.jpg.900f6d1bc80a5a156f3ba09ea0e4b3d7.jpg)
Jason Ross
-
Posts
6,711 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
50
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Jason Ross
-
This and in the comments make it very clear that from Matt's perspective and his sources, the Cubs wouldn't be trading for Strahm as they just are okay with doing the shoestring bullpen thing. Hoyer, as well, talked luke-warm about the high-end reliever market. I think we should expect the BP is mostly done from a "name" perspective and that the remainder very well may be a normal, Hoyer, BP. Maybe they cycle back, but I think the resources will be paid for starting pitching and hitting - however they decide to do that.
-
An all-timer from Nightengale.
-
Checks out. I'm not a massive fan of this; it'd behoove the team to get at least one more damn reliever you can count on in now, but it just feels like pissing in the wind. They built a good bullpen on the fly last year by essentially May 1st - so it is what it is, even if I don't love it.
-
To be pedantic, Ed Howard was also a 2020 pick. Is this the normal hit-and-miss-rate? No. It's pretty rare top-3 round picks flare out this bad this quickly. While most prospects don't make it, you're usually still holding out hope for one of them just a few years later. I would also remind everyone that the 2020 draft is a one-of-a-kind draft. Not only did teams cheap out and pay less scouts that year, teams had no spring baseball. Just go look at any MLB mock draft the year before the draft and compare it to the actual draft a year later; it's almost entirely different...a year of data changes these things massively. MLB teams didn't get that year. So yeah, it's a mess of a draft year.
-
Based on Matt's comments in his article, I would highly suggest it' not a reliever. This feels like the Cubs are going to get a SP and a hitter and one is coming FA and one is coming via trade. I don't think the Cubs care for trading for a reliever.
-
I find this clip of Bruce Levine very interesting. He names, very specifically three Boras clients: Tatsuya Imai, Alex Bregman and Zac Gallen. I think we've all at least come to terms that these are players the Cubs find interest in. He did not mention Michael King, though he is not a Boras client. What I think is so interesting about this is the discussion right before it, in that the Cubs are "between free agents and trades". And I think this is telling. My read: 1. It's Imai or Bregman as your FA or maybe Gallen 2. The Cubs plan to solve the opposite of their FA purchase the hitter or the SP via a trade It also seems to line up with a lot of our thinking here. The trade portion feels especially interesting since, while, we seem to be picking up on the smoke on the FA front (maybe because it's Boras to begin with) but nothing on the trade smoke. Is it Gore? Is it Cabrera? Who could the hitters be if that's the other way?
-
I choose to read this that the Chicago Cubs are 100% signing Imai and will not accept any discussion otherwise because I really like him.
-
Name one example of when three different people connected the Cubs to something and then it came out they never spoke once. In fact, I cannot remember a single time when that happened. Again, these rumors are not assumptions. Do you think Sharma and Mooney were just assuming when they wrote this: A reminder, an assumption is something "accepted to be true without proof". Yet, Sharma and Mooney are directly pointing to proof. They can't tell you who that is (that's how a source works!) but they run on reputation and that matters. Here is Bruce Levine. Is this an assumption? This is not an assumption. This is reporting. It might not happen! But this isn't fantasy land made up stuff. Bruce Levine, Pat Mooney, Sahdev Sharma are reporting from their sources. Some people have better sources than others. Some are more reputable, That doesn't make these assumptions.
-
I do not, in anyway, agree with "most rumors are assumptions". That's just not true. Most rumors (from people that are worthwhile) are coming from either a team source, or a player source. Neither are an "assumption". If you know someone in the Cubs org, and they say "hey we had Bregman in the other day, we talked contract" and Heyman reports it, that's not an assumption. Might players or teams have a reason to get information out? Sure! But none of this is an "assumption". Reporters do make assumptions, but they don't cite a "team source" when doing so. Romero, Sharma and Mooney and Levine have all used "sources" or "people familiar with..." - these are more than assumptions.
-
-
His numbers against fastballs over 94mph are poor, yes. It's also important to note that he hasn't faced many fastballs over 94mph, either, so the sample size and his practice against them are limited at best. NPB just doesn't have many velocity-throwers. It's also not an impossible fix. Michael Busch was someone who struggled against velocity and he had a .314 wOBA on fastballs over 95+mph last year which, while it isn't elite, is more than enough. We know lots of the metrics on Murakami, when he hits the ball, are elite. How much of this is mechanically induced versus anything is hard for me to speak on. You'd assume, if the Cubs were the team that spent $90m on him, that they believe it's a fixable thing. While I know that's an "appeal to authority" argument, I think there are teams you can appeal to (and I think the Cubs more or less fit into this territory) and teams you wouldn't (the Angels or the Nationals, as an example).
-
It's hard to say it's an assumption when you have people like Bruce Levine talking as if the Cubs are engaged in contract negotiations. And while we can hem and haw over how much we should be in the boat with Levine, it's coming from a bunch of different directions; both team-connected (like Sharma and Mooney) as well as people like Francys Ramirez. At some point it's not just guesswork. That doesn't mean it will happen or likely to happen or anything, but I think if all you're doing is chalking this up as "well, reporters are just making assumptions" then I don't think you're on the right track either.
-
I'd imagine Shaw >> Cabrera at this point in terms of trade value.
-
Scouting defense is, what I've learned, a fools' game. Javier Baez was supposed to be a bad fielder, and he's a great fielder. Christopher Morel was supposed to be a good fielder and he's a bad fielder. I'll say this about the Cubs and third base defense; they have it down to a science. Nick Madrigal and Matt Shaw have both turned in +defensive seasons for the team when people questioned their ability to play the position. Murakami or Okamoto; if they sign here, I think it's safe that the Cubs, at least internally, feel like they can do it.
-
Don't disagree. There is a reason why K% and contact rates are some of the biggest green flag indicators for prospects; they have strong rates of being successful at the highest level. I do think there's something in teaching approach, changing mechanics and the like that can change that - though don't disagree it's not easy. A lot of it is how well a player can adapt and how well your staff is at identifying it. Like I said; based on the information we have. Murakami would be a pass for me. But I also know I'm not in-tune enough with the possible fixes to speak to them and how likely they are to get to the root. I'd be cautiously optimistic if the Cubs got him; they're a team who's certainly prioritized contact rate the last half-decade, so either they would have completely changed their internal philosophy or they see a way to compensate for the whiffs in a fashion and feel comfortable enough doling out a $90m deal (for a team who doesn't really gamble very much with money).
-
I have a lot of reservations on Murakami as is. However, I would assume that if the Cubs were the team who signed him, there would be some mechanical and biomechanical things they thing they can do to help him lower the whiff. Realistically, he's probably more than capable of being a useful MLB hitter with 30%+ K% due to his elite batted-ball data. So I'd probably defer to the Cubs judgement there. They've had some luck with messing with the mechanics of a handful of young hitters and have even seen a reduction in K% (at the Triple-A level) with Owen Caissie to a real significant manner. How much of that is Cubs and how much of that is "Caissie has 1,000 PA's" is up to your measurement.
-
Careful. If you say that the Mariners might trade a SP three times, you know who might return...
-
Yeah, it feels a bit like "Trading Shaw" is a legitimate outcome over the next few days. I'm a little excited by the process...who is it? It feels like Gore for Shaw could work on paper, but Gore's stock is down and Shaw has 6 years of control. Is there a name we don't know available? Seems like a fun outcome potentially.
-
Just some fun with numbers, you could conceivably get 2 SP's and Okmoto if you get wild. Imai ($24m) + King ($21m) + Okmoto ($16m) gets you to ~$61m. If you can find a home for Taillon where you save $14m of the $17m AAV) that gets you just under $50. I don't think it's likely, but you can start to get me very excited with that outcome.
-
It is starting to be interesting to see how connected to 3b the Cubs are. Specifically 3b. Bregman, Suarez, and Murakami. There does appear a bit of a trend. I won't speculate why, but it is interesting.
-
I'd be probably cool with that outcome - I'm a little more bearish than bullish on Okamoto (batted ball data just okay, requires super pull heavy output) but the Cubs hit on NPB players well and if they like him, well, I like him. I've come around on King as well.
-
I'd have a hard time with the Cubs going the Stanek route here. The Cubs just don't have a super-trust worthy bullpen right now, and Stanek hasn't been good for years. The one exception would be if the Cubs essentially put all of their money into two signings and made the offense and rotation so much better that you could forgive them going with Stanek as the only other important addition.
-
Former Cub, Michael Soroka signs with Arizona on 1-year,.
-
It doesn't "open up" other options, though. By using 3 players to supplement 2 positions you actively close options. There are only 26-roster spots. Your plan got the Cubs an extra 1/2 of a win, at an inflated price, and spent three roster spots to do so. It's just a bad plan. But hey, I guess the Cubs spent less money in LF, so point proven, right? Happ is actively providing surplus value. You don't need to spend $300m to understand how that's a good thing. His contract is floating value, not underwater. If it were below surplus value you'd have a point. Since it doesn't, you're just objectively wrong. Surplus value means it is a good way to spend money. You've spent less money to get more value.
-
Michael King, though, is the Cubs' type. He's a SP with upside (I.E, see 2023-2024) who has all of their pitch indicators they like, who won't require a 6+ year deal. They signed Jameson Taillon four years and $68m in 2022. If we use an inflation calculator, that's $75m in today's money. King isn't looking at much more. I don't think you have to be overly optimistic to think that Michael King is very doable. That's the Cubs' M.O.
