Another day, another discussion of Nico Hoerner trade rumors. I’m going to do this one a little differently than the last couple, because I want to make sure I’m getting the entire range of my thoughts on this subject out there. I have gone to great lengths for weeks to articulate why I believe the Cubs obviously have to listen on Hoerner, and also why the size of trade it would require is simply unlikely to happen. But I think I’ve still left a lot unsaid.
First, though, let me share the bit of reporting from Ken Rosenthal today that teed up my thoughts:
“Chicago Cubs second baseman Nico Hoerner would be a near-ideal fit [for the Boston Red Sox], just as the Arizona Diamondbacks’ Ketel Marte would have been. The Cubs would need to be overwhelmed for Hoerner, but the Red Sox could tempt them with a package that includes a young pitcher such as Connelly Early or Payton Tolle. Of course, the Sox might consider that too high a price for one year of Hoerner. And then if Hoerner departed, it would be Alex Bregman all over again.”
Rosenthal, who was skeptical about the Red Sox bidding enough to land Bo Bichette, goes on to mention other possible trade targets like Brendan Donovan, Isaac Paredes, and Christian Walker, but offers reasons why each of those three may not actually work.
The bit on Nico Hoerner has a bit of a speculation-mixed-with-info feel to it, which may simply be the same info everyone else is circulating; to wit, the fact that the Cubs would at least listen right now on Hoerner and Matt Shaw, given the signing of Alex Bregman. But that, in order to actually consider trading Hoerner, the Cubs would have to get a return so massive that we would all look at it and think, “Oh, wow, OK, holy crap, I guess I understand why the Cubs were listening.”
That kind of return seems unlikely to materialize, but Rosenthal certainly goes right for it in describing that kind of return. Payton Tolle and Connelly Early are about as compelling as MLB-ready pitching prospects can get, and a package that included one of them plus meaningfully more? Yeah, that’s gonna get pretty much anyone listening on a one-year player. That’s the kind of “massive” we mean when we say the return would have to be “massive” for the Cubs to even consider dealing Nico Hoerner right now.
Conceptually, I’ve thought about trades like this kind of Nico Hoerner deal for years. When a team is bad and selling off before the season or at the deadline, sure, we accept these kinds of trades from any size market as just part of the business. But when a team is competitive, especially with a large payroll, we generally don’t see clubs selling off short-term assets – or even using that language – for prospects.
There are exceptions, of course, and they tend to be smaller-market clubs with lower revenues. It’s almost like they “get” to do something everyone agrees is beneficial because of their market standing.
I wouldn’t quite say I’m jealous of the way the Guardians, Rays, and Brewers constantly ship off their arbitration-level stars for huge prospect packages, but I have often thought about why the Cubs – and most similarly-situated organizations – don’t try to do the same thing. If you have a near-star approaching free agency, but you might not re-sign them and you can otherwise bolster the roster via free agency, why wouldn’t you consider making a trade that helps your future and maybe doesn’t destroy your present? We’ve kinda-sorta seen the Dodgers do something close to this at times, but they are just about it.
If you do it right, you could have the best of both worlds. You could keep that talent pipeline flowing internally with periodic boosts from trades, and you could ALSO keep an elevated payroll to paper over the losses in trade.
Whenever the reality of one of these situations arises, though, it just feels a lot harder to justify. Because that near-star, whoever he might be in a hypothetical, is a real person. A real player. A guy to whom fans have become attached, and on whom the organization has come to rely. It’s easy to say trade some short-term pricey player for way more long-term prospect value, but when you actually have the opportunity to do it with a key cog on your roster, it’s so much harder to see it making sense.
So it is with Nico Hoerner and the Cubs.
Basically, my cognitive dissonance looks like this:
Me, in the abstract: “Why don’t the Cubs ever trade outgoing free agents at spots of redundancy for huge long-term value, especially since they can replace guys via free agency?”Me, when the reality hits in the form of Nico: “DON’T YOU DARRRRRE!!!”
— Brett Taylor (@Brett_A_Taylor) January 13, 2026And I don’t think I’ll apologize for that internal conflict. I totally get where I’m coming from, so to speak, and I reckon many of you have that same internal tug.
At a very conscious, analytical level, I would still love to see the Cubs extend Nico Hoerner, rather than trade him. On the right deal, it would make loads of sense for the Cubs. But, because I’m not sure if the right deal for them – especially after signing Alex Bregman, and especially if Matt Shaw isn’t traded – is going to be the right size for Hoerner to actually forgo free agency, I don’t think it’s going to happen.
So then I start thinking about whether Nico Hoerner’s 2026 impact on the team plus my own personal fandom of enjoying watching him play for one more season outweighs whatever massive return the Cubs could get in trade. What if it is structured such that the impact to the 2026 team isn’t even that a severe downgrade? What if there’s also loads of long-term value in the deal, far outstripping the mere draft pick the Cubs would net by offering Hoerner a Qualifying Offer after the season? Doesn’t my brain then tell me, yes, obviously, you have to make that trade.
Of course, I think that is also pretty unlikely to happen. That is to say, circling back to Rosenthal’s piece, are the Red Sox *actually* going to include an MLB-ready, pre-arbitration, potential front-two starter like Payton Tolle or Connelly Early for one year of Nico Hoerner? Look, I can make the argument that Hoerner at his salary is worth only slightly less than Kyle Tucker was this time last year at his salary, but I don’t think I can credibly argue they are worth the same. And if you’re talking about a package of Tolle or Early plus-plus for Hoerner? That’s a Tucker trade return, and like that deal was for the Astros, it might not mean the 2026 Cubs are appreciably worse. That’s “massive.”
… I just don’t see that happening. So I’m not sure any of this matters. I don’t know. That internal battle is brewing again.
© Kamil Krzaczynski-Imagn ImagesHence then, the article about how massive would a nico hoerner trade return be anyway does it even matter was published today ( ) and is available on Bleacher Nation ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( How “Massive” Would a Nico Hoerner Trade Return Be, Anyway? Does It Even Matter? )
Also on site :