Jason Ross

I think there's a fair reason to question whether or not Hoyer should be fired or not. Part of this simply isn't his fault, though, some of this is. Secondly, I'm not certain there's a clearly better option. I think ultimately he'll get another year, but the way it's going, my confidence in that is waning.

I mean, to be fair, there's a thread dedicated to one of these that's five pages long just below this.

Malcom Moore is a catcher. It's likely not that he is smart, it's likely how he talks about and understands the game. Moore's defensive game has been questioned. So it could be that Moore was very capable of of discussing things such as a strong understanding of his own game, his changes needed, or more likely even than that, a really strong understanding of pitch calling, pitch mixes, game flow, etc...the types of things that catchers are largely in charge of at higher and higher levels of playing. For someone like Moore who, as stated, has questions about his defensive work, not only being able to articulate these things well, but seemingly, incredibly well, would likely be able to convince teams that he's far more capable of sticking at catcher than previously believed. As a catcher, Moore is stud considering the belief is that he will hit well at the next levels. Which is what I'll assume Doyle means when he says "he made himself a lot of money".

Consider me whelmed.

To add, FG did a list of notable combine performances and listed Kellen Lindsey, who's gotten some connections to the Cubs, as the first player listed who stood out in a positive way. Got some Trea Turner comps. He's a fast riser. I'm guessing as it sets up today that the Cubs take a college hitter up top; the draft is college heavy, and specifically in the mid-range, college-hitter heavy unless Ysevege makes it to #14 (which seems unlikely). But I suspect after their college hitter, the Cubs go heavy pitching. Speaking of the FG article, guy I'm keeping tabs on now and doing homework on is PJ Morlando. He had an awesome display out there, looks like a 2nd round overslot prep-bat. He's filled out at 6"3, 200lbs already. Big power in the bat. Someone is going to get a really good corner bat/1b bat in the 2nd there. Different profiles, but similar in how I felt to Owen Caissie in 2020: that's a bat you want in your system if you can make it work. Especially in a prep-weak class.

I don't think you're very wrong there. The amount of things I can create, manipulate and the such with Baseball Savant, TruMedia and Fangraphs is crazy. And I'm just some moron at home. People who are much more intelligent than me can manipulate these things to create almost any data set they could dream of. I do think most people have, at their finger tips (and if they have the understanding) the tools to find out just about anything. Or at least, anything that's so close to being the ballpark of the absolute answer that it's well within an acceptable range. The one caveat I'd give is that I don't think defensive metrics are as reliable as, say, pitching/batting stats and I think there's a degree of "iffy" to them. I find them the best we have available and far more useful than "Well I think I saw this" kind of defensive scouting people are wont to do., but I think they're a little behind. OAA is getting very close and DRS is good...but I think they need just a bit more marinated time to really hit those levels.

Sure! But what magical data do you think suggests outside of a Crystal Ball that could even half suggest that Hector Neris was going to turn from a pretty good reliever to, essentially, the worst reliever in baseball? I can concede that he's 35 and logged lots of innings - sometimes 35 year old relievers just fall off like that. It's a real thing, and it happens. But many of the times it happens not as a random roll of the dice. When these things happen, more times than naught, there's a trail of data that anyone can find. I have no doubt the Cubs have powerful data; far more powerful than I can pull from. But there are times when no amount of data equates to a crystal ball and if we're going to go on the assumption that Jed Hoyer (or any GM) should be capable of predicting the future without fail, then you're simply never going to be happy with any baseball operations management ever. It seems with Neris, you're more than likely asking him to have had a crystal ball to predict that the 35 year old was just going to fall apart more so than asking him to have found any trail of data that existed. I've got no issues being critical of Hoyer. I've been critical in the past. I can find plenty of faults. But I think blaming Hoyer for Neris feels like "I'm mad and want to assign blame to someone" more-so than it's just the cost of doing business. Sometimes mid-30's relievers fall apart. But that's also why you stick to one year contracts, which the Cubs did (unless they allow it to vest, which feels very unlikely).

I'm not saying that the Cubs bullpen is better than the Brewers, you're moving the goalposts (and I'm fairly sure you know you're doing that). Let's try to have a good-faith discussion. I have already given plaudits to the Brewers organization. They do great. No one here is saying the Cubs bullpen has been good or better than Milwaukee. Beyond that, we can discuss why I think the record is a bit misleading later, if you'd like, but staying within the discussion we were having (the Cubs hit-rate on reclamations), it has little bearing. You were complaining that the Cubs miss too often on relievers and throw games away, which suggested the Milwaukee Brewers didn't have guys they scouted come in, and suck. The Brewers have thrown, essentially, 88 IP out of their BP this year to 0 fWAR or negative fWAR relievers. I listed off about 10 guys there who have been anywhere from "not great" to "really bad". These are the same Richard Lovelady and Colton Brewer types the Cubs have tried (and failed) with in similar amounts of innings. If we want to highlight the 5 IP that Lovelady gave the Cubs, we should also point out the Thyago Viera's for Milwaukee. They're not infallible; clearly they churn through mediocre to bad relievers. That's the point of my post. Due to their relative health, they're more capable of doing that. You can dump a guy in 3 IP if you have the depth to do so. The Cubs have not had that depth when they have, at any point, 4-5 of their BP guys already on the IL. Comparing the '24 Cubs BP to the Brewers is probably fair in ways but also unfair in ways. If we are talking about the Cubs, three of their eight best pre-season projected arms are on the 60-man IL. The Brewers have lost Williams, but the rest of their pre-season projected BP remains largely in tact outside of Devin Williams. They entered with a better BP and haven't faced the injury issue the Cubs have. That's both something that the Brewers should get points in (constructing a better BP) but also should probably be noted; the only injuries their BP has sustained is Williams and the previously mentioned bad Uribe. Williams is a loss, but they haven't faced the sheer adversity the Cubs have had to there. I doubt, for example, they'd have the sixth best ERA if they were missing Williams, Megill, and Hudson all year, while intermittently missing a few other guys.

I know you do. You know I love you Bitts. We are all frustrated. I just get less frustrated because I have taught middle school for 13+ years now. There's almost nothing that can affect me now a days. My emotions are all dead.

The first line is my exact point: we kind of do know, though. We know what conveys the most from MiLB to the MLB and what signals likely success. It's not bat speed. It's not EV. It's contact rate, swing decisions and the like. It's one of the most consistent identifiers of MLB success. So far Canario has 40 PA's in the majors...he's struck out 40% of the time. You know what his contact rate is? Under 60%. We can safely assume that a player who can't make 62% of contact on his swings in Triple-A will be that level or worse at the MLB level. 40 PA's isn't enough to say anything definitive, but it's also exactly what we should expect from him; that data tracks. We can also safely assume that if he does that, he will not find success at the MLB level. It's super rare for hitters to take a contact rate below 63% and find any sort of success with it. Brent Rooker was able to find success at that level last year, but he's in the 93% of barrel rate, 91st in hard hit and 85th in LA sweet spot. He's even higher in those categories today. So unless we think Canario is going to be in the 90% or above in terms of damage when he makes contact...I think we have to assume he's more Nolan Gorman 2024 than Brent Rooker 2023. Even if he's a 100 wRC+ hitter, he's a mediocre fielder at best. What do you think a 100 wRC+ RF'er with mediocre defense is worth? Alex Verdugo has a 100 wRC+ and is worth .9 fWAR...but he has +8 DRS/+1 OAA. It took him 77 games to get there. It's more likely today that he comes in 20% lower than league average than league average making it much more likely he's a 0 fWAR guy than a .9 fWAR guy in 300 PAs. We can use the "maybe" arguments and "we don't know" all we want, but we know better. I've got 0 PA's at the MLB level. Maybe I can have a 100 wRC+. We don't know. But we do. We do know. We know that's a bad idea. Much like we can take a few minutes, look at Canario's processes, compare him to other MLB hitters and we can say "oh, yeah, that won't work". It's a losing proposition. Sure, maybe he just BABIPs people to death and is great for 200 PA's before he sucks. But that's the worst way to do this because anyone could have a lucky tear. It's how likely someone is to actually help. You might win the lottery tonight! But much like Canario being good (unless something seriously changes), you probably won't.

The Brewers and the Rays have countless misses too. Abner Uribe has 14 IP this year, an ERA just south of 7. That's more innings than Brewer and Lovelady combined with the Cubs. In fact, in their 2024 bullpen alone, they've given 22 IP to Thyago Viera (-,3 fWAR), 8.1 IP to Mitch White (-.2 fWR), 2 IP to Owen Miller (-.1 fWAR), 3 IP to Jacob Junis (-.1 fWAR). Over those 35 IP, the Brewers have gotten -.6 fWAR. This doesn't include the other 52.4 IP the Brewers have given to guys like the aforementioned Uribe, Jake Bauers, Kevin Herget, Janson Junk...who have accounted for 0 fWAR. The point I'm making is this: if you're going to find the Bryan Hudson's and the Julian Merryweathers you're going to find more Thyago Vieras and Michael Ruckers. We just don't pay attention to the Thyago Viera's because we don't watch the Milwaukee Brewers very much, but we do notice the Michael Ruckers because we pay attention daily to the Cubs. I'm not saying that there are times the Cubs have missed, or let someone go early. Or that they're imperfect. Just that while it's easy to remember the Cubs misses, these teams have tons of misses too...you're just not really paying attention to them.

That feels like a balanced approach to this.

I don't think anyone here is giving Jed Hoyer the amount of praise you think they're giving him. A few posts up I brought up three signings alone that I didn't love and I fault the Cubs for not catching underlying information that suggested all three were bad. I think there is middle ground that people don't want to see on Hoyer. Sometimes it's his fault. Sometimes best laid plans go awry. I don't see much in the process to sign Neris that suggests it wasn't a fine plan that has gone poorly. I can find plenty of fault elsewhere. As with almost everything, there's layers and nuance. On the flip side, it feels unfair to one post before this suggest that the Cubs should be scouting pitchers who they can improve only to suggest that Bellinger, who had been poor previously, and then found success again, is luck. It can't be both. You can't want the Cubs to scout, find players they can improve and then get mad and say "well it's all luck!" when the Cubs do what you suggest. I also think the Cubs have done a pretty good job finding some reclamations. Julian Merryweather was a cast off. Bellinger was a cast off. Javier Assad wasn't a big prospect. Shota Imanaga was probably, on paper, the 6th or 7th best SP to most and he's been nothing but a huge win (price and outcomes). Yency Almonte was showing signs of being a win. The Cubs grabbed Michael Busch from the Dodgers; who, was, yes, a good prospect, but I don't think anyone thought he'd have the third best wRC+ at his position mid-way-through-2024. Mike Tauchman is another. To a lesser extent they've drawn value out of guys like Patrick Wisdom off the bench. He's not really a massive win, but he was free and has had more than one moment of usefulness I'd love it if they could find even more like the Brewers. Or the Rays. Those are some great orgs that do more with less. But those are also riskier propositions. They had the patience with Trevor Megill that the Cubs didn't. Good on'em. They had the patience with Bryan Hudson that the Cubs and the Dodgers didn't have. Good on 'em! The Cubs in 2024 probably weren't in a position to just...take random stabs at former failed prospects. They went with something that felt more safe in, say, Neris. That's both the benefit of having money to spend. Sadly, Neris hasn't worked out. But I think if I asked you entering 2024 who looked better, Hector Neris of Bryan Hudson...the former was the easy answer. And I think almost any baseball org would have agreed...probably even the Brewers if they were being honest.

There's no way that a relief pitcher who would have mid-3's ERA should get a 1 year, $9m contract? Because that's what Neris got, with a vesting option, if he gets to 60 games. I can bet heavily that the Cubs will ensure he won't get to 60 with how bad he's been. So, it's going to be a 1/$9m. What kind of contract do you think Hector Neris should have gotten? FG crowd sourced had him at 2/$16m.

Was it? What made it a head scratcher? The Cubs needed a BP arm. They signed Neris, who had been a positive reliever for years. The xFIP suggested some luck, but the FIP was still mid-3, the K% was 28% (which was down a smidge from his career 29.6% but not massively). The velocity was fine. He had no injury history. He was worth .8 fWAR which was the same as Julian Merryweather in 2023. It's not even like Neris was getting worse as the year went on; his best month was September. And sure, I think it was clear he wasn't going to keep a 1.71 ERA, but he signed a one year deal (with a vesting option we'll likely get out of) that doesn't suggest the Cubs thought he was going to post a >2.00 ERA again. Sometimes it's Hoyer's fault for missing things. I think it was Hoyer's fault for signing Eric Hosmer in 2023; it was clear after the calendar turned over in May of 2022, that Hosmer was toasted and he wasn't going to approach a 105 wRC+. I think it's Hoyer's fault for signing Trey Mancini to a 1+1 deal, who had a terrible second half of 2022 and suggested athleticism-wise he was toasted. I think it's Hoyer's fault for signing Tucker Barnhart to a 1+1 deal. All of that seemed bad at the time. In other situations I think we can take a step back and say "well, what was he supposed to have, a crystal ball?" and I think Neris is one. There's little to suggest Neris was going to implode this bad. Computer projections didn't hate Neris. There weren't glaring issues with velocity. There weren't super-scary underlying data. Look at his Savant Page. What issues do you see in the 2023 year that suggested this implosion was coming?

I've seen it intimated a few places he's 5"10 after some google searching, but they're all "according to some", like this article from Bleed Cubbie Blue or just listed like in this one from NSBB. There doesn't appear anything official, however and these articles come from 2022 and 2023.

You know me better to suggest I'm using horsefeathers statistics. And right now, PCA isn't helping offensively; you won't see me disagree there. But I think we need to take our frustrations and put them in a box if we're going to evaluate PCA, his future, and his current struggles. Prospects take immense patience (and probably more so now than ever - the best prospects in baseball are struggling in initial MLB callups), even more so when we're talking about non-elite offensive prospects (which PCA is), even more so when we're talking a prospect who's not played a ton of Triple-A baseball (which PCA hasn't). I am as frustrated at the 2024 Cubs as any one. But I don't believe at any point the Chicago Cubs expected Pete Crow-Armstrong to have been the defacto starting CF, having played 43 MLB games, on June 26th after only 26 games in Triple-A with a 98 wRC+ and a K% over 27%, either. I think we can all make a safe assumption that that was not in the pre-season plans. Multiple injuries in the OF early and players struggling to hit have created a perfect storm for this right now. So PCA was thrown into the deep end, probably too early, and has struggled. That's not a shocking outcome, don't you think? On his future...we'll have to remain patient. There's still a good player in there. But it's probably going to require more time.

Do we think that training, stretching and biometrics were going to make Adbert Alzolay (a history of injuries) not hurt his forearm? Or not break a bone in Merryweatehr's back? Or fix, whatever doctors can't really understand (and there seems to be medical confusion here - it's been reported they don't know what's really holding him back) on Almonte? Usually when a rash of injuries hit, it's less to do with the medical team and more along bad luck, bad timing, and events that were always going to happen. When teams miss injuries, it's usually because of positive luck. It's one thing if the Cubs were throwing their pitchers more than other teams, and the Cubs were seeing a rash of TJS. I think it's another when we look at how these guys got hurt. This is pretty assuredly bad luck.

His overall numbers look good! But his underlying numbers paint an ugly picture of someone who's bound to fail. Only two hitters in the International League currently have worst contact rates than Canario's ~61%. This is almost 12% below league average. As well, his in-zone-whiff of 28% is bottom-5. It's not even like this is a skill he's improving on; it's 60% over his last few weeks (including his bonkers home run stretch) and it's down 7% from 2023. He's regressing. I've posted it other places, but the only MLB hitter with contact rates in this range (in-zone, o-zone, in-zone-whiff, contact%...) is Nolan Gorman, who owns a 95 wRC+ (.197/.271/.418), is striking out 35% of the time, and has been a 0 fWAR player this season. He was better last year, but his contact rates and swing choices were much better. So the best case scenario for Canario, right now, looks like Nolan Gorman's 2024. But even that is a best case...it's probable that Canario's contact rate against better pitching will not start at the 61% range, for example. The processes matter more than the lines when we're projecting what we expect Canario to do. That's not to say Canario is always going to suck, but that right now, he probably would. And sure, he might go on one of those nuclear weeks where he hits five bombs and has a .400 average - kind of like Patrick Wisdom. But between the two nuclear weeks he has all season, you're probably looking at 40% strike out rates, little offensive production, no real defensive ability....so you're just gambling that those nuclear weeks are coming soon and you can avoid the latter.

Was about to mention that. I think I've read he's closer to 5"10 or 5"11 now. But don't quote me on that. That's probably his height when he signed his IFA deal. I'd assume he's grown a few inches

If the Cubs win-now-mode hinged on a 22 year old prospect who has a little over 50 games in Triple-A (he's played almost the same amount of MLB games) being an instant 4 fWAR player, than the Cubs have bigger issues than we know about. Considering the Cubs resigned Bellinger, I'd assume the team was not suspecting to have needed 43 games out of PCA n the first half of the season.

Being fair to Ballesteros, I'd guess his defense is more on par with being in South Bend. So his bat is probably two levels above that of his defense. It's the good and the bad of being so advanced as a hitter; as a hitter he's going to force his way to Iowa well before he's ready defensively there. Hopefully the Cubs can crash course him. Realistically, he's probably going to hit well enough that his defensive ability may never catch up and he'll just go the DH route because of it.

The number 1 prospect on the Orioles couldn't hit MLB pitching either. PCA is 22. He's barely seen Triple-A. And the jump from Triple-A to the MLB is getting larger. He's not hitting yet. I think he may never be a great hitter. But he doesn't have to be a great hitter. Brenton Doyle is currently showing what kind of value you can bring at an 87 wRC+ this year as long as you play great defense and run the bases really well; he's up to 1.4 fWAR in 75 games. He does it a little differently than probably PCA will, but point remains. Hell, he was a positive fWAR guy last year with a 43 wRC+! PCA just needs more time.

Being a slightly better hitter won't change his value though. What PCA is giving away offensively will easily be offset in that he's still a plus fWAR player due to defense and speed. There's nothing to suggest to me in the data that Canario is anything but, at best, a replacement level player today. If you want to make an argument that the Cubs need to put PCA back in Iowa because you think that's where he needs to develop, we can discuss that - that argument has merit. Who they replace PCA with in the lineup, right now, is kind of hard to figure out because there isn't an obvious answer; all of the options suck in their own right,. But the argument that the Cubs just need to do something different, and that the difference is "play Canario" isn't going to result in a net positive for the Cubs right now and that should be noted. A lot of this seems to stem from "well we just don't know what Canario will do" but the underlying data on Canario right now paints an ugly picture of a guy who's going to just come up, and strike out 40% of the time. He may add 20 points of wRC+ over PCA currently, but that won't offset the defense. He won't make the Cubs better and I do believe it will make them actively worse. And maybe that's fine. If the balance between "winning MLB games" and "developing PCA" is shifting, then sending the more useful MLB player down for Canario might be a fine tradeoff. I just think we should understand going into it that Canario isn't really looking like much of a help and that any added offense people think is coming is probably going to be much less noticeable than they realize.

Eh. Not sure I agree with that. The baseballs are very different from double to triple-A. Look at how BJ Murray and Cade Horton have struggled in initial time. PCA as well. The jump from Triple-A to the MLB is larger, today, than Double-to-Triple-A. But there's still a real step up.