Jason Ross

Tuck!

Happ

In my defense, I can't read.

It really does! I was the opposite - central to eastern and man, as I round my mid-30's and head towards my 40's, even then it's killing me. I hate when they put the Eagles on MNF or SNF - I can't stay up until 11:30 and then hang out with middle schooler's all that well any more. They're good kids but man they drain the energy haha.

I wonder if the Cubs think they can sneak Poteet through. He's worked with Zombro in the past and this is prime-time "sneak a vet to Iowa" time period with a bunch of teams setting 40-mans.

I used to be a night person, but as I've gotten steadily older, and now owning a cat who's very schedule oriented (breakfast time is 6am every day - she does not understand weekends or summer break) I've become a morning person instead. EST is not good for not-night-people - so I used to love it. Now I hate it. Enjoy Sunday! That should be a good one. Believe Shota is going for the Cubs!

I told my partner that I'd be staying up late past our normal bed time, pretending I'll make it to the end of the game. She knows me better than to think I'll make it past the fourth as well.

Man, I wish tonight's game started at 9pm for me! horsefeathers EST is the worst for this. Did I strategically ensure that my district benchmark exam is scheduled for Friday? A day in which I only have to proctor an exam instead of entertaining 125 12-14 year olds with an actual lesson?

Yeah, I'd say as of now, Armstrong in a 6th/7th inning role feels like a good outcome for him. You can likely get his K% to play up a bit, add in a penchant for ground balls and there's a role in a BP for a guy like that. It helps hide the issues he'd see more as a starter. And hell, if the outcome for a 13th round pick out of Old Dominion is "org up/down lower-leverage reliever" or even "decent middle reliever" then it's a pretty big scouting win.

I'm going to do my best to not sound like a single-issue-voter here...but I would classify his K% issues as far more concerning than the slight positive bumps of the other things. For example, a small decrease in BA against may be a Sam Armstrong thing, but can also be explained by improved defense (the higher the level, usually, the higher the defensive ability). This also goes to WHIP, which, I'm pretty uninterested in, in general, when we speak of pitching as is (just feel it's a very outdated stat and we have better). I'd say that K% drop is more concerning especially with Armstrong's profile - in that he's a command/control/pitchability guy over someone who has projectable stuff. I really wish we had access to Statcast on him, because I think looking at things such as pitch location, pitch tracking, and things such as EV, xBA, etc would really help tell us more of the story here. There's still enough behind the veil that it may be a bit less of an issue than it may seem, so don't take this as like...gospel. I also don't want to entire throw those things away, either - the improvement of ground balls over fly balls is a good thing, for example. I just think that Armstrong is the type who's capable of hiding his deficiencies at these levels behind a pitchability profile and if he can't improve that K%, he'll eventually hit a wall. And while all prospects have some deficiencies and issues, Armstrong probably doesn't offer the upside as a SP or a RP that those are enough to ignore. Like, sure Wiggins might not throw enough strikes, but there's an 8th inning profile there if he can't. If Armstrong can't strike out enough guys, he's probably topping out at org up/down. In the end, I'd hate to be giving off an impression or a suggestion that I'm giving up on him, or that development, progress, etc can't happen. I really like Zombro and he can bring a lot to the table and help someone like Armstrong, for sure. There's a lot of things to like there! But he's got a bit of a concerning profile, and while he's certainly not the bevy of previous arms in a similar mold, they're cautionary tales on pitchers who follow this general build. For his sake, the Cubs, sake and everyone involved, Armstrong taking the next step and finding enough to keep his K% and whiff% into acceptable rates moving forward would be a win.

It's not impossible, but is probably more improbable than other pitchers. Many times, pitchers like Sam Armstrong find initial success in lower levels, where I believe command and control can hide stuff deficiencies far more than at higher levels. There's a handful of reasons for that - younger, more aggressive hitters, hitters with less talent, etc, etc. But these pitchers tend to get exposed at higher levels as they lack stuff to get guys to swing and miss on. If you can't get guys to chase your pitches out of the zone, if you can't get them to swing and miss, it becomes very hard to consistently throw pitches on the shadow of the strike zone (the "heart" of the zone is the general middle where as the "shadow" are the fringes). MLB hitters, regardless of velocity, destroy "heart" pitches. It just takes one, and it becomes a numbers game. If hitters wont chase and expand, you have to throw more in the zone, and the more times you are in the zone, the more times you give yourself a chance to miss just enough to find that area. Looking at Armstrong, you can find some cracks in the armor currently, as upon his promotion from South Bend, his K% dropped to the 18% range over his 50 innings in Tennessee. Comparing this to MLB K% averages; only 12 pitchers who logged 100 innings last year posted a <18% K and a just single one of those finished with an xFIP below 4.50. Continuing to look at that sample size of 12 pitchers, ten finished with an ERA over 4.75, with most of those ten breaking the five+ ERA mark. The reality is that a K% in that range at the highest level is untenable. Armstrong isn't hitting that level of strikeouts currently two levels below and against far less than MLB hitters. It's not a great indicator of future success, even if his ERA, xFIP and the like look good. If you want some positives, it's that Armstrong has worked hard on transforming his body from his college days, has thrown a good amount of ground balls (this is a way to help mitigate a poor strikeout rate) and has limited home runs. If Armstrong can continue to develop some secondaries and post a K% in the 20's, there's a route to being a bottom of the rotation, ground ball machine of a SP. It's why I say it's improbable and not impossible. My word of caution; most draft seasons the Cubs find a guy like Armstrong: a college pitcher (usually), who uses command and control to put up some fun early numbers in lower levels only to fall away when stuff becomes more important. So we'll see. I don't want to fully write him off because there's a chance, but his profile doesn't usually pan out well.

Will Sanders as Lance's prospect to watch is notable - I really think Lance is the tops when it comes to the pitching side of things. He does great work and has awesome insight into pitch movement and pitch mix stuff.

I don't think it's this straight forward either - so we're in agreement. But it's a quick and easy way to remember that while I think Cam Smith is a pretty damn good prospect (there are hundreds and hundreds of prospects and to be consistently considered among the top-75 is a really amazing feat) industry belief hasn't been that Smith is some generation-can't-miss type, either. It's just a quick data aggregation of lot of opinion for disucssion's sake. I will say this on the fact that that Jimenez and Torres had far more data behind them, I think that both works against Smith (in that I am not sure what he is as much without as much data) but for him in that he hasn't dealt with prospect exhaustion and it becomes a lot easier to create pie-in-the-sky outcomes. It's a push-and-pull scenario. Generally speaking, I sincerely wish Cam Smith the best - I'm ultimately a fan of the Cubs and not someone who revels in how a player fails elsewhere. The best case scenario for all - the Cubs get Kyle Tucker, and he's really good and we extend him and Cam Smith being awesome - is something I'd be more than happy to see! I just think some people need to find some sort of a realistic footing on how we should view Cam Smith's current call up.

So, I'm going to be very definitive with this: I have not been "shitting" on anyone - this is a pretty unfair way of characterizing the point of my posts. I have repeatedly say that for his sake I hope he does well, that I think he's a good prospect, have brought up his top-100 ranking, have explained multiple times I would say this about any prospect in the same situation as Smith...there is simply no "shitting" on him. The moment with his family was super cool and he seems like a good dude. As a person, I'm happy for him. Instead, let's recalibrate what my actual point is: 1. I don't think he's being put in a situation to succeed. It's not that he hasn't "paid his dues" it's that the best prospects on the planet, with more experience struggle at the highest level. Smith has no track record against Double-A pitching. - this is the highest level of baseball and he's skipped basically, everything between the "College World Series" and "hitting against Tarik Skubal". This is a recipe for bad outcomes. It doesn't mean it will happen, but that this is about the toughest assignment one could draw up for someone. And while Smith is a good prospect, he's not been considered to be the same level as better prospects who had more experience and struggled heavily. If this constitutes shitting on him, then I guess I horsefeathers on Matt Shaw when I suggested he would have a hard start to his MLB career recently, in which I also explained that better prospects than Shaw have struggled and that this is just what is to be expected. 2. I brought up Gage Workman because ST numbers simply shouldn't shift our understanding of players greatly. Do I think Gage Workman has looked pretty good in practice games? Sure thing! Do I think Gage Workman, at age 25, and with a defined floor of having a really good glove, makes sense as the 26th man? Sure thing! I thought that in January. (No, I don't think Smith = Workman, these are anecdotes). So either people should understand that they're greatly shifting their evaluation of Cam Smith off of a handful of practice games or they have believed for a while that Cam Smith should have been the starting RF for the Houston Astros. I think both are silly for different reasons. 3. It's pretty silly for Cubs fans to consistently feel the need to worry about these trades. We did it in 2016 when everyone was convinced Gleyber Torres (who the industry was higher on than Smith) was going to be a star. We did this in 2017 when the Cubs traded Jorge Soler (who the industry thought of higher than Smith). We did this later in 2017 when everyone was convinced Eloy Jimenez was going to be a star (who the industry thought was better than Smith). Each of those player have been fine, but have fallen far short of the crisis situation some made it out to potentially be. Does that mean Cam Smith has to follow that path? Absolutely not - Cam Smith is his own entity. He may very well buck a trend, he might hit the ground running and be great! But what most people are doing is playing the doom-and-gloom of worrying about the 95%^ outcome when the previous three anecdotes are being used to highlight the idea that prospects usually fall short of what the dream-outcomes are (yes, Dylan Cease was traded in that group and he was good! This isn't a comprehensive list nor am I purposefully forgetting him). So, sure, Smith could be a monster who bombs 35+ home runs for the next 15 years consistently...but the most likely outcome is a guy who probably struggles heavily in his initial call up, then settles into being a fine MLB player but one we look back on in similar veins to Torres, Jimenez and Soler. Useful players but not some generationally bad loss. The TL;DR: I am not shitting on Cam Smith, I think he's being put in a position where initial success will be incredibly difficult. I don't believe ST data matters much at all, and while I think Smith can be a good MLB player, fans have a bad habit of ignoring the realistic outcome of a prospect who's been traded in lieu of fearing the worst-case.

When Cam Smith makes his MLB debut, only two position players will have ever taken less PAs in MiLB than him. Sure, it remains possible that Cam Smith is ready despite taking under 30 PAs in Double-A, despite not being a consensus top-50 prospect (below Shaw on most lists by 25+ places), and despite not even being a top-10 draft selection just a handful of months ago. But I mean...it's pretty unlikely that he is. This says far more about the state of the Astros than Cam Smith. I dont think there would be any camp Smith could have had with the Cubs and made their OD roster. As Bertz pointed out, as of a few days ago, Smith was running a contact rate in ST of 64%. Im always on team "ST data barely matters", but if we want to look at his, say, OPS and be wow'ed, we should also look at that and understand his process behind the OPS is...not good, currently. A non-shocking revelation for a non-elite prospect based on industry ranking who's really never played above A-Ball. Its kind of to be expected. And signals that when things get real, when teams put more effort into attacking a hitters weakness rather than practicing that things will likely not go well for Smith for a while. Another thing to remember - Gage Workman, a player who the Tigers exposed to the Rule V draft, and has never played above Double-A is having a similarly good ST and he might not even make the team. Yeah, he's a bit older, but point remains - I dont see anyone here under any impressions he's a star now that he had some good practice games. I'd like him to make the team, myself, but its more along the lines of I think he fits the roster and Brujan sucks. I wouldnt let ST change my opinion, in almost any case, on a player. This is a practice environment. If you thought Smith was ready in February, then that's a choice, but I wouldn't agree with you. I still don't think Smith is ready. Maybe I'll be wrong here...but it feels like the Astros are looking to catch lightning in a bottle more so than they are legitimately a believer that he's ready for the Show. For his sake I wish him the best, however.

I think people overrate how bad this could or may hurt. There's a world where, yeah, Smith is like a 4 win perennial player, but thats probably the 90-95% outcome. Even if he doesn't extend, Smith is more likely to fall into the Eloy Jimenez/Gelyber Torres area of "had some good seasons but wasnt a star" type. I remember how badly everyone wished we had those guys, and they have had moments, and seasons, but havent really hit that highwater mark. And to get a year of Tucker, it might still sting a bit, but it's also pretty forgettable in the grand scheme of things. Im not saying you're the one specifically over valuing Smith here (I know youre rational!), it's just the overall I've been seeing, and your post happened to be one to respond to on it. It just feels like a hefty dose of overreaction from fans based on ST outcomes. And just a continuation of the yearly battle on fighting ST outcomes in general. Instead of hyper focusing on some random fringe player hitting well with the Cubs, it's a focus on a recently dealt prospect with not-the-Cubs.

It might. But I'm also pretty sure that Smtih's assignment here is among the tougher ones we have seen. Hes barely accrued 20 PAs outside of high-A prior to ST, hes running a bad contact% in ST, and he's learning a new position. Maybe it all works out for him, but him being down in Triple-A by mid-May feels very realistic. Long term, hes a good prospect, but no one thinks he's generational. He can be a good player! And I doubt this first bit, even if it's rough, will be the decider in him. But I do think he's become one of the biggest risers I've seen in terms of evaluation from draft day (he went from mid-1st round pick to people thinking he can hit 40 home runs) and that's going to be a tough ceiling to hit.

i noticed that at the bottom of the page yesterday and couldn't tell if it was new, or if I was just that un-observant for two years. Phew.

Well, I mean, the Cubs have a top-100 prospect, and a team-top-five prospect in Moises Ballesteros who was an IFA guy. I do agree, that there is a bit of a gap in big-Cubs IFA prospects at the MLB level over the last handful of years, as Ballesteros has been the defacto guy for a bit, but we are seeing some talent. Cristian Hernandez, as well, had a really nice year last season. He had a 135 wRC+ at Myrtle - there's some caveats (repeater, struggled at South Bend in small sample), but he's another IFA name. He's a breakout candidate this year on top of his strong 2024. Behind him, the next classes are probably too young to really identify yet. There's some big names who haven't fully hit yet, but are one good year away from jumping lists, so I'll withhold judgement.

The Cubs will do that at times - though Hernandez has been pretty straight forward so far playing SS. He's logged just a single game at 3b, though has played some 2b. 3b is a new development for Hernandez.

Per BA, Hernandez has spent a lot of time at 3b on backfields this ST. Im not sure if theres a deeper reasoning behind it, but as Rojas appears to be hurt, and Hernandez has always had positive scotuing on his glove, it does raise some possible questions. Is this is just to create flexibility, whether they like Rojas more at 3b, or internally they're less jazzed about him at SS? I wont try to answer it or go crazy trying to answer it but something of an interesting note.

Jones was originally traded to Colorado from Cleveland. Interesting trade.

I think its important to once again mention that Smith has *potential* plus power and contact but he's never shown both simultaneously. During his time at FSU, when he's hit for contact, he's flattened his bat path out and hit the ball on the ground far more. When he hit for home runs, his launch angle was much better but he struck out much more, and at levels that make you a little uneasy, probably. He did crush Low-A, which is good and all...but he was playing in the CWS. He probably should have. His samples are too small in both SB and Tenn to come away with a ton, especially since it does not seem the Cubs, themselves improved his LA, as reports are they didn't touch his swing in that limited time. If he can bridge the gap between the two versions, he can be a pretty damn good hitter. But it remains theoretical that he has both plus power and plus contact, in that he's only ever shown one at a time.

His LA dipped significantly his senior year. Yes; probably to help limit whiff. He didnt change his swing last year when he was drafted. It's certainly possible he has since then, with a new org, but hadn't with the Cubs. The Cubs general philosophy is that they don't tweak swings until the results suggest it isnt working (i.e. Matt Shaw). I cannot say this for certain, because I've never been invited to Spring Trianing, but I'd assume that teams aren't overly concerned with scouting reports against MiLB talent for those games. And because players are using it as practice, they have their own things they're doing, over learning a report for every Double-A hitter they might face. So I'd guess teams aren't really attacking Smith's potential flaws. Dude has had a great camp. Super credit. We'd be super excited if he was for us. But it's camp and remembering that is key.

It certainly could. While this is more anecdotal than anything, recent history says Cubs fans are probably more worried about Smith being great than they should be. Gleyber Torres, Jorge Soler, and Eloy Jimenez were all supposed to be excellent offensive prospects and none of them went on to be all that great. There have been blips and flashes of excellence for all, but all have fallen short of those concerns in their entirety to date. Maybe Smith breaks that mold, but most prospects fall short of their 95% outcome, regardless.