Jason Ross

I think Hoyer was hired because the Cubs were familiar with him and on paper, his ability to articulate the plan made both business sense to an owner who seems adverse to spending above the LT and looks solid on paper; following the Friedman model *sounds* good. I also agree, to date, he's well below Friedman (though you can argue just about every exec is). He's not Theo good either, but I think he's very different than Theo too. I think there's still hope for Hoyer. The Cubs aren't dead today and with some positive variance (injury and on the field) and with a strong cast of prospects (to either call up or trade) Hoyer has tools at his disposal. So while I think it's fair to point out disappointment and that he *really* has to get it right this summer, that there's still enough there for hope to see the Cubs on a solid path under Jed. I remain hopeful, just...cautiously hopeful. Much more cautiously than in the past.

The Cubs need a catcher, but I'm not sure Diaz is the guy. He's having a good year but his xwOBA is .282 and his actual wOBA is .344. That's a pretty big gap. He's a career 80 wRC+ with a BABIP nearing .350 this year (career is under .300). Defensively he's been really good this year, but tends to yo-yo between being good and bad. Career .6 fWAR but entered the year a negative career fWAR. If he comes exceedingly cheap he'san upgrade over the corpse of what was Yan Gomes but I'm not sure he plugs many holes unless the defensive value remains real and there's internal belief that despite very blue Savant page that the xData is wrong. Find a catcher, but I'd hope the sights remain set higher than Diaz.

I mean. I wouldn't call Adrian Gonzalez "elite" at that stage. He had a decent run of being worth three wins but that's just...pretty good. By 2016, Gonzalez was a 1 win player. Gonzalez, as well, was acquired well before Andrew Friedman; he was acquired in the summer of 2012, and Andrew Friedman was hired as the VP of the Dodgers in October of 2014. Hanley Ramirez, as well, as acquired by the Dodgers in 2013 and his final season was 2014, so Friedman had nothing to do with Ramirez as Ramirez was a free agent that winter and the Dodgers did not resign him. Zack Greinke was on the Dodgers in 2015 under Andrew Friedman, but he was acquired in 2013. It was Andrew Friedman who did not retain Greinke after 2015, his first in LA. I don't think any of those players are good examples of the plan that Hoyer is following; I believe his blueprint is not "Dodgers every year" but specifically "Dodgers under Friedman". I would also not say that's true, that Jed keeps his expensive "role players". Hoyer moved on from plenty of players at the deadline, including players with control (i.e. Kimbrel). As such, Happ has a NTC and has been the 7th best LF in baseball the last two years combined, Taillon is in year two of his contract (when exactly do you think he was going to be traded? Last year when he was hurt and mediocre? Who do you think wants the last 2.5 years of that deal desperately now?). Stroman was hurt last year at the deadline and the Cubs were two games over .500 - they were going to trade a hurt pitcher while they had a winning record? I really am not trying to be a jerk here, but this feels pretty uninformed. You've highlighted three players on the Dodgers who were acquired before Andrew Friedman and complained about Hoyer not flipping players who were next to impossible to flip, either because of circumstance or contract. Hoyer has some faults, and trust me, if we need to, I'll go on my gripes with him; his ability to enact a Friedman-style-plan really hasn't gone as well as I'm sure any of us would have hoped (and I think his seat should be warm at this stage of the plan if the Cubs cannot come out of this tailspin right now). But I don't think much in your post here is the reason why.

I've run the worst team in Lexington, Kentucky for a decade. We have a lot of fun, but by God, we suck on ice!

I'm usually, at least in my opinion, pretty sane and sensible. Today, I will admit my disappointment is a bit heightened. Haven't been able to catch the Cubs for a handful of years live and this lineup is pretty disappointing for that fact. Their season remains more than alive, but on an anecdotal, day to day thing...I'm a little dramatic haha. In my mind, I'd have seen a lineup closer to what it looked Opening Day. It's a bit of a bummer to not have seen the team for a half decade to catch this version of the Cubs versus what was possible OD. Do forgive the dramatics.

I haven't been to a Cubs game since pre-covid and the one day I go they put out this dumpster fire. And I can't even get drunk; I have to play baseball myself tomorrow.

I bought tickets for today a few months ago. On my way to the stadium. Lineup just dropped. Oof. This is the "it's so bad it's going to randomly score 9 runs" kind of a lineup or "they scored one run" kind of a lineup.

Yeah I know! I meant luck as in what was turning around. No worries though!

Morel is starting to see things turn around. Plus, you can't have bad luck if you just hit the ball over the fence. Cool strategy!

League average this season is .240/.310/.388/.698 so the Cubs line is, actually, pretty good for the 2024 season over the last six. League offense isn't particularly great this year, so if the Cubs can be in that range for a while, we'd likely be doing pretty darn well.

It does feel like it's more of a "right now" plan. I'm simply guessing here, but I think Jed Hoyer looks up to someone like Andrew Friedman. I know the Dodgers have blown the doors off monetarily the last couple of years, but before the Freeman contact, much of how the Dodgers operated relied around: 1. Prospects, prospects and prospects - being smart at drafting and developing, especially arms. 2. Filling out an MLB roster that forced those prospects to take a job not just be given one. 3. Finally, adding the big, big piece in Mookie via trade They did FA shopping, and he was gifted some guys like Kershaw, but Friedman with the Dodgers didn't blow the doors off with aggressive adds via trade or free agency right away. They used the money they had to buy players but never really the 6+ year type or the huge trade. Go back and look at like, the 2016 Dodgers or something. They had good players but it was built on Pederson (prospect), Turner (reclamation), Seager (prospect), Adrian Gonzalez (trade - ate the contract), Utley (older), Kerhsaw (former-prospect), Puig (prospect), Maeda (mid-level FA), Urias (prospect)... This feels like the path Hoyer would like to take. The Cubs are a little behind where the Dodgers were in 2016, I think. Maybe a year off or so, with the prospects. But I'd assume this is the strategy when you take a broad spectrum look at how the Cubs have operated. They've drafted. They've gone after mid-level FA's. They even kind of handle the MilB and prospects in a similar way. It's hard to replicate the best; I think it's almost inarguable that Andrew Friedman is the best at what he does right now. We'll see if Hoyer has the ability to make his own Mookie Betts deal sometime. That was the real "take off" of the Dodgers from "really good team" to "powerhouse", IMO.

Two 4+ run comebacks in a row to complete the sweep. Just how you draw it up, no?

I think it's hard to say that one them can't "hit at the MLB level" when he's posting up near identical numbers in 2024 to Pete Alonso. Here's some recent game logs from Busch: Since May 1st: 105 wRC+ Since May 16th: 116 wRC+ Over his last two weeks: 114 wRC+ Over his last week: 140 wRC+ The hand-wringing on Michael Busch feels really silly. There's some strikeout issues that I think we can point to as aspects of imperfection. But even when things aren't going great, he's 5% better than league average as a hitter. And the arrow is pointing up. Does that mean the Cubs shouldn't acquire Pete Alonso? No! We can get creative with the lineup and Counsell is here in part because he's a great matchup guy! But sentences like "27-career-minor-leaguer-who-can't-hit-in-the-MLB" are just unfounded.

I think on the whole, I really don't think teams have players just throwing balls down the middle. The Cubs throw 7% of pitches middle-middle and most teams vacillate around 7-8%. They're right on the league average on mid-pitches in general. As well, regardless of whether you throw 100mph or not, pitchers at the highest velocity still give up a .320-.330 wOBA on pitches mid-mid. I don't think MLB teams would be preaching that. With that said, I think what kills the Cubs is the vast amount of non-competitive pitches the relievers through. The Cubs are 28th in baseball in competitive strikes thrown by relievers at just 81.8%. League average is 83.6%. They just don't throw enough "almost strikes". What we do know is that the difference between an 0-1 count and a 1-0 count is pretty big. Almost .30 points in wOBA; from a .344 wOBA in 0-1 counts to a .397 wOBA in 1-0 counts. We can also see a huge difference in hitters vs pitchers counts; from a .208 to a .440 wOBA. It's double as good. With the Cubs throwing so many non-competitive strikes, and with hitters simply not offering at those, the Cubs relievers are doing themselves a massive disservice here. Not only is it creating far more walks it's creating situation where opposing hitters are capable of doing more damage. It shouldn't be surprising to see the .315 wOBA against Cubs relievers.

As the calendar ticks over to June, it's time for us to start considering what the trade deadline might look like from a Chicago Cubs point of view. The pitching side of that question brings us interesting dichotomies: a rotation that feels deep and strong and a bullpen that feels paper thin. Image courtesy of © Melissa Tamez-USA TODAY Sports The Chicago Cubs' pitching staff feels like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation. Looking at the Cubs currently, the Cubs rotation has the seventh-best ERA in baseball, at 3.49, and the ninth-best FIP, at 3.87. This includes data from Kyle Hendricks, who, it pains me to say, has done everything in his power to drag that number down. Conversely, Cubs' relievers have the 25th-worst OPS against (the 24th worst wOBA against) and the 26th worst ERA. One of these things is not pulling their weight. To address what the Cubs may need to fix at the deadline, we should first look at the Cubs' current roster and determine which players are likely to be replaced and where the problems lie. Current Cubs Roster As of today, the rotation the Cubs should feel very confident in the rotation they are running out there. Shota Imanaga has been all-world (though he will likely regress a little), Justin Steele is finally looking like he's back to the Steele we know, Javier Assad has transformed himself into a reliable mid-rotation arm, and the Cubs have contributors in Jameson Taillon, Ben Brown, Hayden Wesneski and the near-to-returning-Jordan Wicks to fill out any holes. Strangely, the Cubs can thank the poor performances from Kyle Hendricks and injuries to Steele and Taillon as it seems they have helped the Cubs identify young pitchers capable of being a part of the MLB rotation early in the season. These speed bumps have created a group of pitchers you can feel relatively comfortable with, even if they see a few injuries along the way. The same cannot be said for the bullpen. The Cubs' bullpen has been a mess since the very beginning of the season. Entering the season, the team was counting on the returning Adbert Alzolay, Julian Merryweather, and Mark Leiter Jr, coupled with new addition Hector Neris, to stabilize the late innings of games. Thus far, two of the four currently find themselves on the injury list, and only Leiter has been truly trustworthy on the season. Even Neris, whose ERA would suggest he's had a good season, has been sketchy, as he sports a 4.58 FIP, a 5.33 xFIP, and a 5.17 xERA. Neris's 5.33 xFIP is the seventh worst in baseball for qualified relievers...and this is the guy currently tasked with closing out the game. It should be no surprise that the Cubs rank second to last in baseball with 12 blown games through the first two months of the season. The issues the Cubs have had in the bullpen have extended past just the end of the game, as well, as pitchers expected to solidify in the middle of the bullpen, such as Luke Little, Jose Cuas, Daniel Palencia, Drew Smyly, and Yency Almonte have either been ineffective, inured, or for a few of them, a combination of both. Where the Cubs have been hurt are in self-induced harm, as despite having a K% above the league average, they rank just 24th in BB%. Players like Little (18.8 BB%), Neris (16.9 BB%), Palencia (15.4 BB%), Smyly (12.5 BB%), Almonte (11.9 BB%), and Thompson (10.7% BB%) are all over the league average for walk rates for relievers. Some of these players have been regulars, others have missed time, and even more have been on the Iowa-to-Chicago shuttle, but the point remains: Cubs' relievers are constantly putting themselves behind the eight-ball. Recently, the Cubs bullpen seemed to have been turning things around. With the addition of Tyson Miller from Seattle, Hayden Wesneski's addition to the bullpen full-time, and a few players starting to find themselves, it looked like progress was being made. From May 1st through May 24th, the Cubs bullpen ERA had improved from 3.67 (14th in baseball over that span) to a 3.50 xFIP (2nd in baseball). The walk rate had significantly lowered, and the team looked like they had started to find a groove. Sadly, the last week of games has shown that perhaps that was premature, as the Cubs bullpen has an ERA over that span approaching nine while serving up a .911 OPS against and a walk rate over 13%. It's been a bad, bad, bad week. The Cubs will have to find a way to stop the bleeding as their W-L record begins tipping in the wrong direction...they don't have the luxury of their bullpen leaking games away this consistently. Likely, the bullpen isn't truly as bad as it's been over the last seven days, but it's also been bad enough this year that these types of runs need to be avoided moving forward. Injury Returns The Cubs have a few players currently located on the IL who may be able to help the Cubs' bullpen, the first of whom is Yency Almonte. While Almonte was maligned early in the season, the right-handed reliever had become one of the Cubs' more reliable mid-rotation options before his injury. Throwing 15 innings with a 3.74 xFIP, Almonte's loss has been felt. Sadly for the Cubs, Almonte was placed on the IL with a right shoulder strain, and the most recent update (from May 21st) was that he was simply playing catch, so while he's making some light progress, there's little timetable for that to occur. A second significant reliever for the Cubs sits on the IL in Julian Merryweather. Suffering a rib stress fracture, it's believed that the earliest the righty will return is in June, and probably later rather than sooner. This is a player who was a very important part of the Cubs bullpen last year, making 69 appearances, posting a 3.38 ERA / 3.61 xFIP, and being on the Cubs' best arms. It's likely that when he returns, he will do so with a bit of rust, but if he can regain his form, he would give the Cubs a potential late-innings reliever back on the roster without trading anyone. Jordan Wicks is also very close to making his MLB return. While I don't think he'll help the bullpen directly (as I think he's a starting pitcher, true and true), his return will allow the Cubs to make some decisions regarding the immediate future of someone like Ben Brown. While Brown has been phenomenal in any role given to him, he may realistically help the Cubs most in their beleaguered bullpen right now. Moving the hard thrower to the end of the bullpen could give the Cubs a lockdown option at the end of games they're currently missing. Considering they've yo-yoed Brown all season from rotation to bullpen, he's the most likely to move back to the pen upon a Wicks return, in my humble opinion. The Cubs also have players such as Colton Brewer, Daniel Palencia, and Adbert Alzolay, who may eventually find themselves healthy and on the Cubs roster to add depth. Still, I think these players are more "outside looking in" right now (in the case of Alzolay, it feels he may be more than that, but he'd have to show some real improvement with the slider). Internal Options Down on the Farm The Cubs may also be able to turn to some bullpen options on the farm. Cade Horton could either add to the rotation or the bullpen, but his most recent lat "soreness" has put that in doubt. Also, the Cubs have Porter Hodge and Michael Arias on the 40-man roster, both of whom have plenty of stuff, but neither of whom would likely aid the Cubs' walk issues (both struggle with consistency in the vein of Luke Little, for example). A few players are also working their way back from injury, like Ethan Roberts, who has looked quite sharp in his first six-plus innings at Triple-A. He could be an option down the road as he rounds into final form. Overall, the Cubs clearly have some issues that need to be fixed in the bullpen. The Cubs simply walk too many hitters and give up too many home runs. While they can get swings and misses, they need some lockdown relievers, especially at the end of the game, to shore things up. They have some internal help (hopefully) coming in Almonte, Merryweather, and some internal options who could add some depth, like Brown and Roberts. With that said, I think the Cubs will have to spend resources to bring in external help to the bullpen as we inch closer to the conclusion of July if they want to truly fix these problems... there are just too many things to fix for them to all come from within. What do you think the Cubs should do in the bullpen? Do you think they have enough help internally, or will they need to make a trade? Let us know in the comments section below! View full article

I just want to highlight this article one last time... As the Cubs won on a double, hit to RF, where Willie Harris sent Morel around home from first, for the game winning run. Guy gets it.

I think it's pretty clear what the Cubs think of Busch's future at the position considering that the Chicago Cubs play Morel at 3b but not Busch.

Not the worst outcome. Probably a really light strain all things considered; figure the Cubs are going to be extra cautious here right now, so what may have been a 2 week sit and rest+rehab is doubled with a slower ramp. Probably see him just after the TDL back on a mound. Maybe a September cup of tea in the BP is on the table still.

In all kindness: what have the Cubs done over the last few years to make you think they'd be willing to pay the premium associated with Mason Miller, a reliever, a position the Cubs have not placed a lot of resources in?

I think we have to take a bigger picture step back. And I'm going to say that with some context: I didn't like the Dansby Swanson contract when it was signed. This will play a role later, but I think it's important up front. I think Jed's strategy here is to remain flexible while the MiLB system produces talent. The Cubs system is generally split with the upper levels right now being pretty flushed (especially entering the year) and the lower levels being exciting but..."foggy". And while the Cubs talent is generally in the upper end of the system, many players are really ticketed for 2025 moreso than 2024 (Caissie, Shaw, Alcantara, Triantos, Ballesteros...). So what the Cubs have done over the last two years is go with targeted, shorter term deals of, almost exclusively, four year (or less) contracts (or contracts that include opt outs) so that the team can let the MiLB system cook, and can then replace longer term with players around them, with Dansby Swanson and his defense (as well as his ability to slide to a 2b position) as the one "long term commit". I think for many ways, the plan has legs. I know right now Swanson kind of hasn't been great in 2024, but by September 2023, many were claiming the Cubs absolutely nailed the Swanson signing and had avoided many of the other shortstop contracts, like Correa, Turner and Bogaerts. I doubt that if the seasons were switched, and had Swanson had a bad 2023 to go with a really strong 2024 start we'd be praising it as a huge win, so I think we should probably avoid calling it a huge loss. And remember, this is from someone who didn't love the Swanson contract, for, mostly these reasons, I had concerns about defense falling off around 30 and his inconsistent bat. But the Cubs remain a flexible team. Sure, they'll probably lose Bellinger after a year, but they have done so with Pete Crow-Armstrong (a top-25 prospect) waiting in the wings. Replacing Bellinger's offense can be done various ways, which also includes someone like Owen Caissie who is banging on all cylinders in Iowa right now posting a 137 wRC+ and a >25 K% since May 1st. The Cubs will also have plenty of prospects to make a trade with, and with the rotation starting to bear out with young talent...the Cubs can make a move for a position of need and can likely put together a package any team would have a hard time turning down. I'm not sure I have always agreed with Jed Hoyer. I think the Cubs will need to have an aggressive mindset in some ways moving forward. They're going to have to acquire an elite talent sometime, likely, a bat. I think the Cubs will probably begin to spend money more efficiently as the prospects come up; the Cubs have been in a situation the last few years where they haven't had the super-cheap young talent to fill out the roster. They can probably stop paying the Drew Smyly's, the Trey Mancini's, the Jameson Taillons. a bit to fill out the roster, instead, and turn these positions over more to rookies. They can also probably stop doing the high-AAV thing to guys like Bellinger. As well, in 2026, the Cubs have a ton of money coming off the books; Happ, Hoerner, Suzuki, to name a few. It should allow the payroll to remain around the $230+m range, but with extra talent on the roster as they can supplement a few higher salaries with cheaper young players, versus now, where they have a bunch of these $15-$20m spreading out the money. I think that's the strategy. Feel free to agree or disagree with it, but I think that's the general picture of what the Cubs are doing. They've talked about "threading the needle" and that's what this feels like...an attempt to thread it.

Getting old sucks. My school recently hired a girl to teach Science/Stem on my team. A girl named Kaitlyn. 12 years ago, it was my first year at this school and I was teaching sixth grade. In my first class I ever taught in that school year, there was a girl named Katie. Katie and Kaitlyn are the same people. I'm now working with my former students who I taught when they were in sixth grade.

He might still be hitting under .250 in two months, but it still might not mean much. I mean this as kindly as I can, but it's 2024 and while we shouldn't just throw batting average in a trash bin and ignore it completely, it's not really a statistic that on it's own is a very useful barometer for offensive success. As of today, despite everything, Christopher Morel has a 96 wRC+. You're new and I'd prefer not to assume your knowledge of statistics, so with that said, you can ignore this part if you're savvy with wRC+, but essentially that means he's been just 4% below being an average MLB hitter (average is 100). This is a number that is adjusted for year, environment and the likes. This is despite carrying a BABIP, or batted-ball-in-play (batting average subtracting out home runs and strikeouts, plays that don't land where a defense can affect the play) of .205. His career BABIP is .286, but even that number is low; he was a .320 and a .303 entering the year. If he was making poor contact quality than maybe his BABIP being low would be deserved, but one look at his baseball savant page tells you everything you need to know; Morel is squaring up balls really, really well...that BABIP should be high. That's a lot of words, and maybe you don't need the crash course (in which case, forgive me, you're not someone I know quite yet and I ere on the side of caution when it comes to talking data with folks I don't know versus assuming and having it go over someone's head), but essentially it boils down to this: Morel has been just 4% worse than league average despite having a batting average that is likely .100 points lower than it deserves to be. But more so, Morel is someone who's walking really well, he has shown wonderful plate approaches, and coupled this with a really good power bat. Defensively...he's a work in progress. But he's probably been good enough that he deserves to be 30% better than league average (if not more) offensively. Maybe he'll stop doing what he's doing and get frustrated and revert back to old Morel and then we can re-examine all of this; this is all predicated on what he's been doing this year and how he's approached at bats. But if Christopher continues to do what 2024 Morel has been doing...he's a really good hitter and the tide will turn there with time.

The average MLB team has seen 55.7 attempts to steal against them. The Cubs have had 58 attempts. So, again, we're talking 3 stolen base attempts extra over the course of 60 games. It should also be noted as well: the Cubs have had the most opportunities for teams to steal. So while the Cubs are giving up more steals, they also have had more runners on first base that could potentially steal. They've had 594 pitches where someone could have chosen to steal second base. They've only had the ninth most attempts. I think in the end, the numbers are really low here. They feel big because we see the numbers like "The Cubs are tied for last in throwing out stolen bases" and it's easy to look at the word like "last" and think it's a big deal. But I think the more you dig into it, the more you realize...it's not really a big thing. It's not that it couldn't be better and anecdotally we can find issues in specific moments here or there, but overall, I think it's a drop in the ocean.