Jason Ross

Cardinals, according to Mozeliak, will not deal Arrenado.

Opps, that was meant to say NYM. It's that Kentucky education of mine shining through again.

I guess I don't get this from anyone's point of view. If you're Texas, why the hell do you want a $43m Scherzer next year if he's not worth $43m this year? If you're Scherzer, are you willing to give up a shot at $43m and a pretty good team just to keep options open? I doubt you're going to do better. And the Mets gets Acuna? What a weird, weird, weird trade.

The one thing I'll say is this: while it hurt the Brewers last year...it doesn't appear to have any hold over effect; they're in first place. That doesn't mean there might not be some under the hood stuff that isn't public knowledge and some grumpiness, but from the outside looking in...they seem fine. They were able to take the prospect from Hader and directly turn him into William Contreras, who's putting up a 3,0 fWAR season and still has 5 years of control. I think any instance the Cubs were to sell, they're out of the playoffs in that case regardless. You could make the argument the 2022 Brewers are a reason to for the 2023 Cubs to sell. Now that would hinge on the Cubs finding a 3 win, controllable player, which isn't easy. In fact, I'd say that, over the emotional damage, is the real kicker.

I think that's a pretty simplistic view for what or what does not make a good prospect. Does Spencer Strider suck because he had a 4.71 ERA in AA (he never seriously pitched in AAA). This isn't saying Ben Brown = Spencer Strider, only that development comes in many facets, and while it's always more fun to see prospects bang away with amazing ERA's or impressive batting averages, many times numbers can hide talent. Ben Brown isn't ready to be apart of an MLB rotation today today. His fastball command is inconsistent and may never become consistent enough (it also, might!). I also think he's a really fun prospect and doesn't suck.

It wasn't a direct apples, to apples, literal, comparison of how often teams win and lose in those sports, instead an example of how fans incorrectly use the transitive property. I recognize the Cardinals recently beat the Diamondbacks. I also recognize that Arizona's in a bit of a dry spell. I wouldn't in any way say it's more impressive to take a series off the Cardinals simply because the Cardinals took a few games off Arizona recently. Arizona is the better team. I also think it's good that the Cubs are beating bad teams like the St. Louis Cardinals, so it's not a dig at the Cubs wins. But I don't think a recent dry spell, or a recent hot spell changes how the two teams should be viewed. Arizona is just better.

It's a seller's market this year so far. Giolito went for more than I thought he would, and that feels like way more than Scherzer should be netting.

Yeah, Alonso is fun. That would certainly change things.

I don't think they're going to sell either. If I was handicapping it, I'd say the most likely thing is that they'll hold Stroman and Bellinger, and maybe add some small something and call it a day. But I think of the 3 forks the Cubs can realistically take, it's my least favorite of the 3. On the first point...I don't think that will happen until the offseason regardless.

In the Cubs defense, they haven't put forth a team that it made sense to spend from their prospect depth yet. I think we can certainly question whether they have the stomach for that kind of a trade, or the aggressiveness it'll take to put out a really good team, but I'm not sure their lack of prospect-for-MLB-talents is much of an indicator yet that they won't.

Eh. I think that's the kind of spurious logic than can convince you any team in college football deserves to be in the National Championship game. "Well, Penn State beat Ohio State, and Ohio State beat Michigan, and Michigan beat TCU, so really, Penn State is better than TCU and needed to be in the national championship game!". Arizona is a much better team than the St. Louis Cardinals. Hot is great, but I think you're placing far too much emphasis on who's hot and whos' not. And the White Sox playing the Cubs hard? I don't think most White Sox or Cubs players care about the rivalry like natives of the city do; they likely play just as hard against any other team. The Cubs are picking apart some weak teams right now. That's not really a "bad" thing, if you want to make the playoffs, beating up on the bad teams is a good way to make that happen I actually think it's a positive sign. But I think it's okay to call a spade a spade here, too.

Yeah, that's probably very true. I agree that would likely happen. At least, they wouldn't sell.

I would argue that a Jordan Wicks would be pretty valuable and nothing to sneeze at. Using 2018 value, and being fair to Wicks we'll use the FG ranking of a 50FV prospect, this would have Wicks surplus value at ~$21m. That's assuredly low today, as inflation and with an increase in luxury tax has probably pushed that into the mid-20s (though that's just a rough estimation). $25m surplus value isn't franchise altering, but I'd argue just making the playoffs isn't either. The latter is certainly more fun for you and me today, I don't want to discount that, but from a Cub stand point...potentially sneaking into the playoffs probably doesn't mean anything for them outside of added profit for Ricketts if we want to be fair. Obviously a chance at winning the World Series does matter, but in that case, I'd ask the Cubs to take that and make it precious by seriously improving the roster come August 1st. I don't want to say that I can't understand your standpoint; I like watching good baseball too. If given my druthers, the Cubs would make every season precious.

Well, to be pedantic, using Fangraphs current playoff odds, we have a 25.8% chance at making the playoffs and a .7% chance of winning the World Series. Again, I'm not saying the Cubs have to sell, but I do think selling remains a viable option. You are certainly allowed your opinion, and I'll just have to respectfully disagree.

Well, the last line is pretty unfair and pretty unfounded; if you'd go back to my original point, it's that I can buy an argument for either buying or selling. As in; if the Cubs want to keep Marcus Stroman, and if they want to keep Cody Bellinger, that they should highly consider surrounding them with a more complete team. I'd be for the Cubs spending prospect capital on controllable players, or quality rentals (emphasis on quality). What I don't want the Cubs to do is to say "well we kind of tried!" bring in a "raise the floor 1b" and then be done. That's rife for the worst case outcome of threading needles. If you want to make a logical answer for trading Stroman and Bellinger, the answer is this just isn't a very good team. It's a team that's flying high today, but as stated, things are never as good as they feel at the apex, and they're never as bad when you're in the valley of death. The Cubs have had to go on a 7 game win streak to get to .500. Yes, the RD is really nice, but I'm a little skeptical about the RD a bit; they're quite reliant on BABIP-god offense (5th best BABIP in the league while being 20th in ISO) and at some point that BABIP-luck may dry up (league BABIP is .20 points lower than the Cubs). Pitching wise, their BP is bottom 10 in xFIP, and the Cubs are pretty top-heavy in the rotation. Steele and Stroman are doing a ton of work. Kyle Hendricks (3.45 era vs 4.53 xFIP) and Drew Smyly (4.57 xFIP) are pretty sketchy moving forward, and Jameson Taillon is a questionmark (his xFIP is lower than the ERA, but has a horrid habit for leaving pitches down the zone, so he's earning his HR/FB% right now. Is that fixable)? That's not a team that fills you with a ton of encouragement, regardless of the division. There's major holes here. On top of that, you're looking at a 30% chance to make the playoffs. Is that high enough for you today to say "Well it's worth it to get nothing for Stroman if we don't make it". Because the return there an be quite useful; it's ammo for a trade in the offseason, etc...On top of that, you've got reports that the Cubs are worrying about going over the luxury tax this summer. That doesn't sound like what teams committed to winning say. Lastly, the market right now is extremely foggy. Giolito just went for a great return and I'm not sure what else is definitively out there. Is Snell available? Outside of him, then who? Maybe Verlander? If someone wants the money on the hook. Who's buying? And how desperate are they? These are questions I can't answer, I'm not in those rooms, but if it's a seller's market...well the Cubs have pieces. Really good ones. I don't want anyone to think I'm prospect hording. I'm entirely pro-the-Cubs acting like the Chicago Cubs and going and winning the damn division. But I'm also going to understand there's a flip side here, and there's an argument that can be made that trading their players now, could pay off too. Would it suck? Yeah, sure, for now. I'm enjoying watching the Cubs win baseball games, it's fun. But I'm not here to just watch the Cubs be okay-ish, either. The Cubs need to nail this deadline, IMO, I just think it's not as clear cut as "Well our division sucks so stay the course". Sometimes hard decisions today pay off greatly tomorrow. I can truly say I don't know what the "right" answer is here. Only that I can see a flip side where the hard thing today pays off.

I mean, I don't think they'll sell tonight so no matter what, they won't have a 7 game win streak; either it's 8 or it's reset. As it's been reported, they'll go down to the wire. I think there's a very different space to being, 4 games back at 51-50 tonight than where they'll be on Monday, after two more games. For example, if they lose tonight, drop to .500 and are 5 games back again, that entire first part is gone. Maybe they win 2 more in a row and are 2 games back...well...that's very different too. With the players...eh...they'll get over it. Bellinger and Stroman are the free agents to be, and they're not extending regardless. On the last part? I don't think it'll matter; who cares what a pundit says and money fixes all in FA. It was Hoyer who pissed and moaned deadline 2021 about Bryant/Rizzo/Baez on the radio and we managed to sign other FA's. We had other players resign and extend. I'm not saying at all that the Cubs should sell at all costs either. But I think you can make a very cogent, cold-hearted and logical argument that the Cubs could sell and while it'd suck for fans today, it could make a difference for 2024 positively. A lot of this is going to have to come down to the Cubs ability to read the market while being realistic with themselves. We can debate whether or not the Cubs management is capable of reading that market capably, but I think it's a pretty important to get this exactly right, and right could mean selling still.

I'll say this: I don't care whatever it looks like. I only care what it means to the organization in totality in a baseball function. Whatever it looks like is very subjective and rarely matters. What looks like a white flag today could pay off in spades later. And what looks like an effort today could end up with an 81 win finish. There's lots of options, I don't mean these to be the only two, just that I think there's a big picture to consider. You're right, I don't think the Yankees or the Dodgers would do that. But I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare the Cubs to the Yankees and the Dodgers simply because I think both of those organizations care far more about winning than the Cubs have/do. I think both teams would have better rosters and are far less concerned with the boogey-man luxury tax. If the Cubs acted like the Dodgers and the Yankees, I'd agree with you. I don't think the Cubs do that, which is why I have some pretty big hang ups as of now as to whether or not the Cubs are in a position to really make the most of losing Stroman for nothing. As a fan and only as a fan, I want them to keep the two and make the playoffs. But I think, as the word fan (derived from fanatic) implies, the fan in me may not always be the most logical of places to be coming from.

Well, Stroman can't be offered a QO any longer; he used that up with the Mets. I also think he'll be able to get what Giolito brought back, at least to the Cubs (remember, they have some funky internal evals that don't really match with the industry. And they seem to do quite well). I think that's an important distinction. It's you trade Stroman now, or you get nothing back. And I think that's a very real discussion the Cubs need to have. Which is why I think the Cubs either need to say "You know what, we're going to win the division" and go out and make that happen (obviously without stupid things like shipping PCA for a rental), or need to say "I don't like the margins and we cannot risk things like losing Stroman for nothing with a team that just has too much margin for error" The amount of sellers is also questionable. I think a lot of this has to hinge on the Cubs reading the market.

There's not a lot out there on Rojas defensively right now. Which makes sense, he was in the DSL, never touched the ACL really, and wasn't a top-top IFA signing. Per a Cubs instructional coach

I remain on the fence. The Cubs are super hot right now, but Im a staunch believer things are never as good as they feel when you're steaming along winning and never as bad when you're in the duldrums of a losing streak. Even at 4 games back, this is a very flawed team with 2 of their best players leaving at seasons end. You can sell me this is a flawed team, and that they're a 5 game bad streak from being in a very precarious position. Where I'll be most mad is if they just tip their toe in the "buy" market and get some patchwork BP arm and a patchwork 1b who won't realistically raise the bar much. If you're in, be in. If you're out, I can accept it, but be out. Don't lose Stroman for nothing and Bellinger for a QO in November except a "well, we kinda tried?" effort.

Sounds like the Mets and the Rangers have agreed in principal to a Scherzer deal minus the approval.

As of now, probably. But I wouldn't say that's a long term outlook, either. The Cubs aren't against putting arms in the BP to *use* them only to place them in the rotation later. The Dodgers do similar things and the Cubs are pretty close in how they handle MiLB arms to LAD. If there's a complaint I have, it's that the Dodgers block their good prospects with good players and force their prospects to succeed beyond them, where as the Cubs are happy to block prospects with lesser talents, it feels.

I'm so glad you called that. And so angry it was right.