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

Addition by Subtraction; The Sequel

After the Cubs disappointed in 2004, the offseason motto was addition by subtraction as the Cubs let Moises Alou and Matt Clement leave and desperately tried to move clubhouse cancer Sammy Sosa.

As we recall, the Cubs just got worse in 2005 and now baseball's worst organizational strategy is about to be revisited.

...Instead, the Cubs' biggest splash leading up to the 2009 season was signing switch-hitting outfielder Milton Bradley to a three-year, $30 million contract in January.

On Monday, when baseball executives gather in Indianapolis for the Winter Meetings, there will be much less neon. The Cubs' goals have changed, too. Now, it's addition by subtraction, as Hendry tries to move Bradley.

They usually don't let you make sequels after the first movie fails, but that's not stopping the Cubs.

"Last year, we had about 10 changes here," Piniella said. "If we have half that, that's a nice number. Some changes [last year] were out of necessity. I see us being selective in what we do."

The necessity was created because Lou threw a temper tantrum about a left-handed power bat and then his enabler Jim Hendry had to make a bunch of unnecessary and superfluous moves to fit Bradley's contract into the budget. Now that their problem child has acted up and made them look bad, the Cubs are doing what any rich, narcissistic parent would do...pay to send them away so he's someone else's problem rather than actually dealing with it and trying to make it work.

Comments

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

It is scary to say, but I think that the Cubs turnaround is largely placed on the shoulders of Soriano. Soto will obviously need to be better and based on Fangraphs analysis, he will be, but Soriano coming off of surgery will need to bounce back showing no ill effects and that his numbers are not deteriorating with age. Need a healthy year from everyone obviously, but the line up can be stretched out if Soriano finds his stroke again.

I am starting to think the Cubs may be coming around to a reconciliation with Bradley as we move further away from the end of the regular season. You see the Hendry quote and the Wells quote and Lee's comments, and though you could say that they are more about trying to rebuild trade value for Bradley, it could be that as the memories of the clubhouse tensions fade cooler heads are starting to prevail. The main "problem" with bringing back Bradley from a baseball perspective is the outfield defense. Marlon Byrd, however, isn't going to be a significant upgrade there - and he is also going to again load the bottom half of our lineup with right handed hitters. Coco Crisp would be a defensive upgrade, and if you buy into his walking tendencies last year a pretty nice leadoff hitter. I would guess that he could be had for less than Byrd, based on his option not being picked up at "Byrd" type money.

How in the hell did the Cubs not have some sort of "Behavior Clause" in that Bradley contract? You outbid everyone else by an extra year and probably 14-16 million dollars. You wouldn't try to build any safeguard into a deal with a guy with Milton's history?

$7M in 2010, $6.5M vesting option for 2011 if he pitches 50 innings

thinking out loud, such a deal could fit nicely into Tampa Bay's plans, particularly if they decide to trade Carl Crawford, which would relieve the payroll of $10 million for 2010. --- Carl Crawford would make me likee this one. Hmmm...Burrell and Crawford for Bradley (to even up the $$), add in one of Marshall or Gorz, 1 of Berg/Stevens, and 1-2 A/AA Pitching prospects. Then flip Burrell for something else that is contract neutral wrt Burrel (Castillo?)l.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

"Crawford $10 million For Marshall,Stevens and Carpenter. Would you make that deal?" I wouldn't, but why wouldn't the Cubs show interest in throwing in a couple of good prospects (Vitters, Cashner?)+ Marshall (or whoever) for Crawford? They want Granderson, but not Crawford? I know Crawford plays leftfield, but you would think with his speed he would be fine in center (definitely better than Byrd or K-Fuk, IMHO), plus he brings a leadoff bat that can hit lefties & righties.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

I was thinking the same thing. McCann, Bradley and Jones back-back-back in the lineup would give a lot of opposing managers fits. The problem is that they're going to want to trade Lowe for him (if they'll take Bradley) and Lowe is owed a lot of money. He had a high BABIP last year, but his K rate dropped over 1K/9. I'd guess he'd probably have around a 4 ERA next year playing in front of the Cubs infield defense. If the Braves were to even the salary for the next two years, I'd probably do the trade. It would come back to bite us in the butt in 2012 though.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

At least in theory, this may not be too far fetched. Atlanta owes Derek Lowe $45 million over the next three years. The Cubs owe Bradley $21 million over the next two years. That's a difference of $24 million. Of course, the Cubs are likely going to have to pay another team a good chuck of change to take on Bradley. The rumor was that they would have to eat $16 million for Texas to consider a trade. So if you subtract whatever the Cubs will have to pay to get rid of Bradley from the difference between Bradley's and Lowe's contracts, it becomes much more workable. Oh yeah, and Atlanta would have to agree to a Bradley for Lowe trade.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/12/granderson-still-a-tiger.h… since it's Rogers I assume none if it is true
MLB sources indicate that the Tigers are asking for multiple major-league-ready players to move Granderson or right-hander Edwin Jackson. The Cubs, according to team sources, would love to fill their center-field vacancy with Granderson, but aren't willing to part with top prospect Starlin Castro, a 19-year-old shortstop.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

Jake Fox and Mike Fountainout are MLB ready... They can have Stevens too, I am feeling generous. Seriously, though, they need a SS, a CF, a 2B and a catcher, right? Depending on how strictly you apply the term "MLB ready" we have all those things, except a catcher.

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

that's 4 2-3 star/C prospects that aren't planned to compete for any jobs with the Cubs this spring. Atkins and Colvin I guess have a small shot... if they really like Colvin then maybe...I know Dambrowski is in love with radar gun readings like Hendry, so I think you need Jackson, Cashner or Dolis in there Barney or Lee, Jackson or Cashner, one of Castillo, Colvin, Flaherty seems a little more reasonable to me if I were the Tigers. They certainly have no reason to be desperate to move him this season, they can do this all again next year when he actually gets expensive.

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

they have Ordonez, Robertson and Willis coming off their books next year, they can be patient for something worthwhile. he's never been worth less than $14M by Fangraphs rudimentary value system and he's set to make $5.5, $8.25M and $10M with a $13M club option. He's gonna be cheap relative to his contributions and Tigers can certainly afford to be patient dealing him.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

it's a half season worth, that's like thinking Jeff Baker is good at hitting after his August I would guess Jones would be a lot like Fukudome if he played a few full seasons out there, he could handle it, but you'd want someone better. but that's all kind of moot point, because he didn't play much CF in his career and everyone thinks of him as one of the whiny losers that tried to follow Sosa in RF. Had he and presumably played as well as he did in that half season the entire time, he would have been a more valuable player during his career.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Catching fly balls over a few months or a year could be explained by the randomness of a ball coming off a bat, some might just come right at you or you were better positioned at a luckier rate... general rule of thumb is a season worth of defensive stats is worth about 2 months of PA's... on a somewhat related note, a pretty good explanation of why all the advanced defensive metrics(although the article focuses on UZR) are problematic if use them in isolation, mgl makes an appearance in the comments to essentially say he's right.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

I'm not sure I follow. Don't the 'advanced metrics' all just basically say "if a ball is hit here, on this trajectory you catch it"? Obviously there's some sample size things - like if there's only one line drive hit to a zone in and you happen to catch it, perhaps for one of the reasons you mention, that's going to look good. Have you got a link for your rule of thumb? It's not very intuitive, it's the exact opposite.

Recent comments

  • crunch (view)

    happ, right hamstring tightness, day-to-day (hopefully 0 days).

    he will be reevaluated tomorrow.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    I guess I'm not looking for that type of AB 

    Just a difference of opinion

  • 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.