The Cubs Have Screwed Up Clay Holmes and Need to Move Him to Bullpen for Postseason

[Matthew Trueblood]

Image courtesy of Gregory Fisher-Imagn Images

Clay Holmes has had some bright moments since coming to the Cubs. In a four-start stretch in August, he allowed just one run in 25 innings pitched, racking up outs with ruthless efficiency by keeping it in the park and in front of the team's excellent defense. He didn't strike out many, even in that hot streak, but he also didn't walk many, and he seemed almost home run-proof. No Cubs starter has been better over a similar stretch this year.

That memory is pleasant, but it's distant, now. In four starts this month, Holmes has faced the same number of batters (93) that he faced in those previous four, but he's walked 15, instead of 7. He's given up two home runs and struck out just 15. His 8.24 ERA looks bad, but the reality of the situation is worse. He's also allowed two unearned runs, meaning that opponents are scoring more than a run for every three outs Holmes gets. He's utterly lost, at the worst possible time.

Plainly, walks are a huge part of the problem. Walking one of every six batters you see is a recipe for disaster. But that's not all that's wrong, at this point. Holmes also isn't missing bats. He's not suddenly giving up tons of hard contact, but between the walks and a few more singles, he's always dealing with traffic. That makes whatever barrels he does run into more damaging.

All of this could be happening as a product of dumb luck, really. It's not, though. Holmes has been a different pitcher since joining the Cubs than he was with the Mets, before getting hurt in May and being sidelined until just after the deadline. He's a different guy than he was in 2025, the first year of his transition from reliever to starter. The changes might be the Cubs' doing, or they might be Holmes's own ideas, or they might be him adjusting to and working around lingering issues from the broken leg that shelved him. Whatever the reasons, though, the effects of those changes have been catastrophic.

First, there's the arm angle thing. Holmes's sinker is a remarkably heavy pitch, but the thing that's always made it especially deceptive is his high arm slot. Most sinkerballers throw from a lower arm angle than guys who rely on four-seam fastballs. Among hurlers who have thrown at least 250 sinkers in either of the last two seasons, the median arm angle on that pitch is just under 34°. Holmes's 43° angle last season put him in the 81st percentile for sinker arm angle, and that sample includes plenty of guys whose "sinkers" are really run-over-sink two-seamers. 

This year, though, his arm angle on sinkers is 38.5°. That's only in the 63rd percentile in the aforementioned sample. He's not throwing from an angle as unusual as the one he used to use for the pitch, so it's not stumping hitters as badly as it used to. And that change happened not over the offseason, but between when he last pitched for New York and when he took the bump for Chicago.

The lower angle is a problem for the sinker, itself, but there are other problems afoot. Consider the changes in his pitch movement profile, too. Here's what that looked like in 2025:

Here's the 2026 version of that same visual:

What's changed? The biggest thing is this: Holmes's arsenal no longer has the same vertical disparities and differentials as it had a year ago. He's added a curveball that has considerable depth, but he doesn't have a true cutter anymore—the pitch still thus labeled is really his slider, with the same speed and depth as the one he threw last year—and he's all but abandoned the four-seamer.

If the curve worked off the rest of the arsenal in the traditional way, that might not be as big a problem as it's actually been. Instead, Holmes only throws that pitch one way, really. He tries to land it on the outside edge to lefties, backdooring them. That's a neat trick, and he's shown better command of that pitch to that spot than most pitchers can achieve. But it's a standalone offering in that niche. It's not interacting with the rest of his stuff much at all, let alone setting up a vertical stretching of the zone that engenders whiffs.

Thus, nothing's working. His four-seamer's getting hit. His cutter's getting hit. And his sinker isn't doing as well as it would need to be, to offset those issues.

Not all of Holmes's walks are happening because he's truly wild. In fact, he's having some good battles with hitters lately. Two of the three walks he issued in his last start of the regular season, against the Red Sox, were eight-pitch plate appearances. Those become walks, instead, because Holmes can't get past hitters' lumber. They foul things off until he misses, and then they punish that miss if it's in the zone and they accept a walk if it's not. 

The Cubs talked to Holmes about changes they hoped to implement for him, before putting him on the mound in their uniform for the first time. Whether his performance over the last two months is purely a result of their influence or something done of his own volition, the results have been mixed. Lately, in fact, they've been lousy.

This version of Holmes isn't good enough to merit a start in the Wild Card Series. Arguably, he shouldn't even be in the rotation if the team makes it to longer series beyond that one. He should be confined to shorter bursts and used in select matchups. Ideally, of course, the Cubs would be able to put the ball in his hand with the season on the line. That's why they gave up top prospect Jefferson Rojas to acquire him. Unfortunately, wishing doesn't make it so. Holmes is not himself right now. Some of that might be the Cubs' fault, or it might just be bum luck—a case of a bad outcome despite a good process. Either way, though, the team needs to reckon with reality. If they don't, Holmes might get shelled again, at a moment when that failure costs the club its chance to advance.

View full article

[jewbytuesday]

Honestly a version of this article could be written about just about every pitcher in the org. On the flip side virtually no pitcher has taken a step forward, anywhere between Myrtle and Wrigley. 
 

At what point should we be asking the question of whether pitching dev under Zombro is systematically blowing up the Cubs’ pitching, and if so, how that is working? 

[Jason Ross]

55 minutes ago, jewbytuesday said:

Honestly a version of this article could be written about just about every pitcher in the org. On the flip side virtually no pitcher has taken a step forward, anywhere between Myrtle and Wrigley. 
 

At what point should we be asking the question of whether pitching dev under Zombro is systematically blowing up the Cubs’ pitching, and if so, how that is working? 

Brooks Caple, Mason McGwire (before he was traded), Ryan Rollison, Ben Brown....just to name a few and they're not the only ones. Don't forget that last year exists too: Sean Gallagher (traded), Jaxon Wiggins, Daniel Palencia, Cade Horton, Jameson Taillon, Brad Keller, Drew Pomeranz, Caleb Thielbar and Andrew Kittredge. 

Now, none of this is to say "this is enough"; there's a real gap right now in pitching development. It's not to say that valid criticisms of how Holmes and Cabrera, specifically, have seen decline in their build since coming over aren't okay to bring up; very much are. But we shouldn't be hyperbolic and act like there's no development happening. We can't ignore clear signs of progress just to make comments like "virtually no pitcher". I've listed off a lot. There have been clear and defined wins; they just may not further a doom-and-gloom position on it.

More has been done (2026 draft, promoting Zombro from periphery to the guy this year). More needs to continue to be done (spending on pitching, developing young players, adding more high end talent in the system, better IFA). But there have been signs of results. It's just not enough. And regardless, this was never going to be a "one-and-done". Something as systemic of draft/development is going to take three+ years to begin to see fruits. 

[gflore34]

42 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Brooks Caple, Mason McGwire (before he was traded), Ryan Rollison, Ben Brown....just to name a few and they're not the only ones. Don't forget that last year exists too: Sean Gallagher (traded), Jaxon Wiggins, Daniel Palencia, Cade Horton, Jameson Taillon, Brad Keller, Drew Pomeranz, Caleb Thielbar and Andrew Kittredge. 

Now, none of this is to say "this is enough"; there's a real gap right now in pitching development. It's not to say that valid criticisms of how Holmes and Cabrera, specifically, have seen decline in their build since coming over aren't okay to bring up; very much are. But we shouldn't be hyperbolic and act like there's no development happening. We can't ignore clear signs of progress just to make comments like "virtually no pitcher". I've listed off a lot. There have been clear and defined wins; they just may not further a doom-and-gloom position on it.

More has been done (2026 draft, promoting Zombro from periphery to the guy this year). More needs to continue to be done (spending on pitching, developing young players, adding more high end talent in the system, better IFA). But there have been signs of results. It's just not enough. And regardless, this was never going to be a "one-and-done". Something as systemic of draft/development is going to take three+ years to begin to see fruits. 

Include the author of the article as well.  The cover boy for Cubs' defeatism, I'd say 70-75% of what he authors is laced with criticisms made up, warranted or not.  It's my believe there's a plethora of random variables involved in player development along with a cyclical nature.  Some draft classes hit, others don't, regardless of scouting, it's just the nature of the business.  It's impossible to predict future success or failure based upon the present day results.

Edited 8 hours ago by gflore34

[Matthew Trueblood]

48 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Brooks Caple, Mason McGwire (before he was traded), Ryan Rollison, Ben Brown....just to name a few and they're not the only ones. Don't forget that last year exists too: Sean Gallagher (traded), Jaxon Wiggins, Daniel Palencia, Cade Horton, Jameson Taillon, Brad Keller, Drew Pomeranz, Caleb Thielbar and Andrew Kittredge. 

Now, none of this is to say "this is enough"; there's a real gap right now in pitching development. It's not to say that valid criticisms of how Holmes and Cabrera, specifically, have seen decline in their build since coming over aren't okay to bring up; very much are. But we shouldn't be hyperbolic and act like there's no development happening. We can't ignore clear signs of progress just to make comments like "virtually no pitcher". I've listed off a lot. There have been clear and defined wins; they just may not further a doom-and-gloom position on it.

More has been done (2026 draft, promoting Zombro from periphery to the guy this year). More needs to continue to be done (spending on pitching, developing young players, adding more high end talent in the system, better IFA). But there have been signs of results. It's just not enough. And regardless, this was never going to be a "one-and-done". Something as systemic of draft/development is going to take three+ years to begin to see fruits. 

A lot of those names kinda cut both ways, Jason.

They defy a neat summing-up right now, but forced to, I would put it this way: right now, pitching acquisition and dev in the Cubs organization is chaotic. The philosophies of Zombro and Hottovy overlap, but imperfectly, and some of the places where they diverge have become places where the team makes big mistakes, be it in acquisition or development. I will say that I think the theory behind Zombro is wayyy ahead of the praxis, right now. He's delivered relatively little so far. Other orgs still view the Cubs as average or worse in terms of process.

I'm guessing Hottovy will be fired after this season. I think that's probably warranted. At that point, though, they're gonna be pretty much all-in on Zombro, and there are a lot of people around the game who are skeptical of that direction. So far, the better evidence is on the side of the skeptics, but I like Zombro's style and approach and it'll be interesting to see if they can make it work. 

On balance, it IS fair to say that the team is behind—that they're doing badly on the pitching side, whoever and whatever you blame. That's almost obvious, and inarguable: they're dead last in pitching this year and the farm is bereft, too.

[Jason Ross]

15 minutes ago, Matthew Trueblood said:

A lot of those names kinda cut both ways, Jason.

They defy a neat summing-up right now, but forced to, I would put it this way: right now, pitching acquisition and dev in the Cubs organization is chaotic. The philosophies of Zombro and Hottovy overlap, but imperfectly, and some of the places where they diverge have become places where the team makes big mistakes, be it in acquisition or development. I will say that I think the theory behind Zombro is wayyy ahead of the praxis, right now. He's delivered relatively little so far. Other orgs still view the Cubs as average or worse in terms of process.

I'm guessing Hottovy will be fired after this season. I think that's probably warranted. At that point, though, they're gonna be pretty much all-in on Zombro, and there are a lot of people around the game who are skeptical of that direction. So far, the better evidence is on the side of the skeptics, but I like Zombro's style and approach and it'll be interesting to see if they can make it work. 

On balance, it IS fair to say that the team is behind—that they're doing badly on the pitching side, whoever and whatever you blame. That's almost obvious, and inarguable: they're dead last in pitching this year and the farm is bereft, too.

Oh, I don't mean it isn't fair to criticize, but I think the issue is that it isn't an all one way or an all another way answer as this poster I was responding to, makes it sound. He said he can't find anyone in the system to make progress this year; nonsense. That kind of black and white thinking is the issue we should root out. 

I think many things are true:
1. The Cubs have made some wins in pitching development, even this year
2. Those wins, this year, have come at the cost of some real losses (as Holmes is appearing to be one)
3. The Cubs are attempting to fix those issues but the fix is currently a questionmark as to the final grade
4. Those fixes will take time and a "right now" approach is/was always likely to be more of a fail than a win (pitching just needs the numbers game more than anything)
5. None of what they have done is enough yet.

Which was really my point. Saying hyperbolic comments like "virtually no pitcher in the org from Myrtle to Wrigley has made any progress" ignores Brooks Caple, or Ben Brown in 2026 (other too, these are just a few examples). We can be better to say that those guys made progress and the work here is not done nor has it been enough, which, to me, is where we really should be at. A point where we can recognize some good things are happening, some (maybe even more) bad things are happening/have happened and that the team needs to continue to address these issues organizationally at a high priority. 

[jewbytuesday]

6 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

Brooks Caple, Mason McGwire (before he was traded), Ryan Rollison, Ben Brown....just to name a few and they're not the only ones. Don't forget that last year exists too: Sean Gallagher (traded), Jaxon Wiggins, Daniel Palencia, Cade Horton, Jameson Taillon, Brad Keller, Drew Pomeranz, Caleb Thielbar and Andrew Kittredge. 

Now, none of this is to say "this is enough"; there's a real gap right now in pitching development. It's not to say that valid criticisms of how Holmes and Cabrera, specifically, have seen decline in their build since coming over aren't okay to bring up; very much are. But we shouldn't be hyperbolic and act like there's no development happening. We can't ignore clear signs of progress just to make comments like "virtually no pitcher". I've listed off a lot. There have been clear and defined wins; they just may not further a doom-and-gloom position on it.

More has been done (2026 draft, promoting Zombro from periphery to the guy this year). More needs to continue to be done (spending on pitching, developing young players, adding more high end talent in the system, better IFA). But there have been signs of results. It's just not enough. And regardless, this was never going to be a "one-and-done". Something as systemic of draft/development is going to take three+ years to begin to see fruits. 

Caple I suppose I'll give you.  That's a single guy, in AA. McGwire has struggled at high A, Rollison has extremely questionable peripherals, and Ben Brown is cooked because of his neck injury. 

The list of folks from last year apart from Horton mostly consists of players who took huge steps back this year (Wiggins, Palencia, Taillon) and veterans who have been mid either here or in other orgs. 

I can't identify a single pitcher who has come into the organization and made consistent progress towards becoming a contributor to the MLB club in the past two seasons. By contrast, several players have taken major steps backward - the aforementioned Taillon broke to the point of unplayability, the same has likely happened to Cabrera, and the same appears to be happening to Clay Holmes. 

Fact of the matter is, given the volume of pitching injuries that are associated with the modern game, an organization rides or dies on its pitching development infrastructure. The Cubs have never really been able to consistently develop MLB-caliber pitching at any point since Jim Hendry's departure. It's early returns, fair, but thus far it appears to me that Zombro somehow has managed to make the organization even worse at pitching development than it was when he arrived. From where I sit, it's rather clear that there's no hope for the Cubs being consistently successful until the entire FO is replaced, the Earth under the existing pitching development infrastructure is salted, and new blood is brought in with free rein to build something new. 

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, jewbytuesday said:

Caple I suppose I'll give you.  That's a single guy, in AA. McGwire has struggled at high A, Rollison has extremely questionable peripherals, and Ben Brown is cooked because of his neck injury. 

The list of folks from last year apart from Horton mostly consists of players who took huge steps back this year (Wiggins, Palencia, Taillon) and veterans who have been mid either here or in other orgs. 

I can't identify a single pitcher who has come into the organization and made consistent progress towards becoming a contributor to the MLB club in the past two seasons. By contrast, several players have taken major steps backward - the aforementioned Taillon broke to the point of unplayability, the same has likely happened to Cabrera, and the same appears to be happening to Clay Holmes. 

Fact of the matter is, given the volume of pitching injuries that are associated with the modern game, an organization rides or dies on its pitching development infrastructure. The Cubs have never really been able to consistently develop MLB-caliber pitching at any point since Jim Hendry's departure. It's early returns, fair, but thus far it appears to me that Zombro somehow has managed to make the organization even worse at pitching development than it was when he arrived. From where I sit, it's rather clear that there's no hope for the Cubs being consistently successful until the entire FO is replaced, the Earth under the existing pitching development infrastructure is salted, and new blood is brought in with free rein to build something new. 

I'd recommend looking at Matt's article on Rollison here. We can nitpick the peripherals to death, but this probably explains why that's a misuse of that data: he isn't the same guy and that data is from multiple evolutions. Best not to rely on that here. 

You're also blaming things that probably aren't the Cubs. Like, do you think Jameson Taillon was broken by the Cubs? Or do you think a fringe SP who had no velocity to lose, hit an age where he had a little velocity drop and couldn't be saved? I'd argue that the Cubs squeezed out one more useful year of a mediocre arm last year more than blame them for his flame out this year, in the last year of a deal. If we're playing the blame game, that feels like you're just looking to blame them for everything. We can probably, and successfully, point to Holmes and Cabrera as "2026 developmental fails". Taillon is a silly one. You know that.

We also don't give the Cubs credit enough for being creative. Matthew Boyd was a creative solution. Their bullpen work last year were creative solutions. 2026 has been less so for a few reasons; injury a big part of it. It's also hard to find that many wins over and over.

I won't disagree that the implementation of the developmental stuff needs to be better. Blaming Zombro here feels like a red herring though. He's a name and the head of the pitching side of the things, but his real influence is on the younger players and the draft. That's going to be a bit of a long-game and determining what his influence there is won't be seen for probably two-to-four years. 

If you want to blame things, I'd start here:
1. The Cubs have not spent nearly enough as an organization on pitching since post-covid. This includes
- Draft
- Free Agency
- Development
2. Injuries. The guys the organization has developed have had massive injuries that have sapped them. Imagine a situation where the Brewers lost Uribe and MeGill to major arm injury the year after they broke out. The Cubs have seen that happen to both Alzolay and Hodge and have seen the effects of that with Palencia this year. That's exacerbated by their lack of resources. In a numbers' game you can't handle blows to the guys you do find.
3. Simply being behind the game. Other organizations, while the Cubs lacked spending, beat them to the punch. 

You can figure out who you want to put that on. I'd say that Zombro isn't who I'd put the blame on: too new, too much time to go. I do agree with Matt that Hottovoy probably goes at the end of the year. We can debate whether he deserves it, but they need something to change and he's an easier change. I also hope that the front office has learned some lessons. This would be a really nice offseason to spend money on a starting pitcher.

[jewbytuesday]

19 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I'd recommend looking at Matt's article on Rollison here. We can nitpick the peripherals to death, but this probably explains why that's a misuse of that data: he isn't the same guy and that data is from multiple evolutions. Best not to rely on that here. 

You're also blaming things that probably aren't the Cubs. Like, do you think Jameson Taillon was broken by the Cubs? Or do you think a fringe SP who had no velocity to lose, hit an age where he had a little velocity drop and couldn't be saved? I'd argue that the Cubs squeezed out one more useful year of a mediocre arm last year more than blame them for his flame out this year, in the last year of a deal. If we're playing the blame game, that feels like you're just looking to blame them for everything. We can probably, and successfully, point to Holmes and Cabrera as "2026 developmental fails". Taillon is a silly one. You know that.

We also don't give the Cubs credit enough for being creative. Matthew Boyd was a creative solution. Their bullpen work last year were creative solutions. 2026 has been less so for a few reasons; injury a big part of it. It's also hard to find that many wins over and over.

I won't disagree that the implementation of the developmental stuff needs to be better. Blaming Zombro here feels like a red herring though. He's a name and the head of the pitching side of the things, but his real influence is on the younger players and the draft. That's going to be a bit of a long-game and determining what his influence there is won't be seen for probably two-to-four years. 

If you want to blame things, I'd start here:
1. The Cubs have not spent nearly enough as an organization on pitching since post-covid. This includes
- Draft
- Free Agency
- Development
2. Injuries. The guys the organization has developed have had massive injuries that have sapped them. Imagine a situation where the Brewers lost Uribe and MeGill to major arm injury the year after they broke out. The Cubs have seen that happen to both Alzolay and Hodge and have seen the effects of that with Palencia this year. That's exacerbated by their lack of resources. In a numbers' game you can't handle blows to the guys you do find.
3. Simply being behind the game. Other organizations, while the Cubs lacked spending, beat them to the punch. 

You can figure out who you want to put that on. I'd say that Zombro isn't who I'd put the blame on: too new, too much time to go. I do agree with Matt that Hottovoy probably goes at the end of the year. We can debate whether he deserves it, but they need something to change and he's an easier change. I also hope that the front office has learned some lessons. This would be a really nice offseason to spend money on a starting pitcher.

I had not read Matt's post on Rollison, and will give it a whirl. Thanks for sharing. I'd say with a middle reliever who has poor peripherals (even if they have a good explanation), it probably takes multiple successful seasons to feel good about notching him in the W column. Should he enter the W column, that would mean that the Cubs' pitching infrastructure turned a former first round draft pick into a useful middle reliever. Mazel Tov, I guess. 

Correlation does not imply causation, of course, but this is notable for being the year in which Zombro was given a more significant role in MLB pitching operations. It's hard not to look at the garbage heap of broken MLB pitchers this year and not ask the question of whether Zombro (or as Matt points out, the philosohpical divergence between Zombro and Hottovy) is responsible. Taillon's season is a data point here for sure - I'll grant he's been a bit fringe since his TJ2, but he had been very serviceable for the preceding 2.5 seasons. 

You're also right that the 2025 bullpen outcome is the best success story for pitching under Hoyer as POBO. Given the aggregate track record he has, and the complete failure to build on that success productively, I'm comfortable concluding it was a fluke rather than a stroke of genius. Boyd basically just got less hurt than he previously did. That's an example of them taking a good risk that clearly paid off. 

With respect to the non-Zombro sources of blame you list: 

1. I'm not sure the Cubs have spent less on free agent pitchers than other non-Dodgers organizations that have had success int his era, certainly not than Milwaukee. They've ignored pitching in the draft, but that's plausibly because the drafters (and Hoyer) are aware they have no pitching development to speak of. 

2. Injuries definitely contributed to this year's outcome. However, they are sadly a major part of the game, especially the pitching side, and the organizations that are able to weather the storm have superior pitching development. Milwaukee, who you mention, has dealt with injuries to Woodruff and Burnes in recent years and ended up fine. Their bullpen (and pitching farm) is so deep that they plausibly would not suffer for losing Megill, Uribe, or both. Lastly, it's reasonable to ask the question of whether the Cubs' conditioning regimens or medical staff are behind the league. 

3. No arguments here - they're definitely way behind the game on, at a minimum, everything to do with pitching. I think after 2026 we should be asking ourselves whether Zombro is a part of that. 

 

[Jason Ross]

31 minutes ago, jewbytuesday said:

I had not read Matt's post on Rollison, and will give it a whirl. Thanks for sharing. I'd say with a middle reliever who has poor peripherals (even if they have a good explanation), it probably takes multiple successful seasons to feel good about notching him in the W column. Should he enter the W column, that would mean that the Cubs' pitching infrastructure turned a former first round draft pick into a useful middle reliever. Mazel Tov, I guess. 

Correlation does not imply causation, of course, but this is notable for being the year in which Zombro was given a more significant role in MLB pitching operations. It's hard not to look at the garbage heap of broken MLB pitchers this year and not ask the question of whether Zombro (or as Matt points out, the philosohpical divergence between Zombro and Hottovy) is responsible. Taillon's season is a data point here for sure - I'll grant he's been a bit fringe since his TJ2, but he had been very serviceable for the preceding 2.5 seasons. 

You're also right that the 2025 bullpen outcome is the best success story for pitching under Hoyer as POBO. Given the aggregate track record he has, and the complete failure to build on that success productively, I'm comfortable concluding it was a fluke rather than a stroke of genius. Boyd basically just got less hurt than he previously did. That's an example of them taking a good risk that clearly paid off. 

With respect to the non-Zombro sources of blame you list: 

1. I'm not sure the Cubs have spent less on free agent pitchers than other non-Dodgers organizations that have had success int his era, certainly not than Milwaukee. They've ignored pitching in the draft, but that's plausibly because the drafters (and Hoyer) are aware they have no pitching development to speak of. 

2. Injuries definitely contributed to this year's outcome. However, they are sadly a major part of the game, especially the pitching side, and the organizations that are able to weather the storm have superior pitching development. Milwaukee, who you mention, has dealt with injuries to Woodruff and Burnes in recent years and ended up fine. Their bullpen (and pitching farm) is so deep that they plausibly would not suffer for losing Megill, Uribe, or both. Lastly, it's reasonable to ask the question of whether the Cubs' conditioning regimens or medical staff are behind the league. 

3. No arguments here - they're definitely way behind the game on, at a minimum, everything to do with pitching. I think after 2026 we should be asking ourselves whether Zombro is a part of that. 

 

The Cubs signed their first multi-year reliever post-covid this season with Phil Maton. There is an argument that signing relievers to multi-year contracts has limited results (look at the 2026 reliever class that has been almost exclusively a bust) but beyond that their only significant resources in the rotation have been with Taillon and Imanaga. I think both contracts have been varying shades of "fine" but the reality is, if you aren't going to put forth resources in the the development and draft (which it's proven they did; they have spent below MLB average in this respect). The Cubs just have not spent like they should. You either have to spend on draft aspects or free agents and the Cubs have spent on neither. 

Instead, what the organization has seemingly done is go with the "total team" aspect. Instead of buying pitching, or developing pitching, they've spent on defense to help "create" a pitcher. They've done okay with this: they have significantly out performed their peripherals the last two years, they have rehabbed guys like David Peterson who was really an issue in New York thanks to his porous defense and built some shoestring bullpens. But it's simply not enough.

As it comes to Milwaukee, there is no one else in their system like Uribe or MeGill, let's be honest. If there was, they would have guys in the 6th and 7th inning with their stuff and they don't. That's not a shot across the bow at Milwaukee; great org. But if you take out the two-best relievers of any team, you cannot expect any org to just "have another best reliever" laying around in Double-A. Hodge and Alzolay aren't on their levels, and really, again, points to where the Cubs lack (it's a numbers game). But I think we're giving Milwaukee credit just hand-waving away possible injuries with "There will be another". Not always, man. I like Ashby, but beyond that DL Hall, Bryse Wilson, Grant Anderson, Brandon Sproat...they're not Megill or Uribe, ya know? 

To your larger point, however, you really do want to waive off any positives. 2025 has to be a fluke because 2026 wasn't as good (never mind the 2026 injuries, right?). Ryan Rollison can't count because he has to do it for "three or four" years. You've yet to address Ben Brown as a success story. 

The point I'm making is not gassing up the Cubs' development but finding a middle ground you seem to want to ignore and have since post-1. Multiple things can be true. The Cubs probably aren't nearly as bad at pitching as your initial post wants to make it out to be. Regardless of how much better they are than your initial post, it's no where near good enough and that has to change in the interim (spending, decision making, development on MLB side) and long term (drafting, development on MiLB side). 

To wrap it all up, I think the story of Jaxon Wiggins is a great example of why the Cubs pitching infrastructure. They took a good gamble on an arm in the second round that fans were pissed at on the rip. Last year, dude finally is healthy and puts it together and you see the vision, he also takes steps developmentally that make you see everything. But because of injuries in 2026 (pitchers' do this) he really struggles, and the team has no backfill. There's signals that the Cubs can develop the arm, but because of a lack of heavy investment on this side of things, they have no one to take that mantle when it stagnates or he gets hurt. And because of that, the Cubs have to go out and grab guys who have far less upside and have to pitch to the defense at the MLB level, when they could have really used a handful of Wiggins' types (upside stuff, developmental needs) throughout the system so that they didn't have to parade around the Tyler Ferguson types.

[jewbytuesday]

6 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The Cubs signed their first multi-year reliever post-covid this season with Phil Maton. There is an argument that signing relievers to multi-year contracts has limited results (look at the 2026 reliever class that has been almost exclusively a bust) but beyond that their only significant resources in the rotation have been with Taillon and Imanaga. I think both contracts have been varying shades of "fine" but the reality is, if you aren't going to put forth resources in the the development and draft (which it's proven they did; they have spent below MLB average in this respect). The Cubs just have not spent like they should. You either have to spend on draft aspects or free agents and the Cubs have spent on neither. 

Instead, what the organization has seemingly done is go with the "total team" aspect. Instead of buying pitching, or developing pitching, they've spent on defense to help "create" a pitcher. They've done okay with this: they have significantly out performed their peripherals the last two years, they have rehabbed guys like David Peterson who was really an issue in New York thanks to his porous defense and built some shoestring bullpens. But it's simply not enough.

As it comes to Milwaukee, there is no one else in their system like Uribe or MeGill, let's be honest. If there was, they would have guys in the 6th and 7th inning with their stuff and they don't. That's not a shot across the bow at Milwaukee; great org. But if you take out the two-best relievers of any team, you cannot expect any org to just "have another best reliever" laying around in Double-A. Hodge and Alzolay aren't on their levels, and really, again, points to where the Cubs lack (it's a numbers game). But I think we're giving Milwaukee credit just hand-waving away possible injuries with "There will be another". Not always, man. I like Ashby, but beyond that DL Hall, Bryse Wilson, Grant Anderson, Brandon Sproat...they're not Megill or Uribe, ya know? 

To your larger point, however, you really do want to waive off any positives. 2025 has to be a fluke because 2026 wasn't as good (never mind the 2026 injuries, right?). Ryan Rollison can't count because he has to do it for "three or four" years. You've yet to address Ben Brown as a success story. 

The point I'm making is not gassing up the Cubs' development but finding a middle ground you seem to want to ignore and have since post-1. Multiple things can be true. The Cubs probably aren't nearly as bad at pitching as your initial post wants to make it out to be. Regardless of how much better they are than your initial post, it's no where near good enough and that has to change in the interim (spending, decision making, development on MLB side) and long term (drafting, development on MiLB side). 

To wrap it all up, I think the story of Jaxon Wiggins is a great example of why the Cubs pitching infrastructure. They took a good gamble on an arm in the second round that fans were pissed at on the rip. Last year, dude finally is healthy and puts it together and you see the vision, he also takes steps developmentally that make you see everything. But because of injuries in 2026 (pitchers' do this) he really struggles, and the team has no backfill. There's signals that the Cubs can develop the arm, but because of a lack of heavy investment on this side of things, they have no one to take that mantle when it stagnates or he gets hurt. And because of that, the Cubs have to go out and grab guys who have far less upside and have to pitch to the defense at the MLB level, when they could have really used a handful of Wiggins' types (upside stuff, developmental needs) throughout the system so that they didn't have to parade around the Tyler Ferguson types.

I suppose just to wrap this up - I agree with you that they don't invest enough resources in their pitching to be successful, but that is very likely because Jed is aware that the pitching development infrastructure is mid (and thus, their ROI will be mid) and has no idea how to fix it. This has been the case for his entire tenure as Cubs top brass. In 2025, which we both agreed was the strongest season of MLB pitching development success under Hoyer as POBO, featured the Cubs' staff notching 13.4 fWAR, good for 19th in MLB. That ain't gonna cut it.  Nibbling over isolated anecdotes of pitchers who develop successfully, or appear to prior to getting injured or stepping back, is missing the forest for the trees. I don't mean to wave away any positive developments - I am happy to acknowledge them and note that they are inconsequential.