Cubs MLB Roster

Cubs Organizational Depth Chart
40-Man Roster Info

40 players are on the MLB RESERVE LIST (roster is full), plus two players are on the 60-DAY IL 

26 players on MLB RESERVE LIST are ACTIVE, twelve players are on OPTIONAL ASSIGNMENT to minors, one player is on the 15-DAY IL, and one player is on the 10-DAY IL

Last updated 4-18-2024
 
* bats or throws left
# bats both

PITCHERS: 13
Yency Almonte
Adbert Alzolay 
Javier Assad
Colten Brewer
Ben Brown
Kyle Hendricks
* Shota Imanaga
Mark Leiter Jr
Hector Neris 
* Drew Smyly
Jameson Taillon 
Keegan Thompson
* Jordan Wicks

CATCHERS: 2
Miguel Amaya
Yan Gomes

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

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

OPTIONED: 12 
Kevin Alcantara, OF 
Michael Arias, P 
Pete Crow-Armstrong, OF 
Jose Cuas, P 
Brennen Davis, OF 
Porter Hodge, P 
* Luke Little, P 
* Miles Mastrobuoni, INF
* Matt Mervis, 1B 
Daniel Palencia, P 
Luis Vazquez, INF 
Hayden Wesneski, P 

10-DAY IL: 1 
Seiya Suzuki, OF

15-DAY IL
* Justin Steele, P   

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





Minor League Rosters
Rule 5 Draft 
Minor League Free-Agents

Cubs Hall of Fame Players Quiz

I've gotten a bit addicted to Sporcle since someone posted that quiz of Cubs Opening Day Lineups in the comments. Since not a damn thing is happening, I created one on all the players to grace Cubbie uniforms or been associated with the team that have been inducted into the Hall of Fame. Good luck.

The silly website won't let me add a note to the quiz or I just can't figure it out, but the asterisks next to their position indicate that the player, manager or executive played or managed less than two seasons with the Cubs(roughly). The year is the year the player was inducted. And although I did my best to put alternative spellings in there, since I don't think it should be a spelling contest, I think it's perfectly acceptable to look up the spelling of the name if you think you know an answer and it's not accepting it.

-edit- speaking of, I apparently have a typo on Joe Tinker, I put in Tinkers and it won't let me edit it, so there's one.

-edit #2- finally figured it out, the Tinkers/Tinker typo has been fixed.

Comments

Slight problem. It's Joe Tinker, not Tinkers. I wasted a ton of time trying to figure out what was wrong with the name each time I typed it in. I was over 30 but Tinker screwed me up.

Damn! Why did I think Al Spalding's name was spelled Spaulding? Effin' 23 of 45. I couldn't get Richie Ashburn's name to pop up in my head. I'm thinking "1950 Phillies centerfielder... Whiz Kids guy..." etc. I refused to remember Lou Brock. Too damn painful.

I got 28, feel pretty good about my Cubs HOF knowledge, heh. The only two I'm embarrassed about missing were Brock and Lou Boudreau. How could I forget Lou from all those years on the radio?!

[ ]

In reply to by navigator

neat stuff. he's got a nice handle of DB instruction and interfacing for a guy who's not a pro.

Off topic, Miggy Cabrera is apparently available from Detroit. Only 26 and 5 years at big money left on his deal. Do Ricketts and Hendry have the capacity to pull that kind of deal off? Would something like DLee Milton Colvin Hak Lee Cashner Vitters Jay Jackson Be enough to get Miggy and Granderson from Detroit?

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

DLee and prospects for Cabrera might peak their interest, Cabrera's owed $20M in 2010, Lee $13M.

Bradley's owed nearly as much as Granderson over their contracts and would cost more in 2010, so that makes no sense to me.

and I don't see why D. Lee would agree to a trade to Detroit, he likes Chicago, lives near Sacramento and Tigers wouldn't give him an extension, plus their spring training is in Florida.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

Here was my thinking in suggesting that swap..... Detroit owner doesn't want an all out "Fire Sale". Ricketts doesn't want to take on huge salary for 2010. DLee and Bradley are close enough to Miggy-Granderson 2010 production that the Tigers could still be competative in a weak AL Central. Plus they would save about 5 million in salary from those trades. The get 5 of the Cubs top 10 prospects, to help in the eventual rebuilding process that is going to happen up there (largely due to economy). Cubs get a top 3 offensive force just entering his prime, and the elusive CFer. Become prohibative favorites in the NL Central in 2010. With Ted Lilly and Aaron Miles coming off the books after 2010. The Cubs could stay within the 140 range going forward. Proverbial "win-win" Trade.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

They would have to take Bradley in order to complete the deal. Only way the money works. Guy get added to deals to make money work all the time (Mike Lowell in the Beckett deal for instance). I'd imagine Lee would waive the no-trade if you told him that this would be his last year in Chicago regardless. Surely he'd rather be somewhere he is wanted. Nothing to out of the ordinary at all.

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

I didn't say it was out of the ordinary, it just doesn't make any sense here.

Tigers have plenty of suitors for Granderson already, they certainly don't need to be taking on a 2-yr contract and malcontent to move him. They'll have plenty of suitors for Cabrera too without having to take on someone else's headaches.

Take out the Granderson/Bradley part and convince Lee to waive his NTC and the Ricketts to take on all that salary and it's definitely feasible. Probably shave off a prospect as well...

Miggy Cabrera is apparently available from Detroit. --- if we keep DLee, get Josh Beckett and Brad Penny, trade for Miggy and Mike Lowell...then sign Pudge as a backup and we can even have Todd Hollandsworth in the broadcast booth...finally, fire Hendry and replace him with Jack McKeon, we'd be the 2003 Marlins. ta da boom.

From MLBTradeRumors, originally from Olney/ESPN: Regarding a potential Milton Bradley to Tampa trade, Olney says the Rays "absolutely will not do it unless it's on their terms, which is that the Cubs might absorb enough money in the swap of Bradley and (Pat) Burrell to make it worthwhile for the Rays." So I guess that means the Cubs will have to pay all of 2011 except the MLB minimum. And for what? To trade away a migraine for a stress headache? Eh. I'd rather have Bradley's upside vs. Burrell's ability to not be Bradley.

I'd be fine with letting Bradley prove he can still hit and (attempt to) prove that he can be a team member for, say, a month, then trading him. His value can't get lower, knock on Kerry.

Cubs spokesman Peter Chase said the team was: "looking to protect our corporate partner family who invest their resources with us to be our official sponsors. It's important that we protect our brand in the marketplace, protect the value of our corporate partners and protect against anyone trying to ambush our brand."
BUT, As it turns out the Horseshoe Casino is a corporate sponsor of the Cubs. This hasn't stopped Tom "The Turkey" Ricketts from erecting two billboards to block view of their ad for some reason (perhaps to keep Budweiser happy?)
"2009 was a milestone year at the Horseshoe Casino,” said Dan Nita, Senior Vice President and General Manager. “We were very excited to showcase our $500 million new casino and entertainment offering to the Chicagoland market. An opportunity arose to become part of the Wrigleyville experience, securing the famous rooftop in left field. In addition, we became a corporate sponsor of the Cubs organization, with a substantial six-figure investment.” Mr. Nita also adds: "Corporate sponsorships with sports teams have been a great way to introduce ourselves to a market. Harrah’s Entertainment Inc., which operates Horseshoe Casino, maintains a long-standing history with many Major League Baseball teams and we hope to continue our partnerships with Chicago sports organizations into the 2010 season and beyond."

[ ]

In reply to by navigator

They were a corporate sponsor in 2009. That doesn't mean they're a corporate sponsor in 2010. And I'm guessing Horseshoe's "substantial six-figure investment" is pretty tiny in comparison to the money the Cubs get from Budweiser.

[ ]

In reply to by vorare

FWIW they claim they are a corporate sponsor and want to continue to be.
A casino official says the company hopes to continue its partnership with the baseball team, noting that it is a corporate sponsor of the Cubs organization. "... we hope to continue our partnerships with Chicago sports organizations into the 2010 season and beyond." Source: The Times of Northwest Indiana

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!