craig

That's kinda awesome, actually! Wow. Heh heh, obviously being a good jumper doesn't make a guy a good hitter. But man, would it be nice if we had some draft pick who ended up being a really premier hitter with serious power besides.

Cubs did make QO for Shota! Very surprised. Hope he gives them a decent year.

As I'd expected, Cubs did NOT pick up Shota 3-year $57/3 option. They still have choice to make QO and offer him $22/1 instead, but I don't think they'll want to pay $22/1 for a 4.86-FIP HR-factory. Think they can easily get a replacement that will do as well with Cubs defense and Wrigley's HR-suppression for less than $22/1. And I think the odds that a HR-factory 4.86-FIP will get a market offer better than $22/1 QO is too risky for Hoyer to risk that in hopes of getting a free draft pick. While I got it right that Cubs would not pick up his option, I got it wrong that Shota would decline his $30/2 option. Given his HR-profile and fastball decline, I'd figured $30/2 would seem safer than hitting the open market. Chance he may end up regretting that decision? Will be interesting to see what he ends up getting. And of course how he performs moving forward. QO deadline is Thursday, so we'll know soon. But even with both Cubs and Shota having declined their options, and *IF* hypothetically the Cubs also decline to make QO, that still won't necessarily preclude Shota resigning with the Cubs. He'd still be a full FA, and if he finds the market softer than he'd hoped, he might still hypothetically make some deal with Cubs less than $57/3 or $22/1.

Yeah, we'll see. Perhaps his performance today, and hopefully next week, and maybe beyond, will reinforce his value. I think I respectfully just disagree on this presumption. But for sure it's a scouting evaluation, and the Cubs will need to make it. Perhaps also a market evaluation as well. Some Q's Hoyer/Hottovy/Counsell will answer: Will lux be $16/year, or $17.83/year? Does it matter? Was this an "off year", and as he ages he'll probably get better again? Or might being 32, 33, and 34-turning-35 during last year cause some decline? His fastball velo dropped this year; will that decline, stay steady, or might he recover more velo as his 30's progress? Shota market value? 4.86 FIP this year. How many teams figure his HR-profile is bad fit for home stadiums, and how many teams will still want him? $30/2 alternative/risk. Hoyer would obviously prefer $30/2 ($13.25 lux), over $57/3 (whether $16 or $17.8 lux). If Hoyer doesn't lock into longer/higher-lux, how likely is that he'll still keep the player at the shorter/lower-lux? That obviously relates to the market value question. But yeah, Hoyer needs to evaluate the odds on Shota leaving or staying at $30/2. 50/50? 10/90? 90/10? Jason, your premise is that Hoyer will pick up the longer/richer option, so that presumes the market will offer better than $30/2. I'm thinking it's maybe no more than 50/50 that Shota will walk away from $30/2. (Keeping in mind that if he has a bounce-back year, he's not obligated to the second year.) Extra year; $57/3 obviously has the extra year. Does Hoyer like that, or dislike the 3rd year obligation? Risk+consequences: The risk, in declining longer/luxier, is that Shota walks away from $30/2. How harmful are the consequences of applying the money to somebody else? Can you find somebody else at $27/2 who could probably do as well as Shota? If Shota doesn't want your $30/2, might somebody else take it and be just as good, maybe better? Or would that consequence be unacceptable? Or if you don't want to pay $57/3, but he walks from $30/2, might you then sign somebody else at $53/3 who's just as good, maybe better? Or would that consequence be unacceptable? My bottom line is that I'd not exercise the $57/3. If he stays at $30/2, we've got a chance to get really good value at low lux, but the risk of being stuck with a higher-lux for longer is evaded. And if he walks away from $30/2, that's life. Just scout it up and sign somebody else.

T Jason, that sounds like a cheat! You're going to have an $80/5 contract, but have composite lux sum to only $74.5 over those 5 years? That seems wrong. Perhaps that's a flaw in the CBA, and lux-ish teams are all doing it? But if you can cheat your way out of some lux assignment, I'd imagine teams could do that even more dramatically. Seems illogical to me. (not that all contracts are fully logical; or that I understand or agree with all of the logic.). But yeah, seems to me that if you convert a $53/4 deal ($13.25 AAV) into an $80/5 deal ($16) mid-stream via option, on of three things should happen: Retroactive recalculation. If it's re-calculated as a 5-year deal, then all 5 years should get accounted for at $16 each. In this case, two years should get retroactively re-calculated, with any attendance consequences. In this case, it would only be ~$0.5 million in 2024 tax, but would have no 2025 consequence, and would have zero ensuing consequence for 1st-time/2nd-time/3rd-time repeater, or any of that lux-tax stuff. Tacking an extra $2.75 retroactively onto Hoyer's 2025 lux calculation would still keep us comfortably under. *IF* hypothetical re-accounting happened. Option-chosen years as a new contract. Just calculate the optionally determined contract as a "new" contract with a new average. Cubs elect to apply a new $57/3 option? Then apply the new $19 AAV for those three years as the new lux dollars. That would seem logical to me, but I'm trusting you that CBA doesn't work that way. No retroactive; divvy up remaining years to reach $80. Don't retroactively recalculate past years, but divide up the ensuing years so that they composite lux calculations sum to the composite contract. Composite 5-year would sum to $80, the 5 years of lux should sum to $80. (Seems logical to me.). If the first two years got luxed at a sub-average rate, the final 3 years would need to make it up to reach $80. So luxed for only $26.5 ($13.25 x 2) for the first two years, if those are not retroactively changed.... That would leave $53.5 of the $80 total, to be luxed over the last three years. So lux at $17.83 for the remaining three years, and five years lux will sum to $80/5 to match the $80/5 in contract. Cheat, lux << contract.: $80/5 contract, but $74.5/5 lux. Lux two at $13.25, three at $16, don't worry that $5.5 of the composite is never getting luxed. To me that seems least logical; but the CBA is not beholden to my perception of logic or fairness!!! :):)

So Jason, you're pretty sure that converting $53/4 to $80/5, that lux still calculated it all as a package, even with the option complexities? So rather than viewing the option as a 3-year $19 AAV, they'll retroactively convert the past two years to $16? Saving $3-per-year in lux isn't huge, but it helps for sure. So mlb would then retroactively jump 2024 and 2025 from $13.25 to $16.00 in their lux calculations. Meaningless for this year 2025, right, because we're still comfortably sub-lux? But retroactively jumping 2024 from $13 to $16, then Ricketts would get retroactively billed a little bit of over-lux retroactive tax on that? Peanuts, obviously, I think tax is only 20%, so at $2.75 x 20%, barely a half million. I'm just learning, so this is insightful on how complex options contracts can result in retroactive lux recalculations even from several years past.

His pay has been unequal. The next two years are $15 each, *IF* Cubs don't pick up the richer/longer 3-year deal, and if Shota picks up the $30/2. So, $53/4 - $30/2 means the first were basically $23/2 actually paid. That's where I got the $23 paid from. 2024 was like $9.25; 2025 $13.5. And there was $1M signing bonus.

Yeah, correct in terms of Wiggins. Whether it's Shota on $57/3 or $30/2, versus some other veteran signed to replace him, you're right that there will be four veteran locks. Wiggins will not be in play for April rotation. If/when his opportunity comes, that will depend on him and on the health/performance of other guys. There has been analogy to Horton. I'm a little hesitant on that one. Horton has two distinctions. Remarkable control, and remarkable composure. I'm hoping Wiggins has the latter, but he's not going to have the level of control that Horton had. That may impact how quickly they want to call him up. Hopefully the Cubs will have a good team, and a healthy staff, and there will be little urgency to call him up. Who knows how long they might have waited with Horton, had not all three of Assad, Steele, and Shota gotten injured. Not sure how quickly Steele will be back, so I guess good shot that he might be one starter who's not available early. But hopefully we won't have both Steel and two others injured so quickly as was true this year. Part of me wonders about having some scheduled breaks? Even if health landscape is pretty good, what if Wiggins got brought up and optioned back periodically, to give guys some skipped starts? I think Assad will still have options left next year, no? Brown for sure. And Wiggins obviously. Wicks. Would be fun to have all four of those guys healthy and pitching well enough that each of Boyd, Taillon, Horton etc. can maybe each skip one start per month, or whatever, and stay relatively fresh.

"....His AAV of $13.25m is asking him to be a #4 on a good staff. ..." Jason, not sure I'm understanding. $13.25, that's been his lux line assuming Cubs DO NOT pick up his option. $13.25 is based on the guaranteed money *IF* Cubs decline option, and assuming Shota does pick up his. Do you know what happens if previously non-guaranteed options do get picked up by Cubs? $57/3 is $19 AAV. Would Cubs get luxed at $19.0 for next 3 years? Or would some of that get back-luxed? Combine the upcoming $57/3 with the previous $23/2, the pre-option and post-option would sume to $80/5 = $16.0 AAV? In other words, if the Cubs pick up the new 3-year option, would they get luxed at $19 for each of those new years? Or would they get down-luxed to only $16 by adding in cheaper 2-years past? And the previous two seasons would get retroactively upluxed from $13.25 up to $16.0 instead? (So the Cubs would then get retroactively given a little more tax bill from 2024?). Not sure, but to me the logic would seem that if/when the Cubs claim the higher-ave $57/3 option for the future, they should get luxed based on that for the future. $19/year, not $13.25. $19 seems kinda high for a #4 who has partially lived on Wrigley and Cubs defense. But maybe that's just dumb, and $19 multi-year-guaranteed is market norm for a #4. But yeah, to me it seems like if you have a choice on how to invest $57/3, they might think they could do better on the market. Maybe somebody with a little more velocity, or a little younger, or somebody whose pitch mix they think they can optimize a bit as they've done successfully with some pitchers? Anybody they sign will get to pitch in Wrigley, so the HR-suppression that has helped Shota will help anybody else also. And anybody new that they sign will also get the Cubs defense suppressing even more runs. So anybody added to replace Shota will also get some of the major Cubs/Wrigley run suppression that Shota has enjoyed, right? I think they'd prefer Shota on $30/2, with ongoing $13.25 AAV, than $57/3 with $19 AAV. So, my guess is that Cubs will decline, and then it will up to Shota to then make his choice. Stay for $30/2-guaranteed, with opt-out after 2026? Or hit the market this winter at age 32 and try to get better than $30/2? That decision, for Shota, seems more uncertain to me than the Cubs decision regarding the $57/3 guarantee at $19-per. You mentioned some early decision timelines. Assuming Cubs have early decision and they decline their option, how much time will Shota have before his option decision? Given my idea that his decision is the more uncertain one, I'm wondering how much time he'll have to explore the market, and when the Cubs will know whether they've got him at $30/2 and $13.25 for lux, versus looking for a replacement on the market. If that makes sense? Obviously the third potential outcome is that Cubs and Shota simply renegotiate a new compromise contract together, less than the $57/3. Beats me. Other thought: his injury was in May, he's been pitching since June. 17 starts since IL. Maybe he's been heroically pitching injured for the last 3+ months and 17 starts. But kinda thinking the start-of-May injury isn't that relevant to his post-all-star performance. Again, not trying to diminish Shota's production. Just thinking that locking in at $19/year, plus unnecessarily guaranteeing a 3rd year at that rate, doesn't seem Hoyer-esque.

Coming in way late to discussion. And after winning today, talking about next year is probably silly. But the presumption in your post, Bertz, and I think in others, is that Shota is a vet lock. I wonder? Cubs have $57/3 option. 4.86 FIP, 31HR/145 IP, declining velocity, low K-rate, 3.73 ERA. Between Wrigley and great Cubs defense, he's not the only pitcher where ERA will be lower than FIP (or whatever more sophisticated pitching metric you use.). . So, $57/3 may not be an option the Cubs are likely to pick up? Not a lock that they will? If they don't, Shota basically has $30/2 option, with opt-out after one if he wants. Probably he'll take that and stay, but perhaps not a lock? Heh heh, hopefully he pitches great tomorrow, and gets a couple more post-season games to look great!

Yeah, same! Kinda weird having Az Phil reports with Ryan Jensen and Ed Howard being main names. Seems eternity ago that those guys were fresh 1st rounders we dreamed were prospects. Kinda bizarre to have Jensen, Howard, and Hartshort in the same AzPhil recap.

Yeah, will be interesting. My guess is that they do what it takes to extend Tucker, and that's the main thing. Run it back. If there's a good opportunity at value they like, perhaps tinker with rotation. But not guessing they're going to spend big on a rotation pitcher. *IF* Tucker leaves, obviously they're going to want to do something of substance either in RF or pitcher or both.

Wow. Nice. Cubs rarely bonus much for pitchers, so I'm guessing he's got some possibilities.

This will be super interesting for sure. I think they've got a chance to augment the roster via trade. Maybe yes. Flip is that this was kinda the trade-deadline logic and it didn't happen then. The logic last winter, and it didn't happen then either. Maybe it won't winter either? Various thoughts: Every trade is case-by-case. How much does Hoyer value the guys he's trading; how much the guy he's acquiring. Last winter, he explored a lot, but ended up NOT finding a deal where the value worked. This summer he explored a LOT, but other than small-level deals, the case-by-case values never quite worked. Who knows this winter? Caissie is not blocked. Happ and Suzuki will be expiring. Hoyer believes it takes time for a hitter to kinda figure things out. Might make ideal sense to keep Caissie, use 2026 as a depth-year, figure-it-out year? Then let Happ or Suzuki (or both) walk after 26 to create a bunch of budget space for whatever is needed then? (Part of Theo's problem was that Almora and Underwood etc. never really filled in cheap; suddenly all of the young guys were arbing up but there were no good cheap young guys to replace expiring vets as Fowler, Zobrist, Arrieta were leaving. Caissie might not really be blocked at all. Having him ready to be a primary starter by 2027 might be very ideal, perfect. Ditto Moises. Maybe hints his defense has been progressing? *IF* they believe he can be a share-time guy, having Kelly expiring isn't really blocking him. At all. Timing might be perfect. This winter will be closer to lockout. Might not make great sense to burn Caissie or Moises for a pre-FA SP who might lose a hunk of their limited Cub-controlled time to the lockout? Alcantara, not sure on "diminishing returns" bit. Very possible; if he doesn't progress this last month, and doesn't hit better next year, that will be variably true. But, his trade value hasn't really seemed that great yet last winter or this summer. It might get even worse, but has it ever really been that large? Kevin-for-Cabrera, Kevin-for-Gore, Kevin-for-Suarez, Kevin-for-Keller, teams haven't liked him enough to do 1-for-1's thus far. Will they this winter? Hopefully yes, that would be great. But *IF* you hypothetically don't get a serious buyer offering serious value for him, perhaps keep him again? In post-Happ world he might be a good depth/platoon outfielder for us? Pltoon for Caissie some? Maybe platoon some for PCA if PCA's issues with certain lefties get more established as hopeless? Or perhaps if Kevin does have a breakout next summer, and has 25 HR and OPS'ing .920 next July, then by next July he'll look like a really good ready-now starter; rather than value-diminished, it will be value-enhanced, and next year you'd be able to get Cabrera/Gore/Keller/Suarez type guys, maybe better, with Kevin as the primary ready-now piece? Long: Hard to guess. Don't imagine even this winter that he's going to be the primary guy in Cabrera/Gore/Keller/Suarez type trades. Maybe if you keep him, and by next July he's matching and further improving this year's numbers, but with 25 HR's, and his value will continue to escalate? at that point, he'll look established as a ready-right-now starter? Or, maybe he'll improve his platoon splits, and look better as a depth/Busch-platoon guy, basically take Turner's role plus much more? Depth: Last year, Dansby and Hoerner played with fairly limiting injures, with the option being Miles Mastrubuoni. Counsell figuress those guys at 80% were still better than Mastrobuoni. This year Happ got hurt and came back kinda fast; tucker got injured and played through it, and ended up struggling for some length. The options were Berti and Brujan, playing vets at 70% still better than going with Brujan every day, right? But what if you've got a stock of Caissie/Kevin/Triantos/Long/Moises guys available? Maybe you establish a new team culture: don't play hurt, that hurts the team. We've got some talented, energetic young depth guys, take your IL, get healthy, and come back healthy. Don't 70%-your-way through and stay 70% for months. Rotation: Horton-Boyd-Imanaga-Taillon-Rea-Assad-Brown-Steele-Wiggins. Hoyer may not see the rotation as being that shallow entering next year? If he's spending hard on Tucker, and Keller, and spreading some around on Thielbar and maybe Castro, he may not be committing all that heavily to rotation? Either in FA or in trade? May want to hold his trade cards for unpredictable situations yet to come? Maybe spending no higher than the Boyd-type range, perhaps not even much higher than Rea? I wonder, if Soroka does come back and seems healthy and like a hard-worker good-chemistry guy, whether Soroka himself might still end up getting extended on a low-commitment depth contract?

Interesting thoughts, Jason. Not sure I track them well. Hard to guess how far over lux they're willing to go. My best guess is that they'll jump lux, but stay under first surcharge. That might allow maybe $30-40 bump in payroll? My guess is that they WILL extend Tucker. Tucker, Keller, Thielbar; maybe Castro; I'm thinking that would shoot well beyond lux, and might not leave space for a pitcher in the Thielbar/Imanaga/Boyd price range or above?? Cubs have little built-in programmed lux raises for next year. Steele and Shota, that's basically it. Coming off will be Turner/Pressly/Brasier/Bellinger money, more than enough to cover the programmed raises, but not that hugely much free space left over? Will be in good shape, but not that little. *IF* you don't re-sign Tucker, I'm guessing they'd still spend much of the Tucker money towards some short-term vet or other to replace him. Bellinger? castro? Don't think they'd just commit all-in to Caissie/Kevin/Triantos as OFers.

Kinda crazy to have two short OBP-guys like that stacking 1-2. We'll see as they progress, guys can get better at base-stealing. But while Kepley has a bunch of steals, his success ratio doesn't seem that great for Myrtle-level. May not be a prolific base-stealer in the majors? (If he hypothetically gets there.). southisene also seems to be cutting back on his volume of SB-attempts, guessing he's not going to be a SB-league-leader or anything in the majors. But yeah, I can't remember the Cubs having OBP-oriented guys like these two, Really fun for their level. Will be fun to see how they progress. Seems like the Cubs haven't truly had a stereotypical leadoff guy for a while. Would be fun if one of these guys became huge-OBP leadoff guys for the big-league team down the road.

September only adds one extra pitcher, it's not like the old days. Barring injury, I see two spots available between Assad, Hodge, Soroka, Brasier, Wicks, etc. I guess in my ideal world, Assad and Hodge at their best would be my preferred two, with ideally all the existing guys staying healthy. But yeah, there's plenty of time for injuries to come. And if Soroka looks good, Brown could always get optioned to open a 3rd spot, if they think Brasier or Soroka is more useful. Also possible that Taylor Rogers could get replaced, beats me.

thanks, Donzo and Jason! Yeah, I hadn't been up on the news that he might be semi-close. I admit my mental association with bad-shoulder is long-term out. So hadn't realized he might be back already fairly soon. In my head, I just hear "bad shoulder" and assume months plural. Glad that may be faulty. We'll see! Hope he comes back and contributes well. That would be fun. Any effective pitcher can make a big difference. Obviously coming off a bad shoulder and getting sharp quickly, that doesn't always go together. Perhaps he'll be back and be a stud reliever, that would be fun. But also possible that it might take a while. There isn't a lot of time left.

Haven't word anything about Soroka. Are you anticipating him being back this season? I've just kinda totally forgotten he existed, and assumed his Cub career was done. Have also forgotten about Morgan, but he pitched today, his second outing. he's got options, though, so no problem keeping him down. I also tend to forget the new September roster rules exist. Not like old days with a handful of added guys possible. With just one extra pitcher, I've been kinda hoping for Assad to replace Wicks, and then add a re-calibrated Hodge, and that's it. No Wicks, no Soroka, no Morgan, no Pearson, no Brasier in my ideal September expanded roster. .

Triantos catch was great, but partly because he had a terrible jump and broke back on a shallow fly. Obviously catching is a huge part of outfielding, but so is reading swings and balls-off-the-bat and getting good jumps. I'd love it if Triantos picked all that up quickly and became very good. But I'm guessing it's going to take a whole lot of repetitions and practice to become close to average as a big-league CFer.

Hopeful thought... if Madrigal walked like Southisene, we'd have liked him lots more?

Do we have any scouting info on camacho? He'd been walking the world in ACL, so I don't think I'd given him a thought. But that's flipped at Myrtle in early small sample. He's short, shorter than Florentino. Camacho in ACL: 20BB/23 IP. Camacho at Myrtle: 4BB/16IP.

You guys have any scouting info on Yenri Rojas? 7K/5IP shutout today. I'm just wishfully-thinking that maybe he's got a good arm, and a lively fastball that gets GB and avoids HR. But has been a developmental guy from day one, and is perhaps only starting to develop into competitive breaking stuff.

Rojas up to .189 average and .549 OPS. Hasn't been a fast start for him, that's for sure. Small sample, of course so one 3-for-5 game with a HR could make all those Knoxville numbers look better.

Lumpuy's got his OPS up over .600, and his batting average isn't far below .200 anymore. Progress! I hope he keeps progressing during the remaining weeks. Southisene has gotten his average over .200, and his OPS up to .588. So progress in his case as well. His BABIP is only .264; not sure whether that reflects some bad luck, or just reflects that he doesn't hit the ball hard or on the nose very often. Would love to see him emerge as a competitive enough hitter to become a prospect.