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

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, 731.4life said:

This is the problem with the Cubs, and this is why they have been called out by national media members like Ken Rosenthal and others.

A few years ago, people were debating between either Pete Alonso or Michael Busch. The nerdy people loved Busch because of his defensive ability over Alonso, and more nerdy stats.  Well, last year Busch had a career year of 34 home runs with 90 RBI's. Alonso just did his normal thing hitting 38 homers, driving in 120+, and hitting .272. So, Busch's career year still isn't as good as Pete Alonso on the back of the baseball card. And Pete Alonso played 162 last year.

The Cubs have the same issue. Not saying Yordan Alvarez is available. But if the Cubs trade for him, you definitely have the best hitter in the NL Central. You slot him in the 3rd/4th slot in the lineup every night and leave him alone. 

Problem with the Cubs is that they have gone too analytical and too nerdy. Enough with the nerdy stats, they need playmakers, and they don't have it on pitching, and hitting. They just don't. And the fans are the ones that are being treated with a disservice because this team is robbing the fans.

They have a tough weekend homestead with Toronto coming to town, and a tough road trip to the Mets and Brewers. Only good thing is Misiorowski doesn't look like he'll pitch against Chicago next weekend. 

Counterpoint : Alonso and his $31M a year for 5 year contract has a WAR of 1.7 this year. Busch is at 1.9. 
Last year Alonso’s WAR, for all those numbers you posted, was 3.3. Busch was 4.5. Really don’t think using Alonso and Busch is a good example of whatever you are trying to prove. That is, unless you are suggesting Hoyer made the right decision to stick with Busch and pass on Alonso. But I don’t think that is your point. 

Edited June 18 by Rcal10

[PeanutPunch33]

1 hour ago, 731.4life said:

This is the problem with the Cubs, and this is why they have been called out by national media members like Ken Rosenthal and others.

A few years ago, people were debating between either Pete Alonso or Michael Busch. The nerdy people loved Busch because of his defensive ability over Alonso, and more nerdy stats.  Well, last year Busch had a career year of 34 home runs with 90 RBI's. Alonso just did his normal thing hitting 38 homers, driving in 120+, and hitting .272. So, Busch's career year still isn't as good as Pete Alonso on the back of the baseball card. And Pete Alonso played 162 last year.

The Cubs have the same issue. Not saying Yordan Alvarez is available. But if the Cubs trade for him, you definitely have the best hitter in the NL Central. You slot him in the 3rd/4th slot in the lineup every night and leave him alone. 

Problem with the Cubs is that they have gone too analytical and too nerdy. Enough with the nerdy stats, they need playmakers, and they don't have it on pitching, and hitting. They just don't. And the fans are the ones that are being treated with a disservice because this team is robbing the fans.

They have a tough weekend homestead with Toronto coming to town, and a tough road trip to the Mets and Brewers. Only good thing is Misiorowski doesn't look like he'll pitch against Chicago next weekend. 

I do think it's pretty damn telling that in my hypothetical, folks would be willing to pass on arguably one of the best left handed hitters of all time, in his prime, just because there is a need at SP.  Yes, even if they have a chance to acquire a stud pitcher with control, I'm still picking Alvarez.  (And yes I know this is a wild hypothetical with almost no prospects of becoming reality - my whole point is that if the Astros did make him available, the Cubs should be aggressively pursuing him).  He'd instantly be the best player this team has had in like 25 years.  Given how much the Cubs seem to love former Astros players it would be weird if they hypothetically made no effort to get the guy who has a .1070 OPS.

There are good free agent starting pitchers every single year.  Whereas a guy like Alvarez almost never makes it to free agency and the Cubs sure as hell aren't good enough at drafting to find a guy like that organically. 

[PeanutPunch33]

5 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

They should be open minded, but we are playing a very dangerous game of "hypotheticals" here. There is no report suggesting the Astros as entertaining Yordan Alvarez trades right now outside of speculation. The Astros have shot it down. He's signed and isn't an upcoming FA. The Nationals also have not signaled any reason to trade Abrams. Nor do we have any idea if the Cubs have enough to make that happen (If probably argue they don't unless you're okay moving Hartshorn and the Astros want a Hartshorn). 

Here's the reality; the Cubs are far better positioned to trade for a pitcher. They need a pitcher more. Both now and next year. What prospects do they have who will be MLB ready next year? Most of them are hitters. Wiggins is about the only exception pitching wise and he's spent the entire year hurt so far. 

I think the Cubs trading for a Reid Detmers is entirely more likely than them trading for Yordan Alvarez. Detmers is even rumored to be available. 

I'd be down with Detmers if they can't pull off a bigger move.  I always thought he was better than what he's shown in LA.  Low risk move.  

[PeanutPunch33]

5 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

Why are you comparing picking up a rental pitcher for a hitter with several years after this one? If you are going to use Alvarez as your hitter you should use Hunter Brown as the pitcher. Or, better yet Skenes. In that scenario give me the pitcher. That is the truer comparison. 
Also, you have mentioned Alvarez and Abrams in the last. Where has it been seen that these guys are even available. Why would the Nationals trade Abrams? They are in the WC race. Why are the Astros trading Alvarez? And if they are, why not Brown too? Given the choice of adding a great bat or a great arm and each with the same control time, the pitcher would help more now and later. 

I've seen Abrams' name floated around a bunch as a trade candidate.  It probably won't happen but they were definitely fielding offers on him last off-season, and they also have a bunch of infield talent on the way in the minors.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if he got traded for some cost controlled pitching.  Admittedly the Cubs don't have much of that to offer.  

Edited June 18 by PeanutPunch33

[Rcal10]

11 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

I do think it's pretty damn telling that in my hypothetical, folks would be willing to pass on arguably one of the best left handed hitters of all time, in his prime, just because there is a need at SP.  Yes, even if they have a chance to acquire a stud pitcher with control, I'm still picking Alvarez.  (And yes I know this is a wild hypothetical with almost no prospects of becoming reality - my whole point is that if the Astros did make him available, the Cubs should be aggressively pursuing him).  He'd instantly be the best player this team has had in like 25 years.  Given how much the Cubs seem to love former Astros players it would be weird if they hypothetically made no effort to get the guy who has a .1070 OPS.

There are good free agent starting pitchers every single year.  Whereas a guy like Alvarez almost never makes it to free agency and the Cubs sure as hell aren't good enough at drafting to find a guy like that organically. 

Let’s leave names out of it, because like you said, who knows who is available and at what cost. So keeping it as simple as possible I would rather the Cubs acquire an all star starting pitcher over an all star bat. If everything else is equal, ie: years of control, contract, cost to acquire etc…, the pitcher makes more sense and helps the Cubs more. 

[Rcal10]

15 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

I'd be down with Detmers if they can't pull off a bigger move.  I always thought he was better than what he's shown in LA.  Low risk move.  

He won’t be cheap. 

[PeanutPunch33]

4 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Let’s leave names out of it, because like you said, who knows who is available and at what cost. So keeping it as simple as possible I would rather the Cubs acquire an all star starting pitcher over an all star bat. If everything else is equal, ie: years of control, contract, cost to acquire etc…, the pitcher makes more sense and helps the Cubs more. 

That's a reasonable position and one that I'd bet most fans would agree with you on.  But my take is:

What exactly does 1 more really good or great SP do for them?  Give them 2 good starters instead of 1?  The rotation would still be pretty crappy even if they got Hunter Brown or another guy.  Even if they got Skubal and extended him I'm not sure I'd put this as a top 5 or 10 rotation.  The rotation is that big of a mess right now.  

Whereas if they got the monster left handed bat I'm dreaming about, they would instantly become a top 5 or even top 3 offense.  We saw it last year in the 1st half, before Tucker got hurt.  They could solve that problem right now, and then have 100+ million this off-season to spend on pitching, with Suzuki/Happ/Taillon etc. out the door.  They'd obviously have to replace Suzuki/Happ's production but they could fix up their entire rotation in one off-season.  

Edited June 18 by PeanutPunch33

[Rcal10]

18 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

I do think it's pretty damn telling that in my hypothetical, folks would be willing to pass on arguably one of the best left handed hitters of all time, in his prime, just because there is a need at SP.  Yes, even if they have a chance to acquire a stud pitcher with control, I'm still picking Alvarez.  

So assuming Alvarez is this good, the comp from a pitcher side would be Skeenes. So do you still take Alvarez? 

[PeanutPunch33]

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

So assuming Alvarez is this good, the comp from a pitcher side would be Skeenes. So do you still take Alvarez? 

I personally am taking Alvarez.  That's an Aaron Judge type bat and he'd wreak havoc at Wrigley.

Also, there is next to no chance The Pirates will ever trade Skenes.  Whereas there has been enough smoke around an Alvarez trade that the Astros GM came out to give a public statement on it.  (He obviously said they won't do it but you never know).

I'm expecting a stunner at this year's trade deadline.  Whether it's Abrams or Alvarez or someone else.  

Edited June 18 by PeanutPunch33

[Rcal10]

11 minutes ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

I personally am taking Alvarez.  That's an Aaron Judge type bat and he'd wreak havoc at Wrigley.

Also, there is next to no chance The Pirates will ever trade Skenes.  Whereas there has been enough smoke around an Alvarez trade that the Astros GM came out to give a public statement on it.  (He obviously said they won't do it but you never know).

I'm expecting a stunner at this year's trade deadline.  Whether it's Abrams or Alvarez or someone else.  

We are just not going to agree. I see a Cubs team 6th in fWAR offensively even with poor play from Bregman, Hoerner and Swanson and think if they play as they should the Cubs would be a top 5 offense in baseball. I also see a team who staff is in the bottom 20% in baseball without anyone really expected to be that good. So I see an extreme need for pitching.
You seem to think Alvarez is needed to be a top 5 offense and who cares if the pitching sucks. Does that sum it up or am I wrong? 

[PeanutPunch33]

5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

We are just not going to agree. I see a Cubs team 6th in fWAR offensively even with poor play from Bregman, Hoerner and Swanson and think if they play as they should the Cubs would be a top 5 offense in baseball. I also see a team who staff is in the bottom 20% in baseball without anyone really expected to be that good. So I see an extreme need for pitching.
You seem to think Alvarez is needed to be a top 5 offense and who cares if the pitching sucks. Does that sum it up or am I wrong? 

I think our disagreement can be summarized as this:

Fix a weakness or double down on a strength? 

Fix a weakness right now (that will likely remain a weakness until next off-season, regardless of what move is made now)

Or double down on a strength and try to become the best lineup in the NL, regardless of how bad the pitching is.  

I think the former fixes a lot of issues right now, but the latter makes them a better long term team.  Given that they could pursue pitching in the off-season.  That's just my opinion.  

[Geographyhater8888]

8 hours ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

 

What exactly does 1 more really good or great SP do for them?  Give them 2 good starters instead of 1?  The rotation would still be pretty crappy even if they got Hunter Brown or another guy.  Even if they got Skubal and extended him I'm not sure I'd put this as a top 5 or 10 rotation.  The rotation is that big of a mess right now.  

 

If the Cubs traded Taillon for Detmers before the season straight up in an alternate universe, one of their trade targets, they’d theoretically be 42-33. 
 

Trading for a starting pitcher might not make them a top 10 pitching staff but run prevention from our gold glove defense only works if you can limit home runs. Cubs are ranked dead last in home runs allowed at 1.5 game, they’re 27th in fWAR and a modest 17th in ERA. So top 10 in ERA is certainly achievable and more economical when you factor in the amount of farm capital it’d take to land Alvarez over the available pitchers.
 

Ben Brown in 26 and Cade Horton in 25 both have xERAs between 1.2-1,3 runs higher than their actual ERAs. No matter how frustrating the offense can be at times it can’t be overstated just how much those same streaky hitters mask the deficiencies of our pitching staff playing defense. 

Edited Thursday at 11:36 AM by Geographyhater8888

[Geographyhater8888]

18 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

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

 

Have the bloop hitting, blow hard Brewers hacked the system with a 100 wRC+ and a 111 wRC+ with RISP since 2018?

Edited Thursday at 11:19 AM by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

2 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Have the bloop hitting, blow hard Brewers hacked the system with a 100 wRC+ and a 111 wRC+ with RISP since 2018?

No more than the Twins, who have a 104 wRC+ without RISP and a 109 wRC+ with RISP in the same time period. But compare the top-10 teams in wRC+ from that same span to the top-10 with RISP and you'll find this: the only team in baseball who was a top-10 team in wRC+ but wasn't a top-10 offensive team with RISP was the Tampa Bay Rays. How far off the top-10 pace were they? They were 11th, just one point of wRC+ behind Boston. Why? It's not a definable skill. Good offensive teams are just good offensive teams. It doesn't matter if a runner is on second base or first, or no bases; they're just generally good.

The Brewers are the only team in baseball who was not a top-10 offensive team in context neutral situations but are with RISP. It's an outlier, but not one that we can trace back to any discernable skill trait. We know this because in a league of copycats, no one else is doing it.

[mul21]

2 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

No more than the Twins, who have a 104 wRC+ without RISP and a 109 wRC+ with RISP in the same time period. But compare the top-10 teams in wRC+ from that same span to the top-10 with RISP and you'll find this: the only team in baseball who was a top-10 team in wRC+ but wasn't a top-10 offensive team with RISP was the Tampa Bay Rays. How far off the top-10 pace were they? They were 11th, just one point of wRC+ behind Boston. Why? It's not a definable skill. Good offensive teams are just good offensive teams. It doesn't matter if a runner is on second base or first, or no bases; they're just generally good.

The Brewers are the only team in baseball who was not a top-10 offensive team in context neutral situations but are with RISP. It's an outlier, but not one that we can trace back to any discernable skill trait. We know this because in a league of copycats, no one else is doing it.

And sometimes it just doesn't matter.  The 2012 Cardinals set an MLB record by hitting .330 with RISP, were 2nd in the NL in scoring, and 6th in ERA and still only finished with 88 wins because sometimes baseball just baseballs.

[Geographyhater8888]

50 minutes ago, mul21 said:

And sometimes it just doesn't matter.  The 2012 Cardinals set an MLB record by hitting .330 with RISP, were 2nd in the NL in scoring, and 6th in ERA and still only finished with 88 wins because sometimes baseball just baseballs.

330 is ridiculous. Sign stealing comes to mind. 

[mul21]

1 minute ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

330 is ridiculous. Sign stealing comes to mind. 

It broke the previous season record of .311, so it absolutely was ridiculous.

[We Got The Whole 9]

Murphy talked about how he feels like they take sign stealing/reading grips/maneuerisms from 2B to the highest level 

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

330 is ridiculous. Sign stealing comes to mind. 

So maybe the Cubs are stealing/relaying pitch grips etc at 2b and getting them all wrong? Hahaha.

[Rcal10]

I just looked at runs scored by the Phillies compared to the Cubs. Phillies have scored 308 runs compared to 360 by the Cubs. And the Phillies have 2 guys paid for their star bats (Schwarber and Harper) This was supposed to be what a team needed to be slump proof, according to Peanut Punch. And if you add Turner he was another guy paid for his bat, when the Cubs signed Swanson for his glove. Phillies paying much more for Turner who has produced less WAR that Swanson since the signing. And the Phillies have him much longer. With all that offensive firepower they paid for, while neglecting defense, somehow they are scoring 2/3 or a run per game less than the Cubs. They are hanging in because of Wheeler and Sanchez. Two star pitchers. Which is exactly what the Cubs need. They clearly have enough offense. Much better than the offense the Phillies paid a lot of money to have. 

[Geographyhater8888]

8 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I just looked at runs scored by the Phillies compared to the Cubs. Phillies have scored 308 runs compared to 360 by the Cubs. And the Phillies have 2 guys paid for their star bats (Schwarber and Harper) This was supposed to be what a team needed to be slump proof, according to Peanut Punch. And if you add Turner he was another guy paid for his bat, when the Cubs signed Swanson for his glove. Phillies paying much more for Turner who has produced less WAR that Swanson since the signing. And the Phillies have him much longer. With all that offensive firepower they paid for, while neglecting defense, somehow they are scoring 2/3 or a run per game less than the Cubs. They are hanging in because of Wheeler and Sanchez. Two star pitchers. Which is exactly what the Cubs need. They clearly have enough offense. Much better than the offense the Phillies paid a lot of money to have. 

They would’ve walked to the World Series last year if not for LA having more stars and destroying the competitive balance. Now that their high $ vets are entering the backend of their deals, they’ll be crippled long term. Same with the Padres.
 

Love somewhere in between or hate Jed, the Cubs aren’t crippled financially long term. I think peanut is too focused on the pitching staffs baseline  ERA and neglecting just how much they’re bailed out by the cubs defense, but I can’t speak for him. 

 

Edited Saturday at 01:05 PM by Geographyhater8888

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

They would’ve walked to the World Series last year if not for LA having more stars and destroying the competitive balance. Now that their high $ vets are entering the backend of their deals, they’ll be crippled long term. Same with the Padres.
 

Love somewhere in between or hate Jed, the Cubs aren’t crippled financially long term. I think peanut is too focused on the pitching staffs baseline  ERA and neglecting just how much they’re bailed out by the cubs defense, but I can’t speak for him. 

 

Maybe they would have went to the WS. But if they did it would have been more because of their pitching than their offense, with 3 “star” bat first players in the line up. Hell, last year they even paid Castellanos $20M a year. That was for his bat, not his defense. And with all that money spent on bat first players, they scored less runs than the Cubs and Brewers, who basically have no bat first, star, players. Their staff, with a poor defense behind them, lead them. Not the players paid to slug. 

[PeanutPunch33]

11 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I just looked at runs scored by the Phillies compared to the Cubs. Phillies have scored 308 runs compared to 360 by the Cubs. And the Phillies have 2 guys paid for their star bats (Schwarber and Harper) This was supposed to be what a team needed to be slump proof, according to Peanut Punch. And if you add Turner he was another guy paid for his bat, when the Cubs signed Swanson for his glove. Phillies paying much more for Turner who has produced less WAR that Swanson since the signing. And the Phillies have him much longer. With all that offensive firepower they paid for, while neglecting defense, somehow they are scoring 2/3 or a run per game less than the Cubs. They are hanging in because of Wheeler and Sanchez. Two star pitchers. Which is exactly what the Cubs need. They clearly have enough offense. Much better than the offense the Phillies paid a lot of money to have. 

The Phillies are not "hanging on due to 2 star pitchers".  They are 28-16 since May 1st, and that dominance is consistent with what they've done the last 5 seasons.  The Cubs are 19-24 in that same time frame.  2 teams going in opposite directions.  I agree the Phillies lineup is playing terribly but there is no question that they have more talent on the field than the Cubs do.  There is a large enough sample size to prove that.  

Also, I never said that the Cubs don't need more pitching, I merely said that they also need more hitting.  And if they only have the resources to make 1 move in 2026, I personally would rather get a game changing bat than an elite pitcher. 

They traded for Cabrera, it hasn't worked out.  They developed Horton, he got injured.  They signed Taillon, he's abysmal.  Now it's time to give me the guy that will play every single day out of the 2 hole and put up a .900+ OPS behind PCA.  

Edited Saturday at 04:06 PM by PeanutPunch33

[We Got The Whole 9]

2 hours ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

The Phillies are not "hanging on due to 2 star pitchers".  They are 28-16 since May 1st, and that dominance is consistent with what they've done the last 5 seasons.  The Cubs are 19-24 in that same time frame.  2 teams going in opposite directions.  I agree the Phillies lineup is playing terribly but there is no question that they have more talent on the field than the Cubs do.  There is a large enough sample size to prove that.  

Also, I never said that the Cubs don't need more pitching, I merely said that they also need more hitting.  And if they only have the resources to make 1 move in 2026, I personally would rather get a game changing bat than an elite pitcher. 

They traded for Cabrera, it hasn't worked out.  They developed Horton, he got injured.  They signed Taillon, he's abysmal.  Now it's time to give me the guy that will play every single day out of the 2 hole and put up a .900+ OPS behind PCA.  

They already have that in Busch. He's been a top 10 hitter over the last 2 months. But who do you have in mind?

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, PeanutPunch33 said:

The Phillies are not "hanging on due to 2 star pitchers".  They are 28-16 since May 1st, and that dominance is consistent with what they've done the last 5 seasons.  The Cubs are 19-24 in that same time frame.  2 teams going in opposite directions.  I agree the Phillies lineup is playing terribly but there is no question that they have more talent on the field than the Cubs do.  There is a large enough sample size to prove that.  

Also, I never said that the Cubs don't need more pitching, I merely said that they also need more hitting.  And if they only have the resources to make 1 move in 2026, I personally would rather get a game changing bat than an elite pitcher. 

They traded for Cabrera, it hasn't worked out.  They developed Horton, he got injured.  They signed Taillon, he's abysmal.  Now it's time to give me the guy that will play every single day out of the 2 hole and put up a .900+ OPS behind PCA.  

Where is this large sample size to prove the a Phillies have a more talented line up than the Cubs? Is it the entire 2025 season where the Cubs outscored the Phillies? Nope, that can’t be it. Is it this year where the Cubs have outscored the Phillies by 50+ runs? That doesn’t seem right either. So where is the proof their line up is better because the “stars” they have? For the record, I would take the Cubs starting 9 over then Phillies any day. And they have proven to be better.