Jason Ross

Just on the discussion of age/ranking as well, I kind of want to highlight two players on the BP rankings and where/why I think there's a bias towards younger players with less data. The two players I've selected are fairly similar - they were drafted in the same range, both came directly from the college ranks, and even have some of the same questions/flaws within their scouting. Below, I'll look specifically at their offensive output, but I'll add context too. Player A - drafted in 2023 High-A: 197 wRC+ Double-A : 120 wRC+ Double-A: 142 wRC+ Triple-A: 146 wRC+ Player B - drafted in 2024 Low-A: 219 wRC+ High-A: 160 wRC+ Double-A: 122 wRC+ Now, looking at the two players, Player A hit better at High-A and basically the same in his first cup of coffee in Double-A. Player B does have eyepopping numbers in Low-A, but Player A outhit him at a better level so we can assume he'd have done similar or better. Both have some similar question marks about defense - so this is not a case where one of these is a glove-maestro and the other is a butcher. But BP, when ranking prospects, placed Player B a bit higher than Player A. It's enough spots that it's pretty pedantic, and I think arguing over a handful of slots is silliness, but I think this also highlights the bias towards lack of data. And yes, there's personal preference here, and you can say some of this is projection and ceiling and etc, but that's also what I'm getting at here. If you haven't been able to guess yet this is Matt Shaw (drafted 13th overall) and Cam Smith (drafted 14th overall). BP has Smith at #20 and Shaw at #25. I think that's a pretty insignificant difference, but what exactly has Cam Smith done to be ranked higher? Nothing, really. Maybe you think his ceiling is higher, and whatever, that's a personal thing - but I think part of that is directly tied with lack of information. We have no idea how Smith will be truly attacked, if he can hit good sweepers, if his flatter than normal bat path is going to be an issue, or will need tweaked...but we hand ring more over Shaw because we have more to hand ring over (data). Shaw has a funky stance and a big leg kick. He didn't hit sweepers great at Triple-A in limited samples. But if we're being honest, Shaw did everything you would have wanted. He posted wonderful offense, made progress in limiting the chase and free-swing and I think if Cam Smith posted wRC+'s in Triple-A at the end of next season, that's like a 95% outcome for his season. I think it's important to highlight this as well - last year, BP, had Matt Shaw ranked #21. I bring this rant up to remind us that this rings true for young prospects around the board. Youth accentuates ceiling because we can dream more and fill in the data-gaps with dreams of what might come. With more data, we can dig and pick a guy apart more and more. Remember how high we had Rojas a year ago? He kind of didn't have a huge season and now many have soured. So maybe take this into account when we worry about losing a Zyhir Hope, as much as we do as we worry about losing Cam Smith. I'm guilty of it myself sometimes. We all need these reminders.

Well, to be pedantic, no one has called him a tenth round talent. I have pointed out where he was drafted (11th round) and his slot value but for reason and cause. Frist, you're right, he's not an 11th round talent either. But that doesn't change the fact that every team had ample opportunity to pick him - every team essentially passed on him at least ten times, a few a handful more than that. This include the Dodgers. No team was clawing over any other to target him as a must have. Secondly, he signed for $400,000. To put that in comparison, the Cubs fifth round selection in 2023 was Michael Carico, who signed for $400,000, which was under the slot value by a few thousand dollars. The Cubs paid him like a fifth round pick. They didn't have to float second round money or anything. In context, one year later the Cubs, in the same round (11th) selected another toolsy teenager who plays OF named Eli Lovach, He signed for $650,000, which was $250.000 more than Hope. No one, no one thought Zyhir Hope was a top-100 draft prospect in the summer of 2023 let alone a top-100 prospect in all of baseball. Between draft day and trade day, he had a whopping 43 professional PA's. That's in no way shape or form to change that outlook. He was a toolsy teenager who was a lottery ticket to hit. It's the right kind of gamble to take, but it's also a lottery ticket that almost every team buys and very, very few cash out. Did the Dodgers end up with a prospect who is seemingly pointing up? Absolutely! I think if you asked the Dodgers brain trust and they answered honestly, they'd tell you they've been very lucky that Hope is trending towards that 95% or better outcome. They'd probably say that he had tools they liked but never expected this outcome. I don't think that makes them any smarter than the Cubs who took the initial leap on him.

A bit of an "Expos" vibe. I'm cool with that.

So they're *not* the City Connect. They are an official alternate. Wrigleyville *is* retired however.

I do believe this is their City Connect v2.0. Which should replace those. I need better looks but my initial reaction is...I kind of like it? Put aside I don't think the Cubs *need* alternates, they're going to be there regardless. But I think good uniforms are simple, don't look to chase trends (these are almost always dead on arrival and dated as it takes years to approve and are then outdated when they show up), and especially when it comes to "city connect" should still evoke the team who's wearing it. This feels classic-y and near the Feds/Whales stuff. It's generally Cubs' colors. If they were wearing these with the sound off, I don't think you'd have to ask who was playing. It's not garish. It's city-flag colored without feeling like it is just a flag rip off. Is it better than the home whites? No. Is it pretty decent in terms of just uniform design? Yeah...yeah it is. That's not bad at all.

Good to hear. Much closer to Tucker's number, too.

Hope was ranked top-10 in baseball by BP, yes. #8. They seem to be higher than most of the rest of the industry. He's been in other's top-20. Yeah, looks like, thus far, LAD has done well.

There comes in the rest of the money

I don't necessarily think that. Hope's had a good start to his career, some amazing EV's and statcast stuff. With that said I think we need to remember he's 19, has not advanced above A ball and the California League is somewhat infamous for up-lifiting hitters and making their performance look a bit better than it is. The Dodgers have had a few prospects like that in recent years. Ultimately, the Cubs weren't crazy to trade him. At the time of the deal, Hope was a toolsy 18-year old who was an 11th round pick, who signed for $400,000 (like a 3rd round slot). He had 43 (albeit very good) PA's in CPX. He was a general wild card flier type. The Cubs signed 18-year-old OF prospect Eli Lovach, their 11tth round pick in 2024, to a $650,000 bonus. If they were to trade Lovach tomorrow in a package for a Busch type...I think we'd all be 100% fine with it again. You'll win that trade 95 times out of 100, if not more, considering how lottery-tickety these types are. For Hope's sake I hope he's awesome, though. For our sake, IDC.

Yeah, thought they had $6.5 but it was 6.2. So a little under $3m. But close.

Don't the Cubs have around 6.2m? Looks like the Cubs have agreed to $3.5m of it. https://x.com/MLBPipeline/status/1879933874245149048?s=19

Well, if the Dodgers have an agreement to acquire $3m IFA for Jose De Paula from an unidentified team (as per this rumor) and the Cubs managed to agree with two IFA players, and have $3m left... There's some tea leaves there.

The Cubs agreed with two of their IFA players for a total of $3.5m. Conviently, that's $3m short of their budget.

Well now, I might just be rooting for Sasaki to end up in LAD - something I didn't think I'd say. That'd be a really fun get for a team. You'd presume, as well, that the Padres and the Blue Jays would need to set up their own deals, as well, to acquire that kind of IFA money - right? To at least compete with the LAD offer?

Interesting. Very small nugget there. But it's there.

I've really waffled. I think I sit in calling it both? I think he's got a fastball and a cutter he's been playing with. I'm just playing the eye test here, but here's a start from September 22nd - https://www.mlb.com/video/brandon-birdsell-s-stellar-seven-inning-start The first strikeout? That's a fastball to me. That second strikeout? That looks like a cutter with how it look a bit like it dances down and out. Then he gets two K's on what looks like a fastball again...and then...hard sliders? Cutters? IDK, what those next two are. Then what is clearly a backdoor slider and seems much softer then those things I'm thinking is a cutter. There feels like a lot of iteration and shape play. Or maybe I'm just a terrible visual scout - there's always that!

Yeah, it's become my favorite thing. And then always reminding myself that the numbers are mostly arbitrary. We as fans love to debate who's a top-25 and who's a top-50...most of the time the difference between #31 and #54 is like...nothing except the guy who's writing the list liked one guy a bit more than the other - be it because of age, position, they just saw a good series for one in person and the other they had a bad series...but the true differentiator is probably so razor thin it's unimportant. On one hand it's cool that prospect lists and rankings have become less niche and that the process of watching these players grow and develop is far more seen (I have more other uber dorks to talk to - my partner thanks all of you, she couldn't give a horsefeathers about Owen Caissie's pull rate), but the bad end is the pedantic nature that sometimes we allow ourselves to fall into with the numbers.

Honestly, I really like going the the source first, Every team has some sort of local/more specialized coverage. For the Cubs, you have guys like Brendan Miller, Greg Zumach, Greg Huss, (formally) Bryan Smith...you can find 1-3 of these for any team. Good way to get a baseline for how a team is feeling. Then kind of just using a holistic approach. Taking BP, BA, FG, MLB Pipeline and finding a baseline. Like most people have Shaw as like a top-20/25 guy. Some people are outliers - FG is higher on Alcantara than others, as an example, and making note of it. "There more than one way to skin a cat" and with rankings, they're so broad. There's probably not one who's been much better as prospects fail so much more often than pay off.

No worries! I(t's easy getting emotional about prospects. Especially the baby ones like Zyhir Hope. There seems to be a correlation between perceived ceiling and ETA in that prospects further away feel more "unknown" (with less data comes less obvious flaws, as well, with less data more could happen!). It'll be interesting to see where we are on Hope in a year or two, especially. Like he looks really good right now, but maybe he's just really bad at sweepers or something and we'll find out later.

I do think the flyball thing is a bit of a concern. What I really liked was the chase% he had on the slider and that the fastball generated higher than league average in-zone whiff. It gives him a few different ways of missing bats - fastball in the zone, and the slider as a chase pitch. And as you pointed out - with the arm angle, allows him to hide the two a bit better (maybe why we see that data to begin with?).

According to BP, yes. But BP isn't gospel. I'm sure if you asked the Cubs, they wouldn't agree with you. It's a good reminder that the industry has their rankings, but teams have their own internal rankings. Cam Smith wasn't even a guaranteed top-10 prospect in the draft last summer according to MLB teams. At the time the Cubs traded Hope, it's important to remember, as well, he had 43 PA's in the MiLB, was an 11th round selection who got $400,000 signing bonus - that of a around a 3rd round pick. Yes, Hope has some real helium right now. But if the Cubs traded Eli Lovach (their most recent, 11th round, 18 year old pick) for Michael Busch, they would almost assuredly be winning that trade a year later. It sucks Hope blew up - but this so far is a very rare and outlier outcome. Ferris was the prize there, and Hope was much more of an intriguing, 18 year old flier.

I was surprised at how much I liked Birdsell when I deep dove into him for the prospect rankings. I always kind of thought of him as a #5 guy who could stick, but I just couldn't find many flags in his game and came away with the idea that there's some juice to squeeze there. Glad I'm not alone!

That's be my hope. 1b/DH to start, maybe by June(ish) some work towards 3b and by MiLB ASB full time 3b work. I love the bat and he had some of the absolute best statcast data in the NCAA ranks. Crushed the Cape too.

The Braves and Phillies have both been significantly better than the Cubs recently and he didn't even sit down with them - I don't think winning and losing is doing the heavy lifting. Toronto might be losing Bichette and Vlad shortly (more reports are Bichette for sure), as well. And I think today, handicapping it, San Diego feels like who I'd put money on getting him over the Dodgers - and they're about to sell off some money. This feels bigger than wins and losses. Ohtani? It seems like he just wanted to go to LAD right off the bat. Again, I don't think there was much to do there. Soto? Well, I'll give you it's annoying they sat that out. They have a small chance to go and rectify that by extending Tucker. Tucker isn't as good as Soto (probably - though his 80 games last year was right on par). But he'd be a fine consolation prize. Harper? Yeah that's a stinger. I'm annoyed there too. But it feels like this is more or less a culmination of being frustrated (which is fair) instead of being really logical about Sasaki, which I really don't think they could have done more on. I think both things can be true - that the Cubs haven't always acted within their means appropriately, and that Roki Sasaki was given the best shot and this was out of their control. If the Cubs had done more on the first, then I think the second would sting less - but I don't think it's a cause and effect, either.