Cubs MLB Roster

Cubs Organizational Depth Chart
40-Man Roster Info

39 players are on the MLB RESERVE LIST (one slot is open), plus two players are on the 60-DAY IL and one player has been DESIGNATED FOR ASSIGNMENT (DFA)   

26 players on MLB RESERVE LIST are ACTIVE, and nine players are on OPTIONAL ASSIGNMENT to minors, three players are on the 15-DAY IL, and one player is on the 10-DAY IL

Last updated 4-23-2024
 
* bats or throws left
# bats both

PITCHERS: 13
Yency Almonte
Adbert Alzolay 
Javier Assad
Colten Brewer
Ben Brown
* Shota Imanaga
Mark Leiter Jr
* Luke Little
Hector Neris 
Jameson Taillon 
Keegan Thompson
Hayden Wesneski 
* Jordan Wicks

CATCHERS: 2
Miguel Amaya
Yan Gomes

INFIELDERS: 7
* Michael Busch 
Nico Hoerner
Nick Madrigal
Christopher Morel
* Matt Mervis
Dansby Swanson
Patrick Wisdom

OUTFIELDERS: 4
* Cody Bellinger 
# Ian Happ
Seiya Suzuki
* Mike Tauchman 

OPTIONED: 9 
Kevin Alcantara, OF 
Michael Arias, P 
Pete Crow-Armstrong, OF 
Jose Cuas, P 
Brennen Davis, OF 
Porter Hodge, P 
* Miles Mastrobuoni, INF
Daniel Palencia, P 
Luis Vazquez, INF 

10-DAY IL: 1 
Seiya Suzuki, OF

15-DAY IL: 3
Kyle Hendricks, P 
* Drew Smyly, P 
* Justin Steele, P   

60-DAY IL: 2 
Caleb Kilian, P 
Julian Merryweather, P

DFA: 1 
Garrett Cooper, 1B 
 




Minor League Rosters
Rule 5 Draft 
Minor League Free-Agents

Game 87 Thread / Cubs @ Pirates (3 of 3)

Submitted by Rob G. on
Game Chat Carlos Zambrano vs. Shane Youman Lineups:
Soriano LF McLouth CF
Theriot SS Sanchez 2B
Lee 1B LaRoche 1B
Ramirez 3B Nady RF
DeRosa RF Bay LF
Fontenot 2B Bautista 3B
Pagan CF Paulino C
Hill C Wilson SS
Zambrano P Youman P

Comments

Submitted by Joe Aiello on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:43 am

Pit is going with the double CF approach, huh. I wonder if that's gonna work out for them. =)

Submitted by Wild Thing on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:31 am

Does Zambrano's control suck, or is the ump squeezing him? Hard to tell from gameday.

Submitted by chifan3887 on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:16 pm

The futures game just started on espn 2 if anyone is interested.

Submitted by chifan3887 on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:28 pm

Its a final in the capital Nats Win!!!! Man the Brew Crew goes 2-5 on that trip. Are we going to catch them or are they going to fall to us? We have 75 games left and we need to gain a game every 15 to gain the lead.

Submitted by ARM on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:41 pm

4.5 out at this point is not bad but we easily should have been a game or two closer in terms of how things turned out the last seven days.

Submitted by ARM on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:41 pm

And the more we stumble around and hope tha Brewers fall back to us, the more likely it becomes that the Cards will pass both teams.

Submitted by crunch on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:44 pm

no more cubs til thursday...ugg. allstar game is neat and all, but i usually find myself bored of it after a few innings. the funny moments i tend to enjoy more than the game itself. *shrug*

Submitted by chifan3887 on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:05 pm

Crunch, Its Friday. Though you can see Lee, Soriano, and maybe Rammy (Cabrera jammed his shoulder today) give us home field in the World Series.

Submitted by Chad on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:20 pm

Why did Howry come into this game? I didn't even thing about it but my friend called and asked me. I hate LouPA.

Submitted by Jason on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:32 pm

Cabrera jammed his shoulder today?? That's good news for Aramis, even if he's just a PH he deserves to be in the ASG.

Submitted by Virginia Phil on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:05 pm

The Cubs-Astros made up a game at Wrigley on Monday night, June 11th. That makeup may have originally been scheduled for this Thursday, ahead of the the three-game series with the Astros.

Submitted by Chad on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:16 pm

Wes, I dunno, how about NOT bringing in my closer in a nonsave situation in the 8th inning. Aside for Marmol ANYONE could have pitched. And by anyone, I really mean ANYONE. That includes but is not limited to Marquis, Hill or Marshall.

Submitted by crunch on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:18 pm

thnx.

Submitted by Wes on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:41 pm

Why does it have to be a save situation? Why can't it be a situation where you absolutely need your pitcher to NOT give up another run in any circumstances? Being up a run and not allowing a run to score and being down a run and not allowing a run to score are ultimately the same goal for the pitcher.

Submitted by Wes on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:43 pm

I mean, I would have put Wuertz out there because he needs to pitch, but not necessarily because he's not the closer.

Submitted by Chad on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:50 pm

There is something very strange about getting outs 25, 26 and 27. If you don't think so, ask LaTroy Hawkins. No matter who is up, those are the hardest outs to get. That is why when you have a guy that you are counting on getting those outs, you save him for that situation. There are some exceptions like when you are at home in the top of the 9th in a tie game. But that is the state of baseball today. The closer is the guy that comes in to close the game.

Submitted by Rob G. on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:01 pm

well geez, when Dempster's around howry is your 8th inning guy, so what's the big freaking deal about bringing him in?

Submitted by Wes on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:05 pm

I think the "magical, enigmatic, elusive 9th inning" concept is a bit made-up, but maybe it's different for different players. I mean, some guys like LaTroy can't do it, but now LaTroy can't do anything right. Are those the hardest outs to get? Sure. But why are they any different when you need a zero when you're trailing in the eighth than when you're ahead in the ninth? Same amount of pressure. If I give up a run or two, our chances of winning are dramatically less. That's the same situation if I'm closing a game down at home. My team still bats again. But, we're probably not going to win. I know a lot of people (particularly certain national TV analysts who I don't agree with on a lot of things) have been saying for some time that the closer should come in in the late innings during the time when you need him the most. Be that when you need to get out of a jam in the 7th, need somebody to put up a zero in eighth (like today), or get outs 25, 26, and 27. As much as I dislike said analyst, I tend to agree with that philosophy. Sure didn't work today, though. The closer doesn't just close games, but typically faces the highest pressure situations with the least amount of room for error in a given game. Today was a situation where the Cubs needed the Pirates to not score. Badly. Lou went to the guy whose job it is to make sure the other team doesn't score at all. A guy who's been pretty darn good at keeping the other team from scoring since our closer went down. It didn't work today.

Submitted by crunch on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:08 pm

picking a guy who's known to carry the mental/emotional weight of a game as a rock...aka pretty unaffected by much of anything negative or positive in his demeanor...isnt a good point to start a convo about the "mental game" of being a closer. he's a pretty blank personality in-game...and in the clubhouse.

Submitted by Chad on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:15 pm

"well geez, when Dempster’s around howry is your 8th inning guy, so what’s the big freaking deal about bringing him in?" My problem was more about who was going to close the game for us in the 9th or 10th inning? No one. We can debate the whole, 'use your closer in the toughest spot' idea all you want but its not used in baseball. Sure it can happen from time to time but that is the rare exception. You save your closer to close the game. That was my problem with Howry being in there.

Submitted by cubster on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:39 pm

You save your closer to close the game. That was my problem with Howry being in there. ----- one word: Marmol

Submitted by Wes on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:48 pm

Then you can have your closer get ready to come in during the flight home after you lost because somebody else blew it in a tight spot in the 6th, 7th or the 8th. If that's the way you choose to manage it, you can have him get loose somewhere over Dayton, Ohio. I'll play it differently.

Submitted by Chad on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:11 pm

Dude, 6th? You want your closer in the 6th? C'mon. If you are up a run and have to face Puljos, Edmonds and Rolen in the 8th inning. Fine. I can see you going to your closer there. But the 7th? If one guy gets a hit or walk that means that Puljos bats in the 9th. You want your second best reliever to face Puljos there?

Submitted by WISCGRAD on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:22 pm

Yeah, the 6th is a bit of an exaggeration. I think today though the logic is that a) Howry is not the usual closer anyway, so it's not like he can't go two innings and it's not like he isn't used to coming in during the 8th in close games like this; and b) the all-star break is coming up so he can go 2 innings if need be. Best case scenario Howry pitches the 8th, we take the lead in the 9th and he finishes it off in the 9th. We tie, he pitches the 9th to hold the tie and we bring in Marmol or someone else in the 10th. We don't score we lose and the 9th doesn't matter (as happened) and we head into the break where Howry can rest anyway. If Lou brings in someone else and he gives up 3 runs and then we score 2 in the top of the 9th, everyone is then complaining about why we didn't bring in Howry to keep it within 1 run. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Submitted by Rynox on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:28 pm

Agree with Chad, except the best reliever isn't always the closer... see Weathers, Wickman, Dempster, Todd Jones, and Borowski for examples. Closing games is about grit. In certain games, though, I can see how the old system with a fireman would be better.

Submitted by Chad on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:59 pm

Wisc, It's not damned if you do and damned if you don't. If he brings in Weurtz and he gives up three runs, no one would say anything about Lou's move.

Submitted by Wes on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:04 pm

Alrite. Sixth was a bit ridiculous. Fine. You got me. I certainly wouldn't hestitate in the seventh, though. I really enjoy talking about these scenarios, truthfully. I'm of the opinion that a lot of pitching coaches would like to do it this way, but a lot of managers like to have the "set" bullpen. 7th inning guy, 8th inning guy, closer. You have your role, now go execute it. But there's a reason the 7th inning guy isn't the closer. That's why I like it this way. The inning I face Pujols/Fielder/Bonds..etc matters less to me than the game situation. Do I want my best pitcher to face him with a 2 run lead and the bases loaded in the 7th or when he comes around again as the tying run in the 9th with a man on? Sure you can't see the future, but I've got a pretty good idea what's going to happen if Pujols hits against my 7th inning guy with the go-ahead run at first base. I want my best reliever who can handle the pressures of late game scenarios to be used in the highest pressure situation. All the time. If I've already used him, then I go to my next best guy all the way down the line until it's high-five and handshake time. Yeah he'd get a hold instead of a save, but he needs to deal with it. Sure, if my closer trots out to start the ninth to face the top of the Cardinals order, that's not an easy task with Pujols looming. However, if he beats your 7th inning guy, the only reason you're closer is getting loose at all is in case you tie it up against Isringhausen. Back to the "closer mentality" thing... I've always thought the mysterious ninth inning "Hawkins-Benitez Disease" (for lack of a better term) isn't a mental block about the 9th inning compared to any other arbitrary inning, it's a problem with being unable to execute under extreme pressures. "Holy shit, I really have to get guy out RIGHT NOW or we're probably going to lose" is applicable in many late game scenarios from the 7th on. Not just jogging out with your entrance music cranked to 11 in the 9th.

Submitted by Eric the Great on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:09 pm

Do you even pay attention to the Cubs, Chad? Howry is on record as saying that he WANTS to pitch frequently, he feels he can't stay sharp when he doesn't pitch. With the break coming, Lou uses him. Big deal. How about focussing on the real problem with this team--the lack of offensive punch? Lee is a real concern, and 2/3 of our OF sucks. Something needs to be done there, and fast.

Submitted by WISCGRAD on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:29 pm

Chad - I totally disagree, you may be able to speak for yourself, but I find it slighly inconceivable that can speak for all posters on this site in a hypothetical situation. Perhaps you are right and no one would complain, but since all of us go on here religiously to discuss these issues and often challenge game decisions, I'd bet real dollars that if Wuertz were brought in and gave up 3 runs at least one person would have said "why not Howry." In fact, I might have, so there's one!!

Submitted by billybucks on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:47 pm

Top 5 pleasant surprises so far: 1. Marmol!! 2. Fontenot (we'll see for how long) 3. Soriano's rebound 4. DeRosa's versatility and all-around game 5. Sean Marshall (all but forgotten in early April) Top 5 disappointments: 1. Jacque contributing zip 2. Ditto for Eyre 3. DLee's lack of power and RBIs 4. Rich Hill's fade after a great end to last year and a great start to this one 5. Z's contract situation/Pie's performance (tie) Top 5 things we need to win the division: 1. Consistency from Hill and Marquis 2. The old DLee back 3. Offense from either C or CF (preferably both) 4. One more Marmol/Fontenot-like spark 5. The Cardinals to stay below .500 Fire away.

Submitted by WISCGRAD on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:52 pm

Wes, I agree with a lot of what you said. Although one thing to point out is that we are sort of basing this on the assumption that the closer is the best pitcher on the team. This is not always the case. Take the Indians for example, sure Borowski has 25 saves, but also a 5.35 ERA. For most saves you start the 9th with no one on base up by 2 or 3 and you may end up with a lower part of the order. The real work may have already been done by the likes of Betancourt (0.63 WHIP), Perez (0.95), and Fultz (1.00). In a tough spot in the 7th or 8th the Indians probably feel more confident with one of those guys in than Borowski. Also see Zumaya and Todd Jones, Soriano and Wickman, etc. Ideally teams have both an ace closer and an ace (or two) setup man that are interchangeable and so you can get them into patterns of which inning they come into which can only enhane their effectiveness. Neshek pitches the 8th, Nathan the 9th and there are no worries. If the game hit a crucial situation in the 8th and you brought in Nathan because he was a bit better and then left Neshek to the 9th, it might work, but it also might throw people off a bit and eventually wear on the bullpen when they don't know their roles. As for the Cubs, eventually during the second half I think Marmol will cement himself as that 8th inning guy with Dempster in the 9th. Their WHIPs are 1.00 and 1.01, could be a tough tandem.

Submitted by rokfish on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:29 pm

eric the great i totally agree the real issue is lack of offense (home runs) It looked like derosas just missed if it goes out its 3-3 different ball game we have to get more power from the 3 hole and fifth spot. i would like to know lees rbi total for last month he needs to find the long ball

Submitted by rokfish on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:31 pm

has lou said what the pitching lineup will next weekend how about zambrano lilly marshall even though i like lilly zambrano marshall

Submitted by jackie t on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:16 pm

I don't understand the recent concern about the Cardinals. Even with a healthy Carpenter and a normal Pujols, I really don't see them getting cooking. The back end of the rotation is lousy and they have quite a few offensive holes (CF, RF, C, with nothing too thrilling at SS, or 2B). I don't get it.

Submitted by Chad on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 07:45 pm

Guys, I don't care what would have happened if Weurtz came in. No one would have wondered why Howry didn't come in.

Submitted by dave on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:06 am

No one would have wondered why Howry didn’t come in. Chad... seems like you are the only person wondering.

Submitted by Rynox on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:31 am

jackie t: I don’t understand the recent concern about the Cardinals. Even with a healthy Carpenter and a normal Pujols, I really don’t see them getting cooking. The back end of the rotation is lousy and they have quite a few offensive holes (CF, RF, C, with nothing too thrilling at SS, or 2B). I don’t get it. Yeah, like last year?

Submitted by eli18 on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:05 am

you really have to hand it to jim hendry...only a team with a payroll > $100MM could trot out 3 automatic outs a game every game. the catcher's spot won't just magically become productive offensively, so when Hill makes crappy throws and costs the team runs he's actually worse than barrett...

Submitted by aaronb on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:31 am

San Diego has 2 good hitting catchers on their roster. Maybe Hendry can swing a deal to aquire one of them?

Submitted by Old and Blue on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:39 am

I don't think San Diego would be interested in a Bowen for Barrett swap.

Submitted by crunch on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:42 am

maddux/barrett last night was a clinic in why anyone throwing less than 90mph should check runners (maddux isnt big on that) more often.

Submitted by dave on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:53 am

i guess crunch... but only one of those stolen bases had any impact on the score, and Jones may have scored anyway even without that stolen base.

Submitted by mdog on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:56 am

There has been a lot written about Big Z's contract lately. From a management standpoint, shouldn't Hendry be exploring what kind of a deal he could get if he trades Z before the deadline rather than let him walk for nothing at the end of the year?

Submitted by dave on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:59 am

From a management standpoint, shouldn’t Hendry be exploring what kind of a deal he could get if he trades Z before the deadline rather than let him walk for nothing at the end of the year? Maybe he is? Or maybe he believes that the Cubs can get to the playoffs with him, so he would rather get to the playoffs and lose him for nothing than get some prospects and not make the playoffs.

Submitted by Virginia Phil on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:07 am

It was a low throw--it bounced--but I'm not sure it was a crappy throw. It would have been close at second if Theriot had caught the ball. I'm not blaming Theriot: when I looked at the replay a few times, I thought I saw the ball hit the edge of the infield grass and skid under the fielder's glove. It took an unlucky hop.

Submitted by aaronb on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:47 am

It's Michael Barrett's fault when a runner steals with him in the game. It's the infielders fault when someone else is catching............... man law

Submitted by aaronb on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:49 am

mdog says: July 9th, 2007 at 10:56 am There has been a lot written about Big Z’s contract lately. From a management standpoint, shouldn’t Hendry be exploring what kind of a deal he could get if he trades Z before the deadline rather than let him walk for nothing at the end of the year? ...................................................................................... Cubs will get a 1st and a 2nd round draft pick as compensation if Z leaves after the season. Unless you are getting a Big League pitcher and 2 top prospects in return for Z now. It makes no sense to trade him now.

Submitted by dave on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:52 am

It’s Michael Barrett’s fault when a runner steals with him in the game. It’s the infielders fault when someone else is catching…………… man law haha... I am sure that everyone would be up in arms if Barrett had made the exact same throw. Lets be honest about the Cubs catcher situation. Hill/Bowen are an upgrade over Barrett defensively, but only marginally so. Both are average defensive catchers. Hill himself has talked about how he has never been considered a defensive catcher (which is funny, because he sure isn't an offensive catcher). But both Hill and Bowen are HUGE downgrades offensively from Barrett. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the Cubs winning, but it would be quite disingenuous to claim that the winning is the result of Barrett no longer being on the Cubs. Barrett has been replaced by two guys who overall all are downgrades from what Barrett brought to the team.

Submitted by mdog on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:54 am

Good point aaronb, I was not aware of that. That does makes it a little easier to let it ride and see how the team does this year, but I still hate to think of providing a cornerstone for the Mets or Yankees staff for years to come.

Submitted by crunch on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:58 am

bowen's athletic...hell of an arm...still, he's kinda tall guy and can be erratic with where he puts that throw. his build and the shape he keeps himself in is also a plus, though its not translating at the plate as much. he's got a notion of plate selection, too...not really lost up there. hill was at one time a promising offensive catcher...that's about all that can be said about that. he never filled out and his D has always been kinda average. i like the bowen gamble, especially if he can tame his arm and come outta the crouch faster. he's still a work in progress that's nearing the end of it's experiment time, though. he'll be cheap for years at least.

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:58 am

well depends on who signs Z. The 1st round pick can be no higher than #16 otherwise it's a 2nd round pick. The other pick is a sandwich pick between the first and second rounds. And if the team that signs Z happens to sign a player that ranks higher than Z in the free agent rankings at the end of the year, the Cubs draft pick from that team would drop. For example, let's say the Yanks sign Ichiro and Z and for whatever reason Ichiro ranks a little higher than Z in the Elias rankings. (They're very oddly constructed, so it's very possible) Now if the Yanks don't get any better than they are now they would draft 13th next year. The Mariners would get a supplemental pick and the Yanks 2nd round pick. The Cubs get a supplemental pick (lower than the Mariners pick) and the Yanks 3rd round pick. If the Yanks improve let's say and drop out of the top 15 picks, then the Mariners get the Yanks first pick and the Cubs would get the Yanks 2nd pick in this scenario.

Submitted by Lost Tater on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:03 am

ATTENTION PAPERBACK BOOKS! You are conquistadors. Nothing but conquistadors. GODZILLA ROMP! ("Snap the sanguines." says talking skunk.)

Submitted by Chad on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:14 am

As long as we have a chance at the playoffs, we can't trade Z. Let next year be damned. If he walks, he walks. But maybe he can accept his world series ring in a different uniform. But you DO NOT trade him unless we get some unusually fantastic deal that would net us a superstar. Like and ARod for Z (not going to happen, I know).

Submitted by Doug Dascenzo on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:31 am

I doubt Z would sign with the Yankees. Dude likes getting his ABs too much to go to the AL. The Mets, on the other hand, is a different story...

Submitted by chifan3887 on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:31 am

"It’s Michael Barrett’s fault when a runner steals with him in the game. It’s the infielders fault when someone else is catching…………… man law" The throw Hill made was a "team error" yeah the throw was too low, but Theriot needs to pick it or atleast stop it from going into CF. On Barrett's throw Greene would have needed a NBA vertical to stop it.

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:37 am

ASG Lineups: AL: Ichiro, Jeter, Ortiz, Arod, Vlad, Magglio, Pudge, Polanco, Haren NL: Reyes, Bonds, Beltran, Griffey Jr., Wright, Fielder, Martin, Utley, Peavy

Submitted by aaronb on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:38 am

Mets or Cardinals are the likely destinations if Z bolts. LA Dodgers are probably a distant 3rd.

Submitted by jacos on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:39 am

#59-Dane Cook My God you think a failed HBO show and movie career would make this hack go away. Couldn't MLB get someone edgier like Yackoff Smirnoff?

Submitted by mdog on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:41 am

If the intention is to not trade Z but let him go for naught at the end of the year in an attempt to win the WS, I certainly hope we ADD something at the deadline. Someone who plays the OF and has power, and a catcher would be nice.

Submitted by Lost Tater on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:41 am

Z is like a mountain goat - fizzy and full of enchanters. Brooms of the planet - blind sewer rats and stare at multi-lingual Z bolts We must sweep!!!!!!!!

Submitted by Old and Blue on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:47 am

actually, i gotta disagree with dave -- Barrett's one of the worst regular catchers I've seen in 30+ years of watching baseball. It's easy to forget just how bad he is when we see a guy make a bad throw or two. He calls terrible games -- doesn't spot the ball well at all for the pitcher, and is just miserable behind the plate in almost all facets of the game. He's not even a very good boxer.

Submitted by dave on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:50 am

actually, i gotta disagree with dave — Barrett’s one of the worst regular catchers I’ve seen in 30+ years of watching baseball. Did I ever say he was a good catcher? He was bad - I agree (though I do believe that his defense was/is better than many thought/think). But my point wasn't how bad Barrett was. It was how average (at best) that Hill/Bowen are defensively. And how much better Barrett was/is offensively. I strongly believe that Barrett is better than Hill/Bowen overall, even with Barrett's bad defense.

Submitted by Lost Tater on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:57 am

Is that a bloke in your albino, or are you just shiny? If you didn't throw itching powder at your catchers, Yogi Berra wouldn't quote the bible at you. Z bolts with a Bowen arrow. grin and Barrett climb that Hill when you come to it.

Submitted by Chad on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:59 am

aaronb, I don't know why the Dodger's would be a distant 3rd. I would put the Cardinals 4th behind both NY teams and the Dodgers. L.A. is a great place for Z to land. Pitcher's park and a big market that can pay him what he wants. Jason Schmidt may never regain form.

Submitted by aaronb on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:09 pm

Chad, I am just speculating with what Z has floated out there. I assume that he wants to stay in the NL so that he can hit, and face weaker lineups. Minaya LOVES Z. So Mets are on the list. Z has made comments about Molina being his buddy in St. Louis. With Buerhle now off the market. Z makes a ton of sense for the Cardinals. Especially if the cubs finish ahead of them in the standings. They will be used for leverage against the cubs regardless. LA will always be a player because of the big park and big market, deep pockets aspect. I just don't know if they are going to shell out huge money on a starter again. Even though they seemingly do every year I can remember in recent memory.

Submitted by vorare on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:14 pm

Cards really haven't looked willing to pay big bucks in recent years, so I'm not terribly worried about them. I'd be more worried about the Brewers ownership deciding to build off the good run by investing in marquee player.

Submitted by The E-Man on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:15 pm

"Carlos Zambrano 3/44 ?" Ugh...that was 4/44 according to Levine... Regardless, we will be rueing Jim Hendry for the next 10 years due to his failure to lock up our ace (whom some of you wated traded after the fight).

Submitted by Lost Tater on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:17 pm

Z has floated out there in a temporal warp. I'm just part time....not a full time prawn like so many others. Remember...never try to predict the weather using warthogs.

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:25 pm

a bunch of names will surface and disappear in the potential Z sweepstakes. I'd throw the Astros into the ring, seem to be a bit more willing to spend on FA's than the Cards and the lack of state tax gives them an advantage.

Submitted by Lost Tater on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:28 pm

Lock up our Ace? Lock up our Ace? The King will surely reveal himself to be a Queen should that occur!!! Z will most assuredly Jack one!!! Calling Jim Hendry, we need to rue you!

Submitted by Old and Blue on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:30 pm

Dave, I don't know if you were saying he is a good catcher or not, but you did say the current sitch is a downgrade, and I disagree. If Barrett had been hitting like he was previously, I might be inclined to be okay with the buffoonery out at home plate, but his hitting wasn't very good. I would also add that the current situation is only an upgrade if it is a temporary fix. Barrett's defense was becoming a genuine liability and had to be addressed. Long term, the Bowen/Hill/Blanco combo is not going to cut it. That may sound like a wishy washy disagreement, but there it is.

Submitted by jacos on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:32 pm

Len threw Barrett under the bus yesterday, saying that Z has said he's more comfortable throwing his slider knowing it will get blocked if it's in the dirt.

Submitted by dave on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:37 pm

I love how everyone is using Barrett as the reason that Z sucked for the first 6 weeks of the year. If Barrett is responsible for Z sucking, he is also responsible for Lilly, Hill, Marshall, and Marquis outperforming expectations. You can't have it both ways. And Barrett may not have been hitting that well THIS YEAR, but that was an anomaly from what he is capable of and what we saw over the last few years. And even a bad hitting Barrett is a significantly better hitter than Hill/Bowen.

Submitted by Chad on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:43 pm

dave, did you ever stop to think that it is possible that having Barrett at catcher was a bigger problem for z than it was for other pitchers? they are not mutually exclusive. Z's poor performance MAY be because of Barrett while the rest of the pitchers performances may have nothing to do with Barrett at all.

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:50 pm

yeah, don't use that email Carlos... apparently the part where Z's ERA is better with Barrett behind the plate before this year than any other catcher has been lost on everyone. Did anyone stop to think that Z's a basket-case? And that Z and Barrett just don't get along personally and it overflowed onto the field? Anyone? Bueller?

Submitted by dave on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:51 pm

Sure Chad - that is a possibility. But one that I find untenable. Marquis had no problem throwing his sinker to Barrett. It is also a very big assumption to make the claim that Z just had more problems than other pitchers when throwing to Barrett. I just find it incredibly humorous that people point to Z as a perfect example of why Barrett sucks, yet the same people ignore the regression of the rest of the Cubs pitching staff.

Submitted by Lost Tater on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:51 pm

Much like the scene in Airplane where everyone slaps the hysterical woman, we need this done with the Cubs pitchers and Barret, slap the Barrett and your performance will improve. Let the slapping begin and on to the pennant!!! Oh, how I wish I was paisley...

Submitted by dave on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:52 pm

Did anyone stop to think that Z’s a basket-case? And that Z and Barrett just don’t get along personally and it overflowed onto the field? Anyone? Bueller? Yea... I meant to say that too. If Z actually had bigger problems throwing to Barrett than the other pitchers, then Z continues to show that he is an emotional and mental wreck.

Submitted by aaronb on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:58 pm

If Z hated throwing to Barrett so much FINE. Let him use someone else as a personal catcher. It just seemed then and still seems now to have been shortsighted. Rumor is that the cubs are looking to add offense behind the plate. This isnt OOTP 8 baseball. There isnt going to be a magical good hit/good field catcher dropping from the sky. Johnny Bench aint walking through that door. Hendry and Piniella should have thought it out before making the deal. Next thing, Lou and Hendry are going to run Jack Jones out of town. Paying 95% of the freight no less. Only to turn around and bitch that we arent getting any offense out of the Cf spot.

Submitted by dave on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:07 pm

We actually got something for Freddie Bynum? Ha... leave it to Baltimore to make a bad trade for someone as worthless as Freddie Bynum. It could be worse - we could be Orioles' fans.

Submitted by (CA) Phil on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:19 pm

Rob G. said: "ASG Lineups: AL: Ichiro, Jeter, Ortiz, Arod, Vlad, Magglio, Pudge, Polanco, Haren NL: Reyes, Bonds, Beltran, Griffey Jr., Wright, Fielder, Martin, Utley, Peavy " That lineup stinks, why can't we hit Fontentot higher in the order and we've got to play Jacques to increase his trade value and no way Ward should play right and...oh...All Star Game....sorry...reflex...never mind...

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:20 pm

Originally it was Koronka to Texas for Bynum I was looking through the December archives at the winter meetings, saw this gem from Baseball Prospectus... Forty-seven million for Jason Schmidt, or $40 million for Ted Lilly? It’s in comparison to contracts like the other big one handed out yesterday that you start to see the value in the newest Dodger. Lilly has never thrown 200 innings in a season, and has one ERA below 4.00–that in a shortened campaign–in his life. He’s not improving significantly as he crosses 30 years old, and it’s not like he has hidden value when you go into his peripherals. The going rate for a mid-rotation free-agent starter without much upside is eight figures a year, and the Cubs paid it. I just don’t see where this pushes a team that much closer to a title. (stifled chuckle)

Submitted by Mister Whipple on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:31 pm

Who did we get for him? John Koronka? Oh, thanks a lot Aaron. Now I'll have the John Koronka song from Mac, Jurko & Harry stuck in my head for days. John Koronka, John, John Koronka. Not Willy Wonka, He's John Koronka. Nice.

Submitted by Mister Whipple on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:35 pm

So Rob, do we get a Parachat link for the HR derby tonight? Enquiring minds want to know!

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:40 pm

well I probably won't post anything but feel free to go to the chat link that's below each of the author's names. I'll try and stop by although it gets incredibly boring quick. They really need to revamp the rules. I guess Scott Boras suggested a 9 game World Series and the HR derby be on the first night of the Series so the superstars don't back out complaining about their swings.

Submitted by aaronb on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:43 pm

Rob, Any truth to the rumor that Scott Boras is suggesting that each owner allowing Boras to hold their checkbooks? You know, for safe keeping?

Submitted by JustanoldCubfan on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:57 pm

I can't believe anyone is defending Barrett's catching. The proper place for Barrett is in the American League where he can D.H., pinch hit, be an emergency catcher or third baseman. He has no business wearing a regular glove anywhere. I agree with Old and Blue, the only catcher I can recall in sixty years of watching baseball as poor defensively as Barrett was Keith Moreland. I coached college baseball for many years and I never had a regular catcher with poorer technique than Barrett.

Submitted by dave on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:14 pm

Once again - I am not defending Barrett's defense. I am just saying (again) that the upgrade of Hill/Bowen defensively doesn't come anywhere close to the downgrade that they bring offensively.

Submitted by Johann on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:16 pm

Jesus, while none of us our really defending Barrett's catching, I will say a bunch of you are going way overboard in your efforts to dislike him. He wasn't good defensively, but he certainly wasn't the worst ever like I've seen a couple people here saying. Heck, Bengie Molina and Miguel Olivo both have more passed balls then him! Also, while he has the worst CS% in baseball, he also had to catch some very slow pitchers and that won't change much in San Diego. Also, if AZ Phil is right about Rich Hill perhaps slumping because of losing Barrett and Murton, that would seem to counteract Zambrano doing better because of getting rid of himm (which, as Rob says, completely ignores every other year where Z did great with Barrett). But regardless, he's gone. We now need someone better offensively then what we have, because what we have is pretty much crap.

Submitted by dave on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:19 pm

Also, while he has the worst CS% in baseball Not quite... Bowen was worse. :) And had more passed balls per inning caught. But he is a defensive upgrade, right?

Submitted by Johann on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:28 pm

Well, I should have said among starters. And yes, that's the problem with the whole defensive upgrade argument. If you want a good defensive catcher over a bat, then fine, but Bowen isn't a good defensive catcher AND he doesn't hit. He basically provides nothing to the Cubs.

Submitted by Wes on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 07:37 pm

I think any of the players who have started at catcher for the Chicago Cubs in 2007 are not very good everyday baseball players. I think that safely covers it all.

Submitted by George Altman on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 07:57 am

I don't think there's a manager at any level of baseball these days who doesn't use statistics/splits to 'help' in managing his team. Hell, I use them in managing my travel team. But all too often, I see them waved around this message board as gospel fact and the implication that anyone not using them or heeding them is baseball stupid. The case for Barrett and the offense he provided (prior to 2007) is exhibit A of this practice. For those of you who don't or haven't managed teams before, some things just don't show up in the stat sheets. Like, my pitchers can't throw their hard sliders or curves because this guy can't catch the ball cleanly. This pitcher is just not on the same page with this catcher, and there goes another double in the gap because he set up inside instead of outside, etc., etc. What makes the C situation more visible on the Cubs right now is that Pie is hitting .217, D. Lee is on pace to hit 12 HRs this year, and we're not on pace to get 30 HRs/95 RBIs from our RF platoon. That makes everyone look at C and say 'Wow, that Barrett could hit and now we suck at C offensively' instead of 'Wow, our pitching is a lot more effective without the black hole behind the plate anymore'.

Submitted by dave on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 07:53 am

‘Wow, our pitching is a lot more effective without the black hole behind the plate anymore’. Time for some more inconvenient facts. Lets take a look at the Cubs starting pitching before Barrett left and after Barret left: Up to 6/19/07: ERA: 3.82 K/9: 6.8 BB/9: 3.0 HR/9: 1.26 K/BB: 2.31 WHIP: 1.21 Innings/Start: 6.11 Since 6/20/07: ERA: 4.43 K/9: 8.4 BB/9: 3.7 HR/9: 1.11 K/BB: 2.3 WHIP: 1.36 Innings/Start: 5.83 So in other words, overall, the starting pitching has been significantly less effective "without the black hole behind the plate anymore." The starting pitching was better in almost every category when Barrett was on the team than when Barrett was not on the team.

Submitted by Wes on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 07:05 am

Here's an inconvienent fact checker... take Rich Hill out of both samples and run them again. The increase in suck since the Barrett trade has a lot to do with Hill and not a lot to do with anybody else on our pitching staff.

Submitted by dave on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 07:08 am

Well then... shouldn't we take Zambrano out of the samples too then? If we are going to throw out one outlier, we would throw out the other one too.

Submitted by dave on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 07:14 am

And not only would we need to throw out Z, but you seem to be forgetting some of the other numbers: Marshall: pre-6/20: 2.84 post- 6/20: 5.27 Marquis: pre-6/20: 3.14 post- 6/20: 5.64 Lilly: pre-6/20: 3.62 post- 6/20: 3.69 But you are right - it is just Rich Hill. Or in reality, Zambrano has been much better, Lilly stayed about the same, and Marquis, Marshall, and Hill have all been significantly worse.

Submitted by The Real Neal on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 07:00 am

It's amazing the levell of bleedover you guys attribute to Barrett''s catching skill. He was having a bad year defensively, no one will argue that. Greg Maddux wants him on his team. This is the same Greg Maddux that was notorious for being picky about catchers. The same Greg Maddux who is generally aknowledged as the smartest baseball person around, if not ever. Just because he was playing poorly defensively - that has nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing to do with his calling a game - except with the 'I am afraid to throw it in the dirt' logic. How many of the Cubs pitchers are effective throwing the ball in the dirt, 1 or 2? Zambrano, Weurtz and maybe Dempster? Weurtz onece threw 18 consecutive sliders to Barrett, I don't think he's afraid to throw his out pitch. So I am going to go ahead and take the genius HOF pitcher's opinion (which whoops, happens to coincide with the facts) over all you failed baseball players and coaches of 12 year old teams. No offense.

Recent comments

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Jed has added Teheran, Tyranski, Kissaki, and now Straily and Nico Zeglin today.

    Zeglin is 24 yrs old. Pitched well at Long Beach St in '23 and well in some Indy Ball.

    They also added Reilly and Viets in late ST.

    Have to search for MiLB arm depth anywhere you can and at all times!!!

  • Childersb3 (view)

    25 in Attendance!!!

    Phil, is that a backfield record?

    Also, 6 BBs for Cruz in 2 IP. What's the most walks you've seen in one EXT ST outing that you can recall?

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    He has a pulse. Apparently that’s the only requirement at this point.

  • crunch (view)

    cubs sign dan straily...for some reason.  minor league deal.

    welcome back.

    zac rosscup is down in mexico trying to make it happen...maybe they could throw him a contract, too.  junior lake is his teammate.  shore up a bunch of holes with some washups.

  • fullykräusened (view)

    The great thing about going to live sports events is you don't know if you're going to see something historic. Today I went to the Cub game, after putting the liner back in my coat and fishing my Cubs knit hat out of the closet. I needed all that- my seats are in the upper deck, left, so the east wind was in my face. Both teams failed to capitalize on good situations, but both starters did a good job to accomplish this. So, we go to the bottom of the sixth inning. The Cubs tie it up, and then Pete Crow-Armstrong comes up. We all know he would still be in AAA if not for injuries, and future Hall-of-Famer Justin Verlander absolutely carved up the young fellow up in his first two plate appearances. So this time he hits a fly ball. The wind was blowing in and had suppressed several strong fly balls- including a rocket off Altuve's bat that Canario hauled in (does anybody else remind me of Jorge Soler?) , but the ball kept carrying and carrying. 107mph, legit angle and carry. The crowd went nuts, the dugout went nuts. Maybe, just maybe, I saw the first homer from a long-term Cub.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Which was my original premise. They won the trades but lost their souls. They no longer employ the Cardinal way which had been so successful for so long.

  • crunch (view)

    STL traded away a lot of minor league talent that went on to do nothing in the arenado + goldschmidt trades.  neither guy blocked any of their minor league talent in the pipeline, too.  that's ideal places to add talent.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Natural cycle of baseball. Pitching makes adjustments in approach to counter a hot young rookie. Now it’s time for Busch and his coaches to counter those adjustments. Busch is very good and will figure it out, I think sooner than later.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    In 2020, the pandemic year and the year before they acquired Arenado, the Cardinals finished second and were a playoff team. Of the 12 batters with 100 plate appearances, 8 of them were home grown. Every member of the starting rotation (if you include Wainwright) and all but one of the significant relievers were home grown. While there have been a relative handful of very good trades interspersed which have been mentioned, player development had been their predominant pattern for decades - ever since I became an aware fan in the ‘70’s

    The Arenado deal was not a deal made out of dire need or desperation. It was a splashy, headline making deal for a perennial playoff team intended to be the one piece that brought the Cardinals from a very good team to a World Series contender. They have continued to wheel and deal and have been in a slide ever since. I stand by my supposition that that deal marked a notable turning point within the organization. They broke what had been a very successful formula for a very long time.
     

  • crunch (view)

    busch is having a really intense k-filled mini slump.  he deserves better after coming back to wrigley after that hot road trip.

Click HERE for the last 50 comments