Ben Brown Joins Edward Cabrera In Going On Cubs' Injured List

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Yes. I'm fine trading from the young position player pool to get a controlled SP. Shaw, Rojas, Ramirez, Alcantara, Ballesteros, Kepley...this is a pool of players the Cubs can thin and still have young players you're excited about (doesn't even include Hartshorn and Conrad) behind them to solve the biggest organizational need. Many of those players overlap in how the team would use them. 

Maybe it's not the Angels, maybe it's someone else, but I do think the Cubs are in a place to go get another controlled SP. It would mean you're looking at something around Brown, Steele, new SP, Cabrera, Rea/Assad next year (assuming health) with Wiggins in the wings for 2027, as well.

I must be doing something right, because right after I send my response I read yours and it is saying the same thing. 

[Geographyhater8888]

12 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Of course. But you haven't given any reason other than "Ben Brown might not pitch in 2026" as a justification why they would trade him. 

It just doesn't make sense. I think it's pretty safe to take the idea of "would the Cubs trade Ben Brown for a SP?" and put it in the "incredibly unlikely" bucket. "Never say never" in baseball, but it's almost assuredly not going to happen.

Yes. That means the roster is better by keeping a key contributor like Shaw while adding Detmers. Next year you’ll have a hole to fill in the rotation but a couple of immediate options on the position side since Brown would be a key piece if our trade partner values MLB ready talent. The Angles do business differently. 

That’s my opinion. It’s a hypothetical. Point taken that it probably wont happen.

Edited 5 hours ago by Geographyhater8888

[Bertz]

I think Detmers is on paper pretty on par with Cabrera/Baz/Gore from the offseason.  You're paying a premium for it being the deadline, but ballpark that should be where your mind goes.

Someone that is or very recently was in the middle of a top 100, a second piece that would hurt a good bit more than losing Hernandez (because it's the deadline), and something lottery ticket-y?

Let's call it Rojas, Kepley, and Mule for sake of discussion?  Like Jason said it'd hurt.

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Yes. That means the roster is better by keeping a key contributor like Shaw while adding Detmers. Next year you’ll have a hole to fill in the rotation but a couple of immediate options on the position side since Brown would be a key piece.

That’s my opinion. It’s a hypothetical. Point taken that it probably wont happen.

Right. But again, when 2027 rolls around you still have to:
1. Fill two SP slots
2. Still have Matt Shaw, Jefferson Rojas, and Pedro Ramirez filling the same single spot 
3. Fill two OF spots unless 

So then you'd likely have to trade for another controlled SP from your prospect pool. You'd end up in the same exact place and for what? To get 2-3 months extra of Shaw or Ramirez? And is the next controlled SP going to have 4+ years of control like Ben Brown? Will they have had as good of a 2026 as Ben Brown? There's no guarantee you'd need to trade ether of Shaw or Ramirez anyways.

It just doesn't make sense. The only exception is that you think the Angels would ignore massive injury red-flags like they did with Grayson Rodriguez and in that scenario the Cubs would have had to basically red-flagged Brown's entire career.

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I think Detmers is on paper pretty on par with Cabrera/Baz/Gore from the offseason.  You're paying a premium for it being the deadline, but ballpark that should be where your mind goes.

Someone that is or very recently was in the middle of a top 100, a second piece that would hurt a good bit more than losing Hernandez (because it's the deadline), and something lottery ticket-y?

Let's call it Rojas, Kepley, and Mule for sake of discussion?  Like Jason said it'd hurt.

This would hurt, but I would be fine with it. I get your point, not exactly these guys, but similar guys and I do it. Helps now and next year. 

[Geographyhater8888]

8 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The only exception is that you think the Angels would ignore massive injury red-flags like they did with Grayson Rodriguez and in that scenario the Cubs would have had to basically red-flagged Brown's entire career.

That’s the gist of it. If they want MLB ready talent then then Rojas might not cut it. Brown would slash the price. Pedro and Alcantara I wouldn’t at all hesitate on but if we’re talking Shaw and Mo, 2 MLB ready guys that may or not both be involved then it’s too heavy. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

5 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

That’s the gist of it. If they want MLB ready talent then then Rojas might not cut it. Brown would slash the price. Pedro and Alcantara I wouldn’t at all hesitate on but it looks like Shaw is auditioning for for the outfield next year. 

So the only situation it makes sense is that:
1. You think Ben Brown's basically red-flagged as a starting pitcher for the rest of his career and won't really make it as one
2. The Angels would miss this

The Cubs have seemingly better identified the neck injury and are properly fixing it this time so I have a hard time believing this is even a possibility. I'll give you that the Angels are the one organization in baseball that might miss that, but beyond that, I think you're just clinging to a poor position here.

[Geographyhater8888]

8 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

So the only situation it makes sense is that:
1. You think Ben Brown's basically dead as a pitcher for the rest of his career
2. The Angels would miss this

The Cubs have seemingly better identified the neck injury and are properly fixing it this time so I have a hard time believing this is even a possibility. 

Sure. If he’s expected to make a full recovery and even return this season then I probably wouldn’t consider it. The reason it was brought up is the Angels preference for MLB ready talent. Shaw and Mo let’s say is a heavy price that hurts now and next season, as much as trading Brown. If they don’t want prospects then that’s the idea. One that I’m ambivalent on but it’s a chat so why the horsefeathers not throw it out there.

In essence you’d be swapping Brown for Detmers and a couple of blocked position players that you don’t really need next year or this year.

Edited 5 hours ago by Geographyhater8888

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Sure. If he’s expected to make a full recovery and even return this season then I probably wouldn’t consider it. The reason it was brought up is the Angels preference for MLB ready talent. Shaw and Mo let’s say is a heavy price that hurts now and next season, as much as trading Brown. If they don’t want prospects then that’s the idea. One that I’m ambivalent on but it’s a chat so why the horsefeathers not throw it out there.

In essence you’d be swapping Brown for Detmers and a couple of blocked position players that you don’t really need next year or this year.

Honestly, even if it is Mo and Shaw I make the deal. 

[Jason Ross]

19 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Sure. If he’s expected to make a full recovery and even return this season then I probably wouldn’t consider it. The reason it was brought up is the Angels preference for MLB ready talent. Shaw and Mo let’s say is a heavy price that hurts now and next season, as much as trading Brown. If they don’t want prospects then that’s the idea. One that I’m ambivalent on but it’s a chat so why the horsefeathers not throw it out there.

In essence you’d be swapping Brown for Detmers and a couple of blocked position players that you don’t really need next year or this year.

But if the Angels prefer MLB ready talent why would they want a SP who isn't even going to pitch in 2026? 

It just doesn't make sense. 

Beyond that, a third time, I'm going to refrain from names. We can use whatever combination of names to continue to twist ourselves into a pretzel into a scenario where the Cubs are considering trading Ben Brown for Reid Detmers. Logically it makes next to no sense for a team who needs controller Ps to trade a controller, 26 year old P. That's all the logic we need. 

[Irrelevant Dude]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

Also important to note, according to the team, they better diagnosed his neck injury than they did in 2024. 

That is not in any way comforting to me.  It doesn't change the injury itself or what is causing it in the first place.

[Geographyhater8888]

29 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Honestly, even if it is Mo and Shaw I make the deal. 

Yeah. If Happ and Suzuki accept short term extensions then it’d be easier to justify a trade while the Hartshorn and others have another year to develop.

Edited 5 hours ago by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

10 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

That is not in any way comforting to me.  It doesn't change the injury itself or what is causing it in the first place.

I understand being a little uneasy considering that the first time they seemed to struggle to diagnose it correctly, but I think a few things:
1. They claim the imaging was difficult. They saw what they thought was a benign tumor made of bone (what an osteoma is) when the reality was it was a bone stress fracture. I'm not a doctor, but the little reading I've done makes it seem like that's not a wild miss.
2. The Cubs and Ben Brown clearly are focused on the long term outlook versus the short term. Just look at how Brown speaks about it in the article I linked
3. This isn't the first time a team has missed a diagnosis. They do happen. 2024, for example, saw the Houston Astros miss Kyle Tucker's leg fracture. 

The easy place to jump is that the Cubs are morons, have terrible doctors and that this will be a reoccurring forever issue, but if the Cubs have better diagnosed what appears to be a tricky diagnosis, appear to have a long term plan in place to fix it, than I do think there is comfort there. I'd feel a lot worse if the team was saying this is the exact same thing as 2024 and Ben Brown was talking about coming back in three weeks to help the team, frankly.

[Geographyhater8888]

13 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

But if the Angels prefer MLB ready talent why would they want a SP who isn't even going to pitch in 2026? 

It just doesn't make sense. 

Beyond that, a third time, I'm going to refrain from names. We can use whatever combination of names to continue to twist ourselves into a pretzel into a scenario where the Cubs are considering trading Ben Brown for Reid Detmers. Logically it makes next to no sense for a team who needs controller Ps to trade a controller, 26 year old P. That's all the logic we need. 

Because he’d be ready by 2027. If they’re trading Detmers they’re already punting away the season. Why would they care? 

They’ll need to fill a couple of positions next year. If they go the free agent path then cost controlled pitching is a premium. If they hold onto to some of (not all) of their key semi blocked ML ready controlled talent then they’ll have financial flexibility to acquire pitching. 
 

 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Because he’d be ready by 2027. If they’re trading Detmers they’re already punting away the season. Why would they care? 
They’ll need to fill a couple of positions next year. If they go the free agent path then cost controlled pitching is a premium. If they hold onto to some of (not all) of their key semi blocked ML ready controlled talent then they’ll have financial flexibility to acquire pitching. 
 

 

 

So to recap: Instead of the Cubs trading their MLB-ready prospects who are blocked in July, they should wait, trade one of their few young SP's, and then turn around and trade those same prospects in January to re-acquire more young pitching?

That makes very little sense. You have to see that. These players are going to be blocked in July and January. This is just adding steps to solve the same problem. 

[Geographyhater8888]

28 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

So to recap: Instead of the Cubs trading their MLB-ready prospects who are blocked in July, they should wait, trade one of their few young SP's, and then turn around and trade those same prospects in January to re-acquire more young pitching?

That makes very little sense. You have to see that. These players are going to be blocked in July and January. 

Who’s the teams starting DH and corner outfielder next year? Catcher is another possible need.

Edited 4 hours ago by Geographyhater8888

[Dfan25]

The Cubs have been waiting for Brown to become a legit SP for a while , and just when he is showing signs of figuring this out , we are trading him ? Not to mention  that they have 3 of 5 SP going into FA next year . 
 

horsefeathers the prospects I say . If you have to deal 2 for a cost controlled SP , you do it .

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Who’s the teams starting DH and corner outfielder next year? Catcher is another possible need.

They can resign Kelly, if they want. Or go with the kid in AA killing it. Not concerned about catcher, TBH. I would guess they will spend some money on a corner or DH. Then fill in the rest. If they spend big on a starting pitcher then they won’t have the money to spend big on a bat. But they can get someone. 

[squally1313]

What I would love for them to do is realize this offensive group is elite and this year matters too and it’s ok to trade some Kepley-esque body for a Good pitcher, even if it’s 50 innings of said pitcher. 
 

the nice thing about trading your 7th best prospect is that someone automatically becomes the 7th best prospect. 

[Rcal10]

12 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

What I would love for them to do is realize this offensive group is elite and this year matters too and it’s ok to trade some Kepley-esque body for a Good pitcher, even if it’s 50 innings of said pitcher. 
 

the nice thing about trading your 7th best prospect is that someone automatically becomes the 7th best prospect. 

If they are going rental, Gray would be a solid pick up.