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, ten players are on OPTIONAL ASSIGNMENT to minors, two players are on the 15-DAY IL, and two players are on the 10-DAY IL

Last updated 4-17-2024
 
* 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
Keegan Thompson
Hayden Wesneski 
* Jordan Wicks

CATCHERS: 2
Miguel Amaya
Yan Gomes

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

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

OPTIONED: 10 
Kevin Alcantara, OF 
Michael Arias, P 
Pete Crow-Armstrong, OF 
Jose Cuas, P 
Brennen Davis, OF 
Porter Hodge, P 
* Luke Little, P 
* Matt Mervis, 1B 
Daniel Palencia, P 
Luis Vazquez, INF 

10-DAY IL: 2 
Seiya Suzuki, OF
Patrick Wisdom, INF 

15-DAY IL: 2
* Justin Steele, P  
Jameson Taillon, P 

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




Minor League Rosters
Rule 5 Draft 
Minor League Free-Agents

Sunday Night Chat

Submitted by Rob G. on

Everyone's last chance to see some baseball for a few days, join the fun in Parachat.

*Shumaker 2B
*Fuld CF
*Rasmus CF
Theriot SS
Pujols 1B
Lee 1B
Ludwick RF
 Ramirez 3B
*Ankiel LF
 Soriano LF
Molina C
# Bradley RF
*Thurston 3B
 Baker 2B
Wainwright P 
#Hill C
Ryan SS  Wells P

 

A win, and the Cubs are tied for 2nd and 1.5 back of the Cardinals heading into the break. A loss and their 3.5 back from the Cardinals and in third place.

Tags
Game Previews

Comments

Submitted by Iowa Cub on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 07:16 pm

I'm sure some will think this is ridiculous, but I think Jake Fox has just become Mark DeRosa. In fact, he's DeRosa+, becuase he's a better hitter, and he can catch. He's played 1B, 3B, LF, RF, and now C. And they've worked him out at 2B (which I don't get, don't we already have 20 guys on the 40-man roster who can play 2nd). He may not be a wizard at any of these positions, but he's got flexibility, and he hits. I love it.

Submitted by Jumbo on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 07:32 pm

Lou is putting Marshall into LF for a batter with the bases loaded! Plan is to put him back at pitcher after this hitter and a new fielder in left. Defensive improvement in LF

[ ]

Submitted by Jumbo on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 07:38 pm

holy shit heilman K's the batter, marshall back to pitcher, reed to LF Joe Morgan says Fox looks good behind the plate. My instincts tell me not to trust him, but he hasn't screwed anything up yet edit TLR pinch hits after Marshall sent back to P, now right hitter up. Lou keeps marshall in, but I think he only has to stay in for 1 pitch and a reliever could be called in. I would guess they'll leave him in

[ ]

Submitted by Jumbo on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 07:42 pm

holy fuck blooper tailing away from johnson in left, he dives too early, hits the ground and kind of dives again and catches it. A play Soriano would never have come close to even having a chance at making

[ ]

Submitted by Charlie on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:33 am

On replay, I couldn't tell whether Johnson had his glove under the ball or whether the ball hit grass, but my reaction in real time was to laugh and think, "No, he didn't catch that ball!" But I couldn't tell without a doubt that it hit the ground and not the leather.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:40 pm

first replay I thought it was a trap, then it looked like it might have bounced in his glove...

an ump though if he saw the play would have probably just seen the bounce and called it a trap, which apparently they weren't watching much of the game last night, including the call that Wainwright was not trying to intentionally block the throw from Theriot on that double play. I mean, it's normal to throw your hands as high as possible right at the last minute.

Next Cardinal should get drilled in the face that tries to break up a double play...

 

Submitted by champsummers on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 07:45 pm

well that inning was exiting, weird, and lucky. with karma like that, we deserve to win this one.

Submitted by billybucks on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 07:54 pm

3 straight called 3rd strikes in the bottom of the ninth? Great way to go down fighting into the break. What the fuck?!

[ ]

Submitted by billybucks on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:37 am

Saw the replay -- tough calls, but all were close. The kind of pitch you can't take, say, with 2 strikes in the 9th when you are behind. Of all of Bradley's faults so far, this is my least favorite -- he takes tons of close pitches with 2 strikes. The umps are not going to give him a break, so, even if they are slightly out of the zone, he needs to swing.

[ ]

Submitted by Sweet Lou on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:58 am

Those pitches may have been balls, but they were too close to take. The umpire was consistent throughout the game, so it shouldn't have been a surprise that he called them all strikes. Soriano can drive me nuts at times when he swings at pitches that are a foot outside the strike zone, but it drives me even crazier when a batter goes up to the plate late in the game, down a couple of runs, and looks at a called third strike. Swing the bat, boys.

[ ]

Submitted by big_lowitzki on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:08 am

Soriano strikes out a lot. Mostly because he swings at pitches out of the strike zone. When you are down, especially by more than one run, you need base runners. I will ALWAYS take a walk over a strikeout. And its simple - a player should not swing at pitches out of the zone. Were the pitches close? Sure... but they (at least the first two called thirds) were definitely not strikes.

[ ]

Submitted by Sweet Lou on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:52 am

Big L -- I agree in principle, but not in practice. True, you should not swing at pitches out of the strike zone. Also true, when you're down late in the game you need base runners. However, the ump was calling those close pitches as strikes, even though K-Zone showed they were slightly out of the strike zone. Even so, what the ump says is what matters, not what K-Zone says. And considering that the ump had been calling those pitches as strikes all night, the hitters need to adjust. In the end, the pitches were just too close to take, even if they were "technically" balls. The Cubs hitters (at least two of them) can claim that they were right and that the pitches were in fact balls, but it doesn't mean anything now. The pitches were called strikes, the batters struck out, and the game is over with the Cubs losing. A "moral victory" isn't the same as a "victory."

[ ]

Submitted by Rob Richardson on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:01 am

Kind of a silly nit pick I think it is better to think of those pitches as actual balls but "technically" strikes because the ump said so. IMO the solution is to find a better way to call balls and strikes. Works in tennis.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:01 pm

"K zone" showed all three to be balls. And the home plate ump wasn't calling them all game, just in the 9th inning. The hitters all did the correct thing. The umpire, for whatever reason, wanted the game to be over and made it so. My best guess is that the Cards slipped him some Ex-Lax around the 7th inning and it was starting to take it's desired effect. I wasn't happy that the Cubs made out, but to say "the Cubs hitters, who know they need at least one baserunner to have a chance should anticipate that the strike zone is going to be 4 inches wider on the outside part of the plate in the bottom of the 9th and adjust accordingly." Well, it just doesn't make sense. My friend, the Cardinals fan who ribbed me over the Friday loss and declared the Saturday win 'luck', acknowledged that it was horseshit umpiring, and the Cubs got screwed.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:20 pm

thought the last one, K-zone showed to paint the corner....

the one to Bradley was terrible though....

also think the ump had a pretty generous strike zone all night, at least I made that comment about 4 times during parachat...maybe it was just me.

but just cause the ump is blind, don't make it right.

Submitted by mannytrillo on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 07:22 pm

Cubs won and lost today, so not sure if I am suppose to be posting or not, but oh well. Going into this series, I would have taken a split and run into the break. We got a split are back to .500 and tied for 3rd. It could be much worse and much better. Not sure what tot expect from this team in the 2nd half. Can't say I got lots of confidence they will do much better, but hopefully the division continues to be mediocre and they can get hot at the right time and sneak in to teh playoffs, but I won't be booking any airfare to CHicago in October yet, that is for sure. Go Cubs!

Submitted by rokfish on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 07:27 pm

Wow no fontenot sighting in ninth i thought he would hit for baker either hurt or in doghouse. Baker sucked at plate ,i hate his batting stance,and he is slow at second, i guess i just dont see an improvement from what we have,if fontenot cant start ,PLAY BLANCO.

Submitted by The E-Man on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:13 am

"He could be in the doghouse because he's terrible." Wait! He has had a monster July (for the first four days of it, at least - and, on his birthday). When I gave the case for starting Blanco, after my post, "FONTENOT, You Suck, Dude", several here opined that Fontenot was significantly better at the dish, minimizing Blanco's spectacular and consistent D. After having 35 2B-men it seems, over the few years - only Mark DeRosa gave us any pop and RBI's (Fontenot did in his limited AB's in 2008 - but that's the thing - he really is a spot starter and util guy) And now we have Jeff Baker! UGH!!!!

Submitted by billybucks on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:40 am

The defining moment of the first half -- Cubs have bases loaded, one out in a a crucial game against the Cards.....and Jeff Baker and Koye HIll are the next 2 batters. Did Lou start Baker in both gmaes to send a message to Hendry? Seems an odd move.

Submitted by Cubster on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:45 am

Sean Gallagher to the Padres as PTBNL in Scott Hairston deal --- GALLAGHER TO PADRES: The player to be named in the Scott Hairston deal with the Padres will be right-hander Sean Gallagher, two sources confirmed to The Chronicle. Gallagher (knee) is on the disabled list at Triple-A Sacramento and is not eligible to be sent to San Diego until he comes off the DL. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/13/SPD918NBA7…

Submitted by Cubster on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:49 am

Paul Sullivan/Trib discusses Cubs interest in the Ryan Express off ramp? -- After (BJ) Ryan clears waivers, he becomes a free agent, and any team can sign him for $200,000 in '09 and $400,000 in '10. Former Toronto outfielder Reed Johnson said Ryan "would be a great fit in this clubhouse," but cautioned that several teams are likely to be interested in signing him. The risk isn't great because Toronto will be paying the bulk of his salary, and the reward is there if Ryan can regain the velocity that made him such a dominant reliever. If the Cubs do sign Ryan, they could send him to the minors to get some work in before bringing him up to be their late-inning left-hander. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-13-cubs-brite-ch…

[ ]

Submitted by Ryno on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:50 am

I could definitely support Ryan as a LOOGY. Definitely not a closer. It would also move Marshall to the rotation while Dempster is on the DL. IMO Ryan LOOGY, Marshall rotation is an upgrade over Marhsall LOOGY, Hart rotation.

[ ]

Submitted by Wes on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:22 am

Sure, especially at that kind of price. But, thinking he's going to be even a shadow of his former self is a bit on the optimistic side, I think. That said, it's probably a good idea for a team that has such little faith in it's LHP depth that the only lefty on the major league roster has to go play left-field so Lou can match-up.

Submitted by Cubster on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:11 am

Hendry interview in baseball prospectus. Nothing newsworthy though. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9218 DL: When that time comes, how do you hope to be remembered? JH: Well, I hope that I’m remembered as a guy who took the job very seriously and understood my responsibilities to the city of Chicago and to the fans. I hope that they feel that I treated the players with honesty and respect and that I was loyal to the people I worked for, and to the ones who worked underneath my role. And hopefully someday I’ll be remembered as having been the GM when the Cubs won the World Series.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:44 am

sheesh, why didn't they just interview Chuck Wasserstom...the interviewer seemed more interested in him.

please remember this quote next time anyone brings up that Hendry wants so-and-so to play...

At the end of the day, we’re the ones who are in charge of providing Lou with the roster, just like I would never tell him who to bat first or third, or who to start tomorrow against Pittsburgh.

Submitted by jacos on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:01 pm

Could not find it in print, but just on ESPN radio was a tape of Milton Bradley after game last night. He said (paraphrasing) "that's he's ready, and he knows what he was doing wrong" batting wise. He said "mark my words, I will be hitting the whole second half." Can't wait.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:08 pm

We should have a Milton Bradley prediction contest for the 2nd half. I know E-Man is going to want to set the over/under for his games played at 5. He's been looking pretty good the last 10 days or so from the left side. He's not swinging through nearly as many pitches as he had been.

[ ]

Submitted by mannytrillo on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:57 pm

He said "mark my words, I will be hitting the whole second half." Hitting what? .233 like in the first half? or hitting the DL when he tweaks his leg again? If he starts out 1 for his first 15 after the break, I hope one of the reporters brings that quote up again.

Submitted by Tito on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:39 pm

On the broadcast, they even mentioned how they first thought it wasn't a strike and then said sometihng like "Oh, K-Zone confirms it was indeed a strike."

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:14 pm

I must be confused then. Seems like after the last out they showed a pitch and it was white K zone and there was space between the zone and the box, but maybe that was a replay of Bradley's K and I just didn't notice the batter.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:17 pm

the replay on Hoff's showed it crossing the bottom corner of their little box and that it was a strike (as I remember it)...the replay of Bradley showed it to be well outside and possibly a bit high. Don't recall Baker's, think it showed outside too...

and not that I think K-zone is all that accurate or anything...

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:39 pm

Maybe I was thinking of Strike 2 on Hoffpauir, then seeing how he was owed a strike on a close pitch on the 6th pitch. Is there a site that shows the locations of the pitches? I thought ESPN did, but I can't find it.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:25 pm

Thanks. You're right that seems to be some guy just drawing dots on a chart. Franklin obviously has better control than Maddux did in his heyday since he was able to paint the edges 8 times in three at bats.

[ ]

Submitted by billybucks on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:54 pm

Gents- It don't matter. As has been said -- 2 strikes, close pitch, swing. Bradley should know he won't get any calls. Of course, Soriano should know they are going to throw him sliders in the dirt, too.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob Richardson on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:59 pm

"It don't matter" It does matter. A strike should be a strike. It shouldn't matter who the batter is (other than their height), what the count is, who the pitcher is, who the ump is, etc. Control of the strike zone is the most important part of the game and to continue to allow the strike zone to be arbitrary is bad.

Submitted by Cubster on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:25 pm

"Well, you can get a healthy guy to go out there and play 162 games, but he won’t do what I did in 120." - Milton Bradley --- Fun with numbers. Bradley, 2009 season to date: G71 AB210 H51 so if he is to hit .300 in 120G, if he averages 3AB/game (walk don't add to this total and he's averaged 3AB/game season to date) to get to 120G... G49 estimates out to AB147 then adding them together, G120 AB 357 H107 so he needs 56 hits in 147AB or .380 from here on out to end the season at .300 ---- also the Cubs have played 86 games so far, thus 76 games remain...he's got the leeway to miss 27 games (36%) and still be in 120G. Which implies plenty of playing time for RJ, Fuld or Hoff.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:36 pm

I like numbers and all, but huh? He's got 6 HR's.... Abreu's got 6 HR's (last I checked) He hasn't been hitting well for the majority of the season. If he made that comment, like yesterday, you would have a point. He made that comment before the season started. Let's wait until after the season before we say 'nanny-nanny-boo-boo', since he's on place to play more than 120 games and the only time he K's lately is when the umps redefine the strike zone haphazardly.

Submitted by Cubster on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:54 pm

he's on track to play 133 games although 13 of his 71 games were one at bat pinch ABs

Recent comments

  • crunch (view)

    cubs getting crazy good at not having player moves leak.

    taillon we 100% know is pitching tonight.  who he's replacing and any additional moves are unknown as far as i can tell.

    p.wisdom was not in today's lineup in iowa (rained out) and he was removed from the game last night mid-game, but not for injury.  good bet he's with the team in the bigs, too.

  • Bill (view)

    A good rule of thumb is that if you trade a near-ready high ceiling prospect, you should get at least two far-away high ceiling prospects in return.  Like all rules-of-thumb, it depends upon the specific circumstances, but certainly, we weren't going to get Busch for either prospect alone.

  • Sonicwind75 (view)

    Right on schedule, just read an article in Baseball America entitled "10 MLB Prospects Outside The Top 100 Who Have Our Attention".  Zyhir Hope was one of the prospects featured. It stated that he's "one of the biggest arrow-up sleeper prospects in the lower levels right now."

     

    Not sharing to be negative about the trade, getting a top 100 prospect who is MLB ready should carry a heavy prospect cost.  But man, Dodger sure are good at identifying and developing young talent. Andrew Friedman seems to have successfully merged Ray's development with Yankees financial might to create a juggernaut of an organization.  

  • Sonicwind75 (view)

    I suspect Brown will spend some time in the bullpen due to inning restrictions.  Pitched only 93 innings last year and career high is 104 innings in 2022.  I would expect them to be cautious with a young player with his injury history.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    I wanted Almonte gone last week, but that was before Merryweather went down and Little got demoted. Almonte in his last 5 appearances has gone 4.1 IP with no ER or Runs. NO hits, 3 BBs and 8 SO. He did hit 96 with his 2S FB in AZ on Tues.
    I don't see Jed waiving him when we have injuries all over and guys with options that can be sent down.
    I probably won't like the move Jed makes, but he can't play the "let's hope no one wants his 1.7mil remaining deal and we can hide him in Iowa" card.
    That's why I think the current Bullpen stays as is and Wicks goes to Iowa.
    I don't like that, but that's the fix I see.
    We'll find out soon enough!!!

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Teheran minor league deal is done, per MLB.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Based on Phil’s sound analysis it sounds like a no brainer for Almonte to be placed on waivers as today’s roster move. We shall see.

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    I suspect Counsell/Hottovy will use the piggy-back extensively, with Taillon and Hendricks pitching as the "pig" (and with a very short leash) and some combo of Wicks, Brown, and Wesneski (whichever two do not start) as the "backers."  

    Keep in mind that Keegan Thompson has a minor league option available, and if Yency Almonte is not outrighted by 4/26 he cannot be sent to the minors without his consent after that date. Almonte is out of minor league options, so I am talking about him getting outrighted to the minors if he is not claimed off waivers, and if he is claimed off waivers, the Cubs save the pro-rated portion of his $1.9M salary, which helps lower the Cubs 2024 AAV.

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Totally agree. The 26 man roster very rarely consists of the 13 best position players and 13 best pitchers.

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Based on what Jed has done in the past, I’d say the plan is to

    -give Hendricks another few starts
    -give Taillon some runway ot get his season underway

    -Mix and match in the bullpen and see what sticks

    Jed usually doesn’t do a whole lot of waiver wire plays in-season, at least early in the season. He only reallly did that after he blew up the rosters in 21 and 22 because they needed bodies (guys like Schwindel, Fargas, etc).

    I think he’s a little handcuffed by a full 40 man in that he can’t really maneuver much with giving anyone showing ability at AAA (R Thompson/ Sanders/ Edwards etc). Brewer has the most tenuous grip there, and we will see what kind of chance he gets. Other than his spot, there isn’t a ton of 40 man wiggle room.

    I’m very curious to see what happens with Brown now that Taillon returns. Bullpen? Wicks to Iowa? 

Click HERE for the last 50 comments