Starting rotation options available now

[Bertz]

21 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

For the guys that know underlying numbers, is Adrian Houser a guy the Cubs should consider for the right price? He is a guy CC is familiar with. And he has had very good results so far. 

He's basically exactly where Colin Rea was in mid May.  He's made meaningful YoY improvement, but realistically he's improved from bad to fine not bad to good.

If Jed's adding two starters this deadline you could do worse for the second one.  He's certainly better than Chris Flexen.

[gflore34]

I'm warming to the idea of Seth Lugo, he's rental, cost shouldn't be prohibitive and would certainly be an upgrade to the Cubs rotation.

[Rcal10]

45 minutes ago, Bertz said:

He's basically exactly where Colin Rea was in mid May.  He's made meaningful YoY improvement, but realistically he's improved from bad to fine not bad to good.

If Jed's adding two starters this deadline you could do worse for the second one.  He's certainly better than Chris Flexen.

Thanks Bertz. TBH, the reason I asked about him is I just added him to my fantasy team with the hopes the Sox trade him to a good team and I can get something out of him, for nothing. And if he was a guy, all the better, if it was a trade to the Cubs. 

[WhyCantWeWin]

14 hours ago, UMFan83 said:

That's what I think too but if the DBacks want young pitching as the centerpiece, I have to think one of the teams in contention will be willing to pony up.

Give them Wicks 🙂

[JBears79]

14 minutes ago, WhyCantWeWin said:

Give them Wicks 🙂

Id trade Wicks and Brown before Wiggins to be honest. 

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, JBears79 said:

Id trade Wicks and Brown before Wiggins to be honest. 

I would think all here would do that. I would think Wiggins is a guy they deal INLY if they get someone with some years of control back, and who is good now. For the right rental I can see Wicks traded. Not sure about Brown. 

[731.4life]

What's exciting about this deadline is the expiration of Jed and Carter's contracts. We're going to see some desperation. All hands on deck.

 

[Bertz]

37 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

What's exciting about this deadline is the expiration of Jed and Carter's contracts. We're going to see some desperation. All hands on deck.

 

I'd be surprised if we get to Friday without an announcement that Jed's been extended

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, Bertz said:

I'd be surprised if we get to Friday without an announcement that Jed's been extended

I’m not sure it will be done by Friday. But I agree with you he will be extended and it will happen soon rather than later. 
 

maybe they do one stop announcing. Jed, PCA and Tucker extended….. 😬

Edited July 15, 2025 by Rcal10

[731.4life]

4 hours ago, Bertz said:

I'd be surprised if we get to Friday without an announcement that Jed's been extended

I agree. I wasn't a big fan of Jed at first but he is growing on me. I believe he does deserve an extension.

[Jason Ross]

12 minutes ago, 731.4life said:

I agree. I wasn't a big fan of Jed at first but he is growing on me. I believe he does deserve an extension.

The one thing about management and VPs these days; there's such little separation between anything that isn't the top-top and the bottom-bottom. As long as your team believes in and trusts analytics (and isn't the Rockies), the difference between whomever you think is, like, the 6th best VP of Ops and the 20th best VP of ops is probably pretty marginal and has to do a lot with budget and luck.

I think Jed does good work overall. I doubt he's Andrew Friedman incarnate, but I think he runs a good ship and anything I have really disagreed with him on, I've either been entirely wrong about, or it's been small potatoes in the end. 

[WhyCantWeWin]

Hopefully Jed can guide them to a single playoff win the next half decade

[Geographyhater8888]

5 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

The one thing about management and VPs these days; there's such little separation between anything that isn't the top-top and the bottom-bottom. As long as your team believes in and trusts analytics (and isn't the Rockies), the difference between whomever you think is, like, the 6th best VP of Ops and the 20th best VP of ops is probably pretty marginal and has to do a lot with budget and luck.

I think Jed does good work overall. I doubt he's Andrew Friedman incarnate, but I think he runs a good ship and anything I have really disagreed with him on, I've either been entirely wrong about, or it's been small potatoes in the end. 

Out of curiosity, what’s the reason for Gallens regression? He was outstanding for a few years and the year his contract is up he lays an egg? Ideally its a simple mechanical fix away that Hottovy spotted and can bring turn back the clock a couple years if not injury related, in a perfect world the diamondbacks sell low on him and package Suarez. 
 

the Cubs are a number 3 starter and a Suarez caliber bat away from removing all doubt that they can make a deep playoff push.

I’d like your thoughts on this.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

2 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Out of curiosity, what’s the reason for Gallens regression? He was outstanding for a few years and the year his contract is up he lays an egg? Ideally its a simple mechanical fix away that Hottovy spotted and can bring turn back the clock a couple years if not injury related, in a perfect world the diamondbacks sell low on him and package Suarez. 
 

the Cubs are a number 3 starter and a Suarez caliber bat away from removing all doubt that they can make a deep playoff push.

I’d like your thoughts on this.

 

 

Fastball! He's lost around half a mph, and lost a significant amount of shape. He throws it a lot. So one of his best pitches has become one of his worst pitches and he throws it half of the time. Recipe for a disaster. Even if you think it's a mechanical flaw, if it was so simple, Arizona would have fixed it. It's likely a combination of a small mechanical tweak, but also a pitch mix issue and mentality issue and you have to fix all of that in like, 9 starts as a team. You want to take that gamble? I don't. 

Beyond that, I don't think they need Suarez. Their offense is very good. So if you make your big trade for two players who will leave your team at the end of the year, you better make it count. By spending on Suarez, you marginally upgrade over Shaw. I know people are throwing fits about him, but the underlying data is better than PCA's was at this time and there's bad luck involved...if he even just gets neutral luck he'd be about a league average 3b. So it's an upgrade, but your offense is already top-3. How much  better do you think it's going to be? It's like getting from a 94 to a 96 in a class. Yeah, your A is better, but it's not moving the needle as much as all of that studying you put in might suggest. There is opportunity cost involved in any trade, like there is in managing your time. By placing significant trade chips into fixing something that isn't really an issue, you miss the actual, glaring holes. The Cubs have a top-3 offense but a bottom third rotation, so why would you spend to fix the lineup? Suarez is clearly the best bat available, and other teams will need him more, driving cost.

The issue the Cubs have is clearly in the rotation. They're bottom 10-12 in most metrics. Adding a pitcher who has been really bad, has had real fastball regression and hoping that in a handful of starts not only is everything you want to work on going to stick, but make a major difference is...a risk. A big one. 

I'm squarely against the Cubs going that route. It's solving an issue that really isn't as big as fans make it out to be and risking too much on the pitching side of things. If you make a Gallen/Suarez trade, that's probably your big splash, and you're probably mismanaging your resources unless you are just so damn convinced that you will be able to get Zac Gallen back, which, I just don't think is something you should be convinced of. It's a trade I'd expect a team with a bottom-third offense would make, who had a need for a SP but had a top-10 rotation. Not the other way around.

Go get a really good SP (Joe Ryan, MacKenzie Gore) or just get Merrill Kelly and another SP like Morton or Soroka (who have great underlying data and an ugly ERA that hides it) while adding a bench bat like Willi Castro who could provide a lot of value everywhere and give Shaw some time off. That's a better team. Maybe the names arent as fun, but you don't win because of name value.

[Geographyhater8888]

45 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Fastball! He's lost around half a mph, and lost a significant amount of shape. He throws it a lot. So one of his best pitches has become one of his worst pitches and he throws it half of the time. Recipe for a disaster. Even if you think it's a mechanical flaw, if it was so simple, Arizona would have fixed it. It's likely a combination of a small mechanical tweak, but also a pitch mix issue and mentality issue and you have to fix all of that in like, 9 starts as a team. You want to take that gamble? I don't. 

Beyond that, I don't think they need Suarez. Their offense is very good. So if you make your big trade for two players who will leave your team at the end of the year, you better make it count. By spending on Suarez, you marginally upgrade over Shaw. I know people are throwing fits about him, but the underlying data is better than PCA's was at this time and there's bad luck involved...if he even just gets neutral luck he'd be about a league average 3b. So it's an upgrade, but your offense is already top-3. How much  better do you think it's going to be? It's like getting from a 94 to a 96 in a class. Yeah, your A is better, but it's not moving the needle as much as all of that studying you put in might suggest. There is opportunity cost involved in any trade, like there is in managing your time. By placing significant trade chips into fixing something that isn't really an issue, you miss the actual, glaring holes. The Cubs have a top-3 offense but a bottom third rotation, so why would you spend to fix the lineup? Suarez is clearly the best bat available, and other teams will need him more, driving cost.

The issue the Cubs have is clearly in the rotation. They're bottom 10-12 in most metrics. Adding a pitcher who has been really bad, has had real fastball regression and hoping that in a handful of starts not only is everything you want to work on going to stick, but make a major difference is...a risk. A big one. 

I'm squarely against the Cubs going that route. It's solving an issue that really isn't as big as fans make it out to be and risking too much on the pitching side of things. If you make a Gallen/Suarez trade, that's probably your big splash, and you're probably mismanaging your resources unless you are just so damn convinced that you will be able to get Zac Gallen back, which, I just don't think is something you should be convinced of. It's a trade I'd expect a team with a bottom-third offense would make, who had a need for a SP but had a top-10 rotation. Not the other way around.

Go get a really good SP (Joe Ryan, MacKenzie Gore) or just get Merrill Kelly and another SP like Morton or Soroka (who have great underlying data and an ugly ERA that hides it) while adding a bench bat like Willi Castro who could provide a lot of value everywhere and give Shaw some time off. That's a better team. Maybe the names arent as fun, but you don't win because of name value.

Shaw, regardless of metrics is an issue info far as there’s no elite arm on the market, A solid MOR starting pitcher is an upgrade no doubt but if and when you have a chance to increase your scoring output by .2 runs/game, that’s worth the gamble, especially if you believe this team is a couple pieces away from removing all doubt. A lineup where Happ is statistically your worst hitter is very potent. Dodgers didn’t need Ohtani either, they scored 907 runs in 2023 and weee second in MLB. That’s an extreme example but if you can upgrade I don’t see what the hang up is. And when 2 of your top 4 sluggers like PCA and Busch are basically Patrick wisdom, at least in the case of PCA with a small sample size from Busch vs lefties it’d held the teams platoon splits to hopefully a significant enough degree. Didn’t fact check my Patrick Wisdom comp but I’m sure you get the gist.

What’s Shaw’s xBA? His exit velocity and hard contact doesn’t exactly blown anyone away. The reason I want a third baseman is more to move the needle enough in conjunction with a Joe Ryan for example as it would with say, a true ace pitcher in place of both.

 

I wasn’t suggesting Gallen I was asking you why he’s not as effective as years past, 

It’s without a doubt starting pitching is the most pressing need, that’s a given. My opinion is if you believe this team is capable of winning a World Series you do whatever is necessary as long as the cost isn’t too detrimental long term.

Edited July 15, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

23 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Shaw, regardless of metrics is an issue info far as there’s no elite arm on the market, A solid MOR starting pitcher is an upgrade no doubt but if and when you have a chance to increase your scoring output by .2 runs/game, that’s worth the gamble, especially if you believe this team is a couple pieces away from removing all doubt. A lineup where Happ is statistically your worst hitter is very potent. Dodgers didn’t need Ohtani either, they scored 907 runs in 2023 and weee second in MLB. That’s an extreme example but if you can upgrade I don’t see what the hang up is.

What’s Shaw’s xBA? His exit velocity and hard contact doesn’t exactly blown anyone away. The reason I want a third baseman is more to move the needle enough in conjunction with a Joe Ryan for example as it would with say, a true ace pitcher in place of both.

So, let's assume that Suarez adds ".2" runs per game (I think you've just made that number up but if it's based on some research, I'd be interested). Let's assume he's traded on the 31st (TDL), there would be 53 games remaining. We generally assume 10 runs added=1 win. In 53 games he would add 10.6 runs, or, one win and a very little margin over that. Matt Shaw, despite his offense, likely adds half a win. So you're upgrading half a win. See what I'm saying? You're making your big trade to fix a perceived issue but even your math has it as "meh". 

It isn't about "not upgrading", it's about opportunity cost. The Cubs have only so many prospects and can make only so many trades. There are 29 other MLB teams, so any trade is also not a vacuum. Suarez will be in demand, and while he's an upgrade, he probably doesn't move the needle nearly as much as you think it will.  Making Suarez the spend isn't going to magically fix things to the degree you think it will. And by spending your time and prospects on Suarez you are unable to do other things. There is no pause button and other teams want him too. I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, I just think the Cubs should spend their capital in more meaningful ways. Suarez's upside over Shaw probably isn't enough to eclipse what a very good SP or 2 P's and a more versatile hitter could do.

Matt Shaw's xBA is .245. His xWOBA is .301. League average 3b wOBA is .306. So his xdata says "basically a league average offensive 3b" despite the outcomes. He's a pretty good defender. Fans want to act like he's a black hole, when he's probably an average hitter and an above average defender. 

Joe Ryan is a stud, by the way. He's 18th in the league in fWAR and has the 6th best K:BB%. Joe Ryan will likely add more much more than Suarez would individually over the Cubs current rotational options, especially when you consider that even when Taillon is expected back, that Horton would be on innings limitation. The increase from Chris Flexen to Joe Ryan is vastly larger than Shaw to Suarez.

[Geographyhater8888]

36 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

So, let's assume that Suarez adds ".2" runs per game (I think you've just made that number up but if it's based on some research, I'd be interested). Let's assume he's traded on the 31st (TDL), there would be 53 games remaining. We generally assume 10 runs added=1 win. In 53 games he would add 10.6 runs, or, one win and a very little margin over that. Matt Shaw, despite his offense, likely adds half a win. So you're upgrading half a win. See what I'm saying? You're making your big trade to fix a perceived issue but even your math has it as "meh". 

It isn't about "not upgrading", it's about opportunity cost. The Cubs have only so many prospects and can make only so many trades. There are 29 other MLB teams, so any trade is also not a vacuum. Suarez will be in demand, and while he's an upgrade, he probably doesn't move the needle nearly as much as you think it will.  Making Suarez the spend isn't going to magically fix things to the degree you think it will. And by spending your time and prospects on Suarez you are unable to do other things. There is no pause button and other teams want him too.

Matt Shaw's xBA is .245. His xWOBA is .301. League average 3b wOBA is .306. So his xdata says "basically a league average offensive 3b" despite the outcomes. He's a pretty good defender. Fans want to act like he's a black hole, when he's probably an average hitter and an above average defender. 

Joe Ryan is a stud, by the way. He's 18th in the league in fWAR and has the 6th best K:BB%. Joe Ryan will likely add more much more than Suarez would individually over the Cubs current rotational options, especially when you consider that even when Taillon is expected back, that Horton would be on innings limitation. The increase from Chris Flexen to Joe Ryan is vastly larger than Shaw to Suarez.

Fangraphs lists Suarez batted runs at 15.3, Shaw at -9.3. Suarez has posted a 2.8 fWAR while Shaw is a replacement level 0 fWAR. So if Shaw’s hits start landing away from defenders then he’d trend towards 0-2 runs? Thats a made up approximation. Suarez trends towards 12 batted runs and with the wind blowing out you can expect more. That’s where I came up with that number with the net positive in runs in place of Shaw.
 

The base running and defense closes the gap a bit on Shaw and Suarez obviously but as of now, an aspiring above replacement level hitter vs a 2.8 fWAR. Of course based on what he has control over. A grandslam and a solo shot amount to the same batted runs. You’ll also strengthen the lefty righty splits where PCA and Busch are basically 2 different hitters, 2 of your top sluggers who are neutralized 3/10 games.

 

obviously pitching is a top priority but a lineup where your worst hitter is still above average intrigues me a lot. I say this with little expectation that he’ll be a Cub but we’ve already established the need for another bat. He’d be thee bat available and as a rental wouldn’t cost you a massive haul unless the bidding war causes a team to significantly overpay. 

Edited July 15, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

35 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Fangraphs lists Suarez batted runs at 15.3, Shaw at -9.3. Suarez has posted a 2.8 fWAR while Shaw is a replacement level 0 fWAR. So if Shaw’s hits start landing away from defenders then he’d trend towards 0-2 runs? Thats a made up approximation. Suarez trends towards 12 batted runs and with the wind blowing out you can expect more. That’s where I came up with that number with the net positive in runs in place of Shaw.
 

12 added runs on offense, base running and defense closes the gap a bit but this is of course based on what he has control over. A 3 home run and a solo shot amount to the same batted runs.

 

obviously pitching is a top priority but a lineup where your worst hitter is still above average intrigues me a lot. I say this with little expectation that he’ll be a Cub but we’ve already established the need for another bat. He’d be thee bat available and as a rental wouldn’t cost you a massive haul unless the bidding war causes a team to significantly overpay. 

 fWAR is more than offense, it's offense and defense. You claimed Suarez would "add .2 runs" and I parsed out the data based on that. "Adding .2 runs" is offense only. You're shifting goalposts. If you meant fWAR say fWAR. If you mean "runs" (because you've been throwing a fit about offense) then say runs. 

Frankly, at this point I'm not even sure what data you're using here. You talk about "batted runs" but this isn't a common way of debating value added. So let's pull it back. Let's use ZiPS, the best projection system we have and determine their value moving forward for the rest of the season.

ZiPS has Suarez finishing the year at 1.4 more fWAR, with a 117 wRC+. Now, before you jump to "but he has a 142 wRC+ on the year!" his career wRC+ is 114, meaning ZiPS projects him better than career average. As well, his wOBA is much higher than his xWOBA (.375 compared to .348). His career wOBA is inline with his xWOBA on the year, with a .340. ZiPS is probably picking up on regression coming.

Looking at Matt Shaw, ZiPS has him adding .7 fWAR the rest of the year with a 94 wRC+. In fact, almost every projection system out there has him in the 94-100 wRC+ range, and every projection system has Suarez in the 114-120 wRC+ range. League 3b have a 96 wRC+, so a 94 wRC+ puts him right there at about league average for the position, a purely fine hitting 3b for a top-3 offense in baseball to have. 

And to cut off this at the pass, STEAMER (if you prefer it), has the rest of the season projection of Suarez at 1.2 fWAR and Shaw at .7, closing the gap minimally in Matt Shaw's favor. ZiPS isn't on an island. You can pretty much cherry pick any projection system out there and the difference is under 1 win the rest of the way.

I'll give you one out here and it's that you could argue that that fractional wins count more as we approach and eclipse the 90 win mark. And that's a fair observation! But the Shaw to Suarez way of getting those fractional wins is not the only way the Cubs can achieve those fractional wins. Once again, it's likely a greater win total would be added by focusing on pitching and versatility over a standard 3b.

So again, the difference here is...less than a win. At some point you've got to understand that you are making the difference between Suarez and Shaw to be chasm the size of an ocean, when the reality is far, far closer.

 

[Geographyhater8888]

14 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

 fWAR is more than offense, it's offense and defense. You claimed Suarez would "add .2 runs" and I parsed out the data based on that. "Adding .2 runs" is offense only. You're shifting goalposts. If you meant fWAR say fWAR. If you mean "runs" (because you've been throwing a fit about offense) then say runs. 

Frankly, at this point I'm not even sure what data you're using here. You talk about "batted runs" but this isn't a common way of debating value added. So let's pull it back. Let's use ZiPS, the best projection system we have and determine their value moving forward for the rest of the season.

ZiPS has Suarez finishing the year at 1.4 more fWAR, with a 117 wRC+. Now, before you jump to "but he has a 142 wRC+ on the year!" his career wRC+ is 114, meaning ZiPS projects him better than career average. As well, his wOBA is much higher than his xWOBA (.375 compared to .348). His career wOBA is inline with his xWOBA on the year, with a .340. ZiPS is probably picking up on regression coming.

Looking at Matt Shaw, ZiPS has him adding .7 fWAR the rest of the year with a 94 wRC+. In fact, almost every projection system out there has him in the 94-100 wRC+ range, and every projection system has Suarez in the 114-120 wRC+ range. League 3b have a 96 wRC+, so a 94 wRC+ puts him right there at about league average for the position, a purely fine hitting 3b for a top-3 offense in baseball to have. 

And to cut off this at the pass, STEAMER (if you prefer it), has the rest of the season projection of Suarez at 1.2 fWAR and Shaw at .7, closing the game minimally. ZiPS isn't on an island. You can pretty much cherry pick any projection system out there and the difference is under 1 win the rest of the way.

So again, the difference here is...less than a win. At some point you've got to understand that you are making the difference between Suarez and Shaw to be chasm the size of an ocean, when the reality is far, far closer.

 

I should’ve been more specific. Offense is the term they use. In any case, go ZIPS. Too late for it to matter in ZIPS I guess. I don’t think he’ll cost you a Cassie though. Out of curiosity, is this an all encompassing projection or simply wins above replacement without wPA being e24 or any of the other advanced stats used that go beyond a stat that isolates a single player? 

[Jason Ross]

6 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

I should’ve been more specific. Offense is the term they use. In any case, go ZIPS. Too late for it to matter in ZIPS I guess. I don’t think he’ll cost you a Cassie though. Out of curiosity, is this an all encompassing projection or simply wins above replacement without wPA being e24 or any of the other advanced stats used that go beyond a stat that isolates a single player? 

ZiPS is taking in every input data you could probably imagine, though the pure formula isn't public. Shaw has a few less PA's in that sample size, but likely nothing to cause more than a fraction in either direction - it's like under 10 games based on different systems.  If there is a projection system I would trust, it's ZiPs from Dan S. He's the best and his system is the best. 

It's not a pure guarantee, though, but just based on what has happened both in real world results, but also xData and the like. It also takes in historical data and weighs recent data. So while there isn't a guarantee Suarez will regress this year (it doesn't always work that way) or Shaw will regress to the mean himself in a positive fashion, it means that it's likely to go that way. 

[Geographyhater8888]

7 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

ZiPS is taking in every input data you could probably imagine. Shaw has a few less PA's in that sample size, but likely nothing to cause more than a fraction in either direction - it's like under 10 games based on different systems.  If there is a projection system I would trust, it's ZiPs from Dan S. He's the best and his system is the best. 

It's not a pure guarantee, though, but just based on what has happened both in real world results, but also xData and the like. So while there isn't a guarantee Suarez will regress this year (it doesn't always work that way) or Shaw will regress to the mean himself in a positive fashion, it means that it's likely to go that way. 

With the saturation of advanced stats we live in a time where Ryan Howard hit 48 homers, 146 RBIs and posted a 2.8 fWAR in 2008. In other words, he’s basically 1 win above league average, which you already know but it’s amazing how much the landscape of player evaluation has changed. NFL is way behind the times.

Edited July 15, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

9 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

With the saturation of advanced stats we live in a time where Ryan Howard hit 48 homers, 146 RBIs and posted a 2.8 fWAR in 2008. In other words, he’s basically 1 win above league average, which you already know but it’s amazing how much the landscape of player evaluation has changed. NFL is way behind the times.

Oh they are. The one thing about baseball is that it really plays into the advanced metrics. Team sports have to filter out so much noise. Like a WR not getting yards could be because:
1. He sucks
2. The QB sucks
3. The OL sucks
4. The RB sucks
5. The play calling sucks

But the hitter-pitcher faceoff creates such an easy vacuum that filters out so many other human beings that finding data within is...easy! And I know advanced stuff can really scare some folks off, it changes how we see the game and that can go against our held beliefs. But I guess I like the sport so much that I enjoy being challenged that way and I appreciate when others at least hear it out. There's still some noise in there, and we can always find more stable data, but I really think the nuts and bolts of it all eventually make sense. 

If you're ever bored and need a cool baseball discovery hole to go down, there is a YouTube Channel called Secret Base and they did an amazing look back using storytelling and some advanced stuff (but the right amount) to tell a four part, four+ hour story on Dave Stieb from the 1980's that is both fascinating, heartfelt and one of the most eye opening baseball documentaries I have ever seen. I think if you like baseball, it's must-see viewing. Hell, it looks like I'll be stuck in airport limbo again today, so I might have to download it and give it a watch while I bounce around.

[BKHoo]

What on the field results have proven you need to extend Jed now? 

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, BKHoo said:

What on the field results have proven you need to extend Jed now? 

It is not a have to extend Jed because of the great things he has done. It is more about continuity moving forward. If they want a chance of extending Tucker or even signing him at the end of the year they need a POBO and GM in place moving forward. Jed has been fine. He gets way more grief than he deserves here. He isn’t the best at his job, but they can do far worse. As long as Ricketts owns the team the baseball ops will never take full advantage of Thor spending advantage. So whoever else comes in would have the same restraints. Might as well stick to who is here and who has put the team together. 

[Bertz]

9 minutes ago, BKHoo said:

What on the field results have proven you need to extend Jed now? 

I mean the timing is mainly around doing something you're probably already planning to do in October now so that the uncertainty doesn't have any negative impacts on the trade deadline.

But the why is that the Cubs have been the best team in the NL in the first half, have enough young talent on the roster to feel comfortable this isn't going to be a one and done situation, and enough financial flexibility and farm system muscle to continue supplementing in spite of the miserly payroll situation.