Cubs Winter Top Prospects Rankings: #16 Luke Little

agree on all accounts. I do worry about his delivery and propensity to issue walks. It's a funkadelic delivery even from the stretch. 

11 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

agree on all accounts. I do worry about his delivery and propensity to issue walks. It's a funkadelic delivery even from the stretch. 

Yeah he's got funk to him. I think we'll probably always see a walk total in the 4.5 (ish) range because it's a bit hard to repeat. Thankfully, he's a high GB% profile, and with the powerful stuff and extension, his propensity to get K's and double plays (should) in theory help to negate that. He might be someone who you kind of struggle to want to bring into a jam that was already created, more so using him to start innings fresh, as well.

I'm calling in 2-3 years they're gonna start stretching him back out to start. I hope he throws his splitter more this year as well. 

I'd guess it's very unlikely Little opens the year in MLB.  There's probably only going to be one truly open spot in the bullpen to be competed for in spring training, and if it goes to a lefty Hughes feels more likely.  But like Little only had 8 appearances at Iowa, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for him to get more seasoning.

Little looks to at a minimum be absolute death on lefties though.  Last year he did not give up an XBH to a left hander his entire time in the minors.  He did allow a double in MLB, but it was a groundball down the line from Jace Peterson.  Across all levels lefties slugged .161 (!!!) against him.    The walks are an issue, and what will decide if he's ultimately a closer or a middle reliever, though he doesn't completely lose the strike zone as much as you'd expect from a guy with a 15ish percent walk rate.

Injury, camp performance, and the cost of relief guys in trade or free agency can dictate things.  

But I totally don't expect Little to make the opening roster.  He's got years of options left, and his command and consistency are unreliable.  I totally expect that he will start at Iowa, have opportunity to improve and get more consistent, and wait for opportunity and need.  

Think that will be the setup for a lot of our prospects.  Interesting, has a chance to be good, hope he earns it, etc..  But I imagine Little, along with PCA and Canario and probably Palencia, those guys will all start at Iowa.  Prove they are ready there, and wait for injury or failure to open their next windows of opportunity.  

19 minutes ago, craig said:

Injury, camp performance, and the cost of relief guys in trade or free agency can dictate things.  

But I totally don't expect Little to make the opening roster.  He's got years of options left, and his command and consistency are unreliable.  I totally expect that he will start at Iowa, have opportunity to improve and get more consistent, and wait for opportunity and need.  

Think that will be the setup for a lot of our prospects.  Interesting, has a chance to be good, hope he earns it, etc..  But I imagine Little, along with PCA and Canario and probably Palencia, those guys will all start at Iowa.  Prove they are ready there, and wait for injury or failure to open their next windows of opportunity.  

I think PCA opens the year in MLB unless he faceplants in spring training.  Him getting called up despite such a narrow path to playing time felt like they were trying to get him ready mentally/emotionally ready for big league life.  Like I remember one of Theo/Jeds reasons for holding Bryant and Russell down I'm '15 was that rookies debuting with all of the pomp and circumstance of opening day tended to get kind of overwhelmed.  It was obviously an excuse, but they probably chose that excuse instead of another because there is some truth to it.

That said more broadly I agree.  Iowa didn't provide as many reinforcements last year as it should have, particularly on the reliever side.  So I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot more meat on that roster to open '24 knowing that ultimately we're going to need to call some guys up and have them produce more or less immediately.  

The one arm I'm convinced will make the BP is actually Palencia. A little foreshadowing for tomorrow's #15 prospect, but Palencia's last 17.2 IP last year were near lights out. I'd like to see Little make the BP as I think he's an absolute weapon, but if Hughes is back to form, you can make an argument he'll take the spot. But I think what Palencia does (100mph off the right side) is something we just don't have without him. Alzolay, Merryweather...are nice RHP arms, but Palencia is just a different beast with what he offers stuff wise. I think he's got an inside track at a spot.

Agree with @Bertzon PCA: I think it's 60/40 he's on the MLB roster. There are some offseason outcomes where I can see him being traded (though I think it's unlikely) and some where he goes back to Iowa, but I think he'll likely take CF considering the options we don't have there. The Cubs love defense up the middle and PCA offers such an impressively high floor. Basically, he can suck offensively and still speed-and-d his way to 2 wins in CF. Varsho had an 85 wRC+ last season and finished with a 2.1 fWAR based on his defense and baserunning and that feels like a "worse case 2023" for PCA barring health. 

Don't want to distract from the Little conversation(just a few more strikes and he could be elite, he can afford to live in the zone more since his baseline is so unhittable), but I'm very much against PCA making the opening day roster.  I see his September call up not as a trial run to prepare him to be ready from Day 1(though that may have been on the table), but one borne out of competitive necessity and ended up being a call up before he was ready.  He still has hurdles to climb at AAA to not get humiliated at the MLB level like he did this year, and even if Bellinger or another CF isn't acquired they'll clearly be fine starting with Tauchman there to let PCA get the reps that he needs.

36 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Don't want to distract from the Little conversation(just a few more strikes and he could be elite, he can afford to live in the zone more since his baseline is so unhittable), but I'm very much against PCA making the opening day roster.  I see his September call up not as a trial run to prepare him to be ready from Day 1(though that may have been on the table), but one borne out of competitive necessity and ended up being a call up before he was ready.  He still has hurdles to climb at AAA to not get humiliated at the MLB level like he did this year, and even if Bellinger or another CF isn't acquired they'll clearly be fine starting with Tauchman there to let PCA get the reps that he needs.

I'm on the fence. I can buy an argument that Pete Crow-Armstrong has a few things to work on at the plate. He's hyper aggressive and he does struggle on fastballs up (his swing plane is always going to struggle there). On the other hand, I don't think these are things he can't work on at the MLB level, and his defense and base running should offer such a stable floor for value. Conversely, I'm just not a fan of Tauchman. He was pretty punchless over his last 150-160 PAs, and I kind of expect that hitter to continue based on his past and his baseball savant page. The Cubs might be able to be okay with that kind of a player for a few months, but at the same time, it's that kind of a player (Mancini, Hosmer, Barnhart, Smyly),the "floor" players who ultimately hurt the Cubs in the first part of the season. Tauchman has a lot of the same issues and I'd prefer not seeing a repeat.

Just now, 1908_Cubs said:

I'm on the fence. I can buy an argument that Pete Crow-Armstrong has a few things to work on at the plate. He's hyper aggressive and he does struggle on fastballs up (his swing plane is always going to struggle there). On the other hand, I don't think these are things he can't work on at the MLB level, and his defense and base running should offer such a stable floor for value. Conversely, I'm just not a fan of Tauchman. He was pretty punchless on the 2nd half, and I kind of expect that hitter to continue based on his past and his baseball savant page. The Cubs might be able to be okay with that kind of a player for a few months, but at the same time, it's that kind of a player (Mancini, Hosmer, Barnhart, Smyly),the "floor" players who ultimately hurt the Cubs in the first part of the season. Tauchman has a lot of the same issues and I'd prefer not seeing a repeat.

 

I guess for me the question is less on if he can make that progress at Iowa v. MLB(I'm open to the argument that it could be either), it's that on a team with competitive aspirations I think until those adjustments happen PCA is going to be unplayable at the MLB level.  The 7 K in 19 MLB PA is one indication on that front, but moreso it's the 30% K rate with barely above league average production at Iowa that points me to that development needing to start at AAA.

That said, I totally understand Tauchman skepticism, though it'll be interesting to see how the offseason progresses if other alternatives present themselves.  Bringing back Bellinger, adding Soto and being willing to play Happ there in the short term, adding a lower tier FA or trade target, telling Morel he's a full-time OF and playing him there, etc.  Very possible that even though I assume the front office is fine with Tauchman being a stop gap, there's probably permutations where it's not exclusively PCA v. Tauchman in April.

7 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I guess for me the question is less on if he can make that progress at Iowa v. MLB(I'm open to the argument that it could be either), it's that on a team with competitive aspirations I think until those adjustments happen PCA is going to be unplayable at the MLB level.  The 7 K in 19 MLB PA is one indication on that front, but moreso it's the 30% K rate with barely above league average production at Iowa that points me to that development needing to start at AAA.

That said, I totally understand Tauchman skepticism, though it'll be interesting to see how the offseason progresses if other alternatives present themselves.  Bringing back Bellinger, adding Soto and being willing to play Happ there in the short term, adding a lower tier FA or trade target, telling Morel he's a full-time OF and playing him there, etc.  Very possible that even though I assume the front office is fine with Tauchman being a stop gap, there's probably permutations where it's not exclusively PCA v. Tauchman in April.

I'll be honest and say I really don't care much about the 19 PA's at the MLB level. They were spread around a bunch of games and you had a 21 year old kid who was likely really trying to impress during important games and being a hero. The 30% K% in Iowa is a little concerning, but it's hard to tell what it really is. His first 15 games he had a 21.9% K%. His next 13 games he had a 41.7% K%, and this was coupled with a lot of poor contact. His final 6 games he was back down to a 26% K%, and he was killing the baseball. Was it a bad 13 games? He had 13 game stretches that sucked in AA, too (31.4% K% from June 21st - July 6th, as an example) and we know they didn't really mean much in the grand scheme. Was it AAA exploiting him? It's one of those things I'd trust the Cubs to decide on. Partly why I'm on the fence with where I think he needs to be. 

What I do entirely agree upon is that a lot of this should be decided upon based on the offseason. It's why I think today I'd put it at like 60/40 him making the team, but that 40% is a very real outcome. It's just too early for me to call it. I also admit part of this is likely biased; I spend far too much time with the MiLB teams so I know my inherent biases.

I'm of the mind that ideally for his development yeah you'd probably give PCA til Memorial Day before you call him up.  But I think the PPI plus the fact that he's plus plus outside of the batter's box (providing some real floor) will have him open the year in MLB.  It won't be gifted to him, I'm sure he's got some very real boxes to check during spring training, but it looks to be the way the wind is blowing IMO.

That said I'm a big Tauchman fan.  I have no worries about him getting significant run in CF.  Yeah there's no power there but a lefty with a ~league average bat and nominal splits is pretty valuable out in CF.  And the lack of power *should* be less of an issue next year since I expect our primary hitter acquisition(s) to provide it in spades.  Canario is also a fun idoesn't. compliment to Tauchman who probably gets an MLB roster spot if PCA doesnt.

Ross didn't trust Little last September in game situations unless as a last resort, and he was kinda off-and-on in terms of being able to throw strikes.  I think for guys like this, Hoyer will try to go with more experienced guys.  

My expectation is that he'll add one veteran lefty on guaranteed deal; certain to make the roster, even if perhaps he pitches his way off of it later.  Come to camp with guaranteed new lefty; guaranteed Smyly; and Hughes.  Little is 4th man coming in, destined for Iowa unless Hughes is bad, or Little is both throwing strikes every opportunity and showing professionalism/confidence/composure.  

The starting pen is never the ending pen.  Injuries, new vet might be bad, Smyly might be bad, Hughes might never be the 2022 version again.  Smyly or new vet might get traded at deadline,  Who knows?  Don't know how the season will roll.  I think the burden is on Little to show enough consistency and control so that they want him up, and so that the next time a window opens, they give the opportunity to him rather than looking to somebody else or going outside.  

Or, maybe thy don't actually sign a guaranteed outside vet?  Is Hoyer ready to jump the lux line, and if so by so much that he can't trade his way back under if the season is failing?  Is there a lefty that they like whose cost is not prohibitive?  Maybe there just isn't a guy their scouting likes that much, so instead they'll bring in only some rehab non-roster guy, and only Smyly and Hughes (and Leiter) will be ahead of Little on the lefty ladder?  If it's just Leiter, Hughes, Smyly, and non-roster flyers, I'd still expect Hughes to win all ties.  But Little might certainly have a chance to beat out Hughes in camp.  

18 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I'll be honest and say I really don't care much about the 19 PA's at the MLB level. They were spread around a bunch of games and you had a 21 year old kid who was likely really trying to impress during important games and being a hero. The 30% K% in Iowa is a little concerning, but it's hard to tell what it really is. His first 15 games he had a 21.9% K%. His next 13 games he had a 41.7% K%, and this was coupled with a lot of poor contact. ...

On PCA, I didn't see all of his 19 AB, but I think listening to HOyer's post-season press conference influences my expectations.  He said PCA's experience might be the best thing that happens for his career.  Compared him to Happ, who'd gotten sent down to make adjustments such that he could be better able to handle upper-half strikes (Hoyer didn't spell it out like that, though).   And compared him at some length especially to Rizzo.  Talked about how Rizzo got dominated, realized that there were pitches his minor-league swing couldn't get to, and then made some pretty dramatic swing adjustments. 

My take is that Hoyer and Cubs recognize that there are pitches that PCA's current swing can't get to, and I'm guessing they have data on that from the minors as well, not just the 19AB. I think they think that he does need to make adjustments to be able to better cover the strike zone.   So my guess is that they'll project for that adjustment practice to have every-day opportunity at Iowa. 

Signing Bellinger would make so much sense.  Flexible for CF and 1B, so you get a stud in CF, without blocking PCA if/when he shows he's more ready.  PCA starts at Iowa and works on things, and if he struggles its off screen.  If no Bellinger, then it's tougher.  If they come to camp with just Tauchman, PCA, and Canario as the three CF candidates, I don't think it will take much success for PCA to get a chance.  

8 minutes ago, craig said:

On PCA, I didn't see all of his 19 AB, but I think listening to HOyer's post-season press conference influences my expectations.  He said PCA's experience might be the best thing that happens for his career.  Compared him to Happ, who'd gotten sent down to make adjustments such that he could be better able to handle upper-half strikes (Hoyer didn't spell it out like that, though).   And compared him at some length especially to Rizzo.  Talked about how Rizzo got dominated, realized that there were pitches his minor-league swing couldn't get to, and then made some pretty dramatic swing adjustments. 

My take is that Hoyer and Cubs recognize that there are pitches that PCA's current swing can't get to, and I'm guessing they have data on that from the minors as well, not just the 19AB. I think they think that he does need to make adjustments to be able to better cover the strike zone.   So my guess is that they'll project for that adjustment practice to have every-day opportunity at Iowa. 

Signing Bellinger would make so much sense.  Flexible for CF and 1B, so you get a stud in CF, without blocking PCA if/when he shows he's more ready.  PCA starts at Iowa and works on things, and if he struggles its off screen.  If no Bellinger, then it's tougher.  If they come to camp with just Tauchman, PCA, and Canario as the three CF candidates, I don't think it will take much success for PCA to get a chance.  

At this stage, I kind of would be surprised by a Bellinger resign. As a Boras client, I expect he'll wait out the offseason, and I'm not sure the Cubs will wait (with Soto, Alonso available via trade, and as well as the reports from Rogers that the Cubs will be more likely to go into the trade market than FA) that long. I'm a bit on the fence with a Bellinger extension, personally. Paying a premium for a CF to play 1b isn't really the best concept (though the Cubs should be able to afford that) and his BABIP with 2 strikes was basically impossible to repeat. With that said, especially on the 2nd part, he changed his approach so I think he'll be a decent-to-good-2-strike guy. I'm not entirely against it, just that I think it feels like something that I feel is unlikely today.

One thing I agree with: PCA needed to get his ass handed to him at a level for a minute. I think his swing will always be an issue getting at high fastballs and I'm not sure they'll really work on that much overall (it was the Cubs who built this swing). What I think he'll need to work on is that approach of his. Pitch recognition, jumping on the right pitches, and avoiding getting into spaces where he can get beat up there often. Perhaps a slight change in 2-strike approach like we saw with Rizzo (like you mentioned!). 

2 hours ago, craig said:

Smyly might be bad,

That's a given. I don't know what happened at the beginning of the season when he actually looked like a starter, but it would be nice if he could do that again for a full season as a swingman. 

14 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

That's a given. I don't know what happened at the beginning of the season when he actually looked like a starter, but it would be nice if he could do that again for a full season as a swingman. 

 

Feels like him and Stroman got predictable in their approach and sequencing maybe? They weren't tunnelling as effectively as they did early on. Not saying Stroman was going to pitch like an Ace the whole time but at least to his regular expected levels, instead of a dramatic fall off into unusable territory. 

I think Hoyer viewed Rizzo's change as more than a change in approach, he said his swing was significantly changed. 

Your observation is that they built his swing such that it can't and probably never will be able to hit the middle/upper portions of the zone, especially velocity.  As you imagine an optimistic future, would you be hoping that he can kinda be like Happ and be a .240's hitter someday, maybe with a few more speed-based infield hits to get him up into the .250's or .260's?  Happ with more speed but without the walks?  Happ kinda comes to mind as guy with trouble up in zone, who got sent down to Iowa for much of a year to work on that.  Which moderated the problem, even though it's still never been a strength for him, just less awful.  Maybe PCA as Happ without the walks could be a .730-.750 type guy OPS-wise?  

I saw some of the 19AB, and I admit I haven't seen a guy look so overmatched since DH replaced pitchers.  He just looked like a very immature player who needs some more time; who needs some swing adjustment to allow more zone-coverage; and who needs some approach refinement.  But yeah, my sense is that it's more than just approach-refinement.  

12 minutes ago, craig said:

I think Hoyer viewed Rizzo's change as more than a change in approach, he said his swing was significantly changed. 

Your observation is that they built his swing such that it can't and probably never will be able to hit the middle/upper portions of the zone, especially velocity.  As you imagine an optimistic future, would you be hoping that he can kinda be like Happ and be a .240's hitter someday, maybe with a few more speed-based infield hits to get him up into the .250's or .260's?  Happ with more speed but without the walks?  Happ kinda comes to mind as guy with trouble up in zone, who got sent down to Iowa for much of a year to work on that.  Which moderated the problem, even though it's still never been a strength for him, just less awful.  Maybe PCA as Happ without the walks could be a .730-.750 type guy OPS-wise?  

I saw some of the 19AB, and I admit I haven't seen a guy look so overmatched since DH replaced pitchers.  He just looked like a very immature player who needs some more time; who needs some swing adjustment to allow more zone-coverage; and who needs some approach refinement.  But yeah, my sense is that it's more than just approach-refinement.  

I think his swing is built for LA and the reality is swings built for LA usually equal swings that struggle with velocity. If you're trying to get a bit under the ball, the higher the ball gets, the harder it is to get under, if that makes sense. So I don't think it has to be a Happ thing for PCA. Honestly, like, Javier Baez-lite without the "swing and the slider that was 20 feet over there" is what I'd be looking for. PCA has a strong bat to ball tool, with a hyper aggressive swing approach (though not like Baez). So I think you're hoping for someone who gets into better counts early, or learns to balance being aggressive early in counts while not being stupid in counts. He's also going to beat out a lot of those balls he tops because of his conservative 70 grade speed which should give him a really high BABIP floor.

So I'm envisioning someone who's floor is like a Kevin Kiermaier type of like a .240/.290/.400 with 15-20 home runs and elite defense/base running. If you iron out the approach a bit, get him into good accounts, maybe a .280/.320/.450 guy. That guy is a borderline star.

Immature feels like a decent word for him, but I prefer overconfident. I think he's a 21 year old kid who doesn't know what he doesn't know and he needed his ass thoroughly kicked. You can see those things in how he plays and it can make him fearless (you can see this in how he plays defense. He's just so fearless). He needed a bit of humbling at the plate, which is his biggest flaw. I'm excited it happened to him. Overconfident people can take that ass beating two ways; you put your head down and you pout about it, or you get pissed and refuse to feel that away again. I'm hoping very much PCA is the latter.

yeah, overconfident, immature, reckless are all good words.  It's a hard thing, for an overconfident guy who's been hyped up as a star, and then gets dominated.  I agree, the ideal competitor figures something out and finds a way to get better, just like you said.  

Some of it was just reckless and, frankly, pretty dumb.  How many times have we seen 1st-and-3rd, runner steals second, and the catcher fakes the throw?  How may big-league baserunners are too dumb to recognize that?  I assume it's happened before, but seeing PCA sprint towards the plate with the catcher holding the ball, you don't see such dumb/naive/reckless/immature stuff very often in mlb.  

On 11/3/2023 at 8:27 AM, 1908_Cubs said:

At this stage, I kind of would be surprised by a Bellinger resign. As a Boras client, I expect he'll wait out the offseason, and I'm not sure the Cubs will wait (with Soto, Alonso available via trade, and as well as the reports from Rogers that the Cubs will be more likely to go into the trade market than FA) that long. I'm a bit on the fence with a Bellinger extension, personally. .....

Back to last-week conversation, but I think your thoughts here are interesting.  

I dislike the idea of trying to improve the big-league team in 2024 by adding asset players through trade instead of free agency.  Sharma has alluded to how trading preserves flexibility and avoids commitment, and I like that motivation even less.  A tweak on the margins, fine, but not trading for high-level high-cost players.  

Trading for Alonso or Soto, or Glasnow, those rentals would not come cheap.  If you trade for a rental because you're averse to long-term contracts, you're just going to face the same commit-long-or-lose-the-player choice next year.  Do we want to trade significant talent for Soto or Alonso this winter, then let them walk next winter because we don't want long-term commitments and want to retain flexibility?  Then those guys would just be one-year rentals.  Unless Hoyer is serious abut extending them, and paying the price-with-length that good free-agents command, then I don't think it makes long-term sense.  

*If* you're spending seriously enough in FA to have a good contending team, and if you're willing to consider extending,  that would be different. But yeah, I don't want to be trading a bunch of guys from the Canario/Brown/Ballesteros/Triantos/Ferris/Drew/Alcantara type pool just to help win 83 games next year and have the pickups walk.  

31 minutes ago, craig said:

Back to last-week conversation, but I think your thoughts here are interesting.  

I dislike the idea of trying to improve the big-league team in 2024 by adding asset players through trade instead of free agency.  Sharma has alluded to how trading preserves flexibility and avoids commitment, and I like that motivation even less.  A tweak on the margins, fine, but not trading for high-level high-cost players.  

Trading for Alonso or Soto, or Glasnow, those rentals would not come cheap.  If you trade for a rental because you're averse to long-term contracts, you're just going to face the same commit-long-or-lose-the-player choice next year.  Do we want to trade significant talent for Soto or Alonso this winter, then let them walk next winter because we don't want long-term commitments and want to retain flexibility?  Then those guys would just be one-year rentals.  Unless Hoyer is serious abut extending them, and paying the price-with-length that good free-agents command, then I don't think it makes long-term sense.  

*If* you're spending seriously enough in FA to have a good contending team, and if you're willing to consider extending,  that would be different. But yeah, I don't want to be trading a bunch of guys from the Canario/Brown/Ballesteros/Triantos/Ferris/Drew/Alcantara type pool just to help win 83 games next year and have the pickups walk.  

Oh, I'm not adverse to long term contracts. I would hope the Cubs made some trades for a Soto (using Morel mostly but then probably a decent but not special 2nd piece) but then some sort of controllable SP who has upside to fit in as a high #3 now and possible #2 in a bit. It's hard to float those names right now, because these types are rarely "on the market" but there's some guy like this who's always available, somewhere. I'd also entirely advocate the Cubs lock Juan Soto up for 10+ years. I think he's that kind of a guy. Or maybe trade #2 is a position player and you sign Imanaga. 

The Cubs have a bit of an issue with their prospects in that they almost have a few too many condensed in a similar wave. The Cubs probably have to pick and choose their favorites a bit, and I think *now* is a decent plan for that. Not so much you kill the system, I'm not saying "hey, go for it all" but I think the Cubs are very set up to go use a few prospects, use someone like Morel who I just don't think the Cubs love at the positions available to him, and start rounding out a team. I think the Cubs have a good system right now for replacing prospects via draft and IFA, as well.

The FA pool is particularly craptastic right now outside of a few of the Japanese arms and, well, you know, Ohtani. Cubs have significant money coming back off in 2026. So my plan would be kind of like: use 2024 to make a splash or two in the trade market (the Cubs strength matches up with the FA weakness, so use your strength), IMO, let the prospects come up at the mid-end of 2024, and let them grow in 2025 to fill out the roster, and then 2026 you can re-add.