You might say: “But the Cubs already have a third baseman!”
Yes, they do. Matt Shaw did a credible job at third base, a position that wasn’t his original one. He did well enough with the glove to be a Gold Glove “finalist,” and posted 3.1 bWAR, which is very good for a rookie season in which he got sent back to Triple-A for a while.
Advertisement
So why replace him?
First, Eugenio Suárez has absolutely torched the Cubs with his bat for his entire career. In 132 games against the Cubs, Suárez has batted .266/.349/.540 with 36 home runs. That’s by far his most home runs against any MLB team (Pirates are second with 27). The .886 OPS is almost 100 points higher than his career OPS of .792.
So taking that bat away from a Cubs opponent isn’t a bad idea. Of course, you don’t sign a guy specifically for that reason. And of course, if the Cubs signed him, he’s no longer facing Cubs pitching. Most of his home runs against the Cubs (20 of 36) have come in ballparks other than Wrigley Field, where he has just a .765 career OPS in 65 games.
Nevertheless, Suárez would provide power at a position where the Cubs haven’t had that since Kris Bryant departed (with a brief nod to Patrick Wisdom for providing a bit of it). And yes, Suárez turns 34 in 2026 and his walk rate dropped somewhat in 2025, leaving him with just a .298 OBP to go with a low .226 BA.
Advertisement
But … well, those 49 home runs. Suárez has had six seasons with 30 or more home runs and two with 40 or more and that sort of power should stick around, you’d think, for two or three more seasons.
What of Shaw, if the Cubs signed Suárez? Well, they could make him sort of a supersub, playing second and third base. Or they could trade him — lots of teams would want Shaw, and perhaps he could bring some quality starting pitching in return.
At The Athletic, their staff says Suárez should get a three-year, $69 million deal. This really isn’t unreasonable for a player of his talent and age. I’d do it.
Another free-agent predictor article, by Matthew Pouliot, has Suárez a bit higher: three years, $78 million. That might be a bit too much.
What say you?