.jpg.900f6d1bc80a5a156f3ba09ea0e4b3d7.jpg)
Jason Ross
-
Posts
6,583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Jason Ross
-
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.
-
The Astros have a hole at 1b currently. I could see this as play where they use Parades at 3b for the time being and then slide him over eventually (with his bat and the Crawford boxes, I think he could be a fine 1b and he's logged time there in the past). Or a situation where the Astros would rather just acquire the best prospects they can (kind of like when the Cubs did the Addison Russell trade) and then figured they'd just worry about having too many good players later. I agree it feels a little funky, but there's been a pretty consistent stream of Parades+Smith talk that it's hard to ignore, unlike Heyman being the only one on the Suzuki/Parades train.
-
That'd be great, but I just don't think the Astros go for that. There's a reason we want to keep those three - same reason they want them. It'll probably have to be someone that doesn't feel good.
-
This has felt the way it would go. The way that is sounding is that it's getting closer and closer to getting done.
-
Good point on the getting to the finish line aspect.
-
Oh. And lookie here! "From the PSD Forums" lives forever in that thread.
-
Ugh. I remember going over and lurking Orioles Hangout.
-
Local Cub Podcaster. Has most of the BN crew following him.
-
My answer is no different. I do think the Cubs are serious about Kyle Tucker. And I think they're serious about eventually sitting down with him and going north of $35m AAV for 10 years.
-
That's not a simple yes and no answer. So here's my answer: I think the Cubs are seriously pursuing Kyle Tucker because they will seriously attempt to sign him to a market value contract. They cannot put a gun to his head and force him to sign anything, so there's a chance he may walk in FA. But I very much believe that the Cubs are earnest in both pursuing him in trade and then will be in attempt to sign him.
-
But you're saying over and over again you don't think the Cubs will trade for Tucker. When everyone else is saying they think they will. That's saying you know better.
-
Feels like we're barreling towards a Parades/Smith/pitcher framework.
-
You know that sounds ridiculous, right? That you somehow know better than: Joel Sherman, Jon Heyman, Sahdev Sharma, Jose de Jesus Ortiz, Max Greenwood, Mathew Trueblood, Jesse Rogers, Brian McTaggert... Listen, I think Heyman is running with some bad information on the Suzuki/Parades/Smith demands because he's pretty much on an island on this. But every person on the list above has said that the Cubs are considered the clubhouse leaders. For you to be right, not only would every one of those guys need to be wrong, they'd have to be wrong by such a magnitude that not only were the Cubs not the perceived leaders, but that they basically weren't even in this thing for real.
-
There comes a point where you have to ask yourself what's more likely: that national writers like Heyman and Sherman, local beats like Astros beats and Cub beats, and non-partisan's like the former BBWA president are all flat out wrong, and that the Cubs aren't the leaders...or that where there's a lot of smoke, independent of each other, than there's fire. This feels much more like you don't think the Cubs would ever sign Tucker so you've decided you know more than these guys. Are these rumors truth? No. But it's far more logical that all of these reporters are on to something and that the Cubs are fairly close to getting Tucker than it is that they're all just flat wrong. And maybe it's you who needs to reconsider your own biases and opinions.
-
I'm sure Hoyer has considered this - it's literally his job. And why I expect if the Cubs trade for him, they will look to extend him.
-
It could be that the Astros are prioritizing the 3b. I think Parades is a very appealing addition to Houston. Perhaps the Astros are equally enthralled by Gil, but we know the Astros like Parades - they were supposedly the bridesmaid for his services in July. The Yankees may just not be able to bridge that gap realistically. In that event, they probably don't care if the prospect the Cubs get ends up in Houston if they don't think they can get Tucker to begin with.
-
So then...you think the entire industry is wrong that the Cubs are the clubouse leaders. That's pretty defeatist.
-
My best guess: 1. The Astros don't expect to get Bregman. Getting Parades gets them a 3b who's tailor made for the Crawford boxes and an immediate replacement. They also get prospects (perhaps Warren, Smith, whatever). This gives them an immediate floor where they don't bottom out and can quickly get back to being good. They were into Parades at the deadline pretty heavily. So they get their second crack on him, and get prospects who could help shortly. 2. The Yankees probably sign Bregman out from under the Astros. They tried to get the Astros to engage on Tucker, maybe for Gil, maybe not, but once it became clear to the Astros that Bregman probably wasn't happening, and the Cubs offered Parades, they pivoted there. Bellinger gives you Dominguez cover if he doesn't hit, but can also handle 1b or a corner spot. Bellinger, a LHH, is a good fit for Yankee stadium. But that's me just trying to see things from their perspective the best I can.
-
And I just don't remotely see Hoyer trading good assets for a one year rental without trying to engage with the Tucker camp or not understanding what his market is.
-
Okay. I think this is pretty silly - Hoyer, a notoriously non-aggressive VP when it comes to trades and prospects goes out, makes an aggressive trade and then just throws his hands up when it comes to long term value, flushing good assets down the drain for a one year guy. That just doesn't sound like what's happening here. I'm not going to predict an extension. But I also don't share the defeatist attitude. I do expect that Hoyer would acquire Tucker with the intent to try to sign him to a real market value contract. There's nothing that precludes them from being involved with these players. This would be in the future. That's Jed Hoyer's words on Tuesday, right before the Tucker thing kicked off. A reminder as well: the Cubs reportedly made a massive $400+m offer to Ohtani. They did it once.
-
So then we should just ignore all of the reports that the Cubs are the leaders in the clubhouse to acquire Tucker? Because he isn't getting Tucker for free and it sounds like the winds across the entire industry are saying "the Cubs are really going to do this". They're going to trade real assets. So then what if it happens?
-
I like Seiya a lot. He's not stopping me from getting Kyle Tucker.
-
I get it. But it's being pedantic at that point. The net probably isn't different enough that it really matters. At that point you're just being stubborn because Tucker isn't worth that much in a single move, and not looking at it from the aspect of the net. If you'd do the top, you'd probably do the bottom.
-
Great minds. That was the name that came to my head.
