Jason Ross

Kohl Franklin will be 80 years old and I'll still think "man if he could have one healthy year this dude can really break out"

It's a sprained wrist. Nothing suggests it's chronic. He's very young. They aren't going to take our word for it, obviously a team is going to look at the medicals. But if he's back in a week and a half, or two weeks, or right around the deadline, no team is calling off the trade, either. This isn't like he has a busted elbow as a pitcher. In injury terms, this is a molehill; not a mountain.

Based on recent reporting. Shaw isn't going to be back in a week. He still has soreness in his wrist. It's more likely that he needs the week, then a short rehab stint. I doubt he's back for any significant time before the ASB. With that said, I doubt another team is worried about it if they're goin to trade for him, either.

The Detroit Tigers have won 9 of 11 games and reside in the AL Central. There's a very, very real chance that they're in this thing and I do not believe either Skubal or Mize are on the market today. It's another reason to wait 16 days: Skubal and Mize on the market changes the math across the board. The Cubs see Detroit on Monday and can help sink them. As it pertains to the Giants, I wouldn't presume anything. Buster Posey hasn't really been a very easy read and runs them in a pretty wild fashion. From reports, they aren't entertaining offers on Logan Webb right now. Maybe that's true, maybe it's posturing. Maybe that means you can get him cheaper because Posey is, in my estimation, not great at his job right now. Maybe him being not very good at his job means he'll refuse to trade him. I think the Giants should be sellers, I have no confidence to suggest they believe that right now, however. I know we're all worried they'll fall back on Michael Wacha, but I think we're just doing what fans do and worry. Last deadline was a bummer. Many people on this website went into the offseason like a bunch of wet blankets and while I think the Cubs could have done more, they signed the biggest contract they had signed since Swanson and made a trade for a controlled SP with upside trading a top-50/75 prospect in doing so. This is the same man who traded for Parades at the deadline, went big on Kyle Tucker and while the name isn't as exciting, grabbed the best hitter on the deadline in Candelario a few years ago. There is plenty of track record to suggest the Cubs will put forth a real effort. I understand the reason for pessimism, but I think there's plenty of reason to remain cautiously optimistic as well. From my perspective, I'll save the worry for 17 days from now. I don't know what the Cubs will do, but I think there's a very good chance that worry will be largely wasted and I'll save the energy. And if they stand pat, then I'll throw some anger down on August 4th.

There are lots of things I want today, but I know if that if I wait a better deal very well may come across my desk. Everything, everything is opportunity cost. No team is going to make a decision based on 1-2 starts and that isn't what I'm suggesting. But market dictates price. Right now, who are the defined selling teams? There really aren't many! The Angels, Rockies, Mets, A's, and Royals are probably the five most likely to sell. Which of those teams have controlled pitching? You've got Detmers, Wacha and Holmes with Detmers in a very different tier of "has more than 1 more year of control, is young, and has upside". As of now it's a one-stop-shop if that's what you want. Once the Giants decide they're sellers, once one of the Twins/Tigers decide they're sellers (or both!), if the Jays decide they're sellers, if the Orioles decide they're sellers...you begin adding other shops. Logan Webb and Joe Ryan are likely in the same tier as Detmers in terms of a combination of quality/control. And then you add in different organizations with different wants and evaluations of your prospects... The reality is that while I don't think you're looking at Reid Detmers at super-discount prices, it's a good chance that will added sellers, different options that you find the best deal by allowing the market to get clarity. And the best deal may not end up being Reid Detmers anyways. There isn't a single pitcher that is just so good you pay whatever price is out there right now. Framing it as "well if you don't want me at my most expensive than you can't possibly think I'm any good" is a pretty poor way of reading a market. The Cubs are going to look to get the best deal possible. Waiting two weeks will give them an opportunity to do so. If the Cubs come out of the deadline with another Colin Rea/Jameson Taillon/Javier Assad/Aaron Civale type as the fix to the rotation I think we should all be pretty upset. But there are 16 days to get that to happen and allowing the organization who has an infinitely better read on what the asking prices are than you or I to to negotiate that is the correct course of action. On day 17, then have at it if they balk.

I don't agree with that at all. The same pressure the Cubs have on them to buy will be applied to any team with pitchers who have limited control left and need to sell. On top of that, more teams coming to terms with their current situation (let's say Detroit, SF, SD, Minnesota, etc) can infuse the market with other options. Today the Angels can probably stand very firm knowing that if you want controlled SP from a team it's Reid Detmers or take a hike buddy. When you add in Joe Ryan, Logan Webb and others, the ability for LAA to remain as firm isn't going to be there. The same for rental SPs when you add in someone like Casey Mize to the discussions. None of that says "it's going to get a whole lot cheaper!" But between today and the 3rd the market will become a lot more clear and there's a good chance that the secondary pieces will drop from "cost prohibitive" to "a lot, but acceptable". And that's probably worth waiting it out for two weeks. The two starts the guy you get makes probably isn't worth trading a prospect you really don't want to lose to someone you don't *want* to lose but can swallow it. It's a dance. Patience probably pays off here, but prospect hugging won't.

The Tigers are winning games, but those 9 wins have basically been because of beating up on the As, the Angels, and the Rangers (who are entirely injury ravaged themselves). They dropped 2 of 3 to Philadelphia the only good team in that run. Not entirely disparaging them; they're doing what they are supposed to do against bad teams, but the last series they took against a winning org was in the last week of June against the Yankees and it was their last series win against a team over .500 since mid June if we want to count the Twins (as they could get to .500 today with a win). They probably aren't as big and bad as the 9 of their last 11 thing make it's sound like, either. Cubs are seeing their three worst starters and are good enough to take two games.

I'm fine to wait out a few weeks right now when we consider: 1. The price being asked today 2. The perceived price tomorrow 3. And the opportunity cost of acquiring today versus tomorrow. I'm fine if the prices today are insane and you suspect that over the coming 16 days that extra teams entering the selling market will give you more options (maybe a pitcher you like better) or drive the price down on the guy you like. The difference between two starts of "guy the Cubs have" and "the guy the Cubs want" might not be that massive that it necessitates the price hike. If it's August 4th, the deadline has passed and we're still talking about cost-prohibitive trades? I'll be anything but fine, and likely will be pretty pissed off because you're right, there comes a point when the narrative is old and the Cubs at some point need to take the plunge. It's impossible to know what the asking prices are right now and I'll be patient for 16 days. But it's 16 days and the clock is ticking.

Two things can be true at once: 1. Aaron Civale is a pretty boring acquisition. He's...whatever. He is familiar to the staff and organization, he's a human with a heartbeat and two arms attached and he probably won't be very impactful. 2. Jed Hoyer isn't a bad VP of Ops for grabbing him on July19th. If someone like Reid Detmers was readily available today for a price you'd be okay with paying, he'd have been traded by now. More likely the Angels are holding to a very valuable position as they hold the power; there are very few clear sellers currently and have little reason to lower their price. We don't need to throw a fit every time the Cubs acquire someone less than Tarik Skubal or claim Hoyer is just sleepwalking through the deadline. There's 16 days between today and the deadline; strap in because it won't really heat up for two weeks.

I wouldn't worry. Like, he's not going to be a 130% better than league average for the rest of the year. But part of the reason he slowed down last year was a mechanical issue, but underlying that downturn was an uptick in swing decisions; one that has clearly carried over. All hitters are streaky. This idealistic "consistent hitter" people want does not exist. That said, I'm confident moving forward that Pete Crow-Armstrong is a very, very good hitter. And even when he does slump, he's still the best fielder at any position in baseball and a super baserunner.

Ayers isn't a slam dunk defensive catcher, either. He's a work in progress, and has age working against him. I do think that Ayers makes it more likely the Cubs consider moving him. I don't think it changes the math on Ballesteros' defensive future with the Cubs. His chances to catch for the Cubs moving forward are exactly what they were a week ago, or two months ago.

I enjoy how much everyone from the 2016 team seems to like each other. They're undeniably fun,

He had a 229 wRC+ in his final 54 PA's before the ASB in which he walked 12 times. We can probably let it go more than 6 PA's before we start worrying.

Impressive considering the $1.9m for Bailey. I like the class even more when you consider who they got for underslot so that they could grab the overs.

I mean...the Cubs have had one of baseball's three best offenses (depending on which statistic you'd like to use) since around the middle of June. And on the season have the 5th most runs and 4th best wRC+. This feels, a bit dramatic. Bradley isn't a bad pitcher, and has a sub 3.90 xFIP, but he's given up really loud contact all year, doesn't induce better-than-average whiff and really only has the fastball. This isn't prime-Max Scherzer. Don't you think that it's a bit much to suggest Boyd has to keep the Twins to one run scored?

Jim out here carrying a lot of water for owners this morning: He forgot to check that the MLB has had six winners over the last eight years. Whoopsies.

Hopefully they have enough roster spots and overhead to get me in as a UDFA. Feeling like I'm about to go on a heater starting this Sunday in mens league. Organization has a real need for an 39-year-old outfielder with bad knees in my estimation.

Pat Murphy cryptic about Brandon Woodruff injury. Wouldn't disclose the specifics, is letting Brandon address the media when he wants to. That sounds definitely like a season ender, and possibly worse.

Bailey. Blomker. Maybe Sorrell considering he had some helium.

That's more than I excepted to save

I didn't say anything rudely. I agreed that it was probably a waste of time to type that long essay up. Why? There probably weren't 1,000 words that anyone could have written to dislodge you from your position, so what's the point of writing that much? I also said that despite that, I have a gooey idealistic center where I still thought there was a chance and typed it up anyways.

Over 70% college players, lower prep players drafted than normal. Source

I know. But in my heart-of-hearts, beyond the exterior of pessimism and utter despair, I still have a nougaty-center of optimism and hope of idealism and principle. Also my cats woke me up at 5:30am because they're horsefeatherss and I'm awake, and what better thing to do than pound out an essay so I don't murder one of them?

I'm not "defending" owners buying championships. I'm saying that much of the "I want a cap for parity" argument is because the Dodgers are currently the best team. I'll go back to the NHL for this and for the argument's sake, I'm going to assume you don't follow the NHL like I do as it's the safest point of entry for my argument, so if you do, sorry for the "explain it to me like I'm 5" aspect of this. The Florida Panthers have become the LA Dodgers of the NHL world over the last 5+ years as have the Tampa Bay Lightening. So much so that a Canadian team basically sold a player to the Panthers for what many consider to be a coup. The player has a brother on the Panthers and effectively forced his way there despite having a contract for a few years still in Ottawa. Traditionally warm cities such as Florida and Tampa Bay have been destitute NHL franchises and Canada has been the destination. Weird times, huh? "Those are some mighty warm cities" you may to yourself. Well yes, yes they are! So why the change? Why is the cold-sport suddenly trendy with the warm cities? Players are flocking to those cities because of favorable Florida taxes and because those teams are already good. Many of the best American born players, specifically, are congregating in these teams and forcing moves. Guess what? The NHL has a hard cap. These teams are also buying championships. Caps don't solve hegemons in sports; sports create hegemons. In the mid-90's it was believed the Yankees would essentially win every WS forever. They haven't. Whatever juice the Dodgers have today will peter out naturally. That's the point. This entire "anti-Dodgers" thing is going to be the 90's anti-Yankees thing. Guess what's next? An anti-INSERT NEW TEAM HERE thing is coming afterwards. You keep acting like there's some magical, pie-in-the-sky world where "I just want to watch baseball" and sticking your head into the ground is going to solve anything, but it's the exact sentiment that is going to destroy MLB. MLB players are not not going to "willingly" tear down the game like an owner is. Tom Ricketts could lose the Cubs and still have TD Ameritrade and all that real estate. There are lots of players who are currently generationally wealthy and could be just fine but the vast majority of players who are being paid by MLB (including MiLB players, fringe players, bench players, rookies, etc) are not. Do you think Trent Thornton can tear down the game and be okay? What's his next step? Where does he go? He has made a lot more money than me, but it's well short of generational or enough to just retire. And he's even among the upper crust. The reality is more players are like Trent Thornton than they are Kyle Tucker. There are no owners who are the equivalent of Trent Thornton who need baseball to exist. Bob Nutting acts like he's never heard of a dollar bill with how he spends in Pittsburgh. His net worth is $1.1 billion. He owns 12 different newspapers. Dude can lose the Pirates tomorrow and be generationally wealthy. Listen, I get it, I'd like to just watch baseball too, but there is no "neutral side" ultimately. We can stick our heads into a ground and say "I just like baseball" and the MLB and MLBPA are still going to do this stuff. Fans are not at the negotiating table; and I realize it'd be nice if either side thought of the fans, but it is what it is. There are two sides; there are the owners, and there are the players. I won't act like the players are the altruistic "good guys" who are looking out for everyone (they aren't and routinely sell sections of their base up the river), but I also know that that the enjoyment of the sport revolves around players, not owners. Between Trent Thornton and Tom Ricketts, I'll side with Trent. Between Kyle Tucker and Tom Ricketts, I'll side with Kyle. 100% of the time. A better deal for the players is a better baseball product. It won't be perfect. It won't consider you and me, but between those two, I know who the sport revolves around. So in the end, we agree on this; I like watching baseball. I like talking about baseball just like you but I'll certainly choose a side to sit with. The owners do not give two fucks about this sport. They prove it daily. The players give at least one. You can watch it on the field with your two eyes 162 times a year. So in this battle, I'll side with the players entirely, even if I lose baseball for a bit because as long as they keep getting the best deal they can, the sport will revolve around the people who at least care about the sport, even if they don't care about me.

You can rank them however you like, but I think it's a good thing to remember, Cade Townsend wasn't like a star at Ole Miss He had a 4.64 ERA last year. I get he hasn't "shown failure" at the professional level, but he hasn't had a ton of sustained success even at the SEC level. Don't you think that's very rich considering that he has to climb the entire MiLB ladder and Jaxon Wiggins will likely make a debut (on merit) this year? And it isn't like Wiggins hasn't had - Top-100 love - A good draft pedigree (2nd round) - Plenty of success I like Cade Townsend; happy with the pick, like the upside. But I think the only real reason to rank him above Wiggins is fatigue/shiny-new-toy as of now.