Jason Ross

Its from Jon Morosi. He tweeted it yesterday. It sounds more (from my reading) that teams are interested in Caissie as a return in trade talks. For who? Not sure. How amenable are the Cubs? Unsure.

So, I think the answer is both "I'm not sure?" and "No" but that's because I think there are two competing questions here. First, I don't think this is just AFL helium. Long had a really good season at Double-A once he got promoted. He had a 189 wRC+, showed impressive underlying data on top of the eye popping stats. He's going to be freshly 23 next year, so he's a little on the "older" side (but not "old" - he's just not a baby like Caissie or Ballesteros upon making Iowa), but he's getting better at each level, and not worse. Dude walked more than he struck out, and still had 7 HR's and 9 2b's in 200 PA's in Tennessee. With the EV data you can probably dream on a little more power coming out of the bat. His AFL is just a continuation of Tennessee. He's absolutely locked in right now. And he's probably ticketed for Iowa. I'm excited for that...it'll give me access to Statcast stuff. Matt Mervis looked pretty shiny until you dug into the Statcast stuff and the flaws were pretty apparent. The cool thing with Long is that while he's probably more of a 1b, there's thought that he could handle LF for a while. So I'd keep an eye on that moving forward. As a LF there's more runway for what he can be. As of now, I'm cautiously optimistic. He's not like a top-10 guy in the system. But if you told me he was smashing Iowa with good underlying data in June? I'd probably believe you.

I say this as someone who thinks' Ballesteros has an upward battle to stick behind the plate even in a part time role at the MLB level...but Moises Ballesteros hasn't even turned 21 yet. No, the Cubs don't and can't have a good idea of what he "will or won't" be capable of yet. 20 year olds are not finished products and the Cubs don't own a crystal ball. There are times we know things - like Owen Caissie will not be a not a capable MLB shortstop. But Ballesteros' ability long term behind the plate is very much in the "unknown" category...even to the Cubs.

If the Cubs miss out on others, he wouldn't be a terrible 1 or 2 year option. He'll turn 35 early into the season, and catchers + age can sometimes equal quick fall-offs. He had some really solid Savant data, and is a good framer (terrible pop and arm, however).

From an illogical stand point, Owen Caissie has been my pet project since pre-draft. Having him debut with the Cubs would be a personal win for me and I matter most in the world. From a logical stand point, there's enough flaws in his game and a lack clear playing time...I can see why he'd be a guy the Cubs could or would move.

Yeah, I don't think the Cubs need to go all in for now. But I also look at their prospects and there's a few things that stand out, notably, how many are MLB ready or nearly MLB ready and how many occupy much of the same ground in terms of what they are (or project to be). I don't think the team needs to jettison them for one-year-let's-go-guys, but I do think some internal scouting and realism is necessary in that prospects have shelf life for value, eventually they'll clog up the 40-man if they're not being actively used, and that they're not all going to work out or all have space. So I think some house-keeping is really a good solution for everyone involved; for Hoyer and his continued employment, for the 2025 Cubs (and beyond) and the prospects themselves. Moving a few of them for a controllable other that we don't have in house would be good. With Bellinger opting in, that's almost assuredly a SP over anything else but if you want to get wild and crazy, maybe you make a creative trade where you lose a Parades or convince Happ to waive a NTC. I think that's pretty out there, but I guess not impossible?

For me, this is something around the best case scenario. I think Fried can be replaced with a few names, either FA or through trade...but someone of that caliber, plus the deepening of things is about what I'm expecting as your "best case" Cubs 2024 offseason outcome. That's a team you probably, on paper, write down as an 86-88 win team with some variance, and expect it to be more on the positive than the negative side due to the depth. It probably saves Hoyer's job. But I think it also highlights the limitations in Hoyer's roster building - that while there's a ton of depth, the team will remain lacking the elite-elite talent they probably need to get over that hump. It's also fair at some point to question whether Hoyer will ever do it. If he's not willing to do it when his job is on the line, then what's the time? If you allow it, there will always be an excuse to "why not now?" (I'm the poster boy. I've been saying I was going to get my National Boards since 2020. But first it was Covid, then it was settling in during a post Covid world. Then it was I had a student teacher and didn't have the time. Then I bought a house....you get the picture). I think we'll get to a point where I'll stop giving so much benefit of the doubt that it's a "hasn't yet" versus as "doesn't believe in it" type thing.

Good for Kyle. I suspected it'd have been more like a camp invite with an ability to make $3m or so if he made a roster. Hope he succeeds.

Yeah, the 2nd tier is pretty cool this year. Last year that 3rd tier was strong and this year the 2nd tier is. Both are tiers I feel like Hoyer would be good in. With that said, I think the assignment this year is "just be pretty damn good". They don't have a lot of holes - they need a SP, they need a back end RP, they need a catcher. They have so much locked in, that their paths are pretty straightforward. I hope Hoyer is forced to go outside of those tiers this year. One, because I think he needs to show a bit of a killer instinct at some point for me to feel 100% comfortable with him. That could be a FA or a trade...but something that hurts you a bit. Like a Kikuchi/Bieber addition could be fine, but feels like you need a decent injury relapse or fall off from Bieber coming back (who already was middling on the velo for part of his career) to really make you go "is that going to be enough?". And I think Kikchui is kind of cool on a 3 year deal. Just think that now's the time for the Cubs to really impact their team.

Yep. I think now is the time to kind of "value be damned" it, when it comes to a SP. Maybe Blake Snell isn't your favorite style, or Max Fried makes the rotation too left handed or something...but I'm pretty confident both of those guys are going to be pretty good next yar. Snell's going to have some inconsistencies, Fried had a little bit of a nerve thing...but they'll both likely be top-2 guys in most rotations. Garrett Crochet costs a lot of prospects and has some health stuff, but when he's healthy, I'm pretty damn sure he's good. Maybe Jack Flaherty is a guy like that. Maybe Sugano is. And maybe they'll cost less. And you'll keep your prospects. And your flexibility. But where Hoyer's job is...where the Cubs are...pay up a bit. Get something you know is going to be pretty damn good outside of weird outcomes. Now isn't the time to be cute. Make the team good.

If they drop down the next tier, I think Hoyer is playing with a lot of fire. His job is on the line. Maybe he can get another Imanaga or a Taillon And listen, Taillon's been fine. But he also had a 4.16 xFIP, was worth 2.3 fWAR and had a K% that dipped under 20%. He's a useful addition to the rotation, but I think the Cubs need more than a useful addition here. Time to add something in the tier that hurts. If it's with a top-tier SP? Okay. If it's in lieu of...Hoyer's going to have to really hit a homerun there. Or there's probably going to be a thread about hiring our next VP of baseball ops in 2025 at some point.

Teams have learned that having your players play 135 well rested, healthy, and strong games beats 155 games where an extra 20-30 are banged up, and below full health. Worse yet, it beats playing 100 games because you over extended yourself and got hurt, losing extra games because you played when you were in less than good condition health wise. In a perfect world, your best players would play every game, in full health, with full stamina, in perfect working conditions. But we don't live in that world. Load management, health and the likes are all real things.

Feels like this belong here. Sharma/Mooney posted an article on the Athletic today. There's not a lot there in specifics but two important takeaways. 1, The article mentions that the Cubs "have a fairly clear idea of the position players who should be there for the Tokyo Series". 2. "The Cubs are expected to aggressively pursue pitchers who would strengthen the top of their rotation and the back end of their bullpen". Not that we didn't kind of know these things, it's nice to see the use of aggressive and that the Cubs are looking at the right places in the rotation and the BP. They also mention the Cubs looking for lanes for their top prospects. Which I found interesting. Wonder if that's suggesting they'll go FA route? But could just be part of the article and that they will still make a big trade.

Snell is a good pitcher. He's a weird pitcher in many ways, but he's really good. I'd be alright with that.

The Fielding Bible, which is about the best out there for this kind of stuff had Happ as the third best LF in baseball (though intelligent folks like Eno Saris had him at #1). He was tops for the NL. Swanson and PCA both were both top-3 as well on their voting.

It'll be interesting to see who the Cubs do or don't trade this offseason as they should have some prospects ready to take some spots. Could see the Cubs shimmy out of the last year of a contract early in a trade, even with a player or two who has an NTC (expect it's easier to convince someone to waive one year of a NTC over multiple, especially if you don't expect to resign them).

Yeah. He's just not good. Tauchman is a pretty good player. He's not a star, but he's useful. The Cubs don't need to penny pinch $5m. Now, can the Cubs trade Tauchman for something else? Sure thing! He's better than getting 150 PA's and some team should probably be willing to roll with him as a 4th. They can find a different 5th OF'er. But I don't think any answer for the Cubs on Opening Day should be Alexander Canario as of now.

Canario isn't very good is the issue. He strikes out a third of the time, and he's still in Triple-A. This isn't his first rodeo in Iowa and the contact issues aren't getting a lick better, they're getting worse - a major red flag . His contact rate is sitting at around 60% currently...woefully bad. That's 13% worse than average Triple-A. His MiLB contact rate was lower than every qualified MLB hitter last year. What do we think would happen against MLB pitching instead of Triple-A pitching? He does damage when he makes contact, yes, but the process matters as much if not more here. His processes are really bad as of right now. If you're choosing Canario, someone who has every red flag as a failure of an MLB hitter over a career 101 wRC+ hitter, over his last 700 PA's a 110 wRC+ hitter and positive corner defender...then you're making the choice simply because "we don't know" what Canario can do and he's younger. There's almost no reason to believe he's the better player now or will be any time soon. Just because we don't 100% know, doesn't mean we can almost assuredly educated guess our way to the conclusion that "As it stands, Canario is not going to be successful". To put it another way, Alexander Canario had a 116 wRC+ at Triple-A while Tauchman had a 111 wRC+ at a much more difficult level. The gulf between the two levels is massive as it stands - larger than it's been in a long while. So Canario's 116 wRC+ coupled with a completely unsustainable K% at a lower level should be all we need to see to know that there's no way as it stands he'd be likely to approach a 111 wRC+ in the Majors. I fully suspect if given a chance, Canario is a sub replacement player unless something majorly changes. with his ability to hit a baseball with regularity.

Yeah you *maybe* find an extra $5m over $50m if you really squeeze thrle fruit. Tauchmann probably brings back a player with a contract (like a reliever type), so it might end up being a bit of a wash money-wise. But I think we are well short of $65m as well. $50m is my best case barring a major change of heart at the top levels, which I don't expect.

Okay. Im still going to side with Sahadev Sharma over your math. It's been widely believed the number is roughly $50m. So you're either non-tendering people who aren't being non-tendered or missing something. Or somehow you've found a missing $15m that no one else has found. No shade towards you, but I'm guessing it's an error moreso than the latter considering Sharma and how close he is to the team.

Youre missing something in your math then. It's been reported plenty of times, even dating back to Oct 1st by Sharma in the Athletic that an opt-in would leave the Cubs roughly $50m below that of what they spent in 2024. It would have been around $80m had he opted out. Don't know what youre missing, but that's the number.

Closer to $50m

A bit bummed out, if only because this likely quells some of the options the creativity of the offseason outcomes. With Bellinger, and with Hoerner hurt (not that I really expected the Cubs to move him, just that I think there was a little wiggle room there) it's a little limiting on where the Cubs can change/upgrade offensively. That's not to say the logical side of me cannot understand that Bellinger is not a bad player and that he's a pretty good option, only that the offseason now is going to look a lot more capped in how the Cubs can approach it and I think the flexibility was interesting.

You do you. But if their market value isn't within 25% of what guys are getting paid, that doesn't sound like it's a good market value to be using, to me, considering their real market value is what a team pays them., Buehler ain't going to sign a 1`/$4m deal, just like Fried ain't signing for $136m.