Jason Ross

But why do you think that? You have yet to provide a shred of reasoning behind your opinion. You say you think that, but why do you think that? That's important here. Is there data you're basing this off of? If so, please share. However, from where I'm sitting, it really feels like the reason you think that is something along the lines of "I'm a Cub fan, and Matt Shaw is a Cub prospect. The other prospects are not Cubs, thus Matt Shaw will do better". Maybe that's enough for you, but by god I hope that's not enough for the Chicago Cubs' decision makers to rush out and find a way to replace their already pretty damn good 2b. I'm a big Matt Shaw guy. Honestly ,when I look at the data, I think there's a lot to really like there. He makes a good amount of contact, and while the leg kick is a bit funky (I'm not entirely convinced the leg kick is an issue. Some guys do things funky), he tones it down with two strikes and still shows good EV's. He handles velocity really well. He crushes fastballs. He's killed it in the Premier12. And if you told me he ended up being a Dustin Pedroia of sorts...I'd probably believe you - I think he's got that kind of a profile. But he's almost assuredly going to be over matched for 60+ games like all of the other really good prospects in baseball have been and I can't find much of a reason to think that he's going to forgo that. He's a free swinger and pitchers are going to exploit that. He struggled on sweepers at Triple-A. It's small sample size, but he didn't do well against them. And his leg kick may very well be exploitable too - Zach Neto had a similar profile and he had to eliminate it. He could probably pull the ball more too - hitting opposite field home runs is not a strategy for sustained success at the MLB level and Shaw does that a bunch. Pitchers are going to exploit him like he's never been exploited before. I think he'll adjust, but it's probably going to take 45-60+ games of struggles to get there as pitchers adjust to him, and then he adjusts to pitchers. It almost assuredly won't take a week and magically he'll be fine. It's why rooting for Hoerner to be hurt for 2-3 weeks so Shaw gets a chance is a bit silly. Those will be weeks he's probably not particularly good during. It won't help the Cubs win. He doesn't play defense well enough to give him a floor during that struggle time. And the Cubs aren't good enough to just have a hole on the team.

So you expect him to be in a tier above most of those other uber prospects, because none of them have settled into anything yet. They've flashed, but settled into nothing. That's very outlandish. You do realize that, right? What exactly makes you think Matt Shaw will settle in fairly quickly when someone like Dylan Crews or Jackson Holiday didn't? There will be an injury. Hoerner is good for a trip to the IL every year, and he's hurt now. When was the last time the Cubs had a full season where an infielder didn't go down? And if the Cubs have the good fortune of having their 4 win SS, their 4 win 2b and their 3 win 3b be healthy for a full season? Guess what? Matt Shaw is going to be just fine. He's not going to wither and die because he was in Iowa. It's not going to make him not develop. He has less than 40 games in Iowa, Thaw. It will just delay your want to see Shaw in Chicago. That's it.

Again, I implore you to go look at what the best offensive prospects in the MLB did upon their call up. Then I want you to think "is it logical that Matt Shaw might also struggle initially?" then reconsider this opinion. Because the absolute best prospects struggled. We're talking uber prospects like Chourio, Holiday, Wood, Crews, Langford...all struggled. What's more likely? That Matt Shaw is not only better day 1 than Nico Hoerner (3-5% better than league average), but that he's also in some tier above all of those uber prospects? Or that Shaw will likely struggle for a while? Probably a few months? You're allowed your opinion, but I think it's probably a good thing to reflect on your opinion and see there's much evidence for it being a solid one. Because I think it's incredibly outlandish to hope that the 2025 Cubs start the season without one of their few bang-on players you can pencil in for four win talent just so we can play a rookie who probably won't hit the ground running, simply because it's very hard to do right now.

You keep moving the goal posts. The Cubs shouldn't do what you want, they should put the best team on the field. The best team in 2025 is almost assuredly with Nico Hoerner over Matt Shaw. We have discussed the potential of a Hoerner trade. If he was healthy, maybe a team trades you a mid rotation arm for him, but those teams are very limited. He's not healthy, it almost assuredly means there's even less teams. What trade do you think the Cubs can make here?

Matt Shaw is unlikely to be better than Nico Hoerner for a bit. Probably all 2025. Again, unless you think Matt Shaw is a top-3 2b, *right now*, than Matt Shaw isn't better than Nico Hoerner right now. *Maybe* he's better offensively. But he's not a better player or does he add more value. Go look at all of the best offensive prospects in the MLB. How many came up right away and were successful? Even the best of the best struggled for months on end. It would be a bad idea for the Cubs to force feed through a worse player *right now*. They're not good enough. We have things like fWAR that do a really great job at determine value. A far better job than you and I. And it's pretty unlikely Shaw is a 4 win player right now. It's very likely Nico Hoerner is. He's been one for all intents and purposes for three years now.

Three 2b have been worth more than Nico Hoerner the last three seasons. Youre entitled to your own opinion, but thinking Matt Shaw, today, is a top-3 second baseman feels like a pretty outlandish opinion. I didn't say you were "rushing" Shaw. I said you were in a rush to trade a four win player. The Cubs aren't so good that they should be dumping 4 win players or be in a rush to move them. As I said, if a really good trade offer comes in on Hoerner we can talk. But that feels pretty unlikely. Meaning the Cubs should be in no rush to make that happen.

Pete Crow-Armstrong was just fine doing the "wait until an injury opens up PT" plan. Shaw will be as well. Any injury to a 2b, SS or 3B will open up time for him. It'll be fine. We shouldn't be in such a rush to move in from a 4 win player. If a really good trade presents itself? Okay we can talk. But there is *literally* no rush.

The cutting payroll thing is overblown. They're just going to get comfortably under the LT. Which I think we all expected. It's cheap, and Im not defending thr practice, but its not some massive cut either. Like, instead of spending right at the LT, I bet it's like $10m or whatever under it. Matt was talking about it in his front page article this AM.

Either are fine single additions. If that's the biggedt offseason addition, the Cubs have probably not done enough. Flaherty was not good in LAD and while I think Eovaldi can be an interesting addition, hes entering the back half of 30 and has had some small velo drops already. Hes fine. But that would mean the plan is essentially run-it-back, pray that Wrigley field fixes the offense and that a good #3 is the difference. That doesn't feel enough.

On one hand, if the Cubs are hand ringing over the picks, they need to get a bit braver. These picks, while useful, shouldn't be a stopping point for a big team. On the other hand, with going over the LT, it would reduce their 2025 IFA pool. And with Sasaki, it may mean they need every penny and they like their position with him for whatever reason. Ill remain entirely upset at the org if their answer is "Walker Buehler" only. But I can get behind a Buehler+trade for a front line guy.

Ah yeah, Justin Steele was a 5th rounder! Sometimes I forget how long ago it was when we picked him and how long it took for him to break out. And a fair point to make. Probably means I need to take the Jake Burgmann slander back. Guy still has a chance... All kidding aside, I entirely agree with everything here. A 5th round pick should never be the reason we worry about signing a FA. They so rarely become anything meaningful (we had to go back to 2014 to find the first stable MLB player the Cubs picked in that round) that the risk of trading a potential MLB player for the chance to sign a guaranteed good player today should always be taken.

Brandon Birdsell was a 5th round pick! So they're not 100% awful all the time, but here's the Cubs 5th rounders going back to 2016 Bailey Clark, RHP Nelson Velazquez, OF Andy Weber, 2b Jake Burgmann, RHP Koen Moreno, RHP Liam Spence, RHP Brandon Birdsell, RHP Michael Carico, C Ariel Armas, C Most of these names are "who the hell is that?" (looking at you Jake Burgmann). I could probably replace 6 or 7 of these names with completely made up people and 95% of people wouldn't know...you'd kind of have to be a draft dork to even remember most of them! Every so often a Nelson Velazquez breaks through as a fringe player, and Brandon Birdsell will almost assuredly make the MLB at some point. But if the price you pay for signing talent is missing out on Bailey Clark or Liam Spence...you make that trade every time and twice on Sunday.

Probably not. I doubt that the reason the Cubs aren't even bothering with Soto or Burnes is because: 1. They'd have to give up a 5th round pick now and a little IFA money 2. That they had to pay 10% tax on the difference in going over the tax They'd be just as out on those players if they had ended a few million under the LT. I don't necessarily think it has to be a boring offseason because they're not going after Burnes or Soto. They have to be trade aggressive and what I think gets lost in the reporting and the framing of this is that just because the Cubs aren't in on Burnes doesn't mean they can't be in on another exciting, top-line rotation arm, for example. The Cubs rarely make any chatter or smoke when it comes to trades and rumors, so that stuff could be very much bubbling under the surface and we just don't know.

I think the end thing we have to remember and keep in mind is that while this feels like a particular "Cub centric" thing, that it's not...the the price you pay in the prospect game. We pay more attention to the Cubs, so we're much more tuned in. Just be honest - do you know who the 8th best prospect in the Giants system is? Maybe you do! But...I don't. I could look it up, but the point I'm trying to make is this; we are in tune with the Cubs system, so we know far more fringe prospects off the top of our head. I can tell you all about Will Sanders and we didn't even rank him top-20 in our system! But I can't name most of the top-5 guys in most team's systems on demand and I'm certainly not really following them. These players fail consistently, we just don't really notice it. Even the world's best prospects are a gamble. The Braves have acquired a few former top-guys recently in Jared Kelenic and Griffin Canning. These were the Mariners/Mets and Angels top guys for a hot minute. To-date, neither have succeeded. These stories are everywhere. Even more so when you go down that prospect list. Here's an article from Fangraphs I think explains what I'm getting at. There's another article I'll see if I can find again, but it was about the bust rate of the #1 hitting prospect and the #1 pitching prospect most years...and even that is incredibly high. There's also, I think, some...unrealistic outcomes placed on guys. Like, just because someone doesn't become a bang-on four win player, or a standout closer that somehow being a decent platoon bat or a 6th/7th inning guy ends up a "bust" or "disappointing" when I think that still makes them a success story in most regards. I do actually think the Cubs have done a pretty damn good job recently. Look at the team; Nico Hoerner, Ian Happ, Justin Steele, Porter Hodge, Pete-Crow Armstrong, Ben Brown, Jordan Wicks, Javier Assad, and Ben Brown are all likely to play some sort of important role on the 2025 Cubs. Matt Shaw, Daniel Palencia, Luke Little, Owen Caissie, James Triantos, Cade Horton and Kevin Alcantara will probably see MLB action whether with the Cubs or elsewhere - a handful may play important roles. All of them have been drafted or developed heavily into the Cubs system. They're doing pretty damn good on that front! Many of these players have required real development and weren't just your easy top-5 picks. So to answer your question; I think the answer is...this is the prospect game. Your favorite prospect is probably going to fail. My favorite prospect is probably going to fail. Wins are far less frequent than losses.

There was no hotter, more hyped name in the Cubs farm system entering 2024. The breakout didn't come, though. Is it going to materialize in 2025? We continue today looking at the Cubs' top 20 prospects (as ranked by our readers here at NSBB), by looking at Jefferson Rojas, the eighth-ranked prospect. 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 2024 Recap: Jefferson Rojas As Rojas entered the 2024 season, there were very few prospects in the Cubs system with as much helium in their balloon as the shortstop. Coming off a season that saw the teen hit an impressive 15% better than league average in Low-A, expectations were sky high—maybe a bit too high. At first, it seemed like not only was Rojas ready for an encore, he was going to break through the ceilings of what we assume 19 year-olds can do. Through 89 plate appearances, the right-handed batter was slashing .315/.361/.427, with a 126 wRC+. Sadly, it was around that point at which the excitement surrounding him was doused in some cold water. From May 3 until the end of the year, the season came crashing down on him a bit, as he struggled to adapt to a higher level, posting a sub-80 wRC+. If there was one thing that was really disappointing, it's that the power just entirely dried up, with Jefferson posting just a .080 ISO over that span. If there was a positive, it's that Rojas showed a pretty advanced approach at the plate, limited strikeouts and took his fair share of walks. Clearly, it wasn't enough to steer the ship entirely back to smooth water, but knowing that he's advanced in his approach can give some positive vibes moving forward. If it feels a bit harsh on a 19-year-old, it probably is a mix between just how impressive he was in 2023, while being a bit underwhelmed on the data in 2024. This is a good time to remind ourselves that development isn't linear, that he was very young for his level, and that none of this is a referendum on his future. It may make us pump our brakes a bit on dreaming of him making his debut before he can buy a drink, but that's a pretty outlandish outcome for any prospect, and maybe lowering those kinds of dream scenarios early is a good thing. 2025 Season Outlook and Scouting Report: ETA - 2027 So, maybe 2024 wasn't the dream scenario for Rojas, but that shouldn't mean we don't have plenty to dream on. The good news is that he's still going to be 19 when the 2025 season kicks off and he plays a premium position, meaning he has youth and positional variability on his side. He also has the makeup of a plus approach. Moving forward, you hope that the bat Rojas showed the first month in South Bend re-emerges and he can get on a roll quickly. It's likely that he will repeat High-A for the first half of the season, but he shouldn't have to stay there all year, either. Even remaining optimistic and positive, his season doesn't have the look of a player who conquered the level yet and there should be no reason to rush his development. A big place I'd like to see improvement is turning what should be a swing and a body with power into more of it on a consistent basis. Listed online at 5-foot-10 and 150 pounds, Rojas's figure tells you those data are out of date. These are usually from when these kids sign at the age of 16. There's some power to tap into (hopefully), and combining that with the approach would be excellent moving forward. With a strong showing, it's likely that we should be looking at a promotion to Double-A in his age-20 season; that's still really impressive. It's also more fun when a player just straps a rocket to his back and jumps level-over-level with ease, but those cases are few and far between. While many humans were just finishing graduating high school, Rojas was playing baseball professionally against people 2-4 years older than he was. It's okay to struggle, as long as you're progressing and learning. It'd be easy to wonder if he was another version of Kevin Made, another IFA signing who stagnated around his age-19/20 season and was ultimately moved in a trade, but I don't want to pigeonhole him. There's still plenty in the tank with Rojas, View full article

Maybe I'm reading too much into what Nightengale is saying (which, it's always kind of hard to figure out what he's trying to get at through the Bob-Fog) but it almost seemed to suggest that if the Cubs were to trade Bellinger, that the reason would be to go after that top tier of free agents. Which feels a bit new. Whether that's Bob speculation or not...

It's Bob. So you can do with this as you please. However, Per USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2024/11/25/mlb-rumors-juan-soto-latest-news-trade-market/76556552007/

Mike Petriello hit on this a bit. Basically, that while there were some good things the Astros got Kikuchi to do, some things like his barrel rate and hard contact stayed the same, but his BABIP dropped .100 points. Probably requires a good defense behind him to make that happen. He's a pretty good pitcher but I'm not overly worried about not signing him. Especially if the Cubs are earmarking that $20m as the "needle-mover" money they can spend...I'm cool with it being some one else. I wouldn't have hated that contract either, only that I think it's kind of "meh, on to the next" spot for me.

In a perfect world? Sure. They'd be baseball fans. Ultimately, we live in a world where to them, this is far more a business venture than a baseball endeavor. Sucks. I wish it wasn't that way. But alas, the world would have to be a very different place to get there.

I saw an interview with Logan Paul once and he equated his bank account to a scoreboard of sorts, essentially explaining that while he had enough money to do basically anything he wanted, money was now a scoreboard to compare himself with others. I can't believe I'm giving him any credit for saying something insightful,. but it helped me understand the process a bit more. There's never enough because the game never stops. You have to run up the score because someone else is doing just that. It's very different from "I work so that I can live" which, most of us do.

Yeah I think all of that is going to be really interesting. Teams like the Dodgers have had a massive bonus with their RSN deal they signed and it's going to be interesting to see where we go from here. Are teams really going to be okay going with a unified system like that?

I've tried to remain optimistic here, but I've had a bit of this concern in the back of my head. With Marquee up for renegotiation and the RSN-apocalypse hitting around a few teams...I've had a worry that the team would respond by lowering their spending. I don't want that to make it sound like I'm panicking, just that it's been something in the back of my mind for a bit and have been hoping that it wasn't going to be the case.

A bit of a bummer. But hopefully it means the SP market is moving quick. The good news is that while Kikuchi offered some interesting notes, I think that mid-tier has a handful of names I'd find interesting. And I still hope that the Cubs shoot higher in a trade for a true player to sit more towards the top.

You entirely missed the point of that. I wasn't calling Stroman a #4 at his height, I was saying that in his prior years of his career, every year he was at *least* considered a top-4 pitcher in a rotation, not that I think he *was* a #4. It was to highlight that, yes, in the past Stroman more than qualified for your "#4" comment but almost assuredly doesn't moving forward. Stroman was good to very good through his career and for much of it was a pitcher you could slot into the top of a rotation. Im well aware.