Jason Ross

I think that's fair. I'm just not sure I share the same worry. Like I said, I think the uptick on the velocity even in the shorter outings as the season waned makes me pretty confident that there's a dude there that you can bank on for 150 IP on the season. That's a 5IP guy most days (figure if he's making 25-28 starts, that's 140 IP or so) with some spikes at 6 IP. But I think the days of the 6+ IP guy is kind of falling behind us, for better or worse. Crochet probably requires the team to have a deeper than average bullpen knowing that he's going to Blake Snell himself into 5 quality innings most starts (though in a different version of why he goes 5). But on a per-rate basis, I think he's going to be about as good as you can find this offseason so I'm pretty full-steam ahead on the Crotchet concept.

Yeah, I think we have to look at Ballesteros as a non-traditional catcher. I'm not sure he's going to be the guy to log 100 games back there. But I think getting him to log 40-50 games where you feel like you can live with the decent enough ability, coupled with the bat, and then playing him as a DH on the other 100 games is his landing strip. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing - if you believe in the bat than keeping him fresh and in the lineup without the hell on the knees is probably a good thing!

I think the first half is pretty sustainable myself just really diving into it. In the first half, he actually got less chase, and had slightly lower velo. I'd imagine part of that was that he was able to juice back a little more knowing he was going four innings instead of seven, but interesting to note. His strike quality was nearly identical, no uptick in non-competitive strikes, and strike% was under 2% difference. He threw his cutter a bit more than the fastball in the second half, which again, interesting to note, but nothing I think is other than that. He got more ground balls in the second half than the first, but did give up a bit less harmless contact (but still within a slightly better-than-league-average range). Long and the short of it, most of what he was doing in the first half, he was doing in the second, and those things like chase, whiff, strike%...they're that of a pretty elite arm. If there was a big difference between the two sides, I might find cause for concern. The biggest indicator for me is that uptick in velocity in the shorter outings - it came from somewhere. Just my take on it; it says "I'm adding extra juice to my pitches because I know I've got more in the tank than they're letting me empty out", which makes me feel pretty good about Crotchet being able to be a very good arm for 150 IP. I'm not sure he'll ever be a 180 IP guy, but the way the pitching is moving, that might not be the worst thing?

I'm just guessing, but looking at his very sharp cut off after June 30th that the White Sox decided to limit innings and hoped to trade him at the TDL or in the offseason without putting too much on his arm or causing an injury. The ERA shot up, but if we look at a few of the splits between those two time periods: OD - June 30th: 35.3 K%, 5 BB%,, 75% LOB, .286 BABIP, 96.9 mph velo Post - June 30th - 34.7 K5, 6.6 BB%, .387 BABIP, 71 LOB%, 97.6 mph velo I think it was just bad luck (BABIP way up, but didn't massively increase home run rate or decrease strikeout rate or velocity). and I suspect that the White Sox just really massively limited him after that on the innings. I also think that's probably something the Sox would be willing to discuss openly in the negotiations, so I think these are things the Cubs can get a peak on that we can't.

Yeah, I don't think that's necessarily it going back, but if we're thinking about prospects "a bit further away" these are names I think would be popping up. Looking back to when the Cubs traded Darvish, it's a slightly different scenario, but it was: 1. Owen Caissie, 18, 2nd round overslot 2. Reggie Preciado, 18, IFA bonus baby As your two "big" gets, with Preciado getting some top-100 love places. And then two other smaller, 18 year olds. So for the Cubs, you'd think they'll pay more because Crotchet is younger and cheaper, but I'd assume that's a framework the Sox might look at. Younger prospects, and a few of them. Could add in the likes of Valdez and Cruz.

I think this is an interesting team to see pop up. It's quite specific, mentioning the Reds and the Cubs, though is framed more like speculative thought than reporting - hard to tell which it is when you consider both of those things. I'd imagine someone like Jefferson Rojas would be a name the Cubs would certainly be sending back in a deal. And potentially a Cam Smith - while he rocketed through the system last year to Double-A, his ETA is likely 2026 (late) or 2027 moreso than anything else.

His tweet feels more speculatively than it does report-y but that's just my read. Kind of like "If the White Sox trade Crochet, the Cubs and Reds have prospects!" type thing. And every year Morosi, especially, seems to be on the "hype the Cub rumor" train more-so than others. So this could be our typical short-lived rumor excitement. With that said I think Crotchet is an interesting add and someone the Cubs should highly consider, LHP be damned. He's a bang-on TORP and the Cubs need that. He would play nicely with the depth the Cubs have, as you kind of assume he'll come in around the 150-170 IP range, so with Boyd, the Cubs could use their considerable depth to help those two out.

To answer your question, yes it is Triple-A data. Double-A statcast data has yet to make it in the public zeitgeist, so we only get that good stuff when someone makes it to Triple-A. And yes, he had under 100 PAs at the level - it's small samples. To give myself a little credit, I've made mention of this fact and that he's learning the level a few times so Ive acknowledged that this data is in its infancy and shouldnt be taken as gospel. With that said, he ran a GB% of 47% in Double-A and a fly ball rate under 30%. These are extreme data points. To put that in perspective, Steve Kwan in his rookie season hit six home runs with a 12% LA and a GB% 5% lower and a FB% 5% higher. Most hitters who had this batted ball data were poor hitters in 2024. There are some notable exceptions like Trea Turner, William Contreras and Vlad Jr, but I don't think Triantos belongs in a discussion with those hitters for many reasons. The larger point is that he already doesn't hit for tons of power. While the body suggests he can find more, he's got a swing geared for hitting the ball on the ground and lifting very little. It's probably fair to expect sub-10 HR power without a LA change. He's likely running an LA in the 8-10 range when things stabilize and that's not enough. He probably needs some shift. It doesn't have to be earth shattering, but the best version of him offensively likely sees the GBs come down to the low 40s and a LA around that 12 marker. That doesn't mean he's a bad prospect, he does enough else where that there's an MLB player there, but the outcomes probably stretch from "David Fletcher but more speed" to "Early Kwan but less defense" (or somewhere in there. You get the idea). The former is a player youll likely keep on the roster as a bench player more times that naught and the second is an MLB starter.

Youre making far too big of a deal on the contract. It's two years. $14.5 AAV. I mean, how cheap do you think the Cubs can get a good SP? $9m? $10m? Who's getting those AAVs? Even so, it's like one low end BP arm. Who cares? It's not big enough of a difference to *really* care that much about. And yes, I agree, the Cubs can't make him the best acquisition. It's December 3rd. The WMs are next week. It's not worth worrying about that yet. When it's late Feb, we can worry about that and cycle back. I'm pretty sure we won't have to, which is kind of my point. I get it, this is a gamble. But it's not a back breaking gamble as long as the Cubs aren't done right now doing more (and reality is that the only thing that suggests the Cubs are done for the offseason are people's own fears and worries grounded in nothing other than anxiety).

I have a feeling a lot of time will be spent worrying about the golden-at-bat but we will eventually realize it's not going to actually happen. For all of the rule changes, they've had some purpose or something. For example, I know many hate the ghost runner thing, but the purpose was to cut down on the 16 inning game mid-summer (which they seem to have done!). It's still baseball at it's core. The golden at bat really changes that. In the end I think the MLB will not adopt it. But they got a lot of free-talk about baseball in the winter right before the WM's. And I think they'll be really happy about that.

Yes, it'd probably be Seiya.

Yeah, I think he's probably one of the easiest prospects in the system to point at and say "that there is an MLB player". Whether or not he's capable of turning into a Steven Kwan type where he contact's and BABIP's his way to 3+ wins or his a 2nd division starter type who can compile his way to two wins, but is more along the lines of a good guy on the bench is really the deciding factor for me. Regardless, he'll almost assuredly have an MLB career in some fashion and is a useful player.

In theory...yes. In practice, it's hard to tell. I think there's more raw power in his body - he's bigger than Madrigal. He's listed currently at 5"11 and 195lbs...so I think expecting more power than him is realistic. I'm not sure it's 10 home run power, but it's probably more than Nick, too.

I'm not really sure 15 home run power is here. His best run was the .150 ISO at Double-A and even then it was like, 12 home run pace with a bunch of doubles and triples. His LA in Triple-A (the only data we have)...was 2. It was negative against RHP. This is SSS extreme stuff, but...that's bad. 2023 Kwan is what I'm thinking he's most going to be like. I don't think he'll keep that bad of an LA and suspect there's some real learning going on with a new level. But I think that season is about in the ballpark. Triantos is more aggressive at the plate, and probably adds more flat out steals into the equation, but his general path to 5-7 home runs, a 99 wRC+, feels around correct. Maybe he does so in CF with less defense. Just a spit-ball comp, it's not a 1:1 or anything.

Yes. I understand that. But the conversation started with "I would DFA the four players without options before I DFA'd Killian". The original thing I was responding to was: Don't be so sure about that. The team very well may prefer to have Merriweather (who's on a split contract for a reason and is a year removed from real MLB success), Thompson (who was selected well before Killian agreed on a contract) and Miller (who was legitimately good last year and they're not going to DFA a good pitcher for Killian). Two of those pitchers were used before and more often than Killian and one was traded for and spent the entire year in the MLB. Miller's a lock, the other two are coin-flips if the team would rather have them in the BP over saving Killian from DFA. Sure, they could option him down more easily, but the other two have been much better pitchers. There's just nothing to worry about here on Killian. It's not worth handwringing. It's very possible Merriweather, Thompson and Killian are all gone because the team needs three 40 man spots. If Killian does survive it's almost going to be 100% on the basis that he can go to Iowa.

James Triantos was a bit of a surprise name when he was called in the second round in 2021. A high-school player who reportedly didn't strike out a single time his senior year, Triantos has kept his high contact profile through his time as a Cub farm hand. When might we see the athletic infielder in Chicago? Image courtesy of © Cody Scanlan/The Register / USA TODAY NETWORK We continue today looking at the Cubs' top 20 prospects (as ranked by our readers here at NSBB), with Triantos, who comes in at No. 7 on that countdown. Before you read about him, though, don't miss our previous posts on the current state of the Cubs' farm system, with my looks at some honorable mentions, the Cubs' Top Prospects #20-16 and the Top Prospects #15-11. #20 - Pedro Ramirez, INF #19 - Luis Vazquez, INF #18 - Michael Arias, RP #17 - Alfonsin Rosario - OF #16 - Drew Gray, SP #15 - Jonathon Long, 1B #14 - Fernando Cruz, SS #13 - Derniche Valdez, SS #12 - Alexander Canario, OF #11 - Cristian Hernandez, SS #10 - Brandon Birdsell, SP #9 - Jaxon Wiggins, SP #8 - Jefferson Rojas 2024 Season Recap: James Triantos, INF James Triantos has been a fun follow. He's been consistently better than average offensively at every level; provided seemingly excellent value on the bases; and made a ton of contact. If there was a blemish on his offensive game, it's been that he's been unable to turn his exceptional feel for contact into an approach with any sort of projectable game power. Partially due to his hit-everything approach, partially due to his swing profile, Triantos has run isolated power numbers around the .100 level. Despite these concerns, the infielder started the 2024 campaign with a relative bang in Tennessee, finishing with a .130 ISO and showing much-improved power. He really took off around June, finishing with a 150 wRC+, a .150 ISO, and a .478 SLG over his last 180 plate appearances, hitting four home runs, nine doubles, and three triples in that span. This was the biggest power output for the former second-round pick and helped earn Triantos a mid-season promotion to Iowa. Forgive me for being a broken record, but getting to Triple-A is always fun from a player-evaluation standpoint, as we get a lot of new data points. For James Triantos, we're talking fewer than 100 plate appearances, but we can start to get a better idea of what he's doing at the plate and his approach. The good news is that he maintained a contact rate well over 80% upon making his way to the highest minor-league level. His in-zone-whiff rate remained very low, and while he's an aggressive swinger, he didn't chase at terrible rates. There are a few causes for concerns, however. First, Triantos hit almost 58% of all his balls on the ground, with an average launch angle of just 2 degrees. He did not post extremely high exit velocities, either, with an average EV of around 86 miles per hour. On one hand, this could be the second baseman learning a new level and being much younger than his competition. On the other, this is not a new issue with Triantos in general (high ground balls, low home run output), so the underwhelming contact quality is something to note. Defensively, there have always been big questions about Triantos: where would he settle in and play? The Cubs have tried him at second, third and in the outfield, and to date, none have been a consistent home for him. Reports are that the defense, while a work in progress, is moving in the right direction. Take Baseball America with a grain of salt, though. They mentioned he was one of the best defensive players in the system, and while there have been strides, that feels unwarranted. 2025 Season Outlook and Scouting Report: ETA - 2025 Triantos does enough things well that projecting him to make his major-league debut in 2025 feels about right. He makes a lot of contact, has plenty of baserunning ability and has enough positional versatility that he's probably going to find himself at the MLB level sooner rather than later. Determining how good he will be is a bit harder to figure out. On one hand, we've seen players like Steven Kwan use a contact-first approach to great success. This season, Kwan looked to lift and drive a bit more, but even the old Kwan was a useful player. There's a version of Triantos that is Kwan-adjacent: capable of using BABIP and speed to be an above-average offensive player. For the Cubs farmhand to succeed that way, we'd likely have to see much better launch angles, as Kwan has been consistently above 10. He'd have to reduce the ground balls. And Kwan has always added elite defense in left field, which I guess isn't that crazy to imagine the athletic and strong-armed Triantos doing down the road if need be. On the other, an Adam Frazier/David Fletcher outcome offensively feels like it's on the table, as well—players who could occasionally BABIP their way into being an average-plus guy, but most of the time didn't provide enough with the bat to be starting types. On paper, Triantos is more athletic than those two, so he should add some added value on the margins, but it's probably worth pointing out those players as "lower-end-outcomes" here as well. The Cubs will also probably have to make a few decisions regarding their farm system in the near future, and I think one of them will eventually be "Matt Shaw or James Triantos?" They overlap considerably on the infield, with the latter providing some defensive ability in the outfield, but I don't think both survive the trade deadline. The Cubs will probably pull a few trades this offseason, either for a starting pitcher (especially after signing Matt Boyd to a two-year deal), for a reliever or a catcher, and some prospects will have to go. If a team sees more Kwan than Frazier, then Triantos probably offers interesting value. With how much the Cubs reportedly love Shaw, I think they'll be alright giving up the former 2021 second-rounder in the right trade, but if the deal is really a blockbuster, he could be the one who survives in the organization, as well. View full article

You are having a very different conversation now. This is about how likely they are to survive the winter. It's very possible none do. The likelihood that Killian does over Miller, Merriweather or Thompson is probably a coinflip at best, as the Cubs will probably add at least another SP, one to three relievers, a backup catcher and possibly another backup in the Wisdom mold. That would be three to six 40-man slots opening with no guarantee anyone on the 40-man leaves. If the Cubs would rather have Julian Merriweather on the OD roster than have Killian in Iowa, it would result in the Cubs DFA'ing the latter. I don't know who my 8 is. It's likely 1-3 of those aren't even on the roster today. I'm not really interested in going down that rabbit hole, it'll change so much between now and then it's not a worthwhile line of inquiry.

Active roster? I didn't say that, I was talking likelihood they make it individually. All of them may not survive the winter, but Miller is as much of a lock as any to make OD, and the other two probably are more likely to be kept over Killian based on past MLB performance. Killian isn't very good. The idea that the Cubs will keep Killian over any of them is at best a tossup. I think he's among the most likely DFA's out there.

Tyson Miller was very good last year, that's insane. He's a lock for 7th inning stuff. Merryweather was signed to a split deal, and suspect the team trusts him far more as a potential MLB arm if he can get back to being healthy - we're a year removed from him being a really solid 7thj/8th guy. I'd probably rather have Keegan as well - he's had much more success at the MLB level in his time and isn't like he's much older. Counsell seems to trust Keegan to a degree. Rob Z is a near lock to be DFA'd. But past that, Killian doesn't have much of an argument over any other pitcher there and would be 0% surprised to see the team pick any or all over him.

I mean, there are some people I'd DFA before Killian, but there aren't many. Canario is out of options but he has more immediate need (the Cubs don't have a 4th OF'er once they dropped Tauchmann). I'm not a big Canario guy, but there's a lot quicker pathways to being MLB relevent for him than Caleb Killian at this point, and probably will only exacerbate this once the Cubs add to their bullpen (Jon Morosi tweeted yesterday that the Cubs are among the most active in that market). We have to divorce ourselves from the Top-100 prospect Killian looked like he was at the tail end of the 2021 season and accept that the 2025 version is a 28 year old middle relief prospect who hasn't shown a ton of growth. He might one day figure some things out, but we've been waiting years for him to develop chase and whiff pitches and it hasn't come yet. Don't DFA him immediately, but he's a lot closer to being DFA'd than he is making the Cubs OD-26.

So, I'll ask you this: do you think the Chicago Cubs are unaware of his career ERA? Because I'm fairly sure the Chicago Cubs have at, the very least, heard of mlb.com and know this. So maybe we should ask "why don't the Cubs care?" and that answer is almost assuredly "because they believe the 2024 version of Mathew Boyd is the version of Mathew Boyd that they're buying". Cleveland pitch-labbed Boyd last year and the post-TJS version of Boyd was a different beast. He displayed a much improved slider, better location, and a lower arm angle than he had most of his career. He used his very funky mechanics coupled with these new pitches to be a very effective starter. We're talking small samples of 40 IP here, but on a per-rate basis, there's nothing that stood out as "unrepeatable" if you buy into the new pitches sticking. He didn't have insane LOB% or relied on luck where he gave up a lot of hard contact that just resulted in outs. If we look at who he most compared to last year, it was Yuki Matsui, who was also really good. Now, Matsui came out of the pen, but I think the point remains - it isn't like what Boyd was doing was some smoke mirrors game. At $14.5m there is risk that Boyd will not pitch enough, I get that. He's managed <80 IP since pre-covid and we shouldn't just wash over that. But if we look at his IL history it's entirely tied to the elbow that he had fixed. While it's possible that he's just prone to getting hurt, it's also possible that all of this stemmed from an elbow that was never right, and now it is. But we need to stop acting like this is some horrendous contract, too. It's two years, it's pretty much align with predictions of his market, and if you get 2024 Boyd, even for like 110 innings, he's going to crush it. I'll wrap it up this way: Blake Snell just got $180m this offseason from the Dodgers. Sure, it's the Dodgers, but let's put that aside for a moment. He got $180m, and he pitched 104 innings last year. He's topped 130 IP once since 2018. His career line isn't very far off (30 K%, 11 BB%, 3.19 ERA, 3.35 FIP, 3.57 xFIP) than what Boyd did in 2024 (27.7 K%, 7.8 BB%, 3.29 FIP, 3.89 xFIP). If you really believe in Boyd, and even if he comes in at 105 IP, you get Blake Snell at $150m as your discount. That's a dream. There's reason why Matt Boyd got $29m over 2 years and Blake Snell got what he got, mind you (the risk of injury and limited sample size) but that is another way to look at this contract. This is a bit of a gamble, and I reiterate that I don't think it can be the big addition to the rotation...but the risk here is likely worth the gamble and then some.

I have no idea where you would get the feeling that he was being set up by Counsel to jump Wicks and Assad as the presumptive 5th starter. I guess we all see what we see, but I'm fairly certain you're on your own there. Caleb Killian is far closer to being DFA'd than the opening day roster, let alone a rotational spot, IMO. And I dont think he's akin to Robert's at this stage. Killian has a heavy fastball but he's never added any other chase and whiff pitch. He's going to be 28. He might find success as a mid bullpen arm somewhere, sometime, but I'm not interested in the Cubs having him in the rotation any time soon. They'd be in dire straits with Wicks, Assad, Brown, Horton, Birdsell and potentially Pearson as more interesting and/or reliable MLB arms as of today.

Killian is probably like. 8th, or 9th most likely to get starts. He's not very good. He's not very young. In fact, I still think it's fairly likely he's not on the 40-man come opening day.

That's a pretty hot take, Stratos. Would I have? I don't know, it's kind of hard to pretend we know what the big picture free agent plan looks like. We don't know what the pitching department is looking at with his pitch mix and what they think they can do. We don't have access to his medicals. Clearly predictions on his contract were right in that ballpark, so acting like "nobody" would have signed that deal is...extreme. It's like $2m AAV different from many predictions. Hoyer doesn't really seem like a guy who looks at a market and adds a 0 to the end of it, so I think it's also a bit hasty to act like Hoyer's out here overpaying on Boyd. This is probably exactly where his market is. I've said a few times I don't get this contract yet, and that I'm perplexed, but there's outcomes that make sense here. Like the Cubs feel internally good about how they stack up for Sasaki for some reason and Boyd's a great 6-man-guy, or like they think even if Boyd misses time, that they'll eventually have guys like Brown and Horton who can jump in more full time. There's almost assuredly another SP coming. If it's a Bryce Miller, yeah I'll be a little bummed by the rotation as I think there's too much of a risk there in thinking Boyd's going to give you 130+ IP and I'm not a massive Miller-upside-guy. But if they get someone who is clearly good enough to slot int the top-3, and you have Boyd's upside in the 4/5 spot? Yeah, that's not bad. There's plenty of middle ground between considering this to be flat-out stupid and thinking this is an absolute win. I'll be waiting a bit to see how the off-season plays out. It's probably best we continue to do this on every deal.