Jason Ross

Someone made a post recently, maybe 7-10 days ago, that I responded to (maybe it was Post Padder?) about Kyle Higashioka. I responded to it kind of tepidly in regards to him but since then, I've taken some time to think about it, and I think I've come around on the idea of him being the guy I'd most like to target. He's a specialty player - currently he's a guy who's going to hit home runs and frame the baseball. His HR rate increased a lot last year, but so did his LA (looking at some video his hand movement changed a bit and I think that's helping here). He's quite good at getting to the barrel which allows him to pull the hell out of the baseball and just crank 'em. He's probably not going to do much more, however. But with the Cubs lineup, getting some HR power (and despite even splits last year, he's been more of a hitter against LHP, something the Cubs could also use) and framing makes sense. He's not going to make a massive impact, but I liken him a bit to when the Cubs signed Yan Gomes. You get him on a 2-year deal, and you give yourself the ability to bring up Ballesteros when you want either as a C or a DH.

I won't rehash too much of what others have said. TT did a good job, and almost assuredly better than anything I could have done, to explain what I agree with: I think BBTV does a disservice to both players in their modeling. I'm a big Cal Raleigh fan, he feels like he's among the more slept on players league wide - BBTV must be sleeping on him too. Regardless, cheers to the proper discourse. Welcome to the boards!

On the Zombro hiring, here's an interesting comment made from the Tread Athletics twitter.

The Cubs are leaning pretty heavily into the pitching side of things this offseason. First, the Japanese firm and now Zombro. Interesting to see the team place a heavy investment on that side of things. Not trying to read more into it other than I like the proactive nature.

Hey that's totally fine if you want to use that system. I'll be honest: I don't particularly love BBTV's model. It's an interesting baseline, but how they've come up with Hoerner at a $20m surplus is kind of hard for me to understand. For example, I think it's likely that Hoerner finishes with 3.5-4 wins per the next two seasons. If we want to be super conservative, factor in some injury time...let's call it seven wins. FA $/WAR for free agents is somewhere in the region of $7.5 - 9m per player. So doing a little napkin math: As a 7 win player, we can assume that he'd be worth somewhere between $52.5m - $63m. Accounting for his contract, that's a surplus value of anywhere between ~$30m and $40m As an 8 win player, that number goes to $60m - $72m. Or somewhere between $40 - $50m in surplus value. Hoerner, over his last three seasons, has been worth 12,.8 fWAR, which is over the 4 win mark on average, per seasons, so there's a good chance that even 8 fWAR is low. Regardless, I struggle to see where BBTV is coming up with their evaluation. Perhaps they're leaning into a STEAMER projection more than I think is fair (as stated, he's been worth under 3.8 fWAR zero times in the last three years, so I think they're a win short). Or they're dinging him a bit more than I think is fair for the injury (regardless if the Cubs trade or keep him, I'm not overly concerned for a 2b with the nature of the injury). I'm perfectly fine if you're a BBTV guy. And while I understand we've just met, I try not to be an anonymous dude. I've been writing prospect evaluations on NSBB for around 1.5 years now. I'm certainly no Jeff Passan. I'm not a Mathew Trueblood either. Hell, I'm no Greg Huss or Greg Zumach. But I try not to be too anonymous, too! Promise, I try to use a pretty baseline and analytical view of things.

I'm as big of a Tarik Skubal fan out there so the Tigers would be interested in talking there, for sure. I don't think they would be; they've recently extended a 2b prospect for the forseeable future and have Jace Jung at 3b, so their need for a Matt Shaw might not be in their top-needs. They have a few infield prospects in their system who are highly considered, as well. I don't mean to discount FGs work...no one here is a bigger fan of the fangraphs stuff - I grew up on their articles. BBTV...I've got a different feeling on. While I think they can be an interesting place to double-check whether or not we're being fair or not, I generally am not a fan of their model. But regardless, I just think that there's a way to get creative that includes trading Hoerner. It doesn't mean it has to happen, but sometimes I see people here immediately dismiss any trade of Hoerner as being unworthy. I don't think I have that feeling. It'd be hard to find a good move, but I do think a realistic move exists there, as hard as it may be to make that happen.

That's where we will have to differ. Again, a lot of this comes down to "just how good do you think Matt Shaw is?". I've tried to play it a bit coy, but I'll give you a hint...I think he's really good. And I know we do this with prospects a lot, and I'll admit, I get into a weird place with them at times....when you follow them as closely as I tend to, there's a bit of a bias which I totally understand. But when I dig into the data, I just don't see the flaws that make me hesitate. He's smoking every level he's facing right now. And in a repeatable fashion. As I've said, I'm a one man army and the Cubs have a lot more tools to make that determination...I'm just a guy. But what it brings me to is this: I do think there's permeations of the 2025 Cubs that are just as good with or without Nico Hoerner. I think those are pretty narrow and need to hit a very particular kind of math. You have to bring back value and be confident that Shaw is going to be good. I do think there are more versions of the Cubs being worse sans Hoerner, though and that pathway is probably not one that's going to come to fruition easily, or likely, at all. No worries if your answers are "no" there, too. This was more an exploration of things like "could it make sense?" "how realistic is it?" and "what would you have to project Matt Shaw to be to have it make sense?"

We could, certainly! But the impotence of this article is based on the Jeff Passan rumor where the Cubs were considering a trade of Nico Hoerner (and diving back to the summer where his name came up once or twice). Not trying to sound like a jerk here, but it's not really the point of the article. This was to explore: 1. What the Cubs could get for Nico Hoerner 2. What the reasoning behind a trade like that might be The Cubs should be willing to consider a handful of things this offseason. Trading Matt Shaw very well could be an option, and shouldn't be considered off-limits.

As I explored in the article, I don't expect them to a be a 1:1 replacement on call-up. I do suspect learning curves and some issues, be it with sweeper's (though I should probably mention that his issues on sweeper's are in a 30 pitch sample size. So while it's notable, it could be a lot of things) or his leg kick, or something. It's just what we should expect with prospects right now. If the best prospects on the planet are struggling, we should assume they all will. I don't want anyone to think I'm pushing Hoerner out. He's a high 3's, low 4's win type of a 2b on a controllable contract. If we're handicapping everything, he's easily the betting favorite to be the better player in 2024. The math for how a Hoerner trade would work is pretty narrow. I don't think it's impossible, though. You just have to: 1. Really like the return 2. Believe in your scouting/analytical team's modeling of Shaw There can't be many returns like that. But I don't think it's impossible, either.

Don't feel too much on an island: I'd have Thompson pretty high on the non-tender list myself. Feel like as a soon-to-be-30-year old, the Cubs can probably find some other way to use the 40-man, even if it's just to get someone they feel is a shade better than what Thompson offers, or someone they think with some new ideas they can make better than Thompson.

I don't have the backing and the power of the Cubs analytical department: I'm a one man army and working with publicly available data, so the Cubs have a very strong edge on what information I can provide here, meaning, they might come to a very different conclusion. But, if we're digging into the things we have on Matt Shaw, it's hard to say there's many glaring, obvious flaws that would keep him away from that Jonathan India area pretty early in his career. Entering 2024, the book on Matt Shaw was that he was a bit of a free swinger, had a penchant to chase (and still make contact) with pitches out of the zone. This is reflective in his MiLB numbers in things like his walk rate. We don't have Statcast data for Double-A and below, but we do have his most recent stint in Iowa. It's only 150 PA's, but this is more than enough for numbers to stabilize and be a relevant sample size. In Iowa he posted a virtual league average contact rate (72% vs 72.8%) and posted better than league average in-zone whiff rates. He did chase a bit over league average, but was also thrown far more pitches out of the zone and non-competitive strikes relative to league average, so seeing that he held off on most of that stuff (while still chasing a little) is not much of a red flag. If we want to get further into the weeds, Shaw really struggled in those first seven or so games. I don't want to just delete data points, but if we chalk that up to "struggling at a new level", he posted a 163 wRC+ after that, with a contact rate of 75% and an in-zone whiff rate of just 14%. It's just something to note. More importantly, he was able to do damage against velocity, posting contact rates on fastballs 94+mph well over 80%. So a jump in velocity doesn't seem to be an issue for Shaw. If there's a red flag it's that he really struggled with sweepers. He's chasing them at a pretty high rate (over 40%) and laying off a good sweeper looks like a place for polish for the kid. Conversely, he hit sliders pretty well, so while the sweeper-slider and the traditional slider differ, they're not so different that there's not a foundation here. In terms of exit velocity he weas well over the league average for exit velocity, coming in right under 90mph as an average, while posting a LA over 14%. If you want to find some polishes, it's that he doesn't pull the ball a ton but I'll hit on that later. The biggest concern people seem to have with his offensive profile is "he looks funny" and there's some valid fears, but they're mostly hypothetical right now. Part of the reason I don't think he pulls as much is because he has such a funky setup with that toe-in. As well, the leg kick is funky and an outlier, but it isn't like we haven't seen outlier and funky batting step ups work. Shaw has shown an ability to tone the leg kick down with two strikes and has maintained exit velocity relative to league average (though does hit the ball more on the ground, but I also wonder if that's a function of two strike approach) so there's foundation for a leg kick change if need be - it wouldn't seem all of his power comes from the windup. Outside of these things, we know he's very athletic and it's highly probable he's going to add positive base running value. He's not going to be Pete Crow-Armstrong, but a +2-4 on the bases seems pretty do-able. Defensively, while there's little belief in his glove turning gold any time soon, none of the scouting suggests he's a butcher, DH level. I wouldn't predict him to come up and go ham right away, and we've seen the best of the best prospects take some time. Chourio, Holiday, Wood, Crews all had learning curves and Matt Shaw is probably going to have one. But he's done a really good job re-working the approach and has done nothing but crush baseballs. To date his worst run was a 70 PA, 120 wRC+ he posted at the very end of 2023 in Double-A. For an encore, he posted a 148 wRC+ where he improved across the board. End result: I don't want to predict a four win, 2025 campaign for Matt Shaw. But when I dig into things, there's not many places of concern for me. Sure, work needs to be put in on laying off the sweeper. And the leg kick is a curiosity and something we'll have to wait and see on (though you've got guys like Zach Neto who suggest those changes are do-able). I don't see a crazy path to Jonathon India levels. Maybe it takes 45 days to settle in (like Pete Crow-Armstrong?) but I'm pretty confident in his future.

I havent. Conversely, how many players you can comfortably project as 4 win players will be available on the market for $10m per year over the next two seasons? For a team like the Mariners who don't have a lot of money to play with, there aren't a lot of avenues for that kind of value and improvements in an infield that's pretty bad. Like I said, I think BBTV can be a decent foundation at times. But I think they're probably $25-30m short on value for Hoerner. Perhaps Hoerner/Miller isn't a flat 1:1 swap, but the difference between the two probably isn't a gulf. Probably a decent prospect outside of the Cubs top 9 or so. Fine if you've got them at different places. But at the prices BBTV has Hoerner, then he's almost assuredly untradeable in that I'd never sell him for that valuation. There'd be almost no way to make up the difference in a way that would benefit the Cubs.

Generally speaking, I'll wait until ZiPS comes out for projection season. ZiPS > Steamer. As well, Nico hasn't posted a ~3 fWAR season since 2021, and that was due to sample size. He's been consistently at, or right next to the 4 fWAR plane for 3+ seasons (he was worth 1.5 fWAR in just 44 games in 2021. Hard to say if he'd have made it, but he was pretty darn good in those 40 games) and while, yes, he did pick up a knock, but he outperformed his first half in the second half (when he was presumably injured) and his best offensive month was September. I see no reason why we shouldn't be looking at another high 3's, low 4's season when it comes to WAR. It's why i think there's considerably more surplus value in the tank. On top of it, there's something to be said for compiling WAR. A 4 win player = 3 win player when we consider roster construction. Only one player can occupy a roster spot. I think you're putting a little extra on durability here from guys like Bryce Miller. I don't mean to devalue Miller here as I'm suggesting him as a Cub target, but while Miller was durable, there's probably projection to get him to something more. 21 pitchers made 180 IP (Miller was just at 180) and he finished 14th of 21 in xFIP and tied with Manaea for 15th in fWAR. He's a good pitcher, but he's merely good as of now, with some of that value tied up in his durability (it's a good part in how he got to 2.8 fWAR). I think there's more in there, but even his Savant page isn't a masterclass of high percentiles as of now. If we do, however, want to use STEAMER, it's probably fair to point out STEAMER has Miller in at a 1.9 fWAR for 2024. Similarly to Hoerner, that feels at least .5 fWAR low. But it isn't like he's running laps around Hoerner in present day value, and for a team like the Mariners who probably is going to have to get creative to find infield value, there's juice here to squeeze. In the end, I do think Hoerner and Miller are probably much closer to value than BBTV is making it seem.

I would imagine a team isn't going to be overly concerned with the injury. Perhaps if you were under the impression that Hoerner was your SS going forward and you were worried about a fringe SS arm already...but as a 2b, this probably doesn't change his evaluation much. It sounds like he's going to be back before Opening Day or at worst just a couple of weeks after. BBTV is a decent starting point. But I also think it can get very funky very fast. Im not convinced Hoerner and Miller or Woo are that big of a difference in trade value as is. As TT said...if a team is really hammering the injury, then you keep him. But I'm just not convinced it'd be a major hurdle for a team who already liked Hoerner. Ultimately, as stated originally, I think he's likely to stick with the Cubs anyways.

I'll offer a little pushback on the Mariners not wanting to trade a SP here for two reasons: The first is that Dylan Moore is really bad. He compiled his way to two wins last year, but looking at his Savant data his offensive profile is essentially "at least I don't chase anything that isn't a strike?" and defensively, he was lucky to win a gold glove, posting neutral OAA and DRS numbers at 2b. His most comparable statcast seasons were to that of 2021 DJ Stewart and 2019 Matt Thaiss - sub 95 wRC+ hitters. Probably is looking down the barrel of a 1 win season if they let him start. In terms of pitching, this is the perfect year to be set up in your top-4 and needing a back end guy. If the M's moved a Woo/Miller they'd still have the other, plus Kirby, Gilbert and Castillo. A Buehler, Segano, or someone would make a nice 5 there in a pitcher's paradise. If you're looking at Hoerner as a 2.5 win increase over Moore moving forward and think you can replace Miller's 2.8 or Woo's 2.3 fWAR pretty easily, I think the M's come out a winner there. Especially if the Cubs have to add a 45 FV or so prospect. The reality is Seattle's infield is garbage and they don't have a ton of paths forward to fix it. I don't want to say Seattle has to do it, they have options, but Jerry D loves a wheel and deal, and the Cubs/Mariners should probably match up somewhere.

Nico Hoerner is a pretty darn good baseball player. His inclusion, especially on the defensive side, would help many major league teams. So why would the Cubs entertain the thought of trading him? And what could the Cubs expect to get back? Image courtesy of © Rafael Suanes-Imagn Images First things first: Nico Hoerner is a good baseball player. Semantics aside, he probably borders on being a very good baseball player. Over the last two seasons, Hoerner has been the fourth-best second baseman in baseball according to fWAR, checking in with 8.6 wins above replacement. He ranks above perennial All-Star Jose Altuve, as well as other quality players like Ha-Seong Kim, Xander Bogaerts (who is two years removed from a massive 11-year, $280m contract), Ozzie Albies (though this is aided by injury), and Luis Arraez. Hoerner primarily accomplishes this through his defensive acumen, as he's both fourth in DRS and OAA. His bat remains around 4% above league average, slashing .278/.341/.378. There doesn't seem to be any reason to suggest that he will suddenly become a bad player. Usually, it'd be strange to discuss why a team like the Cubs, who are looking to change their playoff fortunes, would be entertaining in trading a player of this caliber. Yet, we've seen a few reports, dating back to last summer, that the Cubs are internally open to the idea of doing just that. Most recently, in an article for ESPN+ readers, Jeff Passan broached the topic again, writing: The reality of the Cubs' situation, especially with the Cody Bellinger opt-in, is that they remain a bit tied up in terms of how they could change their offensive output. Much has been made about the wind at Wrigley last year, and hoping that the offensive climate at home is more favorable is a viable option. But if the Cubs want to be proactive and make changes on their own, a bit of creativity will be needed. Enter Cub top prospect Matt Shaw. Currently ranked within almost every major publication's top 30 or so prospects, the former Maryland infielder is behind new acquisition Isaac Paredes at third and the aforementioned Nico Hoerner at second. While Shaw's bat has been excellent, his most likely home at the next level is at second base. Shaw showed a far more patient and selective approach 2024, posting better than a 140 wRC+ at Double-A and Triple-A. He's cruising through the Premier 12, setting records for RBI in a game while doing so. If Matt Shaw isn't ready now, he's almost assuredly going to be ready very soon. Therein lies a creative solution: what if the Cubs, who have a built-in replacement for Hoerner, could dangle their starting second baseman for immediate upgrades elsewhere? It would most likely come in the form of a starting pitcher, whom the Cubs need. The problem here is twofold: how good would Matt Shaw need to be to make this kind of trade worth it, and who would be in the market to swap a second baseman for starting pitching help? The first question isn't too hard to answer. While we shouldn't expect Shaw to be a four-win player immediately, it's probably not too difficult to imagine a world where Shaw is a pretty decent starting-level player pretty soon; let's say, for example, you project Matt Shaw to be about 5% better than league average offensively upon his call-up. He's an athletic and seemingly positive base runner who's likely bat-over-glove, though not a DH-level defender. Jonathan India, in 2024, posted a 108 wRC+, was a neutral runner, and was a -10 DRS/+1 OAA player, netting him 2.8 fWAR. Even if Shaw is a little worse defensively and a little better on the bases, getting to 3 wins if your analytic department likes him seems doable. That's about a net loss of a win, but you can make that up on the back end. Things get very narrow on the return as you'd need a team with poor production at second base (which isn't that hard), but it is also attempting to win now and has starting pitching depth to burn. Some teams fall into one category or the other, but Seattle might be the only one that falls into both. So, could you do a trade around Nico Hoerner for, say, Bryce Miller or Bryan Woo? How much more to get to George Kirby? Mathew Trueblood, here at NSBB, explored the Seattle Mariner's pieces here at NSBB previously, and each offers something different. But what if Seattle isn't an option? If the Cubs can get very creative, perhaps the Cubs could channel a three-team trade with a team with prospects/young players of their own who need a second baseman. The Boston Red Sox, helmed by former Cub Assistant GM Craig Breslow, could offer a potential solution. Not only would there be a built-in connection between the teams, the Red Sox need a second baseman, and there is belief in the industry that they would be open to move Wilyer Abreu to open up right field for top-prospect Roman Anthony. If you could find a team that, instead, was deep in pitching and needed an outfielder, perhaps a very complicated three-team swap could be facilitated. In the end, finding a great trade fit for Nico Hoerner will likely prove difficult, but I don't think it's impossible. There are a lot of factors here; how good do the Cubs think Matt Shaw is right now? Can the Cubs find a partner for Hoerner that makes sense? But I think there's a narrow strip where the math works. Ultimately, it's hard to predict a trade will occur; a player will always be more likely to stay with their current team than move. But there's been enough smoke behind a potential Hoerner trade that I don't think it can be entirely ruled out if the Cubs are truly looking for a creative solution, either. What do you think about a potential trade involving Nico Hoerner? Can the Cubs find a partner where it would make sense? Let us know in the comment section below! View full article

Burl is still a member of the Chicago Cubs organization. Missed 2024 with arm injuries. I don't see anywhere that his contract has been terminated since being activated from the 60-day IL, but also wouldn't be surprised to see his name pop up as an MiLB FA at some point either.

He performed a live version of Go Cubs Go. And while I generally kind of "grain of salt" when a player says he loves Chicago or the Cubs (its their job to say that)...there seems to be a real earnestness that comes from Shota. I really believe the guy just really likes Chicago and being here. Hard not to root for him.

That's true, but the last time he took the mound officially in college was in fall league baseball, during 2022. That's nearly two years in the past. The last time he pitched in an SEC game was in the spring of 2022, which will be over three years away from his 2025 season debut. That was as a Sophomore. We're well beyond that being a relevant data point. I think we should be using his Cub data exclusively here. While I understand you feel as though a 1.5 WHIP is a telling statistic, I would caution us from using it as a data point to suggest he "can not throw strikes". First, WHIP just isn't a very useful statistic for our purposes. Yes, WHIP does include walks, but it also includes hits. Hits against the MiLB level are misleading - you're dealing with a lot of players learning positions, going through growing pains. You're not playing in front of an elite defense. We have better data points than WHIP today. But let's put that aside for a moment and let's use WHIP. How did Wiggins do comparative to his two age levels in 2024? His ACL numbers were pretty bad, but I'm not going to use them here for two reasons: first, these were clearly tune up sessions for a pitcher coming off a year and a half of being layed up. Secondly, he clearly improved later and this data set is a very heavy outlier. Jaxon Wiggins (Low-A): .81 WHIP Jaxon Wiggins (High-A): 1.42 WHIP Low-A League average: 1.38 WHIP High - A League average: 1.32 WHIP So even if we ant to put aside the issues we should have with WHIP in general, it's not even suggesting he's somehow bad. He was amazing at Low-A and at High-A his WHIP was .1 higher than league average. To put that in perspective, over the course of 31.2 IP. that's less than a full baserunner. If he pitched a full slate of 150 IP, that is around 15 base runners, or one extra over every 10 innings. That is an incredibly small difference and one easily made up for with strong K% and ground ball rates that will eliminate runners by the double-play. In the end, I don't see anything to support an idea that he can't throw strikes. Again, I think it's fair to point out that his strike throwing can improve and that it's going to be something to monitor. But that is very different to how strongly you've presented his strike throwing issues.

Is there some data you would like to provide? I don't mean that in a smug way, but you're pretty convinced of this. I tried to present an evidence based response using publicly available data, but I always recognize I don't have everything at my finger tips and may have missed, or glossed over something. With that said, it does feel a bit like you've got a position and aren't super interested in any data moving you, which I would highly suggest being open to new ideas here. Wiggins didn't throw a ton of strikes when we last saw him in college, but we're two years away from that. The data I provided paints the picture of someone who's strong suit probably isn't filling the zone, but is a standard deviation or two away from "can't throw strikes".

He's certainly "effectively wild" but the walk rate isn't horrid right now, and we're seeing someone working back from TJS. This is not only someone who is rusty, but someone developing. We don't have full statcast data for Wiggins because he's yet to make it to the Triple-A level, so we're at a point where it's kind of hard to completely show off his strike-throwing ability or how many non-competitive strikes he throws. But what we can do is at least look at walk rates and strike% relative to his league. Jaxon Wiggins (Low-A) - 62.8% strikes with a 6.3 BB% Jaxon Wiggins (High-A) - 58 % strikes with a 13.9 BB% Low-A average: 61.7% strikes with a 11.4 BB% High-A average: 62.% strikes with a 10.3% BB% I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say he cannot throw strikes. He was an above average strike thrower and was better than average at limiting walks at Low-A and was below average at both at High-A but not egregiously so. I'd like to see improvement as well, but he's someone who gets a lot of chase and a lot of ground balls currently. You can work around some strike throwing inconsistencies with that profile. Furthermore, I do think he's accurately ranked by NSBB here. He's got massive stuff and while there's clearly some polish on the strike throwing ability, who exactly should be ranked much higher than him? Everyone below him has a wart of their own. Birdsell has weird mechanics and doesn't have massive stuff, Cruz and Valdez both have yet to hit well and are babies, Long is a popup prospect who plays 1b...

He's been playing with his slider, and he's making it cut in against LHH.We're talking small samples, but he crushed lefties in Iowa. His chase rate to LHH was 33.3%, and he performed better in ERA, FIP and xWOBA. Which, I think, explains what we're seeing.

When the Cubs selected Jaxon Wiggins in the second round of the 2023 MLB Draft, it raised the eyebrows of many. A year later, what has Wiggins done and where might he be headed? Image courtesy of South Bend Cubs We continue today looking at the Cubs' top 20 prospects (as ranked by our readers here at NSBB), by looking at Jaxon Wiggins, the ninth-ranked prospect. Before you read about Wiggins, don't miss our first three parts on the current state of the Cubs' farm system with my looks at some honorable mentions, the Cubs' Top Prospects #20-16 and the Top Prospects #15-11. #20 - Pedro Ramirez, INF #19 - Luis Vazquez, INF #18 - Michael Arias, RP #17 - Alfonsin Rosario - OF #16 - Drew Gray, SP #15 - Jonathon Long, 1b #14 - Fernando Cruz, SS #13 - Derniche Valdez, SS #12 - Alexander Canario, OF #11 - Cristian Hernandez, SS #10 - Brandon Birdsell, SP 2024 Recap: Jaxon Wiggins Wiggins was a bit of a divisive pick when his name was called over a year ago. On one hand, he missed the entirety of the 2023 season with Tommy John surgery and never really established himself as the weekend starter many had hoped for when he committed to Arkansas. On the other hand, Wiggins was scouted by Ty Nichols, who's also been the primary scout on other draft wins such as Jordan Wicks and Cade Horton. Without a final season in college, it was hard to tell what the Cubs really drafted. The former Razorback got a bit of a delayed start to 2024 due to his previous surgery, but would finally take the mound in a Cub (albeit, minor-league) uniform in early May. After making just a few tune-up starts in Arizona, Wiggins was promoted to Myrtle Beach, where he looked pretty good. In 21 innings at Low-A, the righty struck out 26 hitters to just five walks. This was a really nice development, as we already knew that the stuff Wiggins had was impressive, but his ability to limit walks was always going to be a bit of a decider for his long-term future. He quickly dusted off the rust and did what you'd hope a 23-year-old would do at Myrtle Beach: he dominated hitters. Things got a little more challenging as he moved up a level, however, as the fireballer saw his ERA jump from the low 2s to the mid-4s. And while walks never became a massive issue, his walk rate nearly doubled from just under 7% to over 13%. I'm not concerned with these. Wiggins is working back from TJ, saw three levels of minor-league baseball, and his strikeout rate continued to look impressive. The good news is that much of his struggles came with the initial call-up, and he managed to settle in and close out the year strong, striking out 17 hitters in his final 10 innings, giving up just two runs and four hits. 2025 Season Outlook and Scouting Report: ETA - 2026 It's hard not to dream on what Wiggins can be. It's likely that he will at least start the season in South Bend, the High-A affiliate of the Cubs. If he can start the 2025 season the same way he closed out the 2024 season, he shouldn't be stuck in South Bend for too long and will probably see half of a season at Tennessee, as well. This would put Wiggins on a course to be ready by sometime in 2026. The key variable in Wiggins's future value is his role. There's no denying that the fastball has the optics of one that can be dominating. Able to run his fastball to triple-digits, he does not lack velocity. While we don't have publicly available Statcast data, standing at 6-foot-6, it's likely that with his extension, his fastball is even heavier than the velocity suggests it to be. What's good about Wiggins is that there's more here than just a fastball. Baseball America reported at the time of his drafting that he had already displayed a feel for an advanced changeup, and he sports a slider that flashes plus and a curveball that is more than useful, giving him a solid four-pitch mix. Many times when we look at big fastballs, it's a "fastball and not much" profile, or a "fastball and one plus pitch," but Wiggins is already on the path to having a good mix. Mechanically, he doesn't have a wacky, wild, or funky delivery. Most of the time it's really simple and repeatable—again, not usually something that goes hand in hand with inconsistent strike throwing. Where Wiggins is probably done-in a bit, is with that frame that helps create the extension; controlling such a huge human body is not an easy thing to do time and time again. The hope is that with a consistent throwing program, continuing to define and tweak his mechanics, that he learns to do that naturally. He'll never be Greg Maddux on the mound, but he strikes out enough hitters and has shown a penchant for getting the ball on the ground that he can probably survive with a slightly elevated walk total. The good news for the Cubs is that even if Wiggins can never get his control to "decent", there's more than one pathway for the hurler to becoming a useful part of a future Cub pitching staff, as his stuff would make for the foundations of a dominating reliever if starting just doesn't work out. Overall, there's a lot to like here. For Wiggins, 2025 can be a really good launch pad for his prospect ranking. With the Cubs likely to graduate a few prospects ahead of him on the list and to trade others, Wiggins has a clear path to being a top-3 prospect in the system come year's end. However, there's enough volatility here that there's no guarantees that he's going to continue to find his mechanics repeatable or that he'll maintain his health. There's a world in the near future where it's not impossible to dream of a Horton-Wiggins 1-2 punch at the front of a rotation, but with either, enough fog that it's unlikely to happen. But that'd be a pretty fun 1-2 punch if they can make it happen. What do you think of Jaxon Wiggins? Have you changed your mind about the draft pick since July of 2023? Let us know in the comment section below! View full article