Jason Ross

Pirates take Seth Hernandez and immediately announce he's on the trade block during the 2031 Trade Deadline.

Man, I'm *glad* the Cardinals took Doyle. Hernandez is the guy I think is the best arm available. Doyle has such a weird profile. His fastball is super cool and fun, but not entirely sure you can just be a fastball guy at the MLB. Fastballs have the best numbers against, and throwing 95-97 isn't special any more (his shape is though!). Just don't really love his profile. I know people get jazzed about him, I'm less so.

My partner said the same thing until he spoke.

Me either.

I adore the Angels. The Rockies are super bad, but the Angels are super weird. They consistently provide "WTF" moments. Consistently.

CHAOS!

They better hope. Granted, more I think and take a step back...I don't like anyone in this draft to go full 1:1 myself. Not my favorite top-of-the-draft, frankly.

Man, am I the only one who isn't the biggest Eli Willits guy? He's fine. Like I don't think he's a bad player...he just feels like such a "meh" 1:1 pick.

I'm rooting for chaos at the top. Washington should go off the board and the Angels can take Anderson and immediately announce he's starting on Friday (in the most Angels move ever),

Neyens would be a major departure from how they draft. Prep power hitter who looks more like a 1b isn't their norm in the last half-decade at the top of the draft. It is really interesting.

Love the Shannon pick, for two reasons. One, takes away a UoL commit and two he is from my former (a long 20 years former) HS.

There would have been zero reason for them not to send him back on Friday if they were sending him back. By waiting, it extends the time they would need to wait for him to return. That makes no sense. This is trending much more like what I suggested on Friday; a three-day off series, plus the ASB to work on implementing a new mechanical tweak or approach change before he comes back post-ASB. If they wanted him to work in Iowa, they'd have sent him there a few days ago.

They'll take some college pitchers and hitters in rounds 5-10, and then mostly from 12-20. But the reason you underslot at #1 is to get overslot preps. I'm not sure there is anyone in the 3rd round you'd go that overslot for that you'd under at #17. Conrad, on Zumach's mock (and Zumach is plugged in) would save around $750K. You spend that almost immediately on #56 (akin to Horton/Ferris). Doyle spoke to the number of prep hitters and pitchers he expects to forgo college this year and the Cubs are a "zig when everyone else is zagging" kind of drafter; going under at 17 would allow them to scoop up some extra prep players in that light. The Cubs have shown that they have full-scale draft "themes" but never draft for need, so I would be surprised if they went into today with any sort of thought that the draft was going to solve the roster cliff post-2026. That's just 1.5 years in MiLB and the only players they have seen rocket through a system like that are Smith (who they traded) and Shaw who I like a bunch, but has struggled.

Zumach mocks Ethan Conrad. Personal feeling is swaying that whomever the Cubs pick (and I think Conrad makes a lot of sense) will be underslot with the goal to overslot prep players in rounds 2-4 and then again with their "11th round special" every season. Perhaps with an eye to the amount of talent that will be lost in the next 2-3 weeks, taking Conrad (who could have been a top-10/15 pick had he remained healthy) and 3-4 upside prep guys would conceivably restock a bunch of what you lose from a pure ceiling perspective.

Good catch on Long. Dive into the batted ball and statcast data suggests that it's an improvement on in-zone contact%. His o-swing tends to have peaks and valleys, and his swing% seems consistent, but Z-contact% has been on an upwards trend (coupled with a downward trend in overall whiff%) for about 150 PA's.

A fair point! However, I do want to point something out which makes this a little difficult to see, this is a sample size of just 10 hitters. Striking out this much in general is a rare feat at the MLB level. Within that, however, I'll frame it a slightly different way: Between 2023 and 2024, ten qualified hitters struck out 28% (or more) of the time. Four of those were under 100 wRC+ but includes Ryan McMahon and Brenton Doyle, both of whom are defensive wizards and their offensive contributions are not really the primary reason they enter the lineup on a night-by-night basis. Three were above 110 wRC+, but Luis Robert and Eugenio Suarez were right at 110 and Elly De La Cruz was at 106 wRC+, meaning of those ten, six had wRC+ of 110 or better, and two of those who didn't aren't there for their bats, anyways. While I agree, it's not a normal profile, I do think Caissie has more in common with the likes of Kyle Schwarber, Kyle Stowers, and Teoscar Hernandez than he does, say, Brenton Doyle or Ryan McMahon (not to say he's going to be those guys, but he's not a defensive wizard like Doyle and his profile fits those types much more). In that same 10 hitter sample size over 2023-2024, a big differentiator was home run power. If you hit 50+ combined home runs over the course of those two years, you were basically fine. Even Langoliers hit 52 and sat at a 98 wRC+. Now, I think that's a bit of a unique case, as he's a catcher and gets more leeway, so I think that's okay to point out too. Owen Caissie at 98 wRC+ probably isn't good enough! Just to parse that out a little more, if we drop to the very high 27% K% range, we add three more hitters, Tovar, Raleigh and Garcia. Tovar had an 87 wRC, the other two over 110 or above. Again, one of them didn't hit a bunch of home runs and two of them did. I'm sure it's obvious who just based on the names. So I think the answer to the Caissie question is two-fold. It's first, can the contact rate sit around the 28-32% range? If yes, that's likely going to keep the strikeouts in check just enough that you can survive. Above that and it becomes untenable, regardless of the second concern. Secondly, is he going to hit 25-30 home runs a season with that K-rate? Because if he is, he's much more likely a 110-115 wRC+ hitter (perhaps some peaks and valleys mixed in) as most players who strike out that much, are able to make that level with home runs offsetting it. If he isn't going to get to the power and hit a bunch of bombs, than the strikeout rate will likely eat him alive.

I feel like Conrad could be a sneaky fun underslot. Had clear 1st round grades before his injury. Has CF upside. He would be a bit riskier based on position and some of his aggressive swings, but I think the real strength of this draft is prep mid-rounds. Been talk from Joe Doyle that freshman have bigger reasons than ever to sign and go-pro. Conrad+extra overslots could be a creative way to add a lot of upside into a system that will have (likely) lost a good deal of talent by August. This is starting to feel a bit like the 2022 Horton./Ferris draft where the smoke started to billow towards underslotting.

This is why we have things like wRC+! It creates a neutral playing field between steroid era and everything. Bonds last four seasons of his career: 232 wRC+ Judge last two seasons: 218 wRC+ So, it's definitely in favor of Bonds, but it's not like, that crazy either! For example Bonds 2003 line looks like: .321/.524/.749, but was a 212 wRC+. Judge's last two seasons have both been (when a neutral environment is involved) better! It's easily the closest we've seen to Prime Bonds since Prime Bonds.

Fastball-slider-splitter mix. Stuff+ has the slider as his best offering. Generated great whiff in Iowa, but is 31. Sits 93-95mph on the fastball. Nothing special, but should eat a few innings and you'd be able to DFA him without much concern if it doesn't work.

He didn't throw a single changeup in his last appearance. What he's doing on the side and what he is doing in a game, however, are not mutually exclusive, though. It was his first Iowa appearance for two weeks since sent down. Likely just working back int things.

Wicks to Iowa, Brooks Kriske has been selected and added to the 40.

My guess is that Shaw will sit tomorrow too. A full week reset. Have a keen eye next week after the ASB and see what's new with his swing. Guarantee there will be another change.

Yeah, with any prospect you'll have questions. Caissie's contact ability at higher levels is a question. I do think that the first few hundred PA's could look rather ugly. But do think after a decent learning curve, he will setting into a 28-32% K% hitter, and at that range, the batted ball quality and power would be able to carry him through as a good hitter regardless. But once it creeps over that, you're far more questionable.

FWIW, I've got Caissie #1, with Rojas and Wiggins nipping at his heels at #2. I'm a bigger believer in Caissie than others and want to see small things from Rojas (production at a new level, this isn't particularly his fault right now, the Cubs are on a promotion freeze) and Wiggins (more innings, a little progress in non-fastballs) before I give them a bump over him. With that said, I don't think any way you could possible rank Ballesteros, Caissie, Rojas and Wiggins is wrong. Like, if you had Triantos #1, I'd have some questions, but between those four, it's pretty clearly "when you squint, what do you see?" and if you see a catcher in Ballesteros, a 120 wRC+ SS in Rojas, a 135 wRC+ RF in Caissie or a TORP in Wiggins, then I can't say that's a ridiculous thing to squint and see.

Regardless of who you think the best prospect in the system is, Rojas, Wiggins, Caissie or Ballesteros, it's cool to have this kind of talent that we can have those debates on. And it isn't like we're debating between who is the tallest short-king, but instead, looking at four prospects who all have legitimate MLB big-time upside. Now, I think the next two-to-three-weeks will cull the herd in some fashion, but a good problem and debate to have for the time being.