Jason Ross

Eh, I'm not really sure there's a massive drop-off. Sorrell had 1st round helium, and realistically, a lot of top-75 picks make top-10 lists. The Braves had three added, the White Sox had three added, the A's had three added, the Padres added top-5 prospects in their system...it's not a crazy thing. Plus when you get to the 10th spot, I think there's plenty of decent guys. Bailey. McGwire (in the futures game), Long, Triantos...they're all perfectly acceptable top-10 prospects in a system who were left off. I don't want to wax poetic about the system, but Myles Bailey being the 10th best prospect is a pretty "fine" thing for a middling system like the Cubs have.

The Brewers don't make the trade if they don't like something in McCullers or Gordon. Yes. The Cubs wouldn't have traded for David Peterson if there wasn't something they liked about him. But I wouldn't worry too much about Colton Gordon either. Go look at his Triple-A data below. This is what the Brewers do. They collect pitchers they think could be interesting. Ultimately they paid $7m for two arms and one is controllable. It's a cheap price of entry. And for good measure, his 2025. He isn't very good. He doesn't have interesting data. He doesn't have pedigree. Maybe they entirely rebuild him, but as is...it's just a young-ish pitcher. I wouldn't read into it. He almost assuredly isn't a stud. Good chance he isn't even mediocre.

I doubt it's Craig. Counsell was hired to work in lockstep with Hoyer and Hawkins. John Mallee was hired in 2014. I'd guess him. That's a long time and Bruce has been around a long time. So even though there was a gap in his time, he feels like the guy who probably would know Bruce. He could also hold some anger at being let go originally a year after the WS win. Maybe Hottovy considering they didn't bring in a big starter last year. Could be "sell you down the river". And he predates Craig. But I'd come back to it being John as my best guess.

I'll have to check Savermetrics. Seriously, though the best coverage on these things come from @Savermetrics on X. I've know the owner of that account for years and years. Great guy and the best at finding these things.

Nah. And this isn't his first Twitter flub. Can't remember the exact tweet or when it was (sometime pre-covid, I think?) but he posted some dumb thing on Twitter before and had to apologize publicly. He's an older man who didn't grow up with tech. Hell, he was in Kindergarten (based on an interview) the year my father was born and my father is about to turn 72. It was almost assuredly "old man sucks at Twitter and the internet" more than anything. But you can't have those kind of horsefeathers ups. Especially when you call the hand the feeds "tweedle dee and tweedle dumb".

I care about both equally, because I don't think you can have a floor that is effective without a cap. And I don't care about a cap unless anti-trust goes away. And they won't implement just a floor, and they won't implement a cap based on open books. As you (and many have said) teams can share revenue today. That solves the TV issue. And that all brings me back to the end: owners don't like baseball and they don't care about baseball. And will destroy the sport to save a buck.

The only real parity I think we are missing comes from the lowest spending organizations. Cincinnati, whatever the As are called today, etc. But those teams pocket revenue sharing. And then the league takes away their ability to develop players and build through draft by limiting who's involved. Truly, I think the lack of parity is mostly the league and the teams' own fault. And then they create a self perpetuating system of pocketing the spending money and hurting the draft to make it worse.

I remain steadfast against any salary cap and a salary floor unless there are a lot of things that come with it. For it to happen, the MLB would have to lose their anti-trust status and have transparent books. As well, there would need to be guardrails in place to avoid what happened initially in the NHL where teams like Arizona would constantly trade for injured players because old players were getting heavily front-loaded deals but their AAV would count towards the salary cap keeping them compliant, yet cheap. And here's the rub; this will never happen. The anti-trust protections the MLB has is purely amazing from an ownership standpoint and they'll never give that up. I'm not a big NBA fan, but part of the issue with caps is what we're seeing in the NBA right now as teams are so fearful of the second apron they're dumping very good players' to stay under it. No one wants the MLB to have to get to a point where teams are trading players left and right to avoid a cap. The Pistons had their first good year in forever and they're shedding payroll. Do we want teams like Baltimore to make the playoffs once a decade and then trade everyone away? And lastly, while I know there is a sentiment among many that the Dodgers are buying championships; this isn't new. 20+ years ago it was the Yankees. Eventually it stops. And don't act like every league doesn't have hegemons even with a cap. The Patriots, Chiefs and Eagles have run the NFL for a long time. Currently Florida, Tampa Bay, and Colorado are running the NHL. A cap won't solve this; that's sports. The true answer is that the league needs to force teams like the Reds to act like they give a damn and I can assure you, that if the league is pushing for a cap that the cap is not going to force teams like the Reds to care...it'll just be to bring down everyone's spending so that when the Reds are cheap fucks, they're not so left behind. And as fans we should give a horsefeathers about this. A bad deal for the players is not going to help the game. It's not going to make it more watchable. Owners are actively attempting to push baseball out of baseball. Look at how they view the draft, minor league baseball, and how they treat 14 year old IFA kids. Look at how they're splitting up the ability to watch the game on seven streaming services. The blackouts that stop paying customers on MLB.TV from watching games. These people don't like baseball, they like money. I like baseball. I'll give up a few months of watching baseball now to ensure the game is strong.

Bruce Levine used to be very much "the guy" about 10-15 years back, especially under Jim Hendry as a reliable source of information. When things shifted to Theo Epstein, he fell out of the inner circle. He wasn't a liar, but his connections were far less. Jesse Rogers seemed to take that mantle from Levine there for about 10 years. Things seemed to swing back to his side with Hoyer and especially, Marquee when he was hired there. Frankly, the last few years he's been fairly reliable. Which should make sense; his employer, for all intents and purposes *is* the Chicago Cubs, not an independent journalistic source. Probably safe to assume where that information comes from and that the team knows what they're doing when he gets it. But we are probably at a point after that tweet that you have to wonder why the team would keep him around. He's old. He just called the team out publicly. And no one is going to really trust him moving forward, fans or the org.

Braves have had a really rough go. Bottom 5 in ERA in June through ASB as well. They're a team much like the Cubs who have had a ton of pitching issues and the offense was helping cover it up.

Absolutely. When I said "it may be his last" I really wonder if that was it for Bruce. He isn't an on-air guy, and his one thing has been to be a source. Who's going to trust him now? He's toxic. I really wouldn't be surprised to see him retire from the journalism game at the end of the year. He's at an age it makes sense and an access point that probably has to be as small it can be.

Note to self: any rumor Levine posts from now on out is likely nonsense and a plant from Jed/Carter to get him back.

Live simulcast can be found here.

This isn't his first Twitter mess up. But it very well may be his last. Jeeze, buddy.

Love that one! And honestly a lot to decide on.

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.

We'll be back tomorrow at 4pm. Fielding anything you'd like us to talk about!

Ty Nichols was the scout for all of them. Yes.

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.

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

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

Probably have put Ramirez at the top of the second grouping with Wiggins for similar sample size reasons. Ballesteros in group 2 because the bat I believe in enough but I don't know where he's going to sit defensively. As a catcher he's tier 1 as a DH he's tier 2. Kevin Id have probably put in group 2 or group 3 as I waffle on him. One day I see the K% drop and the power and think "yeah that's an MLB regular" and other days I just wonder if he ends up more short-side platooner and that's a 3rd tier. I think I'd probably end up in tier 2 however because part of me thinks it's fatigue more than anything and that it's a bias not reality.

When things like this happen, the answer is almost "baseball is weird" and it's just bad luck. It's not a fun answer as fun answers usually involve some sort of a mechanical or approach fix that is more tangible than "idk, wait it out?" But this time I think it's a pretty clear "idk wait it out" situation.

Ah, yeah see there's a name I forgot! Put Sorrell in the same group. They're my group of "I can see MLB upside, but like, they have some glaring flaw" tier.