Jason Ross

Yep. Just is what it is. Assad pitching in NY is fine. I meant it as "you can't hide Assad every time"

You can't shuffle your rotation around every time Assad has to pitch. It just is what it is, man.

The Braves have been my guess. They have means (pitching prospects) and motive (great offense). AA has history with deadline deals. LAD is more of a threat based on name. Their match is tenuous and requires them to sell from the MLB team. The oldest team in MLB and from their pitching depth. Maybe they do, but I think it's iffy. Milwaukee feels like they keep their best prospects. I think they're more likely to reunite with Freddy than Skubal. But maybe it's wishful thinking on my end.

I said he wasn't signing that because someone is giving him more. It feels like you read the first half of that quote and then ignored the second. Had I said "Seiya Suzuki is not signing a three year deal because he would feel he's worth more" your assessment would be entirely correct. That's me getting in his head. The reason I provided for why he won't sign a three year contract was due, entirely, to other teams. AKA, the market. That the market would offer him more. That has nothing to do with Seiya Suzuki or his thinking. That has everything to do with how other teams operate in the market. The only thing that would change that is Suzuki's thinking. He's offered nothing to suggest in any direction how long he plans on staying here. So using the market is all that matters. Market history is that players of his age and quality sign for more than three years. And exactly why I said what I did; that he wouldn't sign a three year deal with Chicago because someone would out bid the Cubs at that many years. This is no different than me saying that Tarik Skubal won't sign a three year deal because someone will offer him more. That's not me climbing in Skubal's head; it's reading the market.

No one has connected George Kirby to the Cubs or in actual trade rumors. Will Sammon and Ken Rosenthanal, the other day, spoke of two pitchers the Mariners would look to trade: Luis Castillo and Emmerson Hancock. Here is that blurb: Here is the only mention of the name George Kirby in the article: But, okay, let's pretend for a moment the Mariners are cool with George Kirby. Let's run the same math. George Kirby has 2 years of control after this season remaining. He's on pace for 1 win left (ZiPs) which puts him on a 3 win pace, and has averaged 3.4 wins previously - so let's use that. It's fair to assume he would be worth 8 wins over the next 2 years which puts us in a tough spot. Teams value wins, stacking wins like this, more than a regular win. $9m is low and not a good number, but let's use it anyways. Thats $72m in value. We can assume he'll make a good penny in arbitration; let's call it $10m next year (an increase of around 40%) and somewhere between $15-18m after in his last year. So, subtract out $28m or so from the $72m in surplus. The prospect capital to get from Suzuki at $10m in value (without considering his contract) to George Kirby would be astronomical. Kirby is worth every bit on the field based on ZiPS as Suzuki is. And it's safe to assume that just $40-$50m in added value isn't enough to get them to budge in that they don't seem likely to discuss him. It's once again, incredibly unlikely. The amount of teams you could discuss this type of deal with is super small. And then the math just doesn't add up value wise. If Suzuki was 27 and controlled three years you might have something. But that Seiya turns 32 before the end of the year and is a FA? The Mariners can find a hitter far cheaper than this kind of a deal. And the Cubs an find a SP without dealing Suzuki.

Again, in theory it does. But let's think of this from the Mariners' stand point: which pitcher are they trading for a hitter? There have been two names discussed that the Seattle Mariners may consider trading: Emmerson Hancock and Luis Castillo. Luis Castillo has limited trade value. As of now he has 2026 and 2027, but 2027 vests at 180 IP. Let's assume he'd have to be good to get to 180 IP as he's not on pace this year, so again, it's 1.5 years at $21.6 AAV. With 2 months remaining, he's at about $7m (give or take) this year, and then next, so he's going to cost a team, napkin math, $28m (or so) between today and the end of next year. For our practice, let's assume the CBA doesn't change (I'm not going to tweak this for every possible which way). I'll use $9m as a quick fWAR/$, but know this is also very quick napkin math; teams don't operate so pedantic. $28m in value, at $9m per win assumes 3 wins remaining. Castillo has been worth .6 wins this year, ZiPs projects (generously) .5 remaining. So next year, just to get the contract from under water, he'd have to be worth 2.5 fWAR; it doesn't look promising. Castillo for Suzuki would have to include prospects - or some other value just to get to equal. It doesn't make sense from a Cub perspective. The don't really need the prospects, and the Mariners probably aren't trading that heavily from their MLB roster to get this done. Sure, again, theoretically, you could take those prospects, then flip them elsewhere. But if it's so easy then the Mariners should probably just do that to begin with. And if it isn't that easy, there is a ticking time clock (the deadline) looming. Getting that kind of flip job done in a short turn around feels...video-gamey. Okay, how about Hancock? Hancock has been worth 1.6 fWAR so far and is on pace (using ZiPs) at .5 fWAR more. Let's call him a ~2 win player and he's controlled four more years. That's 8 wins, or $72m in value. Even subtracting out contract, he's way over valued for the 1.1 fWAR (so, $10m or so) in value Suzuki offers without considering his contract. You're probably needing to find $30m+ in prospects to get there. Thats one of Rojas/Hartshorn, one of Ayers/Kepley/Conrad/Wiggins and something else pretty fun. At $10m for Suzuki it's easier just to throw a prospect at the Mariners to equal the value. In the end, the math doesn't math very well. You'd need the Cubs to well overvalue 1.5 years of Luis Castillo who has been really bad this year or the Seattle Mariners, a team who is not likely one Seiya Suzuki away from being a World Series favorite, to way overvalue Suzuki in a Hancock trade to get there. Is this an impossible situation? No. But you're basically hoping one team fucks up majorly and that doesn't seem very likely.

So I'll say this off the top: it's not insane on the surface. Suzuki has a 116 wRC+ against RHP and a 161 wRC+ against LHP. Conforto (109 wRC+ against RHP) and Shaw (133 wRC+ against LHP) aren't far off the pace. While Conforto is a bad defender, Shaw is a good one. In aggregate, you could squint and see a Seiya Suzuki replacement. Here's the issue: 1. Suzuki doesn't need to be platooned. It creates a situation where you really don't want Shaw (80 wRC+ against RHP) and Conforto (who has six PA's against LHP because they want to shield him so much) facing certain pitchers late in the game. Suzuki doesn't pose such an issue. 2. The landing strip for that kind of a trade is near impossible to land. You'd need to first find a team who has so much MLB pitching that they say "you know what, I don't need it all" in an era when everyone is getting hurt looking at a baseball. Next, you need a team who, conceivably, is willing to trade controlled pitching for non-controlled hitting. Which seems weird; pitching is more valued at the deadline 3. The opposing team has to want expiring contracts and value them. So you're only trading from a winning team to another winning team. Teams who are winning rarely want to weaken their own position. Especially if they are bringing back a player set to hit Free Agency. 4. Why does it have to be controlled pitching? Because as of right now, Suzuki is in line for a QO and draft pick compensation. The CBA looming may change that, but we can only live in the world we know, and as of now, we know that's coming. They cannot offer a QO to a player they trade for in August, and this is not nothing. The pitcher would have to essentially far outweigh Suzuki to the Cubs if he was expiring, but then the other team is facing the same loss of a QO pick looming. It's a near impossible set of situations that would have to come to fruition for the Cubs to come out ahead. It's possible, I guess, but it's so wildly unlikely to benefit the Cubs that it's probably not going to happen.

I'm going to be very clear: I did not speak as if I was in his mind. I'm not sure if you're implying that, but if you are, please don't. I was speaking from a market standing point because we do know how the market treats players like Seiya Suzuki. Kyle Schwarber (33) signed for five years. Cody Bellinger (30) signed for five years, Anthony Santander (30) signed for five years. Teoscar Hernandez signed for three years, but he was coming off a significantly worse season. But OF'ers in this age range at the top of the market generally sign for more than three years, we shouldn't act like Suzuki is signing for three. So let's just treat him like the market should. Anything else is wild speculation.

I don't think it's necessarily telling. First, his 129 wRC+ is two points higher than his 127 wRC+ in his first season. Virtually the same. Last year's 123 wRC+ was his worst wRC+ of his MLB career; his best year was his second season. No one is "slowing down soon" until they slow down. We know for a fact that bat speed dips heavily at age 32. Tracked and noted by many. We don't see an issue with Seiya on this front yet, but that can come for you quickly. Lastly, the reason they can't bring him back for three years is that he isn't signing a three year deal. Someone is giving him more. So let's take that off the table. It's bare minimum four, and probably, five. At four years you're beginning to push it. For example, there are two hitters in baseball aged 35 or older with a wRC+ over 115: Freddie Freeman and Max Muncy. Freeman is a HoF'er and has amazing staying ability. But hitters just age like horsefeathers right now. League DH hits 108 wRC+ this year and last year it was 114 wRC+. Seiya has a lot of leg injuries and these compound. At what point is he just a DH? And if you're signing him through ages 35 and 36 then you're looking at probably 2/5ths of that contract under water. Can a big market team absorb that? Sure! But it's not surprising to see the Cubs balk at that a bit. They'll likely be toting Swanson and Bregman a bit already on their back ends. They very well may not want another mid-30's hitters soaking up the DH spot too.

I like Seiya, and I'm not entirely against extending him, but he doesn't fit the mold of how the Cubs tend to look to acquire or pay hitters. He's about to be 32 and does not have a lot of defensive versatility. Bregman was also 32, but plays a really strong 3b. Seiya plays a decent RF, which is less positionally valuable than 3b. And we know 32 year olds tend to begin lose bat speed. He's also dealt with a lot of niggling knee and muscle issues - enough that you can see that going south at some point. With the market Suzuki is the best corner OF'er available in FA and I'm not sure the Cubs want to pay him like that, or the years that would go into it. We'll see what happens. But that the Cubs didn't prioritize him in the resigning party is in line with how the team has generally operated and not surprising.

Mahle is a good name for the 2nd best SP and the third best player the Cubs acquire. He's cheap, both in salary and cost, and there's some underlying data there suggesting he's alright. 4.23 xFIP, 4.18 xERA. You could realistically put him in the BP or leave him off a playoff roster with the cost. I wouldn't let him see a playoff start and would be very disappointed if the Cubs let him do that. Maybe it's a necessity because of injuries but he'd be well behind, presumably, the other SP, Shota, Boyd, Cabrera, and Brown on that wishlist and maybe even Colin Rea, but likely not. But I can see a case for him.

Comes from Sammon and Rosenthal, originally. But yes, both of them reported earlier today that the Marlins would listen on their young position players to see if someone would pay out the ass but were likely keeping all of their pitchers.

I would guess even if the Cubs traded for someone tonight that it would be very hard to get that new SP into the rotation by Friday. Just as a few examples: Clay Holmes - still on IL, pitched last night Reid Detmers - pitched last night Sandy Alcantara - pitched last night Joe Ryan - Hurt Tarik Skubal - pitched today Kevin Guasmann could go, he last pitched the 26th and would put him on schedule to throw Friday. But it's probably close enough to Friday that outside of a guy who was already scheduled to go then, that it'd be Civale/Assad regardless.

Right. But also understand; it's out there in the zeitgeist and talking about what that might look like isn't a bad idea. It isn't like they're just making horsefeathers up, or basing it on conjecture. This is a website, we do post content and ideas. Exploring that is just what writers do sometimes. Dan Syzmborski wrote a whole article making trades which included Devers to the White Sox and eating most of the contract (unlikely) and that one isn't even traced back to an idea in an article by two of the better "insiders" around. And I say that with all of the love for Dan; he's a personal favorite of mine for many reasons. It's deadline season and playing around with it is natural. I think we both agree on this: the Cubs trading Seiya Suzuki is probably among the most unlikely things that's going to happen between today and August 4th.

So, we should probably be clear here: this didn't start with North Side or an author here. It started with Will Sammon and Ken Rosenthal - and those two shouldn't be taken lightly. I'll also say this; the line sounds like a throwaway line and one based on opinion not industry knowledge. But here is where it is coming from: Source - The Athletic, 7/23 Also, note that it doesn't say the Cubs are shopping him, only that Seiya could appeal to the Mariners. George Kirby, Logan Gilbert and Bryan Woo probably appeal to the Cubs, too, but the Mariners aren't trading them, either. But this isn't the first time the Cubs have been linked to possibly trading offense at the deadline for pitching (Nico Hoerner came up in the same way). I think both times it was an extreme long shot. And I would highly, highly doubt the Cubs would actually do anything like it. But important to note the original sourcing here.

Not anti-Dustin May, but would probably prioritize others. There's some bad luck (the LOB% is way too low). There's some good luck (he's just not giving up any home runs at home, but on the road is pretty normal to his career). There's some weird in that he's giving up a lot of hard contact, not a lot of barrels but he's not a groundball merchant, so the EV isn't really explained away. Then you have the "how much does he have in the tank" based on his innings over his career. If you told me he was the 2nd best SP you got, and you were super cool transitioning him into the bullpen in the playoffs I'd be a-okay. But if you told me it's Dustin May or, like, Clay Holmes (false equivalency, but whatever) I'd side with Holmes because I think he's just better with the Cubs defense.

He feels like a weirdly acceptable piece to trade. I know "Cubs don't have pitching" but Caple really isn't a top-line starter, and looks more so like maybe a good 4? The Cubs just took 16 arms in the draft, and you assume they believe in Zombro so Caple is in that "he's a fun prospect but I'd be okay if he had to go" territory. I kind of think of him like Ryan Gallagher last year. Gallagher was a fun prospect who kind of jumped up, Cubs traded him, and I haven't seen a lot of "woe is me, we traded Ryan Gallagher" posts either here or in social media circles (partially because he's been bad himself).

Yeah, this one I found noteworthy because they didn't list the Cubs as being physically there. I would think had they been physically there, especially considering their need for pitching, that they'd mention that. That isn't anything the Cubs can keep under wraps like they do with rumors and leaks. Unless they pulled a Bobby Valentine. Obviously. That said the team went to a more "video scouting" aspect of things. So that could be your disconnect.

What's interesting is that the Cubs were not listed as one of the teams the Athletic reported have been watching Clay Holmes (article by Will Sammon and Ken Rosenthal). I'm not sure it means much, but they listed a handful of teams and the Cubs weren't one. I doubt Rojas is on the table for the Mets. But Brooks Caple could be...

It probably is. To be fair, Greg Huss, himself, the guy "super high" on Owen Ayers 365 days ago called him a pop-up prospect himself in his most recent updates! But then went to go describe why he thinks that he's a different type of pop-up prospect exactly how you're talking and that he believes this isn't a flash in the pan. I'd hesitate a bit about "producing" at every level, in that while I think he did "produce" in Myrtle, he did so in a way that was very dismissible. He was 24% better than average but didn't blow the doors off. He wasn't a power-merchant, nothing really stood out as amazing. It was very easily described as "24 year old in the lowest level possible". This year, I think he's blown the doors off. So I think two things are true: 1. He's the very definition of what we should consider a pop-up. He's a 19th round pick who coming into this year was a fringe-prospect in a system most considered down who is now a legitimate top-5 prospect in the system. 2. What he's doing looks mighty sustainable meaning that he's less volatile than your traditional pop-up prospect. And why I feel a lot more comfortably slotting him in as a top-5,6,7,8 (whatever) prospect in a system I think is on the rise versus, like, Mason McGwire.

I think that's fine! I think that's why people are excited! It's also what a pop-up prospect is; someone who kind of pops up out of the fog and jumps a handful of levels, jumps in the rankings significantly and goes from "guy who might be mildly interesting down the road" to "guy who might be on an MLB roster next year" in five months.

I think you're really using revisionist history here. Greg Huss, who I think is a great Cub-centric prospect guy, had him ranked 16th in the system five months ago. This was 16th without Harshorn and Conrad on the list; both of whom would have presumably been ranked higher based on draft pedigree alone and both he left off because neither had made a debut. He's third today on Huss' list. In five months he jumped everyone ahead of him except Rojas (Hartshorn is also above him, but again, he wasn't on the initial list). No one on the list jumped anywhere near that high.

I think that's a bit harsh. He had a fine year last year, but as a 24-year old, 19th round pick hitting six home runs in Myrtle Beach and a 124 wRC+ is much more "what you should do" than anything. He entered 2025 without even being a footnote in Fangraph's top-38 Cubs' prospects, he didn't warrant an addition to BA's mid-year top-30 last year and really started to get noticed come the AFL last year. Greg Huss had him ranked 16th in his preseason rankings and he claims he was "super high" on him last year. The Cubs system entering the year was not one wildly acclaimed so being ranked 16th in this system wasn't really that amazing this winter. I'd certainly classify him as a pop-up prospect. A year ago, he wasn't worthy of a top-30 spot on BA, today, he's 4th on their list. A year ago, had I told you Owen Ayers would be traded for a SP at the 2026 deadline, you'd have thought it would have been for Aaron Civale, and now he's a guy some refuse to trade at all. He doesn't have draft pedigree and realistically, the rocket got strapped to his back during the AFL last year. I think a lot of what he's doing is sustainable. He's showing great things. Him being a pop-up isn't a bad thing. But it isn't like there's a long line of people who have been clamoring for Owen Ayers for years and now people are just noticing. I'm cool with trading him if the Cubs get something good on the back end. I'm also very cool keeping him. But I'd definitely call him a pop-up.

So...that's just not true. He's pulling the ball this season (47.9%) more than his career average (45.4%). And his upturn in production has not seen him go to RF any more (17.3% since June 28th compared to 17.6% this year and 19.9% over his career). And going to RF is not good. It's not good for Hoerner. It's not good for Bregman. It's not good for anyone, really. Balls hit to the pull side, league wide, are far better. They land for more hits. They are hit harder. They result in more home runs. Pull: .443 wOBA, 90.5 EV, .359 AVG Oppo: .310 wOBA, 85 EV, .294 AVG And just to show you on Hoerner: Pull: 115 wRC+ .321 BA (career: 154 wRC+, .355 BA) Oppo: 49 wRC+ .248 BA (career: 80 wRC+, .302 BA) This is one of the oddities of Bregman's year: he's pulling off the ball and his GB% to the pullside is way up. So his pull numbers are really low. That's not normal. In fact, it could be very well explained as Matt did in the article; he's too far ahead of breaking balls. Last year Bregman, to the pull side, was a 175 wRC+ hitter. Over his career he's over 190 wRC+. This year he's under 100. This is not a unique Wrigley Field issue. Wrigley is 11th in pull wOBA and 11th in xwOBA. It's true that Wrigley Field is deeper in the wells than others. But it hasn't affected the pull-side data significantly. It's performing as an above average offensive environment for pull-hitters. The goal for Bregman is not "hit the ball to RF" more. It shouldn't be the goal for anyone. Pulling the ball is better than not. It's about figuring out why Bregman is struggling when he pulls it and how to fix that.

So, I think a few things are going on simultaneously. First, I find MLB.com the highest on grades, as in, they grade players the highest compared to others. I have a bit of a conspiracy theory that this is the case because MLB wants to hype their own product, but can't say that for certain. Eric Logenhagen of FanGraphs tends to be the lowest, IMO. He'll write up a prospect's profile, say almost nothing nice about a player for two paragraphs, highlight every weakness on the planet and then move them up-20 spots in his rankings. I like Eric a lot, it's just his style comparatively. MLB.com also uses a single grade for tools. I suspect these aren't his current grades, but his future grades. So like a best case scenario for Jaims Martinez is average power and above average hit tools. But the overall grade reflects how unlikely he is to be that; thus the 40. A 40 grade on FG is "bench player" but if he really is a 55 hit, 60 field, 45 power guy...he's going to be a 3 win player. So there's a disconnect because of how young and far away he is. Something like Fangraphs will provide a current and a future grade. It helps those make a little more sense. Like if a guy has 40 grade power today, but 60 grade future power (let's say it's a big OF'er who's growing into his body) it helps make the FV make more sense. Sure he's a 35 today but if he fills out he gets a bump. Where as MLB.com misses that so the 40 FV feels like a weird outlier with the profile. To compare the two further, Martinez didn't make the top-34 prospects in the Cubs system this spring from Logenhagen. Remember, one tends to right high, the other runs low and didn't even get a throw-away line in the "young and projectable" section for Logenhagen. Is what it is but is an interesting look into how these two differ. Ultimately, I think it's best we just take these as fun snapshots. They're not useless, worthless, or entirely random but especially with teenagers like Martinez are incredibly volatile, change quickly and are unstable. They're non-scientific so each place has their own rating system and rationale. And with less resources, it can be hard for someone like Eric Logenhagen to see enough of a 17-year-old in the DSL to really have an opinion considering how many players, teams and the like exists, so they're using a network as well. And then you have the teams' own internal rankings which can fly heavily in the face as to what the industry thinks as well. So just because Eric might have a guy as a 45+ FV SP, a team may either like a guy more or less. And we'll never know!