Jason Ross

Owen Caissie isn't slow. He's actually pretty athletic for his size. He has greatly improved in RF and reports on him this year are vastly better than the past. The fear with Caissie has never been his current speed. It's what it may look like down the road. As of today there is little reason to take an improving 21 year old RF'er and just move him to 1b before it's needed. A move to 1b could occur, and it probably wouldn't take a ton of time, but as of now, Iowa's OF should be pretty clear, and the Cubs still need long term OF'ers. Suzuki and Happ aren't signed forever, just a few years.

Yeah, Hoskins makes a lot of sense with the Cubs. Saw a projected 1/$16.5m deal for him, and that feels about right.

Imanaga is going to be an interesting case. Stuff wise, I've seen some who suggest he's as good, if not a slight bit better than Yamamoto. However, there seems to be a massive disparity between how many home runs the two give up, and getting to the bottom of that disparity feels like it's pretty important. It's above my paygrade, so if the Cubs ultimately decide to go the route of Imanaga, I'll assume they have a plan in place to make sure this isn't a fatal flaw in his game.

It's hard to pick between those two. For example, is Ohtani on a 10 year contract or is he on a high-AAV-multiple-opt out deal like was suggested? That third player also seems pretty skewed. Alonso is much better than Candelario or a 39 year old Justin Turner, so it feels like #1 is tilted based on just that. Agreed that if you gave me a better option in the 3rd slot from that medium tier, that I'd probably lean group 2 over group 1. Either would be good outcomes or me.

I would say it's a near 0% chance the Cubs would consider moving him there in any way outside of an "oh horsefeathers, we have an injury and it's an emergency in this game" situation. He's played less than 40 innings in the infield since 2020. He's an OF'er now. Maybe he's a 1b if you really need him there, but he's not a 3b.

Sounds about right. I've always wondered why so many legitimate people follow the Cat.

🤣 Ya'll have stumbled down an old Pro Sports Daily rabbit hole with this one.

Always been my take on it. He maintains a seriously good followers list which is what always throws me. He's got 10+ accounts that follow him that break legitimate Cub news.

I've always questioned how legitimate Charles is, but he nailed the Darvish thing. At worst, it's another link to throw on the pile.

He's been pretty awful in the limited time he's gotten in CF. He's a - 7 DRS in 540 IP there. That'd be among the worst 5 CF'ers in baseball last year defensively, Conversely, I'm not sure the Cubs have a huge hole. They've got PCA who's knocking on the door, and with his defense/speed he's basically a 2 fWAR CF'er today regardless of how he hits. They also have Mike Tauchmann, who I wouldn't really want as a starter, but if they felt PCA needed 2 months in Iowa, they'd probably survive there. He's quite athletic, but just doesn't seem to be a good fit in the OF. He takes pretty awful routes (in his limited time in CF, he's been a highly negative route runner, burst, and reaction time player). Part of that could be simply not playing there much. But part of that is instinctual, as well.

Yeah, I agree with most here. I think this is a signal the Cubs are definitely going to look to move him, but want to have a fallback if they don't. Strangely enough, he probably would be a decent enough 1b. If he hits like his career line, he'd be a slightly above average 1b, as league average 1b was 108 wRC+ and he's a career 114 wRC+. Last season he hit 119 wRC+ which would have made him the 10th best 1b in the league. Defensively, it'd probably be a bit of a questionmark, as I think 1b is a bit harder to play than "anyone, anytime, whatever" that I think sometimes it's portrayed, but he's athletic enough that you'd have to think he'd figure it mostly out. I think he's probably best served as a 2b and it's okay for the Cubs to admit that. It's also okay for the Cubs to trade players and admit that they have 2 useful 2b and that they have to pick one.

I both love and hate these articles. I love them because they're cool, but I hate them because I don't have this cool stuff.

Kiley McDaniel believes it's over 50/50 that Soto will be traded this winter. Alden Gonzalez says that the perception around the league, regardless of what Preller/Boras say, is that Soto will be dealt. "I don't think they have much of a choice", said one rival GM. The Padres are currently in a dangerous posiiton; they are out of compliance with their debt and have to get back into compliance or the MLB will intervene. While this happens frequently, and it's like the Padres will make that happen, too, they will struggle to do that without trading Soto. ESPN article and link to source From my perspective, it also makes it far more likely the Padres have zero interest in eating any money to get a better deal. That should keep the trade value (which is still Juan Soto, mind you) lower.

Per Mooney in The Athletic today. "But the Cubs again plan to be involved in Ohtani's process, a league source confirmed"

The value is in the draft pick. A supplemental round draft pick nets teams, usually, a 45 FV player. A 45 FV player has surplus value, more so, than say, a 40 FV and less than a 50. Using Hoyer's numbers, he has claimed that surplus value to be around $20m in the past. With inflation, we can assume in his mind that number is more today. Other sites would put that value at different levels, it's not a set number, but it doesn't really matter, what matters is the player has value. If you sign a player to a contract who's attached to a QO, you can effectively say you're spending X in real world dollars, but also spending the value of that 2nd round selection (which, like a supplemental round pick, is worth around a 45 FV player). It's opportunity cost. What @Bertz is trying to say, and in theory I agree with him, if you are a team who's expecting a supplemental pick from a player if he signs elsewhere, than you have an incentive to offer more than you would. In the end you can either re-sign the player or get the pick. So in the example I gave above with Soto, if the Yankees offer $300m, they're really spending $320m in total losses: $300m and the loss of the pick, which is, roughly $20m. If the Cubs offer $300m, they are then not gaining the $20m in value, so they should in theory have incentive to spend an extra $20m because they're going to lose that anyways. The Cubs giving $320m to Soto matches the same cost of the Yankees $300m in this exercise. I'm not sure teams operate in such a fashion, but an argument can be made they should.

Yeah, I'm probably pretty fine with moving James for the reasons above. There's an outcome where Triantos becomes an Alex Bregman, but I'm okay with letting another team take that gamble. To get there, you've got to get him to likely change his swing path a bit, change his approach at the plate significantly from "all contact-all-the-time" to "it's okay to strikeout if you hit more home runs". That's not a natural thing to do, and K/BB rates are the things that usually stick with players. There's also a worry about high-contact-rate guys like what we saw with Frank Schwindel; Schwindel made contact with most everything, but pitchers knew this too and they used it against him to induce weak contact. If you can get a team to buy into Triantos as a Bregman, that's an awesome outcome in a trade for a former 2nd round pick.

James Triantos famously didn't strike out once in his senior year of HS campaign, but how has he transformed himself with the Cubs? More importantly, with a strange defensive profile, where does James Triantos fit in with the Cubs? Image courtesy of James Triantos 2023 Season Review Let's get this out of the way first: James Triantos has, arguably, the best hit tool of any prospect in the entire Cubs system. We can place a few other players in the conversation, but Triantos has repeatedly proven his ability to get his bat on almost any baseball thrown to him. 2023 was no different, as he lowered his strikeout rate in South Bend to a ludicrously low 10.6% over 350 PAs. He doesn't lack for walks, as many high-hit-tool players can do, walking almost at a 10% clip on his own. Any discussion of James Triantos should start with how impressive it is for someone his age to make this much contact with the baseball. Triantos' season has taken him many places, largely brought on by the wonderful hit tool. Starting in South Bend this season, he posted a very nice 115 wRC+, mainly based on that hit tool of his. In his 350 PAs, he managed only four home runs, however. There were 17 other extra-base hits (14 doubles and three triples), but the home run numbers are slightly concerning. A full slate of games and PAs at that average, and you wouldn't get to double digits. While Triantos has impressive movement ability, swiping 16 bags, and a few of those XBHs were legged-out plays, his lack of home runs was noticeable. Despite the dearth of power, Triantos made his way to Tennessee at the end of the season to help with the playoff push. Only a little can be gleaned from a three-game sample size, but Triantos did well in those 13 PAs, picking up a few hits with runners on and genuinely aiding the Smokies' playoff run to an AA championship. Defensively, Triantos was a bit of a mixed bag. Playing at second, third, and in the outfield, he donned a glove to mixed reviews. He made a handful of errors on the season, including two in his three games in Tennessee. While his arm has never been in question (being recorded as hitting over 90mph on a radar gun his senior season), Triantos' footwork and glove are a clear work in progress. Finding a defensive home in 2024 will be a part of the plan, but there's some wiggle room on where that home is. As a reward for the great season and showing just how the Cubs feel about Triantos' prospects, he went on to play in the Arizona Fall League with other Cub top prospects like Kevin Alcantara. Earning AFL all-stat status, Triantos put on a show with the bat and with the glove. Offensively, he was second in the AFL with a .417 batting average and finished with an OPS just south of 1.200. He hit three home runs, just one shy of his entire A+ total. He also drew rave reviews on the defensive side, which is a great change, as he played multiple positions. 2024 Outlook and ETA Some obvious areas for Triantos to clean up in 2024 are the home run power and the defense. While it's encouraging to see him do well in the AFL, it's a pretty small sample size overall, and it's an environment usually tuned to hitters, as teams withhold their prized pitching prospects from overthrowing them most of the time. If Triantos is going to turn into a useful MLB regular, he'll need to increase his game power and start flashing double-digit home run power. He doesn't need to become Barry Bonds, but he does need to be able to hit 10-12 home runs a season. The good news for him is that there's power in the body, and he can likely trade some swing and miss for home runs. We saw a little of this in the AFL, as Triantos struck out 15 times in 84 PAs, a bit more than usual, but also hit for more power. Seeing him make that trade will be fine, as a 15-17 K percentage is still an impressively low number and would be a worthwhile trade-off in the long term. Defensively, he just needs to continue to work. He would only be the first prospect to struggle initially once he found his footing, and hearing a few glaringly good reports on his defense this fall was good. Small sample size and all, but good. I expect he'll continue to play 2B, 3B, and CF as the Cubs try to use him in multiple roles. Hopefully, one of these will stick for him because he likely can't hit enough to be a DH-only type. 2024 should see Triantos start and stay most of the season in Tennessee. At 21, this is a good home for a player sorting out defensive questions and keeps him on a pace for a mid-to-late 2025 ETA. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see Triantos dealt. I wouldn't be looking to shop him, but his value is now at a peak following the strong 2023 AFL performance. If the Cubs remain concerned about the defensive prospects of Triantos and another team loves him, I wouldn't be surprised to see him moved. With a few other prospects at positions he can play, the Cubs could lose him, making the system generally acceptable. Regardless, it was another successful 2023 campaign for a top Cubs prospect. View full article

I believe what @Bertzis trying to say (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that because the QO has value, it should allow a team expecting to gain a QO an advantage in what they're able to offer. Let me give an example: For this practice, let's assume the QO is worth $20m in "value" and the Cubs traded for Soto. Soto doesn't sign an extension and it's now next offseason. A QO is extended to Soto and he does not accept. The Yankees offer Soto $300m. Because he has a QO attached, they really stand to spend $320m, $300m on the initial contract and then the $20m value "loss" on the draft pick. The Cubs, then, should be willing to offer the initial $300m to match, but also should be willing to offer an additional $20m because if Soto re-signs with the Cubs, they too, won't gain a supplemental pick (resulting in a $20m "loss" of value they could gain from Soto leaving). The Cubs should be willing to match the total "spend" or "loss" of the Yankees to truly "match" their offer. To match the same loss, the Cubs contract offer then should be $320m total, giving them a $20m "advantage" on what they could offer in this situation while having the same net "loss" in total value. Both teams are spending $320m, but in only one situation is that entire $320m headed to Juan Soto. Advantage: Cubs. Sadly, while in practice, it could work this way, I'm not sure we see teams operate this way. I think teams view these picks as parachute payments and simply offer the same basic contract. While losing a QO results in a gain or loss of $20m in "value" in terms of real world spending, it doesn't really equate to $20m (a 2nd round pick gets $1m or so in signing bonuses and then their pittances of a salary for a handful of years). MLB teams love to be cheap where and when they can, just look at how many teams fear the boogey man of the LT, a self imposed line that really only taxes small amounts compared to their total spending. We haven't seen players en masse receive $20m extra and stay with their current teams, so I'm not sure teams are following this way of thinking.

I think it's likely they will be outbid, but I think it's likely any team, Dodgers included, will be outbid. It's always more likely one team will go somewhere you won't or can't than not. With that said, I think it's hard to say what the Cubs will and won't do. Ohtani is unique in many ways. For what he does and how his contract will look. You can't really go "high AAV, shorter term" here because the Cubs or any team won't be offering $50m per season. I also think if you're sitting down with the Ohtani team earnestly, you have a ballpark number. I'm just not sure any team with honest effort will be outbid by a wide margin. They may be outbid, but I think those who are serious will be close-ish. And anyone outside by a wide margin wasn't serious to begin with and were likely wasting time.

This is not a source I'm familiar with, but based on who follows him (Scott Chanington of Marquee, Dave Kalpan, Paul Sporer, Maury Brown) I feel as though this is worth a repost.

I wouldn't let the "report" worry you. It's Jim Bowden and this is the "report": "But according to one major-league source briefed on the Padres’ plans, it’s more likely they hold him until next July and see where they are in the standings before deciding whether to move him." Who that "major league source" is, is kind of important. It very much sounds like "someone in San Diego" because...who else would be briefed on their plans? And don't the Padres, a team everyone believes has to cut a ton of payroll, need to regain leverage? This sounds exactly like what that is. Kevin Acee, who's the Padres best beat reporter thinks it's a good bet he's traded. I'll believe the Padres will trade him until they don't. We've been hearing this idea that they won't trade him for a week or so or that they'll cut payroll by trading other players like Jake Croenworth. As of now, I expect he will be moved.

I pretty much expect this path at 3b. The Cubs have "right now" depth in Madrigal/Wisdom and Mastrobuoni as a third place option. They also have Matt Shaw and BJ Murray in the system, both of whom could very well be ready by July 1st. Having both, you create some options if one struggles or gets hurt, as well. I think 3b is the one position I feel most certain the Cubs will "hold tight" on, as they wait for their upper level prospects to be ready to replace the "fine" they currently have.

As it pertains to Gibson, there's probably a lot of underrated value here. The ERA was gross, but he had a solid 4.13 xFIP, really strong ground ball numbers (which matters with the Cubs middle infield defense), maintained his velocity (and is a strong "extension" guy - so his 93mph fastball is actually faster than it looks on paper), and does a decent job on missing barrels. On a cheap, one year deal, Gibson is probably really nice as a #5. Great depth. With that said, I'd only want him as that. It could be the Cubs doing their due diligence, looking into Gibson, figuring out what he'd cost, doing work and etc. I'd be pretty mad if he was the "Marcus Stroman replacement". But there's a world where the Cubs move, say, Jordan Wicks in a big trade and they need a "right now" BORP on a cheaper one year contract to fit into the rotation. He'd be readily replacable if and when Horton is ready. Or Ben Brown. I'd be cool with Gibson in that role. So maybe it's looking into stuff like "what if we do X, how do we replace a quick/easy BORP? Let's line up some ducks"