Chicago Cubs 2025 Offseason Top 20 Prospects: No. 4, Moises Ballesteros

When the auto-strike zone is implemented, won't most of the 'dark arts' of catching be negated? Will the catching position whittle down to arm strength at that point and anyone could strap the equipment on? Sorta a second DH?

5 minutes ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

When the auto-strike zone is implemented, won't most of the 'dark arts' of catching be negated? Will the catching position whittle down to arm strength at that point and anyone could strap the equipment on? Sorta a second DH?

I think we're a ways off from a full replacement system of balls and strikes. What's been discussed has been an integration of the "challenge" system in which a limited amount of ball and strike challenges throughout a game is allowed, but most framing would remain. As well, even then, pitch calling, working with a staff, blocking...these soft/hard skills will remain behind the plate. 

When you couple Ballesteros' rapid development of his bat, and his remaining progress to be made defensively, it's pretty unlikely that the two meet - the bat just outpaces the glove that much but it's good enough that he'll likely be in the MLB well before his glove could catchup. As well, Ballesteros' body is probably not suited for be a 100-120 game starter for a long time in his career. And I think that's okay, too. It may extend his career by limiting the amount of damage done to his knees. 

If the Cubs can get 30-50 games of him behind the plate, that's already a big boost. 

33 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think we're a ways off from a full replacement system of balls and strikes. What's been discussed has been an integration of the "challenge" system in which a limited amount of ball and strike challenges throughout a game is allowed, but most framing would remain. As well, even then, pitch calling, working with a staff, blocking...these soft/hard skills will remain behind the plate. 

When you couple Ballesteros' rapid development of his bat, and his remaining progress to be made defensively, it's pretty unlikely that the two meet - the bat just outpaces the glove that much but it's good enough that he'll likely be in the MLB well before his glove could catchup. As well, Ballesteros' body is probably not suited for be a 100-120 game starter for a long time in his career. And I think that's okay, too. It may extend his career by limiting the amount of damage done to his knees. 

If the Cubs can get 30-50 games of him behind the plate, that's already a big boost. 

Thanks for the reply, and information. I don't know why I was thinking auto-ump equated to co-ed softball catcher. 

13 minutes ago, JunkyardWalrus said:

Thanks for the reply, and information. I don't know why I was thinking auto-ump equated to co-ed softball catcher. 

 

Youre good! All of these tule changes have my head spinning constantly. 

Complex prospect.  Hard to guess how he'll progress, or how he'll fit in majors.  Some thoughts.

1. 1908, part of your thought process is that his bat is too far ahead of his defense.  How good his catching could become is iffy in the first place, even if he could fully optimize it.  But you kinda argue that he'll never be able to fully optimize it because his bat will put him in the majors before he ever gets the opportunity to optimize his defense. 
2. There is definitely merit to that argument.  I admit I do wonder how quickly his bat actually will force him up?  Will he be THAT good that he needs to be up as a bat-only pinch-hitter/DH?  You mention that he projects more as a 20-HR guy than a true HR guy. 
3. Suzuki is the DH.  He's got 2 years of contract.  If Ballesteros is a 20-HR type upside guy, I don't really see that being a guy who will push Seiya off of DH for the next two seasons.  And if he's just coming up as a pinch-hitter 3rd-string catcher, I'm not sure they'll use Moises on the big-league roster all that much over the next two years.  
4. Thus, I'm thinking he might spend most of the next two years in the minors, with two years of opportunity to advance his catching defense (and optimize his physique).
5. Do I assume that will optimize his defense to be able to play big-league catcher?  I have no idea.  My sense is that he may be sub-average at every feature (receiving, blocking, throwing, framing.). No report I've seen has ever suggested that he's average or better at ANY aspect of big-league catching.  But, as you say, catching is a skill that can improve with time and effort and good coaching.  I don't know how far that improvement will ever go.  But *IF* he gets most of the next two years to work on it, I think we'll have a better idea whether it's hopeless or whether he's become OK/not-bad. 
6. So, I guess I'm hypothesizing that his current bat isn't so compellingly good-and-powerful that his callup is too imminent to allow two more years of defensive development.  
7. Like I say, no idea whether 2, 5, or 10 years of defensive development will ever get him far enough to be big-league playable.  Don't know, but I hope so for sure!
8. Don't know how good his offense will become.  A guy who hits .270 with 20 HR and some walks, that's kinda like 2024 bellinger.  I don't think that's a guy who's a compelling, big-ticket DH.  By contrast, if you hit as well as Seiya, .848 OPS, that's a really valuable DH.  .281 average, 21 HR, he was still really valuable.  And Pete Alonso, he's been ≥34 HR every year. He just got a big deal.  My ramble is that there's a continuum of offensive production, and of HR-power.  Where Moises ends up may impact whether he's a big-asset high-value guy even as DH-only, versus decent/good big-league hitter if he had a position, but as a DH-only not that valuable.  
9. A DH-bench guy kinda needs to have some positions, if he's not a compelling most-days DH.  I've mentioned this before, but I'm really hesitant to assume that Moises at 5'9" or whatever, with no wingspan and no defensive range, could be better than pretty awful at 1B, one of the most important defensive positions in mlb.  (1b's handle tons of challenging ground balls, with difficult throws to moving-target pitchers trying to cover the bag; handle tons of erratic pickoff throws; handle so many throws from 2B/SS/3B, many of which VERY hard to handle.  Very important defenisve position.). Assuming that Ballesteros will be anti-awful at 1B is an iffy assumption.  Thinking that he'd actually be average or better at 1B is probably harder to imagine for 1B than for C.  
10. Defensively, the difference between being 2nd versus 3rd catcher is huge.  Few catchers catch 120 games, so there are a bunch of opportunities for 2nd catcher.  But 3rd catcher, especially if he's 3rd catcher because he's liability?  That's not really much of a thing, unless you're primary DH.  
11. Heh, too long!  Summary:  1.  He should get another couple of years of opportunity to improve as catcher.  2.  I doubt he's ever going to get used much at 1B, for defensive reasons.  3.  I doubt is bat is currently so awesome that he's going to be called up as a full-time DH for Cubs soon.  4.  If he can't catch, and can't 1B, he needs to be REALLY good hitter, with more than 20 HR-power, to be a big-asset DH.  5.  **Lots** of value for a 50-start backup catcher, who can hit, DH, and play an occasional game as a bad 1B.  

19 minutes ago, craig said:

Complex prospect.  Hard to guess how he'll progress, or how he'll fit in majors.  Some thoughts.

1. 1908, part of your thought process is that his bat is too far ahead of his defense.  How good his catching could become is iffy in the first place, even if he could fully optimize it.  But you kinda argue that he'll never be able to fully optimize it because his bat will put him in the majors before he ever gets the opportunity to optimize his defense. 
2. There is definitely merit to that argument.  I admit I do wonder how quickly his bat actually will force him up?  Will he be THAT good that he needs to be up as a bat-only pinch-hitter/DH?  You mention that he projects more as a 20-HR guy than a true HR guy. 
3. Suzuki is the DH.  He's got 2 years of contract.  If Ballesteros is a 20-HR type upside guy, I don't really see that being a guy who will push Seiya off of DH for the next two seasons.  And if he's just coming up as a pinch-hitter 3rd-string catcher, I'm not sure they'll use Moises on the big-league roster all that much over the next two years.  
4. Thus, I'm thinking he might spend most of the next two years in the minors, with two years of opportunity to advance his catching defense (and optimize his physique).
5. Do I assume that will optimize his defense to be able to play big-league catcher?  I have no idea.  My sense is that he may be sub-average at every feature (receiving, blocking, throwing, framing.). No report I've seen has ever suggested that he's average or better at ANY aspect of big-league catching.  But, as you say, catching is a skill that can improve with time and effort and good coaching.  I don't know how far that improvement will ever go.  But *IF* he gets most of the next two years to work on it, I think we'll have a better idea whether it's hopeless or whether he's become OK/not-bad. 
6. So, I guess I'm hypothesizing that his current bat isn't so compellingly good-and-powerful that his callup is too imminent to allow two more years of defensive development.  
7. Like I say, no idea whether 2, 5, or 10 years of defensive development will ever get him far enough to be big-league playable.  Don't know, but I hope so for sure!
8. Don't know how good his offense will become.  A guy who hits .270 with 20 HR and some walks, that's kinda like 2024 bellinger.  I don't think that's a guy who's a compelling, big-ticket DH.  By contrast, if you hit as well as Seiya, .848 OPS, that's a really valuable DH.  .281 average, 21 HR, he was still really valuable.  And Pete Alonso, he's been ≥34 HR every year. He just got a big deal.  My ramble is that there's a continuum of offensive production, and of HR-power.  Where Moises ends up may impact whether he's a big-asset high-value guy even as DH-only, versus decent/good big-league hitter if he had a position, but as a DH-only not that valuable.  
9. A DH-bench guy kinda needs to have some positions, if he's not a compelling most-days DH.  I've mentioned this before, but I'm really hesitant to assume that Moises at 5'9" or whatever, with no wingspan and no defensive range, could be better than pretty awful at 1B, one of the most important defensive positions in mlb.  (1b's handle tons of challenging ground balls, with difficult throws to moving-target pitchers trying to cover the bag; handle tons of erratic pickoff throws; handle so many throws from 2B/SS/3B, many of which VERY hard to handle.  Very important defenisve position.). Assuming that Ballesteros will be anti-awful at 1B is an iffy assumption.  Thinking that he'd actually be average or better at 1B is probably harder to imagine for 1B than for C.  
10. Defensively, the difference between being 2nd versus 3rd catcher is huge.  Few catchers catch 120 games, so there are a bunch of opportunities for 2nd catcher.  But 3rd catcher, especially if he's 3rd catcher because he's liability?  That's not really much of a thing, unless you're primary DH.  
11. Heh, too long!  Summary:  1.  He should get another couple of years of opportunity to improve as catcher.  2.  I doubt he's ever going to get used much at 1B, for defensive reasons.  3.  I doubt is bat is currently so awesome that he's going to be called up as a full-time DH for Cubs soon.  4.  If he can't catch, and can't 1B, he needs to be REALLY good hitter, with more than 20 HR-power, to be a big-asset DH.  5.  **Lots** of value for a 50-start backup catcher, who can hit, DH, and play an occasional game as a bad 1B.  

Ballesteros has moonlit at first base at every level he's played at. Currently, the Cubs depth chart at 1b reads like this: Michael Busch then...IDK? Jon Berti is probably the "backup" there currently (he's played 1b in the past) and he stands 5"10. Ballesteros is listed at 5"8, but if it's a tall 5"8/9 and a short 5"10 for Jon...one of those guys hits much better than the other. Owen Caissie has taken little to no time at 1b in his entire career. There's a strong argument to be made that if Ballesteros is hitting, and the Cubs lose Busch for 3+ weeks that you're going to see Ballesteros as a real option at 1b. Much like behind the plate, I would guess it's a few games at 1b, a few at DH, and a few behind the plate. 

I don't think he's going to be as "bad" of a 1b as you're giving him. He moves alright for his size - he's a little funny looking while he does it (tough recent videos maybe suggest more weight loss). I think given some time there, he'll be "okay". Josh Naylor isn't much taller and is built in a similarly "portly" manner, and just put a +1 OAA at 1b. Do think Ballesteros is winning a gold glove there? Maybe not. Do I think you can probably stick him there 40-50 games (like he can probably be stuck at C)? Yeah probably. 

There is video of him swinging down in Arizona the other day. He looks the fittest he's ever been.

3 minutes ago, G.Krisch said:

There is video of him swinging down in Arizona the other day. He looks the fittest he's ever been.

Yeah the video looked good! The angle is a bit hard to fully see, so it could be that it looks a bit more drastic than it is in practice, but anything that gets him in closer to a more traditional baseball body will help him find a home defensively. 

There aren’t many any sub 5-10 1B in MLB

25 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

There aren’t many any sub 5-10 1B in MLB

I dont mean to entirely brush this off, but there aren't many people who look like Moises Ballesteros across baseball. Regardless of defensive outcome, he's going to be breaking common molds if he becomes an MLB regular regardless, so it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. I think we just have to accept whether he's a DH, a 1b, a C, he's going to be closer to a 1 of 1 than anything approaching the conventional.

Donovan Solano is a 5'8" 1B/3B, and has 940 innings of +3 DRS / -1 OAA at 1B the last three years.  And he didn't start there until his mid 30's,  I'd presume that being short at 1B limits your receiving but likely helps with the groundballs you field directly.  Doubt it's a catastrophic disadvantage if it's a disadvantage at all.

There is certainly a pretty high "tweener" potential with Ballesteros.  But even then that just means he's a really fun and unique bench player instead of an everyday player.  And part of the benefit of paying out the nose for a really progressive manager is to try and wring as much value as you can out of this type of unicorn.

1. Point taken that present roster lacks an obvious (or good-defense) backup 1B.  For now I think it's unlikely that Moises would be the first choice if Busch gets injured, but it's not impossible, and the choice now might change come July.  
2. Happ is short, 6'0".  Berti and Shaw are shorter, 5'10"; Moises is shorter yet.  None of has played hardly any 1B.  If Busch is out, I'm guessing we're dropping from top to bottom quartile defensively at 1B.  
3. Yes, there are a couple of short 1B who get used, and are decent.    Moises might be a unicorn and be decent there, despite both his short wingspan and his unique physique.  No harm in no-evidence wishing for a unicorn.  
4. But I don't see any reason to expect it's likely.  
5. Guess I'm just kinda resisting the mindset that 1B-defense doesn't matter.  Or that any good hitter who's inept at other positions, you can just move him to 1B and he'll be fine.  
6. Imagine the following extreme hypothetical outcomes, and their relative probability for Moises.

• Primary catcher.  Defense develops into good enough (and bat).
• Primary 1B.  Defense becomes good enough (and bat).
• Primary DH.  Bat, including HR power, becomes good enough to support this role.  
• #2 catcher.  Defense good enough for 30-60 starts (and bat).  Starting catchers rarely start 120 games, so #2 catches a lot of games.
• #2 1B.  Barring injury, starting 1B rarely site more than 15 games.  So a #2 1B 
• Lesser role.  4A guy, maybe?  Back/bubble of the roster guy?  Part-time DH/PH/3rd-string-C/3rd-string-1b type guy?  

1. Primary-anything:  DH >> C >>> 1B.  (Odds of having good enough defense/per-position-bat combo at 1B least probable. )
2. Adding enough effective-HR-power to be a good primary DH is more likely than odds of making it as a primary C or 1B.
3. Fielding/hitting well enough to be #2 catcher is more likely than primary anything.  Good #1 catchers are hard to find.  #2 catchers always short on either defense or offense, yet they still typically start ≥40 games a year.  If Moises hits pretty well, that may justify being a 30th-percentile defender.  
4. As you mentioned, 1908, the prospect of being #2 catcher (start 30-60 games), sub-average but not--awful at 1B (start 15 games), and bunchof-starts DH, even if not majority,  games) and 45(C) + 15(1B) + 50(DH) = 110 starts.  I think that's the path I most hope for.  

I guess I kinda think that improving into  #2 catcher or a primary DH are really the two realistic pathways to making it as an asset.  If he picks up an occasional game at 1B, that's nice.  But a backup 1B with no other position, he's a heavy-usage DH or he's not a thing.  

In terms of short-term opportunity,  Seiya is DH when Seiya, Happ, and Tucker are healthy.  *IF* any of those three, or Busch, go IL, that would open 1B/DH.  Perhaps Moises would be next man up.  Or perhaps not, maybe we sign Bregman and Shaw would be ahead of Moises for that, or Caissie, or some vet.  But yeah, *IF* Moises can explode into the best bat available; and *if* Shaw not Bregman is playing 3b; then it only takes one injury to any of Busch-Seiya-Happ-Tucker to open up a 1B/DH opportunity for somebody.  

6 minutes ago, craig said:

• Yes, there are a couple of short 1B who get used, and are decent.    Moises might be a unicorn and be decent there, despite both his short wingspan and his unique physique.  No harm in no-evidence wishing for a unicorn.  
• But I don't see any reason to expect it's likely.  

Respectfully, where's your evidence that his height is a problem?  

Carlos Santana is a 5'11" former catcher pushing 40 and is probably the best defensive 1B in the league right now.

No one bats an eye if someone 5'10" or 5'11" plays 1B.  What major problem suddenly pops up in those last two or three inches?  

To add to the discussion, just look at how the Cubs have handled the left side of the infield over the last few years. Nico Hoerner, Nick Madrigal and Christpher Morel have played real innings on that side. The first two don't look like typical SS/3b - they have weak arms and Madrigal needs a step stool to reach the top shelf of things. Conversely, Morel looks like an athletic freak and has a big arm to boot. Yet the Cubs turned the first two into plus defenders while Morel is DH quality in the field. 

This is clearly just an anecdote - Moises Ballesteros isn't playing 3b and that story isn't to say "put everyone everywhere and just go for it!". But the reason I bring it up is that looks can be deceiving and writing Big Mo off of 1b because he's a bit different probably isn't the way I'd go with it. 

23 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Respectfully, where's your evidence that his height is a problem?  

Thanks for discussion.  No, zero evidence that 5'8" is a prohibitive problem.  Your Solano example logically demonstrates the contrary.   

To flip the question, do we have any evidence that Moises can play a good big-league 1B?  

I do think height is a factor for 1B.  But yeah, maybe not that much. 

Neither Solano nor Moises have the have the wingspan that longer guys have.  So it seems self-evident that there will be some line drives they won't be able to snag, and some errant throws that they won't be able to reach while keeping toe on the bag. 

But, Solano the 2B/SS/3B is probably ranging and snagging some ground balls that tall 1B's like Fred McGriff or Matt Mervis weren't getting.  So, some pros and cons.  The height thing is just one of multiple factors, and not intrinsically prohibitive, as you exemplify with Solano.  

I think any decent infielder should be able to transition to 1B rather well.  If he is short, there will be intrinsic wingspan factor to his disadvantage.  But yeah, other qualities may outweigh the wingspan bit.  

Shaw is only two inches taller than Moises.  I think he's much more likely to play decent big-league 1B than Moises.  Of course I may be wrong!  It's just a discussion board, I'm sure I've got all kinds of dumb ideas or expectations.  

But yeah, I think any decent infielder could transition to 1B and be variably good/decent.  Infielders like Solano and Shaw have range.  They've handled hot shots at 3b, hot shots to 1B shouldn't be that different.  They have manifested lateral range at 3B and SS, and Solano at 2B.  I expect they'll have lateral range on grounders at 1B just like that did at other infield spots.  Shaw is suggested to have good and quick footwork at 3B; that should translate nicely to 1B if needed. 

I hope you guys are right.  That Moises is so quick and athletic that he'll handle hot shots at 1b well; that he'll handle hard grounders well, just like he digs sliders and breaking balls in the dirt at catcher; and that his lateral range will as good as for Solano and Shaw, and it will all be no problem.  I guess I'm just kinda nervous that even if he trims stomach weight, that his build with his haunches just really isn't equipped for the lateral range that good infielders have.  

Cubs haven't played him at all at 3B or 2B or SS, the way Shaw and Solano have been used, so I'm kinda guessing they don't really think he has the lateral range that most infielders have.  But maybe he does, and he'll be just fine at 1B.  Hope so.  But yeah, just like I have no evidence that he can't play decent 1B, I suspect there is presently lack of evidence that he can.  

27 minutes ago, craig said:

I think any decent infielder should be able to transition to 1B rather well.  If he is short, there will be intrinsic wingspan factor to his disadvantage.  But yeah, other qualities may outweigh the wingspan bit.  

Shaw is only two inches taller than Moises.  I think he's much more likely to play decent big-league 1B than Moises.  Of course I may be wrong!  It's just a discussion board, I'm sure I've got all kinds of dumb ideas or expectations.  

But yeah, I think any decent infielder could transition to 1B and be variably good/decent.  Infielders like Solano and Shaw have range.  They've handled hot shots at 3b, hot shots to 1B shouldn't be that different.  They have manifested lateral range at 3B and SS, and Solano at 2B.  I expect they'll have lateral range on grounders at 1B just like that did at other infield spots.  Shaw is suggested to have good and quick footwork at 3B; that should translate nicely to 1B if needed. 

I hope you guys are right.  That Moises is so quick and athletic that he'll handle hot shots at 1b well; that he'll handle hard grounders well, just like he digs sliders and breaking balls in the dirt at catcher; and that his lateral range will as good as for Solano and Shaw, and it will all be no problem.  I guess I'm just kinda nervous that even if he trims stomach weight, that his build with his haunches just really isn't equipped for the lateral range that good infielders have.  

Cubs haven't played him at all at 3B or 2B or SS, the way Shaw and Solano have been used, so I'm kinda guessing they don't really think he has the lateral range that most infielders have.  But maybe he does, and he'll be just fine at 1B.  Hope so.  But yeah, just like I have no evidence that he can't play decent 1B, I suspect there is presently lack of evidence that he can.  

1B defense has three components:

- Vertical range

- Horizontal range

- Receiving (both throws and groundballs)

Moises' height means the 1st one's going to be bottom of the scale, and there's nothing he can do about it.

Moises' weight will go a long way in in determining how he nets out horizontally.

Receiving though, he's probably got the hands to crush it.  There are endless examples of mediocre to bad defensive catchers who went to 1B and excelled, and I think a big part of that is because of the hands piece.  The aforementioned Carlos Santana looks like a posterboy for this. The bar at catcher is SO high, if you're even vaguely major league quality, your receiving almost by default outstrips any non-catcher.

I don't know how to weight these three in terms of importance.  I suspect receiving is number 1 by a very healthy amount because it influences the largest number of plays.  So I would tend to be less worried about Ballesteros than I would be e.g. Chris Morel.  I'm going back a ways with these examples: but guys like Mike Napoli and Daric Barton taking to 1B like fish to water while guys like Adam Dunn and Edwin Encarnacion simply couldn't make it work stands out to me.  I'd rather try to convert a bad raw athlete with some skill than a premium athlete who's a putz.

We all noted it was a bad angle, but Moises' possible weight loss from that other video seems to have been overstated.

43 minutes ago, Bertz said:

We all noted it was a bad angle, but Moises' possible weight loss from that other video seems to have been overstated.

Bummer. ST is "best shape of their life" season and was really hoping he was a bit better then that. Alas, I'm still here for Big Mo.

56 minutes ago, Bertz said:

We all noted it was a bad angle, but Moises' possible weight loss from that other video seems to have been overstated.

He’s wearing a baggie hoodie though? Are there more photos? I wouldn’t say he still looks fat from just that photo.