cutting the figurative cord: Z or Barrett
The Cubs are going to lose 2 players to free agency next year that will undoubtedly fall under the top 10 most sought after free agents. Carlos Zambrano (he's an easy number 1) and Michael Barrett.
I think the one trait that all of the best GMs have in common is that they know how to selectively cut the cord with some of their better/more popular players when the time is right for whatever reason. Sometimes their reasoning is because that player is overvalued on the current market, and can net the team an asymmetric benefit in the team's favor through a trade. Sometimes their reasoning is more simple: the team cannot afford all of their veterans (talented vets are never cost effective), and therefore must selectively keep those players that afford the team the highest marginal utility.
Regardless of the reason (and there are many), trading talented veterans can often be a shrewd and bold move by a GM if executed correctly. Many questioned Billy Beane after he traded Mulder and Hudson before the 2005 season. While these trades didn't net the Athletics massive dividends, they did come away with Danny Haren, and saved millions of dollars in the end on two pitchers that have largely spent their time since either injured or ineffective.
This brings me to my point: the cubs simply cannot afford BOTH Carlos Zambrano and Michael Barrett, and will need to part with at least one of them. The Cubs have dug themselves a hole with massive, backloaded contracts, and just can't keep piling on additional multimillion dollar pacts unless they want to spend 2010 playing with a 5 man team like Eddie Feigner and his four man King's court.
Zambrano presents an exceedingly complicated dilemma for Jim Hendry, and I don't pretend to know the answer. I have opinions (that seem to change regularly on this issue), but I could easily be wrong. On one hand, he is a fantastic young pitcher, and is only 25; on the other hand, he could net us some serious prospects in a trade (probably two potentially impact players plus a third solid player) and I really don't like EVER giving pitchers contracts longer than a standard presidential term, and certainly not the length of a two-termer. So I really don't know about Z. I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be incredibly sad to see him leave regardless (shrewd, bold GMs are great because they don't care about upsetting fans when they know the move is best for the team): he's my favorite Cub right now. Hendry isn't exactly the boldest GM, so I will be somewhat surprised to see Z traded during the season, but that might end up being the smartest possible move when all is said and done. At this point, no one knows, and (to quote Mr. Tweek), Z really has Hendry's balls in a juicer right now. I wouldn't want to be the guy who makes that decision.
I think the course of action concerning Barrett is much clearer. I've made my opinion known in the past that although it's great to get production out of a traditionally weak offensive position like catcher, I really don't like relying on the catcher for offense when there are other places on the field that can potentially be improved offensively (second base and shortstop to name 2). Catchers don't see nearly as many PAs over a season as other position players, and, due to the nature of the position, tend to break down and produce less down the stretch and (potentially) into the postseason. Add this to the fact that Barrett is a below average defender at one of the few positions where defense is at least nearly as important as offensive production (although many consider in more important).
This leads me to believe that Michael Barrett can safely be expended in a trade. He IS overvalued in many circles (especially among those that covet offensive production from their catcher, and those that like him for his "old-school", "hard-nosed", "scrappy", "insert baseball cliche here" playing style). Obviously, he won't bring close to the bounty of talent that trading Z would potentially bring, but near the trade deadline, he's worth at least a couple solid prospects. He'd potentially be worth an impact prospect or two if we weren't trading him as a rental player, but that is still probably our best bet right now.
If the Cubs DO end up trading Zambrano instead, I think it becomes less necessary to let Barrett go, but I really do not see the Cubs keeping them both. We've seen the Cubs spend money, but now comes the true test: we need to see Hendry grow some balls and finally make some bold trades. Maybe he could borrow KW's balls for a while, as I do believe his are enormous.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
99 comments
Comments
At this point...
If you lose him as a free agent, that doesn't hurt as much as losing Z, who I think should be kept at any cost.
If the club winds up winning, going deep into the postseason, maybe they CAN keep both of them.
I have been an advocate of trading Barrett anyway, but at this point I can't see a suitable replacement or available trade partner or free agent.
by Al on Jan 28, 2007 7:18 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I am one of those people
by deadcatbounce on Jan 28, 2007 7:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree
by wicubfan on Jan 28, 2007 5:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know Al
I believe both young and barrett are in their contract years, and I would be much happier with Young's production in the middle infield than Barrett's behind the plate. In return, we send Texas a middle infield prospect (patterson) to replace Young (although he was playing short most recently, I think): patterson is actually pretty highly touted in some projections--I don't really like him that much, but some do. Finally, we finish the deal with one of our young pitchers. I'd be willing to send a marshall or possibly even a gallagher. Texas is short on pitching, and would welcome the addition. Then the cubs would absolutely have to extend Young after the season.
This is the type of trade that would work near the trade deadline if the Cubs were in the playoff hunt, and Texas was out of it. We would improve our offense with a top notch middle infielder, while texas (figuring they probably aren't going to re-sign young anyway) bite the bullet to gain two solid young players and a top offensive catcher (although barajas is decent, Barrett produces more). This is the type of bold move that the Cubs need to make. Having Izturis at short would be acceptable if we had that much production from second base.
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 7:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why...
I don't think you can make this sort of proposal not knowing where the team is going to be in July.
by Al on Jan 28, 2007 7:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
come on, Al
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 7:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
damnit
There is a club option for 2008, so forget that idea.
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 7:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i dont get it
i dont understand the logic
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 9:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
very simple
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 10:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
but again
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
go away
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
then at least stop asking me stupid questions
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 2:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
expanding on "go away"
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 2:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so essentially
so if the Rangers offered us Michael Young for Carlos Zambrano we should do it?
Young is 30, Zambrano is 25
paying Zambrano at least you get him through the core of his "best years" as most athletes tend to peak from 27-31
Young would be doing the exact opposite at likely a relatively similar price
needless to say i think the idea is a poor one
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it's a moot issue anyway
Your point is disingenuous though. Very much so, in fact.
- Young won't cost nearly as much as Z, and his contract will doubtfully be for as long--this is for precisely the reasons you listed: Z is better and younger.
- We'd be dumping Barrett's salary in the act of picking up young. Barrett is going to get paid big money in his next contract, so the difference in salary would simply be the difference between Young and Barrett's pricetag. Meanwhile, Young produces at a far higher level than barrett. Therefore, comparing Young to Z is ridiculous: he has nothing to do with potentially trading Z. We'd be letting Z go for an excellent group of prospects and dumping barrett for young with a slight net gain in salary from the switch, but a much larger gain in production.
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so...
solid work
Your argument was we should get Young at the deadline and give up Barrett, well why would we get Young and make that type of upgrade while trading Z away at the same time. You also mentioned trading away 2 of our top 10 prospects along with Barrett
so your hypothetical included losing:
Zambrano
Barrett
E. Patterson
Gallagher
and in return receiving
Young
Prospects for Z
the difference in salaries subtracted would be Zambrano's potential (lets say 18 over 7), Barrett's potential (lets say 10 over 4), and 2 prospects
and your return is Young (lets say 13 over 5) and a few prospects for Z
so essentially we need the prospects we get back for Z to outproduce Gallagher, Patterson, and Barrett and then need the extra money (lets say a total of 13 million, equivalent of ted lilly type players in this market) to outperform Z
how the hell is that plan going to make us better in the short term or the long term
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
several things
At any rate, everyone here seems to think that Z will be retained anyway, so if that is the case (this clearly means the team salary is going to be vastly expanded), replacing Barrett with young is still an excellent move. If Z gets traded too, that gives us potentially 3 excellent prospects or so, and it frees up salary. Dumping Z DOES give us salary flexibility to spend elsewhere. Keep in mind, he's probably going to cost well over 100 million dollars, so letting him go doesn't necessarily mean the Cubs are planning on saving ALL of that money. They have the freedom to still go spend a portion of that money (how much is obviously up to them) on other players.
In the end, this doesn't turn into the bleak picture you're trying to paint it as. In review: leave Z out of this discussion--I'm just talking about trading Barrett here. The only thing I WILL give you is that adding gallagher into that trade is probably too much. Now, go annoy someone else.
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 2:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
correction
should have read:
"I really don't consider Patterson a potentially elite second baseman"
big difference
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
before when i left Z out
now you're saying forget Z when i talk about losing his production
i would "go annoy someone else" if your points were consistent and made any semblance of sense
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
they do
The problem here is that you are treating this conversation as a serious trade discussion needing notarized, documented plans, while I'm over here casually throwing ideas out of my ass. The same ass that you are a huge pain in, in fact.
Mellow out.
At any rate, are you telling me that having Z and barrett is definitely better than having young, 3 excellent young prospects, and a few quality major leaguers (or a couple very good MLers) bought with part of the money saved by not paying Z? because I don't think that is so clear. Z doesn't exactly put up Johan Santana VORPs, and injury concerns go into the projection of this proposal. To be blunt, this proposal does make sense, if you try your hardest to not be a complete asshat for 10 seconds.
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 2:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yes
my reasoning being that out of "top prospects" approximately 40% become MLB regulars and about 15-20% become all stars. Meaning of the 3 prospects/young players we'd be getting we need at least one of them to be close to Z or 2 of them to make up the value of Z
i don't see us getting that type of package from one team
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you're forgetting
There are so many problems with giving pitchers contracts that last the better part of a decade. I really don't think you're factoring all of the variables into your position here. Best case scenario, Z pitches productively for all six or seven years...but what if he has major injury problems....or what if he needs TJ surgery. That contract starts to look pretty horrible then.
For the record, I'm actually leaning toward hoping we keep Z, but you've kinda baited me into fiercely defending this position. this whole discussion started when I casually threw out michael young's name after I thought I had read he was in his contract year. I brought him up because I really think we should trade Barrett regardless of what happens, and I honestly wasn't even really considering Z when I brought him up.
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 3:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing I would like to add....if you don't
I think it would definitely be in the CUBS interest to trade Eric Patterson while his value is very high b/c like you thelonious, I do not revere Eric Patterson in the highest esteem. I think he is a very overated prospect that will never even be in the top ten in all star voting for second basemen.
by TheBeerBaron on Jan 28, 2007 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
please just say top 10 second basemen...
by theprognosticator on Jan 28, 2007 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not meant as a measure of talent
by TheBeerBaron on Jan 28, 2007 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Cesar Izturis was voted into an all-star game...
He is nowhere near a top ten SS.
Just say elite second baseman.
Sorry to quibble, just trying to keep you from drawing the ire of other posters who take it literally and will rub your face in it in a big way.
by theprognosticator on Jan 28, 2007 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Point taken......
Like I said, it was to illustrate that he will likely never be even considered in that realm.
by TheBeerBaron on Jan 28, 2007 4:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree...
I'd say much.
And perhaps without merit.
by theprognosticator on Jan 28, 2007 4:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't necessarily agree...
You say that "the cubs simply cannot afford BOTH Carlos Zambrano and Michael Barrett..." Now, I know that many of us are skeptical of Hendry's plan, but I highly doubt that giving Zambrano big, big money does not fit into that plan. I doubt that he's looking over his checkbook register, only now coming to the realization that he won't be able to afford Zambrano. He simply has to have calculated that in already. If he hasn't, he's a bigger moron than any of us thought.
I also disagree that "and just can't keep piling on additional multimillion dollar pacts unless they want to spend 2010 playing with a 5 man team like Eddie Feigner and his four man King's court." Yeah, well, this is what some of us have been warning about. But just because we see it doesn't mean the team does. And hey, the Yankees have sustained long periods of much greater spending. The Cubs may (or may not, I don't know) think that they can do the same. The Yankees already have a much bigger payroll than the Cubs, but you'd better believe they'd give Zambrano as much money as he wants if he were a free agent. I believe that is now Hendry's mindset.
I guess my point is this: Hendry went into this offseason knowing he was going to be throwing around lots, and lots, and lots of cash. He absolutely must have included Zambrano's big raise in these calculations. If not, he should be dismissed immediately.
by gravedigger on Jan 28, 2007 7:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying Z definitely has to go
At any rate, although I realize that past events don't necessarily pave the way for the future, but name one massive pitcher contract lasting 6-7 years that hasn't been a bust. Look at Mike Hampton's laughable contract. You mentioned that the yankees love spending money: Jaret Wright, Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown, Carl Pavano: that is the equation for millions of wasted dollars. The Cubs don't match the yankees' revenue and can't afford to spend like Paris Hilton on a coke binge.
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 7:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is...
And I'm not saying this is the best or right course of action (in fact, just the opposite), but Hendry appears headed this way.
If it is either-or between Barrett and Zambrano, I think the decision is really easy to make.
And, while few pitchers may be worth the risk of a 7 year+ deal, someone will give it to Zambrano, and I still believe that someone is likely to be Hendry.
by gravedigger on Jan 28, 2007 8:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me be clear, though:
I DO feel pretty strongly that trading barrett is probably the best course of action, though.
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 8:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Furthermore...
There is no question that extending Zambrano is the number one priority.....rather a necessity.
by TheBeerBaron on Jan 28, 2007 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no...
by theprognosticator on Jan 28, 2007 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
huh?
on top of that giving Michael Young a 5-7 year contract that he could demand in a market when he's 30 is AS RISKY as giving a 25 year old pitcher a lengthy deal
considering the pitchers most likely decline is as a result of injury while most every baseball player past 32 will start to decline
i was more ridiculing your suggestions that:
A) if keeping both Z and Barrett was impossible than keeping Young and Z seemed impossible as well
B) giving Michael Young a long-term deal that would be more expensive than Barrett, including 2 prospects in a deal (which you proposed Patterson and Gallagher/Marshall) and then trading Z for a bundle of prospects would only save on average 10 mill a year and only slightly upgrade us in terms of farm system talent considering you have to get 3 prospects from the same system if dealing Z and it would be unlikely to acquire 3 uber prospects
and
C) when you trade Z for prospects there's absolutely zero guarantee they'll turn out to be much. For example the cubs had the top farm system in all of baseball in 2002 with Corey being one of the prized gems. Prospects arent sure things.... they're a crapshoot
for some reason you deemed my arguments ridiculous yet failed to see the ridiculous lack of logic behind any of your suggestions
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 7:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
This may be true. However, given the hefty price tag that's going to be on Zambrano's arm anyawy, it seems like you're underestimating Hendry a little bit.
Look, I've got some displaced optimism for Hendry, troubled optimism, but he sure as hell cannot be so dumb to give up an Ace like Carlos Zambrano without receiving at least a Top 10 Prospect. There is simply no way even a great GM could fleece Hendry of Zambrano without giving up something quality.
by Faith plus 1 on Jan 28, 2007 8:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
misunderstanding my point
the problem is twofold:
- you likely have to get all the prospects from 1 organization
- the organization has to have the ability to ensure they will sign Z to a big extension, otherwise they'll give up less
- prospects are just that, prospects. just because we get 3 or 4 or however many "top prospects" it doesnt guarnatee these guys are going to be anything more than top prospects. the lists go on and on of guys that don't amount to much. Ruben Rivera, Ryan Anderson types that are labelled cant miss prospects but do just that. About 40% of all top prospects become useful major league players and about 15% become ML All stars, meaning the chances of us getting a guy that can replace Z is small. Now we could strike gold and land 3 guys that happen to make it, but how many times do you see 3 guys from the same system come up to be all stars... not often.
now obviously there's a benefit to having the freed up salary and having younger players who can made up make up 2/3's of the production at a fraction of the cost, but my point is there's no guarantee they can do that.
for every cant miss prospect that becomes something special there's 5 other that never make it
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 8:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
correction
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 9:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Our three weapons are
by baturkey on Jan 28, 2007 9:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
my point is ultimately
we just dont know
and even with guys that do succeed 1 yr at the big league level, we still dont know
look at guys like Jhonny Peralta who fell off the face of the earth last year or Cliff Lee who went from special to ordinary seemingly overnight
right now we know what we have in Z, he's been consistent for the last 4 years and for all the concerns about injury.... he's done nothing but take the ball 30 times for the last 4 years with a sub 3.5 ERA
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 9:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And Peralta and Lee might rebound this year...
by theprognosticator on Jan 28, 2007 11:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
of course
everything we've seen so far from Z suggests he's one of the few entities in baseball where we know what we have
everything in history has told us "prospects" are very much a crapshoot when it comes to who actually becomes solid major league players
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 29, 2007 6:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.....
In regards to Maddag refering to Zambrano's worth in terms of prospects......always....ALWAYS keep in mind that prospects are just that "prospects"....
You know as well as I do that for every Hanley Ramirez and Dan Uggla (I don't know why I brought up those two....just the first names that came into my head) there are 6 million Todd Van Poppel's and Brooks Kieschnick's.
by TheBeerBaron on Jan 28, 2007 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i wrote something about this lower in this thread.
But you are right, the Z problem is one that has no easy solution.
by theprognosticator on Jan 28, 2007 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Piniella?
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yep...solves all...
by theprognosticator on Jan 28, 2007 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
99 years
by Clute on Jan 28, 2007 7:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The cubs payroll just isn't going to rise...
I wasn't comparing Z to Mulder and Hudson. If anything, I was comparing Barrett to Mulder and Hudson, but it was really just a non-specific example of a GM successfully making a bold move.
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 8:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll let others discuss the
While I may be wrong, I think Joe Mauer is bit of an exception, as I think he'd garner most of attention he gets now even if he played 3B, simply due to his BA.
by TyWebb on Jan 28, 2007 9:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'll agree...
As far as Big Z goes, I think the Cubs have set a side enough money to sign him long term. What is long term, I don't know. If it were me, I'd sign him for at least 4 years. I think the upside of Big Z out weights any middle infield help. Just my opinion of course.
Overall, I think the Cubs have enough money to keep both Barrett and Big Z. Will they spend it? Well, that remains to be seen.
by VandalayIndustries on Jan 28, 2007 9:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Defense is more teachable than offense
He has been working out with Jody Davis this offseason in Arizona and said he has a goal of no passed balls this season.
I never want to say never when it comes to trading someone but there would have to be an awesome return.
Also, who would be the everyday catcher? It couldn't be Blanco. MLB.com has him turning 36 this year and it seems like a lot to ask him to be an everyday catcher. The only catcher making any noise in the minors is Jake Fox and at best he is a poor man's Barrett.
by JonH on Jan 28, 2007 5:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The situation with Barrett
The situation with Zambrano is one that I certainly don't envy Jim Hendry for being in. It's not easy. While it is true that an extension to Zambrano will never be cost effective, what other options do the Cubs have? I don't know.
All I know is that Hendry, if he's doing his job, will be open to the idea of trading Zambrano for MLB-ready prospects (I've estimated that he may be worth as many 4 top prospects and definitely 3). If a deal pops up that will improve the Cubs by trading Zambrano, Hendry has a responsibility to make the trade. That kind of deal considering Z's age and his talent will almost certainly be presented to Hendry.
I'd hate to see Zambrano go as well. If I have a favorite current Cub, it's definitely him, but I can watch the guy pitch for another team if I have to. Worked just fine all those years watching Maddux in Atlanta. Unfortunately the Cubs didn't do something with Maddux that made them a better team.
If re-signing Zambrano is what makes the Cubs better, then Hendry also has a responsibility to do that. I just can't imagine a situation in which a beneficial trade is not presented to the Cubs where actually signing a pitcher...any pitcher...to some 6 or 8 year deal would actually improve them the most. Honestly, as good as Zambrano is, that kind of deal probably won't even improve the Cubs. It's got a very good chance of making them a worse team in more ways than one.
The issue of the backloaded contracts is one. The issue of his health...any pitcher's health is another. The issue of the bulk of that contract covering his post-peak years is yet another. It will undoubtedly restrict the Cubs in future free agent markets.
So I admittedly haven't any true idea of what Hendry is going to be offered for Zambrano, but I can't imagine it won't be something that is in fact a better alternative (makes the team better now and in the future) than re-signing him to some absurd deal.
by Maddog on Jan 28, 2007 10:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
You're a better man than I
by cubsfan2883 on Jan 28, 2007 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Maddux Z comparision is understandable
or financial similarities. Z is a very good and so far durable
pitcher but he has huge issues with pitch counts, walks
and temper. I don't think anyone sees him going to the Yankees
and winning 3 straight Cy Young awards. Financially the Cubs
and Maddux were never far apart which is what made his leaving so sickening. It was about power and not allowing a young pitcher and his agent be seen as dictating terms. Whatever Jim Hendry's issues are , he is NOT Larry Himes and this is not 1992.
I think it will be hard but not impossible to keep Z but
if he insists on a 7 year deal, I would have to say let him walk
( or trade him at deadline if the Cubs are not in the race.
Not getting a return for Z would be Ok IF he helps them get
to the post season in 07.
by jessica on Jan 28, 2007 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that was pretty much my thinking exactly
Now that you mention it, I do remember your comparison of Blanco and Barrett, which makes me feel even more strongly in advocating a trade. Barrett and Eric Patterson are, IMO, the two most overrated trade pieces that we have right now. I wish Hendry was more adept at taking advantage of these misconceptions, but I have a feeling that he overrates both of them himself, too.
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
About Z...
What you are not taking into account is the emotional attachment Cub fans have to Z, and what he means to the franchise beyond his performance on the field.
Yes, that does have value, as noted in another post about how sick people felt when watching Greg Maddux throw for the Braves all those years. Do you really want to see a situation where Carlos Zambrano dominates baseball for a decade in a Yankee uniform? I don't.
Jim Hendry HAS to sign Z. He really doesn't have a choice. Yes, it's risky, because who knows, he could break down in a year. But I really think that no matter what the money, it has to get done, and likely will, before Opening Day.
by Al on Jan 28, 2007 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I completely disagree, Al
Overcommittment to sentimentality is a trait of many weaker GMs, I think. Sure, we love certain athletes, but a GMs primary job is winning. Everything else is secondary.
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think...
If we won without him, I would be extremely happy, but I will not forget him.
by sparkles721 on Jan 28, 2007 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But...
I don't doubt Hendry will re-sign him or that he'll do so for this reason, but it's not a reason he should.
I had no problem watching Maddux win about 200 games with Atlanta. I imagine MOST Cubs fans won't have a problem with Zambrano leaving either. I think it's the few Cubs fans who would mind. I wish Maddux could have done what he did with the Braves in a Cubs uniform. I also wish what Pedro and Clemens have done could have been in Cubs uniforms. The emotional issues of this must not be considered when making a decision that is going to affect the club for a long time. This is about business and making the proper business decision.
If that decision is that Zambrano should be re-signed; that he makes the Cubs a better team than the alternative then he should be signed. If signing Zambrano is passing on potential deals that could land the Cubs multiple top prospects nearly MLB ready then it's not the right decision.
I don't think Hendry has to do anything. I think, sometimes we fans who discuss this stuff on places like BCB and elsewhere seem to forget that we're the minority. The overwhelming majority of fans are not like us. They would see that Zambrano has been let go or traded or whatever and say to themselves, "that sucks" and then go to work and not think about it until Opening Day when they would again say, "that sucks." You and I, Al, make up at most 1% of the Cubs fans population (people like you and I--people as passionate about this as you and I).
I argued over at 1060 to no end recently about this absurd idea that the Cubs intentionally overhype their young prospects for financial gain. It's an absurd idea that they do this and other teams don't. If there is money in it, then every single team is doing it. And quite frankly, the people who even know who Felix Pie is are in the minority of the Cubs fans. Why on earth would they market their team to the 1% who pay attention to this stuff--the 1% who are actually going to go look at Pie's stats to see that he's not as great as maybe the Cubs have made him sound? Why?
The same thing is true here. Why would Hendry make a decision that is aimed at pleasing a small number of Cubs fans? Basically, and you know I don't have much respect for Hendry, he isn't going to do that. Hendry will probably re-sign Zambrano, but it will be because he thinks it's the best move for the Cubs; not because some fans will be upset.
by Maddog on Jan 28, 2007 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
great points maddog
i think another thing that needs to be mentioned thats not is the potential return of what Z could bring back.
I keep hearing about Z being able to bring back 3 super prospects, which is likely very true. But lets remember its less than 50% how many prospects turn into solid regulars and its less than 50% how many top prospects turn into stars.
I think everyone needs to be prepared that if we were to trade Z for 3 great prospects it's little assurance that any of those 3 will turn out ot be worth the hype. Sure maybe we'd strike gold and get 3 great prospects for Z, but the chances of this happening are minimal
i think those that separate themselves from the emotional part are often assuming the number of prospects we receive are equal to the number of "young stars" we're getting back in return for Z and that's just not the case
it very well could be that we get ZERO impact players back in return, its a crapshoot we just dont know
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
prospects
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Jan 28, 2007 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
even hughes
Hughes could go back to having the shoulder injuries that plagued him early in his minor league career and we could never hear from him again
you just dont know. Prior's a perfect example of this
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 28, 2007 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I know
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Jan 28, 2007 3:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You may be right.
Those kinds of deals will be available for Zambrano and while it's entirely possible it's a deal that ends up netting us nothing return, the alternative seems to be giving Z 7 or years and upwards of $150 million.
Since we're imagining the worst case scenario with the potential of the prospects, the worst case scenario here is that Z gets injured and is never really that good after the injury. The Cubs will be on the hook for that HUGE contract no matter what.
Certainly part of trading Zambrano is not just to land the prospects, but creating some payroll flexibility as well. Getting a few top prospects to pan out AND that flexibility would be ideal, but even if the prospects don't pan out, we've still got that money. If it was worthwhile to invest it into Zambrano, there will be another pitcher entering free agent in the next few years (you'd think anyway) that would also be worth it.
So while it's a distinct possibility that the prospects don't pan out, you have limited the margin of error AND created payroll flexibility. Worst case scenario is really that none of the prospects pan out and you the acquire a player of Z's caliber with the money you saved.
by Maddog on Jan 29, 2007 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Johan Santana.....
by PriorandAramisfan23 on Jan 29, 2007 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
imagine the money
by Faith plus 1 on Jan 29, 2007 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He's probably the on;y.......
by PriorandAramisfan23 on Jan 29, 2007 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it'll be interesting to see
by Faith plus 1 on Jan 29, 2007 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he will be nice...
by sparkles721 on Jan 29, 2007 4:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True.
by Maddog on Jan 29, 2007 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The payroll flexibility......
by PriorandAramisfan23 on Jan 29, 2007 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
added payroll flexibility
if you're freeing up money by letting Z go with the intent of spending it in FA than the point is pretty moot. You ALWAYS end up overpaying in FA and in today's baseball world of revenue sharing top players arent hitting FA as often as mid-market teams have been able to lock up their star players (Santana, Sheets, Sizemore, etc)
Plus how many guys hit FA at the ripe age of 26 (as Zambrano will)
in my opinion the idea of freeing up the money isn't as great because we're then required to reinvest it in the free agent market which as you can see you end up paying too much and for too many years
ideally you'd want to free up the money to lock up younger players before they hit the FA period and thus get great players at bargain prices (like the Indians, Twins, Brewers, etc have tried to do)
unfortunately we dont have that crop of young players right now so the freed up money only allows us added financial flexibility to spend in the FA market (at least in the short term)
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 29, 2007 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the cubs problems with financial flexibility
for instance the Marquis + Lilly combo that's making 17 million on average a year that we'd be keeping instead of a Ryu/Marshall/Guzman/etc + Zambrano that would be making 17 million a year
granted thats only for the next 3 years, but i'm fairly certain if we freed up that 17 million or so by not signing Z we'd be spending it similarly given the prices in FA 4 years down the road
the Cubs reliance upon building through FA is at the root of the problem, not the money Big Z would demand
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 29, 2007 3:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't necessairly believe that to be true.......
There's just no way that he's ever going to be worth that money, its never going to produce a result that's a net positive for the team as a whole......now if Hendry decides to trade him for 2 or 3 prospects and spreads that money out among a couple of good FA's then there is a chance that those 4 or 5 players could produce a result that's worth $140 million.
by PriorandAramisfan23 on Jan 29, 2007 4:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
but think about it
if its 20 million annualy this free agent market allowed us to sign DeRosa, Lilly, and Marquis for 20 million
if thats the type of group of guys we're going to get i dont see how it helps
how many "stars" hit FA this year??? Soriano??? that's really it and he's 31, not exactly a young buck
by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 29, 2007 5:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That may be the case...
by Maddog on Jan 31, 2007 8:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
wouldn't you agree
While it's true that he hasn't suffered major injury yet, I think his injury concerns go widely underreported: greatly because we already have wood and prior in this organization. He isn't like Barry Zito, who's never missed a start: he consistently ranks near the top in PAP and has had recurring back pain. He's also been forced to go deep in games during "dead arm" periods (when he was quoted as saying that he felt like he had "cement" in his arm), which any orthopedic surgeon will tell you is just about the riskiest time to make a pitcher throw copious pitches.
Sure, he could go forever without breaking down, but that is way too rare to predict.
It's a gamble to sign, or not sign Z. It isn't as cut and dry as dartmouthcubfan has tried to argue. In his scenario, Z remains healthy and effective for seven years, while all of the potential highly rated prospects that we bring in will bust and our payroll flexibility won't net us jack shit. Sure, it COULD happen that way, but which is more likely? When you add the fact that signing Z would hurt payroll flexibility not just now, but for the better part of a decade the right answer becomes even more ambiguous. I think Hendry is just going to have to take a roll of the dice, and we'll know in like 5-7 years whether it was the right choice.
I do think that the percentage move is probably to trade Z.
There is also one more factor to consider: is Z really going to get over the hump to be a truly elite pitcher in the class of the Carpenters, Halladays, Oswalts etc. He's quite good now, but with the amount of money he wants us to throw at him, I think he has to reach the next level. Currently, I'm somewhat skeptical, because he just doesn't appear to have good enough control to reach that level. If Z could cut his walks down to around 3bb/9ip I think he would have an excellent shot for a perennial sub 3 ERA and a cy young award or three. With his current lack of control, I think he might be stuck as a low to mid 3 era pitcher. Sure, that IS great, but is it outstanding? For 20 million a year over 7 years, with reasonable injury concerns and lack of payroll flexibility for the team, he better be pretty damn impressive for a long time.
by Thelonious on Jan 31, 2007 9:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
nice points maddog...
However, in terms of just pure prospects, I don't believe any longer that Zambrano would fetch 3-4 top shelf young talents.
And since destinations for Zambrano, in theory, are limited due to his soon to be astronomical price tag (not to mention precluding the 5 teams that vie against us every year from our own division), Zambrano trade partners might not be as numerous as many of us think, and these teams may not be as amenable as they were in the past to dealing away their prized youth for a "sure thing" like Big Z.
For instance, I no longer believe the Yankees would trade Philip Hughes for Zambrano. Everything I read screams at me that the Yanks are the limit on Hughes in terms of expectations and that the Yankee organization is bristling at the commonly held belief that they are no longer a team that can develop much of anything out of their farm system. They want Hughes to be the proof they can, and for the first time in a looong while, the Yankees are demonstrating something approaching fiscal responsibility. So, they can't be blind to the fact that there's a reasonable bet that they can get roughly the same production out of Hughes that they would out of Big Z, and for mere pennies in comparison.
And barring a reassertment of Steinbrennian dominance within the organization (the fact that Torre and A-Rod were both retained this offseason is proof positive to me that Steinbrenner is no longer actively involved in club affairs), or a sudden precipitous drop in Hughes's stock (injury, horrible first half in AAA, or beat around the yard in the bigs), I just don't see the Yankees dealing perhaps the most prized pitching prospect in baseball (be he overhyped or no due to his pedigree), even for Zambrano, and certainly not when Johan Santana lingers over the horizon after 2008.
And I think when the escalating costs of pitchers is taken into consideration, which only serves to raise the cost value on young pitching, I think we will find much of the same story around the rest of the league, especially when you take into consideration that all the teams that would be interested in Zambrano know that they could simply wait out this year and buy him and not have to part with their best young talent.
So, three or four top prospects to me seems unrealistic, and I see the likely market for Zambrano being closer to an upper-tier prospect, a middle-tier one, and an established/borderline star major leaguer due for free agency and a big payday himself within the next couple of years, or,a high-priced star on the outs with the club he is currently with.
I think the days of raiding another team's farm system are, for the foreseeable future anyway, essentially over.
However, this doesn't mean that the Cubs can't get considerable value in return for Zambrano, it just means it won't be the perfect scenario we envision, where the Cubs land say a Philip Hughes, Jose Tabata, and Humberto Sanchez, giving us top notch talent while saving us a mint.
Imo, the more realistic deal would entail landing an A-Rod being run out of New York, a Humberto Sanchez and that's it.
Or a Mark Teixeira and an Edison Volquez or a Thomas Diamond.
But then would those deals be better than just keeping Zambrano and paying him 18MM per? Hard to say.
The only other solution I see (other than just bending over the barrel and giving Z all the years he wants and all the money he wants), is trying to do what the Dodgers did with Furcal and significantly overpaying Zambrano for a shorter term (4/88MM perhaps?) so that Z will still be a relatively young pitcher in his prime (by traditional standards that is) and in line to land another monster payday when those years are up.
In the meantime the proposed contract would make him, per annum at any rate, the most expensive pitcher in baseball, and that might be enough to sate Z's appetite for respect and money while keeping the Cubs away from committing 8 years to such a high risk investment.
by theprognosticator on Jan 28, 2007 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
short-term deal
In the meantime the proposed contract would make him, per annum at any rate, the most expensive pitcher in baseball, and that might be enough to sate Z's appetite for respect and money while keeping the Cubs away from committing 8 years to such a high risk investment.
I would be very much in favor of this, not sure Z would be.
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Jan 28, 2007 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he probably wouldn't be in favor of it...
by theprognosticator on Jan 28, 2007 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Biz Z
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Jan 28, 2007 4:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it's just too tough to say right now...
I'm glad this one's not mine to solve.
by theprognosticator on Jan 28, 2007 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yep
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Jan 28, 2007 4:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If that's true,
I'm not sure I agree with everything you said though you did a great job in saying it.
I think the deals we saw around the deadline last you showed that the trade market had gone as insane as the free agent market was this offseason. We saw middle relievers traded for legitimate prospects, which has never happened before that i'm aware of excepting the occasional goofy deal like Matt Karchner for Jon Garland who hadn't even played two seasons yet.
I think one of the reasons why a team would give up several top prospects is because having Zambrano on their team right now is half the battle in getting him signed. More than likely, any team the Cubs trade him to will insist they work out a long-term deal. So if you want Zambrano and don't want the bidding war, which most teams, including the Yankees don't, you trade for him now. he's the kind of player where "giving up the farm" is OK to do.
So if a team like the Dodgers or Angels wanted Zambrano and planned to go after him this offseason, their best move is to trade for him now and signing him to a long-term deal before the trade is completed.
If Zambrano reaches free agency, there are probably a dozen teams that will get in the bidding: yanks, both Sox, both LA teams, Toronto, Baltimore, Texas, Houston, St. Louis, Brewers (there have been whispers they're interested), Nationals, Indians, Tigers. Not all of those teams will be legitimate buyers, but several of them will be. Simply having the Yanks and Sox along with both LA teams battling for his services makes acquiring him for prospects and signing him now look pretty good in my opinion.
by Maddog on Jan 29, 2007 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
...perhaps...
I could very well be wrong about this.
However, I look at the teams with the kinds of prospects we would want and should want in exchange for Zambrano, and I believe, for now at any rate, that these teams will demonstrate more reluctance than they might have in the past, especially now that this nutso free agency period has played out and mediocrity has been so handsomely rewarded.
It's one thing when it is mused and projected, and quite another when it comes to fruition, and I believe that this offseason has spooked a number of teams, including the traditionally big-spending ones. And I think from here forward, until the market retracts a bit, many of these teams will balk at giving up their prized youngsters, even for a pitcher like Zambrano.
You make a good point about a trade that would include a window to re-sign Zambrano. However, I'm not so convinced a ton of teams will be looking to give Zambrano precisely what he wants. The general consensus around baseball, from what I've read, is that what Barry Zito got was fucking batshit, and that no pitcher is worth risking 8 years over. Of course, there's always one team that ends up throwing caution to the wind, but would they reveal themselves this early in the process? For a team to go to that length for Zambrano, trading their absolute best prospects on top of offering 8/140, I believe they would have to be desperate, and I don't sense that kind of desperation or need from the kinds of teams that have the quality of prospects we should demand in return for Z.
As the season progresses, need should open up with at least two or three, but then the possibility of a long-term deal being reached is likely precluded, especially if Zambrano refuses to negotiate once the season starts like he said he would, which would likely shrink the Cubs return by quite a bit.
However, in the meantime, it doesn't hurt to shop him around and just see what's out there for him. Could be that my argument is specious and that teams will give up the world for Zambrano, but for now anyway, I just don't see it. Earlier in the offseason perhaps, but not from here going forward.
And to a point I disagree about all the teams you mentioned being heavily involved in the trade market for Zambrano.
The Yanks are out unless they want to part with Hughes or the Cubs decide to take less than Hughes (and they shouldn't). The Yanks would obviously be major players for Zambrano after the season, but they also have the reputation and the money to back it up for being the team that almost ALWAYS outbids everyone else. Basically, they can be arrogant enough not to trade for Zambrano, and be confident enough that they will be able to beat any other contract offer out there next offseason. They also have the luxury of being major players in the Clemens race, and if something were to go wrong in ST, I believe they will go hard after Roger and/or simply promote Hughes.
I believe the Red Sox are out after dropping all that money on Matsuzaka, and as far as prospects go, it would take a combination of say, Jacob Ellsbury, Buchholz, Bowden, etc, and maybe even a Josh Beckett, for the deal to be worthwhile talent-wise for the Cubs. And I just don't think the Red Sox are amenable to gutting their farm system for a pitcher they currently don't need as they are 6 deep in the rotation in addition to being one of the destinations Roger Clemens will seriously consider. If something goes wrong in ST, I believe firmly the Red Sox would simply bid higher for Clemens, rather than give up their best prospects for Zambrano, and then see where matters stand at the end of the year.
Of course there's virtually no way the White Sox would be considered as trade partners for Zambrano, at least not until after interleague, and even then, I don't see the depth of young talent that would behoove the Cubs to take the Sox seriously. I am also very dubious about their chances of making a big run at Z in the offseason anyway as all the moves they've been making of late have represented a general curbing of spending, and I have no faith at all that Kenny Williams would be able to go to the mat with the Yankees and Red Sox and come out a victor in this. So I don't see the White Sox as players at all unless a number of the big spending teams drop out.
The Dodgers and Angels are fairly deep in their rotations as well and are in much greater need for an impact bat over an impact pitcher. These two teams fall in the category again of clubs that would need something to go terribly wrong in order for the Cubs to stand a chance of landing their best prospects.
Toronto just doesn't have the talent to make a deal for Z work unless they are willing to burn Alex Rios, Travis Snider, and Adam Lind in return, but then the question is, what the hell do the Cubs do with all these OF prospects? Another deal would have to be consumated or a third team involved to make this an expeditious trade.
Baltimore has nothing the Cubs should be considering unless some sort of deal for Tejada were to be made (and it would have to include one of Adam Loewen, Erik Bedard, or Brandon Erbe to make it worthwhile for us as Tejada, though a bargain, isn't exactly cheap).
Same problem with Texas unless they make Mark Teixeira the centerpiece of that deal, and he is in line for a monster payday himself soon.
Houston, St. Louis, Milwaukee won't be considerations, and while Houston would be a major player the following offseason, I don't see St. Louis or Milwaukee getting that heavily involved.
Nationals, Indians, Tigers all seem names other writers have just thrown out there to throw some names. The Tigers are deep in their rotation, the Indians have been loathe to spend money, and will continue to be as I see them having a tough time enough just keeping Hafner, Sizemore, and Sabathia around. And how in god's name would the Nationals outbid anybody?
So anyhow. I just don't see a robust trade market, at least not robust in terms of the names the Cubs should demand, for Zambrano with him on the cusp of landing the most lucrative contract ever given to a pitcher. That Zambrano at the price he is likely to command represents a major risk, is certainly not lost on the teams that would be bidding for him, and I'm sure many of them would realize that going this far for Z, blowing up their farm and giving him a mint, could very well be one of the most disastrous moves their organizations have ever made.
If this were a year ago, then I'd think differently. But the clock has just about run out on getting a relatively cheap Zambrano. He's about to get mighty mighty expensive, and if I were the teams looking to get involved, I would not burn my best talent in addition to throwing 140 mil at Z. I'd wait.
by theprognosticator on Jan 29, 2007 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Per usual
by cubbiejulie on Jan 28, 2007 11:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you too.
I think Z is going to stay, but Jim Hendry made it clear at the convention that he can't just give a guy whatever he wants. Hendry isn't the best GM out there, but I think he will make the right decision about Z.
by sparkles721 on Jan 28, 2007 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Past performance...
I'm pretty sure that we're reaching the point of diminishing returns with Henry Blanco.
by cwyers on Jan 28, 2007 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Free Agents
First off, these two are really going to test the Cubs front office abilities as well as fan's fortitude, perhaps even more than the Aramis Ramirez situation did. Since Greg Maddux left, I cannot remember if the Cubs have lost one of their own high profile free agents. Even with Maddux, it was the Cubs who decided ultimately that they were no longer interested. So I guess my point is that when it comes to their own, it has been a long time since the Cubs have lost one that they wanted to retain.
On the other hand, when we think of the Cubs new slugging outfielder, look at the situation of the Washington Nationals. As a friend of mine said last night when we were talking baseball, the Nationals may be lucky to win ten games this year. While Jim Bowden claims that he had no good offers for Soriano at the trade deadline in the end the Nationals ended up with a sandwich pick and the Cubs second round pick. Bowden would have been wise to take one of the bad offers. Bottom line? The Cubs cannot simply lose Barrett and/or Zambrano for nothing.
DmL
by dmlichte on Jan 28, 2007 11:20 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Only if they win the World Series
by Imtrejo on Jan 28, 2007 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll save you the time...
**I tried to copy and paste the article I wrote here, but I can't create tables here so it didn't work. You'll have to go to the link above to check it out. Just add $3 million for Floyd and it would be up to date.
by Maddog on Jan 28, 2007 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so what you are saying is that the Cubs
If we extend Z, the Cubs will not be able to make a FA acquisition again until one of our major contracts (Lee A-Ram, Soriano, Z) falls off.
Because in those four players we will have between 65-70 MM per year tied up in those four... Gosh I hope we draft(ed) well.
by cubsfan2883 on Jan 28, 2007 3:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
If they do, they're putting themselves in a position where only a few players are making significant money down the road. That's never a good position to be in as far as I'm concerned.
What i'd like to see happen is this. They reach an agreement for '07 for about $12 million. If i were Hendry, I'd then offer him a 3-year extension on top of the '07 salary ('08, '09, and '10) for the same amount that Zito got annually and the same amount that Oswalt and Carpenter's contracts were extended for...$17 million. Offer him 4 year and $72 million (that's $20 million per season during the extension). He'll then be eligible to file for free agency when he's just 29 years old.
If Zambrano doesn't like this kind of deal, I'd get on the phone and shop him around. 4/72 for Zambrano is more than he deserves (both Oswalt and Carpenter are still better pitchers in the same division as he).
by Maddog on Jan 29, 2007 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Z will stay
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Jan 28, 2007 1:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
that's my guess too
Have any thoughts on either Z or barrett?
by Thelonious on Jan 28, 2007 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
what should happen?
The Z decision is a very difficult one. I don't think the cubs could win the world series in the next few years without him.
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Jan 28, 2007 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 
















