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

Sammy Sosa Tested Positive and Why I Don't Care

Submitted by Rob G. on

There was always one brief glint of hope for Sammy Sosa to wiggle his way into the Hall of Fame and eventually get his number retired by the Cubs and that was to cover his tracks better than the other nincompoops who abused performance enhancers. Well...he didn't or so it seems.

As the union feared, the names on the list have begun to emerge. In February, Sports Illustrated reported that Rodriguez was on the 2003 list, and Rodriguez subsequently acknowledged that he had used steroids for three years. Now, Sosa’s name has been disclosed.

The lawyers who had knowledge of Sosa’s inclusion on the 2003 list did not know the substance for which Sosa tested positive. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified as discussing material that is sealed by a court order.

A lawyer for Sosa, Jay Reisinger, declined comment, as did an official with Major League Baseball.

So, there you go, if I lived in the Middle East, I'd throw a shoe at him. Of course, it's still an unsubstantiated rumor at this point and I'm sure Sosa Inc. will lawyer up and deny till he dies, but it's not like most of the population that cares about this thing didn't already think he abused, now they just have a little more ammunition. Plus, at this point what could Sosa possibly do to clear his name?

I've expressed my thoughts on Sosa numerous times on here and I harbor no ill-will towards him or his time with the Cubs. Hell, I enjoyed just about every second he spent with the Cubs. Did he cheat? Obviously and I certainly don't think the Cubs or baseball should do any future celebrating of his past accomplishments. But, I've always firmly grasped baseball's role in our society as entertainment....nothing more, and while folks wax poetic and glorify its meaning to our lives, ultimately its a damn good way to kill a couple of hours...or in my case, most of the day. This is not to justify Sosa's alleged actions or his double crossing peers, for they no doubt cheated and should be punished or ostracized accordingly. It is to merely point out that what is done is done. Everyone in baseball profited off this, no children or animals were killed during the process, and while I would certainly have preferred that the Steroid Era never occurred, I'm not gonna suddenly stop watching baseball because it did and I'm not gonna forget how much damn fun I had everytime Sosa came up to bat.

Tags
Sammy Sosa
steroids

Comments

Submitted by Andrew on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:30 pm

Waiting for Chad to weigh in. Didn't he say something to the effect of if the guy ever is found to be positive, he'll become his biggest hater? Maybe not, but that's what I seem to recall.

Submitted by John Beasley on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:32 pm

+1 Maybe not celebrating his past accomplishments per se, but I'd at least like to see his number retired in memory of his Cubdom.

Submitted by Dr. aaron b on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:41 pm

Big deal People like to wax about the "good ole days" when Babe Ruth drank beer and ate hot dogs and hit homeruns. Those days are LONG gone. Today every guy in MLB is pushing the limit of supplements and vitamins, and workout regime, etc. ect. Who are we to pass judgement over which guy pushed the line 2% farther than the other guy?

Submitted by jacos on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:48 pm

Well put, Rob. I agree, I just wish those guys would shut the fuck up though like McGwire and go away. I wonder if these guys will ever be romanticized like Joe Jackson after awhile. How long after 1919 did it take for that to happen? Might never happen, but then again I don't believe the game is completely clean even now.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:30 pm

you should have kept reading...

In recent years, evidence has come to light that casts doubt on Jackson's role in the fix. For instance, Jackson initially refused to take a payment of $5,000, only to have Lefty Williams toss it on the floor of his hotel room. Jackson then tried to tell White Sox owner Charles Comiskey about the fix, but Comiskey refused to meet with him. Also, before Jackson's grand jury testimony, team attorney Alfred Austrian coached Jackson's testimony in a manner that would be considered highly unethical even by the standards of the time, and would probably be considered criminal by today's standards. For instance, Austrian got Jackson to admit a role in the fix by pouring a large amount of whiskey down Jackson's throat. He also got the nearly illiterate Jackson to sign a waiver of immunity. Years later, the other seven players implicated in the scandal confirmed that Jackson was never at any of the meetings. Williams, for example, said that they only mentioned Jackson's name to give their plot more credibility.[10]

it being wikipedia, I'm not gonna take it too seriously, but well there it is...

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:02 pm

Heh, I read the title of your post but not the content. I was like 'comedy gold? Rob's losing it.' I actually think the Rangers would be all over Harden for Wood.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:09 pm

I doubt the Rangers would since it would make the Angels a better team.

As for the Angels, maybe....Santana's back to the DL and Escobar is going to the pen. But they are notorious for hanging on to their prospects and they need offense as much as they need pitching. They made the Teix trade last year but that's because they had Morales behind Kotchman in case Teix left via FA. Not sure if they have someone behind Wood and Figgins is a FA this year.

I could go on but i should do it on their site to be fair and I'm too lazy to register.

[ ]

Submitted by KurtEvans on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:00 pm

Not a big deal Rob but I'm aching to know what my "dumb roster moves" are since I basically advocated balancing the team with players who can actually play a variety of positions, cutting down the ridiculous number of useless pitchers in the bullpen, and making one plug-in trade until Ramirez gets back while re-organizing the lineup based on the statistical splits of the hitters. Probably the only "dumb" idea I suggested was the acquisition of Aubrey Huff, a player I mentioned because he's likely to be had for cheaply, he plays a mediocre third, first, and right field -- three positions the Cubs have had trouble keeping their players healthy enough to fill -- and he's a better hitter than, say, about 75% of the team at this juncture. While I wouldn't advocate trading for and starting Huff all year long, he might be the right player to turn to in a pinch -- and the Cubs aren't getting pinched right now, they're getting squeezed.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:28 pm

If I may. Pinhead isn't going anywhere. Guzman is more valuable being used in higher leverage situations than trying to rack up the 'save stat' something that Gregg has done before and is doing decently this year. Finally, Torres, can play both middle infield positions as well as anyone else on the team, whereas Scales gets by at second. Neither of them should have a bat in their hands in any crucial situation, so why not keep the guy who can play defense? The Harden trade, is actually a good idea, if it gets us better than Wood. The rotation has shown it is just fine without Harden, unlike the offense without Ramirez.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:19 pm

alright, well you asked...

First, my assumption is that since you chastized Al for calling his moves realistic and then he managed to put together a series of mostly unrealistic moves, you would follow up with a series of not only realistic but beneficial moves and not just some armchair GM'ing with little hope of execution.  If you were just playing fantasy GM with no regards if any of it is possible, then for the most part no harm done altough I disagree with a few moves...

1) Fire Lou Piniella  - Could it be done? sure...but it took Hendry two years to dump Dusty after injury-riddled seasons, he's obviously not gonna can Lou after two months and two playoff appearances and the team 3 games back in the Central and half the team being hurt over the first half. So I wouldn't call it particularly realistic.  And while I think the last few months haven't been Lou's finest hour, if you check two posts below you'll notice all the shaking up of the lineup in the world isn't going to do much if no one is hitting on the team(sans Derrek Lee). 

2) Promotions/Demotions - Besides Fox potentially, I don't see much if any impact.

I agree mostly with Fox and you already got your wish with Waddell going to the DL and I would try to find a spot in the lineup on most days. The pitching is good enough to hopefully bury his glove somewhere in an OF corner spelling Soriano, Bradley or Fukudome. 

Mathes - not sure you really want to use the majors as a testing ground if your goal with these moves is to get back in the race and solidify the bullpen. I don't know enough about what Mathes throws to guess on how good a LOOGY he would be, his splits are marginal at best,  but I think it's telling that the Cubs picked Waddell first when they easily could have picked Mathes. Plus Marshall has the LOOGY role for now and they were going with 13 pitchers because a few of the arms were "tender".

Scales - 31 yr journeyman who after his first 7 games is hitting with a .603 OPS. He's got a little pop in his bat but Miles is much better defensively and he deserves a shot to do what he was suppose to do now that he's supposedly healthy. Now Miles numbers aren't great since he got back, but I've been impressed by his D and he's hitting line drives now and we don't know how much that shoulder is bothering him.

Hart - sure, he can sit on the bench instead of Patton. The starters have pretty much going to the 7th lately, our bullpen depth isn't much of an issue along with this huge Patton hub-bub..

Heilman - Release? Bit steep don't you think...I mean what exactly makes any of the minor leaguers a sure bet to turn things around. If you just want to rebuild, better off keeping Heilman through free agency and hope he gets Type B free agent classification. 

Blanco - whatever....the best glove out of Freel, Scales and himself and the only one who can actually play SS. He'll probably get dropped when Freel is back anyway.

3)  Trades - Huff for prospects...I did miss your qualifying statement about the ownership issue the first time, but nonetheless he's owed about $4.67M on the rest of the year and the ownership situation is not gonna be resolved in the next month, so the qualifying statement is just lazy since obviously these moves are intended to be executed immediately. I mean if you're trying to bridge the gap for Ramirez, you've got about a month at most. Releasing Heilman who's owed a little less than a million would not make up the difference, even if he's picked up on waivers, which you obviously don't think he would be if you think the bullpen-challenged Indians would even sniff him in a DeRosa trade.

4) Shifts/Lineups - Guzman to closer

For the most part Gregg has done his job with good peripherals. 30 K's in 28.1 IP with 13 BB's. He has 2 blown saves with one 4-run blown save...but a dropped third strike on a very catchable ball could have saved one of those and he's steadily improved. I wasn't thrilled with the Gregg trade at first but the improving K rate is  a good indication he'll continue to be successful. 

Now Guzman's been good, but he's pitched once in the last week which makes me wonder if he's one of those tender arms and thus ill-suited for the closer role. Mostly though you're just shuffling the deck chairs as they say...as with your lineup.

You for some reason decide to bat Fox 8th against lefties while lauding that Fox is pretty much the big bat to wake up the offense.

All of this leads me to the biggest problem of your article (my comments in bold).

 

As a consequence of these moves, the Cubs would have a new manager,

(your results may vary)

a stronger lineup

(how so? you're really just guessing aren't you...because you've done nothing to substantially improve the lineup)

greater depth

(if you pulled off the magical Huff trade with your magic money)

, and fewer weak-spots in the bullpen. 

(how so? you're really just guessing out of your ass here once again)

But as much as this modest shake-up would impact the team, perhaps the biggest move they need to make is this...sell the team:

(neat, I'm sure the guys negotiating the billion dollar deal are gonna hurry this up because the fans are getting a bit tense about making trades).

Anyway, it was better than Al's, so I guess equally was too strong a word. Mostly though it suffers from your own self-inflated belief on their impact to the team and ability to actually execute them.

 

[ ]

Submitted by KurtEvans on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 06:01 am

In my best Columbo ... Just one question: can you care to show me anywhere in the article in which I self-described my proposals as being realistic? I thought I titled it "by any means necessary," a reference to a quote first made by an extremist, and I further self-titled it a "manifesto." I don't think the Cubs will fire Lou Piniella. But I'm starting to believe they should. If you think that the promotions/demotions wouldn't have an impact, then I welcome you to continue your support of a team that's been keeping 12 to 13 relief pitchers -- several of whom have been exceptionally mediocre -- and 1-or-so backup middle infielders on a team that has been struggling desperately to find offense. The ownership deal ... eh, we'll see about that one. The lineup re-alignment: again, team struggles to find offense. Team bats offensive struggler LEADOFF. Correlation, maybe? If they don't build lineups based on splits and recent past performance than why not just draw names out of a hat? I doubt the results would be any worse than they already have been. But, that said, my "self-inflated belief on their impact to the team and ability to actually execute them..." I again return you to these lines: "by any means..." and "manifesto." Right in the title. I realize I don't come right out and say "never going to happen but..." but I'd hope it was pretty obvious. And certainly I never said "here are MY realistic ideas." Anybody who calls their ideas "realistic" are to be trusted about as much as anybody who self-describes themselves as being "genius."

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 06:36 pm

alright then, I have to admit I'm completely confused by the article then...

if it's not meant to be realistic or let's even say reasonable solutions, what were you trying to accomplish? You spend a good deal of time bashing Al's ideas, and yes, he was guilty of poor word choice and delusions of grandeur by calling them realistic, but it's just his ideas on improving the team(poor as they may have been). So you didn't use the word realistic but you use pretty strong words there so you obviously felt that you've solved the Cubs problems in a few short paragraphs.

No, the Cubs need to take dramatic action.  They need to shake the team up, to make smart, sensible moves, and they need to act soon.  Here, therefore, are my solutions to the cluster-frack of a Cubs team that we are tortured by watching every single day:

As a consequence of these moves, the Cubs would have a new manager, a stronger lineup, greater depth, and fewer weak-spots in the bullpen.  But as much as this modest shake-up would impact the team, perhaps the biggest move they need to make is this...sell the team!

if it was just you grab-assing at some ideas, fair enough, but you're just as guilty as Al (and no I'm not defending him, I never read his site) in convincing yourself that you fixed anything. If it was some brilliant piece of satire, I admit the joke was lost on me.

As for the 13 pitcher thing, it was for two days since there were obviously some "tender" arms that Lou called them. As for 12 pitchers, just about every team uses them and yeah, I'd prefer 11 and a deeper bench as a general philosphy, might as well get rid of Patton...but it's almost trivial with the way the starters have pitched. And unless Michael Wuertz is coming back through that door, I don't see how anyone in the minors is any much of an improvement.

The biggest problem with the team is that no one but D-Lee is hitting and no amount of lineup jockeying is going to fix it. When all the sides of your dice are a "1", you're going to roll snake eyes every time. Of course you should use splits and past performance, but I believe you were using mostly in-season splits, while I'd certainly measure it more heavily towards career or 3-yr splits. I mean, you've got Soriano batting 4th in your lineup, but the guy has a .395 OPS over the last month.  You've got Theriot batting leadoff and 2nd and Huff batting third and both have struggled mightily in June. Yet, you're convinced you've built a stronger lineup.

Anyway, I'm already sorry I got into it...I know in the blog world we're suppose to pretend that all our ideas are the best ideas ever and why don't the teams just listen to us...I should have just let it be.

Submitted by Cubster on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:56 pm

People like to wax about the "good ole days" when Babe Ruth drank beer and ate hot dogs and hit homeruns. --- If Sosa gets in, I'd like to see the Wrigley Smokie Link wagon also get into the HOF.

Submitted by billybucks on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:00 pm

I always find it hilarious that the sportwriters make the steroid HOF vote issue a matter of national concern. Fans (this fan, anyway) care about wins and losses and playoffs and championships (sob...) -- I personally think the HOF is pretty irrelevant, and think the sportscasters are wallowing in self-importance by boldly stating that they will/won't vote for McGuire et al. The HOF is important to the individual, no doubt, but, was Ryno's HOF induction a memorable moment? Nah. Games matter. Museums, not so much. Now, if they inducted the inventor of OPS, that would be different.

Submitted by Tito on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:13 pm

"(W)hile I would certainly have preferred that the Steroid Era never occurred, I'm not gonna suddenly stop watching baseball because it did and I'm not gonna forget how much damn fun I had everytime Sosa came up to bat." Perfectly said.

Submitted by Rob G. on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:20 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/columns/story?columnist=greenberg_jon… hat tip to Wrigleyville 23 for the link Dye, Aramis Ramirez, Buehrle, Lilly, Konerko This is where I probably should explain my cavemanlike methodology. To be considered, a player has to be excelling this season (although I made one exception for injury) and have a career history to back him up. Because we're ranking the players in 2009, the players who are doing well right now earn obvious weight. I asked a handful of players, some friends, one wife, a Joe Crede and one very garrulous broadcaster about their picks. None of their choices carries any weight whatsoever, but it's always nice to make friends (except for current Twins third baseman Crede, who offered a terse "I don't want to get into that," which made me think he just didn't want to be on the receiving end of a snide A.J. Pierzynski text message).

Submitted by Transmission on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:20 pm

At some point, I'll write more extensively about it, but I am more convinced by the day that Greg Maddux is the best player left standing from 1980-2009 if you DQ those connected to steroids.

Submitted by Mike Wellman on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:23 pm

1. Agree w/ Rob on Ryno's induction speech... 2. Was @ Wrigley on Sammy Sosa Day; as he said on that occasion, "baseball been very, very good to" him...he doesn't get the flag flyin' o'er the park or the HOF... 3. Also agree w/ Rob about all the "damn fun" watchin' Sammy hit...I 'bout wet my pants when he cranked one deeeeep to CF in the 1st inning of the division-clincher in '03 & that game-tyin' blast in the bottom o' the 9th off UU in game 1 of the NLCS the same year & again the next night when he cracked one off the camera shed [was there for all those too]...there were many, many days when the joint emptied as soon as Sammy batted for the last time & everybody headed for the bars to guzzle some more of their own performance enhancers... 4. Funny how stories leaked about the smashed boom box & the truancy from the clubhouse on the last day of the season in ?? but it took 'til now for this to seep out into the light of day...

Submitted by Cubster on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 06:44 pm

Soriano, Theriot, Bradley, DLee, Soto, RJohnson, Fontenot, Miles, Z vs Podsednik, Ramirez, Dye, Konerko, AJ, Anderson, Getz, Beckham, Danks --- ...Tribe 2-0 over Brewers, DeRosa solo HR (13), 3 walks and a Groundout...Gallardo vs Bowers

Recent comments

  • 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.

  • 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!

Click HERE for the last 50 comments