Jason Ross

Man, This one is fun. There's a lot of options.

Yes. I think the offense is pretty settled now, outside of a 3b type who can handle some share-time with Shaw.

Cubs trade Javier Assad for Sandy Alcantara. Done. Be prepared for me to barrage everyone with this trade proposal for the next 365 days.

Most excited I've been about Cubs baseball in years. This is good. Very good. All Hail King Tuck

Even the MiLB side is getting in on it

I'm so excited right now.

With the Nester trade today, I don't think they will. They signaled they were out.

I hang out with middle schoolers all day. That doesn't make the top-15 of "rude things someone said to me today".

Inject this into my veins.

Let's go, give it to me Passaon.

Yeah, it wasn't. Guy had 11 followers.

Nice of you to join the party, Jon.

It feels like this goes down today.

So, I think we have to look at how players can achieve 2 wins at the 3b position. And then ask ourselves - can Matt Shaw do that? For our game, I'm going to use Josh Rojas, who clocked in at 1.9 fWAR over the course of 143 games. Josh Rojas finished last year, in 436 PA's, with a 91 wRC+. He was 20th out of 29 (using 400 PA's as a minimum) in base running value, while finishing with a +7 DRS and a +5 OAA. I think Matt Shaw, over a similar span, probably gets to 1.9 fWAR with a 97- 1`00 wRC+, and then flips Rojas in that he is a positive base runner (he's quick fast, steals bases...) and loses that value back on defense. Can Shaw replicate that line? Well, he's absolutely smashed every level he's been at - he finished with a 142 wRC+ last year in Triple A,. He did so with green flags such as his contact rate and his ability to hit velocity. Yes, he struggled with sweepers over a limited sample, and the leg kick is funny looking, but we're short of seeing where the leg kick has hampered him yet and sometimes guys do things funny-lookin'. For a comparison, PCA finished with an 87 wRC+, but was much worse at Triple-A. He took double the PA's but was a league average Triple-A hitter. I don't think expecting Shaw to finish with a wRC+ 10 points higher than PCA seems wild - especially with improvements on his approach. I don't think Matt Shaw has nothing else to prove. But I also don't think a pathway to 2 wins is particularly insane. It feels pretty median - in between the best case and the worst case. I'm all for finding him some help. Give me a Rojas or something that gives you a floor guy incase of injury or face-planting. But I also think he's pretty "green-flaggy" when we look under the hood.

It feels absurd. I agree.

TIFWIW. Looks like a St. Louis BN type. Don't love the followers. But at worst, it brings a discussion and wrinkle to the "who plays 3b" convo

I do think we have to take a step back and given the current team's administration some credit, here; they seem pretty steadfast that trading Matt Shaw is off the table (I'm basing this on multiple reports that they're uninterested in this) while also taking a look at how well the Cubs have generally been able to transition rookies to the major leagues and with relative success. We're still early on PCA and Michael Busch, but I think their rookie seasons were incredibly successful and give you a lot of hope as we move along. They were both in different eras of their prospectdom - one older and a little more "safe" while the other was younger and more raw - yet both were effective, even if they struggled at times. So, ultimately, I think the Cubs have earned a bit of the benefit of the doubt here. Both in that they've done a good job transitioning prospects and secondly in that they've done a good job in talent identification with young players. If they are okay and confident with Shaw at 3b, then I think they kind of earn that a bit, Maybe they're doing it out of necessity, but I think that's also creating potential false narratives - all we can say is that the Cubs seem pretty against dealing Matt Shaw. The reason very well could be that they really have a lot of confidence in him and model him very well. For my own two cents - I think Matt Shaw is pretty damn good. I do think he'll follow a similar path as Busch last year - initial struggles, him figuring things out, and then peaks and valleys until he settled in more. I don't think he's Kris Bryant where he's going to come up and be the guy right away - I'm expecting a season around 2 wins but with a feeling that by the end of the season, he might settle in as a 110 wRC+ (not on an overall line but as he settles) with plus base running and an acceptable glove. I expect growing pains but I think his profile is one that I like and feel pretty comfortable with, as well.

One other thing - I know people are rating Smith highly, but the Cubs drafted Cole Mathis with the 2nd pick - someone who has strung together excellent batted ball data in his college career and smashed with a wood bat on the Cape. He is coming off of TJS, but the Cubs announced him as a 3b. While I think he'll probably see 1b/DH duties early, the Cubs MiLB 3b depth might not be as dire if he can stick it out over there.

One thing I keep coming back to is that the Cubs won't completely tank the 3b position here. They clearly wanted to upgrade it last summer - they traded for Parades and drafted Smith in the 1st (though that could be more happenstance than targeted). Regardless of what they do - I do think the plan at 3b will be to not punt the position or put themselves in a precarious position. It likely will be a combination of Shaw and an external addition who can raise the floor a bit if/when he struggles. With that said, the Cubs have done a pretty good job easing Michael Busch and Pete Crow-Armstrong into every day roles and they deserve a little benefit of the doubt on how they handle these prospects and which prospects they choose, seemingly. So ultimately, if the team does move a Parades and a Smith here, I think the Cubs will be fine - even if Shaw has some initial struggles (which I do expect him to have).

I don't think Jed's status matters when it comes to Tucker. Tucker is a guy you want regardless. I think an extension for him is looking like an extension until his age-40 season, with an AAV in the $38-$42m range. So, 11/12 years at that AAV. Maybe some sort of an opt-out/escalation thing we've seen with Cole/Soto recently too, where he can opt-out but the Cubs can trigger an escalation and pay him a bit more.

How are you disagreeing with this? You do know, just last night, we both agreed that a Tucker trade would signal the Cubs would earnestly attempt to sign Kyle Tucker. Why, just 12 hours later, do you think this won't happen? I think Jed Hoyer is more than aware of what he's allowed to offer on an extension here. I also think he's more than understanding of what Kyle Tucker's market value is and what it'd take to get him to seriously consider an offer. And I think that there's an earnest and sincere market value offer that will be given to Kyle Tucker. He may not take it, but I do think that the goal is to extend him and there's an understanding of what it will take.

Right. Like I said, I think they're just running with information from days ago. So I don't think it's wrong, it's just two guys who are out of the loop discussing information that's old. Which checks out, when you really think of it.

Honestly. none of that sounds crazy. It's been reported that the Astros don't want Bellinger. It's been reported that the Yankees want the Cubs to eat some money. It's been reported that Suzuki would only be interested in going to specific places. Been reported that the Cubs don't want to trade Shaw. Ultimately, I think most of that checks. And most of it feels like running on old information from two guys who are usually pretty out of the loop to begin with.

As we discussed yesterday, and both agreed on - this is likely with an eye towards legitimately extending Tucker as much as it is in 2025. We can debate how likely that will be, but I don't think this is simply a desperation-job-saving-attempt at a rental, but an attempt to build a team around Tucker now and in the future.