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

Block party with the worst Cubs game ever!

Submitted by CubbyBlue on

Did it seem like it was National Block Party day yesterday?
I had to go get more brats at about 1, and I swear I drove by 3 on the little trip to the Jewel. 
Ours had a million kids, a pet parade, a raffle, an egg toss, a firetruck visit, the Chicago Mounted Police (2 guys on horses!), that giant inflatable room where kids can jump, incredible barbecue, bean bag toss competition, a dj (Hokey Pokey! Lady Gaga! The Macarena!), musical chairs, frosty cold malted beverages and the worst Cubs game possible on the radio.
At one point I walked into the house, turned on the tv.
It's 5 nothin', Cubs not winning.
I walked into the back yard, came back in about a minute later. 
Now it's 8 nothin' and Big Z is getting pulled.
Good God, remember the end of last year when he won all those (8, I think) games in a row and you thought, "HE'LL NEVER BE MORE APPEALING TRADE HIM NOW!"
I read Phil Rogers this morning. 
He says there's an unconfirmed rumor the Yanks might be interested in Soriano.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Right.
Anyway, there's another Phil who lives a couple houses down, and he comes over with the old 1986 Crosstown Classic mug.
That's the photo above. 

Just look at old man Jimmy Frey.
2 years before this, 1984, he comes this close to the Series.
1986?
He gets canned after winning just 23 of the first 56 games.
Compared to strapping young Tony LaRussa with the big guns and a 72-90 Sox team with a payroll of about $10 mil.
10 mil?
Anyway, what fabulous art!
I found a commercial for a recent crosstown classic, and it has this joke in it:
SOX FAN: Why'd it take the Cubs so long to get a website?
CUBS FAN: (LOOKS MYSTIFIED)
SOX FAN: They could never string three W's together. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

How come that seems so...not unusual?

These Cubs were Sutcliffe and Davis and Dunston and Ryno and Maddux and Moreland and Dernier and Durham and GOD DO I MISS THAT TEAM.
Even though they won just 70 games that year.
Right now the Cubs are 38-57.

Wonder if they'll be as good as '86? 

 

Comments

Submitted by navigator on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 07:53 am

I like the joke but I think it would work better if it was about Q-ball. //Why doesn't Mike Quade have his own web site? He won't have one until he can string three W's in a row.// elsewhere: Peter Gammons just tweeted a bit ago that Jim Hendry has no interest in trading Dempster or Garza. I'm pretty sure that's 3/44 Pete.

[ ]

Submitted by springs on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 07:57 pm

Restating Gammons: Jim Hendry has no interest in making the Cubs better for the future. I actually understand not wanting to trade Garza (though because of my displeasure with the trade for him, I have trouble liking him on the Cubs), but why would you want to keep a player who is: (1) a 34 year old pitcher having his worst year in 4 years; (2) scheduled to be paid over $10mm next season; and (3) playing on the team with the second worst record in baseball with little hope to be in contention next year (the last year of Dempster's contract). Not sure there is a more appropriate situation for a player to be traded. Dempster would likely disallow any such trade, so perhaps Hendry leaked that he won't trade Demps to avoid any fan reaction to Ryan refusing a trade. But I don't believe Hendry is that calculating. I just think he likes Ryan Dempster and won't trade him.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 07:01 am

most of Demp's peripherals have been pretty consistent over the last 3 years now including this season, I think he has the second highest BABIP though in the NL, at least before the last start. A better defense and a better team and he's easily worth the $12M this year and next. If they can move him for a equal or similar pitcher with 3-5 years of club control, great, but I don't think they'd get that. Demp also has the rather unique situation with his kid that he probably doesn't want to change if he doesn't have to...

[ ]

Submitted by springs on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 07:05 pm

Demp is a good pitcher who is getting older. The Cubs were terrible last year, are terrible this year and likely will not be good next year (his last year under contract). Please explain why again to me that you would keep him at $12 mm for next year? He likely will reject any trade, but that isn't the discussion...the question is whether he should be traded by the Cubs. And I don't think there is a clearer yes -- he (1) is still pretty good and has value, (2) is getting older and will not be under contract when/if we ever contend again, and (3) we have the 2nd worst record in baseball with him on the team. That last point is what makes me laugh when people say we don't want to give up on 2012 by trading Dempster. We had Dempster in 2010 and, before the Q-Ball miracle run, had the third worst record in baseball. We have had Demspter for a good part of 2011 (though, as often happens with aging pitchers, he was injured for part of the time) and we have the second worst record in baseball. I like Dempster and think his contract is fine. For a contender. We are not a contender with or without Dempster so if we can shed his $12mm contract, that is a good move. Particularly if we receive value in return.

[ ]

Submitted by WISCGRAD on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 07:24 pm

I am always confused by logic like this. It seems that if you aren't convinced the Cubs can make the playoffs you should just completely shitcan the year--sell off veterans, play young guys, save money, and plan to win 60 games. But what does that do? Fans would be pissed and not show up. The team has one of the highest payrolls in the majors and doesn't have to drastically save money. The team doesn't have that many young guys to plug in to gain experience in a lost season like that. It just doesn't accomplish anything. We are scrapping the bottom of the barrel for starting pitching now (Ortiz, Davis, Bush, Lopez). If you get rid of Dempster, you just have to find more of those guys for next year. We don't have enough young players that he is blocking anyone. The Cubs should keep him and add a few players to try to contend for next year. And even if that fails and it turns into a learning season for younger players, then you want a starter like Dempster around. You want young guys to experience winning at least a few days a week.

[ ]

Submitted by springs on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 07:27 pm

So should we spend more on veterans who get us the second worst record in baseball? Would you ever admit that the current plan is NOT working? Sometimes these trades bring young players to help the future...I am sure the Atlanta fans loved Doyle Alexander, but probably were happy with that trade. Sometimes, having $12mm to spend in the offseason is enough...perhaps that $12mm could be used to help replace whatever Demps gives us next year. But Dempster will be 35 next year. He is not part of the future. You somehow believe that this team, which is getting nothing but older yet still has been one of the worst teams in baseball over 2010-11, can contend with just a few additions. I don't agree and perhaps that is why we disagree on Dempster.

[ ]

Submitted by WISCGRAD on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 07:55 am

Would I ever admit the current plan is not working? Sure, if that were the case. Would you ever admit that perhaps you are overreacting in the midst of a bad season? This season sucks and we all feel just as shitty about the future as you do. But we felt this way in 2002 and 2006 as well, and then with just a few moves -- yes, that's all it took -- the team turned it around. With a payroll this high, that happens. The "plan" that you see as not working is the same plan they have taken every year since 2003 and it has brought us 3 division championship teams, another 89-win team, and another 83-win team that finished second. The plan is to spend $125 million+ on payroll to field a veteran team capable of winning. Does it work every year? No. No plan does. But on the long term it is a more effective plan than trading veterans in hopes of getting a John Smoltz in return and playing a bunch of rookies with no real potential all season just to see what happens.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 07:32 pm

I'm sure no one would be too upset if they got all of Dempster's contract off the books and received a couple of top 50 major league prospects. But I don't think that's on the table. So then it becomes what makes it worth trading him? Just taking the money off the books and getting marginal prospects? Does that really get the Cubs anything? I'm not sure it does. There's certainly not a wealth of starting pitching on the market next year. Maybe the Ricketts are the type to save money now and use it later, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that. Get a couple good prospects, but pay a lot of Dempster's salary? Cubs have never showed that willingness to pay off salaries of useful players. Besides Castro, I'm fine with them trading just about anybody right now, but just making trades to show the appearance of doing something, doesn't make a lot of sense. Will it improve the Cubs somehow is the question to be asked? And since we're rarely privy as fans to what has been offered or discussed in deals to well after the fact, not much use getting bent over it.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 07:04 pm

Either way, just the chance that those players COULD be helpful in the future to a contending Cub team is more valuable than paying Dempster $12mm to lead us to another season 20+ games under .500 that is not a statement of fact though... I'm sure the Cubs intend to compete next year, like they did this year, and any team with a $125M payroll can turn it around in one offseason with the right moves. they can likely trade Dempster next year if they're out of it and get a better or similar deal since he'll be owed considerably less.

[ ]

Submitted by springs on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 07:11 pm

Not sure I agree with the premise that "any team with $125mm payroll can turn it around in one offseason with the right moves". That has been our attitude for the last few years. One attribute of a good leader is to realize when plans previously undertaken are failing and make new plans. Not just assume it will get better with a few changes. Just because we have a high payroll, there is no evidence based on the last few years that we should have a realistic belief that we can contend next year. Particularly when the only significant change that likely could occur is replacing Pena with Pujols or Fielder. That would not make us a contender.

[ ]

Submitted by springs on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 07:46 pm

I don't disagree, but being the best players on the worst team shouldn't mean you are safe, should it? Demps is dependable and his dependability is valuable. Much more valuable to a contending team than to the second worst team in baseball. I just believe in taking a chance on trading for prospects. The Cubs shouldn't be special...when other teams are terrible, they trade highly paid players. The Mets just traded K-Rod, rumors are that Beltran could be available for the right price. The Mets are significantly better than the Cubs -- why would the Cubs be different?

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 07:27 pm

I should have clarified... $125M and money to spend, not $125M and most of the money already tied up in aging players and no room to maneuver. Not sure I agree with the premise that "any team with $125mm payroll can turn it around in one offseason with the right moves". sure they can, whether they will is no sure thing of course. But higher payrolls still have a greater chance of being good, but it's not 100%, probably not even 90%. just agree to disagree by this point... the cubs aren't blowing anything up and they will attempt to compete next season and ryan dempster is still a very useful pitcher worth his money.

[ ]

Submitted by springs on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 07:42 pm

I don't disagree that teams that spend more money typically are better than teams that spend less. That doesn't mean that Soriano, Zambrano (or Vernon Wells or other poor signings) are worth the amounts they are being paid. And they limit what you can do. So if you were GM, unless you believe that we can win 25 more games than we will this year from signings, then the correct move is to attempt to compete next year and beyond by moving players who are (1) getting older and are not part of the future, and (2) still have trade value. Demps fits this category. Mind you, the discussion started not as "will the Cubs trade Dempster". We know the answer is a mid to high 90th percentile of "no". The question is should they trade Dempster. I don't believe they can take the team they have and add significant players to be contenders in 2012, so I think the answer should be "yes"; unless you can identify enough people to add to turn us into a team with a reasonable chance to be a contender next year, I am not sure how your answer is different.

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 07:05 pm

I don't believe they can take the team they have and add significant players to be contenders in 2012, so I think the answer should be "yes" I'm sure you felt the same after 2006 and 2002. Anyway, I don't know the exact targets at the moment and I don't know if Hendry will be in charge. I have no problem trading Dempster, I have a problem trading him for B- prospects that won't be ready for 2-3 years, if ever. He's just not a guy they have to move. Soriano, Fukudome, Pena, maybe Ramirez, even Z are higher on my list.

Submitted by artskoe on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 07:31 pm

Has Hendry asked the Phillies for permission to talk to R.S.? If Ricketty wants to put fannies in the seats, that's the only hope. Of course, Q will go on to manage the post divorce Dodgers to 3 W.S. titles but we can say we trained him...for 25 years. BTW the Rangers have been playing night games and winning them, with record high lows for 9, 10 PM. And Arlington has not been known to evaporate humidity at night either. So goes the theory (if there ever was one) of sunshine, heat and the wind blowing out for daily excuses. Wonder if things would change if a Hall of Fame guy took the reigns.

Submitted by navigator on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 07:21 pm

A whole bunch of seats emptied after the fourth inning. Something else going on in Chicago?

Recent comments

  • 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. 

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    Childersb3: I think there was an issue with Luke Little coming into a game with men on base. He seems to need a "clean" inning to be dominant. So he is a future closer and needs to be used in that role at AAA. Same goes for Michael Arias. He needs to come into a "clean" inning, and is a future closer and needs to be used in that role at AA. Porter Hodge is a more versatile pitcher, a better version of Keegan Thompson (multi-inning RP). But Little, Arias, and Hodge (probably in that order) are the Cubs top three RP prospects (all three are Cubs Top 15 prospects).

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    So, let’s do a little war gaming. Taillon is back for tonight’s game. He pitched two rehab games, just a few innings each, and not especially sharp. Let’s face it, he hasn’t been lights out since the Cubs gave him the big contract. In other words, as flat out bad as Hendricks has been, the chances of Taillon being the savior don’t look exactly promising.

    If Taillon is equally ineffective or perhaps even worse, what’s the next move? Winning teams can often find a way to work around a dud fifth starter - kinda. Two dud starters make things much more difficult.

    I believe the biggest reason for the recent bullpen moves was dissatisfaction with the recent blowing of big leads and the recognition that the bullpen wasn’t all it was thought to be. In other words, they are exploring alternate options and configurations. If similar juggling becomes necessary (even more so than it already is), what kind of reasonable maneuvering do we think could be explored?

Click HERE for the last 50 comments