Chicago Cubs 2024 Offseason Top 20 Prospects: No. 7, James Triantos

If the reports that he went from unplayable anywhere on defense to maybe an above average defensive player at 2B are true, then he's a fairly exciting player. With his contact skills and baserunning, if he could even find 15 HR pop, he might be a guy who could give you consistent 3 to 4 fWAR seasons. 

Can they change his swing or are we looking at Nick Madrigal?

9 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Can they change his swing or are we looking at Nick Madrigal?

He hit 7 HR in the offensive wasteland that was the Southern League last year, so I think there's something there. Will it ever exceed 15 HRs? Probably not, but 10-15 HR would be acceptable given the rest of his package. 

5 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

If the reports that he went from unplayable anywhere on defense to maybe an above average defensive player at 2B are true, then he's a fairly exciting player. With his contact skills and baserunning, if he could even find 15 HR pop, he might be a guy who could give you consistent 3 to 4 fWAR seasons. 

I'm not really sure 15 home run power is here. His best run was the .150 ISO at Double-A and even then it was like, 12 home run pace with a bunch of doubles and triples. His LA in Triple-A (the only data we have)...was 2. It was negative against RHP. This is SSS extreme stuff, but...that's bad. 

2023 Kwan is what I'm thinking he's most going to be like. I don't think he'll keep that bad of an LA and suspect there's some real learning going on with a new level. But I think that season is about in the ballpark. Triantos is more aggressive at the plate, and probably adds more flat out steals into the equation, but his general path to 5-7 home runs, a 99 wRC+, feels around correct. Maybe he does so in CF with less defense. Just a spit-ball comp, it's not a 1:1 or anything.

6 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Can they change his swing or are we looking at Nick Madrigal?

In theory...yes. In practice, it's hard to tell. I think there's more raw power in his body - he's bigger than Madrigal. He's listed currently at 5"11 and 195lbs...so I think expecting more power than him is realistic. I'm not sure it's 10 home run power, but it's probably more than Nick, too.

If BA's report that he's a good bench player now is true, there's an extremely high floor.  A high contact bat that can cover 2B/3B/OF and steal ~50 bases is valuable.  Even if he's an 80-something wRC+ guy that's a premium bench player.

2 minutes ago, Bertz said:

If BA's report that he's a gbench player. bow is true, there's an extremely high floor.  A high contact bat that can cover 2B/3B/OF and steal ~50 bases is valuable.  Even if he's an 80-something wRC+ guy that's a premium bench player.

Yeah, I think he's probably one of the easiest prospects in the system to point at and say "that there is an MLB player". Whether or not he's capable of turning into a Steven Kwan type where he contact's and BABIP's his way to 3+ wins or his a 2nd division starter type who can compile his way to two wins, but is more along the lines of a good guy on the bench is really the deciding factor for me. Regardless, he'll almost assuredly have an MLB career in some fashion and is a useful player.

He'll probably get some burn in June and then I really believe he has a high chance to be traded at the TDL if we're in it. 

Q:  The ground-ball data and the launch-angle data, that's all taken from his 86 AB at Iowa?  Or does data from AA (and below) reflect the same issues?  (Or qualitative observation?) I'm kinda wondering whether it's possibly small-sample issue, or is all real.  For curiosity, is his groundball rate higher or lower than Alcantara? 

I'd patient with some of these guys, Triantos included.  It's still too soon to know where his development might still go.  I'm in no hurry to trade any of them.  Triantos is still only 21.  Obviously if a guy doesn't improve, the longer you wait the less value he'll have; but I'm thinking that if he DOES continue to develop and improve, the value will rise considerably.  What we could get now might not come close to the value we might get next year...  And what we could get now might not come close the value we might get by keeping him. 

Consider last year:  He worked on his defense, and it got better.  1908, even if BA's enthusiasm is overstated, his perception today on his defense is way better than a year ago.  Likewise the base-stealing seemed to emerge out of nowhere, nobody was discussing him as a big base-stealer last year.  Point being, there were areas of his game that he worked on, and non-trivial improvements resulted. 

I'm hoping that will happen again, with ground-ball, with launch angle,  with physical strength, with extra-base power; with exit velocity; and with continued improvement defensively.  

It might be, but I also don't think it needs to be triantos or Shaw.  I think there is space for both.  Cubs have so often struggled with crummy bench players who don't produce.  Part of my vision for the farm group is that moving forward, we might have good hitters on the bench.  When a starter needs a rest, you've got a good backup.  Starter faces a bad matchup, play the sub.  Starter in injured, you've got somebody,  Starter in a slump, replace him for a while.  I'd like at least one between Triantos and Shaw to have that capacity.  Obviously Triantos has the arm for outfield, Shaw won't be a regular SS but he's got SS capacity.  

Hoerner's only got two years guaranteed left.  Next winter might be a better time to evaluate whether Hoerner should be extended, or if Triantos and Shaw will become 2B/utility in some fashion.  

Other note on Triantos is the base-stealing.  He was on pace for north of 50 steals before the injury.  If all of those extra stolen bases were calculated into his ISO, we'd not be fussing.  With the new rules, might he end up being a very productive big-league base-stealer?  Could be some value added.  

19 minutes ago, craig said:

Q:  The ground-ball data and the launch-angle data, that's all taken from his 86 AB at Iowa?  Or does data from AA (and below) reflect the same issues?  (Or qualitative observation?) I'm kinda wondering whether it's possibly small-sample issue, or is all real.  For curiosity, is his groundball rate higher or lower than Alcantara? 

I'd patient with some of these guys, Triantos included.  It's still too soon to know where his development might still go.  I'm in no hurry to trade any of them.  Triantos is still only 21.  Obviously if a guy doesn't improve, the longer you wait the less value he'll have; but I'm thinking that if he DOES continue to develop and improve, the value will rise considerably.  What we could get now might not come close to the value we might get next year...  And what we could get now might not come close the value we might get by keeping him. 

Consider last year:  He worked on his defense, and it got better.  1908, even if BA's enthusiasm is overstated, his perception today on his defense is way better than a year ago.  Likewise the base-stealing seemed to emerge out of nowhere, nobody was discussing him as a big base-stealer last year.  Point being, there were areas of his game that he worked on, and non-trivial improvements resulted. 

I'm hoping that will happen again, with ground-ball, with launch angle,  with physical strength, with extra-base power; with exit velocity; and with continued improvement defensively.  

I dont think the Cubs should trade a prospect because they are getting inpatient with any of them. I think they should trade prospects because they may be at their highest value and can get a good player for them now. They can’t play all of them. A good FO figures out who to deal and who to keep. I am sure they are not right all the time, but more often than not. 

One more thought.  I think it was smart to put Triantos at 2B, and just let him work at that and improve there.  Maybe that's a work in progress, and repeating that for another season is the best developmental path.  

But, I also wonder if some of the defensive gains he made at 2nd, might not also now carry over at 3B?  And whether for this season, he'll get more starts at 3B to try to develop his capacity as a utility guy?  Or maybe both 3B and OF, try to get more comfortable at all of them, so that if he was to make the team at some point during 2026, that serving as a multi-position bench guy would be something he could be fully ready for?  

1 hour ago, craig said:

Q:  The ground-ball data and the launch-angle data, that's all taken from his 86 AB at Iowa?  Or does data from AA (and below) reflect the same issues?  (Or qualitative observation?) I'm kinda wondering whether it's possibly small-sample issue, or is all real.  For curiosity, is his groundball rate higher or lower than Alcantara? 

I'd patient with some of these guys, Triantos included.  It's still too soon to know where his development might still go.  I'm in no hurry to trade any of them.  Triantos is still only 21.  Obviously if a guy doesn't improve, the longer you wait the less value he'll have; but I'm thinking that if he DOES continue to develop and improve, the value will rise considerably.  What we could get now might not come close to the value we might get next year...  And what we could get now might not come close the value we might get by keeping him. 

Consider last year:  He worked on his defense, and it got better.  1908, even if BA's enthusiasm is overstated, his perception today on his defense is way better than a year ago.  Likewise the base-stealing seemed to emerge out of nowhere, nobody was discussing him as a big base-stealer last year.  Point being, there were areas of his game that he worked on, and non-trivial improvements resulted. 

I'm hoping that will happen again, with ground-ball, with launch angle,  with physical strength, with extra-base power; with exit velocity; and with continued improvement defensively.  

To answer your question, yes it is Triple-A data. Double-A statcast data has yet to make it in the public zeitgeist, so we only get that good stuff when someone makes it to Triple-A. And yes, he had under 100 PAs at the level - it's small samples. To give myself a little credit, I've made mention of this fact and that he's learning the level a few times so Ive acknowledged that this data is in its infancy and shouldnt be taken as gospel.

With that said, he ran a GB% of 47% in Double-A and a fly ball rate under 30%. These are extreme data points. To put that in perspective, Steve Kwan in his rookie season hit six home runs with a 12% LA and a GB% 5% lower and a FB% 5% higher. Most hitters who had this batted ball data were poor hitters in 2024. There are some notable exceptions like Trea Turner, William Contreras and Vlad Jr, but I don't think Triantos belongs in a discussion with those hitters for many reasons. 

The larger point is that he already doesn't hit for tons of power. While the body suggests he can find more, he's got a swing geared for hitting the ball on the ground and lifting very little. It's probably fair to expect sub-10 HR power without a LA change. He's likely running an LA in the 8-10 range when things stabilize and that's not enough. He probably needs some shift. It doesn't have to be earth shattering, but the best version of him offensively likely sees the GBs come down to the low 40s and a LA around that 12 marker.

That doesn't mean he's a bad prospect, he does enough else where that there's an MLB player there, but the outcomes probably stretch from "David Fletcher but more speed" to "Early Kwan but less defense" (or somewhere in there. You get the idea). The former is a player youll likely keep on the roster as a bench player more times that naught and the second is an MLB starter.

9 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I dont think the Cubs should trade a prospect because they are getting inpatient with any of them. I think they should trade prospects because they may be at their highest value and can get a good player for them now. They can’t play all of them. A good FO figures out who to deal and who to keep. I am sure they are not right all the time, but more often than not. 

The only way the prospects are at their "highest value" now is if they stall or regress in future.  They get "for-their-age" benefit, with presumption that they will improve.  If Alcantara neither fills out nor hits more HR's, his value will decline.  

*IF* Triantos gets better, *IF* Caissie progresses, *IF* Alcantara starts to launch more often, then value won't decline.  

Future value may be in trade.  Or may be as starters or bench players for the Cubs.  But I presume that value will rise if prospects improve and manifest progressive improvement.  

Not-ready-to-start-now guys have less value than ready-to-start-now prospects.  Triantos, Caissie, Ballesteros aren't quite ready-to-start-now.  

On 12/3/2024 at 11:06 AM, Tryptamine said:

On 12/3/2024 at 11:10 AM, CubinNY said:

Can they change his swing or are we looking at Nick Madrigal?

Without looking at Nick on paper, it sounded exactly like Nick.  High contact rate.  Soft contact.  No launch angle.  High ground ball rate.  

2 hours ago, thawv said:

 

Did you mess up that quote option?

13 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

Did you mess up that quote option?

I'm sure I did!

16 hours ago, thawv said:

 

Triantos shouldn't really be compared to Madrigal, his body suggests there's more there. He's also hit for plenty more home runs already. For example, last season, in what we can consider 75% of a year at Double-A, and at age 21, James Triantos hit seven home runs. This was in 391 PA's. 

Now let's compare to Nick Madrigals entire professional career spanning every plate appearance, over every level. In those 1,761 professional career plate appearances, Madrigal has hit nine home runs. I know the easy comparison people will make will be to Madrigal, but I think it's a pretty unfair comparison to Triantos, who's hit 4-7 home runs at every level he's spent at least half a season at.

I think it's fair to wonder if Triantos will hit double digit home runs in a season...Madrigal may not get to double digit home runs across his entire career. That's a significant difference, even if we have some worries about James' entire package.

8 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Triantos shouldn't really be compared to Madrigal, his body suggests there's more there. He's also hit for plenty more home runs already. For example, last season, in what we can consider 75% of a year at Double-A, and at age 21, James Triantos hit seven home runs. This was in 391 PA's. 

Now let's compare to Nick Madrigals entire professional career spanning every plate appearance, over every level. In those 1,761 professional career plate appearances, Madrigal has hit nine home runs. I know the easy comparison people will make will be to Madrigal, but I think it's a pretty unfair comparison to Triantos, who's hit 4-7 home runs at every level he's spent at least half a season at.

I think it's fair to wonder if Triantos will hit double digit home runs in a season...Madrigal may not get to double digit home runs across his entire career. That's a significant difference, even if we have some worries about James' entire package.

I most certainly think Triantos is going to be better than Nick.  But there's no denying that there are similarities with high contact, low launch angle, softer contact.  That's all I'm saying.

Just now, thawv said:

I most certainly think Triantos is going to be better than Nick.  But there's no denying that there are similarities with high contact, low launch angle, softer contact.  That's all I'm saying.

Yeah, no I get it. There are some similarities. But I think we should probably not use Madrigal here as the comp. There's just too much power. It's why I tried to go with guys like Steven Kwan, Adam Frazier and the likes. Madrigal is like a 20 game power bat. Triantos is probably a standard deviation above that, which isn't a massive leap, but is significant in relation. 

When we think of Madrigal, we think of zero home run power. Triantos has some home run power. 

7 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Yeah, no I get it. There are some similarities. But I think we should probably not use Madrigal here as the comp. There's just too much power. It's why I tried to go with guys like Steven Kwan, Adam Frazier and the likes. Madrigal is like a 20 game power bat. Triantos is probably a standard deviation above that, which isn't a massive leap, but is significant in relation. 

When we think of Madrigal, we think of zero home run power. Triantos has some home run power. 

I agree.  I'm just referring to contact, LA, GB rate and hard hit rate.  Nothing more than that.

So, do you think Triantos gets moved at some point?

4 minutes ago, thawv said:

I agree.  I'm just referring to contact, LA, GB rate and hard hit rate.  Nothing more than that.

 

So, do you think Triantos gets moved at some point?

I think he's probably among the most likely to be moved. While I think he's a nice player, the feeling I get from reading things and how the Cubs have treated Shaw is that he's the guy they like the most (Shaw that is). That the Cubs are considering moving Hoerner lets you know they like Shaw enough (I presume it's Shaw who'd get the position) that they're willing to move him in the right deal. 

If a team wanted near MLB talent, Triantos would probably be attractive. He can play a few positions. He's got an easy floor for being an MLB player - contact translates well, he's highly athletic, and versatile. If you believe  the glove, he could be an average defender a few places. He's easy plug and play. I assume between today and TDL the Cubs will swing a few big trades - I think it'd be hard for Triantos to survive those 7 months unless the Cubs trade someone like Shaw instead.

24 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think he's probably among the most likely to be moved. While I think he's a nice player, the feeling I get from reading things and how the Cubs have treated Shaw is that he's the guy they like the most (Shaw that is). That the Cubs are considering moving Hoerner lets you know they like Shaw enough (I presume it's Shaw who'd get the position) that they're willing to move him in the right deal. 

If a team wanted near MLB talent, Triantos would probably be attractive. He can play a few positions. He's got an easy floor for being an MLB player - contact translates well, he's highly athletic, and versatile. If you believe  the glove, he could be an average defender a few places. He's easy plug and play. I assume between today and TDL the Cubs will swing a few big trades - I think it'd be hard for Triantos to survive those 7 months unless the Cubs trade someone like Shaw instead.

I agree with all of this.  I'm of the belief that the Cubs should do whatever they can to trade Nico to create a spot for Shaw.  The Seattle talk for Logan is a match made in heaven for both sides.  All the boxes get checked for both sides.  I also think that Jed hasn't shown the ability to take risks.  Maybe in his lame duck season, he will? 

19 minutes ago, thawv said:

I agree with all of this.  I'm of the belief that the Cubs should do whatever they can to trade Nico to create a spot for Shaw.  The Seattle talk for Logan is a match made in heaven for both sides.  All the boxes get checked for both sides.  I also think that Jed hasn't shown the ability to take risks.  Maybe in his lame duck season, he will? 

The Mariners are highly unlikely to trade Logan or Kirby. Nothing from their side suggests he's available. The Mariners have been pretty stedfast through the media of:

1. Not wanting to trade a SP from the MLB team

2. Looking for a corner. 

While I believe most of the time players are available for the right price and very few players are "untouchable" there is nothing to really suggest the Cubs are going to have a Logan for Nico Hoerner framework that works for both sides. I wouldn't even worry or concern myself about that framework as of now. The Cubs may be able to find a match for the second tier of arms, such as a Miller or a Woo as I believe there's the possibility that some of this is posturing. But they'd have to add significant capital to Hoerner to get to the next tier and even then, I'm not sure the Mariners are dealing them. It would also probably be Matt Shaw, in that case, that would go, not Hoerner. 

I think the statement of "doing whatever they can to trade Nico to open a spot for Shaw" remains silly as well, but we've done that dance.

There's very little Madrigal in Triantos.  Madrigal is a unicorn in both good ways and bad, Triantos is not a common archetype, but he's not really extreme at anything.

I think Amed Rosario is a good comp for a "disappointing but still a quality major leaguer" type of outcome for Triantos.  James seems unlikely to even be allowed the attempt to fake it at shortstop like Rosario has, but he's also going to rack up a lot more steals.  Would still end up in that same ~1.5 WAR range.