Jason Ross

Well, the MLB, MLBPA and the various winter leagues do have an agreement within the CBA which specifies many things. There are restrictions on how teams are allowed to use position players and pitchers and which leagues are involved. The MLB also puts resources into many of these leagues. I fully believe if the Chicago Cubs, or any MLB team were to...highly suggest something, these teams would almost assuredly cowtail to them to ensure these types of agreements remain in place. Hoyer is talking like this is coming from the Cubs. It wasn't "they're giving him some work" it's "we are giving him some work". That entirely sounds like a Cubs choice, not some random winter ball team's choice.

Not in that specific quote, but Levine said that. He's playing 1b, directed by the Cubs, on his winter team. Yes.

It could give the Cubs a place to keep Morel if they brought in a DH like Soto or Ohtani. It could be a negotiation tactic for teams who are worried the Cubs don't need Morel if they bring in Soto/Ohtani. It could be the end for Mervis. I'm not entirely sure yet. It has lots of implications.

The Cubs are moving Morel to 1b per Levine. So I think we know how they feel about him at 3b moving forward. Credit to @Transmogrified Tigerfor suggesting this like 1.5 weeks ago and me shitting all over it because I'm a big idiot.

Per Levine: Christopher Morel is playing 1b in Winter Ball. And he's staying there. EDIT: Someone take away Bruce's twitter. He just meant he's staying in winter ball. He's the worst. This happens three times an offseason with him. He's still playing 1b, but the Cubs are just trying to find a home for him. Hoyer's statement makes it more clear.

Yeah, that's an incredibly click-batiy title backed up by not a single word uttered by Boras. Just sounded like normal, Boras stuff. Hell, the only odd part was that he didn't add any of his Boras-ism goofiness (like his like about the Polar Bear in hibernation in New York or the Cubs having a "full belly" last year).

Okay, I heard the quote. It's entirely meaningless. When asked about Juan Soto, this was his response "Met with the Padres, laid out their plan for next year...which obviously included, a lineup that, uh, definitively includes Juan Soto, he's their one .900 OPS player. Ya know, they're obviously, uh, looking for more left handed bats, not less" Exactly that you'd expect him to say. Nothing about him not being traded, and frankly, Boras doesn't run the Padres, so his opinion on it wouldn't matter anyways.

Swanson got mentioned a bit at the beginning of the offseason as a player the Cubs liked, and rumors persisted. If I remember correctly, I believe Jesse Rogers had noted him specifically (I remember this because I remember, incorrectly, stating I didn't think they'd go in for Swanson - exhibit number 2,342 why I'm an idiot). There was rumors the Cubs were involved heavily in Correa, as well, and it seems as though they were. They didn't seem overly connected to Bogaerts and were never really connected to Turner. But I do remember a decent amount on Swanson, especially in the week or two leading to the final contract. Stroman was a very under the radar, quiet, signing. Swanson had decent smoke around him. With the media circus surrounding Ohtani and his free agency (this is like the MLB version of the Lebron thing a decade ago) I doubt any team could even conceive keeping that quiet.

I'm a very "analytical" person when it comes to baseball and I love using data every chance we get. I do think managers have some impact, but I don't think it's really that possible to attribute. For example, comparing the Cubs 2023 to the Cubs in 2024 seems unfair: if the Cubs get, say Shohei Ohtani and are significantly better because they added a hitter who had a 180 wRC+ last year...well that's not because of Craig Counsell. If Craig Counsell puts Luke Little into a game in the 7th, it's impossible to say if David Ross will or not. It's also really hard mid-season. Did a manager make a hitter get hot? Probably not. So when Mike Schlidt and the Cardinals got hot a few years ago, how much of that was simply...regression to the mean? How much was because Schlidt? There's so many impossible things to track, chart and note. We can't know many things. Especially as fans. What I'll say is this: I trust that the Cubs think Craig Counsell is an upgrade and will make a difference. It doesn't have to make a huge difference, but any difference is good. The Cubs know how David Ross' brain works better than any of us, if they think Counsell is more in step with what they want, that's something we can't track or have data on. MLB teams, as well, are learning new things and how they matter constantly. It may not be a revolution, but good teams win on the margins where and when they can.

I like hearing these numbers. It tends to match up with the belief that the Cubs didn't bring in Counsell just to make a move, and that they're taking this seriously.

I think the Cubs are trying to do something big this offseason, I agree. Three reports in 12 hours about the Cubs and Ohtani and all came from different places (one local not known for breaking Cub news, one who's consistently close to the Cubs and another national report). Hoyer refused to comment on Ohtani yesterday and even mentioned a bit about big moves. What I'll say is that these kinds of things probably mean one of two things; either the Cubs want this out there (pressure on the Padres? Just spitballing a reason) or there's enough smoke that three different types of reporters picked up in it. Regardless, as a fan, I find neither bad.

It's coming from Bob Nightengale, so do with it as you please, but according to Bob's most recent USA Today article, the Cubs are "serious contenders" for Shohei Ohtani and "several GM's" have told him that the Cubs have been the most aggressive team for his services thus far.

Oh, I'm not adverse to long term contracts. I would hope the Cubs made some trades for a Soto (using Morel mostly but then probably a decent but not special 2nd piece) but then some sort of controllable SP who has upside to fit in as a high #3 now and possible #2 in a bit. It's hard to float those names right now, because these types are rarely "on the market" but there's some guy like this who's always available, somewhere. I'd also entirely advocate the Cubs lock Juan Soto up for 10+ years. I think he's that kind of a guy. Or maybe trade #2 is a position player and you sign Imanaga. The Cubs have a bit of an issue with their prospects in that they almost have a few too many condensed in a similar wave. The Cubs probably have to pick and choose their favorites a bit, and I think *now* is a decent plan for that. Not so much you kill the system, I'm not saying "hey, go for it all" but I think the Cubs are very set up to go use a few prospects, use someone like Morel who I just don't think the Cubs love at the positions available to him, and start rounding out a team. I think the Cubs have a good system right now for replacing prospects via draft and IFA, as well. The FA pool is particularly craptastic right now outside of a few of the Japanese arms and, well, you know, Ohtani. Cubs have significant money coming back off in 2026. So my plan would be kind of like: use 2024 to make a splash or two in the trade market (the Cubs strength matches up with the FA weakness, so use your strength), IMO, let the prospects come up at the mid-end of 2024, and let them grow in 2025 to fill out the roster, and then 2026 you can re-add.

There's nothing like the offseason. So much hopes. So much of it shall be dashed. Hopefully inbetween a few moments like yesterday of delight and elatement.

There appears to be no "new" news here, but more smoke. Mentions the names "Ohtani and Bellinger" specifically in a response to a question about who their "main" targets are. Also "trades".

Obviously just an accidental typo, but an entire corps of Eric Hosmer is literally terrifying.

Just to the bolded point alone, but I've linked a few articles below that deal with numbers that correlate between MiLB and the MLB. The overall point of every study is that not only do AAA K% correlate, they correlate almost more so than any other statistic for MiLB hitters. Obviously there are outliers and players who have flaws specifically brought out upon reaching the MLB (Alfonso Rivas and his inability to hit an MLB breaking pitch is a good recent Cub example). But I think it's probably fair to accept that players who do or don't strike out a lot in AAA will continue that heading forward. A 2019 study from Fangraphs A 2020 article from Medium The above articles deal specifically with MiLB hitters. If this is something that interests you, I've gone ahead and linked their counterpart articles on pitchers below, too: 2019 study from Fangraphs - Pitcher edition 2020 article from Medium - Pitcher edition

I also think there is a strong feeing in Chicago-Cub-land right now that the Cubs aren't serious about pursuing the high end of the free agent pool, like the Shohei Ohtani guys. The entire Soto thread is filled with people who thought the rumors were the Cubs leaking to get good grace with fans. Rogers has been pretty plugged into the Cubs for the last 10+ years, so hearing that really is a good thing. I still doubt it happens. But it'd be fun to see the Cubs give it a true try.

Tier 1: The "I don't believe in untouchable, but these guys you'd have to probably pry from my cold, dead hands" group Pete Crow-Armstrong: There are flaws here, but the floor is so damn high. Brenton Doyle was able to be worth a full fWAR despite leading the league (in the bad way) with a 43 wRC+ in CF. Varsho 2+ fWAR'd with a wRC+ in the 80's in a similar fashion. Play strong defense, add base running, play a premium position, and you have a strong floor for success. PCA is about as "safe" of a 2 win player as you'll find, and if he can work on some things with the bat, there's 4.5 fWAR upside here on his best seasons. Cade Horton: I'll admit biases here. Many of you only have known me for a short time, but I'm going to toot my horn here; I was on a pretty small island directly after the 2022 draft as a big fan of Cade Horton and all he's done is kill it. Part of this is my ego; I like being right (and listen, I'm wrong plenty. I own up to that too). But if we take that out for a moment, I think I'm being objective when I say just how good I think Horton is. There's Spencer Strider type stuff here, and a legitimate TORP that we haven't seen in a while come through the system. Tier 2: I'm only moving these for elite talent and only if that talent can't be had any other way group. Matt Shaw: I really like Matt Shaw, and like PCA, I think there's a decent floor, especially with the bat. He's a guy you can probably slide into 2b or 3b, and expect a 115 wRC+ type of hitter if things smooth out the way you hope. There's upside, there's 25 HR+ and lots of bat to ball. Aggressive nature at the plate, but I love Matt Shaw, and I like him more and more. Owen Caissie: Ego time here, too, sorry. I liked Caissie pre-draft 2020 and he was on the top of my "please draft this guy in round 2" list. Obviously we've taken a bit of a circuitous route to being a Cub, but I've been a big Caissie fan. Exit velo, emerging ability to handle RF for the near-ish future and 70 grade raw power...this is what elite power hitters look like. He's young and has things to iron out, but he's got true middle-order stuff. I know the argument is with the K's and that he's not a premium position, and I'll admit my bias probably has him a tier too high, but it's my goddamned list and I'll do as I please! Jefferon Rojas: Give it a year and I think he's a top-5 prospect in this system. Possible star stuff. Big, big, big fan of an 18 year old who looks this poised already. Tier 3: I'm pretty reluctant to trade them, but I would if I really had to get something done. Kevin Alcantara: I think he's a great, great player. Huge power and I think he'll be an adequate CF for a bit, and possibly a GG CoF guy. With that said, I think I'd accept moving him. He's a "to make an omelette you have to scramble some eggs" kind of guy. I'd be sad to move him, I wouldn't shop him, but if you told me I'd get to keep the above guys if I had to move Kevin, I would. Being that PCA should take CF, that I'm a bit more of a fan of Caissie, and that I think another team will value him more as a CF than I could as a RF...I'd do it. If I had to. Tier 4: The guys I'd be be okay moving. I'm not shopping them, I'm just okay moving them in the right trade Ben Brown: I really like Ben Brown, so this feels a bit weird, but his control with the fastball remains an issue and there's real BP fear here. When Ben Brown has the fastball, he's elite. When he doesn't, he just gets beat. He's a baby, and he can iron this out, but if you told me that I could get controllable, fairly high end MLB talent and I had to headline it with Ben Brown? I'd probably come away feeling alright. Jackson Ferris/Mo Ballesteros: These are young kids who have a long way to go. If a team is going to overvalue a 19 year old arm or a 19 year old DH to headline a big deal...fine. I know there's some chance they go up in value, but prospects fail so damn often. If someone wants kids who are barely out of HS to lead for an established MLB player, or a controllable MLB player...so be it. James Triantos: Love the hit tool, curious on the defensive spot. If someone else loves Triantos, I can be okay moving him. BJ Murray: Yes, Tom, I know, I can literally hear you yelling at me when I type this out. I'm not as high on Murray as you are! I think Murray probably sits in a less premium position than 3b as we move forward, and there are so many things I love about Murray too. The hit tool is great, I love that he switch hits, but I need to see more of the HR power to move him up my board. At this stage I'm still considering him a massive win coming from where he has to what he's become and if I can get controllable MLB players for him I will. I'll be happy to eat crow if I'm wrong. That he's on a list with the other 4 guys should probably tell you what I think about him in a very positive way though! Alexander Canario: Generally blocked at most positions, questions over the contact%, think he's a good player but being where he's at currently with age/option status, if a team sees a starting MLB OF'er and I can turn him from being a player who isn't really capable of being used into something that the Cubs need? I'd be willing to make that kind of swap. Below my tier 4 is my group of like, Mervis, Vazquez, Perlaza, etc; guys who are either on the 40-man, Rule V eligible, blocked, etc, of guys I'd be more than cool with trading and would expect a handful of them would go to better homes for more useful pieces to the parent team.

I'm not one who genuinely thinks there's much separation in most managers now a days. Most of the really bad, old school, nonsense has been generally weeded out of baseball. Even more so in the NL with the removal of the pitcher hitting, a manager's in game job is one that kind of writes itself many times. Unless you're just actively trying to sabotage yourself, it's pretty easy to determine which players of yours are the best, where they should generally play, and how much. That's not taking away from some in-game situational things, just talking the overall. Keep your team in a good mental place by establishing a good culture, make the easy lineup calls, and I think you're well on your way to being one of the many "fine" managers. Within there, there are some calls that go your way, others that you make right and backfire, and others that the manager just makes that I find a bit baffling. As a manager you should expect little by the ways of credit when you do most of your job, and blame falling upon you when you don't. David Ross is this type of a manager. Most of the MLB is run by these types. It does appear as though Counsell may be in the group above this, who have progressive, generally strong ideas, and are able to consistently surround themselves with smart people. I can't say I've watched a ton of Brewers games when they're not playing Chicago, and even then, I'm rarely paying attention to the Brewers in-game managerial moves in a critical manner like I would the Cubs. Industry belief, however, puts Counsell in this group, and I'm inclined to believe that some of the better run orgs in baseball going after him this hard probably means that's not an oversight by all. How much does a person like Counsell effect the W-L record of a team over someone in the "everyone else" group? If it's even a single game per year in the win column, the Cubs come out on the other end. I had issues with Ross, and I'm sure Counsell is imperfect, too. I'd have been fine with David Ross ultimately, as I don't think he was really actively causing the Cubs much more trouble than most anyone else the Cubs could have had in the position. Maybe someone else makes a move in one game that turns out better, but they'd likely throw it away with another move. But like I said, if the Cubs are right, and Counsell can improve the team even by a win, then good on them for getting better as an organization.

Justin Turner played 57 innings last year at 3b and hasn't played more than 550 innings in two years. Justin Turner will be 39 on Opening Day. Craig Counsell coached Milwaukee teams have placed a high premium on defense. Yes the Red Sox had Devers at 3b, but Turner isn't really a likely candidate for any team at 3b, less so the Cubs. I'm pretty confident in saying the Cubs would be interested in him at 1b or DH and not 3b.

Correct. However, it would seem likely that the Cubs aren't trying to fire a coach per day, and would likely have let them go. Tommy Hottovoy has gotten rave reviews in Chicago, so he's probably only getting promoted. And the Cubs just brought back into the fold John Mallee. It would go to assume that the Cubs would have relieved Dustin Kelly in any event he was being fired when they did the same to Ross.

Dustin Kelly (hitting coach) and Tommy Hottovoy (pitching coach) are still under contract. The Cubs added John Mallee back to the staff this weekend, apparently when they were finalizing a deal with Craig Counsell. I'd assume that wasn't done in a vacuum either. I think all three will remain, unless Hottovoy takes the Breslow spot in the FO (which has some speculation but no noise outside of just internet talk). Cubs need a bench coach. I'd assume that will be a Craig choice.

Has there been more smoke on Imanaga? Because I haven't really seen it (which isn't to say it's not there, but I just haven't seen it). The Cubs were sending Jed Hoyer specifically to Japan to scout Yamamoto. Maybe I'm missing something, but it feels like about the same amount of smoke around all of them.

I'm not entirely sure it's pumping the breaks outside of those who expect the Cubs will throw caution to the wind. I'd be pretty shocked to see the Cubs go in heavy on the FA market. I think they'll have real interest, in say, Yamamoto, but I don't see the Cubs playing the Matt Chapman game, or getting involved in silly-season with Bellinger. I think their big things will be done via trade and not entirely sure that quote suggests otherwise. Just kind of jibes with Rogers from earlier; Cubs will be interested more in trades, less so in mediocre FA market.