Jason Ross

Once billed as the "next Alex Rodriguez," Hernandez struggled in 2022. Did the 2023 season treat Hernandez any better? Image courtesy of Cristian Hernandez 2023 Season Review Cristian Hernandez was once considered to be a massive international free-agent coup by the Cubs. Despite coming a bit later than anticipated, Hernandez was given a $3m bonus in the winter of 2021. Coming with massive expectations, Hernandez has struggled to hit those lofty comparisons. In my opinion, Hernandez is a great example of why comparisons for 15-year-old kids are so very unfair. How impossible is it for anyone to become the next A-Rod, let alone someone who would be a freshman in high school? Looking at the raw numbers for Hernandez paints a pretty ugly picture of the youngster's time in Myrtle Beach. Posting a wRC+ of 77, a K% over 27%, and hitting just four home runs, it's easy to be highly discouraged by Hernandez. Hernandez is a tall, toolsy, lanky shortstop, and the power was something people touted as plus. Despite this, he's only managed seven home runs outside of the Arizona Complex league in 600 PAs. What seems to be an issue for Hernandez is his barrel control because his swing is quite visually appealing: That goes to show where the limitations are. In the video above, Josh Norris points to how good of a swing Hernandez looks to have, yet the ball doesn't get out. Can he control his lanky body to create the consistent barrel action needed for power? Despite increased contact numbers, posting declining ISO numbers suggests this is a legitimate possibility. There also was a change in approach for Hernandez mid-season. Hernandez's last home run in 2023 came on July 19th. From July 20th through the remainder of the season, his K% dipped to 24% (almost 4% lower than his season average), and his BB% jumped above 10% despite the lack of home runs. He had nine extra-base hits (eight doubles and a triple) over that span, which was a better rate of extra-base hits than the first two-thirds of the year, suggesting that there might be more power coming. There are still issues with things, so it's not all peaches and cream, as he only had an 86 wRC+, coupled with a > .230 batting average. The wRC+ of 86 is better than his season's line of 77, but it's hard to be excited by that, regardless. Another caveat we can add to the argument is that Myrtle Beach is a really hard place to hit. Myrtle Beach isn't the best place for power numbers and tends to be a pitcher's league in total. It's not enough to answer the question of "Where is the power?" but it might be a part of the question. 2024 Season Outlook and ETA It's hard to tell if the Cubs will promote Hernandez to A+ South Bend or keep him in Myrtle Beach. On merit, he belongs in Myrtle Beach, but on the upside, an argument for being in South Bend is fair. His work over the offseason and the winter will play a large role for the soon-to-be-20-year-old. The Chicago Cubs have been more aggressive in promoting bats than they have on pitchers, so my guess is South Bend will be his home with the possibility of a developmental list return to the Complex League if it doesn't start well. This would also be a similar plan the team took with former IFA-bonus-baby Reginald Preciado. Getting Hernandez outside of Myrtle Beach into South Bend may also help. We shouldn't overstate the downside, he's not a sunk prospect. He's tall, lanky, and the kind of player who could legitimately break out. While it's unfair to compare him to Alex Rodriguez, there's a reason people saw that, and the upside still is there. With an approach change signaled in his last 150 PAs, it could help him find the barrel control he has been missing. Much of this could be growing into his body, maturing, and adding core strength. Hernandez doesn't deserve to be a top-5 prospect in a deep Cub system and may not be the position's future, but he doesn't deserve to be written off, either. All seasons are important, but 2024 feels very important for Hernandez. We're still years away from Hernandez getting on the MLB radar, so his ETA is probably hard to pinpoint, but I think 2026-2027 is around where he's aiming for at this stage. View full article

Is Christopher Morel really impacting the MLB roster that much as a (career) 114 wRC+ DH? He was worth 1.4 fWAR last year in 430 PAs. That's not nothing, but the league average DH was a 106 wRC+. This comes down to "Do the Cubs thinks Christopher Morel can play 3b?". They didn't last year. Maybe he needs an offseason to convert his throwing angle, or maybe the Cubs just don't think he can. If the Cubs are going to use him as a DH, you can find slightly above average DHs' pretty readily, and 1.4 fWAR is very replaceable. That's why this math hinges on "can he play 3b?". He has no other path to playing time as of today with the Cub. So for the Cubs, the value of Christopher Morel holds different math than for the Padres if they move Kim to 3b and have Morel play 2b. Or if they believe he can be a 3b. Also, it's not as easy of math as "Candelario + SP = Soto". Soto is one player, one roster spot, one 5 fWAR player. He's a much better player than either of those, and combined, he's still better because it allows another player to bring value to the roster. He also keeps the entire rest of the really good prospects intact, assuming that it's Morel leading, and prospects from the 10-20 range that fill out the trade. You can use that saving to then trade for a cheaper player (monetarily) and not even mess with FA. And while it's not something we should be chasing, he'll recoup a 45 FV prospect in the offseason if he doesn't resign with the QO, so he's not an entire loss. We have to also remember that any trade for Juan Soto has nothing to do with an extension for Juan Soto. When we're trading with the Padres, the thing we get is one year of Juan Soto. It does not change his trade value; there will be no sign-and-trade. The trade doesn't get better or worse value if they end up extending Juan Soto, that contract is it's own value. I think it's important to separate the two concepts. The reason someone like Morel can headline a Juan Soto trade is purely because he's only 1 year of control. The Cubs would have paid Christopher Morel for Juan Soto. But that's the cost of doing business. And at this stage, it's time for the Cubs to start acquiring elite players if the cost isn't insanely prohibitive. I like Christopher Morel, and I think he's got the outlook of a pretty good MLB player. I don't think it's a low cost. I also don't think it's a cost that would prohibit me from getting one of the absolute best hitters in baseball, even if there's risk it's only for one year.

I think it's important to remember that any trade centering around Christopher Morel for Juan Soto would almost assuredly not be in a vacuum. A trade like that, likely keeps the entire-top-9 prospects intact. At that point, we'd still be in a similar situation where we'd have plenty of prospects to pick-choose-and-move for a 2nd splash move (and for perhaps a more controllable player). I'd be very much in favor of still using the prospect capital retained to make that 2nd trade. The offseason, if they go the Juan Soto route, can't be "Juan Soto and a BP arm" and I'd hope the Cubs saw it the same way (I would assume they would in the theory they traded for a player with only one guaranteed year). It's why I remain very strongly on the side of being totally cool with a Morel for Soto trade. That isn't to discount Morel, I think Morel is a good player, but unless the Cubs are going to have a change of heart when it comes to Morel at 3b, he's pretty blocked. Swapping him for Soto, while also allowing for a 2nd prospect trade would be a really good way to get creative this offseason in changing our players around. I agree, if the Cubs hope is "well, IDK, just trade for a year of Juan Soto and that's basically it", that it's probably better to find a better use for Christopher Morel. This is all under the assumption that the team has slightly higher aims than that.

On one hand, I'm glad the Cubs are doing their due-diligence, that's a good thing. On the other hand, the last thing the rotation needs currently is another low-velocity, maybe-his-secondaries-carry-him BORP-type. He sounds like an option the Cubs should look at if they needed to depth to the bottom. Maybe there's a world where they need to do that this offseason (declining Hendricks option, a trade of Assad/Wicks...etc). But I'd like the Cubs to shoot higher for rotational help.

I wonder how much of this is just Levine's opinion, or if it's wrapped up in his previous comments that the Padres are high on Morel. Is this based on some background noise/knowledge or just Levine's personal beliefs?

Yeah, I think Morel has value for sure (why I think Soto for Morel, or at least those bones makes sense). I'd not be happy to lose Morel, but a Morel-centered-trade is probably in my "best case scenario", as well, when it comes to Juan Soto. I think it likely preserves the vast majority, if not the entirety of the Cubs-top-8-or-9 prospects while upgrading the MLB roster in the interim. I'd have to think the Cubs wouldn't trade Morel-for-Soto without a strong inkling of what it'd take to extend Soto and a strong desire to meet that level. And keeping intact the prospect capital isn't because I'm interested in prospect hording, but instead, I'd also look to make a second splash trade (I'd assume the $30m addition of Soto would take a strong chunk of money available). Whether a SP or another bat, it'd kind of depend on what would happen with Stroman/Hendricks, so I don't have names but that'd be how I'd feel. Whether or not the Cubs would...well...that's on them!

I think a lot of Morel's importance with a Soto trade comes down to where the Cubs see Christopher's home. A trade for Soto likely closes off DH for Morel (as Happ, Suzuki and Soto would probably have to share COF and DH). As of yet, the team has been pretty hesitant to push for him to play at 3b. Obviously the offseason can change this equation, but internally it's hard to tell what they think. If they aren't fans of Morel as a 3b, there might not be a home for both Soto and Morel with the team and I'd guess the Cubs would likely at that point prefer a Morel headline versus a Wicks/Brown/Canario/whatever.

I don't really think they'd get laughed at if Christopher Morel was the headliner. Christopher Morel has 5 years of control remaining. He's 24 years old. He's a career 114 wRC+ hitter, has been worth 3 fWAR in 220 games and while the Cubs have primarily turned him into a DH, I don't think he's a DH-only-yet (I think work is needed to convert him fully to 3b, but his profile and scouting report was always that his glove was solid, and I expect he's a pretty decent 2b if given a full slate there). Soto only has one year of his deal remaining. so even as a roughly 5 fWAR player, the value you're trading isn't impossibly high. If you're "high" on Morel (as Levine claims the Padres are) you'd probably see a 2+ fWAR player over the course of that 5 years (at least 10 fWAR total). Add in something useful that isn't a Cub-10 prospect but has some good potential and I think you're pretty close on value. I know he's Juan Soto but we have to separate name from value. We're used to thinking everything in the aspect of "ceiling, ceiling, ceiling" and I'm sure there would be packages that included players with higher ceilings than Morel. But Morel has already posted that 114 wRC+ in 850 PA's so there's a bunch of data that suggests Morel is an above average MLB hitter who might have more upside than that in the tank. There's a lot to be said about that kind of certainty, especially for a team like the Padres who aren't built to win in 2 or 3 years, but today. I actually like Morel as a player, and I'd be a bit bummed to see him go. I do still have some questions about his contact rate. But I can see where a team may be high on Morel and see him as an option to add offense today, and still have $30m to go get another player, too. This really comes down to the Padres. Are they really high on Christopher Morel? None of us can answer that.

Morel would be someone I'd be fine with moving as the big piece. Happy, honestly.

Levine, as well as Cerami, claims Cubs will be seriously involved in the Juan Soto sweeps this offseason.

The Cubs' Luiz Vazquez is not a name you'd have found on any Cubs-top-20 lists entering into the 2023 season, but exiting it, he's one of the players who helped his cause. Is it enough to create a real-deal MLB regular? Image courtesy of Photo by Chris Bernacchi/Diamond Images 2023 Season Review Very few Cubs prospects had their prospect star rise as much throughout the 2023 season as Luis Vazquez did. A player with whom very few were acquainted, Vazquez ended the season as the de facto shortstop in Iowa despite starting the year in Tennessee as a repeater. A strong glove and hit tool propelled him into Iowa, and he's now knocking on the doors of the Major League club. But how did we get here? For Vazquez, the season began back in Tennessee after receiving a small cup of coffee in Iowa in the 2nd half of 2022 that didn't go particularly well, as Vazquez compiled a 20 wRC+ in just under 100 PAs. Even at just 22 years old entering the season, there wasn't a lot of excitement around Luis Vazquez as a prospect. Even in his 2022, Vazquez could only muster a 72 wRC+, and the only "successful" stints were always of the short kind. A glove-first prospect, Vazquez hadn't shown any ability to take a 50/55 grade hit tool and make much out of it at the plate. 2023, however, something clicked. Vazquez increased his power, posting a career-high .198 ISO in AA, increased his walks, and lowered his strikeout rate. This outbreak in AA caused the Cubs to move Vazquez up to Iowa midseason, and the renaissance continued. Posting an equally encouraging .171 ISO in Iowa, Vazquez continued to lower his K% to the low 20s and increase his walk rate to the double digits. All of this can be seen in his exit-velocity gains, showing the biggest gains of any prospect in the Cubs system from 2022 to 2023. He's hitting the ball more often and has more power; this is only a good thing. Vazquez finished 2023 with a 109 wRC+ in Iowa, capping off a really good season. On the defensive side, Luis Vazquez is a wonderful glove man, and there's little debate. It's fair to give him a 60+ grade on the glove, and if you want to be very bullish, a 65 is probably okay. His glove has never really been in doubt, giving him a relatively safe floor as we move forward. If not for Pete Crow-Armstrong, an argument that Vazquez winning "Cubs MiLB Defensive Player of the Year" could be made. 2024 Season Outlook and ETA Luis Vazquez is in a weird spot for the Cubs right now, and despite the amazing season, I'm not entirely sure where we go from here. I think Luis Vazquez belongs on an MLB roster at some point in the 2024 season and has an upside somewhere between an up/down organizational type and a 2nd division starter (like a Jose Iglesias type). Vazquez also enters 2024 as a Rule 5 draft-eligible player, and I have little doubt an MLB team wouldn't pick him. The problem for the Cubs is how do they maximize his value if they aren't sure they can fit him into their plans? Vazquez's roster spot is a somewhat odd fit, causing some confusion. The Cubs already have built-in shortstop protection on the MLB roster with Nico Hoerner, 2B/3B players like Christopher Morel and Nick Madrigal, and someone like Matt Shaw, who could be ready to help at second and third as soon as late June. The Cubs have many questions about who to protect on the 40-man roster, as well as how many of these players Vazquez would be ahead of. On top of that, the Chicago Cubs will likely make trades this offseason. There's a good chance Vazquez will have more value to another team and could be used as a piece in a trade (either as a 3rd option in a larger trade or as a 1st/2nd option in a smaller one). We'll get a little clarity on his situation early with the need to either add him on the 40-man being an early-off-season choice or even the Cubs choosing to move Morel or Madrigal and keeping Vazquez instead. Regardless of this choice, Luis Vazquez has intrinsic value to the Cubs when, 365 days ago, he probably didn't have any, so it's a win either way you slice it. View full article

I don't have concern about the raw power. But I do question the game power for that very reason. It's fixable, but many things are, in theory, fixable, for many players and they never fix. In the end, it's a polish, and all prospects have them, so it's not a major concern. Just something to watch over the years. With that said, a very fun AFL showing for him.

I've got disagree with this. I think the Chicago Cubs draft strategy between 2021-2023 is absolute as good as you could have. I'm not blaming a soul for 2020. A year in which scouting was slashed and dashed from the organization, a year of no HS seniors, or any real college ball, and only 5 rounds. Drafting in the MLB is hard to begin with, and 2020 was about as hard as humanly possible. The Cubs, post-2020, expertly scouting the 2020 draft class, picking up PCA and Caissie via trades, which is certainly in part of Kantrovitz being head of scouting. So while I think it's fair to say that the 2020 class the Cubs piced has generally failed, they've made up for it by grabbing two of their top-four or five prospects from that very same draft (and developing them, almost exclusively). I think 2021 gets an A- from me, We can debate whether they could have gone with Montgomery, but taking a SP who's already made his way to the MLB and has the looks of FIP beater, GB% machine. There's polish to go, but it's hard to knock that pick. 2nd round picks are losers most of the time, and the Cubs went and grabbed a borderline-top-100 prospect who has done nothing but hit. I'm a little skeptical of where he plays, but MiLB defense can be worked on. Then you have Drew Gray, BJ Murray (in the 12th!!), Zac Leigh (who could be a future mid-inning BP arm), and Riley Martin is interesting enough that I think he makes the MLB some day somewhere. I don't think you can realistically ask for much more. 2022? This is what an A+ draft looks like one year past. I was never super hot on Brooks Lee, personally . He's fine, but he's a tweener defensively and offensively there's nothing he's done that's blown me out of the water . Lots of contact, but a pretty mediocre showing in AAA so far. Cade Horton looks every bit of a TORP, and there's no way they get Ferris with Lee. Birdsell in the 5th has MLB upside, McCullough has MLB upside (I think more as a BP arm), Rujano's taken big steps forward, McGeary is MLB upside as a 15th round pick, and we still have some bunch of HS prospects in Paciolla, McGwire, Wheat and Mule who have barely seen action. 2023: Too early so far, but I love the strategy. Dan Kantrovitz is a damn fine drafter. The Cubs have crushed it in areas where people complained they failed in the mid-2010's; outside of the first round. 2021 and 2022 both have brought borderline top-100 prospects, have found winners in typical "senior-sign" territories of rounds 3-10, and found MLB upside players in rounds 11+. I think he's gotten no grade lower than a solid A from me. I think Breslow is a big loss. I think Kantrovitz is as big of a loss, if not more.

Kantrovitz sounds like he might end up with the Mets. I've really enjoyed the Cubs drafting strategy, and losing both Breslow and Kantrovitz would be pretty hard to overcome in the same offseason.

Kim Ng just declined an interview with Boston (she was considered to be very high on their list when she declined her option with the Marlins). Perhaps she has a different plan, but that might point to Breslow being considered a very likely hired in Boston.

Perhaps. While I don't disagree it's good to get new ideas in, I also don't think the Cubs are necessarily at the "need new ideas" stage, either. I'd prefer, if possible, the Cubs to keep Craig Breslow at the top and have a bit more time of implementation before I'd really be worried about innovation yet (I actually think the Cubs are already on the forefront of a few things like seam-shifted wake and identifying oddball pitch types).

Nope. Gammons mentioned it could happen, but it was refuted as being done very quickly. That said, this would be a big loss. Selfishly, I wanted the Cubs to consider Breslow for the job Hawkins took a few years ago. Which isn't to say that I think Hawkins was a bad pick, or that I'm necessarily disappointed about him, just that I really think that highly of Craig Breslow.

I think the ultimate trade for Soto will be somewhere in the middle. Juan Soto is a really good baseball player, and he's going to have a lot of suitors, the Chicago Cubs aren't living in a vacuum. I also think he'll come in under what some people are going to suggest a talent like Juan Soto will go for because he's only got the one year. We cannot factor in the potential resigning into a trade; those two things are separate. Whether he resigns or not, that's between Soto and the Cubs, whereas a trade is between the Padres and the Cubs. I think we have to accept it'll take one prospect who hurts, and probably a secondary upside piece. I think Perlaza and Alcantara is light; Perlaza is fine, but he's DH level defensively and a bat that at his absolute upside is a ~120 wRC+ type with plenty of outcomes below that with it being more likely he's a 95-105 wRC+ DH type. So while I think Perlaza may interest the Padres as a "plug-and-play" guy, I think he's piece number 3. We have to win the trade over other teams, so I'd look at something like Alacantara/Brown/Caissie (one), plus someone in that 2nd/3rd fringe tier of prospects with upside. Maybe it's a BJ Murray if the Cubs think he's more on the DH track, or someone like Cristian Hernandez who has the prospect acumen but hasn't broken out. Maybe it's Michael Arias and his big, raw stuff, or maybe it's Canario instead of Perlaza and a lottery ticket. Either way, I think it'll be above the Alcantara/Perlaza (not calling anyone out, just using that as a springboard for the conversation!) in terms of how it'll hurt, but I'm not going to pause on any player I just listed off if I get Juan Soto. He'll be traded in the offseason, so there's a 2nd round pick coming back worst case if you can't resign him, which would take some of the hurt out and you get a career 154 wRC+ player coming back on the other side. Where do you play him? I don't really care right now, because he's just such a game changing hitter. Juan Soto for me is about as "Best Case Scenario" as they come for the offseason. I want Juan Soto in Chicago and I want him here for a while.

I think David Ross makes those choices in-game, when I say decisions being organizational, I'm talking about things like playing time, what relievers are being used in which types of situations, general lineup constructions, the "big" organizational things. I expect in-game stuff is David Ross (and I don't think Hoyer calls in mid-game), but I also think they're pretty small things and they get fixed between the FO and the manager pretty quickly even if they disagree in meetings during the week. If there wasn't understanding and Ross was going way off script, I think Ross would be gone quite quick regardless of his situation within the organization or connections.

Someone takes responsibility, for sure, I don't mean to sound like it's a free-from-criticism position. What I do think is that many of the complaints levied at managers from fans are reactive when things don't work, without regards for the situational logic that went into a decision, and why I think if you look across the board, every fan base thinks their manager (on the whole) sucks at lineup construction, or BP management, or whatever, when they're probably just mad because it didn't work, not because the logic didn't sus out. There are times I wonder what Ross is doing on a micro-level with leaving a pitcher in too long, or a choice to bunt when I wouldn't have, etc, and those criticisms are always valid from everyone (as long as they explain their logic, of course). Overall, I think Ross is what almost all other managers are; merely fine at his job. I don't think Davis Ross actively makes the Cubs worse or is a major reason why the season ended where it did. I do question some things, and I wish the Cubs would have done some things differently, but I think those things I question come more from the organizational philosophy as whole moreso than just David Ross (not enough where I think Hoyer needs to go, either). I don't think he's actively making the Cubs much better, but I think it'd be hard for any manager to do that considering the way the Cubs see the manager (as an extension of the FO rather than a truly independent entity).

My feelings on managers rarely change, and Ross is no different. Every manager is decided by fans to have poor in-game strategy because what fans really remember are all of the things that go wrong. When a manager does the right thing, the player gets the credit generally for performing. When a choice fails, many times it's on the manager (in the fans mind) because he put that player in a poor place. Many times choices with logic behind them are deemed to be "poor" choices because they fail. I think Ross makes some choices I wouldn't make from time to time, but most of the time, he's fine. I think the Cubs will be fine with David Ross, as well, because it's pretty obvious that David Ross and the Front Office are very much in agreement on how to use players. I don't think Hoyer tells Ross on a daily basis the lineup, or who should start. I do think they meet fairly regularly to discuss strategy, ideas, and generally who should be playing the bulk of the time. In that regards, if you want something to change, it'd have to be at the top, and likely, not from Ross, which seems like something that in no way will change. Their overall strategy on who plays the bulk of the time, which BP arms are used in high-leverage and others not used at all, probably doesn't come from David Ross to begin with, and those would be things that could really change outcomes.

If Stroman opts in, then I think the Cubs will probably have to make a hard decision on Hendricks. I'm not sure they will let him go, but I don't think the Cubs should be bringing back both Hendricks and Stroman personally. Hendricks is a player who is probably better than his xFIP because of the kind of contact he creates, but he's going into his age 34 season fresh off an xFIP in the 4.40 range with a K/9 that is touching the low 6s. That's a razor thin margin to success, and the Cubs have players like Wicks/Assad who can fill a rotational spot today. At some point the Cubs need to improve the rotation, and the spot that Hendricks creates will help give you that opportunity. Whether it's Nola, or Yamamoto, or a trade for a controllable-younger-arm, I'm not sure, but the $16m you clear with a decline of Hendricks option would likely go a long way into helping do just that. I'd love to believe we live in a world where Taillon can be shipped out to save money, but I don't think we live in that world, so he's going to be here. It doesn't have to be an either or, but we probably have to accept that the Cubs will not blow past the LT line enough where it realistically can be. Based on how Ricketts has operated in the past and his recent comments, I'm not entirely sure the Cubs will go above the LT, but even if they do, I'd expect no more than $10m or so above. If the Cubs are really looking to improve in 2024, than I think it's likely we'll need to do the following things: 1. Improve on one spot in the rotation 2. Replace or resign Bellinger 3. Upgrade at 3b/1b/DH with a heavy emphasis on them being a hitter over a defender 4. Add a few more BP arms. They'll probably be more of the same concept we've gone with, but based on their history, this should be doable fairly cheap-ish I'm not sure they can make it all happen, but that'd be my blueprint. It creates a strong bench, a pretty solid rotation/lineup combination, and the Cubs would have a few players who would be capable of helping July on from the system (who those players are would probably be hard to determine today because that blueprint above almost assuredly requires the Cubs to make one significant trade, if not two). And why I'm not sure the Cubs can keep both Hendricks and Stroman if they're going to accomplish #1.

Mutual options are really just opt outs, anyways. Players only opt in if they're hurt, and teams only opt-in if they think they're getting a deal. It's probably pretty unlikely to see a super back-loaded deal so good he wouldn't opt out. I think we have to accept that Yamamoto is someone who's going to get a ton of looks from a ton of teams. I don't think you lead with a player opt out, but here's the thing: I'd rather the Cubs get the first 3 or 4 years of Yamamoto than another team get those years. If an opt out is what you need to do to get the deal done, get the deal done. He'll get it here or there, at that point. I'm not sure he'll need one, who knows? But holding strong on "no opt outs ever" is a bad business plan if you really want someone. If the Cubs want Yamamoto, we'll just have to give him what he wants with the amount of choices he will have.

Combination of work and personal emergencies and fall break! I'm finally back home and capable of doing baseball again!