Jason Ross

Image courtesy of © Brett Davis-Imagn Images Here's the thing about the MLB Draft: teams generally have a profile that you can bank on. The Los Angeles Angels will usually select someone who they feel will join their MLB roster within a year of the ink drying on their contract, and Tyler Bremner could be their next guy to do that. The Cleveland Guardians adore their high-strikeout, big-power outfielders, and lo-and-behold when Texas A&M product Jace Laviolette fell to them late in the first, they were the team to jump. The Cubs have some tendencies of their own under Dan Kantrovitz, they like college hitters who have Cape League experience at the top, and in taking Ethan Conrad, I thought they were well on their way to keeping up with norms as Conrad fits a typical Cub profile. By the second round, however, things felt a little different. Overall, this draft feels a bit different than how the Cubs operated prior. But therein lies a question: is change inherently negative? I won bury the lede here—I don't think different has to equate to bad. Sometimes, different is just, well, different. In other words, it's change. The 2025 draft, on the surface, was shaping up like a different year; NIL is a real thing for college hitters, the covid-bonus-years are running out, and the top talent of this draft felt like it was lagging behind in star power of the last few classes. Regardless, the Cubs definitely zigged where they had been zagging. For example, the Cubs have been pretty consistent in how they handle their second-round pick, taking a bit of a swing on prep players, or players with perceived high ceilings. Instead, this year they went with UNC outfielder Kane Kepley. Kepley, a very speedy, great baserunning, 70-grade defender in CF lacks game power to a point where it's safe to say he's got a very high likelihood to make an MLB roster some day, but probably doesn't provide enough value to start for a contending team. Between their recent second-round picks where the Cubs gambled on upside like Jaxon Wiggins (coming off Tommy John surgery) or Cole Mathis (also a TJS under his belt) Kepley feels like a departure in that regards. I don't dislike Kepley per se, but I do find him as a bit of a different pick from their normal second round type. Moving forward, a hallmark of Dan Kantrovitz drafts has been the high-upside 11th-round pick. For those who are a little confused at the structure of the MLB draft, the 11th round changes the game for teams in that in any round past the 10th, a team is not penalized from their draft pool allotment if they cannot secure a signature, which allows teams to take a larger swing because you can survive a miss. In past years the Cubs have selected prep hitters such as Zyhir Hope and Eli Lovich in this spot, upside kids who you can dream on. This year, the Cubs picked a pitcher who hasn't pitched in two years. Elijah Jerzembeck was a pretty highly regarded recruit to South Carolina a few years ago, but we haven't seen him take a mound for quite some time. Jaxon Wiggins hadn't pitched in a bit, himself, so there is recent history with injured arms, but this feels a bit different. Again, maybe not "bad", but it sticks out. Jerzembeck still has upside, but feels like quite the risk. There is a lot to like about his curveball and a fastball that was hitting 95mph at age-19, but it's been a while. Speaking of Jerzembeck and his injuries, a litany of Cubs 2025 draft picks are coming off of injury. First round pick Ethan Conrad (who I like a bunch!) missed most of the year with a shoulder injury, previously mentioned Elijah Jerzembeck hasn't thrown in two years, Kaemyn Franklin (Kohl's younger brother) just had his own TJS, and sixth round Josiah Hartshorn was rarely healthy over the last period of time, forcing the switch hitter to hit either hit just right or left handed (depending on his ailment) for stretches of time. On one hand, it's probably better if these kids rehab their injuries with an MLB organization and all of the resources they have, but it is a bit of an eyebrow raiser with the amount of players who are hurt. Perhaps this is a way to get in on the ground-floor of someone others are too afraid to pick, or maybe they will not pan out; only time will tell. I don't want to be a negative Nancy, however, as there are plenty of positives to find. First, I really like Ethan Conrad. In a draft that feels like it was lacking big-time talent, getting someone who could hit 20 home runs from the left side, has a real shot to stick in CF, and had some top-10 helium as recent as April already felt like a win. Add in that he's likely to sign under-slot? Huge win. Dominic Reid has a dominant change up that profiles similar to second-overall-pick Tyler Bremner, so if you believe in the Zombro-system, he could become an under-slot poor-mans version of a top-pick. The Cubs fourth and sixth-round picks of Kaleb Wing and Josiah Hartshorn have big time upside, with the former being someone who could legitimately top the upper-90's with some work and Hartshorn is a beast of a human at his age already. Even deep in the draft, 16th-round pick Riely Hunsaker, a pitcher from Lamar University, has history with Tread Athletics (Tyler Zombro's pitching developmental team), so you have to feel like the Cubs have some inside information. I really like all of these picks in a vacuum, so I'd caution all of us not to be too down on this draft. In the end, I can't quite help feeling like the Cubs went in a very different direction than we're used to seeing. Coming from a team that has had a lot of success drafting from 2021-2024, finding standouts at the top of the draft and later rounds, it feels like an odd departure. The pessimist in me would say something along the lines that perhaps their shift in scouting has affected things and that it feels quite bold to go away from what worked recently. That's only one view, as I would think that the optimist would say that best time to change your process isn't after it stops working, but before. Anecdotally, we've likely all seen the person who doesn't know when to stop gambling. "I can't stop when I'm ahead," they grumble, right before they lose it all on black. The best time to change, or to get out, isn't after you lose, it's before. With a shifting draft landscape, changing your style can pay dividends. You may feel differently than I do, and that's fair. Funny thing about the MLB draft is that none of us will know if we're right or wrong for over a half-decade, long enough that whatever we disagree on today will be long forgotten. I'm trying to balance the different feel of the 2025 draft with my belief in Dan Kantrovitz and his previous drafts. He's turned into one of the better minds in baseball when it comes to the amateur draft and him losing the plot entirely feels unlikely. In the end, despite it being an appeal to authority, the Cubs and Kantrovitz have earned more than enough good will from me to say "I know it feels weird today, but..." and to give this new strategy a chance. Initial reactions from fans on Cade Horton and Jaxon Wiggins were, at best, split (and at worst, much more accusatory than that) and I doubt you'd find anyone willing to move either in a trade short of highway robbery. These things take time, so even if you're feeling that negativity creep in, I think we're in good hands. In Dan I trust. Do you? What do you think of the 2025 Cubs draft? Who was your favorite pick? Who did you dislike? Let us know in the comment section below! View full article

I'd have Conrad behind Caissie, Rojas, Ballesteros, Wiggins and Alcantara currently. I'd probably have him behind Long as well (the injury and lack of MiLB outweighs his positional upside). Kepley is probably among my back half of the top-20 somewhere. The floor is really solid, but I'm a little less sold on the ceiling. If you have him at 10+ home runs in the MLB, than there's Steve-Kwan-lite upside and he's probably closer to the 10-15 range, but I'm a little bearish. Reid sits in that "Honorable Mentions" portion of the top-20 where even if he sounds like an interesting arm, I'd like to see the changes before I jump him up. His draft-profile is probably "not-one-of-the-100 best prospects on paper" in a not-great draft, so I think he's intriguing, but I need to see it before I boost him that much. Both of those guys will likely get bumps when we lose 3-5 of the top-20, however.

The Cubs so far have put together a roster that has performed in the top of the league this year. His "bad" years (if we cut out the first two in which he was mandated a rebuild post-Covid) were 83 wins and his good year is "96 win pace at the break". That's a pretty good outcome spread if you believe he's capable of delivering good years fairly regularly. The reality of baseball organizations these days is that the homogenization of ideas and concepts is pretty real. As long as your team places data and analytics as a top priority (read another way, isn't the Colorado Rockies) than the differences between two Baseball Ops are hard to determine. Hoyer is probably just as good as the next guy if we are being honest. The Cubs have a pretty good talent evaluation system going on, they are developing players well, they draft well, and they have upgraded their pitching department in recent years and more so with Zombro. A fresh reset of all of those things just because a 93 win team has a bad playoff series is probably not worthwhile at that point. Extending Hoyer now is just doing the inevitable unless for whatever reason you think: 1. an extension will make Jed Hoyer so content that he would essentially pack-it-in because he doesn't care (which neither has any evidence to suggest, and Hoyer has been active and aggressive in both of the last two deadlines with the 83 win teams) 2. the Cubs are really a not very good team and will regress to that talent level (and I just don't see any reason to believe that will occur). It's pretty safe to assume that Hoyer will be active over the next few weeks regardless of his status and that the Cubs, who may have injuries derail them yet (that's something that most of the time cannot be prepped for. Backup plans to PCA and Tucker dying for the rest of the year are not available. At least not at their 8+ win level) have put together the type of roster that you feel comfortable with remaining good on paper for the remainder of 2025 (especially with a few deadline additions) and 2026.

McGuire has been good, but its a good reminder that he was basically free bait for the entire league three months ago and was only able to get an MiLB deal in Chicago. His bat isn't good and having three zero-versatility players in a day and age where teams are carrying less bench bats to begin with is an almost non-starter. McGuire has been a cool story and better than expected but also not so good you tank your bench with three people for two jobs. Amaya and Kelly were a top-MLB pairing for a few months and Amaya's bat progression has been long enough since July that while its probably been a bit too good, he and Kelly should remain a very good 1a/1b tandem. McGuire will be a casualty of the numbers game in one way or another.

I think its important to remember this as well; the elite recruits arent headed up to the Big 10 to snow country, theyre headed to the south to play the warmer weather. More baseball. The kids that are easier to buy out of a commitment to, say, Minnesota aren't generally the top guys. The expensive buyouts are also the kids getting decent NIL money to go to Vandy. And even if the contract is more up front money, if you get three years of SEC NIL, plus you can renter the draft and get 2nd or 3rd slot as a junior, you come out way ahead as a financial package. Kentucky's SS Tyler Ball snubbed the Rays 2nd round money to play SEC ball, which kind of shows what SEC money has the power to do. And while UK is a more up and coming SEC program, its not a traditional powerhouse, either.

Oh they are. The one thing about baseball is that it really plays into the advanced metrics. Team sports have to filter out so much noise. Like a WR not getting yards could be because: 1. He sucks 2. The QB sucks 3. The OL sucks 4. The RB sucks 5. The play calling sucks But the hitter-pitcher faceoff creates such an easy vacuum that filters out so many other human beings that finding data within is...easy! And I know advanced stuff can really scare some folks off, it changes how we see the game and that can go against our held beliefs. But I guess I like the sport so much that I enjoy being challenged that way and I appreciate when others at least hear it out. There's still some noise in there, and we can always find more stable data, but I really think the nuts and bolts of it all eventually make sense. If you're ever bored and need a cool baseball discovery hole to go down, there is a YouTube Channel called Secret Base and they did an amazing look back using storytelling and some advanced stuff (but the right amount) to tell a four part, four+ hour story on Dave Stieb from the 1980's that is both fascinating, heartfelt and one of the most eye opening baseball documentaries I have ever seen. I think if you like baseball, it's must-see viewing. Hell, it looks like I'll be stuck in airport limbo again today, so I might have to download it and give it a watch while I bounce around.

ZiPS is taking in every input data you could probably imagine, though the pure formula isn't public. Shaw has a few less PA's in that sample size, but likely nothing to cause more than a fraction in either direction - it's like under 10 games based on different systems. If there is a projection system I would trust, it's ZiPs from Dan S. He's the best and his system is the best. It's not a pure guarantee, though, but just based on what has happened both in real world results, but also xData and the like. It also takes in historical data and weighs recent data. So while there isn't a guarantee Suarez will regress this year (it doesn't always work that way) or Shaw will regress to the mean himself in a positive fashion, it means that it's likely to go that way.

fWAR is more than offense, it's offense and defense. You claimed Suarez would "add .2 runs" and I parsed out the data based on that. "Adding .2 runs" is offense only. You're shifting goalposts. If you meant fWAR say fWAR. If you mean "runs" (because you've been throwing a fit about offense) then say runs. Frankly, at this point I'm not even sure what data you're using here. You talk about "batted runs" but this isn't a common way of debating value added. So let's pull it back. Let's use ZiPS, the best projection system we have and determine their value moving forward for the rest of the season. ZiPS has Suarez finishing the year at 1.4 more fWAR, with a 117 wRC+. Now, before you jump to "but he has a 142 wRC+ on the year!" his career wRC+ is 114, meaning ZiPS projects him better than career average. As well, his wOBA is much higher than his xWOBA (.375 compared to .348). His career wOBA is inline with his xWOBA on the year, with a .340. ZiPS is probably picking up on regression coming. Looking at Matt Shaw, ZiPS has him adding .7 fWAR the rest of the year with a 94 wRC+. In fact, almost every projection system out there has him in the 94-100 wRC+ range, and every projection system has Suarez in the 114-120 wRC+ range. League 3b have a 96 wRC+, so a 94 wRC+ puts him right there at about league average for the position, a purely fine hitting 3b for a top-3 offense in baseball to have. And to cut off this at the pass, STEAMER (if you prefer it), has the rest of the season projection of Suarez at 1.2 fWAR and Shaw at .7, closing the gap minimally in Matt Shaw's favor. ZiPS isn't on an island. You can pretty much cherry pick any projection system out there and the difference is under 1 win the rest of the way. I'll give you one out here and it's that you could argue that that fractional wins count more as we approach and eclipse the 90 win mark. And that's a fair observation! But the Shaw to Suarez way of getting those fractional wins is not the only way the Cubs can achieve those fractional wins. Once again, it's likely a greater win total would be added by focusing on pitching and versatility over a standard 3b. So again, the difference here is...less than a win. At some point you've got to understand that you are making the difference between Suarez and Shaw to be chasm the size of an ocean, when the reality is far, far closer.

So, let's assume that Suarez adds ".2" runs per game (I think you've just made that number up but if it's based on some research, I'd be interested). Let's assume he's traded on the 31st (TDL), there would be 53 games remaining. We generally assume 10 runs added=1 win. In 53 games he would add 10.6 runs, or, one win and a very little margin over that. Matt Shaw, despite his offense, likely adds half a win. So you're upgrading half a win. See what I'm saying? You're making your big trade to fix a perceived issue but even your math has it as "meh". It isn't about "not upgrading", it's about opportunity cost. The Cubs have only so many prospects and can make only so many trades. There are 29 other MLB teams, so any trade is also not a vacuum. Suarez will be in demand, and while he's an upgrade, he probably doesn't move the needle nearly as much as you think it will. Making Suarez the spend isn't going to magically fix things to the degree you think it will. And by spending your time and prospects on Suarez you are unable to do other things. There is no pause button and other teams want him too. I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, I just think the Cubs should spend their capital in more meaningful ways. Suarez's upside over Shaw probably isn't enough to eclipse what a very good SP or 2 P's and a more versatile hitter could do. Matt Shaw's xBA is .245. His xWOBA is .301. League average 3b wOBA is .306. So his xdata says "basically a league average offensive 3b" despite the outcomes. He's a pretty good defender. Fans want to act like he's a black hole, when he's probably an average hitter and an above average defender. Joe Ryan is a stud, by the way. He's 18th in the league in fWAR and has the 6th best K:BB%. Joe Ryan will likely add more much more than Suarez would individually over the Cubs current rotational options, especially when you consider that even when Taillon is expected back, that Horton would be on innings limitation. The increase from Chris Flexen to Joe Ryan is vastly larger than Shaw to Suarez.

Sounds like 2026. Kantrovitz seemed to imply that the timeline for him is to get healthy, get right, and we'll see him in the spring. Which is fine by me; 1.5 months in Myrtle or South Bend could be cool, but I'd rather just have him super healthy and speed run them next year.

Fastball! He's lost around half a mph, and lost a significant amount of shape. He throws it a lot. So one of his best pitches has become one of his worst pitches and he throws it half of the time. Recipe for a disaster. Even if you think it's a mechanical flaw, if it was so simple, Arizona would have fixed it. It's likely a combination of a small mechanical tweak, but also a pitch mix issue and mentality issue and you have to fix all of that in like, 9 starts as a team. You want to take that gamble? I don't. Beyond that, I don't think they need Suarez. Their offense is very good. So if you make your big trade for two players who will leave your team at the end of the year, you better make it count. By spending on Suarez, you marginally upgrade over Shaw. I know people are throwing fits about him, but the underlying data is better than PCA's was at this time and there's bad luck involved...if he even just gets neutral luck he'd be about a league average 3b. So it's an upgrade, but your offense is already top-3. How much better do you think it's going to be? It's like getting from a 94 to a 96 in a class. Yeah, your A is better, but it's not moving the needle as much as all of that studying you put in might suggest. There is opportunity cost involved in any trade, like there is in managing your time. By placing significant trade chips into fixing something that isn't really an issue, you miss the actual, glaring holes. The Cubs have a top-3 offense but a bottom third rotation, so why would you spend to fix the lineup? Suarez is clearly the best bat available, and other teams will need him more, driving cost. The issue the Cubs have is clearly in the rotation. They're bottom 10-12 in most metrics. Adding a pitcher who has been really bad, has had real fastball regression and hoping that in a handful of starts not only is everything you want to work on going to stick, but make a major difference is...a risk. A big one. I'm squarely against the Cubs going that route. It's solving an issue that really isn't as big as fans make it out to be and risking too much on the pitching side of things. If you make a Gallen/Suarez trade, that's probably your big splash, and you're probably mismanaging your resources unless you are just so damn convinced that you will be able to get Zac Gallen back, which, I just don't think is something you should be convinced of. It's a trade I'd expect a team with a bottom-third offense would make, who had a need for a SP but had a top-10 rotation. Not the other way around. Go get a really good SP (Joe Ryan, MacKenzie Gore) or just get Merrill Kelly and another SP like Morton or Soroka (who have great underlying data and an ugly ERA that hides it) while adding a bench bat like Willi Castro who could provide a lot of value everywhere and give Shaw some time off. That's a better team. Maybe the names arent as fun, but you don't win because of name value.

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

Eh, I think it's odd, in many ways, though. The Cubs drafts over the prior four years have a lot of hallmarks. - They really like Cape performers. - 2nd round is usually upside pick - They lean heavily into batted ball data and age modeling - 11th round is usually a big upside prep player They bucked a lot of these trends this year. They took a lot of older arms. They took a lot of injuries. They took an 11th rounder who hasn't pitched in two years, a bit different than the young, physical, prep hitter they go after usually. 2nd round pick was far more floor than upside. Now, odd=/= bad, but 2021-2024 under DK was pretty consistent in many of these philosophies. We can suggest a multitude of reasons why it's this way. And I'm not sure I'm mad at this strat. But it definitely is odd when you consider a Cubs draft recently.

The one thing about management and VPs these days; there's such little separation between anything that isn't the top-top and the bottom-bottom. As long as your team believes in and trusts analytics (and isn't the Rockies), the difference between whomever you think is, like, the 6th best VP of Ops and the 20th best VP of ops is probably pretty marginal and has to do a lot with budget and luck. I think Jed does good work overall. I doubt he's Andrew Friedman incarnate, but I think he runs a good ship and anything I have really disagreed with him on, I've either been entirely wrong about, or it's been small potatoes in the end.

See, I think it's kind of the opposite. I think the Cubs took some controlled, but massive swings. I'll point to Lamar University, and 16th round pick, Riely Hunsaker, who added something like 4-6 mph on the fastball under Zombo. The Cubs are adding velo, 2-4mph, pretty consistently with drafted kids. Ryan Gallagher is one to point to. So let's look at like Dominick Reid. Sits 92-94, has a changeup that is poor-man Bremner, and has a poorly shaped sweeper/slider that can't find any consistency. Let's say you're confident in getting the fastball to 94-96mph. His fastball already leans arm side run. I don't have a read on his arm slot, but what I do know is the Cubs love to take arm slots and drop 'em. So you drop the arm slot, you create a little extra cut and add the velo. It creates separation from the change, and creates decision points with the sweeper/slider. You turn those into distinct pitches. The Cubs have done this with other pitchers. All of a sudden, you have a 94-96mph cut fastball, a plus, possibly better than plus change, with a sweeper/slider combo? That's a mid-rotation arm profile. That's best case scenario here, but that's an underslot pick we're talking about who could compare to the #2 pick in this draft somewhat favorably if things break. Now let's take that same principle and look at Kaleb Wing, a super lanky 6"2 arm who's already riding up in the 97 range as a full-out pich. Add some weight, add some Zombro, maybe he grows another inch or two? Wing is a kid who could legitimately pepper the 97-100mph range consistently. Think about how excited we are about Jaxon Wiggins who does that? There's some real upside there. I think there's upside, but you have to trust that the Cubs are taking arms they can take from where they are, to what they want to go with. I didn't love Matthew Boyd, or Brad Keller or Colin Rea, or a lot of guys they went with on the staff and these guys have all made jumps. It's a draft that asks us to trust in the process. And maybe I've drank the koolaid too much, but I trust the process enough that while it feels odd, I think when I take steps back and look at the zoomed out portrait, I see the artists intentions.

Can we talk a little more about Hartshorn? I'm sure you all did, but I was on an airplane to Chicago today, and now I'm stuck in a far-too-bougie hotel, down at the bar cashing in these stupid drink vouchers that you have to pay for, so this is what you all get; recaps. This is my favorite pick of the draft. He's not the best pick, but he's my favorite. First off, you can always get me excited with "Big ass corner OF'er" (i.e. see Owen Caissie and Ivan Brethowr). But beyond that, he's a switch hitter and a switch pitcher?! And he is such a tough ass mother horsefeathers that he hurt both of his arms so much he just turned into either a right handed or a left handed hitter when the other arm was hurting? Yeah. I love this kid. This is my favorite pick.

I know exactly where that field is! My partner has extended family in Arizona, and we go out for Thanksgiving and I drive by there every time.

I just sat down to get all of my thoughts on the draft out of my head. I've had some personal things going on outside, so I hadn't had a lot of time to sit down and really think through, and so finally got into my draft coverage for the website. Long story short, odd is what I settled on in my article. I won't give too much away, but I really wracked my brain thinking about the differences and whether or not I ultimately thing odd, or different, was bad. Ultimately I cam down to this; I just trust Dan Kantrovitz enough and I doubt he's lost his damn mind to hate anything in this draft. I don't think I loved on the surface many picks. But then you squint and you can go "Yeah I almost get it".

Zumach has brought him up a bunch. Bertz might be right about 19/20 round hail marys.

Image courtesy of © Steven Worthy / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images With their 56nd pick in the second round, the Chicago Cubs select Kane Kepley of the University of North Carolina. Kepley is diminutive in size, listed a 5"8 and 170 pounds. The slot value for pick #56 is $1,680,000 and Kepley was ranked #60 on the Baseball America big board. What will carry Kepley is his high-floor. Kepley showed excellent bat-to-ball skills and has legitimate gold-glove ability in centerfield. He walked twice as much as he struck out on the season and stole 45 bases (in 48 attempts). There is little power projection in someone his size, and getting to double-digit home runs will be an uphill battle. Kepley hit just three home runs in the ACC last season, though he did supplement his triple-slash with 13 doubles and seven triples for a season line of .291/.451/.444 Ultimately, Kepley is likely a high-floor, lower ceiling prospect. There's a strong chance that Kepley will play Major League Baseball simply because his glove is very good. If somehow Kepley can find ten home runs over the course of an MLB season, he could be a very good player, but his bat may never allow him to become a starting caliber player. What do you think of Kane Kepley? Let us know in the comment section below! View full article

Zumach thinks Reid compares favorably to Bremner, FWIW

I'll go back to my idea that Kepler was the fallback. Reid is underslot. I think this is a "regroup, work the phones, big guys come tomorrow" type of a deal.

Yeesh. A second pick I'm not overly enthused with.

I kind of wonder if the Cubs were in a rock and a hard place. If, for example, you wanted to take Young and Flemming and they went back-to-back, Kepley is likely a slot-value high floor type, and you can re-assess into the third to find the higher ceiling prospect you were coveting at the 2nd. Kepley almost feels like a "fall back" plan.