Jason Ross

I'll admit: working his way through the MiLB in 2022 and into 2023, I was pretty excited for Mervis. The data I had available to me (at the time) suggested a pretty good approach and bat, and the eye test suggested it as well. Even the small run in the MLB had underlying interesting metrics. Then I got access to statcast data for Matt Mervis in Triple-A...and I've soured on him, because the lines hide the processes you can better see with the statcast stuff. I don't think he's a dead prospect, but I don't think he's got much of a pathway to find success in Chicago right now. He's blocked many places. And with his age, he's at a point where he kind of needs to play....and realistically that place he plays should be at the MLB level (Triple-A just isn't challenging him, even with some iffy processes). I think there's some progress over the winter that can be had, but I'm not where I was before on him, and I think I can see why the Cubs were concerned (and didn't promote him in September over other players, like Young). I really hope he succeeds, but I don't have the confidence in Mervis I had previously.

Yeah, I think defensively Caissie is world above Schwarber. There were scouting reports of people being so wow'ed about his athleticism for his size in 2020 that some thought he could handle CF down the road, ala Joey Gallo. Those were clearly overblown, but I don't think anyone ever saw Kyle and went "you know what I think that linebacker can do? Center horsefeathers field". Caissie probably sizes out of RF down the road, and with Suzuki there, maybe Bellinger around, with Alcantara....etc...there's a good chance he never really plays it in Chicago even early. With that said, the arm is 55/60 grade and the movement isn't so bad he can't do it for a bit, either. I'd expect negative DRSs, probably like -3, -4, or -5 type stuff, but that's within "acceptably bad" levels if you're hitting.

Oh horsefeathers man, I had no idea. One time I got hit in the elbow and it really hurt, so I get it....(just kidding - for real). Congrats on being entirely more badass than me and doing all of that; literally can't imagine.

The K issues are there, but I really think they're overblown to a degree. First, we have to remember that he was really young for his league; for most of the time, he was the youngest player. Secondly, the pre-tacked baseball legitimately took K% and skyrocketed it. Then you have his struggles against LHP. On the surface it seems "arbitrary" to use July 6th as a cut off, but that's when the pre-tacked ball was lost. The rest of the way...Owen Caissie, not legally able to drink but facing Double-A pitching...struck out under 23% of the time against RHP. Would we consider that a ton of K in his game? I certainly wouldn't. Now, flip side...he K'd out of his shoes against left handed pitching over that span. I think it's safe to say that Caissie is trending to be a platoon hitter, and I know we've got platoon hitter as like, a massive negative connotation, but I think we have to accept it's okay as we see how the league is adjusting more and more to platoon guys. He's left handed and lefties, across the league, are getting worse and worse against left handed pitching. So, Caissie is just a left-handed hitter like most of the league (it's why it makes left handers who aren't trending that way worth their weight in gold *cough*Michael Busch*cough*). So I think the overall numbers kind of hide this improvement. Caissie's K issues exists, but they're probably far more controllable than we realize. Just let him smash right handed pitching and the K's go away. Sit him against lefties and find him a buddy.

Oh yeah, that wasn't at anyone in particular, just the general.

Yeah, I'd be a little skeptical of that plan. Especially with the money left. I just don't think that's going to happen. The Cubs, themselves, have signaled they want to do more. Whether it's Bellinger or another off the radar hitter (they pulled Busch out of thin air), I think they'll add at least one more nice addition to deepen the lineup, I'm not convinced they'll add two starting types like some, but one, I think, they will for sure. We may just have to be patient into mid-Feb.

Busch doesn't really have terrible platoon numbers over his time in Triple-A. I think he'll sit, especially early, against tough lefties, but doubt he's really platooning overall, either.

Oh, it's not that I think Hoskins didn't get what I'd expect. It's that I think this is what Boras expected Hoskins to get the entire time. Boras has Snell, Montgomery, and well, Bellinger out there, yet. I wouldn't count on Boras on any of them. I didn't expect the Cubs for Hoskins after Busch. But I'm less inclined to believe anyone is getting a discount on those three, either. Boras finds a team. Somehow. Someway.

I'm the biggest Owen-Caissie-Stan here, I'll admit it. I liked him way back in the 2020 draft, was ectatic the Cubs nabbed him in the Darvish trade, and have enjoyed his development. His K% numbers on the season really hide the progress he's been making there, and as you pointed out, his pull ability has gotten better. Early in his career, his "hit box" (where Caissie made initial contact with the baseball) was really deep. He was so patient, and has relatively fast hands, that he was able to let the ball travel a bit extra and still hit it well. It played into his K's a bit, but also his opposite field reliance. He's since worked on that, and he's making contact more in front of the ball and less behind it. With this said, I don't think he'll play a big role in 2024 with the Cubs. He's likely ticketed to Iowa where he'll play some 1b, and some RF. I wouldn't be surprised to see him in Chicago by September, but I also expect growing pangs. Owen Caissie has followed a pretty consistent pattern the last two years: he struggles early at a new level (being an extreme under-ager) where he then begins to figure it out, and by the end of the season has seemingly solved the current challenge. Iowa being a decent step up from Tennessee, and likely one which will challenge him even greater up and in (attacking the levers), I think he'll have a line that has people here worrying through mid-May or so. By September, I think he'll have turned the corner and he could be a very fun bench bat for the stretch run. Where I think he'll effect is 2025. It gives the Cubs a ton of flexibility. If they get Bellinger in on an early opt-out deal, he could be "next man up" at 1b/DH. If Busch can play 3b, or if Morel can play 3b, Caissie can fall into a 1b/RF/DH role where he can kind of "bounce" and get 4 days a week in the lineup against RHP. He does look like someone who struggles against LHP (his K% against RHP was much better), so he's someone who might never be an "every day" guy anyways.

Good reminder on Boras: just when you think there isn't a market, Boras finds a market and gets around what he wants. I think we all thought Boras/Hoskins were looking for something similar to this: 2 years, with an opt out, around $17-20m a year. What'd he get just when you squinted and went "Yeah, but where?" Oh, he got...2 years...and an opt out....at $17m aav...from the Brewers? They had a need but they didn't seem like they were swimming in those waters. We'll see how this plays out with the rest of the Boras crew. But Boras pulls these rabbits often.

I would guess that's true. It's hard to determine his market fully, but with a few weeks left, if his ultimate goal was pitching for a true contending team, the Pirates weren't an obvious choice and you'd have to figure a team higher up the perceived pecking order would have offered a contract. Maybe no one was interested. He did sign in KC last year, but that was more clear as a rebound. Thought with his trade value last year a more contending team would have come in. This likely gets him on a contender by July, but with little control over whom. Who knows. Mostly just spit balling. Suspect you're right, ultimately, and he doesn't care if he sets up or not.

Him headed to Pitt is interesting. Possibly something to monitor as a Cub fan. Chapman probably shouldn't have to "settle" being the setup guy. But last I checked, the Pirates had Bednar. A bit of an odd choice unless there was no Chapman market to speak of. The Cubs *were* connected to Bednar at the deadline, and we know the Cubs have been connected to Clase. Just food for thought.

Awful to hear. Both for your father and Ryno. Wishing the best for both.

I think we have to ignore arm strength as a major deterring factor with how the Cubs see defense. We've seen the Cubs turn Hoerner and his relatively weak arm into a plus defensive SS. They went out of their way to pay $170m to a relatively weak armed SS...he was wonderful still. They successfully moved Madrigal to 3b despite the arm. However they proceed defensively on the infield, I think we have to do so with an understanding that they do things their own way, and maybe don't factor in pure arm strength as importantly as we the fans feel they should.

Just another reason I'm a big Michael Busch fan. Every time I dig into his data, his ability to increase his contact%, his improvement on Triple-A velocity, his swing decisions, and now, as you've done, his data against left handed pitching...I keep coming back the conclusion that this is a dude who's going to hit at the MLB level.

That and I think we see pitching differently. Look at how teams are starting to limit starters: we're probably looking more and more at a six-man rotation being more and more the norm. On top of that we have openers, we have closers, we have multiple inning guys...roles are evolving in the BP greatly right now. Add in the three hitter limit, and now, they changed the pinch-hitter rule in 2024 to "once a team announces a hitter you can't change the pitcher"...guys are both becoming more specialized but also a bit less.

Recent rumors (which were coming from the ever so iffy Hector Gomes) suggest Neris was seeking $50m total on his deal. That feels entirely out of touch, and considering the source, probably is.

Man, the Cubs and Cody Bellinger feel like a mid-2000's sitcom where they both clearly will end up together, but have to date some oddball Otter Trainer they met on a walk or the Cupcake Bakery pastry chef who catered their best friend's funeral before they're allowed to get married.

I would say that's not "picking nits" but contextualizing. The reality is that even before the trade, Soler had been a massive negative in the OF. While fans were just getting ahold of things like DRS and more advanced metrics, we have to assume teams were leading the way here more and likely had identified Jorge Soler as being more of a DH than a non-DH, which would have limited his trade value to begin with. I agree with your bigger picture argument that the Chicago Cubs have not consistently acted within the context they should have: as a big market team less afraid to spend money. I don't, however, agree, that the Soler/Davis deal made little sense for the Cubs. I think they probably cashed in on his value fine. The reality is Jorge Soler wasn't really going to find a home here and sometimes you have to spend spare parts young players for more pressing needs. Could the Cubs have maybe just signed a leverage reliever? Maybe. They could have signed Chapman, though it seems like he really wanted to go back to the Yankees regardless. They could have signed 32 year old Mark Melancon who had, realistically, one good season under that four year contract as he battled injuries. It could have gone a few ways. It's always iffy getting locked into longer term multi-year deals with relievers; they're volatile as hell. I'm not sure I really fault the team for taking a spare part and turning it into a meaningful need.

Adding to that: Soler was a clear, defined, DH by 2019, posting a -9 DRS in just 400 some odd innings. In 2019, the Cubs did not have the benefit of a DH position, so even in the scenario Soler had an OF position to play, he'd likely have given back huge swaths of value being a fish out of water. As well, a competing Cubs team was highly unlikely to turn over a position to someone fully in 2019 who had posted a -.3 fWAR as they entered 2019 the last two seasons, either. Soler has had a few nice seasons mish-mashed in a pretty up and down career as a DH. But it probably would have never really had a chance to have gotten off the ground had he been in Chicago for most of it. The Cubs were almost assuredly going to have to trade him at some point, and they probably cashed in on his peak value to the team by dealing him for Davis.

Good catch on the quote! I hadn't even seen that, so it makes sense. It also validates my assumptions in looking at the pitch heat-maps. It really does look like he was looking to hit that outer corner (and off of it) just a bit too much between the two levels. I think if you shifted that a few inches to the spot it was in Triple-A, while the whiff rates may never be "great" that he'll climb the leaderboard a bit from "worst in the league" to "not great". And if he can continue to limit exit velocity and launch angle, should be a pretty good, stable arm for an MLB rotation.

Jordan Wicks got promoted for the Cubs' stretch run last year, and helped keep the Cubs afloat until he gassed out. While some really good things can come through from his total season line, concerns over the lack of swings and misses have caused some to sour a bit. What should you expect from the tough lefty in 2024? Image courtesy of © Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports As was recently brought up by a handful of our users here on North Side Baseball, Jordan Wicks is kind of a polarizing prospect. Recently named one of MLB Pipeline's top 10 left-handed pitching prospects headed into 2024, he nonetheless makes it hard to tell how excited you should be, and our own posters had quite the lively debate in our MiLB forum about it. On one hand, he's a fascinating study of the game, and a pitcher who clearly comes by the "bulldog" and "cerebral" monikers honestly. On the other, his lack of fastball velocity and lack of incredible stuff has some worried as to what the upside is on the former Kansas State University Wildcat. Let's start off with the concerns: the 11% whiff rate Wicks had during his first 34 innings at the MLB level. Compared to the league average, which sits just south of 18%, this is troubling. If he kept that rate up over the course of 162 IP, he'd have finished dead last in baseball, with pitchers like Jordan Lyles and Patrick Corbin--not elite company, those two. Added to that, Wicks had only a single pitch grade out well on Stuff+: his changeup. These have caused concerns, and rightfully so, it's very hard to be successful when you're getting this little swing-and-miss. But I also think there's hope, and that while these concerns are valid, there's a light at the end of the tunnel. The first thing to know is that the Whiff% issue that Wicks had the MLB level is not something he had at Triple-A Iowa, in similar sample sizes. Yes, Triple A is a lower level of competition than MLB, but despite having a strikeout rate that wasn't impressive on the surface, his actual Whiff% was well above the Triple-A standard. Whereas Triple-A average Whiff% sits very close to the MLB average (just below 18%), Wicks had a Whiff% well over 23% at that level, with his changeup doing most of the damage. Why the disparity in whiff rates then? I think we can look at his pitch location and get to the bottom of that pretty quickly. On the left, you'll see his pitch-frequency heat map from Triple A. On the right, see the same from his time in the majors. Notice how Wicks shied away from the middle of the plate and really looked to get the ball off the plate. It's hard to say exactly why the change was made, but would it be shocking to see Wicks, a rookie called-up during a postseason chase, be a little extra risk-averse? Making sure that he wasn't the cause of a demise? I certainly think that makes sense, regardless of how anecdotal it is. The change had profound effects on his whiff rates. Below, you'll see his whiff rates in Triple A (left) compared to MLB (right). By being just a little extra careful, he wasn't able to generate the same swings and misses in the zone, because the pitches were just being thrown outside of the zone just a little more. This is also highlighted in his strike rate in MLB dropping nearly 14% from his strike rate at Triple A. You just aren't going to get the swing and the misses you were used to getting if you're not going to throw your pitches in the zone as often. The positives are that, even in small samples, Wicks was still getting swings and misses with the changeup. He threw his changeup roughly 30 percent of the time, and got a swing and a miss on 42.9 percent of swings on it. That's good enough for the highest Whiff% of any pitcher over that 162 IP marker. Do I think Wicks will lead the league in Whiff% on his changeup? No, that's a very hard thing to do, but it goes to show Wicks can get whiffs even if he's throwing a little less in the zone. Where Wicks really struggled was in getting his other pitches to generate those swings and misses, and I wonder how much of it was due to just not having the confidence yet to come into the zone (going back to my previous point of being risk-averse). Once more, look at where Wicks threw his fastball in Triple A (left), compared to MLB (right). It looks like someone who was really trying to avoid the middle of the plate. His Whiff% on his fastball dipped, from 23% to 11%, with the jump in levels, and I think the pitch location probably has something to do with that. There's one other interesting rabbit hole that came up when looking at Jordan Wicks, however, that gives me a lot of hope for the future: and that's just what he was able to do despite the lack of whiffs: he limited hard contact. During his stint at the MLB level, the former Wildcat saw his average exit velocity sit around 86.5 mph. Using the same sample size of pitchers as previously, this would put Wicks second in the league, behind Corbin Burnes. He also limited launch angle; with an average LA of just 6 degrees. That would have been less than half the league average, and good for fifth in baseball. Two of the other pitchers who finished in the top-5 of limiting launch angle were Logan Webb and Kyle Bradish, both of whom also joined the likes of Wicks, Corbin and Lyles in the bottom 5 of Whiff%. What that tells me is that he can get away with being in the zone more than he was. More pitches in the zone likely mean more whiffs, and when guys swing, he's going to be able to continue to limit that damage if the control remains. So what does this all mean for Wicks's future? I think it means that while the Whiff% is clearly something to monitor, we can see that other quality arms (such as Webb and Bradish) were capable of surviving low Whiff% seasons, partially by eliminating balls in the air--something Wicks does quite well. That's not saying Wicks is Bradish or Webb reincarnate, either; only that worrying a ton about his 34 innings of low whiff% seems premature. Context matters. We can see that Wicks was above-average in similar time spent in Triple A, and we can also see that he shied away from throwing his pitches in the zone. I do think there's probably some work that needs to be done with his pitch mix; I think he's dying for a pitch that separates itself from the fastball/cutter/changeup--a curveball with sharper vertical movement, or a slider that has more horizontal movement... something to fill in some gaps. But I also think he's just someone who needs to grow into being an MLB pitcher a bit more, find the confidence to come into the zone a little more, especially, because when he does, guys just don't square him up. I think if he can do that, make those adjustments, that something in between Bradish (3.8 fWAR, 3.53 xFIP) and Kyle Freeland (1.2 fWAR 5.13 xFIP) is where I'd expect him to be in 2024. It should be important to remember, too: pitchers who keep the ball on the ground often, and limit hard contact, have innate abilities to "beat" their FIP, or in other words, increase run prevention past what things like fielding-independent-pitching would suggest they'd be capable of. Couple that with a very strong infield defense and I'm pretty hopeful for the future on Wicks, all things considered. What do you think about Jordan Wicks moving into next season? Do you think he needs to come into the zone just a bit more? Or are you still concerned with the whiff rates moving forward? View full article

Sincerely hope the Cubs are "other teams".