Cubs MLB Roster

Cubs Organizational Depth Chart
40-Man Roster Info

40 players are on the MLB RESERVE LIST (roster is full), plus one player is 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 3-28-2024
 
* bats or throws left
# bats both

PITCHERS: 13
Yency Almonte
Adbert Alzolay 
Javier Assad
Jose Cuas
Kyle Hendricks
* Shota Imanaga
Mark Leiter Jr
* Luke Little
Julian Merryweather
Hector Neris 
* Drew Smyly
* Justin Steele
* 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: 12 
Kevin Alcantara, OF 
Michael Arias, P 
Ben Brown, P 
Alexander Canario, OF 
Pete Crow-Armstrong, OF 
Brennen Davis, OF 
Porter Hodge, P 
* Matt Mervis, 1B 
Daniel Palencia, P 
Keegan Thompson, P 
Luis Vazquez, INF 
Hayden Wesneski, P 

10-DAY IL: 1 
Patrick Wisdom, INF 

15-DAY IL: 1 
Jameson Taillon, P 

60-DAY IL: 1 
Caleb Kilian, P 

 



 

Minor League Rosters
Rule 5 Draft 
Minor League Free-Agents

Selling Naming Rights to Wrigley would add $4.5m in annual payroll

Selling the naming Rights to Wrigley Field would add $4.5m in payroll.  I provide this fact as a data point for any holiday discussions you find yourselves in.

Bleacher Nation recently asked its readers if the Cubs should sell the naming rights to Wrigley Field. The post framed the question by asking if ‘losing’ the Wrigley name, and its history, is worth “$10 million annually, and a slightly better bullpen each year [or] $20 million annually, and the ability to always go after the best free agent pitcher on the market?” I disliked this question because the data exists to reliably predict the actual dollar amount payroll would increase. Providing this dollar value allows the argument to be less abstract. So as a public service, I calculate that selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field would add $4.5m in annual payroll. I estimate this on the following evidence and assumptions. Be warned, there is math ahead.

 

Wrigley Naming Rights: How Much are they Worth?

Twenty MLB fields having naming rights deals today. The terms of those deals are available for seventeen. Table 1 below shows the annual value of those deals. The average naming deal pays $4.4m annually. The value of naming rights are climbing, however, as the six most recent deals average $7.8m annually.

Table 1: Stadium Naming Deals

Team

 Annual $

Year signed

Braves

 $      10,000,000

2016

White Sox

 $        2,000,000

2016

Rangers

 $        5,000,000

2013

Twins

 $        6,000,000

2010

Indians

 $        3,600,000

2008

Mets

 $      20,000,000

2008

Phillies

 $        3,800,000

2004

Reds

 $        2,500,000

2003

Padres

 $        2,730,000

2003

Astros

 $        6,360,000

2001

Tigers

 $        2,200,000

2000

Brewers

 $        2,000,000

2000

Pirates

 $        2,000,000

2000

Mariners

 $        2,000,000

1999

D-backs

 $        2,200,000

1998

Giants

 $        2,000,000

1996

Rays

 $        1,000,000

1996

The naming rights for Wrigley would presumably exceed that of the $10m for the Braves new stadium, Suntrust Park. Chicago is a larger media market and the Cubs are (currently) more popular than the Braves. Plus, ownership would never incur the blowback of renaming Wrigley for anything less than top dollar. So at minimum the Cubs would insist on several million dollars more than Atlanta’s deal. The largest current deal is the $20m annual deal the Mets made with Citibank, in the larger NY media market. We would expect a deal in Chicago to be smaller than New York. On the other hand, the Mets deal is seven years old, suggesting the Mets could get more today. So I estimate the upper bound of a Wrigley deal at $20m. By coincidence, in 2012, industry sources estimated the value of selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field between $15-20m annually. Thus, I feel confident that the Cubs would get $15-20m to rename Wrigley. Let’s suppose the Cubs get top dollar, $20m, and continue this exercise.

 

How Much of that $20m Would Go Towards Payroll?

Selling the naming rights creates a new $20m annual revenue stream, but payroll would not instantly increase by the same amount. For starters, the Cubs will have to contribute a chunk of that money to revenue sharing. I previously calculated the Cubs only keep 89% of their baseball income after revenue sharing. So that $20m get reduced to $17.8m immediately. Also, the Cubs, like most baseball teams, typically only spend 50% of their revenue on payroll. That leaves $8.9m in potential payroll.

Then comes the luxury tax, aka the Competitive Balance Tax (CBT), which charges teams a hefty penalty for having payrolls above a preset limit. The Cubs already have the revenue to spend beyond the luxury cap, and did so in 2016. Since then they have added millions in revenue. So every dollar the Cubs add in payroll from renaming Wrigley would actually be spent above the luxury cap. That means the Cubs need to budget some of the $8.9 to pay luxury tax.

 

Paying the Luxury Tax

In the original Bleacher Nation post, the premise was that the Wrigley naming money would be used every year. The post also implied that the money would be used on top of all other Cubs revenue. So under the scenario set forth in the original post, the Cubs would be paying the Luxury tax every year. The luxury tax charges teams differing surcharges based on different factors. Table 2 below summarizes these factors.

Table 2: CBT Penalty System

$ over Cap

1st Year Penalty

2nd Yr

3rd Yr

$0-20m

20%

30%

50%

$20-40m

32%

42%

62%

$40m+

62.5%

75%

95%

If the Cubs signed a naming rights deal today, and started spending it all, the Cubs would be paying the luxury tax every year. By 2020, they would be in the 3rd year column, and remain there in perpetuity. Also, by 2020 my projections show the Cubs will have the revenue to spend $40m over the cap. So in the long term, every dollar earned from Wrigley naming rights will be taxed at 95%. In effect, the Cubs will need to budget $2 for every dollar of salary they add. Thus, the $8.9m now turns into only $4.5m in new payroll. The other $4.4 gets budgeted to pay the resulting luxury tax.

 

Renaming Wrigley to Pay for Its Renovations

Before ending this post, I want to address an interesting side argument that popped up in the comments section on Bleacher nation. A few commentators argued that the Ricketts were entitled to sell Wrigley naming rights to help pay for the renovations to the stadium. This is an interesting, and potentially valid, opinion. Yet I do not personally agree. The Ricketts privately paid for the $700m Wrigley renovations by selling between 5-10% of the Cubs franchise in 2015 (at a hefty profit) and through several large corporate sponsorship deals (like the Budweiser Bleachers). The renovations also provide large permanent cash streams; like the jumbotron, new bullpen seating area, and premium clubs. So I would argue that the $700m has already been raised. The Cubs do not need to rename Wrigley to pay off their debts.

Comments

[ ]

In reply to by Hagsag

those of us without kids are rather unimpressed...well, those of us without kids who are not making big loot. it's not that i'm upset about them getting a big break...kids aren't cheap and rarely produce income...a healthy society generally tries to subsidize their existence...etc. my household isn't going to see a lot of benefit, though. ...anyways... i can't imagine the ricketts want to chase money to the point of trying to rename the place. down-arrow ballpark across town isn't that great. sure, they'd still sell tickets, but it's not a good look. btw, a park in illinois did get renemed today: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/ct-spt-baseball-cards-aga…

So, I guess Jed's "everybody wants to know where they are playing by Christmas" theory is in jeopardy at this point.

If you believe the Darvish reports over the last couple days that it's likely to be a decision between the Cubs and Astros and that Darvish is getting advice from Jon Daniels without the presence of Darvish's agent, I'd say that portends very, very well for the Cubs.

File under blast from the past...Mike Olt re-signs w Redsox, spent last yr at AA Portland Maine.

Recent comments

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    I think if you had ranked players by how much the team could ill afford to have them miss significant time, Steele would be right at the top of the list.

  • crunch (view)

    steele MRI on friday.  counsell expects an IL stint.

    no current plans for his rotation replacement.

  • hellfrozeover (view)

    I would say also in the bright side column is Busch looked pretty good overall at the plate. Alzolay…man, that hurts but most of the time he’s not giving up a homer to that guy. To me the worst was almonte hanging that pitch to Garcia. He hung another one to the next hitter too and got away with it on an 0-1. 

  • crunch (view)

    amaya blocked like 6-8 of smyly's pitches in the dirt very cleanly...not even an exaggeration, smyly threw a ton of pitches bouncing in tonight.

    neris looking like his old self was a relief (no pun), too.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    In looking for bright spots the defense was outstanding tonight. The “stars” are going to need to shine quite a bit brighter than they did tonight offensively though for this to be a successful season.

  • Eric S (view)

    Good baseball game. Hopefully Steele is pitching again in April (but I’m not counting on it). 

  • crunch (view)

    boo.

  • crunch (view)

    smyly to face the 2/3/4 hitters with a man on 2nd in extras.

    this doesn't seem like a 8 million dollar managerial decision.

  • crunch (view)

    i 100% agree with you, but i dunno how jed wants to run things.  the default is delay.  i would choose brown.

    like hellfrozeover says, could be smyly since he's technically fresh and stretched.

    anyway, on a pure talent basis....brown is the best option.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Use pitchers when you believe they're good. Don't plan their clock.

    I'm sorry. I'm simply anti-clock/contract management. Play guys when they show real MLB potential talent.

    If Brown hadn't been hurt with the Lat Strain he would've gotten the call, and not Wick.

    Give him a chance. 

    But Wesneski probably gets it