Recapping Chicago Cubs' 2026 Draft Class: A Big Bet on Tyler Zombro

[Jason Ross]

Image courtesy of © Angelina Alcantar/News Sentinel / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

"Shoot for the moon, because even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." It's a cheesy line I read once as a kid in the back of a second grade classroom; if you were an attentive student (or the kind of inattentive one who looks for other things to read), chances are you saw something like this hanging up in school, too. Decades later, it remains a cheesy line, and yet, I cannot keep coming back to it when I think about the 2026 draft the Cubs just had. Let me explain. 

While the book is far from closed on the 2026 draft class (really, it's just beginning), there's a decidedly different feel to the Cubs' drafting strategy than in even the recent past. Maybe you caught the feeling it was different; maybe you didn't. I clocked it once the Cubs made their second pick, and it never went away. Hours after their last pick, it's still my biggest takeaway. 

My first sign things are a little different with this draft: the Cubs took 16 pitchers out of their total 21 picks. This should immediately ring alarm bells, because the Cubs are a bottom-5 team recently in draft spending on arms. This isn't entirely unprecedented. Chicago executed a similar strategy in 2022, when they also took 16 pitchers. It was a strategy that paid off, too, as a handful of those arms are still playing important roles in the organization: Cade Horton, Mason McGwire and Will Sanders. Despite the comparisons to 2022 on number of pitchers drafted, though, this group of picks stands out as quite different because of one new addition to the draft room: Tyler Zombro.

For those unaware, Zombro was hired last year to fill the hole that was left when prior pitching guru Craig Breslow left to take control of the Boston Red Sox. Zombro is an up-and-coming name in the world of pitching, as he is one of the main minds at Tread Athletics. Tread is one of the most well-regarded pitching developmental firms in the nation, like Driveline. Since his hiring, Zombro has been promoted to Vice President of Pitching, showing belief in what he brings to the table.

There have been some hallmarks of pitchers with whom Tread Athletics has worked, as well as pitchers the Cubs have targeted over the last two years. Favored hurlers generally throw from a lower arm slot and feature more horizontal movement (versus vertical movement) on their pitches. The Cubs have focused heavily on developing fastballs with cut-ride tendencies and tend to feature four-seam fastballs often in their arsenal. This isn't every pitcher, but a pattern has emerged both with who Zombro has worked with at Tread and who the Cubs have added. These fingerprints are all over the draft class. 

From an organizational standpoint, it makes sense that Zombro would have a heavy hand in the draft room. The team identified him as a rising talent, and within a year of their initial partnership, they promoted him to a senior position. If you trust him enough to promote him, you should trust him enough to lean on him on draft day. It's clear that the team deferred to his judgement on many players. Multiple players in this class have worked at Tread in the past, so the connections are clear. 

What I Liked
The Cubs' strategy in terms of pitching was very clear this year. Every pitcher they took feels like they have a defined role. You don't have to squint to see what the team hopes Cade Townsend will become. Isaac Morton (6th round) looks every bit like a bullpen arm who kills righties, Cole Tryba (7th round) looks like a middle-innings lefty with a funky arm slot, and Chase Meyers (9th round) looks to be a leverage reliever. 

Last year, I wrote fairly positive things about third-round selection Dominick Reid. Reid had excellent pitch shapes, but the velocity was low-90s. You had to hope the Cubs could squeeze him and find two more ticks of velocity for him to really have a path. It's not a bad gamble (you're always gambling somewhere with a third-round pick), but the pathway for Reid was "find two miles an hour..." or what? He doesn't have much of a reliever profile, and at 92 MPH, he's a back-end rotation guy at best. There weren't many Dominick Reids this year, and certainly not that high in the draft.

In the players the team selected instead, you can easily see the Zombro influence. Morton throws from a sidearm slot. Both Tryba and 8th-round pick Lance Williams also throw from funky, lower arm slots. You can see a bit of Trent Thornton in their motions. It should surprise no one that Thornton is a client of Tread, as well. Now, Thornton isn't an All-Star, but the foundations for what make him useful are his arm slot and velocity. These picks share similar traits, and it shouldn't be surprising to see the team continue to look for this general build of a pitcher where they can. 

This flows into the other thing I liked about the draft: In places, the Cubs swung big. Caden Sorrell and Myles Bailey are big-power, big-whiff upside plays. None of the pitchers are really playing it safe, either. There are a lot of guys who throw 95+ MPH, and you hope you get them to throw enough strikes. Carson Jasa (3rd round) is a prime example of this. Jasa stands 6-foot-7 and can work in the upper 90s, but the strike-throwing just isn't there right now. If it gets there, he's got massive upside. If he doesn't? Maybe it's a relief profile, or just a complete flameout. 

The team is really leaning into development this year overall, both offensively and defensively. Bailey sure strikes out a lot, but he also has some of the best exit velocity around. You trust that the organization can develop that. Jasa? Develop the fastball and the command, and you've got a special player. Fifth-round prep pitcher Dylan Blomker is another developmental prospect. Already hitting the mid-90s, his delivery is funky and he needs to learn consistency. But he's starting with the live arm the Cubs have needed for a long time. If you get it right with him, he has frontline, playoff-caliber starter upside. This type of draft class requires you to believe hook, line and sinker in your programs, but if your belief is correct and you remain patient, the rewards of this belief can be huge.

This is probably not a class that will produce a lot of high-floor MLB talent. In most draft classes, you're lucky to find two or three meaningful contributors, and this class is more risky than that. But the Cubs weren't okay with just taking Adam Frazier-like second basemen. They took swings on guys who, if they miss, will never even reach the majors. However, if they hit, several of these guys have major upside, and I like the confidence. The Cubs have shown that they're capable at finding new blood for the system, so swing big. 

What I Didn't Like
This is going to sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, but the Cubs have kind of had a good thing going under Dan Kantrovitz. They got off to a bit of a rocky start in 2020 and 2021, but since then, they've done a great job in the draft. It's resulted, so far, in Cade Horton, Matt Shaw, Cam Smith, Zyhir Hope, Jackson Ferris, Ethan Conrad, Josiah Hartshorn and a handful of others who have gotten top-100 mentions in one publication or another. A few of those names were top-20 picks, and others were players who were more slept on by publications, but the Cubs have had a strong eye for talent regardless of round. Some of these names have already become big-league contributors, while others are knocking on the door with their respective organizations. It's a little scary to take what's been working and change it, considering that kind of success.

That's not to say it's been working perfectly; the Cubs don't have a ton of pitching stocked up in the lower levels. They've found guys like Jaxon Wiggins early, and a few later-round wins like Brooks Caple and Grant Kipp look like they might be MLB-quality, but for the most part, they haven't developed pitching and (outside of the 2022 draft) haven't invested in it. The flip side to that is that the Cubs have done a great job in position-player development. There's a chance that greater investment into pitching will pay off, but it also may not.

Part of the reason the Cubs have found players in the draft, regardless of round, is that they've generally followed a draft concept of "hit over power" and "defense, defense, defense" when it comes to position players. This has paid off with guys like Hartshorn (not to dismiss his power potential, but his hit tool was the more defined tool on draft day) and Kane Kepley in the 2025 draft already, as well as players like Shaw and Smith, who were both very fast movers. Sorrell and Bailey are far more likely to faceplant in Double-A than any of the other big Cubs position-player picks recently. Bailey doesn't even have positional versatility; he's almost certainly stuck at first base.

Thus, one of the things I liked the most (the reward for swinging big) is the one thing I disliked the most: the risk involved. It comes with the territory; but it doesn't mean I can't be a bit concerned with it, as well.

Overall Thoughts
I don't want to make it sound like I didn't like the draft. In fact, it's quite the opposite; I like this class a lot. It's short of an "A" grade, as there's no single prospect I'm over the moon about. (However, I'll admit I'm already a big Chase Meyers fan.) But I think it's the quintessential "B" grade, in that I can find something I like out of almost every pick. I can see pathways to MLB relevancy for almost every player whose name the Cubs called this weekend, but I wouldn't feel comfortable hitching my wagon to any single name today, either. There's a version of Cade Townsend who uses elite spin and plus velocity to rise to No. 2 in a rotation down the road. There's a version of the same pitcher whose delivery has too much movement, and the command never gets to where it needs to be against advanced hitting. One version of Bailey swats 40 home runs and is an All-Star at first base. Another version of him is a Double-A hitter who strikes out 40% of the time. It's just that kind of a draft—more so than others in recent years.

Ultimately, it's a fun draft to dream on, and I think that's the best way to come out of the draft. It's a lot harder to dream on pitchability and 40-grade power than it is to do so on Caden Sorrell's swing or Carson Jasa's fastball. The risk involved is great—probably greater than the pitchability guys or your glove-first shortstops—but that's the kind of swing you have to take sometimes. It's never easy to say a team got a superstar, but this is the kind of draft (on paper) that could produce one or two guys who become special. It's also the kind of draft that could produce a lot of nothing. 

I keep coming back to that idea that you shoot for the moon. Maybe your favorite player in this draft doesn't become the next big thing, but then again, maybe mine will.

 

View full article

[Clark_Addison]

How many players did they draft……

[Jason Ross]

9 minutes ago, Clark_Addison said:

How many players did they draft……

21 players in total. Just noticed I claimed 16 of 20 but brain farted and remembered they had two second round picks because of the comp pick! A full draft tracker can be found here. We also have scouting reports for all of the players posted on NSBB.

https://www.mlb.com/draft/tracker/2026/all/team/cubs

[Outshined_One]

The good/bad thing about this draft is, it's easy to see multiple outcomes and how they happen.  Previous drafts under Jed were what I'd consider "safe" for an MLB Draft.  Take Kane Kepley as an example; if the hit/power never translate to the bigs, he's still fast enough and defensively adept enough to be a useful bench guy in the majors, but, at the same time, his 95th percentile outcome looks like PCA with warning track power, which has its merits.  They got good quality players out of this approach, but it felt like this team drafted a bunch of Ian Happs and Nico Hoerners.  It's a fine enough way to draft, but it's also not fun.

So, on the one hand, this draft is a lot of fun.  Sorrell and Bailey are the kinds of power hitters we haven't seen since the days of Kyle Schwarber.  You've also mentioned how a lot of the draftees this year are about this team having faith in its pitching development and coaching, and I think that is spot-on accurate.  You can dream on how mechanical adjustments, better training/conditioning, and months on end in the pitch lab could unlock Townsend's command, Jasa's fastball, or Marionneaux's appetite.

On the other hand, this draft is risky.  I wouldn't call it a boom-or-bust draft, but you're looking at much lower floors and much higher ceilings for a lot of these guys compared to past seasons.  Sorrell and Bailey could easily Dopirak themselves out of baseball without taking a major league plate appearance.  The Cubs also took a ton of relief pitchers, who tend to be a really risky demographic, and, as always, TINSTAAPP applies.  This could also be one of those weird drafts where the Cubs do better with their last 10 picks compared to their first 11, since there are some legitimately intriguing guys who were taken in C Emanuel Hernandez (13th round), RHP Griffin Naess (15th round) and 1B Brennan Hudson (20th round).

This draft was a departure from the norm, and I'm in favor of it.  I don't want to see them do it every year, but it works for these oddball years.

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

The good/bad thing about this draft is, it's easy to see multiple outcomes and how they happen.  Previous drafts under Jed were what I'd consider "safe" for an MLB Draft.  Take Kane Kepley as an example; if the hit/power never translate to the bigs, he's still fast enough and defensively adept enough to be a useful bench guy in the majors, but, at the same time, his 95th percentile outcome looks like PCA with warning track power, which has its merits.  They got good quality players out of this approach, but it felt like this team drafted a bunch of Ian Happs and Nico Hoerners.  It's a fine enough way to draft, but it's also not fun.

So, on the one hand, this draft is a lot of fun.  Sorrell and Bailey are the kinds of power hitters we haven't seen since the days of Kyle Schwarber.  You've also mentioned how a lot of the draftees this year are about this team having faith in its pitching development and coaching, and I think that is spot-on accurate.  You can dream on how mechanical adjustments, better training/conditioning, and months on end in the pitch lab could unlock Townsend's command, Jasa's fastball, or Marionneaux's appetite.

On the other hand, this draft is risky.  I wouldn't call it a boom-or-bust draft, but you're looking at much lower floors and much higher ceilings for a lot of these guys compared to past seasons.  Sorrell and Bailey could easily Dopirak themselves out of baseball without taking a major league plate appearance.  The Cubs also took a ton of relief pitchers, who tend to be a really risky demographic, and, as always, TINSTAAPP applies.  This could also be one of those weird drafts where the Cubs do better with their last 10 picks compared to their first 11, since there are some legitimately intriguing guys who were taken in C Emanuel Hernandez (13th round), RHP Griffin Naess (15th round) and 1B Brennan Hudson (20th round).

This draft was a departure from the norm, and I'm in favor of it.  I don't want to see them do it every year, but it works for these oddball years.

Absolutely. And there have been a few of these guys who make a lot of sense. A few of these pitchers have worked at Tread; so Zombro clearly has some relationship there already. Caden Sorrell was speaking and the Cubs were interested in him during his HS cycle; so there's been clear interest - I'm one to more believe how excited they were to get him in the 2nd after hearing that and it means it was a calculated risk. 

It's an interesting class and it was fun watching it unfold over the weekend.

[sneakypower]

What I Didn't Like

[Outshined_One]

2 minutes ago, sneakypower said:

What I Didn't Like

Being the "takes things way too seriously" guy for a moment, two asterisks here.  One, the Angels suck at player development.  Two, the 2020 and 2021 drafts really should always be referred to with asterisks because those COVID years were effing weird.

[sneakypower]

true the Angels do suck at developing their pitching prospects

but the Cubs, on the other ha-

[mul21]

28 minutes ago, sneakypower said:

true the Angels do suck at developing their pitching prospects

but the Cubs, on the other ha-

You can't say they're bad at it when they don't draft any pitchers.  Geez. 😂

[Outshined_One]

1 hour ago, sneakypower said:

true the Angels do suck at developing their pitching prospects

but the Cubs, on the other ha-

I give the Cubs credit for Steele, Palencia, and Horton, which is at least more than the Angels can say.

Otherwise...yeah.  Not great.

[craig]

Fully agree with Jason.  This it totally a D+D Zombro draft.  Other than Townsend, all pitchers are projection.  Few were particularly good in college, most were very wild and most had pretty high ERA's and WHIP's.  Even Townsend, we can clean up the head whack, etc..  Everybody else, it's projection, whether velocity (Marionneaux) or command. Huge amount of scouting projection, huge amount of trust in Zombro to diagnose guys we can fix, and then to be able to execute.    

Will be so interesting to track; a lot of guys are going to take a long time to find a path to big-league command.  

The D+D trust applies to the two bats as well.  Kantro is somehow trusting that the development guys can help these guys get past their swing-and-miss challenges.  Will be a fascinating path.

Edited yesterday at 06:14 PM by craig

[CaliforniaRaisin]

3 hours ago, sneakypower said:

What I Didn't Like

It's weird people only focus on the Angels' 2021 draft when the Dodgers signed 1 position player from the same draft: 

[Cubs420psd]

I will never be upset going with a college arm in the first round, unless the pick seems like a total reach (which this one does not seem to be).

Sorrell seems like good value at 62, seems like a guy who could potentially have 3 above average tools.

 

I like taking a risk on a power bat in the 3rd, those are the kinds of risks you should be taking at that point. Most of the guys in that range bust anyway, might as well take a swing on a guy that already has a plus tool.

 

 

[Jason Ross]

When it comes to the pitching development, it's a little "chicken or the egg?" Are the Cubs not great at pitching development because they have spent bottom-5 in the draft on pitching? Or are they spending that limited amount because they haven't been confident in it?

Hoping the "everyone throws hard" class pays off here and that the team just addresses pitching a little more aggressively. 

[Outshined_One]

11 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

When it comes to the pitching development, it's a little "chicken or the egg?" Are the Cubs not great at pitching development because they have spent bottom-5 in the draft on pitching? Or are they spending that limited amount because they haven't been confident in it?

Hoping the "everyone throws hard" class pays off here and that the team just addresses pitching a little more aggressively. 

The fact that the Cubs haven't invested much in international pitching signings the last few years makes me think there's more to the story.

They haven't had an international pitcher crack their top prospect lists since, what, Brailyn Marquez in 2021/2022?  Maybe Palencia?  It feels like they used to do a lot better job of churning those guys out, but most of the pitching in the system right now is guys who were drafted.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

27 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

The fact that the Cubs haven't invested much in international pitching signings the last few years makes me think there's more to the story.

They haven't had an international pitcher crack their top prospect lists since, what, Brailyn Marquez in 2021/2022?  Maybe Palencia?  It feels like they used to do a lot better job of churning those guys out, but most of the pitching in the system right now is guys who were drafted.

Palencia wasn't even a Cubs IFA. He was acquired via trade. And I don't think he ever made a top 100 list.

That said, most teams don't invest much of their bonus pool on IFA pitchers. You'll see maybe 1-2 signings a year in the top 50 bonuses. The Cubs just aren't turning the smaller bonus guys into legit prospects like some other teams do.

The best/only IFA arm in the Theo/Jed era that has carved out a big league career is Javier Assad.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

The only other guy I can even think of that made any sort of impact was Alzolay

[Arlen]

Did you tell your classmate that visible stars are from 4.4 to 15,000 light years away?
#JustAsking
In this age when pitchers are coached to blow their arms out, along with other body parts, what pitcher isn't a big gamble? (Mike Marshall, where are you?)

[Arlen]

Why is this comment showing up here?

Edited 19 hours ago by Arlen

[craig]

18 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

When it comes to the pitching development, it's a little "chicken or the egg?" Are the Cubs not great at pitching development because they have spent bottom-5 in the draft on pitching? Or are they spending that limited amount because they haven't been confident in it?

Hoping the "everyone throws hard" class pays off here and that the team just addresses pitching a little more aggressively. 

There may also be some level of pure coincidence?    It's a given that hard-throwing modern pitchers have injury risk, but I wonder if the Cubs haven't coincidentally gotten hit harder than most with injuries?    Horton, Wiggins, Mule, Birdsell, Franklin, Gray, McCollough, Reid, Wing.  Sanders is about the only top-5-rounds-drafted pitcher who hasn't been hurt a lot, and he's been injured too.  (And Ferris who got traded.). Maybe it's our pitching infrastructure that stinks and injures them all.  But perhaps we've kinda been victims of some really bad luck?

I think there has also been constant transition in leadership.  Zombro is not Breslow, and Breslow had a bunch of ideas that differed from guy before.  Maybe they have learned some things and are smarter now, so will have a higher success rate? 

Even this draft, they took only one pitcher in top 3 picks. It's not like everybody at end of 3rd round at pick 98 or higher is a success.  So yeah, we took a lot of shots at guys, but only one top-98 pitcher.  We probably shouldn't expect too much?  Hope for some hits, but not sure "Cubs stink at pitching development" applies when guys at picks ≥98 have modest shooting percentage.   

[craig]

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/3-takeaways-chicago-cubs-2026-110000763.html

Some Kantro comments are included, that I hadn't seen before.