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

News & Notes

Submitted by Rob G. on

- Crane Kenney says the Cubs will increase payroll next year regardless of an ownership change.

''And when it all works, this is what it looks like,'' he said, referring to back-to-back postseasons and a 97-win season. ''It's like the Braves. That's the model -- the Braves and the Red Sox and the Yankees. Play like a big market, flex your muscle like a big market and hopefully perform like one on the field.''

- Sullivan is hearing that the Cubs will pursue a left-handed outfield bat to compete with Fukudome and Fukudome doesn't really care.

"If it means that there will be competition in right field, all I have to do is win that competition," he replied.

- Carlos Marmol got banged up a bit in a car accident in the Dominican Republic.

"Out of precaution they did different studies on my body, and I don't have any kind of serious injury," Marmol wrote.

- The headline says it all - "Harden to visit Shoulder Specialist". Apparently the Cubs have until today to decide on his option. They have until after the World Series on Blanco's. 

- The same link says all the Cubs coaches have been asked back.

- Cubs organizational meetings begin October 19th in Arizona. A few rumors and notes in that link including...

Lee has a no-trade clause but could be asked to lift it if he's dealt to a team in California for pitching help. Lee lives in Sacramento, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Ronny Cedeno likely will be on the trade block again after yelling at trainer Mark O'Neal during a nasty exchange before a game in Milwaukee on the final weekend of the regular season.

Well that should add some fuel to  the sign Teixeira/deal Lee flames. Trading Cedeno, moving Theriot to the utility role and signing Furcal would be kind of neat too.

- Paul Sullivan and I agree on something. I'm not comfortable with this...

The Cubs players spent much of the season downplaying talk of the alleged curse, only to have Cubs brass bring out a Greek priest to spread holy water in their dugout the day of the start of the playoffs. What kind of a show of faith in the high-priced team was that? Piniella and the players were blind-sided by the stunt.

 

Tags
Cubs News

Comments

Submitted by 10man on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:17 am

I'll go ahead and take credit for spotting that first quote, btw.

[ ]

Submitted by Pell Mell on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:18 am

This nonsense is why sportswriters deserve all the criticism they get, and more. First of all, I guess Rick didn't get Sullivan's no-more-curse-talk memo. "The dark pendulum of history" indeed. Listen, Gandalf, they played like garbage for three games. If that strikes you as "bizarre and inexplicable," maybe you should cover something simpler, like hockey. Oh, wait! Still, the faint odor of irresponsibility and peevishness lingers around that team, around that sport. If there is an "odor of irresponsibility" (what does irresponsibility smell like, after all?) surrounding hockey, maybe it has less to do with one 10-year-old incident for which restitution was made than with the vicious, bloody fights that routinely break out during games. What a weak attempt to support the customary high-handed sportswriter moralism (enough in this one to choke a bishop, although it's clear that Telander's righteous anger really derives from having been inconvenienced) with "evidence." It'd be quite compelling if it weren't all made up. Also, if even one's shadowy Dodger source indicates that "the problem was addressed immediately," one should really examine whether this was the bold exposé one previously perhaps thought.

[ ]

Submitted by Mitterwald on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:05 am

Once he said the Cubs were "curse-riddled," I stopped reading. Basically, he's mad because he was inconvenienced. The players can't win. Either they're "lazy" or "didn't care" about losing, or they're wrong for displaying their anger in the way they did.

[ ]

Submitted by Mister Whipple on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:09 pm

My assessment of it is that it's more complicated than saying "we're getting an effective pitcher for $7M." Marquis will be way overpaid comparing his effectiveness to the market for starting pitcher so I don't think that's really relevant to the discussion. In order to assess Harden's value at $7M you have to take a look at how the lowered inning totals, injury risk, and other "quality of starter" issues impact his availability and effectiveness. In assessing the risk of picking up Harden's option I'd want to start by attempting to calculate what his cost would be as a healthy ace. With the risk of upsetting Chad, Dempster was our ace this year and remained healthy the entire year. He pitched 207 innings. Harden pitched 148 innings. Using a single year in isolation we see that Harden pitched 70% of the innings that Dempster pitched. Using this as the most rudimentary baseline to calculate his extended cost: $7M / 70% = $10M So at the very least Harden's true cost is at minimum more like $10M. But there are a number of other factors which I think dramatically lower his value. Since Harden's first bout with injury, Harden has played four seasons. In those four seasons Harden has averaged 87 innings (or 42% of a healthy ace's innings). Calculating an extended cost on that average looks more like this: $7M / 42% = $16.7M That number even surprised me. The spread between those two numbers is significant and is contingent upon Harden's health. I'm no actuary but I would assume that the drop in velocity and the fact that Harden is seeing a shoulder specialist and has had nagging, unexplainable injuries (torso, ribcage, back, left shoulder) over his career doesn't just speak to his effectiveness, but to an increased likelihood that he will not be as available next year as he was this year. I'd put the chances of his continued relative healthiness pretty low given how he finished the season. This would appear to weight us more towards the $16.7M side. For the sake of argument, let's call his extened cost $13-14M. Other issues: Harden was far more effective when his velocity was up; however, some of that may have been due to the league switch. By next year scouting and the repeated at bats against Harden will likely make him a less effective pitcher. How much less? The ERA+ discussion shows that in general there's about a 13% shift for pitchers moving from AL to NL. But more important for our discussion, this shift tends to be a temporary one. There's no doubt that Harden will continue to pitch well, it's just extremely unlikely that he'll post an ERA of 1.77 (ERA+ of 254) moving forward. Additionally, Harden has now pitched in four postseason games and has a collective ERA of 6.35. It's undeniably a small sample size, but post-season effectiveness definitely has to weigh into perceived value. All that said, I won't be terribly broken up if the Cubs risk their money on Harden as long as they're increasing their budget significantly next year. My concern though is that if we pick up Harden he'll be considered as one of our top three pitchers in the rotation and that the spread between $7M and $16M won't be covered with a top notch backup for the starting rotation (assuming he gets injured) or high quality middle relievers to cover his short starts (assuming he stays health). As a fan--given the Cubs recent spending trends--I would assume that even with Crane Kenny's promise of more spending the likelihood of really getting the value from Harden we want is extremely slim.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:46 pm

You're not looking at it correctly. When Harden doesn't pitch, then he gets replaced with someone. In 2008 it was Marshall. So if you want to come up with what he cost us you would add Marshall's salary, you woudn't extrapolate an imaginery pitcher's salary at $7 million over the season. You would also then need to factor in the downgrade from Marshall to Harden and the downgrade from whoever comes up from AAA (if Harden goes on the DL) and Marshall in the bullpen. If Harden doesn't go on the DL, and no one replaces him, he doesn't cost us anything extra at all. When you talk about replacing him with a free agent, Rob's not that far off base. A guy who takes the ball and gives you 200 innings can get $10 million on the open market. If he doesn't have surgery (and he checks out with various team doctors OK) you can be damned sure he's going to make more than $7 on the open market. The other math you did, with the extrapolated innings, (not even counting the previous mentioned error) doesn't make much sense, because if the Cubs re-up him they're not expecting him to pitch 84 innings. If you're going to do an average, you should at least make it a weighted average. Where did the 4 years come from, other than that's the number that would best 'prove' your point?

[ ]

Submitted by Doug Dascenzo on Thu, 10/09/2008 - 10:27 am

You're right, most teams may be willing to pay that. I'm not even saying the Cubs shouldn't. What they should do is have a MUCH better backup option than Sean Marshall or Jon Lieber going into 2009 because odds are, he's going to be pitching instead of Harden about 60% of the time. Harden's Win % over his career is .672. Marshall's Win % is .421. If Harden makes 15 starts (35 * .42), his expected W-L record is 10-5. If Marshall (or some equivalent pitcher) makes the remaining 20 starts, his expected W-L record is 9-12. So for around $7.5 million, you're getting an expected W-L record of 19-17 (actually, with the decimal points it's closer to 18-17). You're also getting a bullpen that's constantly jerked around, a lack of confidence in your ace, and a steady stream of AAA guys back-filling in either the rotation or the bullpen. Do I want to bring him back? Yes. But I want Hendry to be smarter about it than he was with P and W a few years ago.

[ ]

Submitted by Mister Whipple on Thu, 10/09/2008 - 10:16 pm

That's exactly right. It will likely cost another $9M to cover the other 58% of the season. That will be the cost to pick up an ace right before the deadline assuming Harden gets injured (not an unreasonable assessment). What responders seem to miss about my post was that I said: All that said, I won't be terribly broken up if the Cubs risk their money on Harden as long as they're increasing their budget significantly next year. My concern though is that if we pick up Harden he'll be considered as one of our top three pitchers in the rotation and that the spread between $7M and $16M won't be covered with a top notch backup for the starting rotation (assuming he gets injured) or high quality middle relievers to cover his short starts (assuming he stays health). This is the crux of my argument. If we want to truly have someone of Harden's caliber, we need to spend on Harden then spend on his backup as well. Otherwise, we're taking unnecessary risks that may be hard to cover after the deadline.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:18 am

The Brewers paid more for Sabathia than the Cubs did for Harden and Gaudin. As a result the Brewers got to the playoffs, and got a bad start from their guy and were eliminated. The Cubs got the same thing (with the kicker of home field advantage). The Cubs have the option to retain both players, and the Brewers will probably get a low first and a low 1st-2nd sandwhich pick for Sabathia. In what way did the Brewers have the obvious advantage? Now the Brewers go into next year with no Sheets, no Sabathia and no LaPorta who they could have used to bring in a #1 or #2 starter during the off-season (or kept and traded Fielder or Braun for the same thing). If the Cubs wind up waiving Harden, or worse keeping him and he doesn't pitch effectively then you can say the trades may be about even, over the long haul, but in 2008 they had no impact and in 2009, it's advantage Cubs. If Harden throws 180 effective innings next year, then runs off as a type A free agent, then it will be a huge 'win' for the Cubs.

Submitted by Bigz on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:26 am

so if we pass, we have 1.5 quality pitchers? who exactly would we add other than CC (who has a blank yankee check)?

Submitted by jacos on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:34 am

Z Lilly Smardjza (I thought I read he would start 09) Dempster- Give him Harden's money Marquis/Marshall or Myster FA

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:50 pm

Z, Lilly, Marquis are pretty set

pretty good bet they resign Dempster or another FA pitcher

you then have some combo of Harden, Samardzija, Hill, Marshall, Atkins, Gaudin and Guzman for the final spot

I'd be thrilled if they somehow traded Marquis and his $9.875 M, but I doubt it.

Submitted by Andrew on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:00 am

Fuck, so the collapse is all Cedeno's fault! I should have known.

Submitted by Bigz on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:01 am

espn radio - "cubs expected to pick up option" hell, why not? you did it for prior year after year and at least this guy has balls.

[ ]

Submitted by The Joe on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:30 pm

Ok good...I was going out on a limb there. I figured there should be some relation to all this ball and labia talk. I'm not familiar with that website you linked to, though.

Submitted by dB on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:58 pm

WMVP saying Harden's MRI showed "shoulder tendonitis" and "normal wear and tear". This is of course the Cubs so that probably translates to torn labrum or rotator cuff.

Submitted by WISCGRAD on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:19 pm

Harden's option just got picked up according to Cubs.com

Submitted by Dr. aaron b on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:12 pm

Harden replaces Kerry Wood as the closer in 09. Start the campaign!

Submitted by Doug Dascenzo on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:15 pm

The real cost of Harden isn't the salary, it's the upheaval in the rotation and bullpen when (not if) he gets injured or sits out a few starts. The real value of a guy like Marquis is stability. If you're constantly switching bullpen guys to spot-starters or calling up some AAAA guy to start for an injured pitcher you ultimately tax the bullpen and give away wins because the replacement pitcher isn't very good. We've seen this movie way too many times to not be able to guess the ending. And if anyone interprets this as me saying Marquis is a better pitcher than Harden I'm going to shit myself. I just don't want to go back to the days of relying on oft-injured saviors to catch lightning in a bottle and stay fucking healthy for once.

[ ]

Submitted by Dr. aaron b on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:35 pm

This is why I advocate moving Harden to closer. 1. It allows us to take the comp picks for Woody 2. It should help preserve his Woody-esque arm 3. A 30 save season out of him will guarantee he is a type A Free Agent when he leaves after 2009 4. It will eliminate the inevitable Jim Hendry "When we get Harden back, it will be like we are making a deadline deal" mumbo-jimbo that will certainly happen if he gets hurt and leaves a hole in the rotation. 5. We have Marmol as Harden insurance in the closer role. 6. It will force us to sign a Lowe/Burnett/Dempster this offseason, to protect the rotation.

[ ]

Submitted by The Real Neal on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:34 pm

1. True, but this wont' make us better in 2009. 2. Debateable but possible. It seems he needs a lot of rest between starts. Pitching more frequently may or may not alleiviate some of his issues. 3. Being that no one knows what determines the FA rankings, I am going to have to question this point. JoBo had 81 saves from 2006 and 2007 and was a type B FA, so that stat alone won't do it. I would guess that he'd likely be a type A, but it could be that there are starts/or games measurements in there that would hurt him as a swingman. 4. There's a difference between counting on a guy being your 4th starter over counting on two guys as being your 1 and 2 starters. It wasn't the counting on Wood or Prior that hurt us so much, it was counting on Wood and Prior. 5. And Weurtz as his replacement? 6. I think we sign one of those guys regardless of what goes on with Harden. Interesting thought, but I like Wood so I prefer we go with both of them and replace Dempster with Lowe if Dempster's price tag gets crazy.

Submitted by Dmac on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:54 pm

Harden's option with the Cubs will include a mandatory 45 - day towel drill before opening day. Dark humour, but this seems appropriate.

Submitted by Timmer on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:34 pm

Is there a deadline by which Harden has to demand a trade, if he's so inclined?

[ ]

Submitted by Rob G. on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 10:48 pm

I don't know what it would get Harden at this point to demand a trade. He's gonna get $7M next year no matter what and unless he hates Chicago for some reason, why would he ask? Considering he just got sent to the doc, he doesn't have any real leverage for a bigger deal.

Recent comments

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Indeed they do TJW!

    For the record I’m not in favor of solely building a team through paying big to free agents. But I’m also of the mind that when you develop really good players, get them signed to extensions that buy out a couple years of free agency, including with team options. And supplement the home grown players with free agent splashes or using excess prospects to trade for stars under team control for a few years. Sort of what Atlanta does, basically. Everyone talks about the dodgers but I feel that Atlanta is the peak organization at the current moment.

    That said, the constant roster churn is very Rays- ish. What they do is incredible, but it’s extremely hard to do which is why they’re the only ones frequently successful that employ that strategy. I definitely do not want to see a large market team like ours follow that model closely. But I don’t think free agent frenzies is always the answer. It’s really only the Dodgers that play in that realm. I could see an argument for the Mets too. The Yankees don’t really operate like that anymore since the elder Steinbrenner passed. Though I would say the reigning champions built a good deal of that team through free agent spending.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    The issue is the Cubs are 11-7 and have been on the road for 12 of those 18.  We should be at least 13-5, maybe 14-4. Jed isn't feeling any pressure to play anyone he doesn't see fit.
    But Canario on the bench, Morel not at 3B for Madrigal and Wisdom in RF wasn't what I thought would happen in this series.
    I was hoping for Morel at 3B, Canario in RF, Wisdom at DH and Madrigal as a pinch hitter or late replacement.
    Maybe Madrigal starts 1 game against the three LHSP for Miami.
    I'm thinking Canario goes back to Iowa on Sunday night for Mastrobuoni after the Miami LHers are gone.
    Canario needs ABs in Iowa and not bench time in MLB.
    With Seiya out for a while Wisdom is safe unless his SOs are just overwhelmingly bad.

    My real issue with the lineup isn't Madrigal. I'm not a fan, but I've given up on that one.
    It's Tauchman getting a large number of ABs as the de factor DH and everyday player.
    I didn't realize that was going to be the case.
    We need a better LH DH. PCA or ONKC need to force the issue in about a month.
    But, even if they do so, Jed doesn't have to change anything if the Cubs stay a few over .500!!!

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Totally depends on the team and the player involved. If your team’s philosophy is to pay huge dollars to bet on the future performance of past stars in order to win championships then, yes, all of the factors you mentioned are important.

    If on the other hand, if the team’s primary focus is to identify and develop future stars in an effort to win a championship, and you’re a young player looking to establish yourself as a star, that’s a fit too. Otherwise your buried within your own organization.

    Your comment about bringing up Canario for the purposes of sitting him illustrates perfectly the dangers of rewarding a non-performing, highly paid player over a hungry young prospect, like Canario, who is perpetually without a roster spot except as an insurance call up, but too good to trade. Totally disincentivizing the performance of the prospect and likely diminishing it.

    Sticking it to your prospects and providing lousy baseball to your fans, the consumers and source of revenue for your sport, solely so that the next free agent gamble finds your team to be a comfortable landing spot even if he sucks? I suppose  that makes sense to some teams but it’s definitely not the way I want to see my team run.

    Once again, DJL, our differences in philosophy emerge!

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

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

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

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

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

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

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

    But I digress…

  • Sonicwind75 (view)

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

     

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

  • Childersb3 (view)

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

  • crunch (view)

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

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    I THINK I agree with that decision. They committed to Wicks as a starter and, while he hasn’t been stellar I don’t think he’s been bad enough to undo that commitment.

    That said, Wesneski’s performance last night dictates he be the next righty up.

    Quite the dilemma. They have many good options, particularly in relief, but not many great ones. And complicating the situation is that the pitchers being paid the most are by and large performing the worst - or in Taillon’s case, at least to this point, not at all.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Wesneski and Mastrobuoni to Iowa

    Taillon and Wisdom up

    Wesneski can't pitch for a couple of days after the 4 IP from last night. But Jed picked Wicks over Wesneski.

Click HERE for the last 50 comments