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

Introducing TCR's Cubs 40-Man Roster

Just wanted to give everyone a head's up about one of our new pages: the Cubs 40-Man Roster. We think it's an improvement over the one at cubs.com. The two neatest features are that you can sort by column and you've got each players' option year info at your fingertips, which was mined from Arizona Phil's wonderful work.  

You can access it either by the "TCR Junk Drawer" menu link up top or the sidebar link under "Quick Links".

Let us know if there's any other info you think should be added. Ideally it would be nice to put service time up there for each player, but that's a bit difficult to keep track of on a consistent basis. Possibly we could use Opening Day and then various other benchmarks within the season to update it.

Comments

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

I'll add Cedeno's. I don't have a hard and fast rule on the positions to be honest, but generally they should have played some in the majors or the spring. Of course, Fontenot has played some shortstop this spring, but I won't list him as one until he does it in some games that count.
Sort of my own discretion type thing, but I'll listen to suggestions. Another example is Eric Patterson, who is obviously being groomed for a utility role, so I've added all the positions so far that I've caught him playing. Pie, who certainly could step in at LF or RF, is pretty much being groomed just for center right now. Hope that makes some sense...

Yeah, this is great! Indeed an improvement over Cubs.com. Also, how does Cot's Baseball Contracts figure out service time. They list that for each player. Zambrano is at 6.042 - although I'm not sure exactly what that translates into.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

I guess it has something to do with games on the active roster, which you could figure out with a little effort looking at a player's transaction history. The really tough part is all the cockamaimee rules about going down for a certain time and it still counting as ML service time.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

  

Submitted by Rob G. on Wed, 03/12/2008 - 7:19pm.

Any idea how they came up with 172 instead of 162?

 

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

ROB G: The MLB regular season is 182 days long, but per the CBA, a "full season" is 172 days.as far as determining Service Time. So even if a player spends 182 days on an MLB roster in a given season, the player accrues 172 days of MLB ST. And if a player spends less than 20 days on optional assignment in a given season, the player gets credit for a "full season" of MLB Service Time. 

Timmer: I think that you are dead-on with the Roberts Theory. This way, Soriano's move out of the lead-off spot is done before Roberts' arrival, and thus is not a result of Roberts' acquisiiton. This pre-emptive stike takes pressure of Roberts when he does (?) arrive next week.

Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. Roberts. That is all.

I want to point out again to anyone getting their hopes up about Brian Roberts... In recent years when a player is exposed or busted for buying/receiving/taking steroids or HGH, they typically show up for Spring Training off the juice and have a bad or significantly down year. Jason Giambi and Jay Gibbons come to mind, I know there have been others that I'm missing right this second, heck, even Miguel Tejada last season showed up smaller, if I remember correctly and had a down year. So my question and point is, has anyone heard any report about Roberts looking different this Spring, and, if he is off the stuff, his stats are likely going to go back to the player he was pre-2005, when he wasn't a very good player at all. His numbers across the board stunk his first 3 seasons. He miraculously became a pretty good player the exact moment he claims he only took one shot of HGH. It would be the Cubs luck to trade for a guy who has a crappy year because he's deflated, and to give 3-5 inexpensive youngsters to get him is questionable. Personally, he's an admitted cheater, I don't want him on my team regardless of whether he is on or off the stuff. Everyone of these cheaters should be banned for life, including any Cubs player who might be on it.

Ex-cub Sergio Meatball out until June with "Elbow Strain"...can Tommy John surgery be far behind (that was the scenerio for Angel Guzman before TJ surgery)

I do like that Soriano isn't crying about this move. Here is his quote: "I don't know -- whatever he feels is right and works for the team, I'm OK with it," Soriano said. "If he thinks batting second I can help the team more, I'm OK with that." Translation..."I make 18,000,000 dollars no matter where I hit." What Marquis would have said: "If I don't bat lead off, they should trade me to a ball club that could use my strikeouts, injured legs, and low OBP at the number one spot."

[ ]

In reply to by DJH

soriano must have no family to think about. what a selfish jerk. i guess given the conceptions people have about soriano and his attitude and/or love of the #1 slot its at least nice to know he's gonna go along with it without issue.

[ ]

In reply to by Ryno

i'll take soriano hitting 2nd over 1st, but putting theriot 1st seems a little bit 'meh'. if soriano strands a leadoff runner with a K there's always the 3/4 guys to get their crack at it...not like he'll be some double play candidate (unless his legs arent 100%...not like he's a groundball guy anyway). theriot...he'd be one hell of an average leadoff guy at his best. he's an intelligent baserunner, but not exactly top tier fast. maybe something brian roberts related will make it moot...maybe...

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

I like Theriot as leadoff because he's a pesky little shit. No pitcher wants to start an inning blowing 8 or 9 pitches on guy like him. Then there are the "intangibles" like after a long leadoff at-bat, will the pitcher be as effective the rest of the inning? There might not be a lot to this logic (in other words it might be total crap), but I wouldn't automatically dismiss Theriot as a bad leadoff batter based only on stats. And of course, I agree with you and everyone else on Brian Roberts. I don't see how we can start the season without him.

[ ]

In reply to by DJH

Uh no, that's not a good comparison at all. That is like if Lou said to Marquis 'Last year you were our number four starter, but this year you're going to be the number five starter'. Moving from the rotation to the bullpen is closer to moving from the starting lineup to the bench. And for those guys who missed it, Lou apologized aboput his Marquis comments, not the other way around. Why was that? Maybe, and I know I am just spitballing here, but just maybe, Marquis didn't do anything wrong, other than answer a question honestly. A mediocre bullpen guy is has to get buy on one or two year contracts for maybe $3 million a year. A mediocre starter can get a 3 or 4 year contract for $8 to $10 million. Marquis is looking at the difference between a $35 million career and a $50 million career, after which he'll be lucky to make $100K a year. He wants to do the best job he can to set up his kids, and maybe even his grandkids in living a life in comfort. What's exactly your beef with that? If your boss came to you tomorrow and said 'Hi, this is John. Even though you performed as expected last year, I've brough in John to take your job. We need you to sell sandwiches and fruit to your co-workers and empty the wastebaskets - don't worry you're not going to take a pay cut.' What are you going to say 'That sounds great, where's the lunch cart?'

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

no one wants to hear a guy making his loot make a "thinking about my family" comment unless it involves moving his family to another city. right or wrong the mass public perception of marquis's comments didn't come out well on his end. lou apologized for his comments most likely cuz its an easy way to end a possible distraction (and so far it seems its mostly working given how bad it could be right now). some managers have different levels of what they'll air out in the press...you got your jim "there is crying in baseball, gee shucks guys" leeland, there's ozzie "open book" smith, and there's dusty "are you guys still here?" baker.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

"right or wrong the mass public perception of marquis's comments didn't come out well on his end." Maybe you should think for yourself instead of framing your oppinoins in context of what mass publice perception tells you to think?

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

I do think for myself. So do the millions around me. It's a measurable metric with very little grey area since its perception and not an application of a stat. If you saw the Simpsons/American Idol episode you saw Homer lead his protoge to a loss in the episode because he wrote a song which played on privilege and money compared to a majority of society. The joke/resolution worked because of an assumed perception of how a majority of society would view played off of what was coming out of his mouth.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

following up...a perception doesnt have to be right or wrong...it just has to exist. if you delve into "why" then you got a whole different ballgame. to a society and its health the "why" is more important than what it is (in most cases), but the perception still exists regardless. 100s of years ago it was common perception the sun revolved around the earth or the earth was flat or etc...pick one...whether its true, false, unfair, or ignorant didn't matter.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

That's a stupid example. If someone came into an office building to someone who works their ass off in a cubicle doing difficult work and said, hey, sell sandwhiches during lunchtime for the same pay - no thinking, no work, etc. I'd be all for it. Find me a janitor making 100K and I bet he's a happy man.

[ ]

In reply to by WISCGRAD

Submitted by WISCGRAD on Thu, 03/13/2008 - 7:51am. That's a stupid example. If someone came into an office building to someone who works their ass off in a cubicle doing difficult work and said, hey, sell sandwhiches during lunchtime for the same pay - no thinking, no work, etc. I'd be all for it. Find me a janitor making 100K and I bet he's a happy man. =========================================================== I agree wholeheartedly. I've been trying for 5 years to get transferred to the mailroom/mail delivery guy's position at my facility at my current pay.

[ ]

In reply to by Indiana JJ

And then your company goes under (or your contract runs out) and you have to find anotther job. 'Well most recently I was a mail boy, as you can see on my resume... so I guess I would like to start out at $110K a year'. 'Mailboys here make $28K a year' 'OK, I'll take it'. Your wife and kids are going to be pleased to hear that. Funny when you start to extrapolate ideas how they work out. Plus you're going to be bored out of your mind sorting and deliverying mail very shortly... unless you're a simpleton.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Except now you've extrapolated the concept far away from your original argument. I think if I've just made 21 million dollars over the past three years and IF (and this is a HUGE IF) I can only found another bullpen (mailroom job) that would pay me say 3 million a year, my family will still be ok. If you think it cost 7 million dollars to feed a family for a year you are as delusional as Marquis. If anything, the logic would be reversed. If I used to be a solid technician, but our company was stacked with great technicians, and I was mostly concerned with helping the team so I did some other jobs for them, and the company was sucessful and my bosses (manager + GM) loved me; then my next employer might feel that I am less of a risk. Rather than the current image that he is unhappy, won't listen, thinks he is better than he is, and has already left two teams on less than great terms (perhaps soon to be a third). After this contract is up he will have earned over $30 million in his career and he will be just 31. Just FYI, only 1.5% of all households in the US earn over $250,000 annually, and most of that group even fall below Marquis. I think his grandparents will be just fine...

[ ]

In reply to by WISCGRAD

"Except now you've extrapolated the concept far away from your original argument." In what way did I do this? My original argument is that Marquis is playing for his next contract this year. You're ignoring the facts that 1. Every breadwinner for his family wants to secure his familie's security for a long time 2. Bullpen pitchers get paid significantly less than starters. " Rather than the current image that he is unhappy" Do a suvey of everyone in baseball and ask 'you have two guys who are starters. One of them wants to be a starter and one doesn't care. Which one do you want on your team?'. See what you get. "Just FYI, only 1.5% of all households in the US earn over $250,000 annually, and most of that group even fall below Marquis. I think his grandparents will be just fine" Spoken like someone who has never heard of things like income taxes and math. Say Marquis makes $50 million in his career. That's $25 million after income tax and agent fees, assuming no inheritance tax. He has four children who have 3 kids a piece. That's around $1.5 million a piece. If they don't spend that money and get a 7% inflation adjusted income that's $85 K a year for the the grandkids. In 2035 that's not going to be all that much money.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

I don't really want to get into a big thing here with you, nor do I like getting insulted either. But contrary to what you may think, I have indeed heard of math and taxes. I guess though I forgot how much millionaires suffer in trying to make ends meet. Not being a millionaire, I confess I can't speak personally about this plight. But I'd like to point out that it's not like his $50 million is all the money he will ever earn in life. If he is at all smart with his money he'd put it into some high interest IRAs or something. I mean I can walk down to any local bank and get a CD that pays 3% or more - and the market is WAY down. Since you are good at math you would already know that at just 3% annually you will double your money in the 20th year. But the main issue is not math. It's attitude. If I did do a survey I'd ask: "You have a back of the rotation starter on your team. Would you prefer option a) player indicates he'd like to start but would go to the bullpen, whatever helps the team, or b) player indicates he only wants to start and hints at asking for a trade if not granted a starting role." I think my responses will be siginifcantly different than the ones you'd get. Dempster also shows that you can move back to the rotation from the pen, and if he were signed by a team to be a starter the next go around he'd get starter money. So anyway, I'm done with this argument. Sure, he wants to start, so would I, so would most anybody. Everyone knows Leiber wants to start too. If we know Marquis wants to start, he doesn't really have to tell us. You tow the company line, rely on the cliches, and work your butt off. It's like Marquis has never watched Bull Durham, he needs Kevin Costner to give him some tips on how to talk to the media - "I'm just happy to be here, I just want to take one day at a time, I'm just honored to play this game." etc. There is a reason why we have them. Marquis is free to say what he wants, but I'm also free not to be a fan anymore, and I doubt I'm alone.

I would rather see Soriano at the number 3 spot Fukudome (.400 career OBP) DeRosa or Theriot Soriano DLee Ramirez Soto Theriot or DeRosa Pie Pitcher

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Just a reminder. Hideki Matsui dropped .060 from his career OBP in his first season with the Yankees. Ichiro dropped .037 Kaz Matsui dropped roughly .031 If you're expecting Fukudome to put up a .400 OBP in MLB you're going to be in for a rude awakening. His OBP in the central league was only .392 by the way. There's two reasons you should expect his OBP to drop, even if he maintains the same discipline that he had in the NL. The first is that home runs are hits. Some of his balls that went out for HR's in Japan are going to be caught here. The second is if he doesn't hit as many home runs, pitchers will not be as worried about throwing him strikes.

[ ]

In reply to by Ryno

There's a few things not to like about that website. It doesn't have any baserunning. Not all OPS's (or does it use slugging and OBP, either way) are the same. There's a big differencet between a guy who has a .800 OPS with a .400 slugging than one who has a .500 slugging. Likewise all slugging % aren't the same. Jim Thome (.563) and Curtis Granderson (.552) had similar slugging% last year but the way they got there was totally different. To do it properly you would break down each hitter into % chance to have an outcome: % single , %walk, %HBP, %2B %GIDP *when applicable) Add the players % to steal, move up on an out or take an extra base on a hit That would give you a worthwile tool, and I imagine that some organizations are doing that (Brewers?).

most interseting is that soriano stated he would use the same approach no no to bunts so lead off man gets on soriano strikes out man on first one out . i do like previous points that this sets it up for roberts trade please just let marquis be in it

Probably been mentioned but we'll say it anyway: Ted Lilly is a lefty, not a righty. We'll assume this was an accident and not a slight.... for now.

According to WGN morning news today, Cubs have to bidders for naming rights and neither will change the name Wrigley Field. Instead it will be the Chicago Cubs presented by....Mentos, Walgreens, Trulink fence.

Recent comments

  • 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"?
     

  • crunch (view)

    masterboney is a luxury on a team that has multiple, capable options for 2nd, SS, and 3rd without him around.  i don't hate the guy, but if madrigal is sticking around then masterboney is expendable.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    I THINK I agree with that decision. They committed to Wicks as a starter and, while he hasn’t been stellar I don’t think he’s been bad enough to undo that commitment.

    That said, Wesneski’s performance last night dictates he be the next righty up.

    Quite the dilemma. They have many good options, particularly in relief, but not many great ones. And complicating the situation is that the pitchers being paid the most are by and large performing the worst - or in Taillon’s case, at least to this point, not at all.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Wesneski and Mastrobuoni to Iowa

    Taillon and Wisdom up

    Wesneski can't pitch for a couple of days after the 4 IP from last night. But Jed picked Wicks over Wesneski.