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

13 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

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.
 

Is it fair to say that the majority of the data set for this...metric, for lack of a better term, is guys who were repeating a level for a second or third time and getting passed by the the prospects that otherwise would have been in their class? The main takeaway from that group being that the adjustments to a new level may theoretically come, but even if they did we're talking about a ton of wasted PAs that almost every major league team can't afford to hand out, because it took them way too long to get up to speed at AA, AAA, etc.

given the unique upside to his bat in a franchise fairly devoid of middle of the order hitter archetypes, he should remain firmly in the plans until better hitters are brought in to usurp 1B/DH

59 minutes ago, sneakypower said:

given the unique upside to his bat in a franchise fairly devoid of middle of the order hitter archetypes, he should remain firmly in the plans until better hitters are brought in to usurp 1B/DH

agreed. 

So many top prospects that raked through milb have fallen flat on their face this year. The league is really freakin tough. 

Baty just got demoted after going 0-25 and has a 77 wRC+ on the year 

Vientos is probably not gonna last long with his 53 in about 100 PA

Bo Naylor has a 79

CJ Abrams is running a 96

Gabriel Moreno has an 82

Colton Cowser has 7 hits in 70 PA

Henry Davis has an 84

1 hour ago, sneakypower said:

given the unique upside to his bat in a franchise fairly devoid of middle of the order hitter archetypes, he should remain firmly in the plans until better hitters are brought in to usurp 1B/DH

Aren't they essentially choosing Nick Madrigal over him right now? Not really a vote of confidence. 

10 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

So many top prospects that raked through milb have fallen flat on their face this year. The league is really freakin tough. 

 

Baty just got demoted after going 0-25 and has a 77 wRC+ on the year 

Vientos is probably not gonna last long with his 53 in about 100 PA

Bo Naylor has a 79

CJ Abrams is running a 96

Gabriel Moreno has an 82

Colton Cowser has 7 hits in 70 PA

Henry Davis has an 84

Yeah, it's great to have highly ranked prospects, but they're only prospects until they prove themselves in the ML.

1 hour ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

So many top prospects that raked through milb have fallen flat on their face this year. The league is really freakin tough. 

 

Baty just got demoted after going 0-25 and has a 77 wRC+ on the year 

Vientos is probably not gonna last long with his 53 in about 100 PA

Bo Naylor has a 79

CJ Abrams is running a 96

Gabriel Moreno has an 82

Colton Cowser has 7 hits in 70 PA

Henry Davis has an 84

MLB players are really good and most prospects will fail.

3 hours ago, sneakypower said:

given the unique upside to his bat in a franchise fairly devoid of middle of the order hitter archetypes, he should remain firmly in the plans until better hitters are brought in to usurp 1B/DH

It's not really "usurping" when he hasn't been able to wrest the job away from the likes of Trey Mancini.  You can't usurp from someone who isn't in line for the crown.

I am not arguing that he won’t fail. As you have said often most do. I am saying the decision hasn’t been made yet. 99 AB where he actually had good under the hood numbers but bad results is not enough to banish him. As for your comment that scouts don’t like him, you just said he was behind 3 top 100 prospects. So couldn’t he be 101 to even 150 and still be liked somewhat by scouts. As you said, he could be lower down because 1st baseman are not usually top ranked guys. 
I think you are deciding way too early in him. That is all I am saying. 

18 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I am not arguing that he won’t fail. As you have said often most do. I am saying the decision hasn’t been made yet. 99 AB where he actually had good under the hood numbers but bad results is not enough to banish him. As for your comment that scouts don’t like him, you just said he was behind 3 top 100 prospects. So couldn’t he be 101 to even 150 and still be liked somewhat by scouts. As you said, he could be lower down because 1st baseman are not usually top ranked guys. 
I think you are deciding way too early in him. That is all I am saying. 

If he were liked by scouts, he wouldn't have fallen outside the first five rounds.  Being in the 101-150 range, which I don't think he is consensus-wise but we'll go with it, still just isn't that impressive of a prospect.

No one's "deciding" on him. He's free to plug away at AAA for a few more years just like all the other fringey prospets do.  Sometimes those guys turn into something.

But the Cubs had the opportunity to put faith in him last offseason, they chose not to. They had an opportunity to show faith in him in the middle of the seaosn, they chose not to. They had an opportunity to show faith in him at the trade deadline, they chose not to.

At some point the pattern becomes clear.  If a fan of a division rival came in here touting some random 25-year-old prospect who wasn't picked in the 5-round covid draft, who couldn't win a job from the likes of Hosmer and Mancini, who I believe has only made 1 appearance toward the back of one major top 100 list (The prospect touting industry has exploded to such absurd size that there's dozens of such lists now, many hundreds of guys make appearances on at least a few), we would laugh at that fan.

To be fair, there's a version of that hypothetical where we would say 'wow, that front office is full of morons, as evidenced by the fact that they signed Mancini and Hosmer and have given them the majority of PAs this year'.

7 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

MLB players are really good and most prospects will fail.

5 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

If he were liked by scouts, he wouldn't have fallen outside the first five rounds.  Being in the 101-150 range, which I don't think he is consensus-wise but we'll go with it, still just isn't that impressive of a prospect.

No one's "deciding" on him. He's free to plug away at AAA for a few more years just like all the other fringey prospets do.  Sometimes those guys turn into something.

But the Cubs had the opportunity to put faith in him last offseason, they chose not to. They had an opportunity to show faith in him in the middle of the seaosn, they chose not to. They had an opportunity to show faith in him at the trade deadline, they chose not to.

At some point the pattern becomes clear.  If a fan of a division rival came in here touting some random 25-year-old prospect who wasn't picked in the 5-round covid draft, who couldn't win a job from the likes of Hosmer and Mancini, who I believe has only made 1 appearance toward the back of one major top 100 list (The prospect touting industry has exploded to such absurd size that there's dozens of such lists now, many hundreds of guys make appearances on at least a few), we would laugh at that fan.

I think if the Cubs had sold at the deadline this year, Mervis is up right now and playing every single day, trying to work through the last hurdles to become a solid every day player. The Cubs have just found themselves in the fortunate position of needing guys who are 100% ready to go now. 

Mervis is a futures play. He's more upside than finished product right now. Most guys in the minors are. But you can only know if he'll succeed in the majors by giving him extended run (eventually). If he sucks out of the gate next year, fine. Hopefully the FO has enough foresight to have a backup plan in place. But this kid is a developmental win for the organization. Gotta give him a chance when not in the heat of a playoff push to see if he can become a guy you want during the next playoff chase. 

I've got little idea of what Matt Mervis is, but I don't think anyone has enough data to make sweeping assertions.  The wRC+ and the raw results were bad, but 99 PA's is barely enough time for most statistics to stabilize let alone be large enough to be telling of a prospect's future.   There's some interesting batted ball data below those results that suggest that he's better than those results.  

I recognize he's 25, but 25 isn't some sort of artificial "death line" of a prospect (the Cubs would have had one less all-star this year if it was).  Notable players such as Max Muncy and Aaron Judge are two other names off the top of my head who couldn't establish themselves by their 25th birthday (Judge put up a super cool 62 wRC+ in his first 96 PA's), so it *can* be done (that's not saying Matt Mervis is either player, only that there's no expiration date of 25).  And while I'd rather prospects come up younger. Matt Mervis has a very unique route to the MLB; having to deal with losing a year of development due to covid, and switching positions.  This isn't a 25 year old who stagnated in AA for 3+ years only to explode, he took 2 years to reach the MLB.  We can't put everyone in a neat little box.  His industry ranking means little to me either; 1b-only prospects just don't really appear on top-100 lists because of how hard it is to break into the league as a 1b (I.E. see Matt Mervis) and how cautious many are with rocket ship like prospects.  I know FG has him ranked 44th in the organization right now, but that's some kind of hot-take.  

Matt Mervis both deserved-a-larger-than-he-got-99 PA sample size, and deserves another shot in the MLB.  Will it happen in Chicago?  Not in 2023 with their playoff push (and at this point, the Cubs are finally in the "right" in not playing him as they have capable MLB'ers in front versus guys like Eric Hosmer). In 2024?  I'm not sure, honestly.  They don't have anyone on the roster right now, but a Bellinger contract, or a trade, or something could easily move him into limbo.  If I were guessing, Matt Mervis' chances right now will happen with one of the other 29 organizations.  I also wouldn't be surprised at all to see him establish himself..  In the same vein, perhaps his struggles against, specifically sliders, points to a fatal flaw he cannot overcome (prospects fail more often than they succeed).  I think the upside on Mervis is more than worth someone giving him some rope, however.  

Two points, one on either side (I think):

- Anti-Mervis (pro-Kyle I guess?): I think people here are falling into what I'm sure is some sort of official Bias where they look at a somewhat serious flaw of a player, recognize the couple players that succeeded somewhat in spite on that flaw, and use that as some clear argument that there's serious hope. Matt Mervis is old but so was Max Muncy. Cade Horton and Ben Brown only have two pitches but so does Spencer Strider. Meanwhile the list of prospects with these flaws is significantly longer and littered with washouts, we just can't cite them as easily because, as I said, they washed out. Trying to rely on players who have to follow the paths of exceptions is probably not the best idea. 

- Pro-Mervis: I care about Mervis being 25 in the sense that he's certainly not some future cornerstone of this club who is going to give us 6 years of production at the peak of his athleticism. I like Mervis in the short term because since the beginning of last year, he has shown a quick ability to adjust to the next level of competition and because, frankly, the first base alternatives are pretty dire unless we want to outbid everyone for Cody or Jeimer and then immediately move them down the defensive spectrum. Spending top dollar on that plan going into 2024 seems very dumb when they could just give Mervis the job and if he bombs after three months we A. probably have dudes on the roster who could shift down anyways, and B. apparently just have to throw two non-top ten prospects away to get a guy with a 121 wRC to come take over. 

4 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I like Mervis in the short term because since the beginning of last year, he has shown a quick ability to adjust to the next level of competition and because, frankly, the first base alternatives are pretty dire unless we want to outbid everyone for Cody or Jeimer and then immediately move them down the defensive spectrum. Spending top dollar on that plan going into 2024 seems very dumb when they could just give Mervis the job and if he bombs after three months we A. probably have dudes on the roster who could shift down anyways, and B. apparently just have to throw two non-top ten prospects away to get a guy with a 121 wRC to come take over. 

The thing about Mervis in the short term is this team really can’t afford another lost year of black hole production at 1B. If you go into 2024 with Mervis penciled in, he has to produce. We’ve been lying to ourselves that it’s easy to replace 1B production ever since Rizzo left. They can’t spend 60% of the next season putting themselves in a self imposed hole and expect to dig out and be gifted a fill in at the deadline. Mervis should be a backup option for 2024, not the first choice. 

2 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

The thing about Mervis in the short term is this team really can’t afford another lost year of black hole production at 1B. If you go into 2024 with Mervis penciled in, he has to produce. We’ve been lying to ourselves that it’s easy to replace 1B production ever since Rizzo left. They can’t spend 60% of the next season putting themselves in a self imposed hole and expect to dig out and be gifted a fill in at the deadline. Mervis should be a backup option for 2024, not the first choice. 

I'm certainly not arguing that they should just put a black hole at first but....they kinda just did that with a team projected to win 81 games and they're 59-55 and favored to make the playoffs right now? 'Gifted' is a pretty dismissive term...seems like that's just what the market was. 

If the alternative is to go up against teams who value Bellinger as an above average centerfielder and make their offers accordingly, beat those offers, and then stick him at first for 5 years, yeah I'll take my chances with Mervis for a couple months. There isn't some guaranteed first baseman out there who is going to solve this problem (you mentioned that yourself when you talk about how it's not easy to find/replace 1B production). 

By gifted I meant both having one available and for a very reasonable price, and not a group of aggressive buyers ahead of them in line. 

2 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

By gifted I meant both having one available and for a very reasonable price, and not a group of aggressive buyers ahead of them in line. 

There's always going to be good hitters capable of playing first base available at the deadline. We got two months of the best bet available for two prospects in the teens of our system. I'm not going dismiss that as 'no one else wanted a 121 wRC bat who could play first, third, and DH'. That's just what the market was. 

2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

There's always going to be good hitters capable of playing first base available at the deadline. We got two months of the best bet available for two prospects in the teens of our system. I'm not going dismiss that as 'no one else wanted a 121 wRC bat who could play first, third, and DH'. That's just what the market was. 

Now that’s a dismissive statement. The cubs spent a lot of time and resources on a supposedly easy to fill position and floundered the entire time. There isn’t always good hitters available. 

3 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Now that’s a dismissive statement. The cubs spent a lot of time and resources on a supposedly easy to fill position and floundered the entire time. There isn’t always good hitters available. 

It is a lot easier to find a good hitter at the deadline capable of playing first base for two months than it is to sign a good hitter in the offseason. Do you have a preferred target to bring in and play first base next year? 

I mostly agree with Goony. But it's really on the Cubs. If they use the available data they have and determine it's not a safe bet that he's going to produce, they have to find someone else. In the very extremely limited time he was up, he didn't look good although the underlying data looked okish. 

However, they also should not throw out another tomato-can retread at 1B next year in the hope that he will produce at some rate better than the unknown. 

I think Mervis deserves a legitimate chance if the Cubs can't find a legitimate MLB player in the offseason (I'm dreaming of Pete Alonso like Tom dreams about Ohtani).  

The major leagues is not a developmental league. Guys need to earn jobs, not just be gifted them because "we need to see what we have."

Just now, Hairyducked Idiot said:

The major leagues is not a developmental league. Guys need to earn jobs, not just be gifted them because "we need to see what we have."

just stop it.

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

just stop it.

No.

So anyway, Pete Crow Armstrong, playoff roster addition, or no?