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

My 2012 Hall of Fame Ballot

"Small Hall" ballot: Barry Larkin, Rock Raines

"There Are Worse Players in" Ballot: Barry Larkin, Rock Raines, Alan Trammell, Lee Smith, Larry Walker, Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez.

"Let the Roiders In" Ballot: add Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell, Juan Gonzalez, subtract Edgar Martinez.

I'm a bit buzzed writing this, so I'm sure I'm missing some names. I've flipped a bit on Martinez, Walker and McGriff from past years.

Have at it...

Comments

I don't believe Bagwell was ever formally associated with roids, nor did he ever test positive. Am I missing something? Not being sarcastic, just curious if there is more info out about Bags.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

I always thought that was BS. At the time steroids were all the rage (no pun intended) writers claim they had no idea it was going on. Now, without any evidence, they claim they have good reason to believe Bagwell (and several other players) were juicing. I'm really starting to believe that the HOF voting should be taken away from the BBWAA. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what system would be better, but the way things stand now, I think they get it wrong more often than they get it right.

perfect list...raines needs more love. bagwell deserves it, but perhaps he deserves to enter the debate next year with it's heavy roid-confirmed/roid-suspected class rather than getting in this year.

I would vote for Bagwell, Larkin, Martinez and Raines. If I had to bet, Larkin will be the only one to get in this year.

Why does Lee Smith not get more love? His numbers match up or are better than the other relievers in the Hall. He held the record for saves, and many of his saves came before the one inning save became popular. If Goose Gossage, Rollie Fingers, and Eck are in, how can the man with more saves than any of them not be in?

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

I like that, The Hall of Pretty Good. I'm really getting more into the idea of a Super Hall of Fame, though. Have a requirement that voters cannot be complete fucking morons...of course, all sports writers would then be ineligible. And have clear guidelines of what a Super Hall of Famer is, so everyone isn't making their own requirements (eg. he was a dick, so no. he was a showboater, so no. he gave me a rimmy once, so yes.).

[ ]

In reply to by JohnT

Lee is borderline. He can't touch Gossage. Bad comparison. Fingers & Eck are closer, but Fingers has 400 more innings and was one of the first relief stars. Eck has the two careers thing. Lee has saves, which is sort of a silly stat to begin with. Smith compares better to Sutter, but Bruce has the split-finger innovation. Player: Innings, ERA+, WAR per BBref: Goose: 1809, 126, 40.0 Rollie: 1701, 120, 24.4 Eck: 789, 137, 16.6 (reliever years only) Sutter: 1042, 136, 25 Smith: 1289, 132, 30.3 Again, borderline. I'm not a fan of relievers in the hall, so I err on the side of omission, and I wouldn't have put in Sutter. In fact, I'd probably just pick Goose.

[ ]

In reply to by JohnT

I think many see Lee Smith as an compiler of career stats but never really a dominant player. He had 234 saves from 1980-1989 where he was used often in multiple innings, like the closers of old. But during that 10-year stretch, he was just an All-Star twice and only received 1 Cy Young vote (leading to a 9th place finish in 1983). And he pitched in 4 post-season games, taking two losses with an ERA of 8.44. He just wasn't perceived as dominant. During the decade of the 1980s, the following closers received Cy Young Votes: 1980: Gossage (3rd, and 3rd in MVP), Quisenberry (5th and 8th in MVP), McGraw (5th), Sambito (5th) 1981: Fingers (1st and 1st in MVP), Gossage (5th), Sutter (5th) 1982: Quisenberry (3rd and 9th in MVP), Caudil (7th), Stanley (7th), Sutter (3rd and 5th in MVP), Minton (6th and 8th in MVP), Garber (7th) 1983: Quisenberry (2nd and 6th in MVP), Orosco (3rd), Holland (6th) 1984: Hernandez (1st, and 1st in MVP), Quisenberry (2nd and 3rd in MVP), Sutter (3rd and 6th in MVP), Gossage (6th) 1985: Quisenberry (3rd), Moore (7th and 6th in MVP), Reardon (7th) 1986: Righetti (4th), Eichorn (6th) 1987: Reardon (8th), Bedrosian (1st) 1988: Eckersley (2nd and 5th in MVP) 1989: Eckersley (6th and 5th in MVP), Olson (6th), Russell (9th), Davis (1st and 6th in MVP), Williams (9th) So if you were a sportswriter in the 1980s, you would note the dominance of Fingers to start the decade, and Gossage, Sutter, and Quisenberry for the first half of it, then a couple year lull, and then the reign of Eck began in 1988. Smith was never perceived as being that dominant reliever. He was always among the top 5 or so, but there were a couple who were always well ahead of him, and then the flavor of the year (Hernandez, Mark Davis) would jump ahead too. Beginning in 1990, with his trade to the Cardinals, he was used almost exclusively as a 1-inning reliever for the rest of his career (436 games, 456 innings). He added on another 244 saves before he retired in 1997. The last couple of years were middle relief, so he basically had 6 seasons as a modern closer, saving 31, 47, 43, 46, 33, and 37 games. He made 5 All-Star teams during this period and received Cy Young votes in three years, finishing 2nd, 4th, and 5th. But he was competing with a new generation of closers at this point. While Smith was racking up saves, others were doing so with far more dominant seasons. 1990-1991 were solid years for him, but in 1990 Eckersley had a 0.61 ERA and Thigpen had 57 saves. In 1991, Bryan Harvey had one fewer save, but an ERA of 1.60, 101 Ks in just 78 IP, and an ERA+ of 257! Then from 1992-1995, Smith's ERA was well over 3.00 each year, and so while he was still getting saves, he was doing so far less dominantly than guys like Randy Myers, John Franco, Rod Beck, and even guys like Duane Ward and Jose Mesa. Playing for 7 teams from 1990-1997 certainly hurt Smith's image as well. So in the end, Smith is difficult for voters to categorize. I think many think that had he pitched from 1975-1989, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He was clearly not as dominant in his time as were Fingers, Gossage, Sutter, and Quisenberry; and he wouldn't have had the easy, 1-inning saves, to pad his career totals at the end. Similarly, if he pitched from 1990-2005, we would probably see him has a John Franco, who got just 27 votes on his only year on the ballot and fell off with less than 5 percent, despite having the 2nd most saves when he retired. His big career save totals combined with this perception that he was one of the old-school guys like Gossage and Sutter keep him in the discussion; but when a lot of voters look into it, they don't see him as dominant as the old-school guys or as dominant as the new school guys like Eck, Hoffman, and Rivera, and so I just don't see him climbing much higher than where he is right now.

[ ]

In reply to by WISCGRAD

Your argument is very good. But, shouldn't the fact that Smith was very good, if not dominate, for a long period of time factor into the Hall of Fame argument? Smith finished in the top 10 in saves 12 times. Led the league in saves 4 times. Was a 7 time all star. I believe that he is in the category of a very good player for a long period of time.

[ ]

In reply to by JohnT

Lee's top 5 comps from BBref: Jeff Reardon Trevor Hoffman John Franco Roberto Hernandez Doug Jones All between 1000-1300 innings, all with 120-135 ERA+ (except Hoffman in the 140s), all with about 20-30 WAR. All players that fit the definition of very good for a long period of time. Closers, to be sure, and more important than middle relievers, but in the end, still relief pitchers. The HOF is a subjective exercise, so each voter draws their own line. I think Hoffman stands above this group (over Smith), but I think Smith is better than the rest of those comps, but not considerably better. Part of the reason I didn't want Sutter; he lowered the standard below where I prefer. We probably wouldn't consider a position player below 60 WAR for his career, but we'll have lengthy conversations about relief pitchers with half that. Now, a position player cannot do what a closer does, and there's value there. And it should be considered in context with how peers perform. But I'm not sure how much to consider saves. A pitcher can put together 3 innings, give up 2 runs and get the same credit another pitcher receives for one pitch. It's just kind of a goofy, created stat, like pitcher wins. Maybe like "wins", "saves" is more meaningful over a career, which helps Lee. For my part, I'm just not convinced of that.

[ ]

In reply to by Stevens

But Sutter WAS dominant. There was a good period of time that he just went out and made good hitters look stupidly bad over and over again. Bruce was so good that he scored the Cubs the Cardinals' top position player prospect (Leon Durham), an All-Star 3rd baseman (Ken Reitz) and another player thrown in (Ty Waller). 3-for-1 trades rarely happen for relief pitchers. Mind you, I think I understand what you mean about Sutter "lowering" the standard. But he was a supremely good closer for a nearly a decade who changed how baseball viewed the value of a fireman/closer. Personally, I'm fine with Sutter being in the Hall. I got to watch him throughout his entire career and, for me, he passed the eye test.

Juan Gonzalez? Really? My ballot: Jeff Bagwell, Barry Larkin, Larry Walker, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, Edgar Martinez, Mark McGwire EDIT: I have no rational reason to exclude Palmeiro; it's petty, I guess. I just don't like him.

[ ]

In reply to by Tito

Precisely. I don't care about roids. Well, I don't think they should be used, and they should be tested for. But I also don't think the HOF should exclude players of this era because of them. The hall is a history museum. The great players of the 90s and beyond are an important part of baseball history. My objection to Palmeiro is the feeling he hung on for his HOF magic numbers, kind of like Biggio. But Biggio played premium up-the-middle defensive positions. So even though Biggio was atrocious at the end (worse than Raffy), I'd still vote for Biggio. Also, if I'm honest, there's Cindy Sandberg and that godawful mustache. Plus, even though I don't care about the roids, his goofy finger wagging testimony doesn't help.

[ ]

In reply to by Stevens

My problem with excluding suspected roid users from the hall is that it is yet another way to lay all the blame on the individuals players and erase the complicity of the managers and owners (and the writers and the fans). The juiced ball/juiced player era does mangle any attempt at stat comparisons between players from different times, though.

Hasn't the lid been kinda blown off the fact that PED's are extremely prevalent? To me you need to vote guys in based on the context of the Era in which they played. If a guy like Bonds and Sosa were among the best of their generation. You have to put them in according to that. The whole sanctimonious nature of the BBWAA just gives me the feeling that they are a bunch of blowhards and out of touch dinosaurs.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

There are always drug addicts in life - the only ones that matter to me are the roid users and nothing will take away the joy of me watching Barry Bonds launching bombs into the cove. That was the era, and every cubs fan thrilled to it when they watched Sosa. I don't get my ire up often but when a society creates a hero worship mentality and then hates on those heroes for latching onto things that the industry baically prescribed, that is not cool.

[ ]

In reply to by Old and Blue

oh yeah, totally...i don't even draw a comparison between the two...i'm just glad baseball is getting that drug out of it's culture. some people do consider amphetamines PEDs, but it's not like they're going to make you pitch 10 more pitches a game, more mph, etc...hit for power, hit more, etc... really glad baseball is cleaning up it's drug issues...

[ ]

In reply to by Old and Blue

never regularly and not since my late teens, but yeah...it works as advertised. it starts for a lot of ball kids getting into the zone and getting focus (especially the ones that like adderal)...then for the kids in the minors or summer leagues it turns into a help for travel/day games/party-hangover-helper...for some older guys it's a way to get them back into the excitement/feel/focus of their youth in a game they've been grinding at for a huge chunk of their lives. and a lot of this "starts" because it's been part of the culture of baseball for too many decades. it's not all dexys/greenies/etc anymore...and coke gets all the headlines. when they started testing for it in 05 (i think 05) it was a pretty important change to the culture of the game, imo.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

Ya just experimented myself - could see getting addicted to that. More than any others. I never understood downers tho, who wants to be down? And I don't mean to trivialize drug use among kids - I just am like, itthis happens, and I kept my eye on mine, but as an observer. I was lucky Cu's my kid's biggest interest. Was girls EDIT - This new kindle is not so good for forums

Levine posted late last night that KWood may not be getting signed by the Cubs? Considering he gave the team a well-below market deal last year, and is the team's most popular remaining player, I wonder what is going on here? Imo, it would be pretty shitty if they can't get a deal done.

[ ]

In reply to by The E-Man

They don't want to pay him $4m? He's not worth it considering his injury history. Just because he gave a sweetheart deal last year, doesn't mean they should overpay this year. $2 to 2.5m with a games finished incentive sounds right. And no one buys a ticket to see a set-up man possibly pitch.

[ ]

In reply to by Charlie

That's a very good bet. I do think though that from a Cubs fandom standpoint, you overpay. If you can throw away multimillions to get rid of Z, you can spend an extra 2 on a guy fans love. Some of that should play into the thinking, even for number crunchers. Or should I say, especially for number crunchers, who seem to be putting together, for next year at least, a very average team with zero hitting.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

That's interesting, because Maholm was quoted earlier this offseason as saying that he would essentially go to the highest bidder, and there are reportedly multiple teams interested in him. With the shortage of SP's on the market, I would think he could get 3/$25 million pretty easily, and stick it to the Pirates who refused to exercise his 2012 option.

If they do sign Maholm, it will be the first time the Cubs have 2 lefties (assuming Travis Wood is pitching too) in the rotation since 2008, Rich Hill and Ted Lilly another worthless factoid

I think I've heard this comment before, but has anyone ever seen Maholm and Gorzelanny in the same room? Not sure what the former offers that the latter didn't. Seems like another meh deal to me.

but has anyone ever seen Maholm and Gorzelanny in the same room? --- Shhhhh. Bruce Wayne is really Batman. (and Gorzelanny is really Alfred the Butler)

[ ]

In reply to by Rob Richardson

Barry Larkin 495 (86.4%), Jack Morris 382 (66.7%), Jeff Bagwell 321 (56.0%), Lee Smith 290 (50.6%), Tim Raines 279 (48.7%), Edgar Martinez 209 (36.5%), Alan Trammell 211 (36.8%), Fred McGriff 137 (23.9%), Larry Walker 131 (22.9%), Mark McGwire 112 (19.5%), Don Mattingly 102 (17.8%), Dale Murphy 83 (14.5%), Rafael Palmeiro 72 (12.6%), Bernie Williams 55 (9.6%), Juan Gonzalez 23 (4.0%), Vinny Castilla 6 (1.0%), Tim Salmon 5 (0.9%), Bill Mueller 4 (0.7%), Brad Radke 2 (0.3%), Javy Lopez 1 (0.2%), Eric Young 1 (0.2%), Jeromy Burnitz 0, Brian Jordan 0, Terry Mulholland 0, Phil Nevin 0, Ruben Sierra 0, Tony Womack 0.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

goodbye Juan Gonzalez, Vinny Castilla, Tim Salmon, Bill Mueller, Brad Radke, Javy Lopez, Eric Young, Burnitz, B. Jordan, Mulholland, Nevin, Sierra and Womack. Walker deserved some more love imo...I understand the Coors effect, but one of the best defensive RFers of all-time. You can't just look at his road numbers because the NL West parks are all pitching friendly, not to the extreme Coors was for offense, but still.

wtf does tim raines have to do? yeah, walks aren't sexy, but not only did he have an ungodly amount of SB...almost as important is his CS%. ...and all that .400-ish OB% stuff. if he stole 800 and got caught 300+ times i wouldn't be as impressed, but the guy got on base then pushed himself over on his own for quite a large chunk of his career.

More talk of Garza to Tigers. Turner, Smyly and Castellenos are their big 3. Could Team Theo actually coax two of those three from Detroit? That would be impressive.

[ ]

In reply to by Jim Hickmans Bat

"Kevin_Goldstein Heard Tigers are open to talking Jacob Turner, but far more reticent when it comes to 3B Nick Castellanos." nick castellanos is neat and all, but do the cubs have 3 years to cash that gamble in with a SP crew of 3-5 starters? also, check out goldstein with one of them there fancy words...reticent...i'm pretending it means "kickass alien robot" even if the context is wrong.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

Gotta cash in Garza for as much pitching as Jedstein can get. Let the Tigers keep Castellanos and go for Turner and 3 other hot pitching prospects, even if a couple are at AA or below. The full 40-man roster situation is interesting, as presumably the Cubs would like to add Maholm, Wood and 1-2 of the prospects gained from a Garza deal, but only Garza would come off the roster in this scenario.

We went to the Hall of Fame in 2010, and it was a lot of fun. I highly recommend it. And the Cooperstown area is cool, too. Really interesting place. We were there during peak season, so it was VERY crowded. The HOF facility itself was smaller than I thought it would be. The Hall of Fame plaque area on the 1st floor is open like a museum, but the second floor (where the various displays are located) seemed a bit cramped. Since going there, I have come to the conclusion that I'm really happy that there is a baseball Hall of Fame, but I don't really care whether one player or another is there. I know it's important to the player and his family, friends, and fans, but ultmately whether Player "A" should be there and Player "B" should not be really doesn't matter that much. As long as they have the game's absolute very best players in there, that's enough for me. I don't care one way or the other about the ones on the borderline.

@paul_maholm paul maholm I hope to get to continue some things when I visit during the year and start some great things as I start my Cubs career

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

Oh boy, looking forward to that crunch. Mr. maholm: try not to repeat non-descriptive words (or any words for that matter) in a two line poem. Even if you are just shooting for Hallmark cards. Or if it's a riddle, make it kinda hard to figure out. Oh, and use some punctuation or verse markers: "I hope to continue some sweet shit, when I visit throughout the year / and commence some cool crap once I start my Cubs' career." You know, something like that . . .

[ ]

In reply to by Charlie

This post won because the poster showed up to post today but the other posters were great posters too and anytime you can write a post replying to those great posters you have to give all praise to God. Really all you can do is take it one post at a time and through hard work and determination and giving all praise to God hope you can continue to reply to all those other wonderful posters. Finally I'd like to apologize for using illicit ampersands. I let all my fans down and I am working hard to repair all the hurt I have done.

looks like we'll have to wait til tomorrow to get the maholm terms. confirmed done, though. i imagine 3-5m a year base...wonder if it's multi-year...

Sun Times story on Maholm says they expect to bring Rodrigo Lopez back. Maholm made over $6m last year, can't imagine he'd sign for less than that.

from BP's John Perotto's list of the 10 best remaining free agents: #8, just ahead of Bartolo Colon and Jeff Francis (but behind retired Javier Vasquez). Carlos Pena is #5...
Free agent: LHP Paul Maholm Scout's view: "He was asked to be a No. 1 in Pittsburgh, and that just wasn't fair. On a good team, he's a No. 5, maybe a No. 4. I'd take a shot on him for the back end of the rotation. He has a good idea of what he's doing on the mound and makes up for not being overpowering by getting guys to hit the ball on the ground. Put him on the right team in the right park with the stars aligned just right, and he might win you 15 games."
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15805

Maholm signing needs a matching 40 man roster move. And a follow up tweet... @MLBInsideNews: Don't be shocked if Cubs get Turner and Smyly +

I think the cubs do have to clear an extra spot or two on the 40-man, if they can nab Turner, Smyly then I would happily toss them those three, or even Byrd or (God, please) Soriano with his 2012 salary paid ...

http://t.co/JmA1LVjq Kaplan saying Cubs and Kerry Wood soon to part ways Kaplan's source...
"Woody wanted to be here despite the rebuilding process but while the Cubs were saying they wanted him back they were unwilling to pay him the market value for a solid set up man," he said. "He has heard from a number of teams that are World Series contenders and they are all willing to pay him a very fair salary to strengthen their bullpen. The Cubs expected him to pitch for another hometown discount. He has already done that for them a couple of times before. There is no reason that he should have to do that again."
Kaplan's conclusion...
Will Theo Epstein ride to the rescue and save the day? If he plans on it time is running out so he better move quickly.

[ ]

In reply to by Dr. aaron b

I'm not unhappy that KW is leaving. I don't see any point in paying him his market value, and wish him all the best in his future endeavors. To put a finer point on it, I am not happy we are reducing payroll. I am glad that we no longer spending money on short term Band-Aids in a misguided attempt to give the appearance of competing.

Muskat article on Maholm and a Wood update too http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120109&content_id=26…
"Depth has been a focus of this winter," Hoyer said on Friday.
Wood quotes...
"This organization is family to me," Wood said of the Cubs. "I get a chance to build a new relationship with the Ricketts family. I plan on being around. I'm raising my kids here, the whole family is going to be here. "As much as they want me around, I'd love to be a part of the organization," he said. "I'm not saying it's going to be broadcasting, I'm not saying it's going to be radio, I'm not saying I'm coaching, managing, any of that stuff. I'd like to be around and be a part. All in good time. I still feel like I have another year or two left."

from Bruce Miles twitter acct... BruceMiles2112 Cubs 40-man technically at 41. Waiver move coming to clear space. No correlation with any possible Garza trade and Maholm signing.

I like the signing. He's a solid back rotation guy with a little bit of upside. He created some controversy here in Memphis back when I was a Freshman in College. He and another kid transferred from a private school in Mississippi and joined a Germantown team that was absolutely LOADED. Don't remember all the details off the top of my head. But that team ended up winning state. I believe that Ben Johnson, Malholm and former Cub prospect Mark Holliman were all on that squad. While Matt Cain was across town at Houston high.

twitters from Jordan Bernfield at the Hoyer conference about Maholm signing... http://twitter.com/jordanbernfield (in reverse chronologic order) Maholm: "I had known for a few days, yesterday I passed the physical, kinda tough not to be able to say anything." on Twitter breaking. Also mentioned Sveum and Bosio as factors for signing here. Maholm: "Being in the NL, traveling through the city, seeing the passion of the fans...seemed like it would be a good fit." Hoyer: "We both understand the history of the organization and which players mean the most to the fan base and Kerry is one of them." Hoyer: Going to prepare Samardzija as a starter in spring training. Hoyer: "We've added control and youth to the pitching staff over the course of the winter." Says it's good for the future and present. Hoyer: "Talent was the overriding factor not the knowledge of the division." (Maholm) Hoyer: "We continue to want Kerry back in Chicago, we've offered him a substantial raise and we hope it gets done." Hoyer: "This is deal is not a precursor to anything." In reference to Garza rumors. Hoyer: "I think we're very comfortable with the names we have. A huge priority is building depth. You can never have enough pitching." Hoyer: It's important to have a mix, you don't want to have a homogenous pitching staff...in general, LHP more efficient than RHP." Hoyer: Says the physical looked good and they're confident he'll be ready to go next year. Tried to pitch thru shoulder soreness LY. "He really wanted to be a Cub and wanted to pitch in Wrigley Field, which really means a lot to us." "We're excited to bring Paul on board. Paul's been a quality left hander in this division for the last 6 years."

Recent comments

  • 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?

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    In my opinion, the biggest "affirmative" mistake the Cubs made in the off-season (that is, doing something they should not have done), was blowing $9M in 2024 AAV on Hector Neris. What the Cubs actually need is an alternate closer to be in the pen and available to close if Alzolay pitched the day before (David Robertson would have been perfect), because with his forearm issue last September, I would be VERY wary of over-using Alzolay. I'm not even sure I would pitch him two days in a row!  

    And of course what the Cubs REALLY need is a second TOR SP to pair with Justin Steele. That's where the Cubs are going to need to be willing to package prospects (like the Padres did to acquire Dylan Cease, the Orioles did to acquire Corbin Burnes, and the Dodgers did to acquire Tyler Glasnow). Obviously those ships have sailed, but I would say right now the Cubs need to look very hard at trying to acquire LHSP Jesus Luzardo from the Marlins (and maybe LHP A. J. Puk as well).