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

Cubs to Win World Series, and Other Hopeful Links

--At the Baseball Analysts, Ross Roley explains why the Cubs have a 22% likelihood of winning the World Series. That's the marginally bad news. The good news is, that's the highest probability for any of the competing playoff teams, according to Roley. The Brewers come in second at 16%. The Angels, with the best record in baseball, weigh in at just 13%. Predicting the result of a short series is an inexact science at best. Still, it's nice to see a headline that reads, "Why the Angels Won't Win the World Series (and the Cubs Will Win It All)."

--At ESPN.com, Tim Kurkjian poses Five Questions relevant to the Dodgers/Cubs series and so as not to ruin it for you, I'll just provide the answers here: considerable, yes, very, as much as possible, and a good thing. Kurkjian likes the Cubs in five games.

--Tim Dierkes at The Hardball Times also likes the Cubs in five, pointing to the Cubs' superior hitting and fielding over the Dodgers' miniscule edge in starting pitching.

--There was a lunchtime rally of Cubs fans today in Daley Plaza with Jim Belushi "among the luminaries," according to the Tribune. I must have missed the last luminaries election, but I wouldn't have voted for Jim Belushi.

Comments

What am I missing if the Cubs and Dodgers are so evenly matched how did the Cubs win 97 games in one of the best divisions in baseball while the Dodgers only won 84 games in maybe the worst division of baseball?

Ok, but even with Manny the Dodgers didn't start to win until they started playing bad teams. Aug 13-16 Sept 17-8 In the end I guess it doesn't matter. They will play the games and the Cubs will either win or they wont.

Per Sullivan... Cubs to work out at Wrigley at 3pm. NLDS roster and possibly Wednesday lineup to be announced subsequently. Plus MLB found additional advertising space at Wrigley to exploit during the post-season (padded walls along left- and right-field foul lines).

 

In the "Huh?" category, from th ESPN/Kurkjian article: A former teammate of Zambrano was asked recently if Zambrano was up for the pressure of starting a Game 1 of the playoffs. "No,'' the teammate said. "He has a big heart and big stones, but he'll be way too fired up. He can't even calm down for the first game of the season, let alone the first game of the playoffs.'' Did that "former teammate" happen to watch Game 1 of the playoffs last year? Fail. Maybe he'll be different in Game 3. He's as good a Game 3 pitcher as you'll find. That would be great, if Z were pitching Game 3.

- sigh - I have been trying to relieve nervous tension by reading comparison stats, probability factors, etc. This is great "fun", but when it comes down to it, in 11 games the intangibles are huge. Plain and simple, the Cubs players just have to get the job done on the field. No matter the opponent, venue, weather conditions, etc. The multi-millionaire superstars will just have to BRING IT and be better than the other guy's. Also, it is time for the annual post-season unsung hero to step forward for OUR team for ONE FUCKING TIME! Who is gonna be OUR Geoff Blum or Scotty "Pods" to make a huge play? And - WE are then ones who need - NO, fucking DESERVE, some LUCKY BREAKS, DAMMIT! The stats hold that the Cubs were the best all-around NL team, and somehow they are all gonna have to step it up to the ultimate level, take no prisoners, and "want it" more than anything. I believe Jim Edmonds perhaps may have a positive influence on all of this. Time will tell, and GO CUBS!

So, I just got done reading every Cubs-Dodgers post-season preview, analysis, review and prognostication that Googled up out of the news this morning. General consensus: Even though the Dodgers pitching is better, the Cubs are given the edge because their pitching is comparable, their hitting is better, and their defense is better. But most of what the authors had to say is pretty worthless because the Dodgers team we're going to face is so much improved over the one that was 54-55 on August 1. They sure have a formidable veteran bench now. So here are a couple of POSITIVE personal observations. Things I didn't read elsewhere. Conventional Wisdom --- We're facing a dangerous team. The Dodgers are red HOT since getting Manny. Truth: Since Aug 1 the Dodgers played .566 baseball against a pretty weak schedule. Over the same period the Cubs played much better---.627 ball---- even though Lou's crew coasted in with a 5-5 record after clinching early. We were the better team before the Dodgers got Manny Ramirez and Derek Lowe got hot AND, AMAZINGLY, we were still better after. Conventional Wisdom --- LF Manny Ramirez far overmatches Cubs LF Alfonso Soriano. Generally true, but consider this: Manny Ramirez is career .282 .404. .436 .840 vs the Cubs. Alfonso Soriano is .341 .393 .634 1.027 vs the Dodgers. Advantage Alfonso! Here's hoping Fonzie produces. We're gonna need it. ----------------------------------------------- BUMMER stat gleaned from the news this AM: The hotter team in September wins the playoff series 64% of the time.

[ ]

In reply to by navigator

That's the thing the Dodgers play in the worst division in NL. (Hello Angels) They got fat off alot of bad teams, and one that was spiraling downward.

22% sounds about right, actually. There is so much luck involved in baseball that you can't say with any kind of certainty that a better team will beat the lesser team in a series. If these 8 playoff teams played 100 postseasons, I'd expect the Cubs to win their share, maybe 20-25 times. The secret to winning a World Series isn't to have a great team for a year or two. No, the secret is to have a very good team for several years in a row, make the playoffs repeatedly and hope your ping pong ball gets picked once or twice. Once a team wins the World Series (or any tournament), we assign all kinds of winning attributes to them (they persevere! they hit in the clutch! they believed in themselves!) and losing ones to those who didn't (they choked! no timely hitting! no character!). In reality, the tournament is structured so that somebody has to win. It doesn't mean they are special; it just means they survived, maybe it was their turn, and maybe they got lucky. Take 8 quarters and have a coin flip tournament. Four will make it past the first round, two will make the finals, one will win. And it doesn't mean that one quarter is more special than the others. Now this isn't to say that talent and momentum have nothing to do with winning the World Series -- they do, and that's why the Cubs have the best shot to win it. But the best shot is about a one in five chance. My point isn't that the WS winner shouldn't be celebrated. It's just that the "specialness" of the winner is often not only overrated, but actually manufactured to tell a nice story.

[ ]

In reply to by 433

So I guess the Yankees have just been unlucky for the past 7 years after having 5 years of incredible luck? BULLSHIT!

[ ]

In reply to by Chad

Kinda, yeah, except that (in my opinion) they put themselves in a much more favorable position to win in the late 90's than they have the last few years based on personnel decisions. But once the postseason rolls around, it's a lot of luck that determines the fates. Or maybe they just didn't "step it up" over the past 7 years! Because if only they had tried harder, of course, they could have won more World Series.

[ ]

In reply to by 433

No. They weren't good enough. The best team doesn't always win. But the team that does "step up" and come to play does. It's not luck. It's execution. The team that executes wins. You can increase you odds of execution by getting better players. But that is no guarantee.

[ ]

In reply to by Chad

I look at it the other way around. A team wins the World Series, and we then say (after the fact) that the team "stepped up" and "came to play" and "executed." It's circular. People don't like to admit that in the game of baseball, in a game or a short series, execution is based in large part on luck. A bases loaded line drive lands three inches inside the right field line; a ground ball takes a bad hop; a popup lands just outside the second baseman's grasp -- these are "execution"-based things that can deterimine whether an individual game is won or lost, but luck is a big factor. Over a long season, the best team will generally have the most wins because there is time for the luck to be equalized, but not over a game or a short series.

[ ]

In reply to by 433

Hey maybe you, me and the rest of the tcr league could get a team together. Then we could play the Cubs and win 3 out of 5. You know we could if we got really lucky. not luck is just a small part of the game. execution is how it's won and lost. Will your pitcher leave a fat pitch over the heart of the plate? That's not luck. Will your start left fielder hit it over the fence. not luck. It's skill on skill. The series is not won by a by bleeder down the line. It may look that way but its not.

[ ]

In reply to by Chad

you cant really "execute" anything with certainty in this game unless you're in the field or being asked to put a ball in a specific part of the field reguardless of an out. one who "executes" at the bat is working with a 30-40% success rate at their best. batters make mistakes...pitchers make mistakes...you can do all the right things and still hang a pitch or swing through something. hell, look at some of these short-series MVPs...

[ ]

In reply to by Chad

Luck is a small part of baseball--but it can be the difference maker in a game played between two squads of 25 professionals where the difference between the teams seems to be very small. These two teams are well matched, so that small factor of luck could be the biggest difference. You've got Soriano at the plate. He rips a line drive in the whole between short and third for a single. You've got Manny Ramirez at the plate. He rips a line drive that just about takes Rammy's head off, but does go right at him and he manages to put the glove on it because of that. Luck or execution? I for one don't think even the best major league hitters can aim that line drive so precisely (off of a low 90s sinker) that they can hit it 6 more feet to the right just because they want to.

[ ]

In reply to by Charlie

Were the Cubs unlucky last year or were the Diamondback luckier? Neither. The Cubs got out played.

[ ]

In reply to by Chad

Is that what's being argued? Because I thought there was an argument going on about what role luck CAN play in baseball, not about whether luck is the only deciding factor in all games, series, and seasons.

[ ]

In reply to by Chad

I prefer to believe that the team that had no guts or heart lost.

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

whom ever does it better. Execution is about throwing strikes that are hard to hit. not walking guys. not swinging at bad pitches. making solid contact. hitting a fly ball with a man on 3rd and 1 out. hitting the ball to the right side with guy on second base and less than 2 outs. getting a bunt down. not making errors or mental mistakes. All those things are controlled by the player. the team that does those things better will probably win. here's the problem. there is no mathematical way to predict who will do that. so you guys call it luck. might as well call it magic.

[ ]

In reply to by Chad

Guys don't be getting down on Chad about luck, execution and all that. You should know by now that this is how games are played according to Chadball and nothing any of you say can change the universe. kapiche?

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

What if both teams are executed before the series? Then maybe they would determine the winner based on a coin flip, and it would be 100% about luck.

I don't know what the current stats are regarding the game one winners of a short series, but I'd imagine it's a considerable advantage if you take the first one - so let's hope Dempster's got another winner up his sleeve.

Cubs can win. Cubs should win. Cubs are the best team in the National League. But in a 3 game series, that doesn't mean much. One bad pitch, one unlucky break...and suddenly we need to win 3 of 4 to stay alive. I'm having trouble getting too excited for this until we get to the NLCS. Chances are just too high that things won't break their way in a short series.

[ ]

In reply to by Charlie

I guess I should say that I'm nervous...and nerves will turn into excitement once we get out of the first round. Basically, with expectations so high (Including my own)...nothing really good can come out of the first round. IF the win, it's what we all expected...if they lose, it will be a desetating end of a season that will leave me feeling empty. You win the NLCS on the otherhand, and it's shear joy and celebration. That's when things get exciting. as for one bad pitch...I'm really saying one bad pitch at the wrong time. Think of Marmol's pitch in game 1 last year. Think of how that 1 pitch impacted the series.

Went to the rally today at Daley Plaza & it was pretty cool. The crowd roared when Lee, Marshall, and Hoffpauir were introduced, but interestingly, seemed to roar even louder at every mention of Soto. There was also a WGN-assembled, completely boss highlight film that got me all geeked even as I realized that I'd been lucky enough to see almost all of the clips as they happened. It was also a crowd clearly knowledgeable about the political tribulations of Gov. Blagojevich, but willing to let him ramble on (and on and on) in praise of the Cubs. Not hard for anyone to do, I guess.

Amongst the 8 playoff teams, the disparity between talent and better execution between the best and worst team is much much smaller. That's why little "breaks" (read:luck) will affect who wins much much more than it would games played over a long 162 game season. That's not rocket science is it? Can somebody call in the Sample Size Police now?

[ ]

In reply to by Chad

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the D-backs - Cubs series. No one ever said that luck explains every game or every series. No one ever said that players and excecution never matter. The Cubs got out-played last year. They did not perform well in the 3 games and the D-backs did. Again, no one ever said that luck explained that series. All I think people are saying is pretty simple: the more games that are played, the more that superior players and execution are accurately reflected in the won-loss record. And of course the inverse, that the less the weather, an umpires call, a lucky bloop hit, etc. will correlate with wins and losses. This is sort of an obvious point. I mean, if I only looked at May 24 I would think the Pirates were a better team than the Cubs because they won. But when I look at the season series between them and their overall league records it becomes fairly apparent that the Pirates suck balls. The more games you play, the more that "lucky" shit evens out and the greater the liklihood that the better team comes out on top. If this were a 29 game series against the Dodgers, I would be fully confident that the Cubs can win 15 first. But it's 5 games, and anything can happen. Not only can some players not execute well - which itself could lead to a series loss as happened last year - but also other lucky shit can happen and spoil things too.

[ ]

In reply to by Chad

I'm asking for trouble by getting in the middle of this, but I'll give it a try anyway... What some people refer to as luck is the situation where over a "short series," a better team is not as likely to prevail over a worse team, when compared to a "long series." "Short series" can be whatever you want it to be: 3, 5, 7 games, or whatever. A long series might be a team's record against another over the whole season (18 games or so) or even a team's entire season (162 games, or in the Cubs' case this year 161). Think of it this way: let's say based on talent, depth, managerial decisions, execution, bounces of the ball, hard hit liners in the gap or right at someone, based on all that and everything else that goes into what decides who wins and who loses a baseball game, the Cubs have a 55% chance to win a game against the Dodgers, on average. I know even based on everything I've listed above, this is still over-simplifying things, but bear with me. Based on all that, if these teams played one game, the better team would win 55% of the time. But if they played a 3-game series, the Cubs should win 57.5% of the time: .55*.55 + (.55*.45)*2 = .57475. Drawn out to a 5-game series, the Cubs should win 59.5% of the time. A 7 game series is 60.7%. I don't have time to run the numbers, but as we get out to 20, 50, or 162 games, the better team's advantages become more apparent, and they will be more likely to finish on top. As you see, the longer the series, the more likely the better team wins, but even out to a 7-game series, it isn't dramatically in the better team's favor. This means that whenever you see a ball land 3 inches foul, or a ball is caught at the warning track, or a weak-hitting middle infielder hits a home run (think Ozzie Smith), the difference in the series can be swayed greatly by that one play. Over the course of the season, those things average out. This is what most people refer to as "luck" (at least I think that's what they're saying), when maybe a more accurate term would be "small advantages" or "minor differences." Call it fate, call it luck, call it karma, ... I believe everything happens for a reason. Oh wait, never mind. Really, I think we're getting hung up on a term here, when everyone probably agrees on the principle idea that a shorter series is more likely to be won on the details.

[ ]

In reply to by Iowa Cub

This is really well written, Iowa Cub, and adds a lot to the conversation. I'll clarify my perspective about "luck" though. When I was talking about luck, I was referring to it in more of the traditional sense and not the small advantages/minor differences sense. I certainly agree with you that small advantages and minor differences are what make major league teams better than others over the long run, and that those differences can be overrun by other events in a short series and don't have a chance to dictate that the better team wins. But what I was saying was that the thing that overruns the small advantages and minor differences is often -- but not always -- dumb luck. When a bases loaded line drive falls three inches foul (or fair), the end result is mostly, if not entirely, luck-driven. There are countless examples like that. Sometimes the best team wins because it's better, sure. But often the best team wins because it got luckier, just like often the lesser team wins because it was luckier. And sometimes, like last night, the better team (the Cubs) loses largely because it didn't execute -- e.g., Dempster walked too many people.

Recent comments

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Tauchman gets a pinch hit RBI single with a liner to RF. This is his spot. He's a solid 4th OF. But he isn't a DH. 

    He takes pitches. Useful. I still believe in having good hitters.

    You don't want your DH to be your weak link (other than your C maybe)

  • crunch (view)

    bit of a hot take here, but i'm gonna say it.

    the 2024 marlins don't seem to be good at doing baseballs.

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Phil, will the call up for a double header restart that 15 days on assignment for a pitcher? Like will wesneski’s 15 days start yesterday, or if he’s the 27th man, will that mean 15 days from tomorrow?

    I hope that makes sense. It sounds clearer in my head.

  • Charlie (view)

    Tauchman obviously brings value to the roster as a 4th outfielder who can and should play frequently. Him appearing frequently at DH indicated that the team lacks a valuable DH. 

  • 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.