Jason Ross

Mike Petriello, who's among my absolute favorites, wrote a really, really good article on Bellinger today that I think should be read. It dives into his statcast data, what teams are going to look at, and what we can expect Bellinger to be if the batted ball profile of 2023 is the Cody Bellinger we get moving forward. Link to the article here.

James Paxton is purportedly meeting with the Mariners ownership group tonight. TIFWIW. but the guy who says he saw Paxton with the Mariners broke his last two contracts.

It might be an okay contract if a player was going to remain a 3 fWAR player over those 7 years. You usually want to get your surplus value up front to account for years on the backend, however. Signing a 3 win player to 7/$25m AAV probably isn't going to end up being a very good contract once you factor in aging, injuries and the like. Players rarely stay static 3 win players into their mid-30's (which isn't to say that players can't be 3 win players, only that aging curves suggest a 3 win player in his mid-late-20's will fall off some).

First off, welcome to NSBB! Secondly, while I think it's fine to point out World Series wins, I think it's important to remember that while the ultimate goal is a World Series, the more and more the playoffs increase in size and scope, the less and less a World Series should be what we define as "ultimate success". The playoffs, while an entertaining experience, rarely crowns the best team, but all the Cubs front office and spending can do is put out the best team on the field. Luxury tax spending certainly gives teams a strong floor, and while teams like Houston have managed to avoid the luxury tax, so have, for example, the Anaheim Angels, and I don't want to be them. In the end, I think the Cubs have a clue what they're doing, I don't think they're run by complete idiots top to bottom. I also think they rarely bring to the forefront the full bore of their financial advantage, either. Twice in a decade the Cubs decided to do, what resulted in a full tear down and spending could have helped avoid a second tear down (note: none of this is suggesting the Cubs should have dished out the contracts Bryant/Baez received, only that they could have spent more in the 2020-2022 seasons to avoid bottoming out). These don't have to be mutually exclusive. I think the Cubs are pretty decently run. I also think they would be aided if they were willing to spend more like a top-5 market.

Personal standpoint: I'd have him at the bottom of that group. Which on the surface sounds like I'm being a Cubs-rosey glassed guy, but I just don't love the upside. Don't think he's a SS. Questionable power. I think his floor is around that of a Shaw in that both have upside contact but iffy defense but the upside on Grissom is much less. Alcantara's pure upside is so huge and Caissie's bat, even as a strong side platoon, has so much potential. Still think he's a good prospect but I like our three more. Good writeup from a few scouts here can show you where industry folks sit: https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2023/12/mlb-scouts-take-on-vaughn-grissom-acquired-in-chris-sale-trade.html

Higher. He was 21 and put up a 135 wRC+ in AAA. There's some question on the overall power profile and if he's really a SS, but I'd put him in the 2nd tier of prospects. I'd have PCA (floor) and Horton (I think he's that good) above him. Grissom would live with the Shaw/Alcantara/Caissie group for me. Rank 'em at your pleasure.

I think the batted ball data is overblown by some, as I don't think it's a death knell, but it remains somewhat concerning. It paints the picture of someone who's likely to fall into that 110-120 wRC+ range instead of that 130-140 wRC+ range he was in last year. That's still a hitter, but less than the definitive mid-order bat he was last year. I think there are exceptions to the rules, but generally speaking, those exceptions are really hard to predict out their future. Bellinger appears to be able to succeed with less exciting statcast data, but how repeatable that is, and where the fall-off-point is, is hard to tell. Players on the extreme are super cool and fun, but far riskier, IMO. Seven+ year commitments on weird data...worries more more than a seven+ year commit on someone you can more reasonably predict out. But yeah, I think in the end, the Cubs best bet is to allow Bellinger to find greener pastures (pun intended). If his market never hits and you can get him on a $35m AAV for 3 years with an opt-out each season? Circle back. And I think that's a possibility, but isn't overly likely today.

If those are the four contracts I'd have to offer I'd pass. Three of those deals are incredible hard no's (the first three). Bellinger anything approaching $200m is far to risky for someone who's got weird batted ball data. That feels like "we have to keep him!" more than a prudent contract. And for a team who's petrified of 10 year deals, this feels like the absolute wrong 10 year deal to break that rule for. The closest thing I'd sign is that last deal, but even then, with the opt outs, you're throwing a ton of risk in there as opt outs are decidedly player friendly (which in terms of labor is good, but for this exercise, is not). End result unless the price comes down to the $160m-$170m range over 7 years (with no opt outs) or the Cubs can get in on a 2021-Correa-esque 3 year, very high AAV, lots of opt out type of a deal, I'd pass. I'm someone who wants the Cubs to take agency and make this their offseason, but Bellinger's asks feel quite out of whack with the type of player I expect him to be moving forward. Which isn't to suggest I think he's a bad player, but there's enough risk tied to his batted ball data, and enough premium placed on his ability to play CF (and yes, there will be opportunities for him to play CF, but other teams will, in theory, pay him like an all-time CF over 5+ years of a contract and I don't think the Cubs can commit to that as long as they're high on Pete Crow-Armstrong). The Cubs have waited the market out this much at this point, and while I have a lot of concerns with the Cubs (seeming) lack of agency in their plan, there's no reason to abandon that strategy to sign Bellinger to a $200m deal. If this is the path the Cubs want to take, then take it. See the "wait the market out" to the logical conclusion. Bellinger's market is already murky. The Giants have added a center fielder, the Blue Jays have added one as well. While I don't expect either team to be "out" their "must have" on Bellinger has lessoned. Outside of those two teams, other teams who may be interested are hard to fully identify. It may result in the Cubs not signing Bellinger, or another team massively overbidding and giving in to Boras, but this offseason should never have been "Bellinger or bust". If you want to wait the market out, you'll have to lose someone.

Eh, we'll agree to disagree a bit there. I think the Braves have done a pretty solid job, IMO. Not to say everything they've done is perfect (Chris Sale is a bit of an odd one, even with the money kicked in) and I think at some point having a deeper system would pay off (they've thinned that out a ton). But outside of that, I don't see a ton of unforced errors, either. Totally fine if you're not as big of a fan of what the Braves have done, though.

I'd have signed that Murphy contract all day long. It's really only a 3 year extension with a club option. They pre-paid his 3 years of control and then extended him until 2028 with an AAV of $15m. I'm not above criticism for any club (I do think they're going to get a little locked down here as TT said), but I'd have easily applauded the Cubs extending Murphy like that. Even if he falls off in his early 30's, $15m isn't a big LT hit. He just needs to be roughly starting caliber through 2028.

Braves acquire Chris Sale and $$ for Grissom+.

I doubt the Cubs run a true, "6 man" rotation where they have six settled starters who take consistent turns in the rotation. I do think the Cubs, through injuries, rest days, prospects and the like, will run some sort of hybrid rotation where guys will get some "rest days" here or there...etc. So I don't expect the Cubs will run a traditional "5 man" either.

Yeah, it just feels like he's speculating to me and connecting dots. I don't think there's much to report here, and more or less that Heyman's guessing based on Keirmaier and Lee signing with the Giants and Jays.

Never said it had to be in pen. And I acknowledged he had things to work on, Wicks isn't perfect. Sean Manaea has greatly underperformed his xdata his last two years and 250 IP. I don't think he's the kind of pitcher you sign to erase Jordan Wicks name from the rotation, either, regardless of what he did over his last handful of innings after adding a new pitch. Manaea is fine. I'll take the Cubs ability to turn Wicks into a quality arm in the rotation over them blocking him with a pretty sketchy arm on a multi-year contract. The Giants are a team who works with arms pretty well and they were the team who couldn't keep him in the rotation. Again, if the Cubs can sign him to be a swingman on a one year pact; sign me up. I have strong doubts Sean Manaea wants that kind of a contract and in that case, the Cubs and Manaea don't make a ton of sense to me.

I don't think that's fair here. I think you can say that the Cubs were put off by the $300m and we can debate that, but the Yankees and Mets were right there on Yamamoto and unlike Ohtani, it seemed his were well open. Unlike Ohtani, Yamamoto feels like it could have gone anywhere, as long as the money was right. The Cubs didn't even seemingly try with Yamamoto. Those lukewarm quotes from Hoyer were back during the Winter Meetings and that was well before his market kicked up. That's well too early for the Cubs to have had any idea that Yamamoto was going to LAD, too. I'm all for being fair to Hoyer and the Cubs pursuits. I'm fine with saying the Cubs tried on Ohtani, that they didn't have a real shot because of Shohei. Cool with saying they can still get stuff done. That sometimes they're really quiet. But nothing has come out even after the Yamamoto thing to give the Cubs this level of credit here. I don't think the Cubs put forth half a real effort once it became clear the price was going over $250m. We can debate whether that's the right choice to tie up that much money in a starting pitcher and that maybe the Cubs felt that way. But I don't think we can retcon the "well the Cubs really tried on Yamamoto" thing either. They seemingly didn't.

Right. But I don't think you do that by taking Wicks at making him be the guy who's waiting, either. The Cubs should really be giving Jordan Wicks the runway out of the gate, IMO. There's some stuff to cleanup there, but there's stuff to cleanup in Manaea as well. He's not so good we should give him two years, and the Cubs shouldn't be the team that gives him that. I'd be for Manaea if he's option number 6 or 7. I'd be for Manaea if he's one year. What I don't think is going to be in the cards for Manaea is where his market disappears for him to be option 6/7 or for one year. Someone's going to give him #5 on their OD rotation and someone's probably giving him two years. The Cubs should be always looking for depth. Please don't make me out to be the guy who's saying that we don't or we need just the five. I just don't think the Cubs and Manaea are a good fit for what Manaea is probably looking for, and what the Cubs should probably be looking for. He seems simultaneously not good enough and too good for what the Cubs need.

He did try for Ohtani. With that said, it does not seem he tried at all for Yamamoto, unless I've missed some reporting over the last 4 days. The Cubs bowed out of Yamamoto, seemingly, at the start of the offseason, once it became clear the original projection of around $200-250m wasn't happening. The last I saw, the Cubs had no meetings with Yamamoto, and Hoyer's comments in an Athletic article on Yamamoto were...luke warm. Not really saying anything to the rest of the post, or what the Cubs should have done on Yamamoto, only that I wouldn't say he tried there in the same way he did for Ohtani. Ohtani it appears the Cubs offered something around what was necessary. Yamamoto, the Cubs bowed out well before.

Canario, outside of a single run in AA-AAA, has been a strikeout machine and reverted back into one last year. You can have good feeling about him, but nothing in his profile suggests he's such a good player the Cubs should be forcing his way through. He might be useful, but the reality is, he's more than likely not going to be a worthwhile starting player (as most prospects are). His profile is riskier than most. "Jag around with Brown"? I mean, he made it to Iowa very quickly last year, his age 23, then got hurt. Thaw, you're doing that thing you do where you just randomly get overly impatient on a prospect. Ben Brown just barely turned 24. Stop acting like he's 29. If he doesn't improve his control in AAA, he's not an MLB arm regardless.

Sorry, when you added him in with those names (trading from the young pitchers like Brown and Wesneski, who are likely going to be in the BP at best) I assumed you meant for him to be in the BP with those names. Manaea opted out of $12.5m and probably thinks he can get more. He's not a definitive better player moving forward over Wicks, so spending at least $12.5m over Wicks (for what is likely going to be 2+ years) is a bad use of budget for the Cubs who only have $70m and need to upgrade a bunch of places. Upgrading marginally on their 5th SP seems like a bad usage of that money and I'm not sure he's any better than Jordan Wicks moving forward.

The question isn't "can the Cubs fit Manaea in the bullpen?" it's "why would 32 year old Sean Manaea accept he's only a BP arm for the rest of his career if he had that much personal success with his new pitch?". If Manaea wants to be a left handed pitcher in the Cubs bullpen, mixed in with a handful of other guys who can eat up some extra starts, I'm all for it. What I think is likely is that someone out there is going to give him a much more clear cut path to winning a rotational spot and he's going to look to rebuild his career. And I think the Cubs situation is that where they can't offer that to him (and shouldn't be).

With the Cubs mantra of "no bidding wars", I think any plan the Cubs have that expressly rely on a single player outside of the very special case of Ohtani is probably unlikely. There are other big spenders who need SP and Imanaga's price is likely well above early projections (probably looking $100-$120m at this stage). If the Cubs are playing the "wait and see" market on the hitters, they'll likely be doing so with the SP's (who's a deeper group) as well. Which isn't to say they can't possibly win Imanaga, only that they don't seem very likely to be waiting on any one in particular.

That doesn't feel like "change", though. That feels like the status quo. And probably a pretty bad Cub team. The Cubs don't need to play every prospect they have simply because they're prospects. And he Cubs have plenty of talent on the roster that they shouldn't be throwing away a full season on "play the kids" entirely. They can play some young players but they don't need to play them all. That's sounds like the 2021-2022 Cubs of "we'll just trade some guys at the deadline" stuff. The Cubs shouldn't feel forced to play players like Canario simply because they're young.

Was just thinking about this Zumach post. There's many Cub teams and many scenarios where I'd be into Manaea, I just don't think this Cubs team is the Cub team he's a good fit for. He just hasn't been particularly great over his last two seasons, and I just don't think the Cubs are in the position to give him the shot he probably thinks he deserves. The Cubs would likely have to jettison Wicks in a trade for me to have any real interest in Manaea and it feels unlikely that kind of a trade is being discussed at this time (especially considering that the names being talked about seem to include Brown and Wesneski which already strike at our pitching depth). The Cubs feel too good to be taking a risk on Manaea in the rotation spot they actually have open (which is, for all intents and purposes, is an opening for what will become the second best pitcher in the rotation). And he probably should be able to find some team willing to give him a real chance to win a rotational spot Opening Day. So while I respect the hell out of Zumach, I think he's getting the kind of love he probably deserves from Cubdom right now.

Well, I think the discourse around that is tied directly to Pete Crow-Armstrong as well. As long as the Cubs still have PCA in the system and are reportedly pursuing Bellinger, the discussion of Bellinger as a 1b is important. It's likely that the Cubs would move Bellinger to 1b for PCA in the event they're both here, as soon as June. PCA is nearly ready now, and regardless of how high you are on his bat, his defense and speed will carry the day for him in almost any situation to being somewhat useful. Maybe this would change with a PCA trade, but that doesn't appear to be on the horizon. The Cubs have spoken highly of "not blocking" prospects and have yet to make a single trade of consequence of a prospect, so while nothing is non-zero, it doesn't seem likely they'll go ahead and trade their industry consensus-top prospect who's quite close to MLB ready.

I would say someone you plan on playing first base 125+ games who is "good" would also be worth $25m or so a season. With that said, I think what makes a good 1b and a good CF are different, as well, and where I'd have some questions is just how good of a bat Cody Bellinger would have going forward because I think a good 1b requires more of the bat than a good CF.