Jason Ross

Update. Brujan DFA.

Levine: Happ not going on IL. So, is Ballesteros coming up? Or is he still going to be in Milwaukee as a precaution for a creative trade incoming? This got interesting.

There's a handful of reasons he's up instead of Caissie, but my guess is mostly that it's trade related. Not necessarily a specific trade, or an imminent one, but that the Cubs feel a few things: 1. The Cubs are of the understanding that they very well may trade Caissie. They probably don't want to trade Caissie mid-game on Wednesday, for example, and then have to pull him from the lineup. They want to win and losing a player mid-game from the Cubs versus Iowa is a very different concept. 2. Even if they don't trade Caissie, I think his first go in MLB will be tough. I expect a lot of strikeouts for a while. The Cubs probably would like to avoid that. Ballesteros has a lot of contact in his game and those usually translate quicker 3. They are less worried about trading Mo - either because they view him more as a catcher than a DH long term meaning he's higher on their internal lists, or just because teams aren't as interested. This plays into #1 - they won't be nearly as concerned about completing a trade mid-game and pulling him.

The Cubs tend to work quickly and quietly behind the scenes. Most of their TDL moves just...happen. So maybe a good sign. Zumach did mention the FO was "convicted" in their deadline pursuits

@Bertz showed the other day that the Cubs offense, using BP's wRC+ tool which factors in quality of opponent has the Cubs as the 2nd best offense since May 22nd as well. The Brewers were 23rd. The Cubs have faced a ton of really good SPs. Anecdotally we can find individual games were that is not true, but over the long stretch its been a pretty unlucky run of catching great arms. Last few nights have been frustrating for sure (add in the sad news about Ryne Sandbeeg as well and from a personal standpoint have said "welp, that's enough baseball for tonight" in annoyance before the 6th twice in a row now) but I think the offense is fine. In a 162 game season things go up and things go down. Currently Tucker, Suzuki and Busch are in funks, Happ can't buy a lucky break and when four of your starters who should be among you six best hitters are all sluggish, it feels like the end of the world. Those players will not remain bad. And much like how Chris Flexen reverted to Chris Flexen, those guys will all revert back to themselves. The Brewers are a good team and will be a challenge the rest of the way, but the sinking feeling many are having about the 2025 season is probably more to due with the Cubs' on a down note, the Brewers near their zenith in terms of "hot" play as well as an internal nagging voice saying "remember 2018!" (and I have had to remind myself a few times that 2018 can't hurt me any more) for many fans. Things can change on a dime. Lots to go.

I swear I'll giving you credit, but I'm stealing this tidbit for the podcast this week. This was a wonderful addition and really great and easy digestible way to explain it.

Trading future success for present success will work out for the latter more than the former. The reality of prospects is that they more often than not, do not hit whatever perceived ceiling you place upon them. In this case, you have a perceived ceiling of 43.5 fWAR on Lou Brock. Yes, we remember the disastrous trades, but they're anecdotal. We love to talk about Zack Wheeler at the deadline for Carlos Beltran, or Lou Brock for nothing, but we tend to forget the Bobby Hill for Aramis Ramirez trade when we panic, or the Miggy Cabrera trade for Andrew Miller and a pile of other prospects who bomb, However, for our sake, let's talk Lou Brock as an outcome here. He's your comp, so let's play this out, shall we? To give context, since 1990, there have been 1,575 players to qualify enough PA's in that 34 year time span. so we're essentially ignoring everyone who just got some random cup-of-coffee. A 43.5 fWAR line would be the 79th best player in the last 34 years. So, in other words, your expectations based on your post is that the Cubs traded a player who will be better than 99.5% of other players. Does that sound...likely? Is that a realistic outcome? I think it's possible, but that feels like about the best possible outcome for Cam Smith if we're being honest with ourselves. There has been no talk of him being generational, so a borderline HoF career feels like best case scenario. But him being a top half of a percent player in 30 years feel quite rich. There have to be more outcomes. So let's take a step back now and look at those others. How likely do we think that the Cubs just traded a top .5% player? What if, instead, the Cubs just traded a...merely good player? Well, let's say they traded...Brian Dozier, you remember him, right? Had a few pretty good seasons with Minnesota, worth 24 career fWAR. Well he was the 252nd best player out of that 1,575 smattering of players. But he was nothing special when compared to MLB careers. There's almost 100 players between 27.9 fWAR and 23 fWAR. That's a pretty normal starting player for a career. Dozier is fine, but we would survive losing a Dozier, I'm sure. In fact, no one in 20 years would even really remember it, not like the Lou Brock trade, certainly. What if he isn't even Brian Dozier good? A real outcome here, considering he has a cool 88 wRC+ on the year against RHP (Cam Smith, that is). Michael Cuddyer, also of Minnesota Twins fame, had 17.1 fWAR over his career, being mostly a guy who hit LHP well but RHP not so well. He was the 390th best player in the last 34 years. You losing sleep over losing Michael Cuddyer? I'll answer for you, you are not, no one is. I know that because, and let's be honest, neither you, nor me, have thought of the name "Michael Cuddyer" in probably a decade. And just before you try the "Well Cam Smith was a highly regarded prospect!" nonsense, Michael Cuddyer was the 9th pick in the 1997 draft. Move along. So, sure, there's a possible outcome in which the Cubs traded the next "Lou Brock" to the Astros for one really good year of Kyle Tucker! But it's pretty unlikely. What's more likely is that the Cubs traded a player who will have a fine career, but one we rarely gripe about in a handful of years. When's the last time you lamented trading Gleyber Torres? He's had an up and down career (a pretty nice year this year, though!) but he's probably on pace for a Brian Dozier type 23-27 fWAR career. Pretty damn respectable considering everything, but the Cubs franchise isn't pining for him. Nico Hoerner has hit 110 less home runs, but has played less games and has been about as valuable as an MLB player! The point is simple; stop overreacting. Not everything is the worst thing ever. Almost everything comes up far short of "pure disaster". The same will be true in the next 2 days when the Cubs trade prospects, yet again, moving the possibility of future success for far more defined and clear present success. There are bad trades that happen, and sometimes it doesn't work out. You shouldn't trade all of the prospects for whatever, you need to be smart! But as long as you're smart, it'll almost assuredly be fine more times than not. So, stop overreacting.

But it's also the rule when here's 0 outs and just a runner on first. So that certainly makes it a thing with the bases loaded, but that wouldn't change the previous thing, either.

Yeah, I guess I kind of get it. From a practical point, I don't think it's much different, however, than like dropping a popup with a runner on first to throw him out at second and still getting a shot at 1st. But baseball rules are so weird that who knows what the origins of the rule comes from. Some times it's just some weirdo from 1876 with big sideburns said this was the way and sometimes it's from a practical point.

I would assume that might be the idea? Pretend to drop the pitch, throw to first then get a tag out? From a personal view I just hate the idea that as a hitter, you can swing at a pitch so egregiously bad and still get 1st. (Until some kid with a good sweeper gets me to swing wildly at it off the plate in my next adult game. Then I deserve first)

Boom-boom. 2 gone.

If there are less than two outs and first is occupied pre-pitch (so a steal would not negate this), a runner may not advance to first on a dropped-third. With two outs, this is ignored and hitters can advance, regardless of who occupies first. Why? Because baseball is really dumb.

Teams have reshuffled the titles that people hold to help hire people from other orgs. Teams won't let FO personnel interview for lateral positions, but have to allow a step up, so teams started to move the powers that we traditionally associate with "General Manager" to "Vice President of Baseball Operations" a position "above" that of the GM. The same is true for "General Manager" and "Assistant General Manager". Carter Hawkins was not the General Manager in Cleveland, but was an assistant GM. By offering him a "promotion" the Cubs were able to bypass any block the Guardians might have by offering him a lateral move. So look at it as being another strong voice in the room, bringing ideas, being a sounding board, doing their own analysis, etc. They're just second in command, the titles are different, but the structure is essentially the same.

If Hoerner gets on, they really might pull the plug at 40 pitches.

There was an anonymous vote that the Athletic published the last few years.

Many of the best baseball writers cannot get the HoF correct literally year over year. I'm not super worried about how the rest of the front office community feels. Superlatives are cool talking points, but I sincerely hope no MLB organization is using them as a barometer.

It probably doesn't change much math. Bubic wasn't going anywhere once the Royals decided to keep Lugo. The Royals had already pulled Lugo and Bubic off the market for all intents and purposes. Clase is a reliever and while it may force a team or two to shift their decision to go into the RP or the SP market, it's different enough that his availability probably doesn't change how the Twins feel about Joe Ryan, Washington about Gore or even Arizona really handles like a Kelly or Gallen. It might move the needle a little, but I doubt much. Clase was going to be very expensive for a reliever and I would be surprised if teams who were going to pay handsomely for Clase are suddenly going to jump the price on guys like Soroka, Morton, Houser...

You can look at this a few ways. If you want to judge him simply because "he hasn't made the playoffs" in five years, that is certainly your right. The chance that Jed makes a really bad trade in the next three days and the Cubs miss the playoffs is possible, however, probably a bit unlikely. I also think that ignores context; such as how ownership essentially forced a selloff which tanked his first few years. You can look at it as Jed has a longer-term build. The reality is that the 2026 Cubs should be very good again; even if they don't resign Tucker, they will have a good chunk of money to spend just to get back to their somewhat frugal spending this year. Enough that barring PCA falloff, the Cubs should be a 90 win team on paper. I also think you can argue that the Cubs have left themselves a player short most years. I think a neutral look has it that the Cubs have really only had three somewhat competitive teams and that Jed has had a winning record in all of them. He vacillates from "good enough to maybe sneak in" and so far "really darn good". He's somewhat risk adverse. He does a pretty solid job of hiring smart people around him; Kantrovitz, Zombro, Breslow, Counsell...all have been good hires. And while he's got his flaws and he's imperfect, that with the emergence of analytics and front offices who really believe in them. that the difference between Hoyer and the next guy, as long as ownership doesn't change their pattern is likely moot. In the neutral view, I still think he's mostly earned it. You probably won't hire someone who will be better, and the Cubs have a good team this year. It gives him stability into the TDL, and from a media perspective it stops the "Is Hoyer going to tank the prospects 'cause he don't have an extension!" stuff. It also may help with getting the ball rolling on Tucker; and having stability there very well may help too.

Just to add, and this is a small sample size but since the Cubs series Cam Smith has: 7.1 BB%, 30.3 K%, .209/.273/.275 56 wRC+ and a .311 BABIP so it's not really bad luck. His EV is down 4+mph, his LA has remained very flat, and his hard hit% has cratered. He's a rookie and he's probably going through more learning so it doesn't mean a ton, but I think a lot of fans saw him in the Cubs series and then hasn't really looked to see what he's done since.

I think on paper he has the most assets, but he's also hamstrung a bit by the ownership as well. This is a team who is spending more in line with the division than we give him credit for at times. There are 12 more teams spending more than the Cubs currently, And last year the Cardinals spent about $20m less than the Cubs 2025 actual payroll (the LT number is higher, it should be noted) as it stands today (though this will change over the course of the next few days). The Cubs aren't out here out spending the division like they could/should very often, and they don't get any of the draft benefits for acting this way. So I think it's fair to state he gets a benefit of assets, the Cubs will probably outspend every team in the division almost every year, but probably also fair to point out that the benefits he gets aren't nearly as realized as they could be due to factors outside of Jed, too. \ My hope is that with an MiLB side of things more consistently producing MLB talent, that the Cubs can better utilize their assets. A big thing they've struggled with up until mid-2024 is that the roster had very little "free" talent; everyone was on post-arb contracts. With PCA, Shaw, Busch, Brown, Horton, and some relievers, they can begin to flush their roster out with pre-arb freebies which should help them utilize the money they still have over the rest of the division.

Love the way you said that. I can find faults with Jed overall, but almost any one of his significant moves has been logical and worked out decently well so far. They have really improved the developmental side of things, they have drafted relatively well, and have generally done well in FA (some smaller misses). He probably isn't the world's greatest VP of OPs. But he is probably just fine all things considered.

That's good. I know there are people who hate him, but he does as good of a job as anyone else, essentially. He uses analytics, his "bad years" are basically 83 wins and his good year has the Cubs atop the NL record wise (tied with Milwaukee, ahead of the Dodgers) with two months to go. He does a fine job and anyone else is probably just as good.

Well, I will be away from my phone and a computer for about seven hours today. Assume something fun will happen prior to 9:30m est just to spite me.

He has significant cut on it towards his glove side. Not much ride. It's usually one or the other. He does have an overhand release so there is natural ride on it from that, but it's not it's signature. ZiPS probably isn't useful here; as much of Shaw was underperforming metrics and Horton is more or less working within those metrics but changing his pitch mix. ZiPS actually doesn't love Cade and that's because it takes K% as an input heavily into account and Cade is getting a lot of whiff but not striking out hitters yet. But I'm unconcerned about it; Cade is learning a different way from Shaw.

Yeah, the thing about Horton is that he is missing bats; just not with two strikes. His chase% and whiff% are both around the 70th percentile. My assumption is that the Cubs have worked specifically on his fastball shape/location first and foremost; splitting his fastball into a 4-seam with cut (LHP) and a sinker (RHP). These pitches don't have a lot of strikeout usage. I think the next step will be just tweaking the slider a bit (location and pitch mix). That's when I think the K's will jump.