Jason Ross

Well, the point I was making was that there was no evidence they were overworked. Their total innings would show a lot of that. Their break downs show it as well. All of that is readily available for people. I'm all for looking for reasons, but too often we (and I say that in the greater version, not at anyone) create a narrative that can so easily be disputed. It feels like we create the narrative and then hope the data backs it up too often. And sure there's some nuance about multiple day usage and etc, but these guys were roughly averaging an inning per outing. And even if they went 3 days in a row here or there, they were getting like 12 innings or so per month. That leaves a lot of off days. I don't think there's anything to support David Ross beating up these guys. And yeah! I think the injury history of Alzolay could predict UCL issues. Super agree! But David Ross over using him or his IP doesn't predict that. Which has been something I've seen people use.

Cool, let's look at their workload then. Because once again, doesn't hold water. Mark Leiter IP per month: 10, 12, 11, 11, 12, 7 Julien Merryweather IP per month: 11, 10, 12, 11. 14, 12 Adbert Alolzay IP per month: 14, 13, 7, 12, 14, 3 None of these players were abused. None of them had massive peaks on IP at the end of the season (which is generally where people pretend these players were over used). The biggest jump in IP is basically 2 or 3 innings. I don't mean this specifically towards you, but people create narratives that statistics can easily disprove. These are not pitchers who saw extensive use at the end of the season. They were not used extensively compared to other MLB relievers (Julien Merryweather was the 17th most used RP in baseball and he was the high water mark for all three. Also the high water mark for appearances as the 26th most used RP in 2023). It sucks that two of these three basically missed 2024. But anyone who predicted Merryweather was going to have a stress fracture or Alzolay was going to need TJS based on 2023 is just being silly. Is it shocking Alzolay got hurt? Not particularly, he's been hurt plenty of times. But I don't think it was the 2023 season that did it. He missed real time in 2022, and as a prospect as well.

These pitchers didn't pitch nearly as much as people think they did. None of those players even hit career inning limits. Alzolay pitched 125 innings in 2021, Merryiweather had thrown 70+ innings three times in his MiLB career, and Mark Lieter Jr threw three less innings in 2023 compared to 2022. This idea that David Ross abused these guys doesn't really hold water.

I think it's fair to point out Neris was going to regress. But nothing suggested he was going to faceplant off a cliff. He had that crazy low-ERA, but I think the whole league knew that wouldn't keep up and why he was around for what he was. I mean, if we all thought the <2.00 ERA was going to continue he'd have gotten more and quicker. I don't think Neris was horrible, either. He had some really notably bad outings that were magnified because he probably shouldn't have been closing and was (due to a combination of necessity and no one else really separating themselves). Probably was worse than his ERA suggested (his xFIP is 4.576 and his FIP was 4.10), but a lot of that was a terrible April. Past April he had a 4.10 xFIP with the Cubs. Closer worthy? No. Not even what we paid him worthy. But like...okay. Regardless I don't think it was a terrible idea to sign Neris. I just wish they would have also added another arm to really lengthen the BP out a bit.

I don't think their bullpen strategy isn't working though. This year, they were banking on Julien Merriweather, Adbert Alzolay Mark Leiter, and Hector Neris as the back end. Two of the four of them essentially missed 90% of the season hurt. And while Neris was bad as a "closer", the stabilized most of the year as a "fine" arm most of the time. They also lost Yency Almonte right away after he was looking like a useful weapon . Now, if you want to argue the Cubs should have done a little more, I'm not sure I'd fully disagree there (the rest of the BP opening day was a mish mash). but I think the Cubs were also hoping Ben Brown (thrust into the rotation due to injury) and Cade Horton (who got hurt and never had a chance to help) were going to add to the BP throughout the year. The BP took what feels like a heavy amount of damage early on and the Cubs suffered for it. June 1st on the Cubs had a top-5 BP ERA and the 13th best FIP. They over performed a bit via ERA, but it was a "fine" bullpen once they were able to get it to settle in. Part of the issue with BP building is that it's incredibly variable to begin with. With smaller samples come larger fluctuations in performance and it's super regular to see a good reliever have a bad year and vice-versa. Pinpointing who that is going to be can sometimes be a guessing game. You'll likely find a little more of that variance going the DFA'd guy route, but you can find bummers like Matt Moore. Chris Stratton and Joe Kelly in that mid-range as well. The top-top of the market is a little more stable (Stephenson, Hader, Lopez and Jimenez,. for example) so I think you can say "the Cubs should have probably shot a bit higher than Neris all things considered" but I'm not even sure one other BP arm was going to solve 2 months of players dropping like flies.

Probably not a lot of trade value unless the Cubs are eating contract. If Bellinger thought his market value was above his current contract, he would opt out and sign a new contract via FA. If he opts in, it's because he believes his current deal is below what the market would offer him (or right at market value).

That second pick is the 5th round selection. Yes.

I don't even think that's a major deterrent. A 5th round pick is an extreme lottery ticket. This is a player whom almost every team has passed on four times, some have passed on them five, six or seven times depending on comp picks. They're not nothing but the likelihood any team is getting anything out of that pick is extremely low. Here are the last few selections in the 5th: 2023: Michael Carico 2022: Brandon Birdsell 2021: Liam Spence 2020: Koen Moreno 2019: Josh Burgmann As well, $500K in IFA is nice, but projecting out 16 year olds is...damn impossible. It's as much if not more of a lottery ticket than the draft many times. I think any team who says this is a deterrent is using it as an excuse, or is simply wrong in how much prospect clutching they're doing. It's not that I want to give those picks or players away...but give me an established MLB player over Liam Spence any day.

So I think we should be careful. I didn't say a star, I said stacking WAR in single player positions. I avoided that language on purpose. I did use Juan Soto as an example, but because he's a stackable WAR piece on the FA market. But past him, I also avoided names for a reason, too. I just used him as an example, but I think there are plenty of players who the common person wouldn't call a "star" but fit into my answer as well. What I'm suggesting is that the Cubs build vertically, not horizontally. That we're coming to a point where multiple 2 win players are probably going to do less than one four win player at the right spot. I also was very careful to add at the end that it's easier said than done. Will it be more costly? Yes. There's more cost benefit for a four win player over two two-win guys and teams and free agents know this. But I also think the Cubs are kind of at a point where this is the best way forward.

I'm going to answer this question in a slightly different way and I know this is kind of cheating but whatever, I do what I want. I think the best thing the Cubs can do is stack WAR at singular player-roster spots. What I'd say remains the strength of the Cubs is that there are a lot of pretty good players all over the lineup, in the rotation and the BP. There are interesting prospects right on the cusp of the team who should be pretty good (one of the common complaints is that there isn't a star-type but they're all pretty good, you can feel how you want about that, I'm using it more for effect). But there comes a bit of a point where stacking good players has some limitations and the only way to build is to build up. How the Cubs want to answer this conundrum has a few ways. Obviously, there's the Juan Soto route. We can discuss how likely/unlikely they are, or he is, to be interested in this, but he's the type of stacked-WAR I'm talking about...part of Soto's value is that he's a 5+ win player and he takes up but a single roster spot. Soto isn't the only player the Cubs could target in this vein, though, once we get beyond Soto it's more likely to have to happen via a trade (which they have the ammo to complete). That could be a pitcher. It could be a bat. Overall, I do think the Cubs need to think vertical instead of horizontal, if that makes sense. I feel like they have a good foundation. They shouldn't be entirely ignorant of some smaller additions (a BP arm, or a decent catcher to share duties with Amaya) but that the priority for the team should be to not only identify, but then actually acquire players in that mold. Easier said than done, certainly. But it's my biggest priority,

Yeah I mean, like I've said twice before...their careers will likely be no different. With that said, I think there's benefits for getting a jump start, even if it's mental for the offseason and the start of 2025.

I'm unsure of what 1b experiment you think Owen Caissie has ever had; he's logged zero innings at 1b in his MiLB career He's played more CF than he has 1b..People have suggested down the road he might be a 1b, but he's not a 1b yet. With that said, Cody Bellinger is more than capable of playing 1b so sitting Busch just means Bellinger slides to 1b and Caissie takes RF. I don't think sitting on the bench even for a few weeks at the end of the year matters though. PCA isn't worse off for it, neither is Canario. 20 or so PA's don't make differences. So even if Caissie started 4 times, the experience would likely be no better or worse for him long term.

They have done it a lot at the MiLB level with these guys. Did it with PCA last year in a playoff run. Calling up Caissie, giving him 4-6 starts? Feels like something they'd do.

Oh I know! I just wanted to clarify.

I'm a fan of letting someone, even for two weeks, just see the MLB lifestyle. You meet your future teammates in a non-pressure situation. You see what MLB pitching is like. I doubt it changes much, and for his career, will almost assuredly be meaningless, but I think there's probably benefit to it. Especially someone like Caissie who is raking and has been for 190 PA's now. Ultimately, like I said, I don't think it changes what Owen Caissie is or isn't as a professional, so however the Cubs handle it is whatever.

I mean, we're in the last two weeks. There's like 4 series left. Every day PA's right now probably don't exist, but they're not important. His career trajectory isn't going to be any different because he got 20 more PA's. The Cubs aren't going to the playoffs. You can sit Happ and Bellinger and Busch a few games. They've played a full season...we know what they are. Give Caissie a taste of the MLB. Let him get used to the MLB life. Let him see what 20 PA's of MLB pitching looks like. There's literally zero harm right now. And if he doesn't get it? There's no harm there either. Much like the above, there's no reason to believe his career trajectory is going to change because of it. But it's probably beneficial for him to get a taste.

I wrote one of those articles, and it feels like you're taking the wrong things away from it. There isn't a bigger Owen Caissie champion on the planet than me...I've been yelling off rooftops about him since the 2020 draft (before he was selected by San Diego and well before he was a Cub prospect). Caissie is a really good prospect and I think has been somewhat underrated by many. Caissie has a .380 wOBA since MiLB ASB. He's pulling the ball more. He's hitting in the air more. He's hitting for more power. Contact rates aren't great, but probably expected with a shift of approach and will probably trend up as he gets more comfortable bridging the old and the new. He's probably the most exciting power bat the Cubs have had in their system in the last 7-8 years. We should probably expect him to struggle on his initial call up because everyone is struggling right now. The best prospects on the planet have sucked for a while upon callups. But that's not really being negative so much as being realistic. Given time and patience, we've seen PCA go from unbearable to watch at the plate to being legitimately good. Caissie will likely need that himself. But might as well bring him up now and let him start processing.

Injuries will occur. Figure, Matt Shaw needs one injury to either: 1. Nico Hoerner 2. Dansby Swanson 3. Isaac Parades And he's going to get a starting spot for a few weeks or a month+. Not necessarily at the position the player is hurt, but they'd shift things around to give him a spot. Same for Owen Caissie. If Bellinger (if he opts in) or his replacement, or Happ, or Busch get dinged up, he's the next guy. Someone is getting hurt for a few weeks and they'll get their chance. That's all you really need. PCA managed to bully his way into 110 games (and will get 120 or more under his belt), and will probably finish with 400 PA's this year and the Cubs had a full outfield. Shaw and Caissie can find 250-300 PA's next year. I don't think the Cubs will hurt for the ability to get these guys acclimated and space.

With the season just a few weeks away from ending, which Cub prospects can still prove something to the team over that time? Overall, the Cubs have had a nice year from a hitting prospect point of view. Pete Crow-Armstrong is finding his footing as a solid MLB player (if not more with the progress in his offensive game), and down on the farm, most of the Cubs best-and-brightest have been shades of "good" to "great" on the season on the whole. Even newly drafted players like Cam Smith have shown out. However, despite that, the last few weeks can be difference makers for a few prospects in Iowa regarding how their 2025 starts. Having something to prove isn't always bad or good; these prospects may need to show continued development, ingratiate themselves at a new level, or show a spark down the stretch. These three weeks don't replace the entire year but would allow these prospects to end the year on a high note while forming a foundation for their 2025 years. Owen Caissie, OF (Triple-A) As of writing this article, Owen Caissie remains a member of the Iowa Cubs, but there's belief that he could be called up before action on Friday. Regardless, the outfielder has an important few weeks leading up to the end of the season. Caissie, since the MiLB All-Star break, has begun to pull the ball more (over 43% of the time), has hit the ball in the air more (an increase of over 10% with a 5% increase in launch angle), and these have seemingly resulted in a large increase in his isolated power. There has been a loss of contact rate over that time, though, so things aren't perfect, but we're starting to see the power project meet the results. Regarding who Caissie is as a prospect, it's starting to feel like we're rounding third and headed home regarding who the outfielder is as a total package. The left-handed slugger with a strong few weeks (either at Iowa or Chicago) gives the Cubs even more to think about than he's already done in 2024. While I think it's fair to assume that Caissie will struggle upon an initial call-up to Chicago (as we have seen many of the best prospects across baseball do), a solid first impression and good data would give the team positive vibes heading into the next season. I highly doubt any of these results will result in the Cubs feeling so confident that he's handed a DH or right field spot on Opening Day without the Cubs looking to address either position (if Bellinger opts out) outside the organization. Still, with a good last few weeks, it wouldn't be shocking to see Caissie as the "next man up" in the vein of Ben Brown or Pete Crow-Armstrong if an injury would occur early in the season to an outfielder or Michael Busch. Owen Caissie is starting to round himself out as a power hitter, and a few more weeks of data could go a long way into helping him see Chicago sooner rather than later on a permanent basis. Matt Shaw, 2B/3B (Triple-A) Matt Shaw is starting to settle into Iowa after initial struggles. He's posted a .403 wOBA over his last 30 days at his new home, with a solid 75% contact rate, a near 15% barrel rate, and an in-zone whiff rate of only 16%. He's posting a .236 ISO over that span and a 10% walk rate, culminating in a wRC+ over 140 in his last 72 plate appearances. Despite starting cold, Shaw has turned it on, and it looks like he could be getting close to being MLB-ready. So what could a few more weeks do for Shaw? The Cubs are currently in an interesting spot with Shaw (not necessarily a bad one). After trading for Isaac Paredes and solving their third base situation for what should be (at least) the next three seasons, Shaw is almost assuredly ticketed for second base at the next level, a position that is (in theory) settled for the next two seasons with incumbent Nico Hoerner signed through the 2026 season. It's possible (though not probable) that the Cubs would be willing to move Hoerner and give Shaw the position outright if they feel the return (who the team has been rumored to have entertained offers for around the deadline) is worthwhile. Hoerner, who is cost-controlled and a solid player, would appeal to many teams, even if he's never going to be a great hitter. A team that is second-base needy could be convinced to part with something reasonably interesting in return for the gold glover, Ultimately, I think it's pretty unlikely that the Cubs would not go that route. The Cubs have put a premium on defense, and Nico Hoerner should continue to be a 3- or 4-win player. Even if the Cubs are pretty unlikely to be that aggressive with Matt Shaw, three more weeks of strong numbers would likely put Shaw on a similar path as Caissie - one that would allow Shaw to be the "next man up" in the case of an injury to any of Nico Hoerner, Dansby Swanson, or Paredes. The more Shaw can do at Triple-A to force the issue, the better it will be for everyone involved. Ed Howard, SS (Triple-A) Like the aforementioned Shaw and Caissie, Ed Howard cannot prove he's MLB-ready by the end of the year. There has been a bit of a misconception as to why he's currently in Triple-A, though (it's not that he's skipping Double-A), it's that the Cubs are hoping to catch lightning in a bottle a second time with the shortstop. A few years ago, Luis Vazquez was a similarly aged prospect who was seen as a glove-only player struggling to find his footing in High-A. Promoted to Iowa for a few weeks at the end of the 2021 season, Vazquez seemed to "click" offensively the next year. If you ask Vazquez, and others have...he'd tell you this short time gave him a foundation and a platform to succeed later as it showed him the flaws in his offensive game. Vazquez would then turn his ship around into a prospect who's made his MLB debut and could see himself as a backup infielder on an MLB roster as soon as next year. I suspect Howard is in Iowa to do the same: learn for a few weeks, then return to South Bend or Tennessee to start fresh next year. Ed Howard, now 22, had some short runs of success this year but has fallen back on hard times since his promotion. The Cubs have to try something there. I don't think he will stick at Iowa next year, regardless of how good a few weeks go. But I think he has something to prove to himself and the organization, and a successful run (or at least one heavy on the "learning) could be very important for him and his future. Are the Cubs at the point of releasing him this offseason? Probably not (though he wouldn't be the first 2020 prep first-rounder to find his route out of professional baseball if it were to happen), as I don't think they'd be crazy enough to think that his only saving grace would be a successful three-week stint two levels above where he was struggling. But I also think the team is at a point where they need to get him going if he's going to have a real future, and they can't afford to let a 22-year-old continue to learn in South Bend without a kick in the pants in some way. A good few weeks of learning could show the Cubs to have a little more faith in the former top pick and give Howard the confidence or the knowledge to replicate Luis Vazquez's path to being prospect-relevant. View full article

Pretty fringe, yes. He throws a good amount of strikes and I think he's beating hitters with that more so than other things at the level he's at. I'm hoping an offseason and a pitch lab session can get him to find a pitch he can add to generate something to put him truly on the prospect map. He's been a pretty big work in progress since draft day with his body so there's some precedent there for being someone who's malleable. Which gives me some hope.

It depends on how Bob is defining "front office". While they're "separate" I don't think they're separate, if that makes sense. Business and baseball overlap in many ways. The Cubs, for example, are in an uncertain RSN future currently with Marquee (business). But we also know that in 2020 Covid hurt business and the Cubs slashed payroll (baseball). There being friction between the two would be real. If Bob is considering baseball ops and business ops "front office" in general, it could be the friction. It also might not be. But in the past, Crane hasn't been against causing some friction, so I think it's worth at least allowing into the realm of realistic possibilities in terms of where the "friction" could be. I really don't know where the friction is myself. Hell, it could be super overblow.

I wonder if the "internal friction" is Jed and Crane Kenney. Crane seems like someone who you could have friction with...maybe moreso than ownership.

Yeah, I don't think Bob's wrong here. Just mostly...the general caveat people give when anything Nightengale is brought up.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2024/09/08/mlb-standings-trade-deadline-michael-kopech/75128155007/ Figured there's two things important in this blurb; 1. That there is "internal" friction. Hard to tell what that internal friction is...is it Hawkins and Hoyer? Is it ownership and the FO? 2. That Hoyer will return in 2025. I know many would like that to be a different case, but does seem as though this is the confirmation he'll return. Obviously the caveat here is "Bob Nightingale wrote it" and there's a bit of hesitancy to always buy his information. With that said, this feels significant regardless.