Transmogrified Tiger

He's a good prospect that hits the ball hard! I hope he goes supernova in Iowa and never looks back. But also part of that average EV is a function of his approach which has a lot of swing and miss. And given that he's not going to have Acuna or even Judge's positional value, he needs to be closer to a Judge caliber bat in order to break out of that averageish player ceiling. Maybe he does it, but I wouldn't be too precious with him in trade talks holding on to that hope.

BBTV says the Cubs are roughly a PCA and a Wesneski short in that deal (they don't have Martinez in their DB so just assuming him at 0). It has Gilbert as one of the most valuable trade commodities in the game. If the target has to be Gilbert among the Mariners pitchers, I think the reasonable path is hoping they have a high value on both Morel and Horton and those two being the main pieces.

I'm piggybacking on others' interpretation, but it sounds like Levine was less quoting the specific budget he believes, but more a number large enough that it fits the more generic point he's making, which is that the Cubs are going to be in on top of market players and are likely to add some large AAV players

I haven't seen anyone "naysaying" the move. I've been among the closest to that of anyone, so my point of view can be summarized as this: Ross was fine and probably better than fine. The vast majority of Ross criticism falls into one or more of these buckets: wrong on the merits, not his fault, or coin flip decisions that are not pass/fail or super consequential. Managers do not make an enormous difference. Even the 'mild' assumption that Ross to Counsell is a 4 win upgrade is a massive assumption that I don't see any real backing for. I'm pleased with this move mostly because Jed was willing to do something out of character because of how much conviction he had that it was worth it. And because that even though it might not lead to a "screw it sign everyone" offseason, it should(won't, but should) quiet those who were worried that the team wasn't going to make another step up in payroll.

Counsell will make 5.5 million more than Ross after signing as a free agent. The Cubs are paying almost three times that to a collection of players to *not* play for them next year.

Yes, full stop. Their spending 'effort' is not a problem.

They were one of 5 teams to sign a player to 7+ years. 17 players signed 4+ year deals and the Cubs signed two of them.

Last offseason the Cubs added 41 million in long term AAV(3+ year deals), and 35 million in short term AAV(1-2 year deals). After the offseason they added an additional 25-30 million in long-term AAV in extensions. This idea that the Cubs aren't legitimate or real or serious spenders is a just pliable enough idea that the definition always just so happens to shift to fit the prior beliefs of those complaining about it.

I am not super wedded to Shaw, but I think he's maybe the most certain of the non-PCA/Horton tier to be an above average player, and I also don't think that teams are necessarily going to value him as much/greater than an Alcantara, or significantly more than Caissie/Ballesteros. So if teams see Caissie/Ballesteros/Shaw/Triantos as all having similar amounts of value, I'm trading Shaw last. If they do see him as an Alcantara/headliner for a star then I'd still probably deal Alcantara first, but maybe he's more in that Brown/Caissie tier.

I might refine this a bit to say it's more about what they have a risk tolerance for. The way to get into Ross's good graces is to not only get people out, but to throw strikes. I think he was fairly flexible with his pen hierarchy when you account for that. Merryweather was a waiver castoff who also wasn't all that good right after his disaster opener(4 ERA with 2 HR in 9 IP between then and the end of April) but started getting greater leverage looks when he consistently threw strikes. Leiter was a fringe roster guy who became a primary setup man and Alzolay got thrust into the closer role more or less immediately because he showed the mentality but more importantly, did not walk anyone. And the guys that Ross kept on the fringes despite greater potential are at the other end of this spectrum. You mentioned Palencia, he had 12 BB in 16 IP on September 1st before finding his control. This also explains the hesitancy with Little, how Estrada didn't get as much extended run, and probably plays small roles in Keegan's banishment and Burdi's lack of use. I also don't think that approach is necessarily *wrong*, the front office has had a preference for command/control in building the roster, and if you've got the 2023 Cubs defense behind you I'd want my middle relievers in the zone too. But that also probably increases the variance compared to talent level on the margins.

There's been a fair amount of chatter that the Cubs may be pretty active in the trade market, so I thought it might be useful to see what our collective preferences were on who you do and don't want to trade. For me the categories shake out something like this, I'm excluding everyone who has played in MLB, save for PCA: Not trading without a godfather offer PCA: the AAA and MLB struggles with the bat have my eyebrows raised, but that wasn't all that many PA, he's made adjustments before, and the defense + baserunning really raise the floor Horton: Best shot the org has at a front of the rotation starter, needs to show deeper in games but with the team's rotation situation there's no way I'm giving up a pitcher of his quality now that he's shown as much and is as close as he is No one's untouchable but I'm parting with these names as late as possible Shaw: the approach needs refinement and his defensive home is uncertain but I think he's well on his way to being an above average player that's already within shouting distance of MLB Rojas: Players with Jeffy Rojas' swing, tools, age, and results do not come along every day, and especially given that teams are unlikely to pay a premium given his distance to MLB, they need to hang on to his upside Ferris: Similarly, I suspect Ferris is about 8 months from being a breakout name in this system and I doubt teams will treat him as such in trade talks I'm not giving them away but I'd move them in the appropriate deal Brown: Love the stuff, don't love the injuries and control/reliever risk. If some team sees him as a 55 SP then I think I'd have to let them find out if they're right Caissie: Torn between two worlds with Caissie, one is that we probably collectively underrate the possibility he starts at Iowa, hits a lot, and plays a meaningful 2nd half role in MLB. The other is that he probably has a 2 WAR ceiling given his lack of positional value and these are the types of players you can't be afraid to give up because good systems produce them en masse You have to give value to get value, and if I'm giving value this is the value I'd give: Alcantara: The upside and success along with the AFL visibility means he could headline a really significant addition, and between the distance he still has to make to reach that potential, the risks at the upper levels with his long levers, and the option clock that will require him to move hastily, I think his maximum utility is as a trade chip Triantos: With the AFL success and ARL bat with strong contact it's possible his value will never be higher. With the progress still needed in taking walks and hitting for power on top of maybe being a DH caliber glove I think he's got average at best likely positive outcomes. Ballesteros: He's barely into this tier, but I don't think he's a catcher and I'm less optimistic that he's a damage bat at 1B/DH than I am with Caissie. This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but maybe a useful way of organizing how you think about different trade possibilities. What's your list(s) look like?

I feel like we have this conversation every 6 weeks but did the profile actually change or did the denominators for the batted ball ratios? Mervis pre-call up had a K rate of 17% and post-callup K% of 24%, and he hit HR at a slightly higher rate pre-callup for good measure. Some K's turning into GB and a FB or two going over the fence can make a pretty meaningful difference when we're talking about ~100 BIP. But even setting that aside, the callup wasn't the only opportunity the team had, like Bertz said they went to Jared Young more than once in the 2nd half when Mervis had presumably made those adjustments.

I think the most compelling reason to think of Counsell as a significant upgrade is the self-evident one. Multiple organizations were aggressively pursuing him despite him wanting to set the salary scale at the position, and in particular a (presumably) progressive org like the Cubs was willing to momentarily pause preparation for a very important offseason and risk their relationship with the current manager to sell him on coming to Chicago. The rest, I find a lot less persuasive. Saying the difference in Ross and Counsell is a ten win (!) gap is a sensational claim, and were it close to true I think you'd have seen a lot different behavior from otherwise educated front offices across the league in how they treat managers(firing them quicker, paying them much more, etc). Citing 1 run record as proof of manager competence feels very convenient given what we know about baseball and how we talk about the variability in those games. Doubly so when a big chunk of that is not manager dependent but a function of more specific components of the roster. Counsell's 1 run record was below .500 until he started having at least one and then often two top of the scale elite relievers in his bullpens, and in the same way, with Alzolay installed as a closer this year the Cubs 1 run record went through the roof. Maybe Counsell took a little bit to find his managerial legs, maybe Ross simply got lucky and Alzolay's role as pen anchor was unrelated, maybe Counsell would've taken that step sooner and found a way to keep Alzolay healthy(I'm skeptical, especially of the latter). But I don't think you can manage your way out of a poor or tired pitching staff, especially in the pen, and I struggle to see how anyone could have reasonably avoided that outcome and/or stacked up more wins for the Cubs in 2023 with those personnel and circumstances. The other bits seem to just be anecdotes of perception cited as fact. Just saying Counsell's teams stay hot longer and cold for shorter periods and that they play sloppy baseball less often than Ross led teams, absent something that might even tangentially serve as proof of that phenomenon, feels like backwards justification of prior beliefs. Again, I'm excited for Counsell because Jed Hoyer is excited for Counsell. While Jed isn't infallible, he took a very large(and for him uncharacteristic) risk and made a statement investment to make sure he got Counsell as manager. In that light I'm not gonna try to claim that managers don't matter because an exec that I otherwise understand and agree with their outlook on the game in most facets clearly feels differently. But I also think that Counsell's development of younger players and what he and his staffs have done with catchers are probably a lot bigger component than marginal lineup or bullpen decisions. And I think we should careful to not ascribe everything a team does as a reflection of manager quality, especially when we have a predisposition for or against a particular manager.

Turner seems like a good professional hitter to add if you get a big bat that doesn't have to play DH, but I'm not sure there's a strong contract match for the 39 year old who turned down 13.4 million to get to free agency.

It only takes one team but given the situations at a lot of clubs(a couple big markets stepping back, TV money gone poof for a bunch of others) and a weaker class I'm not expecting quite as much of a frenzy as last offseason. I'm definitely not expecting most of these durations that they have for those top guys, Bellinger in particular feels like some real 'congratulations on saying the biggest number' nonsense.

Feels like the only ones of these that were particularly in question were Hoskins and maybe Chapman? Will be interesting to see what that does to Hader and Gray's markets.

A potentially useful thought exercise: where do you think the Cubs ranked in terms of sac bunts this year? How many fewer do you think the Brewers had?

Exactly, I would not be the least bit surprised if Mervis has a 115 wRC+ bat ready to contribute or at least take some lumps on the way to that endpoint, but I have no confidence the FO is willing to give him the chance even with yawning chasms at 1B/DH. I'm gonna keep trying to will a trade of Mervis for Hunter Harvey(or some close approximation) into existence, as that would be a nice multi-year RP solution that wouldn't have big AAV, and the Nats organizationally have basically nothing at 1B and could be looking to cash in a reliever for a team that isn't going to need it before FA.

Counsell has managed multiple elite relievers and done so in ways that don't always adhere to traditional closer roles, but my limited perspective is that it has always been very clear who was at the top of the food chain and in what order, and had several really good relievers to pick from. I expect Alzolay if healthy to be part of that inner circle, but maybe it's a little more likely that there's a no-questions-asked really good RP added instead of someone who maybe has more minor warts. Adding on to the platoons bit, there's a lot of RHH on the fringes of the roster, I wouldn't be surprised if this hastens the exit of one of Wisdom or Madrigal in favor of a LH IF(maybe it just means Mastrobuoni is first choice), and mayyybe it increases the odds of a RHH CF to hedge against Tauchman regression and PCA growing pains? The Brewers stole an above average amount of bases last year, but had fewer steals and attempts than the Cubs and those attempts were slightly more concentrated. Maybe there's a little less interest in a player who only adds marginal SB value if he's gonna attempt 5-10 fewer steals per year.

AFAIK Hoyer has only released the statement that talks about dismissing Ross and briefly mentioning they'll be introducing Counsell next week, so no other real indicators.

This is where I am, even when Renteria got dumped there was some rumblings and fan chatter about the possibility of Maddon coming. Counsell has been on the market for weeks and interviewed multiple places and there was zero indication that this was a possibility. I'll maintain that managers don't make an enormous difference, that Ross was fine and most criticisms of him were silly, and that a large part of the perceived gap in Ross and Counsell comes down to the bullpens they were equipped with. But I am excited at the aggressiveness for the roster that this move would seem to foretell. It probably also speaks to a bigger disconnect in some lineup or utilization decisions, e.g. maybe the front office really does want Morel at 3B but Ross wouldn't put him there when given any alternatives?

Just a matter of where you want to put the resources. There is risk by aiming your sights slightly lower/less certain with a SP acquisition, but the logic is there(pitching is more risky so strength in numbers is better, statement of belief in one or more of Taillon/Horton/Wicks, etc). If you make e.g. a Morel for Woo deal, then it really becomes incumbent that you land multiple very good bats and take fewer risks there. Pressure is on to make sure you get one of Ohtani/Soto, or walk a very thin line without them(Bellinger/Alonso?)

I'm not at a place of high confidence in how hot the FA market will be(I rarely am), but I also wouldn't be surprised to see the range for Hoskins to be about 5 million lower because of his position and the relative lack of ceiling he offers compared to a Bellinger. We should know pretty quickly though, because if he's in line for an 18-22 million dollar deal then the Phillies should probably give him a QO. That QO if given might actually be the thing that drives his market down several million too, but either way we'll know if I'm being overly rosy about his cost.