Jason Ross

Yeah, it does feel like the Padres and the Cubs match up well. I have a feeling someone like Kevin Alcantara and his defense may appeal a bit more to the Padres than, say, an Owen Caisse, but admit that I'm bullish on Caissie and know that may be my biases showing through. Regardless, it feels like there's need and motive on both sides, and seeing a deal come together for King or Cease feels quite plausible.

Well, I would say that the goal of writing front page news here is to draw in both you and I, but also grow the website to new readers and the like. As someone who writes for NSBB myself, that's certainly my goal. I love it when ya'll interact but I hope others find it, too. So while you and I probably understand Brown's limitations, many people who may find the website may not. I'd much rather read Matt break down the shape of Browns' fastball than write meatball takes, even if I kind of agree that Brown probably isn't a rotational option in 2025. And I'd also hope people who like this kind of breakdown are the folks who find us and join in talking Cubs baseball.

Us? Maybe. Cub fandom in general? Less so.

No he didn't. He traded Cam Smith, a player every industry ranking except for BP has ranked below Matt Shaw (and a good handful have ranked 25+ spots or more below). So this is simply untrue. I've spent time breaking down why it's ridiculous for Shaw to be behind Smith anyways, and I'm not doing it again, but the reality is this - Shaw is a better prospect today by any measure you cant think of. Maybe Smith will be better later, but with the information we have now...the Cubs did not trade their best prospect. And replaced him with that very same top prospect, on an even more team friendly contract whom ZiPS, the leading projection system in the world, has projected in 2025 as being around just as good as Parades First off, no, they traded Hayden Wesneski, and secondly...who cares? Wesneski is a 27 year old pitcher who still hasn't figured out how to get LHP out. He wouldn't even start in the Cubs bullpen. And they replaced him with Cody Poteet, who looks quite identical to the profile of Wesneski. For a player who's coming off of a 180 wRC+ and is a top-10 position player in baseball. We'll see if we extend him. But here's the catch - if Tucker wasn't on a one year contract, he would have cost significantly more, and you're already throwing a fit. They traded Cody Bellinger for $20m in salary relief that they haven't fully used yet. I would agree that if the Cubs dump Bellinger and Ricketts pockets the money, that it will be a bit frustrating. However, Bellinger wasn't going to start over Happ (in LF), PCA (in CF), Tucker (in RF), Suzuki (at DH), or Busch (at 1b) so he was a superfluous player as well. And they didn't get "no one back". They got Cody Poteet back. If you want to say he's not a super exciting addition, that's fine, I don't think so either. But you can't then whine about losing Hayden Wesneski who is only a few years younger but has all of the same pitch qualities. So pick one - either the Cubs didn't get anything back for Bellinger or who cares about losing Wesneski? And they didn't give them Michael Arias (not Aries) they DFA'd Michael Arias and the Yankees gave up cash considerations. The Cubs decided of all of the players they had, he was the easiest to part with. That says something - the Cubs decided they would have a better shot getting value out of David Festa, Gavin Hollwell, or Cody Poteet over him. And they're almost assuredly correct. Easy; one of these players has made an MLB debut, has been worth 2.3 fWAR, projects to be around 3 fWAR next year while the other two players have a combined 28 innings above A-ball. By the time either of them make an MLB debut Michael Busch will have likely racked up over five wins for the Cubs, if not more and there's no guarantee either Hope or Ferris even make the MLB, let alone are good. If they are - well good on the Dodgers, the Cubs still got a good MLB player for six years. How awful, huh? This is mostly nonsense and complaining to complain. How do you think teams get better? Sincerely, do you think it's magic? One of the things they do is that they convert superfluous players into players that fill gaps, they get rid of mediocre to bad players and replace them with useful ones, and yes, sometimes they have to take prospects and move them for established players. Sometimes those prospects go on to be good, and many of the time, the fizzle out. The Cubs project like a high 80's win team right now, with some upwards mobility to get to 90...especially if they end up continuing to use that money from the Bellinger trade to improve the team. I don't want to defend every move Jed Hoyer makes, but complaining about these ones feels so damn silly. I might not always agree with Hoyer, but every move has defensible logic. Instead of acting like the Cubs are being run akin to the Rockies, maybe go looking for the logic - it's there. But posts like this make me wonder what you do when you buy a dozen eggs. Do you look at them and think "man, I'd really like a omelet right now, but ugh, I'd have to crack a few? What if in 10 days I want another and I have already eaten them all?" Because that's all this is. "Man, I'm really bummed out we traded that very low level prospect out and got back an all-world player for one guaranteed year...what if in five years that prospect becomes a middle reliever!"

I would guess in that scenario it would be a three team deal. Which helps it make more sense but also would complicate things making it less likely.

Listen, I'm going to be as kind with this as I can be; the year is 2025 and we have far better ways to quantify baseball players than using batting average as a naked, single data point like you're doing. But for a moment, before we dig deeper into simply batting average, it probably good to note that Vazquez put up a .263 batting average, at a level below the Majors, while posting a .320 BABIP. That's not a great sign. What it means is that he carried a below average batting average, coupled with an above average BABIP. That's very hard signs that you've got a player who's already struggling to handle stuff and the quality of pitching. Diving deeper, his xWOBA, which is his expected wOBA based on the quality of hits was a .289. An MLB equivalent of that xWOBA is that of Ezekial Tovar, who posted the 122nd best wOBA last year (out of 129). We can also assume that number would decline sharply as the quality of pitching went up. His barrel% was a paltry 4%, his LA was 2% lower than that of MLB average, and he hit almost 50% of his balls on the ground! And this isn't a hitter who has a long track record of hitting, nor was it his first rodeo in Triple-A. He regressed. The under the hood is pretty ugly on his 2024 season in Iowa. Do I think Vazquez is super-dead as a prospect? No. But there's a pretty low chance he's going to stick on an MLB roster any time soon. and his bat is really bad. Frankly, I was probably being kind giving him a 90 wRC+ right now - that's probably a ceiling. At best you're looking at a 26th guy who's there to carry a glove and never hit and the most likely scenario is that he does exactly what he's doing - he bounces up and down from Triple-A as an emergency bench guy for a team, and then eventually is DFA'd only to rinse and repeat elsewhere. If by an "MLB career" you mean that than we agree, but if you mean that then I don't know what we're doing here lamenting his loss, either. We have already played this game with Michael Arias, but I implore you to do a little digging in on these prospects and learn how low of a chance these guys have at sticking. These are guys every team has floating around - some glove first infielder who you squint at and maybe they might hit enough to stick is normal. Hell, the Tigers just exposed Greg Workman for free in the Rule V draft and he's basically the same thing as Vazquez, except he hits home runs, too.

None of these are players to concern ourselves with. David Festa was acquired for nothing, and was a player you probably wouldn't hate to have as a depth option (he's worked with new pitching guru Tyler Zombro in the past) but is also a "fixer upper" at best. Instead, they added Ryan Pressley who's been among the best relievers in baseball for a handful of years. Little down last year but still good. Are you suggesting we'd rather have David Festa? Luis Vazquez is another player no one had on their Cubs-Bingo-Card until two years ago. His bat is very limited (like, he might struggle to get to 90 wRC+ limited) and while the glove is good, he's almost assuredly looking at a ceiling of "defensive-glove-only" backup type with a more realistic outcome of organizational up/down (in the way the Cubs have been using him). The Cubs have other types just like this (Greg Workman who also offers home run power, Vidal Brujan, Jon Berti) while also having prospects ahead of him such as James Triantos (capable of playing every position he does except SS). Much like worrying about Michael Arias these feel like weird hills to die on. There's small pathways forward for each player to do something in the MLB level, but the combination of Jon Berti, Colin Rea and Ryan Pressley, in a single season in Chicago are more likely to have a combined fWAR total above all three of the DFA'd player's remaining career fWAR combined. The Cubs need to be continuing to add! And they cannot just fullsale stop. But these guys are not guys that anyone should worry about. It's probable in a year we don't even remember their names.

In a weird way, you like hearing he fought something mechanical. It shows both that he understands an issue is present, but also that you assume the Cubs have identified this and a way to go about improving on it, as well.

System is an interesting time with the 11-30 range right now. A lot of that comes with the territory - a lot of these players have little/no experience above A-ball but all have some glimpses and flashes of upside. Will be fun next year to follow and track the players of that group who rise through the fog. Figure there's probably 1-3 breakouts somewhere in that mix, be it a Cole Mathis, Ty Southesene, or a few of the younger arms like Erian Rodriguez.

I like hearing that the team is remaining open to opportunities and exploring. It's also a good time for that - we have seen what happens, for example, when starting pitchers don't get to camp on time (Flaherty) so it could create a bit of a reason for him to accept a different (i.e. more creative) contract structure that would interest the Cubs. You'd also have to assume that the Padres, for example, will want to settle their financial things sooner rather than later, as well. I do hope it comes to something, however. There are some interesting paths with Bregman, Flaherty, a SP from SD that remain out there. I'll take a Ryne Stanek as a floor (however he's always felt more theoretically good than actually good) but would really like to see the Cubs use their ability here to go above that.

The Cubs or any acquiring team is not likely to have any real concept of what a player is likely to want or need for a contract extension. They're not factoring this in to their bottom line. Ultimately, the Cubs are only acquiring Michael King or Dylan Cease for a year. Perhaps they're more interested, in say, pursuing King over Cease for that reason, but I don't think the bottom line is changing much. They can't be assured they're going to get King for any more time than 1 year.

It is a separate transaction. Once the Padres trade Michael King or Dylan Cease, what happens between the acquiring team and that players has nothing to do with SD - it means they can't really ask for more or expect more. I also don't think the Cubs would thus, pay more. At least in terms of anything significant. I do think Dylan Cease, due to track record will cost more. But I don't think the price on King is going to magically equal that of Cease simply because he doesn't have Boras as an agent.

An extension should not be taken into account on trade value since the contract either player would sign is a different transaction. As of now, the Padres and any team acquiring either are trading one year of control. I would assume King would be slightly less expensive via trade, however,. as the perceived value of Cease is likely more due to track record. Though I'm not sure it's a massive difference.

Big "yes" for me on Michael King and would really be a nice addition.

I think it's important to note that the second half of Caissie's season showed marked improvement in power. His ISO, pull rate and LA shot way, way, way up, to those impressive and lofty numbers you'd want to see. I'll also admit that the contact% dipped below 70% during that time, too. But that looks a lot like a swing change and a real damage mentality. The hope is that as the swing and the damage mentality really set in, the contact rate can rise around 70% again as he gets used to the shift in thinking. But I'm more bullish on his 2024 season than others when I dive into that detail. If you wanted a 40 home run guy, you'd look for him to start doing that more often and with authority.

At $5m, however, that's all you're paying them for. Wins are being paid for at around a $9m going rate. This has some flucctuations with it and is not a hard rule, but at $5m, Canha or Turner would be fairly priced, would provide the Cubs with some floor and would fill a needed role. Yes, the Cubs could hope to strike on a Schwindel or a Wisdom, but it's probably important to point out, Schwindel had like, half a good season in his career, and finding a Wisdom would require the Cubs to gamble on a non-MLB type. The cost of going with something more proven is probably within the budget they have remaining and if the team isn't going to get a mid-rotation arm, that's probably the way I'd go over hoping real hard you find a guy who has a career half of a season.

Brandon Birdsell will make his MLB debut in 2025 barring injury. I do think there's more juice to squeeze in there than a simple bottom-of-the-rotation type. He's got the profile of a guy who's going to have a somewhat underrated career, IMO.

If they signed a second QO player they would then lose their 3rd and 6th round.

Pretty cheap return. That's fine.

I cant imagine much. If we assume at no-money it'd be a full salary dump, then if they're eating $5m, it's a player/prospect valued at very little...roughly half a win.

I would guess it's essentially nominal. Maybe Keegan Thompson or Alexander Canario max.

Feels like we will get a resolution fairly shortly.

It would be the 2026 period that would take the IFA hit, not from this current class.

For teams under the LT the previous season it is their 2nd round selection. For teams above it, it's a 2nd, a 5th and IFA money in the next signing period.