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

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)

    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!

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    That’s just kinda how it works though, for every team. No team plays their best guys all the time. No team is comprising of their best 26 even removing injuries.

    When baseball became a business, like REALLY a business, it became important to keep some of the vets happy, which in turn keeps agents happy and keeps the team with a good reputation among players and agents. No one wants to play for a team that has a bad reputation in the same way no one wants to work for a company that has a bad rep.

    Don’t get me wrong, I hate it too. But there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

    On that topic, I find it silly the Cubs brought up Canario to sit as much as he has. He’s going to get Velazquez’d, and it’s a shame.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Of course, McKinstry runs circles around $25 million man Javier Baez on that Tigers team. Guess who gets more playing time?

    But I digress…

  • Sonicwind75 (view)

    Seems like Jed was trying to corner the market on mediocre infielders with last names starting with "M" in acquiring Madrigal, Mastroboney and Zach McKinstry.  

     

    At least he hasn't given any of them a Bote-esque extension.  

  • Childersb3 (view)

    AZ Phil:
    Rookie ball (ACL) starts on May 4th. Do yo think Ramon and Rosario (maybe Delgado) stay in Mesa for the month of May, then go to MB if all goes "solid"?
     

  • crunch (view)

    masterboney is a luxury on a team that has multiple, capable options for 2nd, SS, and 3rd without him around.  i don't hate the guy, but if madrigal is sticking around then masterboney is expendable.

Click HERE for the last 50 comments