Jason Ross

I'll take the probable ball 4, called strike over anything

Strikeout and possible pick off. Baseball is fast haha

Never throw Eugenio again. Just walk him. I'm over his ass.

Yeah, outside of the 60-65 grade change (flashed 70, IMO) and the fastball, everything else was flashy. Sometimes the breaking stuff was there, other times it was loopy. I'll always stump for guys with stuff who can breakout. I'm an upside-guy when it comes to prospects, and I know that. Call it bias or whatever - I think we all have them and understanding that I think is the key to understanding ourselves. Franklin had that upside play. I'm always about taking guys with stuff and hoping you can work it the ifs and buts.

horsefeathers DONG.

Man...Ketel Marte is really good.

I was pretty excited about the NCAA Tournament before the UK/UT game. I'm less excited about it now.

I actually liked him more post-pandemic. He came back throwing harder than previous and had bulked up. Add that with a changeup and the physicality and the mentality of a dude, with real flashes? Yeah I think it's cool to admit there's a fun outcome there. As a pitcher, there's always lots of arm risk, and then you add in being a prospect...it was risky. I admit I'm still a wee excited about him. Enough that I got a little jazzed today to see him on the Iowa IL as opposed to Knoxville because I'd like to see him in Iowa with statcast data and one step away from the Show. Yeah, I'm a sicko. But I know he's probably never getting there. Pitchers can still pop mid-late-20's, so maybe he'll get a moment in the sun, or he'll have some crazy rebirth as a late inning guy. But I think deep down I know, and probably have always known. We all get irrational about guys. I think it makes it more fun.

Ben Cowles 💣

I'm not entirely surprised. Imagine those two games in Tokyo didn't exist (considering it's been ten days) - I think starting Workman, straight from double-A, over Hoerner and Shaw (much better prospect) in the second game of the year? That'd be a lot. Tomorrow night sounds like a good night for him to sub in for Hoerner, while the Cubs let Shaw get acclimated. Figure the Cubs will let him be as consistent in terms of PT as they can at the start of the year to get him settled in a bit more.

I'll give Tom a slight out - I wasn't here yet in 2023, and I probably would have given Franklin a token top-20 vote. I'm a self-admitted Kohl Franklin-truther and someone who has always believed there's an upside there. I loved the frame, the mechanics and the changeup. The TJS...bummer. Now, where I think I'll differ (vastly) from Tom is that knowing Kohl has been a bit of a pet project of mine. It's cool when others don't see it. I just can't quit him.

That's a fun ass lineup. There will be many nights the Cubs run 5 top-100 in the same lineup.

Right position, wrong guy. Yeah, that's Joe.

Based on? I think we can be better than to find fault with Hoyer in made-up senses. For example, we know he swung and missed a few times this offseason on players like Scott/Bregman/Luzardo/Cease/Sasaki - there is ample reporting. We can fault the results and the inability to get across the line because there's actual information there. But there's no reporting to suggest that Hoyer didn't even try to trade Bellinger in any other sense than strictly a salary dump. In fact, the reporting was pretty clear from very early on that the Cubs were interested in moving him - what kind of talks occurred and with whom and for what between the end of November and trade-day is likely to have been pretty wide. The most concrete stuff we heard was with the Yankees, but it doesn't mean he didn't try something else. So I think for argument's sake, it's best not to stray into conspiracy here. Just because he didn't do something does not mean he didn't try to do that thing. All of the things you mentioned in your post could have been discussed, for example and for a host of reasons, never happened. Most of the trade talks that happen never make it to the press.

Franklin on the I-Cubs IL is interesting. Mostly just for me. I refuse to give up the dream.

...is that Koyie Hill?

That's fair on the Jolee thing - but you'll notice, I didn't quote you on that originally. You said we didn't need to bring that up, and I explained why I did. So I wasn't calling you out specifically. I will specifically address the last line because Cubs fans enjoy having their cake and eating it too when it comes to "aggressive enough" on Hoyer. Now, I'm not saying you particularly, but Cubs fans have lamented Hoyer all offseason for trying to save his butt, for trading Parades and Smith for just one year of Tucker. For saying that the Cubs aren't good enough for an all-in move. At the same time, some of these same people, and others, lament him for being not-aggressive enough. It can't be both. I posted this in another thread, but I'll continue it here, I don't think there was some $200 line, the Cubs tried to spend that money. That's not a plus, it's just a fact. They did. I think the plan with the Bellinger trade was two fold: 1. Trade Bellinger, a player who wasn't going to start at any specific position (RF, CF, LF, 1b or DH), clear $20m to use on players who would more readily contribute. 2. Make one more impact move., The Cubs accomplished part 1. They traded Bellinger. They proceeded to add Turner, Braiser, Berti, Pressley and others. These will be players who will contribute to the team in various, and likely, positive ways. Part 2 is where they missed. I don't think for a lack of effort (they had a real good offer in on Scott, Matt's consistently reported the Cubs interest in Cease, and then there was the week of Bregman rumors). The Cubs don't win games based on effort to improve, surely, though, also don't think the roster is currently, overly flawed or an issue. I do think they could probably use another SP, though with Brown over Rea, the team is prioritizing upside over stability and it's probably a better rotation than we expected. They could probably use one more high leverage reliever, but outside of Scott, there really wasn't a ton available who was so good you couldn't miss on. And maybe the amount of youth (Shaw, PCA, Amaya, Busch and a reliance on prospects as "next up") hinder the offense. If you want a positive it's that with this route the Cubs have a bit more flexibility. Let's say Brown takes that fifth spot and runs with it - a possible outcome for Brown for sure. Then maybe you gain more clarity and the rotation isn't some glaring spot that needed a Luzardo trade and now those resources can be used to fix elsewhere. Or maybe Brown is good to go for half a year as a starter, and you can trade for Cease much more cheaply as you move him to the pen to limit innings later. Or maybe the offense and the youth show stability and contribution, and you feel far more comfortable trading Kevin Alcantara or Owen Caissie than you did before in a bigger move. There's inherent risk involved, and I'm not saying it's the path I'd have walked, but my personal preference isn't always right, and I think there's some merit and logic. On the overall, I think we agree that the Cubs as an org probably don't put enough money into the baseball side of things. Hoyer's a weird one to evaluate. I think most of what he does has a pretty consistent, and obvious logic behind it. Individually, he rarely makes a bad move - his biggest blunders on a one-on-one basis have been essentially "he gave Mancini two years instead of one" or something like that. I think he's put together a good enough roster in 2025, but I think we also agree there's some variance there that could probably be cut out some.

I'm not sure there was a "trade him for someone" out there. Seattle seemed steadfast that they weren't dealing from their SP depth, and Bellinger wasn't really exuding surplus value for many teams. So maybe you get a Jordan Montgomery, and then you have an expensive TJS guy. It seems like the Cubs did try to spend that excess money - they spent over the $20m saved post-Bellinger trade and left enough cash in the chest to make legitimate runs at at least Scott, Cease, and Bregman. I don't want to give Jed like a free-pass, at some point effort isn't enough and while I can understand players have choice...you don't win games on effort to improve the team...but I do think the general concept was: 1. Take Bellinger's money and repurpose it 2. Take the remaining and improve with one more impactful addition. Part 1 happened, part 2 hasn't yet and likely, won't happen until July. Even then they won't spend all the way to the line, more than likely.

Oh really? I had a feeling he might stick around due to his association with Zombro and the Cubs somewhat-thin SP depth chart (with Assad, Horton, and Birdsell currently unavailable to fulfill an MLB SP role for various reasons). A bit of a bummer, but not one I'd ruminate over, either.

The issue is that there are two competing issues here: 1. People who are trying to play "gotcha" with Matt 2. The discussion about Cubs payroll and their inability to have gotten a second impactful deal over the line. The reason I point these out, is that my post was attempting to address both. There is no gotcha with Matt - his article - which is directly about spending the money saved from Bellinger is correct. Factually, the Cubs spent more than they saved with Bellinger. There is no gotcha there. Those using that argument is flat-wrong. So in that vein, it's 100% meaningful - and the reason I and others have pointed that out. I don't disagree that the Cubs should have found a way to get a second move done. If you'll go back and read, I addressed that entirely. I think any individual move, you can accept the Cubs missing on or understanding why. The reality with free agents is that agents have agency on their choice, and other teams have agency as well. I really don't blame Jed or the Cubs for missing on any specific move - Scott, Bregman, Sasaki. I do think a bigger point of the Cubs missing on a second impactful piece is something to bring up. I think it's fair to bring up the lack of spending the team does. Which is nuanced - I don't think Jed's plan when he traded Bellinger was to end up $20m under the LT - instead he took some swings and missed on them. Which is a harder thing to pin-point in the error of his way. Ultimately, I think most of this will be for naught, though. As it stands, I still think the Cubs are the best team in the NL Central. I think they'll win the division. I think, come July, a second fairly meaningful piece will be added. We can quibble over how long that piece may be around for (a rental or something more long term), but I suspect the Cubs will add another SP, or RP, or bat that will move a needle. I don't think that absolves anyone entirely for putting the Cubs in a bit more of a precarious position than they maybe needed to be (a full year of Dylan Cease vs 2 months, for example) but will end up being one that is moot in that I think the final version of the Cubs will still win the Central and still have that second piece headed into the post season.

He hasn't gotten time yet but I would suspect he will - call it a guess - but he gives the Cubs a LHH option there and he has the size/bat. Especially as he comes off a surgery. It would allow the Cubs a LHH 1b option if Busch goes down without having to pigeonhole Moises Ballesteros into 1b or take away from his dev, and while I like Long, assume the org is higher on Caissie than Long currently.

I think there needs to be some nuance here. On one hand, we did re-spend the money saved on Bellinger, as has been pointed out. The Cubs spent another $25m behind that deal, which essentially, re-spent that. There was also a concerted effort to spend more - the Cubs put forth competitive and lucrative deals to Bregman and Scott. These are all facts. Where the nuance needs to happen is that I think we can both absolve Hoyer to a degree in that they put forth competitive offers to both, and probably maxed out their ability to sign both (per Hoyer, he's stated he had to ask for the funs to make Bregman happen). I think any of their attempts to reuse that money, missing on any of them is defensible on their own merits. The Dodgers probably could have continued to outbid the Cubs on Scott, Bregman was given more than the Cubs likely could have offered (that's a Ricketts thing, probably). The Padres may not have been reasonable on Cease or King. But with nuance comes the general belief that, yeah, the Cubs don't get we-tried-points, so missing a few times, at some point it's on you to get it over the finish line. And for that I think it's fair to point out that the team feels like it just, isn't as complete as it could be. Perhaps they'll get there in July with the deadline and it'll all work out still, but you'd probably have liked to have gotten to that point sooner if possible.

AZ Phil recently reported that Long is getting a lot of work at 3b on the backfields. I wonder if the Cubs are prepping more of a "rotation" at 1b - with Ballesteros, Caissie and Long rotating in off of RF, C, 3b and DH respectively.

Tuck!

Happ