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

Opening Day Roster

Submitted by Christian Ruzich on
The Cubs have been busy this past week, making final roster cuts that pared their Spring Training roster (originally 58 players in February) down to a 25-man roster on Opening Day. The 25-man Opening Day roster limit and clubs having to cut players the last week of Spring Training to get down to the limit is one of the ìRights of Spring Training,î in some cases the ìlast riteî (so to speak) for a player. But the 25-man Opening Day roster is actually a fairly recent invention. While the idea that clubs can activate their entire 40-man roster for the last month of the season--giving young players a ìcup of coffeeî or ìfull trialî after the minor leagues close on or about Labor Day--goes back about 100 years, the idea that clubs must operate with only 25 players from Opening Day through August 31st does not. A SABR researcher named Clifford Blau has actually compiled a history of roster limits, and it is interesting to note the changes over the years on his chart. 1968 was the first season in MLB history where clubs had to cut their 40-man roster down to 25 on Opening Day. During the previous 11 seasons (1957-1967), MLB clubs had to cut their 40-man rosters to 28 by Opening Day, and then to 25 by the 31st day of season. If you look back at the Opening Day rosters from that 11-year period, you would note that at least two of the three ìextraî players carried during the first month of the season were usually pitchers (and that was before the days of starting pitchers having their workoads limited by arbitrary pitch counts!). Most clubs circa 1957-67 normally carried nine or ten pitchers May through August, but they would often carry as many as 12 pitchers during the month of April. It was recognized even then that pitchers needed more time than position players to get ready for the start of the season, and having an extra couple of arms available during the first month was understood to be advisable. By May, all starting pitchers were expected to be ready to handle a full work-load (pitch a complete game, if possible), and the three extra guys (including usually a couple of pitchers) were optioned or outrighted to the minors, traded, or released. Prior to 1957, the roster limit remained at 40 until the 31st day of the season. That doesnít mean all clubs would actually carry 40 players during the month of April, just like clubs today do not activate their entire 40-man roster on September 1st just because they have the right to do so. When the roster limit remained at 40 until the 31st day of the season, clubs would (in reality) carry maybe five extra players, with the other ten usually being young players who werenít ready to play in the big leagues, and so they would be optioned to the minors to get a chance to play every day. The type of player who would be kept around during the first month back when the 40-man roster cut-down date was the 31st day of the season would be veterans at the end of their careers trying to remain in the big leagues for a little while longer, "4-A" minor league players (that is, guys who had ìmasteredî AAA but who were having difficulty making the transition to MLB), and Rule 5 Draft picks, ìbonus players,î and players who were out of minor league options (in other words, players who could not be sent to the minors without first clearing waivers). In the 1920ís, 30ís, and 40ís, the 40-man roster (or 48-man roster with a 30-man roster limit during the ìheartî of the season in 1945 and 1946 as player returned from WWII) ìcut-downî date was even later than the 31st day of the season, in some cases as late as May 15th, or even June 15th in some years! And prior to 1977, clubs had no 25-man ìminimumî roster requirement as they do now. Clubs having financial problems could play with 22 or 23 players if they wanted to do that, and some did. Beginning in 1977, the CBA required clubs to maintain a 24-man minimum active roster during the regular season, and this was expanded to a 25-man minimum (as it stands now) in 1991. So there is nothing ìwritten in stoneî when it comes to MLB clubs having to cut their 40-man rosters down to 25 players by Opening Day, or even maintaining a 25-man roster during the regular season. The current roster limits and a cut-down to 25 players on Opening Day are fairly recent inventions and are totally arbitrary, and could easily be changed in future CBAs (the current one expires on December 19th). 2006 CHICAGO CUBS OPENING DAY ROSTER * Disabled List PITCHERS (11 + 3 on 15-day DL) : Ryan Dempster Scott Eyre Bob Howry Greg Maddux Sean Marshall * Wade Miller (15-day DL as of 3/31) Will Ohman * Mark Prior (15-day DL as of 03/24) Glendon Rusch Jerome Williams Scott Williamson * Kerry Wood (15-day DL as of 03/24) Michael Wuertz Carlos Zambrano CATCHERS (2): Michael Barrett Henry Blanco INFIELDERS (7): Freddie Bynum Ronny Cedeno Jerry Hairston, Jr Derrek Lee Neifi Perez Aramis Ramirez Todd Walker OUTFIELDERS (5): Jacque Jones John Mabry Matt Murton Angel Pagan Juan Pierre ================================= OPTIONED TO AAA IOWA (8): David Aardsma, RHP Angel Guzman, RHP Rich Hill, LHP Roberto Novoa, RHP Felix Pie, OF Jae-Kuk Ryu, RHP Geovany Soto, C Ryan Theriot, INF OPTIONED TO AA WEST TENN (4): Brian Dopirak, 1B Carlos Marmol, RHP Scott Moore, 3B Jose Reyes, C

Comments

Submitted by Green Lantern on Sun, 04/02/2006 - 04:30 pm

from the other thread, right as it died cincy tomorrow: 47 degrees 20% chance of rain 25 MPH WINDS out of the west. (aka OUT TOWARDS RIGHT FIELD....wow, get ready for another power showing in cincy) get out the zambrano sinker!!! also, it looks like it's raining now and will continue to rain until about 3 am.....great, the cubs get to start their season on a slick track....be sure to stretch, ARam... also, no surprises in dusty's lineup. no qualms from me on this one: Pierre Walker Lee Ramirez Jones Barrett Murton Cedeno Zambrano

Submitted by 433 on Sun, 04/02/2006 - 04:43 pm

Question for AZ Phil or anyone -- Can a player agree to a minor league assignment, even if he is out of options? I know that once a player is out of options, a team can't send him down (i.e. another solution -- usually a trade --must be found), but I'm wondering if the player can waive that requirement if he wants to. For example, Wellemeyer seemed pretty bummed about being traded, but the Cubs had no choice but to trade him after it was determined that he wasn't going to make the 25 man roster. Given the fact that he is supposedly a lifelong Cub fan, could he have agreed to one last minor league assignment to prove himself?

Submitted by WPZ on Sun, 04/02/2006 - 04:05 pm

Without being too picky, it's be nice to see Murton hitting ahead of Barrett. I hope there's no rainout tomorrow, even though I thought the Sox rain delay was funny. Worth your $500, people? LOL.

Submitted by jessica on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:28 am

Re Wellmeyer and options in general The problem as I understand is that once a player runs out of options he has to clear waivers from every other MLB team ( starting with the worst teams first) . If a team claims such a player he has to go on the 40 man roster but I believe Hendry believed that given the constant need for half way decent arms, Wellmeyer would have been claimed so getting even a little something for him was better than letting him be claimed for nothing

Submitted by nate on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:35 am

cubs.com lists a 41st player on the 40-man roster, pitcher Clay Rapada, who pitched in High-A Daytona last year

Submitted by Green Lantern on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:23 am

re: options you can't individually negotiate away rights that are agreed upon in the collective bargaining agreement (see: ARod not being able to say "make my contract smaller" in order to be traded to the red sox) the players' union doesn't want precedents to be set that could make teams expect for other players to do similar things for them later. it's stupid, but that's the labor unions for you.

Submitted by Scott de B. on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:40 am

It's not stupid, it's the whole concept of collective bargaining.

Submitted by jessica on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:45 am

This was done to make sure that talented players were not kept from playing by orginizations that may simply not have needed their talent at the time. A team is given pleny of time "options" to get a player to the MLB level and keep him there but when they have used this up OTHER teams get a chance to pick him up and let him play Same reasoning behind the rule 5 draft. It is a perfectly logical rule, good for the player and baseball. Wellemeyer might be "bummed" having grown up a Cub fan or whatever but he will get chance to play in the MLB this season which he probably would not if he had been kept

Submitted by Tarzan Wallis on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:11 am

Yeah, labor unions. They're what's wrong with everything. If only huge corporations could find a way to get a little power in this country, huh?

Submitted by Arizona Phil on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:30 am

NATE: Clay Rapada is NOT on the 40-man roster. He was just one of several players from the Minor League Camp who were invited to accompany the cubs to Las Vegas.

Submitted by Arizona Phil on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:40 am

#3 of 11: By 433 (April 2, 2006 11:43 PM) Question for AZ Phil or anyone -- Can a player agree to a minor league assignment, even if he is out of options? I know that once a player is out of options, a team can't send him down (i.e. another solution -- usually a trade --must be found), but I'm wondering if the player can waive that requirement if he wants to. For example, Wellemeyer seemed pretty bummed about being traded, but the Cubs had no choice but to trade him after it was determined that he wasn't going to make the 25 man roster. Given the fact that he is supposedly a lifelong Cub fan, could he have agreed to one last minor league assignment to prove himself? -- 433: The only way the Cubs could have sent Todd Wellemeyer to Iowa out of Spring Training is if he had been placed on Outright Waivers, and wasn't claimed by anybody (as happened with David Kelton at this time last year). But the fact that the Marlins were willing to give up two players for him means the Cubs weren't going to get Welly through waivers anyway, so that's that. The only way a player can refuse an outright assignment to the minor leagues is if he has at least three years of MLB service time and/or has been outrighted to the minors previously in his career. Such a player can choose to be a free-agent immediately, or else defer the choice until the end of the MLB regular season. If the player accepts the minor league assignment and defers the opportunity to be a free-agent until after the season, the club then has the option to reacquire the player and place him back on the 40-man roster anytime up to ten days after the close of the regular season. Players with at least six years of combined minor league/major league service time who are outrighted to the minor leagues for the first time in their career or who have less than three years of MLB service time would be eligible for free-agency as a so-called "six-year minor league free-agent" if not added to an MLB 40-man roster within ten days after the close of the MLB regular season (as was the case with David Kelton last year).

Submitted by DC Tom on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:59 am

433, the player can accept a minor league assignment if he is out of options and clears waivers. It would be an interesting question if a player wanted to accept the minor league assignment rather than be claimed by another MLB team. I will have to look that up. In normal times, it would be inconceivable that a player would refuse a major league claim in lieu of a minor league assignment--especially given the salary difference. But I guess it is even conceivable that a player could prefer AAA Iowa (with likelihood of promotion) than being claimed by the Kansas City Royals. AZ Phil, I believe the stricter roster limits that began in 1968 were a direct result of expansion. Baseball was adding 4 teams in 1969 (San Diego and Montreal in the NL, Seattle Pilots and Kansas City in the AL). This was the largest single-year expansion in modern times and third time baseball had expanded in the 1960s. The perceived woeful experience of the 1961 and 1962 expansion teams (Los Angeles Angels, Washington Senators in the AL in 1961 and Houston Colt .45s and New York Mets) no doubt caused pressure to limit rosters so as to "free up" more talented players for the expansion teams.

Submitted by DC Tom on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:08 am

To clarify my prior response on outrighting--AZ Phil is right about when a player cannot refuse an assignment. And it turns out that the situation that I was interested in does not arise. The "six year minor league free agent," or a player that has been outrighted before, or a player with more than three years major league playing time, do not go through the waiver process, they can become total free agents, free to sign either a major or minor league conract anywhere. That is how guys like Marquis Grissom, Augie Ojeda, et al. become "non-roster Spring Training invitees." Sorry for any confusion my prior post might create.

Submitted by Arizona Phil on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:10 am

OK, I think see what 433 was asking. Could Todd Wellemeyer refuse to go to a team that claims him off waivers and go to the minors with the Cubs instead? No, he has to go to the team that claims him, because he doesn't have any "no trade'" rights. The only way a player can refuse a waiver claim is if he has "no trade" rights (written in his contract like with Kerry Wood, 10/5 man, Type XX FA through June 15, et al).

Submitted by Brown Line on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:03 am

Perhaps AZ Phil or another expert can help me on this ... but I recall one year in which all MLB clubs had a -- let's call it a "gentleman's agreement" ("collusion" being such an ugly word) to use a 24-man roster - that is, one player fewer than they were allowed to have, in order to save money. This was in the 1960s, if my now-porous memory is serving me correctly. The "agreement" didn't last very long - as soon as one club broke it, all the others did. Does anyone else know anything about this blip in MLB labor relations?

Submitted by j-damn on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:11 am

*Worth your $500, people? LOL.* What price do you put on seeing the WS Banner raised?

Submitted by Mr. Whipple on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:16 am

What price do you put on seeing the WS Banner raised? Doh!

Submitted by Arizona Phil on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 04:06 pm

#16 of 18: By Brown Line (April 3, 2006 12:03 PM) Perhaps AZ Phil or another expert can help me on this ... but I recall one year in which all MLB clubs had a -- let's call it a "gentleman's agreement" ("collusion" being such an ugly word) to use a 24-man roster - that is, one player fewer than they were allowed to have, in order to save money. This was in the 1960s, if my now-porous memory is serving me correctly. The "agreement" didn't last very long - as soon as one club broke it, all the others did. Does anyone else know anything about this blip in MLB labor relations? -- BROWN-LINE: After a 24-man roster limit was put into the CBA in 1977, the owners tried a half-ysar experiment (April through June 1978) where clubs rosters were set at 24, but it was abandoned. In 1987, as part of the Grand Ueberroth Collusion Plan of 1987-89, teams "coincidentally, individuually, and independently" decided to play with only 24 players (which they had had the right to do since 1977, but had only talked about doing for years). They continued to go with 24-man rosters for a total of three full years (1987 through 1989), until the lockout of 1990 resulted in a new CBA that permitted clubs to play with 24 players in 1990, but required clubs to go to 25-man rosters (minimum) in 1991. However, several clubs jumped the gun and went to 25-man rosters on Opening Day 1990, so all of the other MLB teams immediately went to 25-man rosters, too, so as to not be at a competitive disadvantage. And that was the end of the 24-man roster.

Recent comments

  • Bill (view)

    A good rule of thumb is that if you trade a near-ready high ceiling prospect, you should get at least two far-away high ceiling prospects in return.  Like all rules-of-thumb, it depends upon the specific circumstances, but certainly, we weren't going to get Busch for either prospect alone.

  • Sonicwind75 (view)

    Right on schedule, just read an article in Baseball America entitled "10 MLB Prospects Outside The Top 100 Who Have Our Attention".  Zyhir Hope was one of the prospects featured. It stated that he's "one of the biggest arrow-up sleeper prospects in the lower levels right now."

     

    Not sharing to be negative about the trade, getting a top 100 prospect who is MLB ready should carry a heavy prospect cost.  But man, Dodger sure are good at identifying and developing young talent. Andrew Friedman seems to have successfully merged Ray's development with Yankees financial might to create a juggernaut of an organization.  

  • Sonicwind75 (view)

    I suspect Brown will spend some time in the bullpen due to inning restrictions.  Pitched only 93 innings last year and career high is 104 innings in 2022.  I would expect them to be cautious with a young player with his injury history.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    I wanted Almonte gone last week, but that was before Merryweather went down and Little got demoted. Almonte in his last 5 appearances has gone 4.1 IP with no ER or Runs. NO hits, 3 BBs and 8 SO. He did hit 96 with his 2S FB in AZ on Tues.
    I don't see Jed waiving him when we have injuries all over and guys with options that can be sent down.
    I probably won't like the move Jed makes, but he can't play the "let's hope no one wants his 1.7mil remaining deal and we can hide him in Iowa" card.
    That's why I think the current Bullpen stays as is and Wicks goes to Iowa.
    I don't like that, but that's the fix I see.
    We'll find out soon enough!!!

  • 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. 

Click HERE for the last 50 comments