craig

https://www.mlb.com/cubs/news/chicago-cubs-2026-international-signings?t=cubs-pipeline-coverage Not much info in here, but has some scouting info on martinez, if in fact Jesse Borek author who I've never actually heard of before actually has true-info source. Triple-digit velocity on occasion is helpful for thinking there might be some power.

Cal, the link in previous post isn't showing. Which 2025 signing got reported? The Bryant Ciriaco signing, maybe? If so, will his signing be under the 2025 signing period, or part of the 2026 cap?

Who cares now. But I wanted to remember: Soler was pre-cap. $30M deal. Gleyber and Eloy were under first-version of cap, but the cap was very different then. Cubs blew way past it to sign them. Consequence then was the following year they couldn't sign anybody above $250K. So the strategy was to super-spend one year, then get restricted the next. But yeah, kinda totally different cap rules than now.

Thanks for all the info, Cal! Geraldo sounds interesting, who knows? Heh heh, I sometimes have the sense that Dansby's contract lasts forever. But he's got only 4-more seasons. A kid signing today, if he's 16 or 17, would still only be 20 or 21 the year Dansby is gone. Would take some super-success stud prodigy to be good enough to directly succeed Dansby. Interesting too that the bWar study lists Cubs as 8th. Obviously a lot of that is long ago, in a different world. Soler, Eloy, and Torres, all gone in 2017, and they were all added before the IFA cap. So in some ways, better studies in future will begin with the cap rules in place. Still, a semi-common view is that the Cubs have been awful in IFA, and this suggests maybe lots of teams don't do any better than we do. But yeah, man it would help if Moises ends up generating a bunch of value, and if somehow Rojas progresses, or if Jostin Florentino would somehow stay healthy, mature into another 3-4 mph, and turn out to be a serious big-leaguer. Hope today's group develops and gives us some value. I admit I'm a teensy bit disappointed there aren't any pitchers in that feature list. Nobody spends much on IFA pitchers, *IF* you hypothetically thought you could ID pitching prospects, don't think they'd cost a zillion to outbid for them.

Biggest surprise to me is Pedro Ramirez ahead of Rojas and Triantos. I don't really understand why? If Conrad/Harshorn/Wing are upranked based on hypothetical upside, what upside does Pedro have? No SS, no slug. 107 singles to only 33 XBH, Nic Madrigal wannabe? As a no-slug/no-SS bench guy, why is he ahead of Triantos and Rojas? Or Long or Wing or Kepley?

I love that some reputable scouting loves Conrad, Hartshorn, Wing, and Keppler. Obviously doesn't mean anything, it's just a ranking. Guessing Conrad ahead of Mo reflects higher ceiling: favorable scouting on his positional defense (maybe even CF), and perception of potentially superior HR power? Like, if you see the potential for Conrad to be a 30-HR guy with plus RF defense, but think Mo is probably a <20HR DH, the WAR ceiling for the good-defense HR guy is way higher? But yeah, new guys can get upranked on potential, when nobody has seen their limitations exposed against actual pro pitching. That can change fast when the performance is exposed. There may also be some intrinsic respect for Cub scouting? Cubs saw enough in Wing and Hartshorn to seriously super-slot them at $1.6 and $2.0. Maybe some other scouts see the same potential? I just hope those 2025 draft picks really work out. We really need some new serious talent in the system. Having several of those guys turn out good, many would that make a difference in extending the contention window.

Great! Lower-body injury in June would seem unlikely be interfere with either offseason training/tinkering, or with being 100% for camp and season. I'm pretty interested in him as a stuff guy who might eventually make it work for the Cubs. 2024, >4:1 K/BB. 79K/18BB/50IP/4HR. 2023, >4:1 K/BB. 74/17/47/4. Those were some excellent K/BB rates, without problematic HR. 2025, <1.5:1 K/BB. 39/27 K/BB at Iowa (30IP), K's still solid but walks went crazy up. Who knows why? Working on something? Impacted by lower-body stuff well before IL? Just randomly out of whack? Cubs coached some adjustments that made him worse? My recall is that velocity reports were down last year, for whatever reason. Beats me. But hoping with a winter to work on things, Tread or wherever, that he'll both have his velocity and life back, but also be able to recover his location from 24/23, and perhaps make it better. Zombro, please get him fixed! Agree, Palancia may regress, and agree that Little, Hodge, and Neely aren't dead. Some obvious practicals: young guys have options. You can see if healthy and throwing strikes at this moment at Iowa, before pulling them up. That wasn't comparably true for Merryweather or Pressly or Neris. Veterans on guaranteed contracts get big-league spots and get to succeed or fail in big-league innings. If they are NOT healthy, or are NOT throwing strikes, those failures hurt the big-league eam. Relievers only pitch 5-12 spring-training innings, right? Too small a sample to be sure that Neris is cooked, versus just kind working himself into shape. I like the reality that we could have Little, Hodge, Neely, Brown, Wicks, and the Biochemist all getting innings at Iowa, optimizing their control, and being available. If some of the guaranteed-contract guys age-decline, or don't show the control they had previously that made them big-league useful, you've got a schlew of options. Non-roster stuff pickups are fun to take shots on, and every once in a while you hit on a Keller who adds a bunch of velo. But, there is more to pitching than stuff or velocity. Many healthy high-velo "stuff" non-rosters are available because they lack adequate location. Pearson very fast, very little control, zero command. A healthy non-roster stuff guy is probably non-roster available because he's been bad, probably due to location. If Tyler Beede could locate consistently, he'd not be non-roster available. Maybe Zombro and Hottovy can make it click for him. Corbin Martin has some stuff, and hopefully he'll emerge; but he's non-roster available because he's always been variably bad, and he's always been variably bad because he's always been variably wild. Maybe Zombro and Hottovy can make it click for him, but odds aren't super favorable. this is partly where Keller was different: he'd always been a pretty good control guy, it was his stuff that had lacked. But suddenly he shows up with the decent control he'd always had, but suddenly his velo was way up. Great pickup! I kinda love non-roster take-a-shot guys who are kinda coming back from injury. Sometimes if they prove fully recovered, both stuff and control can win. I also like non-roster take-a-shot guys who don't have a free-agency option. Some have option for FA at end of camp, if not rostered; or have an option in May if not rostered. I like guys who look healthy and stuffy in camp, but who can get sent to Iowa, show whether they can throw enough strikes there, and then call them up when opportunity knocks. But yeah, with cats like Beede or Martin or Snider, I'd like them able to go to Iowa and stick there for a while, and see if they can sustain success, and can out-pitch our Hodge-Brown-Little-Neely-Martin guys.

Add-on note. Cubs ended up with an excellent bullpen last year, with the mix-and-match 1-year vets. They are going again with 5 vet FA's, four new, and most short-term. (Harvey-Maton-Webb-Milner-Thielbar) So start that process again next year. It would be super nice if the Cubs could internally develop some of their own young guys. Have them cheap instead of spending $30M on free agents, of considerable age and variably iffy reliability. Last year internal Palencia converting from wildman to a good, effective guy was huge. Would be SO helpful if they could develop some guys from within the Hodge, Brown, Assad, Little, Wicks, Martin, Neely, Rollison, Robert, Hollowell crowd who'd end up being actually pretty good. With enough stuff, control, consistency and composure to be good and throw enough strikes. You could hypothetically literally save enough $$ to cover a Hoerner-sized raise, for example. And kinda knowing your guys, and not entering an offseason with no idea how the bullpen market will shape up and how much it will cost to patch something together. Lets go, pitchers and HOttovy and Zombro and infrastructure! Get better, get good, let's go!

Hi, guys. I'm thinking Neely got injured around last June. Did we ever get info why? Any surgery? Maybe back, and 100% healthy this spring? Or maybe a 60-day DL type guy who won't even count against the 40-man? *IF* he magically has full health and magically improves his command somewhat, he might be a deep depth option. 40-man is almost full, and a guy can't be placed on 60-man till camp starts. So *if* there are waiver claims they want to make that can't wait for camp, or if they sign a FA outfielder or something prior to camp, he might be a de-roster candidate, too, if they want a 40-man spot sooner than camp? Guessing that if Neely is healthy, and they do end up needing to de-roster somebody, I'd rather de-roster one of Dean, Hollowell, Rolison, or Roberts. Seemed like his stuff, velocity, K-stuff was pretty nice after the Leiter trade. But didn't seem as fast or as K-excellent last season. Not sure if he was pitching hurt the whole time, or if the Cubs infrastructure had suggested adjustments that ended up degrading his stuff? But yeah, the original stuff/velocity seemed pretty good, just not enough command. Would love to see Zombro and Cubs staff help him recover the velocity and life, but somehow help his control to bump up a little bit? One of those drop-arm-slot-6-degrees or something type tweaks? Who knows.

Not to belabor, but we've got a lot of vet contracts now; very few close-to-majors good prospects or highly ranked prospects. And we've got a lot of youngish players who are going to be inflating up the arbitration path over the upcoming years, so we should have a LOT of built-in inflation just to keep our own guys, much less add good players from outside. So going to be super critical that D+D is going to be effective. Last year's draft class, and this upcoming draft class and IFA guys. PCA, Caissie, Alcantara, Brown, those were acquired by trade. Just got to hit on some of our draft and IFA guys so that the upcoming contending window doesn't get abbreviated by inflation, and by the total-failure D+D process under Theo's leadership.

Interesting, cal, that they are trying to rank by bonus, yet Francy's bonus values differ. Our guys in the 80-85 range, listing is $400-500. Jaims I thought was reported for $900, but is not on BA's list. Maybe a reminder that info on bonuses, and on scouting accuracy on player evals, is variably iffy for international kids. Will be interesting to see what info we get next week. Either way, sure would be great if the Cubs could hit on some volume of these guys.

This is BA's ranking based on their valuation of the players? Or based on anticipated signing bonuses? I ask in part because I'm trying to figure Jaims Martinez, the Cuban kid. I thought he was aligned to Cubs at $800K; so if that's true, he should have been in BA's top-100. But his name is *not* included in your BA list, which maybe suggests they are trying to do their own valuation? (Duh, obviously, otherwise #85 at $500K wouldn't be behind $400K #81.). If Jaims is not included in BA's top-100, it might mean Cubs over-rate him (we've stunk in IFA, so having faulty valuation would not be unusual....); or that BA underrates him (how can they know very well, after all?); or else that since he kinda agreed with Cubs a year ago, he's probably not appearing in showcases, and other scouts probably aren't talking about him because he's old news...

X link had said he was CF?

Cal, I can't quite read that last one. Is that talking about Cubs signing Cuban pitcher Naikys Piedra? If so, I thought other sources had reported him signing with the Cubs last July, actually? He was already 23 as of last summer, so not super young/projectible. Google AI has us having signed him in July, and references the 96 fastball and hypothetically good curve and change. Wondering if that actually happened then? Or if kind of like Jaims Martinez, an agreement was kinda made, but the actual signing is this January rather than when the agreement was announced?

Interesting to add $250 with only two weeks left in signing period. Also interesting the Houston would have left that much unspent, and with nobody targeted to spent it on. I think we'd be kinda mad if cubs wasted that much in unspent cash. Hopefully Cubs have their eyes on one or more interesting prospects left with the $283 now available. Pitchers rarely sign for more than that. So might hypothetically land one or two pitchers with some projection upside?

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!