Phillies (Nola) vs Cubs (Taillon): 4/27/25, 6:10pm

[Jason Ross]

Just now, chibears55 said:

Because they put all their eggs in the basket on Shaw and didn't even consider a legit 3Bmen, plus they added Turner i stead of a guy who can actually be a decent just in case Shaw struggles. 

What legit 3b was going to want to sign with a team who wanted to give the spot to Shaw? Let's be realistic. 

The Cubs brought in Berti who is exactly the level of player who was going to come in to play caddy to a prospect like Shaw. 

[JHBulls]

I feel like on another night with all those hits deep in the outfield, the Cubs score 8+ runs. Tonight was just unlucky.

[UMFan83]

7 minutes ago, abuck1220 said:

how the horsefeathers does a team with the cubs resources roll out a 3b group of shaw/workman/brujan/turner/berti. 

By not using all their available resources

[Irrelevant Dude]

3 minutes ago, s2obed said:

Agreed. Let him develop up here. Hit him 9 and let him continue to get the experience against MLB pitching. 

There are a lot of instances where I would agree with that approach.  But seeing what I saw of Shaw, I think he needs bigger adjustments than just "let him figure things out against Major League pitchers".

[Chicago Al]

Can’t walk 3 batters in extra innings and expect to win…

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

There are a lot of instances where I would agree with that approach.  But seeing what I saw of Shaw, I think he needs bigger adjustments than just "let him figure things out against Major League pitchers".

That's not really true. What you saw was an out-of-whack hitter who's mechanics were all horsefeathered up. Looking at his Triple-A data, it shows that pretty heavily. We can see that because:

1. Matt Shaw is chasing less, making more contact and swinging almost exclusevely at strikes in Triple-A. This is in comparison to his Triple-A run last year. He's struck out once in 27 PAs, for example. That's someone who has returned from the MLB, is seeing lesser pitching, and it's not an issue for him. His pitch recognition is better than it had been.
2. Matt Shaw, despite the above, has made consistently weak contact until today. He's hitting a lot of things on the ground despite having a positive launch angle on the swing. 

That's someone who's mechanically off, not someone who's incapable. He hit a home run and a double today in which I thought he looked much better. I believe his bottom half became unhitched from the top - he wasn't on time. 

Should we expect a stud hitter right off the bat? No. But I also think once he gets the mechanics back in order, he'll be much better and what you saw was not what Shaw will be even in the interim. 

[Irrelevant Dude]

2 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

That's someone who's mechanically off, not someone who's incapable.

That's fine, but then let him get his mechanics sorted out in Iowa before running it back for the Cubs again.  And at the same time, buy an extra year of control while he's figuring things out.

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

That's fine, but then let him get his mechanics sorted out in Iowa before running it back for the Cubs again.  And at the same time, buy an extra year of control while he's figuring things out.

I don't think he needs to be here today. But if he gets mechanically right over two weeks, then he should be up again. There's no reason at that point to keep him down if he's cruising and looking right. 

The reason PCA and Busch and Amaya have all blossomed is because we stuck through some bumps. Shaw will have bumps. We will need to stick through them.

[abuck1220]

20 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

What legit 3b was going to want to sign with a team who wanted to give the spot to Shaw? Let's be realistic. 

The Cubs brought in Berti who is exactly the level of player who was going to come in to play caddy to a prospect like Shaw. 

I don’t think the presence of matt shaw scared bregman off. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

I think Dansby needs to consider closing his stance. I see a guy who has a really hard time maintaining balance. When he lifts his foot and brings it back down, it ends in almost the same place it started in. Most guys with an open stance, when they begin their swing, they essentially end up in a closed position. Dansby is ending up with his foot toward 3rd base still and (although he can't hit horsefeathers anything right now) he is extremely succeptible to the outside pitch, he's giving away a lot of power, and has no base to work from to make adjustments as the pitch comes in. 

[JHBulls]

Say what you will about the Cubs bullpen, they haven’t lost like this. Yet…

 

[Jason Ross]

8 hours ago, abuck1220 said:

I don’t think the presence of matt shaw scared bregman off. 

He probably didn't, but I didnt consider him in this process because he was a special case. That comment was more along the lines of this idea that the Cubs dont have some perfect Shaw fallback that is better than Berti.

However, when it comes to Alex, it isnt as if the Cubs offered some Mickey Mouse contract like people act like as the reason he is in Boston. The "the Cubs didnt offer a serious deal" narrative I keep reading is not grounded in what's out there. 

As reported by Matt, the Cubs offer was essentially the same AAV as the Red Sox. Boston used deferred money to get there, so the dollar amount sounds larger, but real-world-cash it is not leagues better. He wanted opt outs every year. The Cubs wanted him for *more* than just one year, their opt out was after two years. They offered him over $30m AAV. I believe it's important to remember, one of the big fears *this own board had* was signing Bregman for one year and losing him.

If the frustration is that the team is one-player-short, I agree. The Cubs need to get things over the line. They could go a bit further at times. I dont want to make it sound like I'm carrying the FO's water here, only adding context. Two things can be true at the same time: the Cubs offered a legitimate deal to Bregman and the Cubs ended the offseason with one too many holes.

Bregman was offered a real contract that was more than capable of getting him signed. Sucks it didn't happen, thats a thing that happens however. It's also a bit of a push-pull outcome by waiting the market out. The reaosn the Cubs had a chance is because they were patient, but missing at that stage leaves you with less fall back options.

When the Cubs do go further, for example, Kyle Tucker, people panic about losing their Cam Smith-s. This isnt at you in particular, but for many, it seems as though they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Had they offered Bregman 6/$30m-aav and signed him, there is a contingency of people who would have panicked that the Cubs wouldn't even try to extend Tucker now, or that it was too long; I'm fully convinced it would be something. 

Going back to the original point, outside of Bregman, the Cubs were always going to be in a situation where it was Matt Shaw and a journeyman. It could have been Shaw and Moncada (who has been bad), or Shaw and Rojas (who is hurt), but it was going to be something like this. The hope was Shaw was going to hit the ground running, but mechanically he got thrown off. Thankfully for the Cubs offense hasn't been an issue. They should be fine until he gets his sea-legs as long as the Cubs can continue to play good baseball.

[Backtobanks]

9 hours ago, abuck1220 said:

how the horsefeathers does a team with the cubs resources roll out a 3b group of shaw/workman/brujan/turner/berti. 

Because we have an owner and FO that doesn't believe in using resources to improve the team.

[squally1313]

Cubs play the Pirates tomorrow, who are under .500. Every single team the Cubs have played so far this year is currently .500 or better.

The Cubs played those 29 games at a 95 win pace. 

[CubinNY]

Walks!!!!!!!

[Irrelevant Dude]

38 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Every single team the Cubs have played so far this year is currently .500 or better.

That really is incredible, especially considering all those teams are at/over .500 despite having faced the Cubs who are playing at a well-above .500 pace.

Also, I just learned the Athletics are 14-14, which definitely surprised me.

 

[Jason Ross]

20 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

That really is incredible, especially considering all those teams are at/over .500 despite having faced the Cubs who are playing at a well-above .500 pace.

Also, I just learned the Athletics are 14-14, which definitely surprised me.

 

The A's have a shockingly good offense. I do wonder how Sutter will play when we have a full season of ballpark data (and how that will influence their wRC+) but they've been a top-5 in most of those categories. They're the easiest team we have faced on paper and they don't suck.

[WhyCantWeWin]

Wanted to pop in and say Dansby really sucks. Bro is at 0 war thru 29 games

[Derwood]

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

Walks!!!!!!!

Merryweather got squeezed hard in extra innings

[mul21]

3 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Merryweather got squeezed hard in extra innings

Nah, the Phillies got some extra strikes but he was just bad.

[We Got The Whole 9]

26 minutes ago, mul21 said:

Nah, the Phillies got some extra strikes but he was just bad.

Yeah, am I looking at a different pitch plot? He maybe got pinched on 2 pitches. The rest were scattershot non-competive garbage. So exhausting how many non-competitve walks our bullpen hands out. 

[BKHoo]

11 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I think Dansby needs to consider closing his stance. I see a guy who has a really hard time maintaining balance. When he lifts his foot and brings it back down, it ends in almost the same place it started in. Most guys with an open stance, when they begin their swing, they essentially end up in a closed position. Dansby is ending up with his foot toward 3rd base still and (although he can't hit horsefeathers anything right now) he is extremely succeptible to the outside pitch, he's giving away a lot of power, and has no base to work from to make adjustments as the pitch comes in. 

It’s the same stance/approach he has always used. 

[abuck1220]

5 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

He probably didn't, but I didnt consider him in this process because he was a special case. That comment was more along the lines of this idea that the Cubs dont have some perfect Shaw fallback that is better than Berti.

However, when it comes to Alex, it isnt as if the Cubs offered some Mickey Mouse contract like people act like as the reason he is in Boston. The "the Cubs didnt offer a serious deal" narrative I keep reading is not grounded in what's out there. 

As reported by Matt, the Cubs offer was essentially the same AAV as the Red Sox. Boston used deferred money to get there, so the dollar amount sounds larger, but real-world-cash it is not leagues better. He wanted opt outs every year. The Cubs wanted him for *more* than just one year, their opt out was after two years. They offered him over $30m AAV. I believe it's important to remember, one of the big fears *this own board had* was signing Bregman for one year and losing him.

If the frustration is that the team is one-player-short, I agree. The Cubs need to get things over the line. They could go a bit further at times. I dont want to make it sound like I'm carrying the FO's water here, only adding context. Two things can be true at the same time: the Cubs offered a legitimate deal to Bregman and the Cubs ended the offseason with one too many holes.

Bregman was offered a real contract that was more than capable of getting him signed. Sucks it didn't happen, thats a thing that happens however. It's also a bit of a push-pull outcome by waiting the market out. The reaosn the Cubs had a chance is because they were patient, but missing at that stage leaves you with less fall back options.

When the Cubs do go further, for example, Kyle Tucker, people panic about losing their Cam Smith-s. This isnt at you in particular, but for many, it seems as though they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Had they offered Bregman 6/$30m-aav and signed him, there is a contingency of people who would have panicked that the Cubs wouldn't even try to extend Tucker now, or that it was too long; I'm fully convinced it would be something. 

Going back to the original point, outside of Bregman, the Cubs were always going to be in a situation where it was Matt Shaw and a journeyman. It could have been Shaw and Moncada (who has been bad), or Shaw and Rojas (who is hurt), but it was going to be something like this. The hope was Shaw was going to hit the ground running, but mechanically he got thrown off. Thankfully for the Cubs offense hasn't been an issue. They should be fine until he gets his sea-legs as long as the Cubs can continue to play good baseball.

if the money the cubs tried to give to bregman goes to a tucker extension, i'll be a little more ok with the five (?) headed platoon of the worst possible 3b production you can imagine.

but if this was the cubs "go for it" year and they are wasting their one year of tucker with a bullpen full of hopes and dreams and a bunch of garbage at 3b, that's gonna be real bad.

[Jason Ross]

46 minutes ago, abuck1220 said:

if the money the cubs tried to give to bregman goes to a tucker extension, i'll be a little more ok with the five (?) headed platoon of the worst possible 3b production you can imagine.

but if this was the cubs "go for it" year and they are wasting their one year of tucker with a bullpen full of hopes and dreams and a bunch of garbage at 3b, that's gonna be real bad.

I think the other side of the coin is: so far none of that has really mattered. They've gotten really good production out of Colin Rea, Carson Kelly, and guys like Brad Keller and Julian Merryweather (last night not withstanding). Ultimately, I think both can be mostly solved with:

• Matt Shaw getting right
• Internal improvement. We are already seeing Pressley and Thiebar bounce back as we go. Once we start adding Horton/Brown and some of the other kids to the pen/rotation it should help cleaning out. 

I don't want to dismiss the Cubs being a player short - I really think they came into the year one player short. I just don't want to pin it all on a single moment. It feels like everything; Luzardo, Scott and Bregman, in a vacuum you go "oh yeah I get it" on why it didn't go down. But the zoom-out doesn't change the fact they needed one more.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

1 hour ago, Derwood said:

Merryweather got squeezed hard in extra innings

No. The ump only missed 1 in the 10th, and it wasn't egregious.