid, the Marquee launch was going badly, and it was becoming crystal clear the burgeoning dynasty wasn't happening. The vibes were bad at that moment.

But in the bigger picture, the three worst position player moves by Theo/Jed in 15 years are probably that, the Heyward signing, and trading DJ LeMahieu for Ian Stewart? That's as close to spotless as you're ever going to get.

He had a bunch of hits(draft aside):

1)Lester signing
2)Reclamation project with Arrieta
3)Getting Rizzo for a bag of balls
4) Bringing Russell over for middling pitchers
5)Bringing Chapman over despite scrutiny

To your point, it was pretty spotless.

I would like to add a couple to the mistake list:

1)Not bringing Verlander over for basically nothing. The Cubs were the only team that he'd waive his no trade clause for and they thought he was too old and on a last leg. The Astros swooped in right before the clock struck zero, they got him to waive the clause and they snagged him for very little. He ended up being an ace on a WS winner. Maybe 2???

2)The Quintana trade wasn't great. Losing Jimenez ultimately was a big whatever, but losing Cease ended up being a huge blow. For a team that can't develop pitching, they gave him up for Quintana, a guy who the Sox burned up due to over usage. He did have past injury problems, but it was premature to throw a guy like that in. They were also negotiating against themselves because they pulled the trigger about three weeks before the deadline.

 

[ChiefGritty]

I would like to add a couple to the mistake list:

1)Not bringing Verlander over for basically nothing. The Cubs were the only team that he'd waive his no trade clause for and they thought he was too old and on a last leg. The Astros swooped in right before the clock struck zero, they got him to waive the clause and they snagged him for very little. He ended up being an ace on a WS winner. Maybe 2???

2)The Quintana trade wasn't great. Losing Jimenez ultimately was a big whatever, but losing Cease ended up being a huge blow. For a team that can't develop pitching, they gave him up for Quintana, a guy who the Sox burned up due to over usage. He did have past injury problems, but it was premature to throw a guy like that in. They were also negotiating against themselves because they pulled the trigger about three weeks before the deadline.

Yeah the pitching side is a whooooooooole other story. Not that there haven't been some big successes there too, but it's very checkered.

The reason the Theo/Jed era has been so good is that the regime knows a reliable threat at the plate when they see one, at whatever point in the career arc. They are better than the competition in that respect and it has made all the difference.

I don't think it's fair to criticize the Schwarber move by the Cubs. If you look at all the guys we could have signed, it would have buried us for a decade if we had gone after even 4 of them. How would you like to be stuck with: Baez, Bryant, Arrieta, Lester, Rizzo, Soler, Almora and Fowler --- on top of Jason Heyward? Even Contreras has been only moderately successful on a consisstent basis.

Schwarber was the only superstar, and it was impossible to discern at the time.

Again, people are misremembering this.

The question isn't signing Schwarber for a huge market price extension like the disastrous ones that were avoided for Bryant and Baez. He was not a free agent.

They non-tendered him, just straight up cut him from the team while he still had a year of team control, which would have cost $8-10M in arbitration, a deal which would have been tradeable for some sort of return at the very least, even that same offseason.

They did it because ownership wanted to blow up the championship team. That *instinct* was the right one generally and produced one of the best trades in MLB history in Baez-for-PCA. But the individual Schwarber non-tender was a stupid thing to do, even if the likely alternative just would have been him getting traded for a bag of balls four months later like Bryant was.

Don't take it from me, Jed has said publicly that move is his biggest regret.

 

[Grandpa]

You guys are killing me! These are facts you are sharing. I had put most of it out of my head.

 

[bdutts]

I mostly meant it was bad in an outcome sense than a process sense necessarily, but I do think the front office and ownership were in a misguided change-for-change-sake mood in that moment and there was a sending a message to the clubhouse element in cutting Schwarber.

Because remember, they did NOT refuse to offer him a QO, he was not a free agent, they non-tendered him when he was still arb-eligible. That was a dumb thing for a big market club to do.

That was right when Theo left, Covid, the Marquee launch was going badly, and it was becoming crystal clear the burgeoning dynasty wasn't happening. The vibes were bad at that moment.

But in the bigger picture, the three worst position player moves by Theo/Jed in 15 years are probably that, the Heyward signing, and trading DJ LeMahieu for Ian Stewart? That's as close to spotless as you're ever going to get.

Ok, agreed with that and thanks for the correction on his contract status.

Oof, you had to bring up Ian Stewart...

 

[MikeTisdale]

Yeah the pitching side is a whooooooooole other story. Not that there haven't been some big successes there too, but it's very checkered.

The reason the Theo/Jed era has been so good is that the regime knows a reliable threat at the plate when they see one, at whatever point in the career arc. They are better than the competition in that respect and it has made all the difference.


Again, people are misremembering this.

The question isn't signing Schwarber for a huge market price extension like the disastrous ones that were avoided for Bryant and Baez. He was not a free agent.

They non-tendered him, just straight up cut him from the team while he still had a year of team control, which would have cost $8-10M in arbitration, a deal which would have been tradeable for some sort of return at the very least, even that same offseason.

They did it because ownership wanted to blow up the championship team. That *instinct* was the right one generally and produced one of the best trades in MLB history in Baez-for-PCA. But the individual Schwarber non-tender was a stupid thing to do, even if the likely alternative just would have been him getting traded for a bag of balls four months later like Bryant was.

Don't take it from me, Jed has said publicly that move is his biggest regret.

Hindsight is 20/20, but Schwarber was coming off a well below league average batting season (shortened by COVID), was unplayable in LF (NL did not have DH in 2021), and would have cost around $10MM in arbitration that they couldn't have recouped if he was batting anywhere around his career line to that point.

Nobody expected him to put up his best offensive season to date in 2021, which is why he was only able to sign a 1 year deal that off season for a bad team for around what he would have got in arbitration. The whole league thought he was cooked.

 

[ChiefGritty]

Hindsight is 20/20, but Schwarber was coming off a well below league average batting season (shortened by COVID), was unplayable in LF (NL did not have DH in 2021), and would have cost around $10MM in arbitration that they couldn't have recouped if he was batting anywhere around his career line to that point.

Nobody expected him to put up his best offensive season to date in 2021, which is why he was only able to sign a 1 year deal that off season for a bad team for around what he would have got in arbitration. The whole league thought he was cooked.

His value was at a low ebb at that moment, no question.

But a few things.

1. The DH thing was an open secret at that point, it was coming
2. Schwarber did in fact play a survivable LF for three years thereafter, the latter two on great teams.
3. He signed a one-year deal in order to bet on himself and reach free agency, teams would have been happy to sign him for a longer term albeit a low AAV
4. He had suitors and the Nationals deal was the most favorable to him because it allowed him to prove himself at the plate and in the field. His trade value was low but it wasn't nothing, and that was the reaction in Chicago at that moment, sure he's been bad, but why just zero out this asset?

It was a statement of intent as much as it was a baseball move, but it was a silly, thoughtless baseball move.

Though, as others mentioned, if the 2021 Cubs are a few games better because of Schwarber, maybe that leads to some much worse decisions that are negatively impacting things all the way up to the present. Six years later from the ashes of that fire sale we have the single best contract in all of baseball.

I stand my position player A+ for the Theo/Jed regime, even with a few stray blemishes.

 

[ChiefGritty]

The Qualifying Offer Number For Post-2026 Free Agents is Out

The increased Qualifying Offer number could mean tougher decisions for the Cubs.

www.bleachernation.com

An interesting discussion (big Brett Taylor fan).

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I feel like the Cubs issuing and Ian Happ accepting a Qualifying Offer makes a lot of sense and offers a lot of security to both parties.

Happ has been a prominent union figure though, not sure how that might impact his thinking.

 

[Illinirog70]

Hindsight is always 20/20, no?

His last year with the Cubs, he played 59 of the 60 games with 224 PA and hit a robust .188 with a slugging % of 0.393. I can see why they declined to offer him 8.5M or whatever the qualifying offer was at the time, especially with no full time DH in the NL yet (came in 2022 but they experimented in 2020). IMO, they gambled twice and lost: 1) I think they thought they'd be able to resign him at less than the qualifying offer because they figured no one else would offer more and 2) They failed to realize that the NL would adopt the full time DH two years later. Two strikes and you're out!

I don't know who they were after in 2021 in place of Schwarber but I'm sure they thought they could replace his production and to be honest, it's hard to think they couldn't.

It's hard to place value on a DH. His best WAR year was 2025 with 4.6. For comparison, Ian Happ's best WAR year was 2022 with 4.3.

Isn't it also true that if they offered KS the qualified money, he would have been a free agent after that year? That being said, he would have been gone the next year anyway. Anything that happened after that year was immaterial.
Discussing his later years is non-Cubs related....

 

[MikeTisdale]

The Qualifying Offer Number For Post-2026 Free Agents is Out

The increased Qualifying Offer number could mean tougher decisions for the Cubs.

www.bleachernation.com

An interesting discussion (big Brett Taylor fan).

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I feel like the Cubs issuing and Ian Happ accepting a Qualifying Offer makes a lot of sense and offers a lot of security to both parties.

Happ has been a prominent union figure though, not sure how that might impact his thinking.

I'm sure Happ would gladly accept the QO, but I highly doubt the Cubs are going to give him one. All signs point to them trying to re-sign Suzuki, and I doubt they want $50MM+ in 2027 dollars tied up in two 32 year old corner outfielders, especially when PCA's money really kicks in next year (from a luxury tax perspective). Cubs are going to have to sink a significant amount of their budget into the pitching staff.

Also considering a likely lockout, having a 32 year old corner OF who's trying desperately to hold onto his defensive value on a 1 year contract isn't the best idea either. He was a below average hitter from about mid-May on last year.

I do bet Happ get's more than $23MM in free agency, but it'll be spread over 2-3 years.

 

[Second place is 1st loser]

I'm sure Happ would gladly accept the QO, but I highly doubt the Cubs are going to give him one. All signs point to them trying to re-sign Suzuki, and I doubt they want $50MM+ in 2027 dollars tied up in two 32 year old corner outfielders, especially when PCA's money really kicks in next year (from a luxury tax perspective). Cubs are going to have to sink a significant amount of their budget into the pitching staff.

Also considering a likely lockout, having a 32 year old corner OF who's trying desperately to hold onto his defensive value on a 1 year contract isn't the best idea either. He was a below average hitter from about mid-May on last year.

I do bet Happ get's more than $23MM in free agency, but it'll be spread over 2-3 years.

I think that Suzuki is going to be the top bat in free agency and I don't think the Cubs are going to go "all in" on him. I think they have a certain price point that they won't cross and you nailed both reasons why. 1) He's going to be in his mid 30s by the time his contract is up and 2)the immediate need is pitching. That's not going to be cheap and because they can't dip into the farm system to pull out a young, reliable arm...the only way to require starters and bullpen arms is to open the wallet or trade prospects.

I could totally see them getting a home down discount with Happ and be straight with him that it's a platoon situation. I think that it's entirely possible that Ramirez/Shaw, if not traded, end up in RF.

They still need to pick up a catcher unless they're good with Amaya. I suspect Kelly has done enough to get legitimately paid in free agency.

The infield is obviously set.

To put a winning staff out there, they're going to need to cut corners and have a ton of injury luck with a guy like Steele and hope to God that a guy like Cabrera bounces back. It's not a good situation.

Edit: If Happ would take 2/24, I'd bring him back. It's cheap and a reasonable amount for a gold glove defender that will be platooned. 3/24 and I'd do the deal tomorrow.

 

[Illiniaaron]

I think that Suzuki is going to be the top bat in free agency and I don't think the Cubs are going to go "all in" on him. I think they have a certain price point that they won't cross and you nailed both reasons why. 1) He's going to be in his mid 30s by the time his contract is up and 2)the immediate need is pitching. That's not going to be cheap and because they can't dip into the farm system to pull out a young, reliable arm...the only way to require starters and bullpen arms is to open the wallet or trade prospects.

I could totally see them getting a home down discount with Happ and be straight with him that it's a platoon situation. I think that it's entirely possible that Ramirez/Shaw, if not traded, end up in RF.

They still need to pick up a catcher unless they're good with Amaya. I suspect Kelly has done enough to get legitimately paid in free agency.

The infield is obviously set.

To put a winning staff out there, they're going to need to cut corners and have a ton of injury luck with a guy like Steele and hope to God that a guy like Cabrera bounces back. It's not a good situation.

Edit: If Happ would take 2/24, I'd bring him back. It's cheap and a reasonable amount for a gold glove defender that will be platooned. 3/24 and I'd do the deal tomorrow.

Ramirez/Shaw in right field isn't very exciting.

 

[Second place is 1st loser]

Ramirez/Shaw in right field isn't very exciting.

I agree. They need pitching and a ton of it. Given their history, to get just half the pitching they need, they'll have to go cheap somewhere else and that somewhere else is the corner outfield positions.