The Cubs and Pete Crow-Armstrong Might Be Facing a (Good) Dilemma

29 minutes ago, Brandon Glick said:

 

I don't think the Cubs are ready to give up on Mervis - he had 99 PA and his underlying metrics (hard hit rate, barrel %) were above league average. You CANNOT count on him to become the guy at first base, but he needs more chances (don't forget Rizzo was AWFUL for the Padres before the Cubs got him for Cashner and turned him around). I'd love to see Candy re-signed if it's reasonable, but I think Belli is the bigger priority. 

I keep seeing Cubs fans bring up the Rizzo comp and it fascinates me. Do some people not think age matters when evaluating propsects?

26 minutes ago, Brandon Glick said:

 

I don't think the Cubs are ready to give up on Mervis - he had 99 PA and his underlying metrics (hard hit rate, barrel %) were above league average. You CANNOT count on him to become the guy at first base, but he needs more chances (don't forget Rizzo was AWFUL for the Padres before the Cubs got him for Cashner and turned him around). I'd love to see Candy re-signed if it's reasonable, but I think Belli is the bigger priority. 

No matter how the rest of this year plays out, the Cubs need to sign Bellinger for sure.  It would be a huge regression losing Bellinger, Stroman, and Candelario during the off season.

13 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I keep seeing Cubs fans bring up the Rizzo comp and it fascinates me. Do some people not think age matters when evaluating propsects?

I hear what you're saying. It's nice to have the elite teenage prospects with great projectability. 

But Mervis is 25 now. Rizzo was 22 at the time of the trade to the Cubs. He didn't become an all-star until his age 25 season (in 2014). And Rizzo was a pick straight out of high school in '07 (Mervis was signed out of college). 

I think the comp, while not exact (Rizzo was always a top prospect, Mervis barely ever got Top 100 consideration), is valid, given they both had monster numbers in Triple A for an extended time and struggled badly in the majors at first. Mervis will never be Rizzo, but to give up on him simply because he's an older prospect would be organizational malpractice. 

2 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

If Hoyer wants to honor the memory of his lost mentor and friend: take the pick on Bellinger, sign Ohtani, and then gain more picks with PCA, Horton, and Surprise bringing back more picks coming 1-3 in RoY voting

 

 

If this is how the offseason/next season works out, I owe you however many drinks you can stomach lol. I am completely aboard this train. 

(Failing the Ohtani signing and ROY wins, re-signing Belli and an Aaron Nola prove it deal would be a nice offseason). 

14 minutes ago, Brandon Glick said:

I hear what you're saying. It's nice to have the elite teenage prospects with great projectability. 

But Mervis is 25 now. Rizzo was 22 at the time of the trade to the Cubs. He didn't become an all-star until his age 25 season (in 2014). And Rizzo was a pick straight out of high school in '07 (Mervis was signed out of college). 

I think the comp, while not exact (Rizzo was always a top prospect, Mervis barely ever got Top 100 consideration), is valid, given they both had monster numbers in Triple A for an extended time and struggled badly in the majors at first. Mervis will never be Rizzo, but to give up on him simply because he's an older prospect would be organizational malpractice. 

So they're not the same age, and they're not in the same scouting esteem. I think that's more than enough to reject any semblance of the comp.

Life's not fair and most prospects fail. When the question marks start piling up on prospects, they go even deeper into the "most prospects fail" pile.  Mervis has a whole lot of them.

If we *happen* to have a job open up at some point while he's around, and he seizes it, great. But he just doesn't seem like good enough of a prospect to save a spot for, and the Cubs sure seem to agree.
 

26 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I keep seeing Cubs fans bring up the Rizzo comp and it fascinates me. Do some people not think age matters when evaluating propsects?

Not as much as it used to, especially for 1B.  Look at the leaderboards for the position and see how many of the Top 10 hitters or so didn't break through in MLB until 25+, didn't have much prospect pedigree, or both.  Hitting modern pitching at a level suitable for the bottom of the defensive spectrum seems to take more reps to prepare than it did a decade ago.

That said, I do think trading for Candelario and playing him at 1B is instructive for Mervis' future on a couple levels.  There's no longer the assumption that MLB growing pains are an acceptable cost of business. Doesn't mean that every prospect that doesn't hit immediately is banished forever, but they're playing to win now and they aren't going to hold the door open for him like they did this year with Hosmer and Mancini.  Also, adding Candelario as a 1B without giving Mervis another shot(especially since Young got a 1B/DH cameo in between) gives us a data point on how they feel about his short term prospects.  Despite that, I'm not convinced that Mervis isn't getting extensive time by next May(the position doesn't have an abundance of options on the market and DH is somewhat unsettled too), but I've definitely lowered my expectations compared to 3 months ago.

15 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

So they're not the same age, and they're not in the same scouting esteem. I think that's more than enough to reject any semblance of the comp.

Life's not fair and most prospects fail. When the question marks start piling up on prospects, they go even deeper into the "most prospects fail" pile.  Mervis has a whole lot of them.

If we *happen* to have a job open up at some point while he's around, and he seizes it, great. But he just doesn't seem like good enough of a prospect to save a spot for, and the Cubs sure seem to agree.
 

11 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Not as much as it used to, especially for 1B.  Look at the leaderboards for the position and see how many of the Top 10 hitters or so didn't break through in MLB until 25+, didn't have much prospect pedigree, or both.  Hitting modern pitching at a level suitable for the bottom of the defensive spectrum seems to take more reps to prepare than it did a decade ago.

 

That said, I do think trading for Candelario and playing him at 1B is instructive for Mervis' future on a couple levels.  There's no longer the assumption that MLB growing pains are an acceptable cost of business. Doesn't mean that every prospect that doesn't hit immediately is banished forever, but they're playing to win now and they aren't going to hold the door open for him like they did this year with Hosmer and Mancini.  Also, adding Candelario as a 1B without giving Mervis another shot(especially since Young got a 1B/DH cameo in between) gives us a data point on how they feel about his short term prospects.  Despite that, I'm not convinced that Mervis isn't getting extensive time by next May(the position doesn't have an abundance of options on the market and DH is somewhat unsettled too), but I've definitely lowered my expectations compared to 3 months ago.

 

 

I think Tiger is on the money here. 

I think calling Mervis a bust after 99 plate appearances in the majors (ESPECIALLY given how prodigious he's been against Triple A pitching) is way too soon. The list of superstars who struggled at first is much longer than the list of guys who came up swinging and never stopped. 

He's always had his questions - hence why he wasn't even picked (although he almost certainly would've been taken in the sixth round (like Rizzo!) had the 2020 draft not been five rounds). And anyone who suggests that the Cubs go into the offseason with the plan of gifting 1b to Mervis is wrong. 

And I think the Cubs absolutely want him to seize it. They do not "agree" that he's a bust. They're simply more competitive now than expected. They can't afford for first base to continue being a black hole if Mervis still has to work through some things (or never comes around at all). Trading for Candy was the right move. Giving Mervis more time develop is the right move. Dismissing Mervis because he struggled in a cup of coffee in the middle of May and June is not. 

17 minutes ago, Brandon Glick said:

 

I think Tiger is on the money here. 

I think calling Mervis a bust after 99 plate appearances in the majors (ESPECIALLY given how prodigious he's been against Triple A pitching) is way too soon. The list of superstars who struggled at first is much longer than the list of guys who came up swinging and never stopped. 

He's always had his questions - hence why he wasn't even picked (although he almost certainly would've been taken in the sixth round (like Rizzo!) had the 2020 draft not been five rounds). And anyone who suggests that the Cubs go into the offseason with the plan of gifting 1b to Mervis is wrong. 

And I think the Cubs absolutely want him to seize it. They do not "agree" that he's a bust. They're simply more competitive now than expected. They can't afford for first base to continue being a black hole if Mervis still has to work through some things (or never comes around at all). Trading for Candy was the right move. Giving Mervis more time develop is the right move. Dismissing Mervis because he struggled in a cup of coffee in the middle of May and June is not. 

No one called him a bust.  But you know what's longer than either "The list of superstars who struggled at first" and "the list of guys who came up swinging and never stopped."  The list of prospects who never made it. A lot longer.  I've been dismissive of LaHair 2.0 since before his cup of coffee. I'm not saying it's impossible that he someday becomes valuable. But I am saying that he got a lot of fan heat and hype from being a prospect who was there at the time fans were hungry for a prospect to be excited about, and I'm not entirely convinced the front office sees him with the same esteem.

I just don't think he's a very good prospect, and I don't think the Cubs think he's a very good prsopect.  We're not cutting him tomorrow, but we're not holding jobs open for him either, not even partially.

1 hour ago, Brandon Glick said:

I hear what you're saying. It's nice to have the elite teenage prospects with great projectability. 

But Mervis is 25 now. Rizzo was 22 at the time of the trade to the Cubs. He didn't become an all-star until his age 25 season (in 2014). And Rizzo was a pick straight out of high school in '07 (Mervis was signed out of college). 

I think the comp, while not exact (Rizzo was always a top prospect, Mervis barely ever got Top 100 consideration), is valid, given they both had monster numbers in Triple A for an extended time and struggled badly in the majors at first. Mervis will never be Rizzo, but to give up on him simply because he's an older prospect would be organizational malpractice. 

Your post makes it very clear that the comp has no merit, yet you claim it does. Mervis and Rizzo are not at all comparable. 

2 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I keep seeing Cubs fans bring up the Rizzo comp and it fascinates me. Do some people not think age matters when evaluating propsects?

I don't think age matters as much with Mervis as with other prospects given he was mainly only a pitcher his 1st two seasons of college, plus barely played his last year of college due to COVID.  The Rizzo comp only shows that guys may need a couple of season in the MLB until they hit their stride.  I hope they give Mervis a good amount of playing time next year but they also need another option available.  Maybe that option ends up being Bellinger.

54 minutes ago, Stratos said:

I don't think age matters as much with Mervis as with other prospects given he was mainly only a pitcher his 1st two seasons of college, plus barely played his last year of college due to COVID.  The Rizzo comp only shows that guys may need a couple of season in the MLB until they hit their stride.  I hope they give Mervis a good amount of playing time next year but they also need another option available.  Maybe that option ends up being Bellinger.

Missing development time is a point against a prospect, not a point in their favor.

44 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Missing development time is a point against a prospect, not a point in their favor.

This is ridiculous, even for you.  I'm not all aboard the Mervis train by any means because you're probably right about him, but to dismiss him entirely like you are when he's done nothing but hit for over a year and a half now, mostly pitched in college, and hasn't had the same number of ABs as most prospects his age is just silly.  

Would you be more amenable to comparing total PAs across college and MiLs to get a better prospect comp?

2 hours ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Your post makes it very clear that the comp has no merit, yet you claim it does. Mervis and Rizzo are not at all comparable. 

3 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

No one called him a bust.  But you know what's longer than either "The list of superstars who struggled at first" and "the list of guys who came up swinging and never stopped."  The list of prospects who never made it. A lot longer.  I've been dismissive of LaHair 2.0 since before his cup of coffee. I'm not saying it's impossible that he someday becomes valuable. But I am saying that he got a lot of fan heat and hype from being a prospect who was there at the time fans were hungry for a prospect to be excited about, and I'm not entirely convinced the front office sees him with the same esteem.

I just don't think he's a very good prospect, and I don't think the Cubs think he's a very good prsopect.  We're not cutting him tomorrow, but we're not holding jobs open for him either, not even partially.

I think it's fairly obvious that there are differing opinions on Mervis - both between fans and I'm sure in the FO. It's more than reasonable to not think he's the next big thing at first.

But he has to be given more of a chance. Even on a competitive team next year. He's been smoking Triple A pitching for over a year now. He's not the next Rizzo (as I said), but he can be a valuable player on a good team. Giving up on him because "other guys like him have failed before" or because "he's not an exact replica of Rizzo" isn't going to help this team in the long run. If he busts, he busts. Better the Cubs be the team that figures that out. 

I'd like to point out that Mervis, while doing very nicely at Iowa this year, isn't exactly destroying the league. His 132 wRC+ ranks fifth amongst players at Iowa with at least 100 PA. Morel destroyed the league. If Mervis was putting up a 170 wRC+ at Iowa, he'd be getting another chance. Right now he's doing less than Mastrobuoni and Jared Young did there.

I still like Mervis, but to force his way back into MLB he needs to hit more.

1 hour ago, mul21 said:

This is ridiculous, even for you.  I'm not all aboard the Mervis train by any means because you're probably right about him, but to dismiss him entirely like you are when he's done nothing but hit for over a year and a half now, mostly pitched in college, and hasn't had the same number of ABs as most prospects his age is just silly.  

Would you be more amenable to comparing total PAs across college and MiLs to get a better prospect comp?

LaHair did nothing but hit for awhile in AAA too.

This isn't some new ad hoc rule I'm making up to be mean to Mervis.  I've always been adamant that missing developing time for whatever reasons should count against a prospect, not for them.

Age is historically an extremely predictive variable for prospects.  Prospects who are too old for their level should have their performance looked at with extreme skepticism no matter how good the very good reason is.

To make it pretty simple, start with the premise that most prospects fail.  I need to see exceptionality in three areas to believe that a prospect is likely to be an exception to that rule:  Scouting hype, age relative to league, and performance.  Mervis has 1 of the 3, which makes him a prospect but no different from every other prospect. if he had zero he'd be organizational filler.  

Someone like PCA, on the other hand, checks all three boxes.

1 hour ago, Brandon Glick said:

 

I think it's fairly obvious that there are differing opinions on Mervis - both between fans and I'm sure in the FO. It's more than reasonable to not think he's the next big thing at first.

But he has to be given more of a chance. Even on a competitive team next year. He's been smoking Triple A pitching for over a year now. He's not the next Rizzo (as I said), but he can be a valuable player on a good team. Giving up on him because "other guys like him have failed before" or because "he's not an exact replica of Rizzo" isn't going to help this team in the long run. If he busts, he busts. Better the Cubs be the team that figures that out. 

*Why* do we have to give him a chance?  Major League playing time is an extremely valuable resource.  Why does some sixth-round, overage guy who isn't particularly beloved by scouts deserve so much of it?

5 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Missing development time is a point against a prospect, not a point in their favor.

I'm not talking about points in favor or against.  I'm just saying we can't make an overly simplistic argument like "he's 25 years old so he should be in the MLB by now".   Guaranteed the Cubs aren't going to evaluate him like that.

6 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

*Why* do we have to give him a chance?  Major League playing time is an extremely valuable resource.  Why does some sixth-round, overage guy who isn't particularly beloved by scouts deserve so much of it?

While I agree the Cubs should not pencil in Mervis for next year, I disagree with you when you suggest he had his chance and failed so they will move in from him. I think he will be given another chance and I doubt the FO has lost faith in him. I also disagree that he isn’t particularly loved by scouts. He is the 4th ranked first baseman in the minors, right behind Encarnacion-Strand, who the Reds just brought up. I get the Cubs not giving him the job now. But I do think he will be given the chance next spring. And I don’t think he can be considered a bust yet. In the end, you might be right. I just don’t think that has been established yet. I do agree it is 2024 or bust for him. He either makes it or ends up, at best, a journeyman back up like Volgelbach. 

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

While I agree the Cubs should not pencil in Mervis for next year, I disagree with you when you suggest he had his chance and failed so they will move in from him. I think he will be given another chance and I doubt the FO has lost faith in him. I also disagree that he isn’t particularly loved by scouts. He is the 4th ranked first baseman in the minors, right behind Encarnacion-Strand, who the Reds just brought up. I get the Cubs not giving him the job now. But I do think he will be given the chance next spring. And I don’t think he can be considered a bust yet. In the end, you might be right. I just don’t think that has been established yet. I do agree it is 2024 or bust for him. He either makes it or ends up, at best, a journeyman back up like Volgelbach. 

4th ranked by whom?

11 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

4th ranked by whom?

MLB.com.

Fangraphs ranks him 24th.

3 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

While I agree the Cubs should not pencil in Mervis for next year, I disagree with you when you suggest he had his chance and failed so they will move in from him. I think he will be given another chance and I doubt the FO has lost faith in him. I also disagree that he isn’t particularly loved by scouts. He is the 4th ranked first baseman in the minors, right behind Encarnacion-Strand, who the Reds just brought up. I get the Cubs not giving him the job now. But I do think he will be given the chance next spring. And I don’t think he can be considered a bust yet. In the end, you might be right. I just don’t think that has been established yet. I do agree it is 2024 or bust for him. He either makes it or ends up, at best, a journeyman back up like Volgelbach. 

It's not so much that they're giving up on him, he's just not good enough to factor into offseason plans for the major league roster.  He's just there, in AAA, and if we happen to have some injuries or something changes about his ability level, maybe he gets another shot.  But another shot isn't something we need to create for him, he's just not good enough to warrant that.

6 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

It's not so much that they're giving up on him, he's just not good enough to factor into offseason plans for the major league roster.  He's just there, in AAA, and if we happen to have some injuries or something changes about his ability level, maybe he gets another shot.  But another shot isn't something we need to create for him, he's just not good enough to warrant that.

You don't know that. He probably fails, because most do. And he doesn't have the development time left to work it out, as you've pointed out multiple times. But you are far over your skies. The issue is that the Cubs don't have ABs to give away while waiting to find the answer. They are in win mode. 

1 hour ago, jersey cubs fan said:

4th ranked by whom?

58 minutes ago, sweetpeteman said:

MLB.com.

 

Fangraphs ranks him 24th.

Fangraphs is more of the outlier, I believe. I haven't seen position rankings from other services, but FG has Mervis much lower in their Cubs rankings than anyone else. By a lot.

Being the "4th best 1b prospect" is a bit of a mislead because it's at the bottom of the defensive spectrum. If you had any potential defensive value, you wouldn't be playing 1b in the minors.

The MLB.com top 100 (which mervis does not appear on) contains 3 first basemen against 29 middle infielders.