Jason Ross

No idea. Interesting to note: Triantos also out tonight. Not talking trade, but could be moving day?

The hope is that Jed Hoyer has had an ability to reflect on his roster building, understand that the Cubs are truly lacking the best-of-the-best types of talents and addresses that a bit more significantly this offseason. Juan Soto is a name the Cubs should entirely go get, for example. They should be willing to swing a fairly large trade as well. I don't feel confident that Hoyer's introspective like that. But crazier things have happened.

I'd say it's deeper than Condon/Bazzana; hell, as of now, it looks like neither are going 1.1 (J.J. Weatherholt is the clubhouse leader) but either Condono or Bazzana can go as low as 1.5! I've got eight guys in my top-tier of prospects currently. There's a few guys in the 9-12 range I think stand out a little more than others...and then pretty steep drop. But yeah, the range where the Cubs are taking guys? It's a crapshoot. I think some team will convince themselves one of these guys is a star. Cam Smith, or James Tibbs are guy I think I can see a team believing that. But outside of a team really buying into one of them? I suspect there will be a lot of teams who have guy similarly rated and will go with signability.

That's not the point of that post, Cuzi. I am well aware of how you feel about Jed. I'm not super-team-Jed either at this stage. Only explaining, even if the Cubs trade players like Happ or Taillon at the deadline, it wouldn't be in the idea of a rebuild based on how that tweet interpreted Morosi. It wasn't a discussion about Hoyer's ability to perform that move, it was an explanation of what the move would be akin to. If the Cubs were doing a 2021 tear down, I fully expect Hoyer would have to be fired before the deadline. That he hasn't been should signal that whatever the Cubs are doing, it will not be a tear down, rebuild. If they trade players it will be to use whatever they get (financial flexibility, prospects, whatever) to attempt to put a competitive team on the field next year.

It's Morsi, so TIFWIW. But based on the way that tweet framed his interview, it doesn't sound like a rebuild. Call it whatever you want, but it sounded like the Cubs were going to try to either get financial flexibility to spend next offseason and/or get prospects which would help the roster (presumably they'd be younger prospects but that doesn't meant they can't be traded later or used to restock the system on other trades). How effective you believe Hoyer is at making that is also a personal opinion. But it sounds very much like Hoyer's seat ain't that hot if he's willing to trade those players. And considering his deal is up in 2025, he still has to put forth a fairly competitive team if he hopes to have a contract in 2026.

Not to speak for TT, but let's say the Cubs trade...Taillon to clear money (that we have assurances will remain in the budget next year). Maybe it's a Happ or a Suzuki. You know, just someone who makes $15-20m. But let's say they also make their version of a Jose Berrios trade like the Jays did in 2021; they were 4th place in the AL East and 5 games out of a WC spot and brought in a controllable SP for the next few years. I'm not going to speculate exactly who that is, I think any trade like that would be a bit of a shock. But that'd be a way you could do both: you trade some now and you add some for later. That's just a rough outline...there'd be more. Just...stuff like that. I don't think it has to be all one or all the other.

The trade I keep coming back to is the Blue Jays trade for Jose Berrios in 2021. Toronto was 52-48, but they were also in fourth place, in a stacked AL East and almost 5 games out of a WC spot. It's a bit different considering the Jays were probably closer to making the playoffs in 2021 than the the Cubs are in 2024. but they made that trade for the next few years. Who's the Cubs Berrios? I don't know. But I'd like to see the Cubs get creative. I'm not against exploring a Taillon trade to open up some money. Bellinger, if a team is willing to give up something decent. Moving a Happ or a Suzuki, if you can. Moving a reliever like a Miller, or a Neris (if someone wants to buy him turning it around). Not a full-fire-sale, just see what's out there. I'm fine moving some of these guys while also trying to buy some talent for the future at the same time. All of the moves I'd be making would be with an eye on competing in 2025. I think you can do both; trade some of these decent, fringe guys and also use prospect depth to maybe acquire something a little more long term.

I don't think teams would view it that way. We know better than to take how fans think of a player and think that teams perceive it the same way. I'm not sure either wave their NTC. I'm not sure the Cubs would even ask, though.

Ian Happ's 121 wRC+ is right in line with his last two (119 and 120). He's on pace for 3 wins this year (3.2 last and 3.6 the year before). Suzuki has a career 122 wRC+ and a 122 wRC+ this year. I dont think either would be selling low. Not necessarily advocating for it, only suggesting that I think both would be valued fine based on their baseball merits currently. Their NTC's change the valuation far more, IMO.

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.