Jason Ross

Yeah, I still hate that for the Reds. He doesn't have great barrel control and his GB% is nearing 50%. Even if he pulls more, I just don't think it's going to save him. It'll probably just have him go from "really bad hitter" to "bad hitter".

Mo Baller.

Yeah. And they already have Marte at 3b. I don't get that...at all.

Especially for a team who's offense ain't exactly...good. Also...Noevli Marte is one of their good offensive players. And he's a 3b? What?

I don't like the poker analogy here, because chips in poker don't go bad. In many ways, the Cubs have a log jam in Iowa that is a misuse of assets if they hug 'em all. There is no obvious pathway to keep Alcantara and Caissie, for example or really use them by 2027. They can't really keep them all and it be a good usage of their chips. The same goes for Long and Ballesteros in many ways. Christian Franklin and a few of their lower-end arms like Assad, Wicks, Birdsel and Sanders all occupy similar positions in the organization. Players run out of options and their value in a trade depreciate over time, fairly or unfairly. Owen Caissie repeating Triple-A next year will not help anything; he either hits well and no one cares "it's his third time!" or he doesn't and everyone freaks out. The Cubs assets are depreciating values in many ways, and need to be treated as such. If you don't use them, they will lose perceived value. I wouldn't advocate the Cubs to trade Owen Caissie, Jaxon Wiggins and Assad and Long for, say, all rentals, but I don't think that's what anyone has said here. They should be cashing in some of these assets for controllable players where they can. A SP like Edward Cabrera will be here for this year and a few more. The Cubs are a better team in 2025 for sure, and likely beyond, for doing that.

The bullpen is struggling, but much like when the bullpen was out producing itself, this won't keep either. We have a bad habit of believing all out-of-the-norm things suggest future production (positive and negative) but things regress to the mean. With trades and positive variance, the pen will be fine. Thielbar, Palencia, Keller, and Braiser are a pretty strong foundation. With enough guys like Pomeranz, Hollowell, Hodge, Pressley floating around, and maybe adding Horton and Brown you can probably guess two of them will stabilize it again. Add one good reliever from outside of the organization and it'll be alright. The lineup will be fine too. I really don't care about lineup construction. People freak out about it, but I think it's a red herring in almost every way. Busch isn't struggling because he's hitting leadoff, he's just going through a slump, for example. Almost all available data we have suggests lineup construction is nearly meaningless, both from a hitter's production POV and from a run scoring environment POV, so I'm not super worried how Counsell orders them as long as the better hitters hit near the front of it and he isn't playing Tucker at SS. Things will work themselves out when hitters revert back into the normal forms.

Jed is usually good for one "huh? That guy?" trade every deadline. And I don't mean it in a bad way. I didn't expect an Isaac Parades trade last deadline, and certainly not the way it happened. He may go pretty conventional this year, but I kind of expect we'll see at least one Jed-special like that.

That would be my guess. Mo is here for a day, or maybe a few more (the Cubs could conceivably DFA Berti as well at this point to keep Mo up through a few more days) until Happ's healthy again. But by Thursday at 4pm est, tomorrow, I think there could be up to three new bench players. One of which isn't really "new" in Miguel Amaya, but think there could two new additions - one via trade and could be one rookie like Franklin or Alcantara as the new CF option.

I think Brujan was always going to go in the next two days, so while I think it's likely that the Cubs bench will look pretty different come 4pm tomorrow, but I'd guess there isn't a specific trade right now that's about to hit.

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.