Jason Ross

The point of showing that you misspelled names is in the irony of the situation. You hand ring over losing these players, yet, cannot even bother to get their names correct. If you don't know basic things, such as their last names, it goes to suggest you probably don't know much about them as players, their skillets, floors or ceilings, which take far more effort than a simple spell check. We all make typos, that's fine. But it seems odd to consistently whine about losing players when you have little knowledge of them.

Patrick Mooney of the Athletic reportedly had an article leak before it was ready to be published. Not a massive move, but appears the Cubs and Brandon Hughes have agreed on an MiLB contract.

That's probably fine. I'd like to get a Cease or a King, but the Cubs can probably wait until July to make another big trade. Grab Robertson, build a badass bullpen, and the team still goes into the season as the NL Central favorites on paper with ability to add throughout the year.

I'd imagine other teams would be interested. Seeing that the Mets are one.

If that's the case, then that's fine. The Cubs dont have to consumate a trade right now, either. So it doesn't really matter. Either the Padres and Preller will get real and the price on Cease will more mirror Burnes' did last year or they'll have to deal with their financial issues head on because no one on the planet is paying that price. I dont think their Shaw ask is anything more than an attempt to force the trade talks up, anyways. Classic "start high" move.

The Padres were reportedly being real weird on their initial demands on Soto last year (when, similarly, for financial reasons they needed to move off him), only to trade him for a price that came back down to much more "reasonable". I bet this is similar.

Fully agree with this, and especially that last paragraph. I think people are a bit down on their ability to get a guy signed and I do think that they should be able to move some money if need be. They will have four players on expiring contracts (Taillon, Hoerner, Happ and Suzuki) who should be all different levels of "moveable", They play a few different positions which should give the team some flexibility and all would have an immediate prospect replacement if need be, as well.

Would it be a 180? I don't remember the Cubs ever saying they refused to ever trade prospects ever. The Cubs have talked about sustainability, but let's say the Cubs do go ahead and further move an OF'er (Caissie or Alcantara) and even a SP (Jordan Wicks, Brandon Birdsell, Javier Assad - one of these guys). The Cubs youth and prospect depth at the upper level remains strong with: Matt Shaw - 2b/3b James Triantos - 2b/3b/OF Kevin Alcantara (OF) or Owen Caissie (RF/1b/DH) Moises Ballesteros (C/1b/C) With SP's and RP's that could include (minus one of these SP's): Cade Horton, Ben Brown, Brandon Birdsell, Jordan Wicks, Luke Little, Daniel Palencia, Javier Assad That's not even everyone as there are some more pop-uppy types like Jonathon Long who could maybe fill in at 3b, 1b, or LF. Beyond that, the Cubs have the entirety of their 2024 class (sans Cam Smith), and other young players such as Jefferson Rojas, Jaxson Wiggins... (including IFA's and other draft classes) to backfill these positions. There's immediate prospect depth at every position currently outside of SS (though with Swanson in tow, probably isn't immediately necessary and Shaw can likely handle it in a pinch) with plenty of options. The Cubs don't need their draft classes to provide immediate depth - any loss over the next year to two years can be filled within even after a trade for Cease or King with relative ease. It should also be remembered how quickly Shaw and Smith, the most recent two first round picks moved through the system. Matt Shaw has gone from draft day to the presumed starter on the Cubs in 18 months. Cam Smith was on a similar path (although there's reason to pause a bit there as we have a year before that would have been a reality). While I wouldn't expect that path to continue, but the Cubs have proven an ability to continue to find value.

The farm system will certainly take a hit, yes. However, the goal of a farm system is to supplement the major league roster - either through promotion and eventually taking jobs, or by being traded for established and current MLB talent. This is simply one of the ways to use that system. An all-in-approach either direction can be a franchise killer, either because prospect attrition rate (i.e. look at the Tigers over the last decade) or no prospects to take jobs. While it's fair to point out that the Cubs may end up trading Smith, and an OF'er and maybe a pitcher for players who won't be here next season, if they traded for players who had, say, an extra year of control, it would probably be double that cost. By trading for limited control, you limit your exposure on the back end with prospects leaving. The Cubs will also have drafts to continue to replenish the system. And if they miss on resigning Tucker and Cease/King, would get two compensation picks as well (the Cubs recent 2nd round selections include James Triantos and Jackson Ferris, two borderline top-100 types). As well, the Cubs have seemingly done well on their recent first round picks, snagging top-30 types in Shaw and Smith who immediately shot up rankings. A bit of trust is to be put into the Cubs drafting and developmental team currently. So while the Cubs may lose players, their ability to continue to replace them is seemingly quite strong.

That type of negotiating feels like someone who's back is a little against the wall. You assume the Padres have to move that money sooner rather than later and probably aren't a ton of teams who have shopping left to do, and prospect capital. Knowing that, you have to find some way to grab some initiative back, and over asking is one of the few ways you could do that. Ask for the moon and maybe you'll get closer to premium than if you didn't. I don't think it'll work, and if he's going to shed money, the overall pricetag will almost assuredly will come down.

I think it depends on what you see. Both have concerns with how much bat to ball skills they have. Alcantara has a much better defensive floor, and there's a bit of a unicorn build to him - you just don't find guys who have that kind of size who can play CF. But the Cubs don't need a CF'er, and likely won't for 6 years as long as PCA can continue to provide elite defense/speed. Caissie provides something you also won't find - elite power potential, and power potential I just don't see Alcantara having (not to say he doesn't have some). There's risk defensively in Caissie, but he really did start showing off significantly improves ISO, LA, and pull rates post July last year. Totally understand if someone is looking at Alcantara and that defense as the guy to go with, but I think a bit of prospect fatigue has set in with Caissie as well as an over worry on his defensive future, especially over the next 2-4 years. He'll probably leave RF at some point, but think it's a bit further off than some others worry about.

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.