Church traded to Mets
Well there goes one plan B. The Mets sent Lastings Milledge to the Nats for Church and Brian Schneider. This is according to MetsBlog:
http://www.metsblog.com/2007/11/30/buzz-mets-trade-milledge-for-church-and-schneider/
Well, this is still too short. Stating the obvious: get fukudome. Ok still too short, so who do you guys think would be the next best plan B, as Church was regarded by most to be the next best option.
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 |
59 comments
Comments
I dont get it
by Kchance on Nov 30, 2007 12:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I wonder how Johnny Estrada feels about this.
I think the larger picture here is that Lastings Milledge had... character issues that I think the Mets wanted to divest themselves of.
by cwyers on Nov 30, 2007 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rumor has it...
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/11/heymans-lates-2.html
by crw89 on Nov 30, 2007 2:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They got Estrada from the Brewers...
by cwyers on Nov 30, 2007 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
by Damen Jackson on Nov 30, 2007 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, even if they nontender Estrada...
by cwyers on Nov 30, 2007 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Matt Murton?
by cwyers on Nov 30, 2007 12:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
there's my choice
by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
You make it seem as though there is no merit to the concept of having some lefties in the line-up, especially to break-up the 2-6 hitters.
You don't go for lefty over quality, but the Cubs right now, with several months before spring training, need to first aim for a quality lefty, and then go to plan C, D or E if that falls through.
And I know this will start a firestorm but it blows my mind how much people are overrating Matt Murton at this point of his career.
DmL
by dmlichte on Nov 30, 2007 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i think its an interesting question
and i didnt even bring up murton.
but please tell me how he is being overrated? did i say, start murton every day, he'll hit 35 homers!!!!
no. i dont think anyone else did either.
a career line of .296/.365/.455 looks pretty similar to the lines people have projected fukudome for, and one would think from age 25 to age 27 murton is going to get better.
by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
a few things
As far as Murton, the essence of your post was that you agreed with the previous post in that Murton should be the starter. You guys were talking about Murton. And ya, I believe anyone thinking that Murton, right now, is any more than a 4th outfielder on a winning team is overrating him. His offense is tremendously inconsistent. He has not shown the power potential for a corner outfielder. His defense is just plain bad.
DmL
by dmlichte on Nov 30, 2007 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i guess
my question was, "so who do you guys think would be the next best plan B?"
B, as in, after A, so no, no one said Murton should be the starter.
And its tough to have a consistent bat when you have 250 at bats sporadically sprinkled throughout the season. And despite his lack of consistent at bats, his career line is one to be impressed with for someone coming off of their age 23, 24 and 25 seasons in the big leagues.
by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 2:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Um no...
DmL
by dmlichte on Nov 30, 2007 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ok
by kylejo on Nov 30, 2007 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
KAZ...
by BigZ 4 Cy on Nov 30, 2007 3:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If its true...
by seang03 on Nov 30, 2007 12:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Could be good for both
by rlpete on Nov 30, 2007 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming this is a done deal
by rlpete on Nov 30, 2007 12:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Considering...
by seang03 on Nov 30, 2007 12:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
However the Mets did try and offer Milledge to the O's and were turned down. I don't think the Mets were ever seriously in the Santana trade discussions.
by rlpete on Nov 30, 2007 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Green
I propose this only if the Mets pay part of the contract and accept Koyie Hill in return.
by DeRoMyHero on Nov 30, 2007 12:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
If we're going to dumpster-dive...
by cwyers on Nov 30, 2007 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Shawn Green...
by Al on Nov 30, 2007 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Green...
by big_lowitzki on Nov 30, 2007 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It looks to me like
So this really is turning into Furcall Part 2 (aside from the fact that we really don't know if the Cubs are even close to signing Fukudome).
I'm going to be optimistic and say the Cubs do land him. But I think Hendry has to really overpay now. Go out there and offer $45 million for three years...
If Fukudome slips away, however, is the offseason salvageable?
by cubz1963 on Nov 30, 2007 1:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry...
by Damen Jackson on Nov 30, 2007 2:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed completely
If we fail to add a RF I still like our odds next season. I'd guess we'd be odds-on favorites if the season started today.
by Wreckard on Nov 30, 2007 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
There is not a shred of doubt
The Cubs have not upgraded offensively, and I think they got as much out of their pitching as they could last season (even with the slow start by the pen).
by cubz1963 on Nov 30, 2007 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Cubs have not upgraded defensively
by Josh77 on Nov 30, 2007 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
by Josh77 on Nov 30, 2007 3:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Offensively, defensively
by rlpete on Nov 30, 2007 3:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We have improved both
by philadelphiacub on Nov 30, 2007 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a deal
by cubz1963 on Nov 30, 2007 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Odds-On Favorites
This team still needs significant improvement to have a legitimate shot at a NL pennant or WS Championship. A high OBP left handed hitting RF is just part of the shopping list ....
by wrigley1 on Nov 30, 2007 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly!!!
That is the Andy McFail mentality.
by JB 23 on Nov 30, 2007 8:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We have discussed this before.
You build a team to get to the playoffs. It is FAR more difficult to get in than it is to win a playoff series.
Now, if you don't agree with me, please post your plan to "win the World Series" rather than "collect division titles". I think you'll see that isn't possible.
by Al on Dec 1, 2007 4:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Understood...perhaps I didnt pharse right...
by JB 23 on Dec 1, 2007 8:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Collecting Division Titles
Generally I am in agreement with you -- and certainly in the current "wild card" era there has often been something of a crapshoot in the postseason. However, IMHO, simply having a team built good enough to win the weakest division in the game is not sufficient.
Some questions for consideration:
How many times has a club with the worst record of the playoff teams: 1) advanced? 2) won the pennant? 3) won the WS?
Where do you now see the Cubs stacking up: 1) against the rest of the NL? and 2) against the generally stronger AL?
My reply to your, 'please post your plan to "win the World Series" rather than "collect division titles" ', is that these are not mutually exclusive pursuits. So, want to win the division year after year and have a realistic shot at winning a WS or two? Start with DOMINANT pitchers at the top of the rotation and a high OBP/OPS offense complimented by decent team defense.
Where do the Cubs need to improve, based upon the formula above? 1) While the Cubs' pitching is pretty decent, add an "ace" to tandem with Big Z. 2) Get away from the temptation of bringing on more low OBP regulars. Don't get me wrong, I really like Fonzie, but the Cubs don't need more everyday players (much less at the top of the order) that have gobs of unproductive/wasted ABs. Now everybody on this board has beaten the dead horse of who they'd like to see the Cubs get this winter and there's no need to do that again here. But clearly, a player like a Fukodome would be a big step in the right direction if he can play anywhere near his lifetime numbers in Japan along with excellent defensive skills. 3) Most importantly for the future of our beloved Cubbies beyond 2008 is that they are sold to a new owner whose passion for winning matches and/or surpasses our own as fans. Personally, it will be a BITTER disappointment if the first statement from a new owner is anything other than "Our goal, this year and every year, is winning the World Series".
OK, enough of my hot air ..... have at it.
by wrigley1 on Dec 1, 2007 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What I was trying to say was...
They're not. You're right, building a dominant team as you suggest will give any franchise the chance to win the WS every year. But will they? Up to 2007, seven different teams (Yankees, D'backs, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, White Sox, Cardinals) had won the seven previous WS, some of those teams "coming out of nowhere" to do so, and some of them weren't even expected to make the playoffs the year they won (Angels, Marlins, White Sox).
Of course your goal is to win the championship. Every team's is. But to say you build a team specifically to "win the World Series" isn't quite right. You build a team to be a perennial playoff team. Getting in is the key. Once you're in anything can happen, as we have seen over the last few years.
I hope that makes more sense.
by Al on Dec 1, 2007 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
More ...
Minor point of disagreement, however. In my heart of hearts I am certain that the Cubs' aim (leaving the rest of the clubs out of this) most seasons since 1945 has NOT been to win the championship. More accurately, the club did not really have any defined goal at all due to poor ownership and management. And like the saying goes, "Without a destination any road will do." We can see where that has gotten us ....
Brighter days ahead -- GO CUBS GO !!!
by wrigley1 on Dec 1, 2007 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think...
In the Dallas Green era there's no doubt in my mind that management team was committed to winning. One of the biggest mistakes Tribco made was not giving Green the team presidency, as he wanted (and had, in my opinion, earned). Green would probably still be here, and would have put good people in place, and the Cubs would surely have won at least once since 1984.
by Al on Dec 1, 2007 6:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Handful of Years
by wrigley1 on Dec 2, 2007 8:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We'll see
by cubz1963 on Nov 30, 2007 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And in trading Church and Schneider
They still have a bunch of pitchers still on the team from Montreal: Chad Cordero, Luis Ayala, Jon Rauch, Shawn Hill at least. But as far as position players go, Church and Schneider were the last Expos.
by Josh77 on Nov 30, 2007 2:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Milledge
by thecoolest on Nov 30, 2007 4:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
I wouldn't have a problem with Shawn Green, if Fukudome doesn't work out.
by Johnny Callison was a Cub on Nov 30, 2007 5:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Green
by thecoolest on Nov 30, 2007 6:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Green as a platoon player
2007 - 326/383/482
2006 - 282/343/422
2005 - 306/374/513
2004 - 281/372/487
With the exception of 2006 he has been brutal against lefties. He's clearly not the player he once was, abut if you could get him for 4-6 million to platoon in RF with Murton he could be a useful player.
by circuitclout on Nov 30, 2007 8:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is why Jim Bowden asks for so much
Speaking of Wilkerson - "Plan B" - does the "B" now stand for "Brad"?
by DGU on Nov 30, 2007 7:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
IDK
by thecoolest on Nov 30, 2007 9:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think the Mets come out ahead
I think chances are that Church outperforms Milledge over the next 3 years, and Schneider could catch 300 games/3 years. By then, Milledge will either be a bust or an established MLB player. I think the odds favor the Mets, but I can see what the Nats are thinking (hoping) here.
I think they gave up too much for him, however. Unless they were shaving salary, which I'm not sure why they'd do, given the new ballpark.
by bleacher on Dec 1, 2007 12:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Okay, guys...
So Jim Hendry needs to call up Omar Minaya and see what he can get for Henry Blanco while he can still walk.
by cwyers on Dec 1, 2007 12:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Why bother?
by Al on Dec 1, 2007 4:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but...
by DGU on Dec 1, 2007 7:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















