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

Will 'The Hawk' Land in Cooperstown?

Submitted by Mike Wellman on

Andre Dawson was born the same year I was - 1954. His birthday is the same as my eldest child’s - July 10. But neither of those trivial bits have anything at all to do with his candidacy for election to baseball’s hall of fame.

There’s a strong numerical case to be made on behalf of The Hawk. I’ll leave it to others to keep making it. But once it’s been laid out I’d add a couple of intangible, immeasurable flourishes as finishing touches.

I remember a game that I want to say, but can’t prove, happened during Dawson’s MVP season of 1987 when everything he did seemed spectacular. Whoever was the starting pitcher for the Cubs on this particular day didn’t have it and was getting cuffed around in the top of the 1st. The first two outs of the game were accomplished by Dawson throwing runners out at the plate, prompting an admiring Harry Caray to remark, “Dawson’s pitching a better game than [fill in the blank]!”

A more generic endorsement of his worthiness, in my book, is the trouble he went to on a daily basis just to take the field. Dawson was known for spending a couple of hours both before and after games icing his fragile knees so he could stay in the lineup and off the DL. He not only insisted on playing, he managed to do it at a consistently high level. People always talk about athletes as role models for kids. The hell with that. What about serving as role models for their peers? I always thought Dawson must have been a tremendous example in the clubhouse of how a true professional should approach his craft.

And then on a related note, of course, there’s the quasi-legendary blank contract that Dawson accepted to play for the Cubs in the first place, confident that his production would be fairly compensated after the fact instead of on the come.

Milton Bradley and, his prodigious power numbers notwithstanding, Sammy Sosa may have been highly paid for their time in right field at Wrigley, but you can combine the two at their respective bests and still have nothing more than a cheap imitation of Andre Dawson.

He was truly menacing both in the field and at the plate in ways that only the very best ever are. If you insist on numbers, Dawson compiled those too. But mostly he stacked up exclamations like, “Holy Cow!”

Here’s hoping he gets in this time around and holds the door open for Santo next year

Tags
HOF speculation

Comments

Submitted by artskoe on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 12:13 am

Wasn't he the first to wear form fitting around his thighs? They were quite a target for intimidation from the mound to the plate, but that's where his power was.

Submitted by Aisle 424 on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 12:58 am

I wish the world had seen him play in Montreal before his knees were shot. As great as his 1987 season was, I think there is a lot of residual resentment that he won the MVP for a last place team.

[ ]

Submitted by tbone on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 12:46 pm

I don't think there's resentment over Dawson winning an MVP. He won it because Smith and Clark split their vote for the Cardinals. It happens. I think if anything is keeping him out it's the spotlight that's been shone recently on OBP. Dawson's is awful. I'm often interested to know the age of the extreme Dawson lovers. Or lovers of any player from the past for that matter. Many, it seems, were kids or fairly young fans when Hawk was playing for the Cubs and I think a lot of their love is fueled by the nostalgia you feel for that time in your life as a fan. You can never care about a player as much as you do when you're a kid. Same with me for Williams, Santo and Jenkins. I've heard some good arguments on why Williams shouldn't be in the Hall. But I'm glad he is. And it's probably just my age but Santo not being in is a far bigger injustice than Dawson not being in.

Submitted by The Real Neal on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 12:21 pm

I'm a big Dawson fan, but "Milton Bradley and, his prodigious power numbers notwithstanding, Sammy Sosa may have been highly paid for their time in right field at Wrigley, but you can combine the two at their respective bests and still have nothing more than a cheap imitation of Andre Dawson." doesn't make any sense unless you're talking about some nebulous integrity standard. There are very few players in the history of baseball who had a five year stretch as good as Sosa's from 1998 to 2002, and they're all HoF'ers or on their way.

Submitted by Mike Wellman on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 12:58 pm

doesn't make any sense?! nebulous?! some things are easier to recognize when you see them in the flesh than they are to quantify on the back of a baseball card...

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:57 am

If the best arguments for Andre Dawson being in the hall of fame is that he "looked" like a HoF'er or that he worked hard, he doesn't belong. He's one of those guys, like Rice, who will lower the statistical threshold for other players to get in. Baseball wise, Sammy and Dawson were very similar players. CF'ers with power and speed who didn't hit for much average or walk often, who eventually moved to right field. Maybe you should have watched Sosa play in the flesh, and you'd know a little more about him (since you seem to think I haven't seen Dawson play.)

Submitted by Mike Wellman on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 12:02 pm

surely you don't mean to imply that SS was one of the best "very few" ballplayers ever...surely you're not even implying that he was AD's equal...

Submitted by DeeFondy on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 12:23 pm

I'm old enough to have seen Dawson in his prime and given the choice between Sosa in his prime or Dawson in his, it's Dawson. Dawson had all 5 tools and used them all. Sosa had at least 4 tools and chose to use 1. Better player, better teammate, hands down.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:14 am

Huh? Just for kicks, lets look up the "five tools" at their best, and see how they compare: Hitting for Average: Sosa .328 Dawson .308 Hitting for Power: Sosa 66 HR's Dawson 49 Throwing: Sammy 17 assists Dawson 17 Running: Sammy 36/11 SB/CS. Dawson 39/10 Fielding: CF/RF Rate 97/109 Dawson 110/110 Then there's the "6th tool" - plate discipline: Sammy 116 BB's Dawson 44

[ ]

Submitted by Dusty Baylor on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:41 am

You forgot the 7th tool...steroids Dawson had more doubles, more triples, more steals, almost as many RBI, and was a much better fielder than Sosa. Playing well in 1980 was just a little different than playing well in 1998.

Submitted by Cubster on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:33 am

His impact is felt even by today's generation. Watching him play for the Cubs on WGN, All-Star center fielder Torii Hunter credited Dawson with inspiring him to choose baseball over football as a kid in Pine Bluff, Ark., ''He's the best I've ever seen,'' said former teammate Ryne Sandberg, using his own Hall of Fame speech in 2005 to lobby for Dawson. That might be the best test of Dawson's Hall candidacy: the eye test... As Sandberg said, ''No player in baseball history worked harder, suffered more or did it better than Andre Dawson.'' --- http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/1958232,andre-dawson-eye-t…

Submitted by Mike Wellman on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:03 pm

RN, I did see Sosa in the flesh, more times than I saw AD, & he brought me to my feet many times...just my feeling that HOF measuring sticks include more than stats &, IMHO, by all the non-stat barometers Sosa pales [pun intended]next to Dawson...I think Dawson's creds exceed Rice's, btw...

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:56 pm

Though I agree that the HoF standards include things other than statistics, the only argument that gets Dawson into the HoF is that the standards should include about 50% "intangibles" which to me is ridiculous. The most that should be is maybe 10%. There were times when Dawson was a HoF player, but for long stretches of his career he was simply a good ballplayer. But regardless, there's no need to try to tear down Sammy Sosa to try to justify Dawson's inclusion in the HoF. Nor is there any way to reasonably argue that Dawson was a better player at the peaks of their respective careers. When you're clinging to leadership and ice on knees to justify one player being better than another, you've already lost the argument.

[ ]

Submitted by Sweet Lou on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:11 pm

When Andre Dawson retired, he was: 22nd in Homeruns 24th in RBI 38th in hits 72nd in runs scored 21st in total bases And 125th in stolen bases in the entire history of baseball In addition, Dawson is the only player eligible for the HOF that has at least 2,700 hits and 400 homeruns who isn’t in the Hall. During his career, Dawson won: NL Rookie of the Year (1977) NL MVP (1987) NL MVP Runner Up (1981, 1983) 8 Gold Glove awards 8 All-Star Team selections 4 Silver Slugger awards The knocks I have heard on Dawson are that 1) he had a low OBP, and 2) he didn’t deserve the MVP award he received in 1987. Dawson’s career OBP is relatively low at .323. That can’t be argued. But Dawson got tremendous production even while his OBP was low. For instance, in 1978 Dawson’s OBP was only .299 for the year. Yet he managed 154 hits and 269 total bases. His OBP fell below .300 again in 1985 to .295, but he managed 135 hits and 235 total bases. Compare that to Milton Bradley who posted an OBP of .436 in Texas in 2008, but managed just 133 hits and 233 total bases. I don’t mean to suggest that Bradley is a Hall of Famer or the equivalent of Dawson. I simply wanted to show how productive Dawson was even in years when his OBP was quite low. As for not deserving the 1987 MVP award, I don’t think it really matters. The fact is that he did win it. It’s on his resume and it’s considered part of his legacy. Plus, with or without the award, his 1987 performance was tremendous, especially for a guy playing on a last place team. Finally, I don’t want to speak for Mike Wellman, but the intangibles I think of with Dawson are not simply “leadership and ice on knees.” In baseball, there are certain guys that garner the respect of their peers and the fans more so than other players. They are more feared at the plate, more closely watched on the base paths, and more respected in the field. Dawson was that kind of player. Sure Dawson was a leader. Other players say he worked harder than anyone else. It’s true he had terrible knees which had to constantly be iced and which prevented him from being even greater than he was. But there was something else too. I can’t completely quantify it, or even properly name it, but there was a universal respect for Dawson that is extremely rare. That’s not the only reason he should be in the Hall, but it should be considered.

[ ]

Submitted by WISCGRAD on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:17 pm

"So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientations, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling; seen that." It's sad that you view baseball through the lens of statistics. Mike wrote a nice, personal article on why he likes Dawson and feels he is a hall of famer, focusing specifcially on his intangibles (even going out of his way to bracket the statistics part of the argument at the beginning), and your response is: "There are very few players in the history of baseball who had a five year stretch as good as Sosa's from 1998 to 2002." Who the fuck cares? It wasn't the point of the piece. Thanks for sharing Mike (and Cubster with the quotes) those views echo my own on the Hawk. Happy Holidays.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:11 pm

What's sad, is your inability to read. "...Sammy Sosa may have been highly paid for their time in right field at Wrigley, but you can combine the two at their respective bests and still have nothing more than a cheap imitation of Andre Dawson." Maybe the sentence was too long for you to focus on, but when you hit .324 64 160 despite a league leading 37 IBB's, the only person you may be cheap imitation of is Babe Ruth. Dawson is the cheap imitation in that analogy, not Sosa. Sorry, you are wrong again.

Submitted by Mike Wellman on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:46 pm

your %'s are arbitrary & I'm not clinging to anything; I'm pointing & including...I dare say many would agree that @ their respective peaks Dawson was the better all around ballplayer...anyway, stars may be aligned for AD this year since he's the top returning scorer on the ballot...finally, there's no argument; not a contest between SS & AD for the HOF - I just admire one & not the other...Sosa's time will come, or not, in due course

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:16 pm

If you say "all around player" where you cap the contribution of the hitting component to compose an "all around game", then the young Dawson was probably the better all-around player. When you look at who had the best season, if a team swaps out the 2001 Sosa with any team Dawson played on, they win four more games with Sosa.

Submitted by Stevens on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:47 pm

Loved watching the Hawk play. Loved his intensity, his eyes, his leadership. But I can't see him in the hall. And yes, it's that damn OBP. Joe Posnanski wrote a good article on him a while back, and made mention how OBP isn't just about walks: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/01/08/dawso… 3 things struck me from that piece: If elected, Dawson's OBP would be the lowest of any HOF outfielder by 20 points. His average would be the 3rd lowest. And third, this pill: "Dawson got on base less often than the average major leaguer of his time. That's just a very tough thing to overlook." Tough indeed. Great player, and I won't complain when he's elected (and I think he will be elected). But he wouldn't get my vote.

[ ]

Submitted by Sweet Lou on Mon, 12/28/2009 - 12:08 pm

It kills me that Posnanski feels that way because he is a great writer. But even great writers can be wrong. Pos claims that he could see voting for Dawson if he had a higher batting average; something in the .295 to .300 range. In order to have a .295 batting average, Dawson would have had to have gotten 7.4 hits per year more than he did. That’s just slightly more than one hit per month. Is that really what separates the HOF players from those not worthy to be in the Hall? I don’t mean to suggest that 7.4 hits per year is insignificant. Over the course of Dawson’s 21 year MLB career, that would have amounted to 155 additional hits. That’s basically an entire season’s worth of hits. But what Pos is saying is that he would vote for Dawson if he had 2,928 hits, but he can’t with Dawson only having 2,774 hits. That’s too fine a line for me, especially considering the other things Dawson achieved in his career. While he’s a great writer, Pos puts too much emphasis on stats, particularly OBP. He seems to throw out everything else when evaluating a player. That’s not to say that stats are not important. They are and they shouldn’t be ignored, but we’re talking about the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Stats. Things other than stats should and do count.

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!

Click HERE for the last 50 comments