Jonathan Daniel - Getty Images
Reed Johnson of the Chicago Cubs greets teammate Starlin Castro after Castro hit a two-run home run against the Philadelphia Phillies at Wrigley Field in Chicago, Illlinois. (Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)
It's just 15 days until pitchers and catchers are scheduled to report for Mesa for spring training, and this post lists the entire roster that will be in camp, plus coaches (and retired numbers, so you can see the entire numerical progression) and spring training instructors (who are listed along with their regular season position in the organization). All the numbers from 1 to 68 are either issued to someone or retired (except 45 -- someone's apparently got a soft spot for Sean Marshall.
You will see a lot of familiar numbers being worn by unfamiliar players this spring, and later this season, just part of the upheaval going on in the organization, as well as other changes. For example: If you bought a No. 17 Matt Garza jersey last year -- better get ready to get a new one. And, one additional non-roster spring training invitation has been issued, to righthander Esmailin Caridad.
And while we're on the topic of Cubs uniform numbers, here's another shameless plug. If you don't yet have your copy of "Cubs By The Numbers", the book co-authored by me, BCBer kaseyi and Matt Silverman, you can order yours at this link.
After the jump, the complete numerical roster of the 2012 Cubs.
1 Tony Campana
2 Ian Stewart
3 Jeff Baker
4 Pat Listach, 3B coach
5 Reed Johnson
6 Bryan LaHair
7 Rudy Jaramillo, hitting coach
8 Jamie Quirk, bench coach
9 David DeJesus
10 Ron Santo (retired)
11 Blake DeWitt
12 Alfonso Soriano
13 Starlin Castro
14 Ernie Banks (retired)
15 Darwin Barney
16 Joe Mather
17 Dave Sappelt
18 Geovany Soto
19 Rodrigo Lopez
20 Matt Tolbert
21 Andy Sonnanstine
22 Matt Garza
23 Ryne Sandberg (retired)
24 Marlon Byrd
25 Chris Bosio, pitching coach
26 Billy Williams (retired)
27 Casey Coleman
28 Paul Maholm
29 Jeff Samardzija
30 Travis Wood
31 Fergie Jenkins/Greg Maddux (retired)
32 Chris Volstad
33 Dale Sveum, manager
34 Kerry Wood
35 Lester Strode, bullpen coach
36 Randy Wells
37 Chris Carpenter
38 Jason Jaramillo
39 Dave McKay, 1B coach
40 James Russell
41 Bobby Scales
42 Jackie Robinson (retired by MLB)
43 Trever Miller
44 Anthony Rizzo
46 Ryan Dempster
47 Blake Lalli
48 Alfredo Amezaga
49 Carlos Marmol
50 Esmailin Caridad
51 Steve Clevenger
52 Lendy Castillo
53 Welington Castillo
54 John Gaub
55 Edgar Gonzalez
56 Casey Weathers
57 Scott Maine
58 Mike Borzello, special assistant
59 Brett Jackson
60 Manny Corpas
61 Josh Vitters
62 Marcos Mateo
63 James Adduci
64 Franklin Font, special assistant
65 Jay Jackson
66 Rafael Dolis
67 Blake Parker
68 Jeff Beliveau
70 Dae-Eun Rhee
71 Trey McNutt
72 Matt Szczur
73 Junior Lake
74 Marco Carrillo
75 Jonathan Mota
76 Alberto Cabrera
77 Dave Bialas, spring training instructor (manager, Iowa)
78 Michael Brenly
79 Jae-Hoon Ha
80 Carmelo Martinez, spring training instructor (Latin America field coordinator)
81 Brian Harper, spring training instructor (manager, Daytona)
82 James Rowson, spring training instructor (minor league hitting coordinator)
83 Brandon Hyde, spring training instructor (minor league field coordinator)
84 Dave Keller, spring training instructor (hitting coach, Iowa)
85 Mariano Duncan, spring training instructor (hitting coach, Tennessee)
86 Mike Mason, spring training instructor (pitching coach, Daytona)
87 Lee Tinsley, spring training instructor (minor league outfield/baserunning coordinator)
88 Chris Rusin
89 Dennis Lewallyn, spring training instructor (minor league pitching coordinator)
90 Jeff Fassero, spring training instructor (pitching coach, Iowa)
91 Marty Pevey, spring training instructor (minor league catching coordinator)
92 Tom Beyers, spring training instructor (short season hitting coordinator)
93 Bill Dancy, spring training instructor (minor league infield coordinator)
94 Buddy Bailey, spring training instructor (manager, Tennessee)
95 Andy Lane, bullpen catcher
Italics indicates non-roster invitee
Follow @bleedcubbieblue on Twitter
Join us on Facebook
0 recs | 189 comments
Agh! Not Esmalin Caridad!
Also, it seems like a lot of guys changed numbers. Baker, Campana, Garza and RoLo …
elgato - February 3, 2012
the internal memo:
from the Desk of Theo and Jed:
look guys, we’ve got deals in the works for all of you guys and the teams you are going to all have your current Cubs number taken…pick a new number and get used to it..
epsilon - February 3, 2012
Franchise Blake another number change
Mulhollandmania - February 3, 2012
You know, I wasn't sure about that.
But I’ll take your word for it.
elgato - February 4, 2012
DeWitt wore #9 in 2011.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
money talks
Ivy Walls - February 4, 2012
Did the '4' fall off Campana's jersey?
Zeke - February 3, 2012
He'll look taller this way.
Al Yellon - February 3, 2012
Hey, he got Kosuke's old number!
I’m sure that’ll work out well for him.
daver - February 3, 2012
Maybe Campana will make the rest of the team more patient for a season!
elgato - February 3, 2012
Hey!
It’s not Kosuke’s old number.
It’s AUGIE OJEDA’s old number.
Al Yellon - February 3, 2012
I miss Augie
Now that was a Cub!
3744nsheffield - February 3, 2012
that sucked
finished that sentence for you
Nunyabidness - February 3, 2012
There's been unconfirmed reports...
…that you’ve been spotted in Arizona, trying to drive Campana to the airport. True?
daver - February 3, 2012
well, at least he'll fit in the overhead compartment...
ballhawk - February 3, 2012
Can you take Jan Brewer along also?
scottsdalecubs - February 4, 2012
Let's end the political discussion right here.
Al Yellon - February 5, 2012
sorry - forgot.
scottsdalecubs - February 5, 2012
no no no
he will make them faster, they will all learn to run like him
Cubbie-Tim - February 3, 2012
No one saw Geovany Soto's 40-steal season coming...
daver - February 4, 2012
just out of curiosity
why do these guys need numbers and/or jerseys?
80 Carmelo Martinez, spring training instructor (Latin America field coordinator)
81 Brian Harper, spring training instructor (manager, Daytona)
82 James Rowson, spring training instructor (minor league hitting coordinator)
83 Brandon Hyde, spring training instructor (minor league field coordinator)
84 Dave Keller, spring training instructor (hitting coach, Iowa)
85 Mariano Duncan, spring training instructor (hitting coach, Tennessee)
86 Mike Mason, spring training instructor (pitching coach, Daytona)
87 Lee Tinsley, spring training instructor (minor league outfield/baserunning coordinator)
88 Chris Rusin
89 Dennis Lewallyn, spring training instructor (minor league pitching coordinator)
90 Jeff Fassero, spring training instructor (pitching coach, Iowa)
91 Marty Pevey, spring training instructor (minor league catching coordinator)
92 Tom Beyers, spring training instructor (short season hitting coordinator)
93 Bill Dancy, spring training instructor (minor league infield coordinator)
94 Buddy Bailey, spring training instructor (manager, Tennessee)
95 Andy Lane, bullpen catcher
epsilon - February 3, 2012
Because they're on the field with players.
Chris Rusin is a player, FWIW.
Al Yellon - February 3, 2012
reply fail
see below.
epsilon - February 3, 2012
"91 Marty Pevey, spring training instructor (minor league catching coordinator)"
ZOMG WE GOT PV!!!!!1
daver - February 3, 2012
IT'S HAPPENNINININININININININININING!
drewishdrewid - February 6, 2012
but,
Chris Rusin aside, why do they need a jersey? i’m sure its much more comfy to train and teach in actual training clothes and not those pants and button down jersey and leather belt etc etc. and lets be real honest, Sweet Lou looked ridiculous in a baseball uniform.
epsilon - February 3, 2012
You could say the same thing about most baseball managers and coaches.
But that’s just the way they do things. Could they change? Sure, but it’s a pretty entrenched tradition.
Al Yellon - February 3, 2012
Does that tradition stem from player/managers in the early years of baseball?
SackMan - February 3, 2012
Yes, I believe it does.
Some early managers (Connie Mack, most notably) wore suits in the dugout. But that practice fell by the wayside by the 1920s.
Al Yellon - February 3, 2012
i get that, but do the spring training trainers really need to be issued numbers?
i’m really not that upset about it, it just seems weird they;d get issued a number.
epsilon - February 3, 2012
Consider them like coaches.
Al Yellon - February 3, 2012
Honest, Al
Were you tempted for RoLo to put ‘retired nobody’?
timh815 - February 3, 2012
Heh.
No comment.
Al Yellon - February 3, 2012
all I needed.
timh815 - February 3, 2012
I like change,
but I think we should put away #9; give it to a coach.
Tat14 - February 3, 2012
formatting fail
the number 9 has not been kind…
Tat14 - February 3, 2012
If you put a # sign at the beginning of a line
… the posting system thinks you are making a list. That’s why it came out that way.
The last really good Cubs player to wear #9 was Randy Hundley.
Al Yellon - February 3, 2012
Since then, they've been as good as Hundley's knees.
timh815 - February 3, 2012
Damon Berryhill was decent for a short time.
Al Yellon - February 3, 2012
IIRC
Reed Johnson gets hurt in 2008 wearing #9.
He’s been better since he returned from LAD and put on #5.
Hank White was better in 24 than 9. Juan Pierre was a bad 9. DeWitt will probably make the All-Star game now wearing 11. I feel bad for DDJ.
Tat14 - February 3, 2012
Maybe the Cubs should take that # out of circulation for a while.
OTOH, DDJ got hurt wearing #12 for the A’s last year.
Al Yellon - February 3, 2012
I can't speak for Oakland.
Lester Stode #9. He should be okay over there with the towel and clipboard.
Tat14 - February 3, 2012
Rizzo in the #44
LOVE IT!!
unretrofied93 - February 3, 2012
If and when he comes up to Chicago and stays at 1B,
I hope he keeps #44. That’s cool!
Why? Just because.
Tat14 - February 3, 2012
McCovey
Ivy Walls - February 4, 2012
R Jackson
Ivy Walls - February 4, 2012
and Oh Henry....Hammerin Hank
AARON
Ivy Walls - February 4, 2012
Cavarretta,
Farnsworth and
Burt Hooton, Mike Garman, Dave Giusti, Ken Reitz, Dick Ruthven, Drew Hall(), Steve Wilson, Jeff Hartsock, Bill Brennan, Amaury Telemaco(, Chris Haney, Tony Fossas, Roberto Novoa, Chad Fox , Jeff Stevens
Ivy Walls - February 4, 2012
Novoa? Fox? Stevens?
You should’ve quit while you were ahead.
daver - February 4, 2012
Reggie Jackson, Hank Aaron,
and Jeff Stevens in the same string.
This is why I left it at “just because”.
Tat14 - February 4, 2012
Don't forget Leroy Kelly, Floyd Little and Chuck Foreman
ballhawk - February 4, 2012
Jim Brown & Ernie Davis
SouthWabashSoul - February 5, 2012
Can wait to get my 79 Ha jersey.
Julio Zuleta's Voodoo - February 3, 2012 via mobile
You'll almost certainly be able to find one
… at the locker room sale at next year’s convention. That’s where they sell the leftover spring training jerseys.
Al Yellon - February 3, 2012
I'll get a Hu jersey
Hu Ha.
Emelie - February 3, 2012
Who?
daily2b - February 4, 2012 via mobile
...
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
Hu's on first!
Just begs for this gem.
Azul Cachorro - February 4, 2012
I know the Marlin's number:
#1
GOOOOOOOOOO MARLINS
dtpollitt - February 3, 2012
Hate to ruin everyone's weekend...
…but the Dodgers have signed Todd Coffey. We’ll never know what his Cubs number would’ve been.
I’ll give you guys a minute.
daver - February 3, 2012
Good
This year is gonna suck enough on its own…
daily2b - February 4, 2012 via mobile
Who is this Dave Sappelt?
And where does he get off wearing my husband’s number?
katie casey - February 3, 2012
Came along with
TWood abd Torreyes in the Marshall rental. Because he’s that good.
timh815 - February 3, 2012
i just realized garza changed his number
jesus christos - February 3, 2012
WE ARE INCHING CLOSER TOWARD CORRECTING THE COSMIC WRONG
shoemile - February 3, 2012
PART-AY
jesus christos - February 3, 2012
#22 Prior
so maybe since we cannot trade Garza, we plan to get him injured.
1. Give Pitcher Priors Number
2. ??
3. Injure Pitcher beyond repair
Cubbie-Tim - February 3, 2012
Garza wore #22 with the Rays...
… but he couldn’t get #22 with the Cubs last year, because Carlos Pena claimed it. Pena wore #24 with the Rays, but Marlon Byrd already had it with the Cubs. Seniority, etc.
With Pena gone, Garza took his #22 back.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
Pena wore #23 i believe with the Rays...
but that is an obviously unavailable number.
MDavis - February 4, 2012
You're right.
I thought it was 22 — but he took 22 with the Cubs because 23 was unavailable, thus Garza could not have his Tampa number.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
17?
Why haven’t we retired Grace’s number yet? Just because the HOF is dumb (cough cough Santo) and hasn’t given him his due doesn’t mean we shouldn’t!
MSKaldahl - February 3, 2012 via iPhone app
I totally agree with you
Hits leader for the 1990’s? Cubs 1B #17!
Mulhollandmania - February 3, 2012
I hope you're not serious.
Mark Grace isn’t even close to being a Hall of Famer.
And he shouldn’t have his number retired.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
Gracey deserves to get in
right after Al Oliver
timh815 - February 4, 2012
I had an Expos fan
try to convince me in all earnestness that Al Oliver belonged in the Hall. It wasn’t an embarrassing case, but obviously fell short.
SouthWabashSoul - February 5, 2012
Totally serious
So why isn’t he worthy Al. Oh because he didn’t hit homeruns by the buckets along with the other steroid freaks of his day. No he just hit .300 every year, played gol glove defense, and lead MLB in hit and doubles in the 90’s.
MSKaldahl - February 4, 2012 via iPhone app
He is not even close.
There are many very good 1st basemen that don’t deserve to be HOF’ers that I would put in before Grace….Fred McGriff, Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly off the top of my head.
rlpete - February 4, 2012
Agreed.
The “led in the 90s” is completely irrelevant. All it means is that he played a lot of games every year for a calendar decade and got a fair number of hits.
Grace was a very good player for a long time. “Hall Of Very Good” for him.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
all due respect
how can people make an argument about how great Starlin will be and point to his “hits” and “BA” then rip Grace for his “hits” and “BA”?
I believe Grace is in the Hall of Very Good, not HOF personally, but to see people who will jump to Starlin;s defense and use the same stats that you will also make out to be a negative to Grace.
And if you think about it, Starlin’s 200 hits are only because he had a lot of ABs, and did not take walks.
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
Grace is my favorite Cub of all time.
I wont argue for his HOF induction because really, he doesnt deserve it. BUT, i will argue for his retired number as a Chicago Cub.
epsilon - February 4, 2012
i am on the fence about retired number
but if the Cubs retire 34 for Wood (as i can envision them doing) and leave Graces in circulation, then I would have to say there is an injustice
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
I can't see the Cubs retiring Wood's number.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
They retired Maddux's number-ish.
One could argue that Wood (while having nowhere near the career that Maddux had) ment more to the team in a cub uniform that Maddux. Not saying they would be correct, but the arguement could certainly be made.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
he is more Mr Cub than Maddux
but they were not going to retire 31 for Fergie and not honor MAddux
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
Fergie's number was already retired IIRC
They just added Maddux later. They did not have to add Maddux,
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
That is incorrect.
The ceremony to retire both numbers was held on May 3, 2009.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
IIRC it was unofficially retired
and Lilly was told so when he wanted his 31 and took 30 instead.
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
Unofficially, perhaps.
Not officially until 5/3/2009.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
agreed
goofy as it is, both of you were correct
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
I'm borderline about HOF for Grace.
I see both sides of the argument.
But I sure would love to see his numbered retired now, purely for my own amusement. Since that is the number my husband just wore at camp, I’d tell everyone how he was so good they decide to retire his number. ;-) Oh and just to clarify, although my husband is a fan of Grace, he did not chose that number because of him.
katie casey - February 4, 2012
Position counts quite a bit.
And titles. See (Jeter, Derek)
timh815 - February 4, 2012
My point was not to knock Castro
but to point out that you cannot use one stat as a fight for how great one is and then rip the same stat to discredit another (in this case, one that is known to be disliked by Al). Just asking to be consistent, instead of change the rules with each player.
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
1Bmen are supposed to hit.
SS, not so much. If Castro were a RF, he would need to do way more than just hit.
timh815 - February 4, 2012
Yeah, this is a position thing.
First basemen with no power won’t make the Hall (unless they get to 3,000 hits, or something). At this point, Castro’s defense might be why we shouldn’t plan on Cooperstown for him. If he doesn’t improve with the glove, Castro could find himself moved to a position where his numbers are good but not great.
elgato - February 4, 2012
i hate how people do that
put expectation by position on what they have to do or not do. it takes away from players like Wally Joyner, JT Snow, Mark Grace and gives props to lesser gloves that hit a HR there like Big Mac or Big Papi (for examples).
(not you in particular, just talking in general)
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
But that's how HOF judging works.
Sandberg wouldn’t be in the Hall if he had been a first baseman. His offensive numbers were very impressive and he played a more difficult defensive position well. But he doesn’t rank with the best at first.
If you don’t draw position distinctions, then Ozzie Smith would be rated right next to Edgar Martinez. Now, there’s a compelling argument that some positions are judged too harshly (third basemen, notably, have a tough time getting in). But we do need to be apples-to-apples comparisons. Or, if we don’t need them, it’s how the system has evolved, and it won’t change anytime soon.
BTW, I don’t think you’re going to have to worry about Big Mac or Big Papi getting in, and Ortiz hasn’t really played first base for years. I’m more uncomfortable with the steady-contributor argument for HOFers (e.g. Palmeiro before the steroid results). In my mind, a HOFer needs to be really great or at least the best at his position for a while. Palmeiro … well, he never was that.
elgato - February 4, 2012
I have yet to see "hall of fame" anywhere near Starlin's name
The kid is barely out of his sophomore year and has a long way to go. I believe a lot of the “hype” with him is because he is the first decent position player prospect to actually somewhat live up to his “potential” since, um…….well anyway. Actually, at this point in their careers (yes I know Starlin made it to the show at 19 and Grace at 24) I would grade Grace higher than Starlin. OPS almost 100 points higher, SO/BB MUCH better (Grace never in his 15 year career struck out more than he walked) Grace even had more home runs in his second year than Starlin (let that rattle around in your head for a while…) and who can forget that epic NLCS with Grace and Clark going back and forth (A great performance by Sandberg getting lost in all the hype, but I digress) Grace is not in the hall for two reasons, he was not the best player at his position for an extended period of time, and he did not hit one of the “magic numbers” (3,000 hits, 500 home runs, etc.).
As for his number retirement, one could argue that he did more in a Cub uniform than Maddux and his name is on a flag. If your sole reason for not wanting his number retired is that you did not like him as a person, you are no better than the BBWA that kept Ron Santo out of the hall for so many years.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
actually if you have been reading BCB for a while
many have spoken of Castro as a future HOFer. here is just one example
I
Due to his very young age in MLB and his talent, Castro have a very good chance to become a HOFer. He has time to accumulate the characteristic stats of a HOFer.
“Just shut up and play” – Matt Garza
“Pain is inevitable, suffering is an option.” – Dale Sveum
by RiskyBusiness on Jan 10, 2012 10:55 PM CST up reply actions
yet that was not my argument at all, I was talking about the inconsistent manner of using stats to defend one and then use the same stat to tear down another. Example is saying how Castro had 200 hits and hit 300 makes him so good, the say that Grace only had a lot of hits and a good BA because he had a lot of at bats. The stat cannot be made to show one as good and one as over rated IMHO.
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
crap i messed up the quotes AUGH
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
I believe that people are pointing to Castro's hits as a promise of the future.
If that is all he does then he may not be HOF-worthy either.
rlpete - February 4, 2012
Right.
Castro is incredibly young and doing what he’s doing. But no one’s booking him flights to Cooperstown just yet.
elgato - February 4, 2012
May 6, 1998
What do you think Kerry Wood’s “Hall of fame monitor” was at after that day? It is foolishness bordering on stu…. oh wait, can’t say that here. You can in NO WAY punch a player’s ticket for the hall while in his teens and early 20’s. For every Griffey there are 100 Jerome Walton’s who fizzle out after a great start. There are huge concerns with Castro’s game that need to be addressed.
And, if you really read my post, I actually was defending you. Even though some of their numbers are similar as in BA and hits, it is incorrect to grade Castro as the better player at this point in his career, Grace is actually the better player at this point in his career. Let me repeat that again, AT THIS POINT IN HIS CAREER. Not talking about “potental”, just stats.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
May 6, 1998
Probably pretty low, since it was just his fifth MLB start. “Hall of Fame monitor” refers to a number on every player’s baseball-reference page, not some nebulous concept. It is an attempt to quantify a player’s chance to make the Hall, based on the numbers of those who are already in.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
Missing my point completely, please read and comprehend
No matter what cybermetric computer program you have, you cannot predict the future. There are HUGE holes in Castro’s game that need to be addressed. Some are on the field, some are between the ears. (and no, I am not referencing his legal troubles). Can he develop the work ethic of a Toews, Rose, or Jeter to make himself better, close those holes, and make himself that HOF player???? Or is he Shawn Dunston with a better ability to make contact? My point is that it is very futile to “grade out” a hall of fame career in the infancy of it.
If Grace was a gym rat and kept his body in shape to play into his 40’s and got 3,000 hits, he is in. But, like Harry used to say “If ifs and buts where candy and nuts, we’d all have a wonderful Christmas!”
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
Speaking of reading
… adjust your attitude.
I said nothing about Castro. I responded simply to your point about Kerry Wood.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
My point about Wood
in the previous post was tied to Castro grading out on the magical cybermetric hall-of-fame-o-meter. My point was that there are so many directions for a young career “supposedly” ticketed for the hall of fame to go (see:Josh Hamilton) that to project them as a hall of famer is pure nonsense. Which goes back to Castro/Grace. After the 1998 NLCS how many baseball pundits do you think had him graded as hall of fame material?
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
Not too many.
I don’t think anyone claims Castro is Hall of Fame material — not yet, anyway. It’s way too early.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
Which is what I said in my original post
but I was proven wrong by Cubbie-Tim saying many have spoken of him as a hall of famer quoting a post from RiskyBuisness.
As for Grace and his love following the 1989 NLCS, I have a couple of newspapers hanging in my office from the 1989 NLCS. One writer from a Chicago newspaper (the names have been omitted to protect the guilty. I don’t want to be blamed for starting a negative thread on Chicago beat writers) called Grace a “once in a generation player”. I would say that is hall of fame material.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
or hyper bole in the moment reporting?
he was a very good player, i dont know about once in a generation….
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
I did not say I agree with the statement
I just ment that “once in a generation” is hall of fame material. I always liked Grace (not as much as most women in the Chicago metropolitan area, but that is a thread for another day) and I was very happy to see him get his ring in 2001. I wish he would have played into his 40’s to get that 3,000 hits. But, he didn’t and his career without that number is not a hall of fame career.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
i didnt mean to sound as if you agreed
but I have not once said Grace is a HOFer, which seems to be insinuated in this topic.
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
Don't worry
I don’t think that you think Grace is a HOFer. You have stated multiple times he is in the hall of very good. Unfortunately, the Hall of Fame is fast becoming the Hall of Fame/very good. Which is a topic for another day.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
sad but true
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
And I agree that 31 should be retired for Jenkins not Maddux.
I never liked that his name is there as well.
rlpete - February 4, 2012
It was a pretty unique case.
Two guys who wore the same number racked up HOF careers as Cubs and with other teams? It would have been hard to say Jenkins deserved it and Maddux didn’t — especially because Maddux had been a Cub so recently.
But, if you had to choose who was more deserving to have his number retired by the Chicago Cubs, well, the answer is incredibly obvious.
elgato - February 4, 2012
Fergie racked up HOF numbers as a Cub
5 seasons in a row of 20+ wins puts you there automatically. No question at all. If you just add up the numbers of Maddux as a Cub, he does not make it in, not even close.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
it also has something to do with ticket sales IMHO
these type of things are geared to get fans int he door as much as anything. Maddux has a huge fan base and that only helps with it since he can assist in selling tikets to a schlop of a midweek game (not saying that is the main reason, but i am sure it plays into it for management)
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
And to throw this in...
…who had a better career as a Cub…Grace or Maddux? My answer would be Grace, which would lead me to this next question…Why would Maddux be honored by the Cubs (which retiring HIS part of the #31 jersey was a bit much) and not Grace?
Easy Ed - February 4, 2012
Better career altogether ...
plus, if you retire Fergie’s number, it would be awkward not retiring it for Maddux.
elgato - February 4, 2012
Why?
With that logic the Cubs should retire Lou Brock’s number as well. He was a hall of famer (Legit) that played for the Cubs. Andre Dawson as well. You retire numbers for WHAT THEY DID FOR YOUR TEAM (Jackie Robinson being the obvious and well deserved exception) Maddux should not be included with Fergie.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
I believe in this day
teams do it as much to honor the player as they do just to sell tickets to a mid week game with low ticket sales
Cubbie-Tim - February 5, 2012
this is such a dumb argument
jesus christos - February 4, 2012
Castro is a SS first of all.
And it’s incredible how much he’s done at such a young age. Not to mention he’s believed to have more power than Grace did, possibly very soon.
Dcr18 - February 4, 2012
Thank you.
We make a big deal about Starlin’s 207 hits because he did it in his age 21 season — as a shortstop.
daver - February 4, 2012
I never understood the decades argument either.
Why is it more important to have more hits in the 90’s than say 1996 to 2005. Who is that player? Are they in the hall? What about 1993 to 2002?
rlpete - February 4, 2012
Hmmm.
Well, there is something about measuring it that way that resonates. But, yeah, it’s kind of meaningless.
elgato - February 4, 2012
cant argue that at all
and i was not arguing for Grace to the HOF
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
Just like Jamie Moyer, right?
ballhawk - February 4, 2012
What does Moyer have to do with the argument about a player leading in a category in a calendar decade?
I’ll answer that for you.
Nothing.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
ballhawk - February 4, 2012
Point being
Moyer has a shot at some milestone numbers, which could vault him out of that Hall.
Also, Grace didn’t play effectively into his 40s.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
and you could then say he got those milestones because
he pitched a lot, which is the same as you saying that Grace got a lot of hits because he had a lot of at bats
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
But I didn't say that about Grace.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
sure?
so his stats in the 90’s dont really matter since he played a lot of games, well that is how ALL stats are accumulated, players play a lot of games, get a lot of opportunity and produce. Your argument for Moyer is the same as your knock on Grace, they both played a lot and produced Hall of Good stats
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
It's irrelevant because it claims the most hits in a calendar decade is important.
As noted elsewhere here, why not 1993-2004? Or 1987-1996? Those are decades. A decade is a 10-year period. Why is “the 1990s” more important?
That’s why it’s irrelevant.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
just like Elgato and others point out
the rules are not made here, they are set by others to work with (i.e. position expectations).
And no matter what “decade” period, to take away from what he accomplished during the 10 year span is silly Al. You do not like Grace for whatever reason, and have not hid it in the past, and that is placing blinders on you in this discussion IMHO
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
I could be wrong
but I read Al’s point as being that “most hits in the 90’s” is an arbitrary framing of a portion of a player’s career. I don’t think of it as diminishing Grace’s accomplishment. Mark Grace played 16 seasons and collected 2445 hits. That’s a very good career. I don’t think anyone will argue.
Here, though, is the point. The fact that Mark Grace’s prime occurred between 1990 and 2000 is not relevant. If Grace’s career had occurred 5 years earlier, even though that would have split his prime into 2 calendar decades, it would be no more or less impressive.
CJK - February 4, 2012
Exactly.
Thank you for summing up my point succinctly.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
You know
… honestly, I did like Grace as a Cubs player. He was productive at bat, though never quite as good as he might have been, a good defensive player, part of two Cubs playoff teams.
I didn’t care for ONE statement he made as a member of the Diamondbacks. That lowered him in my esteem.
That doesn’t stop me from being able to objectively look at his career. He was a very good player. Nothing more, nothing less. He’s not a Hall of Famer and the Cubs should not retire his number. I don’t think many would disagree with that no matter how much they like Grace.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
The team opened a can of worms with Maddux
Looking at what he did FOR THE CUBS the argument can be made for Grace, Wood, Ramirez, Dawson, Sutcliffe, Smith, Buckner, Holtzman, the list goes on and on. You retire the numbers of icons of your organization, not players who started their careers there, went on to amazing things elsewhere, and then came back for a few years when he is a shell of his former self.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
Not at all.
How many of those are Hall of Famers?
One. Dawson. I can see the argument, and again, Maddux and Jenkins shared a number. Had that not been the case, Maddux might not have been included.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
How many had better careers as a Cub?
I would say most of them. Just because you had a cup of coffee with a team and went on to a HOF career does not give you the right to be included with an icon of the orginization. I could see if more than half of his wins came with the Cubs but he has bearly 1/3. When he goes into the hall of fame, it will be with a Braves hat and thats the only place his number should be retired.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
Greg Maddux
… ranks 12th on the alltime Cubs pitcher list with 31.4 WAR (ninth without 19th Century pitchers).
13th on the alltime Cubs list with 133 wins (ninth without 19th Century pitchers).
Sixth on the alltime Cubs strikeout list with 1305
12th on the alltime Cubs innings list (ninth without 19th Century pitchers)
He got his 300th win and 3000th strikeout in a Cubs uniform.
That’s a bit more than a “cup of coffee”.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
Well then
when 11 other pitchers get their numbers retired, Maddux can be on the Flag.
Andre Dawson hit his 400th home run as a Red Sox, Roger Clemens got his 300th win and 4,000th strikeout as a Yankee, do you think either of those guys will have their number retired with those teams? Those are big boy organizations and big boy organizations don’t do things like that. If the Cubs want to be a big boy organization, like they say they want to be, then they need to stop doing things like this just to be a warm and fuzzy with the fans.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
Your argument might hold more water if the Cubs were retiring numbers left and right.
It’s more than just milestone numbers with a team. It’s being a top 3 pitcher post WW2 and spending 10 of his 22 years as a Cub.
bdlugz - February 4, 2012
Right.
The Milwaukee Brewers retired Rollie Fingers’ number. He spent four of his 17 seasons in Milwaukee. The Brewers did the same for Hank Aaron, who played for the team for two of his 23 seasons (and not very well, either).
Nolan Ryan spent five of his 27 seasons with the Rangers, yet they retired his number — long before he had an ownership interest in the team.
Rod Carew had much better years for the Twins than for the Angels, but both teams have retired his number.
Casey Stengel had a .302 winning percentage as manager of the Mets, yet they retired his number.
The point is, teams retire numbers of players or managers that have meaning to their fanbase. It’s not all about numbers. In fact, Maddux had a better career with the Cubs than all of the men mentioned above had with their “second” retired number team.
Al Yellon - February 5, 2012
this is also why
retiring numbers is a joke by concept. better players can get skipped over due to popularity, et al. I love how the Dallas Cowboys do it with their ring of honor and no numbers get retired. It allows the player to be honored, and keeps all numbers free for future use.
Especially helps when you get up there in numbers that the franchise has retired (such as the Bears who have 13 retired) which limits the ability to retire other worthy numbers in the future.
Cubbie-Tim - February 5, 2012
BCB: where pointless arguments become important
jesus christos - February 5, 2012
Make it a t-shirt.
daver - February 7, 2012
what's your point?
ballhawk - February 7, 2012
You missed my point
(was that response with a better attitude?) I did not say that no teams retire numbers for players who did not do a lot in their town. If the Cubs want to be the Yankees and Red Sox, like they have said they want to be, they have to stop acting like the Brewers, Angels, Rangers, and Mets.
Mister Zero - February 6, 2012
Rangers?
You mean the two-time defending AL champions who just spent over $100 million to get the best pitcher in Japan to join them?
I’d take that.
Al Yellon - February 6, 2012
How many World Series
have the Rangers won in the last 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 seasons? As I recall there was a certain 2 time defending NL central team that did not win crap either. This is the culture that Theo and the gang say they want to change. “YAY, we got close, now let’s go have another beer!” The Yankees and the Red Sox are the model. They win it all and their fan base accepts nothing less. That is my point. Be a big boy club and appease your fan base by winning the whole damn thing. Not by giving the lemmings a warm fuzzy by flying the flag of one of the biggest blunders of your organization (if not major league baseball) All that is, is a constant reminder of what could have been and what a joke the front office has been up untill now.
Mister Zero - February 7, 2012
No team wins the World Series every year. It’s simply not possible. You build a team to try to reach the postseason every year. That’s the best you can do.
You disparage the Rangers, but they have in fact done this, and done it well. The Cubs would do well to look at the model that Nolan Ryan, Jon Daniels & Co. have built in Texas.
Al Yellon - February 8, 2012
This is the attitude that I hope theo and the boys blow out of the water
Building a team to reach the postseason every year is not the best you can do. Winning the world series is the best you can do. The Braves went to the playoffs 1578659845 years on a row and only won 1! (because of a Cleveland team very light on pitching) The Cubs went to the playoffs 3 out of 6 years and came away empty. Texas went to the world series 2 years in a row and nada. Boston, 4 years, 2 championships, New York, 14 years, 5 championships. That is the goal, to win it all. Nobody wins the world series every year, duh! I would much rather aspire to be a orginization who wins it all 30% of the time than one who just gets close.
Mister Zero - February 8, 2012
You miss my point.
You CANNOT build a team to “win the World Series every year.” It is impossible. No team does that. No team has EVER done that.
You build a team to get to the postseason every year. That Is, in fact, the goal. Once you get there, it’s a crapshoot. Just ask the Texas Rangers, again — how many times were they one strike away last year?
Al Yellon - February 9, 2012
Ban me if you must
But “Once you get there, it’s a crapshoot.” is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in print, right along with “momentum is tomorrow’s starting pitcher”. There is a reason that championship teams are championship teams. To have the mentality that just getting to the playoffs is good enough and let the “crapshoot” decide who wins from there, is precisely the Cub fan attitude that has been an embarrassment for far too long.
Mister Zero - February 9, 2012
It being a crapshoot has absolutely nothing with a Cubs mentality...
Assuming that it does shows ignorance on your part. By your logic, you think the best team on paper always wins the world series every single year?
You think that the ‘11 Cards, the ’05 White Sox, etc were the best teams on paper? No… they just happened to be the best team on the field for those series. It’s a complete crapshoot, and any team has a shot to win the WS once they make it.
Every teams goal is to have the potential to make it to the WS. You do that by building the best team on paper, however that doesn’t guarantee you anything.
By claiming what Al wrote (which is repeated by every fan base in baseball) is the “stupidest thing [you] have ever seen in print” (ironic, by the way) tells me you don’t proofread your own writing much.
bdlugz - February 9, 2012
Thank you.
Al Yellon - February 10, 2012
A fan that knows what they are talking about
knows there are solid reasons why the ’05 Sox (exceptional pitching) and ’11 Cards (Better fielding, pitching, and managing)won it all.
Look at the ’07 Rockies. They where the hottest team in baseball and where a buzzsaw running through the playoffs….untill they played the Red Sox, a team built to win the world series. A solid line up, with top of the line pitching.
Does the best team on paper always win it all? no. But it is FAR from a “crapshoot” as to why the winning team ends up that way. Over 162 games the best teams will almost always end up with the best record. But, the playoffs are a different animal. Mistakes are magnified, better than average 1-2 starters are a premium. A murderers row of a lineup with average starting pitching, shaky defense and a manager with not much between the ears can usually over come that in the regular season to make it to the playoffs, but that team will get beat, and not by a “crapshoot” . This is not the NFL. There is a reason why you have never heard “any given october”.
Why don’t you ask Bob Brenley if his ’01 team won because of a roll of the dice. That team was built for the playoffs! Better than average lineup with 2 all time great starting pitchers in the prime of their careers.
“Every teams goal is to have the potential to make it to the WS”? That is loser talk! Every teams goal should be to win the world series!
I don’t recall ever seeing anywhere where Yankee or Red Sox fans have said “Gee whiz, I hope we make the playoffs and then we can roll the dice and see what happens!”
The “Cub fan mentality” of " YAY we made the playoffs and that’s good enough" has to die! WORLD SERIES CHAMPION! That is the goal, nothing less!
Mister Zero - February 10, 2012
Epstein was already quoted
as saying that the best way to win the World Series is to keep going to the World Series.
CJK - February 9, 2012
thats the point
it isnt about the decade hits its about being consistent
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
It still doesn't make him anywhere close to a Hall of Famer.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
which i have not said
i have said he is Hall of Very Good. You have used playing a lot of games as a knock on Grace for his hits totals, then used it as a reason to put Moyer in the HOF.
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
I have never said "playing a lot of games" is the reason Moyer should be in the Hall.
You’re twisting my words. Stop it.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
ok, you siad longevity
which is another way of saying he played a lot of seasons, which is the same as saying a lot of games, or innings as well. the point is still that you said Moyer is a HOF for the amount of time he has played, but then dismiss the amount of time played by another for what they achieved.
Again I dont believe either is a HOFer and I am not trying to say that Grace is better or worse that MOyer, but I am saying it is not a consistent argument to use longevity (ie games played over a time frame) for one and then argue that the games played by another makes his numbers achieved a something to look down at.
In both cases the player produced well over a period of time, and it should not be a knock on them for what they accomplished
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
If Grace played untill he was 47.......
he has 3,000 hits and he is a lock.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
i have not once said he is a HOFer
and I wont say he is.
But when Al writes about how Moyer is and uses the amount of games he played (calling it longevity for Moyer) and then wants to rip Grace for the amount of games he played in a decade to try to take away from the stats he produced, it is not consistent.
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
Which is why I said
if Grace played untill he turned 47 (Moyer’s age) he would have over 3,000 hits and be in the hall.
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
But he didn't.
And Moyer is still playing. FWIW, Moyer is 49, not 47.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
If he played till 49
he may have had 4,000 hits and got his number retired AND be in the hall of fame!!!! And, sorry Grace is 47, Moyer is 49. My creditability is now ruined!
Mister Zero - February 4, 2012
...
jesus christos - February 4, 2012
With Jamie Moyer?
Kansas25 - February 4, 2012
Mark Grace is one of my favorite Cubs of all time.
But his number shouldn’t be retired. Simply put, he wasn’t as good as the other players whose numbers have been retired by the Cubs.
This is inevitably when someone brings up Greg Maddux. Honestly, I don’t think the Cubs would have retired Maddux’s number had he not shared it with Fergie Jenkins. Maddux simply didn’t have that many great years as a Cub, but Maddux was SO good overall and good enough with the Cubs that it worked to retire his number with Fergie.
If Maddux had worn No. 32, the Cubs wouldn’t have retired his number, IMO.
elgato - February 4, 2012
FWIW
Players who have worn #17 since Grace left the Cubs:
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
Clearly no unofficial retiring of the number there.
And who the hell is Calvin Murray? No memory of that guy whatsoever.
elgato - February 4, 2012
wasnt he a bad OFer we had?
Cubbie-Tim - February 4, 2012
Ummm...that doesn't narrow it down much.
Easy Ed - February 4, 2012
Our big, burly
power hitting 1B wearing #6? Just doesn’t look right. Glad to see Garza back with #22 though, didn’t like #17 for him.
SonnyJ9 - February 4, 2012
Anyone think Rizzo will try to get Casey Coleman to switch numbers?
rsikes - February 4, 2012
Doubt it.
44 is a good number for Rizzo. I like it.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
I hope it's the number of...
home runs he averages as a 1B in the coming years because this team really lacks a power hitter/RBI guy.
ChicagoBlues1983 - February 4, 2012
I'd settle for
… consistent 30-HR power. 44 would be a bonus.
Al Yellon - February 4, 2012
Haha
44 would be insane. He scares me though (as a Pirates fan). Good trade for the Cubs.
McCutchenIsTheTruth - February 5, 2012
Here's a more useful chart than uniform numbers
An organizational chart for the entire structure of the Cubs
fossilhippie - February 4, 2012
sorry - link button didn't work
http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2012/1/26/2739047/chicago-cubs-roster-complete-organizational-chart
fossilhippie - February 4, 2012
^ This is definitely worth checking out ^
I’m glad SB Nation decided to put these together. They should be very valuable reference material as long as they’re updated in a timely fashion.
daver - February 4, 2012
i looked at soriano's part and became depressed
jesus christos - February 4, 2012
Just finished up my Cubs season ticket draft
It was great to be picking out Cubs games and thinking about summer plans, even though it’s February.
RiskyBusiness - February 4, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.