Jason Ross

Well, again that's not his issue. He's not having issues timing pitches...he doesn't know when to swing and not. He swings...always. This isn't some new issue, he's done it...well, since Low-A. It's not something that's going to get better against better pitching, it's getting worse. There's productive struggle and there's unproductive struggle, and until PCA can show he can productively struggle against Triple-A pitching, it's incredibly unlikely that's just going to happen at the MLB level. He needs to refine and mature his approach; something doable, but will take a bit of time. He's a young, brash kid who hasn't been forced until now to have to really question that approach. Let's put it this way....if you have a math student who's good at basic functions (multiplication, addition...etc) but was struggling with algebraic equations, you wouldn't move him to geometry and assume he'd just pick it up on the way doing harder math...you'd let them practice on their level, get better, then throw harder math at them., Treat PCA like that: he's already in an advanced class for his age. Let him pick up concepts at his current working level. You're doing that impatient thing again.

Right. But it would make sense for him to learn how to hit Triple-A pitching before he learns how to hit MLB pitching, yes? His 67% contact rate while in Triple-A would place him in the bottom 10 of contact rate in Triple-A and suggests he hasn't really mastered that level yet. It was his first run, he's very young, and etc, so this isn't like a massive shock...but if Triple-A pitchers can exploit his immature approach, it stands to reason MLB pitchers will do that and more. I don't want the Cubs to fart around if Pete Crow-Armstrong shows improvement in that category for the sake of "getting him reps" but I also don't want the Cubs to ruin his development for the sake of his defense in May, either. If that makes sense? There's a middle ground where PCA can go get some reps in Triple-A, show he's made the necessary changes to his approach against Triple-A pitching, then be lifted to help the Cubs when they could benefit from his glove and more stable bat, without holding him down there until September just to hold him down.

I think the hand ringing on Pete Crow-Armstrong has swung a bit in the wrong direction...but this isn't true, either. PCA had a 67% contact rate in Triple-A. That's simply not good enough. PCA's issue is not his ability to inability to hit MLB or Triple-A pitching, it's developing a mature plate approach which he has yet to do at any level regardless of what his K% or BB% suggest. He still struggles to determine when to swing, and when to get deeper into the count to find his pitch. This is something that isn't going to just magically happen at the MLB level versus the Triple-A level, but is more likely to happen against lower level pitching before it happens against the best pitching on the planet. As well, it's impossible to say if his issue is hitting MLB pitching...he had under 20 PA's. That's a nothing sample. Defensively, base running, power...he's ready. Plate approach he has yet to prove that. He likely needs a few months in Triple-A to improve his contact rate, to improve his approach before anyone should expect him to had real success at the plate at the MLB level. The more I look deeper into his numbers in Triple-A the more I'm convinced he's not ready today. That isn't an indictment of him as a prospect, only stating that if the Cubs just throw him to the wolves at the MLB level, it's likely not going to be a productive struggle for him initially, nor is it going to be a productive struggle for a Cub team who still isn't good enough to carry around a player incapable of helping. Holding him through May or June in Triple-A, letting him refine his game, won't be bad for the Cubs or Pete.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. If the Cubs aren't going to play Morel or Busch often (at all) at 3b, than there's only three spots for four players: CF, 1b, and DH once PCA enters the fray, and that's likely to happen around June 1st, is my guess. Belt would likely be the Cubs fourth choice as they have the least invested there. Perhaps one of those three (Busch/Morel/PCA) don't pan out by that point, but if you're looking from a Brandon Belt perspective, you have to think of yourself as the outsider in that group + Bellinger. If I was Brandon Belt and I looked at the Cubs situation...I'm finding a better situation for myself to guarantee a place in the lineup against RHP. The Cubs feel very packed at the positions (again, assuming Bellinger) and have young prospects on the immediate way that would make it more difficult. I'd want to play. Maybe Belt isn't looking at it like I would be, but that's how I'd see the Cubs. There's going to be a better option for him, I feel. If you think the Cubs are legitimately going to play Michael Busch at 3b to accommodate Brandon Belt, that's one thing and might change how you're looking at this. But I don't think the Cubs are seriously going to entertain that often, and think it's more than likely going to be a Madrigal/Wisdom joint over there until the Cubs decide to go with a young player or a trade.

Brandon Belt played 103 games last year as a full platoon guy, He got 403 PA's. If the Cubs are committed to Pete Crow-Armstrong when he comes up (left handed), Michael Busch (left handed) at 1b, Christopher Morel (better splits against RHP) and Cody Bellinger, I cannot see a situation where he finds 103 games and 400 PA's. That feels...incredibly unlikely. The Cubs didn't trade real prospect capital for Michael Busch to sit him against RHP, nor did they not hold on to Christopher Morel to sit him initially, either. I just...I can't see it. It feels like a very wishful hope from a Cub perspective to build depth and safety net than it does something a 38 year old Brandon Belt is going to look at as his best option to actually play. That's a ton of hurdles. I would guess another team between today and sometime during Spring Training is going to lose a player or decide they have a very real need to or a left handed DH/1b and will offer him a more clear path to playing.

I'm fine with uncomfortable decisions, but at some point, these free agents have agency, too. I cannot imagine Brandon Belt is going to look at the amount of options and think the Cubs are the best fit for him and his ability to play. He's clearly not jumping at any contract offer (he's still a free agent and imagine he's fielded some calls). There's rumors he's even considering not playing. That doesn't sound like someone who wants to just be along for the ride. For Belt's sake, he can likely find a more open, and easier path to playing time than trying to battle with Michael Busch, who the Cubs are going to play, Christopher Morel, who the Cubs are likely going to play, and Cody Bellinger (if he were to sign here, that's the scenario I'm using) who's going to play. He'd get some time, but he's probably option-4 among those guys. And there's a lot of overlap. You figure you don't want to sit Busch against RHP, you don't want to sit Bellinger against RHP, you don't want to sit Morel (based on 2023 splits) against RHP...and Belt is a platoon guy. If we skip on Bellinger, I'd sing a different tune, however.

The handringing on Pete Crow-Armstrong is a bit overdone right now. He's a true 80 grade glove, 80 grade speed, with 20+ home run power (he's been a .200 ISO every stop along the way and there wasn't a single qualified hitter who had a .200 ISO and didn't homer at least 20 times last year). I know there's some concerns about the hyper aggressive approach, however, he's got easy 2 win floor with glove/baserunning value/power. The ceiling is a little capped if he's going to struggle to refine that, but he hasn't turned 22 yet. I see no reason to believe he isn't on the Cubs from June through September next season (the Cubs love glove) and the moment that happens, Bellinger moves off the position. The Cubs could use a power hitting left handed bat, but I'm not sure Bellinger is that power bat. He's really not hitting the ball especially hard (even if we ignore the two strike approach). He's probably a ~25 home run threat more so than a 30+ HR threat moving forward unless something changes in his ability to hit the ball hard. So while I think the Cubs should find some way to keep Bellinger on a shorter/opt-out laden kind of a contract, I'm not desperate for him, either.

It would an issue with everyone who is expecting to play. Belt's a platoon 1b./DH who's 38. I don't think he's signing anywhere to be a 26th guy who plays once a week. I don't think he is under the impression he's "the guy" hitting 4th every day, but he's hit and played more than enough to not be a 4th or 5th wheel. With Bellinger (presumably), Busch, Morel and Wisdom all likely seeing 1b/DH time, there just isn't a real space for a fifth. Christopher Morel didn't hit LHP all that well last season and there's overlap with what he and Belt do. It's almost assuredly a "one or the other" when it comes to 1b./DH's at this point.

Opening Day? Sure. Not when Pete Crow-Armstrong comes up, though. And it's not about "confidence" it's about the amount of PA's the Cubs have. Notice, I didn't say sign "zero", I said one. One of them has a space, but the Cubs can only have 13 position players. Bellinger, Suzuki, Happ, PCA, Hoerner, Swanson, Gomes, Amaya, Busch, Morel make 10 and there isn't a third baseman in there. Assume Madrigal/.Wisdom become 11 and 12 and then you're down to one spot. You almost assuredly need someone else capable of playing OF, and having another in the "Well they're a DH" category probably won't work. Entering the offseason it was likely the Cubs added, maybe, two in the 1b/Dh area. Busch is one. I don't think they'll add three.

I doubt they'd sign both. With Bellinger, you're already at a bit of a log jam of 1b./Dh types. Morel, Busch, Bellinger, Wisdom already fit that mold. I don't think there's room for another 1b/DH only (Morel, Busch and Wisdom may not be only, but they probably are more only than not). It's likely one or the other. At some point, players won't want to sign knowing there's only many PA's available.

Quite different! But similar names. Will Sanders has more pitchability, Cam Sanders is a wildman. Sadly for Sanders, doesn't seem like he's ever going to find enough strikes. Which really sucks...he's a fun watch on the mound.

Yeah, I think, despite adding Imanaga, Busch, Neris and Almonte, I wouldn't classify this as an overly "active" offseason. They've certainly added a few players, filled gaps, but we're talking three general transactions over November, December, January and half of February so far. I think that's probably baseline for what we all expected. That's not a complaint, either, just how I'd classify what "active" would be. There's still some time left for the Cubs to add to the number of transactions, too.

Exactly. Every year one or two prized free agents never make it to the market. While it seems likely many of these will...someone's going to surprise us and won't.

I really doubt signing those guys would do that. The Cubs have a decent amount of money falling off the books here at the end of the season, and regardless of signing any Boras 4, the Cubs should have plenty to sign someone next season, as well. Signing Chapman may mean they are less likely, for example, to sign Alex Bregman (because they play the same position) but in general, the Cubs should not be in a place where signing Bellinger or Chapman takes them out of the 2024 Free Agent market.

I could see that. But I'd guess that's closer to "waiver wire watching" than anything; a pretty impactless trade all things considered (at least at the time of the trade). If that makes sense? Probably more along the lines of a mid-reliever for prospects, or maybe the Cubs nabbing up one of these optionable arms they can mold. Mainly, I was suggesting there won't be anything super fun probably sitting out there trade wise at this stage. It's probably one of those optionable guys or bust.

Oh it's all good. I'd actually push back on that concept, too. My guess is that there won't be many trades between now and Opening Day across baseball. Same reasons: other teams are ready to go. Unless there's a team who thinks they can replace player X with a remaining free agent, or the Cubs just blow a team out of the water (teams are likely in "wait until the deadline mode"), I don't think we'll see much. Not saying it can't happen, only that...I think it's probably wishful thinking at this stage. Pretty late-game offseason.

I doubt he has trades ready to go. Other teams need to finalize their rosters as they head into Spring Training. There might be a few moves he could push for...but we're probably past the "other teams are just waiting around for the Cubs to pull the trigger" stage of anything. It sounds more like the Cubs are interested in being opportunistic on things like waivers/claims and maybe the Boras 4. Perhaps another hitter who falls through the cracks, like Belt or Martinez. With that said, I think the hopes of impactful trades are pretty faded right now (barring injuries or something). Maybe a lesser trade, for like a mid-inning reliever or the such is on the table.

After the draft. So all the way until All-Star Break.

While fair, many of these players had issues that hid below the "numbers" that people used to prognosticate greatness. For example, sometimes there are players who's "numbers" look good on the overall, but swing and miss well too much. They may even have good K% in the MiLB, but process wise, swing far too often. Perhaps a player has good numbers in Double-A but once they reach higher levels they simply can't process fast enough against MLB pitching. Or maybe they struggle with velocity up, and pitchers at Triple-A or the MLB are far more capable of exploiting that weakness. There are many things that can hide in plain sight. As well, you can find any anecdotal evidence you want, so we can play this game with any number of prospects. Projection systems would never claim themselves to be able to project at any specific percentage or claim to be perfect. But too often people use the anecdotal to ignore the trends. If you look back at the links I provided in my other response, you'll see there are data points that correlate, quite highly, to the MLB. I'm quite confident, without knowing the specific recipe, of something like ZiPS, that they're using this data as a basis of their yearly projections. There's a good middle ground: there's no reason to swear off projection systems as pseudosciences while also knowing their limitations (which is what they are capable of using as input data). There are always variables, age, injury, mentals...that can't be accounted for in a full analytical way, too. They're a good guide book. For example, if ZiPS thinks a player in Double-A is going to be better than industry lists do; it's worth noting them and keeping an eye on them., Conversely, if people are high on a kid in Triple-A but ZiPS isn't...maybe there's some extra investigation worth doing as to figure out why that is.

There are some MiLB to MLB calculators out there, but I'm never sure how much I feel confident in them, especially wondering how much emphasis they put on specific data points like those in the articles. ZiPS does projections (and I am very strongly of belief that they take those data points into account...and more...because the low-level players they predict to be good generally have strong bat to ball, for example). Anecdotally I remember ZiPS pointing to Isaac Parades, when he was just in Low-A with the Cubs as a real breakout prospect.

ZiPS is pretty good at using the right metrics. We know there are certain metrics that correlate from MilB to the MLB. For example: contact% is a really good predictor, one of the absolute best, from Triple-A to the MLB. Hitters who make contact a lot in Triple-A generally make a lot of contact the MLB. Same with things like pitchers who get groundballs; they keep getting them. There are ways to take MiLB data and use it to predict the MLB. Is it exact? Certainly not; no projection is. But you can make pretty solid guesswork from MiLB data. Here's a study fangraphs did from 2019 looking at what hitting data correlates to MLB data strongest. There's a link within the article that will show you the pitching side of things as well. Here is another article looking at hitting correlation between MiLB and the MLB And from the same source as the previous, the companion piece on pitching These studies are from 2019 and 2020, but considering how much data needs to go into these studies, a few years isn't going to change this.

I'm not sure Jake Burger is any more capable of playing third than Christopher Morel is. He was a -7 DRS in 850 innings last year, a -8 OAA, and in the bottom 3% of all OAA range factor. The Marlins gave him latitude to play third base, more so than the Cubs gave Morel, but I think Burger is a 1b/DH more than I think he's a real third baseman. I do agree in principal that I think there are probably some trades that the Cubs can make and probably should have overall. They're getting close to "hoarding" levels and while depth is good there is such a thing as "too much" (when we talk about options, 40 man slots, etc...). I'd really like to see the Cubs make a large deal. I can't say whom that is right now...I think a lot of trades are of the "off the radar" types and it's just so hard to predict what one team would think of prospect X, Y and Z versus another. Hopefully around the deadline (which seems like the most likely trade time) the Cubs can start to consolidate some of the excess into a trade.

He signed a two year contract in Korea as he was an MiLB free agent.

Yeah I agree. Especially for someone like Horton, who I truly believe is basically MLB ready right now. Get a handful of starts in Iowa that show the stuff is ready and in tune, and I'd be ready to say he's next person up in case of injury. I'd rather Horton be pitching in September than May, and if we're limiting him to, maybe, 130 IP in 2024, it's going to be taken into consideration. Overall, like I said, I think some people will note the absence, but I think the Cubs may just be working on that late-start-timeline-pushback.

No Cade Horton will get people talking, but I think that's a good thing. I have a feeling Horton is going to get a "late start" on purpose to limit wear/tear/innings. But, for me, that says how high the Cubs are on Horton and just how ready they think he is.