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

It's Just A Pain in the Neck

Live Long and Prosper.

It's not a good thing for the Cubs when I'm writing all these articles. It means somebody on the team is injured, exploding or a decision on how to use (or not) the disabled list is looming. So I'll keep this maximally short (oxymoron that I am).

Today we finally get some good news and the results from the MRI on DLee shows the same old, same old. Yes, a bulging disc is causing neck and upper back spasms. No, he won't go on the DL. Yes, he'll be ready to play in the next game or so against San Diego at Wrigley Field.

Tags

Comments

Is it really better though if Lee guts it out through the pain, and hits .209? IMO, this is a real problem, because a healthy Hoffpauir is better than an aching Lee, but because of the money invested and because Lee is a gamer, we won't maximize our productivity out of the position. I would rather Lee get healthy and be 100%. I don't think he's been right though for awhile, and that's a problem.

Good news? I don't know what that means. And I respectfully disagree with you Q-Ball. Defense is forgotten sometimes because there's no good stat for it, but D is so important. I'd prefer to have Lee receiving Aramis's our 3B's sometimes wild throws.

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

and he rakes to all fields and we shouldn't have guys get too used to throwing shit in the dirt. I've seen the infielders make their adjustments, anyway. Somehow, some way, Ramirez got the ball into D Ward's mitt just fine when Ward was at first. Non issue. Although, I've mentioned it myself so not too be too hard on the original thought. I mean, it's a legitimate concern for maybe two weeks.

[ ]

In reply to by mannytrillo

My understanding is that Soriano, Z, Ramirez have full NTC...along with Lee now. I'm not 100% sure on Samardzija and Fukudome if their full NTC's or with some stipulations.

I think Lilly has a partial no-trade clause...no idea on the details...it may be full too for all I know.

Bradley and Dempster's NTC marked on the sidebar only last until June 15th or whatever date is for signing as free agents.

so like 10...but really 7...which I'm going to guess is not that absurd compared to other big market teams.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

"My understanding is that Soriano, Z, Ramirez have full NTC...along with Lee now." Lee already had a NTC, so you can drop the word 'now'. "so like 10...but really 7...which I'm going to guess is not that absurd compared to other big market teams." I went to Cots Contracts page and check a few top payroll teams: the Red Sox have 3 (Drew to 2 teams, Daisuke & Lowell), Yankees have like 10 and the Mets have 5. So the Cubs are likely higher than most, if not all, teams besides the Yankees. And to be honest, the Yankees contract/payroll situation is very unique, and not sure why the Cubs would have as many as the NYY. I just think it takes away lots of flexibility from the GM down the road at the end of the many expensive, long term, back loaded contracts Cubs players have.

[ ]

In reply to by mannytrillo

Then you need to go back and look at every contract for any current player that had a no-trade clause prior to his 10/5 rights kicking in. In fact, quite a few contracts have no-trade clauses for a limited time, such as 2-3 years, until the 10/5 takes over. Your point is stupid. If you are complaining about why Hendry can't trade Lee NOW, you cannot blame the no-trade clause that is no longer in effect. If you want to simply complain about Hendry giving out too many contracts with no-trade clauses, then fine, but that is also a stupid point. I've done some graphs on this this morning that I will send to Rob, maybe he will post them. The number of no trade players a team has is almost entirely a function of payroll, and furthermore, teams with more no-trade players win more games (also likely a function of payroll). In other words, having a lot of these types of players means that you have been able to attract the best free agents and keep them, that you have a high payroll that allows you to do this, and that you are a competitive team year after year. You can keep whining about this if you want, or you can go root for the Nationals or Marlins, who have no no-trade players, or the Pirates maybe with only Jack Wilson.

[ ]

In reply to by mannytrillo

Actually, that is not at all what you were doing. If you were simply correcting kamokeefe and letting him know that Lee could not be traded you would have cited the relevant information, that he has 10/5 rights. Instead, you wrote this: "HA HA...Too bad our fearless GM has given everyone and their brother a no trade clause. Lee is not going anywhere." Which everyone on here (correctly) interpreted as you bitching about Hendry again.

[ ]

In reply to by mannytrillo

Yes, Lee did have a no trade clause for the start of his contract, and it was reasonable to assume that the Cubs would have no interest in trading him in the first couple years of the contract, and very reasonable to give up that right to trade him to save some money on the contract. But I'm not sure how any of those facts (which weren't being questioned) are relevant since with or without that clause, he would still have No Trade rights today, and unless Hendry personally is responsible for the collective bargaining agreements, that's really not in his control. Basically, what Rob G said.

[ ]

In reply to by mannytrillo

Wow, that's just a classicly great bit of manny-logic there. Lee currently has a no trade clause because its part of the collective bargaining agreement that every player in mlb in his situation has one. That is the current situation and what applies to any current discussion, but you think that fact should be ignored because a couple of years ago, Lee had a separate no trade clause for the first couple years of his contract. With logic like that, no wonder you hate hendry so much.

[ ]

In reply to by Bleeding Blue

No, I don't think that should be ignored, but the fact that he had a no trade clause already meant the 10/5 clause didn't change anything as he already had the no trade protection. I guess maybe you can say the 10/5 reinforced it, but it didn't give him any extra privileges, or change his rights as a player, as he already had the no trade clause. The 10/5 provision, when it came to Lee and trade protection, meant nothing as he already had protection.

[ ]

In reply to by Andrew

Ah, I did misread that. Thanks for the clarification. It just shows you are even more classless than I thought. Taking shots at my wife is totally uncalled for. Yeah, it is only the internet from some nobody, but still that is way over the top. But if saying stuff like that makes you feel better...go for it! I would hope the "writers" on this site could stop some of those types of harsh personal attacks. This one and Jumbo's are way over the top IMO. Oh well...

[ ]

In reply to by mannytrillo

Yeah, it was probably a little harsher than it should have been. Your argument was just so astoundingly illogical that I honestly wondered what you must be like in real life, and if real people find you as exasperating as many of us here at TCR do. Still, that's not really an excuse to attack you personally. My bad. And it wasn't meant as a burn on your wife at all really -- just you. Apologies to Mrs. MannyT.

[ ]

In reply to by mannytrillo

I would hope the "writers" on this site could stop some of those types of harsh personal attacks. This one and Jumbo's are way over the top IMO. Oh well...

manny the victim, a tale as old as time. You'd be banned well before Andrew or Jumbo. You can't constantly provoke everyone with your asine comments and then be shocked when things escalate.

Say less stupid stuff and recognize when you say something stupid and not try to argue your way out of it and people won't attack you. Also try rooting for the Cubs...that might help.

That all being said, let's avoid the wife jokes Andrew...not cool. And Jumbo, you know what u did.

And if you don't like it manny (or anyone else)...go away.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

Banned for what? Giving my opinion on the Cubs? Yeah makes sense!! So if you say something stupid that is ok to get personally attacked because that is provoking? Ok, now I know the rules, I guess I will play by them too. We will see how fun things get around here...:) And when you get personally attacked, without personally attacking someone first, then you are the victim. Pretty easy concept to understand, even for you Rob. I am going to continue to give my opinion, good and bad of the Cubs, if people don't like it, don't read it. If you want to argue it in a civil way, I'm all for it. I am not some rosy blue Cubs fan. I am critical when they are bad, but more than praising them when they are good. Some people on here only remember the bad stuff I say about the Cubs. But luckily I don't have to prove to anyone here I am a Cubs fan. Oh well, go internet!

[ ]

In reply to by mannytrillo

Your argument would only hold water if the 10/5 rule was created after Lee signed the contract. The fact is that it was known by everyone involved that Lee would automatically get a no trade clause once he reached his service time requirements. There was no negotiation for the no trade protection that he currently has. Any other no trade language that was written into the contract has now expired and is no longer relevant to the current situation. The same would be true for ARam, Dempster, and will be true for Z and Soriano once they reach their required service time. And once again, that is important, because the time the Cubs would be most likely to trade any of these players is near the back end of their contracts. There can certainly be a debate about when No Trade Clauses should or should not be given out, but your desire to use Lee's current situation as part of your attack on Hendry's use of them is just flat out silly.

This is a little ass kissing for Rob G, but not cuz I need a bromance (I'm actually taken) but just cuz. So I am pasting from another post. I felt the need to say it on one of the earlier posts today, and to copy/paste it again. Just a little appreciation thang goin' on here, since the Cubs are nearing another death spiral: -- snip On other blogs I've been sort of ranting about the demise of newspapers and "where are those RSS news feeds gonna come from and who's gonna research and pay for finding out when city hall is corrupt and tell us the governor is a low life squeem boy??" blah blah. But this fucking site is my main source of Cubs news. Not just for the flash so and so got traded that you get in the comments but for the detail in Wellman's, The Doctor's, and AZ Phil's reports. Unbelievable shit, dudes. -- end snip

sorry if i have missed this earlier: doctor cubster, if lee were your patient, how would you be treating him? especially since this is an injury that was caused (?) 2 seasons (?) ago? is 4 or 5 days out of the lineup going to change anything? live well in peace.

how would you be treating him? ------ Treatment is usually based on the amount of pain (which is subjective) and the pattern of pain (where it localizes or radiates to). As this has been an episodic problem for quite a while now, previously he's probably used to routine treatments such as stretches and intermittent use of NSAID medication (non-steroidal). For short flare ups a corticosteroid medrol dosepak is often used (unrelated to the anabolic steroid category). It's a more potent anti-inflammatory but only used for a 6 day interval. Muscle relaxants are a consideration but they often leave one drowsy so this would be more short term as well. I'm sure the trainers are following physical therapy protocols. MerigoldBowling, as a physical therapist who treats athletes, could detail the specific approaches in therapy much better. Usually the focus is strengthening of specific muscle groups around the neck and shoulders. Massage, ultrasound, traction, iontophoresis and a few other modalities are options. When these options aren't working, an epidural steroid or facet injection gets considered but they decided not to do this on DLee. One of the news links (above) mentioned because he was feeling better it was decided injections weren't needed at this point. As long as he's not having radicular symptoms (and I've not read that he's having any radicular symptoms), meaning no pinched nerve symptoms that travel down into his arm (either numbness, pain or weakness)...surgical options usually aren't a consideration. Henry Blanco (two years ago) missed several months while his disc herniation with radicular symptoms was being treated with meds and therapy. Apparently it got close to making a decision on surgery for Blanco (which is usually a fusion technique) but his symptoms subsided and he recovered without surgery and had a good year in 2008. So symptoms can go away with (and sometimes without) treatment.

Derrek Lee - the last year, season over season, May 1 2008 to May 1 2009 --> .264 13HR 77 RBI 34 years old in September, chronic disc problem, clearly in decline yet still bats 3rd because he's supposed to be our best hitter Signed through 2010, no trade (meaning Micah Hoffpauir would be 31 before he could get the starting job) ∴ We're screwed.

Submitted by Rob G. on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 9:57pm.
Bradley and Dempster's NTC marked on the sidebar only last until June 15th or whatever date is for signing as free agents.

==========================================

ROB G: Dempster is a 10/5, and Bradley has the automatic Article XX FA NTC through June 15th.

Recent comments

  • 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.  

  • Childersb3 (view)

    AZ Phil:
    Rookie ball (ACL) starts on May 4th. Do yo think Ramon and Rosario (maybe Delgado) stay in Mesa for the month of May, then go to MB if all goes "solid"?