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

Just now, Hairyducked Idiot said:

No.

How many time do you have to be shown that he's more than demonstrated over a long period of time that he's mastered AAA pitching? They are not handing him a job. And all rookies are in a "see what we have" category. 

10 hours ago, Brandon Glick said:

 

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. 

The Cubs do not exist to give everyone a chance. There's a place for guys who you aren't sure if they can play in the majors or not but they might have some value someday if they could. It's called AAA.

7 minutes ago, 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."

Is anyone saying "you can't get a 1B because you'll block Mervis"?  I'm not really seeing that so I don't get this framing.  All teams have scarce resources, there's at least some reason for optimism in his future productivity, 1B doesn't have a glut of obvious options on the market and as a position is more likely to have pop-up successes.  There's definitely offseasons where prioritizing other options and having Mervis be the incumbent or near incumbent can make sense, and various spaces in between(a de facto platoon/competition with Madrigal if they bring back Candelario, a de facto competition w/ Tauchman/PCA if they bring back Bellinger, etc).  There are also offseasons where they go get Alonso or Naylor or trade Mervis in a challenge deal for a pitcher or something.  I get that you're compelled to hold this line on minimizing Mervis's impact because of your convictions around the caliber of prospect he is, but I don't see how it's that binary.

9 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

How many time do you have to be shown that he's more than demonstrated over a long period of time that he's mastered AAA pitching? They are not handing him a job. And all rookies are in a "see what we have" category. 

It makes me sad that you ignored my earlier post. Mervis has done well in AAA, but he hasn't clearly shown that he's "mastered" the league.

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

How many time do you have to be shown that he's more than demonstrated over a long period of time that he's mastered AAA pitching? They are not handing him a job. And all rookies are in a "see what we have" category. 

I think that's a little loose with "mastered" for a bat-only guy, but sure.

We do not have to "see what we have" in every rookie.  The major leagues is not a developmental league.  We don't need to give everyone a fair chance. MLB playing time is a valuable, finite resource.

PCA is going to get a fair chance because PCA is a prospect who is worth a fair chance.  He's a former first round pick with a killer scouting report who has performed well at levels he was too young for.

Matt mervis was an afterthought udfa who has been too old for every league and whom scouts are tepid on.  Giving prospects of that mediocre caliber a fair chance is not an obligation.  Even the upside is pretty tepid.  

1 minute ago, Tim said:

It makes me sad that you ignored my earlier post. Mervis has done well in AAA, but he hasn't clearly shown that he's "mastered" the league.

I don't agree with your assessment. 

4 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Is anyone saying "you can't get a 1B because you'll block Mervis"?  I'm not really seeing that so I don't get this framing.  All teams have scarce resources, there's at least some reason for optimism in his future productivity, 1B doesn't have a glut of obvious options on the market and as a position is more likely to have pop-up successes.  There's definitely offseasons where prioritizing other options and having Mervis be the incumbent or near incumbent can make sense, and various spaces in between(a de facto platoon/competition with Madrigal if they bring back Candelario, a de facto competition w/ Tauchman/PCA if they bring back Bellinger, etc).  There are also offseasons where they go get Alonso or Naylor or trade Mervis in a challenge deal for a pitcher or something.  I get that you're compelled to hold this line on minimizing Mervis's impact because of your convictions around the caliber of prospect he is, but I don't see how it's that binary.

I have a very hard time envisioning an offseason where having him be an incumbent/near incumbent makes sense.  I get that the pickings are slim, but it's too important of a position and our most obvious hole.

Just now, CubinNY said:

I don't agree with your assessment. 

He's got a .950 ops in a league that averages an .800+ ops with a homer-friendly home park that inflated offense by about 10%

14 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

How many time do you have to be shown that he's more than demonstrated over a long period of time that he's mastered AAA pitching? They are not handing him a job. And all rookies are in a "see what we have" category. 

This is where the disconnect is. Mervis has not mastered AAA. He’s not too good for AAA. He’s hitting well at AAA, But not better than some of his former AAA teammates were hitting. He’s not some runaway league MVP. He’s a defensively challenged very good hitter at AAA. 

9 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

...Matt mervis was an afterthought udfa who has been too old for every league and whom scouts are tepid on.  Giving prospects of that mediocre caliber...

That isn't fair, either. He was a clear priority signing as a UDFA in a five round draft. Some scouts are tepid, but others are pretty upbeat. There are definite mitigating circumstances on the age, though that is still a concern and limits the long term upside.

I don't want to go into next year with him as the only option at first base. But I do believe he would probably be "fine" there if other roster issues were prioritized.

6 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I don't agree with your assessment. 

So fifth best wRC+ on his own team is mastered. Got it.

15 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I have a very hard time envisioning an offseason where having him be an incumbent/near incumbent makes sense.  I get that the pickings are slim, but it's too important of a position and our most obvious hole.

Our rotation next year is Justin Steele, and then Taillon and Smyly. Which, based on 2023, means at any given point we'll have 2 pitchable starters. Hayden Wesneski? Caleb Kilian? Go get Ohtani (or Nola, or Gray, or Montgomery, or Stroman, etc). That's the top priority. 

14 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I have a very hard time envisioning an offseason where having him be an incumbent/near incumbent makes sense.  I get that the pickings are slim, but it's too important of a position and our most obvious hole.

If (obviously this is a big if) the Cubs can extend Bellinger, he could start 2024 in CF with Mervis at 1B. You have PCA waiting in the wings, as well as several other outfielders with that ugly word "potential". If PCA shows he's ready and Mervis isn't hitting, you can move Bellinger to 1B. If PCA shows he's ready and Mervis is hitting, you have a great "problem" on your hands. If Suzuki doesn't fix his issues, PCA could take over CF, with Bellinger moving to RF and Mervis at 1B. 

There are scenarios where you can give him a shot and still have options if he struggles.

Mervis has 512 PA at the AAA level with a wRC+ over 140 to go with a 13.8% BB% and 17.1% K%.  He may not be hitting at the very top of the scales for AAA hitters, but that's not the pass/fail indicator that he'll be a better hitter at the MLB level, since he's clearly not struggling to hit for average or power and does have top of scale plate discipline for the level.  Said another way, Mervis may not be at the very top of AAA leaderboards, but I don't think there's much else he can demonstrate that would raise confidence that his next MLB try will be different, because whatever was getting exploited at the MLB level is not showing up in AAA. 

48 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

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

I don't think he's enough of a roster upgrade today to warrant the 40-man spot.  But he should be our starting CF in 2024 

5 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I know no one wants to hear it but a Top Prospect at 1B/DH shouldn’t go from hitting flyballs to not repeating a friendly AAA league. Just seems like it’s this unacknowledged elephant in the 2023 room 

I feel he has a much stronger shot at producing at the big league level than a 22-year old catcher with a .513 OPS at high A, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

16 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I know no one wants to hear it but a Top Prospect at 1B/DH shouldn’t go from hitting flyballs to not repeating a friendly AAA league. Just seems like it’s this unacknowledged elephant in the 2023 room 

The other side of that drop in FB% being an increase in LD% has decrease the severity of this issue, right? It's not like his GB% skyrocketed (38.7% last year, 39.2% this year).

10 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

And *yet* that hasn’t played out with his age 25 season almost over!

I think what bugs me most about the Mervis situation is that he was declared ready, ready, ready, the Cubs were stupid for not playing him, and now the story is basically he was developing to be developed

I think he was ready at the beginning of the year, I think he is still ready. Absolutely it was a bad 100 PAs. I don't think it's enough to say he's not an MLB caliber hitter. 

4 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

The other side of that drop in FB% being an increase in LD% has decrease the severity of this issue, right? It's not like his GB% skyrocketed (38.7% last year, 39.2% this year).

it's a binary for Tom

9 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I don't think he's enough of a roster upgrade today to warrant the 40-man spot.  But he should be our starting CF in 2024 

Agreed*
 

*just posting to break up the inane Mervis talk

23 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I know no one wants to hear it but a Top Prospect at 1B/DH shouldn’t go from hitting flyballs to not repeating a friendly AAA league. Just seems like it’s this unacknowledged elephant in the 2023 room 

why is this literally the only stat you look at for hitters

even the Dodgers with their nearly unlimited budget understand the need/value in devoting sufficient playing time to players under team control, with not-top-even-100-kind-of-old James Outman like Joc Pederson before him he's rewarded their faith to be one of their better players this year and likely going forward

i very much hope we acquire Soto/Ohtani or resign Bellinger to have precedence over Mervis but i think we all know it's more unlikely than not none of these transpire so it's nice to have a decent fall-back with potential for much more to supplement bigger acquisitions on the roster wherever else

1 hour ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Maybe because all the tunnel vision for triple slash and K rate is how we got to this place with Mervis in the first place…Part  because all the good teams have been good at it for a while now, the best Cubs teams were good at it, and they’ve been terrible since becoming terrible at it 

I’m not all about pitcher velo either but the Cubs being bottom tier at it plus it’s impact on other weaknesses like missing bats makes it a huge priority rn 

5 of the top 8 teams in FB% are likely to miss the playoffs, and the Twins are saved from that ignominy by their incredibly poor division; it's really not that big a deal

I saw an article that warranted like 4 or 5 responses was somehow at 5 pages and I was 90% sure of the answer why before I even opened it. 

3 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

The Cubs do not exist to give everyone a chance. There's a place for guys who you aren't sure if they can play in the majors or not but they might have some value someday if they could. It's called AAA.

But how do you know if a guy can play in the majors if he doesn't get a chance in the majors? We already know he's better than the competition at Triple A. That question has been answered. 

The jump from Triple A to the Majors is, by FAR, the biggest developmental curve any player will ever face. It takes so many guys multiple chances to figure it out, and most never do. I'm not saying the Cubs have to give Mervis a terribly long leash, but he already proved what he can at Triple A. Eventually, he has to come back up to the big leagues and see if he can sustain his success there.