Jason Ross

I have issues with Hoyer, but one thing people will find a hard time really finding is money Hoyer spent poorly. The worst contracts he's handed out have been to like Trey Mancini and Tucker Barnhart. He's given out very little bad long term money and the Cubs have finished with 83 wins+ three years running. The issue in those years really isn't his inability to determine value, but what I would say is too strict of a value proposition. He tends to draw hard lines in the sand and it leaves the Cubs a player short.

I'm going to disagree a little here. Vaughn's home run was on a sweeper in and off the plate. It wasn't a strike. It was middle-middle, but sweepers off the plate there are not Here is a spray chart of sweepers, in the same hitting zone from LHP to RHH since 2021. It's not pretty. Credit to Vaughn.

Every MLB team is capable of spending more money than they do. As a fan of the Chicago Cubs, I first-and-foremost want the Chicago Cubs to act more in line with what they are capable of. Money spent doesn't guarantee outcomes, as you pointed out, anecdotal evidence of the Mets not making (and the Reds and Brewers making it) exist. But spending money generally gives you a far softer floor than not, and teams who don't spend money tend to yo-yo being horrible and good far more often.

The World Series was really cool! Wrigley Field looks nice! I think these are base expectations for an ownership; maintain a baseball field and put the Chicago Cubs in a position to win baseball games. The field update isn't one of simple generosity, as it's turned him into a real estate mogul and made him plenty. And the WS should be more attributed to the Cubs FO and players. I can't entirely take these things away from him. But I'm also not going to say I like him because of it. Was it better than previous owners? Sure. But I think two things can be true at once; I don't like Tom Ricketts and think he's not nearly as invested in making the Cubs a good baseball team as he should be. He has put forth more effort than some previous owners.

From reports, it wasn't that Tom vetoed Bregman. Reports are that the money was there to sign Bregman and the reason he went to Boston was the opt-out after year-1. The Cubs offered an opt out after year-2. This was the biggest reason why he isn't here.

I'm going to premise this with this: I hate Tom Ricketts and I think he sucks. But I don't actually blame the budget fully here. The reality is that while I blame PTR plenty (ex. post covid-sell off, the 2017 budget drop, the fact he refuses to blow through an LT line ever) I don't think that budget reasons are ally a cause for how much we're seeing Hoyer keep the prospects. Frankly, regardless of budget, you don't need as many DH, 1b, and OF'ers as the Cubs kind of have right now. For example, what is the pathway for Jonathon Long to play with the Cubs? He's a 1b, but the Cubs have Busch. He didn't hit LHP particularly well despite being a RHH, so platoon at 1b isn't really in the data. He can't play 3b, LF or RF with any real MLB ability. At DH he's going to compete with Caissie, Ballesteros, Suzuki in some capacity. Yet, here we are. You can play this game a bit for most of the prospects, particularly, the offensive ones. I think a lot of this reason is that Hoyer has placed X value on Long, similarly, with Caissie, Ballesteros, etc, etc. and the value prop for Hoyer is that he has to equal out that value prop in a deal. There seem to be a lack of ability to get a bit irrational, either with money or prospects to make the thing really happen. And in part, I commend him for it! It's why his worst deals are like, Tucker Barnhart and Trey Mancini. But also probably why the Cubs will lack the ability to win a massive FA or swing a massive trade because to make those happen it's usually a requirement than some irrationality comes in. He can grab pretty good trades; Parades two deadlines ago, Kittredge. Even Tucker kind of falls short of massive in that he was a one-year thing on paper.

Exactly. And even if we want to say "well the SP market was insane" (I tend to believe the price on Cabrera and Alcantara, from what Zumach has said, is within a price I would have paid, but let's for a moment assume that's not the case) then you pivot to RP. Let's say the Cubs had, Bednar instead of Taylor Rogers. Do you just BP game it on Game 1 instead? With the rest the Cubs BP had the day prior, and the next day, Bednar, Palencia, Thielbar, Keller, Pomeranz, Kittredge is likely enough to find 27 outs. But when you're missing Bednar and instead have four versions of "long relief in losing games" (Soroka, Rea, Civale, Brown) it begins to limit the BP-of-death ability. Honestly, I think Jed Hoyer is a pretty good guy to have run a team, but his biggest flaw IMO is that he tends to stick to strongly to his valuations.

Yeah, that feels likely. I don't think the Cubs ever had "no" intentions to resign Tucker - that seems like something that's incredibly farfetched. You can tell me they were never going to offer him, say, half a billion and I'd buy that every day and twice on Sunday, but the Cubs have artificially sniffed around into the deep waters on Shohei Ohtani and I don't think $375m over 10 years would be too far if they really like Tucker. That said, I don't think the Cubs will outbid anyone. Jed is a "line in the sand" kind of guy in that once you overstep the line of perceived value the Cubs kind of balk and Tucker will probably go to a team who is willing to get a little irrational. That said, I fully expect to hear the Cubs meet with Tucker's representatives throughout the early portion of the offseason and that will likely dispel any rumors they never had a single intention, either.

Martinez-Gomez was a name I had quickly started to pick up on come the end of the year. This is extremely exciting. It's very early, and it's a different version of a changeup, but that could put him in a Devin Williams type of a profile where fastball-changeup out of the bullpen could be devastating.

It does seem like Kaplan is reporting differently. It will be interesting to see which one has a better lede.

Not questioning you here, just curious where you saw that? Wanted to get the full context of it is all.

The Cubs as a team had a lot of pitchers have lowered arm slots this year, so I think it's a trend. It really helped many pitchers, lowering an arm slots gives added run to the glove side usually. It can create depth and shape on sliders sweepers and cutters. For Shota my guess is that the Cubs were looking to maximize his sweeper which he used much more this year. Sadly I don't think it helped him more than it hurt him. But it's also not just a lever you pull and go back. It is likely an off-season tweak rather than a mod season tweak.

You're the one who created the "last month" timeline, I didn't "cherry pick". Of course his "last month" looks terrible, one of his starts was an 8 run blow up. But prior to his worst start of the year, a start that was a week beyond the Cubs clinching the playoffs, he was just fine dating back his prior 60 innings. That *one* start skews that data set *you* created. So don't blame me for that. I responded to your criterion. I expanded that criterion out to show that one bad start made things look dire but it wasn't anywhere near that bad if we just zoom out a little. Prior to his last start of the regular year, he was on a 60 IP good stretch. It was 10 starts. One start does not erase the prior 10. I don't want to entirely ignore that the HRs were a bit of an issue. They were. But if we are erasing SPs based on their September ERA, the Mariners George Kirby (5.40 ERA) shouldn't have made a start, either. This is exactly why one month of data should be zoomed out, and zooming out gets us a better picture. You may point out his xFIP was under 3.00 during the month and while he is obviously a better pitcher than Shota, Imanaga had an xFIP of 4.04 in September prior to his bad game. Kirby, himself, had a 16.7% HR/FB%. Shota was again worse, but that would have been higher than any other month Shota had all season. Secondly I wasn't comparing him to Colin Rea, I was responding to a comparison of Boyd and Imanaga, so this is moving the goal posts, but if you want to do that all of a sudden we can. First, Rea was far more shielded than Shota. Go back and look at home may times Rea wasn't even allowed to go 5 innings. Over that same span (last 10 starts) Rea was pulled before he made the 15th out three times, a fourth he was pulled after the 15th. Shota went under 5 zero times, went over 6 times almost every single start. Rea went 6+ just twice. The Cubs protected Colin Rea much, much more and shielded him heavily from seeing a lineup a third time - a cliff we know SPs struggle with. That skews the data. Rea also allowed *one* home run over his last 57 IP. We know for a fact that's just entirely unsustainable for Colin Rea. His xFIP during the same run as Shota I used? A 3.80 xFIP. The difference between the two is a single, bad, Shota blowup on the 25th. And guess what? Both got Wrigley wind benefit. All of the Cubs starters did. If you want to go meta numbers, both starters faced Milwaukee twice in that sample size. Colin Rea surrendered 6 over 9, walked as many as he struck out. Shota surrendered five in 12, striking out 13 and walking two. Shota was clearly better against the Brewers over that span. Before we point out that July 30th was a start directly after Shota got bombed by the White Sox - July 29th is the start after Rea got rocked by the Royals for six runs. Both have the advantage of having a bad start being the end point. They got the same treatment. So on paper, they were basically as good as each other over the same span. Rea did so with unsustainable home run rates, the same Wrigley wind protection was worse against Milwaukee and the Cubs shielded him much more than Imanaga. The difference was truly one, very bad, no good start on September 25th. If you are going to let that start make you think Colin Rea is a better bet than Shota Imanaga, more power to you, but that's incredibly reactionary and by this same logic, you would have to at least *consider*, even momentarily, Colin Rea a better option than George Kirby. And I think we both know how silly that would be.

It's largely an arm slot issue. He's about 5-degrees lower (which sounds small, but in reality is a lot). It's created difficulty for him to elevate pitches like his fastball to the upper third and he leaves it middle. The shape of his fastball (high ride) means bottom or middle-third pitches ride into the bat path of launch angle guys (who are already trying to sky it). It results in home runs. When you get that pitch to the upper third it rides over the bat - weak flys.

Between July 30th and September 19th Shota Imanaga had a 3.69 ERA and a 3.79 xFIP. Shota had one decisively bad start after getting beat up by the White Sox in mid-July...his last start of the year of the regular season on September 25th. So, neither had Shota Imanaga.

Do you think Michael King is going to sign a one year contract? Do you think Brad Keller is signing a one year deal? You have been very adamant that the Cubs won't sign a contract past 2026 and that the Cubs will go as cheap as possible. I've already got the Cubs near $215m and I'm not sure that's all they will add.

The Cubs will find a SP or two. And like a reliver. And probably will need to buy a bench player or two. It's not super hard. Michael King or Ranger Suarez ($20m or so), plus picking up Kittredge's option ($8m), plus another RP or resigning Keller ($8-10m), a better version of Turner ($5m) and a utility player ($3m) adds up quickly. I just found about $40m right there.

Baseball isn't my fulltime occupation either. I'm a middle school teacher who just has a second job where I co-host a podcast and write here. But you are making a lot of assertions here which are frankly, very easy to make. "Javier Assad would have done better than Matthew Boyd" is an easy thing to say where you're at - Mr. Assad wasn't even selected for the roster, it's something that has zero way of being disproven. What we know is that a lot of the underlying data on Assad is not good right now and the Cubs didn't consider him one of their 12 best healthy pitchers, and we can assume had Horton been healthy, he wouldn't have been in their top-13 either. Frankly, considering that the Cubs also selected Taylor Rogers in the Padres set, he might not be in their top-14 arms. You can sit here and think you know better than the Cubs, but the reality is that whatever small quibbles we can find, the Cubs have an analytical army behind them. I've explained this like six times across different threads, and to you, so I'm not diving back into that. But there are a few other things I'd like to point out that are just, entirely incorrect. For example "further he used up much of the bullpen". This is factually incorrect. After Boyd the Cubs went with Michael Soroka (who threw to two batters the previous series), Aaron Civale (who didn't pitch at all in the previous series) and Ben Brown (who wasn't even on the roster the previous series). That's it. Then they got another day off after! This is just nonsense, it doesn't help your cause to just make things up or invent things. The Cubs walked into Game-2 with only Civale (who was used in a blow out situation) and Ben Brown (only used in a blow out situation) down, and had another off-day scheduled today. The bullpen was operating at nearly full capacity and the only ones down were the ones who the guys who pitch in blowouts. They didn't waste Brad Keller. Secondly, I've explained multiple times across multiple areas, Shota Imanaga was not some failing SP. Leading up to his last start of the MLB regular season, Imanaga, dating back to July 30th (over 60 innings) Imanaga was running his best K%, his best walk%, an ERA of 3.69 ERA and a 3.79 xFIP. Yes, he got shelled his last start of the year, but event he best pitchers get knocked around. So no, again, not supported by data. We can't just make things up because it fits our narrative. What it feels like is you're doing this; you're letting your personal frustration allow you to be clouded, and to lash out emotionally. It's easy when we're emotional to create a narrative to fit our frustration (for example, the Cubs "wasted their bullpen in Game 1" to support our already-held-belief that Matthew Boyd shouldn't have started when a quick look at a box score tells us this just isn't true). I get it, I literally stayed up until 12:30 est running live reaction for NSBB after the Cubs sucked last night. I had students this morning. It was a long night - I've got my qualms, my dude. But it's important to move past our frustrations and double check if they're supported by reality or if they're just that - a frustration.

I actually think Hoerner is one of the most likely players to get extended. We have a profile of players the Cubs believe in: athletic, contact oriented, who are capable in multiple facets of the game. To look at it another way: what player has been signed to the longest (and most lucrative) contract under Hoyer? Dansby Swanson; a ~100 or so wRC+ middle infielder with a strong glove who adds base running value. Even consider the Tucker trade; he's more offensive than Swanson, but the Cubs targeted an OF'er who offers some defensive value (he's not a superstar defensive fielder but holds his own) and is someone who adds base running value. The Cubs have a profile. If there's an argument against Hoerner, it may deal with the eventuality that Swanson and Hoerner will eventually overlap in the same category; love Swanson and his glove but he will eventually move off of SS. That said, I think that's an issue you worry about in three years, not now. The Cubs are capable of eating some salary to make a trade if need be. Ultimately, I think Hoerner is the kind of player the Cubs like. He's the kind player I suspect the Cubs will attempt to sign longer term.

This is entirely too kind. Thanks!

Exactly this. I mentioned it last night and I'll just add this on as an adendum to this post here; Ricketts cares a lot about his public perception. He skips Cubs Con when things are bad, he blames anything and everything for his spending, he made David Ross a scapegoat as quicky as he could, and you can see how Hoyer and the FO have to speak nice (even when it seems odd) about how generous he is. Tom cares about this stuff. He doesn't care enough to blow through to the top ends of the LT, but he does care enough that he wouldn't dare run a $175m payroll, down almost $50m after a 92 win playoff team. The budget will be enough that Tom isn't the clear, and only reason they didn't win and if they did that, it very much would be a Tom issue.

dRC+ is a statistic created by Baseball Prospectus designed to evaluated deserved runs created. One of the big factors dRC+ has that differentiates itself from wRC+ is that it factors in such things as competition faced. It also looks at expected outcomes versus simply recorded outcomes, but I think the focus on competition really is what is my favorite part. The belief that the Cubs offense was bad against good pitching doesn't really show itself in dRC+. In fact, quite the opposite, as the Cubs finished with a 110 dRC+, which was good for fourth in baseball. I think a lot of the feeling that the Cubs offense just fell off was due to a lot of factors. Kyle Tucker got hurt and he's a top-15 offensive contributor in baseball, that's a massive blow. Pete Crow-Armstrong had a worse second half than a first half. Seiya Suzuki had his worst month at the end of the year. But even in factoring in the second half of the season, the Cubs dRC+ then was a 104, which was ninth in baseball (tied with, Milwaukee). Most teams would struggle if their best hitter on paper struggled like Tucker did and yet the Cubs maintained a top-10 offense on this metric. Basically, I think what I'm trying to say is a lot of times the vibes don't match the output. We feel down so we think everything is worse than it is. last two games have certainly been a bummer. Milwaukee winning the division was a bummer. But it does feel like we've swung maybe a little too far into the doom and gloom territory overall which is natural when the season feels like it's coming imminently, but also probably isn't an accurate assessment on what happened either.

From July 30th through his second to last start of the season, Shota Imanaga, has around 60 IP andhad an ERA of 3.69 and an xFIP of 3.79, which suggests his ERA was about what it should have been over that span. His last start of the season was terrible, and yes, he had surrendered more than his fair share of HR's even over that 60 IP span, but the data also suggested a pitcher who was navigating those waters pretty fine. The idea that Shota was "failing on all levels" is revisionist history. He's one one disasterous start on September 25th, and two less-than-ideal starts in the playoffs. But you can't make it 60 IP with ERA/xFIP matching and it be a fluke, or, as you suggested "all systems failing".

Yeah it could. They need to get a lead and keep a lead. Right now it just feels inevitable that once they take a lead that they will immediately fall into a hole.

I think they only look that way because they're winning. The Cubs looked plenty loose on Thursday when they beat San Diego. And they looked plenty loose in the top of the first inning of both games. They celebrated home runs, and were fine. I wouldn't read much into how they interview though, that's a difference in personality - Murphy is just like that, as is Craig. But when you're down on the scoreboard, and you know your season is ending sooner than you'd like (unless something changes) than you get tight. Winning begets looseness and losing begets tightness.