Jason Ross

Just to the bolded point alone, but I've linked a few articles below that deal with numbers that correlate between MiLB and the MLB. The overall point of every study is that not only do AAA K% correlate, they correlate almost more so than any other statistic for MiLB hitters. Obviously there are outliers and players who have flaws specifically brought out upon reaching the MLB (Alfonso Rivas and his inability to hit an MLB breaking pitch is a good recent Cub example). But I think it's probably fair to accept that players who do or don't strike out a lot in AAA will continue that heading forward. A 2019 study from Fangraphs A 2020 article from Medium The above articles deal specifically with MiLB hitters. If this is something that interests you, I've gone ahead and linked their counterpart articles on pitchers below, too: 2019 study from Fangraphs - Pitcher edition 2020 article from Medium - Pitcher edition

I also think there is a strong feeing in Chicago-Cub-land right now that the Cubs aren't serious about pursuing the high end of the free agent pool, like the Shohei Ohtani guys. The entire Soto thread is filled with people who thought the rumors were the Cubs leaking to get good grace with fans. Rogers has been pretty plugged into the Cubs for the last 10+ years, so hearing that really is a good thing. I still doubt it happens. But it'd be fun to see the Cubs give it a true try.

Tier 1: The "I don't believe in untouchable, but these guys you'd have to probably pry from my cold, dead hands" group Pete Crow-Armstrong: There are flaws here, but the floor is so damn high. Brenton Doyle was able to be worth a full fWAR despite leading the league (in the bad way) with a 43 wRC+ in CF. Varsho 2+ fWAR'd with a wRC+ in the 80's in a similar fashion. Play strong defense, add base running, play a premium position, and you have a strong floor for success. PCA is about as "safe" of a 2 win player as you'll find, and if he can work on some things with the bat, there's 4.5 fWAR upside here on his best seasons. Cade Horton: I'll admit biases here. Many of you only have known me for a short time, but I'm going to toot my horn here; I was on a pretty small island directly after the 2022 draft as a big fan of Cade Horton and all he's done is kill it. Part of this is my ego; I like being right (and listen, I'm wrong plenty. I own up to that too). But if we take that out for a moment, I think I'm being objective when I say just how good I think Horton is. There's Spencer Strider type stuff here, and a legitimate TORP that we haven't seen in a while come through the system. Tier 2: I'm only moving these for elite talent and only if that talent can't be had any other way group. Matt Shaw: I really like Matt Shaw, and like PCA, I think there's a decent floor, especially with the bat. He's a guy you can probably slide into 2b or 3b, and expect a 115 wRC+ type of hitter if things smooth out the way you hope. There's upside, there's 25 HR+ and lots of bat to ball. Aggressive nature at the plate, but I love Matt Shaw, and I like him more and more. Owen Caissie: Ego time here, too, sorry. I liked Caissie pre-draft 2020 and he was on the top of my "please draft this guy in round 2" list. Obviously we've taken a bit of a circuitous route to being a Cub, but I've been a big Caissie fan. Exit velo, emerging ability to handle RF for the near-ish future and 70 grade raw power...this is what elite power hitters look like. He's young and has things to iron out, but he's got true middle-order stuff. I know the argument is with the K's and that he's not a premium position, and I'll admit my bias probably has him a tier too high, but it's my goddamned list and I'll do as I please! Jefferon Rojas: Give it a year and I think he's a top-5 prospect in this system. Possible star stuff. Big, big, big fan of an 18 year old who looks this poised already. Tier 3: I'm pretty reluctant to trade them, but I would if I really had to get something done. Kevin Alcantara: I think he's a great, great player. Huge power and I think he'll be an adequate CF for a bit, and possibly a GG CoF guy. With that said, I think I'd accept moving him. He's a "to make an omelette you have to scramble some eggs" kind of guy. I'd be sad to move him, I wouldn't shop him, but if you told me I'd get to keep the above guys if I had to move Kevin, I would. Being that PCA should take CF, that I'm a bit more of a fan of Caissie, and that I think another team will value him more as a CF than I could as a RF...I'd do it. If I had to. Tier 4: The guys I'd be be okay moving. I'm not shopping them, I'm just okay moving them in the right trade Ben Brown: I really like Ben Brown, so this feels a bit weird, but his control with the fastball remains an issue and there's real BP fear here. When Ben Brown has the fastball, he's elite. When he doesn't, he just gets beat. He's a baby, and he can iron this out, but if you told me that I could get controllable, fairly high end MLB talent and I had to headline it with Ben Brown? I'd probably come away feeling alright. Jackson Ferris/Mo Ballesteros: These are young kids who have a long way to go. If a team is going to overvalue a 19 year old arm or a 19 year old DH to headline a big deal...fine. I know there's some chance they go up in value, but prospects fail so damn often. If someone wants kids who are barely out of HS to lead for an established MLB player, or a controllable MLB player...so be it. James Triantos: Love the hit tool, curious on the defensive spot. If someone else loves Triantos, I can be okay moving him. BJ Murray: Yes, Tom, I know, I can literally hear you yelling at me when I type this out. I'm not as high on Murray as you are! I think Murray probably sits in a less premium position than 3b as we move forward, and there are so many things I love about Murray too. The hit tool is great, I love that he switch hits, but I need to see more of the HR power to move him up my board. At this stage I'm still considering him a massive win coming from where he has to what he's become and if I can get controllable MLB players for him I will. I'll be happy to eat crow if I'm wrong. That he's on a list with the other 4 guys should probably tell you what I think about him in a very positive way though! Alexander Canario: Generally blocked at most positions, questions over the contact%, think he's a good player but being where he's at currently with age/option status, if a team sees a starting MLB OF'er and I can turn him from being a player who isn't really capable of being used into something that the Cubs need? I'd be willing to make that kind of swap. Below my tier 4 is my group of like, Mervis, Vazquez, Perlaza, etc; guys who are either on the 40-man, Rule V eligible, blocked, etc, of guys I'd be more than cool with trading and would expect a handful of them would go to better homes for more useful pieces to the parent team.

I'm not one who genuinely thinks there's much separation in most managers now a days. Most of the really bad, old school, nonsense has been generally weeded out of baseball. Even more so in the NL with the removal of the pitcher hitting, a manager's in game job is one that kind of writes itself many times. Unless you're just actively trying to sabotage yourself, it's pretty easy to determine which players of yours are the best, where they should generally play, and how much. That's not taking away from some in-game situational things, just talking the overall. Keep your team in a good mental place by establishing a good culture, make the easy lineup calls, and I think you're well on your way to being one of the many "fine" managers. Within there, there are some calls that go your way, others that you make right and backfire, and others that the manager just makes that I find a bit baffling. As a manager you should expect little by the ways of credit when you do most of your job, and blame falling upon you when you don't. David Ross is this type of a manager. Most of the MLB is run by these types. It does appear as though Counsell may be in the group above this, who have progressive, generally strong ideas, and are able to consistently surround themselves with smart people. I can't say I've watched a ton of Brewers games when they're not playing Chicago, and even then, I'm rarely paying attention to the Brewers in-game managerial moves in a critical manner like I would the Cubs. Industry belief, however, puts Counsell in this group, and I'm inclined to believe that some of the better run orgs in baseball going after him this hard probably means that's not an oversight by all. How much does a person like Counsell effect the W-L record of a team over someone in the "everyone else" group? If it's even a single game per year in the win column, the Cubs come out on the other end. I had issues with Ross, and I'm sure Counsell is imperfect, too. I'd have been fine with David Ross ultimately, as I don't think he was really actively causing the Cubs much more trouble than most anyone else the Cubs could have had in the position. Maybe someone else makes a move in one game that turns out better, but they'd likely throw it away with another move. But like I said, if the Cubs are right, and Counsell can improve the team even by a win, then good on them for getting better as an organization.

Justin Turner played 57 innings last year at 3b and hasn't played more than 550 innings in two years. Justin Turner will be 39 on Opening Day. Craig Counsell coached Milwaukee teams have placed a high premium on defense. Yes the Red Sox had Devers at 3b, but Turner isn't really a likely candidate for any team at 3b, less so the Cubs. I'm pretty confident in saying the Cubs would be interested in him at 1b or DH and not 3b.

Correct. However, it would seem likely that the Cubs aren't trying to fire a coach per day, and would likely have let them go. Tommy Hottovoy has gotten rave reviews in Chicago, so he's probably only getting promoted. And the Cubs just brought back into the fold John Mallee. It would go to assume that the Cubs would have relieved Dustin Kelly in any event he was being fired when they did the same to Ross.

Dustin Kelly (hitting coach) and Tommy Hottovoy (pitching coach) are still under contract. The Cubs added John Mallee back to the staff this weekend, apparently when they were finalizing a deal with Craig Counsell. I'd assume that wasn't done in a vacuum either. I think all three will remain, unless Hottovoy takes the Breslow spot in the FO (which has some speculation but no noise outside of just internet talk). Cubs need a bench coach. I'd assume that will be a Craig choice.

Has there been more smoke on Imanaga? Because I haven't really seen it (which isn't to say it's not there, but I just haven't seen it). The Cubs were sending Jed Hoyer specifically to Japan to scout Yamamoto. Maybe I'm missing something, but it feels like about the same amount of smoke around all of them.

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.