.jpg.900f6d1bc80a5a156f3ba09ea0e4b3d7.jpg)
Jason Ross
-
Posts
7,290 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
58
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Jason Ross
-
I understand being a little uneasy considering that the first time they seemed to struggle to diagnose it correctly, but I think a few things: 1. They claim the imaging was difficult. They saw what they thought was a benign tumor made of bone (what an osteoma is) when the reality was it was a bone stress fracture. I'm not a doctor, but the little reading I've done makes it seem like that's not a wild miss. 2. The Cubs and Ben Brown clearly are focused on the long term outlook versus the short term. Just look at how Brown speaks about it in the article I linked 3. This isn't the first time a team has missed a diagnosis. They do happen. 2024, for example, saw the Houston Astros miss Kyle Tucker's leg fracture. The easy place to jump is that the Cubs are morons, have terrible doctors and that this will be a reoccurring forever issue, but if the Cubs have better diagnosed what appears to be a tricky diagnosis, appear to have a long term plan in place to fix it, than I do think there is comfort there. I'd feel a lot worse if the team was saying this is the exact same thing as 2024 and Ben Brown was talking about coming back in three weeks to help the team, frankly.
-
But if the Angels prefer MLB ready talent why would they want a SP who isn't even going to pitch in 2026? It just doesn't make sense. Beyond that, a third time, I'm going to refrain from names. We can use whatever combination of names to continue to twist ourselves into a pretzel into a scenario where the Cubs are considering trading Ben Brown for Reid Detmers. Logically it makes next to no sense for a team who needs controller Ps to trade a controller, 26 year old P. That's all the logic we need.
-
So the only situation it makes sense is that: 1. You think Ben Brown's basically red-flagged as a starting pitcher for the rest of his career and won't really make it as one 2. The Angels would miss this The Cubs have seemingly better identified the neck injury and are properly fixing it this time so I have a hard time believing this is even a possibility. I'll give you that the Angels are the one organization in baseball that might miss that, but beyond that, I think you're just clinging to a poor position here.
-
Right. But again, when 2027 rolls around you still have to: 1. Fill two SP slots 2. Still have Matt Shaw, Jefferson Rojas, and Pedro Ramirez filling the same single spot 3. Fill two OF spots unless So then you'd likely have to trade for another controlled SP from your prospect pool. You'd end up in the same exact place and for what? To get 2-3 months extra of Shaw or Ramirez? And is the next controlled SP going to have 4+ years of control like Ben Brown? Will they have had as good of a 2026 as Ben Brown? There's no guarantee you'd need to trade ether of Shaw or Ramirez anyways. It just doesn't make sense. The only exception is that you think the Angels would ignore massive injury red-flags like they did with Grayson Rodriguez and in that scenario the Cubs would have had to basically red-flagged Brown's entire career.
-
Yes. I'm fine trading from the young position player pool to get a controlled SP. Shaw, Rojas, Ramirez, Alcantara, Ballesteros, Kepley...this is a pool of players the Cubs can thin and still have young players you're excited about (doesn't even include Hartshorn and Conrad) behind them to solve the biggest organizational need. Many of those players overlap in how the team would use them. Maybe it's not the Angels, maybe it's someone else, but I do think the Cubs are in a place to go get another controlled SP. It would mean you're looking at something around Brown, Steele, new SP, Cabrera, Rea/Assad next year (assuming health) with Wiggins in the wings for 2027, as well.
-
Of course. But you haven't given any reason other than "Ben Brown might not pitch in 2026" as a justification why they would trade him. He's controlled util 2031, he's 26, he's been their best pitcher this year, and it doesn't solve a single issue post-2026 by trading Ben Brown versus moving someone from your pile of MLB-ready prospects that don't have clear pathways to their best utilization. It just doesn't make sense. I think it's pretty safe to take the idea of "would the Cubs trade Ben Brown for a SP?" and put it in the "incredibly unlikely" bucket. "Never say never" in baseball, but it's almost assuredly not going to happen.
-
It's fruitless to worry about specific names. I said that in my initial post. I'm not really interested in that. I gave you some names that, in theory, should interest a team who prefers near-MLB ready talent. If you want Detmers it's going to hurt. You should be prepared to see the list of names in the event they make that trade an go "ouch, that's a lot". No the Cubs aren't trading from their thin MLB pitching depth. They will trade from their position player prospect depth. It's not that deep. To put it another way: do you see how you're trying to turn this into a trade that doesn't hurt the Cubs as much? That's not going to be how this would go down. And while it's true that Shaw is playing often right now, Pedro Ramirez and Matt Shaw are occupying the same general spot. They're primary infielders, with primary infield bats who are capable of playing corner OF. They don't need both to function. Whether it's a trade in July or a trade in the winter, the Cubs cannot just keep taking guys who really aren't corner OF'ers and stick them out there; they can pick one of them but they don't need two of those. Especially with Rojas who's likely nearing a trip to Iowa and will be another player in the same situation, bringing you number to three. It's entirely more likely that the Cubs cash in on that depth than trading a pitcher.
-
Kikuchi kind of sucks. No. He's also hurt. The answer to "what should the Cubs trade to get pitching" is a simple one: you trade from your depth of MLB-ready prospects.
-
You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to justify this. The reason you trade for controlled pitching as opposed to a pending FA to to stack for next year. By trading Ben Brown because, again maybe he doesn't come back this year you solve nothing for 2027. Yes, the Cubs have $100m to solve issues next year. But if you trade Ben Brown out for Reid Detmers, you still need two SP's, and two OF'ers next year. And you're stuck still with Matt Shaw, Pedro Ramirez, Kevin Alcantara and Moises Ballesteros who occupy a lot of the same territory. What do you think is easier to solve? A 10th or 11th man on the bench (what Shaw and Ramirez are being asked to do)? Or a SP?
-
Is the world ending in November 2026? Because if not, the Cubs need pitchers next year, too. Matthew Boyd, Shota Imanaga, Jameson Taillon are all FA's. Cade Horton will not be a factor in 2027, who knows about Justin Steele... You don't just trade Ben Brown because "maybe" he won't be back this year. No, the Cubs are not offering MLB ready P's. Also important to note, according to the team, they better diagnosed his neck injury than they did in 2024.
-
Why are the Cubs, a team who needs pitching, offering MLB ready pitching?
-
I think it's best practice to not compare anything (contracts, how a team operates, etc) to Shohei Ohtani when possible. Ohtani is a unicorn both from a marketing standpoint and from a player standpoint. Organizations treat him like a unicorn. The Angels were in advanced talks just two years ago with the Cubs in July over Logan O'Hoppe who they controlled for years, so the team isn't immune to considering moving a controlled asset. What would he cost? A lot. He's a 3+ year controlled pitcher. I'm not going to speculate on the cost beyond "a lot" because it's usually fruitless to just throw names out. What we do know about the Angels is this: they really like prospects and players who are near MLB ready. The Cubs have Matt Shaw (in the MLB), Pedro Ramirez (in the MLB), Kevin Alcantara (basically in the MLB) and Moises Ballesteros (basically in the MLB). I'm not saying all of those names are available, but presumably, the two would match up well if most of those players were on the table.
-
Wasn't Jordan Wicks slated to start tonight but then it got changed to Kipp? I'd guess it's Wicks up tomorrow.
-
Peterson has only three starts since May 4th. He's not fully stretched out because the Mets have been bouncing him between the rotation and the pen.
-
horsefeathers you Milwaukee.
-
Minor League Discussion & Boxes, 6-27-26
Jason Ross replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
He hit 98mph on his final pitch. -
That's a good five innings from Peterson all things considered. Struck a few out, got some ground balls once he settled in. Two in five against Harrison is fairly admirable.
-
Seeeeeeiiiiiiyaaaa!
-
Damn. That breaker is nasty.
-
Three home runs in his first series in Wrigley, as well.
-
He's only 32 and has been an above average Major Leaguer for a long time. I know we are all frustrated and he's frustrated too. I know it hasn't looked pretty. But I'm having a hard time believing he just is irrevocably broken right now forever. I think there's some toe-injury fallout. I think it's part mental. And part getting older. But I do think he's still a good player. He's just not a good hitter today.
-
Controller was unplugged.
-
Pretty aggressive PA there by Bregman.
-
Minor League Discussion & Boxes, 6-27-26
Jason Ross replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
He's ready. Drive fast and he can pitch the 7th tonight. -
Great first pitch, Dave.
