Cubs MLB Roster

Cubs Organizational Depth Chart
40-Man Roster Info

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

26 players on MLB RESERVE LIST are ACTIVE, twelve players are on OPTIONAL ASSIGNMENT to minors, one player is on the 15-DAY IL, and one player is on the 10-DAY IL

Last updated 4-18-2024
 
* bats or throws left
# bats both

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

CATCHERS: 2
Miguel Amaya
Yan Gomes

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

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

OPTIONED: 12 
Kevin Alcantara, OF 
Michael Arias, P 
Pete Crow-Armstrong, OF 
Jose Cuas, P 
Brennen Davis, OF 
Porter Hodge, P 
* Luke Little, P 
* Miles Mastrobuoni, INF
* Matt Mervis, 1B 
Daniel Palencia, P 
Luis Vazquez, INF 
Hayden Wesneski, P 

10-DAY IL: 1 
Seiya Suzuki, OF

15-DAY IL: 
* Justin Steele, P   

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




Minor League Rosters
Rule 5 Draft 
Minor League Free-Agents

Cubs Appear Ripe for "Miracle" Season (in 1984)

Submitted by Rob G. on
No, this isn't a bold Ryan Dempster-like statement about the Cubs 2008 chances. We're going to hop into the DeLorean we have sitting around here at the sprawling TCR headquarters and visit my all-time favorite Cubs team - the 1984 ballcub.

I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who can point to the 1984 Cubs as the reason why they're still Cubs fans today. As a young nine-year old living in the Northwest suburbs of Chicago, I had not yet quite sworn my life-debt to either Chicago team. If anything I was leaning towards the White Sox as they had just come off of a successful 1983 season and Dad G. fancied himself more a White Sox fan over the Cubs. Plus me and my brother scored like 8 White Sox helmets on a giveaway day the year before and that was kind of cool.

Then 1984 hit and the Cubs-love swept through Chicago. The mix of the "Daily Double", WGN, Harry Caray and being able to catch the end of most Cubs homes games right when I got home for school was enough to sway me to the Northsiders.

But, this piece isn't about my reasons for being a Cubs fan, rather about one man's bold prediction.

I recently finished a rather impressive historical account on the Cubs by Glenn Stout, aptly titled "The Cubs: The Complete Story of Chicago Cubs Baseball". Of course, as I approached the section on the 1984 Cubs, my ears perked up a bit as they are my all-time favorite Cubs team. In his research, Stout came across a rather intriguing article posted on April 1st of that year. Reading through it, you'd think it was an April Fool's Day joke.


If anybody offers you 100-plus odds against the Cubs' winning the National League East in 1984, take it.

Say what? The Cubs finished 5th in the six team NL East the year before, 19 games back of the division winning Phillies with a 71-91 record and, you know, they're the Cubs.

The author continues:
A substantial portion of the 19-game difference between the Cubs and the top of the division is not a real difference in talent. It might be called an illusion. It might be called a difference in the ability to play one-run baseball. But whatever it is, it isn't a difference in the ability to score runs or the ability to prevent the opposition from scoring runs.
That sounds dangerously like sabermetrics, doesn't it? But Billy Beane was still cutting his teeth in the Mets organization as a player at that point and hadn't invented it yet (like the Moneyball pundits seem to think).
This is an unusually large disparity - eight games - between projected performance and actual performance, and such disparities do not hold up from year to year.

I believe it's called the Pythagorean Theorem and it still holds true today and will hold true tomorrow, in 15 years, in 100 years and maybe even 200, if global warming doesn't get to us first.

So who this mysterious Carnac? Bernie Lincicome? Jerome Holtzman? One last clue...

The Cubs certainly don't have the potential to be a great team, a dominant team over time. But that's not really germane; miracle teams are never great teams. They're teams that have a moment, teams that slip through a window of dominance.

Alright, that wasn't much, was it? Let's see if this helps:

The Cubs have a specific, correctable weakness, action on which can have a huge impact on their record. I speak of their ability on artificial turf. The Cubs last year were 58-56 on grass fields, but were the worst team in baseball [13-35] on artifical turn by a wide margin.

The reasons for this are not hard to understand. They have a power-hitting offense, and Larry Bowa and Ron Cey don't move so much as sort of melt toward the ball. Their staff is composed heavily of ground-ball pitchers - they had more ground balls hit off them than any other staff in the majors- and ground-ball pitchers get killed on artificial turf.

Well if you haven't guessed yet, there weren't a lot of sabermetrically-inclined authors back in 1984 and the article was actually an excerpt from the "Bill James Baseball Abstract/1984", naturally written by the true father of sabermetrics, Bill James. Thanks to Transmission for finding the actual Trib article for me, which you can view the full text by following this link.

PS - The Cubs were 2 games behind their Pythagorean record last year if it makes anyone feel better about 2008. They won 85, but "should" have won 87.

Tags
1984 Cubs
Cubs history
Sabermetrics

Comments

Submitted by CA-Phil on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 03:18 pm

So there it is, the gauntlet has been laid down. Rob G. says Cubs win it all in 2008! I'm a little older Rob as you might recall from the famous TCR West Coast Meetings of 05?? so '69 was my first big collapse err year but '84 was special too -- I personally witnessed Game 1 of the NLCS -- Cubs 13 Padres 0 from the bleachers as HRs by Sandberg, Sarge and Sutcliffe, yes Sutcliffe came whizzing by, Trout's mastery in game 2 (I don't recall if he was truly masterful but I do know it was 4-2 Cubs so he couldn't have been awful) and then...well it might have been worse than a Bartmanian collapse. Somebody should post an article on which was the bigger heartbreak 69 vs 84 vs 03...

Submitted by Sweet Lou on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 03:43 pm

I love the 1984 team. Every year on June 23 I celebrate the "Ryno Game" from that year. It is still the greatest game I have ever seen. Of course, the 1984 playoffs were among the worst moments for a Cubs fan.

Submitted by Tito on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 03:56 pm

Interesting question, but I have to go with 2003 being worse. In '84, I was in college in May and then from September through the playoffs, so I missed my share of games. It was such a novel thought that they were in the playoffs. Of course, the Garvey HR and the Durham error linger. But being older and having experienced more bad baseball and more heartbreak PLUS going to three NLCS games (1, 6, 7) and watch them blow leads in all three....much worse for me personally.

Submitted by billybucks on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 03:18 pm

Still think the 1989 team was a load of fun. Good young hitters in Grace, Sandberg, Walton and Dwight Smith, classic vets in the Hawk and Sutcliffe, and the madness of Mitch Williams and the famous Shawon-o-Meter. Plus, night baseball at Wrigley!

Submitted by Stevens on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 03:40 pm

Weird. I'm the same age as Rob G. 1984 was my first Cubs year too. I remember being frustrated at the games preempting my afternoon cartoons toward the start of the season. But by the end of the summer, I was intrigued, if not hooked. I count that year as the first I was a baseball fan. Good read on the Bill James. Any chance he has good predictions for us this year? : )

Submitted by kma717 on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 03:12 pm

I remember Howard Cosell saying on a game of the week broadcast that the Cubs didn't have a chance against the Mets that year. The Mets won that game behind Gooden and the Cubs took the next three if I remember right. I'm old so I might not. It was a fun season until the end anyway.

Submitted by Cubster on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 03:23 pm

Rob: Was the Bill James article written and taking account the trade with Philly (Campbell for Dernier and Matthews, on March 26th)? Seems unlikely. It couldn't have taken into account the Sutcliffe trade on June 13th (for Mel Hall and Joe Carter, also getting George Frazier and Ron Hassey) or the Eckersley for Buckner trade (May 25th) Those moves shaped the team and without them the 84 Cubs would have been about as good as the 1983 team. So pythagorean theorem or not the fact that James stats showed the 1983 Cubs underachieved and should have done better needed the trades to become reality. That and two front of the rotation pitchers (hard having your aces be Steve Trout and Scott Sanderson). Now those were awesome trades.

Submitted by rokfish on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 03:25 pm

i would go with 84 very disappointing always interesting how you remember where you were when it happened ah just like yesterday had just turned 21 month before went to a bar called the bedrock cafe and learned to hate steve garvey and leon durham. buddy and me were interviewed by local tv after loss my buddy said #### ... ****. i said the cubs are back to being the cubs.

Submitted by Dmac on Wed, 03/26/2008 - 03:36 pm

I'm the old fart here apparently, but as bad as the '84 team tore at my heart the '69 team was as heartbreaking as it gets. Unlike the '84 club where many players had career years, the '69 team had a perennially - talented core of position players and pitchers. Think about it -Banks, Santo, Williams, Hundley, Hands, etc. - with the exception of Banks, all were in the prime years of their careers. They choked badly but it's also true that the Mets went nuts over the last third of the season, where their #5 pitcher (whom nobody ever heard of) had something like a 3.0 ERA and less than 2 walks/game. The scars are still there, the '84 team just added a few.

Submitted by 10man on Thu, 03/27/2008 - 03:28 am

Like Rob, it was the '84 team that hooked me onto the Cubs and naturally: 1) Sandberg became my all-time favorite player 2) I learned to call everybody by nicknames like the Deer, the Red Baron, Sarge, the Bull, the Penguin, Ryno (damn this team sounds like a zoo!) 3) I honestly thought Dunston would one day harness his hall of fame potential. 4) I would forever hate Steve Garvey

Recent comments

  • Arizona Phil (view)

    Miles Mastrobuoni cannot be recalled until he has spent at least ten days on optional assignment, unless he is recalled to replace a position player who is placed on an MLB inactive list (IL, Paternity, Bereavement / Family Medical). 

     

    And for a pitcher it's 15 days on optional assignment before he can be recalled, unless he is replacing a pitcher who is placed on an MLB inactive list (IL, Paternity, or Bereavement / Family Medical). 

     

    And a pitcher (or a position player, but almost always it's a pitcher) can be recalled as the 27th man for a doubleheader regardless of how many days he has been on optional assignment, but then he must be sent back down again the next day. 

     

    That's why the Cubs had to wait as long as they did to send Jose Cuas down and recall Keegan Thompson. Thompson needed to spend the first 15 days of the MLB regular season on optional assignment before he could be recalled (and he spent EXACTLY the first 15 days of the MLB regular season on optional assignment before he was recalled). 

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Indeed they do TJW!

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

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

  • Childersb3 (view)

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

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

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

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

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

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

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

    Once again, DJL, our differences in philosophy emerge!

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

Click HERE for the last 50 comments