2025 MLB Draft Day 2 Thread: Chicago Cubs Draft on North Side Baseball

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, Outshined_One said:

Odd draft, and not the one I expected.

I just sat down to get all of my thoughts on the draft out of my head. I've had some personal things going on outside, so I hadn't had a lot of time to sit down and really think through, and so finally got into my draft coverage for the website. 

Long story short, odd is what I settled on in my article. I won't give too much away, but I really wracked my brain thinking about the differences and whether or not I ultimately thing odd, or different, was bad. Ultimately I cam down to this; I just trust Dan Kantrovitz enough and I doubt he's lost his damn mind to hate anything in this draft. 

I don't think I loved on the surface many picks. But then you squint and you can go "Yeah I almost get it". 

[JBears79]

11 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I just sat down to get all of my thoughts on the draft out of my head. I've had some personal things going on outside, so I hadn't had a lot of time to sit down and really think through, and so finally got into my draft coverage for the website. 

Long story short, odd is what I settled on in my article. I won't give too much away, but I really wracked my brain thinking about the differences and whether or not I ultimately thing odd, or different, was bad. Ultimately I cam down to this; I just trust Dan Kantrovitz enough and I doubt he's lost his damn mind to hate anything in this draft. 

I don't think I loved on the surface many picks. But then you squint and you can go "Yeah I almost get it". 

Ive come down to i trust DK but odd is the right word. Im just struggling to see the high upside in any of these picks outside or Conrad and Hartshorn. 

Maybe this was a play to fill the system with higher floor guys with a look ahead to what should be a stronger 2026 draft class? Maybe this is a draft filling a longer term vision?

[Jason Ross]

Can we talk a little more about Hartshorn? I'm sure you all did, but I was on an airplane to Chicago today, and now I'm stuck in a far-too-bougie hotel, down at the bar cashing in these stupid drink vouchers that you have to pay for, so this is what you all get; recaps.

This is my favorite pick of the draft. He's not the best pick, but he's my favorite. First off, you can always get me excited with "Big ass corner OF'er" (i.e. see Owen Caissie and Ivan Brethowr). But beyond that, he's a switch hitter and a switch pitcher?! And he is such a tough ass mother horsefeathers that he hurt both of his arms so much he just turned into either a right handed or a left handed hitter when the other arm was hurting? 

Yeah. I love this kid. This is my favorite pick. 

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, JBears79 said:

Ive come down to i trust DK but odd is the right word. Im just struggling to see the high upside in any of these picks outside or Conrad and Hartshorn. 

Maybe this was a play to fill the system with higher floor guys with a look ahead to what should be a stronger 2026 draft class? Maybe this is a draft filling a longer term vision?

See, I think it's kind of the opposite. I think the Cubs took some controlled, but massive swings.  I'll point to Lamar University, and 16th round pick, Riely Hunsaker, who added something like 4-6 mph on the fastball under Zombo. The Cubs are adding velo, 2-4mph, pretty consistently with drafted kids. Ryan Gallagher is one to point to. 

So let's look at like Dominick Reid. Sits 92-94, has a changeup that is poor-man Bremner, and has a poorly shaped sweeper/slider that can't find any consistency. Let's say you're confident in getting the fastball to 94-96mph. His fastball already leans arm side run. I don't have a read on his arm slot, but what I do know is the Cubs love to take arm slots and drop 'em. So you drop the arm slot, you create a little extra cut and add the velo. It creates separation from the change, and creates decision points with the sweeper/slider. You turn those into distinct pitches. The Cubs have done this with other pitchers.

All of a sudden, you have a 94-96mph cut fastball, a plus, possibly better than plus change, with a sweeper/slider combo? That's a mid-rotation arm profile. That's best case scenario here, but that's an underslot pick we're talking about who could compare to the #2 pick in this draft somewhat favorably if things break. 

Now let's take that same principle and look at Kaleb Wing, a super lanky 6"2 arm who's already riding up in the 97 range as a full-out pich. Add some weight, add some Zombro, maybe he grows another inch or two? Wing is a kid who could legitimately pepper the 97-100mph range consistently. Think about how excited we are about Jaxon Wiggins who does that? There's some real upside there. 

I think there's upside, but you have to trust that the Cubs are taking arms they can take from where they are, to what they want to go with. I didn't love Matthew Boyd, or Brad Keller or Colin Rea, or a lot of guys they went with on the staff and these guys have all made jumps. 

It's a draft that asks us to trust in the process. And maybe I've drank the koolaid too much, but I trust the process enough that while it feels odd, I think when I take steps back and look at the zoomed out portrait, I see the artists intentions.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

[CaliforniaRaisin]

2 hours ago, chibears55 said:

Is there 1 or 2 guys from this draft that has a chance to make an impact on majors league roster within the next 2-3 years

In an ideal world, Conrad is an option to replace Happ or Seiya in 2027.

[nochiinchamp]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

I just sat down to get all of my thoughts on the draft out of my head. I've had some personal things going on outside, so I hadn't had a lot of time to sit down and really think through, and so finally got into my draft coverage for the website. 

Long story short, odd is what I settled on in my article. I won't give too much away, but I really wracked my brain thinking about the differences and whether or not I ultimately thing odd, or different, was bad. Ultimately I cam down to this; I just trust Dan Kantrovitz enough and I doubt he's lost his damn mind to hate anything in this draft. 

I don't think I loved on the surface many picks. But then you squint and you can go "Yeah I almost get it". 

I don't really see it as odd at all. The Cubs had a limited pool and needed to build out organizational depth. So, they leaned on college guys. The twist is that they're also trading off injury risk to ensure that they still have a shot at impact on a discount. Fun play. Even if Coppola's arm blows out, as an example, there's a shot it does so helping a winning major league team in 2027 or something.

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, nochiinchamp said:

I don't really see it as odd at all. The Cubs had a limited pool and needed to build out organizational depth. So, they leaned on college guys. The twist is that they're also trading off injury risk to ensure that they still have a shot at impact on a discount. Fun play. Even if Coppola's arm blows out, as an example, there's a shot it does so helping a winning major league team in 2027 or something.

Eh, I think it's odd, in many ways, though. The Cubs drafts over the prior four years have a lot of hallmarks.

- They really like Cape performers.
- 2nd round is usually upside pick
- They lean heavily into batted ball data and age modeling
- 11th round is usually a big upside prep player

They bucked a lot of these trends this year. They took a lot of older arms. They took a lot of injuries. They took an 11th rounder who hasn't pitched in two years, a bit different than the young, physical, prep hitter they go after usually. 2nd round pick was far more floor than upside. 

Now, odd=/= bad, but 2021-2024 under DK was pretty consistent in many of these philosophies. We can suggest a multitude of reasons why it's this way. And I'm not sure I'm mad at this strat. But it definitely is odd when you consider a Cubs draft recently. 

[nochiinchamp]

18 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Eh, I think it's odd, in many ways, though. The Cubs drafts over the prior four years have a lot of hallmarks.

- They really like Cape performers.
- 2nd round is usually upside pick
- They lean heavily into batted ball data and age modeling
- 11th round is usually a big upside prep player

They bucked a lot of these trends this year. They took a lot of older arms. They took a lot of injuries. They took an 11th rounder who hasn't pitched in two years, a bit different than the young, physical, prep hitter they go after usually. 2nd round pick was far more floor than upside. 

Now, odd=/= bad, but 2021-2024 under DK was pretty consistent in many of these philosophies. We can suggest a multitude of reasons why it's this way. And I'm not sure I'm mad at this strat. But it definitely is odd when you consider a Cubs draft recently. 

I think we try to turn decisions that are ultimately based on a lot of circumstance into general principles. They took Cape performers up and down the board this year. They took an advanced college bat in the second last year too. Batted ball data was a real factor in picking up both Conrad and Hartshorn. There was no day between rounds 10 and 11 to figure out how to get that one last prep shot.

There are plenty of ways to find value. You can pop in a model for an entirely different reason than someone else. I don't think Kantrovitz is picky about it when the resources are limited. He's just trying to maximize collective WAR.

[Jason Ross]

7 minutes ago, nochiinchamp said:

I think we try to turn decisions that are ultimately based on a lot of circumstance into general principles. They took Cape performers up and down the board this year. They took an advanced college bat in the second last year too. Batted ball data was a real factor in picking up both Conrad and Hartshorn. There was no day between rounds 10 and 11 to figure out how to get that one last prep shot.

There are plenty of ways to find value. You can pop in a model for an entirely different reason than someone else. I don't think Kantrovitz is picky about it when the resources are limited. He's just trying to maximize collective WAR.

I think you're missing what I'm saying. This draft isn't bad! You seem to be focusing in on my perception of it being odd as if I'm a complainer or upset, which I am not. Odd doesn't mean bad. But I do think it's odd compared to what they've done. It also isn't to say there isn't a reason to zig instead of zagging. But this draft is quite different on paper than how they've conducted it. There are some bylines that persist, but if you were looking at the drafts from 2021 to 2025, I think it's clear that 2025 is a very much different style. There are some Cape guys there, but they didn't bank heavily on it. There are some pitchers who feel a bit similar to what they've gone with, but they stick out due to age especially (the Cubs haven't picked the overagers usually). 

They picked Horton and Wiggins a few years back much to the chargin of fans. Both have been great picks so far! They tend to know what they're doing when they go against the grain. 

[nochiinchamp]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

I think you're missing what I'm saying. This draft isn't bad! You seem to be focusing in on my perception of it being odd as if I'm a complainer or upset, which I am not. Odd doesn't mean bad. But I do think it's odd compared to what they've done. It also isn't to say there isn't a reason to zig instead of zagging. But this draft is quite different on paper than how they've conducted it. There are some bylines that persist, but if you were looking at the drafts from 2021 to 2025, I think it's clear that 2025 is a very much different style. There are some Cape guys there, but they didn't bank heavily on it. There are some pitchers who feel a bit similar to what they've gone with, but they stick out due to age especially (the Cubs haven't picked the overagers usually). 

They picked Horton and Wiggins a few years back much to the chargin of fans. Both have been great picks so far! They tend to know what they're doing when they go against the grain. 

I never meant to imply that you thought it was bad. All I'm saying is that teams play the hand they're dealt. Their systems are in a particular state at a particular time. Their resources differ at different times. Each class has different strengths. So, they'll behave differently. 2025 feels different because they have a rapidly depleting farm and haven't had this little money relative to the rest of the league since 2021 (when they also went quite "safe" up top).

[Hot Sauce]

Thank you to all of you guys putting in the work on the write-ups and draft tracker. Jason Ross, Brandon Glick, Jeremy Nygaard, Bryan Jaeger. You guys make this forum awesome. To borrow a hockey term, you guys are beauties! 

[CubinNY]

The Cubs always do their own thing in the draft, but this was the most Cubs doing their own thng in the draft that I can remember since the Hendry days. 

[Rcal10]

15 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

The Cubs always do their own thing in the draft, but this was the most Cubs doing their own thng in the draft that I can remember since the Hendry days. 

I agree with this. And odd, different  or strange does not mean bad. No way can I ever make that statement. First, I only know what i read a scout says. I only see where guys are ranked. So basically I don’t have the knowledge to suggest something is bad. And more importantly, I also trust DK. If they picked who they picked, I trust them to have valid reasons. 

[craig]

Signing deadline is the 28th.  Draft thinking is often best understood after the signing bonuses roll in. 

1. Often we (I?) have ideas about who might be under or overslot, which prove variably false.  last year, didn't know HS Ronny Cruz would be an underslot, or how far over Southisene and Lovich would go.  I think many posters thought Cole Mathis might be an underslot; not a penny. 
2. Two years ago, some of us guessed Wiggins to be a potential underslot, given his bad college record, wildman scouting reports, and TJ.  I thought senior Josh Rivera might be a large underslot, but ended up only $147 under.  I'd thought Zyhir might be a pretty substantial overslot.  Rosario, too, maybe?  But instead, Wiggins was the biggest overslot, Hope was only +250, Rosario was slot, and the bunch of college picks after Rivera were all within $24K of slot.  
3. 3rd-day overslots have varied.  In 21 and 22, there was only a single 3rd-day overslot, and those modest ones of only $75 and $85, nothing dramatic.  Hope at $250 was only 2023 guy, then Lovich at $500 much bigger, plus $70 for Mangus.  So, I have no idea this year.  Is Barnett going to get signed, with significant bonus?  If so, that will enlighten Kantro's strategy.  
4. Or maybe Jerzembeck?  Kantro has gone overslot in 11th round each of last two drafts.  Maybe Jerzembeck isn't HS, but he was highly regarded out of HS, and looked good at SC before injuries. Maybe Kantro and Swoope love his stuff, and think that *IF* he can get healthy and right, that he might have a really high upside?  *IF* he gets a variably significant overslot, that too might enlighten Kantro's strategy.  
5. I tend to think any of the college guys in 1-10 might be variably sub-slot, and Greg has suggested intel that Conrad is significant subslot.  But yeah, we'll see how significant that really will be, and then how the others go.  Maybe they won't sub-slot as much as we assume?
6. Conversely, we have no idea how much Kantro loves either Wing or Snell, or how far over he's going to get them.  Maybe they're just $1M guys, no more than a Southisene or Mule or only a hair above a Paciola.  But, what if Hartshorn end up $1.6, or even more?  That might enlighten Kantro's strategy.  

All fun to wonder.  But we'll get a much better idea once the numbers come out.  Kantro's valuations are often radically different from the media rankings, and IMO have usually proven to be very well informed and wiser.  So yeah, as always, I'm kinda trusting that his decision-making is pretty thoughtful and justifiable.  

 

[craig]

I wonder how much NIL factors into things.  I don't follow college baseball.  I dont' imagine that every recruit at U Minnesota is getting significant NIL.  But in SEC, do they generate enough revenue, or have enough huge fans that a guy like Caleb Barnett is going to get >$150K in NIL?  I just have no idea how that works, or the amounts.  Or if that only goes to some really top-200-rated guys, not guys who aren't that high profile?  

But yeah, Kantro used to save like $75 overage for a 3rd day guy, $225 or whatever.  I wonder how persuasive that would be to a HS prospect?  I'm guessing even if a guy isn't going to get much NIL to start at Marist or Liberty or whatever, that with the portal, *IF* he has a good freshman season, then he can portal to an SEC/ACC school and perhaps get a good NIL payoff then?  

So yeah, just wondering if it isn't harder to get a HS kid to go pro if he isn't getting 4th/5th round money?  

[Hrubes20]

The elite guys are getting easy 6 figures to go to the SEC or ACC, so you really have to pony up for them.  I can't imagine the guys going to non-SEC or ACC schools are getting that much though.  

[Outshined_One]

12 minutes ago, Hrubes20 said:

The elite guys are getting easy 6 figures to go to the SEC or ACC, so you really have to pony up for them.  I can't imagine the guys going to non-SEC or ACC schools are getting that much though.  

Perhaps not, but considering how easy it is to transfer, I can see how a HS kid could be convinced that he could go to, say, U Minnesota and have a guaranteed starting spot, and then transfer to a big name school after a year. I imagine there still would be *some* NIL benefit of going to a smaller baseball school that it could be significantly improved by whatever awaits for two years at Alabama/Florida/etc., so $225k might not get the job done the way it used to get done.

We'll see once the signings start coming out.  If more HS kids are going unsigned compared to previous years, I have a feeling we might see adjustments made to the bonus pool system to compete with NIL.

[Jason Ross]

14 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

Perhaps not, but considering how easy it is to transfer, I can see how a HS kid could be convinced that he could go to, say, U Minnesota and have a guaranteed starting spot, and then transfer to a big name school after a year. I imagine there still would be *some* NIL benefit of going to a smaller baseball school that it could be significantly improved by whatever awaits for two years at Alabama/Florida/etc., so $225k might not get the job done the way it used to get done.

We'll see once the signings start coming out.  If more HS kids are going unsigned compared to previous years, I have a feeling we might see adjustments made to the bonus pool system to compete with NIL.

I think its important to remember this as well; the elite recruits arent headed up to the Big 10 to snow country, theyre headed to the south to play the warmer weather. More baseball. 

The kids that are easier to buy out of a commitment to, say, Minnesota aren't generally the top guys. The expensive buyouts are also the kids getting decent NIL money to go to Vandy. And even if the contract is more up front money, if you get three years of SEC NIL, plus you can renter the draft and get 2nd or 3rd slot as a junior, you come out way ahead as a financial package. 

Kentucky's SS Tyler Ball snubbed the Rays 2nd round money to play SEC ball, which kind of shows what SEC money has the power to do. And while UK is a more up and coming SEC program, its not a traditional powerhouse, either. 

[JBears79]

1 hour ago, craig said:

I wonder how much NIL factors into things.  I don't follow college baseball.  I dont' imagine that every recruit at U Minnesota is getting significant NIL.  But in SEC, do they generate enough revenue, or have enough huge fans that a guy like Caleb Barnett is going to get >$150K in NIL?  I just have no idea how that works, or the amounts.  Or if that only goes to some really top-200-rated guys, not guys who aren't that high profile?  

But yeah, Kantro used to save like $75 overage for a 3rd day guy, $225 or whatever.  I wonder how persuasive that would be to a HS prospect?  I'm guessing even if a guy isn't going to get much NIL to start at Marist or Liberty or whatever, that with the portal, *IF* he has a good freshman season, then he can portal to an SEC/ACC school and perhaps get a good NIL payoff then?  

So yeah, just wondering if it isn't harder to get a HS kid to go pro if he isn't getting 4th/5th round money?  

Yeah we were touching on that a bit during the draft. I think a lot of the top 250 guys have major NIL deals on the table now a days. Football and Basketball have kinda of matured in the sense that we know how NIL is working in college, not so much with college baseball yet especially since the draft systems are so different. I'm curious to see how signing HS seniors goes industry wide this year.

[ILMindState]

If I'm a 19 year old top recruit and the money was equal I'm going to college, dating a gymnast, and living the good life instead of riding on a sweaty bus in the minors. I'll build up my draft value in a couple years and if I blow out my arm some team will take a chance on me next year anyway.

[craig]

2 hours ago, JBears79 said:

Ive come down to i trust DK but odd is the right word. Im just struggling to see the high upside in any of these picks outside or Conrad and Hartshorn. 

Maybe this was a play to fill the system with higher floor guys with a look ahead to what should be a stronger 2026 draft class? Maybe this is a draft filling a longer term vision?

I don't see it this way at all.  I don't see this as a "conservative", high-floor draft at all. 

1. Very many of the picks had injury factors.  Injured guys have low-floors.  
2. I think they actually gambled a lot on risky injury guys in order to get higher ceilings. 
3. Likewise I think some of the injuries may delay some players?  So, I'm not sure they're really prioritizing advanced, be-ready-soon guys.  Conrad hasn't played much top-level college, and won't start till next spring.  Coppola has only like 40 innings of college baseball.  Jerzembeck ~30 innings?  I don't even know whether either of those two will be 100% by next spring, or might still burn a bunch of 2026 on rehab?  If Franklin had TJ only months ago, he won't do much of anything till 2027.  So I guess I'm thinking with all the injury pitchers, that doesn't feel like either high-floor or fast-track philosophy.
4. Every draft pick every year has various risk/reward, ceiling/floor unpredictabilities. I don't see this group as being all that different.  I think perhaps lots of the injuries changes the nature of some of the risks.  
5. Every one of the injury guys, the injury provides risk; but the "ceiling" is that *IF* the guy turns out healthy, you might get variably excellent value?
6. A lot of the injury stuff compromises scouting looks and developmental progress.  How much healthy Coppola has anybody ever seen?  Jerzembeck?   Hartshorn?  *IF* these guys get or stay healthy, they may have some pretty good major-league upside.  But with so little game action, super unpredictable what they will be future.  So safe/conservative/advanced/high-floor, I don't really see that for most of the picks.  
7. Kepley is kinda different.  He hasn't been injured, whatever his ceiling may be, it certainly does not include power.  
8. Reid, he maybe hasn't had the injury history, but when a guy is ranked 209 by pipeline, and doesn't have velocity or breaking-ball yet, that's obviously another scouting pick.  Definitively a risky ceiling pick, risk that velocity doesn't add, and ala Ryan-Jensen he never figures out a slider or curveball.  
9. Wing seems high risk.   Skinny guy, hasn't thrown hard for long, hasn't pitched much.  Recept pop-up guy, who knows if that will be sustainable?  But easy to dream that his potential upside could be high. 
10. Hartshorn, bit ceiling, but injuries alone make super high risk?  Like any HS power hitter, who knows if they can actually handle pro pitching? 

So yeah, to me, other than maybe Kepley, this draft seems very heavy on risky shots on guys with good ceilings but risky-low floors.  

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

[JBears79]

6 minutes ago, craig said:

I don't see it this way at all.  I don't see this as a "conservative", high-floor draft at all. 

1. Very many of the picks had injury factors.  Injured guys have low-floors.  
2. I think they actually gambled a lot on risky injury guys in order to get higher ceilings. 
3. Likewise I think some of the injuries may delay some players?  So, I'm not sure they're really prioritizing advanced, be-ready-soon guys.  Conrad hasn't played much top-level college, and won't start till next spring.  Coppola has only like 40 innings of college baseball.  Jerzembeck ~30 innings?  I don't even know whether either of those two will be 100% by next spring, or might still burn a bunch of 2026 on rehab?  If Franklin had TJ only months ago, he won't do much of anything till 2027.  So I guess I'm thinking with all the injury pitchers, that doesn't feel like either high-floor or fast-track philosophy.
4. Every draft pick every year has various risk/reward, ceiling/floor unpredictabilities. I don't see this group as being all that different.  I think perhaps lots of the injuries changes the nature of some of the risks.  
5. Every one of the injury guys, the injury provides risk; but the "ceiling" is that *IF* the guy turns out healthy, you might get variably excellent value?
6. A lot of the injury stuff compromises scouting looks and developmental progress.  How much healthy Coppola has anybody ever seen?  Jerzembeck?   Hartshorn?  *IF* these guys get or stay healthy, they may have some pretty good major-league upside.  But with so little game action, super unpredictable what they will be future.  So safe/conservative/advanced/high-floor, I don't really see that for most of the picks.  
7. Kepley is kinda different.  He hasn't been injured, whatever his ceiling may be, it certainly does not include power.  
8. Reid, he maybe hasn't had the injury history, but when a guy is ranked 209 by pipeline, and doesn't have velocity or breaking-ball yet, that's obviously another scouting pick.  Definitively a risky ceiling pick, risk that velocity doesn't add, and ala Ryan-Jensen he never figures out a slider or curveball.  
9. Wing seems high risk.   Skinny guy, hasn't thrown hard for long, hasn't pitched much.  Recept pop-up guy, who knows if that will be sustainable?  But easy to dream that his potential upside could be high. 
10. Hartshorn, bit ceiling, but injuries alone make super high risk?  Like any HS power hitter, who knows if they can actually handle pro pitching? 

So yeah, to me, other than maybe Kepley, this draft seems very heavy on risky shots on guys with good ceilings but risky-low floors.  

You know what, I agree. That's a much better way to look at it than how I was thinking about it.