Jason Ross

How about three?

Someone get Carlos Santana some actual pants. Those are horsefeathers shorts.

I really like Merrill Kelly as a target. One of my favorite stop-gaps for 2025.

Gallen has been horrendous this year and has been worth -.4 fWAR. He has regressed across the board and on velo.

Oh yeah! Holiday is another. Chourio is another. I had mentioned these two in the previous post so I ignored them here. Right now it's more likely for your teams' highly thought of prospect to suck for around 400 PA's than it is for them to be good for the first 400 PA's. We have seen some guys like James Wood crush it right away, but most suck and for extended time. CJ Abrams was horrible for almost 1,000 PAs. But the patience has paid off. And great analog to Colin Rea. You're right on those things. It's more likely that someone like Matt Shaw improves over the next three months than Rea does.

Your words were that the Cubs "appeared to have traded the wrong third baseman". That's teetering on a decision between Cam Smith and Matt Shaw, yes. My advocation was not to make these statements in their career arcs. I'm sorry, but MLB-instant-gratification with prospects is rarely a thing right now. And we have examples of that instant-gratification falling off as well. I didn't say anything about you suggesting a release, I was entirely discussing any Smith/Shaw comparisons. It's silly nonsense. But he isn't. He's three months removed from being a top-30 (if not higher) prospect who has been 40% better than league average at Double-A and Triple-A in the last year. He's not only highly regarded, but highly successful. Context matters, my friend. Secondly, the "exit velocity" stuff is over played. Yes, the EV's aren't great, but I'm sorry, this is what you should expect from a profile of Matt Shaw. He's a high-swing, high-contact type. His EV's are going to be dropped based on the amount of stuff he shouldn't be able to hit. I'm as big of an Owen Caissie guy as there is, but part of his high EV is that when he doesn't get all of it, he gets none of it. When Shaw doesn't get all of it, he gets some of it far more often. I'd like to see more hard contact myself, and better swing choices, but what you haven't likely noticed; he's currently doing that more and more. His hard hit rate has jumped 1.5% since his recall, and over his last 28 swings his hard hit rate is 35.7% yet his wRC+ is 72. We are seeing progress literally right before our eyes but he's not necessarily being rewarded for the process improvement. Shaw is most certainly in a slump, but if we take the data back just 40 PA's ago, he was rocking an xWOBA of .342. Even xData liked the kid prior to a skid. Let's not act like Shaw is some horrible hitter. He's a rookie who's in the throws of making sweeping mechanical and approach based changes against the best pitching in the world. Add in that he won't be able to make these changes at Iowa (140 wRC+ hitters rarely need extra seasoning at Triple-A) and this is what you get. No, I'm sorry, I won't. Gage Workman is three years older, has never played Triple-A, Spring Training data is meaningless and he was so highly thought of that the Detroit Tigers let the world have him. Instead, let's use some other, young, very good prospects as an example: Wyatt Langford (412 PA): 91 wC+ Riley Greene (418 PA): 98 wRC+ CJ Abram (302 PA): 72 wRC+ Andy Pages (181 PA): 98 wRC+ I'm not going to pull every young player, but other such as Geraldo Perdomo, Sal Frelick, and Jonathon Aranda are all figuring it out well into the hundreds of PA's as well. The point is that we shouldn't take Gage Workman as an example, his analogs and pedigrees are no where near Matt Shaw. Instead, we should take recent contemporaries in terms of age, production and ranking and see that even the best prospects are struggling for hundreds of PA's. Keep in mind as well, Kristian Campbell, one of the best prospects in all of baseball is rocking an 87 wRC+ and negative fWAR through 263 PA's. He was routinely graded as a top-10 prospect in the sport. This isn't unique to Shaw. Yes, his defense. Yes, really. First, the "arm strength" argument has kind of been debunked a handful of times. Dansby Swanson, Nico Hoerner and Nick Madrigal have all been + defenders at SS and 3b with the Cubs despite the argument about the arm strength. We can likely backburner that one. In fact, he's been better on balls to his right (taking him away from 1b) than to his left. In terms of OAA, he's sitting on a season -1 rating and a success rate of 68%. This is a 10% increase since his return (where he was at a 58%). There has been measurable defensive improvement for a player who's playing a new position (at least, new as a "primary" spot) before our eyes. Where the ceiling is defensively is kind of hard to gauge, but he's sitting 19th out of 35th in the league right now based on OAA alone and it's safe to assume that with more time (as we have seen) this will improve. DRS has Shaw as a +6 as well. Now, I like OAA in general more than DRS, but there's a pretty decent discrepancy between the two. It's worth noting that, especially when it comes to defensive metrics that, at their best, are wonky and require large samples. Yes. In 2025, Matt Shaw can get to be an average 3b. I'm sorry, all MLB teams have something average, somewhere. Event he Dodgers have a 96 wRC+ from SS, and a 70 wRC+ from LF on the year, and I think, on paper, we all agree they're the best team in baseball who is also chasing a pennant. While I do think the Cubs can upgrade at 3b, many things need to be factored in: 1. What is the cost of acquisition? 2. What is this going to improve? The Cubs more glaring omissions are with impact pitching. Upgrading a win or 1.5 wins over Shaw is likely a decent thing to do! But it's also probably expensive. If internally, Shaw is projected to be average, spending money elsewhere while going with more of a Luis Urias over a Suraez might behoove the team. Ultimately, however, people seem to have a belief that Shaw is just going to be able to go to Iowa and then poof return magically fixed. The Cubs shouldn't give up on him and the answer to "how long should they stick with him?" is likely in the hundreds more than they have. TLDR: Let's have some patience. Comparing him to Gage Workman is silly, the EV thing is a bit played out (and I don't thing representative), there's no answer on who's better Shaw or Smith and while the Cubs should bring in someone at 3b, it doesn't have to be Suarez.

Making any decision based on a few hundred PA's over "who the right third baseman" is or isn't is very premature. I would really caution people from dealing in such a discussion. Rookies take a long time. Based on their first 450 PA's, you'd have concluded Jordan Walker, not Pete Crow-Armstrong was the best young outfielder to come out of the 2020 draft. Today, Jordan Walker has been worth negative career fWAR while Pete Crow-Armstrong is likely among the most coveted young outfielders in the entire game. Things shift greatly with young players. Cam Smith hit a couple of cool home runs and he's had a better than I expected rookie season. Matt Shaw has had a bit of an up and down ride, he's working through learning, certainly. But there's a long way to go before either is the "right" or "wrong" player. It wouldn't be crazy or the most shocking outcome to re-evaluate this next year and see the two flipped. As is, I'm not entirely sure Matt Shaw needs to be replaced as heavily as others do. We have seen recently that young players just, take off. Internally we can look at PCA, Miguel Amaya and Michael Busch. Externally, players like Wyatt Langford, Jackson Chourio, and Jackson Holliday had to struggle for a few hundred PA's (or more) before they got it. He likely needs some competition behind him, but he's not been a blackhole offensively as much as people like to make him out to be. League 3b are hitting at a 96 wRC+ clip and since his return, Shaw is at an 86 wRC+. But he's also been much better with the glove recently. So while he's below average offensively, it's not by leaps and bounds, and with some adjustment it's a pretty decent shot he's average or slightly better at some point.

Oh, yeah, agree. I think it was back in...April or even March...I mentioned him near my top board. I like the skillset. I do wonder if some of the swing and miss question in his game scares the Cubs away; they have tended to shy more contact profile (though aggressive contact). It's why I waffle on Aloy. Do they like some of the contact he's shown and the power and position? Do they go away from a Cape performer? Do they take some of the swing and miss questions? He's an interesting name. Gut says Wood fits a profile the Cubs like, but the injuries are concerning. Gut says they like a Steele Hall (they've been connected each of the last two years to a "Trea Turner" type). Zumach mentioned they really liked Pierce. It'll be interesting to see how they go here.

Oh, I meant #2 as an all encompassing reasoning for not being enamored. Either stuff, projection, injuries...all of it! Mostly, I think if Wood is on the board at #17, regardless of taking him or not, it'll tell us, maybe not exactly how they feel about him, but be very telling. I think it'll be more cut-and-dry than most "passes". And yeah, Nichols would. I usually associate Nichols with pitching, however. At least as of recently, most of the Nichols pulls have come on the mound. But certainly, Aloy would be a possibility. I like Aloy, though I waffle on whether or not he hits the Cubs likes. One day I'll convince myself he fits, and other I wonder if he does.

I'll update this when I have some more concrete information (I know the guy who runs Savermetrics quite well and have asked him to check something for me), but Gage Wood on the surface checks off all of the Cubs boxes. One of the biggest ones we probably haven't talked about is the Ty Nichols factor. To remind anyone who doesn't follow, Nichols is the lead scout in the region. He has had his fingers all over the Jordan Wicks (KSU), Cade Horton (OU) and Jaxon Wiggins (UA) picks. Gage Wood being Arkansas means he's right there under Nichols nose. That likely means: 1. If he's on the board and the Cubs take him, this is another Nichols special. 2. If he's on the board and the Cubs don't take him, either Nichols is less enamored with him, or the Cubs love-love the other guy. Maybe he won't be here, and we won't know at all. But if he is, it's probably very telling with how they handle his presence. My hunch is that based on the BA 5.0 mock where they had the Cubs passing on Wood for Aloy, that they would be wrong in that scenario. I have a feeling that if Wood is on the board at 17, that'll be the dude. Edit: Update on the top; Ty Nichols himself follows Wood's social medias. I'll see if there are any other local crosscheckers and/or scouts. But you can start to figure out Cubs picks through their social follows. That Nichols himself follows Wood, and he's the guy in the region? Keep that name in your pocket.

Swanson has the 15th best fWAR at the SS position in 2025. This is above Bogaerts, Correa and Adames. He has the 9th best xwOBA, suggesting his 18th best wOBA has underperfomed and that he's been unlucky. Beyond that, since signing with the Cubs he's been the 8th best at his position based on fWAR. This is more than Bogaerts, and Correa. He's just one fWAR behind Turner. Swanson's contract is 4 years and $130m less. On the free agent market, wins go for around $8-9m per win. Swanson has 10.8 fWAR. His $177m contract would need around 22 wins to break even at $8m a win, and 19.6 for $9m. Swanson has achieved half in just 2.5 seasons. He is on pace for another three win year. The idea his contract has been anything but "good" is ridiculous. We gotta stop doing this with Dansby Swanson. He's a good player on a contract that is proving to be just fine.

Well, Swanson is under contract for a while. I think the rest many are replaceable. Ballesteros/Caissie/Long are all potential DH's. The Cubs have Jaxon Wiggins, Ben Brown and Cade Horton, all of whom are real potential SP's. Behind them Jordan Wicks. Brandon Birdsell, Javier Assad, Will Sanders could all take #4/#5 roles. Pedro Ramirez could be a 2b option. And that's just internal! The Cubs can likely trade a few of these guys this deadline, still have a decent crop of near-MLB prospects, but will also have lots of money. They have just $50m on the books for the 2027 season. They can, pretty easily, sign Tucker to a $50m AAV and still have $100m+ to spend. They'll replace some outside of the org too.

I am filled with a lot of hope. Most arms in the system have made *some* jump, either velocity wise, stuff wise in general, or command. Considering it's a little different for each arm and not a uniform change, coupled with it being year-1 under Zombro, I suspect a few of these names will grow in the other areas as well. I won't attempt to predict exactly which ones they are, but it's hard to not find a lot of encouragement. Especially if the Cubs go P heavy in the 2025 draft.

Home xFIP: 4.40 Away xFIP: 4.75 He's managed that 2.27 ERA on the road with a K% under 13 with a BABIP against of .230. Severino has been really bad everywhere, but has luck hurting his home-ERA and luck aiding his road-ERA. Regardless, he's just been bad.

I like it when the Cubs score all of the runs.

It is the dumbest of all of the fields. What a stupid, dumb, baseball field.

The Crawford Boxes are the dumbest. What a dumb baseball field.

I do not like that man named Cam I do not like him, Sam I am. I do not like him with a hat. I do not like it when he swings the bat.

Good job getting out of it.

Player A (first 461 PAs at age 21): 116 wRC+, 22.4 K%, 8 BB%, .276/.342/.445 Player B (first 429 PAs at age 22): 82 wRC+, 24.5 K%, 5.6 BB%, .228/.282/.370 Two recent prospect callups in the last few seasons. Both highly regarded. Same draft class. One of these players has been worth -.5 fWAR (with a sparkling 65 wRC to boot since their debut) over their career. The other has been significantly better. It's not the player you think it is based on their entrance to the league. A few years back their trade value would have been very different, with Player A being one of the most coveted young players in baseball and potential to have been the most coveted. Today, you could argue no position player has more trade value than Player B. (Just to help you make your point)

The Cubs have scored the 9th most runs (14th most PA's) and have the 7th best wRC+ against LHP. They also have the 23rd best BABIP against LHP despite being 8th in line drive and lowest in ground ball rate. They have the 5th best HR/FB% against LHP. It's likely they've been a little unlucky. Sure, they could use an upgrade over Turner. It's an upgradable spot, more than likely, against LHP. However the struggles against LHP are vastly overstated.

The Cubs have scored the 2nd most runs and have the 3rd best wRC+ in baseball. It would be cool to make another really impactful offensive trade, but their offense is about as good as you can ask for. Anything *could* cost them a deep run in the playoffs, but their offense is their best aspect as a team.

He literally had two of the seven hardest hit balls of the entire game on Thursday. Three were xBA over .490. He had one hit. His 107mph lineout was the hardest hit ball he's had all year! Sometimes you get a little lucky. Sometimes you get a little unlucky. Any of the luck he got last night was paid for on Thursday.. I cannot stress enough, this is what rookies do. The best prospect in baseball has a 60 wRC+ in his first 60 PA's. We gotta stop making every PA and every game some referendum.