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, ten players are on OPTIONAL ASSIGNMENT to minors, two players are on the 15-DAY IL, and two players are on the 10-DAY IL

Last updated 4-17-2024
 
* 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
Keegan Thompson
Hayden Wesneski 
* Jordan Wicks

CATCHERS: 2
Miguel Amaya
Yan Gomes

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

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

OPTIONED: 10 
Kevin Alcantara, OF 
Michael Arias, P 
Pete Crow-Armstrong, OF 
Jose Cuas, P 
Brennen Davis, OF 
Porter Hodge, P 
* Luke Little, P 
* Matt Mervis, 1B 
Daniel Palencia, P 
Luis Vazquez, INF 

10-DAY IL: 2 
Seiya Suzuki, OF
Patrick Wisdom, INF 

15-DAY IL: 2
* Justin Steele, P  
Jameson Taillon, P 

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





Minor League Rosters
Rule 5 Draft 
Minor League Free-Agents

TCR Friday Notes

Al at BCB scores an interview with Crane Kenney and Tom Ricketts.

BCB: Are you open to expanding the payroll a little if there’s an acquisition, let’s say, the middle of this season that might help get the Cubs over the top into the playoffs? Jim Hendry comes and says I’d like to get this guy it’ll cost $8 million, are you...

TR: I’m not sure .. probably not an $8 million mid -season addition, but what we’re always talking about and what Jim likes to do … we’re going to play out the first half of the season we’ll see what we need I think it’s good I think he has a philosophy to bring in a fresh guy or two at the trade deadline to help push the team forward the last couple months. We’ll be open minded to that stuff.

There's plenty of interesting information in there, along with a healthy dose of Trib bashing by Crane Kenney.

- Now that the Ricketts are in charge, hopefullly they'll spice up the Cubs advertising. Not that I'm particularly hopeful after the first ad which pretty much just sells the Wrigley experience and history. That is a WGN ad, so it's very possible the Cubs management had nothing to do with it either. The reason I bring up the advertising is the folks that run the Rockies, Twins and Mariners campaigns know what they're doing.

It would be nice to see a little Cubs personality in the ads, there's certainly enough ad agencies in Chicago willing to take up the task.

- There seems to be some strong sentiment that Ron Gardenhire isn't a good manager. I could probably count on one hand how many Twins games I've watched over the last few years, but nothing has struck me as too odd in terms of in-game management. What is odd is that the Twins have won 5 of 8 division titles and been above .500 7 of those 8 years with a middle of the road payroll for the most part. I'd be comfortable with Dusty Baker butchering arms and his crayon-drawn lineups for the Cubs if it saw them make the playoffs with that kind of consistency. I'll turn the mic over to Rob Neyer for the finish.

Let me tell you something, though: There aren't many Earl Weavers and Davey Johnsons out there. Some guys really know the numbers, and some guys really know how to handle 25 men at a time. And the numbers? Friends, there are only so many things a manager can do with the numbers. You've got your nine guys who play most days, and you've got your dozen pitchers with generally prescribed roles ... that doesn't leave much room for managerial maneuvering.

You take the manager who (just) knows the numbers, I'll take the manager who (just) knows how to keep his players playing for six months, and I'll beat you 55-60 percent of the time. Ron Gardenhire? He's won 55 percent of the games he's managed.

- Another big buzz around MLB was the idea of floating realignment.

The committee already has made good on Selig's promise by discussing a radical form of "floating" realignment in which teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not.



The concept gained strong support among committee members, many of whom believe there are non-economic avenues that should be explored to improve competitive balance, similar to the NFL's former use of scheduling to help parity (in which weaker teams were awarded a weaker schedule the next season).

The devil is in the details though and to be fair, it was nothing more than throwing out an idea at the moment. Back when I started writing online back in 2004, I recall suggesting an idea to realign the divisions based more on payrolls and media markets, so I'm intrigued by the idea, as impractical as it sounds at the moment.

- I'm on vacation next week and hopefully have secured a few guest bloggers to keep things going. Treat them well. Arizona Phil will be around as well although the Cubs are away most of the week.

Comments

Northeast: Boston Toronto New York A New York N Philadephia Southeast: Washington Baltimore Atlanta Florida Tampa Bay Midwest: Chicago N Chicago A Milwaukee Minnesota St. Louis Ghettoss: Pittsburgh Cleveland Cincinnati Detroit Kansas City California: San Francisco Oakland Los Angeles A Los Angeles N San Diego Freaks: Houston Texas Colorado Arizona Seattle For the record, the alignment we currently have is way better than the proposed floating crap. Tampa Bay had the chance to join the NL and screwed themselves; Toronto is a big market team in mid market facepaint; and Baltimore - well, I'd feel bad for Baltimore if the owner wasn't such a dick.

[ ]

In reply to by John Beasley

For the record, the alignment we currently have is way better than the proposed floating crap How do you know? couple of ideas were thrown into the pool, let's see if anything floats. I think it would be nearly impossible to enact, but I like the idea of the discussion. Desipio had the idea of getting rid of the divisions which I don't mind, but I think they need to contract 2 teams or add 2 teams. This 16/14 league disparity isn't particularly fair. Get rid of the unbalanced schedule and the top 4 teams make it in each league.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

The topic of competitive balance in baseball is one of my favorites, and one of the hardest to solve, both because of the economics and the politics surrounding the issue. Floating realignment sounds crazy and may turn out to be completely unworkable, but at least MLB is being open minded. In my opinion, something has to be done. There is probably one-third of the teams (without taking a head count) that enter the season with no realistic chance of contending. Not only is that demoralizing to the fans of these teams, but it's destructive to the general interest in the game. Why should a kid growing up in Pittsburgh care about baseball. The team hasn't had a winning season in 17 years. And if he doesn't have an interest in his hometown team, why care about the game at all? Better to follow football or some other sport. Baseball has to eventually deal with this issue. Opening up the discussion to all ideas is a step in the right direction.

[ ]

In reply to by Sweet Lou

I have to disagree with this. The Marlins contend pretty regularly. The Rays beat the Red Sox and the Yankees two years ago. The system is not so flawed that teams don't have a chance. It is so flawed that poorly run teams don't have a chance, but you can say the same thing about the NFL and the NBA.

[ ]

In reply to by John Beasley

If they were going to do it just on geography, it would be hard to have the divisions equal size based on travel distance. I personally would like something like this to maximize rivalries and fan travel, but of course this would never fly: Colonial Division: Boston New York New York Philadelphia Rustbelt Division: Toronto Detroit Cincinnati Cleveland Pittsburgh Railroad and Beer Division: Chicago Chicago Minnesota St. Louis Milwaukee Kansas City Pacific Coast Division: Seattle San Francisco Oakland Los Angeles Los Angeles San Diego Southeast Division: Tampa Miami Atlanta Baltimore Washington DC Mountain and Desert Division: Houston Dallas Phoenix Denver

[ ]

In reply to by WISCGRAD

Assholes Division: Boston New York New York Philadelphia Stick to Football Division: Baltimore Washington DC Cleveland Pittsburgh Flyover Divison: Chicago Chicago Minnesota Detroit Kansas City Go Surfing Division: Seattle San Francisco Oakland Los Angeles Los Angeles San Diego Hill Jack's Division: Atlanta St Louis Cincinnati Houston Texas Milwaukee Shouldn't Have Team Division: Phoenix Denver Tampa Miami Toronto ~yes I'm in a bad. why do you ask?~

[ ]

In reply to by jacos

How is Atlanta not in the asshole divisio... oh... nevermind I see.

If I were Crane I wouldn't be burning a bridges. You can only play make believe baseball man for so long.

I don't understand the Gardenhire bashing. What has he done that's so bad? I don't follow the Twins very closely, but where is the hate coming from? Considering he has led his team to five division titles in eight years, I would think Gardenhire is in line for praise rather than damnation. What other manager has been able to accomplish that feat? Now take out the clubs with payrolls in the top 50% of all teams. Who's left? I'm not exactly sure how to judge a baseball manager. Some guys talk a good game and some guys just win games (some guys don't do either). Gardenhire may not end up on Leno or Letterman, but his teams do win games. That's good enough for me.

[ ]

In reply to by Sweet Lou

almost everyone hates their manager after enough time unless you're one of the rare ones...gard's just been on the job a long time and lately they keep losing the ALDS. it's beyond the just "making it" stage at this point...the fans seem to want a little closure. ...as if that's his fault. he's not exactly out there making bonehead decision after bonehead decision while his 55-65m teams work their way through a season. his players seem happy. most of the complaints i've read from players leaving there is the joy of not having to play on that turf or shag flies in the dome.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

high five

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

lol, I second the high five.

Fontenot, Diamond and Theriot with good games. Jeff Baker finally gets a hit. J. Jackson not ready for prime time, 3 runs in 0.2 IP.

NATIONAL LEAGUE: EAST: NYM PHI PIT WAS NORTH: CUBS COL MIL STL SOUTH: ATL CIN FLA HOU WEST: AZ LAD SD SF AMERICAN LEAGUE: EAST: BOS NYY TOR NORTH: CHW CLE DET MIN SOUTH: BAL KC TB TEX WEST: LAA OAK SEA Four division winners and two WC teams, with the two WC teams playing a best 2-out-of-3 "play-in" series at the two division winners with the worst records pre-LDS. If the MLBPA would agree to eliminate the DH and cut active rosters from 25 to 24 and reduce the MLB Reserve List limit from 40 to 36, two expansion teams could be added (probably Portland and Charlotte), with Portland going to the A. L. West and Charlotte to the A. L. South, and Baltimore to the A. L. East from A. L. South. If the economics could be worked out, MLB might consider expanding to either Mexico City or Monterrey instead of Portland or Charlotte. Also, Rule 5 should be changed to where clubs can select as many players as slots they have open on their MLB Reserve List, but any player selected must be kept on the drafting club's 40-man roster (hopefully to be reduced to a 36-man roster limit) for one year (until the next Rule 5 Draft), and the drafting club cannot trade or outrighht the player to the minors for one year. However, the drafting club would be allowed to option the player to the minors, just like any other player on the 40-man roster. Combining this change in Rule 5 with cutting the 40-man roster from 40 to 36 would redistribute talent at the prospect level, helping small market/low revenue clubs acquire talented players and improve from within, without the need for a salary cap or a payroll tax or any other form of revenue sharing.

Vitters the winning hit, LeMahieu and Burke 1 for 1, Flaherty and Jackson 0 for 1 in the Vegas game.

[ ]

In reply to by Cubster

That's a pretty flattering picture of her what with it being a little out of focus. Even under the ESPN make-up she looks a little rough to me. Kind like seeing a porn star in HD. You don't want to look to closely

Cubs vs Homer Bailey, 1-1 bottom 3 Adduci doobel, Barney rbi single after Castro advances runner other than the kids, it's Soriano, ARam and Tracy. Sean Marshall 3 IP, 2H, 1 HR.

Recent comments

  • Bill (view)

    A good rule of thumb is that if you trade a near-ready high ceiling prospect, you should get at least two far-away high ceiling prospects in return.  Like all rules-of-thumb, it depends upon the specific circumstances, but certainly, we weren't going to get Busch for either prospect alone.

  • Sonicwind75 (view)

    Right on schedule, just read an article in Baseball America entitled "10 MLB Prospects Outside The Top 100 Who Have Our Attention".  Zyhir Hope was one of the prospects featured. It stated that he's "one of the biggest arrow-up sleeper prospects in the lower levels right now."

     

    Not sharing to be negative about the trade, getting a top 100 prospect who is MLB ready should carry a heavy prospect cost.  But man, Dodger sure are good at identifying and developing young talent. Andrew Friedman seems to have successfully merged Ray's development with Yankees financial might to create a juggernaut of an organization.  

  • Sonicwind75 (view)

    I suspect Brown will spend some time in the bullpen due to inning restrictions.  Pitched only 93 innings last year and career high is 104 innings in 2022.  I would expect them to be cautious with a young player with his injury history.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    I wanted Almonte gone last week, but that was before Merryweather went down and Little got demoted. Almonte in his last 5 appearances has gone 4.1 IP with no ER or Runs. NO hits, 3 BBs and 8 SO. He did hit 96 with his 2S FB in AZ on Tues.
    I don't see Jed waiving him when we have injuries all over and guys with options that can be sent down.
    I probably won't like the move Jed makes, but he can't play the "let's hope no one wants his 1.7mil remaining deal and we can hide him in Iowa" card.
    That's why I think the current Bullpen stays as is and Wicks goes to Iowa.
    I don't like that, but that's the fix I see.
    We'll find out soon enough!!!

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Teheran minor league deal is done, per MLB.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Based on Phil’s sound analysis it sounds like a no brainer for Almonte to be placed on waivers as today’s roster move. We shall see.

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    I suspect Counsell/Hottovy will use the piggy-back extensively, with Taillon and Hendricks pitching as the "pig" (and with a very short leash) and some combo of Wicks, Brown, and Wesneski (whichever two do not start) as the "backers."  

    Keep in mind that Keegan Thompson has a minor league option available, and if Yency Almonte is not outrighted by 4/26 he cannot be sent to the minors without his consent after that date. Almonte is out of minor league options, so I am talking about him getting outrighted to the minors if he is not claimed off waivers, and if he is claimed off waivers, the Cubs save the pro-rated portion of his $1.9M salary, which helps lower the Cubs 2024 AAV.

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Totally agree. The 26 man roster very rarely consists of the 13 best position players and 13 best pitchers.

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Based on what Jed has done in the past, I’d say the plan is to

    -give Hendricks another few starts
    -give Taillon some runway ot get his season underway

    -Mix and match in the bullpen and see what sticks

    Jed usually doesn’t do a whole lot of waiver wire plays in-season, at least early in the season. He only reallly did that after he blew up the rosters in 21 and 22 because they needed bodies (guys like Schwindel, Fargas, etc).

    I think he’s a little handcuffed by a full 40 man in that he can’t really maneuver much with giving anyone showing ability at AAA (R Thompson/ Sanders/ Edwards etc). Brewer has the most tenuous grip there, and we will see what kind of chance he gets. Other than his spot, there isn’t a ton of 40 man wiggle room.

    I’m very curious to see what happens with Brown now that Taillon returns. Bullpen? Wicks to Iowa? 

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Pro teams have to play their "big money" guys if they are healthy and not "locker room" issues.
    The Cubs wanted to deal JHey off well before they bought him out. They just didn't want to pay him to play for someone else for that long. Jed did give him 20+mil to play for LAD last yr.
    Jed might also let Kyle walk at some point this year. Similar scenario to JHey, except Jed thought Kyle was going to be good/solid in '24!!
    You'd think Smyly is in the same book as well. Same with Neris (he's a 1yr vet RP, so he's not really in this convo too much).
    That's ~35mil between those three and those three are going to get opportunities until at least late June) over younger guys even if their performance is "iffy".
    But, Jed is going to play Taillon a lot. They have to try and justify that contract and hope a veteran works out.
    So, Taillon, Imanaga, and Hendricks are locks for the rest of April and probably May.
    Assad, Brown and Wicks handle the last spots until Steele is ready.
    Now, you're question has real merit when Steele comes back. That will interesting if Brown is still good and Hendricks is still bad. But Taillon is entirely safe as long as he's healthy.

    And the bullpen moves were "money" based as well. Smyly has actually been okay. But he hasn't been clearly better than Little. Little had one bad outing. But Smyly makes 9mil. If they needed another RHRP and one of Little and Smyly had to go, it was going to Little. But that doesn't mean Smyly is one of the best 13 arms for the team.