Post Winter Meetings Free Agency thread

[squally1313]

Just so I'm not only playing devil's advocate here: I'm overall pretty unimpressed with the direction Jed has taken on the pitching side of the house. I thought Boyd was a fun upside play that the bigger teams have been doing to varying success for a few years now, where you have a bit of a cushion and you can somewhat optimize the time of the season you want him throwing at full strength, and someone who put up a 2.34 ERA across 50 innings in the regular season/playoffs can be a very effective weapon when employed at the right time.

But I also assumed that they were going to fill the rotation with innings, and that those innings would be thrown by someone more effective than Colin Rea. I saw a ton of blocked offensive prospects at AAA and figured there was a trade for a controlled starter coming, and then I figured there was going to be a signing for someone at a Taillon type level. Maybe the Tucker deal wasn't in the cards and basically took Smith and Shaw out of the prospect glut (one to Houston, one to Wrigley) and they got a little gun shy of gutting it too much. And of course there's still money out there to spend. But if you're down on the idea of Assad as a consistent starter, I think we're still a little significantly short on effective starter innings. Shota and Boyd are probably both ideally utilized on a close to once a week schedule. That means roughly half your starts are coming from Taillon, Assad, and Rea, which isn't great. 

Maybe they love Birdsell or think Wicks will come back. Maybe they're waiting for some fringe contender to go 8-22 in April and then give them some of our Iowa guys. Maybe they're looking at the (almost uniformly bad) starters still available and waiting for one of them (Heaney, Quintana, Stripling, I know, it's ugly) to take a deal small enough that you can ride them for a couple months until they break and stash Assad in the meantime. I don't know, but hoping there's a plan here.  

[Bertz]

To TT'S point, the numerous reliever -> starter transitions the last few years show that more or less any currently healthy fully veteran pitcher can throw up 120-150 innings without a gradual buildup. 

For Boyd specifically, he had forearm issues for two years, which are often a precursor to elbow issues, and then his elbow popped which compromised parts of two years.  This isn't a second TJ, this isn't a labrum, this isn't a Jacob deGrom situation where every part of the kinetic chain seems compromised.

He's a pitcher, so I wouldn't stake my reputation on him staying healthy, but I'm less worried about him than I am most pitchers because of his age and his velo.

Edited February 3, 2025 by Bertz

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Just so I'm not only playing devil's advocate here: I'm overall pretty unimpressed with the direction Jed has taken on the pitching side of the house. I thought Boyd was a fun upside play that the bigger teams have been doing to varying success for a few years now, where you have a bit of a cushion and you can somewhat optimize the time of the season you want him throwing at full strength, and someone who put up a 2.34 ERA across 50 innings in the regular season/playoffs can be a very effective weapon when employed at the right time.

But I also assumed that they were going to fill the rotation with innings, and that those innings would be thrown by someone more effective than Colin Rea. I saw a ton of blocked offensive prospects at AAA and figured there was a trade for a controlled starter coming, and then I figured there was going to be a signing for someone at a Taillon type level. Maybe the Tucker deal wasn't in the cards and basically took Smith and Shaw out of the prospect glut (one to Houston, one to Wrigley) and they got a little gun shy of gutting it too much. And of course there's still money out there to spend. But if you're down on the idea of Assad as a consistent starter, I think we're still a little significantly short on effective starter innings. Shota and Boyd are probably both ideally utilized on a close to once a week schedule. That means roughly half your starts are coming from Taillon, Assad, and Rea, which isn't great. 

Maybe they love Birdsell or think Wicks will come back. Maybe they're waiting for some fringe contender to go 8-22 in April and then give them some of our Iowa guys. Maybe they're looking at the (almost uniformly bad) starters still available and waiting for one of them (Heaney, Quintana, Stripling, I know, it's ugly) to take a deal small enough that you can ride them for a couple months until they break and stash Assad in the meantime. I don't know, but hoping there's a plan here.  

I also wanted a better pitcher than Rea. But seeing what Flaherty got tells me it was never going to be him. IMO the Cubs think he won’t hold up. Doesn’t mean they couldn’t trade for Lopez or Cease. Or a Mariners pitcher. Maybe look at a Pivetta. I do worry about the rotation. And it is frustrating when you realize he had the money for a better pitcher. Maybe it still happens🤷. I doubt it, but it can. 

[Stratos]

The Boyd vs Flaherty contracts aren't very comparable.  If both Boyd and Flaherty are good in 2025 Boyd gets up to 15m with incentives for 2025 and we have him for 2026 at the same price while Flaherty would get 25m in 2025 and will opt out.

If they both suck and get hurt this year Flaherty gets 2/35m and Boyd gets 2/29m.  If Flaherty sucks and makes 15 starts in 2025 he gets 2/45 (and he sucked in 2023 over 27 starts).

Bottom line:  If Boyd is good this is a much better deal for the Cubs than Flaherty's, and if Boyd sucks its still a better deal than if Flaherty sucks.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

28 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Just so I'm not only playing devil's advocate here: I'm overall pretty unimpressed with the direction Jed has taken on the pitching side of the house. I thought Boyd was a fun upside play that the bigger teams have been doing to varying success for a few years now, where you have a bit of a cushion and you can somewhat optimize the time of the season you want him throwing at full strength, and someone who put up a 2.34 ERA across 50 innings in the regular season/playoffs can be a very effective weapon when employed at the right time.

But I also assumed that they were going to fill the rotation with innings, and that those innings would be thrown by someone more effective than Colin Rea. I saw a ton of blocked offensive prospects at AAA and figured there was a trade for a controlled starter coming, and then I figured there was going to be a signing for someone at a Taillon type level. Maybe the Tucker deal wasn't in the cards and basically took Smith and Shaw out of the prospect glut (one to Houston, one to Wrigley) and they got a little gun shy of gutting it too much. And of course there's still money out there to spend. But if you're down on the idea of Assad as a consistent starter, I think we're still a little significantly short on effective starter innings. Shota and Boyd are probably both ideally utilized on a close to once a week schedule. That means roughly half your starts are coming from Taillon, Assad, and Rea, which isn't great. 

Maybe they love Birdsell or think Wicks will come back. Maybe they're waiting for some fringe contender to go 8-22 in April and then give them some of our Iowa guys. Maybe they're looking at the (almost uniformly bad) starters still available and waiting for one of them (Heaney, Quintana, Stripling, I know, it's ugly) to take a deal small enough that you can ride them for a couple months until they break and stash Assad in the meantime. I don't know, but hoping there's a plan here.  

Agree with this, in a vacuum I preferred more investment in the rotation, and while I think it will work out fine I think they've increased the variance on the offense by decreasing the length of the lineup's known quality(Tucker+Shaw vs Bellinger+Paredes).  If they pull in a Cease/King that's a pretty clear A offseason, and I think they've done enough to be okay with playing wait and see for the deadline, but the risk is in the pitching staff.  Hopefully injuries + park regression don't bite too hard.

[Rcal10]

28 minutes ago, Stratos said:

The Boyd vs Flaherty contracts aren't very comparable.  If both Boyd and Flaherty are good in 2025 Boyd gets up to 15m with incentives for 2025 and we have him for 2026 at the same price while Flaherty would get 25m in 2025 and will opt out.

If they both suck and get hurt this year Flaherty gets 2/35m and Boyd gets 2/29m.  If Flaherty sucks and makes 15 starts in 2025 he gets 2/45 (and he sucked in 2023 over 27 starts).

Bottom line:  If Boyd is good this is a much better deal for the Cubs than Flaherty's, and if Boyd sucks its still a better deal than if Flaherty sucks.

You’re leaving out Flaherty can also leave after 1 year. Basically he has a 1 year $25M deal. And if he sucks he can get year 2 for $10M or $20M. 

Edited February 3, 2025 by Rcal10

[Derwood]

Y'all are going to look so silly when Boyd becomes Jake Arrieta 2.0

[squally1313]

21 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Y'all are going to look so silly when Boyd becomes Jake Arrieta 2.0

Haha I mean, Jake arrieta is 4 years older than Boyd and we traded for Arrieta 12 years ago. I would settle for Nate Eovaldi, the first lackey year, etc. 

[Stratos]

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I also wanted a better pitcher than Rea. But seeing what Flaherty got tells me it was never going to be him. IMO the Cubs think he won’t hold up. Doesn’t mean they couldn’t trade for Lopez or Cease. Or a Mariners pitcher. Maybe look at a Pivetta. I do worry about the rotation. And it is frustrating when you realize he had the money for a better pitcher. Maybe it still happens🤷. I doubt it, but it can. 

Yes teams obviously have fears over his durability, and aren't going to give him a longterm deal that he wants based only on how he pitched last year.

I think he got the short term high AAV deal with opt-out he was likely looking for given his market and with a team he had great success with last year.

Rea for 5m is ok for depth given we lost Wesneski/Smyly.  From a pitching standpoint the Cubs seem to prefer to buy low-ish on guys with a profile they see with potential for improvements and bet on their MLB pitching infrastructure get more out of them.  I also think they see pitching as more risky than hitters due to higher rate of injury as well (if your 30m AAV SP needs TJS you've just lost a 3-4 WAR player for at least 2 years, which is enough to cost you a playoff spot or 2).

Both those factors combined, Hoyer tends not to make huge bets using huge assets (prospects for trade, or money) on elite pitchers at the top of their game.  That's why I have doubts they would fork over big prospects, especially position players, for 1 year of Cease/King etc.

They seem more willing to spend more resources on position players since their abilities are far more stable and much less able to be improved, plus are less injury risk.

[We Got The Whole 9]

1 hour ago, Stratos said:

The Boyd vs Flaherty contracts aren't very comparable.  If both Boyd and Flaherty are good in 2025 Boyd gets up to 15m with incentives for 2025 and we have him for 2026 at the same price while Flaherty would get 25m in 2025 and will opt out.

If they both suck and get hurt this year Flaherty gets 2/35m and Boyd gets 2/29m.  If Flaherty sucks and makes 15 starts in 2025 he gets 2/45 (and he sucked in 2023 over 27 starts).

Bottom line:  If Boyd is good this is a much better deal for the Cubs than Flaherty's, and if Boyd sucks its still a better deal than if Flaherty sucks.

The point is that if they're both good then I'd rather have Flaherty because he's shown a higher ceiling than Boyd has. The contracts are immaterial to me. For the construction of the roster and the talent on it, I would have preferred Flaherty.

 

 

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

The point is that if they're both good then I'd rather have Flaherty because he's shown a higher ceiling than Boyd has. The contracts are immaterial to me. For the construction of the roster and the talent on it, I would have preferred Flaherty.

 

 

Sure, on a team where money doesn’t matter Flaherty would be my choice too. But then again, 29 teams passed on what amounts to a reasonable contract. So maybe he is more of an injury risk than Boyd. And, with the Cubs, salary does matter. Yes, it sucks. They should spend more. But as fans we need to let that go because it isn’t changing. So they went with what they felt was better a value. 

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Just so I'm not only playing devil's advocate here: I'm overall pretty unimpressed with the direction Jed has taken on the pitching side of the house. I thought Boyd was a fun upside play that the bigger teams have been doing to varying success for a few years now, where you have a bit of a cushion and you can somewhat optimize the time of the season you want him throwing at full strength, and someone who put up a 2.34 ERA across 50 innings in the regular season/playoffs can be a very effective weapon when employed at the right time.

But I also assumed that they were going to fill the rotation with innings, and that those innings would be thrown by someone more effective than Colin Rea. I saw a ton of blocked offensive prospects at AAA and figured there was a trade for a controlled starter coming, and then I figured there was going to be a signing for someone at a Taillon type level. Maybe the Tucker deal wasn't in the cards and basically took Smith and Shaw out of the prospect glut (one to Houston, one to Wrigley) and they got a little gun shy of gutting it too much. And of course there's still money out there to spend. But if you're down on the idea of Assad as a consistent starter, I think we're still a little significantly short on effective starter innings. Shota and Boyd are probably both ideally utilized on a close to once a week schedule. That means roughly half your starts are coming from Taillon, Assad, and Rea, which isn't great. 

Maybe they love Birdsell or think Wicks will come back. Maybe they're waiting for some fringe contender to go 8-22 in April and then give them some of our Iowa guys. Maybe they're looking at the (almost uniformly bad) starters still available and waiting for one of them (Heaney, Quintana, Stripling, I know, it's ugly) to take a deal small enough that you can ride them for a couple months until they break and stash Assad in the meantime. I don't know, but hoping there's a plan here.  

You're forgetting Brown.  If he's healthy he has the potential to be a TORP eventually.  I think he probably has the best stuff on the team among the SP, and Hodge might be the only guy on the roster to compare.

Would be nice to have another solid and established SP.  Given Brown/Assad/Wicks plus Horton maybe they're a little hesitant to sign another SP longterm and block their path.  I think Boyd is a good fit, they have lots of guys already to find innings.

I kinda like Assad, he doesn't have the out-pitch but has a good sinker and good competitive presence on the mound and is versatile.  Wicks will go as far as his fastball i wager.

[Stratos]

5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Sure, on a team where money doesn’t matter Flaherty would be my choice too. But then again, 29 teams passed on what amounts to a reasonable contract. So maybe he is more of an injury risk than Boyd. And, with the Cubs, salary does matter. Yes, it sucks. They should spend more. But as fans we need to let that go because it isn’t changing. So they went with what they felt was better a value. 

I think given how quickly they signed Boyd they likely targeted him because they see things in him they really like.  They're pretty good at that.  They hit on Imanaga.

I don't have any data but guys after TJS are usually pretty good on arm health over the next several seasons aren't they?  Big thing is building back the IP on him i guess.

[Jason Ross]

34 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

The point is that if they're both good then I'd rather have Flaherty because he's shown a higher ceiling than Boyd has. The contracts are immaterial to me. For the construction of the roster and the talent on it, I would have preferred Flaherty.

 

 

To be fair, and this is weird to say about a 34 year old like Mathew Boyd...but I'm not sure we know what this version of Boyd's "ceiling" is. Boyd is a recent pitch lab guy, and may finally be healthy for the first time in his career. In terms of K%, BB% they were very close. Boyd even nudged him out in xERA. Now, it's noted that Boyd's in pretty limited sample sizes here and what is and what isn't sustainable over a full season should be wondered. But that's also kind of the point - what is and isn't capable for a new version of Mathew Boyd is pretty foggy. 

Ultimately, their ceilings over the next two years might be very close to each other. Both come with medical questionmarks, both come with recent poor runs, and both are coming off their best season in a while. Flaherty did it in more innings last year, but considering how the market treated him...it may be that the medical situation on him may be worse than Boyd, too.

I'd love it if the Cubs lived in a world where their contract and what not was immaterial to them, but we don't live in that world. If the Cubs think their ceilings are around the same area, and what Boyd did last year is sustainable over, say, 130 IP, then his contract allows the Cubs to add another RP over what Flaherty's does. That does matter.

I do have some reservations on the Cubs general pitching strategy, just so you don't think I'm humping Mathew Boyd's leg here - it does feel like they're going in a bit risky with Boyd and Rea as their additions to the rotation. I'd feel much better if the team had skipped, say, Rea and added a more consistent #3 type instead (Cease/King in a trade, or a multitude of other options). The hope going forward is that they can ride this out for a few months, can re-address the rotation in July and add that third piece when they feel prices are more adequate or they have a better view on things.

[Stratos]

2 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

To be fair, and this is weird to say about a 34 year old like Mathew Boyd...but I'm not sure we know what this version of Boyd's "ceiling" is. Boyd is a recent pitch lab guy, and may finally be healthy for the first time in his career. In terms of K%, BB% they were very close. Boyd even nudged him out in xERA. Now, it's noted that Boyd's in pretty limited sample sizes here and what is and what isn't sustainable over a full season should be wondered. But that's also kind of the point - what is and isn't capable for a new version of Mathew Boyd is pretty foggy. 

Ultimately, their ceilings over the next two years might be very close to each other. Both come with medical questionmarks, both come with recent poor runs, and both are coming off their best season in a while. Flaherty did it in more innings last year, but considering how the market treated him...it may be that the medical situation on him may be worse than Boyd, too.

I'd love it if the Cubs lived in a world where their contract and what not was immaterial to them, but we don't live in that world. If the Cubs think their ceilings are around the same area, and what Boyd did last year is sustainable over, say, 130 IP, then his contract allows the Cubs to add another RP over what Flaherty's does. That does matter.

Small sample for Boyd last year though.  Flaherty has a far larger track record of being very good when healthy, I think he has the higher upside but he's getting paid for that too.  I agree the contracts do matter and Boyd has the better one.

I'd be happy if Boyd throws 110 IP and has a sub-4 ERA.  We know Boyd's a flyball pitcher and so will give up his share of HR, for a SP he's above average to well-above average in K/9 the last 2 seasons and historically, and his BB/9 has been very good the last 2 years and historically,  That should hopefully equate to an above-average ERA and xFIP, even though it hasn't for his career besides last year.

[thawv]

16 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

You say you get it, but then go right back to making a statement as if it is fact, when it is actually just your opinion. If Boyd is healthy why is 100 innings the BEST they can hope for? When he came back last year he had 8 starts and then the playoffs. He wasn’t skipped or he didn’t miss a start. Why can’t he start 30 games this year? He isn’t a kid. He doesn’t need to be coddled. He may only throw 100 innings. That might happen. But that’s  not the best they can hope for. They can hope for 30 starts and 160 innings. It might be more likely he throws closer to 100 innings than 160. But that is not the best they can hope for. 

Like 1908 said, his repeated issue has been repaired.  Barring a different injury, he should most certainly have 30 starts and 160 innings.   His reoccurring injury has been fixed.  I could be on an island here, but I expect him to be a very very good pitcher for us now that his elbow problems are behind him. 

[Rcal10]

31 minutes ago, thawv said:

Like 1908 said, his repeated issue has been repaired.  Barring a different injury, he should most certainly have 30 starts and 160 innings.   His reoccurring injury has been fixed.  I could be on an island here, but I expect him to be a very very good pitcher for us now that his elbow problems are behind him. 

I agree with you, but I do think you go just a bit too far. Yes, he could get 30 starts and 160 innings. But during the course of a baseball season things happen. I definitely do not think 100 innings is the best we can hope for. But I think 160 is aggressive. I wouldn’t be shocked by it, but if I were to put a number on Boyd’s innings next year I would go around 130-140. Hopefully they are in the playoffs, so he would get several more there as well. 

[thawv]

19 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I agree with you, but I do think you go just a bit too far. Yes, he could get 30 starts and 160 innings. But during the course of a baseball season things happen. I definitely do not think 100 innings is the best we can hope for. But I think 160 is aggressive. I wouldn’t be shocked by it, but if I were to put a number on Boyd’s innings next year I would go around 130-140. Hopefully they are in the playoffs, so he would get several more there as well. 

I rethought this a little bit.  He should be able to have 30 starts with his new elbow.  But there's a good chance they have a 6 man rotation, and his starts are lowered because of that.  Maybe down to 26 starts?  But I don't think his starts will be limited due to injury.  I think it may be limited just because of the roster construction.  And yes, closer to 140 innings is logical. 

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, thawv said:

I rethought this a little bit.  He should be able to have 30 starts with his new elbow.  But there's a good chance they have a 6 man rotation, and his starts are lowered because of that.  Maybe down to 26 starts?  But I don't think his starts will be limited due to injury.  I think it may be limited just because of the roster construction.  And yes, closer to 140 innings is logical. 

The Cubs like to give additional rest where they can. As well, Boyd has been typically someone who averages under 5.5 innings per start and last year was more limited than even that. I think if we're expecting him to average in the low 5 innings per go (especially as the Cubs are seemingly building a deep bullpen) that 22-25 starts, and something around 120-140 innings is about the sweet spot for a relatively healthy Mathew Boyd in 2025.

[JBears79]

16 hours ago, squally1313 said:

Just so I'm not only playing devil's advocate here: I'm overall pretty unimpressed with the direction Jed has taken on the pitching side of the house. I thought Boyd was a fun upside play that the bigger teams have been doing to varying success for a few years now, where you have a bit of a cushion and you can somewhat optimize the time of the season you want him throwing at full strength, and someone who put up a 2.34 ERA across 50 innings in the regular season/playoffs can be a very effective weapon when employed at the right time.

But I also assumed that they were going to fill the rotation with innings, and that those innings would be thrown by someone more effective than Colin Rea. I saw a ton of blocked offensive prospects at AAA and figured there was a trade for a controlled starter coming, and then I figured there was going to be a signing for someone at a Taillon type level. Maybe the Tucker deal wasn't in the cards and basically took Smith and Shaw out of the prospect glut (one to Houston, one to Wrigley) and they got a little gun shy of gutting it too much. And of course there's still money out there to spend. But if you're down on the idea of Assad as a consistent starter, I think we're still a little significantly short on effective starter innings. Shota and Boyd are probably both ideally utilized on a close to once a week schedule. That means roughly half your starts are coming from Taillon, Assad, and Rea, which isn't great. 

Maybe they love Birdsell or think Wicks will come back. Maybe they're waiting for some fringe contender to go 8-22 in April and then give them some of our Iowa guys. Maybe they're looking at the (almost uniformly bad) starters still available and waiting for one of them (Heaney, Quintana, Stripling, I know, it's ugly) to take a deal small enough that you can ride them for a couple months until they break and stash Assad in the meantime. I don't know, but hoping there's a plan here.  

I think he is banking big on Horton, Wicks and Birdsell having big impacts this year. I think hes been ok on pitching. I like the collective group of arms hes aquired but my biggest gripe is that he has never aquired a true ace.

[squally1313]

I've come around a little since yesterday thanks to some of the posts above. I think going into the offseason I wanted a pitcher at the Shota/Steele level (Fried, Snell, Burnes in a dream world) and then a pitcher at the Taillon level (ideally cost controlled and acquired with prospects). So far we have Boyd, who can pitch at the Shota/Steele level but seemingly very sparingly, and Rea, who is more an Assad than a Taillon. But....we also have Kyle Tucker, which is very nice. 

I think, barring a major external acquisition, the hope has to be that Brown or Horton can come up and give you stretches of Shota/Steele level starting, and that Assad, Wicks, Birdsell, and Rea can give you league average production for the rest. Say you need 900 innings from your starters, 150 each from Steele and Shota, 100 from Boyd, 150 from Taillon, 100 from Horton/Brown. That's 600 innings of 'good' pitching and 300 innings from the supports. Ideally you time all this out so that a couple of the top guys are full strength and peaking down the stretch.

This would be by no means a sexy move, but what I wouldn't mind seeing with whatever excess cash is Jed going out and getting the best of the bad free agent starters on a one year deal. Lance Lynn, Jose Quintana, Turnbull, Corbin, Junis etc. I know, they're all bad. But if we're going to commit giving Boyd and Shota extra days whenever possible, I'd prefer to start the year with Assad and Wicks in AAA, not burning options, fully stretched out. Junis and Turnbull had both starts and relief appearances last year, let them be the stretch/6th man. Wicks and Assad are ready for when Rea/6th man break, Brown and Horton are ready for an inevitable injury flare up with the top three. Maybe it's overkill, maybe that's already Poteet or Kilian or Keller's job. But would still like to slot everyone down one slot if possible. 

[KCCub]

I think the silver lining is they've put together a good enough team that can get us to the TDL in a good spot as currently constructed (With the idea that they are still going to add to the margins with some of the remaining budget, Robertson, bench bat, etc). As much as I want a true TORP now, I can understand waiting until the deadline if the off-season demands are just to elevated for the guys who might be available - Cease/King. At least at the TDL you can get someone you know is healthy, and other, more appealing options might become available. 

 

[CubinNY]

I don't know what the Cubs' plans are for Kilian or Brown, but before he got hurt, Kilian was dealing. He has the pitching repertoire to be a starter if he can throw strikes and has the potential to be a good one. I think Brown's repetitive movement neck injury thing or whatever makes him very unlikely to become a starter, but if he could... Needless to say, he also has the makings of a late inning guy, so if he is healthy, they have a pretty strong pen with all the other additions. 

I do tend to worry more about Shota and Steele taking a step back and putting more pressure on the pen. And I also worry about the brutal April and early May schedule taxing the pen until the ASB.

[squally1313]

15 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

but before he got hurt, Kilian was dealing. He has the pitching repertoire to be a starter if he can throw strikes and has the potential to be a good one.

What's the story on Kilian again? He pitched basically the whole second half of the year last year to decent AAA results and one good one bad MLB starts in late September. 2023 wasn't that impressive, 4.56/4.90 in AAA. I loved his profile when he came over and there have been a couple morsels about him suddenly turning into a flamethrower, but....at some point you have to prove it, he turns 28 in June, and he's got like 260 of good/not great AAA performance already. 

[Jason Ross]

9 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

What's the story on Kilian again? He pitched basically the whole second half of the year last year to decent AAA results and one good one bad MLB starts in late September. 2023 wasn't that impressive, 4.56/4.90 in AAA. I loved his profile when he came over and there have been a couple morsels about him suddenly turning into a flamethrower, but....at some point you have to prove it, he turns 28 in June, and he's got like 260 of good/not great AAA performance already. 

Killian has all of the signs of someone who just isn't good enough for the MLB level. He's well over 250 IP at the Triple-A level, so while his Triple-A stats look good on paper (especially over his last 35 innings there last year with good ERA, FIP and xFIP) we have to remember that he's not just a repeater, he's on double-repeater status as a 27 year old. Digging deeper, his K% remains relatively unimpressive over even his best run (22%) and while he's fixed his walk issue he developed in 2023, he has yet to progress on his offerings to create anything that will consistently generate strikeouts. We can once again see that with a paltry sub 15 K% in his 10 innings back in the majors last year. It's small sample size, but he's had a few runs now and every time he gets promoted it's the same thing - the K's just vanish. 

They'll probably keep him throughout the first bit of next year as he has an option, but he's probably a "break glass in case of emergency" type at this stage unless Zombro is able to finally get him to develop a chase pitch. He's not entirely a dead-man walking as a prospect, but we're quickly approaching "I'm not sure the Cubs are going to unlock anything extra there" territory, and as is, he's kind of that prototypical up/down org depth guy,