Random trade speculation

[Stratos]

21 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

The combination of his plate discipline, contact rates, and contact quality. Remember those first 2-3 months this season there were a lot of posts showing the total package was quite rare. He cooled off a little bit but those traits are still there. 

I agree that those 3 hitting qualities are rare for 1 player.  His chase% has been below-average so far but he's a rookie, he might end up around average. 

I don't know if id take him over Shaw or not, but i'd lean Shaw.  There's more questions with Shaw offensively, but more questions with Pedro defensively.  Shaw also has the wheels and better overall athleticism and versatility.  I think Shaw could have the higher ceiling.  He could reach 4 WAR if the hitting comes together, but i don't see that with Pedro because of the glove. 

I've been a little concerned with Shaw's focus this year, he's seemed a little unmotivated at times just with the body language, but could be wrong.  I wonder if the position shift and losing the everyday role is in his head.

[ILMindState]

I lean keeping Ramirez over Shaw based on his durability alone. But I'd still trade him if it was necessary. 

[Bertz]

I don't think there's an either-or with Shaw and Ramirez.  There are not enough at bats to go around for them to both play the infield sure, but Shaw as a full time or nearly full time OF and Ramirez in the exact role he's in right now is an easily tenable situation.

I think the guy getting the squeeze is Mo.  Pedro's staking claim to some of those LH at bats from the DH spot.  If Mo's not trusted to catch 50+ games next year not sure how you fit him and Ramirez onto the same roster.

[I owned a Suzuki]

20 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I don't think there's an either-or with Shaw and Ramirez.  There are not enough at bats to go around for them to both play the infield sure, but Shaw as a full time or nearly full time OF and Ramirez in the exact role he's in right now is an easily tenable situation.

I think the guy getting the squeeze is Mo.  Pedro's staking claim to some of those LH at bats from the DH spot.  If Mo's not trusted to catch 50+ games next year not sure how you fit him and Ramirez onto the same roster.

Not sure Mo will provide enough power to justify just letting him DH for the next 4 yrs. He is probably the easiest young position player for me to part with. 

[CubinNY]

10 hours ago, Stratos said:

That's my take on Ayers too.  He's a 19th rounder and 25 y/o.  Prospects like him pop up every year.  More likely he's Matt Mervis than something worth worrying much about losing.  The only thing that really makes you want him is he's a catcher, but a late convert so he's probably not that great defensively besides the arm.

Catchers with some power but meh hit tools seem to flame out a lot too, even the top prospects.  Hitters in general with that profile flame out a lot.

 

Except Ayres has been doing it since he was drafted, at every stop along the way. He's not a pop up prospect. He's a new to you prospect. 

HIs main problem is age. If he was 21, he'd likely be a top 50 prospect. were

Edited yesterday at 01:26 PM by CubinNY

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Except Ayres has been doing it since he was drafted, at every stop along the way. He's not a pop up prospect. He's a new to you prospect. 

Ayers was in A ball in 2025 and hit .238 as an overaged player in that league. He is now 25 years old and has hit at every level this year. He was also a 19th round pick, so he probably wants that special in college either. He is exactly a guy who popped this year, at 25. If the Cubs could turn him into something of he’s this year, I wouldn’t hesitate. 

[Jason Ross]

17 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Except Ayres has been doing it since he was drafted, at every stop along the way. He's not a pop up prospect. He's a new to you prospect. 

I think that's a bit harsh. He had a fine year last year, but as a 24-year old, 19th round pick hitting six home runs in Myrtle Beach and a 124 wRC+ is much more "what you should do" than anything. He entered 2025 without even being a footnote in Fangraph's top-38 Cubs' prospects, he didn't warrant an addition to BA's mid-year top-30 last year and really started to get noticed come the AFL last year. Greg Huss had him ranked 16th in his preseason rankings and he claims he was "super high" on him last year. The Cubs system entering the year was not one wildly acclaimed so being ranked 16th in this system wasn't really that amazing this winter. 

I'd certainly classify him as a pop-up prospect. A year ago, he wasn't worthy of a top-30 spot on BA, today, he's 4th on their list. A year ago, had I told you Owen Ayers would be traded for a SP at the 2026 deadline, you'd have thought it would have been for Aaron Civale, and now he's a guy some refuse to trade at all. He doesn't have draft pedigree and realistically, the rocket got strapped to his back during the AFL last year. 

I think a lot of what he's doing is sustainable. He's showing great things. Him being a pop-up isn't a bad thing. But it isn't like there's a long line of people who have been clamoring for Owen Ayers for years and now people are just noticing. I'm cool with trading him if the Cubs get something good on the back end. I'm also very cool keeping him. But I'd definitely call him a pop-up.

[CubinNY]

6 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Ayers was in A ball in 2025 and hit .238 as an overaged player in that league. He is now 25 years old and has hit at every level this year. He was also a 19th round pick, so he probably wants that special in college either. He is exactly a guy who popped this year, at 25. If the Cubs could turn him into something of he’s this year, I wouldn’t hesitate. 

LOL, he was drafted in 2024 and his 2025 numbers (in a park and league that's not hitter firendly were eye poping enough to get him in the AFL. 

[CubinNY]

2 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think that's a bit harsh. He had a fine year last year, but as a 24-year old, 19th round pick hitting six home runs in Myrtle Beach and a 124 wRC+ is much more "what you should do" than anything. He entered 2025 without even being a footnote in Fangraph's top-38 Cubs' prospects, he didn't warrant an addition to BA's mid-year top-30 last year and really started to get noticed come the AFL last year. Greg Huss had him ranked 16th in his preseason rankings and he claims he was "super high" on him last year. The Cubs system entering the year was not one wildly acclaimed so being ranked 16th in this system wasn't really that amazing this winter. 

I'd certainly classify him as a pop-up prospect. A year ago, he wasn't worthy of a top-30 spot on BA, today, he's 4th on their list. A year ago, had I told you Owen Ayers would be traded for a SP at the 2026 deadline, you'd have thought it would have been for Aaron Civale, and now he's a guy some refuse to trade at all. He doesn't have draft pedigree and realistically, the rocket got strapped to his back during the AFL last year. 

I think a lot of what he's doing is sustainable. He's showing great things. Him being a pop-up isn't a bad thing. But it isn't like there's a long line of people who have been clamoring for Owen Ayers for years and now people are just noticing. 

He wasn't worthy b/c of his draft status. Everything he's done since being drafted is worthy. 

[CubinNY]

I'll put it this way - Forget about his draft status, how many people go from the complex league to AAA in less than two years? Some of it is due to his age, but he's excelled at every level to this point. He may stall out at AAA, but nothing in his game points to that. 

Edited yesterday at 01:46 PM by CubinNY

[Jason Ross]

Just now, CubinNY said:

He wasn't worthy b/c of his draft status. Everything he's done since being drafted is worthy. 

I think you're really using revisionist history here. Greg Huss, who I think is a great Cub-centric prospect guy, had him ranked 16th in the system five months ago. This was 16th without Harshorn and Conrad on the list; both of whom would have presumably been ranked higher based on draft pedigree alone and both he left off because neither had made a debut. He's third today on Huss' list. In five months he jumped everyone ahead of him except Rojas (Hartshorn is also above him, but again, he wasn't on the initial list). No one on the list jumped anywhere near that high. 

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I'll put it this way - Forget about his draft status, how many people go from the complex league to AAA in less than two years? Some of it is due to his age, but he's excelled at every level to this point. He may stall out at AAA, but nothing in his game points to that. 

I think that's fine! I think that's why people are excited! It's also what a pop-up prospect is; someone who kind of pops up out of the fog and jumps a handful of levels, jumps in the rankings significantly and goes from "guy who might be mildly interesting down the road" to "guy who might be on an MLB roster next year" in five months.

[Derwood]

Mead debuted with the Red Sox and immediately broke his wrist on a HBP

[ILMindState]

2 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Mead debuted with the Red Sox and immediately broke his wrist on a HBP

Sox got Soroka'd

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, Jason Ross said:

I think that's fine! I think that's why people are excited! It's also what a pop-up prospect is; someone who kind of pops up out of the fog and jumps a handful of levels, jumps in the rankings significantly and goes from "guy who might be mildly interesting down the road" to "guy who might be on an MLB roster next year" in five months.

I suppose it's a semantic distiction. When I think of a pop up prospect, I think of a guy who went off for half a season, maybe skipped a level but nothing in his profile suggests it's sustainable or that he has a glaring weakness, not yet exposed to play. I don't think of a guy who's produced at every level with better than average defense at a premium defensive position. 

[Jason Ross]

6 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I suppose it's a semantic distiction. When I think of a pop up prospect, I think of a guy who went off for half a season, maybe skipped a level but nothing in his profile suggests it's sustainable or that he has a glaring weakness, not yet exposed to play. I don't think of a guy who's produced at every level with better than average defense at a premium defensive position. 

It probably is. To be fair, Greg Huss, himself, the guy "super high" on Owen Ayers 365 days ago called him a pop-up prospect himself in his most recent updates! But then went to go describe why he thinks that he's a different type of pop-up prospect exactly how you're talking and that he believes this isn't a flash in the pan. I'd hesitate a bit about "producing" at every level, in that while I think he did "produce" in Myrtle, he did so in a way that was very dismissible. He was 24% better than average but didn't blow the doors off. He wasn't a power-merchant, nothing really stood out as amazing. It was very easily described as "24 year old in the lowest level possible". This year, I think he's blown the doors off.

So I think two things are true:
1. He's the very definition of what we should consider a pop-up. He's a 19th round pick who coming into this year was a fringe-prospect in a system most considered down who is now a legitimate top-5 prospect in the system.
2. What he's doing looks mighty sustainable meaning that he's less volatile than your traditional pop-up prospect. And why I feel a lot more comfortably slotting him in as a top-5,6,7,8 (whatever) prospect in a system I think is on the rise versus, like, Mason McGwire. 

[Bertz]

👀

 

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, Bertz said:

👀

 

What's interesting is that the Cubs were not listed as one of the teams the Athletic reported have been watching Clay Holmes (article by Will Sammon and Ken Rosenthal). I'm not sure it means much, but they listed a handful of teams and the Cubs weren't one. 

I doubt Rojas is on the table for the Mets. But Brooks Caple could be...

[JD94]

1 minute ago, Jason Ross said:

What's interesting is that the Cubs were not listed as one of the teams the Athletic reported have been watching Clay Holmes (article by Will Sammon and Ken Rosenthal). I'm not sure it means much, but they listed a handful of teams and the Cubs weren't one. 

It’s also worth noting that the Cubs, especially under the Hoyer regime, almost always stay under the radar and never tip their hand. It’s why most rumors revolving the Cubs I take with a grain of salt. Now obviously physically seeing scouts from the Cubs at a game is newsworthy, but otherwise rumors are hit or miss

[Jason Ross]

Just now, JD94 said:

It’s also worth noting that the Cubs, especially under the Hoyer regime, almost always stay under the radar and never tip their hand. It’s why most rumors revolving the Cubs I take with a grain of salt. Now obviously physically seeing scouts from the Cubs at a game is newsworthy, but otherwise rumors are hit or miss

Yeah, this one I found noteworthy because they didn't list the Cubs as being physically there. I would think had they been physically there, especially considering their need for pitching, that they'd mention that. That isn't anything the Cubs can keep under wraps like they do with rumors and leaks.

Unless they pulled a Bobby Valentine. Obviously.

That said the team went to a more "video scouting" aspect of things. So that could be your disconnect. 

[Bertz]

3 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

What's interesting is that the Cubs were not listed as one of the teams the Athletic reported have been watching Clay Holmes (article by Will Sammon and Ken Rosenthal). I'm not sure it means much, but they listed a handful of teams and the Cubs weren't one. 

I doubt Rojas is on the table for the Mets. But Brooks Caple could be...

I feel like someone reliable said they were going to be at his first one, so I'd assume they were at this one too.

Yeah Rojas is too rich for anything the Mets are selling, but Caple could headline or co-headline a deal for either of Holmes or Peralta. 

Tenn is also where a bunch of guys in the system's 20-40 range are parked, which would be relevant for some of those relievers.

[KCCub]

Let's land one of Freddy/Holmes + one of their RP. Go big game hunting for Detmers and let's ride!

[Tryptamine]

44 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

What's interesting is that the Cubs were not listed as one of the teams the Athletic reported have been watching Clay Holmes (article by Will Sammon and Ken Rosenthal). I'm not sure it means much, but they listed a handful of teams and the Cubs weren't one. 

I doubt Rojas is on the table for the Mets. But Brooks Caple could be...

I've seen him mentioned a weirdly large amount in trade rumors.

[JD94]

33 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Yeah, this one I found noteworthy because they didn't list the Cubs as being physically there. I would think had they been physically there, especially considering their need for pitching, that they'd mention that. That isn't anything the Cubs can keep under wraps like they do with rumors and leaks.

Unless they pulled a Bobby Valentine. Obviously.

That said the team went to a more "video scouting" aspect of things. So that could be your disconnect. 

True. I definitely misread the tweet while at work. But I guess point still stands that Jed works in the shadows!

[Jason Ross]

21 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

I've seen him mentioned a weirdly large amount in trade rumors.

He feels like a weirdly acceptable piece to trade. I know "Cubs don't have pitching" but Caple really isn't a top-line starter, and looks more so like maybe a good 4? The Cubs just took 16 arms in the draft, and you assume they believe in Zombro so Caple is in that "he's a fun prospect but I'd be okay if he had to go" territory. 

I kind of think of him like Ryan Gallagher last year. Gallagher was a fun prospect who kind of jumped up, Cubs traded him, and I haven't seen a lot of "woe is me, we traded Ryan Gallagher" posts either here or in social media circles (partially because he's been bad himself).