Transmogrified Tiger

Calabria was just ruled out until after the world cup(maybe more, hard parsing some of the translated headlines) with an injury, so Dest should get a good run of games leading up to Qatar.

Gonna leave it here because this keeps drifting to false binaries. - Everything except the 'top performance' strawman is a good thing. Not being 22 does not change the fact that 28 is preferable to 31, Not costing 1 million does not change 15 million being preferable to 25, and a career of being a 3+ win starter is preferable to someone who has never been a good big league starter. It's a marginal comparison and not pass/fail. - We've got Cubs beat writers on the record that the team values the QO pick around 20 million. If you're worked up about the Kilian hypothetical in particular it doesn't have to be him(another reason it's a potentially good match is their OF is a wasteland, for example). There's differences on the margins but 'Marquez costs a prospect' doesn't pass muster when the alternatives being preferred all bear a roundly similar cost via the QO. - These last two points are baffling. Budgets exist and 10 million is very much a non-trivial amount when it comes to roster building. It could be the difference between getting one SP or two, what caliber of RP they can acquire, if and how they upgrade the catcher spot, or various other position player permutations. Paying 10 million more at one spot absolutely limits their ability to make upgrades elsewhere. That's 100% true when it comes to the SS too, in fact the desire to prioritize a position player star is *why* trading for someone like Marquez or generally not pursuing a top of market SP as the top addition is being discussed, they are the tradeoff! It is not the only path or the absolute truth of optimizing the roster, which makes it so strange that the counterpoint being raised is pretending the tradeoffs don't exist.

The Manchester derby was such a blowout that just now at halftime of Leeds/Villa they started the highlights at 4-1.

You're really stretching the rhetoric here. Every player costs a roster spot, player development resources are not a limiting factor, and any QO'd SP will cost a prospect of significance. No one is saying Marquez would be free, he's far too good for that. He also younger than most of the alternatives, requires a much shorter commitment(limiting the risk inherent to every pitcher, especially the 30+ y/o in FA), and is 10+ million dollars in AAV cheaper than the FA who we'd expect to be clearly better. If you want to say "I don't feel the contract risk with Rodon(or your preference) is that great, and it's better to spend more on this and make do with less on the rest on the rest of the roster", that's logical and fine! But we don't have to tie the argument in knots so that we're saying silliness like "actually trading a prospect for a pitcher is a long term commitment because we might pick up his option and he'll take up time with the coaching staff".

I don't have a problem with Lorenzen or Kowar as 2nd SP additions, though I do have misgivings with each(Lorenzen having not thrown 100 IP/started 20 games since 2015, Kowar being unable to even get AAA hitters out this year in extended time). Bertz said it well that the name of the game is letting pitching infrastructure create opportunities to get more value than you spend, and those opportunities exist up and down the cost spectrum. I do want to be clear on two parts of this though, one of which is that there's a magnitude of difference in certainty/proof of success with Marquez. Yes he's had a down year, but he's also averaged 3.5 wins/season until now and been a rock of durability on top of it, while pitching in Coors for an organization who thinks a pitch lab is for singers. He costs more because he's a substantially better bet. The other part is that the motivation with Marquez is based on the point that there will eventually be a point of scarcity in the resources the team has available to get better, and you'll have to make tradeoffs. The argument for Marquez is that the team has plenty of reason to bet on their ability to level up pitchers, so on the margins they may be better off not paying 25+ million for the Rodons of the world(or the Degroms/Verlanders of the world if they would even want to come) and invest less in the rotation so they can better address the offense. Marquez is a compromise that doesn't gamble the success of the 2023 rotation on rehabbing a completely unproven player(while having at least small reason to think they could unlock another level for him) and lets the team ensure they get the star position player, catcher, etc that a playoff caliber team needs. Plus it aligns with investing big dollars into less volatile assets and not investing long term in pitchers, which on top of being a solid general practice appears to be aligned with how Jed is approaching roster building. It is far from the only way to go about it(I know you've been more keen on going big on SP signings and foregoing one of the SS if necessary), but that's the real tradeoff being made.

The article says the NFLPA fired him, either the PA or the league can unilaterally decide to fire them.

That's one where I think the Premier League is generally more consistent in being a red than other leagues I might watch(though they are never perfect). With the height and enough force to make his leg flex I can't say it's clearly not a red, but a yellow wouldn't be an injustice either.

The other thing I'd add with Marquez is that he lines up to be a good match for an extension. He'll be 28 all next season, and if he pitches well you can try to sign him longer term without the ticking clock of FA thanks to the option. Most FA SP are hitting the market 2-3 years older, and you'd hope the team on an upward trend and an org that helped him regain or unlock better form would be an attractive destination. The main downside I see is the chaos agent that is the Rockies front office. For as much as I think it may make sense to trade him, the Rockies might just decide they're gonna win the division next year and need him, or overvalue him since he's their only recent homegrown SP success story.

If they find next year's Robertson and Givens to go along with Hughes and maybe Wick/Heuer/3rd FA/Estrada, having Thompson, Alzolay, and possibly Wesneski mowing down the middle innings could get very fun.

Going back to the automated strike zone, I'm generally with Bertz that they should have a light touch to avoid some significant unintended consequences. There's plenty of smart people(Harry Pavlidis is the one who immediately jumps to mind) who are skeptical about our ability to execute on it from a technological standpoint in real time too, so while I don't care about the human element I want to avoid big problems considering the relative lack of testing compared to say, the pitch clock. However, my issue with the challenge system is I think it becomes more difficult to completely get over the edge to automation when you do have the capability. Challenges in a practical sense are a step between all human and all machine, but in terms of what you need to do to get from all human to all machine in a way that avoids problems, I don't think you "learn" what you need to keep going. You'll have the same questions after the challenge system as you did before. One other option if they could pull it off technologically, would be to try to introduce real time feedback to umpires on the most objective part of the decision, whether the ball crossed the plate. Imagine a setup where in near real-time the umpire gets a buzzer confirming a pitch crossed the plate. They still make the call on pitch height(which has way more variables due to player heights and crouches), it teaches them to recognize pitches that do cross the plate so (as much as that matters) it could make them better at calling them in case of tech failures, and you've already outsourced the most contentious decision(in my experience on/off the plate is way more common a disagreement than high/low) so the leap to full automation is lower and less impactful.

I'm guessing it'll be situationally dependent. Madrigal is the more productive player in the abstract, and in a team with the positional flexibility of guys like Morel and Hoerner he could easily have a consistent bench role. McKinstry is the only left handed infielder though and on top of being able to fill in beyond 2B he's out of options. I wouldn't be surprised if both are on the opening day roster for various reasons, but my guess is if that happens it's a function of like ST injuries or some similar circumstance. There's 4 spots for non-catcher bench + DH, and it's very easy to see most of those taken up by Morel/CF, another OF(Velazquez/Ortega), and a bat first DH option(Reyes, Mervis if another 1B is added).

If that's a red line and you like Morel at 2B, then call the SS acquisition Correa or Bogaerts and let him play some 3B and shift Morel's infield time from 3B to 2B. I think the main idea is SS and Hoerner are going to play a ton and Wisdom has earned at least a similar amount of playing time as Morel, so while Morel playing on the infield isn't impossible and he should continue to get reps, he has a clearer path to significant time that optimizes the team's success in CF.

It's a little misleading because the arbitrary month cutoffs are concealing when his struggles really begin and ended(and his September is obviously unsustainable), but it's a nice surprise that he's been an above average hitter in every month but August. To me, the current version of Morel is ideal to be the 9th or 10th best position player on a championship caliber team. The positional flexibility and physical gifts would add benefit beyond the raw production by filling gaps or allowing for optimized matchups. Next year's Cubs aren't going to enter the season looking like a championship caliber team, so I would do the next best thing and try to build the position player group that he has the fatter half of a platoon's playing time. To me the most obvious fit is something like partnering with a Kiermeier profile in CF and also offering some depth to 3B if Wisdom and whoever else is in the 1B/DH mix falters or simply needs rest. That assumes one of the SS is coming and that the team is reasonably okay with Madrigal and/or McKinstry on the roster next year so middle infield reps would be harder to come by(though not verboten). If he makes a leap, great. If not, then there's a lot of OF help coming on the farm that might usurp his more regular playing time, and he's more comfortable defensively on the infield anyway.

It's so funny that every 2 weeks we have the same conversation with people pretending that a game with Wesneski(and Alzolay, and Hughes, and Rodriguez) pitching well with Morel hitting a home run is catastrophic because they'll have marginally worse odds at getting a good player in the least predictable draft(that's now lotteried!).

Is there a popular theory/rumor as to how Niemann would be cheating? I know the media's running with the whole anal beads thing which doesn't appear to be seriously suspected, but I'm not sure what security measures exist that would make other options feasible.

how do you not come to an exaggerated stop after the 2nd one, like maybe that doesn't get called frequently but he was pretty clearly not coming set and after it gets called it becomes a fool me thrice shame on me situation

I don't have the patience to put Gregg's face on this too, but having watched this episode recently it felt so true

Pulisic just showed more urgency and decisiveness running off the field than any point in possession during the game

Paul Arriola looked his barber in the eye and asked for "the kid from the sandlot", unserious behavior

A few interesting nuggets in this mailbag column: https://theathletic.com/3632284/2022/09/27/cubs-prospect-camp-kyle-hendricks/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983 - The Cubs are holding a prospect 'mini-camp' to introduce a few prospects to the major league staff and what to expect at that level. The names are maybe indicative of some 40 man decisions. - In answering a question about the 40 man crunch, Sharma doesn't say much that's concrete, but the one thing that stood out is that he grouped McKinstry with Quiroz and Hermosillo, which is not what I would've guessed about how highly he might be viewed. - Sharma also used the strongest language I've seen yet that the Cubs are looking for more of a game manager profile at catcher, and Contreras isn't going to be pursued unless it was as a bat with a catching afterthought. He also says he doubts Willson will take the QO because of that dynamic and his desire for long term security.

I'm very bullish on Marquez, to the point where I think he's a possibility to be the first/primary SP. Part of that is the salary though, his post-trade LT number is north of 15 million and unless they trade for someone like a Lopez they'd be betting a lot of money on SP. Also, to your later point, Marquez isn't a clean fit in a bullpen role if he falters or others surpassed him, which is I think the answer to how you address that second SP. They need to either be cheap enough to move on from and/or be a good fit for a bullpen role if others outpitch them. Did something change in the CBA? It didn't used to work that way. Yes, I don't have a link handy but I've seen in a couple spots that LT number for traded players is now based on the contract remaining at the time of the trade. This is why the Padres trading Hosmer and basically paying his entire salary was worthwhile for them, his contract was 18M AAV (8/144) but the upcoming 3 years are only 13M AAV so they got 5 million of relief by trading him even when paying the Red Sox to take him.

I'm very bullish on Marquez, to the point where I think he's a possibility to be the first/primary SP. Part of that is the salary though, his post-trade LT number is north of 15 million and unless they trade for someone like a Lopez they'd be betting a lot of money on SP. Also, to your later point, Marquez isn't a clean fit in a bullpen role if he falters or others surpassed him, which is I think the answer to how you address that second SP. They need to either be cheap enough to move on from and/or be a good fit for a bullpen role if others outpitch them.

Yes, they also might require 50% higher AAV or not be interested in a team with uncertain competitive prospects, so there may be other reasonable paths to improving the team that allow for other significant improvements.

Said another way, it's more important to get another 3+ win SP than it is for that starter to be a 4-5 win SP. The latter is obviously not a bad thing, but that starter being tippy top of the market or meeting "ace" requirements isn't the only way to building a competitor.

I'm probably not phrasing it well, but my point is that "ace" is an ultimately arbitrary distinction that 1) is not a hard requirement for a team to be competitive 2) not as predictive as some other high value acquisitions because of the nature of pitchers. Yes it's better to have a Rodon than a Stroman, but having a Stroman instead of a Rodon isn't a dire hole that needs to be filled in order to be good. Agreed, the Cubs should be shopping for skills, very specific skills even. I guess my new issue with where you're going is there's no redundancy in Stroman *and* Rodon. One's a sub-6' RH coming with 93-94 sinkers and a half dozen other pitches. The other's a 6'3" 230# 95-100 lefty with with two swing and miss offspeeds in the slider and changeup (a pitch he can throw significantly more often with his next team), occasionally a curve. There's tons of room for both, easy to make the case there's a dire need for the latter From a skills perspective, there's no better FA fit for the rotation than Rodon. He's the hardest throwing *and* best (or highest performing to be less nebulous) SP available for a team with less velocity than any other team in baseball the past two years by a full MPH+ (#29 Twins are 91.7, Cubs 90.6), the fewest 5th lowest K%, the 2nd worst FIP, I'vegoneoverthistuff...Rodon covers all of that, and that's infinitely more important than whether you want to call him "ace" or not I'm talking in generalities and less about specific players, hence the "a Rodon/a Stroman" phrasing. I'm not saying you don't need another good starter because you have Stroman, I'm saying that adding another starter of at least Stroman caliber is more important than ensuring you add an "ace"/Rodon caliber starter. There's multiple ways to do it.