Transmogrified Tiger

Neris being historically pretty split neutral might be a hint. He's exceeded a .340 wOBA against LHH just once in his career(back in 2018), and across his 2 years in Houston he was better against LHH(.241 wOBA) than RHH(.260). Add in Leiter as an opposite-handed specialist, and Merryweather not having stark splits either, and you feel like you can get after them multiple ways. That said with Smyly being the only literal one it certainly would seem like it opens the door for Little to seize any opportunity, though he's not had much trouble with RHH either.

The thing that keeps me from being too riled up is the difference in expectation, ceiling, and certainty between Brasier + Robertson and like, Almonte + Stanek or whatever is basically nothing. If they miss they miss, and while you can't bat 1.000 they're responsible for how the pen turns out. But in-advance hand wringing about which of the non-elite arms get brought in, or pretending that below the elite level that spending more raises the certainty dramatically, just doesn't do it for me.

He has a career 3.45 ERA in almost 350 IP as a reliever spread across a bunch of seasons. He throws very hard and doesn't give up much hard contact, which explains him being a FIP-beater over his career. He has not had the career of the late inning reliever of your dreams, but calling him not very good and finding the most pessimistic nit to pick at each season isn't telling the tale. As with any reliever south of the top 5 or so RP in the game, they are unpredictable, prone to randomness, and what's most important is simply making sure you ultimately get it right. Stanek has the components(and some precedent) to be a capable late inning option.

If there's gonna be an FA reliever added that's not at the bottom of the pay scale, Stanek feels like the leader in the clubhouse.

Hoskins doesn't have nearly the uncertainty of production that Bellinger did, I think something like this was always the likelihood both in shape and size, as long as that's what Hoskins wanted to prioritize(instead of e.g. aiming for 1/20 or avoiding a particular team/city, etc). This is also probably a deal that could've been signed a long time ago, so hopefully it and the Moore deal are a sign that Boras is starting to clear the decks a bit. The bigger disconnect is probably still out there though, because Hoskins and Moore were always destined to sign short term deals, and the Bellinger/Chapman/Snell/Montgomery disconnect is likely much greater on years than it is on the margins of AAV.

He does not have arbitration years, he would be a free agent.

Mina Kimes had a tweet video referencing that decision, I think the stat was no one went for 2 in that situation for over 15 years prior to 2017, but this year coaches did it around 30% of the time.

International FA almost always have contract language exempting them from FA service time requirements. There's a chance that it might not be the case for Kim since he's from Korea and didn't sign a huge deal that implies enormous leverage, but the general expectation is that he is. MLBTR lists him as a potential FA next year if the option isn't exercised, for example. Seiya is not assumed to have another year of team control after his contract before FA, to name another name closer to home.

There's always a difficult tension with trade rumors, because we'll always probably overvalue our own guys, but at the same time this is an oddly specific rumor so if we take it at face value I think we also have to assume it's because the Mariners probably see greater value in Madrigal than we do. Then it's a question in the other direction, are there guys we think are out of reach who they might be down on for some reason, or other ways the value/perception gap lines up with what the team's needs are. That said, like I mentioned before I think there's a struggle to find a clean match. Madrigal for a bat doesn't make much sense for the Mariners given what position the Cubs would want the bat to play, so you're left with arms, and most of the potentially fungible arms are probably too good or have too much team control for Madrigal to fetch, even if you're high on his value. That's why part of me wonders if the team would rather cash in Madrigal's value here to not fill a need, but to give resources to make a corresponding move. Whether that's a 3 way deal or simply providing the org depth to feel more comfortable trading existing players, it could take several forms. Looking at the Mariners roster again though, the one name that might make sense is Gabe Speier. He was a solid reliever when he finally got an extended MLB shot this year, he throws pretty hard for a LHRP(12th of 39 LHRP w/ 50+ IP in FB velo), Fangraphs says he's still optionable this year and he is still pre-arb. He might be available because he's a pop-up success that wasn't *dominant* at age 28 and since he's not set to be part of the Mariners 8th/9th inning, they could see that being a worthwhile swap to fix a lineup spot with a multi-year option in Madrigal.

I also don't expect it to mean something, and I agree that it's not an obvious fit at first glance. But if we take their words about stacking wins to heart, and they think they've got Jerry fixated on Madrigal, then maybe there is something there. I just don't have an idea of who's on the other end, the pitchers I can think of(Miller, Woo, Brash) are probably too far out of reach for something centered on Madrigal, maybe they're cashing in more generally to use in a subsequent/3 team deal?

Yes, the rule is if you start warming to begin an inning you have to face at least one hitter.

As an illustration, here are the highest AAV RP signed last offseason and where their 2023 performance would've ranked in the Cubs pen pecking order (roughly): Diaz: N/A (missed the year w/ injury) Jansen: 3rd Montero: 6th Rogers: 3rd Kimbrel: T-2nd Robertson: 2nd Suarez: T-4th The Cubs 2nd and 3rd best relievers last year were waiver wire pickups, and so were some of the names we've groaned at not signing as FA this year. The previous year their best reliever was Robertson, who was barely in the top 25 of *reliever* contracts given out that year. The point is not that we should be glad to not have signed a particular reliever(except for Hader, that is a genuinely bad use of resources), but rather more than any other area, bullpen is a place where you have to be right/lucky more than treat contract or offseason perception as the truest indicator of quality. If they're only adding one more bullpen arm I'd like it to be a trade to try and buy a little more certainty along with potentially years of control, but I also can understand that's likely to be a bit of a rich ask if the FO believes as much in their near-ready arms and pitching development as much as they do. Of the FA options still out there, I'm most intrigued by Brasier and Stanek, but there's a bunch of names still up and down the spectrum who you don't have to squint hard to see them taking a step forward.

There is something wrong with admitting that, because those things are not particularly true. Some players played better than expected, some played worse or spent more time hurt, it wasn't aberrant on the whole. They also weren't any more inconsistent in their scoring than other teams, especially in the 2nd half when they were a top offense in the NL every month. Signing Hader requires them to give up a young player, maybe more than one depending on how you want to draw the line between prospect and minor league flyer/flotsam.

On the whiff rates, Wicks was part of the pitchers panel at Cubs Convention, and one thing he said was when he went home after the the season some folks asked why he threw more 2-seamers than he ever has. And his response was jokey but telling, essentially 'do you see the infielders/defense I have behind me? I'd be stupid not to let guys put the ball in play'. He also on more than one occasion had a 'I'm just here to do what they tell me' attitude of self-deprecation, especially being on a panel with more accomplished big leaguers(Hendricks, Steele, Alzolay). Now both of these comments were in passing so I don't want to over-index on them, but especially given the small sample size I think there's very likely merit in that Wicks was making his first starts as a big leaguer in the middle of a crucial stretch run, so he simplified and tried to play his part and lean on his teammates. He knows himself well enough to know he's not gonna just challenge MLB hitters middle-middle with a 4 seamer when times get tough, but as he moves forward he may be less likely to 'concede' and prioritize strikes/balls in play over a few more swings and misses.

ZiPS has Urshela as worse than all 3 of the other RHH 3B options already on the roster, and I'm not inclined to disagree with them. He doesn't solve a platoon problem(which may not exist if you/the org believes in Busch at 3B), doesn't play particularly good defense, doesn't provide power threat off the bench, doesn't provide stability/consistency of production. Just another body to throw at the position, don't really see the point.

I'm of the opinion that we're probably a little higher on Wicks than his results have justified, we've kinda memory holed his unremarkable AAA performance and emphasized his first couple MLB starts while ignoring his disastrous end of season. But no it's not at all a stretch that the guy with 1st round pedigree who has reached AAA/MLB is thought more highly than Ferris. Wicks had cartoon K numbers in the low minors too, and while I'm not going to say they're absolutely equivalent on stuff, it's a poor comparison to cite what Ferris is 'sitting' at in 9-12 out starts while Wicks is going 6 innings w/ regularity. "Sits mid 90s" is also doing some heavy lifting, both Pipeline and Fangraphs quote his fastball as "92-95". Maybe Ferris gets a bump with conditioning and age/maturity, at which point he'll need to improve his command and then ascend 3 more levels in 3 years to reach the point Wicks has thus far. There's more to dream on than Wicks(who again, has had more bouts of mediocrity than we've collectively acknowledged), but I don't think there's enough from Ferris to justify ranking the latter over the former based on what we've seen.

I don't want to keep harping on this point daily but I think it's a lot easier to understand(even if you don't agree) what the plan is if you look at it that the team is going to try to stack surplus value in the position player group. Thanks to the locked in starters they do have(Happ, Seiya, Dansby, Nico), flexibility that is already in the roster(Hoerner, Morel, Busch),and flexibility possibly to come in the roster(Bellinger) they can do this and let Counsell sort out the exact matchups and playing time distribution in several spots. It is not super likely that Madrigal can go most of the season without an injury and is able to sustain his bat like he did in between his 2 injuries early in the summer. It's not likely that Wisdom can regain his 2021 magic at age 32. It is not super likely that Busch can be a cromulent defensive 3B, and similarly for Morel. It's not probable that Murray takes Iowa by storm and forces his way into being a MLB bat that can also be a MLB 3B, and it's not reasonable to think Shaw will force his way to Wrigley and prove himself a MLB 3B for a big chunk of the season. However, the odds of none of those things happening, and none of them happening in such a way that Counsell can't optimize the position via chopping and changing based on matchups is also not that high. This doesn't mean that they think they 'fixed' 3B, and while I wouldn't bet on him signing in Chicago they probably would happily take Chapman at their price or make a deal for a 3B if they think it suits them. But the depth of 'maybe' options means that they don't *have* to fix 3B if it's not the way to add the most value to the team, so they'll prioritize the value part and leave it to the manager they just paid a record deal to in order to make the best of whatever position doesn't have a starter in pen.

It kinda happened multiple times to him? Left Cleveland 'by mutual consent' after 32 wins in the previous three(12/10/10), fired from SD after winning 14 games and 35 in the previous 3. KC at least he had a losing record the year he was fired but won 13 the year prior.

Also KC having a lack of weapons is only after they tried to avoid that and missed with several investments in a row(MVS in FA, using a 3rd+6th to get Toney, drafting Moore in the 2nd).

Morel was up for good on May 9th after less than 30 games in Iowa, that's a pretty expansive definition of extended time.

Ah, the one from Monday, yeah he said Busch decreases the likelihood, and probably eliminates the chance they offer Hoskins a multi-year deal, but that part likely isn't limiting given Hoskins situation and he doesn't say they're not interested or anything sourced about him in particular.

Where is that? I'm not seeing a recent tweet or Athletic piece referencing Hoskins one way or another.

The Dodgers scored 87 more runs than the Cubs and still had 52 games of 3 or fewer. What do you think is the right number to not be streaky?

Karinchak made more sense before Almonte. You can't count on him off the bat as an 8th inning role, and I don't know if they're adding 2 more relievers. I guess Karinchak is optionable so there is that outlet that wouldn't close the door entirely, but the fit has definitely gone down.

The Cubs were 3rd in the NL in runs. By month they were 2nd, 12th, 9th, 1st, 4th, and 3rd. They were closest to the Phillies, who were 7th/13th/7th/7th/3rd/6th by month. I don't think consistency is a fair criticism, I think the ebbs and flows of a season lead to offensive ups and downs for everyone. And their months where they were well below the standard were largely without Belllinger, which also speaks to them being quite good with Bellinger before other upgrades.