Article: What does the New Baseball Prospectus Top 101 Prospect List Say About the Cubs Farm System?

[Jason Ross]

Just five years ago, the Chicago Cubs' farm system was not highly regarded throughout the scouting community, with just Nico Hoerner registering on the Baseball Prospectus Top 101 list in 2019. This week, the Cubs lead the way, with nine prospects on the list. How have the Cubs come this far in just half of a decade? And what do we think about the list?

Image courtesy of © Ron Chenoy-USA TODAY Sports

Over the last five years, the Chicago Cubs have methodically built up their developmental system. Hiring former relief pitcher Craig Breslow (once dubbed "the smartest person in baseball") to develop their pitching, Dan Kantrovitz from Oakland to run their drafts, and a multitude of hitting directors, the Cubs have rebuilt their internal infrastructure from the ground up from the Theo Epstein and Jason McLeod days. The reality of prospects and development is that it takes years to begin to see the fruits of the labor. After a few years of waiting, the Cubs are now on the precipice of seeing their system begin to pay off. While the ultimate goal is to turn prospect development into MLB success, we can get an idea of how the rest of the industry sees the system by diving into the Baseball Prospectus Top 101 that was released Tuesday.

Below are the nine Cub prospects on the BP list, as well as their rankings:

• Pete Crow-Armstrong, CF - 20th
• Matt Shaw, 2b/SS/3b - 21st
• Cade Horton, RHP - 27th
• Owen Caissie, RF/1b/DH - 65th
• Michael Busch, 1b/2b/3b - 71st
• Kevin Alcantara, CF - 80th
• Moises Ballesteros, C - 84th
• James Triantos, 2b/3b/OF - 91st
• Jordan Wicks, LHP - 94th

This is an incredibly interesting list, and it shows just how diversified the Cubs have been in adding talent. They drafted Shaw, Horton, Triantos (second round) and Wicks; signed Ballesteros as an international free agent; and traded for Crow-Armstrong, Caissie, Alcántara and Busch. A complaint levied, whether fair or not, on Jason McLeod and the former developmental team was that it was pretty easy to develop high first-round selections such as Kris Bryant, Kyle Schwarber and Ian Happ. This time, the Cubs are finding prospects in a multitude of different ways. Even more promising: although the Cubs traded for three of those players, those three have done the bulk of their development within the Cubs' system. Credit needs to be given to the Cubs' player-development team, because it's clear their system is working, in addition to that of the scouting department.

Having this many prospects on the top 101 is also good for the Cubs from a 2024 Rookie of the Year perspective. With Crow-Armstrong, Horton and Busch all likely to get significant run with the Cubs during the season, the team now has three prospects who can be in that conversation. If any of them (or even, possibly, Shaw or Wicks, though those are less likely for a few reasons) were to finish in the top-3 of voting, the Cubs would be awarded an extra draft pick in the 2025 draft. The BP list does not help determine which prospects are eligible for that incentive, and any player who does qualify has to accrue a full year of service time in order for the Cubs to receive it, but this is still telling. There's a bit of weirdness in having authors and staff members at places like Baseball America being partially responsible for draft-pick compensation, but the more the industry has strong perceptions of the Cubs' system, the more likely the Cubs are to get a few extra draft picks these next few years.

The most surprising addition: Moises Ballesteros, #84
This isn't me saying he's not deserving--just that I'm surprised to see him ranked right up there next to the likes of Alcántara (80th), as well as a few other notable prospects such as Max Meyer (86th) and Termarr Johnson (90th). I wrote about Ballesteros earlier this offseason, ranking him the eighth-best prospect in the Cubs system. I was pretty bullish on him then, and I remain so; his bat is really good and really advanced. With that said, a ranking in the top-85 suggests some belief that the big-bodied catcher can actually stick at the position. DH-only types won't really make a list that high. When I asked Jarrett Seidler of Baseball Prospectus (and one of their staff who helped with the list) about his future at the catching position, he had this response:

Overall,  I think that's a positive development for Big Mo'. Even if he's a "maybe," it means there's a realistic chance that he can stick at, arguably, the most premium position on the diamond. Ballesteros the catcher is really one of the most enticing prospect outcomes in the entire system.

Most disappointing omission: Jefferson Rojas, NR
It's really hard to find someone I'm overly surprised to see not make the top 101, but if there is one, it's probably Jefferson Rojas. You can make an argument that an 18-year-old shortstop at Myrtle Beach who put up a 115 wRC+ while showing advanced plate approach is someone who deserves to make a list. BP placed the Braves' shortstop Ignacio Alvarez in the #99 slot, and I think you can argue what Rojas did at Low A was more impressive (or on par with) what Alvarez did at High A. Alvarez, at 20 years old, is nearly two full years older than Rojas; hit the same number of home runs in 200-plus more plate appearances; and had a wRC+ of 123 with a similarly solid strikeout-to-walk ratio. None of this is suggesting BP made a bad choice, just that you can make an argument for Rojas over him there in those last few slots. In the end, it's not really worth complaining about; these things are so subjective that it'd be pretty impossible to truly say one deserves the slot over the other. Most of this is probably just because I really like Rojas, too.

The next steps for the system: 
Maybe the best news of all: the Cubs had nine prospects on the top-101, but it could have been more. Jarret Seidler tweeted this out: 

Obviously, the Cubs traded Ferris away, but this just goes to show that the Cubs could have realistically had up to eleven players (that's an impressive 10% of the entire thing!) on the top 101. It's one of the reasons why the Cubs likely felt comfortable moving Ferris and 2023 11th-round selection Zyhir Hope just a week ago. It's also why I think the Chicago Cubs are still in a position to make trades from their prospect depth now, or at the deadline. Not only are the Cubs showing a meaningful ability to develop prospects across the board, they're starting to build another group of exciting prospects just under the surface. It wouldn't be surprising to see the aforementioned Brown and Rojas jump into the midseason lists. Nor would it be surprising to see a few names a bit farther down join top 100 lists later. The Cubs have a handful of enticing, high-upside prospects, and it's likely a few break out. Whether that's Derniche Valez, Drew Gray, Jaxon Wiggins, or someone still unexpected, the Cubs are well on the way to changing the narrative on their farm system in a lasting way. 

Which of BP's rankings jump out to you? Who has you most excited in the system? Let's talk about the future.

View full article

[Bertz]

FWIW the draft pick for winning ROY only happens if the guy spends the whole year in MLB.  So it's probably Busch/Wicks or bust on that standpoint.  I can't see PCA opening the year in MLB if we pull down Bellinger, which looks increasingly inevitable.

Most of this doesn't surprise me individually, it's moreso that one list includes nearly everyone you could reasonably argue onto the list, about as high as you could reasonably argue them.  And Brown/Rojas, the two closest things to omissions, were as you pointed out just barely left off.

The Ballesteros defensive stuff is the one thing that does really surprise me.  I LOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVEEEEEEE the bat.  If you could promise me he'd be an average defensive catcher he'd be my easy #1 prospect in the system.  So to see Seidler express what I'd describe as cautious pessimism is still far more optimistic than I expected.

[Jason Ross]

18 minutes ago, Bertz said:

FWIW the draft pick for winning ROY only happens if the guy spends the whole year in MLB.  So it's probably Busch/Wicks or bust on that standpoint.  I can't see PCA opening the year in MLB if we pull down Bellinger, which looks increasingly inevitable.

Most of this doesn't surprise me individually, it's moreso that one list includes nearly everyone you could reasonably argue onto the list, about as high as you could reasonably argue them.  And Brown/Rojas, the two closest things to omissions, were as you pointed out just barely left off.

The Ballesteros defensive stuff is the one thing that does really surprise me.  I LOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVEEEEEEE the bat.  If you could promise me he'd be an average defensive catcher he'd be my easy #1 prospect in the system.  So to see Seidler express what I'd describe as cautious pessimism is still far more optimistic than I expected.

Ahh you're right. Totally my fault on the draft...I thought there was a cutoff, and that's what I get for assuming it wasn't a full season. Whoops.

[Matthew Trueblood]

13 minutes ago, Bertz said:

FWIW the draft pick for winning ROY only happens if the guy spends the whole year in MLB.  So it's probably Busch/Wicks or bust on that standpoint.  I can't see PCA opening the year in MLB if we pull down Bellinger, which looks increasingly inevitable.

Most of this doesn't surprise me individually, it's moreso that one list includes nearly everyone you could reasonably argue onto the list, about as high as you could reasonably argue them.  And Brown/Rojas, the two closest things to omissions, were as you pointed out just barely left off.

The Ballesteros defensive stuff is the one thing that does really surprise me.  I LOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVEEEEEEE the bat.  If you could promise me he'd be an average defensive catcher he'd be my easy #1 prospect in the system.  So to see Seidler express what I'd describe as cautious pessimism is still far more optimistic than I expected.

This was clarified last year, can't remember because of whom, but: the player has to qualify for a full year of service time. That's a slight but meaningful distinction from having to be on the roster all year. For instance, if PCA is up by the last week in April, he'd qualify.

[Bertz]

2 minutes ago, Matt Trueblood said:

This was clarified last year, can't remember because of whom, but: the player has to qualify for a full year of service time. That's a slight but meaningful distinction from having to be on the roster all year. For instance, if PCA is up by the last week in April, he'd qualify.

Oh interesting, so a guy can miss that like 13 days or whatever which used to be the cutoff for manipulating their service time.  Probably not super likely to make a difference, but if god forbid someone gets hurt in one of the first three series of the year and get replaced by the ROY winner it would matter.