Jason Ross

Only if his market falls on its face. Which I just don't think will happen.

Oh, Sarcasm. I'm not a fan of the Bellinger idea unless they trade PCA myself. And I'm pretty convinced they're not doing that. PCA is like, this team's dream player. Wins on the margins, safe floor, controllable, premium position. I can't see them moving him. Maybe they will, I'd be shocked, however.

Frankly, I'd still pump the money there, myself, if this is going to be the offseason. The Cubs have essentially backed themselves in a corner when it comes to acquiring an impact bat at this stage and I don't have any aspirations right now that the Cubs will pursuit Soto with the type of vigor they should next year, either. At that point, I'd rather the Cubs have gone with a Glasnow + another SP (a trade, or an Imanaga) and then looked to acquire Hoskins + another bat (using Wicks? Just spitballing, not necessarily giving specific names or targets). Just go all in on the pitching and make a dominant-ass rotation. But in the end, I agree with the end point that we're getting to a point where this offseason is getting hard to parse out how the Cubs end up having a very successful offseason if they're going to miss here.

Yippie.

Oh, I'm not absolving. I am captain of the "Tom Ricketts Sucks" fan club. But I don't think Jed Hoyer was hired because he has a small market mentality in the way I think some believe. That he was hired because he's risk adverse. I think he was hired to continue to the winning ways Theo Epstein had shown, but presented a plan that was more sustainable and Ricketts bought it hook line and sinker. Ricketts blows. But I'm starting to come around more and more to an idea that the way the team is being built is in many ways a Hoyer issue just as much as a Ricketts issue.

I think Tom Ricketts sucks. But the Levine has suggested the Cubs may run a $240-$250m payroll. That's not just an ownership issue. That's a Jed issue as well.

I'll flip a table if the Cubs do that. That probably puts out a pretty decent W-L product, but it also puts out a team that you know just can't compete with the major teams in the playoffs. It's an awesome way to out-pythag your market. To really maximize some decent, but not elite players. That's a team I think the Brewers build and pull 89 wins, with a 2nd round exit because there's no way that offense can hit against a murders' row of stuff, especially when teams shorten the rotation and lengthen the bullpen. I'll live with the Cubs not getting Ohani or Yamamoto. But damn, I want this team to wake up and remember they're the Chicago Cubs.

I'll lead the damn riot if that's the Cubs plan.

Honestly, my fear is that the Cubs have a small-market mentality with a big budget. I've feared for a few years that what the Cubs aim to do is "Cleveland, but more expensive". This would play out perfectly in a scenario where the Cubs decide, through a combination of acquisition cost, their defenses' ability to maximize ground balls, and contract, to go with Shane Bieber over Tyler Glasnow. And that's not the worst logic, but it's also not the way I feel a team like the Cubs should be built. Use your advantage. I might be proven wrong, and I really hope I am. But this is my fear. At some point you can't worry about min/maxing every single penny on an acquisition. Sometimes it's just about getting the better player.

I would argue even if he is way down the road on one of them this is a bad look. The pathway for the Cubs in 2024 to be really good is likely going to be "pitching-pitching-pitching". Replacing Stroman with any of those three is probably closer to a push than it is anything of a real upgrade (looking at the way Stroman pitched when healthy. I'm not really blaming him on the rib injury) talent wise. Get two good pitchers. Let's make it a dominant ass rotation. My fear is that the Cubs are more interested in Shane Bieber over that of Tyler Glasnow, which is my biggest issue right now with the team. Bieber is a fine pitcher, but I think the reason you'd be more interested in Bieber is because "he gets ground balls which our defense can make better" and "he'd be nominally cheaper to acquire" (per Steve Anderson of MLBTR, he said the price on Bieber would be less). I get it, taking Bieber, putting him with an elite middle infield defense can squeeze extra value out of him. But why not just get the better pitcher to begin with? Use your resources. Big a big market team. Absorb a $25m contract. Assume the injury risk. Get the better player, damnit. Maybe I'm wrong on that last paragraph, and I'll accept that I don't know. But damn, that would really make me mad. That's small-market mentality.

If there's a positive, it's that these two (with a follower count of under 9K combined) seem to be the lone two reporting this trade going down. Not to say they can't know something, only that it seems on the very "unverified" side right now. If that's the end package, I'll be a bit miffed that the Cubs couldn't make that one happen after the smoke connecting the two for a few weeks. Sure, the Cubs can go sign an Imanaga or a Montgomery yet, and they're good pitchers, but neither fill a glaring need the Cubs rotation has for velocity and strikeouts like Glasnow does. There's some injury risk there of course, but Glasnow is one of the few, truly impactful players remaining on the market that is likely to move. Maybe the Cubs are really stealthily playing the Yamamoto game, but losing out of Glasnow hurts, if it's the case.

We recently ranked Alexander Canario as North Side Baseball's 10th-best Cubs prospect, but does the right-handed masher have a future with the Cubs? If not, what do we think he commands in a trade? Image courtesy of © David Banks-USA TODAY Sports The case of Alexander Canario in 2024 is a curious one, The outfielder has had a roller coaster of a year, including a devastating ankle and shoulder injury; tons of hard work and rehab; a return through the minor leagues; and a cup of coffee spent with the Cubs during their playoff push. It's really a feel-good story for the Dominican, who signed with the San Francisco Giants in 2016. He even hit his first MLB grand slam. Despite the good vibes, as we enter the new season, the Cubs will be tasked with deciding how Canario fits into both the present and the long-term plans, and neither are particularly easy choices. In the interim, there's a role that the powerful slugger can fill, though just how large a role will be determined over the next few months. As it stands, the Cubs outfield has two of three positions clearly spoken-for, with 2022 and 2023 Gold Glove-winning Ian Happ in left field and Seiya Suzuki (who came on like a wrecking ball the final few months last year) in right. That leaves center field as the lone unsettled position in the outfield. Luckily for Canario, while center may not be his long term home, it's likely that he could be useful there in the short term. Barring some external addition, it's likely that Mike Tauchman will be the Opening Day center fielder (with Pete Crow-Armstrong getting a little extra work in Iowa), but Tauchman comes with the limitation of needing a platoon partner. While Canario didn't really light up left-handed pitching in his injury-hangover 2023 in the minors, in 2022, he posted a .254/.336/.627 line against them across Double A and Triple A, including 13 home runs in just 135 plate appearances. It would make sense, then, for him to platoon with players like Tauchman (a career 96 wRC+ against southpaws) or the aforementioned Happ (a career 93 wRC+ hitter against them). This would give Canario a solid role, and one which he's seemingly capable of filling. The equation gets a little murky if the Cubs don't plan on letting Tauchman handle center. There are four months between today and Opening Day, and the Cubs may choose to re-sign free agent Cody Bellinger. Conversely, Crow-Armstrong could still be the choice from Jump Street. New manager Craig Counsell is no stranger to playing defensively sound rookies and may push for the Cubs to let the youngster cook at the major-league level instead of simmering in Iowa. Either outcome would probably move Tauchman back into a fourth outfielder role, and would make the pathway for Canario to find playing time a bit more rocky. That's where the issues become far more noticeable, and we need to look no further than last season to see what could transpire. In 2023, the Cubs broke camp with Nelson Velázquez, an outfielder with a similarly risky profile (though one who was given extended run in 2022 that did not ultimately impress) as a fifth outfield option on the bench. What resulted for "Nelly" was a truncated 32 plate-appearance sample size from April through May--one that led to him being shipped back to Iowa before the season ever truly began. The team did get a fourth option year on Canario, due to the time he's lost to injuries, but he'd still feel fairly locked into the active roster. While Canario is the better prospect than Velázquez was, it wouldn't be shocking to see the Cubs get into a similar outfield crunch if either Bellinger or PCA is with the team in April. It's this type of scenario that would curdle optimism into caution when projecting just how impactful Canario could be on the 2024 roster. Thus, Canario's true fit might not be on the Chicago Cubs at all, but on another team entirely. As we detailed in our Cubs Top Prospects list, the hard-hitting right-handed hitter has both interesting upside and considerable risk in his profile. It might be a case in which the Cubs are not in a position to give him the developmental time he needs and would, instead, benefit from turning him into something more useful. If the Cubs see him as a useful fourth outfielder, and another club sees a starting one, it would be in the best interests of both Canario and the Cubs to find him a new home. But what kind of trade value would he have? Going back to Velázquez for a second, regardless of his 2022 season, the Royals and the Cubs made a deadline trade in which he was swapped for José Cuas, a controllable, 29-year-old right-handed reliever with decent stuff, but somewhat limited upside. Canario, who's younger and has more upside than Nelly had, should bring a stronger return, even if they end up with similar fates. The Cubs could use some high-leverage relievers, so perhaps a team like the Washington Nationals (who are currently projected to start journeyman Stone Garrett in left field) would be interested in a Canario-for-Hunter Harvey-type swap. Other interesting relief targets could be the Marlins Tanner Scott or AJ Puk, if Miami wants to cash in on their relievers for more offense (though I think these are a bit less likely, considering the Fish's needs). Perhaps a team such as the Seattle Mariners would find him interesting, as well. The M's have struggled to find consistent offensive players throughout their lineup. They've already lost both of their other starting corner outfielders, in free agent Teoscar Hernandez and recently-traded Jarred Kelenic. Even if they end up making a trade for Randy Arozarena (as has been rumored), they could be interested in a swap where Canario is part of a package in exchange for a Bryce Miller or Brian Woo, two starting pitchers whom the Cubs would have uses for. The Cleveland Guardians could also find his profile interesting. After they waived 2022 playoff sensation Oscar González, the Guards are shockingly thin at the MLB level in the outfield, projecting Myles Straw to start in center and Ramón Laureano in right--both positions that Canario could fill. With the Cubs interested in Shane Bieber, Josh Naylor and even Emmanuel Clase, it would make sense if he was in a package deal (though, clearly, not of the caliber to headline the thing) if something were to be finalized and agreed to with Cleveland. The good news is that, regardless of the outcome, Canario is almost assuredly going to be useful to the Chicago Cubs. He's got enough offensive ability that, if the Cubs decided to use him as a fourth outfielder or platoon option, he'd be more than capable of giving the team a few hundred (or more!) useful plate appearances throughout 2024, or providing intriguing injury cover for Happ or Suzuki. However, he also has sufficient trade value that if either the Cubs are put off by the risks he poses or another team is extremely interested, the Chicago front office can turn what may have been a useful "extra" into a "need" position, as well. What do you think? Will Alexander Canario eventually settle into a role in Chicago, or would it be more useful for the Cubs to cash him in for something they need more? View full article

I don't think we've had a single SP hit the free market, especially post new CBA (with new luxury tax lines) who's in the same ballpark as Cole, however. Inflation is going up, and with the LT going up (at a much larger and more consistent rate) I think we have to readjust where contracts are going. This is also going to play a role in what $30m today means, versus, say, $30m in 2030. Look at what the league has done to the Bryce Harper contract. His $25m AAV in 5 years is what Cody Bellinger might get? This also plays into how we should look at his contract long term, too. Secondly, while 25 guys may have amassed 30 fWAR, 33 have made 28 fWAR. Over 10 years, the difference between, say, 28 and 30 fWAR is fractional: .2 fWAR per season. We know what fractional fWAR is. That's not to completely move goal posts, but to say that I think there's wiggle room when we consider the, likely, rising costs of all contracts, inflation, and fractional fWAR to determine if he's going to be worth, roughly, 2x more than Montgomery. Hell, we can do this as well: how many SP have been worth 16.5 fWAR between 31 and 36 in that same span? 20, if we're including Adam Wainright at 16.4. I may be over reaching on the Jordan Montgomery fWAR curve, making 16.5 fWAR through those years, if we're being honest. Based on this data set, we've seen more pitchers reach 30 fWAR from ages 25-34 than we have 16.5 fWAR from ages 31-36. The number Yamamoto needs to hit seems, likely, lower than the target I originally set. In the end, I think we really need to rely on team scouting here, which you and I just, can't do, we don't have access to that. But I don't think this many MLB teams have just, lost their minds here, either. I think there's a damn good reason many of the teams who can afford this kind of contract are all clamoring for him. We'll see where it comes in, and I don't know if it'll reach that level. But when you're a large market, you can afford to be a bit riskier. Maybe it wont be a pure surplus value win, but I'm willing to trust some pretty good organizations here on their internals. Where I ultimately end up on this whole thing is this: it's one thing if the Cubs have the drop on these teams, and I'll accept that's a real-world possibility, but it's another if they're being overly cautious and refuse to accept that there is never a perfect time to go get great players. They've done pretty good in scouting pitching over the last 3+ years, both at the MLB level and the MiLB level (with some misses) so believing the Cubs scouting is the hold up here and there's something there they don't love is a thing we can likely believe. But the Cubs seem like the large market team on an island here, as well. Perhaps it's being coy, not playing the game of letting everyone know that they're in and they do really love Yamamoto and aren't on that island, as well (if so, good job, Jed! and it wouldn't be the first time). But they seemed pretty interested previously, both in the summer sending scouts over and at the start of the offseason being deemed a favorite to sign him, and now don't seem that enthused (both reports and Hoyer's comments). And I'll say...that gives me some pause.

I guess I'd ask you this: if Kevin Gausman was 25 years old today, do you think he'd get 5/$110m? I think he's one of the more criminally under paid players in baseball right now, but he had a lot of circumstances as to why he got there. He was pretty much a mediocre-to-failed SP for much of his career with only one solid year under his belt. I think if Kevin Gausman was a 25 year old free agent today, he'd be paid far above and beyond that. Probably approaching $250-$300m. I think you're paying a bit of a premium for Yamamoto because he's a unique free agent based on age. Let's put it another way: Aaron Nola just picked up an AAV of $25m and Sonny Gray, one of $25m. If we assume Yamamoto if of their quality, which I think is around these two, then you're looking at another $25m AAV Now multiply that out 10 years. Why the years? His age is incredibly unique. I have a feeling the "$250m" price tag is not coming with a 7 year commitment, but likely, continuing the trend we're seeing of teams adding years to lower AAV. At that point, you're saying he's somewhere between a SP who had a 3.6-3.8 xFIP and would be worth around high 3's to low 5's on his fWAR. I think that's right in that "ace-but-not-Cy-Young" territory. Even if you're getting a bit on the high end, in the $30m AAV, I think that's a product of age+inflation+rising CBT tax lines (we didn't see this with the last CBA, remember). That's not a crazy high suggestion. The belief is that he's a better prospect than Kodai Senga, and Senga finished with 3.4 fWAR, and a 3.77 xFIP. How likely is it he's twice as good as Montgomery? I think decently likely...Jordan Montgomery is 31 years old. How many fWAR are we thinking Montgomery is going to be worth over the next, say, 5 years? 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5 feels like a pretty fair guess on fWAR for his progression. So what, 16.5 fWAR? Do I think Yamamoto on a 10 year deal can double that? Baring health, I think there's an argument that a 25 year old pitcher between 25-34 will get to ~32-33 fWAR. That's what a fraction over a 3 fWAR average? That's not easy, but again, that age is doing a lot of work here. In the end, I don't think I agree this is just wanting to do something as big as Ohtani. A lot of this comes down to scouting and you've got to trust your scouting here. What I've got is some really cool Eno Saris stuff, so it's not what MLB teams have, regardless of how cool Saris' stuff is. That's something we should take into account. But I don't think teams like the Dodgers (who already did the Ohtani thing) and the Yankees, Mets, Giants...have all whipped themselves into a frenzy over this just hoping it's another Ohtani. I don't think Eno Saris did either. I very much believe the Chicago Cubs, when given the chance to acquire a 25 year old with ace-type stuff, even if he's not generational-type-stuff, for money only, should be there. It's one thing if the Cubs internal scouting just says "hey, maybe this isn't an ace type guy". It's another if the Cubs are saying the contract is too scary for them. If it's the first, I fully understand and defer. If it's the second...then I am becoming a bit worried on their hunger to ever land the type of player they may never develop themselves.

For me, I define them this way: control is your ability to locate pitches within the zone, command is your ability to throw the ball precisely where you want. It's great if you can control a pitch; throwing strikes is objectively, the name of the game (most of the time). But we know mistakes exist in the zone. So you have to be able to command them in the zone; you don't want to float curveballs at the top of the zone, or leave fastballs in the middle. Just throwing strikes can't be enough at the highest levels. While I think these things can be linked in ways, they're not always linked. For example, I think we can see players who can "fix" their control by just forcing pitches into the zone. But then they create a new issue; meatballs. So they get rocked. I think Caleb Kilian is a good example of the opposite of this. In his journey to create more whiff and chase, he purposefully forced pitches out of the zone (or sacrificing control). But he created mechanical issues and he couldn't get that back (at least not without a significant amount of work, and now we're just back where we started). I do think pitch-lab improves command and control, but truly, pitch-lab is just the start of the journey. It shows pitchers their spin, how they're controlling their body. But it can't make a pitcher better and controlling their body. I think people underestimate just how hard it is to teach guys to control their bodies in a consistent, and new manner.

I don't think he's a super-ace, but Eno Saris ran a really good article today on the Athletic looking for comparables on lots of his data. Basically, he concluded that he thinks that based on stuff+, history, age, etc, that Yamamoto has everything you'd look for if you were scouting an ace, but with perhaps questions on durability and size. "We can say with a tiny bit more certainty that he’s like a Gausman with Bassitt’s curve and Eflin’s command, which would be a dominant combination but also has not necessarily existed in one human being before. Nobody knows what they’ll get for sure, but it’s clear that the underlying data suggests that his future MLB team is getting an ace and that the only question is how many innings they’ll get for their trouble." I'd guess teams are excited about the combined stuff+age for Yamamoto. I'm guessing the AAV will still be in the high 20's and low 30's with some sort of a 10 year contract (with possibly an opt out after, say, 6?). But I also get why you'd be in that market. How many 25 year old aces hit the free market? If you're looking at the stuff+ data and the like, this is rare, one shot, for a team. Normally when we see aces hit the market, you get guys like Snell; already into their 30's. This is a free, money-only shot at grabbing someone who has half a decade before they hit 30 with ace-upside stuff. Even if he hits all-star level instead of bonafied Cy-Young, that's rare occurrence in the MLB. Take it when you get it, right? There's real risk there too, he's a pitcher and a pretty diminutive one in terms of what we're used to seeing in terms of size. Maybe his stuff doesn't translate completely. But if you're a big market, there's always risk in arms, so if you can buy an ace for money...go for it. I'd really appreciate the Cubs being in on this one for these reasons; stuff wise he fits a need, age wise he fits a long term piece, and I just don't think you get many shots to just...buy a ready made potential ace. I also think they're more risk adverse than me and likely won't be. They seem to be pretty wary of these long term contracts.

The hope is that the Cubs are working on things that aren't being reported out side of vaguities. Perhaps a larger trade with Cleveland (Bieber/Naylor?), a trade with Seattle (SP?) or something off the radar. The Cubs have a tendency to operate rather quietly on things so it's probably something that would come together fast on our end, but took weeks of work to get done.

Based on recent reports on the Cubs not being interested in the price tag, it's feeling likely that the Cubs are just not involved.

Exactly where I sit. Clase is awesome, I think if the Cubs want to spend that much prospect capital, there are better ways to spend it.

And that's fair. The issue is, I think this is more of a fan created situation than one that is likely to materialize. I'll not say I know what the Cubs are going to do, and certainly, there's a non-zero chance this happens. With that said, Pete Crow-Armstrong fits almost, to a T, what this organization has valued over the course of the last handful of seasons: he offers a safe, projectable floor, plays a premium position, plays elite (likely) defense and adds plenty of value on the bases. We also have the Cubs talking, multiple times this offseason, about the future, the prospects... So I think it's fine to point out they could trade him. I find this scenario incredibly unlikely, however.

I'm probably out on Bellinger at 7/$180m. Good player, but a $25m AAV over the course of 7 years is assuming plenty of premium position time. Bellinger's quality of contact and 2-strike BABIP success last year is quite concerning moving forward and I don't have him projected as the 140 wRC+ he was; more like a 125 wRC+ hitter. At 1b, or LF, there's a larger importance placed on his bat. I'm never against forcing a good prospect to force their way in, but Pete Crow-Armstrong is a near lock to be on the MLB roster by mid-season barring a full collapse of the bat. His glove, his speed are both MLB ready-now and he's going to force that issue (especially on a team that loves up-the-middle defense). With the market Bellinger has, which should include but isn't limited to Toronto, San Francisco and Seattle, there's going to be a team who wants him at CF, not for half a season, or one year, but 3-5+ years. I'm not paying someone I'm moving to a far less premium position like he's a CF'er. If a market doesn't materialize, and he's looking for a Correa-type thing where you get him in for a 3 year contract, multi-opt-out high AAV thing? I'd be quite interested. But as long as you have other teams who are going to value him as a premium position player...pass. I think it'll come in a bit higher then that if someone sees him as a 4+ year solution to a premium position. Either in way of extra years of a bit higher AAV. The Cubs have other options, and other routes.

Now I'm mad again. But this time at the Cubs.

Heyman's already posted how this will effect the QO. Instead of $46m being averaged in, which is the real world value of his contract, $28m will be averaged in. I mentioned in that post, I'm pretty bad at mental math, so I'm not sure how massive of an effect that's going to be...but it'll have an effect. And I'm not sure it's so easy as "a player has to want to go somewhere". We've seen the MLB act with collusion before, and I think this could open up a situation in which it happens again. I don't trust these owners or this league as far as you can throw them. The league is totally cool with owners, effectively, destroying their teams for tax breaks and a new stadium, and others who pocket CBT money. I think it's nice to believe that this is the type of unicorn contract that won't be attempted again. I have a pretty negative view of the people who run this league and their ability to game an already rigged system.