August 3, 2026 Trade Deadline Rumors/Gossip/Speculation Thread

[Post Count Padder]

Again I am very happy with who we acquired but quite miffed about what we gave up. I'd feel a little better if Holmes is extended. 

[Stratos]

2 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

I didn't get a direct 1:1 on Mo or Ayers. But I can tell you this: the Cubs weren't going to trade Owen Ayers today and not also get another young C from somewhere else. So this is an assumption but one I think is an easy one to make: if the Cubs were that high on Mo right now, they probably don't require another young C to deal Ayers, because they would have already had one. 

I'm convinced that both the Cubs adore Owen Ayers and that the Cubs had soured on Ballesteros defensively.

Outdated now, but in April this guy with Lance who watched him in the AFL said Ayers has a sub-1.85 pop-time and the Cubs love his framing, but was clunky receiving in the AFL.

Do you know what the Cubs or anyone else thinks of his receiving abilities?

 

 

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Outdated now, but in April this guy with Lance who watched him in the AFL said Ayers has a sub-1.85 pop-time and the Cubs love his framing, but was clunky receiving in the AFL.

Do you know what the Cubs or anyone else thinks of his receiving abilities?

 

 

From Greg Huss who had him 3rd ranked:

Quote

Over the years, there have been plenty of pop-up prospects. Guys who are a flash in the pan, give us crazy levels of excitement in short bursts of time, and ultimately fizzle out. They are often prospects that never truly give you the confidence to rank them top 10 in the system. Ayers feels different. The former 19th round pick shows legitimate power with plus exit velocities and has strong defensive abilities, led by a cannon strapped to his right shoulder. Now in Triple-A, I’m looking forward to seeing the Statcast-style metrics begin to normalize in a few weeks so we can have a better idea of his contact rates and, in turn, decide on what his future in Chicago might be. That might happen in 2026 but at the very least, he’s in competition for a role in the bigs next year since Carson Kelly hits free agency this offseason.

I hadn't heard anything myself on the receiving, but Huss is clued in. I would assume he's not guessing here. Receiving is probably his weakest from a logical stand point as he's not a natural catcher; He really only moved to a full-time catcher his senior year at Marshall and that's a lot of feel. 

[Bertz]

The rub with Ayers is age.  If he was exactly the same in every way but 23 he's a top 10 global prospect.  Those two years matter though.  A lot.  How much exactly is the question.  I suspect to open the year at SB the answer was "it's nearly disqualifying" but now that he's at Iowa and still producing it's closer to a yellow flag than a red one.

[Stratos]

14 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

From Greg Huss who had him 3rd ranked:

I hadn't heard anything myself on the receiving, but Huss is clued in. I would assume he's not guessing here. Receiving is probably his weakest from a logical stand point as he's not a natural catcher; He really only moved to a full-time catcher his senior year at Marshall and that's a lot of feel. 

Thanks.

BR shows he was catching before he switched to full-time so at least he's wasn't new to the position.  Probably grew up catching, at least partially.

Edited 8 hours ago by Stratos

[Stratos]

10 minutes ago, Bertz said:

The rub with Ayers is age.  If he was exactly the same in every way but 23 he's a top 10 global prospect.  Those two years matter though.  A lot.  How much exactly is the question.  I suspect to open the year at SB the answer was "it's nearly disqualifying" but now that he's at Iowa and still producing it's closer to a yellow flag than a red one.

Yeah.  It's just all-around odd he was in state junior college for some years before Marshall.  A true late bloomer.

[Geographyhater8888]

11 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

We didn't *all* expect that to be fair. 

Of course. Did you expect or even entertain the possibility that Jed would do something bold and trade Rojas for 2 high profile rental starting pitchers like Gausman and Holmes?

Edited 1 hour ago by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

20 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Of course. Did you expect or even entertain the possibility that Jed would do something bold and trade Rojas for 2 high profile rental starting pitchers like Gausman and Holmes?

I think it's just unfair to act like everyone here was expecting Jed to do nothing. The panic from some people two weeks ago that the Cubs weren't doing anything when they brought in Civale was silly stuff. 

Jed gets a bad rap for that horsefeathers. It gets old. I think there are real gripes on Jed. 2025 deadline for sure! But everything we had heard leading up to the deadline is that would be active. 

Generally speaking, I think the Cubs brought in most of what many thought they would: 2 SP, 1RP and one LHH platoon hitter. And we got Braxton Garrett to boot. I didn't have a pulse on the send outs across the board, but mostly, they did what I expected. People here even had the Holmes idea pretty nailed on, like @Bertzwho suggested he be the fall back pivot at the end of the day.

Just think it's fair to point out that not everyone was as doom-and-gloom here. 

[Geographyhater8888]

9 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think it's just unfair to act like everyone here was expecting Jed to do nothing. The panic from some people two weeks ago that the Cubs weren't doing anything when they brought in Civale was silly stuff. 

Jed gets a bad rap for that horsefeathers. It gets old. 

Generally speaking, I think the Cubs brought in most of what I thought they would: 2 SP, 1RP and one LHH platoon hitter. And we got Braxton Garrett to boot. I didn't have a pulse on the send outs, but mostly, they did what I expected. 

Saying “everyone” was hyperbole. I wasn’t at all shocked that they landed Gausman. I was expecting a couple of rental relief arms too but I wasn’t at all expecting Jed to trade Rojas for anyone without multiple years of control. He compromised on years to acquire Clay Holmes and I’m stoked.

Edited 1 hour ago by Geographyhater8888

[Rcal10]

55 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I think it's just unfair to act like everyone here was expecting Jed to do nothing. The panic from some people two weeks ago that the Cubs weren't doing anything when they brought in Civale was silly stuff. 

Jed gets a bad rap for that horsefeathers. It gets old. I think there are real gripes on Jed. 2025 deadline for sure! But everything we had heard leading up to the deadline is that would be active. 

Generally speaking, I think the Cubs brought in most of what many thought they would: 2 SP, 1RP and one LHH platoon hitter. And we got Braxton Garrett to boot. I didn't have a pulse on the send outs across the board, but mostly, they did what I expected. People here even had the Holmes idea pretty nailed on, like @Bertzwho suggested he be the fall back pivot at the end of the day.

Just think it's fair to point out that not everyone was as doom-and-gloom here. 

Along with this there were still people who were suggesting they would be underwhelmed by Jed’s TDL moves because he wouldn’t do much. And then after getting arguably the 2nd and 3rd best rental arms, a highly sought after pen arm with a lot of control left, a right handed platoon partner for Happ, and a possible controllable pitcher for the rotation the next few years, are still claiming to be right that Jed would underwhelm us. For some people no matter what Jed does will be wrong. 

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

Saying “everyone” was hyperbole. I wasn’t at all shocked that they landed Gausman. I was expecting a couple of rental relief arms too but I wasn’t at all expecting Jed to trade Rojas for anyone without multiple years of control. He compromised on years to acquire Clay Holmes and I’m stoked.

I also wasnt expecting them to deal Rojas. That said, from what I have been told by two people who know, and Keith Law posting about similar things last night (as cool as Keith Law to have been one of the people I talked to, we are not running in the same social circles haha)...I am actually not surprised as all they used Rojas in that vein. 

[Geographyhater8888]

23 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I also wasnt expecting them to deal Rojas. That said, from what I have been told by two people who know, and Keith Law posting about similar things last night (as cool as Keith Law to have been one of the people I talked to, we are not running in the same social circles haha)...I am actually not surprised as all they used Rojas in that vein. 

I’m guessing Jed dangled Rojas to a few teams as a headliner for a cost controlled starter and there wasn’t enough interest? The key takeaway in all of this is MLBs top 100 prospects list isn’t a proxy for John Mozeliak or Jeff Greenbergs top 100 list.