Jason Ross

Kyle Schwarber played a third of his 2015 games at catcher upon being called up. It's fair to say that the Cubs didn't turn over the keys to him at catcher - but it's pretty hard to play 21 games behind the plate out of 60 and claim that he wasn't a catcher in any "real" sense. He was seen as a potential MLB catcher. He then tore his knee and all was abandoned there. As of today, I would be shocked if Ballesteros came up in 2025 and started 1/3rd of his games at catcher, for example, unless the sample size is super small and the Cubs are that far up/down in the standings.

Can you please prove this with evidence? You've declared this as a fact multiple times, but have mentioned that you "don't know where the deficiencies lie". It seems difficult to make such a confident and declaratory sentiment if you don't know where Ballesteros' deficiencies lie. It would stand, then, that you would be unable to compare Schwarber's to Ballesteros'; deficiencies. Schwarber was a bad defensive catcher. I've seen nothing, data wise, to realistically suggest where Ballesteros fits into the greater picture of defensive catchers. What I can say is that for years scouts have been worried about his defense and that's very similar on paper to Schwarber. It feels very early and without much other than "I remember Schwarber was bad" vibes to suggest one is better than the other currently. I certainly hope Ballesteros is better. But that's all it feels like right now...hope.

It's kind of disingenuous to limit my post to that portion, no? It convienently cuts off two other names and trades, which I mentioned directly after. Fried has put up numbers where I think he's a pretty good bet to get to four wins (healthy which is a risk, but he's pretty close this year and has done it in the past) and Burnes has done it plenty. I don't think it's Soto or bust. I'll say I think the Cubs are kind of silly for bowing out of Soto immediately, but Soto or bust was never, and is not my argument. If that's what you want to take away from my post, that's all you. As stated, I think you're ignoring a massive portion of my argument. It's fine (and recommended) that the Cubs model out players they think they can improve. But that it can't be the foundation of the improvement for the team, IMO. They need to both acquire helpful players they can improve, but also find ways to acquire players who move the needle without hoping you can fix 'em, too.

Is he better than Schwarber? I'm not really sure he is any better than Schwarber. He's pretty rough back there based on reports. We get some cool highlights of him throwing a guy out...but that's a highlight. The general belief across the industry is that despite the digestible highlights we get on twitter/X that the overall body of work is...not great. Part of that is probably also due to his body size - it's not a normal body size we see. So I'll give some leeway into that - we just don't get good MilB catcher data and we're relying on a lot of subjective views which are probably influenced by his body type and preconceived notions. But I think this idea he's somehow more advanced than Schwarber is tenuous at best. He's been apart of the MiLB for longer, but I'm not sure he's any more advanced back there. I think it's important to point out what others have though - he's not going to be able to be a DH whilst also learning catcher. He either needs to be a catcher almost every day, or he's not going to learn it. He needs game reps. So he's either going to be in Iowa crushing the baseball learning the position or in the MLB playing DH and falling behind further.

I'm not sure why you think I'm hoarding anything nor did I mention simply Soto. In fact, I mentioned Burnes and Fried by name.. As well, trades exist and I'm quite the proponent of "go get a really good player any way". If that's a trade, hey go for it! The Cubs have money and prospects. At some point you've got to do something a bit uncomfortable, and it's about time the Cubs do something of that magnitude. They've done an admirable job of the upper-middle-class of everything. But it's time to step out a bit. What I don't want to see the Cubs do is this bastardized form of getting wins where you get a guy and you really hope he's good. I mean, get those guys too (I'm not against rolling dice on Walker Buehler if you think you can get him back, for example) but that can't be the main platform for change this offseason. It's time for the Cubs to do that, but supplement it with player(s) who you can reasonably expect to be very good (4+ win territory). It doesn't have to be a "big bat" or a "big arm" or anything subjective...just get really good players. Mooney's article, in turn, sounds like the Cubs have kind of bowed out internally on those guys. Maybe it's a tonality of the article and I'm reading too much into it. Or maybe the Cubs are trying to find behind their true intentions.. Or maybe it's just an accumulation of history and I'm placing a little undue pressure on them - just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't ever. But it'd be nice to see the Cubs break that mold this offseason.; Frankly, I think it'd be more than time...I think it's the next steps the org needs to take.

I so wish that the team wasn't so obsessed with being in the upper-middle-class of things. That's not really shitting on Mooney here, or the article. Just feels like the organization consistently sets the bar lower than it could be. I get that maybe dumping money into Burnes or even Fried can be questionable, just that it feels all too common for the Cubs to immediately take themselves out of the running before ever really trying (Ohtani not withstanding). I'll give them that maybe they expect Bellinger to opt in and that's limiting some of the budgetary power that's been allotted, but if he's not...feels like there's an opportunity for the Cubs to go big somewhere. Maybe, as well, they plan to go big on a bat (though if they're not going in for Soto, they're once again either in the upper-middle-class FA pool or a trade, which would likely be for a lower budgetary player meaning...the money would be there elsewhere) so I'll give them that as well. So there's wiggle room here. It just feels...like the past few offseasons. I just would like to see the Cubs shoot higher than a pretty-good player this year. They're set up for a 4+ win player acquisition. Not one you can hope gets to four wins, but who gets there in most cases.

This is part of the "problem" with Ballesteros (note that I'm saying "problem" a bit...tongue in cheek here)...his bat is well too advanced for his glove. He's going to eventually force the issue with his bat before his glove realistically gets to a point where he's likely a capable enough catcher. I'm kind of expecting the best case as a DH/3rd C type of a thing where he can catch some games when you really want to load up on offense and not entirely kill you behind the plate, but never good enough to really be 1a/1b back there ( ~80 games). I'm thinking like 20 or so...give or take. Maybe he grows into ~60 games a year but even that feels...like pushing it.

Whomever gives him the "you sign whatever contract your want" this offseason is almost assuredly not going to regret it.

Over the 3 years he has a 123 wRC+ That's better than Arenado, Tatis, Ruschman, Teoscar Hernandez and Muncy and just 4 points below Bregman. Frasncisco Lindor is at 128 over that span, as is Kyle Schwarber and Pete Alonso. I'm not sure how you could think his overall numbers "aren't great". Sure, he's not a superstar hitter. However, he was the 40th best hitter who logged 1,000 PA's in those three years. He's a well above average hitter who borders on "very good".

How is Parades a journeyman? He's 25 and while he's been dealt a few times, it's not because he's someone who signs for a year and then bolts elsewhere. The Rays won 99 games last year with Parades as their 3b, so clearly this "80 win" thing is not really true, very good teams have had him be their primary 3b. He's been the 11th best 3b in baseball over the last three seasons. He's short of being a superstar or even a perennial all-star. But he's a borderline all-star type talent. This is just a wildly out of touch take on Parades.

I can't believe I hadn't realized Ted Lilly was doing the pitching side of things. Feels like I've been living under a rock.

I would not. Parades is a good, borderline, very good player. He didn't hit for a ton of power with the Cubs but was hurt, reportedly. He's a 3 win guy and at a position of need.

I think it's fair to question the leg kick's viability as we continue. It's quite pronounced and exaggerated motions tend not to work very often. With that said, and while I don't want to completely ignore the stuff gap between Triple-A and the MLB (it's real and it's getting wider) at least at the Triple-A level, Shaw did not show an issue with velocity. On pitches 94-97mph, Shaw had an 83.7% contact rate, and an in-zone whiff rate below 17%. He had a solid 90+ mph exit velo on those pitches. I don't mean to gloss over it, but I'd say to date, Shaw hasn't shown an issue with what I think we'd perceive the leg kick's issue to be; in that he would struggle to catch velocity. Obviously, as previously mentioned, the difference between the MLB and Triple-A is a big one, so that could change in a hurry. I do think there are two positives working in Shaw's favor here, though. The first positive is that even if there's a mechanical change needed on the fly, I think there are a few examples of how to fix those things. The first is that the Cubs seemingly had pretty good success playing around with Pete Crow-Armstrong and Miguel Amaya's mechanics mid-season and saw positive gains out of both. How well those stick...we'll see, but I think initial results were "much better". Obviously different mechanical changes here, but the Cubs had a plan for each and had success. It isn't like the org has been entirely inept there. Zach Neto seems like a pretty good example as well, of how a not-very-large guy was able to cut the kick from 2023 to 2024 and still managed to hit 23 home runs. He's got a few inches of leverage on Shaw according to his official listing, but both have similar weights. I don't want to say that it's an easy or guaranteed fix, just that I think some precedent is there that would make me feel better about it happening. The second positive I'd point to is that Shaw changes his swing with two strikes to a far less pronounced leg kick...,it's still there, but it's less there (examples below). Using Triple-A data, while he's not going to have the same wOBA with two strikes (it's a tougher spot to be in), his exit velocity between 2 strikes and less than 2 strikes isn't overly pronounced. He's just under 90mph with two strikes, and at 89 mph with two-strikes-not-full. Average Triple-A exit velocity in these situations is 3-4 mph lower than Shaw. He's also still getting to the barrel there at 18%, which is 3% higher than MiLB average as well. If there's a counter argument to it, it's that he hits the ball a lot more on the ground with 2 strikes, so some of that EV is coming from hard hit ground balls - something that probably could use a tweak? In the end, I think there's some reason to be optimistic that even if the leg kick needs to tone down, that he's not going to be at a complete loss of power. Home run with less than 2 strikes Matt Shaw Triple less than 2 strikes Home Run 2 Strikes Matt Shaw single 2 strikes Overall, I think people over estimate the quickness of how well a prospect will settle in. The best prospects on the planet are struggling for weeks on end before they get comfortable, and while I like Shaw a bunch, he's well short of Chourio or Holiday. That said, I'm fairly bullish on his long term outlook, even if they've got to play with the mechanics. I don't think he's a superstar prospect, and I think the fair assumption is that the first 30-45 days will be a learning curve and mechanical tweaking, but I think he can come out on the other end a good MLB player regardless.

Kerry Miller isn't reporting anything. He just said that Sugano would sign a 2 year, $30m deal "possibly with Imanaga and the Chicago Cubs". Possibly is doing a ton of work.

The luxury tax line will continue to rise for the next few years (and likely again after the next CBA). The most recent CBT line was $237m. Swanson hits around $25 AAV currently...that's roughly just a bit over 10% of the number and will decrease over that span. I say this as someone who didn't love the Swanson contract at the time it was signed, and I'm not going to sit here and defend the Cubs spending practices (they can do so much better and more) but the Chicago Cubs are not going to be hampered by Swanson's contract. He's likely to remain a quality player for a few years. The Cubs aren't a poverty franchise and while sometimes they pretend they're not a big market, they don't act like the Pirates, either. The Cubs do not need to, nor should they be looking to dump a contract like Swanson unless somehow they're making out on the back side in talent on the field (which is pretty unlikely).

He's got a lot of Joey Ortiz in his profile, if the reduction in K's is something that sticks long term.

Cade HortonMatt ShawOwen CaissieKevin AlcantaraMoises BallesterosJames TriantosCam SmithJefferson RojasJaxon WigginsCristian HernandezBrandon BirdsellWill SandersAlexander CanarioJack NeelyJonathon LongAlfonsin RosarioDerniche ValdezFernando CruzCole MathisBrody McCullough

Not a ton. With that said, Michael King did so at 29 and Reynoldo Lopez did so at 33 this season, so it's not like we don't have very recent data points (and we can be pedantic and say "Michael King is 29 so he doesn't count" but I think we're better then being that pedantic). While it's fair to ask how many pitchers at that age make the transition, it's just as fair to ask how many SP at the age of 30 have a five-pitch-mix like Griffin Jax? Because the reality is the answer is "not very many". So there aren't a lot of pitchers who fit either category. Again...if you want to point out the risk I find that fair. Simplistic statements like "if he were a starter than he'd be a starter" ignores two very recent pitchers who did very much that. And were very good in 2024.

That's spurious at best logic. Michael King entered 2024 with 30 more MLB innings than Griffin Jax did. Just five more career starts (19 to 14). In his year 29 season, he was a >3.00 ERA SP worth 3.9 fWAR, and a 3.50 xFIP. He spent most of his career prior to this season as a reliever. I think it's fair to point out the risk of taking a RP and just making him into a SP. It's fair to wonder about load management. But I don't think it's as simple as "well if he was a starter he'd be starting". Michael King proved that isn't so simple.

I've been thinking the Cubs and the Twins could match up with a trade myself. And I think this is a creative solution for both teams. I'd be a little hesitant to think the Cubs would be willing to go the RP to SP conversion route, however, simply because I think Hoyer's job is riding on 2025. While Jax could be a gamble that paid off handsomely, I'd be worried about work-load-management in year-1 and there's always the question of "how will this go?" regardless of how well it is set up for on paper (which, I might add, Jax looks like he'd be a prime candidate). Someone should absolutely move Jax to the rotation and give it a try! I'm just not sure the Cubs are in a position to be that...risky.

To clarify, he's not the head of the player development, for the Rockies but he has he's been working as a special advisor to the director - who was previous Zach Wilson and has been Chris Forbes since 2021. I'd assume Weinstein is coming to Chicago in a similar role. There's smoke that the Cubs are set to lose some people in scouting and development and an experienced person like Weinstein, even for a year or two, is probably someone who's an easy plug-and-play guy. He's got a ton of experience coaching at the Cape - and the smoke is that the Cubs are set to lose national cross checkers - guys who do advanced scouting pre-draft. The Cubs have been heavy on Cape Code success recently, another reason why Weinstein probably makes sense.

This practice feels like a repeat of the Christopher Morel one we had just last offseason where we're trying to round-peg-square-hole a guy to a position. It's a little different in that the Cubs and the Dodgers are two different organizations, but I think it speaks volumes that the Dodgers didn't really envision him as a long-term 2b option based on how they were willing to move him/not give him 2b at any point at the MLB level, and the Cubs didn't play him at 3b. I think we have to more-or-less accept he's a 1b who might be able to moonlight a few games at 2b here or there.

I didn't put you in any camp. I used "we" as in the collective fanbase. Not "you" as an individual. I would also expect that the Cubs would not trade for a 1-year contract in the vein of Tucker or Vlad (they'd trade for other 1 year deals that cost less, however) without some sort of indication that the player would be open to discussing a long term extension. I would stop short of expecting an extension, however, as you can never know how that will go. But I'd go into the trade with the assumption that the Cubs understand their market value, that they couldn't get a sweetheart deal and would have to offer that market value contract, and that the player was not dead-set to hit the market regardless of offer.

If it happens. please show the last time it happened. It shouldn't be hard since it does happen, according to you. Show me the last time a player signed a contract of 8+ years and that contract was agreed pre-trade in the MLB. I really don't mean to sound aggressive, but it's not really thing and I think you're thinking about sports in general. These are things that happen, especially, in the NBA, but do not occur in the MLB. It's cool that you don't have a log of these transactions! I don't either. It's just good to look these things up before we create the narrative. What happens, almost exclusively is that: 1. A player plays out his one year and hits the FA market. I.E. Juan Soto 2. A player eventually signs a contract later. I.E. Mookie Betts and Francisco Lindor. The closest that it's happened was Sean Murphy in 2022. He was traded and then two weeks later signed a 6+ year extension worth under $75m. Which was a pretty big deal, but far short of the mega deals we're talking here. Tucker and Vlad are looking at hundreds of millions and 10+ years, possibly worth three times that of the Murphy extension. No one I can find has signed a contract like that within two weeks of a trade. It takes months. If the Cubs were to trade for a player on a one year contract, it won't come with the mega extension in place. Your best bet is that before OD, the two sides get it done. Or in the summer. But it won't come in January, regardless.

Did you even bother to look at the link I provided? Thaw, it didn't happen that way. I'm not trying to sound rude, but I provided that link for a reason and it's because it explains what happened during negotiations. You have invented a completely non-substantiated narrative here. We can't just invent things. It's entirely clear from the reporting on the matter by people who actually have sources and connections with teams that the two sides did not have an agreement and just...waited three months.