Jason Ross

I think that's fine. Brujan is kind of whatever. He'd be nice depth, but he's probably more on the redundant side of things. For example, and injury and there's a prospect ahead of him. So, for example, if an OF'er goes down, Caissie or Alcantara will be next up. On the infield, it's Triantos. If the Cubs didn't have that kind of immediate depth, he could probably more easily find his way into a real spot, but the Cubs are set up in a way he'd probably need two injuries to get on the roster.

Probably Brujan. Workman can't be sent to the MiLB, and while Brujan can handle CF, I suspect that the Cubs, in an event of a PCA injury, would be okay with allowing Suzuki/Tucker/Happ/Berti to handle CF for a day or so before Alcantara took it over (he's already on the 40). Brujan hasn't looked awful this spring by any means, but he's been awful at the MLB level so far, is decently far removed from being a highly thought of prospect, and looks much closer to that dreaded Quad-A guy more than anything. There will be a few weeks where and injury can change the math, but I'd suspect today that the answer of "who goes" is Brujan be a notable amount.

I would say anything different is unintentional. He just gave an interview to Joel Shusterman of Yahoo Sports where he said he didn't change anything offensively this offseason outside of slightly changing bat size (from 33.5 to 34 inch).

Sincerely having a blast doing this. Great conversation each time.

In 2024, catcher was one of the weakest spots on the Cubs roster. They attempted to upgrade at the position at the deadline, but came up short. How does the position look as the Cubs head towards Opening Day 2025? Image courtesy of © Rick Scuteri-Imagn Images To put it bluntly: 2024 was not a good year for Cubs catchers. Yan Gomes, coming off a strong 2023 campaign, finally had father time catch up to him and his play fell off significantly. Miguel Amaya took a step backwards (at least in the first half) and was unable to take the reins of the position. On the season, according to fangraphs, the Cubs finished with a negative WAR at the position (good for 26th in baseball), a 69 wRC+ (25th in baseball), and had a bottom-10 defensive WAR at the position. There were some positives, however, in that Miguel Amaya tweaked his swing later on and there were positive impacts. Through the first half of the season, Amaya struggled immensely, posting a dreadful 60 wRC+ and looking generally lost and out matched. The Cubs identified his mechanics as a point of emphasis and had Amaya debut a new swing post All-Star break to resounding success. The catcher put up a 113 wRC+ in his final 144 plate appearances. More excitingly, it wasn't BABIP fueled, meaning there remains some belief that this is partially repeatable. He did slump over the last month, which is a good reminder that he's not entirely out of the woods, but it gives him a shot at being in the Cubs' plans in the future. Entering the offseason, the Cubs had two paths forward at the position; they could look to upgrade entirely over Amaya, pushing him down a notch, or look for a competent partner to pair with Amaya in a 1a/1b type of relationship. With options at the position thin, the Cubs opted for the latter. After being connected to players such as Danny Jansen, who would eventually sign with Tampa Bay, the Cubs would sign Carson Kelly to a two-year contract. Coming off a strong offensive season, Kelly will help raise the floor for the Cubs in the event that Amaya's changes don't stick. It will also help improve the Cubs' defense at the position, as MLB's Statcast had him in the 77th percentile for catching defense in 2024. The Cubs will likely only carry these two catchers on their MLB roster at the start of the season, but catchers have a tendency to get hurt with the physical nature of the job, so depth matters. To help supplement in Iowa, the Cubs signed veteran catcher Carlos Perez. Perez spent 2024 with the Oakland Athletics' Triple-A team, and provides the Cubs with veteran depth. Perez won't wow anybody, as he's has had an up-and-down professional career thus far, but he's got some MLB experience. You can do worse from a third-catcher-perspective. The good news for the Cubs is that the former Athletics backstop isn't the the only option the Cubs have at the position, and their other option provides a a much higher ceiling. Where things get a little murkier is that one of the Cubs best prospects, Moises Ballesteros, also plays catcher, with the caveat of "we don't really know how well he plays the position yet". I wrote about Ballesteros in our look at the top 20 prospects in the system, but the short and quick of it is that Big Mo's bat has all the hallmarks of being for real, but the glove is much more of a question mark. If the Cubs have an injury to either Amaya or Kelly, it will be interesting to see if the team goes with the safer, lower-ceiling veteran option in Carlos Perez or if the team believes in Ballesteros' glove enough to promote him. The Cubs clearly went into the offseason looking to improve the position, and it's probable that they have done just that. How much they improved is probably more of the question — if Carson Kelly reverts to the 2023 version offensively (.565 OPS) and if Amaya doesn't continue his second-half improvements, the position will likely will need to be re-addressed at mid-season. On the flip side, the Cubs have two catchers who both could be legitimate MLB starters while also having a wild card in Moises Ballesteros looming in the wake. What do you think of the Cubs catching situation as they enter the 2025 season? Do you believe in the improvements from Miguel Amaya? Do you think they will need to go with Ballesteros at any time? Let us know in the comments section below! View full article

It's already likely that Gage Workman is going to make the MLB roster. Shaw hasn't had a ton of PAs in ST, but Cowles basically missed all of Triple-A due to injury last year. While Workman and Cowles offer some upside, neither are thought of (industry wide) in the same realm as Shaw. Going with two prospects who have basically not seen Triple-A from the get-go does not seem like a great idea.

The Cubs have a pretty clear-cut starter at the shortstop position in Dansby Swanson, as Swanson has established himself as one of the best at his position defensively over the last handful of years. What does the rest of the depth chart look like for the Cubs at short? And who might be the next man up in the event of an injury? Entering year three of Dansby Swanson's seven-year contract, the Cubs are in good hands at the position. Over his first two seasons with the Cubs, Swanson has been worth 8.2 fWAR, which is sixth in Major League Baseball, and has been the best defensive shortstop in terms of dWAR. This is especially noteworthy as other 2022 free agents such as Trea Turner, Xander Bogaerts, and Carlos Correa, who got larger and longer contracts, have been the 8th, 11th, and 18th most valuable at the position. The Cubs shortstop is not without some faults, as he posted a somewhat disappointing 99 wRC+ in 2024, but with the way Wrigley suppressed offense all season, some of this will likely be fixed all on its own. As we enter 2025, it wouldn't be shocking to see him take a little bit of a step back as he enters his age-31 season, but he's a steady option and, with proper health, will be a stalwart in the Cubs lineup and will flirt with another four-win season. Behind Swanson, though, the Cubs have a far less defined depth chart. Several players, including Nico Hoerner, Matt Shaw, Nicky Lopez, and Gage Workman, could see time at short. All can handle the position, but for many reasons, none are guaranteed to be the "next man up." Nico Hoerner, in a perfect world, would probably be the "backup" at the position., While the Cubs will have him penciled in as their starting second baseman when they come back stateside from Japan (Hoerner will not make the trip for the two-game Tokyo Series), his availability at the position is complicated by his return from injury. Fresh off a right flexor surgery, it's probably fair to wonder how his arm would hold up. I have little doubt he will be fine at second (which requires far less arm strength on a play-to-play basis), but how the Cubs feel about his recovery could make his ability to handle the left side of the infield a little less obvious. As the year progresses, his ability to be the backup there will likely grow as he gets healthier and stronger, but es. However, it is early, and I don't think Hoerner will be a definitive answer. Matt Shaw appears to be on track to make his MLB debut in Tokyo and could be an emergency option at short if needed. Shaw played the position extensively in Maryland and has logged 74 games since his draft day with the Cubs in their minor league system. While Shaw has played the position in the past, most agree he will not likely be good enough at the highest level. The former Terp has put in lots of work at third and might be able to moonlight a little bit at short, but I'm not sure he's a long-term fix in the event of a significant injury to Swanson. Never say never, though. Two players on the fringe of making the MLB roster but could provide cover are Rule-5 pick Gage Workman and former White Sox infielder Nicky Lopez. Workman has had a wonderful spring so far and is likely putting the Cubs in a difficult position with him as they will either have to carry him on the 26-man roster all season or return him to the Tigers. "Tater" can play high-level defense across the infield, and despite never playing above Double-A, he would give the Cubs cover across the board if they keep him. Lopez, who was signed to a minor league contract last month to provide depth and coverage, could also make the initial roster, with Hoerner still rehabbing from his offseason surgery. While Lopez is not an exciting player at first look, he did manage a whopping five-win season with the Royals in 2021 and has a pretty darn good glove. It's possible that Lopez could claim a permanent bench spot and use his contact ability and defense to carve out a role as the backup shortstop. At the top of the shortstop depth chart sits Swanson, who is among the Cubs' most entrenched starters at any position. The Cubs are relatively well stocked at the position from a numbers game, even if the exact pecking order behind Swanson is a little challenging to determine. They will likely carry three or four players who could conceivably play shortstop through the season, giving the Cubs flexibility if they face a worst-case scenario. What do you think of the Cubs depth chart at shortstop? Who would get the first chance even if Swanson got hurt? Let us know in the comments below! View full article

He hasn't with the Cubs. But he was named to the Spring Breakout Roster. Expect him to get some run in one of those two games.

Mark Bellhorn. Has to be with those flaps.

Nothing yet. My hope is that he's been in the MiLB camp and the Cubs didn't invite him to MLB camp for (X reason). But it could be an injury that we haven't heard about too.

Awesome listen!

Kind of what I expected. Brown and Wicks in Iowa give the Cubs some protection from an early season injury. I think if Horton and Birdsell were ready and healthy, Brown could have pushed his way into the rotation or the BP. But keeping him in Iowa gives you a good fall back option if someone gets hurt early on.

Man, AZ Phil is so good for understanding option years, covering Complex League...and then he'll go and suggest the Cubs could move Swanson or Holiday and Competitive Balance B pick. I wonder if he's just been down at MiLB Camp and the team is working on something specific? He's been someone who's got a great approach but could stand to hit for more power. But this is my copium. And yeah, Shaw is another name I should have mentioned! It seems good news for both and always a positive to see how high the team is on these guys.

You know, I hadn't thought about that and you're right, we haven't seen anything on him. I broke my self-imposed Twitter ban (I've kept my account for a few things but really, really try not to use it) and a quick search of my following and everyone doesn't really seem to pull anything up. Something to file away - hopefully something benign and not something like an injury.

In 2024, MLB announced their "Spring Breakout" series—a chance to showcase some of the best minor-league talent in the game playing against one another in televised action. Who will represent the Cubs in 2025—and who missed the cut? Image courtesy of © Mark J. Rebilas-Imagn Images Spring Breakout was an initiative that started last year, as a chance for Major League Baseball to shine a spotlight on its best and brightest young players. Each team will face off in a single game against another, with a roster built entirely from minor-league players. The Cubs were supposed to play the White Sox last year, but the game was (sadly) canceled. This year, the Cubs' Spring Breakout roster will compete against the Dodgers'—mirroring their Opening Day Tokyo Series, in a way—and then take on the Angels' Breakout group a few days later. The Cubs will once again be putting together an impressive lineup of names. Last year's roster would have seen Owen Caissie, Matt Shaw, Kevin Alcántara and others take the field, and this year, many names will get a chance to make their impression. A full rundown of the Cubs Spring Breakout Roster can be found here, but here is a quick instant reaction to the entire team: Players to Watch First and foremost, Cade Horton is back in action... or at least on the roster. Horton is a name that you could likely put a bit on the "surprise addition" list, due to his return from an injury last year, but I think that makes him especially exciting to see. I want to see the velocity and the movement on the breaking balls. This is probably a good sign when it comes to his availability at the start of the year, and a sign that the Cubs don't plan on leaving him in Arizona for much extended work. He should, in fairly short order, be in Iowa, trying to force the issue at the highest level of the minors. This will be a fun first step. Horton will not be the only member of last year's I-Cubs (or this year's) who will be on the Breakout team, though, as James Triantos and Moises Ballesteros will also appear. While neither are universal top-50 prospects, both are guys who will likely see time in Chicago in 2025 (if they aren't traded, of course). Getting to see a few innings of Ballesteros catching is always a bit of a peek behind the curtain on his defense. Triantos is versatile, and his hit tool is very good. Hopefully, he gets a chance to cause a little chaos on the bases. Beyond some of the Iowa crew, many will get their first chance to see Jaxon Wiggins light up the gun. Capable of hitting the high 90s and scraping triple digits, the 2023 second-round selection out of Arkansas is easily described as a "live arm". Control issues may force the lanky righthander into a role in the bullpen down the road, but he has one of the highest ceilings of any arm in the system. I wrote about Wiggins earlier in the offseason, and I'll admit to being very excited for his 2025. Surprise Additions A few of the Cubs' most recent draft picks will get a chance to showcase their talent against the Dodgers, in third-round pick Ronny Cruz and fourth-round selection Ty Southisene. Both were selected out of high school, so both fit better into the "file them away for a later date and time" category than, say, Triantos and Ballesteros, but both have some fun upside. Cruz has big power potential, and Southisene packs a strong contact ability and a little more pop than expected in a small package. Riley Martin probably isn't a surprise in the traditional sense—he'll start the year in Iowa and has flashed a really nasty curveball for a few years—but his road is one that I've always found interesting. Martin was a sixth-round selection in the 2022 MLB Draft out of Quincy University. Signed for just a few thousand dollars, Martin was drafted in large part due to his ability to save slot allotments for other picks. He flashed a few interesting qualities, but it would have been hard to expect him to settle in as well as he has. There's a good chance Martin will get a chance to pitch in Chicago in 2025, and it's a great reminder that regardless of your signing bonus, these are all high-level athletes who can break out. Notable Omissions No Kevin Alcántara immediately stands out. It is true that he made his MLB debut last season, but that isn't an automatic disqualifier; players who still have their rookie status are all eligible to be part of the event. This, coupled with Craig Counsell's recent comments on the outfielder, make you wonder if this means that he's headed to Tokyo with those who are expected to play on Opening Day. That doesn't mean that we should expect him to be on the bench, though. He could simply be one of the handful of players on the taxi squad, there to replace someone in case of emergency and to play in the exhibition games with Japanese teams, rather than to face off with the Dodgers. If he does get a seat on that plane, though, it's a ringing endorsement. A few injured players will not make the roster either, in Brandon Birdsell and Owen Caissie. I didn't expect to see either name here as they work back from injuries, but it's still a bit of a letdown to be reminded that each is down for a while. The Cubs have no reason to rush them, and both still have a chance to debut in 2025. The Cubs Breakout Team will take on the Dodgers Breakout Team on Mar. 13, at 8:05 PM CST on the road, and then host the Angels Breakout Team on Mar. 15 at 8:05. The game against the Dodgers will be broadcast through MLB.com, while their home game against the Angels will be on Marquee and MLB.TV. Who are you excited to see play in the Breakout Game in 2025? Is there someone you wish made the roster? Let us know in the comments section below. View full article

Yes. I do think the velocity thing probably factors into here. I had another study I was about to post (sorry, got sidetracked with an Instant Analysis on the Breakout Roster being announced so I had to go write that up) from Rocky Mountain SABR which also explored that. It's probably nearly impossible to remove the two at this stage, but I also think that's not necessarily something that detracts from the overall argument, because I think as velocity increases, the need to hit home runs also increases. The idea of stringing three hits together against guys with the stuff they have today feels more daunting than ever. It likely means that with that stuff strikeouts are raising, but I think it also means the necessity to hit home runs is more important than ever. If you can't rely on getting four hits an inning, then getting a walk and a home run is probably worth the strikeouts you give up.

I think it's fair to point out those filters, discussing this at an MLB level does give us the best of the best. But I think that is countered by two things: 1. This trend isn't new. It's a trend we can trace back, using the chart and study, since 1950. It's a concept we have seen for a while. 2. We have seen a massive statistical and analytical revolution in baseball which dates back to Tom Tango and Bill James and has been implemented at MLB FO's over the course of 25 years - teams are finding every inch to improve run scoring. If teams didn't think, using their mountains of data and analysis that this wasn't a thing, we'd probably not see increased hitters striking out. I respect that part of this is an appeal to authority, but I also think in the case of the people who are running MLB teams, that they kind of demand that authority right now. In the nicest possible way, the nerds are running the MLB right now and the strikeouts aren't going down. You can think of it another way - in sports like basketball, we're seeing teams more and more shoot threes. That the risk of missing more shots is offset by the guarantee of more points. In the NFL, teams are more and more going for it on fourth down, as teams realize that the risk of not getting the fourth is being offset by scoring more and controlling the ball longer. Baseball is seeing a similar version of this - the risk of striking out (and not putting the ball in play and generating an error) is offset by the guaranteed runs scored.

I think it's a correlation. Using the top-5 is fine, but I think we also have to recognize that the top-5 guys who hit home runs last include Soto, Ohtani and Judge - these are freaks who will end up in a special place in baseball history. I think there's a bit of a "self fulfilling prophecy" there - they do special things and probably have a unique ability to hit a lot of home runs in ways others don't. It's why, again, I think we need to look macro. Here's a pretty insane study, and I'll admit, I don't think I'm smart enough to understand every piece of data in it - my true trade is a 7th and 8th grade history teacher and not a statistician. There's some crazy data charts that look like garble to me. But I do understand the words of it. The study finds that essentially, for every six strikeouts, home runs increase by 4.14. Below is a nice visualization. This is data from 1950+ on. So it's massively macro. Now, I would like to also suggest to your original point, the study does point to the idea that home runs and strikeout rates don't always go together - Soto and Ohtani clearly show that. But again, it's why I think a real macro look is important here. Because I think it really matters for the not-top players who are using that home run power to really be a useful player. Like Ezeqiel Tovar and his sub 4% walk rate is likely really being propped up by selling out for power. He was still 5% worse than MLB average, but I think a Tovar who decided to hit more baseballs probably is a worse hitter than Tovar who gives up some strikeouts for home runs.

While I agree, TT's is extreme (it was meant to be, that's not a knock on him), the example you have given is just as anecdotal. The reality is this: time and time again baseball analysis comes back to the concept that home run rate and strikeout rate are tied at the hip. A five PA outcome sample size tells us nothing. It's a game's worth of outcomes and it's what the issue with this discussion comes from. People who look at this as a "a strikeout is bad" are (generally - I don't want to pigeon hole anyone) looking from a micro level, PA to PA. "Well if Player X hits the ball in the field of play then maybe..." is usually the defense. Looking at how you have framed it, you're looking at it from a game's worth of PA's. It's at the micro level. For example, if in the sixth PA, Player 1 hits a HR and player 2 hits a single, Player 1 is now the far, far, far more successful player at run creation. We can also suggest that Player 2 may have hit into a double play within there, which also throws the data off. It's the issue with looking at it from such a small and narrow lens. The problem is that it is not a micro discussion, but a discussion at the macro level. When we zoom out further than a single PA, more than a curated five PA sample, the data says "strikeouts aren't a detractor in run scoring". We have to move past the micro here. It's easy to find examples of the micro - they're very anecdotal. But as we zoom out, we add more and more outcomes, the data stabilizes and doesn't allow a single PA to throw off the sample set. And because home runs are tied to strikeouts, we have to get to that big picture discussion so as not to grasp to this concept that "maybe the short stop will mess up" as a defense, but that hitters who strike out are attempting to trade that very small chance that an MLB defender will mess up, for a guaranteed run scoring play at a later time. There are 100% break points (it's why contact rate and strike out rate matter) to this data, but it doesn't mean that we should once again bore down to a micro discussion of strikeouts, either.

I have mostly written off Killian, but seeing that he's once again trying some new stuff gives you a little hope. There's some raw stuff there that you can always find, hopefully this iteration of Killian finds a home as something.

Right, but that article is suggesting that isn't true at the MLB level. If run scoring doesn't get impacted, than the style of out literally doesn't matter. Stylistically to you it might, but that's an anecdote, and nothing more. It's very different at lower levels. At the MLB level, outs are outs in the grand scheme of things. Hitting a ground ball to an MLB SS is the same as swinging and missing three times. You're going to get out. There's the rare situation where even the best player does make a mistake, but the amount of times that happens just isn't very significant. When teams identify pure butchers in the field, they become DH's (I.E. see Christopher Morel).

Honest question - did you read the totality of the article? Did you do so with an open mind, or with the mindset of "strikeouts are the worst"? I don't want to sound accusatory or attacking in tone there, I just wanted to double check. I think if you give the article posted an honest read, with an open mind, you'll understand the point it's making. It does so with honest data that shows in most scenarios, a strikeout (at the MLB level) does not meaningfully change run scoring. Yes, there are times (one out, runner on third) that hitting the ball in play does effect that, but the article accepts that. It's suggesting, using data and run expectancy, that strikeouts likely don't matter much. I have said that I think in a broad spectrum look that we can argue things that strikeout rate over the course of a season for an individual player and contact rates do matter, but each individual strikeout probably doesn't matter. Do you have data, not an anecdote, but data to support your side of the argument? I'd be glad to look at it! If not, there's probably a good reason why that is - most likely that reason is that there is not data to support that argument.