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

Cubs Find Their First Basemen

Cubs have traded RHP Andrew Cashner and OF Kyung-Min Na to the San Diego Padres for 1B Anthony Rizzo and RHP Zach Cates. That should deflect from the Castro sexual allegations rumors just fine...the PR department will be thrilled.

As for the baseball move, generally a good idea to trade a young pitcher for a young position player and even better if you think that young pitcher won't stick in the rotation. So I like the deal. If Cashner becomes a top of the rotation arm though and Rizzo Hee-Seop Choi's it, I won't like it so much.

Have it in the comments on the other 2 guys that I know nothing about.

Comments

The only thing that freaks me out is Rizzo's cancer history. Is there a doctor in the house? Is this something that was "cut out" permanently ... Something different than typical remission? Excited about deal though!

[ ]

In reply to by The E-Man

Campana had non-Hodgkins lymphoma, of which there are many varieties. But Campana has been clean for so long that he's probably in the clear. The same Wikipedia article that Cubster cites below says, in reference to Rizzo's type of lymphoma, "Since many patients are young, they often live 40 years or more after treatment." I'm more worried about his swing. Recently I watched the Padres broadcast of the last game of the season (vs. the Cubs) on 9/28 and listened to the announcers, especially Tony Gwynn, as they held forth on Rizzo during his four at-bats. I don't recommend watching the game if you don't want to hear talk about our new Cub prospect needing to re-engineer his swing. It was like watching Tyler Colvin last year, except that the problem was the swing, not the approach, which is worse, it seems to me. Sorry to be a wet blanket, just reporting what I saw when I watched Rizzo. I know he was young, it was a small data sample, etc. In any case, he was clearly headed back to AAA, so I'm not surprised that LaHair has been announced as the 1B. edit: in the Trib just now, Hoyer acknowledges Rizzo's struggles and blames himself:
"To be candid, I don't think I did Anthony any favors when I was GM of the Padres," Hoyer said of his call-up last season. "It was too early, and it was a mistake on my part."

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

His value is until last year he's been basically completely average OPS+ wise (102, 95, 97). Average has its value especially if that can be improved on at all by coaches. He also seems to have very good patience so combined with relative youth and the possibility for improved hitting with some coaching and he might have some merit on this team. I don't really buy into your one plane thing cause I've never seen any hitter only hit on one plane. If he did only hit that way his batting average would be a lot worse.

[ ]

In reply to by johann

"I don't really buy into your one plane thing cause I've never seen any hitter only hit on one plane. If he did only hit that way his batting average would be a lot worse." watch some 2011 footage. remember sosa missing pitches? he's not as bad as dubois (who sometimes closed his eyes while swinging)...and damn the hell i got put through for dubois no matter how much visual support you throw at the issue. we have youtube now, even. watch his shoulders as he brings the bat through the zone. his only "move" is when he's reaching outside-outside/low because it's at the end of his swing and it's about the only point where he can actually push his bat somewhere besides where he started. it's not pretty. also, his patience isn't helping his bat. currently he starts his AB opening up his feet very wide in order to get a better look at the ball. then he moves front foot about 2' at the start of the swing to a visual cue he sweeps with his foot when he gets in the box. he's not smooth and has a lot of motion with hands and feet loading up to swing. at least he doesn't load the bat a foot behind his head before he swings now...his hands have been brought down closer to shoulder level...still he's locked up through 1/2 that swing.

How can you not like this trade for the Cubs, wow. Rizzo is 22. Cashner is 25 and has had arm surgery twice. Plus, he has control issues and seemed targeted (with the Cubs anyway) for the bullpen. Unless your name is Mariano Rivera or Trevor Hoffman in their primes, a reliever is never worth a league-average or better position player. And Rizzo has a Votto-esque upside. And he's a lefty bat! Bravo, Jedstein. I'm willing to bet few people on Earth know more about the little Korean OF Na than our own AZP, so we'll wait for his rejoinder. But if I recall his earlier postings, Na is very speedy but with absolutely no power whatsoever. Think less-than-Juan Pierre level power. No idea on the Pads low-level pitcher.

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

but I don't believe he had any surgery. --- Correct. He had a posterior rotator cuff strain with a recurrence after a 6 week layoff and rehab that lead to losing the remainder of 2011 until September. Using a Baseball Perspectus term, Cashner missed 135 Team Games in 2011. from a previous writeup, Nov 12th, called "TAWL Drills":
Andrew Cashner was lost for most of the season due to a rotator cuff strain. On April 5th, Cashner was cruising into the 6th inning of his first start when his shoulder pulled up lame. He had given up only 2 hits including a solo HR and the Cubs were leading 4-1 when his season flashed before his eyes (the bullpen coughed up that lead although the Cubs eventually won 6-5). He rehabbed and tried to return in about 6 weeks but reaggravated his shoulder in mid-May. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/17/andrew-cashner-out-indefin… Finally, manager Quade was allowed to use "Cash" in a few relief outing in September. Certainly, this makes everyone question whether Cashner would fit in better as a starter vs. near the end of the bullpen for 2012.
http://www.thecubreporter.com/2011/11/12/tawl-drills

[ ]

In reply to by Jim Hickmans Bat

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 2:15pm — Jim Hickmans Bat I'm willing to bet few people on Earth know more about the little Korean OF Na than our own AZP, so we'll wait for his rejoinder. But if I recall his earlier postings, Na is very speedy but with absolutely no power whatsoever. Think less-than-Juan Pierre level power. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ JIM H: I've seen a lot of Kyung-Min Na over the last couple of years, starting with Instructs post-2009. Na was rated the fastest HS player in South Korea when he signed with the Cubs in August 2009. He got the same $725K bonus Hak-Ju Lee got a year earlier, but Na is nowhere near in HJ Lee's class. Na has a strong arm and is a solid defender in CF, but while he has plus-speed, he is not a good base-stealer or base-runner and he has trouble reading pitchers moves. He is also not a good hitter (puts the ball in the air too much even though he has zero power), and he doesn't use his speed out of the box on ground balls like HJ Lee does. (HJ Lee cheats out of the box). I would describe Na as a raw talent (he just turned 20 last month) who needs to work on his base-stealing and base-running, and he especially needs to learn how to take advantage of his speed by improving his bunting and hitting the ball on the ground more-consistently. Na is probably comparable to Tony Campana. Na is the better defender and has the stronger arm of the two, but Campana is a much better hitter, a better baserunner, and a far superior base-stealer. Na also was behind a number of other CF prospects in the Cubs pipeline, including Brett Jackson, Jae-Hoon Ha, Matt Szczur, Taiwan Easterling, Zeke DeVoss, and Pin-Chieh Chen, so he was buried in the system. He would have had to battle just to win the 4th OF job at Peoria in 2012. One thing about Andrew Cashner. If Cashner spends the 2012 season in the big leagues and gets credit for a full season of MLB Service Time (that is, does not spend more than 19 days on optional assignment to the minors in 2012), he will likely qualify for arbitration post-2012 as a "Super Two."

the fact that Hoyer and McLeod know the Padres system so well means Cates was acquired with substantial insight. I've been waiting for them to acquire some of the drafted talent they left behind in SD or BOS. This is the first deal and may be comparable to Dallas Green's move for Moreland/Noles for Mike Krukow although they were older than the talent in this deal.

[ ]

In reply to by Tony S.

he's been working on a 3rd pitch (mostly/currently changeup) since he was signed. he was young and could be stretched out. he still don't have that 3rd pitch, though...the change is moving into year 3 of "it's getting there, really!" at this point he's probably a danger to pitch more than 150 innings (given how wild he is) even if SD viewed him as a starter...at least for 2012.

[ ]

In reply to by Tony S.

His last year in the minors, there was no question that Cashner was a starting prospect. I had my doubts for awhile at the start, but he was carrying good stuff late into games and was showing 3 solid to plus pitches that he could use. So the org putting him in the rotation ... smart move on their part. Keep in mind that he was a starter prior to his junior year.

[ ]

In reply to by Tony S.

Could the fact that he was moved to closer for junior year, have been related to fatigue his college coaches saw after starting a bunch of games the previous year? I still have it in my mind that there was a physical reason the TCU coaching staff didn't just put up with his 2-pitch-ness and keep him in the rotation due to his superior arm.

[ ]

In reply to by Tito

Sweet. I like that a lot. Delays Rizzo's service clock and allows him more time to season. They can expose him to MLB pitching again in late 2012 or in 2013. Meanwhile they can find out whether LaHair can hit well enough to stick in the majors. I think the next move is either to trade Garza for high-end starting pitching prospects or to extend him, because this team is obviously starved for top-of-the-rotation-potential pitchers. I can't think of anyone on the way in the minors with potential for real dominance.

Interesting linkage here, as (if you believe the rumors) Wood would only return to the team if Z was released or traded. By trading Z, Wood agrees to return, making Cashner available to get Rizzo. So this may be a weird spin-off of the Z decision.

Kerry Wood still has value as a pitcher so that is first and foremost. Beyond that, he's a great guy and someone that the fans can appreciate a link with tradition with. It is not out of the question that he gets in broadcast, pitching coach, or front office opportunity when he is done playing. A couple of more years and there will be a Cubs Network, anyway.

Logically, the deal makes sense. Cashner's best case to hit rotation duty was 2013, if not 2014, and that's just too many wasted years of waiting. Rizzo has upside and fills a big need. If Rizzo is even a decent starter, this is a good deal. Factor in Cates, who seems like the clear 3rd best asset in the deal with good mid-90's velo and a plus change, and this is a win for us. I'm just lukewarm on Rizzo. Na might've been the best defensive CF in the system overall, but the bat was squadoosh (and with Cates as the 3rd best asset and Na as the weakest, one could make the argument that the overvaluing of pitchers continue and that Cashner might've been viewed as the most valuable asset in the deal ... or the Padres really love Na ... or the Padres are really, really down on Rizzo (I could see 1 and 3, not 2 ... at least I don't think 2)).

Let's assume Theo is successful in dumping Soriano. Can LaHair play a level of defense in LF that is acceptable to an organization that now places a high value on defensive play? If so, playing Rizzo at 1B and moving LaHair to the OF would certainly increase our power production, especially from the left side.

[ ]

In reply to by Cubster

I like it. Going to be curious who is hired as passing coordinator and OL Coach. With Forte/Barber, they can power run, and the OL is arguably suited more towards a power run, play-action type offense. Going to have to utilize the TE more, I think. Kellen Davis has better athleticism than acknowledged and I think he can stretch the seam, and Spaeth is a decent 2, but wouldn't surprise me if the Bears expended a pick to try and find a young, raw TE that can really stretch things out in the middle.

[ ]

In reply to by Tito

really? stunned? It's possible they let him loose, and yes, the gaffes in the Broncos game still hurt. But he ran well late, is only on the books for 1.9 million (250 K workout bonus and 100 K roster bonus). It's not much, and I'm not sure that I buy Bell as a good number 2 back. Possible. All in all, I would like to see the Bears add a shiftier guy to the mix. Assuming Forte is back, it's probably going to be tough to carry five backs (including Clutts as the FB), so it might be a case of Bell or Barber III.

[ ]

In reply to by Tito

I think it'll come down to what Tice is looking for. If he wants a guy who can hammer it b/w the tackles as his 2nd back (I guess all this assumes Forte is back first), I think Barber has a better shot. Bell is a decent all-around guy, not exactly the shiftiest guy, not the quickest, not the most explosive, not great b/w the tackles, but decent in all areas (sort of a really poor man's Forte). It really doesn't seem like that much money that they would definitively rule out bringing back Barber. Again, not saying it will or won't happen. I just don't know if I'd be stunned if he can back. While I want a shiftier guy as the 3rd guy, they have bigger needs to address so I guess it wouldn't stun me if all three came back. With Bell as an ERFA, he's almost a lock to be back.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

They turned down a team last offseason looking to interview him for offensive coordinator. Might've been the Titans. That's why he got the Asst. Head Coach/Offensive Line Coach title.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

I think the assumption is that it will be boring, power runs and what not. But it's easy to forget that the Tice offenses in Minnesota were a bit more aggressive. Granted, they had elite skill guys, and eventually, Linehan took full reigns on the offense, but Tice had heavy input there at the start. I think this is going to be power runs, play action over the top bombs, work the TE in the seams. They will need to probably find a bigger downfield target, though. Alshon Jeffrey and Michael Floyd could be in the mix in the first, assuming they figure out what to do at LT before then.

Cubs 40-man roster is full right now, so they can't add Wood or Maholm unless they create space. Dumping Soriano would likely create room, as I doubt that they would get back prospects worthy of 40-man roster status at this time.

[ ]

In reply to by Seamhead

I just looked at the 40 man roster and it seems to me the most expendables are: Casey Coleman, Marlon Byrd, Blake DeWitt and the rule 5 pick (Lendy Castillo) Coleman is triple-A candidate with Sonnanstine being available Byrd is probably trade fodder or Theo compensation Not sure what they need DeWitt for unless it's backup at 3B if Stewart gets hurt. and I doubt they would jettison the rule 5'er without a training camp look

[ ]

In reply to by Cubster

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 4:22pm — CubsterNew Re: Cubs Find Their First Basemen I just looked at the 40 man roster and it seems to me the most expendables are: Casey Coleman, Marlon Byrd, Blake DeWitt and the rule 5 pick (Lendy Castillo) Coleman is triple-A candidate with Sonnanstine being available Byrd is probably trade fodder or Theo compensation Not sure what they need DeWitt for unless it's backup at 3B if Stewart gets hurt. and I doubt they would jettison the rule 5'er without a training camp look ===================================== CUBSTER: Rule 5 players can be traded at any time, but cannot be non-tendered, and cannot be outrighted to the minors or released any earlier than 20 days prior to MLB Opening Day. I would say Jeff Bianchi is probably the most-likely player to get dropped from the Cubs 40-man roster if a slot is needed. Players claimed off waivers are often the first to get put back onto waivers (and outrighted if not claimed).

[ ]

In reply to by Arizona Phil

This is why I agree with you, Phil, that putting Sonnanstine & Corpas on the 40-man is/was a mistake. Theo could have made the exact same contract deals with them as ST NRI's. I would still love to hear his rationale for not doing that. I would also add any previous regime's Cubs draftees (e.g. Cabrera, Campana, etc.) as possible roster castoffs.

[ ]

In reply to by SheffieldCornelia

I don't know how to distinguish between guys who are really great to have in the clubhouse and guys that management is trying to brand as great to have in the clubhouse. I just see a vet with one year left on his contract who isn't worth extending and who doesn't set an example of how to play the game, except that he tries hard (sounds like Reed Johnson to me). He certainly doesn't fit into any organizational model of grinding out at bats. But it is possible that the team leader sticker is actually applicable to Byrd. I don't know for sure.

[ ]

In reply to by Charlie

Byrd's leadership was on display when he said "take me too" to the camera when Fukudome was being traded. Can't remember the exact quote, and I'm sure he was joking, but that's probably not what I'm looking for out of my clubhouse leader. I don't really care about that event, but I don't think he's going to stay on the team because of his leadership.

"Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com reports that the Mets are close to signing free agent infielder Ronny Cedeno to a one-year deal worth $1.1-1.2 million." mets 2012. shouldn't a no-hit middle infielder at least be able to field on an above-average level? =p

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

If Jedstein finds some way to dump Soriano and trades Byrd, the Cubs will have enough openings in the outfield for both Brett Jackson (who knows if he's ready yet) and Cespedes. Looks to me like the Cubs are trying to gather players in their early and mid 20's who might be average-ish contributors but have upside as well as question marks. Seems like Cespedes would fit with that, albeit with a significant price tag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ezVp46mUOQ rizzo BP from AAA this summer. big loopy swing, pulls hands back (not uncommon), and has a bottom right hand twitch he uses as a timing mechanism along with the hands pulling back. he's pretty much committed to swing as soon as he loads, but he has enough of an eye to stay away from swinging at everything. he opens himself up pretty good even through he steps into the pitcher's delivery toward the plate. inside pitching shouldn't cripple him like choi. as much space he swings through to get his bat through the zone, it's still a good velocity swing. there's work to be done, but he's got the tools to make it...still will probably end up with a high K hitter even if he settles in enough to be a .350-ish ob% power hitter.

another Muskat article up... Hoyer quote:
"We're not finished acquiring starting pitchers," Hoyer said on Friday. "We want to have as much depth as possible. "At this point, we're still very much in the process of gathering as many quality arms as we can, and we'll put those pieces in place as we get closer to Spring Training," he said. The goal is to avoid what happened to the team in 2011, when it lost both Cashner and Randy Wells to injuries after their first starts. Cashner was dealt Friday to the Padres for Rizzo and is expected to pitch out of the bullpen. "We have worked hard, and we continue to work hard, and hopefully we'll have even more starting-pitching acquisitions," Hoyer said. "We want to go seven, eight, nine deep in the rotation and we hope to replenish the bullpen as well."
...and some stuff on Kerry Wood:
"We've had a lot of conversations with Kerry and his agent, Pat Rooney," Hoyer said. "We've all made it very clear that we want to bring him back. We're hopeful that gets done. It's not done yet, and I can't say it definitely will, but it's certainly the Cubs' goal to bring him back here and put him in the Cubs' bullpen."
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120106&content_id=26…

Keith Law on Cates:
The Cubs also get right-hander Zack Cates. He's a raw but very intriguing conversion guy with limited experience on the mound, but can show two plus pitches in a fastball up to 96 MPH (sitting 92-93) and a plus changeup that is a 70 on its best nights. His delivery is a little rough in back but he gets great extension out front with good downhill plane to keep the ball in the park, especially against right-handed batters. He's still in search of an average breaking ball, and his command and control are what you'd expect for a raw pitcher without a lot of innings behind him. He's a great lottery ticket for the Cubs here with the upside of a mid-rotation starter if he finds a breaking ball and a plus reliever if he doesn't.

Interesting twist to the Rizzo-LaHair faceoff is that Rizzo had 26 homers and 101 RBI at Tucson even while spending most of June and July with San Diego. If he had stayed at AAA, he might well have been PCL MVP in place of LaHair.

more Keith Law... on Rizzo:
He's a plus-fielding, plus-makeup, power-hitting first baseman...with more of an average hit tool and a history of wide platoon splits. ...He's got a good feel for the strike zone, evident even during his major league struggles, and the power to profile as an above-average or better first baseman on offense. I'd rather have Rizzo than Yonder Alonso, and had Rizzo spent all of 2011 mashing in AAA, this trade would be viewed as a heist for the Cubs.
on Cashner:
...he has the weapons to start, but even 100 innings in a swing role in 2012 would be aggressive for a guy who has little history of starting and recent shoulder trouble. The floor in relief is fairly high, as he could be the next Craig Kimbrel in that role, but the odds of him holding up as a starter are fairly small.
on Na:
...plus defender in center in both glove and arm with 70 speed, so he's more than just a throw-in, but questions about his bat range from lack of overall strength to mechanical issues (like a high leg kick) that interfere with timing. He's also had some trouble turning that speed into value on the bases... He's also a lottery ticket, but without Cates' upside
Summary:
...so the deal really boils down to a good everyday player (Rizzo) for a high-ceiling reliever (Cashner), which favors the Cubs overall.
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/law_keith/id/7433747/mlb-ant…

had Rizzo spent all of 2011 mashing in AAA, this trade would be viewed as a heist for the Cubs. --- It's odd that Hoyer has taken credit for bringing up Rizzo too early and that it was a mistake and thereby slightly devaluing Rizzo. Obviously not intentional at the time but it did change the Rizzo timeline is the same way that the Redsox collapse changed Theo's (and therefore Hoyers)...in a Star Trek kind of way. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708455/

Callis claims Rizzo would be #3 prospect behind Jackson and Baez, citing position scarcity but equal levels of talent.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

not only is it a bandbox, but it's infield might as well be made of concrete. shame...decent little park, but it should have been built better and it defiantly should have been built with better player/training amenities more in line with other AAA parks...that's killing the park. SD is only there temporarily waiting for another park in another city to be built.

[ ]

In reply to by Charlie

I have BJax over Rizzo. tough for me to put Baez ahead because he's so far away. But while Rizzo has better power potential (easy to forget that more people came around on BJax' power this year and you see people writing that he has 20-25 HR power potential now), I'm not completely sold that his hit "tool"/contact ability is better than BJax's by a lot, if any, and both will take their fair share of walks. I think BJax on the bases, but more importantly, that BJax could be a solid to good defensive CF in his cost-controlled/team-controlled years, gives him the edge. All in all, while I'm lukewarm on Rizzo, there's a nice little potential core that they are putting in place with Castro/BJax/Rizzo. Furthermore, an Iowa club that was stripped of some potential pieces this offseason (Flaherty/Gonzalez/LeMahieu), got a lot more interesting.

I never was one of those fans who hates a team just cuz it seems like the thing to do (cardinals excepted), plus my dad was a sox fan. Ive never really taken a liking to them, but I don't hate them a lot. But even if I did it's hard to not respect Reinsdorf. A world series winner and six Nba championships. And a few more now conceivablle. Boozer is looking good and that bodes well, and I think.any true sports fan can get my appreciation for reinsdorf. Ducks, but is ready to throw back.

JCrasnick tweet about 45 mins ago, says Kerry is talking to mult teams and Cubs deal "far from done". Hold me... PS Rob, it's first basemAn (singular), unless you know something we don't...(or I missed a joke...)

[ ]

In reply to by Tony S.

i wouldn't mind seeing him go. he's neat and all, but *shrug* don't get me wrong...i think he's been an awesome cub, but i'd be more interested if he could throw 200 innings.

[ ]

In reply to by The Joe

fwiw, kerry wood is the only player besides grace that i own a uniform of...and i got 2 wood jerseys and only 1 grace. i love the dude and his maturity and his leadership. i dunno if this particular club needs to pay him 3+ million a year for the next 2-3 years. they sure as hell have the money for it, though. right now it looks like any splash that might be made would involve cepedes, and that's only loosely rumor linked (no team can talk about potentially employing a cuban player without getting into legal area MLB would rather teams not get into)...and there's still a question of whether the cubs will keep garza.

@jcrasnick Jerry Crasnick Kerry Wood still talking with multiple clubs and a deal with #Cubs is "far from done," says a BB source

Hot damn i really like that we got Rizzo! I can't remember the last we got one of the better prospects in baseball, we are so used to getting washed up veterans 2-3 years past their productive years.

[ ]

In reply to by The E-Man

You might forget i was a big Dubois, Choi, Theriot, Murton, and Marmol fan for various reasons. My take on LaHair has always been never pass up someone better and how a 29 year career minor leaguer might catch lightning in a bottle. If the Cubs are not gonna spend money then by all means throw LaHair against the wall and see if he sticks. I am just not expecting much out of him. Suddenly i am this anti-prospect person, which is not true. I am the biggest fan of building from within on this site, i just don't think we ever had the talent or the people in place to recognize and develop that talent. I have never been delusional in thinking our farm system was good but somehow that gets translated into hating prospects. Again i will bring it up, after what went on last year in terms of hitting depth and the rotation. No one can seriously sit there and say our farm system is good or even average. The fucking cupboard was bare/non-existent/dogshit.

I know this is a Cubs board, but I still am surprised at the board's decisiveness that giving up Cashner for Rizzo is a good move. Rizzo is a 1b who definitely has flaws in his swing. I do believe he may end up as Carlos Pena, with less power -- .220-.240 with 20-25 HR. Of course, he might be better, but I remember watching him last year and thinking how overrated he was due to PCL stats; once pitchers found his flaws, he struggled. Cashner was dominant as a starter in 2010 minors. He started last year and got hurt, so now it is decided he can't be a starter? Personally, I thought he had the best chance of becoming a number 1 starter of anyone in the entire system. Certainly Cashner may have been just a reliever for the Cubs and maybe he couldn't adjust back to starting in 2012. But when a team is dropping payroll as fast as the Cubs, (i) trading for a 1B with an average hit tool who could become a power hitter rather than pursuing Fielder, and (ii) then giving up a pitcher with high upside in return and then stating we need to keep pursuing more starting pitchers, makes little sense to me as a whole. I like Brett Jackson, but I would have much rather given him than Cashner in this deal.

[ ]

In reply to by springs

It's also partially about playing probabilities for me. I like Cashner. I think the guy can be top 5 closer, but with shoulder injuries like the ones he had at the age he had them, I don't think he'll ever start again. If I were in a front office, I wouldn't start him again. Too many questions about what kind of workload he can handle to risk it. But, he's got great stuff and a decent mechanic to go with it, which gives him a great deal of value. If I can use that power arm with shoulder problems to get a guy that has a pretty decent chance of being a franchise cornerstone power hitter for the next few years, I'll do it. Yes, Rizzo strikes out more than we'd like, but he hits the piss out of the ball. Is he Pujols, Fielder, or Cabrera? No. Maybe he can be Fielder lite, but only time will tell on that. Even the chance of that happening makes it worth a wounded pitcher and a fast runner.

[ ]

In reply to by springs

Two things: First, I like the trade that brought Rizzo to the Cubs. I think Cashner has the potential to be a solid bullpen arm, but I'd give up a bullpen arm any day of the week for a highly rated prospect position player. However (and this is my second point), I don't think getting Rizzo should stop the Cubs from pursuing Fielder. Rizzo is a raw talent who may, in the next year or two, blossom into an everyday MLB first baseman. His PCL numbers are good, but he has struggled at the big league level. Others have commented on his swing. Rizzo has potential, but he is not a sure thing superstar. On the other hand, Fielder has proven himself. There's no doubt about the kind of big league player he is going to be. The day you sign him, you know what he is going to do for you (at least for a while). The same people who say that they don't want to sign Fielder because his performance MAY fall off in 4-5 years are the same ones giddy because the Cubs are apparently going all in on Rizzo, who MAY someday become a big league hitter. If you're going to take a risk, I'd rather take a risk that a proven commodity might stop performing somewhere down the line rather than bet that an unproven commodity might someday be good enough to do the job you need done. If Fielder can be had for a reasonable number of years (5 or 6?), I think the Cubs should still go after him. He absolutely will be much more expensive than Rizzo, but he will also be much more of a sure thing.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

Having Fielder block Rizzo is only a problem if 1) Rizzo is good enough to play at the MLB level and 2) he plays as well or better than Fielder. That's not a given. All I'm saying is that, although it appears Rizzo is going to be good, he's not a "can't miss" prospect. And I find it uncomfortable for a team spending $120 - $140 million on payroll to have to rely on a hope and a prayer to fill any roster spot. If it turns out that Rizzo is the reincarnation of Lou Gehrig, then having Fielder block him would be a problem. Until then, I'd prefer that the Cubs have a lineup that is built on proven talent, not wishful thinking.

[ ]

In reply to by Sweet Lou

Another thought: I understand if a team like the Pirates or Royals have to rely on a prospect to fill a void. They can't afford to sign a top line player, so it makes since for them to wait until the prospect is ready. That's generally how small market teams operate. But the Cubs are no small market team. There should never be a time when they punt a season or two with hopes that a prospect will progress and save them. I like Rizzo and hope he turns out to be a great ball player, but I hate the fact that the Cubs are apparently willing to wait for him to get ready to be their first baseman of the future. That's a gamble a large market team should not have to take.

[ ]

In reply to by Sweet Lou

you're never going to find out if Rizzo is good enough if you have nowhere to play him. AAA only tells you so much, you need about 1000 MLB PA appearances imo. If you want sustained success, the Cubs need to find a core of good young players and then build around it and then hopefully as they age, replace them with more good young players. The Cubs are trying to find that core first. This is off the top of my head, but if you think of the teams that have had good runs of 7-10 years and where they started. Yankees: started with Jeter, Williams, Pettite joined shortly by Posada, Red Sox started with mostly FA's, but then turned that into Beckett, Pedroia, Lester, Youkilis Braves: started with Glavine, Smoltz, Justice and added Chipper, Javy, Madduxx, A. Jones Astros: Bagwell, Biggio and adding Berkman, Oswalt Phillies: Howard, Utley, Rollins Cards: Pujols, Edmonds, Rolen anyway, that's sort of my memory of that...could be off on a few of them. But the Cubs aging corp of players isn't anywhere close to the playoffs the last 3 years so you really can't build on that. I think the Cubs were close recently, at first with Wood, Prior, Z, and were suppose to be joined with Choi and Patterson. That didn't work out and Hendry did a good job in flipping that to Ramirez, Lee, and Z, but Prior and Wood fucked that up and the window got smaller when they started to get good and Soriano and Co. were just short term answers. Soto looks more and more like just around average than any kind of cornerstone. I think Castro and Garza are a decent start, maybe adding Brett Jackson and Rizzo are that core they are looking for. I'm not sold that Jackson, Garza, Rizzo are that good, but I don't think JedStein are done yet either. Fielder is great, certainly wouldn't have minded if they signed him, but they weren't going to compete with him this year without also signing 3-4 more overpriced and past their prime free agents. Then you just start the short term cycle of trying to patch holes while being in bad contracts that you can't move. It's gonna be tough this year to watch, maybe even in 2013, but it was pretty tough to watch the last 2 years of them pretending they were competing.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

I would have been cool with signing some guys to compete in the short term. Best case is that those guys can help you compete now. Then will be coming off the books as the new crop of Thoyer ML prospects are ready to take their place. Either way we are in a "no mans land" right now at the MLB level. We don't have anything close to a competitive club. We don't have anything of note close to ready except for Bjax and Rizzo. So if we want to compete we are going to have to spend on the FA market. That being the case I'd just assume they spend now and compete instead of punting 2012. Just my preference though.

[ ]

In reply to by springs

I agree with you on Cashner, and I'm not entirely sold on Rizzo yet, but I think that all signs indicate Cubs management saw him as a power reliever. I thought he had the best chance to be an ace of any current Cubs prospect--but I thought the same thing about Marmol. So I tend to defer to the judgment of others on live young arms at this point.

That's a gamble a large market team should not have to take. --- The Redsox didn't make that gamble, using Rizzo plus to get AGon. Until the Cubs have more tradable prospects, it looks like we aren't able to work like that. Jedstein approach...Cubs 2012, small market starter plan with eventual asset building upside to act like a big market team in 2013-4?

[ ]

In reply to by Cubster

That's a good point, Cubster. But the Red Sox didn't punt a season or two while they waited for some prospects to mature. They went with Youkilis and V-Mart at 1B, and then used prospects to upgrade to AGon. The only purpose the prospect served was as a trade chip. You are correct that the Cubs don't have the prospect depth to do what the Red Sox did, but that doesn't mean the only alternative is to stand pat and wait for the farm system to improve. They have money available and a FA that would fit their needs. There's no need to act like a small market team. Unless the Cubs have some realistic expectation that Rizzo is going to be ready soon and is going to be comparable to Fielder, then I say sign Fielder (assuming the length of the contract is reasonable) and use Rizzo (or Fielder) as a trade chip down the road.

[ ]

In reply to by Sweet Lou

Again though it's one thing to say sign Fielder and another to do so for less than 10 years. Fielder with a 10 year contract is gonna be very hard to trade a few years down the road after his best baseball is behind him and be an albatross on this team if we keep him and trade Rizzo. If we can sign him for 7 years or less then sure I'd be all for it but I don't see that happening. I doubt Theo hasn't made an attempt to sign Fielder but in the end you have to look at who the agent is and say is Theo really to blame if the signing doesn't happen?

[ ]

In reply to by Cubster

I think the Cubs' problem goes something like this: In order to compete every year, you need to be able to produce gobs of MLB talent in one of the following ways: 1. Sign above-average free agents. 2. Trade for above-average players. 3. Develop above-average players through your system. That's obvious. However, how much payroll did the Cubs have available to sign free agents? Quite a bit--but only after they shed a bunch of contracts and created huge holes in the roster. And then they had to pick from the free agents available. Do they really want CJ Wilson? Maybe not. Do they really want Edwin Jackson? Not unless he is the last piece needed to compete. Do they want Fielder? Yes. At 10 years? Probably not. Etc. So they end up with not true impact free agents. So nix option one. Okay, option two. Trade for above average players. Okay. What do you trade? Prospects for vets. But who do the Cubs have that other teams want? Not much. Marshall, Zambrano to some degree, Soto and Marmol (but you'd be selling low on both). So option two only works out a little bit. You end up with Travis Wood, Chris Volstad, Ian Stewart, etc. Guys that you hope can be above average and are more valuable to you at this point than the guys you traded away, but they won't make you a contender. Looks like trading or impact players isn't an option. The Cubs would have to trade away Brett Jackson, Trey McNutt, etc., but do they even have enough prospects to put together a competitive team even if they did empty out the farm system? It seems doubtful. So, instead, they have to go out and gather young talent. They trade off the proven vets to bring in young guys--which will, hopefully, allow them to gather more MLB talent than their competitors in 2013 and 2014. But in the meantime, they have to wait and watch their crops grow. They also have to try to rid themselves of as much dead payroll as necessary, and not overburden themselves with long-term contracts on players they don't love, so that they are not handcuffed financially when there are two or three top free agents that they really want either because they are the guys or because the team is ready to cut a swathe through the NL Central. I don't think the Cubs are moving into a long period where all they do is gamble on young guys. I think they are simply trying to build up assets (Jedstein loves this term) because right now the team is near talent-bankruptcy. Jedstein clearly sees this as a team that needs a complete remodeling, not a little bit of interior decorating. They've made a ton of moves already in the first two months of control, and it looks to be far from over. The 2013 Cubs will probably look nothing like the 2011 Cubs. Whether it could be done faster or differently is obviously up for debate by us baseball theorists, but I don't think that Jedstein's current approach is at all mysterious. They clearly have a plan, and it is obviously a long-term plan.

[ ]

In reply to by Charlie

True to an extent, and your analysis is what I hoped would happen. But the Cashner for Rizzo deal doesn't fit this trend -- I actually would have been happier if we did this deal for a veteran like Dempster than trading Cashner. I don't mean to imply that the Padres would have done this deal for Dempster, but rather that if we are going to build through getting prospects, I would much rather acquire those prospects for veterans than prospects of our own.

[ ]

In reply to by springs

Me too. But on the Rizzo deal, I think Jedstein saw an opportunity to pick up a legitimate slugging prospect and a potential starter or power arm for the pen for a bullpen guy (I think that's how they saw Cashner) and a guy who would be lucky to make the majors as a 4th outfielder. If you look at Cashner as a reliever and Cates as a potential starter, the Cubs dealt from depth (bullpen, CF) to acquire in areas of weakness (power-hitting 1B, SP). That's just a win. Of course, it's always possible that Cashner becomes an ace and Rizzo flares out. In which case I will cry.

Recent comments

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    That’s a fantastic deal for SF

  • 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?