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

The Lee-Ramirez-Zambrano Cubs

Reader dcf (he of the Ron Santo for the Hall pieces from a few years back) stops by with a guest column on the Lee-Ramirez-Zambrano years


The August 18th trade of Derrek Lee to the Braves for three minor league pitching prospects represents not only the end of an era, but also the end (and to some extent the failure) of a long term strategy. For some time, the Cubs have built their team around three core players, Lee, Zambranoand Ramirez, allocating a large percentage of their available salary dollars to these players in long term contracts. This strategy has not yielded the results anyone would have hoped for.

On November 23, 2003, the Cubs acquired Lee from the Florida Marlins, that year’s World Series champion, for Mike Nannini and Hee-Seop Choi. Earlier that year, on July 23, 2003, the Cubs had acquired Aramis Ramirez, Kenny Lofton and cash from the Pirates for Matt Bruback, Jose Hernandez and a player to be named later (who turned out to be Bobby Hill). These were sound trades. At the time, Lee was 28 years old and Ramirez was 25. They joined a team which included a then-22-year-old Carlos Zambrano, who had been promoted from the Cubs’ farm system.

At the beginning of the 2006 season, the Cubs signed Lee, then 30 years old and coming off a monster year in 2005 (with a batting title and 99 extra-base hits), to a five year, $65 million contract; that contract replaced a three year $22.5 million contract signed in January, 2004. After the 2006 season, the Cubs signed Ramirez, then 28 years old, to a five year, $75 million contract (which includes a club option for a sixth year); that contract replaced a four year $42 million contract signed at the beginning of the 2005 season. After the 2007 season, the Cubs signed Zambrano, then 26 years old, to a five year, $91.5M contract (which includes a 2013 player vesting option).

The Cubs’ opening day payroll for the current year was $144.359 million. That amount represented the third highest team payroll in the majors, exceeded only by those of the Yankees and Red Sox, and the highest in the National League. The Cubs were committed to pay almost 54% of that amount ($77.625 million) to five players: Lee ($13 million), Ramirez ($15.75 million), Zambrano ($17.875 million), in addition to Alfonso Soriano ($18 million), signed after the 2006 season, and Kosuke Fukodome ($13 million), signed after the 2007 season, each of whom was added arguably to augment the existing Lee-Ramirez-Zambrano core. To put this figure in context, the amount the Cubs were committed to pay those five players was greater than the total opening day team payrolls of 12 major league clubs, including those of the Reds, Padres and Marlins. Approximately a third of their total 2010 opening day salary was committed to Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano.

So how well did this work? Over the last five years, when the decisions were made to extend long term contracts to these players, the results were mixed at best. On the one hand, the Cubs won back-to-back division titles in 2007 and 2008. On the other hand, the Cubs did not win a playoff game in either year, 2006 was a disaster, 2009 a disappointment, and 2010 a catastrophe. On the whole, however, I am of the view that the strategy was a decent one that, for various reasons, just did not work out, rather than being a poor strategy from its inception.

Some general observations:

1) Injuries have made a big difference. Lee and Ramirez have battled injuries this year which, despite Lee’s attempts not to use them as an excuse, seem to have negatively affected their performance. Lee’s severe wrist injury in 2006 cost him a lot of time that season and may have contributed to his relatively poor years in 2007 and 2008. Ramirez has not been a terribly durable player for the Cubs: he has missed extensive time this year, lost half the season in 2009 to a dislocated shoulder, and only played in 123 games in 2005 and 132 games in 2007. In fact, Ramirez has played in 150 games or more just three times since 2001 and just once with the Cubs. Zambranohas not had any one significant injury, but in 2008 and 2009 had his lowest number of games started, and lowest numbers of innings pitched, since his rookie year. He had rotator cuff tendinitis in 2008, and a pulled hamstring and lower back pain (and an epidural) at separate times in 2009. His disciplinary (and anger management) issues this year do not fall within the category of “injury” but have caused significant time off.

2) The Level of Performance has fallen short of expectations. I would argue that none of these players has consistently performed at a level that the Cubs would have expected given the amount of their salaries, even if you discount the poor years that all of them are having in 2010. None of them has been among the best players in the league or in baseball at his position since signing their large contracts. Lee was an MVP candidate in 2005. He has not been one since. Even in 2009, which was his best year since 2006, he ranked behind Pujols, Gonzalez and Fielder in WAR and behind Pujols, Fielder and Votto in OPS. In 2007, he was behind Pujols, Fielder, Cabrera, Dunn, Helton and Howard in OPS. In 2008, he was 10th among NL first basemen in OPS.

During the five years prior to his big contract following the 2007 season, Zambrano went 77-45 with an ERA of 3.30 and an ERA+ of 136. Over that period, he threw 1077 innings, averaged 33 starts a year and had a WAR of 22.2. Since his 2007 contract, he’s gone 27-19 with a 4.08 ERA and an ERA+ of 111. He started 30 games in 2008, 28 in 2009 and only has 13 starts this year. His aggregate WAR over that period is 5.9.

In the four years prior to Ramirez’s 2006 deal, he had an aggregate WAR of 11.8. Since then, his aggregate WAR is 9. Ramirez had good years in both 2007 and 2008, but David Wright and Chipper Jones were both better at the plate in each of those years.

So what did the Cubs expect? Well, Zambrano is the fourth highest paid starting pitcher in baseball by average annual value, behind only Sabathia, Santana and Halladay. Ramirez is the second highest paid third baseman in baseball by average annual value, behind only A-Rod. Lee is the eighth highest paid first baseman. (For all salary rankings, see http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2000/05/most-lucrative-contracts.html; I disregarded Cabrera’s ranking as third baseman and listed him at first). In all of these instances, there are players at the same position well below these three in terms of salary that have out-performed them. Ramirez has been a good player, and a relatively consistent performer when he has been in the line-up, but has not been consistently one of the best at his position, which is what the Cubs are paying him to be. Lee and Zambrano have done worse than Ramirez has against their position peers.

3) Was the Strategy Sound? Hindsight is 20-20, but I believe that the strategy of building a team around Lee, Ramirez and Zambranowas a decent decision that has gone horribly awry due to circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable. If you had the chance to build your team around two power-hitting corner infielders and a number one starter, would you do it? The Cubs went for it.

At the time these contracts were signed, all were under 30 years of age. While injury is to some extent an occupational hazard of all athletes, Lee’s severe injury in 2006 was simply unlucky. Zambrano was a horse with perhaps high mileage on him, but was a true number one starter that had consistently taken the ball and won. It is true that Ramirez had a somewhat checkered injury history at the time he signed his last contract, but he had been a consistent power hitter.

I would argue that it was not reasonably foreseeable that all three players would have simultaneously played as badly as they have in 2010.

4) The Downside. To some extent, the performance of Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano illustrate a risk inherent in a strategy like the Cubs’. When you commit guaranteed high-dollar contracts to people that don’t perform, particularly a number of people that don’t perform, you have severely limited options. Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano have been essentially replacement level (or slightly above) all year long and the Cubs have not been able to replace the lost production. As noted above, over half of the Cubs’ payroll was allocated to these three players plus Fukudome and Soriano, who also have not set the world ablaze this year.

5) What to do next? A lot may depend on whether Ramirez and Zambrano can rebound and have decent years. That’s a lot to hope for. Their contracts are such that it may be difficult to move them without the Cubs agreeing to defray salary.

The other thing that the Cubs could do is look to add players through free agency using the salary flexibility that they have obtained by moving the Lee and Lilly contracts off their books. The committed dollars for 2011 look like this: Soriano $19 million; Zambrano $18.875 million; Ramirez, $14.6 million; Fukudome $14.5 million; Dempster $14.5 million; Silva $12.75 million (with Seattle paying $5.5 million); Byrd $5.5 million; Samardzija $3.5 million; and Grabow $4.8 million. That’s $102.525 million. Of the remaining players, the contracts of the following arbitration-eligible players are up: Marmol (currently at $2.125 million), Marshall ($950G), Soto ($575G), Baker ($975G), Gorzelanny($800G), Guzman ($825G) and Hill ($700). Colvin ($401G), Wells ($427G) and DeWitt $410G) have contracts expiring but are not arbitration-eligible. It depends on what the Cubs’ appetite is, but they could add players. Whether they can add the right ones remains to be seen.

Comments

Depending on Lee to repeat all star performances year after year... yes, that's how the Cubs operate. In 'lol' news, Michael Eisner might be taking over Tribune Co.

Doing the Lee-Ramirez-Z non-triumphant triumvirate multi-year signing seemed fairly reasonable to me at the time. The real gamble was the Soriano contract. I don't think anyone thought such a long, extended contract was a very good idea, but the gamble, which was lost, was that he would get us to the World Series in the first year or two of his contract. This would have resulted in sustained Alf-love throughout the rest of his contract, pretty much no matter how badly he deteriorated. The Blackhawks rolled the dice last year on their salary cap stuff and won. The Cubs rolled the dice on Soriano and got their asses kicked.

Not only did it seem reasonable to me at the time but it was refreshing to see the Cubs re-sign their stars and wade seriously into the free agent market. For years it seemed the Cubs only went after older-mid-market guys (Jeff Blauser, anyone?) and would let their rising stars go into free agency without a serious attempt at signing them (Greg Maddox being the worst case of that).

[ ]

In reply to by Rob Richardson

To me, signing Dunn, and that's what we're really talking about here smacks of desperation. It's the same type of thing that the Astros have been doing for the last three years say "if everything breaks right, with these addtions we can turn it around". Everything never breaks right, especially if you're a Cub fan. Trade Vitters, Marhsall and J Jackson for Fielder - but getting tied into 4 years of Dunn's decline phase will just perpetuate the issue we've had the last two off-seasons.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

I don't think Fielder is much of an upgrade over Dunn. I think Dunn is a much better (Wrigley) hitting park is a good bet to average 35/100 over a 4 year deal. Dude is 30, has had no significant injuries ever. And has been remarkably consistent year in, year out his whole career. To me he is the safest signing you can make. Brett Jackson is a logical replacement for Fukudome. Cashner/Wells/Jackson/McNutt/Archer are logical replacement for the pitching staff. Who can logically replace DLee and his usual production at First?

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

The point is that Fielder doesn't come on a four year deal that's going to be an albtatross in two years. If you sign him to a four year extension, like we did with Aram and Lee, then you get him for his 27 to 31 years. Not that I am stuck on Fielder, but I prefer that a little to signing some guy for his 31 to 34 years - we did that with Soriano - how's it going?

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

Dunn is 30 right now. So signing him to 4 year deal covers his 31,32,33 and age 34 season. Those are the same seasons we bought with the last DLee Contract. Here is a direct table of the First base options http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/compare.asp Career Statistics Player Name Stat Type Bavg Obp Slg OPS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO HR 2B R RBI SB Adam Dunn MLB .249 .383 .520 903 1290 4417 780 1101 230 8 316 777 59 20 913 1433 0.24 0.18 0.60 0.60 0.05 Derrek Lee MLB .284 .369 .504 873 1681 5980 946 1701 380 28 293 939 101 44 768 1378 0.17 0.23 0.56 0.56 0.06 Adam Dunn Minor .304 .425 .525 950 343 1208 263 367 70 4 63 220 60 21 230 270 0.18 0.20 0.77 0.64 0.17 Derrek Lee Minor .291 .363 .483 846 640 2393 416 697 138 11 100 406 69 36 262 630 0.16 0.22 0.65 0.63 0.11 Tyler Colvin Minor .277 .320 .465 785 442 1716 259 476 92 31 56 274 44 16 105 341 0.13 0.21 0.59 0.62 0.10 Tyler Colvin College .317 .371 .510 881 185 663 136 210 54 7 20 142 39 8 53 89 0.11 0.29 0.74 0.77 0.21

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

Lee didn't seem very useful this year. He only had one good year in the last four. Not that I think you can project what players as a whole tend to do onto one particular guy - and definitely not say that Dunn will get hurt because Lee did. If you're going to dip into the free agent market on big aquisitions - I prefer to go for the young superstars over the older veterans. Think Maddux, Ramirez and Bonds versus Dunn, Blauser and Bradley.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

I just don't think you can make a hard and fast rule either way. To me Dunn is a borderline superstar. Certainly much better than Blauser or Bradley every were. I also think that enough GM's undervalue him. So you can get him on a reasonable deal (Fukudome money). I just don't understand why so many people are against getting a 900+ career OPS left-handed bat? In his prime no less. Guess he isn't toolsy enough?

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

"I just don't understand why so many people are against getting a 900+ career OPS left-handed bat?" because most of us don't think we're going to see it happen unless fuku or sori goes away...and most of us believe the cubs don't have a 150m payroll...and some of us believe we don't need to pay 15m a year to a guy who's play at 1st would make him a great DH. it's nice you think we should improve the pen from within, but that's what we got now and it's given us 25 losses with a 5.27era and a 1.57 whip. a lot of people just don't see the cubs going out and throwing 30m around to "fix" a SP slot + pen issues + 1st baseman. of course, it could work out they sign dunn and trade colvin for a SP/RP who's cheap or blah blah blah etc, but i can't imagine dunn even being an option with fuku/sori still around.

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

Most of those costs were fixed, and they went to arbitration (which they never did before) with a fan favorite to keep those costs down. The only significant addition was Byrd who is inexpensive, a pitching coach, and Silva for Bradley which was more or less cost neutral. Finally, when they needed shore up the bullpen due to injury they were out bid by the Nationals.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

Submitted by crunch on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 1:26pm. i still don't get why nady isn't playing somewhere else yet. =============================================== CRUNCH: Xavier Nady is the type of player contending clubs acquire on August 31st, when clubs are looking to solidify their post-season rosters. So I think Nady will get traded by midnight EDT next Tuesday, but the Cubs might not get anything more in return than the $20,000 waiver price and a month's-worth of payroll relief ($550K in the case of Nady). Koyie Hill and Jeff Baker (both eligible for salary arbitration post-2010 and likely 12/12 non-tenders) might get traded on 8/31, too.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

by RBI man, I meant driving in other runners, cause you can hit your solo shots anywhere in the lineup. 16.1% OBI% in 2007 for Lee, he just hit less HR's, 3rd on the team with reasonable number of at-bats behind Ramirez's magnificent 19% and JJ at 17.1% 16.1% is what I consider good actually... Dunn vs. Lee in their career Dunn 2002 - 10.6 2003 - 10.4 2004 - 12.2 2005 - 13.1 2006 - 12.7 2007 - 15.5 2008 - 15.6 with Reds/13 with DBacks 2009 - 14.2 2010 - 13.5 Lee 2000 - 12.7 2001 - 14 2002 - 13.3 2003 - 14.7 2004 - 15.6 2005 - 16.1 2006 - 15.2 2007 - 16.6 2008 - 15.5 2009 - 17.8 2010 - 14.2 of course, Dunn is a slightly better overall hitter imo, drives himself in more, gets on-base more to score runs although he was giving it all back and then some on his defense. It's not as much of a problem at 1b so far with his glove. But if I had them both on my team at the same time and roughly same ages, I would undoubtedly put Lee in the better RBI spot over Dunn. and yeah Lee had a damn fine 2007, don't know why 35/100 is the arbitrary bar.

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

That we should shun a 40 Homer hitter because you hate solo homers? exactly what I said again. now on the other hand YOU did say that Dunn would be the ideal fit for a #3 hitter for the Cubs despite a career of what I consider poor numbers driving in runners on base for a power hitter. They still count as runs Rob. yup, if you want to compare it to Lee's 25 HR seasons. That's 15 extra runs there, a win and a half at best, some of it given back on defense and some given back by stranding more runners, a little gained by getting on-base better. Net result: 0-1 wins for Dunn In a better overall lineup than Cincy or Washington's he'd probably be a 40/120 guy. you don't have to guess, take the runners on base for your favorite #3 hitter of your favorite lineup and take Dunn's OBI%. Let me know which teams you use and what numbers you get. Not an exact science, but you'll get a better idea. (Spoiler: Unless it's the Phils or Yanks of recent years or some other offensive juggernaut, probably not 120).

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

Dunn's a #2 or #6 or #7 hitter imo, maybe #5 in a good year. Of course, with the Cubs, the only other real good RBI guy is Ramirez, so don't matter much. Just give Dunn more at-bats cause he usually gets on-base. I'd actually think the Cubs would be better served with Lee on a 1-yr deal if they thought his neck/back issues got better over the off-season, but it's a chronic thing now. Ultimately I don't think Dunn gets the Cubs more than 2 wins and that's not worth 4/52. Now another 2/20 deal, awesome. If the Cubs still suck, I'm sure you can trade him.

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

Let's take Dunn, just for the sake of comarison. Had Dunn batted in the same situation as Lee - taking out baserunning abilities, he would have had 97 RBI's (15 more than Lee). Had Lee batted in the same situation as Dunn he would have had 91 RBI's (16 less than Dunn). Sorry, that's just not getting the job Dunn. You need to knock in more than 5% of the guys on first base if you're a #3 or #4 hitter, as well as knock in yourself more than 22 times. Unless your contention is that he was the 2002 Barry Bonds and was just denied the opportunity?

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Had Dunn batted in the same situation as Lee - taking out baserunning abilities, he would have had 97 RBI's (15 more than Lee). Had Lee batted in the same situation as Dunn he would have had 91 RBI's (16 less than Dunn). Based on what? Again... RBI is silly stat. As Rob already pointed out, Lee was pretty dominating with RISP in 2007: .364/.450/.545. You can't ask for much better than that.

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

Based on the number of runners they had on base and the rate at which they drove them in... it's freely available information at baseballprospectus, maybe you should check it out instead of repeating "RBI's don't count" all the time. RBI's do count, and you want your best RBI guys to come up to base with the most runners on. This is some pretty basic stuff you don't know.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Based on the number of runners they had on base and the rate at which they drove them in... Ah yes... comparing situations that may or may not be similar, and pretending that they are they exact same, is helpful. and you want your best RBI guys to come up to base with the most runners on. I want my best hitters to come up with the the most runners on. And in turn, my best hitters will be my best RBI guys. This is some pretty basic stuff you don't know. Ha... that's amusing.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

I agree Fielder, at his current age, is probably a safer investment on a 4 year deal than Dunn, but Boras has been talking about how Fielder is a better player than Ryan Howard and deserves a larger, longer contract than Howard. And this was after Howard got the $25 million per year extension from Philly. I don't know who would give Fielder a deal like that. Not knocking Fielder, I just think with the exception of the Yankees, all the other teams are being more responsible with their finances lately. There are some analysts on MLB Network, forget who, but they had a discussion about Fielder's future right after Howard got his deal and they said some teams have similar concerns about Fielder's long term ability to play 1b. I don't think Fielder is in a Jim Thome situation when the Phillies signed him to play 1b only to find out pretty quickly he was a DH at that stage of his career.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Submitted by The Real Neal on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 10:17am. To me, signing Dunn, and that's what we're really talking about here smacks of desperation. It's the same type of thing that the Astros have been doing for the last three years say "if everything breaks right, with these addtions we can turn it around". Everything never breaks right, especially if you're a Cub fan. Trade Vitters, Marhsall and J Jackson ========================================= REAL NEAL: I think the Cubs trading for a rent-a-player (pending FA) like Prince Fielder to fill a hole is a more-likely scenario than signing Adam Dunn to a multi-year mega-deal, although I don't know if the Brewers would trade Fielder within the division. In other words, the type of deal the Mariners made when they acquired pending FA Cliff Lee from the Phillies last off-season, where they can flip him at the trading deadline for prospects if the team falls short of contention, or offer arbitration and get draft picks if the club does succeed and it's obvious that the FA player wants and will get more than a one-year deal on the open market. The Cubs will continue to have money to spend every year, but Ricketts apparently is averse to long-term FA contracts unless they follow the Marlon Byrd template (reasonable price, not too long). I don't think that necessarily means that the Cubs payroll will go below $120M, though.

speaking of how badly we need adam dunn... bullpen... 374.1ip - 5.27era - 1.57whip - 11/25 w/l adam dunn should be priority #1.

the problem was not lee, aram, and z. the problem was not having enough home grown talent to put around them and spending $$ on sori,fuku and others. haven't we learn that future dh's (dunn, fielder) donot work forthis club?(sori)

Might wanna take a look at the defensive numbers and watch Fielder play the position. If Lee was super awesome on defense, Prince Fielder was right there with him. Fielder would be insanely expensive but he is one of the top 5 offensive bats in all of baseball and is young, very young for the offensive resume he has racked up to date. Ohhh but he is fat, that means he isn't as good as the skinny players.

[ ]

In reply to by MikeC

I think the problem with his weight is that he will be prone to have health problems, lose his mobility more quickly, grind his knee joints into gravel (ala William "Refrigerator" Perry), etc. Add to that the fact that most fat players get even fatter as they age. Compare possibly to Boog Powell, a "fat" 1st baseman of the 60's & early 70's. Booger was listed as 6'4", 230lbs., while Prince is listed at 5'11", 270 lbs. Powell had some excellent offensive years up through age 28, then pretty much fell off sharply after that (except for a "last hurrah" year at age 33 in 1975 -- .297/27/86 with OBP of .377 & SLG of .524). Anyone signing him to a contract after his age 28 season would be thinking "he's just entering his prime."

[ ]

In reply to by Paul Noce

The search for Lou Piniella's replacement has begun. Cubs GM Jim Hendry confirmed he had dinner with former Indians manager Eric Wedge last night --- Hendry and Wedge quoted after dinner meeting... "We knew we had to make the right choice. We knew we had to get the right guy. Not only did I come away [from the dinner] thinking tremendous things about him, but I also felt really good about him because as we left the restaurant and stood on the curb waiting for the driver, Eric said, 'I know it's going to take some time, but I want to tell you I want to be the Chicago Cubs manager if you want me.' " Deja vu (all over again) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkazf7znllQ

Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn. Adam Dunn? Adam Dunn. Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn. Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn. Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn. ADAM DUNN! Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn. Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn. Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn ADAM DUNN? Adam Dunn, Adam Dunn. Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn. Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn. Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn. Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn Adam Dunn... Adam Dunn.

Is there something I am missing with Eric Wedge? His teams finished 1st once in the Division, and 2nd, once. I don't truly remember, cause I looked about a week ago, but doesn't he have a career losing record? Why is he "coveted"?

more on Wedge... http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090930&content_id=7241814&vke… Mark Shapiro comments (upon Wedge's firing):
"I hired him as a Minor League manager and got a chance to see what he was all about and how special he is," Shapiro said. "He won me over in that role during the interviews, and he was everything I would have expected him to be [as a manager]. ... We live in a game and a business where seven years is a long time. I was hopeful we could avoid [this move], but we've arrived there."
on Wedge's longevity as a manager...
In seven seasons, Wedge has compiled a record of 560-568, with one division title and playoff appearance in 2007, when the Indians finished one win shy of the World Series. Among the 39 full-time managers in Tribe history, Wedge ranks fifth in wins, third in losses and fourth in games managed.
By lasting seven years with the Tribe, Wedge had been the fifth-longest tenured current manager of a club. Only the Braves' Bobby Cox (hired in 1990), the Cardinals' Tony La Russa (1996), the Angels' Mike Scioscia (2000) and the Twins' Ron Gardenhire (2002) have been with their respective clubs longer.
Wedge's strengths (according to Shapiro):
"Eric has been the epitome of a team player," Shapiro said. "He's demonstrated consistency, strength, a tireless work ethic and, in my mind, is an exemplary leader.

this article is more critical of GM Shapiro but thought this was interesting regarding Tribe fans take on Wedge and his coaches particularly about developing young talent: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/332995-a-question-of-accountability-…
Shapiro can also be held accountable for maintaining an underachieving coaching staff for too long. The recently fired Eric Wedge and his staff proved time and again both that they could not win when it counted (see the team’s collapse at the end of the 2005 season or its inability to beat Boston one more time in the 2007 ALCS) and that they were incapable of effectively utilizing and further developing young talent (players such as Fausto Carmona, Josh Barfield, and Andy Marte come to mind here). Yet Shapiro stayed committed to this staff year after year.

[ ]

In reply to by Paul Noce

The Special Operations Warrior Foundation provides full scholarship grants and educational and family counseling to the surviving children of special operations personnel who die in operational or training missions and immediate financial assistance to severely wounded special operations personnel and their families. Yeah, real scumbags.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Scholarships for children of special ops people who died in two illegal wars created by Republicans, the same jackasses who are applauding the Republicans running this event. An event that 'has no correlation to MLK's speech' yet is being staged on the same day, on the same location, with twisted rhetoric. The problem with Republicans is that realistically only 1% of the country has any business being a Republican. That's because that 1%, the richest people in the country, are the only people the Republican Party represents. If someone is a Republican and isn't filthy rich, they're idiots. They're being lied to constantly about every single issue. Not that the Democrats are much better, they've become spineless weasels in the last decade, but the Republicans are criminals. Another surprise for Republicans is that less than 30% of the country identifies themselves as Republicans. Without all the constant fear mongering the Republican Party would never be able to get anyone elected. Glen Beck is a lying asshole manipulating people's feelings. He's an actor with an agenda who claims God is telling him what to do. The saddest part is that idiots gobble that shit up.

[ ]

In reply to by Paul Noce

Oh, Paul Noce, I've been waiting for this. I am in special operations (aircrew, so no, I'm not a door kicker, but I take them to work and support them). SOWF leadership was actually at my base not long ago. It's president, John Carney, Col (ret), USAF, was the man who surveyed the LZ at Desert One before anyone else got there (not familiar? Look it up. It's also under Operation Eagle Claw). That foundation, and what it does for innocent children of people who have been killed (also in training accidents, btw) is beyond reproach, and actually has one of the lowest overheads of any charitable organization in this country, ie more dollars go to the actual charity (again, look it up). "Scholarships for children of special ops people who died in two illegal wars created by Republicans, the same jackasses who are applauding the Republicans running this event." No, this isn't the place for political bickering, and yes, fuck the talking heads on both sides, but when you're talking about my family, watch your tone. Have a little respect for the family members of the people that make it possible for you to be an emotional bonehead. If you'd like to discuss any of this further, I can be reached at [email protected]. Rob, feel free to edit, but I think this is fucking stupid and I couldn't NOT respond.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

TRN--I also have a personal anecdote to relate about the SOWF. I was fortunate enough to spend time with retired Col John Carney (the president) and retired Gen Holland (on the board of directors, and former Commander USSOCOM) recently. John Carney has a Yankees world series ring. When I specifically asked him about the ring, turns out he lives near, and has befriended, Hal Steinbrenner. He said the old man contributed regularly to the foundation, and that Hal is a big supporter of the military. They gave him the ring for his 70th birthday. It was kinda neat to see my two worlds, baseball and the military, come together in that way.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Not sure if you are an attorney (which I am) or familiar with historical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment was not considered by most at the time of the adoption (and the cause was rarely taken up by most but the more radical until the mid-20th century) as unfettered right to have any weapon you wanted. On the other hand, the Arizona immigration law, which allows police certain rights against a person merely because they suspect them (without any evidence needed other than their looks, under some interpretations) of being an illegal immigrant...this would never have passed constitutional muster. Your knowledge of the Cubs is quite broad, but your analysis of the legal aspects is quite flawed and demonstrates a more limited understanding than in your baseball analysis. Comparing a right to government harrassment due to your looks to the laws preventing someone from owning an automatic weapon or from carrying guns into a school is, at best, tenuous and, at worst, a strawman to try and somehow show that GOP supports limited government while walking all over people's rights.

[ ]

In reply to by springs

That's nice, and that is your opinion, just like I and everyone else has one. That's great that you are an attorney and practice law. So you must understand better than others that the field of law is based on opinions and interpretations, can change with the wind and has throughout history. The legal justice system is intrinsically tied to politics and thus there will be legal opinions on all sides of every issue.

[ ]

In reply to by Hobart Mike

That first paragraph about the 2nd Amendment being completely taken out of context over the last 75 years or so is not his opinion, it's historically accurate. Anyway, we probably shouldn't turn a few guys in powdered wigs into the next infallible demigods. Gun control may not have been a big issue back when it took about a minute to load a musket ball.

[ ]

In reply to by springs

The enforcers of the AZ law have been specifically trained to treat all people the same regardless of their appearance of national origin. Talk about glass houses.... "The peoples right to bare arms shall not be infringed", was put into the Constitution to keep the government from seizing weapons from the citizens, like the British did leading up to and during the Revolution. Any interpretation that doesn't even illustrate what 6th graders learned in history class... it's naive, ignorant or biased - based on your fantastic expectation of the enforcement of the AZ law, and this comment, I'd say you may have all three there.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

the law cost ARZ a lot of people and money in a time of economic downturn. they drove 100,000ish tax payers out of the state. great idea...use your government to waste money in order to get elected. the AZ law has cost them so much money in a time when the state (which can't even keep parks and highway rest areas open) actually need money. oh well, TX and NM will take that tax money...no problem.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

You are absolutely positively historically wrong. Perhaps your history education ended in 6th grade, but your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is historically inaccurate. Of course, the ACLU does agree with you as do many people, liberals and conservatives. As for my "fantastic" interpretation of the Arizona law, fortunately my post 6th grade education has allowed me the ability to read other people's opinions rather than just make assumptions and than mock others when they disagree. Here, for example, is the head of the Pima Arizona police stating that he would not enforce the law. Here is a quote: "Dupnik [the police chief] had harsh words for anyone who thinks SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling. "If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they're going to do it. They'll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that's not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney."" So my interpretation of how the Arizona law, and that of a police chief in Arizona, is wrong of course and your interpretation is, I am sure, correct. There is a world of reality outside your bubble where you are not always right. Come join it someday.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Also, if you support small government in keeping people away from your guns, why would you not also support small government in limiting search and seizure, stopping unwarranted searches, etc. Always amazes me when teabaggers go on about small government while cheering a government that abuses civil rights and libertarian freedoms -- don't take my guns but freely torture anyone!

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

it's a myth conservatives love that liberals don't want them to have guns. talk radio loves to push this point. more conservatives love their guns more than liberals, but for the most part liberals support the right for people to own their guns. and this has nothing to do with the point brought up besides being one of the many conservative talk radio fear talking points.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

Actually I'm one of those newly Independent males that Tito refers to. I've always been liberal on some issues like gay marriage and immigration and consevative on others like abortion and gun control. It's my belief the 2nd amendment doesn't leave much to the imagination. You might not like it, but it's the law that we can own guns. The gun lobby, on the other hand, is very shady and I don't much like the NRA.

I agree with Rob as to Lee's 2007 season. I overstated the case by saying it was "relatively poor." Despite the 22 homers and 82 rbi, it was a decent year. His slugging percentage was the third highest of his career. His OPS+ was the fifth highest, and was pretty similar to his last two years with the Marlins. He was seventh among NL first basemen in OPS+ that year. His 2005 and 2009 seasons were his best in terms of OPS+ and 2009 seems that it was unfortunately only an outlier.

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).