Cubs MLB Roster

Cubs Organizational Depth Chart
40-Man Roster Info

40 players are on the MLB RESERVE LIST (roster is full) 

42 players are at MLB Spring Training 

31 players on MLB RESERVE LIST are ACTIVE at MLB Spring Training, and nine players are on OPTIONAL ASSIGNMENT to minors. 
11 players are MLB Spring Training NON-ROSTER INVITEES (NRI) 

Last updated 3-17-2024
 
* bats or throws left
# bats both

PITCHERS: 17
Yency Almonte
Adbert Alzolay 
Javier Assad
Jose Cuas
Kyle Hendricks
* Shota Imanaga
Caleb Kilian
Mark Leiter Jr
* Luke Little
Julian Merryweather
Hector Neris 
Daniel Palencia
* Drew Smyly
* Justin Steele
Jameson Taillon
Hayden Wesneski 
* Jordan Wicks

NRI PITCHERS: 5 
Colten Brewer 
Carl Edwards Jr 
* Edwin Escobar 
* Richard Lovelady 
* Thomas Pannone 

CATCHERS: 2
Miguel Amaya
Yan Gomes

NRI CATCHERS: 2  
Jorge Alfaro 
Joe Hudson 

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

NRI INFIELDERS: 3 
David Bote 
Garrett Cooper
* Dominic Smith

OUTFIELDERS: 5
* Cody Bellinger 
Alexander Canario
# Ian Happ
Seiya Suzuki
* Mike Tauchman 

NRI OUTFIELDERS: 1 
* David Peralta

OPTIONED:
Kevin Alcantara, OF 
Michael Arias, P 
Ben Brown, RHP 
Pete Crow-Armstrong, OF 
Brennen Davis, OF 
Porter Hodge, RHP 
* Matt Mervis, 1B 
Keegan Thompson, P 
Luis Vazquez, INF 

 



Minor League Rosters
Rule 5 Draft 
Minor League Free-Agents

Cubs Rumor Round-Up; Pineiro, Cameron, Sheets & More

Let's see here, Yankees get Curtis Granderson, Mariners add Figgins and Cliff Lee, Phillies swap Roy Halladay for Cliff Lee essentially, Red Sox add Lackey and Cameron so far and the Cubs are looking at Joel "4.4 K/9" Pineiro.

- Buster Olney is the one with the Cubs/Pineiro rumor from yesterday. Supposedly Piniero wants a four year deal worth more than $10M plus a season. Why am I afraid that didn't scare the Cubs off?

- Scratch Mike Cameron off the Cubs center field wish list, he's signing with the Red Sox for 2/15.5M to play left field of all places. I'm sure he'll get some time in center, but seems like a waste of his talent and value, which mostly comes from being an exceptional center fielder. That leaves Marlon Byrd, Scott Podsednik and Rick Ankiel among the supposed center fielders the Cubs are interested in, with Byrd clearly being the front-runner.

- Juan Pierre returns to Chicago....the South Side that is, for 2 minor league arms(appear to be John Ely and Jon Link) and the Dodgers paying around $10M of the $18.5M he has left on his deal.

- According to Rosenthal, the Yankees are quite interested in Ben Sheets, but are in no rush to sign him.

- It seems like half the league is in on Matt Capps, with at least 3 teams willing to offer him a closer role. Considering Capps wants $3-$4M, plus a multi-year deal, I doubt the Cubs will land him, especially since it sounds like he'll be able to close somewhere else.

- I'm still trying to grasp this 3-team blockbuster deal. I believe it's Roy Halladay and $6M to the Phillies who send Kyle Drabek, Michael Taylor and Travis D'Arnaud to the Blue Jays. The Phillies then send Cliff Lee to the Mariners and get Phillipe Aumont, Tyson Gillies and Juan Ramirez from the Mariners and are not sending any of those players to Toronto. The Blue Jays are then sending Michael Taylor to the A's for Brett Wallace. So essentially it's just three separate deals and one in which the Phillies make out like bandits. They basically got from the Mariners what they gave up for Halladay (albeit slightly inferior talent) and the Phils get $6M to pay Halladay.

- The Florida group had a party last night to raise money for their continued efforts to lure the Cubs.

- The Cubs were in attendance along with 14 other teams for Aroldis Chapman's throwing session today in Houston. The 21-year old lefty topped out at 96mph and threw a few sliders and change-ups.

Comments

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

I would prefer Lee right now in the long run. MHO

[ ]

In reply to by jacos

Halladay has been better over the last two years and the log run, as Rob mentions below is probably three years shorter with Halladay.

addendum to the post about his workout today...

Rob G-- Loads of Phillies fans unhappy about the trade. I'd love to know more of your thoughts on this. The majority here in Philadelphia is a little anxious about the prospects given up-- Drabek, Taylor, and D'arnaud are the Phillies equivalents of, say, Cashner, Vitters, and Welington Castillo, (but Drabek and Taylor are further along and Taylor's batting perhiperals project him to be a WAY better hitter than Vitters). And Cliff Lee was a beast for Philly this past year and Hallady seems to offer only a modest upgrade at Staff Ace. Most of us in Philly wanted both Halladay and Lee at the same time and are feeling burned by this move. Right now there are a lot of Phillies fans who are looking at what they lost (Lee and three of their top prospects) and not fully seeing what they've gained yet in Halladay. But I suspect once the season starts and Big Roy starts mowing people down for the next three years, Philly fans will forgive Amaro for this one.

from the AP... "MESA, Ariz. — As Mesa continues efforts to keep the Chicago Cubs, the city is prepared to spend up to $750,000 for new batting cages at the team’s spring training complex at Fitch Park."

Philly made the deal because Lee is probably going to be asking for Sabathia money. Holliday they can keep under control for much longer. All Philly did was swap Lee for Holliday and switch around some highly regarded prospects. What they gained was knowledge of their payroll in the future and still have some talented prospects and a staff ace. Peace of mind in essence.

$20M a year extension for 3 years with 4th year vesting option.. Lackey get 5/82.5M, same as Burnett supposedly...

on a minor league deal, part of Johan trade. J.J. Hardy, Jon Rauch, and Deolis Guerra to show for Johan...not their best move.

[ ]

In reply to by Ryno

"one that got away"...you'll hear that a lot when he demonstrates his control. -edit- found a good video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvwEoV0YVjE&NR 1- he throws mid-90s+, but there's not a lot of movement. he does have a high 80s sinker/slider thing that doesn't do much sinking or sliding compared to a MLB-calibre version, though. 2- a couple things jump out at me besides that...he has a hitch in his delivery similar to DMat in BOS, which shouldn't be a huge issues since he'd be relieving...and he drops his arm very low before delivering pretty much giving the batter a good look at what grip he has on the ball. i dunno how much this level of quality will translate to MLB or how many people can fool at the MLB level. a 95+mph pitcher isn't something you see everyday over there...or a guy who's offspeed pitch is as fast as many people's fastball.

found this on twitter...
According to Bill James Online, when Juan Pierre led off an inning, Dodgers avgd .52 R/inn. When anyone else led off, .53 R/inn.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

According to Bill James Online, when Juan Pierre led off an inning, Dodgers avgd .52 R/inn. When anyone else led off, .53 R/inn. A couple of things out of skew with the James quote. First, it answers the wrong question: how many runs do you score when Pierre leads off, versus other hitters? The question should be, how often do you score at least one run when Pierre leads off, versus the others? In other words, a leadoff-type hitter is not responsible for putting crooked numbers on the scoreboard. That's the job of the 3-4-5-6 hitters. He is responsible for putting "1" on the board. James is giving credit for all the runs to whoever leads off a multi-run inning. Second, Pierre only started when the team's top slugger was stuck on the bench. Manny didn't get many chances to drive him in. If you divide runs scored by plate appearances, Pierre (.134) was sixth on the team, behind Blake (.149), Kemp (.145), Ramirez (.144), Furcal (.135) and Ethier (.134), although he's just a tad behind Furcal and Ethier. Trailing Pierre at some distance are Hudson (.117), Loney (.112) and Martin (.107). Career-wise, Pierre's number (.133) is better than anyone's except those of Kemp (.148) and Ramirez (.160!). So how did Casey Blake score 84 runs last year? It probably helped that he often batted ahead of Kemp (101 RBI) and Loney (90 RBI). Pierre usually batted ahead of Furcal (47 RBI) and Ethier (tops on the team with 106 RBI). The Dodgers were fourth in NL runs last season and had run producers spread throughout the lineup, not bunched in the middle.

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

I love how you vaciliate between things that make sense and things that don't.
In other words, a leadoff-type hitter is not responsible for putting crooked numbers on the scoreboard. That's the job of the 3-4-5-6 hitters.
If the 4 and 5 hitters don't come up to the plate, they can't contribute to any type of inning, which is the point of having a bad OBP leading off.
Second, Pierre only started when the team's top slugger was stuck on the bench. Manny didn't get many chances to drive him in.
Correct.
Pierre (.134) was sixth on the team
Even though by your own admission, he was in the ideal place to score runs...
So how did Casey Blake score 84 runs last year? It probably helped that he often batted ahead of Kemp (101 RBI) and Loney (90 RBI). Pierre usually batted ahead of Furcal (47 RBI) and Ethier (tops on the team with 106 RBI
Would the number of HR's that the two hitters hit have anything to do with it? Also, isn't the idea that Pierre's speed makes him a leadoff hitter? He is suppossed to be getting into scoring position with his blazing speed where Furcal can drive him in. You're implying it's Furcal's fault for having few RBI's, but why isn't it Pierre's fault that Furcal has few RBI's?

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

first, it's from Bill James Online, so I assume it's just a stat they grabbed from his site as he has some intriguing ones you can't find anywhere else, I dont' know and don't think it actually came from him. Second, it's just a small fact, one in which irrefutably states that the Dodgers were in no way better off over the long term in 2009 when Juan Pierre led off an inning. that is all it says... on a grander scale, Juan Pierre and his ilk (middling OBP guys with great speed) have been proven over and over to be overrated. Now those years when they actually have good OBP's they are a dynamic force on the field, but it's far too inconsistent to rely on...

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

What Bill James' figures show is Juan Pierre needs his entire skill set just to approach mediocrity. For whatever reasons (no power being the most glaring one), JP is a below average run scorer. He had a good year last year and still only scored 1 run/7 PA's. Do the math, that meant he needed 700 PAs to score 100 runs. Then look at his career average stats, he averages only 91 runs scored per 688 PA's -- 162 games. Not exactly what you're looking from your leadoff man. The average leadoff man last year scored 105 runs/162 games. The Dodgers scored 118! Last year Arizona #1 hitters scored 91 runs like Juan Pierre has averaged per 162 games over his career. That ranked them 28th in major league baseball! And that brings up the other problem with Pierre. He expects to play every game. All 162.

[ ]

In reply to by navigator

Ellsbury led off for the Red Sox, had 691 PA's, hit .300, stole 70 bases and still didn't score 100 runs. So your syllogism may have a bad premise. Isn't that the same team, by the way, that pays James a consulting fee? Stats are manipulable, and stat-heads don't like speed. I think it's more psychological than mathematical. Something to do with why kids prefer Superman to The Flash. GMs have grown up a little, compared to stat-heads.

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

Come to your senses man. In this case, the figures don't lie. Runs is a counting stat. Pierre is a terrible leadoff man who has a long track record of not scoring runs. As for Ellsbury, he was actually just mediocre from the first spot this season. He may do better in the future since he's young and not underskilled like Pierre but this is what he put up leading off an inning in 2009----.264 .316 .405 .721 Pretty underwhelming. But, more importantly, he was the leadoff man in only 117 games not 162. He scored 75 runs when starting as the number 1 hitter. That prorates to 104 runs scored if he had started every game. Coincidentally, 104 runs is what he prorates to in a 162 game season for his career as well! Compare that to Pierre's average of 91.

[ ]

In reply to by navigator

It does help to have these speed guys when they're young. (See Soriano, Alfonso.) His first four full seasons, Pierre scored 100 runs three times. At that point (the end of his league-age 26 season) he averaged 102 runs per 162 games. The problem with Pierre is not his leadoff ability, but the fact that he doesn't have a centerfielder's arm. The speed positions are second, short and center. You can get a higher OBP guy for those positions, but usually he'll hurt you on defense.

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

"You can get a higher OBP guy for those positions, but usually he'll hurt you on defense." OBP and speed are not mutually exclusive. To be a good leadoff hitter, getting on base is the #1 factor. Speed is #2 and working the pitch counts is #3, but that usually goes hand-in-hand with #1.

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

I know you're not listening but 100 runs is below average. Pierre has scored more than 100 runs only once in his entire career. Just terrible. The average leadoff man last season: AL 107 Runs NL 102 Runs MLB 105 Runs Worst performance by leadoff men. Mets:88 Runs What the NL average composite leadoff man did last year Vs Pierre's career averages per 162 games: 102R 186H 36doubles 8triples 12HR 59RBI 91R 188H 22doubles 9triples 1HR 44RBI So, a mediocre leadoff man, not a good one, totals up ~ 70 more extra bases than Pierre does. Maybe if JP could steal 100 bases every year and not get caught stealing he could make up for it. Note that Pierre's 11 run deficit in Runs scored (and his RBI deficit as well for that matter) corresponds directly with his home run deficit of 11. All his base stealing does is make up for his lack of doubles power, not his lack of home runs.

[ ]

In reply to by navigator

I'm certainly listening and I think your numbers are interesting. I did notice that you didn't provide SBs for your composite NL leadoff man. I know Pierre doesn't hit home runs. When I look at the league leaders in stolen bases, the two at the top are Bourn and Morgan, who don't hit homers and didn't score 100 runs. (Morgan was injured, and his runs do extrapolate to exactly 100 in 162 games.) Are they as good as Kemp and Hanley Ramirez and Tim Raines and Rickey Henderson? No, of course not, but they are serviceable leadoff men, as is (was?) Juan Pierre. Here's where I'm coming from. Only a guy who steals bases can start an inning with a scratch hit and ultimately score without a walk or a hit behind him. Starting from first base, the slower guys on the Cubs need a combination of at least two walks/hits behind them to score. It's not surprising that the Cubs have a big inning, and then go cold for long stretches. It's not surprising that a game seems lost when the Cubs are down by a run against good pitching in the 7th inning. These are characteristics of teams that lack speed. Here's a statistical question, maybe you can point me to the answer. I know that power-hitting teams score more runs than speed teams. But who scores runs in more innings? Sometimes you just need one lousy run to keep the thing alive.

Kenny is making 'ol Jimbo look real bad lately... hopefully Ricketts is taking notice as to what a loser Hendry really is. First, Kenny swoops in and swipes Peavy right from under Hendry's nose. (even though it was shot down initially) He lands JJ Putz before the Cubs even look at him and deals for Teahan. Most importantly, every time Hendry has an eye on somebody, he calls the fucking beat reporters and leaks it to the web for scrutiny and it seems to drive the prices or the FA/trade candidate. Kenny, on the other hand, doesn't leak shit, flys in under the radar, and completes his mission. And it always seems to be the move the Cubs were "supposed" to make. Hendry has fucked this team from behind for too long and his fat ass can't even give us the courtesy of a reach around. Wake me when this nightmare is over...

Regarding CF, I'm tempted to root a little for an Ankiel signing for a few reasons. 1. None of the other options make me wet my pants 2. If he reaches the potential he had when he came up for the second time it would be a blast to watch him beat up on the Deadbirds 3. He's got a cannon arm and no matter where the ball was hit in the OF third base coaches would pretty much have to bring a stop sign to work. 4. If he, as Real Neal predicts (just kidding RN), hits 30 homers for the first time in his career, it would add some much needed power to the OF. 5. The new superstar batting coach should add about 70 or 80 points to his OPS. No, really. No, not really, but we all know that Jaramillo will improve everyone's hitting to the point where Ankiel will just be another cog in the Big Blue Machine and all that batting luster will rub off on him in ways we can't predict yet. 6. Oh, and he's white. So if he sucks and he starts getting booed and having beer tossed on his head Milton can finally get some therapy. Hopefully The MB therapist will give Milton a Todd Hundley baseball card. If you look at his statistics, though, he also shows promise of being pretty miserable as a hitter out there, with an under .700 OPS last year and 99 strikeouts in 372 at bats. But his previous two years were pretty good. Not the 1.xxx that I want my right fielder to have, but not bad. In other words, he regressed quite a bit last year and his prior reputation and some of that decent OPS from the two years before may have been built on a couple of hot months. I sort of seem to remember a couple insanely good months from him that skewed his numbers some but I could be wrong. So it's a shot in the dark, really, and just a fun hunch on my part.

Coco Crisp sort of interests me, too, if we're not interested at all in power. I have a feeling Rickey Henderson is still probably playing baseball in some netherland, too. Did you guys know he was born on Christmas? That's cool. I just saw that while screwing around looking for okay leadoff hitters. Also, if you've been elected to the Hall of Fame, can you come back and play a year for the Cubs?

My last option for CF is Fukodome, with Milton in right. Unlike most here I've always kinda had some sympathy for Milton. I don't remember the details but I think his family history wasn't too good, and I honestly don't need to google it because HIS PARENTS NAMED HIM MILTON!!! WTF was wrong with those people? Bradley. Milton Bradley. Even if his parents didn't beat him, I bet it was tough to get a girl to take him seriously before he got famous. So as a third option, I say re-sign the fucker and the Ricketts can hire a blue wall of Chicago Cops to stand in front of the beer throwers just behind the basket and hire Dr. Phil to talk to him after each game.

Sorry for so many comments and long ones at that. I spend a lot of time reading and not much time arguing. I love to argue but time doesn't work so well for me for that, and, besides, my baseball knowledge is about 1/10th of most of you dudes.

Maybe Hendry is looking at how he keeps grabbing guys early in the off-season, then sees better deals on players late and has realized that he doesn't have to spend all his money by December 1st. Or maybe Hendry's hands will be tied with the Bradley deal all off-season and he'll be forced to take the last CF'er on the market who will be so desperate that he'll accept a cheap deal.

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

This isn't actually correct. There are plenty of FA contracts that can be traded and you get value back. Ever heard of Mark DeRosa? However, this often does happen, but it doesn't mean that you won't necessarily at some point be able to trade Bradley and get prospects back. A good recent of example of that is Manny Ramirez who was put on waivers at least once, but I think twice during his Boston days and no one claimed him - but when he reached the end of the contract he had some value. It's a function of performance, salary and years remaining on the contract. You can't just make the blanket statement "all free agent contracts have negative value".

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Although you'd like to believe the former, just because it shows enlightenment, I'm terrified it's the latter.... But I'm sure if MByrd has to get overpaid, Jimbo'll put down the donuts long enough to do it. Incidentally about the whole Bradley/hands tied thing. I read somewhere (I believe it was Muskrat) that Ricketts and Hendry specifically worked out that they allowed him to go over budget short-term as long as he fixed it by opening day. I think the point was that MB shouldn't hamstring him from FAs or other deals...

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

I say keep Milton and let it ride. Maybe Lou could talk to some of his previous managers that he got along with. I know he had a good relationship with Ron Washington (who I like as a manager). I'm sure there are others that managed to deal with him well enough. Then the question changes from "does Lou know what to do with Milton?" to "will Lou do what it takes to manage Milton?" For all the credit Lou gets as a manager, I don't think he can do what it takes. He seems to have such a short fuse with players that once you fuck it up, it's over. Weurtz, Eyre, there are others. I don't know exactly what that says about Lou except he's lost the drive to be the best. He seems to go to his known bag of tricks (kick dirt, get kicked out) and if that doesn't work, call out the players.

[ ]

In reply to by John Beasley

Because Lou is 5% of the problem and Milton is the other 95%. MIlton is also sitting on a guaranteed $21 million and has zero motivation to change his act. Bringing him back would be catastrophic. The tension in the clubhouse would be so thick you could cut it with a knife, and the Chicago media would have a field day. Every day, everyone in the organization would be walking on eggshells, waiting for the inevitable explosion. Like it or not, keeping Bradley is by the worst of all available options. Because the distraction level would be so high that it would prevent the other 24 players from focusing on their individual and team perfomance. Signing Milton was a risky proposition, and it has blown up badly. Cut your losses as best you can and move on before any further damage is done.

I think Jimbo has himself in a bind. As long as there are options out there better and cheaper than MB, then why would another GM trade for him? I think the only chance of trading MB, and it is slim, would be before spring training when another team in the midst of a bad offseason might have to go with their plan C or D. By that time there will be no way to get an upgrade in the OF.

[ ]

In reply to by B52RedMonkey

I think this is the only way to rebuild MB's trade value. 1) Tell Lou his only chance to be rid of Milton is to get him to produce in the first half 2) Tell Milton that you're calling off all the trade talk and that he's a Cub again 3) Tell Milton that if he really wants to win or just be somewhere else he's going to have to keep his outbursts under control (out of public eye, less severe, etc) 4) Find some players who will be his friend (Lee would be the obvious choice) 5) Get Jaramillo to be a mentor to Milton. The two had success in Texas and he seems to have the authority and patience to offer it to Milton 6) Tell Lou to let the guy out of his doghouse if all of the above produces some results And if all that works, who knows, maybe we would just decide to keep him.... nah, fuck that, trade the SOB when his values up and go back to being a normal clubhouse.

Submitted by Sweet Lou on Tue, 12/15/2009 - 2:27pm. This news was in an article from a newspaper in Mesa and the story made it sound like the Cubs and the City of Mesa had been fighting over this for the past couple of years. The story didnm't use those words, but that's what it sounded like. Az Phil, do you know anthing about this? Have the Cubs and Mesa been fighting over money in recent years? ======================= SWEET LOU: The Cubs have had some issues with the City of Mesa regarding facilities over the past few years. Batting cages are just one of the issues. Because of the relationship Pat Patterson & the HoHoKams (Mesa politicians and business owners) have had with Cubs ownership over the decades, the City of Mesa has had a tendency to take it for granted that the Cubs would stay in Mesa forever, so they have not been partuclarly responsive to complaints about seemingly minor things like batting cages. Now they're scrambling. I still think the Cubs will end up at Wild Horse Pass (Gila River Indian Reservation). The location is ideal (intersection of the I-10 and Loop 202 freeways), the Tribe has boat-loads of casino money to spend, and the Cubs would have more control over facilities, security, parking, concessions, et al there than they have had with the City of Mesa and the HoHoKams. There are still large tracts of open land on the res, and so it could easily be turned into a virtual "CubsTown" with all the extra stuff Ricketts apparently wants at a Cubs Spring Training site.

I would like Dye's bat, but that doesn't solve the CF problem resulting in a below average OF defense. I just looked up Marlon Byrd on Baseball Reference and the most comparable player is Reed Johnson! With Cameron gone, I would hope for Ankiel, because at least he has some possibility of a big upside, i.e., 30 HR's.

[ ]

In reply to by jacos

If Hendry is up to something, he is tight lipped about it, which he should be. Look at how many incorrect quotes from sports writers and bloggers that TCR'ers have brought to this forum. The business needs to be behind closed doors because they are talking millions of dollars of fans' money and support. This makes for a lot of speculation and frustration, but Hendry is dealing with men, checking with Lou and Tom and thank the good Lord he's not consulting Muscrat and the like. All this shooting Hendry in the backside is doing is making Cards fans very smug. This after 3 winning seasons and 2 divisional titles. Relax. Can't wait for ST to start!

[ ]

In reply to by kmokeefe

"they are talking millions of dollars of fans' money..."
I hate to put too fine a point on this, but it's important to remember that it's not the "fan's" money. True, the fans buy tckets, concessions, etc., but that's like saying that if you shop at and support your local hardware store, then the money the store spends is your money. It just doesn't work that way. And for what it's worth, I'm starting to point the finger of blame for the off season so far on Tom Ricketts. It was no secret what he was getting himself in to when he and his family purchased the team. Leaving Hendry in charge, but not giving him the financial support to dig his way out of this mess (the mess that Hendry created) was a recipe for failure.

[ ]

In reply to by Sweet Lou

Ricketts is being smart. How can you blame a guy who has had controll of his team for roughly 3 months? The guy has barely had enough time to figure out how the operations work. He wants to put money into things that will help develop players which will cost less than shelling out $100 million contracts for guys like Soriano who will just go and train in the Dominican in the offseason. Then the team has the cost and responsibility of going to check on them during the offseason to make sure they are not in a dead sleep with empty Modelo cans and buckets of KFC (regardless if it is the grilled). So you cut Hendry, eat his contract and add the additional dilema of scrambling to find a new GM during the offseason while trying to dump Bradley and improve the team? That will just cost more money.

[ ]

In reply to by thedirtbag

I can't argue with Ricketts' approach to building the farm system. My problem with him is that by not increasing the payroll for 2010 (or just increasing it slightly), he is guaranteeing that, barring a miracle, the 2010 Cubs are going to be mediocre. I just don't think that's the way the new guy should kick off his tenure as the new owner. Of course, it's easy for me to say. It's not my money, but I would have liked to see him increase payroll by $10-15 million. It would have given Hendry room to manuever and, provided he spent it smartly (that's a big if), improve the Cubs. By the way, I do think that a payroll of $140 million should be enough to build a competive team. Unfortunately, it was misspent prior to the upcoming season, so at least for now, it's not enough to fix the problems the Cubs face.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

If there's so little trust in Hendry, then he should be shown the door. Of course, I'm assuming that the goal is for the 2010 team to be better than the 2009 team. If that's the goal, then as owner, you have to give the guy building the team (Hendry or his replacement) the tools he needs to get the job done. If that's not the goal, then just keep doing things the way they are being done. It doesn't make sense to me to spend $140 million for a mediocre team when you can throw a little more money at it and improve it. Whether or not you trust the guy spending it is a different issue. I assumed Ricketts trusted Hendry to fix his own mess when he kept him around. If that trust doesn't exist, then it was foolish to keep him.

[ ]

In reply to by dc60124

dc60124 -- That's my point. Either you trust Hendry or you don't. If you trust him, you give him the tools (money) to fix the situation. If you don't, then why keep him around? These are really two separate issues. The first issue is, what will it take to build the 2010 Cubs into a World Series contending team? I'm assuming that is the goal. The second issue is, who should be leading the charge to build a World Series contending team? I assumed Ricketts believed that Hendry was the man for the job when he decided to keep him as GM. If that's the case, then support his efforts. Set him up to succeed in reaching the organizational goal. Don't tie his hands at the very time he needs some room to manuever.

[ ]

In reply to by Sweet Lou

ricketts has already seen what hendry can do with a big stack. hendry is now auditioning for continued future employment by demonstrating what he can accomplish under tight constraints. going forward, hendry will not have the bottomless bank account he had the year mc phail left. and the relative freedom he had under zell's watch. time to show the new boss what can be done with little to no wiggle room. is hendry closer to walt jocketty or omar minaya? this winter will tell the tale, and determine hendry's (and more importantly the cubs') future. some commenters around these parts believe this club is very very similar to the crowd that won 97 in 2008. others see it as a club on the eve of destruction due to age, or injury, or lack of depth. whichever way your pleasure tends, that is how you'll probably see hendry: if only a minor tweak or two is needed, hendry has the money he needs. if you think some major pieces need moving/replacing, 2010 is already gone, and then hendry will be gone, also. either hendry the architect is only off by a brick or two, or the wall needs to be knocked down and begun again. i'm not sure who is better in the central than the cubs, but so what? how do they beat the phillies? or the dodgers? or maybe even the d'backs, rockies, braves, or mutts? will the cardinals repeat their 2009? the cubs are going to pretty much mirror 2009 with their 2010. putz along, a few streaks of both types, end up outside looking in. central champions, 1st round exit, been there, done that. then bye bye lou. bye bye hendry. bye bye crane kenney. and derrek lee. and ted lilly. fukudome will have 1 yr left, and be movable to seattle or l.a. or san fran. and the next guy will come in with a slightler cleaner slate on which to write. wait til next year.

[ ]

In reply to by dc60124

I hear what you're saying, but I'm having trouble buying that standing pat for the 2010 season is going to accomplish anything. If you're Ricketts, you just spent $845 million to buy the team and you're on the hook for a $140 million payroll in 2010. At that point, would you say, "I'm done spending. Let's ride out 2010 and focus on 2011?" or would you say, "I just spent a boatload of money, but to do this right and properly usher in the 'Ricketts era,' I need to spend just a little more to give the team the best chance of competing in 2010?" I don't think there is an absolute right answer, but I tend to lean toward the latter. If you lean toward the former, wouldn't it make sense to focus completely on 2011 by moving some big contracts (if possible), adding prospects, and dumping payroll? If you're throwing in the towel for 2010 and focusing on 2011, that seems reasonable (I obviously feel that the team, as currently structured, can not compete). Doing nothing seems to be the absolute worst thing that can be done. The way Ricketts is approaching this off season is interesting, if nothing else. I guess you could say he is showing Hendry some tough love (i.e. "It's your mess, you clean it up and there won't be any more of my money to work with."), but I just feel it is a recipe for failure. I suppose it's possible for Hendry to fix the mess he created, but without some manuevering room (i.e. some extra money), I think it is highly unlikely.

[ ]

In reply to by Sweet Lou

Good points I think Ricketts is thinking, "I just spent $845M to buy a team with huge or backloaded contracts to... Bradley - 2011 - who must be traded Dempster - 2012 - good pitcher, just backloaded Fukudome - 2011 - mediocre compared to expectations Grabow - 2011 - not an awful signing but could have been 1 yr Ramirez - 2012 - backloaded, player/club options Samardzija - 2013 - huge contract for draft pick & NTC Soriano - 2014 - already declining or just an awful year Zambrano - 2013 - great pitcher, but needs to mature ...and I'm not 100% convinced that this is the guy I want spending my money." Lee and Lilly are nothing to complain about as they were the best hitter/position player and starting pitcher signed to big contracts. Ramirez and Dempster aren't going to hurt like some of the other contracts listed above. Looking at Ramirez's contract information, he has a player option to opt out after 2010. His 2011 and 2012 salaries are 14.6M and 16M (club option, 2M buyout). So after 2010, Aram is guaranteed 16.6M for 2011 and buyout. He'll be 32 if he goes to the open market compared with 34 if he plays out his contract. I would think that 32 would be a good age to get that one last 4-5 year contract. It seems like it would be a lot harder to get 4-5 years when he's 34. So if I was Aramis, I would strongly consider opting out after 2010, even if he just renegotiates with Hendry/replacement GM.

[ ]

In reply to by Sweet Lou

sweet lou- my belief is that hendry has been given some wiggle room for 2010. and nothing can happen nor will happen until he learns how much of his wiggle room must be sent air mail along with bradley to a new city. ricketts would appear to be too bright to just let hendry off the leash. from the outside looking in (me, not ricketts) hendry appears capable of 2 behaviors: 1. fleecing another gm of a soon-to-be-too-costly player (choi for lee, hill for aram). 2. over-investing both time and dollars in free agency (soriano, fuku, dempster, bradley, et al) i really don't recall what sort of money got pushed around the table when nomar arrived in 2004, but the people hendry shipped out of town did not carry large price tags. hendry must now, for his own job security, demonstrate a 3rd behavior: cut current overhead/expenses before acquiring new ones. so far, that has eluded him. i hope it changes, quickly. but as a guy who generally sees the cubs glass as half empty, color me doubtful. surely for 2010, doubtful indeed.

in Lee/Halladay manuevers...seems to be one of the minor leaguers.

heard him on XM radio, said Cubs was his #2 choice because of Lou and then he really quickly mumbled something to the effect that he had to wait for them and was already on to his next point. Also said he still wants to play CF and that hasn't been decided.

Red Sox working hard to get him and some tweet that he expects to be a Red Sox within 10 days. http://twitter.com/jorgearangure/status/6736480095 so the team that makes the playoffs last year is looking to add Lackey, Cameron and possibly Gonzalez (along with Victor Martinez mid-season) while subtracting Bay The Cubs who won 83 games and did not make the playoffs are looking to dump Bradley and pay for it, lost Harden and looking at Byrd, maybe Pineiro and some bullpen arms. Most thrilling offseason yet....

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

the trade that brought him to chicago, or the one sending him away?

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

Ellsbury with sub 100 OPS+ and sketchy CF defense? hell yeah, let's get him

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

fwiw, Cameron was on XM radio this morning and said nothing has been decided about CF and he very much still wants to play there. He also added in that before he signed, he wanted to make sure someone asked Ellsbury if it's okay and if Ellsbury would be willing to move, so I got the sense that Cameron was thinking he's going to play CF. He also made some GG jokes, and basically had a tone of why the fuck would I be the one moving.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

Rob's pretty far off base here. Last year Ellsbury was essentially as good an offensive player as Lee was in 2008 and he played a premium defensive position, while doing it for $500K. For whatever reason he had some bad lucking defensive metrics, but that doesn't match his reputation or his previous track record. His ISO is holding steady while his walks are going up and his K's down, and he's the game's premier base stealer.

Recent comments

  • crunch (view)

    SF snags b.snell...2/62m

  • Cubster (view)

    AZ Phil: THAT is an awesome report worth multiple thanks. I’m sure it will be worth reposting in an “I told you so” in about 2-3 years.

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    The actual deadline to select a post-2023 Article XX-B MLB free agent signed to 2024 minor league contract (Cooper, Edwards, and Peralta) to the MLB 40-man roster is not MLB Opening Day, it is 12 PM (Eastern) this coming Sunday (3/24). 

    However, the Cubs could notify the player prior to the deadline that the player is not going to get added to the 40 on Sunday, which would allow the player to opt out early. Otherwise the player can opt out anytime after the Sunday deadline (if he was not added to the 40 by that time). 

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    Today is an off day for both the Cubs MLB players and the Cubs minor league players.  

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    For those of you keeping track, so far nine players have been called up to Mesa from the Cubs Dominican Academy for Minor League Camp and they will be playing in the ACL in 2024: 

    * bats or throws left 

    Angel Cepeda, INF 
    * Miguel Cruz, P
    Yidel Diaz, C 
    * Albert Gutierrez, 1B
    Fraiman Marte, P  
    Francis Reynoso, P (ex-1B) 
    Derniche Valdez, INF 
    Edward Vargas, OF 
    Jeral Vizcaino, P 

    And once again, despite what you might read at Baseball Reference and at milb.com, Albert Gutierrez is absolutely positively a left-handed hitter (only), NOT a right-handed hitter.

    Probably not too surprisingly, D. Valdez was the Cubs #1 prospect in the DSL last season, Cepeda was the DSL Cubs best all-around SS prospect not named Derniche Valdez, Gutierrez was the DSL Cubs top power hitting prospect not named Derniche Valdez, E. Vargas was the DSL Cubs top outfield prospect (and Cepeda and E. Vargas were also the DSL Cubs top two hitting prospects), Y. Diaz was the DSL Cubs top catching prospect, and M. Cruz was the DSL Cubs top pitching prospect. 

    F. Marte (ex-STL) and J. Vizcaino (ex-MIL) are older pitchers (both are 22) who were signed by the Cubs after being released by other organizations and then had really good years working out of the bullpen for the Cubs in the DSL last season. 

    The elephant in the room is 21-year old Francis Reynoso, a big dude (6'5) who was a position player (1B) at the Cardinals Dominican Academy for a couple of years, then was released by STL in 2022, and then signed by the Cubs and converted to a RHP at the Cubs Dominican Academy (and he projects as a high-velo "high-leverage" RP in the states). He had a monster year for the DSL Cubs last season (his first year as a pitcher). 

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    DJL: The only players who definitely have opt outs are Cooper, Edwards, and Peralta (Opening Day, 5/1, and 6/1), and that's because they are post-2023 Article XX-B MLB free agents who signed 2024 minor league contracts and (by rule) they get those opt outs automatically. 

    Otherwise, any player signed to a 2024 minor league contract - MIGHT or - MIGHT NOT - have an opt out in their contract, but it is an individual thing, and if there are contractual opt outs the opt out(s) might not necessarily be Opening Day. It could be 5/1, or 6/1, or 7/1 (TBD).

    Because of their extensive pro experience, the players who most-likely have contractual opt outs are Alfaro, Escobar, and D. Smith, but (again), not necessarily Opening Day. 

    Also, just because a player has the right to opt out doesn't mean he will. 

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    I love the idea that Madrigal heads to Iowa in case Morel can’t handle third.

    The one point that intrigues me here is Cooper over Smith. I feel like the Cubs really like Smith and don’t want to lose him. Could be wrong. He def seems like an opt out if he misses the opening day roster

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    Childersb3: Both Madrigal and Wisdom can be optioned without any restriction. Their consent is not required. 

    They both can be outrighted without restriction, too (presuming the player is not claimed off waivers), but if outrighted they can choose to elect free agency (immediately, or deferred until after the end of the MLB season).

    If the player is outrighted and elects free-agency immediately he forfeits what remains of his salary.

    If he accepts the assignment and defers free agency until after the conclusion of the season, he continues to get his salary, and he could be added back to the 40 anytime prior to becoming a free-agent (club option). 

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Phil, 
    Madrigal and Wisdom can or cannot refuse being optioned to the Minors?
    If they can refuse it, wouldn't they elect to leave the Cubs org?

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    In my opinion, the biggest "affirmative" mistake the Cubs made in the off-season (that is, doing something they should not have done), was blowing $9M in 2024 AAV on Hector Neris. What the Cubs actually need is an alternate closer to be in the pen and available to close if Alzolay pitched the day before (David Robertson would have been perfect), because with his forearm issue last September, I would be VERY wary of over-using Alzolay. I'm not even sure I would pitch him two days in a row!  

    And of course what the Cubs REALLY need is a second TOR SP to pair with Justin Steele. That's where the Cubs are going to need to be willing to package prospects (like the Padres did to acquire Dylan Cease, the Orioles did to acquire Corbin Burnes, and the Dodgers did to acquire Tyler Glasnow). Obviously those ships have sailed, but I would say right now the Cubs need to look very hard at trying to acquire LHSP Jesus Luzardo from the Marlins (and maybe LHP A. J. Puk as well).