macarthur31

Rogers apparently "crossing up" the catcher during garbage time is the perfect tribute to a Framber Valdez start.

What happened to McKinstry this year? He was Temu Zobrist last year for them with 3.2 WAR. And yeah, I agree with ya, Boog - this is rough with 3 innings to go.

His monthly splits: April '26. 110 PA, .188/.282/.271. April '25. 85 PA .270/.365/.554 May '26. 130 PA, .300/.446/.510. May '25 88 PA .234/.330/.390 June '26. 118 PA, .211/.364/.389. June '25 91 PA, .309/.385/.617 July '26. 63 PA. .309/.381/.527. July '25 97 PA. .279/.361/.547 Post ASB'26. 19 PA .353/.421/.706. Post ASB'25. 251 PA .223/.299/.487 vs. LHP '26, 135 PA. .255/.378/.400 vs LHP '25. 95 PA .207/.274/.368. I don't think he'll stay at scorching, but I certainly think he can finish Post ASB '26 higher than he did last year as he's maintained a discerning eye.

Came across this again, and checked out his splits 6/10/26 - 7/19/26 133 PA 6.0% BB Rate / 21.1% K Rate (Through 6/9/26 it was 2.2%/32.4% BB/K) .295/.338/.467, .806 OPS .368 wOBA 115 wRC+

I've been of the mind that for the Owners, the salary cap would be a huge win, but perhaps not enough to derail a whole season. However, they could use it to push for other wins in the CBA. However, included in MLB's original proposal is to pool all the local broadcast rights together to create an uber-package for a streamer, which is only viable if cap/floor is achieved. Currently its just 48% of local revenue (which local TV deals are included) is pooled, and that gets redistributed at about $110M per team. Currently, the Dodgers make $334M per year in just their local TV deal - which means they still get to keep $173M of local tv money to themselves. The other big local TV deals (and what stays home): Yankees $217M ($113M stays); Angels $172M ($89M stays); Our Cubbies $132M ($68M stays); Mets $128M ($67M stays) Red Sox $110M ($57M stays) Tom Ricketts may be quoted as "We love our independence," but consider that in the status quo, the Cubs get $90M share from the current national TV package. While they may "lose" out on keeping $68M for themselves, the Cubs could potentially gain way more in a new super national TV package sold to Netflix or Amazon, and erase the disparity between the Cubs and the Dodgers ($173M-$68M in local tv deal that isn't currently pooled), AND get the salary cap (Ricketts/Cubs already cover "the floor", so that won't be deal breaker for them). Another potential benefit for Ricketts is he gets to shutter Marquee ,or at least doesn't have to cover the costs of running local TV broadcasts (or a network). Evan Drellich (The Athletic) affirms that without cap/floor, then there's no reason for the big markets to join in a national package, as the Dodgers would likely be content to keep cashing those checks in their deal which runs through 2038. Again, as a fan, we don't really benefit as much as the owners will from a more centralized media package that the MLB can sell. The NFL has national broadcasts for all regular season and playoffs, and fans still have to navigate through the different platforms (FOX, NFL, CBS, Amazon, Netflix, etc), and that will likely persist for MLB. However, this may be a key driver in the Owners really committing to getting the cap/floor included - and as a result, I'm moving it over from Defcon 3 to Defcon 2.

I'm of the mind that the way the Competitive Balance Tax is currently structured, the owners have the salary cap that they can live with. Yes, the Dodgers are "abusing" it the system, as stated earlier, but if MLB really wanted to "level the playing field" they could re-arrange their own revenue sharing rules to mitigate that (which are how they divvy up the national media contracts and 48% local revenues), and those don't require the MLBPA. Do they want to have a hard cap? Of course! That would increase cost certainty (which would allow them to accurately appraise their franchise value) and also prevent future owners from hurting themselves (akin to how the NBA prohibits back to back first round draft picks to be thrown into deals). But, they don't want to install the floor that all the other major leagues have done. That would require them to open the books. They don't want that oversight. However, the salary cap and the notion of "competitive balance" is a winning issue in this campaign - November '25 Morning Consult poll cited that a super majority of avid and casual fans wanted cap-and-floor. They've done the ground work with building up a social media brigade of advocates and aligned an ad campaign to hammer this mental model home. Why waste it? I intuit that the owners will not get a true "hard cap", but they will likely use it to win in other ways like contracting the draft (also slashing bonuses to draft picks as well as prohibiting prep players from being selected), or perhaps even capping contract lengths. Maybe Manfred will go hard in this round of negotiations - the owners' getting a better deal will tee them up for even wealthier national media contracts, and expansion moolah when they add 2 more teams. However, I do think that canceling games is his third rail, and they'll sort it out sometime in February.

This morning's read that made me go 🤔 Neil Payne's analysis in The Athletic: "History says one of these 7 teams should win the World Series." Payne did this last season where he looked at: statistical cutoffs that separate real contenders from the rest of the pack...to find a series of rules to match the patterns of previous champions. The summary, there are several standards of varying import (points suggest how Payne weighted it). Tier 1 Overall quality (Runs/game differential): 18 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 6.1 (the average weighted rank for non-WS teams was 16.0, making it a +10.1 gap. Key cutoff: 90% of World Series teams rank 14th or better at the break: 18 points Cubs: PASSED (currently 5th) Tier 2 Offense (Batting Win Probablility Added): 12 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 7.1 (+8.9 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key Cutoff: 95% of WS teams rank 19th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (currently 2nd) Pitching and defense (Pitching WHIP+): 8 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 9.7 (+6.2 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 75% of WS teams rank 14th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (13th) Tier 3 Starting pitching (Rotation ERA-): 5 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 10.4 (+5.5 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 55% of WS teams rank 10th or better at the break Cubs: FAILED (23rd) Defense (Fielding Runs): 5 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 10.4 (+5.5 vs. non-WS teams ranking) - Also, not a typo as this is the same as Starting Pitching above Key cutoff: 65% of WS teams rank 12th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (1st) Relief Pitching (Bullpen "Meltdown" Avoidance): 4 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 11.0 (+4.7 vs. non-WS teams ranking) Key cutoff: 85% of WS teams rank 22nd or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (17th) Tier 4 Power hitting (Slugging %): 4 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 7.9 (+8.1 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 90% of WS teams rank 15th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (10th) Plate discipline (OBP): 3 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 8.6 (+7.4 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 90% of WS teams rank 18th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (4th) Contact Prevention (Opponent Batting Average): 3 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 9.1 (+6.9 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 90% of WS teams rank 17th or better at the break Cubs: FAILED (19th) Pitching dominance (K-BB%): 2 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 11.3 (+4.5 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 95% of WS teams rank 20th or better Cubs: PASSED (16th) Home run prevention (Pitching HR/9+): 2 points Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 12 (+3.7 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 95% of WS teams rank 26th or better at the break Cubs: FAILED (29th) Clutch Performance (Batting "clutch" score): 1 point Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 13.3 (+2.3 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 70% of WS teams rank 20th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (17th) Speed/baserunning (Speed Score): 1 point Average weighted rank for World Series Teams: 13.3 (+2.3 vs. non-WS teams avg ranking) Key cutoff: 50% of WS teams rank 12th or better at the break Cubs: PASSED (10th) Here's your best 7 (Mostly passed the above tests - 80% scores or above) Yankees (68/68 points) Dodgers (67 points) Braves (64 points) Rays (62 points) Brewers (59 points) Cubs (58 points) Mariners (55 points)

Padres are about to be sold for a record setting $3.9B. If the current owners keep crying poor, there appears to be others willing and happy to come in and try their hand. And this is without the implementation of "cost certainty" measures like salary caps or minor league contraction.

Last year, Evan Dreilich reported at the Athletic about MLB's Fan Council, which was a monthly video call with 90 fans and league executives, which on the surface seems like logical business practice in terms of staying connected with the customer to learn what's working and not. However, when it turns out that those 90 aren't necessarily rotating in and out, and are comprised of those with large social media followings (with handles like "Rational Yankees Fan") - it's hard not to intuit that this was MLB setting up it's influencers to push their agenda on social media. Align that work with a paid media push to "Level the Playing Field", and while fans don't necessarily "vote" on the CBA, they really want to win fan favor. And, their political messaging focusing on "fairness through reducing payroll disparity" is compelling because of it's simplicity. Granted, in my Cub text chats, we're likely all aligned that this framing is BS, and that owners have always had the capability to narrow the gap themselves - they just opted not to, I intuit that the general baseball fan population isn't there. I'm curious to see how MLBPA is trying to counter this. In 2026, there are many more content creators like the former players at Foul Territory(who are former players) or Trevor May who have a good sized platform and credibility to push back, but it's gonna need more.

Both the NBA and NFL have 90% floor for salary cap - if a franchise doesn't spend the floor, then they cannot participate in revenue sharing (*gulp*). The NFL also sets a 90% floor, but they do that over an average of 3 seasons. However, the penalty is less severe - in this case, the team just pays the shortfall to the NFLPA, and the union distributes that to the players who were rostered at that time. And, yes, salary cap is pointless without a floor.

The only way that I can envision that the players defer to a salary cap (and if it does, it oughtta paired with a floor akin to what the NBA has - which is 90% of cap), then the owners should allow the MLBPA to determine what exactly entails "Baseball Related Income," and that includes review every season so that owners can't come up with new categories to stash money. Also, I subscribe to MLB.tv to watch the Cubs, and I'm starting to be inundated with MLB's ad campaign - "Level The Playing Field". Deep sigh.

I join you in feeling somewhat optimistic. I was elated when Jed swooped in and signed Counsell, as since I've lived here in Milwaukee for the past 15 years (and live about half mile south of Craig Counsell Park, no less) and witnessed how his steady management helped contribute to closing the Cubs' championship window so abruptly. I'd offer that that's been a significant factor in keeping the Cubs' in the mix, and perhaps in striking distance down the stretch when (fingers crossed) the majority of our hitters can be playing closer to the back of their baseball card.

I align with getting a playoff starter and high lev (closer 1B) relief arm as well. It's too bad Michael Soroka didn't hang around longer, cause whatever Jed/Carter saw in him it's showing out this year: 15 GS 82.0 IP 3.07 ERA, 3.95 xERA 2.94 FIP, 3.60 xFIP 18.6 K-BB% 1.09 WHIP With regards to performance, this would slot just behind Ben Brown, but well ahead of the rest on our rotation. All this for $7.5M. All this to say, if Jed/Carter sign someone and I'm like, "Huh?!" I'm gonna give 'em the benefit of the doubt.

I think I read somewhere that during his recent stint in Des Moines, he's gotten the K Rate to 25%, while maintaining the slug. (Or maybe I dreamed it?). If true, let's get him some run against some lefties.

Jaguar reports for duty! Does that mean Matt Shaw to the IL?

From my vantage point, Jed seems to be very model driven - and then when opportunity presents itself, he'll make an assertive move. For me, the Counsell signing was (and still is) great - he had an opportunity to upgrade at manager with someone who is philosophically aligned, and was proven to capably handle a clubhouse (and the serendipity that the Counsell had already a deep affinity for the franchise). It's fascinating to me that there are these gripes about $8M a year being too much - but given there's no luxury tax penalty for signing staff, I don't get why people are so hung up on the price tag. Jed isn't the perfect GM - the Cubs have not been able to develop more homegrown TOR starters beyond Cade Horton, and they've been able to produce a power bat since they let Schwarber leave. Perhaps it's oversimplification - he appears to hope to hit on more of high floor bets (where I'd put PCA for Baez) , rather than risky-ish swings (though he tried with Kyle Tucker walk year gambit, and were also-rans in the Ohtani derby). Even extension for Nico and the Bregman contract are among the largest contracts in Cub history, but seem to be "sensible"/high floorish given their high defense, line-drive hitting approach and leadership intangibles. This aside - I've seen the Cubs trend up during his term, and I look at how the Cubs farm this year seems to be producing some more names quickly as a good omen that overall the talent development pipeline is also moving in a good direction.

To your point, if you go with 2025 numbers in RISP wRC+ (296 hitters with at least 70 PAs): Seiya Suzuki, 168 in 180 PA. 15th best Nico Hoerner. 148 in 172 PA. 36th best Michael Busch. 146 in 141 PA. 41st best Ian Happ. 122 in 170 PA. 110th best Carson Kelly. 110 in 134 PA. 138th best PCA. 106 in 176 PA. 151st best Dansby Swanson. 74 in 174 PA. 249th best Matt Shaw 64 in 106 PA. 267th best I'm also confident that Seiya is closer to 168 wRC+ than 19 wRC+.

Perhaps an alternative: wRC+ with RISP, minimum 30 PA, 247 qualified batters: Suzuki, 19 in 50 PA, 14th worst Matt Shaw: 44 in 32 PA, 26th worst Alex Bregman: 48 in 62 PA, 28th worst. Ian Happ: 72 in 68 PA, 56th worst Dansby Swanson: 75 in 58 PA, 65th worst Nico Hoerner: 83 in 61 PA, 79th worst On the flipside, here's who is comin' thru: Kelly, 155 in 50 PA, 53rd best Ballesteros, 144 in 33 PA, 69th best (noice) Busch, 133 in 62 PA, 82nd best

We're already going over the tax, so at least Ray's in a walk year. He posted 32 starts last year after Tommy John Surgery in '24, so perhaps I'm overthinking the injury history. "Ray for the right price" - for sure. And perhaps that is the tier Jed's gonna end up landing when it's all said and done.

I saw SFG's rough start to the season, and it's tough math to see a path to the playoffs with the Dodgers, Padres and D'backs (shoot, even the Rockies aren't a "layup" like they used to be). Posey seems like a very decisive leader, and them doing this trade hints to me that he's ready to strip this sucker to the studs - and might that be paired with trying to reduce their payroll. (Again, unsure if this has implications, but they just sold a minority stake to a private equity firm). Devers at $30M seems to be a super albatross that I want no part of. Robbie Ray in a walk year to pay the rest of $24.3M? Nah, pass.

Am I crazy for thinking of Logan Webb as a possible front line starter trade target? $18M per year through '28. Granted he's got a knee thing right now, but he's logged 30+ starts the last 4 seasons.

Checked out Lowder's game logs - through his first 6 starts, he was at 3.10 ERA and going 5-6 IP. But, his last start against @PIT - he went 1.1 IP and allowed 8 ER, which ballooned it up to 5.09. Was that the game where PIT had 8 BB in a row, or something? (I'm guessing cause Lowder had 4 BB and his replacement, Phillips gave up 4 BB without getting an out.)

Haven't watched alot of Reds ball, but after seeing them last night - they just seem young and hungry. Tito's the right skipper for them, and I intuit that they're gonna learn alot together. They could grab a wildcard spot. Suarez seems like a terrific veteran anchor for all the youth, but they need 1-2 more of his ilk. I was impressed by the hard contact they were making - Sal Stewart and Elly De La Cruz are gonna be a problem, man. However, in terms of 2026 - they seem like a season away.

Conforto got you covered, my guy.

Great googly moogly, this is suboptimal for Skubal and the Tigers.