Jason Ross

Well, I think it's pretty unfair to reduce it, because I literally said at the end, that if the Cubs want to keep them this summer, than they can't half-ass it. That alludes to the Cubs adding players between now and August 2nd who are going to help. And, again, I've said it plenty now, I'm 100% of the belief that trading these two doesn't change 2024. They're FAs. I would agree, it'd be weird to talk 2024 and trade two of your best players, but only if they were contracted in 2024. Bellinger and Stroman will be FAs (no way Stroman opts in barring injury, IMO). If the Cubs were going to resign them midyear, well, they'd have resigned them by now more than likely. If the Cubs still want to resign them, than they simply need to offer them the best contract in the offseason. I doubt either holds a shred of animosity in the offseason over it. The Cubs are playing much better, but I think we need to remember that they have a long road to climb, and things are neither as good as they feel during great runs (conversely never as bad as they feel during poor runs). The team is still largely what they've been all year; a roughly .500 team who has many flaws but who plays in a bad division. They can't sit pat and expect to be more. So either add a few players designed to legitimately make the playoffs realistic or sell the two FAs. I can buy arguments on either side.

Cody Bellinger is a Scott Boras client. I don't believe for half a second trading him changes his contract in 2024. Cody Bellinger is going to sign the best contract offered to him. If the Cubs want Cody Bellinger, they need only to do that. If you're worried about the Cubs offering him the best deal, and hoping he'd resign here for not the best contract because we kept him and won 82 games...than I think we have to accept he's not signing here. On the second point, any prospect we acquire may not help until 2025. But they may also make it more likely to trade someone we do have, create additional prospect depth, or may be apart of other trades this offseason to add players for the 2024 season. A QO cannot do that. They're neither tradable prior to being picked, nor will be capable of being traded until next winter post-draft. I'm very much of the opinion that the Cubs need to begin acting like a team dedicated to winning. Now, not later. But I don't think trading Bellinger or Stroman effectively change 2024 unless they're going to resign either of them pre-FA and I think that ship has sailed. If the Cubs want to keep them here this summer, than I'd prefer them not half-ass it.

I think you'd be be very hard pressed to prioritize 2024 at this deadline, which is I think where our impass is at. I don't think you can realistically add the type of players the Cubs need in 2024 now. I think you can maybe grab underperforming players; but 2 months just isn't enough to make these players interesting to me in 2024; that's more of the same of 2021 and 2022. I don't think trading Bellinger changes his status with the Cubs in 2024; he's a Boras client...he's hitting the market. I think you'd need to pay him best deal on the market in December regardless of trading him and I don't think trading him changes that relationship. I think the same with Stroman. I don't think holding on to Bellinger or Stroman through November changes 2024, either. You can still resign both. I don't think it's likely, but I don't think it's likely they'll resign them before the FA period regardless (they've had plenty of time) either. Which is why I'd prefer to sell them now (if they're not going to upgrade around them)...the QOs, while better than nothing, likely won't trump the return they can get. I fully agree the Cubs need to make 2024 happen. I just don't think holding Stroman or Bellinger changes that equation at all.

This is no shot at you personally, but I would despise this kind of a deadline. This is the thread the needle nonsense they've been flirting with for a bit. The Chicago Cubs are a top-5 market and realistically need to stop acting like a reclamation team. Especially if they're keeping Bellinger and Stroman. If you're keeping them you're shooting for the playoffs, and 2 months of reclamations isn't enough time to make a true determination. So we enter 2024 with more of these projects...some might work out, most will either marginally work out or will fail. I think a "hold+under performing MLB" deadline is probably the worst case outcome; it banks on this flawed Cubs roster making the playoffs and it doesn't give you enough time to properly evaluate the under performers for 2024. So you really can create a whole host of new questions instead of solving anything. These feel like trades you make in December, not really in July. So while I don't think they're a bad idea on their own, as a July-deadline trade they feel out of place. Sometimes trades for non-elite-today prospects don't work out, but I'm also not advocating the Cubs buy half a HS prep lineup like they did in the case of Darvish. There's middle ground between 18 year Olds with zero professional PAs and players in high A with a few hundred PAs of data. In fact, the QO play is a lot closer to that (you'd be likely targeting prep hitters or arms with those picks and slot). The Cubs should be able to do considerably better selling on those two and 18 year Olds. I'm not entirely sure exactly what to expect for either, the deadline is a fickle lady and teams can get swept up, or decide to just stand pat, at a whim, so I'll avoid offering names (especially with the Cubs and how they choose MiLB talents off the radar). These can be prospects that are used to restock the system as the Cubs use their prospect depth in the offseason to grab some actual talent. Or players used to aid those trades. The Cubs do have a ton of talent in the MiLB, but it can't be a bad thing overall and can be used in many ways. As stated I feel like the Cubs need to pick a lane for once. Thread the needle rarely works and I think we have enough information these last few seasons to show it might not be Hoyer's strong suit. I'm not sure he's aggressive enough for a lane in which we actually upgrade the team either, but I'm not sure it's to be seen he can't either. I'm very firmly I'm the camp that the Cubs either need to get max value today for the Bellingers/Stroman/Gomes types and then commit to Amaya, Mervis, and a few on the cusp younger players, or they need to add players who will actually support these players to make a true Playoff push. I can't see many outcomes where the middle ground pays off in any way for the Cubs except for, maybe, Tom Ricketts profit lines. It might be slightly more fun for us, but long term Cub success...I'm just not that does anything.

I think that's a fair worry (and one I do share) however, I'm not sure that makes it right, either, if that makes sense. Part of my concerns in general is how Hoyer will handle this. I would say that if Hoyer is concerned with his long term prospects as VP of the Cubs than doing very little but holding his players (or adding a very small minor player like Cron or Candelario) isn't his best bet either. Which is why I really would like the Cubs to select a lane.

I disagree with the idea the Cubs cannot get a game changing prospect. Now, I'm pretty sure they won't be getting a top-25 prospect *today* but the Cubs have gotten both PCA and Kevin Alcantara via the deadline with worse trade chips than either Stroman or Bellinger. They can certainly get a prospect with tantalizing upside, it just might not be today upside. The Cubs do quite well when given the run of prospects to choose from via trade. I trust the Cubs in their prospect evaluations and I think a really good return is in the table. The Cubs should probably choose a lane here. I think nibbling at the margins hoping you can sneak into the playoffs is a pretty good way to finish with 82 wins, no playoff appearance and losing Bellinger/Stroman for comp picks. If we want to make every attempt at the playoffs precious, a belief I'm always for, than we need to act that way to a decent degree. Not selling PCA for a rental, mind you, but it has to be more than "raising the floor" at 1b and 3b(the same rhetoric we got pre-season with Mancini and Hosmer types), too.

Yeah, even more complicated when you have someone like Hoyer in a position where I'm not sure he's on *the* hot seat today but is slowly working his way into one. Does he have personal motivations for eschewing long term for short term worried about his own future? Can Hoyer face the fans and sell those two in the face of some wins over the last 1.5 weeks? Whatever the decisions that are made here are going to be very tough and I'm not entirely sure I have full trust with the current FO in their decision making. They do great, IMO on the MiLB front but their MLB strategies are...a bit all over the place for me. I'll admit being a nervy Cub fan these next 6 days.

I honestly can't say whether the Cubs winning these games is truly a good thing or a bad thing. If the Cubs end up not selling, but buying the likes of mediocre talents like CJ Cron only to miss out on the playoffs, lose Stroman and Bellinger for mediocre comp picks...I don't think this is a good thing. More fun at the time, maybe, but long term worse than having 2 of the better trading pieces on the market. On the other hand, if this causes the Cubs to be a bit more aggressive and buy some cost controlled players (I won't really speculat who, because these players are rarely "shopped" but do exist on the market. See the Blue Jays acquisition of like Jose Berrios the other year) than it could be great.

Dude who runs Saver is not really an insider so much as the most badass internet detective on the planet. With that said he's *become* more of an insider (I'm privy to a few folk who DM him) and he's becoming more of one. Awesome version of a self-made internet man, truly.

This is going to make me sound far too self-important so please bare with me (I'm not important in the least) but I've got a pretty good connect when it comes to draft signings, and the lot (if you're familiar, I'm personal friends with the guy who runs Savermetrics) and even he was baffled by the delay. There just wasn't noise out there as to why the delay...makes me *think* benign reasons like you mentioned about a wedding, etc.

Considering he was a 2nd round selection, I'd assume they knew his number pre-draft. As well, considering they got the other 19 signed, I doubt the Cubs are surprised by this over, as they could have used the $300K (and almost assuredly would have) elsewhere. Not sure the hold up, but you can't gamble losing that kind of slot money.

Glad he's signed. I'm pretty high on this pick myself; I love the gamble. Junior year is a big year for SEC arms and college arms in general, and an arm with his stuff entering his junior year is where we'd see it. Sadly with the TJS we never saw it, but there's 1st round stuff. Especially in a draft bereft of upside college arms past Waldrep, getting a possible top-junior, regardless of the injury, is a win to me. The Cubs are really developing arms well. They identify arms well.

The Rockies just had 3 of their top-5 SP prospects drop with TJS. Anthony Sentzela, of their MLB rotation also will have TJS. The other two top-5 prospects are Chase Dollander (who hasn't thrown a pitch for the Rockies) and the 4th...is currently recovering from TJS. I know some have some reservations on how the Cubs handle their MiLB pitching prospects with relative "kid gloves" but the Cubs have done a great job of avoiding these types of injuries. They've really not suffered many TJS injuries (except for just drafted prospects) in their prospect ranks, or their MLB roster.

I actually just came here to say: Christopher Morel's scouting report in the MiLB would have read something along the lines of: His best tool was his glove. I'll also say this; MiLB defensive scouting reports are always a bit shaky because there's just no data down there; we're going off eye reports and some of these things just can't be scouted. Javier Baez was supposedly a weak fielder at SS, Albert Almora was supposedly a plus CF'er, for example. Doesn't make all scouting reports bad, but defense is easily the most subjective of all. Not sure if this is a case of "Morel's scouting report just over inflated his defense" or "he's been bussed around so much, MLB-AAA, and positionally, that he's just out of sorts".

I found PSD after posting on the CBS.com sports forum and needed a more intelligent crowd.

I think it's an improved roster, but I would say it's not a 90 win team. The current roster is really not that great; it's a team I think that borders on .500 capability, but needs variance to truly get above it (I know the RD is really high, but I think it's a bit artificially inflated for the talent level). Urias and Stroman is a push, extending Bellinger is a push, so the improvement would thus be Matt Chapman, and I think Chapman' good but he's not 8 win good. I think that gets the team around 85-86 wins with some positive variance.

I'm very tepid on a Candelario acquisition. I don't believe in his glove at 3b; he's a career -16 DRS at 3b (granted a lot of this is the 2018 season) but overall, he's usually bad...his current +3 is the only season he's ever played this much 3b and been a positive (his only other positive was a +1 in 2019 in part time duty). This goes with a pretty poor arm; 24% arm strength. His wRC+ is good on the season, but his baseball savant data isn't very pretty. He's 34% in average exit velocity, 42% barrel%, 44% chase rate, 35% hard hit...it's not the hit profile of someone you want to believe in heading forward. He's also pretty one dimensional at the plate; he crushes fastballs and does nothing else. As a primarily platoon bat acquired to play some 1b/DH, you can sell me on a cheap trade (I.E. in the Dan Vogelbach mold last deadline). But outside of that, Candelario doesn't fill me with much confidence as a 3b moving forward. He's more likely to be bad at 3b than be good, and I'm not sure the baseball savant batted ball profile screams someone who's going to outhit being a negative fielder. None of this is to suggest we shouldn't look to improve the 3b position in general, as our current 3b group is Patrick Wisdom (who I frankly don't believe belongs on an MLB roster trying to win), Nick Madrigal (who's surprised at his level at 3b but I don't think has the bat for position) and Christopher Morel (who needs to change his throwing angle to really be an option). I'm just not much of a believer in Candelario.

I'm with JD here; I think Yonathon Perlaza will get a chance in 2023 at some point after the sell-off. I'm not so convinced there are many in Iowa deserving of a chance, and the MLB roster itself has plenty of deadweight. Currently, on the Iowa roster, Mervis needs to be promotion #1, but after him, I think Perlaza is probably #2. Velazquez is not good; he's got a 29% K% in AAA to go with a 102 wRC+. He had 200+ PA's last year that resulted in replacement level play, and he's not a real CF). Canario needs a summer in AAA to build back up after his injuries, Chase Strumpf has been terrible, Slaughter has a 98 wRC+ and is over hlf way to 27, Bote's a hasbeen who's beating up on AAA, Edwin Rios sucks, . There should be PA's for Perlaza as well; the the Cubs will have the DH (Mervis should be playing a ton of 1b, Amaya playing C). And there's a handful of spaces to open on the 40man. The Cubs should probably find out if there's something to Perlaza or not before they're forced to leave him open to the Rule V if they have any belief he's a useful MLB hitter. Honestly, the only other player with an argument for me is Luis Vazquez, but Vazquez is a completely different type (not really a good DH option, as he's a glove first player). I'm not really counting Madrigal here, as he's on a rehab assignment. I think Perlaza is a questionable MLB hitter personally, but his development, especially over the last 2 months of so, has been impressive and I can't ignore it. His 127 wRC+ is really solid. He's shown impressive development in his left handed swing especially. And he's not too old for the level.

TIFWIW, but Levine claims Cubs are more likely to keep Bellinger than Stroman. Not sure exactly what that means (or how likely it is)

Great minds think alike, right!? Actually, credit to Matt, it really is a good idea and he definitely had it first. I think there's a possibility the Rays would be interested in that. Meijia has been terrible this season and does nothing well. He's bad at hitting and framing. Christian Bethancourt has been, just regular bad himself; .3 fWAR, a 75 wRC+ and 55% framing. Gomes would be a big upgrade on either, IMO (despite his framing metrics not being great this year) . He's got the team friendly option as well and Bethancourt is a FAA at seasons end. I think a Stroman/Gomes could really work there.

Whoops, thought this was about Baltimore. Let me amend: I think Mead's a possibility, though a stretch. He's had a wonky season and doesn't have a super clear path to the MLB today; Parades remains ahead of him, Diaz remains ahead of him, Arozarena remains ahead of him. With Camienro blowing up, he's got him breathing down his neck a level lower. Mead's in prospect-no-man-land. The Rays do trade these players (they traded Libretore for Arozarena, they gave up Joe Ryan, etc). With the Rays losing Meija, you could package Gomes here; I don't think it has to be a prospect. Do I think it's likely? Certainly not, there's like 10 teams Stroman could end up with so any one of them being likely is a long shot to begin with and Mead's probably off the table. But I think there's world where he is on the table, moreso than the other names.

Per Sharma, Alcantara's leg injury appears to be a "knee contusion" and the Cubs have avoided serious injury.

I think there are players the Cubs can acquire that will be ready sometime in 2024, yes. Connor Norby, Heston Kjerstad, and Joey Ortiz from the Orioles are ETA 2024 (if not already 2023 ETA) and are all surplus to requirements (and I think possible to attain regardless of the reports). I think the Rays have a few players who are 2023 or 2024 ETA (Aranda, for example). These are just a few names off the top of my head. I also think it's important to remember that Hayden Wesneski and Ben Brown were two prospects no one had on their radar last deadline, and both will likely add some starts (one already has) this season, so just because they're not on our radar today doesn't mean they won't be able to help. The Cubs will get their best return, however, regardless of ETA. I saw a great quote I wish I could take credit for online, but I can't (and I'd give the proper credit, but I can't remember who said it), but the quote was that the Cubs can target players close to the MLB but will prioritize the best return, and I think that's what we have to expect from this deadline.

Owen Caissie down to a 27% K% in the month of May. His Ks will always be high but for him, a goldilocks zone is probably in that 26-27% range. He can walk and HR enough for that number not to be a killer.

I'm just guessing, but I think no deal would be hung up over a Brennen Davis addition today. If I'm trading with the Cubs, and I need an extra something to get a trade over the line, Davis isn't the guy I'm targeting. If I wanted an OF'er to get over the line, Cole Roederer probably is more interesting than Davis, for example, and would function as a last piece sweetner. Conversely, if I'm the Cubs, I'm not sure I'm just giving Davis for free like that too, if I still believe in the upside. I think there's upside in Davis aplenty; and while the batted ball data was weak, the bat to ball skill was showing much improved. If you can find the middle ground between "can't hit anything in and up" and "can make contact on most everything but can't hit with authority" Davis profiles as a starting OF'er. But as a team trading for him, you'd have to find that middle ground and hope the health came back and that's too much volatility for his inclusion to be the difference in completing a trade, and not completing that trade.