Cubs MLB Roster

Cubs Organizational Depth Chart
40-Man Roster Info

40 players are on the MLB RESERVE LIST (roster is full), plus two players are on the 60-DAY IL 

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

Last updated 4-18-2024
 
* bats or throws left
# bats both

PITCHERS: 13
Yency Almonte
Adbert Alzolay 
Javier Assad
Colten Brewer
Ben Brown
Kyle Hendricks
* Shota Imanaga
Mark Leiter Jr
Hector Neris 
* Drew Smyly
Jameson Taillon 
Keegan Thompson
* Jordan Wicks

CATCHERS: 2
Miguel Amaya
Yan Gomes

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

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

OPTIONED: 12 
Kevin Alcantara, OF 
Michael Arias, P 
Pete Crow-Armstrong, OF 
Jose Cuas, P 
Brennen Davis, OF 
Porter Hodge, P 
* Luke Little, P 
* Miles Mastrobuoni, INF
* Matt Mervis, 1B 
Daniel Palencia, P 
Luis Vazquez, INF 
Hayden Wesneski, P 

10-DAY IL: 1 
Seiya Suzuki, OF

15-DAY IL
* Justin Steele, P   

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





Minor League Rosters
Rule 5 Draft 
Minor League Free-Agents

Cubs Sign Trever Miller, And Yes, That Is The Most Exciting News of the Day

The Cubs inked soon-to-be 39 year old Trever Miler to a minor league deal. He'll earn 800K if he makes the team. He'll get a non-roster invite to spring training and I'm sure we'll get the full list of those invitees by the end of the week. It being a minor league deal, hard to get to worked up over it, but Miller has done absolutely nothing other than see his K rate get cut in half over the last two seasons, while still maintaining the ability to walk the stadium.

Year Age Tm W L W-L% ERA G GF SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP WP ERA+ WHIP H/9 HR/9 BB/9 SO/9 SO/BB
2009 36 STL 4 1 .800 2.06 70 9 0 43.2 31 11 10 5 11 1 46 2 1 199 0.962 6.4 1.0 2.3 9.5 4.18
2010 37 STL 0 1 .000 4.00 57 3 0 36.0 30 17 16 2 16 0 22 2 4 98 1.278 7.5 0.5 4.0 5.5 1.38
2011 38 BOS-min 0 0   2.70 3 1 0 3.1 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0   0.600 5.4 0.0 0.0 5.4   PAW · IL
2011 38 TOT 0 1 .000 3.80 48 5 1 21.1 25 9 9 2 12 2 12 2 2 106 1.734 10.5 0.8 5.1 5.1 1.00
13 Seasons 18 17 .514 4.18 694 133 11 523.1 521 264 243 54 237 28 434 43 22 106 1.448 9.0 0.9 4.1 7.5 1.83
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 1/30/2012.

Spring training roster filler at its finest.

- Some random AL GM (hint: rhymes with Washington) believes Selig will side with the Red Sox and give them significant compensation from the Cubs for Theo Epstein. "I don’t think MLB wants executives leaving their teams before their contracts are up and therefore he will try to deter teams from doing that again.’’ If they cared so much about that, then they just wouldn't allow teams to even give permission. 

- Articles on Josh Vitters and Brett Jackson to fill the time. 

- Anthony Rizzo was named the 33rd best prospect in baseball by MLB.com, Jackson #37 and Javier Baez #62.

Other than that, Cespedes watch continues.


Comments

So, do these has-beens get paid as an NRI, or it is a free audition? What a collection of crap Theo has assembled, "on paper". I am not even bothering looking at his loogy splits. We need to start bringing in guys who can at least drive in some runs if we are bringing in re-treads and seniors: Pat Burell just retired. Theo? Matt Stairs? Ron Bloomberg? Randall Simon? Ben Grieve? Can Hollandsworth still hit? BTW, ROB G, since I am totally bored on the baseball front, I am going with "Moneyball" as the Oscar winner for Editing - neck and neck with The Artist. The Artist will win best picture. Although The Descendents is a terrific story and well cut. The trailers I have seen are actually pretty cogent and don't give the entire movie away, which is what J.J. Abrams despises... For a team that was near the bottom in most offensive categories, where is the run production going to come from exactly?

[ ]

In reply to by The E-Man

For a team that was near the bottom in most offensive categories, where is the run production going to come from exactly? Bryan LaHair, duh. I am going with "Moneyball" as the Oscar winner for Editing - neck and neck with The Artist. The Artist will win best picture. out of most of the nominated films, I've only seen Midnight in Paris and Moneyball. I did think Moneyball was very well executed all around as a feature film (editing, cinematography, sound, etc). Story-wise, they set up the classic sports underdog story well and just nailed the final 20-25 minutes. I wasn't as enamored by the Brad Pitt or Jonah Hill's performances as others seem to be, but they didn't fuck up the film either. If you're still looking for an unslanted documentary, you'll be disappointed of course. And should probably stop going to see movies.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

who was looking for an unslanted documentary? some people just wanted a little more real and little less Mighty Ducks. it's hard to ignore revisionist history when you know what happened and what became of it. one can separate themselves from it and "just enjoy a film" but if someone decides to make a WW2 film and took the liberties with history that Moneyball did you're going to find people not interested. let's have brad pitt play hitler and since italy/japan/etc leaders don't matter much let's smoosh them all together into a hapless nerd. let him play samuel jackson's role of "mystic negro who is smart as hell, but can't help himself or see the forest for the trees." ...the scout thing...the timeline issues...the amount of made up stuff, which isn't just a scene or 2...or 3...or 5... i'm not even talking about "making up" dialogue or creating drama by falsifying how players are signed (a plane trip at xmas time to sign a minor player...really). i'm talking about creating something new when a blueprint already existed.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

"some people just wanted a little more real and little less Mighty Ducks." you can substitute The Rookie in there if it makes more sense. i already saw a kickass baseball movie in the last 12 months and what do you know...even though it wasn't real i enjoyed it. amazing, huh? it's called Sugar. it's awesome. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0990413/ i'm also waiting on Dead Ball to come out in the US...Japanese horror/gore baseball film. i'm not 100% sure, but i don't think you can throw a baseball 200kph and take a zombie's head off with it. i'm willing to suspend reality to find out.\ is it that hard to believe that some people who know a lot about the situation don't want a made-up rehash of it, especially a 120+ minute version with a thrown in subplot involving a cute kid making small talk letting brad pitt develop his character's humanity?

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

no, i didnt understand how they'd market it and sell it. i never declared it a bomb. i wouldn't have been surprised, though. no, i didn't think they'd spend about 15-20m promoting the thing 3 months before it even hit theaters, even with brad pitt. i don't care what the filmmakers were doing. i never said they couldn't make the film. meh if i didn't enjoy the book why would i want to see an even more bastardized version in film form? i didnt see the remake of Bad News Bears...no interest...i love the original. not only am i capable of liking a baseball movie, i don't feel the need to watch every one for one reason or another. it's a lot easier to call me an "elitist" rather than saying i expected a documentary and i'm incapable of suspending reality to enjoy a story.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

As I recall it, you did peg it a bomb - or that no one would watch it as it was not "accurate"... or some bullshit like that. Same thing. If you knew shit about film making (which you don't), you would know that it is anadapted screenplay and an adapted work takes liberties from the original source. It is not supposed to be a documentary in any way. It is a story about David vs. Goliath and Billy Beane's passion, innovation, and relationship with his daughter (or lack thereof). Some items in the film are based on the book. Some are not. Not the first time this thing has happened. You've seen Gone With the Wind, right? In that sense, the adapted screenplay holds true to the story concept of the above, and is terrifically cut, well shot, awesome mix, well-acted by the main actors, well-crafted. As I recall, did you not make a comment that the character who played Carlos Pena was bad? Or that was someone else? If so - the character had one line. As ROB G states, if you don't like this, that is totally your perogative as art in all forms is obviously very subjective. I love Sugar. Terrific story. Mediocre acting. Raw. Not particularly well-shot with many flaws in lighting and editing. But, "charming". However - it is a completely different animal than Moneyball and comparatively in Low A ball in comparison to Moneyball.

[ ]

In reply to by The E-Man

"As I recall it, you did peg it a bomb - or that no one would watch it as it was not "accurate"... or some bullshit like that. Same thing." absolutely not. and i would never assume the general public would demand accuracy out of it. that's not even in my profile. the "sullen pena" was covered by many. that's a very minor detail compared to other issues i have with -multiple- aspects of the film...and we're not talking minor things. this film has a composite character for christ's sake...and i don't care how human his little girl makes the beane character. i don't care about...this...film. not a revolutionary thing, a few hundred other million joined me in not wanting to see it. "If you knew shit about film making (which you don't), you would know that it is anadapted screenplay and an adapted work takes liberties from the original source. " okay real neal. moving on, i do know what an adaptive screenplay is and if your comprehension was better (hi, neal) you'd realize i'm not bitching about how i don't know what an adapted screenplay is. i'm saying i have no interest in seeing a 2+ hour drama based on a book that i didn't like. i have plenty of friends IRL who saw the film or heard/saw other sources which didn't make the film something worth giving 2 hours to. given what i think of the book, i don't think i'd enjoy the film so i haven't seen it yet. i'm pretty clear what these reasons are, too. in the past i wondered how they'd market the film to make back the money they put into it. some of you are very protective over the whole "moneyball" lineage...grow up and be a TB fan, forget the beane fanboyism.

[ ]

In reply to by The E-Man

"some people just wanted a little more real and little less Mighty Ducks." if you want a reason why it goes into fantasy land we can start with the composite character, move onto timeline issues, dismiss the minor dramatizing, and still have plenty of major dramatizing left over. to me, this whole era was evident down to beane-stories of agroness before the book came out. i laughed off some of the over-dramatized stuff in the book, but the film took it way beyond. the look inside the draft room was neat, though...but keep in mind what the film did to convey it...and yes, i've seen dialogue excerpts myself, in case that matters. now, if i didn't enjoy the book, why would i want to watch Disney's "The Rookie" version of a history i already know? can't people just be happy the general public actually went to watch a baseball drama? that's rare. it's not for everyone.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

...now, if i didn't enjoy the book, why would i want to watch Disney's "The Rookie" version of a history i already know? That is a very valid point. We are just looking at the piece through different glasses. There were several story points I felt affinity towards (and the book did not reflect the Hollywood-ized version) and as someone who teaches in a large film school, probably have a different technical perspective than you do on the overall craft and achievements. It seems as if you were criticizing the film when not having even seen it, which is what ROB G had alluded to in the first place. Suffice it to say, as I am understanding now, is that maybe you just meant you had no interest in seeing it based on the book that you didn't like. All the other stuff with your interesting comparisons to "Sugar" and "Mighty Ducks", I am just going to leave alone.

[ ]

In reply to by The E-Man

at first i was shocked at the new direction it was going given what the 1st run of the movie was supposed to be...the daughter character took on much more importance and the plan to integrate/use real players in the film took a backseat. actually, from the out-set i was surprised they were going to try to sell a baseball drama to the general public using a highly paid actor to do it. i was surprised how much investment they put into marketing the film, too. this was being trailer screened and tv buys for ads months before it was even rated. as far as taking a nearly-doomed project start-to-finish in a genre that's historically (especially recently) not attractive to the general public...home run. i'm just too close to the real history to enjoy it for what it is...call it elitism, but i'd rather just say i need more time to separate myself from the real history in order to actually enjoy it for what it is.

[ ]

In reply to by The Joe

ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ ]

In reply to by The E-Man

Mon, 01/30/2012 - 1:15pm — The E-Man New Re: Cubs Sign Trever Miller, And Yes, That Is The Most ... So, do these has-beens get paid as an NRI, or it is a free audition? What a collection of crap Theo has assembled, "on paper". ======================== E-MAN: Whether you are Alfonso Soriano or Jae-Hoon Ha, players don't get paid a salary at MLB Spring Training, but they do receive a weekly Spring Training allowance (housing, food, and walking around money) that amounts to about $1,100 per week. Since MLB Spring Training runs about six weeks, an NRI who lasts to the final cut would make about $6,500. Conversely, players at Minor League Camp (which runs four weeks) get about $250 per week Spring Training allowance. While Soriano or Dempster might consider the $6,500 to be merely pocket-change, it's a fortune for a player like Blake Lalli, who will probably be making about $15,000 in 2012.

[ ]

In reply to by Arizona Phil

Thanks PHIL. As you can tell, I was curious if some of these guys could make a few bucks during this period. I suppose if the chances are slim that an NRI, who is not in the organization, and will most-likely not catch on with another team, the player can bank some of the money you allude to, and can get a break from high-school coaching, the local Sears job, Bennigan's bartending, and the like. I would imagine that many of these kind of fringe (or "downward trending") players have family challenges: wives giving the guy "one more shot"; guys getting divorced from those spouses that just can't take it anymore (Peter Finch); players that are kept on a string by the club to fill a spot, perhaps? It is a curious and interesting lifestyle keeping the dream alive. Not unlike many musicians I have known over the years.

FWIW, Theo signed Trever Miller to a minor league contract last August after he was released by the Jays (was traded to the Jays earlier in a deal that sent Corey Patterson to the Redturds) and called him up to Boston two weeks later. So there's history there between Miller and Epstein. Miller at $800k vs the $2MM he made last year, and Marshall gone, makes it a real possibility he'll play for the Cubs sometime in 2012. As for me, I'm hoping Bud Selig takes a look and hands him back to the Red Sox.

having a press conference... Twitter box in sidebar is filled with his quotables.

Bruce Miles lists 15 of the 21 in his twitter which can be found on the sidebar James Adduci, OF Alfredo Amezaga, INF Michael Brenly, C Marco Carrillo, RHP Edgar Gonzalez, INF Brett Jackson, OF Jay Jackson, RHP Jason Jaramillo, C Trey McNutt, RHP Trever Miller, LHP Jonathan Mota, INF Dae-Eun Rhee, RHP Chris Rusin, LHP Bobby Scales, INF Matt Tolbert, INF http://wiklifield.thecubreporter.com/Cubs_Non-Roster_Invites

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

Michael Brenly is a can't miss, he has clout in the (TV) booth. Besides, he fits right in with all that have been injured and looking for a great rebound year. Wasn't Bob a so-so in the minors as well? Now, with your comments about him being so-so in the majors as well (listening). Regardless, he a few good games at Wrigley as a Cub killer. St. Michael's revenge! Heh-heh...

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

the full 21 James Adduci, OF Alfredo Amezaga, INF Michael Brenly, C Marco Carrillo, RHP Manny Corpas, RHP Edgar Gonzalez, INF Jae-Hoon Ha, OF Brett Jackson, OF Jay Jackson, RHP Jason Jaramillo, C Blake Lalli, C Rodrigo Lopez, RHP Joe Mather, OF Trey McNutt, RHP Trever Miller, LHP Jonathan Mota, INF Blake Parker, RHP Dae-Eun Rhee, RHP Chris Rusin, LHP Bobby Scales, INF Matt Tolbert, INF

Indeed, Bobby Scales has been freed. Maybe this is the year Jay Jackson gets moved to be a position player since he is not much of a pitching prospect anymore. AZ PHIL constantly touts his hitting (best hitting pitcher in the PCL), and heaven knows this team needs some rbi's desparately.

[ ]

In reply to by Dusty Baylor

Just going from memory, there were a lot of warning track flies with ducks on the pond late in games that the Cubs lost in that first year, despite the 27 that went out. My memory has a lot of those dingers being in non-clutch situations. I know, I know, there's no data that proves the existence of "clutchiness" as a baseball skill. This is just my emotional memory of that blighted era of Cubs history. The precipitous decline the next year just made it all the worse. I'm pretty much in agreement with what you have pointed out above. I just wanted to add my recollections to the mix. When the game is on the line in the late innings and Murcer is at the plate -- bam! Warning track fly. Damn Murcer.

Recent comments

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Phil, will the call up for a double header restart that 15 days on assignment for a pitcher? Like will wesneski’s 15 days start yesterday, or if he’s the 27th man, will that mean 15 days from tomorrow?

    I hope that makes sense. It sounds clearer in my head.

  • Charlie (view)

    Tauchman obviously brings value to the roster as a 4th outfielder who can and should play frequently. Him appearing frequently at DH indicated that the team lacks a valuable DH. 

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Totally onboard with your thoughts concerning today’s lineup. Not sure about your take on Tauchman though.

    The guy typically doesn’t pound the ball out out of the park, and his BA is quite unimpressive. But he brings something unique to the table that the undisciplined batters of the past didn’t. He always provides a quality at bat and he makes the opposing pitcher work because he has a great eye for the zone and protects the plate with two strikes exceptionally well. In addition to making him a base runner more often than it seems through his walks, that kind of at bat wears a pitcher down both mentally and physically so that the other guys who may hit the ball harder are more apt to take advantage of subsequent mistakes and do their damage.

    I can’t remember a time when the Cubs valued this kind of contribution but this year they have a couple of guys doing it, with Happ being the other. It doesn’t make for gaudy stats but it definitely contributes to winning ball games. I do believe that’s why Tauchman has garnered so much playing time.

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    Miles Mastrobuoni cannot be recalled until he has spent at least ten days on optional assignment, unless he is recalled to replace a position player who is placed on an MLB inactive list (IL, Paternity, Bereavement / Family Medical). 

     

    And for a pitcher it's 15 days on optional assignment before he can be recalled, unless he is replacing a pitcher who is placed on an MLB inactive list (IL, Paternity, or Bereavement / Family Medical). 

     

    And a pitcher (or a position player, but almost always it's a pitcher) can be recalled as the 27th man for a doubleheader regardless of how many days he has been on optional assignment, but then he must be sent back down again the next day. 

     

    That's why the Cubs had to wait as long as they did to send Jose Cuas down and recall Keegan Thompson. Thompson needed to spend the first 15 days of the MLB regular season on optional assignment before he could be recalled (and he spent EXACTLY the first 15 days of the MLB regular season on optional assignment before he was recalled). 

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Indeed they do TJW!

    For the record I’m not in favor of solely building a team through paying big to free agents. But I’m also of the mind that when you develop really good players, get them signed to extensions that buy out a couple years of free agency, including with team options. And supplement the home grown players with free agent splashes or using excess prospects to trade for stars under team control for a few years. Sort of what Atlanta does, basically. Everyone talks about the dodgers but I feel that Atlanta is the peak organization at the current moment.

    That said, the constant roster churn is very Rays- ish. What they do is incredible, but it’s extremely hard to do which is why they’re the only ones frequently successful that employ that strategy. I definitely do not want to see a large market team like ours follow that model closely. But I don’t think free agent frenzies is always the answer. It’s really only the Dodgers that play in that realm. I could see an argument for the Mets too. The Yankees don’t really operate like that anymore since the elder Steinbrenner passed. Though I would say the reigning champions built a good deal of that team through free agent spending.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    The issue is the Cubs are 11-7 and have been on the road for 12 of those 18.  We should be at least 13-5, maybe 14-4. Jed isn't feeling any pressure to play anyone he doesn't see fit.
    But Canario on the bench, Morel not at 3B for Madrigal and Wisdom in RF wasn't what I thought would happen in this series.
    I was hoping for Morel at 3B, Canario in RF, Wisdom at DH and Madrigal as a pinch hitter or late replacement.
    Maybe Madrigal starts 1 game against the three LHSP for Miami.
    I'm thinking Canario goes back to Iowa on Sunday night for Mastrobuoni after the Miami LHers are gone.
    Canario needs ABs in Iowa and not bench time in MLB.
    With Seiya out for a while Wisdom is safe unless his SOs are just overwhelmingly bad.

    My real issue with the lineup isn't Madrigal. I'm not a fan, but I've given up on that one.
    It's Tauchman getting a large number of ABs as the de factor DH and everyday player.
    I didn't realize that was going to be the case.
    We need a better LH DH. PCA or ONKC need to force the issue in about a month.
    But, even if they do so, Jed doesn't have to change anything if the Cubs stay a few over .500!!!

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Totally depends on the team and the player involved. If your team’s philosophy is to pay huge dollars to bet on the future performance of past stars in order to win championships then, yes, all of the factors you mentioned are important.

    If on the other hand, if the team’s primary focus is to identify and develop future stars in an effort to win a championship, and you’re a young player looking to establish yourself as a star, that’s a fit too. Otherwise your buried within your own organization.

    Your comment about bringing up Canario for the purposes of sitting him illustrates perfectly the dangers of rewarding a non-performing, highly paid player over a hungry young prospect, like Canario, who is perpetually without a roster spot except as an insurance call up, but too good to trade. Totally disincentivizing the performance of the prospect and likely diminishing it.

    Sticking it to your prospects and providing lousy baseball to your fans, the consumers and source of revenue for your sport, solely so that the next free agent gamble finds your team to be a comfortable landing spot even if he sucks? I suppose  that makes sense to some teams but it’s definitely not the way I want to see my team run.

    Once again, DJL, our differences in philosophy emerge!

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    That’s just kinda how it works though, for every team. No team plays their best guys all the time. No team is comprising of their best 26 even removing injuries.

    When baseball became a business, like REALLY a business, it became important to keep some of the vets happy, which in turn keeps agents happy and keeps the team with a good reputation among players and agents. No one wants to play for a team that has a bad reputation in the same way no one wants to work for a company that has a bad rep.

    Don’t get me wrong, I hate it too. But there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

    On that topic, I find it silly the Cubs brought up Canario to sit as much as he has. He’s going to get Velazquez’d, and it’s a shame.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Of course, McKinstry runs circles around $25 million man Javier Baez on that Tigers team. Guess who gets more playing time?

    But I digress…

  • Sonicwind75 (view)

    Seems like Jed was trying to corner the market on mediocre infielders with last names starting with "M" in acquiring Madrigal, Mastroboney and Zach McKinstry.  

     

    At least he hasn't given any of them a Bote-esque extension.