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

Player Power

Submitted by John Hill on
It's not often that I take something from the comments and put it on the front page, but I found myself agreeing so strongly with the following "tirade" that got buried in amongst yesterday's Bears talk (guys, you should know better, follow real football - you know, the one in which they use their feet) that I thought I'd give it a little attention...
433--
I just don't get why Hendry has started agreeing to the player option to become a FA mid-contract. All that does is give the player leverage to renegotiate the deal at that point -- if the player CAN become a free agent, he essentially IS a free agent for negotiating purposes. If the player is unable to use the FA opt-out as leverage (because it's unlikely that he would be able to get a better deal elsewhere), that will just mean that he is being paid above market by the Cubs at the time. The thing I dislike most about that option is that it's self-defeating. Here's how. We have to assume that Hendry offers the option as a way to secure a salary that's slightly less attractive to the player in some way (amount, years, structure, etc.) than the player might accept without the option. (If that's not true, then the option wouldn't be offered in the first place.) But if the player agrees to a salary that isn't the absolute best he can get, it just makes it that much more likely that the player will be at a below-market salary when the option kicks in, and consequently able to use the option as renegotiating leverage. So even if the option "works", it backfires. I know that each deal is a unique negotiation and it's likely that Hendry gets something in return for this concession (i.e. it may be the final throw-in in order to get the player comfortable with the dollars offered). But this term really has the potential to blow up in Hendry's face.
It is indeed a trend amongst Hendry's deals of late, and it's one I also don't like. I'm also really not a fan of the more traditional player option at the end of a contract, which can be used to similar ends, and which is the only reason Glendon Rusch has himself a shiny new two-year deal right now. Not that it's a terrible deal in this market - as you probably know, I'm a bit of a Glendon Rusch fan. Still.
Tags
Jim Hendry
Cubs Contracts

Comments

Submitted by cubsnerd on Mon, 12/19/2005 - 12:58 am

I can see the logic of your argument 433. The only reason I can think of off the top of my head that Hendry would like this clause is that it fits with his negotiating style of offering some degree of trust to the player and not looking at them only as a commodity. This approach of course doesn't make sense when analyzing a single contract (like Aramis'), but if you gain the trust of your players through individual deals (and I'm sure the players talk about their negotiations), then you're giving all your players an incentive to resign with the club and when doing so consider things like leaving Hendry enough money to sign a big free agent when Hendry explains to the player he's on a strict budget. If there is no trust between the negotiators, such an explanation sounds simply like a tactic to weasel some money out of the deal, instead of a mutual feeling of making the club better. Further, with the player option, if he gets hurt or under-performs, then it's just like a deal over the course of the entire contract without the option. If he over-performs, Hendry will likely want to resign him a year earlier (like he did with Aramis and we propose he does with Lee), and now the player is keenly aware of the trust Hendry put in him since his ability to become a free agent this year was given to him by Hendry in his previous negotiations. And like you said in your above post John, if the player is greedy and spurns the trust Hendry offered to him, then in the long term we probably don't want him on the team anyway.

Submitted by D on Mon, 12/19/2005 - 12:35 am

I know Aramis has the opt-out in his contract, and supposedly Furcal would've had it, but who else has Hendry given this to?

Submitted by deJesusFreak on Mon, 12/19/2005 - 12:07 am

He's also given Kerry Wood an opt-out after 2006, IIRC. For the record, Scott Eyre has a $3.8mm option in 2008. I was about to comment that the player option (or opt out) is self-defeating in the sense that it essentially is only used by the player to lock-in a salary above what he would otherwise find in the market. In other words, Scott Eyre will only exercise his $3.8mm option in 2008 if he can't find that on the market. Similarly, Aramis Ramirez will not exercise his opt out after 2006 if his $11mm salary in 2007 (and his future salaries beyond that) are above what he can find elsewhere. In this sense, economically speaking, the Cubs can't "win" on player options; their best hope is that if Ramirez is worth more than $11mm next year, that he and the Cubs renegotiate for a market rate salary at that time. The problem with this thinking is that it overlooks the fact that, in Hendry's opinion, he was signing Ramirez, Wood, and Eyre to *below* market rates through the date of their respective options. Put another way, with respect to Ramirez, Hendry can't "win" in 2007, but he believes he already "won" when he signed him in April 2005. I would like to hope that the Cubs aren't going into these arrangements blindly -- they should be aware of the fact that the player options can only be used in a way that would make them overpay, but should be considering this the cost of getting some payroll flexibility on the front end . . . or the cost of getting the player to sign in the first place.

Submitted by 433 on Mon, 12/19/2005 - 12:35 am

John, thanks for the props. Cubsnerd, it's possible (maybe even likely) that Hendry is banking on the relationship to get him past the player option window in these deals, but I really hope that's not the case. Time clouds one's memory, especially when money is involved and there's a contract that clearly spells out the rights of the parties. Sadly, this option requires us to hope that the player isn't worth more than his Cubs salary when the option kicks in. That is an upside-down result of a goofy deal term.

Submitted by RJ Johnson on Mon, 12/19/2005 - 12:01 pm

I disagree that player trust gets cloudy over time. People remember being treated well and it makes them more willing to work with you than simply for their own interests. I say this from doing custoemr and billing service for 20+ years. Giving a little now often means keeping more later.

Submitted by 433 on Mon, 12/19/2005 - 12:24 pm

I don't think that trust get's cloudy either, as long as it's properly maintained. But trust has little to do with being paid what one thinks he is worth. The player FA option wouldn't be included in the first place if the player wasn't expected to be able to use it. Trust and good feelings might make it more likely that the player will stay with the Cubs, but at a renegotiated, higher salary.

Submitted by Cubsnerd on Mon, 12/19/2005 - 12:52 pm

I'm just guessing that Hendry thinks that in the vast majority of the cases the over-performing player won't use the free agent option because the Cubs will have an inside track on resigning the player due to the fact he's already a Cub and Hendry has built up a healthy relationship with the player. There might be some cases where this could be problamatic such as in the case that the Cubs have a young stud on the horizon that will be ready as a replacement the year after a player option of a player at the same position. The cubs would want to have the player for only one more year. But it's my guess that Hendry would want to resign him anyway if he thought he could get above market value and use the young stud as a trading chip to aquire a stud at a position of need.

Submitted by shawndgoldman on Mon, 12/19/2005 - 12:56 pm

John, If you want some soccer-talk, how 'bout some musings about how the U.S. got screwed with their World Cup draw this year? Italy, the Czech Republic, and the U.S. are all in the top 11 of the international rankings, and Ghana isn't a team to just dismiss, either. I know a lot of people are saying that the group with the Netherlands and Argentina is the group of death, but that one doesn't have the depth that the Czech-Italy-US group does, and i don't think Argentina and the Netherlands have as much to fear in terms of elimination as the other 3 do... AND HOW BOUT DEM BEARS?!!?!?

Submitted by Joel N. on Mon, 12/19/2005 - 12:30 pm

I also think that Hendry knows if the player walks, its the player that looks poor to the public and not the Cubs. Thus, in many ways its a publicity move for the Cubs. They get a "discount" and the player will have to opt out and walk away to get more money if this is something they are considering. The majority of fans will just see a greedy player.

Recent comments

  • 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.

  • Childersb3 (view)

    Wesneski and Mastrobuoni to Iowa

    Taillon and Wisdom up

    Wesneski can't pitch for a couple of days after the 4 IP from last night. But Jed picked Wicks over Wesneski.

  • crunch (view)

    booooooooooo

    also, wisdom and taillon are both in chicago.

  • TarzanJoeWallis (view)

    Tonight’s game postponed. Split games on Saturday.

  • crunch (view)

    cubs getting crazy good at not having player moves leak.

    taillon we 100% know is pitching tonight.  who he's replacing and any additional moves are unknown as far as i can tell.

    p.wisdom was not in today's lineup in iowa (rained out) and he was removed from the game last night mid-game, but not for injury.  good bet he's with the team in the bigs, too.

  • 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!!!

Click HERE for the last 50 comments