It's time

beckdawg said:

I think we might see the cubs make a real outside the box type trade this year. Just as an example I have sort of been thinking about for a while now... you could theoretically offer 2 of Baez, Russell and Happ for Francisco Lindor. On the surface that may seem strange but Lindor solves a lot of issues for the cubs. He's top 3 defensively at SS. He's a switch hitting lead off hitter who hit 30 HRs last year and he's still young. And Cleveland is kind of tight on money at the moment. They've tried to work out a long term deal with Lindor but haven't found common ground yet. This offseason they were also supposedly listening on Kipnis to free up some money. If they dealt Lindor for 2 of those 3 they would have a middle infield that's fairly cheap and could then deal Kipnis to fix their bullpen(they are losing Miller/Allen after the season) or look to add a starter(they are losing Bauer and Carasco after the season).

Maybe that idea is too crazy but from my perspective it makes a lot of sense and the front office did trade an in his prime Nomar once upon a time in a some what similar out of the box move. Just sort of feel like if Cleveland would listen on that sort of deal or something close you could move the guy who isn't traded to the starter at 2B with Zobrist and La Stella behind him and Bote and Ademan in the minors longer term. And instead of 3 good young MI quickly headed toward arbitration you would have 2.

Click to expand...

Anything that improves the team now and long term im good with...
Just think though that a significant trade like that would be done over off season rather then midseason mainly for the moral of the team losing 2 very close teammates and adjusting to it in middle of season in a pennant chase...

But i agree if they dont make such a move around deadline, i do think we'll see that type of significant trade in offseason to solidify starting positions..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I like the out of box thought and the reference to Nomar. I just can't see Cleveland trading away their franchise player. It's about as likely as the Cubs trading away Bryant to me

It would have to be Russell and pitching prospects. Cubs really don’t have the blue chips required to pull off a deal like this and Russell’s value is repressed ATM. If he has a bounce back season and puts up numbers in line with 2016 then Theo really doesn’t need to pull any deals.

brett05 said:

I like the out of box thought and the reference to Nomar. I just can't see Cleveland trading away their franchise player. It's about as likely as the Cubs trading away Bryant to me

Click to expand...

Considering they seem to be structuring all their finances in a effort to sign him sometime in the next two years, before retaining him becomes impossible, I would not think they'd be interested in moving him. They're basically looking long term and doing what Baltimore should have done with Machado.

brett05 said:

I like the out of box thought and the reference to Nomar. I just can't see Cleveland trading away their franchise player. It's about as likely as the Cubs trading away Bryant to me

Click to expand...

Well let me be clear, if they can sign him I don't think they will trade him. My thing is I'm not sure they are going to be able to. And they are already at the point where they are apparently considering ditching good players(Kipnis) to free money. Obviously I get why you wouldn't want to deal Lindor but if you're in the situation I think they may be in, getting two starter level all-star caliber talents in return is about the best you can hope for. Kipnis and Lindor were close to 7 wins last year. Year prior you're talking 11. If we split the difference and say 9 as an average estimation I think it's fair to expect say 4 out of Russell if they go that way and 3 out of either Baez or Happ. So, sure they'd be dropping around 2 wins but they'd also be adding whatever they got for dealing Kipnis.

Like I said maybe the idea is too crazy but ask yourself this... which small to mid market teams have "franchise players?" KC just lost Hosmer. Bal is going to lose Machado. Tampa had Longoria for a little while but they then dealt him away. Oakland has no one. Pit kept guys for a little while by landing really team friendly deals but have moved guys quickly as they reached their 30s. The one team that comes to mind is MIL and Braun but I'm not really sure that's a good example of a smart move a team has made. They've largely been a joke around his prime. It is tough for small-mid market teams to put all their eggs in one basket. That's why you'll see a smart front office team like Pit deal away someone like Cole for 2-3 useful pieces.

Regardless, I think we need to expand our ideas when talking cubs trades because I think you're going to see something outside the box as mentioned.

beckdawg said:

Well let me be clear, if they can sign him I don't think they will trade him. My thing is I'm not sure they are going to be able to. And they are already at the point where they are apparently considering ditching good players(Kipnis) to free money. Obviously I get why you wouldn't want to deal Lindor but if you're in the situation I think they may be in, getting two starter level all-star caliber talents in return is about the best you can hope for. Kipnis and Lindor were close to 7 wins last year. Year prior you're talking 11. If we split the difference and say 9 as an average estimation I think it's fair to expect say 4 out of Russell if they go that way and 3 out of either Baez or Happ. So, sure they'd be dropping around 2 wins but they'd also be adding whatever they got for dealing Kipnis.

Like I said maybe the idea is too crazy but ask yourself this... which small to mid market teams have "franchise players?" KC just lost Hosmer. Bal is going to lose Machado. Tampa had Longoria for a little while but they then dealt him away. Oakland has no one. Pit kept guys for a little while by landing really team friendly deals but have moved guys quickly as they reached their 30s. The one team that comes to mind is MIL and Braun but I'm not really sure that's a good example of a smart move a team has made. They've largely been a joke around his prime. It is tough for small-mid market teams to put all their eggs in one basket. That's why you'll see a smart front office team like Pit deal away someone like Cole for 2-3 useful pieces.

Regardless, I think we need to expand our ideas when talking cubs trades because I think you're going to see something outside the box as mentioned.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Cubs need to do anything honestly. Russell has been worth 8.2 WAR over 1506 PA's. Baez: 4.6 over 1267 PA. Happ 1.8 over 413 PA. So the idea that they have to trade away players to create playing time is pretty silly honestly.

They are always one injury away from putting pressure on surviving the season. The minors lacks MLR impact talent up the middle. So trading Baez and Russell for Lindor on paper the numbers come up good but depth wise the Cubs are left with Happ at 2B. Injury prone Zobrist as a swing guy and La Stella who has managed 1.5 WAR over his career. Which dates back to 2014. The next quality player that they have up welling is Zack Short who should be a AA. Then Ademan who should be a A+.

So now you have to use up your little wiggle room in lux cap space if you sustain a major injury to the middle. Which also means Almora who pushes Happ to CF and Zobrist into full time duty. Hope La Stella happens to provide plus anything. Or having Freedman as your back up SS now that you trades both SS's for 1.

I just don't like this thought process because it creates more problems then it solves.

CSF77 said:

I don't think the Cubs need to do anything honestly. Russell has been worth 8.2 WAR over 1506 PA's. Baez: 4.6 over 1267 PA. Happ 1.8 over 413 PA. So the idea that they have to trade away players to create playing time is pretty silly honestly.

They are always one injury away from putting pressure on surviving the season. The minors lacks MLR impact talent up the middle. So trading Baez and Russell for Lindor on paper the numbers come up good but depth wise the Cubs are left with Happ at 2B. Injury prone Zobrist as a swing guy and La Stella who has managed 1.5 WAR over his career. Which dates back to 2014. The next quality player that they have up welling is Zack Short who should be a AA. Then Ademan who should be a A+.

So now you have to use up your little wiggle room in lux cap space if you sustain a major injury to the middle. Which also means Almora who pushes Happ to CF and Zobrist into full time duty. Hope La Stella happens to provide plus anything. Or having Freedman as your back up SS now that you trades both SS's for 1.

I just don't like this thought process because it creates more problems then it solves.

Click to expand...

I doubt theyll do that sorta trade during this season anyways...
I think their going for it all again with this same group..

Something that major would be done in offseason especially if they do go after Harper or Machado

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

CSF77 said:

I don't think the Cubs need to do anything honestly. Russell has been worth 8.2 WAR over 1506 PA's. Baez: 4.6 over 1267 PA. Happ 1.8 over 413 PA. So the idea that they have to trade away players to create playing time is pretty silly honestly.

Click to expand...

Think you're missing the point. The reason you consolidate players into stars is because there's a finite amount of at bats or innings. If you're just looking at those 3 players in isolation sure the trade on it's face doesn't make a ton of sense because you're effectively trading let's say 7 wins at two positions for 5-6 at one. However, what that ignores is the fact that there are 2 starter or very close to starter level players behind these 3 guys in Zobrist and La Stella. Depth is nice but I think they are going to struggle to get Zobrist 300 PAs and La Stella 150 and both could arguably play full time roles on less talented teams.

The way I look at it is essentially this. I think it's fair to say Russell has a good shot at being a 4 win player and Happ/Baez have a good shot at being 3 win players assuming they got a "full season" of playing time. Assuming that, I think La Stella is probably at around half a win to 3/4 a win and let's call a lessor role Zobrist at 1-1.25. That's effectively 12 wins. If you assume Lindor(or someone like him) is a 6 win player and you assume you keep 1 of Baez/Russell/Happ you're at 9 wins(10 if it's russell who stays). It's not hard to envision Zobrist and La Stella playing 50% more earning a combined 3 wins to to mention whomever you now have off the bench replacing the 2 departing guys.

That's why this sort of consolidation trade makes sense in my eyes. Additionally, if you're talking about age regression you generally want the best players because they still regress but going from a 6 win player at 30 to a 3-4 win player at 35 is a lot more useful than a 4 win player at 30 to 1.5-2 wins at 35. And another issue is the way this wave of players is going to hit you financially. The ideal world is one where contracts are staggered. As we speak the cubs are going to get hit really hard in the period from 3-5 years from now because basically every hitter they have will be a FA then. If you consolidate 2 of those guys into one superstar you're saving money and you open opportunities for prospects down the line. In that time you're going to be talking about Ademan and some other lessor known prospects who have hopefully popped being MLB ready. At that point you are either going to trade guys from this MI group or let them walk via FA anyways.

So, what are the downsides here? If you keep either Russell or Baez SS isn't an issue. 2B isn't an issue with Zobrist and La Stella. LF is still fine because Zobrist. I suppose you could argue CF is an issue if Almora gets hurt but you still would have the option of Heyward in CF and either Bryant in RF with Zobrist/La Stella at 3B or Zobrist in RF or presumably someone like Zagunis being added to the roster.

Also one more minor comment it'll be the last of my lengthy rambling on this subject unless I'm replying to someone. Ask yourself this, if what I've suggested is outside of the cubs front office thinking why were they supposedly going after Machado? Obviously we don't know how deep they ever got in the talks but the point here being they apparently have already shown some interest in upgrading their SS because Machado isn't playing 3B. So, I don't think it's a case of whether or not the cubs would do this sort of trade. Think it's pretty likely they would. I think it's whether or not Cleveland would. In fact, I'd argue from the cubs perspective Lindor makes even more sense than Machado would have because you can fit Lindor under the luxury tax where as Machado would be $17+ mil and in terms of talent Lindor and Machado are very comparable.

And one last brief comment about the whole depth thing. Depth is great and I like it probably more than an average fan but I think you have to understand what you're paying for here. The cubs have at least 4 guys in the MI if they have a good year who could be All-Stars(assuming all got full playing time which Zobrist wont). That's way more depth than you "need." But for the sake of argument let's say absolute worst case happens and the cubs are without their starter at SS and if they traded Baez/Russell away they have no one. Assuming it's not a year ending injury is it that bad playing Zobrist at SS? I mean clearly he's not going to be "good" there but I don't think he's a giant anchor around your neck either. Last time he played anything approaching meaningful innings there was 2014 and he was even on DRS and 2.6 UZR150 over 236.1 innings. Even if you're suggesting at his age his defense falls off a cliff I can't imagine he'd be much worse than -5 UZR/150 given that 4 years ago he posted average to above average metrics there. Would I want Zobrist there to start a season? No but for let's say 2 months if worst came to worst I can't imagine he'd be that bad.

And the other thing to remember is even if Zobrist would be terrible at SS how much would it realistically cost go buy an expiring SS contract for a glove first guy? I mean you could probably get Adeiny Hechavarria for a PTBNL and while he wouldn't give you much if anything with his bat he's a strong defender. And the Zobrist scenario plus this scenario only happen if for whatever reason someone gets hurt which isn't a guarantee.

beckdawg said:

Also one more minor comment it'll be the last of my lengthy rambling on this subject unless I'm replying to someone. Ask yourself this, if what I've suggested is outside of the cubs front office thinking why were they supposedly going after Machado? Obviously we don't know how deep they ever got in the talks but the point here being they apparently have already shown some interest in upgrading their SS because Machado isn't playing 3B. So, I don't think it's a case of whether or not the cubs would do this sort of trade. Think it's pretty likely they would. I think it's whether or not Cleveland would. In fact, I'd argue from the cubs perspective Lindor makes even more sense than Machado would have because you can fit Lindor under the luxury tax where as Machado would be $17+ mil and in terms of talent Lindor and Machado are very comparable.

And one last brief comment about the whole depth thing. Depth is great and I like it probably more than an average fan but I think you have to understand what you're paying for here. The cubs have at least 4 guys in the MI if they have a good year who could be All-Stars(assuming all got full playing time which Zobrist wont). That's way more depth than you "need." But for the sake of argument let's say absolute worst case happens and the cubs are without their starter at SS and if they traded Baez/Russell away they have no one. Assuming it's not a year ending injury is it that bad playing Zobrist at SS? I mean clearly he's not going to be "good" there but I don't think he's a giant anchor around your neck either. Last time he played anything approaching meaningful innings there was 2014 and he was even on DRS and 2.6 UZR150 over 236.1 innings. Even if you're suggesting at his age his defense falls off a cliff I can't imagine he'd be much worse than -5 UZR/150 given that 4 years ago he posted average to above average metrics there. Would I want Zobrist there to start a season? No but for let's say 2 months if worst came to worst I can't imagine he'd be that bad.

And the other thing to remember is even if Zobrist would be terrible at SS how much would it realistically cost go buy an expiring SS contract for a glove first guy? I mean you could probably get Adeiny Hechavarria for a PTBNL and while he wouldn't give you much if anything with his bat he's a strong defender. And the Zobrist scenario plus this scenario only happen if for whatever reason someone gets hurt which isn't a guarantee.

Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure that all potential adds were mixed after inking Darvish. Which is fine as pitching has been far harder to develop and they have had to deal out excess hitting.

If Heyward opts out then it opens up potenial situations but I wouldn’t depend on it.

I see Theo honestly trading short term for long term as these guys get there vs trading current depth

Add to it a season is 162 games. Injuries are “common”. If harder to stay healthy for a full season bs hit the DL at least 1 time.

Having depth always pays off and “is” the reason why they are concidered contenders. Losing a player is covered by starter quality depth on the bench. That has been done with intent. Add to it they could have traded that depth for pitching and they chose to pricy direction instead. So it still matters.

Adding WAR to your starting line up sounds great but a injury to Londor for a month puts Freeman as your starting SS. No thanks

CSF77 said:

Add to it a season is 162 games. Injuries are “common”. If harder to stay healthy for a full season bs hit the DL at least 1 time.

Having depth always pays off and “is” the reason why they are concidered contenders. Losing a player is covered by starter quality depth on the bench. That has been done with intent. Add to it they could have traded that depth for pitching and they chose to pricy direction instead. So it still matters.

Adding WAR to your starting line up sounds great but a injury to Londor for a month puts Freeman as your starting SS. No thanks

Click to expand...

I just don't agree with you on depth here. It's one thing if you're talking a Schwarber type injury where a guy plays 2 games or whatever then you lose him the rest of the way. If that's the discussion we're having then sure playing a Freeman or whomever as a pure glove is really not desirable. But that's not generally how baseball works especially with position players. How many position players in a given season go down the full year? 2 month stints for hammy pulls or whatever sure that's common but having to totally replace someone for most of a season is rare.

If you're excluding the Schwarber type injuries I think your overstating the risk here. If a 5 win player misses half a season you're down 2.5 wins. But again to use my Zobrist example, I don't think starting him at SS cost you 2 wins. If you argue he's a 2-3 win guy at 2B for a full season I think you could argue he's a 1.5-2 win guy at SS over a full season. So, if you're forced to play him at SS because bad shit happens the difference between him and a 5 win player is like 1-1.5 wins and that's probably a fairly conservative estimate. Defense matters but I think you're overstating it.

What I think you're missing with depth is it's more about having guys who can hit behind your starters than it is about having amazing defenders and the cubs have guys behind their "depth" guys who can hit which is clearly over redundancy. Playing La Stella or Zobrist at SS would be far from ideal but you're making it sound like they would be playing Schwarber there. Teams get by without starter quality depth guys for every position. Hell, the Dodgers beat the cubs with Seager out of the NLCS and the series wasn't really close.

And to illustrate my point about depth here... do you know who the highly favored Astros have right now as their back up SS behind Correra? Marwin Gonzalez and his career -6.3 UZR/150 at SS. Do you know who the #2 in fWAR dodgers have as their back up SS? If you assume Chris Taylor is their starting CF it is Enrique Hernandez who's effectively a glove first no bat SS as a career .236/.312/.413(98 wRC+ hitter). Point here is good even great teams don't have to have a Baez level back up SS. The cubs don't have normal good team depth. They have far more than that.

As for nixing deals after Darvish why would you assume this? If you're referring specifically to Machado then I can understand the comment because of luxury tax issues but other than that I think you're missing the forrest for the tress. The important question is why would they be targeting Machado in the first place and perhaps next off season Harper? It's not hard to answer. Both are incredibly good players who improve the team. But you don't stop trying to improve the team because someone no longer fits in your plan. You look for other players who do. Over the past 3 years Lindor has been more valuable than Machado(16.5 fWAR to 16.2 fWAR) and unlike Machado he's making ~$600k. If the thought here is you are trying to acquire Machado because he makes you better than obviously so does Lindor and given both will play SS any logic of why you want Machado applies.

Point here I am trying to make is the cubs are always going to try to find ways to put a better team on the field. That was the intent of my outside the box thinking comment. It's really difficult to think of ways to make the current cubs roster better. This is one of the few ways they could.

It has more to do with starter level depth available. You lose Baez and Russell to gain a upgrade to SS you lose needed injury depth.

Sure if Ademan was at AAA and a phone call away then I would get this move because you have a contegency plan in place. Right now Freedman is the contegency plan if they lose Baez and Russell at the same time. Not if 1 goes down. I see his role as AAA SS sitting just in case either gets injured. If you trade both then he goes on the roster and you have a untested/untalented player in his spot.

I get it but you are just looking at a perfect world scenario and that never happens. You look at it from a spreadsheet approach but life is not done on paper.

You lose your SS and are forced into a back up that is not even a single point of WAR of value with a back up that should never have been on a major league roster then you risk the whole season on a mistake and do not have cap room to take on contract with out enduring penality.


Regardless. If Theo had your opinion he would have gutted the depth for a needed replacement like Archer vs investing into Yu. But he didn’t. And it was the right choice.

That depth is a burden only when all are healthy. 1 major injury it is a savior. Last year they lost Zobrist and Russell at the same time and promoted Happ and Candi. Candi failed but Happ proved to be MLR. We really didn’t miss a beat. Then Heyward went down 2 times to both of his hands. Again didn’t miss a beat.

It is that “redundant” depth that saved their ass. Where they suffered was at catcher after Ross’s retirement and Monterio being a jack ass. When Contreras went down for a month they were forced into the trade market

Now on next year I don’t see them going after Harper or Machado. I see them setting up for retention as Bryant will be getting into the red zone where you want to think of a Trout type of deal

Here a simple solution to the discussion...

If cubs and indians were to make that trade, my guess the cubs would push Russell and other but hold onto Baez..

I think they value Baez really high mainly because he can give them a solid glove no matter where they play him

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

chibears55 said:

Here a simple solution to the discussion...

If cubs and indians were to make that trade, my guess the cubs would push Russell and other but hold onto Baez..

I think they value Baez really high mainly because he can give them a solid glove no matter where they play him

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

In theory you trade Russell and Happ and start Baez at 2B and have Freedman at AAA. You have LaSorta and Zobrist as 2B Depth if Baez has to move over and Bote in AAA with Vogel at 3B is anything happens to Bryant.

SS is the main issue if they traded 2 ML quality SS in one deal. Theo would “never” do that

chibears55 said:

Here a simple solution to the discussion...

If cubs and indians were to make that trade, my guess the cubs would push Russell and other but hold onto Baez..

I think they value Baez really high mainly because he can give them a solid glove no matter where they play him

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

This is effectively what I was thinking. I was more thinking Hap and one of Baez/Russell. I personally would prefer to keep Russell but I'm guessing he's the more valuable trade piece at this point and while I'm not Baez's biggest fan he's more than adequate. Like I have said I'm not sure Cleveland would make that deal though I do believe there is a chance. Aside from the playing time issue my biggest gripe currently is that Russell and Baez starting every day leaves you in a weird place roster wise because both are 6-8 hitters on a team that probably doesn't have a CF who hits lead off.f in the traditional sense. Lindor would be that guy. So if you made this deal and you then batted Baez 7th or 8th with no pressure on him I'd be fine.

Regardless the depth doesn't really bother me even if they were to deal both.

CSF77 said:

Regardless. If Theo had your opinion he would have gutted the depth for a needed replacement like Archer vs investing into Yu. But he didn’t. And it was the right choice.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree. If you're suggesting he would have dealt Russell and Baez for Archer as were the reported ask that makes no sense to me and is an entirely different discussion because in my example you still end the deal with an all-star SS as well as an elite starter. If you trade both for Archer you can't throw $20 mil at a SS in FA because there is no SS in FA who has Darvish level impact.

As for the rest of what you're saying I just don't agree. You seem to have this belief that you have to have starter quality back ups at every position. But that isn't reality and I literally cited examples of the two teams projected to win the most games next year(not to mention the two WS teams) who don't have that sort of depth. You're acting like if you made this deal it's a foregone conclusion that player gets hurt rather than addressing the actual chances of that happening. Fact of the matter is if you lose your starting SS for half a season it maybe costs you 2 wins. With the team the cubs have 2 wins shouldn't determine whether or not they make the playoffs.

Literally the only leg you have to stand on with this sort of argument realistically is what happens if the injury happens right before the playoffs. At that point it would be very difficult hurdle to over come. But I could say that about any number of guys. What if Rizzo were hurt right before the playoffs for example? What if Contreras gets hurt? SS is no different than losing those two guys. In any case it would suck but you move on.

If you don't like the idea of the trade that's one thing. But to suggest they can't do it is entirely another. There are any number of ways they could make this work. If you think the team is better off where they are fine. You're welcome to that opinion. But don't sit here and tell me they can't do it.

Also as an aside can people stop using the whole "baseball isn't played on spreadsheets" style of thinking when you bring up statistical info? Baseball is played analytically whether you realize it or not. Platoon splits, defensive positioning, pitch sequencing, swing angle, contracts..... all of that comes from data. So, if you think teams don't also have risk assessment for injuries as part of their suite of tools you're being naive.

beckdawg said:

Also as an aside can people stop using the whole "baseball isn't played on spreadsheets" style of thinking when you bring up statistical info? Baseball is played analytically whether you realize it or not. Platoon splits, defensive positioning, pitch sequencing, swing angle, contracts..... all of that comes from data. So, if you think teams don't also have risk assessment for injuries as part of their suite of tools you're being naive.

Click to expand...

Of course they have risk assements for injury. It is called depth. It doesn’t just magically appear.

Jed and Theo keep on making these minor deals sense they came here. Like for Mills or Freedman. Or trading Vogelbach for Montgomery. These deals were to boost depth.

Look I kinda agree with you to a degree. Almora is a break out from forcing a full time job. He makes the next step and starts to hammer righties it does change the dynamic of the roster. As it is he is almost there and others are predicting a break out season for him. He hit .272 vs them and really has to improve his B.B. vs them to justify it. He ran near 10% vs lefties and 3% vs righties. He brings that up to 6% and I really do not see a justification for a split in CF.

Ideally what you would love to see is Heyward opting out and they move Bryant to RF and Baez to 3B and Happ to 2B. It pretty much solves most issues going on while freeing up payroll when you need to think on extending your core.

CSF77 said:

Of course they have risk assements for injury. It is called depth. It doesn’t just magically appear.

Click to expand...

Obviously we aren't going to agree on this so I'm not going to keep belaboring this point so this is my last comment. I think you vastly overrate depth. You certainly need some depth but the level you seem to expect is being greatly over redundant. I mean look, they could literally make the trade I suggested today and sign Stephen Drew to a 1 year $2 mil deal or w/e and the "problem" you have with the trade is solved. It's not that hard to add "depth." Would stephen drew be the player Baez is? Of course not but is Drew going to cost you making the playoffs? No. And Drew isn't the only guy out there that would fix the situation if shit hits the fan. I mean hell you could probably get Miami to give you Castro for next to nothing at this point. It's really that easy. If you remove Baez and his 2.2 fWAR last year from the cubs line up they still win the division by 3 games. And that's with the cubs playing like utter shit for half the year as well as having your worst case scenario where Russell and Zobrist both hit the DL at a similar time.

Ultimately I keep coming back to the question how would you improve this team? The biggest weakness would be a lead off hitter. And while I'm not *that* concerned about not having one, that and closer are the two biggest areas you could improve. In terms of the lead off hitter, you already have issues putting guys into the daily line up. So, if you actually want to improve that you're trading a starter. In terms of bullpen i strongly doubt they add a reliever who costs you a premium MLB player. And if you're going to trading a MLB hitter to get a lead off hitter why would you not go for the best player you can feasibly get(i.e. someone like Machado/Lindor)?

If you're someone who just doesn't think they need to improve anymore than they already have then like I said that's fine. It's entirely plausible adding to this team would be overkill. But if you're going to add anything that's the play IMO.