craig

HR rates in the majors are much higher than in the minors, no? That his rate in the minors isn't better than big-league normal is a concern, a big one for me, and is a bad precedent. Obviously we hope that he'll improve, and that in future he'll be much less a bomb-factory than he's been to date. Hoping for improvement in future is what we do with all prospects, obviously. My point was simply that thus far, HR-vulnerable is his profile. We can all wish that will change in future.

Interesting that both lists today have 9 of 10 guys in common. Often lists have considerably more scatter. Rojas finishing 9th in both also interesting, ahead of guys like Brown in the one, and guys like Ferris and Canario in both.

Unfortunately it isn't actually statistically true that he can "keep the ball in the ballpark", thus far. He's been HR-prone. I think the capacity to limit the bomb-factor will be a big key in terms of his future. 17HR in 126IP last year. (Between Cubs and minors.) 10HR in 94IP in 2022. That's not awful, but it's not good for A/AA-level pitching, where HR's are much reduced. I think most good prospects are much less bomb-vulnerable in A-ball. Kind of a bummer that Wicks got waxed so badly in his last couple of outings. I'd hoped he might sneak into the top-100, and be a PPI draft-pick-bonus guy if he was to win ROY. But ranking only #6 in BA's Cubs list, I'm guessing he won't make their top-100. And for the PPI, a guy needs to be top-100 in 2-of-3 top-100's between Pipeline, ESPN, and BA. He's only #10 on current Pipeline listing, so kinda guessing he's not going to be a PPI possibility.

Given the lack of high-ceiling rotation prospects in the lower system (well, in the system as a whole), I would have Ferris untouchable in trades. Don't think his trade value is huge enough to justify the loss of potential. Teams don't do 1-for-1 trade of asset starters with ≥3 years of good-value cost control. The long-term value he'd bring in trade just doesn't justify including him in a trade. Obviously keeping him is risky, and his value may well go down. Control may never come, nor the hypothetical added velocity. So of course there is risk that NOT trading now will end up with less value than if you do. But I want to hold onto low-minors guys like him and Gray who have a chance to blossom into good asset rotation starters down the road.

I agree with 1908, the Cubs are very careful with their pitchers, for good reason. Pitch count, innings limit, pitch-per-inning, rest between starts, I don't imagine that's unique or rare. I assume what Cubs do is relatively routine in the industry. And I agree with 1908, I think it works, in terms of injury protection. We have NOT been plagued with surgery for good rotation prospects. So, I am not super nervous about Ferris needing TJ anytime soon.

Interesting that the burned 40-man spots on all three of these. Three wildmen, Cubs have shown no aptitude for fixing wildmen thus far. But, hopefully one of them figures it out and control becomes anti-awful enough to become useful. Horn as the lefty, he's got a shot. On the 40-man roster, I'd see the following 6 as my most likely to get de-rostered, and I'd not mind with any of them. Point being that we've got plenty of opportunities to open roster spots, it's not like we're going to sign six guaranteed-contract free agents. So I don't see any problem with the 40-man. Patrick Wisdom. Contract should be ≥$2.5, hope they've got better plans for 3B/1B than Patrick. Bennen. Rucker Heuer Roberts Killian So yeah, I don't think this really creates any problematic 40-man pressure, or signals that Heuer is assuming trades plural rather than free agency.

Not to contest the gist of the article. But unless I'm crazy, there is some factual inaccuracy. You have 19% K-rate in 2022, 28% at Iowa 2023. Baseball reference stats differs some: , https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=canari000ale 2022 composite: 147/534 K/PA = 27.5% 2022 Iowa: 21/84 = 25% 2023 Iowa: 45/161 = 27.9%. Not sure having actually been 27.5% in 2022 instead of 19% really helps his case. Just reflects that he's been a K guy in 2022 as well as 2023, and some improvement at Iowa in 2022 was perhaps more fluke than real. That said, I'm higher on Canario than what seems the general consensus here. Over 137 AA/AAA games, 38 HR is pretty good. Over his two Iowa visits, OBP 357, average .262, slug .529, OPS .885. K/HR/BB ratio 4.7:1:2, not bad. Big slug can cover a bunch of K's. And it's possible he's just kinda finding his game, and he's going to get better? He was just coming off the big injury this year, and like Tim said started cold. So I'd like to see what he could do if he started right out at Iowa, healthy, and got some months in. I like him bit better than I liked Velasquez at this point last year, more power, so I'd be disappointed to trade him this winter for no more than a Cuas. I'm also a bit less concerned with the Happ/Suzuki block. 3 years pass very quickly. Assuming Canario gets the extra option year, he could do Iowa this year, and be a depth/DH/platoon guy for two years, Sure, a trade candidate now, and I'm fine to involve him in a trade for something of long-term value. But not for a Cuas-level reliever, or like 6 years ago when Theo traded both Candelario and Paredes (31 HR this season, 131 OPS+) for JAG Justin Wilson. Plus, I think his trade value could be a lot higher in July than it is now?

I'd bump Ballesteros up two, just in case he can catch. (Cubs may know better.) Rojas and Shaw down one. Rojas might end up being excellent, but I'd include him in the appropriate deal as the second piece. I'd add Gray to "not giving away" group 3. Given the cost of acquiring pitching, I'd like to keep guy who might become a good starter. Canario would be at least on my 4th tier. 520 high-minors AB, 38Hr, HR-power is precious, especially with OBP. .357 OBP over two Iowa stops.

Averse to trading the variably high-ceiling guy unless getting a high-ceiling club-controlled guy. Obviously PCA and Horton. Scrub like Wesneski, sure of course. Alcantara, I'd be fine to trade. He's pretty widely hyped, probably excessively so. So maybe he already has good trade value as is? Ferris and Gray, don't touch. Trade value for distant guys like Ferris, Gray, and Rojas isn't great, because they're so far away and so unproven. I think it's much better investment to keep them, and play the risky odds that they'll turn out well. The long-term value if any-or-all-three of those guys succeeds is potentially much higher than what they can buy you now. Ballesteros, don't touch. Unless you know he can't/won't catch. Banner may be shilling, but he talks about Ballesteros being reasonably quick and mobile, and my understanding is that he's quite smart. A good catcher who handles pitchers and can hit, that's invaluable. I'd keep him for sure, and hope his catching turns out just fine and his pitcher-handling excellent. The value of staffing catcher internally, without needing to pay the price in free agency or trade to get somebody, is big. Obviously a different analysis if Cubs evaluate his catching as poor and project it to always be a deficit. Caissie/Canario, don't touch. Between Morel, Canario, and Caissie, I don't know who'll end up the best, if any. But we've got 3 guys who could be 30-HR .500-slug >.800-OPS DH's, and I don't know which will succeed long-term versus become Patrick Wisdom. I'd save Caissie and Canario and give them more time to prove. Both have a chance to improve their value, and I want to take the chance that one or both will do so. Shaw and Triantos, don't touch. Neither has done enough yet or gotten close enough yet to have commanding trade value. But *IF* they're ripping in AA this summer, by July their trade value might be much higher than is true today. Again, I'd keep them for now, take the educated risk that their value will go up as they get closer to the majors. Basically I think we've got lots of guys who are kind of pre-peak value. A bunch of guys who, *IF* they progress well this season, will have significantly more value in July or next winter than they do now. Too soon to trade most of them. Unless you're getting a really good long-term piece back.

Won 83 games with Bellinger and Stroman, have holes CF/1B/3B/DH/rotation/relief. *IF* Hoyer signs Bellinger and one of the Gray/Nola/Yamamoto starters, I'd understand trying to trade to fill a remaining hole to help get into playoffs. But if replacing Stroman with Stroman or worse, and Bellinger with Chapman or Candelario, I don't want to trade upside. What's the point? Do NOT want to trade good long-term talent for a 1-year Boras rental. If Bellinger is gone, I don't think time is right to trade good long-term prospects for short-term rental. Different if you're getting a guy you except to be a good core player for multiple years. Trades for Rizzo, Matt Clement, Derrek Lee, Aramis, even Matt Garza, those were all long-term guys. Trading futures for a long-term futures piece could be fine, assuming he works out better than Ian Stewart.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

His long-term future, if any, will be as a reliever. How long he gets rotation starts is hard to guess. Depends on other guys worthy of starts; on how wild he is; and on how his pitch distribution is looking. If it's obvious that he's wildman-challenged to have even two pitches that he can throw for strikes, Cubs may not spend a lot of time starting him and working on 3rd and 4th pitches. Trade value, of course, is better for a guy having rotation success. And getting more innings is helpful, too. Obviously would love to see him throwing enough strikes with enough consistency that he'd have possibilities as a rotation guy. Who knows whether he'll develop and gain consistency.

Alcantara up to .257.

I question both, and think the answers determine where his career might go. Triantos hit only 4 HR this season. Imperfect analogy, but suppose Triantos hits like Hoerner? 9HR-Hoerner had a .729 OPS, good for a defensive asset. But Triantos is not going to be asset 2B or 3B. Put a Hoerner-like bat in left field or DH, and you've got 4A. The difference between a 9-HR and 19-HR guy can be pretty big, *IF* the extra HR's don't come at cost. If instead of going 3/10 on BIP those 10 balls go over the wall, that adds like 14 points to OBP, and over 70 points to OPS. Add 70+ points to .729 OPS guy, and suddenly he's an asset DH or LF. Or, .800-OPS guy might start at 3B or 2B even if his defense is modestly below-average. So, I think developing combined raw power and swing path to get to 15+ HR's is a really big deal for Triantos. HR's is more than a function of raw power. Good hitters who can hit the ball square pretty often have a big advantage. If Triantos's blend of swing-path/raw-power was league average, then he might hypothetically have above-average HR rate, based on barreling the ball at above-average rate?

Jose Romero, what do we know? He's short, he isn't young (22), he's K'd a lot of guys in low minors. Any stuff that's worth tracking, or just a roster-filler?

Anybody watching any South Bend games with any perspective on his catching? Show-stopper bad, so that if he has a major-league career, it's DH or nothing? Or is his catching perhaps decent enough so that *IF* he works at it and improves, he might have a shot to be usable as a big-league catcher? It's obviously the career hinge. 3 options: DH only. Could improve enough to become a possibility even as a primary catcher. Might improve enough to be accepted as a #2 catcher, but can never be a primary guy. It may be too soon to tell. Sometimes catcher defense improves a lot with time and work. And sometimes opinions vary a lot, might get different scouts who project his future defense very differently.

I could imagine him getting used kinda like Wicks this year. Wicks got 91 innings in the minors. 6-day rotation when resting him the least. Limited innings-per-start. A couple of starts skipped, July 12 and July 29. By August they extended his rest, with 6, 7, and 9 day starts in August. It's possible that Horton might actually be allowed a few more innings next summer than Wicks was this summer, just because Wicks is more nibbly? Horton might hypothetically throw the same number of pitches, but get 100 innings where Wicks got 91?

Wild has been the norm, not the recent exception. Counting the HBP in addition to the BB, he's 37 wildman/59IP on the season. More baserunners via wildman than via hits (37 wildman/34 hits/59IP). That's 6 wildman/9IP for the season. Wildman/inning: May: 5/11 June: 11/9 July: 7/11 August: 14/19 Seems pretty evident that wildman is a hinge on which his career will swing. Sometimes guys get better, and hopefully he'l be one of them.. Lots of guys don't.

Thanks, Tiger, for confirm on Little back-to-back. Very interesting! Pretty obviously reflects perspective transition from D+D to application.

milb box scores shows Luke Little having pitched 0.2 yesterday. Was that true, or was it actually Brendan Little or somebody else? I'm curious because if true, that's the first back-to-back of his career, a career in which only once before has he pitched with less than two days of rest between appearances. One of the challenges with minor league pitchers transitioning to the majors is that minor league starters work 6 day rotations instead of 5, and relievers work on 3 or 4-day rotation instead of every-other or back-to-back that big-leaguers throw. Obviously few minor-league relief callups get used in high-leverage spots, though. So on a good team, some new un-trusted back-of-pen callup isn't going to be asked for much back-to-back or every-other-day usage.