Jason Ross

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.

- Per Sharma, The Athletic

I expect the Cubs are better run than to spend 6/$150m on Matt Chapman. Chapman was particularly unimpressive post May 1st (84 wRC+ the rest of the way). Per Sharma, Cubs have financial muscle but won't use it to win "multiple FA battles" in what is considered a weak class. Sounds like they probably do their business via trades this offseason.

Like the Cubs should be aiming higher than a declining 39 year old. Could the Cubs do worse? Sure. But 1b had a 108 wRC+ line, DH's were a 110 wRC+, and Turner's already down to a 114 wRC+. It's likely that we can shave a bit more off that as he works his way into 2024. If the Cubs are at a point in the offseason where the options are dried up, they've achieved strong incoming fixes at a few places and they can get him for a cheap, one year deal versus some other uninspiring options? Okay, whatever. But he's not on my shopping list.

I assumed the Brewers would be very low. There was an anecdote about Counsell shared on twitter/X that was him threatening to punch Prince Fielder in the face if he ever bunted back from their playing days. If you hate bunting that much (and fair play) that you're willing to even consider punching that Man Mountain in the face when you look like Counsell? Then you hate bunting.

I think a bigger dedication to youth, and especially, Pete Crow-Armstrong. The Brewers ran out a handful of young players, and Counsell was entirely willing to throw them in the thick of things; both BP and in the batting lineup. Frelick was immediately inserted into the middle of the lineup, Bryce Turang put up a 60 wRC+ but got 450 PA's because he played strong defense at a premium position, etc...but he also played Jace Peterson a bunch at 3b due to his defense as you mentioned. I expect some of this was necessity and the Brewers choices were limited. I also expect Counsell is more of an advocate for younger players where as I'm not always certain Ross was (not that he refused to play guys, but it felt like his trust circle was hard to get into). I'd probably think PCA is more likely now to break camp. Lots of offseason will change that equation, but I think Counsell would be a bigger fan of PCA's defense and speed with his bat that has some holes than Ross would have been.

From the outside looking in, first, Craig Counsell has, perhaps, the best staff in baseball. The Brewers have, routinely, under Counsell, turned bad fielding catchers into elite framing monsters (Grandal, Narvaez and Contreras all improved significantly). They've done a really good job in developing and getting the best out of arms at every level, and part of that is likely due to his staff at the MLB level. He's been willing to put trust into young players, both arms and hitters. And his in game moves seem pretty solid (though I think there's a degree of not making anyone happy here, too, in that managers usually take the blame when things go bad, but players get the credit on the inverse). I expect a few of that staff is coming over. I expect his in-game stuff with be pretty good. The Cub shave a handful of young players coming up, so a manager who's had a lot of work with younger players over the last few years is also probably something the Cubs liked. I think combined, that's a pretty good thing over most others. We'll see who comes over, who gets what spots and how things sus out from here. But I'd guess that's a good chunk of it.

Yeah, I'm not unhappy in the least. I think Ross was probably a fine manager. I think you could have changed David Ross and put in like, 80% of MLB managers and the results would have been about the same over his tenure. Maybe a win here, a loss there, etc, etc. I think Counsell, regardless of W-L record, is important because it once again, like with Joe Maddon, suggests a real shift in philosophy within the team. Last year's offseason was about "raising the floor". It was hoping guys like Trey Mancini or Eric Hosmer could be around league average and the Cubs would be better by just being alright. David Ross was alright. But the Cubs today said they wanted, at least from based on the contract they gave him, the best and being the best hasn't been a priority of this team for a while. They were content with being okay, maybe slightly better than okay if things worked out. I hope the idea that being the best is something they can take to heart for a while again.

I am genuinely shocked anyone could look at what the Cubs did between 2020 and 2021 and believe that was an earnest attempt at winning baseball games. You are free to your views, but I do not share them in the least. I think there are legitimate things we can look at during David Ross' tenure as manager that is questionable. The Cubs W-L record in 2021 is not one, not for me.

Eh. I mean, I think Ross probably had a bit to do with that. But he was also managing a team that didn't have Stroman (or at best had a husk of Stroman), a pretty run down and exhausted BP, Candelario was hurt... The Cubs were an imperfect team and many of those holes caught up to them at a pretty inopportune time. Ross can have a bit of that blame. Hoyer can have a bit of that blame. Some players didn't perform, as well, and they can also have some of that blame. I don't think the Cubs blamed Ross overly, or he'd have been out prior. This feels like less about David Ross and far more about Craig Counsell. But that's probably a good thing, I'd rather the team be looking to upgrade over "fine" than trying to shoulder blame to deflect.

I do not, under any circumstances, believe the Cubs had any intentions of winning baseball games in 2021. They traded their best SP for most of a HS-aged lineup, non-tendered Kyle Schwarber, and replaced them with players like the husk of Arrieta and Joc Pederson on a reclamation deal. They didn't extend anyone and begun the sell off before July 1st. The Cubs got exactly what they wanted in 2021; they got to sell off multiple big named trade pieces (Rizzo/Bryat/Baez/Kimbrel) at the deadline. David Ross didn't really have much to work with. It was at best a team who could survive enough to replace those holes at the deadline. But it was a team that put forth very little to supplement the good ones and those holes sunk the battleship. I think that was a feature, not a bug.

I think this is a bit misleading and a bit misunderstanding of how the Cubs viewed Ross. First, I don't think anyone blames Ross for his losing record; 2021, and 2022 were teams that were created to lose. They weren't supposed to win. That's not on Ross, he was a caretaker. Secondly, I think the Cubs viewed him as an extension of themselves. I think what he did was largely, what the Cubs wanted him to do. I'm sure there were disagreements, but if they were truly upset at how he ran things, they'd have fired him 3 weeks ago. I also think the Cubs saw a better fit in Counsell and perhaps someone capable of bringing even better ideas and help to the table. That's not to say I think Ross is a rockstar, I think Ross is a fairly bog-standard manager, as most are. He's there, he did an alright job translating what the FO wanted, and whatever, he didn't make anyone's job actively worse most of the time. I think Counsell has the ability to be better then that, in a small group of managers who are likely capable of adding something to a team. Not a ton, but enough. I think the Cubs saw an opportunity to bring in Counsell (and I bet a few of his staff who are also really good at their jobs) to aid the Cubs in ways Ross couldn't.

Yes. The Cubs have released a statement relieving him of his duties and thanking him for his time.

I doubt it. I think this is a situation of opportunity. They didn't even ask the Brewers to interview him (instead waiting until he was officially a FA), and it doesn't seem like they had been conducting a widespread interview process. This feels very closed doors and very opportunistic. They had the chance for the man who is regarded as perhaps the best in the league at what he does, and they made the change. If not for Counsell I suspect Ross would have been kept no issues.

Official statement from the Cubs was that he was "relieved of his managerial duties". He was let go.

I think the Cubs would have a hard time justifying that. You can't break the literal record for money given to a manager then cry poor all offseason. As much as we're excited today, I think we're excited for the implications of Counsell more so than anything. If the Cubs can't come through on that, the love you see today would quicky turned to anything but.

Well, I will say this...he just got 5/$40m from the Cubs. That's the biggest contract ever given to a manager in the history of the MLB. The Cubs could have probably told him to wear a pretty pink skirt and start Justin Steele at SS and he'd probably have taken the contract. I agree, I think the Cubs are going for it, though.

Also, don't forget this: the Brewers are the definitive team when it comes to teaching catching framing. Like, the absolute best. Assume part of that staff is coming with.

Probably good news for Cubs young position players. Counsell never shied away from using young players, playing players like Turang, Weimer and Frelick pretty often and giving leash. Maybe that was because of sheer necessity, but I'd expect he'll have a similar temperament with young players.

Cubs aren't horsefeathers around this offseason. Let's go.

They Reteria-d Ross. Wow.

I'm expecting the money he gets to be kind of spread out. So like, he gets $14m in 2024, but with a $4.5m buyout for the mutual option being declined next year, akin to the Bellinger contract. So it'll be $18.5m or whatever in reality but it'll look like a 2 year mutual option thing.

Yeah, I'm expecting Hoskins takes a deal that kind of mirrors the Bellinger deal in a few ways. I expect he'll get a 1 year deal that is for around $18-22m in total, but on paper acts like a "two year, mutual option" deal. There's zero chance that mutual option goes into place (either he'll be hurt/bad and the team will never pick it up, or he'll be good and he'll never pick it up) and spread the cash out two years despite it being just a one year deal. He'll try to get that big contract next year (and should still probably get a good deal if he has a bounceback).

Pretty interesting. Starting to really think Soto/Morel has some legs here. While this article isn't specific in who/what/where for Christopher Morel, it's another sign that the Cubs are okay with using Morel there. Added with Levine and Cerami there's probably some smoke. Not enough for me to go predicting it, but Sharma is incredibly reliable, and I have to think this isn't a coincidence based on everything else.

Matt Mervis entered 2023 with a lot of hype; then, he made what seemed like a pretty unimpressive cameo on the Chicago Cubs last year. Where do we go from here for "Mash"? Image courtesy of © Matt Blewett-USA TODAY Sports 2023 Season Review Matt Mervis showed up in South Bend in 2022 a changed man, it appeared, from the player we saw in Myrtle Beach in 2021. Moving quickly through South Bend, Tennessee, Iowa, and the Arizona Fall League, many believed in the offseason; Matt Mervis would get a shot at either first base or DH in April with the Cubs. This didn't happen, as the Cubs brought in Eric Hosmer and Trey Mancini in the offseason while giving plenty of plate appearances to players like Patrick Wisdom and Christopher Morel at the DH position. Returning to Iowa, Matt Mervis blistered AAA once again. Posting a 136 wRC+, an 18 K%, and a .970 OPS, Matt Mervis picked up right where he left off in Iowa. Over 91 PAs, Mervis almost equaled his walks (18) and his strikeouts (19); all the while, both Mancini and Hosmer struggled and scuffled with the Cubs. As Mervis hit ropes in Iowa, Eric Hosmer and Trey Mancini started noticeably slow as the Cubs struggled in late April. Voices in the media and fans began clamoring for the man nicknamed "Mash" to make an appearance and save the Cubs. On May 4th, Matt Mervis was called up to the Cubs. Sadly, for both the Cubs and Matt Mervis, his month with the Cubs did not go as planned. Getting 99 plate appearances spread over 27 games, Mervis had a disappointing 32.3 K% and an overall 46 wRC+. On the surface, these numbers were terrible and suggested that Mervis was overmatched at the MLB level. Looking a bit deeper into it, where Matt Mervis struggled can be summed up to two main areas: sliders and left-handed pitchers. Mervis whiffed on nearly 50% of the sliders he saw and had a -8 wRC+ against lefties. He also posted an uninspiring <9% launch angle. It would be easy to think it was all bad for Mervis looking at those numbers, but I think they partially bury the lede. There seemed to be a bit of bad luck for Mash, as his exit velocity, barrel, hard hit, and sweet spot percentages were all very impressive, most of which sat in the 90%+ zone. There seemed to be an aspect of bad luck for Mervis and while there can be some issues with expected batting average and expected slugging occasionally, but Mervis drastically underperformed both metrics. His xwOBA was .319. Is that good? Not really, but it's not the terrible 48 wRC+, either. For a rookie, in his first 99 PAs, a .319 wOBA wouldn't have been the worst outcome. The Cubs became disillusioned with Mervis and turned back to Trey Mancini as the primary first baseman in early June, sending Matt down to Iowa to work on a mechanical fix. Upon returning to AAA, Matt Mervis would post another 131 wRC+, albeit slightly more elevated 24.6 K%. 2024 Outlook and ETA Looking at our North Side Baseball Top 20 prospect list, I'm confident about the path forward for most players; some players have a little more fog... then there's Matt Mervis. Where we go from here on, Mervis is pretty cloudy, and it's hard to pinpoint the path forward. I'm usually complimentary of how the Cubs deal with prospects and young players. Still, they did themselves a disservice with Mervis this season, as they learned very little about his ability to play in the majors. We entered 2023 in a place where it'd be fair to be confident that Mervis could hit AAA pitching at a high level, with questions as to what he would do at the MLB level, and we're entering 2024 with the same questions. I have no issues with someone saying the Cubs couldn't keep just trotting out Mervis, but there didn't seem to be anyone hitting so well to block him from April - July, his only competition being Eric Hosmer and Trey Mancini, who had tons of red flags of their own. A longer leash, punctuated by his xdata, suggests he would have regressed to the mean somehow, considering where the other two first basemen were offensively. We'd be in a better spot to answer the question, "What is Matt Mervis?" without sacrificing much of anything had he gotten that leash. So, where do we go from here? Matt Mervis needs to be on an MLB roster in 2024. He'll be turning 26 early next season, and 661 PAs in AAA have proven that Mervis has solved AAA. Is that roster going to be the Chicago Cubs? I don't know. I think there's an MLB first baseman in Matt Mervis somewhere, but the Cubs should have high aspirations, and I'm not sure they're in a space to find out right now. There are permutations of this offseason where Matt Mervis takes a 1B/DH role with the club in April; I think there are others where he's traded. What I fear is that Matt Mervis could have a similar story to Max Muncy, another player who hit well in MiLB but took a little time in the MLB to figure himself out (not comparing the two or saying Mervis would be as good, just an observation and fear). But I also fear the inverse, that the Cubs aren't very high on Matt Mervis for something I can't see, and going with him in April without a backup plan could put a hole in the Cubs' boat. I'm glad I don't have to answer this question myself. View full article