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

Update: Cubs sign Darvish to 6 year, $126m deal

Ken Rosenthal is reporting that the Cubs signed Yu Darvish to a six year, $126m free agent contract. The year-by-year breakdown is not yet know, but the $21m AAV means the Cubs remain $11m under the 2018 Luxury tax cap, with only the back-up catcher spot remaining to be accounted for.

Earlier this offseason, the Cubs signed Chris Gimenez, Darvish’s old personal catcher with the Rangers, to a minor league deal. The Darvish signing means Gimenez will likely be the Cubs opening day back-up catcher. The terms of Gimenez’s deal are unknown. It is possible the deal included bonuses for making the club that would increase his contract above league minimum salary. The payroll tracker will be updated with Darvish’s year-by-year breakdown and Gimenez’s salary once known.

Update (2/11/18)

Darvish's deal apparently includes an opt-out clause after two years. The payroll tracker will be updated when terms are confirmed. Also, Chris Gimenez's salary is now being reported to be $1.275m should he make the team out of spring training. This takes the Cubs to $9.77m under the luxury tax cap. The Cubs have still not set salaries for players under team control (Contreras, Baez, Montgomery, Schwarber, Edwards, Happ, & Almora). I expect raises due to these players will eat up another $500,000-750,000. The Cubs should therefore enter 2018 with about $9m in cap space.

Update (2/13/18)

Bob Nightengale is now reporting year-by-year numbers on the Darvish contract (below). The deal also includes full no-trade rights during the first two years, followed by partial no-trade rights thereafter.

  • 2018 - $25m
  • 2019 - $20m
  • 2020 - $22m
  • 2021 - $22m
  • 2022 - $19m
  • 2023 - $18m

Comments

Weird to type this but 6/$126 seems light. Wasn't Cobb asking for $20mil per year earlier this off season? Has there been any indications if the Cubs management see the Luxury tax threshold as a hard cap or not? They reset this year so if I understand correctly the penalties for going back over shouldn't be exorbitant.

[ ]

In reply to by Sonicwind75

it is light. if this deal was signed last season we'd probably be looking at 25m/yr as a starting point. 21m a year with an opportunity to bring it to 25m is a new normal for this type of talent. hell, lester got 26m a year back in 2015 and darvish is arguably better or at least similar talent at the time of signing their contracts.

[ ]

In reply to by Sonicwind75

IIRC, Hendricks seems to start out of the gate slow, but picks it up after April. His career ERA in April is 4.40 -- his second worse month is June at 3.88 -- every other month is in the 2's (god bless him!). Maybe he doesn't like the cold weather, etc. I'd be alright starting him lower in the rotation and moving up as the season progresses.

[ ]

In reply to by Sonicwind75

Once you account for $24 million in incentives, the opt-out, the no-trade clause, and the February discount, it actually is a little more than I would have predicted. I imagine this was the Cubs pushing a few extra dollars into the offer at the end (or maybe including the no-trade clause) to seal the deal.

[ ]

In reply to by Hagsag

Jerry Crasnick @jcrasnick A source says that Yu Darvish's opt out with the #Cubs is "earlier'' than three years into his contract. (That would lead me to believe it's 2 years, but I don't take anything for granted at this point). ---- ...that leads me to question how front-loaded the contract might be...not that the cubs don't have the loot to spend.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

I suspect it is front loaded. I’ve been saying the Cubs should offer him an opt out after year 2 so he can potentially try FA again after the Harper class. If they front loaded it enough (say $28M per in years 1-2) then he has a chance to get closer to the money he really wanted if he performs well and the market looks better in 2 years. He’d just have to beat 4/$70M, which wouldn’t be a given but plausible for sure. The Cubs also got the AAV down to $21M for luxury tax purposes, so they won’t care if the actual layout is $28M or whatever in years 1 and 2.

[ ]

In reply to by billybucks

unless those 2 years are stupidly insanely overpriced...though that don't matter much because the cubs got the $$ to spend...it's hard to hate the deal on it's surface. hell, given the cubs current payroll situation, i wouldn't blink even if the first 2 years were 25-28m guaranteed. hopefully he doesn't rupture his shoulder or something else like that within those 2 years.

jeff passan confirms the opt-out is after 2 years...still no news on the per-year $$$ breakdown...especially the first 2 years.

the amount of c.gimenez stories out there, including an article on cubs.com and 2 tweets on him by c.muskat (who didn't write the cubs.com article) is kinda pushing the narrative that c.gimenez is heavily favored to break camp as the backup catcher. it makes sense even if darvish didn't show up on the team. v.caratini is an interesting option, but he probably won't suffer from a full workload in AAA rather than sitting on the bench 2/3rd of the season in the majors. he turns 25 in august, will probably work at 1st as well as C, and he should get a few up/down trips to the majors anyway...he may even see some OF work.

seems that the major 2018 "top prospect" lists have all come out...mlb/baseball america/baseball prospectus 0 cubs in the top 100 for mlb + baseball america a.alzolay is #95 on baseball prospectus's top 101 list

according to ken rosenthall, darvish would have to win "multiple cy young awards" to fully realize the 150m on his contract. it's looking more and more like this is a 2-year rental with darvish getting some suck/injury insurance on the long end of the deal. still no word on contract $$ breakdown, especially the cost of those first 2 years. getting a #1/#2 quality starter on a 2 year deal on the back end of his prime is still neat. plus, the cubs can afford it if it happens to be highly priced.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

Seems like some brilliant contract tinkering by the Cubs' FO in a dysfunctional free agent market. The only way this deal goes South is if Darvish does badly, and his stuff seems too good for that. If he kicks ass then there is a reasonable chance someone else gets saddled with his declining years.

[ ]

In reply to by Sonicwind75

22.5m a year (assuming he splits after 2 years)...killer deal to get a talent like that on a short leash deal for the end of his assumed "peak" i was expecting something closer to 50m paying out over those first 2 years.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

And if he doesn't opt out, the last couple of years aren't that unreasonable for a Lackey-esque veteran backend starter. Also, with so many contracts ending after 2020 (Lester, Q, Hendricks, Chatwood), it might be nice to have at least one SP under control while providing some continuity for *hopefully* a rookie starter or two to debut around that time. Would hate to be in position to have to find 5 new starters in one offseason.

[ ]

In reply to by Sonicwind75

Although the full "no trade" only runs through the 2021 season, the automatic "10/5 full no trade" will kick-in after the 2022 season (2022-23 off-season) and will continue through to the end of the contract. So the only time Darvish can be traded will be a one-year window beginning with the 2021-22 off-season through the 2022 season.

[ ]

In reply to by Arizona Phil

Good point Phil... I like how the contract is structured, just lightly front-loaded as to not make the incentive too strong to opt-out if he's pitching at a high level after the next 2 years if salaries don't skyrocket again.. Also, if he does stick around, the ability to trade him after the 2021 season or during the '22 season with only $19M and $18M owed for his last 2 years can really benefit the Cubs in the end, especially considering that MLB will be operating under a new CBA and maybe there will be some advantages to moving him elsewhere by then.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

Agree with crunch -- I thought it would be at least $50M for the first 2 years, which would lower the later year payouts to make opting out more attractive. As it stands, after 2 years he will be a 33-year old SP with a 4-year deal worth $81MM. Not sure he'll be able to beat that on the open market, even with 2 good years.

Jon Heyman/Fanrag is reporting that Darvish's NTC begins as a full no-trade clause and shrinks to a 12-team NTC over the life of the deal.

long-time mlb starter estaban loaiza busted with 20 kilos of heroin/coke (45-ish pounds). dude made 44m playing baseball...not counting endorsements and other revenue. dude...wtf...

schwarber seems to have shed a bit of that "baby fat" and has shown up in mesa looking cut as hell with massive muscular arms. 2nd spring in a row he's exchanged some of that fat for muscle.

[ ]

In reply to by Eric S

There was a lot of press about this earlier in the year. Some reporter or another followed him around on his training routine. He's a natural hitter in my opinion - his trouble with high heat should really not impede his future progress much - seems very fixable.

really interested to see what the contracts for arrietta, cobb, and lynn are going to look like. they cannot be stoked about this darvish contract.

1- montgomery will be treated/extended as a starter this spring 2- wrigley field is increasing it's netting so more people can feel safe texting and playing candy crush on their phones during games

Almora: "We were sitting right here and I was like, 'Hey, I may lead off this year. You have to teach me.' [Rizzo] goes, 'I am the best leadoff hitter in the world.' I said, 'All right, you do it then.'" lulz. .294/.367/.667 lifetime (60 PA, 59 of them last season...5hr, 2 doubles, 1 triple)

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

1. Rizzo 2. Bryant 3. Schwarber 4. Contreras 5. Happ 6.-9. etc. who cares? I'd be fine with Rizzo leading off at least until you can get .340+ OBP out of one of the other guys with better legs/less power (Happ, Almora, Russell, Heyward, even Zobrist).

[ ]

In reply to by Charlie

Assuming both players are healthy going into the regular season, who gets more starts in April: Zobrist or Happ? I hope it's Happ but see Joe pulling the trigger for Zobrist instead.

montgomery wants some chapman insurance... "Mike Montgomery told Mark Gonzales of the Chicago Tribune that he would like assurances that his arm will be protected if he's not a part of the rotation." wonder if they'll just end up trading him to a team that will use him as a starter... he's blocked this year and d.smyly is on deck in the pecking order for 2019. did anyone keep the receipt for t.chatwood? maybe he can be returned.

[ ]

In reply to by crunch

Mike Montgomery will be used as a starter in Spring Training and then I suspect he will be traded as soon as the Cubs get a reasonable offer. Montgomery doesn't seem to have the mental approach required to be an effective SP/RP "swing-man." And while Tyler Chatwood will be the Cubs #5 starter in 2018, I would say he is a good candidate to get traded (and clear some payroll) post-2018 if Drew Smyly comes back 100% (or close to 100%) in September or if one or more of the Cubs young starting pitching prospects emerges as a legit MLB-ready starter in 2018.

[ ]

In reply to by Arizona Phil

The Philadelphia Phillies have reportedly expressed interest in LHP Mike Montgomery, and if so the Phils actually have what the Cubs would probably want in return... an MLB-ready SP with minor league options left who could be stashed at AAA until needed: Ben Lively Nick Pivetta Jake Thompson Zach Eflin Vince Velasquez Mark Leiter Jr Eflin (right shoulder strain) and Velasquez (finger surgery on pitching hand) finished the 2017 season on the 60-day DL so their rehab would have to be monitored during Spring Training before striking a deal, but the others were healthy at the close of the season. The Phillies also have a couple of MLB-ready LHRP on the 40 who have minor league options left and who could be kept on the back-burner at AAA: Zac Curtis Hoby Milner

[ ]

In reply to by Arizona Phil

PHIL: What are your thoughts on the optimal time for a possible Montgomery trade being at or near the deadline? The Cubs would have a clearer picture of how ready guys like Smyly, Alzolay or Tseng are, and if they are that could free the Cubs up to seek out a higher ceiling pitcher at the lower levels. Is it too risky to go for a pitcher who's further away? Sticking with the Phillies, I was thinking someone like Franklyn Kilome or Kevin Gowdy. Your thoughts?

[ ]

In reply to by K Dub

K-DUB: I doubt that the Cubs would trade Montgomery until sometime close to Opening Day, and then only if all five of the Cubs MLB starters are healthy and ready to go at the end of Spring Training. Although he's tried to back-track some of the things he has said, I don't think that Montgomery really wants to be a RP/SP "swing-man" again in 2018, and that would be his roll with the Cubs if all five starters are healthy. Even though that role has value to the club, Montgomery will not be able to make any significant bucks in arbitration in the swing role, and he will be first-time arbitration-eligible post-2018. It's possible that the Cubs would pursue a younger pitcher with a higher ceiling who is further away from MLB in a potential Montgomery trade, but with Eddie Butler being out of minor league options, the Cubs biggest need right now is an MLB-ready starting pitcher who can be optioned to AAA, stay stretched-out as a starter, and be available for recall as needed this season. Jen-Ho Tseng is probably one, but Adbert Alzolay had only seven starts at AA in 2017 and very likely isn't ready yet, and the jury is still out on the other Cubs AAA SP candidates (Alec Mills, Rob Zastryzny, Luke Farrell, Daniel Camarena, and Duane Underwood Jr).

[ ]

In reply to by Arizona Phil

PHIL: Thanks! I was wondering about waiting to entertain trading Montgomery until near the trade deadline in July. Those 5 1/2 months could give the Cubs the necessary time to evaluate possible replacement options like Tseng, Alzolay, Smyly, Mills, etc. Then, if they deem one (or more) of them ready, they wouldn't need to add a AAA ready guy with options and could go for the younger, higher upside type prospect. Would love to hear your thoughts...

[ ]

In reply to by K Dub

K-DUB: I suspect that if Montgomery is traded it would not be before the last week or so of Spring Training, because Montgomery would be a starter if something bad happens to Lester, Hendricks, Darvish, Quintana, or Chatwood during Spring Training. But if he's not traded by Opening Day, I guess Montgomery could be traded at the trade deadline or even next off-season. I just think because he will be stretched-out as a starter during Spring Training, he will have more value to other clubs in need of a SP at the end of Spring Training than he would later in the season after being moved back to the bullpen.

[ ]

In reply to by cubbies.4ever

cubbies.4ever: Both Drew Smyly and Justin Steele are in the Pitchers Rehab Group and will be at Extended Spring Training. How soon they will be ready to pitch to hitters remains to be seen. I suspect Steele will learn a lot being with a veteran LHSP like Smyly every day for the next several months. I haven't seen Will Remillard but he's probably around somewhere. I don't know if his career is over or not. Hopefully he can come back 100%, but back-to-back TJS over a period of 13 months is tough. Corey Black could be ready by Opening Day, but I would not be surprised if he begins the season at EXST and then moves up to Iowa after the weather warms up. He apparently is progressing nicely, but there is no reason to rush him as long as he's getting his work somewhere.

"Cubs signed RHP Shae Simmons to a minor league contract with an invitation to spring training." *shrug* closer upside, but took a step backwards last year and has a really hard time staying healthy. combining his workload through all levels in any season he's only thrown more than 50 innings a season once in his career, in 2013. split contract...120K prorated in the minors, 750K prorated in the majors

Recent comments

  • crunch (view)

    happ, right hamstring tightness, day-to-day (hopefully 0 days).

    he will be reevaluated tomorrow.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    I guess I'm not looking for that type of AB 

    Just a difference of opinion

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    I don’t see Tauchman as a weak link in any position. He simply adds his value in a different way.

    I don’t know that we gain much by putting him in the outfield - Happ, Bellinger and Suzuki and Tauchman all field their positions well. If you’re looking for Taucnman’s kind of AB in a particular game I don’t see why it can’t come from DH.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Tauchman gets a pinch hit RBI single with a liner to RF. This is his spot. He's a solid 4th OF. But he isn't a DH. 

    He takes pitches. Useful. I still believe in having good hitters.

    You don't want your DH to be your weak link (other than your C maybe)

  • crunch (view)

    bit of a hot take here, but i'm gonna say it.

    the 2024 marlins don't seem to be good at doing baseballs.

  • Dolorous Jon Lester (view)

    Phil, will the call up for a double header restart that 15 days on assignment for a pitcher? Like will wesneski’s 15 days start yesterday, or if he’s the 27th man, will that mean 15 days from tomorrow?

    I hope that makes sense. It sounds clearer in my head.

  • Charlie (view)

    Tauchman obviously brings value to the roster as a 4th outfielder who can and should play frequently. Him appearing frequently at DH indicated that the team lacks a valuable DH. 

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Totally onboard with your thoughts concerning today’s lineup. Not sure about your take on Tauchman though.

    The guy typically doesn’t pound the ball out out of the park, and his BA is quite unimpressive. But he brings something unique to the table that the undisciplined batters of the past didn’t. He always provides a quality at bat and he makes the opposing pitcher work because he has a great eye for the zone and protects the plate with two strikes exceptionally well. In addition to making him a base runner more often than it seems through his walks, that kind of at bat wears a pitcher down both mentally and physically so that the other guys who may hit the ball harder are more apt to take advantage of subsequent mistakes and do their damage.

    I can’t remember a time when the Cubs valued this kind of contribution but this year they have a couple of guys doing it, with Happ being the other. It doesn’t make for gaudy stats but it definitely contributes to winning ball games. I do believe that’s why Tauchman has garnered so much playing time.

  • 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.