Minor League Discussion & Boxes, 4-7-26

[squally1313]

50 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Even with Hoerner/Bregman/Swanson locked up I think you can fit two of Shaw/Rojas/Ramirez/Triantos on the roster, especially if you make one of them a full time-ish outfielder.

This is probably a General Cubs question more than a Minor League discussion, but I struggle with the concept of taking anywhere from a reasonably ready to developing infield player (that Shaw to Triantos group), and thinking it's the best use of resources/plan of attack to be like 'alright, now go learn outfield'. Especially when none of these guys are like, super bat first, maybe they can fake it in the infield for a few years type pedigrees. The average wRC at 2B last year was 90, at 3B was 96, LF was 102, RF was 105. Feels like you're handcuffing one of their most valuable talents (infield defense) while also asking them to move up the spectrum offensively.

Or said another way, maybe: if we put Shaw's offensive profile at a 96 wRC hitter, ie a league average hitter for what was his position, isn't his value somewhat equal to a league average RF (assuming team control, etc)? And then if your goal is to have above average production offensively, why not just go get the (yes, hypothetical) 105 guy instead of telling Shaw he now has to improve by 20 points instead of 10. 

[Bertz]

40 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

This is probably a General Cubs question more than a Minor League discussion, but I struggle with the concept of taking anywhere from a reasonably ready to developing infield player (that Shaw to Triantos group), and thinking it's the best use of resources/plan of attack to be like 'alright, now go learn outfield'. Especially when none of these guys are like, super bat first, maybe they can fake it in the infield for a few years type pedigrees. The average wRC at 2B last year was 90, at 3B was 96, LF was 102, RF was 105. Feels like you're handcuffing one of their most valuable talents (infield defense) while also asking them to move up the spectrum offensively.

Or said another way, maybe: if we put Shaw's offensive profile at a 96 wRC hitter, ie a league average hitter for what was his position, isn't his value somewhat equal to a league average RF (assuming team control, etc)? And then if your goal is to have above average production offensively, why not just go get the (yes, hypothetical) 105 guy instead of telling Shaw he now has to improve by 20 points instead of 10. 

So I would say it's definitely not the most efficient use of resources.  Moving guys up and down the defensive spectrum usually doesn't exactly cleanly align with the value of their respective position.  Like if say Rojas is a -5 shortstop but a +5 LFer that's still half a win that went poof in the transition

That said I think Shaw and Rojas each have a pretty reasonable chance at being bats you'd be happy to have starting in the outfield, even in a corner.  So maybe there's some annoyance that you're not maxing out that guy's value, but a homegrown <25 year old outfielder that looks on track for 3+ WAR would be a gift horse we wouldn't want to spend too much time looking in it's mouth.

[squally1313]

20 minutes ago, Bertz said:

So I would say it's definitely not the most efficient use of resources.  Moving guys up and down the defensive spectrum usually doesn't exactly cleanly align with the value of their respective position.  Like if say Rojas is a -5 shortstop but a +5 LFer that's still half a win that went poof in the transition

That said I think Shaw and Rojas each have a pretty reasonable chance at being bats you'd be happy to have starting in the outfield, even in a corner.  So maybe there's some annoyance that you're not maxing out that guy's value, but a homegrown <25 year old outfielder that looks on track for 3+ WAR would be a gift horse we wouldn't want to spend too much time looking in it's mouth.

Yeah that all makes sense. This is probably an obvious statement, but I think if you were to play out the careers of Alcantara, Rojas, and Shaw, there's probably one above average corner OF bat in there, and there's temptation to let Shaw do his Zobrist thing in the majors, Alcantara to keep destroying AAA, and Rojas stay on his progression and keep all the cards in your hand. But like, the current team is going to need (slash already needs) help, and those are the guys with the biggest gap between 'trade value' and 'value to the current team'. They've started turning the corner and building the roadmap for the rest of the decade, but think tough decisions need to be made on this group soon. 

[JBears79]

I think we will find out more about how much the team values Rojas at the trade deadline. It was obvious last year with Mo Baller, I think it will be obvious with Rojas this year. 

[squally1313]

9 minutes ago, JBears79 said:

I think we will find out more about how much the team values Rojas at the trade deadline. It was obvious last year with Mo Baller, I think it will be obvious with Rojas this year. 

You don't think committing $316m to other infielders in the last 4 months (to slot next to the other infielder with 4 years left) says anything about how much they do (or don't) value Rojas?

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

if we're talking about moving guys to the OF, Long is the guy that should be doing it. Unless he's just that unathletic they think it would be a disaster

[JBears79]

2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

You don't think committing $316m to other infielders in the last 4 months (to slot next to the other infielder with 4 years left) says anything about how much they do (or don't) value Rojas?

Not really. He's only 20. A lot can happen in 4 years. 

[squally1313]

3 minutes ago, JBears79 said:

Not really. He's only 20. A lot can happen in 4 years. 

If the value they're ascribing to Rojas is in terms of 'value he can provide to the major league team in 2029 and onward', I would prefer they run a present value discount onto that and prioritize wins that come sooner. 

[Bertz]

31 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Yeah that all makes sense. This is probably an obvious statement, but I think if you were to play out the careers of Alcantara, Rojas, and Shaw, there's probably one above average corner OF bat in there, and there's temptation to let Shaw do his Zobrist thing in the majors, Alcantara to keep destroying AAA, and Rojas stay on his progression and keep all the cards in your hand. But like, the current team is going to need (slash already needs) help, and those are the guys with the biggest gap between 'trade value' and 'value to the current team'. They've started turning the corner and building the roadmap for the rest of the decade, but think tough decisions need to be made on this group soon. 

Yeah Alcantara's nearing the Caissie "horsefeathers or get off the pot" deadline.  I think you either move him in July or you, barring something unforeseen in August/September, need to commit to him getting one of Happ/Suzuki's spots handed to him on a platter going into '27.

Broadly though yeah 100% aligned.  We have five guys at or reasonably close to the majors with a lot of redundancy between them and realistically no more than 1500 at bats a year that can be allocated their way.  You should probably plan on moving two of them by this time next year, and I'd plan on it being one of the big ones (Shaw/Rojas/Alcantara) and one of the smaller ones (Ramirez/Triantos).

[squally1313]

6 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Broadly though yeah 100% aligned.  We have five guys at or reasonably close to the majors with a lot of redundancy between them and realistically no more than 1500 at bats a year that can be allocated their way.  You should probably plan on moving two of them by this time next year, and I'd plan on it being one of the big ones (Shaw/Rojas/Alcantara) and one of the smaller ones (Ramirez/Triantos).

And like, as much as I'd love to run some sort of Baseball Mogul experiment on putting nine Nico Hoerner's in a lineup...we're likely not getting elite or even comfortably above average offense from Nico, PCA, and Swanson. Bregman should stay above average but a 125 wRC is ambitious and also good for 36th in baseball based on last year. Busch is great but the projections seem him as another 120-125 guy. I know you stack wins however you can get them, but....does Busch/Bregman at 120 and 7 guys who can run and field and put up 100-105 really get you that much?

I keep going back to like, if the ultimate plan was to play Suzuki in RF this year anyways, would we have been better off with Shaw at 3B, Schwarber at DH(essentially identical contract to Bregman) and Ballesteros as the man without a spot/likely trade bait. It's an easier fit to find the guy that works between Shaw/Rojas/Ramirez/Triantos, Ballesteros gets to work on his catching in AAA.

Just a thought experiment, and it's probably just watching early April baseball, but worried that we are indefinitely missing an actual big bat. 

[JBears79]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

If the value they're ascribing to Rojas is in terms of 'value he can provide to the major league team in 2029 and onward', I would prefer they run a present value discount onto that and prioritize wins that come sooner. 

Sure. We have no reason to trade him right now unless its for cost controlled pitching. Its the same exact calculation as Ballesteros. If they believe in the bat, they will keep him. We will have a better idea how they view that bat at the trade deadline. Is he untouchable the way Ballesteros was or not? We don't know yet. 

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

And like, as much as I'd love to run some sort of Baseball Mogul experiment on putting nine Nico Hoerner's in a lineup...we're likely not getting elite or even comfortably above average offense from Nico, PCA, and Swanson. Bregman should stay above average but a 125 wRC is ambitious and also good for 36th in baseball based on last year. Busch is great but the projections seem him as another 120-125 guy. I know you stack wins however you can get them, but....does Busch/Bregman at 120 and 7 guys who can run and field and put up 100-105 really get you that much?

I keep going back to like, if the ultimate plan was to play Suzuki in RF this year anyways, would we have been better off with Shaw at 3B, Schwarber at DH(essentially identical contract to Bregman) and Ballesteros as the man without a spot/likely trade bait. It's an easier fit to find the guy that works between Shaw/Rojas/Ramirez/Triantos, Ballesteros gets to work on his catching in AAA.

Just a thought experiment, and it's probably just watching early April baseball, but worried that we are indefinitely missing an actual big bat. 

I think we've had this part of the conversation prior but on the spectrum of opinions I tend to be about 90% of the way towards "WAR is just WAR."  There are probably some edge cases where like Nico Hoerner is your best hitter and the offense breaks down, but broadly I think 3ish good (120 wRC+) hitters and no dead weight in the lineup is just as viable as a more extreme stars and scrubs deal.

I would also be worried about getting tunnel vision for a fearsome middle of the order bat.  I think from a skill standpoint the difference between a Happ/Suzuki/Bregman 120 complimentary type bat and a 150+ guy you'd rightfully call a star is thin.  

[squally1313]

31 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I think we've had this part of the conversation prior but on the spectrum of opinions I tend to be about 90% of the way towards "WAR is just WAR."  There are probably some edge cases where like Nico Hoerner is your best hitter and the offense breaks down, but broadly I think 3ish good (120 wRC+) hitters and no dead weight in the lineup is just as viable as a more extreme stars and scrubs deal.

We definitely have, so no need to rehash. My small clarification isn't so much a stars and scrubs thing as it is like, are there enough balls in play for 4 guys to rack up 2 defensive wins a piece. There conceptually seems to me to be a limit on how good defensively a team can be. 

Setting aside a 75ish difference in PAs, Schwarber put up 4.9 fWAR last year, Nico put up 4.8. The math probably says that 9 Schwarbers wins as many games as 9 Hoerners. But I think you ideally want half and half. Probably splitting hairs though.