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

All Quiet on the Wednesday Front

Some day olds news for everyone...

Muskat Round-up

- Hendry flew out to Arizona yesterday to interview Ryne Sandberg for the manager's job in 2011. I like to imagine that hiring the owners choice in Sandberg is the only way Hendry keeps his job, but I've been surprised before.

- Tyler Colvin is out of the hospital and back home in South Carolina after surviving the Flying Bat of Death.

- Tom Gorzelanny will pitch Friday against the Cardinals with Coleman and Samardzija pitching the other 2 games. Carlos Silva is still attempting to make one more start before the season ends. I hear the starting pitcher gets to go first for the post-game spread.

Sullivan

The always anticipated "Ask Paul" segment yields:

- A small criticism of Mike Quade for playing Nady, Fukudome and Hill over Hoffpauir, Snyder and Castillo.

- that Hendry will submit a list of top manager choices and Ricketts will go over the list with him and Sullivan then suggests Hendry should leave if Ricketts vetoes his choice. I will now be rooting for whomever the Ricketts want and hoping it's not who Hendry wants.

- depending on the manager for next year, talks about Rothschild or Trammell returning or not returning.

- suggestions of Adam Dunn or Aubrey Huff for first base next season.

Miles

- The Cubs minor league record was 374-316 on the year, second best in baseball behind the Cards.

-  The Cubs have used 18 rookies this year, most since the 19 used in 2000.

- Marmol is on pace for 135 K's which would break Bruce Sutter's 1977 club record of 129 K's for a reliever.

- As AZ Phil mentioned in the comments, Soto and Colvin have been placed on the DL and Esmailin Caridad has been activated off the 60-day disabled list. To make room on the 40-man roster, the Cubs placed Mitch Atkins on waivers. He still has one club option left if he is claimed by another team. The last player I recall the Cubs placing on waivers this late in the season to make room on the 40-man roster was Casey McGehee at the end of 2008. By this impenetrable logic, we can only surmise that Mitch Atkins will go on to a fine major league career with another organization.

Sun-Times

- Mark Potash takes a look at Carlos Zambrano who is 6-0 with a 1.42 ERA in 9 starts since returning to the rotation and makes the case the Cubs should seize the opportunity to move his contract this offseason or be sure he gets plenty of rest next season if they plan to keep him. He believes that the normal lack of innings is a big reason behind his successful September and cites a 9-3, 1.98 career mark when having 6-8 days rest.

- Also some more first base talk from Wittenmyer, mostly filling word counts about the possible return of Xavier Nady to play first base next season.


Randomness

- Randy Wells vs. Jonathen Sanchez tonight as the Cubs get 6 more opportunities to affect the NL West and wild card races with 2 more against the Giants and another 4 in San Diego next week. The Cubs currently reside at the 8th spot of next year's draft, but just a game ahead of the Milwaukee Brewers.

- Kevin Towers lands the D'Backs GM job, Brandon Webb to the Cubs watch starts now.

- Be sure to check out FJM day over at Deadspin, the most entertaining baseball related items you'll read all year.

Tags

Comments

barney/castro/byrd/aram/nady/soriano/fuku/hill RIP welington...wonder if the pitchers aren't comfortable with his D or something

Fukudome, not only has been pretty solid against righties this year... in limited chance he's been a little better against lefties.

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

Everything has its value, including getting on base. The value increases with the speed of the player involved. If he needs three hits behind him to score, the walk didn't have much value. Walking a lumbering slugger often has more value to the pitcher. In other words, it's a defensive strategy that is successful more often than not, since the win goes to the team with the most runs, not the most men on base. I think guys like Dunn and Bradley are smart. They know that walks go directly to their OPS, something their agents can turn into money. Given two guys with identical OBPs, I would sign the one with the higher BA. And given two hitters with identical OPS, I would take the higher SLG.

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

I think a good way to score a run is to have a very fast man get on base, by any means possible, leading off an inning. Having Adam Dunn or Pat Burrell look at ball four sometimes works, but not usually. I would grant, and even emphasize, that when a slugger is highly selective, he gets better pitches, and slugs better. I like Dunn and Burrell as hitters, if not as OBP'ers. As to correlation, let's see: in 394 plate appearances, Colvin had an OBP of .316 and scored 60 runs. Fukudome has 404 PAs, and a hefty .379 OBP that has yielded 43 runs scored. Colvin leads in RBI, 56-41. But now you'll say that runs and RBI are complicated and messy and can't be used this way. I only did it because you asked.

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

As to correlation, let's see: in 394 plate appearances, Colvin had an OBP of .316 and scored 60 runs. Fukudome has 404 PAs, and a hefty .379 OBP that has yielded 43 runs scored. Are you serious? That is your evidence? Your support for you absurdities? Look at several years of data. Look at team runs. Look at team OBP. Look at team SLUG. Comparing two players like that is completely meaningless. Let me put it simply. Team OBP has a very strong correlation to runs. OPS has an even stronger correlation to runs. To pretend otherwise is just plain silly.

mark grace and daron sutton are in the booth arguing whether the adam sandler film Mr. Deeds is better than The Crow. mark grace thinks The Crow is way better. these guys usually get into something at least once a game that makes no sense in any setting, much less a live broadcast booth. this one went on for a good 4-5 minutes.

I can't keep track of all the vias, but one article led to another led to another which eventually led me to wikipedia to see its list of Red Smith award winners (oh yeah, it was a Mitch Albom bashing...must've been deadspin)...check out wiki's 2010 winner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Smith_Award I don't know which is worse, the actually winner or the listed winner.

From a BP article- subscriber only unfortunately:
I’d be hard-pressed to find a pitcher whose 2009 numbers were as close a match to 2010 as Zambrano’s have been. As much as we might like to think that Zambrano has suddenly turned a corner, that his numbers prior to forcibly seeking help were sabotaged by his demeanor, and his numbers afterward have been bolstered by a newfound ability to focus and perform under pressure, the greatest likelihood is that his current success is a sample size fluke. He’s probably still the same pitcher he’s been in the recent past, and he’ll be that same pitcher in the near future.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12060

Thanks for that FJM reunion link, the Eckstein article was genius. "But it sure seems like Ecky has drunk his own Kool-Aid. (He drinks it out of a thimble, and can only finish half of it before his tummy fills up.)" True fact: my octogenarian father scoffs at all superstar baseball players as overhyped (which may be true), but just LOVES David Eckstein.

[ ]

In reply to by The Real Neal

True. His numbers this year overall are also much better than his previous years. It makes me wonder what's changed--I don't know. I notice that this year the team played him much less when he was struggling, handing much of his playing time to Colvin (and Nady), but I'm not sure that's the only answer. Mostly I wonder what the hell was going on in 2008 and 2009 that he could have a couple of months where he was so good and a number of months where he was so bad. I'm not sure anybody has figured that out.

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

But the original point, that slugging is better than OBP is disproved. The 2010 Fukudome, which is the original comparison, comes in at 5.855 runs per game - almost a run better than Colvin. I have no doubt a team of "career average" Pierres would score more than that many runs, because of baserunning and not hitting into as many DP's, but it's not going to be a run and a half extra per game.

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

I think the fallacy here is called reification or misplaced concreteness. Yeah, that 29.7/100ths in Baseball Musing's imaginary runs per game is a big hurdle for Colvin, trying to catch Fukudome. Of course, in real runs, Colvin scored more and drove in more, but we don't want to count those. I actually do have a formula that I use as a substitute for OPS that takes SBs into account--because unless you include SBs or some other speed variable in a cumulative offensive statistic, you don't have a number that explains why guys like Bourn and Ellsbury, with lower OPSes than Colvin and Fukudome, play. I use this formula (or a variant of it) in a Cub prospect ranking that saw Brett Jackson recently edge out Brandon Guyer for first place, based on a far higher number of walks(!). For our purposes, the total-offense formula is total bases + walks + stolen bases divided by PAs. So Colvin would be (179+30+6)/394 = .546. Fukudome would be (153+61+6)/406 = .542. Pierre would be (192+42+60)/693 = .424. It's a pretty simple formula, the kind I like. Nobody is going to get a headache thinking about it. It's really based on an expanded definition of total bases where BBs and SBs are included in the total.

[ ]

In reply to by garsky

garsky, If I try to stretch a single and I'm out at second, I still get the one total base even though I'm back in the dugout. Or I'm on first and the "lumbering slugger" behind me hits into a double play. Shouldn't my "total base" be subtracted from his number, since he just made two outs in one PA? It's always going to be an imperfect system, which is a good reason to keep it as simple and clean as possible.

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

Of course, in real runs, Colvin scored more and drove in more, but we don't want to count those. Sure, and that is, frankly, quite irrelevant to the conversation about whether or not a team of Fukudomes would be better than a team of Colvins. For our purposes, the total-offense formula is total bases + walks + stolen bases divided by PAs. To count SB's, but not count caught stealing, is foolish. Does your made up stat have any correlation to team runs? If not, it is pretty worthless in terms of what it tells us. Run these numbers by team, and let us know how it looks.

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

"Does your made up stat have any correlation to team runs? If not, it is pretty worthless in terms of what it tells us. Run these numbers by team, and let us know how it looks." It seems a little circular to try to arrive at a formula that correlates individual player scores with total team runs. You can do it, but the formula gets very complicated, in a process that is called reverse engineering today, but is really very old. In medieval astronomy, where they were trying to preserve the notion that the sun and the planets revolved around the earth, they called their intricate mathematical maneuvers "saving the appearances." This worked for many years until the jerry-built system came crashing down. I have looked for two correlations involving my "total-offense" formula. I use it to make a list every season of the top Cub hitting prospects. I'm trying to predict, first of all, which players will get an opportunity in the majors (since most don't), and also which will have successful auditions (as in spring training) and make the team and stick for a while. Time will tell whether there is a strong correlation or not, but here is one example of success: When Brett Jackson was called up to Tennessee, they already had three outfielders putting up numbers, Guyer, Campana and Spencer. Who was going to be the odd man out? OPS would have predicted Campana, but according to my ranking, Spencer would become the fourth outfielder--as he did immediately. I also used the formula during the last offseason to establish monetary values for a few dozen high-profile ML players, and I thought my projected numbers matched the real numbers fairly well. Judge for yourself. In particular, I projected that Juan Pierre was worth $10 million after the 2006 season, when the actual contract he signed was $8.8 million for five years. That was close enough for me, especially since most people around here (TCR) don't understand how Juan Pierre is even in the league, let alone how he commands much more money than, say, Fukudome. (I'm talking about Fukudome's next contract, the one he will actually have earned.) But most people are OPS-oriented. I would say that a lot of people hate Pierre (and we saw an example of that in this thread) because they don't have a statistical basis for valuing him, and that's frustrating. As to penalizing runners for caught-stealings: when, as an afterthought, the Runs Created formula was expanded to count SBs, SBs were still second-class bases-earned. Only .55 of an SB was counted, and then CSes were subtracted. This is consistent with the modern statistical tendency to hobble base stealers. Earlier in this thread I gave the example of GIDP. A GIDP does not lower one's OPS. The annual leader in GIDP is in the mid- to high twenties or very occasionally at thirty or above. The annual leader in CS is usually in the mid- to high teens, occasionally in the low twenties. Pierre's CS average is 18. Pujol's GIDP average is 21. Since different types of players score high in the two stats, just let them cancel each other out. I'm not advocating docking players for GIDP, since at least they're putting the ball in play. The high-K, 45-HR types types like Howard and Dunn and Fielder are never leaders in GIDP. Caught-stealings are self-limiting anyway, since players who get caught a few times in a row stop running for a while. Don't worry, you'll never see a player with 50 SBs and 40 CSes.

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

First, your spreadsheet doesn't tell us much. I don't care nearly as much about the market value of a player as I about their actual ability to help their team. Are you really trying to say that your made up stat is valid because the Dodgers overpaid for Juan Pierre? Second, Runs Created factors in GIDP. I don't like that, at least not as a predictor of future success. GIDP is largely a factor of luck - you both need to have runners on first as well as get unlucky. Thirds, your criticism of OPS is odd. No one said that OPS was perfect. But OPS still is a very strong predictor of team runs. And your comparison if CS and GIDP is also very odd, as the two are not alike at all. Fourth, SB's are worth less because the do nothing other than advance the runner who stole. They don't advance other runners. Other offensive actions (hits, walks) have the ability to advance other runners. Fifth, to this quote: "It seems a little circular to try to arrive at a formula that correlates individual player scores with total team runs." Huh? Shouldn't the goal of any good stat tell us how well a player will do towards helping a team win? in turn, an offensive stat should tell us how well a player helps the team score runs (or hurts a team's attempt to score runs). It would be easy to run team stats using your stat for the last several years, and tell us how well it correlates to runs scored, and compare the correlation to things like OBP, SLUG, and OPS. If you want to push your stat, show us that it is actually valid at measuring how good an offensive player is.

[ ]

In reply to by big_lowitzki

"Are you really trying to say that your made up stat is valid because the Dodgers overpaid for Juan Pierre?" I'm trying to predict who's going to make it, both in the majors and in the baseball marketplace. This sort of prediction, whether accurate or not, has a refreshing lack of circularity. It's a real prediction, as opposed to asking which would be better, a team of Colvins or a team of Fukudomes. "Fourth, SB's are worth less because the[y] do nothing other than advance the runner who stole. They don't advance other runners.Other offensive actions (hits, walks) have the ability to advance other runners." A walk counts toward OPS whether it advances another runner or not. Adam Dunn walking with two outs and nobody on--where you pretty much need three total bases behind him to score one run--is less significant than Bourn stealing second with nobody out, where Bourn has a decent chance of scoring without any TBs behind him, just a couple of balls in play. Yet you say Bourn's SB is worth less. In a perfect world, when a "lumbering slugger" walked with two out and none on, he would lose credit for the walk due to defensive indifference.

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

In a perfect world, when a "lumbering slugger" walked with two out and none on, he would lose credit for the walk due to defensive indifference. What you're asking for here, I think, is for official score keepers to make judgment calls on what sort of walks are actually "pitch around" walks and which are not (since they already do keep track of IBB, which we could then go back and adjust OPS for if the situation we wanted to analyze called for it). But why should a slugger be penalized for being a dangerous hitter (or for not being dumb enough to chase bad pitches)? That's part of his value to a club. Defensive indifference on a steal is different; it rarely has anything to do with who's on base and usually has a lot more to do with what the score of the game is (and, in some cases, who is up to bat). ps. I don't think that BBs are the only statistic that have some flaws, based primarily on our efforts to translate the stat from an in-game to event to what it might say about that player in general. For example, are triples a measure of power or speed, and is slugging a measure of power, speed, contact, or patience? Many stats have exist at least partly in a gray area when it comes to significance. I don't know why we should expect walks or steals to be different. (The invention of new stats that might have a more clear or specific significance is always interesting, of course.)

[ ]

In reply to by VirginiaPhil

I'm trying to predict who's going to make it, both in the majors and in the baseball marketplace. So in other words, you don't care whether your stat tells us anything about the quality of a player, or about the player's ability to help a team win games. You just care about whether or not a player will get a chance in the big leagues ow how much money they will make. This sort of prediction, whether accurate or not, has a refreshing lack of circularity. And you don't care about accuracy. Interesting. In a perfect world, when a "lumbering slugger" walked with two out and none on, he would lose credit for the walk due to defensive indifference. This is absurd.

We need some kind of statistic to quantify Tools and looking good in a baseball uniform. Then Hendry and Gary Hughes could get behind this sabr movement.

Recent comments

  • 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.

  • 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.