Jed Hoyer Must Now Address Remaining Needs, Plus Thoughts on Potential Revamped Development Philosophy

Whether or not it was actually the case, there’s a palpable sense that the Cubs’ fruitless pursuit of Rōki Sasaki stagnated their other acquisition endeavors. And while Matt Festa and Colin Rea might argue otherwise, particularly if the resultant Michael Arias DFA in the latter case indicates what I think it might (hint: poaching IFAs displaced by Sasaki), perception and reality may not be very disparate here. While I won’t be nearly so bold as to say the next nine days will define Jed Hoyer’s offseason, we will probably use his near-term actions in a sentence when looking back.

Sasaki is a unicorn in that he’s incredibly cheap by free-agent standards and will not immediately require a 40-man roster spot despite being one of the most coveted players on the market. Between their full roster and what appears from the outside to be a very clear desire to trim payroll significantly from last year, a more perfect fit does not exist for the Cubs. But now that they have definitively been ruled out, they’ll have to fall back on more incongruous pieces.

That makes it sound like square pegs in round holes, which I suppose isn’t all that far off if we’re talking about how Hoyer will probably need to bite down on a piece of wood if he has to offer a multiyear deal to a reliever. Even if he steers clear of Tanner Scott‘s purported $60+ million asking price, which I’d be beyond gobsmacked if the Cubs so much as entertained, it could be a stretch for Hoyer to pay what it’ll take to land Kirby Yates (projected around $14 million). Kyle Finnegan has some warts but would come much cheaper (maybe $8 million or so) for just one year.

Adding another high-leverage reliever to the mix is the simplest and quickest path to improvement for a team that already looks better on paper than last year. I know a lot of people don’t want to hear that, especially when it’s paired with the idea of returning players outperforming expectations, but it’s true. Just look at the ZiPS projections for 2025, which paint a very rosy picture even if we temper the hope more than a little bit.

Barring a very unlikely collapse in either of their markets, we can shelve the idea of the Cubs landing Alex Bregman or Pete Alonso. Part of that is cost, natch, but it would be unwise to discount the organization’s belief in Matt Shaw. And at the risk of overplaying my hand here, I believe Shaw also represents an ongoing philosophical shift within the front office and, more specifically, the player-development infrastructure.

During his postmortem press conference, Hoyer spoke about how the Cubs find better ways to foster an environment in which players are able to perform at a higher level more consistently. One of the organization’s most glaring shortcomings since Hoyer first came to town with Theo Epstein is the abject inability to develop non-first-round draft picks and to maintain a strong development curve at the highest level. So even though the idea of an “emotionless” strategy sounds a little bleak, I sense some potential revelations there.

What Tyler Zombro could be for the pitching side, Shaw may mean for the Cubs’ hitting development. While the former will have a far more direct influence, I believe it’s more than mere coincidence that Shaw was chosen 13th overall following a stellar career at the University of Maryland. Shaw excelled as a direct result of buying into the concept of motor preferences espoused by Terps head coach Matt Swope.

“Motor preferences has been a game-changer for me — not just on the baseball field but in baseball itself,” Shaw wrote in a testimonial for Motor Preferences in Baseball, a book authored by Swope and David Genest. “My fiancée even uses motor preferences in her daily routine, proving how this science transcends sports. Yet, its impact on baseball is unparalleled. From hitting to throwing, defense, and everything in between, MP sharpens every movement and mechanic while addressing the mental side of the game. It doesn’t miss a single detail.”

You can find more on MP in some of my previous work (here, here, and here), so I’ll try to avoid getting too granular for the time being. In a nutshell, the concept holds that our bodies are organic machines that have innate movement patterns designed to help us survive. Going against those patterns in order to fit mechanics within certain parameters judged to be “best” or that may just be more aesthetically pleasing will typically result in less efficient movement. It’s really as simple as saying it’s better to lean into strengths rather than putting a lot of effort into improving weaknesses.

If that sounds weird, I’ll direct you to Genest’s example from the book about teaching a fish to climb a tree or having a monkey live underwater. Even if you were able to achieve the desired results, they would come at an incredibly high cost in terms of effort. Can a natural supinator throw a heavily pronated changeup? Sure, but it’s unlikely to be very effective and could increase injury risk. It’s possible the rash of oblique injuries we’ve seen over the last several years is caused by players who are bigger, stronger, and faster than ever operating in conflict with their personal motor preferences.

That could be an aerial mover being forced into traditional swing mechanics built around generating ground force, or perhaps a tall-and-fall pitcher being told he has to better utilize his glutes and hamstrings to conform to a drop-and-drive style. There are organizations actively preaching both of these movements universally, which is detrimental to both the evaluation and development of young players. Imagine cutting out half the available pool of players because their style runs contrary to your org’s preference, or ruining a top pitching prospect because your new mechanical cues for him led to an injury or poor performance.

But what if being more emotionless means setting egos aside and understanding that the coaching blueprints we’ve been following for decades are wrong? It’s probably best to say they’re not right for everyone. I’ve come around to believing that player development is far too contingent on luck and timing, with a higher number of players than necessary being drummed out because a club or coach tried to force them into something that simply didn’t fit them.

If I’m right about what the Cubs are trying to accomplish from the ground up when it comes to player performance, we could see rapid improvements in their individual and collective results. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t spend money like the big boys, just that it’s a means by which to stretch their dollars further. Let me put a bow on this by quickly addressing that and the idea of needing players to outperform expectations in order to succeed.

Every team in professional sports wants to get the most bang for their buck and every successful team sees a player or three step up for huge seasons. That’s a reality for the Yankees and Dodgers just as it is for the Cubs, but the difference is that those teams are willing to spend a whole lot more to raise their floors. Leaning into motor preferences could be a way for Hoyer to level the playing field a bit, even if it’s just for a little while. Not saying that’s the best path forward, but it looks like the one the Cubs have chosen.