Question of the week: Are you ready to move on from Jed?

[Backtobanks]

3 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

For whatever it’s worth, the Cubs have over $100 million coming off the books next season and a lot of the guys coming off the books are starting pitchers who aren’t very good. Outside of 75% of the infield there’s at least enough contractual flexibility to reshuffle the roster quickly and add quality arms instead of being on the hook for aging players like Sandiego and Philly, who failed to cash in on their championship windows. No guarantees with Jed but at least it’s not a do or die situation. 

$100 million to fill LF, RF, 2-3 SP, etc.  Good Luck on that.

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

$100 million to fill LF, RF, 2-3 SP, etc.  Good Luck on that.

The Cubs aren't going to need to fill everything outside of the organization. One of those SP's will hopefully be Justin Steele to some degree. One of the OF spots will go to one of Shaw/Alcantara/Ramirez if not a combination of them. They can also use some of their prospects that have overlap to fill a gap through trade. 

They won't need all $100m in free agency to fill five spots. It's more likely that they have $100m to fill three spots.

[Backtobanks]

3 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

The Cubs aren't going to need to fill everything outside of the organization. One of those SP's will hopefully be Justin Steele to some degree. One of the OF spots will go to one of Shaw/Alcantara/Ramirez if not a combination of them. They can also use some of their prospects that have overlap to fill a gap through trade. 

They won't need all $100m in free agency to fill five spots. It's more likely that they have $100m to fill three spots.

Some combination of Shaw/Alcantara/Ramirez need to be traded to fill some of the holes mentioned.  

[Jason Ross]

52 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

Some combination of Shaw/Alcantara/Ramirez need to be traded to fill some of the holes mentioned.  

I'm sure one of them will. But they also have players like Rojas, and Kepley who will also be available via trade. Those aren't the only three options they have who can be moved. 

[Soul]

I find it somewhat comforting that there are people who think Jed’s OK but I’d like to see someone new.  It’s a rough division to be in.  At the end of the day I can’t see Jed Hoyer building a champion like Theo did.  Not a very data-driven opinion.

[Geographyhater8888]

18 hours ago, Backtobanks said:

$100 million to fill LF, RF, 2-3 SP, etc.  Good Luck on that.

They won’t be spending $100 million to fill 4 positions. 1 Starting pitcher 1 and corner outfielder will cut into the $100 million, there’s internal options at the other corner outfield spot. If you trade for a cost controlled starting pitcher then that’s more money saved, and it might be a good idea with a number of blocked infield prospects. 

Edited Wednesday at 01:18 PM by Geographyhater8888

[Geographyhater8888]

13 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

I'm sure one of them will. But they also have players like Rojas, and Kepley who will also be available via trade. Those aren't the only three options they have who can be moved. 

Is anyone really confident in Alcantara? Of all the OF prospects traded he’s the only one who couldn’t fetch anyone significant in a trade. Teams preferred Smith and Cassie. He’s slid outside of the top 100 prospect rankings and he’s 22 years old who strikes out 1/3 of the time against minor league pitchers.

[Jason Ross]

37 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Is anyone really confident in Alcantara? Of all the OF prospects traded he’s the only one who couldn’t fetch anyone significant in a trade. Teams preferred Smith and Cassie. He’s slid outside of the top 100 prospect rankings and he’s 22 years old who strikes out 1/3 of the time against minor league pitchers.

He's a 23 year old OFer with 15 home runs in 46 games in Triple-A. He's going through a swing change but his contact rates have been going up as he's gotten more used to it. I'd focus more on the development of that data than a single number like K%. "Prospect development is not linear" is a great view to have on these things.

A good look here shows his quality of contact is through the roof right now in Iowa. He's had a decent amount of PA's in Triple-A but he's 23...he's not some elder prospect, either.

A good reminder that headed into 2025, Jacob Misiorwski was ranked the number 100 prospect by Jon Mayo and his highest was number 44. He's a golden goose in the mound. I'd highly recommend that we don't use top-100 lists as end all be alls or how teams internally rank these guys. They're an interesting lens into a specific evaluation, but the difference between #83 and #142 or whatever is largely "my personal preference". 

Do I think he's going to carry a trade for a SP with 5 years of control and ace upside? No. Do I think he's an MLB hitter of a short side platoon with plus defense in the corners and capable of playing CF? Yes. And that carries value for the Cubs and another team in trade. It isn't to say there isn't risk here, but the way you're acting, he's a 27 year old former top-prospect who's been toiling in the minors for years. He's a 23-year old with great batted ball data who has inherent risk his contact ability but it's not dire, either.

[Geographyhater8888]

5 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

He's a 23 year old OFer with 15 home runs in 46 games in Triple-A. 

A good reminder that headed into 2025, Jacob Misiorwski was ranked the number 100 prospect by Jon Mayo and his highest was number 44. He's a golden goose in the mound. I'd highly recommend that we don't use top-100 lists as end all be alls or how teams internally rank these guys. 

Do I think he's going to carry a trade for a SP with 5 years of control and ace upside? No. Do I think he's an MLB hitter of a short side platoon with plus defense in the corners and capable of playing CF? Yes. And that carries value for the Cubs and another team in trade.

So a fourth outfielder who can platoon is what you see in him? Nothing wrong with that, I wouldn’t be thrilled with him pencilled in as Happ or Suzukis successor but what the horsefeathers do I know.  

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

So a fourth outfielder who can platoon is what you see in him? Nothing wrong with that, I wouldn’t be thrilled with him pencilled in as Happ or Suzukis successor but what the horsefeathers do I know.  

I think he's a useful MLB piece who will first find his footing as a plus defensive OF'er in the corners while adding big power numbers against LHP. I think his upside is "Jose Siri" type; he's going to have a low batting average but pace himself with defense and 25+ home runs. That's roughly a 3-win player.

A contending team will likely use him in the above situation as a rookie and then plan on slowly expanding that role to see if he's more of a situational piece or more of a 500+ PA guy. A second division team will likely give him far more runway initially.

[Geographyhater8888]

41 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think he's a useful MLB piece who will first find his footing as a plus defensive OF'er in the corners while adding big power numbers against LHP. I think his upside is "Jose Siri" type; he's going to have a low batting average but pace himself with defense and 25+ home runs. That's roughly a 3-win player.

A contending team will likely use him in the above situation as a rookie and then plan on slowly expanding that role to see if he's more of a situational piece or more of a 500+ PA guy. A second division team will likely give him far more runway initially.

Alcantara will at least have opportunities with 2 uncertain corner outfield spots next year. Ramirez, Shaw and even Rojas are even bigger question marks, blocked at their minor league positions for another 3.4 years. There’s a number of ways that can go. A contending team with in season try outs in the corner outfield next year?

Edited Wednesday at 02:32 PM by Geographyhater8888

[PeanutPunch33]

On 6/16/2026 at 9:56 AM, Rcal10 said:

Your “mega star” criteria and all contending teams have more than 1 of them is just a ridiculous take. Who deems a guy a mega star? What criteria is used? Is it the numbers that player puts up in the year the team you are referring to won a WS? Is it career achievement, even if that particular year he wasn’t that good? I don’t agree with a lot of what you said, but just focusing on this one issue, please define “mega star” and tell me the two on each team competing for the playoffs this year. 

Who are Seattle’s two mega stars?, Rays, Padres, Guardians, Braves, Brewers, etc….

 

I feel like there's been a lot of back-and-forth on me having to define what a "superstar" is - the truth is the Cubs just need better hitters, period.  You and I don't have to agree on what the definition of superstar is to agree to that.  

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:28 PM by PeanutPunch33

[Geographyhater8888]

46 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

I feel like there's been a lot of back-and-forth on me having to define what a "superstar" is - the truth is the Cubs just need better hitters, period.  You and I don't have to agree on what the definition of superstar is to agree to that.  

 

Yeah. PCA has been the best player in the world since May 26th and the Cubs are 7-9 in that time span against bad teams. Cubs need better players. Having a star is a simpler way to add wins than a collection of 3.5 win position players with a lot of fielding value that masks a flawed pitching staff. 

Edited Wednesday at 04:14 PM by Geographyhater8888

[Rcal10]

17 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

I feel like there's been a lot of back-and-forth on me having to define what a "superstar" is - the truth is the Cubs just need better hitters, period.  You and I don't have to agree on what the definition of superstar is to agree to that.  

 

I don’t agree with that either. What is the Cubs ranking in baseball for their offense? What is it for their pitching? And their pitching comes with great defense behind it. So, in theory if they had average talent in the pitching department the team should fair well in runs against because the defense makes the pitching even better. What the Cubs need is the players they have in the line up to play to their expected norms and then better pitchers. They don’t need better hitters. They need their hitters to hit like they are supposed to. 

[PeanutPunch33]

6 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Yeah. PCA has been the best player in the world since May 26th and the Cubs are 7-9 in that time span against bad teams. Cubs need better players. Having a star is a simpler way to add wins than a collection of 3.5 win position players with a lot of fielding value that masks a flawed pitching staff. 

Exactly.  It's a philosophy issue and that starts with the front office.  You don't hand out 100+million to players just because they can play defense, lol.  

 

[Rcal10]

9 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Yeah. PCA has been the best player in the world since May 26th and the Cubs are 7-9 in that time span against bad teams. Cubs need better players. Having a star is a simpler way to add wins than a collection of 3.5 win players with a lot of fielding value that masks a flawed pitching staff.

Cubs need the players they have to play better and more to their norms, on the offensive side of the ball. If they did that the offense is fine. Adding a “star” bat isn’t going to move the needle much.
But the pitchers they have, even performing to their expected norms, and even with an elite defense, would still rank in the bottom 25% of the league. That tells me they need pitching. 

[PeanutPunch33]

7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I don’t agree with that either. What is the Cubs ranking in baseball for their offense? What is it for their pitching? And their pitching comes with great defense behind it. So, in theory if they had average talent in the pitching department the team should fair well in runs against because the defense makes the pitching even better. What the Cubs need is the players they have in the line up to play to their expected norms and then better pitchers. They don’t need better hitters. They need their hitters to hit like they are supposed to. 

It can both be true that the Cubs have respectable hitters in their lineup, but also in need of a major revamp on offense.  These guys have redundant skillsets.  Too many guys that try to do the same things. 

This is like a Moneyball lineup where every guy (outside of 1-2) is just trying to get on base.  They need more dudes that can put the ball over the fence or in the gaps.  Even if Nico plays like Nico again and Bregman plays like Bregman again, I don't think it solves the underlying issue.  

As much as I love PCA, a 24 year old shouldn't be the best hitter on the team.  If you are the Royals, sure.  But not when your team can outspend basically every other team except 2 or 3.  

Edited Wednesday at 03:55 PM by PeanutPunch33

[Geographyhater8888]

28 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Cubs need the players they have to play better and more to their norms, on the offensive side of the ball. If they did that the offense is fine. Adding a “star” bat isn’t going to move the needle much.
But the pitchers they have, even performing to their expected norms, and even with an elite defense, would still rank in the bottom 25% of the league. That tells me they need pitching. 

You’re talking about adding wins. Yeah, if the pitching staff sucks, which it does, then another PCA since May 26th will help. So could adding a couple more Ben browns. We’re just splitting hairs over ways to improve the team. But these consistent 1-2 month scoring droughts year after year leaves little margin for error with a consistently below average pitching staff that’s currently in shambles. 
 

And the point was that adding a star bat still isn’t the fix if you want to put the last 16 games in a vacuum. PCA has been on a tear and they’re 7-9 since May 26th. Although scoring runs is a bigger problem than box score stats lately. 

Edited Wednesday at 04:22 PM by Geographyhater8888

[Outshined_One]

Christ, the RISP arguments again?

What is this, 2004?

[PeanutPunch33]

2 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

Christ, the RISP arguments again?

What is this, 2004?

The Cubs have 2 players leading the league in a very unfavorable offensive stat - you don't think it's worth bringing up?  

[Rcal10]

25 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

You’re talking about adding wins. Yeah, if the pitching staff sucks, which it does, then another PCA since May 26th will help. So could adding a couple more Ben browns. We’re just splitting hairs over ways to improve the team. But these consistent 1-2 month scoring droughts year after year leaves little margin for error with a consistently below average pitching staff that’s currently in shambles. 
 

And the point was that adding a star bat still isn’t the fix if you want to put the last 16 games in a vacuum. PCA has been on a tear and they’re 7-9 since May 26th. Although scoring runs is a bigger problem than box score stats lately. 

I’m talking about the Cubs biggest need. It is 100% pitching.  If the Cubs players all played to their expectations the offense would be fine but the pitching would still be bad. I honestly don’t know where the Cubs rank offensively versus pitching. But over the entire first 70-75 games I would bet the pitching is ranked worse than the offense. I mean, sure, the team can use a star bat. Every team in baseball can use a star bat. But as a whole the Cubs line up is better than their pitching staff.

[PeanutPunch33]

3 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I’m talking about the Cubs biggest need. It is 100% pitching.  If the Cubs players all played to their expectations the offense would be fine but the pitching would still be bad. I honestly don’t know where the Cubs rank offensively versus pitching. But over the entire first 70-75 games I would bet the pitching is ranked worse than the offense. I mean, sure, the team can use a star bat. Every team in baseball can use a star bat. But as a whole the Cubs line up is better than their pitching staff.

Everyone knows the Cubs need more pitching.  The question is why are some so reluctant to admit the offense also needs better players.  I mean, they are a near .500 ball club that's currently getting dominated by the Rockies pitching staff.  That isn't all on the pitching.  Shota had a great game the other night and it took a 9th inning rally to win.  

9 guys will never all play to their expectations due to the variance of the game.  They need better hitters so that someone's "worst year" is still better than Dansby Swanson or Nico Hoerner's best year.  

Edited Wednesday at 04:35 PM by PeanutPunch33

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

The Cubs have 2 players leading the league in a very unfavorable offensive stat - you don't think it's worth bringing up?  

Cubs also lead the league in men on base. So unless you put it in the correct context, no, it isn’t worth bringing up. Cubs are definitely struggling in that department. But just using the men left on base isn’t a fair guide. I am sure both Happ and, especially, Bregman have bad numbers with risp, but just showing how many they left on is only half the story. I believe I saw crazy stats in the Dbacks with risp. But if someone on their team doesn’t come up with men in scoring position as often as Happ and Bregman they leave less men on base. 

[Jason Ross]

14 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

The Cubs have 2 players leading the league in a very unfavorable offensive stat - you don't think it's worth bringing up?  

It's only worth bringing up if we believe that hitting with RISP vs hitting without them is:
1. An independent skill
2. Repeatable and predictive

If it isn't an independent skill (as in, hitting with a runner on second base requires some sort of a skill in which hitting with a runner on first or no runners does not) and it isn't predictive and repeatable (as in we see trends year over year and through large sample sizes that show hitters across the league remain somewhat consistent) then it isn't something that we should really be focusing on.

So if we'd like to have this discussion, it's probably important for you to define those two things for us. I'll go on the record: I do not believe it is an independent skill, and when we look across the board, players tend to waffle heavily year over year unlike things like wRC+, or K%. 

That isn't to say the Cubs offense is fine today; they have flaws. It is that I don't believe this data set is indicative of anything. At best it's a symptom.

[Geographyhater8888]

49 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I’m talking about the Cubs biggest need. It is 100% pitching.  If the Cubs players all played to their expectations the offense would be fine but the pitching would still be bad. I honestly don’t know where the Cubs rank offensively versus pitching. But over the entire first 70-75 games I would bet the pitching is ranked worse than the offense. I mean, sure, the team can use a star bat. Every team in baseball can use a star bat. But as a whole the Cubs line up is better than their pitching staff.

6th in offensive war, 12 in runs and 27th in pitching war. The pitching is obviously the problem and situational hitting too lately, and it’s a better bet we’ll see more positive regression there. The pitching is a bigger problem and the offense hasn’t been able to pick them up, and 38-36 is the end result.
 

The focus should be on 27th ranked staff but time and time again this offense goes through these droughts that ends up biting them in the ass like in 23-24, which is frustrating. The position players are the teams strength so naturally people will focus on their struggles based on expectations, fair or not. 

If someone is trying to lose weight then cutting calories is probably a better approach than spending an extra 2 hours in the gym doing cardio or amputating your own leg, but it’ll help you achieve your weight loss goals I guess. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:21 PM by Geographyhater8888