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 Trivia

Which dubious single-game NL record did Glenn Beckert set in 1972?
Good luck with that one....

Comments

A wild stab--and I swear I haven't looked it up: Most double-plays hit into in a single game. (As I recall, Beckert was awfully slow-footed for a middle infielder.) Four DPs? Five?

either chris looked it up or we have a serious trivia buff amongst us... http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1972/B09160CHN1972.htm the game in question... Beckert 0 for 6 in a 18-5 win over the Mets 1st: Beckert FO8 with bases loaded 3rd: Beckert FO2 with runners on 2nd/3rd Beckert FO9 with runners on 2nd/3rd 5th: Beckert FO8 with man on 2nd 7th: Beckert FO5 with man on 3rd Beckert FC5-4 with bases loaded pure Cubbery...

Ahh - he did have the misfortune of coming up with two-out I guess.

Does that mean in the 3rd and 7th, he came to the plate twice? And left 4 on, over 2 ABs, in each of those innings? Yow.

Not pure Cubbery, as the Cubs won 18-5! The search for the record that best personifies Cubbery continues....

Sorry I'm a couple days late and probably a dollar short on this one, I didn't read all the comments, but as for the Paul Byrd HGH timing, Dr. Hecht, YES, at least according to XM radio, Sen. Mitchell absolutely happens to be a part owner of.... you guessed it, the Boston Red Sox. And if somebody else already posted all this, forgive me, I don't get to check in here as often as I'd like. And one more thing, Az Phil rocks!! (I remember looking forward to his words before he became a "staffer")

What's with the Beckert hate? I loved the way Beckert played when I was growing up - the guy was a marginal player who worked hard at becoming a decent 2B, and he broke up a lot of DP during his playing days. You could do a lot worse than to use him as a prime example of "Cubbery." You want to talk about terrible Cub infielders? Hey, let's talk about the immortal Steve Ontiveros, or the mighty Mick Kelleher. Beckert doesn't deserve to be on that list.

You'll notice that at no time did I use the words "grit," "hustle," "grinder," or "Eckstein - like" in the above description.

Tony S.: "Sen. Mitchell absolutely happens to be a part owner of…. you guessed it, the Boston Red Sox." Mitchell is not a part owner of the Red Sox, he is a "Director" for the team. But it was a little interesting how the news conveniently came out when the Indians were up 3-2 in the series.

By Cub standards, or even by any standard, Ontiveros was not "terrible." He hit .299 in 1977 and .285 in 1979, with more than 500 at bats both years. Sure, he did not drive in a lot of runs, but he was not "terrible."

This may be a bit too easy. But since his name came up, how does Steve "I like dirt" Ontiveros figure into the 10/22 trivia question?

Champ, Cubs traded Bill Madlock (10/22 trivia answer) for Ontiveros and Murcer I believe in 1977. Murcer was acquired to replace the power lost when the Cubs traded Rick Monday earlier that offseason (which he largely did).

You could do a lot worse than to use him as a prime example of “Cubbery.” Just to clarify, Dmac - "Cubbery" is loosely defined as the ability to come up monumentally short, resulting in a loss. It's not anti-Beckert per se. Just a consideration as to whether his record-setting game belongs in the A-Gonz/Brant Brown/Leon Durham pantheon. Since the Cubs won, there is a good argument that his feat was not an example of Cubbery.

"By Cub standards, or even by any standard, Ontiveros was not “terrible." By defensive 3B standards, he was nothing short of abysmal. You conveniently forgot that little segment on player evaluation.

Brick - thanks for the translation. I had assumed it meant complete sucktitude (which I think it still does).

well that didnt take long. Indeed. Madlock and Rob Sperring for Ontiveros, Murcer and Andy(?) Muhlstock(?) I remember as part of his warm up ritual Ontiveros used to grab a handfull of dirt out of the batters box and rub it all over his uniform before each at bat. The more tense the situation, the more dirt he would grab. He did the same thing after each wiff. By the end of the game he always looked like "pig pen" from charlie brown. I think he is most remembered for his vividly odd appearance on the old 'hair club' commercials.

My nominees for terrible Cub infielders (limiting myself to my lifetime of memories)... Bump Wills (notable because he blocked Sandberg from 2B for a good chunk of Ryno's rookie year...Lee Elia's Neifi) Luis Salazar (old and bad...Don Zimmer's Hollandsworth...so bad he made me think that Steve Buechele at 3B was an "upgrade") Jeff Blauser, on "terrible" list because of expectations. He's Exhibit A in "Why We Should Not Trade for Renteria" this offseason...Renteria's the same age Blauser was when he became a Cub. Blauser in year before he was a Cub: .308/.405/.482, only his second season hitting over .300. Renteria: .332/.390/.470, only his third season hitting above .300.

“Cubbery” is loosely defined as the ability to come up monumentally short, resulting in a loss." Sounds like former Cub Bill Buckner!

woah there... I was just pointing out that Glenn Beckert had a really, really bad day at the plate. I guess we can argue if it was a true Cubbery moment or not but nothing against the guy's career.

I'd forgotten all about those hair club commercials - but I distinctly remember him playing almost any hard - hit ball off his left shoulder, then stumbling after it as it rolled into LF. The guy was just brutal out there, Ron Cey with less range (if you can believe that).

If I "conveniently forgot" about that "little segment" about Onti, his defense, then I guess you "conveniently forgot" that Onti was not a "terrible" hitter by any reasonable standard. Look, I was just trying to say that, overall, by any reasonable standard, the guy was not terrible. When you made your comment, I did not see that you were limiting your appraisal to the guy's fielding skills. Taking it all into consideration, I don't think Onti was a "terrible" infielder. And as far as his defense goes, I don't think he was all that bad, certainly not by Cubs' standards, which is what I thought you were talking about. For example, his fielding percentage in 1977 and 1979 was about the same as Bill Madlock's fielding percentage. No, I am not saying Madlock was gold glove. Again, I am just saying that, by any reasonable standard, Onti should not be on the list of terrible Cub infielders.

Madlock played third like he wished he was batting. In his three years with the Cubs he was 39 runs below average, according to BP (and my Dad). Ontiveros in his four years with the Cubs was 30 runs above average (my dad never gave an opinion on that, but I can get one if you want). Conclusion: If you think Madlock was a good fielder, you're experiencing bleedover effect. You're qualified to vote on the Gold Glove award, but as a GM you would make Ed Lynch look like Branch Rickey/

Recent comments

  • crunch (view)

    happ, right hamstring tightness, day-to-day (hopefully 0 days).

    he will be reevaluated tomorrow.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    I guess I'm not looking for that type of AB 

    Just a difference of opinion

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    I don’t see Tauchman as a weak link in any position. He simply adds his value in a different way.

    I don’t know that we gain much by putting him in the outfield - Happ, Bellinger and Suzuki and Tauchman all field their positions well. If you’re looking for Taucnman’s kind of AB in a particular game I don’t see why it can’t come from DH.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Tauchman gets a pinch hit RBI single with a liner to RF. This is his spot. He's a solid 4th OF. But he isn't a DH. 

    He takes pitches. Useful. I still believe in having good hitters.

    You don't want your DH to be your weak link (other than your C maybe)

  • crunch (view)

    bit of a hot take here, but i'm gonna say it.

    the 2024 marlins don't seem to be good at doing baseballs.

  • 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.