Chicago Cubs 2025 Year End Review

After 2 years of finishing 83-79, we finally made it. At 92-70, I think the team performed better than most people were anticipating as Spring Training began. We won our first postseason series since 2017. We failed, but we were up against the team with the best record in the MLB. The main storyline here is that the team developed chemistry and showed just how good they could be. For a moment they had the best record in all of baseball, bumping up against the Dodgers and Tigers and Blue Jays, until the Brewers went on their major heater and left everyone in the dust. We were good, and there are no major problems to solve--it seems that most of the team will be retained in 2026--but there will be differences of opinion about how to handle certain players both under contract and not. Let's clear the elephant out of the room first.

Kyle Tucker: B+

Tucker probably deserves an A-, but I'm dinging him down to a B+ for choking in his last two at-bats in Game 5 of the NLDS. He's been widely discussed, and opinions as to his value have shifted dramatically. In April, Tucker and just about everyone else on the team was on fire. Everyone was clamoring to sign him for however much he wanted. Vladimir Guerrero Jr.'s contract for 14 years and $500 MM set the tone for that. Tucker is just a couple years older than him, and people pegged his number around $400 MM for about 10 years. No one balked at that at all in April, and he was consistently excellent in May and June. Had July, August and September gone been more of the same, he would be getting an A+. He made the All-Star team, but then his second half happened. You could rate his first half an A+ and his second half a C, but of course, it was due to injury. 

Now people look at Cody Bellinger and say we would have been better off keeping him instead. I don't entirely agree but yes, Bellinger did have a better 2025 than 2024. Suffice to say, Tucker did make an impact in the playoffs, and we can't blame the Game 5 loss on him alone. But of all the players that choked, he's unfortunately in the spotlight, and it was unfortunately the biggest choke (the 6th inning one). I hadn't totally given up hope after that 6th inning, but now we know that was the moment the wind went out of their sails, so to speak. 

Suffice to say, also, that nearly everyone now will balk at offering $400 MM for 10 years. Had he hit a 3 run homer, had the Cubs advanced to the NLCS, $400 MM might still be possible. Would he take $300 MM now? Personally that's about what I would offer. He gets injured. He's not quite like Kris Bryant, but he gets injured, and massive super long term contracts for injury-prone players do not seem like good ideas. I think most everyone would get on board with a contract similar to the one offered to Bellinger--3 years, with opt-outs. That seems sort of impossible, though. Tucker will want more. And though he had nice things to say about playing for this team--which was, in fact, a very special team--the comments felt somewhat lukewarm. It seems he would go wherever he got offered the most money. He could have said, "I loved playing here and I hope I'm back here next year," but instead he said, "We'll see what happens." It was clearly a strategic answer, and we have to accept that his heart may not be here. That's the business of this sport, and as Nick Castellanos once said, it's the part that sucks. Hope for the best. It was great to have a player of his caliber on the team, but the Cubs need to become Buyers if they want to keep him. I won't be surprised if he ends up on the Dodgers, who appear to have endless money. I would keep him if we can, but I would not overpay, and it seems one team will inevitably have to do that. They won't need to do that for a while with his neighbor in the outfield and fellow starting All-Star.

Pete Crow-Armstrong: A

PCA would get an A+ if he lifted his batting average and on-base percentage a little bit higher (.247/.287). Regardless, he fully emerged and lived up to all the hype surrounding him--and then some. No one anticipated the power surge. However, he did note he was aiming for 60 stolen bases, and he ended the season with 35. He was on track for 60 or more at the beginning. Then he started hitting a lot of home runs and it seemed his game became more Kyle Schwarber than Luis Arraez. He cooled off, too, and slumped a bit towards the end. Like Tucker, frankly, the second half was a disappointment. He was not quite as good in the playoffs. But I don't think you can hold it against him. He's still just 23. It was his first postseason. He had a couple timely hits. 

His defense is stellar. A Gold Glove is a fait accompli. He's the total 5-tool player, par excellence. 

He'll be the starting center fielder next year, and the year after, and hopefully for many years after that. He's the new face of the franchise. People did not stop talking about him, around the All-Star game. I almost got tired of it, like there wasn't anyone else on the team worth celebrating. He's an emotional player, and while sometimes that leads an overly aggressive approach, on balance I think we all prefer knowing a player really does care, a lot.

He's not the leadoff hitter, though it feels like he should be. Someone else appears to have cemented a spot there, the only person that was arguably a better story than PCA. 

Michael Busch: A+

Busch ended the season with the most home runs on the team. Unlike the two above, his 2nd half was even better. Happ was the leadoff hitter, and Busch basically took over. At first, it did not seem like a good experiment, and he slumped. Briefly. (In August, though his May was not any better.) He ended the season on a total heater and was probably their best player in the playoffs. Now, all four of his postseason homers were solo shots, but I think they also came mostly in the first inning, so no one could be on base. I know he set an all-time major league record doing that in the NLDS.

They need to keep Busch for as long as possible. We knew Busch was pretty special last year, similar to PCA. Now we know that they are both very special. The move to acquire him in 2024 may be the single best move that the front office has made since trading for Jake Arrieta. It was interesting how the Cubs fared at the trade deadline (it seems they didn't do much because neither did the Brewers, though they did actually get one of their best players in Andrew Vaughn), and how Jed Hoyer got a contract extension. I have to think that landing Michael Busch the way he did played a huge role in that (and you will see below, there were numerous other examples). 

There was talk last year of going for Pete Alonso, and there may be talk of that again this year. The biggest most annoying storyline of the year was his inability to his left-handed pitching. How bad was it, really? .272 vs .202. But I feel like most people thought, who cares, even at .202, he's as effective as Justin Turner. Imagine the Cubs with Seiya in RF, Alonso at DH, and playing 1B when lefties start. Or, imagine Busch improving against lefties--not dramatically, but just enough to avoid the platoon conversation. The point is, there are possibilities, and I think the only possibility the Cubs want and the only things we can take as a given is that PCA and Busch are fixtures. I suppose, there are a few more. And maybe that's what great about this team--the holes left to fill feel minimal compared to the last few years. 

Nico Hoerner: A

Nico started off the year injured, or so we thought. He was ready on Opening Day and played 156 games and had the best season of his career. He was the most consistent hitter towards the end of the season, and the best postseason hitter without question (.419!). He hit .297, which is good for 8th best in the MLB in 2025. He's a finalist for a Gold Glove, and he remained the hallmark of consistency he has been over the past four seasons. Like Kyle Hendricks, he has never made the All-Star team, but he's establishing himself as one of the de facto leaders of the club. His postseason performance was so impressive that we all have to acknowledge him as one of the best at his position. He's not going to give you a ton of pop, but he excelled in situational hitting, going .371 with runners in scoring position. This is EXACTLY what the Cubs need more of in 2026. To an extent, every team needs this, and maybe it happens to everyone, but it really feels like we leave runners on base more than most other teams. Only 5 people in the MLB had more hits and their names are Witt, Arraez, Bichette, Judge and Turner. He has to be acknowledged as one of the most underrated players in the league and an ASG SNUB. Some people say we have the best middle infield in baseball, and we now know that his double-play partner is a GG SNUB.

Dansby Swanson: B+

He was a GG SNUB last year, too, but I think on balance, Dansby's 2025 was better than 2024. Mainly this is due to power numbers, hitting 8 more HRs and 11 more RBIs. His batting average has never been anything but average while on the Cubs (.244/.242/.244 in his three years). He didn't walk quite as much and he struck out a bit more. Somehow, his WAR was even higher than last year, good for 3rd best on team behind Nico and PCA, and tied with Busch. (It must be admitted WAR is a flawed metric.) In any case, like Nico, he's consistently solid, and they complement one another perfectly. He gets more flak than others, but he tends to shut people up quickly thereafter. He's the Cubs big contract man, and no one is calling this contract a mistake. Like everyone else above (save perhaps Tucker), he's locked in for 2026 and I'd expect more of the same. I think he's about to become a father, and perhaps a study could be done on whether players improve or not. I'm sure that would be fascinating. 

Ian Happ: B

Happ is another model of consistency, but gets even more flak than Dansby. He's a notoriously streaky hitter that also notoriously ends every season almost equivalent to his previous one. This year, he struck out a bit less, but probably still too much. He's won the GG the past 3 seasons, but it appears he may be snubbed this year. He hit leadoff for a significant part of the season, and he inhabited that role just fine (though he did have a better 2nd half, and a strong end, and he moved out of that spot around that time). His postseason performance left something to be desired, though he did have a game-changing performance in the NLDS. A lot of people seem to want to move on from him, but he's locked in for 2026, and he's the greatest leader on the team. He's been a Cub his whole career, and he should stay a Cub. I don't think many people would be opposed to that, but they might prefer he take a more limited role. We all know Owen Caissie is coming up, and it would behoove the Cubs to keep Happ on for mentorship. This may not have been Happ's greatest year (that would be 2022, his All-Star year), but it is far from the disaster that the naysayers may claim. I don't think it's necessary to move on from him, though I would like to see him focus on his approach at the plate and potentially try to draw more walks. He'll always be streaky, but he's connected to the prior "Championship core" and a key veteran presence whose value should not be underestimated. 

Seiya Suzuki: A

Suzuki famously acknowledged that he would not have wanted to join the Cubs had they retained his services as DH and not RF. After a few gaffes in the outfield the past couple of seasons, the Cubs had had enough, and with Tucker, Seiya was expendable in the field. His Obvious Shirt above indicates awareness of such anxiety. Regardless, he did well as DH. His first half was pretty much exclusively as DH, and he was an ASG SNUB. He was leading the NL in RBIs at the time. In April and May, he was about as productive as Ohtani. 

Some people are saying he was overperforming. And the 2nd half numbers bear that out (.263 with 25 HR and 77 RBI vs. .213 with 7 HR and 26 RBI)--he did, however, draw more walks in the 2nd half, and he ended the season on a high note. This carried over into the postseason. He was one of the few Cubs doing anything offensively, alongside Busch and Hoerner. That said, he still did appear to choke a bit, and his (unfairly) called third strikes continue to be one of the oddest WTF trends in baseball. Notably, after Tucker was injured, he took over in RF, and he did not appear to have as any gaffes (though his fielding % does appear slightly lower than previous years). Anecdotally anyways, he seems like less of a liability than before. 

He was an instrumental part of the 2025 campaign, and stood alongside Busch and PCA as the greatest home run threat on the team. He is locked in for 2026, and his acquisition looks like one of the other more positive moves that Jed Hoyer has made. It might be a bit much to expect another 30+ HR season out of him, and his batting average did actually drop considerably (last year was one of the most underrated hitters in the league), but all signs point to his having adjusted to MLB pitching and I personally think he can replicate this level of performance. If his power numbers drop, I would expect the batting average to go up, but the postseason seemed to show he has become a power hitter.

Carson Kelly: A-

The Cubs were on fire in April, and everyone was performing at the highest level--none more than Carson Kelly, who is currently my favorite player on the team. He is a Chicago guy, and he came home this year, and I think everyone hopes he is here to stay for the long haul. 
 

At the end of April, he was hitting .360 with a 1.347 OPS, 7 HR, and 21 RBI. He hit for the cycle, and won a couple other games for the team. (I was lucky to be there on both 4/18/25 and 7/4/25, 2 of the greatest games ever--I was not so lucky on 7/25/25 or 10/1/25). He came back down to earth after April, but his July was nearly as impressive. He missed his career high in HR, but only by 1, and hit career highs in RBIs and batting average (though .249 is hardly anything to cheer about, it's good enough these days). 

He was the backup catcher to Miguel Amaya, who actually did quite well at the beginning as well. When Amaya went down, Reese McGuire came up, and the Cubs catchers combined to have a very productive season at the position. By the end, Kelly was the everyday catcher, and he should also be credited for his work with the pitching staff. Arguably he deserves an A for that. He was almost an All-Star, and he's never made the team. In any case I think unquestionably this was the best season of his career, and he has emerged as a threat that is also patient at the plate. This is his home and he should stay here. The only question is whether he has supplanted Amaya for 2026. Regardless, both should be back, and the position does not demand any upgrade.

Matt Shaw: B

Matt Shaw's rookie season went about as well as most rookie seasons go: he struggled, got sent down to the Minors, returned with a resurgence, and ended the year on an average note (though actually, it seems that he and Happ and maybe Nico were the only Cubs performing decently in the second half). He was excellent at 3rd base, and I believe he's a finalist for GG. He won't be Rookie of the Year, but at a few moments he looked like he could be. A lot of people were up in arms about 3rd base. And given the likelihood of Tucker returning, perhaps it was a miss in the long run to lose Cam Smith and Paredes. But we are where we are, and though Shaw was probably the least threatening hitter in the lineup, he showed flashes of greatness that bode well in the future. He wasn't quite as good as PCA last year, but all signs point to similar improvement. I don't think there are any major upgrades available at 3rd base, and it seems the best option is to continue to let Shaw develop. There's no question he's a great defender, and the Cubs were one of the strongest teams in the MLB in terms of fielding. If he can improve his consistency at the plate, Shaw is an All-Star caliber player, and if he's the weakest hitter in the lineup, I think we can live with that. He did not fare very well in the postseason, but I have to believe that he will be much stronger in 2026 in every aspect of his game (though it would be difficult to improve defensively). 

 Justin Turner: C-

I'd be rather surprised if Justin Turner returns in 2026 as a 41-year-old. As a 42-year-old, he holds a special place in my heart, and I was very happy when he joined the team. I really wanted Joey Votto on the team last year. Turner performed about as well as late-era Joey Votto, which is not great--BUT he provided invaluable mentorship. He had at least one game-winning hit (I think two), and he was Busch's de facto replacement at 1B when the Cubs faced a lefty. He was not very good in that role, but come on, he was a fantastic presence on this team. He was Fan of the Game one day, and played a mind-boggling prank that we never may truly understand. He did magic tricks for the team. Little kids came to the game with giant red beards and he took photos with them. Every team needs a class clown. He's not the player he once was, but I don't think it's any coincidence that PCA emerged to the extent he did, or that the team came together as a more cohesive unit this year. We went further than we've gone in years, and Turner's intangibles undoubtedly played a bigger part in that than anyone is able to recognize. He's a very fun person to have on the team. I think you need to have a player like him on any championship team. Like Joe Maddon, he reminded everyone that the game is about having fun. It allowed everyone around him to loosen up and play to the best of their abilities (and in many cases, beyond expectations). I was going to give him a D but I boosted him up to a C-. Arguably he deserves a C+, if not higher, but I really have no idea what it was like in their clubhouse. I only know he had a very good Instagram, and that he's an iconic player. He probably will not make the Hall of Fame, but he's a World Champion, and he's certainly in the Hall of Very Good, with an unusual career that proved life can start at 30. I'm sure a lot of people would moan if he were brought back in 2026, but I would not be among them. Counsell proved he's a pretty decent manager this year, but he doesn't have Maddon's swagger. If Turner does retire, I hope he stays on the team as a coach, a la David Ross, because he brought an energy to this team that was singular, and made everyone around him better in ways that we may never fully comprehend.

***

I could write about bench players, but you know, this post gets very long. Obviously, Miguel Amaya merits special attention. He started off well. He had a steady upward trajectory. He was not setting the world on fire, but he showed flashes of greatness, and in April, he and Kelly were basically collaborating and combining and amounting to Cal Raleigh (I'd like to compare their first months of the season). Then, he got injured. But he returned! And then, he immediately got injured, again. It was very sad. It may even have been traumatizing for Amaya. Let's hope that's not the case. He's still just 26. It would be nice to have him and Kelly back one another up again in 2026, and I hope that's the case. As noted above, Reese McGuire admirably filled in for him, and provided some unexpected pop. Willi Castro appeared to be the biggest move at the trade deadline, and I am still not sure why the front office thought it was necessary to get a utility player rather than a starting pitcher, and the experiment did not seem to work--but he was an All-Star in 2024, and I have to believe he will have a much better 2026. I'll reserve thoughts on Gage Workman, Jon Berti, Vidal Brujan, Nicky Lopez and Carlos Santana. But Owen Caissie, Moises Ballesteros and Kevin Alcantara all showed great promise. I was really sad to lose Alexander Canario, but the Cubs prospect pool remains fairly deep, and one other aspect of the team to credit to Jed. We have a solid starting lineup, and we could use a threatening bat or two off the bench. I fully expect that to materialize in 2026. 

On the pitching end, well, this was a very strange year.

***

Justin Steele: A-

Justin Steele only pitched in 4 games in 2025, and it's not fair to grade him, but based on those appearances, he would get an A-. He actually looked like he was getting better across those games, and probably would have gotten an A had the injury not happened. But it did, and his season was lost. He will be back in 2026, and he has a certain fire about him that I think should serve the team well. Once again he has something to prove, and he vowed to come back stronger than before. He was the Ace, and he will probably be the Ace again, but he'll now have to compete for that title with a couple other guys. 

Matthew Boyd: A

I don't think anyone was super excited about Matthew Boyd coming into the year. We lost Kyle Hendricks, and we got someone that wasn't that much younger, and had only recently been a little more successful. He was expected to fill out the rotation, maybe in the #4 or #5 slot behind Steele, Shota and Taillon. As we close the books on 2025, we have to acknowledge him as another one of Jed's greatest moves, and the most pleasant of the many surprises this year brought. 

He was an All-Star and it was unquestionably the greatest season of his career, and he had fun. He faltered slightly towards the end, and made everyone a little nervous in the NLDS, but was in top form in his final start and deserves to be recognized as the Ace of the staff. Whether he would be named Opening Day Starter in 2026 would likely be based on Spring Training performance comparison with Steele (assuming he is back in time, which I hope). There is, however, another potential Opening Day Starter in this rotation, and another one of the best stories of 2025. 

Cade Horton: A

He probably deserves an A+, but I'm reminded of one bad outing he had against the Astros. Regardless, this year he was often talked about in the same breath as Jake Arrieta, whose run through the 2nd half of 2015 was historically unmatched. Horton wasn't quite as electric as Arrieta in that time, and was under a strict pitch-count limitation, but simply put, he was outstanding.

His 2025 numbers end up very good: 11-4 with a 2.67 ERA in 118 IP with 97 Ks. Compare his 1st and 2nd half numbers, though. First half: 3-3 with 4.45 ERA. Second half: 8-1 with a 1.03 ERA. (Just for fun, Arrieta's 2nd half of 2015: 12-1 with 0.75 ERA and way more innings pitched--Arrieta had 110 more IP than Horton did this year--and was a pretty great hitting pitcher--no one can compete with that stretch.)

But we will take it. Horton could not pitch in the postseason due to injury, but he was ready to come back for the NLCS. Would we have made it there with him? Quite possibly. But pitching wasn't the major problem for the playoffs--it was pushing runners across, making the most out of limited baserunner opportunities. I don't think Horton is going win Rookie of the Year but he certainly deserves it. His second half alone justifies it, but at 118 IP for the year, may be seen as "not fully there," like say Paul Skenes was last year. You are not going to get a pitcher of that caliber winning Rookie of the Year most of the time. He is, in fact, one of the frontrunners regardless. But that is just for show. Horton cares about the team winning. He probably will not be the de facto Ace in 2026, but he will be #2 or #3 in the rotation, if the Cubs do not get a superstar starter, which would be really good for them to consider. In any case, he may be the single best story of 2026, as even though PCA was amazing, he did slump, and Horton was consistently magnificent, especially down the stretch, when it mattered most. Whether he's #2 or #3, he has probably eclipsed last year's Ace. 

Shota Imanaga: B

I gave him an A last year, and this was a big step back. He finished the year 9-8 with a 3.73. That ERA is still pretty decent. He had 57 less strikeouts this year in about 30 less innings pitched and four less starts. He was injured briefly in both seasons, but a little more this year. At a certain point last year, hitters "figured him out" and he was never a groundball pitcher, but he mystified enough hitters that home runs did not seem problematic. However, things escalated this year. 

While he gave up just 4 more home runs than last year (31 vs. 27), his second half was not very good. 1st half: 6-3, 2.65 ERA, 11 home runs allowed. 2nd half: 3-5, 4.70 ERA, 20 home runs allowed. Yeah it got worse, and some people think he's "tipping" his pitches and hitters have figured him out even more than they did before. 

People think he has bad struggles in the 1st inning, and yeah, I saw those--but I also saw him hunker down afterwards a few times, and turn in ultimately very solid performances. It was bad, but I think slightly overblown--the escalation in home runs is no joke though. I disagreed with having him start the 2nd inning in a game in Game 2 against the Padres. It was an experiment that backfired, but ultimately did not matter. It would have been his turn in the rotation to start Game 5 against Milwaukee, but the Cubs instead opted for a bullpen game of sorts + Colin Rea. We didn't fare much better, but again, the pitching wasn't poorly managed. I love Shota and hope he bounces back to 2024 form, though many acknowledged he might be over-performing. 

He has a very confusing contract situation that I won't try to lay out (I read about it here and recommend reading if you care, just because it truly is bonkers). Suffice to say, it doesn't make sense to me to let him go. Even with his struggles, he's still above-average. Dude almost threw a no-hitter last year (ended up only a combined one). If you have a rotation and Imanaga is your #5 starter, you are in a good spot. Conceivably it could happen if the Cubs land another superstar starter. Then you'd have, oh, say, Dylan Cease or Shane Bieber, #1 (*maybe*), #2 Steele, #3 Boyd, #4 Horton, #5 Imanaga [I forgot about the guy below the next. -Ed.]. That would be sick. But the Cubs have depth and they're probably not going to worry about much this postseason beyond the Kyle Tucker situation and thoughts of trying to bring in someone to replace what he brought to the team (which would be nearly impossible, if his second half matched his first half). So Imanaga may be #4, and you know what, that is also a pretty solid rotation. Especially if the next guy is #5. 

Colin Rea: A- 

Colin Rea pitched well for the Brewers last year, and he turned in basically an identical performance for the Cubs. For some reason his WAR was 1.2 last year and 0.6 this year, but that stat is seeming more and more meaningless to me. That makes it seem like he had no impact, but he really did have a huge impact. Another one of the excellent moves by Jed. These past two seasons are his two best seasons in the MLB. It's possible he's getting better with age. He's a free agent, and if the Cubs are morons and let him walk, he will likely be successful anywhere he goes. 

When Steele went down, he knew he would need to step up, and he totally did that. He wasn't quite as stunning as Boyd, but his numbers (11-7 with 3.95 ERA) arguably bested Imanaga. I think you would still slot Shota at #4, but if Rea is your #5, and if Rea returns in 2026 as strong as he's been the past two years, that should play just fine [Again, note player below, who should slot in #3 or #4 -Ed.]. Granted, he is a great option to have as a long reliever, too. So even if the Cubs do something out of character and make a play for a bigger name, I think you still keep Rea, because you never know what's going to happen, and he saved the day on numerous occasions this year. He arguably "overperformed" as well, but little was expected out of him. When he rose to the occasion after the Steele injury, people seemed to laud him, but frankly, I still think he was underappreciated. He was paid $5 MM this year, and he earned that. I don't know if you pay him $10 MM for a year, I don't know what you offer him, but if he was willing to sign for $5 MM for 1 more year again, it would be a mistake to pass him up. Then again, he sort of might become more relief pitcher than starter, and relievers are notoriously unstable year-to-year. Impossible to predict the future, but an A- for 2025 is fair. Arguably A- and above should only go to All-Stars, and yeah he did give up 16 homers in the 1st half but went 7-3 and 3.91 ERA and felt like a pseudo-snub. He only gave up 4 homers in the 2nd half--he pitched 25 less innings in that stretch, but it felt like he recognized the issue, and stepped his game up accordingly. You keep a guy like that. If he's destined for the bullpen next year, you just have to hope the #5 starter can perform as well as he did, and that won't be easy. He had plenty of good company, those days when he came out of the 'pen. And in starting the write-ups on those guys, I realize I completely forgot about one guy and that my rotation predictions are completely and horribly wrong. 

Jameson Taillon: A-

HOW COULD I FORGET ABOUT TAILLON??? Forgive me, Jameson. I'll only forgive myself by noting that Taillon flies under the radar. He's unassuming, not flashy, and apparently forgettable by me, but everyone will think I am an idiot for not editing the Shota and Rea entries that anticipate rotations without Taillon. Taillon absolutely will be part of the 2026 rotation, and Shota would be #5, and maybe not even in it if either Cease or Bieber are (though that would make me sad). 

Taillon's 2025 year end numbers are no better than his 2024, and I only gave him a B last year. He deserved better. If Rea is getting an A-, Taillon is getting an A-, because their numbers are quite similar. Taillon made quite a bit more money, so perhaps Rea should increase his ask. Regardless, Taillon proved his mettle in the postseason. He was a total stud and basically took the team to the NLDS with his Game 3 performance against the Padres: 4 innings, 2 hits, no runs. His game 3 performance in the NLDS wasn't quite as impressive (he gave up 5 hits and 2 runs), but we ended up winning that game and it changed the nature of the series. 

Like Shota, he also gave up a lot of home runs. Unlike Shota, he was outstanding in the 2nd half. He gave up 22 of the 24 home runs in the first half. He went 4-1 with a 1.57 ERA. Not quite as good as Horton, but good for 2nd best on the team (he was actually much better than Boyd in the second half). 

So really, I think Taillon figured it out by the end of the season, and pitched better than the numbers show. He's going into the last year of his contract, and perhaps that's not good for the pressure he may put on himself to have an even better showing, but the Cubs are going to try to show up next year, and Taillon is going to be a part of it, and if he somehow starts off next season as well as he ended this one, he will absolutely make the All-Star team. He's a former top prospect that did not seem to live up to his potential, until his age 30 season for the Yankees in 2022. The Cubs got him after that, and his 2023 was not as good, but the last two years, he has been up to that 2022 standard. It's still his best season, and while this one had his lowest number of innings pitched in a while, he also spent a good bit of it injured. So I have to think Taillon himself would acknowledge he is at the top of his game. What they do beyond 2026 is unclear but if Taillon turns up aces next year, he should be in line for an extension. This next guy is in that situation now. 

Brad Keller: A

Keller appeared in 68 games. I think it is fair to say that he was the most trusted member of the bullpen. Frankly, I have a hard time remembering a reliever that instilled as much confidence. Of course, you have to go back to that lights-out trio of Ryan Tepera, Andrew Chafin and Craig Kimbrel in 2020 or 2021. The Cubs bullpen was problematic in 2023 and 2024, and it is fair to say this was the best overall bullpen performance since that three-headed monster. 

Arguably the Cubs had as much of a good thing (and probably better) this year, with Daniel Palencia, Drew Pomeranz and Ryan Thielbar. All of them were excellent, but Keller stood apart. Only Michael Soroka had a better ERA coming out of the bullpen, but Keller pitched nearly 10x more than him, so I think he wins Rolaids Relief Man of the Year. I see now that is called the Trever Hoffman award, and that Ryan Helsley of the Cardinals won it last year. Helsley's numbers? OK, he had 49 saves and Keller had....3. But he wasn't the closer, he was the setup man. And maybe that award is basically "best closer." Regardless, Helsley's other numbers: 2.04 ERA, 66.1 IP, 50 hits, 23 walks, 79 Ks. Keller's numbers this year: 2.07 ERA, 69.2 IP, 45 hits, 22 walks, and 75 Ks. Slightly lower K rate, but also a lower hit rate. I think that's pretty equivalent, minus the saves. And it's telling that, even though Palencia basically became the closer, he scuffled slightly in a couple outings near the end, and in the playoffs got used earlier in the game, while Keller was saved for the end. In the postseason, Keller got 2 saves in the Cubs 4 wins, and Palencia had none. 

It's unclear whether he should be the closer, but it's very clear he had an outstanding season and absolutely must be re-signed, and I know basically 100% of Cubs fans will agree. (Maybe it's 99% as there are always a few contrarians amongst us.) And bonus points for Keller for saying this, "I love being in Chicago. I love playing for the Cubs. This is definitely a place that I want to come back to and enjoy. I know a lot of these guys are returning to this clubhouse, and I feel like there’s something special here. I would love to be a part of it, for sure.” 

ALL THAT SAID, this was by far his best season, by a longshot, and it's his breakout. And as noted many times, relievers tends to vary widely on a year-to-year basis. He made $1.5 million this year. I think PCA, Horton and Palencia all made $740K, so they were the best bargains, but they're all still on rookie contracts. They all will get paid a lot more soon. The Cubs took a chance on Keller and it paid off, another move by Jed that you cannot ignore. As with the next guy. He did well with the bullpen. 

Caleb Thielbar: A-

While Keller stood apart as the best, Thielbar is the obvious choice as the second-best in the bullpen. His numbers also would be similar to the Helsley comparison above: 2.64 ERA, 58 IP, 38 hits, 13 walks, and 56 Ks. He's a no-brainer to resign, like Keller. But, he is older. He will be 39 next year. The Cubs missed out on a couple aged closers, but Thielbar was their consolation prize, coming off a rocky year with the Twins after several years of consistent quality. Of course, relief pitchers are volatile (we should just assume this for every bullpen pitcher and not mention it every time). He made $2.75 million this year, and that is fair for what he brought to the team. I think he had a very long scoreless streak, early on. I don't know but I think if he's willing to sign for 1 more year at that $ amount, you do it. He was just too good to ignore, and a big part of why the Cubs managed to survive as long as they did while their pitching staff was compromised by injuries pretty much the entire way through. While Turner was the old man on the team and played like it, Thielbar showed you should not count out guys on the wrong side of 35. His counterpart, fellow 38-year-old Ryan Brasier, also fared better than Turner, but didn't pitch as much and I think if you have to choose which one to re-sign, it's Thielbar, as Brasier's performance could best be described as "adequate." Thielbar kept this team in too many games to count, and while I don't think his 2026 will be better than his 2025, I'd still keep him pitching alongside Keller. They'll never be the Tepera-Chafin-Kimbrel trio, but Thielbar-Keller-Palencia wasn't all that bad.

Daniel Palencia: A-

Ryan Pressly entered the season as the Cubs best closing option, but his greatest contribution to the team ended up being his mentorship to Palencia, who told him what everyone told him and why I did not like him in 2023 (he was limited to 10 games in 2024 and looked even worse), which is that he needed to get his control issues figured out. He seemed to do that this year. He was still a little wild at times, but his wildness mostly translated into his personal appearance. 

He grew his hair out, and added some drip, continued to throw 100 MPH, and a lot more often for strikes. By the end of the season Pressly was DFA'd and Palencia was the closer. He got 22 saves. 

I'm pretty sure, without checking first, his numbers don't quite stack up to Keller's or Thielbar's. We're ignoring Win-Loss records for relief pitchers for reasons that I think should be obvious. To do the Helsley comparison again: 2.91 ERA, 52.2 IP, 44 hits, 16 walks, and 61 Ks. That's totally comparable and while I was right that Keller and Thielbar were slightly better, those numbers will play just fine. He was perfect against the Padres in the Wild Card Series, and not quite as good against the Brewers (actually not good, but he pitched in 4 out of the 5 games). 

He's still super young, so I'm not totally convinced, but if his enhanced control is here to stay, he is an extremely valuable pitcher. He has redeemed himself 100%. Even if he blew that save near the end of the year, it was forgivable. Unless the Cubs acquire a true lights-out closer, it feels like he should occupy that role. It feels a little tedious to keep writing about relief pitchers but there was yet a 4th guy that was "on the level," and another guy whose contract is up and whose re-signing will be roundly endorsed. 

Drew Pomeranz: A-

Pomeranz did not start the season on the Cubs, but he was signed before May. He had been an All-Star in 2016. He was also older (36), and while he pitched extremely well in 2020 and 2021 for the Padres in a somewhat limited role, he was injured in 2022 and did not play in either 2023 or 2024. Again, Jed did well on a "low risk, high reward" flyer. To do the main numbers again: 2.17 ERA, 49.2 IP, 38 hits, 15 walks and 57 Ks. Yes, the Cubs had 4 total studs in the bullpen in 2025. 

I guess he's higher profile than the others because he's a former starter, and he did make a few spot-starts this season. But his performance out of the bullpen was remarkable. Like Thielbar, I believe he also had a lengthy scoreless streak. I'm running out of things to say, because bullpen pitchers are just kind of there, they just show up, and they have to limit damage or prevent any further runs, and they do not get enough credit and they work just as hard as starting pitchers because they have to be ready to go at a moment's notice and they generally have to work in high-leverage situations. Pomeranz performed beautifully and was instrumental in the success of the team in 2025 and absolutely should be brought back along with the other two above (Palencia is under contract and does not present any decision except his role). It's a longshot that all 4 will be as good in 2026, but you need to reward them, too, with acknowledgment, appreciation, and maybe a little more money (but just a little, this is the Cubs organization). 

Ben Brown: C

Ben Brown's trajectory has been a bit strange. I forgot about him last year and didn't grade him, which isn't that insane because he only pitched 55 innings, but he would have gotten a high B.  It's more insane I was going to leave him off this year because he pitched 106 innings and started 15 games. Apparently, he "won" the 5th spot in the rotation over Colin Rea at the end of Spring Training. That made sense in light of his 2024. At times, Ben Brown is electric. Anecdotally, he appeared to show more flashes of that in 2024 than 2025, but I am also a bit off. I'm considering a game I watched from an Air BNB in Michigan in late April, against the Phillies. He was not terrible in that game, per se, but it was not a magnificent outing. In any case, apparently he went toe-to-toe with Tarik Skubal in June and almost matched his performance (they both pitched 7 innings, but Brown gave up 2 runs while Skubal only gave up 1, and Tigers won). Brown's ceiling is still very high. But, I think he only throws 2 pitches. I hear this a lot. And I know his control is not great. He strikes a lot of guys out. He has the highest K/9 rate amongst starters at 10.9. That's important, but then he also walks guys and gives up a lot of home runs, though technically Taillon and Shota gave them up at a higher rate. By the end of the year, Brown was basically reduced to the role of "mop up man." EVEN SO, people were still suggesting it wouldn't be a terrible idea to have him start a NLDS game against the Brewers, as he had been effective against them. Nobody is giving up on Ben Brown, but let's just say, given all we've said above, it may be difficult for him to make the rotation. He can be a valuable asset but it appears that will most likely be as a long reliever. 

***

There are a lot of other guys that were not as good, but they were taken off the roster. Tyson Miller, who was great last year, suddenly was not, and he was gone. Nate Pearson, who seemed to struggle most of the times I saw him come in, also was gone. Ryan Pressly is gone, though he pitched in 44 games before that happened, and had been occasionally effective. Porter Hodge, thought to be the closer in waiting at the end of last year, before Pressly was acquired, took a major step back in a perfect illustration of relief pitcher volatility. He would have gotten an A last year, as he put up fantastic numbers in line with the 4 above. This year, he only pitched in 3 fewer games, and 10 fewer innings, but his ERA went from 1.88 last year to 6.27. He may have been injured, and I'm uncertain of how the Cubs will handle but believe he is still technically on the team. Julian Merryweather has also slid. After a 2023 on the level of Hodge's 2024 or the 4 above, his 2024 and 2025 seasons have been borderline disastrous, and think his contract may be up--I wouldn't be surprised if he bounces back but it will probably be elsewhere. Jordan Wicks had something of a lost season, after something of a lost season in 2024 also, though he did make 10 starts last year. He's still with us, and it's still possible he'll bounce back, but would anticipate more time in AAA unless we are decimated by injuries. Which definitely happened this year. But the way the team weathered it, and the way Counsell managed it, made it tolerable. And that's one of the most impressive things of all. Javier Assad stepped up in a major way last year (akin to Colin Rea this year), but spent quite a lot of 2025 injured. We were waiting for him to come back and save us when we were decimated early on, and his timeline kept getting pushed back. He did eventually return, but he was just OK. He wasn't awful, but he did not seem as good. Actually, he started 7 games--but that's 22 less than last year, and he pitched 110 fewer innings. His ERA technically was lower this year and he actually went 4-1, but I would not have graded him higher than last year. He's in a similar spot to Ben Brown, I would say. 

And there were other guys that were also, pretty good. I think there was some shade on Michael Soroka because he was a "big trading deadline move" and then got injured immediately. But he was technically the ERA leader at 1.08. Then again that was only in 6 games and 8.1 IP. Hardly a fair sample size. Aaron Civale is in a similar boat, with an ERA at 2.08, but only 13 IP. Look, we've got 4 stars in the bullpen, but you need more than just 4, and no guarantee they'll be as good next year either. I think you keep these two guys. Chris Flexen (whose nickname is "Big Baby," I've just learned) was another bright spot, and he did have a bigger sample size at 43.2 IP. His ERA was 3.09 and if I'm not mistaken he was also on a longer scoreless streak a la Pomeranz and Thielbar. Keep him. Andrew Kittredge fared a bit better, though I did not like how he started over Shota in Game 2 against the Padres. He went for 53 innings but the first half of the year was in Baltimore for him. He was quite good with a 3.32 ERA. He did get the save in Game 3, and I was nervous because he pitched in all 3 games. In short he "ascended" into the "circle of trust" in the playoffs, and he didn't totally falter, though he did give up 1 run each in 2 outings against the Brewers. I think he'll stay on the team. Most teams have 7-8 relief pitchers, and from what I can tell here, we have that many that did very well. It'll be good to have a couple for insurance purposes.    

The main point is, we had serious bullpen problems the past two years, and I think it's fair to say that in 2025, we did not really have a bullpen problem. And it was managed well.

Craig Counsell: A-

Counsell lived up to his billing and his salary this year. He probably deserves an A. The Cubs were the best team in baseball, at several moments, though they only had the best record in baseball for a game or two. The Brewers came out of nowhere and shocked the league, but the NLCS result was not surprising. The Dodgers truly are built for the postseason, and we will root hard for the Blue Jays over this next week (we finish this post on 10/21/25, the night after the Blue Jays beat the Mariners in Game 7). But back to Counsell. He will always make a few moves with which I disagree, and sometimes backfire. But at the end of the day, he's good about making decent challenges to umps, telling them to take another look when appropriate and getting a higher percentage of overturns (I'm unaware of this stat but I'm curious). And he's good about managing the pitching staff. 

I think a lot of people had issues with his starting lineup and batting orders, but what are you going to do, when you have as many streaky hitters as this team has. The problem used to be the bullpen, I said, but there's always been an offense problem. It feels insane to say this team had an offense problem in 2025, because they tore the cover off the ball as well or better than most teams in the MLB. But when they got cold, they got very, very cold. And it's frankly remarkable that they held on through the 2nd half as long as they did. After the All-Star break, I feel like the team was barely cracking .500. And it's true, they went 35-31 in the 2nd half. By the end of May, the team was in a super powerful position, and then there was a pseudo-"June swoon" where they only played .500, and then July was stronger......but don't forget, this season started off with the toughest schedule in baseball, and they totally killed it. Their struggles began when they faced weaker teams, but any team can win on any given day. And the Cubs won the Wild Card Series and made it to the NLDS. I think we did better than we imagined. We could dream about the World Series again. It didn't seem impossible. And from this position now, it doesn't seem delusional to think we can do even better in 2026. And I don't think most Cubs fans have felt that way for a long time. 

This post is long enough, and there's a lot I'm leaving out. Like, Matthew Boyd's pick-offs, or the loss of a Cubs icon and my favorite player growing up. That was terribly sad*. And it was sad we couldn't win it for Ryno. But may his spirit continue to stay at Wrigley and with the team, and may his example continue to inspire future Cubs greats, so that they also might one day have their name on a flagpole. It felt a bit like losing Ernie Banks, which coincided with the run from 2015-2017. Let's hope we can say the same for 2025-2027, and maybe even hopefully beyond. 

***

*I would even pour one out for Charlie, as abhorrent as I found him. He got at least one thing right: he knew which team to root for. Reserve comments on Matt Shaw and to a lesser extent Busch. We are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs and part of what makes the Cubs great is how they bring so many different types of people together over a common goal. We are all brothers and sisters in certain regards, and even if we may not like our brothers and sisters in this fandom very much, we are united in other ways. And for the most part, I have to say, we do have the greatest fans in the world and it was a pleasure to be a part of the run this year. I got to see 2 of the greatest baseball games of my entire life, and then also 2 of the toughest losses in my life. There's always heartache and frustration, but there's also joy, and on the whole, it was a fun ride. 

You Dreamed of Empires - Alvaro Enrigue (2024)

After listening to several New York Times Book Review podcasts last year, I picked out this book for a friend, as it was noted by many as one of the highlights of the year in publishing. As a gift, it was a great success. My friend loved it. He may consider it one of his favorite books, period. After he finished, he insisted on my reading it too, and as is custom, a review on this blog follows. 

It is easy to describe the book. It is an historical novel, detailing events from roughly 500 years ago in what is now Mexico City, centering around a crucial encounter between Hernando Cortes and the Emperor Montezuma. It takes place in the course of a single day.

It is not as easy to say how I feel about it. At first blush, I would say I do not agree entirely with my friend (I would not put it in the Best Books category), but I can certainly understand why it has been lauded, and admit that my own knowledge of history and interest in this type of narrative puts me at an unfair bias. In any case, I will do my best to explain. 

I am tempted to copy the lyrics from the Neil Young song, "Cortez the Killer," as it rung in my ears throughout my reading. I am actually going to read them now. You may find them here 

And yes, Neil is not totally off here, but the song presents a rather one-sided take on the encounter, and is something of an anthem against colonialism. Montezuma is presented as a hero, Cortez as a destroyer. The story Enrigue depicts is far more nuanced. 

At a certain point near the very end, there is something of a "twist" that definitely tricked me, and belied my own lack of knowledge about this general period in world history. So now, I need to do some wikipedia research. Forgive me. 

And now, I believe, the twist here is a twist on history, and I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but my initial thoughts while reading were correct--the dream is the reality, and the reality depicted is perhaps Tarantino-esque, a la Inglorious Basterds or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood--an alternate conclusion that might have changed the course of history between these two nations. 

All that being said, the overarching impression was one of anti-climax. Arguably, the book opens with its climax, or at least its greatest intrigue. The book (and day) plays out towards another climax, which ends in rather tentative and odd psychedelic fashion, and is in keeping with one of the major themes of the novel. Maybe I am speaking so generically because I am dreading spelling out the names of these characters, but unfortunately it must be done. 

***

Enrigue does open the book with a letter to his editor, Natasha, which contains an explanation for the spelling and usage of various words deployed for both historical accuracy and readability. This was not particularly helpful and it might have been better had I flipped back to it for reference--but I think I got the gist of things, which Enrigue also anticipates in the letter. 

First of all, it's not Montezuma--it's Moctezuma. And I've overstated the complexity of things here, because there aren't many characters. Perhaps the lingo washed over me in such a way that up to 20% of text per page felt borderline nonsensical to me, but again I think I got the gist. 

Obviously the main characters are Cortes and Moctezuma, but this is definitely focused more on Moctezuma, and Moctezuma's wife (and sister! as the text highlights several times early on--in title only, symbolic and not incestuous), Atotoxtli. Beyond those 2, there is Tlilpotonqui, the mayor of Tenochtitlan, and some other incidental figures that may be in line to be emperor or mayor. 

On the Spanish side, Jazmin Caldera is arguably focused on just as much as Cortes, along with the translators Aguilar and Malinalli. Cortes is the captain, but Caldera is third in command. Alvarado is second in command, but only mentioned a few times--once while saying the Lord's Prayer and polishing his shoes with a grease made by rendering fat....in one of the most gut-wrenching chapters in the book, which I wanted to excerpt but my friend insisted was a spoiler.

It's not a spoiler to say this book is gross, and describes horrible smells somewhat often. It also describes the cuisine of Tenochtitlan in a rather charming way. The writing about food is great. There is also a lot of drug material in this book. These were arguably my favorite parts. 

The period detail here is peerless, and Enrigue's research is marvelous. In terms of historical novels, it's very difficult to put on a better clinic than this. In reading it, you will be transported back in time 500 years, and guided by Enrigue on all facets of daily life that feel unfamiliar and strange. This element of pitch-perfect historical accuracy probably accounts for the majority of its acclaim.  

***

Plot, briefly: Cortes and his crew have arrived in Tenochtitlan, and have been invited to the royal palace of Moctezuma, who remains unseen by them for the majority of the novel. The opening scene of the novel is instantly iconic, and is probably the part that most reviews would excerpt, as it gives a preview of the "sensory" experience in store for the reader. I would not say the rest of the novel is downhill from there, but that it is rather more concerned with backroom political intrigue than "action." The main action here is that Caldera is disgusted by the options and situation, and that Cortes does not care, and demands compliance:

"Cortes took a generous swallow of soup and bellowed his delight. He smiled at Princess Atotoxtli, seated next to him. With a pleasant expression still on his face but with his fists clenched on the linen cloth--his knuckles white with rage at Caldera's insubordination--he said quietly, almost in a singsong: Shut up and eat the soup, son of a bitch; we are the empress's guests. Caldera smiled. I can't, he replied; if only you knew what they smelled like, Hernan, this one here must have eaten mashed-up babies for breakfast. The captain general returned his smile and, as if commenting on the sweetness of the chocolate, said: You think you smell of roses? Shut up and eat, then vomit later all you want. Malinalli, the Nahua translator, raised her eyes from her plate. In Maya, she asked Aguilar, the Spanish translator, whether they should translate what Caldera and Cortes were saying for the benefit of the princess and the nobles and priests crowded around the table. He whispered in her ear, also in Maya, that he didn't think so, it was just conquistador chatter." (6-7)

It's unclear whether Cortes and Moctezuma are going to become allies (or conquered), and the potential result of their encounter is contemplated throughout the novel to the point that it becomes the actual main plot--what do they want from one another? At a certain point it becomes obvious: the Spanish have brought horses, "deer without antlers," and those might be very useful to Moctezuma, though his exposure to the creatures feels rather distant (Atototoxtli is the one that recognizes the advantages they provide). In fact, Moctezuma is distant the entire time, and it's soon clear that he is on magic mushrooms pretty constantly. 

Small note: just in revisiting this section of this first chapter, my understanding is much deeper the second time around, and so this book probably would probably benefit enormously from a total re-read. It's a strange setting filled with strange words and complicated feelings for most of the characters, but after generally processing how the events unfold, it seems to be more straightforward. 

***

I'm not sure if there's anything I can add here, beyond another excerpt. My feelings should be clear. I am only not putting it on the Best Books list because historical fiction generally does not make the list. It is not my favorite genre. I can certainly appreciate it, sometimes, and I know this should stand as a prototypical masterpiece of the genre. 

It certainly has a purpose, beyond straight non-fiction history. It allows us to go beyond the facts, as we are often told that history is written by the victors. It is good and useful to imagine an alternative history that might have been written if the defeated could provide their account. 

And it is also amusing to insert wild fantasy that breaks the 4th wall and crosses over into experimental literature. Such is the mystery of life, and Kurt Vonnegut would likely approve: 

"I love this room, said Moctezuma, you can't imagine how I miss being a priest. Where there were splotches of blood, he saw sprays of flowers. The withered fingers of the hands of great warriors sacrificed during the year's festivals swayed pleasingly like the branches of a small tree to the beat of some music he couldn't place, though in a possible future we would have recognized it. It was T. Rex's 'Monolith.'
The priest was also up to his ears in whatever he had taken to carry out his temple duties, so he bent his magic powers of hearing to the music and caught the sexy crooning of Marc Bolan. He smiled. That's good stuff, he said. Moctezuma swung his hips to the beat. It's nothing I've ever heard before, he replied, but I like it. He pulled his elbows in tight and shimmied, moving his head gravely from side to side, transfixed by pleasure. The priest, swaying his own ass to the beat--he was nearly eighty, but on mushrooms he was a jaguar--said, I was thinking about you, believe it or not; look at this. He carefully lifted the clay basin in which the blood of doves sacrificed that afternoon had yet to coagulate--their decapitated bodies sensually dancing to 'Monolith,' all around the priest and emperor--and showed him the image forming in it. It took Moctezuma a while to bring it into focus because it came from very far away. When it was finally sharp and clear, it made no sense to him: It was me writing this novel in a yard on Shelter Island. Uh, he said, strange, and he was seized by laughter. Is that what will happen if I wait for the new year, or if I don't wait? The priest shrugged. The calendar says you should wait, but the calendar has been wrong lately; let me ask the boss. Moving to the beat of the emperor's internal music, he walked to the giant sculpture of Huitzilopochtli that loomed over the place. His skull-embroidered cape swished like the train of a contented queen. As always, the god was covered with a veil." (176-177)

If one is traveling to Mexico City, one should read this book. Because it is just as much about the founding of that place as anything else. I think Enrigue also perceives something in the character of its people that is more ancient, and through this literary alchemy has created what must be one of the most beautiful statements about this city (and the country of Mexico) as there has been. I know at least that it will make me look at the city rather differently, whenever I am so lucky to return for more than a 6 hour layover, and hopefully less ill than I was when there 8.5 months ago. 

Finally, the world did not end in 2012, but to many of us perhaps, it was the beginning of the end. Those that want to believe in such supernatural prognostication should also find much here to appreciate. Maybe they will even discover the key to quelling global unrest, and better advise all those putting on suits of armor to go to battle against hot-fudge sundaes. 

Taste in Music: Eating on Tour with Indie Musicians - Alex Bleeker and Luke Pyenson (2024)

Oeuvre rule: I'm only vaguely familiar with the band Real Estate, and Frankie Cosmos to an even lesser degree. I like Real Estate, but not as much as Sunny Day Real Estate, and they have rather different vibes. Real Estate is super chill, laid back, mellow and pleasant--not as overwrought (in a good way) and thunderous as Sunny Day. They are like the final wave from the heyday of indie rock from the 2000s (before all the bands got Spotified) and their first two albums were accordingly praised by Pitchfork. Frankie Cosmos seemed to come slightly later, though only by a couple years, and similarly does not "go for the jugular," so to speak, but again I'm hardly vaguely familiar with them. To be clear, I like what I've heard, and while I have revisited Real Estate a bit more in the course of reading this book, now I will need to do that with Frankie Cosmos in the course of writing this review. 

This is because the book is authored by a member from each of those two bands. It's not quite accurate to say that. The book is "curated" by these two musicians, and they must have edited a great deal of it themselves, but they only contribute an essay or two individually, and much of the work involved tapping connections to numerous bands and requesting their participation in the project. Beyond that, they wrote an introduction to the book, and introductions to each essay. They deserve praise in bringing this book to fruition, because there really doesn't seem to be anything else like it, but as might be expected in any book of essays collected from over a dozen musicians, the quality varies. 

***

Books of short stories or essays are always difficult to review. You don't want to give short shrift to certain contributors when they are all placed on equal footing. In this case, however, it's unrealistic to expect a review to mention every single essay (there are somewhere between 40 and 45). Many of them are very short--1 or 2 pages--and feel slightly "phoned in." Each musician/writer does consider the topic distinctly and tries to write meaningfully about it, but it feels like a creative writing class prompt, at times. 

You know what it really feels like? It feels like a big zine, the type I might have put out during college when I solicited contributions from friends, about 50% of which were musicians. It makes the book fun in a way, and it is not "amateurish" in its presentation, but yes, the content sometimes feels that way. Am I judging all the contributors that are under 40 slightly more harshly than maybe is warranted? Maybe, but I don't think so. Basically, this feels like a "coffee table book"--in terms of the photography in the book and its general appearance and production--and that's not a bad thing. 

Ultimately, the best parts of this book are the recommendations (Du Pain et des Idees in Paris for the greatest croissant, and L'As du Fallafel; Durumzade in Istanbul for durum--all of which come from Hermon Mehari ), which are also sometimes anticipated to be obsolete. I am thinking of "Sweet 16th and the Temporary Lives of Sandwiches and People" by Adam Schatz, a saxophonist for Japanese Breakfast. I can only presume that it is the most memorable essay (though I also think the closing "It's Not about the Pho" by Sebastian Modak is the most artful) because his co-worker wrote what is basically one of the greatest memoirs of the 21st century (at present), so Schatz really wanted to show up for this. Tour Food is also still an active website and may be a great resource for many people, and I will be checking it out shortly (nothing was included for Italy; it may be more US-centric). In any case, his essay topic is basically nostalgia:

"Until very recently, on North Sixteenth Street in East Nashville, Tennessee, there was a bakery right on the corner called Sweet 16th, run by a couple of New Englanders whop opened the spot in 2004. I ended up there for the first time seven years later, not because I heard it was amazing, but because it was a breakfast sandwich near me [what he usually types into his phone to find breakfast on tour]. I got the egg casserole on a biscuit sandwich, immediately translated as 'One to Go!' by owner Ellen Einstein at the counter, who shouted it back to the kitchen. A few minutes later it showed up wrapped in paper, the kind of hot that your smart brain knows you ought to count to one hundred before eating. But then your idiot hands shove it into your stupid mouth before you count to fifteen, because that's how good it looks." (116)

To be more precise, the book is about the odd "golden hour" period between Sound Check and Show Time when bands usually just have food delivered for their Rider, but sometimes venture out into the city to find something more unique and special. And also about the people along the way--the promoters and fans and organizers and record shop owners that also put bands up at their house and cook for them. I guess, if there is a definitive book for musicians on the topic of food and the concept of "family-style" dining, this is it. 

***

Some of the moments in these essays are quite beautiful and touching, so Bleeker and Pyenson occasionally strike gold:

"As the van rolled out of Budapest, I was overcome with memories of my baba that centered around food and eating: how she would hand-crimp her homemade pierogi with the tines of a fork; my dad, aunt, and grandparents, crowded around the kitchen table at my childhood home in Toronto, eating headcheese doused in vinegar (my cousins and I were nauseated by the smell); the year or so when Baba seemed to confuse different tomato sauces and served after-school snacks of pizza with a Tostitos base or tortilla chips with Ragu for dipping. In the backyard of that Toronto home, her vegetable garden bore bumper crops of tomatoes, cucumbers, sorrel, and herbs that were used for soups and pickling, or just picked off the vine and eaten over the sink in the middle of an August heat wave. I wept silently as I realized it was logistically and financially impossible to get back for the funeral. 'Don't worry too much,' my dad consoled me when we finally spoke on the phone. 'Baba would have been horrified that you'd skip a gig for her.'" (172, "Baba" by Steve Sladkowski)

The main introduction to the book lays out its mission statement like a thesis, and the blurby-intros are similar, but Bleeker's intro to Chapter 2, about Wellness on the Road, strikes a deeper chord of vulnerability:

"As long as I've been playing shows, people have been taking photos of me onstage, and as long as I can remember, I've struggled with my weight and with compulsive overeating. Back in 2001, future Real Estate bandmates and I started a Strokes cover band to perform at a friend's sweet sixteen. We all went to the thrift store to buy secondhand dress shirts and army jackets, doing our best to impersonate our skinny idols. The show was a resounding success, but when a photo of the band surfaced a week or so later, I spent a significant amount of time on MS Paint trying to crop and edit my belly out of it. This technique did not work." (104)

Obviously, these more melancholic moments are tinged with humor, and it is a very funny book at times:

"But because of the night-and-day difference between fast food in Japan and the US, I feel so comfortable eating at rest stops and konbinis. Not only is it delicious, but it's really cheap: It's a miraculous win-win. You're like, 'Oh my god, this was only five bucks! I got a great meal, I don't feel like shit, and I'm not gonna shit my brains out after this.' And if I do, there's a bidet at the 7-Eleven, the seat is heated, and it's singing to you." (214, "Rest Stop: Japan" by Sen Morimoto)

There is a heavy emphasis on rest stop culture, and what I gather is that they are much better in the U.K. and Japan than they are in the U.S. But the first of these "interludes" on rest stops includes a conversation with Mark Ibold and the author of a book that seems like a forebear to this one (Michael Stern and Eat Your Way Across the U.S.A.). The book came out before a certain Pavement tour, and the story of the "throwed roll" may or may not be an homage to the infamous rock throwing as depicted in Pavements: 

"I was trying to make eye contact with the people who worked there, and they were all busy doing things, but then there was a guy on the complete other end of the place [Lambert's] who kind of looked at me, and I waved to him. And when my hand went up in the air, he just threw this roll and it went straight into my palm. And I caught it from, I would say, at least fifty feet across the room....I remember looking into my hands, like, dumbfounded, and I was trying to tell my bandmates that a guy had just thrown this roll--I mean, nobody even saw it, it happened so quickly--and I was about to tell my bandmates that this had happened when another one came flying at us and hit our drummer right in the face!....And then everybody just starting cracking up, and somebody came over and gave us a table. I think they served everything in giant cast-iron pans, just, like, ridiculous portions with meat slopping over them, just gigantic, and I think once you sat down, for your rolls, they brought you these little tubs of....what's it called? It's not maple syrup....it's not honey....[MS: Sorghum, or molasses....] Sorghum, sorghum, yeah." (55)

Probably not because getting hit in the face with a roll by a restaurant worker is funnier than getting hit with a rock by a dumb festival-goer. 

I said there weren't many "famous" musicians in it, but that's not totally true---there is also Damon from Galaxie 500/Damon & Naomi, Chris Frantz from Talking Heads, Devendra Banhart, Kevin Morby, Geologist, Robin Pecknold, Sadie Dupuis and of course Bob Mould. I was familiar with all of them, and also Greta Kline though I had to be reminded she was the force behind Frankie Cosmos (and not a nepo-baby per se, but paranoid she might be). Her essay is rather amusing, as are all of the above. I am finding now that I want to say all sorts of things about this book. Like how there is an inordinate fascination with gas station food, and why I like Fleet Foxes more than I did before (I always liked them, to be clear) after Hunter Biden's appreciation for them became public knowledge. And Subway. Subway is mentioned at least three times in this book, maybe four--and each time it is basically almost the entire topic of the essay. I find most in common with Bob Mould on this point:

"It's not the same anymore, but thirty years ago Subway was great. It was consistent nationwide, and the bread was always baked fresh on-site. Yeah, the loaves were baked from pre-made rolls, but so are my favorite Hokkaido cheesecakes at te Westfield mall. It was high quality, it was cheap, and it was consistent. I think psychologically for me, when I'm on the road, consistency--any kind of consistency--is valuable. Every day is an iteration of the same motif, but things do change from town to town. Back then, you could count on Subway. We could all agree on it, it was fast, and we could eat it on the run. Sometimes when you're touring, those are the things that are most important." (108)

Having gone to Subway many, many times with a vegetarian resigned to Veggie Delights, Pecknold indicates that may or may not have been the right idea:

"My savior and my destroyer became the Subway 'Veggie Patty,' a gray-brown melange of unidentifiable vegetal ingredients, damp from the microwave. Mouthfeel of sieved paper pulp or marinated sponge. Flavor nonexistent to net negative; it was so powerfully antiflavor that it siphoned and destroyed the flavor of anything surrounding it. Just a volume of calories, a shape, a wet wallet of mashed peas and binding agent around which I'd pile lettuce, spinach, carrots, salt and pepper, and oil and vinegar, all encased in a sleeve of dubious bread." (183)

We learn that if you are a musician, and you can make it to the next level where you get an early afternoon billing at a festival, you must go to Osheaga Festival in Montreal--if only for the food. In fact this chapter made me want to try to be in a band again specifically so I could justify that (it doesn't seem the catering tent is available to festival go-ers--just bands--though I'm sure the food for everyone is better on the whole, too).

And in Iceland, it may not be best to go for haute-cuisine:

"The first course arrived, and I swear I thought someone was playing a practical joke on us. It was a quarter-sized piece of burnt chicken skin with a tendril of dried moss or lichen on it. Second course: one single wild carrot and two flakes of sea salt. Third course (twenty minutes later), everyone's hunger now manifesting as manic smiles and raised eyebrows: a tiny fermented quail egg on a bed of hay. Fourth course, and we're all losing it in the damp basement, silent and sectioned off with a red curtain, blond-haired servers dancing in and out of sight: a tiny mushroom cap with compost-tasting muck stuffed inside. Sixth course: one single drop of cream the size of a dime on a slate slab." (65, Flora and Fauna by Meg Duffy). [She later goes for a couple hot dogs and maybe that does not sound very appetizing but if you are in Iceland, I would recommend them just as I would in Chicago, because they are different and unique.] 

There's probably more I could say about this book, but I think that's probably enough. I think in writing this, I realized that the quality is generally higher than not. 

Some of us idolize the lifestyle of the touring musician because it's an incredibly difficult thing for regular people to make their way around the world and see all there is to see--travel is one of the key defining "interests" or "hobbies" of regular people. "I want to travel," they say. Meanwhile many of us working stiffs get 2 weeks out of the year to squeeze everything we can into it. You really need to be strategic, and patient, if you are aware of all that is out there, and want to see as much of it as you can. Of course, the downside to this for musicians is that they don't have the the time to properly explore (this is what I also here from regular working people that travel for work, which I've always been envious of but maybe not so much as before). If there is any "message" to this book, it is to explore whenever you are able, absolutely--and to even prioritize that exploration, rather than submitting to the grueling city-per-day schedule that international touring sometimes demands. As I recall, Shellac did not really tour the U.S. much at all. They would go to Europe once a year for Primavera, and then play wherever they wanted to go on a vacation. That to me is obviously the ideal arrangement, but not everyone is so blessed to have that option. 

And musicians may not alway be blessed to have a generous per diem, and though tours are not likely to make a stop at Burlington (local musicians are more prevalent in the back room there, though I believe it's not unheard of to have people in from out of town), if they do, as long as I am in this apartment, I will humbly offer a place to stay and my own "basic" recommendations in the surrounding area. Because now I know just how meaningful that can be, and the types of lifelong connections of the most beautiful sort that can be created through this act of generosity. I think reading this book will cause others to act accordingly.