Cubs MLB Roster

Cubs Organizational Depth Chart
40-Man Roster Info

40 players are on the MLB RESERVE LIST (roster is full), plus two players are on the 60-DAY IL 

26 players on MLB RESERVE LIST are ACTIVE, ten players are on OPTIONAL ASSIGNMENT to minors, two players are on the 15-DAY IL, and two players are on the 10-DAY IL

Last updated 4-17-2024
 
* bats or throws left
# bats both

PITCHERS: 13
Yency Almonte
Adbert Alzolay 
Javier Assad
Colten Brewer
Ben Brown
Kyle Hendricks
* Shota Imanaga
Mark Leiter Jr
Hector Neris 
* Drew Smyly
Keegan Thompson
Hayden Wesneski 
* Jordan Wicks

CATCHERS: 2
Miguel Amaya
Yan Gomes

INFIELDERS: 7
* Michael Busch 
Garrett Cooper
Nico Hoerner
Nick Madrigal
* Miles Mastrobuoni
Christopher Morel
Dansby Swanson

OUTFIELDERS: 4
* Cody Bellinger 
# Ian Happ
Seiya Suzuki
* Mike Tauchman 

OPTIONED: 10 
Kevin Alcantara, OF 
Michael Arias, P 
Pete Crow-Armstrong, OF 
Jose Cuas, P 
Brennen Davis, OF 
Porter Hodge, P 
* Luke Little, P 
* Matt Mervis, 1B 
Daniel Palencia, P 
Luis Vazquez, INF 

10-DAY IL: 2 
Seiya Suzuki, OF
Patrick Wisdom, INF 

15-DAY IL: 2
* Justin Steele, P  
Jameson Taillon, P 

60-DAY IL: 2 
Caleb Kilian, P 
Julian Merryweather, P
 





Minor League Rosters
Rule 5 Draft 
Minor League Free-Agents

No Hall for Santo

12:18 pm Update: From the Baseball Hall of Fame Web site:

Fans wishing to voice their opinion in support of their favorite candidates may do so in two ways. By sending a single letter to the address below or by clicking here and sending an e-mail.

Hall of Fame Veterans Committee
25 Main Street
Cooperstown, NY 13326

The Hall of Fame does not forward petitions to the voting members, but makes all correspondence known to any interested voting members as well as to the Screening Committee members and Historical Overview Committee members.

12:10 pm Update: Santo and players with whom he shared the ballot--Joe Torre, Gil Hodges, Dick Allen, Jim Kaat, Tony Oliva, Al Oliver, Vada Pinson, Luis Tiant and Maury Wills--will next be eligible for election in 2010.

Only Joe Gordon is elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame by the two Veterans Committees which separately considered pre-1943 players and then the 1943 & after guys.

Tags

Comments

Here's the voting results for the post-1942 players: Santo (39 votes, 60.9 percent), Jim Kaat (38, 59.4 percent), Tony Oliva (33, 51.6 percent), Gil Hodges (28, 43.8 percent), Joe Torre (19, 29.7 percent), Maury Wills (15, 23.4 percent), Luis Tiant (13, 20.3 percent), Vada Pinson (12, 18.8 percent), Al Oliver (nine, 14.1 percent), Dick Allen (seven, 10.9 percent).

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

Yeah, me too. I don't really think he deserves to get in, but i do feel bad for him as he desperately wants to get in. I just hope if they do put him in, which i don't think they ever will, they do it while he is alive.

This just sickens me. He will never get in now, this was his best chance. If guys who played with him won't put him in, for sure players that came later won't because the stats srink over time compared to current stats. I think it is pretty clear that at least 40% of the current members look at it as an exclusive club for which they do not want any new members. Mike Schmidt was quoted once as saying that anyone that didn't get in on the first ballot should never get in. I think Santo had a higher percent when the writers and broadcast guys were inlcuded in the voting.

4 straight now that the HOF members haven't added any to their ranks. I wonder if some just won't vote for any as they want their own induction to be more unique. Self serving protectionism?

Of course, what we're all thinking is, who knows if the poor guy will even be alive in two years when he is next up for a vote? The pathetic irony is that it may take him passing away to cause the voters to look at him anew.

Horrible. Just horrible.

Sadly, I agree at this point I think the only thing that could change the outcome, other than a change in the voting system, is Santo's death. At this point, I just don't see what happens in his lifetime that changes the perception. I also wonder if Santo's broadcasting career helps or hurts his case at this point. I mean, being in the booth does keep his name out in the public eye, but I also think it may make it more difficult to take him seriously in the baseball/HoF community.

I am starting to wonder if it's not something more devious. A big FU to the sabermatic community that insists Santo should be a slam dunk. It's certainly odd. The veteran's commitees have made more mistakes over the years than the writers - but all the groups seem to agree that Santo's a bit short.

Santo did less well in terms of percentages than he did the last time around, as did Kaat, Oliva, Hodges, Wills and Oliver. Torre, Pinson, Tiant, Oliver and Allen all did marginally better. The 2007 results: Santo (57 votes, 69.5%), Jim Kaat (52, 63.4%), Gil Hodges (50, 61%), Tony Oliva (47, 57.3%), Maury Wills (33, 40.2%), Joe Torre (26, 31.7%), Don Newcombe (17, 20.7%), Vada Pinson (16, 19.5%), Roger Maris (15, 18.3%), Lefty O'Doul (15, 18.3%), Luis Tiant (15, 18.3%), Curt Flood (14, 17.1%), Al Oliver (14, 17.1%), Mickey Vernon (14, 17.1%), Minnie Minoso (12, 14.6%), Cecil Travis (12, 14.6%), Dick Allen (11, 13.4%), Marty Marion (11, 13.4%), Joe Gordon (10, 12.2%), Ken Boyer (9, 11%), Mickey Lolich (8, 9.8%), Wes Ferrell (7, 8.5%), Sparky Lyle (6, 7.3%), Carl Mays (6, 7.3%), Thurman Munson (6, 7.3%), Rocky Colavito (5, 6.1%) and Bobby Bonds (1, 1.2%). The issue is not with how Joe Morgan votes. The issue is with how this is set up. All of the changes seem designed, perversely, to make it less (rather than more) likely that the VC will ever elect another player. Limiting the selections to ten this time and limiting the electors to living HOF members only benefitted the players on the lower end of the voting table. Joe Gordon? Nice player, but he was not as good as Bobby Grich, who probably won't ever be on the ballot ever again. Gordon had a career OPS+ of 120, but only 1530 career hits. He did miss two years to the war, but he's still pretty short on counting stats. Grich's OPS+ was 125. I'm shocked that this is the best they can do.

[ ]

In reply to by dcf

Gordon was basically Sandberg back then. He is still the 6th best home-run hitting second basemen of all time, even though he played only 11 seasons. Without the war he would have had over 300 HRs. And he was also great defensively. I am not too concerned about him getting in, although he was borderline in my opinion. Santo not getting in though is sad. Probably never going to happen.

" to make it less (rather than more) likely that the VC will ever elect another player" But the belief was the change was to make it more likely , correct?

It's a shame Santo didn't make it in, and it is even more of a shame that the system is now constructed in a way that makes it even more difficult for veterans to get elected. The idea behind the veterans committee is to take a look back through the prism of history to recognize players that we *now* appreciate more than their contemporary baseball writers did. Santo fits that bill, and that is what the sabermetric community has been showing. Having all alive HOFs vote now makes it more of a popularity contest now than it should be. Had the Cubs made a playoff run this last year, it could have led to a mini tidal-wave for Santo that might have gotten him over the hump.

This should have been Santo's best chance to get in. Now, I'm not sure that he'll ever get in unless his death earns him a few extra votes. I think the HOF understands that the Veterans Committee is a problem for them. They tried to change the way the voting was done, but the result was the same. It will be interesting to see if additional changes are made. Unfortunately, it may be too late for Ronny. I continue to be amazed that there are people who presumably know baseball who feel Santo doesn't belong in the Hall. By almost any measure, he is one of the best third basemen in the history of the game.

The "veterans committee" is really a dismal example of the old saw, Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. Personally, I think the HoF has too many mariginal players in it. So maybe the best use of the veterans committee would be to have them vote on players already in the hall. Given their track record, that would reduce the size of the committee by 19 or 20 players.

[ ]

In reply to by Rob G.

Maybe Sam Zell isn't such a business genius as people (not on here) make him out to be.

It's interesting that only players and managers make up the "veterans committee." Why not add the living Frick and Spink award winners to the committee? Including journalists like Peter Gammons, Murray Chass and Rick Hummel on the committee, as well as broadcasters such as Bob Uecker, Jerry Coleman and Dave Niehaus could make a difference for someone like Santo.

Maybe it's simply his personality at this point that is keepng him out...from the heel click after a win to having a short fuse...maybe his contemporary players just don't like the guy very much, and that's blocking him from the 5-10 additional votes he needs.

Timmer, this is the first time it was only players and managers. Last time all of the others (newspaper writers, radio. tv, etc.) WERE included in the voting.

Exactly why are currently alive HOF players--the group that now votes on post-1943 veterans--now regarded as "experts" on baseball history? Why is Wade Boggs qualified to decide whether Santo should be in the Hall? The whole point of giving veterans a second chance at the HOF, after being rejected by the baseball writers association, is a recognition that the perception of a player's career by his contemporaries may be wrong. I would say that the vote of living HOF players that choose to participate would look pretty much the same as the BBWAA, because that vote will be most-influenced by testimonials of contemporaries of the player in question. Therefore, it should surprise no one that no post-1943 veteran passed this gauntlet this time around. A players reputation and perception of his value among his contemporary baseball writers is likely to be the same as his contemporary players. So why bother? Not that committees do any better job. Exhibit A: Buck O'Neil. I doubt there's a perfect system, but why give the impression that someone like Santo has another shot at the HOF when in fact it is not a realistic shot at all.

[ ]

In reply to by DC Tom

To make that argument, you have to first conclude that Santo's exclusion from the HoF is incorrect. I mentioned this in the DCF article, but why doesn't someone just survey the voters, find out who isn't voting for him and ask why. As it is, there's only one know reason and that is Schmidt's.

[ ]

In reply to by DC Tom

I actually whole-heartedly think Santo should be in, so I am with you. BUT, I don't think the Veteran's committee was established to correct mistakes due to the fact that the perception of a player's career by his contemporaries may be wrong. I think it was established to correct perceptions of a player's contemporary media being wrong. E.g. The media doesn't value a guy, but you had to hit off of him and know how tough he was. You played with the guy you know he was a gamer and his stats sufferred because he played through pain. You know when you played against him he changed your team's game plan. Etc. So in the view of its intent, the veteran's committee has done it's job. Not enough players agree that any one player was screwed by the media and should belong in. I think I agree with you though that there should be a system set up to reevaluate past players based on contemporary understandings of the game. If a panel of Gammons, Bill James, et al. decided Santo doesn't belong I would buy it.

Funny comment from a Yahoo story about Santo not making it: "the problem isn't finding 75 percent who agree, the problem is Joe Morgan. I hope someone kicks that old douche down a flight of stairs."

Why does the Vets commitee only meet once every 2 years? The NFL version meets every year and actually puts multiple candidates in yearly.

Unless my memory is failing me, I believe Joe Morgan stated in "This Old Cub" that Santo should be in the Hall of Fame.

Reading a lot about how "he just doesn't have the stats that are HOF caliber." What with the eras (deadball, steroid, etc) blurring the 'what should be the statistical ave for HOF,' I believe you should be compared to players in your era; whereas Santo is a lock...

I saw Santo play in his prime and he was damn good. But I also remember him being a brutal rally killer. With a guy on first and Santo up late in a game you'd pray he would hit a fly ball so he wouldn't ground into still another of his double plays. Sosa at some point became number one on the Cubs all-time list for walk off homers passing the old number one - Ron Santo. Now I've watched the Cubs since sometime in 1963. I remember Len Gabrielson hitting a walk-off homer. I remember Jose Arcia, Larry Biittner and Shane Andrews hitting walk-off homers. but for the life of me, I don't remember Santo ever hitting one. So maybe he wasn't as rotten in late inning situations as I remember. I do think that Santo's clicking of his heels after wins in '69 hurts him - a lot. This was at a time when batters didn't even stand and watch homers. The biggest hot dog in the NL was Pete Rose but he didn't do anything to show up the other team - just did a bunch of unnecessary diving head-first slides into second and third and caught pop-ups by snapping his mitt down hard on the ball. Santo's antics were an embarrassment and I'm sure players from his era and before were disgusted with his act in '69.

Recent comments

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Teheran minor league deal is done, per MLB.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Based on Phil’s sound analysis it sounds like a no brainer for Almonte to be placed on waivers as today’s roster move. We shall see.

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    I suspect Counsell/Hottovy will use the piggy-back extensively, with Taillon and Hendricks pitching as the "pig" (and with a very short leash) and some combo of Wicks, Brown, and Wesneski (whichever two do not start) as the "backers."  

    Keep in mind that Keegan Thompson has a minor league option available, and if Yency Almonte is not outrighted by 4/26 he cannot be sent to the minors without his consent after that date. Almonte is out of minor league options, so I am talking about him getting outrighted to the minors if he is not claimed off waivers, and if he is claimed off waivers, the Cubs save the pro-rated portion of his $1.9M salary, which helps lower the Cubs 2024 AAV.

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Totally agree. The 26 man roster very rarely consists of the 13 best position players and 13 best pitchers.

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Based on what Jed has done in the past, I’d say the plan is to

    -give Hendricks another few starts
    -give Taillon some runway ot get his season underway

    -Mix and match in the bullpen and see what sticks

    Jed usually doesn’t do a whole lot of waiver wire plays in-season, at least early in the season. He only reallly did that after he blew up the rosters in 21 and 22 because they needed bodies (guys like Schwindel, Fargas, etc).

    I think he’s a little handcuffed by a full 40 man in that he can’t really maneuver much with giving anyone showing ability at AAA (R Thompson/ Sanders/ Edwards etc). Brewer has the most tenuous grip there, and we will see what kind of chance he gets. Other than his spot, there isn’t a ton of 40 man wiggle room.

    I’m very curious to see what happens with Brown now that Taillon returns. Bullpen? Wicks to Iowa? 

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Pro teams have to play their "big money" guys if they are healthy and not "locker room" issues.
    The Cubs wanted to deal JHey off well before they bought him out. They just didn't want to pay him to play for someone else for that long. Jed did give him 20+mil to play for LAD last yr.
    Jed might also let Kyle walk at some point this year. Similar scenario to JHey, except Jed thought Kyle was going to be good/solid in '24!!
    You'd think Smyly is in the same book as well. Same with Neris (he's a 1yr vet RP, so he's not really in this convo too much).
    That's ~35mil between those three and those three are going to get opportunities until at least late June) over younger guys even if their performance is "iffy".
    But, Jed is going to play Taillon a lot. They have to try and justify that contract and hope a veteran works out.
    So, Taillon, Imanaga, and Hendricks are locks for the rest of April and probably May.
    Assad, Brown and Wicks handle the last spots until Steele is ready.
    Now, you're question has real merit when Steele comes back. That will interesting if Brown is still good and Hendricks is still bad. But Taillon is entirely safe as long as he's healthy.

    And the bullpen moves were "money" based as well. Smyly has actually been okay. But he hasn't been clearly better than Little. Little had one bad outing. But Smyly makes 9mil. If they needed another RHRP and one of Little and Smyly had to go, it was going to Little. But that doesn't mean Smyly is one of the best 13 arms for the team. 

  • Arizona Phil (view)

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

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

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

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

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

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Cubdom needs to prepare themselves for Wicks to be sent to Iowa for Taillon to come up.
    Ben Brown has 4 appearances. Wicks has 4 appearances.
    Ben has 16.1 IP.  Wicks has 17 IP
    Ben was a 1.1 WHIP.  Wicks has a 1.7 WHIP. Wicks does have significantly more SOs. 
    Ben has been better, though.
    I love Wicks. I think he's a fighter and his stuff has improved.
    But, Jed isn't ditching Hendricks just yet. He should. But he won't.
    Hendricks should go to the IL and Taillon-Imanaga-Assad-Wicks-Brown should be the rotation.
    Wont' happen though.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    AZ Phil,
    Did you agree with the demotion of Luke Little? He'd been pretty good up until the AZ/wild pitch appearance. I know that can't jettison Smyly (just yet) so they didn't need another LHRP. Especially with Leiter effectively being a LHRP. I still thought he deserved to stay. It's not permanent. He'll be back. Lots of moves to come with Taillon, Steele and other guys coming and going.

    Also, do you see Hodge being able to "control/command" his stuff to get a chance this year?
    Is Arias better than Hodge?   Thanks