Jason Ross

Drafting 14th this year, there's no obvious elite talents. It'd be one thing if the Cubs were drafting sixth and you could grab, like, Hagen Smith or Chase Burns? Yeah I wouldn't underslot...take those arms and be happy. Between the guys the Cubs will be picking from, I don't see a single guy you'd look at and say "that guys is so good he's a franchise cornerstone". Not today, at least. There are some nice prospects, it's not like they're drafting garbage, but I don't think there's going to be anyone at 14 that is going to stand out so well that underslotting a similar type prospect won't make sense. Cubs' internal scouting may tell a different story (like maybe they love Cam Smith or something) but that'd be an internal thing we just wouldn't know about. Outside looking in, I don't see anyone so good at 14 that I have to have 'em which makes BPA really hard. I'm not sure there will be any obvious BPA.

This draft feels like the kind of draft you underslot and try to save $700K - $1m in the first. The Cubs have recent history with this type of a draft (2022 with Horton - Ferris) which turned out really well. Malcom Moore fees like he has some...Horton to him? You look at the numbers and you come away a little underwhelmed compared to others, but he apparently models really well and turned it on down the stretch. Made huge improvements on approach this year.

Most recent BA Mock from Calazzo has the Cubs going with James Tibbs at 14 over Yesevage (15), Smith (17), Waldschmidt (24), Moore (30), and Lindsey (31). What's interesting is that in the writeup portion who's name pops up again? Malcom Moore. This seems to be a reoccurring theme recently, where Moore's name keeps getting connected to the Cubs. Just back pocket stuff, but I'd keep that name on a shortlist of "guys the Cubs might draft" in a few weeks if I were you!

First thing that jumped out to me on Dax Whitney is that he's from Idaho; a rare area for draftable prospects. Reason why is because it got me thinking about 2022 when the Cubs went out and drafted Brock Blatter in the last handful of rounds (16? Around there). Blatter was from Montana; same-ish region. Sadly, the Cubs weren't able to get Blatter in; they kind of ran out of bonus money snagging up guys like JP Wheat (which was a find choice, then and now!), but they've show a willingness to scout that region and find prep arms in that region. I'm still on quite bullish on PJ Moralando as my "please, draft this guy in the 2nd round!" soap box pick, but I wonder if the Cubs are more likely to snag a guy like Whitney though.

How many times can 1908 and TT post the same thread? Added an extra question for you! 🤣

I wouldn't even say Triantos is "chasing" too much. I think it comes down to "good strtikes" and "bad strikes", too. It's kind of hard to tell...I'll admit the last 1.5 months of my life has been a lot. I'm in the process of purchasing a home, so I'm moving, packing, looking at houses, filing paperwork...let's put it this way, I'm dying in this house! But also, these games are hard to see, there's no K-zone and we don't have data. So it's not so much that I think Triantos doesn't know the zone, but maybe, struggles a bit to know the best pitches to hit always. Does that make sense? He's just a guy who knows he can hit most of the things he's thrown at Double-A. It's kind of what I'm excited to get the Savant stuff. I'd like to see his swing decision heat map. I'm just guessin' here and trying my best to take my anecdotal data (the eye test) make it actual real data. In the end, that will either support or not my opinion. And hell, I'm not always right, far from it! Guys with strong hit tools generally have to learn when it's best to not hit the ball, if that makes sense? And I'm not sure if there's any skill that's an "easy" change, approach changes can sometimes be the hardest; look at Javier Baez! It comes down to the individual. Triantos has done well to add pop to his game (a common shortfall) so we can apply the idea that he's receptive to change here and hope that if the Triple-A data suggests what I'm intimating, that he's the type capable of giving it a good old college try. With Ballesteros, I'd be pretty patient on walk rates and whatever for Triple-A. We're at small sample size. His contact% isn't even particularly "good" there right now. I think we know that the bat to ball is transferable skill he has, and I'd expect over big data sets things to calm down and settle into a normal pattern. This is a 20 year old kid, facing the best pitching he's ever faced. The same with Shaw, Triantos, and others...it's always really good to take the first bit of data with a grain of salt until that sample gets into the 100 PA range. Even then, there's so much with learning the league, new fields, new arms, new talent levels...

According to the Athletic, in an article co-authored by Patrick Mooney (which likely gives the credentials), the Yankees and Rangers are specifically mentioned as teams eyeing the Cubs, and more specifically, Cody Bellinger. There's nothing really of note outside of that; no names coming back discussed, nor any real mention of how likely the Cubs would be to consider it.

Hey, it's cool if we differ here, @Bertz we're talking subjective things. And you're not wrong, sometimes when guys go on heaters, they walk less. But it's not a hard and fast rule, either. Two of the other Cubs great hitting prospects have seen heaters in Tennessee as well, and neither has stopped walking full-stop. Ballesteros maintained his walks through his entire time in Tennessee, and even over Shaw's monster heater he's walked 11 times. All of this is anecdotal, we can find data points to support either side, so please don't think I'm making hard-and-fast-rules, too. But I'm going to be honest with you; I do have issues with his approach as is. I do think he's too swing happy. As stated, the hope is that this is a "I'm too good for Double-A" and he'll settle back in a bit at Triple-A. I also think that MiLB numbers can hide process issues behind "I'm too good" for a level (which I think is helping his walk case earlier and at lower levels). Again, anecdotal, but Canario's 29 K% in Triple-A, for example isn't great, but doesn't signal "third-worst-contact% in the INT League" either. Pete Crow-Armstrong's walk rate/K% rates in Double-A didn't suggest a process issue on the surface, but he, too, has struggled with process and swing decision at both the Triple-A and MLB level. And not tooting-my-own-horn, but was something I was concerned about with PCA at Double-A, myself - his swing decisions. Not comparing the two directly; Triantos has better bat-to-ball and less hole in his swing, just using PCA as an example of how MiLB K%/B%% can hide the minutia and the process. I do think it's something to monitor on Triantos. He's cleared the "add power to his game" hurdle, which I was most concerned about. It's okay if you don't see the same thing to monitor! Like I said, we're talking subjective stuff. I had similar concerns with Shaw last year at High-A! I think he's done a really good job to assuage them this year. I think James Triantos is more than capable of making process changes, too. So, just because it's something I feel is worth monitoring and pointing out, doesn't mean I'm down on him, or super concerned. But I think it's his "next hurdle" to clear moving forward and will be the first thing I look at in the data once he (rigthtfully) makes his way to Iowa shortly.

This feels like the draft I'm playing signability games with. Grab someone like Malcom Moore (if you think he can stick at catcher) or Ryan Walldschmidt (if you think you can get him to play CF) or another one of these guys and see which one of these guys are going to sign for under slot. It's unlikely you'd save full slot, but the difference between 14 and 20 is about $1m and this draft, there's not a huge difference between the 13th and 25th picks. Hell, there might not be a big difference between 20 and 54 (the Cubs 2nd round pick). It's probable you could save $700K there and float another kid down to 54 you liked, and take two bites of the apple instead of one.

Just to compare here, but Moises Ballesteros had, over his last 33 games in Tennessee, a 135 wRC+, 11 XHB and 21 K's but also managed 12 walks. Over his last 33 games in Tennessee, Triantos has a 149 wRC+, 11 XBH, 12 K's and 3 walks. I think it's safe to assume that there are/were walks to be taken, as Ballesteros hit the same amount of XBH, but walked 4x as much while being a similar menace to Double-A pitching. I don't think the two have to be identical (as I said, I don't think he needs to walk 10% of the time! - Triantos and Ballesteros are different and succeed differently), but hitters who are good at making contact with the baseball and punishing Double-A pitching still do generally get their walks in regardless of how good they are for that level. When hitters aren't getting any walks, it usually says something. I think two things can be happening here, and it's probably a bit of column A and B. I highlighted, in the post you responded to, that this could be some "I'm just too good for Double-A". Which it probably is; his hit tool is really good! But there's also, almost assuredly, a bit of a "happy swing" issue here, too, in that being too good for Double-A has reinforced some swing decisions that won't/can't play up as pitchers get better at exploiting those flaws. That doesn't mean it's some sort of fatal flaw either. I fully believe every single prospect has something to work on at every single level to achieve their best outcomes. For Ballesteros, it'd be improving his defense. For Owen Caissie, I'd like to see him crack into the game power a bit more and find some loft. For James Triantos, it's probably refining swing decisions. While we don't have Savant-data for double-A, from an anecdotal point of view and what I've seen of him, he tends to swing and get away with some decisions at the Double-A level that I think will begin to be a bit of an issue for him at higher levels when pitchers are more capable of using it against him. If he was perfect in all regards, well, these guys would be on the Cubs active roster! I think it's fair to point out the "polishes" as much as we should celebrate the wins. That's not a referendum on Triantos to say "I think he probably could walk more"; it's just a statistical symptom of a weakness in his game; I do think he's a bit swing happy and the best version of Triantos is likely going to have to better balance "I can hit this pitch" with "Should I hit this pitch?". He doesn't need to be a 10% walk rate guy, but I think the best version of Triantos is likely going to have to learn that. It's not an uncommon thing for plus hit-tool kids to have to learn, either.

I'd be surprised to see the Cubs take Honeycutt, personally. He has a profile of a hitter that the Cubs, under the Dan Kontrovitz draft model, have largely shied away from in the first few rounds. They've tended to go hit over power profile's at the top: with players like Shaw/Triantos and even Ed Howard a bit (though that I think was 2020 fueled and they went with the safe prep-glove at SS, but that's a guess). They tend to expand the profile of hitters they're interested once they get deeper into the rounds (with guys like Alfonsin Rosario and Zyhir Hope, for example). It's pretty easy to dream on Honeycutt's upside, but I haven't seen the Cubs really go for that profile at the top of a draft in a while. Maybe they break the mold, but if that's the name they call I'll be surprised.

Yeah, the amount of walks Triantos isn't taking is probably slept on as much as his stolen base total, IMO. He's walked three times since May 28th, and just five times over his last 33 games. That's a 3.4% walk rate. And while I don't want to draw too direct of a a comparison here, Pete Crow-Amrstrong had a similar "I'm going to just swing" profile...and he nearly tripled that rate in Double-A. There's a lot of really good things going on with Triantos right now, but his approach remains a work in progress. Not everyone has to walk 10%+ of the time, but I think almost everyone needs to be able to walk near-ish 5% of the time and James doesn't look overly likely to do that as of today. Hopefully this is a "I am just too good at Double-A" symptom, but it's hard to really say that's also not a real flaw in his game.

Feels like "moving day" has to be coming soon for a pretty big group of kids. There's a handful of guys in Tennessee (Shaw, Triantos, Birdsell, to name a few) who probably need to get to Iowa. Following them, Ed Howard should move to Tennessee with a few others. Myrtle Beach should probably see Hernandez and Preciado, possibly Wiggins and a few others move to SB, as well.

Selfless plug...but...

Haha forgive me, I had edited my post before you had posted this because I realized I didn't read correctly. I had caught my mistake but seems like it wasn't fast enough for you not to have to do extra legwork! Whoops!

Nevermind, I read the post again and assume Brandon Woodruff counts as one of those 2023 injuries. I cant read!

Yeah, I don't think we disagree on the overall premise. I did say, "I think it's a bit silly" in my original post you quoted; it does feel a bit crazy. And it's not that I'm not trying to defend Hoyer, but when the market seems as frozen as it does (Arraez is the only even medium trade out there), it's hard to throw it on the feet of Jed and suggest he could have ripped this cord on his own. It would seem based on the Arraez trade that Bendix is willing to deal, but kind of like how the A's were pretty unrealistic on Esuery Ruiz, they might have been super high on like, Dillon Head or Mortorella comparative to the rest where as they might be less enthused with like Alexander Canario or Michael Arias. It's just really hard to pin point how one team views a prospect versus another. I just think there's more to it than an easy button push. Perhaps Jed Hoyer is being too scared to make a trade. But it could just as realistically be other teams setting prices too high. As of now, with Assad also hitting the IL, it may be a slight blessing in disguise that the Cubs haven't made a Scott-type trade, because they're getting to a point where the team is so hurt, and so far out of it, that I don't think a Tanner Scott could have saved this mess they find themselves in. Maybe the hole would be less deep had they gotten Scott 45 days ago, but maybe not. Lot of what if's here that are unknowable.

Nothing is fun.

Yes. But college catchers, like Malcom Moore, do not. Almost all teams are using pitchcom currently, and the calls are being made from the dugout, relayed to both catcher and pitcher via their watch.

I mean...maybe on Tanner Scott? I'm not trying to give Jed a pass here, but at the same time, it's really hard for us to say what the Marlins thought process is here. For example, Scott started off pretty rough this year. Through the first of May, Scott was walking more hitter than striking them out. From 2021-2022 Scott ran walk rates north of 14.7% both years. The Marlins, likely, would be holding out hope that Scott turned that walk rate around - what's the use of trading one of your few good remaining chips at his lowest point? Other teams are likely looking at 2021, 2022 and the first month of 2024 and saying "listen, I've seen this story before". So you've got a team unlikely to sell him at his low point and teams unlikely to pay the regular price too. Credit to Scott, he's turned it around. At the same distinction, no other team has traded for Scott either, and the Cubs aren't the only team with BP issues right now. So while we can say "Jed should have traded for Scott by now!" I think there's nuance there. I don't entirely disagree that the Cubs probably should have been more aggressive. I think you probably could have gotten Scott, or Hunter Harvey or something and paid a little extra from the Canario/Davis/Arias tier of prospects and been fine. We can also fault the Cubs for being one reliever short entering the season. But I can also see a world where the Marlins were being stingy on their end here, too, and Scott not being so available unless you were willing to pay for 2023 Scott with Early-2024 Scott production being your current data point. With the A's...I think there's two leverage guys; Mason Miller and Lucas Erceg. I think Mason Miller is almost unobtainable as of today. Erceg is more attainable, but has 4.5 years of control left - I cannot imagine he's cheap, either.

If I was guessing today I think the Cubs will be looking at: Tibbs. Yesavage, Smith, Waldschmidt, and Lindsey and both Moores (Malcom and Christian). I think Christian and Tibbs will be off the board, as will Yesavage. I would be surprised if the Cubs went with Honeycutt based on the Cubs previous first round college bats. They tend to prefer guys who model really well (which Honeycutt does) but also guys who go hit over power, which Honeycutt does not. So my early betting would be on Waldschmidt, Malcom Moore, Smith and Lindsey.

I think this is the general issue...most teams just aren't ready to give up today. The teams who are giving up, like the A's, Rockies and White Sox don't have much to trade outside of the like, Crochet/Robert/Miller types (which isn't to say we should ignore bigger trades, just that those are the only things of interest they really have). Which then puts you in a situation where you have to force a team to trade those guys; likely by overpaying (The Mets reportedly wanted Caissie for Alsonso. We all know that's not what it'll end up costing whomever buys Alonso in July if he's traded, but goes to show where some of these teams are holding the ransom line today - even if that's still never going to happen). It takes two to tango and baseball teams have kind of all decided with the number of WC spots open that trading is a last moment thing. I think it's a bit silly myself, but I wonder how much can realistically be done right now outside of grabbing the Nitolli's and (Tyson) Miller's of the world and hoping they work out. Once you get in a situation where the Cubs are, you almost have to find a way to tread water until July 15th or later.

While a fun anecdote provided by Billy Beane, it's simply an anecdote. I also don't think it necessarily applies here; Malcom Moore may have that same mental understanding at the plate but defensively, may a greater understanding of the game or a far better way to articulate that understand versus his peers; an important quality for catcher that other positions simply don't need to have. I think it's counter productive and silly to think any one sitting behind our computers knows exactly what Moore said to impress teams. I can also say from years of watching the draft, most fans (and this is directed at no one in particular, yourself included CubinNY) have no idea what they're talking about at the draft. They throw fits when the Cubs take guys like Cade Horton because they think teams are making snap judgements based on two starts at the end of the year (when they're picks that have been in the making for years) and pine over players who fail. I'm guilt of not liking Jordan Wicks and a few other draft picks who look like good baseball players, myself. Nature of the beast! Point is, if good drafting baseball teams think that Malcom Moore said something really important in those interviews, it's probably fair to believe what he said mattered. Considering he "blew away" the "entire industry", the assumption is that very well run teams do think that. What he said? I don't know and Doyle didn't really say. But it's probably worth noting that Moore is doing an saying everything right and that's not nothing. If you had him and Walter Janek, for example, neck and neck in terms of catching prospects...this may give the edge to Moore.