Cubs MLB Roster

Cubs Organizational Depth Chart
40-Man Roster Info

39 players are on the MLB RESERVE LIST (one slot is open), plus two players are on the 60-DAY IL and one player has been DESIGNATED FOR ASSIGNMENT (DFA)   

26 players on MLB RESERVE LIST are ACTIVE, and nine players are on OPTIONAL ASSIGNMENT to minors, three players are on the 15-DAY IL, and one player is on the 10-DAY IL

Last updated 4-23-2024
 
* bats or throws left
# bats both

PITCHERS: 13
Yency Almonte
Adbert Alzolay 
Javier Assad
Colten Brewer
Ben Brown
* Shota Imanaga
Mark Leiter Jr
* Luke Little
Hector Neris 
Jameson Taillon 
Keegan Thompson
Hayden Wesneski 
* Jordan Wicks

CATCHERS: 2
Miguel Amaya
Yan Gomes

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

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

OPTIONED: 9 
Kevin Alcantara, OF 
Michael Arias, P 
Pete Crow-Armstrong, OF 
Jose Cuas, P 
Brennen Davis, OF 
Porter Hodge, P 
* Miles Mastrobuoni, INF
Daniel Palencia, P 
Luis Vazquez, INF 

10-DAY IL: 1 
Seiya Suzuki, OF

15-DAY IL: 3
Kyle Hendricks, P 
* Drew Smyly, P 
* Justin Steele, P   

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

DFA: 1 
Garrett Cooper, 1B 
 




Minor League Rosters
Rule 5 Draft 
Minor League Free-Agents

Morelli Hits, Suarez Fans, Cubs Win at Papago

Submitted by Arizona Phil on
Jesus Morelli reached base five times on a double, three singles, and a walk, scored twice, and drove-in a run, and Larry Suarez came out of the bullpen to throw 3.1 IP of one hit ball with seven strikeouts, as the EXST Cubs defeated the EXST Athletics 8-6 in Cactus League Extended Spring Training action this morning at Connie Mack Field at the Papago Park Sports Complex in Phoenix.

The game was extended an extra half-inning to allow all of the A’s pitchers who were due to throw today to get their scheduled work.

Here is today’s abridged box score (Cubs players only):

LINEUP:
1a. Eduardo Gonzalez, CF: 2-4 (K, 2B, 1B, F-7, R, RBI)
1b. Blair Springfield, CF: 0-1 (K, BB, R)
2a. Yaniel Cabezas, C: 1-5 (E-6, K, 1B, F-9, 6-3)
2b. Max Kwan, PH: 0-1 (K)
3a. Rafael Valdes, 2B: 0-4 (4-3, F-8, 5-2 FC, 6-3)
3b. Marco Hernandez, 2B: 1-2 (K, 1B)
4a. Wilson Contreras, DH: 1-4 (6-3, K, 4-3, 1B, R)
4b. Carlos Romero, PH-DH-C: 1-2 (K, 1B, RBI)
5. Jesus Morelli, LF: 4-5 (1B, 1B, 1B, 2B, BB, 5-3, 2 R, RBI)
6. Reggie Golden, RF: 2-4 (1B, 1B, HBP, K, K, 2 R, SB, CS)
7. Wes Darvill, SS: 1-4 (1B, K+WP, 1-4 SH, K, F-9, R, RBI)
8. Dustin Geiger, 1B: 1-4 (F-8 SF, 6-3, K, 1B, P-5, RBI)
9. Gregori Gonzalez, 3B: 1-4 (F-8, 1B, BB, 6-4 FC, K, SB)

PITCHERS:
1. Austin Reed: 3.1 IP, 4 H, 3 R (2 ER), 2 BB, 2 K, 2 HBP, 68 pitches (36 strikes), 2/5 GO/FO
2. Larry Suarez: 3.1 IP, 1 H, 1 R (1 ER), 0 BB, 7 K, 2 WP, 51 pitches (34 strikes), 2/1 GO/FO
3. Charles Thomas: 2.1 IP, 3 H, 2 R (2 ER), 1 BB, 2 K, 2 WP, 53 pitches (28 strikes), 2/3 GO/FO

ERRORS: 1
CF Eduardo Gonzalez - E8 (throwing error allowed batter who hit RBI double to advance to 3rd base – eventually scored unearned run)-

CATCHERS DEFENSE:
Yaniel Cabezas: 1-1 CS

ATTENDANCE: 8

WEATHER: Overcast and VERY breezy with temperatures in the 70’s

Tags
Extended Spring Training
Larry Suarez
EXST Cubs
Jesus Morelli

Comments

Submitted by navigator on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 05:03 am

He'll be Soriano's legs>> “This is the way I see using him right now,” Manager Mike Quade said. “It’s a perfect situation if we get Soriano on late in the game and then why waste a bunt? We put Tony in. Let’s find out if he can steal a base. Then we bunt him to third. It’s a nice tool to have. And he’s a pretty good player.”

[ ]

Submitted by Dusty Baylor on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 05:42 pm

"The Cubs traded two guys who look to be as good as Garza" That's what I was asking, which 2. I wasn't asking about a time machine. How is this a bad trade, if hypothetically, Guyer, Archer, Chirinos, and Lee only combine for that 1 game? I agree that giving up all 5 players for just Garza is too much...as I am pretty confident in saying that Fernando Perez will not amount to much, and Rosscup is an unknown quantity....my argument has always been that this is the type of move you make if you're 1 piece away from contending. I'm pretty sure we all knew (know) that the Cubs were not 1 piece from contention.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 05:30 pm

How is this a bad trade, if hypothetically, Guyer, Archer, Chirinos, and Lee only combine for that 1 game? I guess it's really two different questions. There's the "decision" to make the trade and there's "how did the trade work out"? The decision to make the trade, was and always be a bad decision, because based on the information available at the time, it was a bad decision. Ironically a team in position to make such a trade, where adding a couple of wins for 2010 at the expense of some prospects is probably the Rays. The second question: How did the trade work out? We won't really have an answer for that at least for a couple of years. There's no point reviewing that now, and even if as I mentioned, all the four guys wash out or are hall of famers, it doesn't change the flawed, reactive decision making process that Hendry used in the first place. It was a terribly stupid idea. That will never change. Compare it to the Ramirez/Lofton trade for reference.

[ ]

Submitted by springs on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 05:42 pm

A trade is based on the value of something at the time the trade is made. Let's look at this in terms of financial transactions. Let's say the market price of gold (per tradeable unit) is $1500. Assume you convince someone to sell you the gold for $1400. If three years from now, the price of gold has dropped to $1200, did you make a bad trade when you purchased it? Of course not. The value of baseball players is much less quantifiable, but the analogy holds. As the goal for a baseball team is to win, the value of Garza will, however, differ for whom he plays. If he were playing for a team in contention, his value would be higher. Likewise, the value of prospects differs for teams that could win now or teams that are rebuilding. Retaining Archer and Lee and holding out for their development would be a choice with more value to the Cubs than for an aging contender like the Yankees, who have a greater chance at immediate "value" in terms of making the playoffs and winning a championship. With (or in my opinion even without) those considerations, the trade is not good for the Cubs. Personally I think the value of the players was greater than that of Garza; after last season, Archer alone could be projected to put up Garza-like numbers by the time he was in his mid 20s. Lee's potential is quite high and could be a key player in a future contender if he develops. Guyer finally had a healthy season and put up exceptional numbers; even if he were only a fourth OF, his speed/power combo would be valuable. And Chirinos showed potential to be a very good backup catcher, if not a starter. In my opinion, in terms of straight up projection of future performance, the Cubs paid too much. When you include the fact that, despite adding Garza, no rational analyst believed the Cubs would be a contender, the value of the trade diminishes even further. If your goal is winning and trading prospects for a veteran is not going to make the Cubs a winning team, the potential upside of the prospects is significantly more valuable to the Cubs than the veteran's skills. While the prospects may never develop, the possibility that they do develop means a higher possibility to become a winning team than the neglible chance of winning brought to the Cubs by Garza. If the traded prospects never become anything of note, that is a judgment on the value of the prospects years later. The value must be judged at the time the trade was made. And at that time, the Cubs paid way too much for Matt Garza.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 05:25 pm

Edit* Changed because I realized what I said didn't really make a difference. The Cubs saved no money on Garza this year, he actually costs them $3.8 million, since that what he made over the guy he replaced. The point that the Cubs shouldn't have made this trade, just like the Pirates shouldn't sign Jayson Werth. Adding the player doesn't give you a significant boost to making the playoffs, you don't do it. The Cubs could have made this trade next year, saved $4 million and paid less in prospects, with no real change to their 2011 season. Going from 80 to 83 wins is not going to change their bottom line much at all.

[ ]

Submitted by springs on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 05:05 pm

While I don't agree with TRN's statement that the Cubs are a bottom half system, an obvious answer to your question is that many teams put prospects in AAA. Tenn and Daytona do look good, but Iowa is mostly full of non-prospects and the Peoria team has one or two gems, but otherwise doesn't look so great. More importantly, wins and losses aren't really the best judge of minor league prospects...would you rather have Chris Archer or a player like Austen Bibens-Dirx, who is 3-1? Perhaps TRN's reference to bottom half minors is figurative, stating that making trades like the Garza trade strips the system while not making the Cubs a contender. That trade is a mistake. And, as Crunch states, if the Cubs believed they would be a contender, that should be evidence for their termination.

[ ]

Submitted by VirginiaPhil on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 05:33 pm

I doubt that that's possible, though the idea circulates around here a lot. You draft 40 players every year, plus all the Pacific and Latin players, and your couple out of fifty-odd who make the team are third-stringers, while other teams get first-stringers. Meanwhile, your minor league teams crush theirs. Wouldn't they (the other teams) draft first-stringers PLUS second- and third-stringers, since they are supposed to be better at this drafting business than you are? It makes no sense. It's just fan-Cubbery, or Cub-fannery. Cub fans, heal thyselves.

[ ]

Submitted by toonsterwu on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 05:34 pm

somewhat as a side note, but I'm still taking a wait and see on Hak-ju Lee's bat. He had a ridiculous April line (.451/.533/.686), but his May line has come down a lot (.328/.386/.422). He's still sporting a fairly high BABIP, but then again, he should have a higher BABIP. I'm not that sold Lee's hit tool is that good that he's going to be a consistent .300+ hitter, though, and I think the May line is closer to what his power potential is. Chirinos was pressing a bit early, and his approach/discipline got out of whack. I still expect him to rebound and be in the majors at some point, as a backup backstop at the very least. All that said, in regards to the trade - I think trades need to be viewed with a factor of the situation then, and what happens down the line. When the trade was made, I thought it made sense for both sides, and I don't think anything's changed my mind about that. I agree that using statistics now to determine winners or losers is fairly useless. If you liked the trade then, you should like it now, irrespective of how the individual pieces have done so far.

Submitted by VirginiaPhil on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 05:25 pm

It's been a mystery to me why Matt Szczur hasn't played since Tuesday the 10th, but I found this in the Peoria Journal-Star today:
Matt Szczur is day-to-day. He missed the weekend series at Kane County for his college graduation and is “not feeling right” according to Kopitzke.
I heard about the graduation, but this is eight games in a row. (Unless he got separate degrees in running, passing and receiving.)

Submitted by navigator on Thu, 05/19/2011 - 05:26 pm

The Cubs have 4 relief pitchers with ERA's below 3.00 Jeff Samardzija Kerry Wood Sean Marshall Carlos Marmol So which Cub reliever leads the staff with the most appearances? tick tick tick (turn your computer screen/or head upside down to read) oəʇɐɯ soɔɹɐɯ

Recent comments

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Walker was a complimentary piece who was well past his prime. Edmonds, Holliday, Ozzie Smith and a few others were good trades. Notably, they have almost always been quiet in the free agent market. But the fundamental workings of the organization were always based primarily upon the constant output of a well oiled minor league organization. That organization has ground to a halt. And when did that hard stop start to happen? Right at the beginning of the Goldschmidt/Arenado era, perpetuated by the Contreras signing, followed by the rotation purchases during the last offseason. The timing is undeniable and, in my mind, not coincidental.

    Again, we are all saying that player development became deemphasized. I’m just linking it directly to the recent trades and involvement in the free agent market. I don’t see how the two concepts can be decoupled.

  • Charlie (view)

    The Cards also traded for both Jim Edmonds and Larry Walker. It's the developing part that has fallen off. Of course, it could also be the case that there are no more Matt Carpenters left to pull out of the hat. 

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Cubs sign 28 yr old RHRP Daniel Missaki. He was in MiLB from his 17yr old to 19yr old years and did pretty well.
    He's been in Mexico and Japan the last four years and has done well also.
    He's supposedly Japanese and Brazilian.
    Interesting sign. We obviously need to RP in the system
    Injuries are mounting everywhere!!

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Sure, they made generally short term trades for established players to enhance what they already had or traded for players early enough in their careers that they were essentially Cardinals from the start. What they never did was to try to use the more established players as foundational cornerstones.

    Essentially we’re saying the same thing. They have given up on player development to the point that even their prospects that make it to the bigs flop so that they have to do things like buy most of their rotation and hope for the best.

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    I don’t buy that. They had been doing that for years.

    They did it with Matt Holliday. They did it with John Lackey. They did it with Mark Mulder. They did it with Jason Heyward, who had a great year for them. I’m sure there’s more but those come to mind immediately.

    I attribute it more to a breakdown in what they’re doing in terms of development than a culture thing.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    They won those trades and sacrificed their culture. That’s exactly their problem.

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    The other part that’s kind of crazy is they made two very high profile trades, one for Goldschmidt and one for Arenado, and they very clearly won those trades. They just haven’t been able to develop players the last handful of years the way they usually do.

    I guess the moral there is it’s hard to stay on top of your game and be good at what you do in perpetuity.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Marmol was extended at the beginning of the year. Two years I believe.

  • crunch (view)

    Jesse Rogers @JesseRogersESPN
    Craig Counsell doesn’t have a timetable for Cody Bellinger who technically has two cracked ribs on his right side. CT scan showed it today.

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Thought it might have been David Peralta given the open 40 man spot and how PCA has played so far. 

Click HERE for the last 50 comments