Mike Cameron Again On Cubs' Radar
by Al Yellon on Dec 5, 2009 8:21 AM CST
in Chicago Cubs News
Email
PrintSo says Gordon Wittenmyer in today's Sun-Times:
Center fielder Mike Cameron could take center stage for the Cubs by the time the winter meetings begin Monday in Indianapolis, depending on how quickly they can slam the door on Milton Bradley's tail and how much room is left in the payroll.
What's clear is the Cubs' interest and the strength of manager Lou Piniella's relationship with Cameron, who spent the past two seasons with Milwaukee.
"I love the guy," Piniella said Friday night in Cincinnati during a reunion event for the 1990 World Series champions at the annual Redsfest. "Mike is somebody we've talked about. I'm looking forward to Sunday, [when team officials meet before] the meetings over in Indianapolis."
About ten days ago, I made this post comparing two potential acquisitions for the Cubs, Cameron and Marlon Byrd. For 2010, I think Cameron is a much better choice -- Byrd, coming off a career year, is likely going to be asking for far more money and years than the Cubs should commit. Signing Cameron at age 37 risks him having a decline at that age, but he had a pretty good year in 2009, and his OPS and OPS+ numbers have been remarkably consistent for the last eleven seasons.
In Wrigley Field, Cameron is a lifetime .261/.355/.521 hitter in 119 AB, hitting eight home runs, and he hits slightly better in day games (.803 lifetime OPS) than in night games (.782). There's no question about his outstanding defense, and he draws a fair number of walks (75 in 2009).
For the right price, and presuming the Cubs can move Bradley, Cameron would be a perfect fit for 2010. I wouldn't sign him to more than a one-year deal with an option year, but that might work out just right.
431 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cameron isn't ideal...
but when you sign a player like Milton Bradley and are then forced to trade him the following offseason, you can’t expect to get someone ideal.
I wouldn’t be opposed to him at a one year deal. Based on our GM’s history though, I can’t see the Cubs signing him to just a one year deal.
What’s the general consensus on Cameron’s asking price?
by kanderber on Dec 5, 2009 8:34 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Cameron made $10 million in 2009.
If he were going to arbitration he’d make likely that much — but that seems too high, doesn’t it?
I’m not sure what I’d offer. Maybe $8m with incentives?
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Sounds like rather a lot - I supposed it depends on how good/bad the [guess who] deal is
Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.
- The Mock Turtle, Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll -
all the talk of Mark Sanchez not being able to slide feet first.....
by cozmotaylor123 on Dec 5, 2009 8:55 AM CST up reply actions
I heard that, thought it was pretty funny
But hey, whatever works
"If I were playing third base and my mother were rounding third with the run that was going to beat us, I'd trip her. Oh, I'd pick her up and brush her off and say, 'Sorry, Mom,' but nobody beats me." ~ Leo Durocher
FOx the Great and Almighty should teach him
after all Fox is a 28 year old HOF to be
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I think it's the best option, possibly even better than trading for Granderson
I would prefer to have Granderson in the sense that he’s younger and it would solidify the position for several years. But Cameron will likely put up equal number is 2010 and possibly the next year, and wouldn’t cost prospects or draft picks.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
Agreed. I've been pulling hard for the Cubs to get Granderson,
but the more I think about it, the more this seems like the smartest move. Cameron has been a model of consistency, and even though he’ll be 37, he’s shown no signs of declining. He’ll give the Cubs a solid bat and an excellent glove in CF. Most importantly, Cameron is an absolute class act on and off the field, and he’ll be an instant leader in the clubhouse. So, in that sense, I suppose he’s the anti-Milton Bradley.
With Cameron, you keep the Cubs’ core of foundational prospects in tact, which I think is very important. It says to Castro/Vitters/Cashner/J. Jackson/B. Jackson that, “Hey, you guys are our future, and we want to keep you together for now.”
Plus, FanGraphs loves Mike Cameron: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/bay-vs-cameron
by Fresca on Dec 5, 2009 10:03 AM CST up reply actions 5 recs
+2
and I have liked Cameron for years, and think it would be a good stop gap move
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
THANK YOU!
Randy Wells. A product of the Roy Halladay School of Pitching, located in Toronto, Canada. Possible relocation.
+3
This would allow Dome to move to his more standard position in RF, and allow us to move [name redacted] to wherever we want to.
Even if it was for one year, we wouldn’t have as many distractions in the OF.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Dec 5, 2009 5:52 PM CST up reply actions
Never mind the fact that
This Cubs team cannot and will not compete this year, at all. Eating Bradley’s salary isn’t going to add 10 wins to the season.
We are slow, we are old, and we aren’t getting any better.
Trade Lee while he still has value, same goes for Ramirez and maybe even Zambrano. That is, if anybody wants him. Blow the team up, I don’t want to see the senior citizens run out there every day and get pummeled, like they will.
We don’t have a #1 starter. We have a #2 in Lilly, then we have about three #3-4 starters, and some #5 starters.
Summary: The Cubs aren’t good, and won’t be able to compete with the team they have for the next 2-3 years, so now is the time to dump salary and build with prospects. Enough of this “win now” attitude, it isn’t working. Especially with overpaying for free agents.
Do you remember what our record was last year? We were 83-78 with three of our biggest bats being cold/dl’d for a good chunck of the year. Put ramirez back in the lineup and have Soriano have just an average season and suddenly we are knocking on the door of a 90 win season which will get you in the playoffs a good number of years.
I saw you in that coffee shop, breaking the fifth commandment. Congress passes these things for a reason, Lois.
Brett Jackson was a draft pick!
That’s what I’m guessing he means.
Randy Wells. A product of the Roy Halladay School of Pitching, located in Toronto, Canada. Possible relocation.
Have the Cubs considered Podsesnik?
I know he played about 60% of the time in left last year, but seeing him in CF wouldn’t be out of the question, would it? Plus he only made 800K or so last year while batting .304/.353/.412. I think he would be a bargain at around $4-6m and he is a career .317/.384/.465 line at Wrigley in 101 AB. Plus he would be a legitimate SB threat. He did have 30 SB last year.
NO
Defense is HORRIBLE, little power, not a fantastic base runner
Between the two, Cameron is a better option
"If I were playing third base and my mother were rounding third with the run that was going to beat us, I'd trip her. Oh, I'd pick her up and brush her off and say, 'Sorry, Mom,' but nobody beats me." ~ Leo Durocher
POds is also a LF not CF
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
But we like guys who played a position for a few days in their career
Ex.
Aaron Miles at 3B
Bobby Scales in LF
Kosuke Fukudome in CF
Jake Fox at 3B/LF/RF
That was just last year
"If I were playing third base and my mother were rounding third with the run that was going to beat us, I'd trip her. Oh, I'd pick her up and brush her off and say, 'Sorry, Mom,' but nobody beats me." ~ Leo Durocher
True
Is he still our back up for when Soriano gets hurt?
"If I were playing third base and my mother were rounding third with the run that was going to beat us, I'd trip her. Oh, I'd pick her up and brush her off and say, 'Sorry, Mom,' but nobody beats me." ~ Leo Durocher
No.
Horrible defensively, can barely play LF, no arm, terrible baserunner… any other reasons?
Someday we'll go all the way...
by CubsBullsBears on Dec 5, 2009 5:38 PM CST up reply actions
Cameron fits
This is what I’ve been hoping for a while we’ve been screwing around with the Bradley disaster. A short-term contract to Cameron is a perfect fit for the team assuming the price tag isn’t ridiculous. Now that Miles is gone and we picked up a cheap and hopefully effective bullpen arm in Gray, we should go make this deal happen now. He’s the best CF free agent available who’s still playing above average (UZR of 10.0) and lets us move Kosuke to right.
This is still optimal over Granderson because he won’t need the platoon against lefties, doesn’t cost us quality prospects, or his long-term contract. We’ll just have to live with another strikeout prone outfielder.
Get this done, Jim.
Since we're all worked up about splits...
Cameron v. RHP in 2009: .244/.318/.430
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 1:39 PM CST up reply actions
Cameron wants a contender
and we may be his only choice in that department and also allows us to offer a little lower price with his self imposed limit. I think he probably is set for life with money and just wants to be on a winner. I would do this ASAP.
The other thing in the article was Pinella saying a 3-4 type starter was on his list (along with CF). How the heck will we pull this off with no money?
This is only the beginning....Lou Pinella end of '07 season and Chicago Transit Authority (the band when they were really good).
3-4 starter
Probably won’t happen unless we get a veteran
Unfortunately that means someone like Vicente Padilla or Randy Wolf, neither of whom is a great option at this point.
I think you’ll see the team go into spring training with the rotation as is, and if there’s somebody without a team come February, the Cubs will make a move. But I doubt you see them go after someone
"If I were playing third base and my mother were rounding third with the run that was going to beat us, I'd trip her. Oh, I'd pick her up and brush her off and say, 'Sorry, Mom,' but nobody beats me." ~ Leo Durocher
There may be non-tenders available later this month who are not out there now.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
This is true
But I doubt we have money for anybody decent. IMO I think our rotation is fine if they remain relatively healthy. I don’t mind having Marshall/Gorzelanny/Caridad as the fifth man. Signing someone would be nice but not necessary
"If I were playing third base and my mother were rounding third with the run that was going to beat us, I'd trip her. Oh, I'd pick her up and brush her off and say, 'Sorry, Mom,' but nobody beats me." ~ Leo Durocher
Marquis fits the 3-4 starter slot
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I wouldnt mind Rany wolf
might cost too much though
Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living."
I could see
the Yankees revisit Cameron (they discussed him early last year) as Damon and Matsui might want too much for their tastes. Don’t rule out some other clubs investigating it. Angels have been loosely rumored, although I doubt they have the money for it (the idea would be to shift him to LF).
That said, the fit here works, and we should be one of the favorites. He’ll eat up most of our remaining money, though.
Doubt the Angels go for it
Unless they somehow get rid of Gary Matthews Jr. They have too many other issues (Lackey, Vlad) and a crowded outfield already
"If I were playing third base and my mother were rounding third with the run that was going to beat us, I'd trip her. Oh, I'd pick her up and brush her off and say, 'Sorry, Mom,' but nobody beats me." ~ Leo Durocher
If the Cubs sign Cameron
Do the Cubs have to start untucking their jerseys after they win too?
and do the Brewers keep untucking?
This is the problem with celebrations. In the age of free agency they just don’t work. The Cubs/Brewers series’ will become the Epic Battle to Untuck
For the record,
I hate the untuck. I doubt the Cubs management would like it much. Although… it does seem to piss of the Cards. Might be worth something then lol
If he is willing to sign for one year at a reasonable price great
but so far prices have been far higher than expected.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
I imagine that it will take 2 years
in some fashion. Maybe 1 and an option. It’s hard for me to see any FA agreeing to a 1 year deal unless it’s really late in the offseason.
His age scares me.
But if he can do about what he did last year, and there is no way for the Cubs to get Grandy, then I guess.
Okay, we sign Cameron....
then trade MB for Burrell, who we then ship to the Mets for Castillo.
Why do we need Castillo again? If we do have Castillo at 2nd base, does that necessitate another deal? Baker would be utility guy, Blanco defensive replacement/only back up SS, where does that leave Fontenot?
If we don’t trade for Castillo, is Burrell just a bat off the bench and spot starter in the outfield?
Still a lot of questions on how this roster is going to shape up…
Nobody cares about your fantasy baseball team
Let Fontenot Go
He blew his opportunity to be this team’s second baseman, he’s not likely coming back. If they did trade Burrell for Castillo (assuming they even trade MB for Burrell in the first place) Castillo would probably split time with Baker at 2nd, and when Baker isn’t starting there, he can be a spot starter at other positions like 3rd base, or a super-sub off the bench.
Castillo is more a means to escape
MB than anything. That said, Castillo would add another top of the order bat. He would split time at 2nd with Baker, with Castillo being replaced late in games potentially. Baker would then move around.
I thought we didn't have money?
But now we suddenly have money to go after aging, overpaid baseball players like Cameron, Byrd, and Padilla, most of whom nobody wants. It’s like we’re back in Andy MacPhail days of second-tier free agents.
We have money for these guys, but not for players that would actually improve our team. We need a fast lead-off man and more power in the line-up. I have seen nothing on Hendry’s radar that will fix the offense which he ruined after the 2008 season.
He could have used Jake Fox in a trade for Granderson, but since he pissed Fox away for nothing, now he’ll have to use someone else. The Cubs should be shooting for the following line-up:
Granderson CF
Theriot SS
Lee 1B
Ramirez 3B
Fukudome RF
Soriano LF
DeRosa 2B
Soto C
Direct your resources towards a line-up like that, and we might just make the playoffs again. I’m afraid that next week will come with more dumb trades, more dumb free agent signings, and simply more bad baseball decisions.
Remember the last time that the Cubs took Piniella’s advice the roster? How’d that work out for everyone?
cubs have money for one decent FA signing.
and if somehow Cubs get out from under the Bradley contract without eating most of it, Hendry may have money for two, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Therefore, Hendry better make sure he gets it right with his one shot. Or he’ll be a free agent next year…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
SAINT DEROSA WILL LEAD THE CUBS TO THE PROMISED LAND
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 5, 2009 12:31 PM CST up reply actions
DeRosa
Cannot be counted on as a 2B anymore, his fielding skills have diminished greatly at that position, he is more of a corner infielder/outfielder at this point in his career.
Not to mention the unlikelyhood he comes back here in the first place.
As much as we’d all like to see Granderson here, I just don’t think the Cubs will be willing to give up what the Tigers are looking for, and that probably did not include Fox, since they already have a player exactly like him on the major league roster named Ryan Raburn.
Let's make this perfectly clear.
Jake Fox was not going to be part of a Granderson deal. I swear, reading your posts, you’d think the Cubs just traded Albert Pujols for three minor leaguers.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'd be cool with that...
…just as long as we flipped those three minor leaguers for PEAVY!!!!
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
and then flip peavy for
ADAM LI9ND
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 5, 2009 2:17 PM CST up reply actions
then LINd doe Bradley?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I think there's something in the water these days Al.
The Fox over-reaction on BCB is classic “waving your arms while running out of the room with your hair on fire” imagery… ;)
Now only 12,859 on the "Cubs Season Tickets Waiting List"...
Jake Fox would not help get Granderson
Just because he was nice to you doesn’t mean anything to Dombrowski. Believe it or not, he could care less.
Fox is an aging middling DH. He only hit .250 something last year and worse than that in the second half. He is in his prime. That is as good as he gets. Teams don’t trade away good players for mediocre DH candidates. Look at Hoffpauir’s 2009. Fox is Hoffpauir part 2.
Let it die or become an A’s fan. Your obsession over Fox is scary.
Fox will have a much longer career than Hoffpauir's
(because Hoffpauir’s is over once Lou is done managing if not already), but otherwise you’re absolutely right.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 2:06 PM CST up reply actions
You are right
Fox will have a longer career than Hoffpauir. My comparison to Fox was more based on the excitement over Hoffpauir as some late-blooming player last off-season. There were people thinking that Lee should be moved last year for Hoffpauir.
Cameron is the opposite of overpaid.
He’s been worth $105M over the course of his career, and only been paid $44. He’s been worth more than his salary every single year of his career except one, when he made $7.3M and was “only worth” $7.0M.
Cameron has been a bargain and will likely continue to be, especially given the expectation for low market prices for FA’s this offseason. The Cubs should sign him.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 2:13 PM CST up reply actions
if its all dumb in your eyes
then stop reading/watching/listening about it all so you can relax and come out of your Fox Crazed World
and about Fox in a trade for Granderson, it is hard to force a player in a trade when the other team involved has no need for that player. You can only trade a player to a team that wants him, and if Fox was wanted in a trade for Granderson, I am sure Fox would still be a Cub waiting a trade.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Granderson
is off the table anyway.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 5, 2009 3:19 PM CST up reply actions
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
DET may be saying that, but it could be posturing. Once the rumor mill opens up on a player, I’ll believe he’s on the market until a hard, flat-out denial comes out and the rumors stop.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 4:47 PM CST up reply actions
Derosa is going to be a aging overpaid player next year,
so your point makes basically zero sense
Every player should be accorded the privilege of at least one season with the Chicago Cubs. That's baseball as it should be played - in God's own sunshine. And that's really living."
money and Fox
there’s always been indication that we had enough money to make 1 semi-big move (in that 8-10 mil range). 10 mil probably would’ve been too much unless there was a backloaded deal of some sort, but there’s always been some flexibility this offseason.
As for Fox to the Tigers, that never made any sense to me due to money and fit. It was speculated upon, but what value would Fox have for the Tigers, unless they dumped Inge/Cabrera or a corner OF? They also had their own Fox in the upper levels in Ryan Strieby. I mean, maybe he would’ve been a bit part to a deal, perhaps a throw-in, but he wouldn’t have made a difference on that deal, and it’s not as if the loss of Fox would hamper the Cubs chances to land Granderson. As I’ve noted elsewhere, I thought the trade was fine. The fact that we saved money on Aaron Miles was a bonus, but had someone told me Jake Fox for Jeff Gray/Ronny Morla/Matt Spencer, I would’ve said decent deal.
Granderson – If you deal for him, I’d flip Granderson and Fukudome around. Granderson’s bat is better suited for the middle of the lineup.
btw why do we want DeRosa
We have a similar, and probably better, player in Baker. DeRosa’s also asking for unrealistic money – 9 mil AAV?
DeRosa is definitely asking for too much $.
However, I’m still not convinced that Baker is the next DeRosa.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
This would be a great signing
Granderson is probably a dream at this point. Cameron will make out entire defense better out there. Dome and him will cover a ton of ground, and I think he will be able to cheat a bit to Soriano’s side to help him out.
He isn’t a perfect fit, but the best think its the best we can do.
Also how funny is it that Lou is cutting out Jim Hendry and just talking with Cameron’s agent himself.
Officially Aaron Free since 12/3/2009. Good work Hendry.
How is Granderson a dream if all it costs is Marmol and change?
Seriously – would you rather have Cameron and Marmol than Granderson and Brandon Lyon?
That said, I like Cameron as an option in certain circumstances. I am a little concerned about his CHONE projection and want to see what PECOTA thinks if/when that comes out.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 1:42 PM CST up reply actions
Cameron and Marmol would cost less
In money and prospects. I think you need to realize your little dream most likely won’t happen.
Harry Caray sold me on the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field. I bought with all I had to give as a 14 year old, my soul.
by Zy Toro Young on Dec 5, 2009 2:27 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
"My little dream" - nice - I'm aware this doesn't look likely, which is why I'm arguing we should be doing it.
If the price is Marmol and a lot of prospects, that’s different. If the price is Marmol and Darwin Barney, however… or better yet, Marmol and Theriot – then it’s a huge mistake not to do this.
Plus Cameron and Marmol are not as good as Granderson and Lyon by a good bit.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 2:29 PM CST up reply actions
He's like Kevin Gregg
without all the bad things. Why we didn’t sign him last year instead of trading for Gregg is beyond me.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 3:12 PM CST up reply actions
Theriot and Marmol for Granderson?
I’d do that, but I don’t think there’s any chance the Tigers would. Or Marmol and Barney.
I'd probably do that too
but who would close?
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 5, 2009 4:51 PM CST up reply actions
DGU is saying Lyon, I guess
But it doesn’t matter. Marmol will be a Cub, Cameron will probably be a Cub, and Granderson will be playing somewhere else.
I'm not set on Lyon -
I just see Lyon and Granderson as costing no more than Byrd/Cameron and Marmol.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 5:40 PM CST up reply actions
What about Gonzalez or Soriano?
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 5:00 PM CST up reply actions
both will be extremely expensive
and probably past what we can afford. IIRC, Soriano’s gunning for Wood like AAV, and Gonzalez shouldn’t be that far behind.
I think Granderson is a dream
because I dont think detroit wants to move him as much as we thought at first
Officially Aaron Free since 12/3/2009. Good work Hendry.
I think that's definitely possible.
But if the rumors are true that Marmol is the cost, then all Cub fans should shout in unison, “Do it now!”
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 6:36 PM CST up reply actions
If Marmol is the cost,
DET is insane and Hendry should do his best to not LOL on the phone call.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:37 PM CST up reply actions
Right - I agree
I mean if Marmol is the centerpiece cost.
If Marmol is centerpiece part A and we need to add someone else of similar value, then that’s different.
But if it’s Marmol and guys we won’t miss…
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 6:39 PM CST up reply actions
If Marmol has to go
then I’ll drive him to the airport. Really he is very expendable.
Officially Aaron Free since 12/3/2009. Good work Hendry.
agreed
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Mike Cameron...
is a very good option for CF. I’d offer him a 1-2 year contract and hope that some of the youngsters in the system are ready to take over by 2011 or 2012. Given the state of the economy, he may accept a 1-year, $10M contract that pays him at his 2009 level.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 2:11 PM CST reply actions
I think Hendry did great with the Fox trade
He dumped Miles and saved 1.7 mil in the process, not to mention recieved some value as well. I wonder if they included guys like Fontenot and or Hoff who won’t help us much next year but because they are still cheep would have alot of value to a team like the Rays maybe they would take more of Bradleys money.
As far as Cameron goes this would make the outfield much stroger with moving Dome back to right.
I don’t know alot about Castillo, but I seem to remember him having his best year as a Met last year(which still isn’t great). What is his defense like?
defense is pretty bad
according to defensive metrics, at least. That said, I don’t think anyone is suggesting Castillo as a quality addition, but more as a possible way out of Milton.
There is one problem with Cameron...
he’s a RHB, and doesn’t do so well against RHP. I know people here say “forget this quest for a LHB stuff.” But it really is important when the entirety of your lineup is already filled with other RHB. If the Cubs sign Cameron and play Baker at 2B on a daily basis, here is their lineup:
Fukudome (L)
Theriot®
Lee®
Ramirez®
Soriano®
Cameron®
Soto®
Baker®
That’s the opposite of balanced. Let’s assume for the moment this team makes the playoffs. What do you think is going to happen in the playoffs, when the opponents stack RHP against is like the Dodgers did in 08? A sweep, that’s what.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 2:16 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
True
But IF they were to make the playoffs, who would they face, other than St. Louis or San Fran that could stack up that many righties? Philly’s two best P are lefties: Lee, Hamels and the Dodgers best is arguably Kershaw also a lefty. I do not think that this should be that big of a concern. However, I do agree that a little more balance in the lineup would be nice, maybe Castillo and Fuld would get some playing time.
It's not just the playoffs, either.
Take St. Louis. They’re our main rivals for the division championship, and they’re managed by a matchups-obsessed guy. You don’t think he’ll switch around his rotation for series against the Cubs? Of course he will.
Starting 8 RHB, some of whom have severe splits is a very, very bad idea.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 2:25 PM CST up reply actions
career OPS+ platoon splits (vs. RHP/LHP)
Fukudome (118/70)
Theriot (93/124)
Lee (97/112)
Ramirez (97/110)
Soriano (98/108)
Cameron (94/118)
Baker (87/125)
Soto (96/111)
this lineup will routinely struggle vs 73% of pitchers (RHPs). yet another reason, IMO, Granderson is worth Castro.
I don't think Granderson will cost that much.
I’d offer a deal that was something like Marshall, Fontenot, Colvin, and Vitters for Granderson. That should be enough to get it done.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 6:10 PM CST up reply actions
what changed?
The Granderson rumors have been often explained as being part of an effort by the Tigers to shed payroll. Given Granderson’s modest salary, that simply doesn’t make sense unless the reports are wrong… or unless Granderson is “bait” the Tigers are dangling on the end of the hook of one of their horrible contracts.
by shawngoldman
You mean why don't I think they'll trade him unless another contract is tied to it?
I could see that, too. It depends on if the reports are accurate.
If DET demands the Cubs take a player in return, maybe it would be something like Robertson and Granderson for Marshall, Colvin, Fontenot and a lesser prospect.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 7:03 PM CST up reply actions
that would add about $15M to the Cubs' 2010 payroll...not likely
not to mention the other $18M CG is owed after that
The rest of Granderson's contract isn't as big of a deal.
The $15M on this year’s payroll is a big deal.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 8:57 PM CST up reply actions
huh? are you still giddy from that resounding Bears victory? ;-)
If Detroit is going to deal Granderson by himself, don’t they need at least one “sure thing” in return? Vitters is probably the closest to being that, but Detroit doesn’t give up a fan favorite, upstanding citizen, and relatively cheap CF for the likes of Vitters, do they?
Do you not believe the scuttlebutt that they’ve been asking for Castro and/or Marmol? Why would they come down off that position? It’s not like they have to trade Granderson so this isn’t another Santana scenario where the return was far less than expected.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I believe they've asked for Castro/Marmol...
but I also believe they’ll do the deal for less than that. Let’s switch it up a bit and throw in a prospect pitcher instead of Marshall. Say, Cashner or Jay Jackson. Personally I’d rather give up Marmol but I think Hendry and Lour are going to want to hold onto their closer.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 8:59 PM CST up reply actions
that's making more sense
I’m guessing if Detroit does decide to move just Granderson, that means they’re packing it in for a couple years until all the bad contracts come off the books. In that scenario, Marshall doesn’t do much for them, but a good prospect now with higher upside later probably does.
Odds are good one of Vitters and Jackson/Cashner will turn into a sure thing, thus making a deal palatable to Detroit.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
even if 'packing it in' was their MO,
(which is doubtful in a winnable AL Central with Cabrera and Verlander in the prime of their careers) I think Dombrowski can pick up the phone, call Cashman, and get a much better package.
I have my doubts on that last part
I’ll be rather surprised if the Yankees part with a top young talent (namely, Montero/Hughes/Chamberlain) this offseason, unless it’s for a pitcher. Even then, I’m not sold. With their budget tightening, I don’t think they will trade top young talent unless the deal really makes a lot of sense for them. Keep in mind, their system isn’t all that strong right now.
They could do it if...
they traded one of those pitchers. But like you said, I don’t see that happening. Cashman has held onto those guys for a while. I doubt he gives them up now.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 7, 2009 2:29 AM CST up reply actions
No, he can't.
The Yankees best prospect is Austin Jackson, who really hasn’t had a much better career than Tyler Colvin. He’s overhyped because he’s slated to play in the Bronx one day.
The Cubs can do better than the Yankees.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 7, 2009 2:28 AM CST up reply actions
Yankees best prospect
is Jesus Montero. Even though he lacks a position, most expectations are that he’ll be an impact bat, and since he’s with the Yankees, that always opens up the potential that they can utilize his bat at DH and not worry about the defensive concerns as much. They may try him in LF. After that, it’s either Austin Jackson or Zach McAllister. I myself actually lean to McAllister, but Jackson has more upside. I’d probably give Jackson the nod over Colvin. Jackson can play CF and probably stick there, and he has the bat speed to still dream a little on the power side.
Here are their career numbers:
18 Rk .304/.374/.405 in 148 ABs
19 A .258/.338/.344 in 535 ABs
20 A .260/.336/.374 in 235 ABs
20 A+ .345/.398/.566 in 238 ABs
21 A+ .285/.354/.419 in 520 ABs
22 AA .300/.354/.405 in 504 ABs
20 A- .267/.313/.483 in 265 ABs
21 A+ .306/.336/.514 in 245 ABs
21 AA .268/.313/.483 in 247 ABs
22 AA .256/.312/.424 in 540 ABs
23 A+ .250/.326/.357 in 112 ABs
23 AA .300/.334/.524 in 307 ABs
I’ve bolded the years when they were at a similar level at the same age. Is Jackson the better prospect? Absolutely. I wouldn’t argue that point. My argument is that when you look at their professional careers, the difference in production isn’t as large as the differences in perception of the two players. Although one is loved by the scouts (who you have to respect) their numbers haven’t differed tremendously.
And my broader point is that I think the Cubs are also more likely to go after Granderson and that they have at least as much ammunition to do so, if not more. You can throw organizational rankings at me, but they’ll be outdated. We’ll know soon enough, but I’d guess the Cubs rank a few rungs higher than the Yankees now.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 7, 2009 10:21 AM CST up reply actions
i'm assuming that part of the post is directed
at andronicus, as the cubs can definitely compete on Granderson, and probably be more willing to offer a better package.
As for the Jackson/Colvin thing, I would note that, in comparing the offensive numbers, it overlooks the main advantage that Jackson has on Colvin – namely, that Jackson can stick in CF, whereas Colvin is more a backup option in CF, and only in his youth. That said, Jackson is a bit overhyped. He won’t be an elite defensive centerfielder. Good, perhaps. His bat is still more potential than ability at this point as well. I mean, people are still hoping that the bat speed can eventually lead to some power, and at this stage in a player’s development (age and level), you can’t keep hoping.
i'll take
Bill James’ judgement over yours:
Question: Who should play center field for the Yankers next year: Melky Cabrera or Brett Gardner?
Answer: According to James’s projections, neither. While Cabrera projects at .278/.341/.406 and Gardner at .277/.368/.375 (with an impressive 36-of-44 stolen base record), James has farmhand Austin Jackson at .294/.356/.411.
and Hulet (at fangraphs)
Arguably the Yankees’ best prospect, outfielder Austin Jackson is still raw in many facets of his game, but his tools and potential are undeniable. Only 22, he had a solid season in Double-A last year with a line of .285/.354/.419 with nine homers and 19 stolen bases in 520 at-bats. He also posted rates of 9.7 BB% and 21.7 K%. He didn’t run a lot last year and he also does not have a ton of home run power in his bat. That said, he is a solid all-around player who does a little bit of everything and plays above-average defense. Jackson could very be patrolling center field for the Yankees before the end of 2009.
side note
off of the seasons they just had, I imagine even KG might slide Austin Jackson down a tad (I could see him as a 3 or 4 star). I also think KG will likely put Lee and Cashner higher (early indications from KG’s comments would hint that both Lee and Cashner may be 4 stars this year for him).
That said, Jackson’s still a better prospect than Colvin, not disputing that part.
I'm not either...
but I think they’re closer than they were before last season. I also think that Cashman couldn’t/wouldn’t put together a “much better package” than the Cubs.
When the Granderson trade is mentioned and suitors are discussed, the Cubs are often talked about first for a reason. They have both the motivation and the means to get him.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 7, 2009 10:24 AM CST up reply actions
yes, the cubs are highly motivated...
the tigers…not so much. and in every ‘report’ i’ve ever read, ‘the means’ = castro.
It should be noted
that almost every report has been based off Rogers first report, and I don’t believe Rogers first report said that they asked for CAstro/Marmol, but rather, one or the other. Could be wrong, though.
Btw, IMO, there’s a huge difference in value between Jackson/Cashner/Marshall, particularly for a club looking for cheap, cost-controlled arms.
I have my doubts on that
We’ll find out soon enough what Dombrowski’s true intentions are, but most indications are, as of now, that this isn’t a firesale. Maybe he’s just trying to leverage a better deal, but so far, there’s been very little indication in any of the rumors. He demanded a lot for Edwin Jackson, and he’s asking a lot for Curtis Granderson by most accounts. So, why the search? One theory floated out there is that he doesn’t love his team’s chances for 2010, and coupled with the financial situation, he wanted to see if he could land a bushel of prospects to help rebuild quicker. That said, if he couldn’t get enough, he’d simply hold on and compete with his current squad in 2010 (and I think they could definitely compete in 2010 in a relatively weak AL Central) and figure things out after the money comes off.
What’s the truth? the winter meetings will let us know. That said, I have doubts that the value of that package would be enough, and the fit isn’t all that great. They have very little need for Mike Fontenot. Scott Sizemore will get the 2nd base job. I’m not sure they’d put Colvin in CF in that park, and I’m not sure they really want to move Raburn to CF, diminishing Colvin’s value to them. Marshall would have some value, but they have end of the rotation arms.
I’ve got a tough time seeing 1 top 100 prospect being enough to get a deal done. I also think that they would need better fits for immediate help than guys like Fontenot/Colvin/Marshall.
good point
My guess is that signing Cameron only happens if the Cubs have a lefty bat ready to sign/trade for at second.
Or SS...
they’re going to move Theriot to 2B soon, apparently, so if they can get a LHB at SS they could move Theriot to second now instead of when Castro gets the call.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 5:01 PM CST up reply actions
Reid Brignac or one of the Angels - Izturis or Aybar
but the Cubs have not been connected to those guys and they should all cost a lot in trade.
I think Luis Castillo or Mike Fontenot is more likely as the 2B in the lineup above.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 5:41 PM CST up reply actions
Me too, unfortunately.
I don’t have much confidence in either of those options, but I agree they’re the most likely.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:00 PM CST up reply actions
Aybar's unlikely to go anywhere unless
the Angels can find another leadoff option. By default, with Figgins leaving, he’s basically their leadoff guy as of now.
Wow - Ricketts wasn't kidding when he said he was looking at all ways to generate additional revenue
Looks like he registered R as a trademark. So now every time another team trots out a right-handed lineup, cha-ching!!!! More money to the Cubs! Yea!
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
LOL. I thought that was funny, too.
Al is there a way we can turn off the auto-“correct” for®?
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:01 PM CST up reply actions
LOL
I get it now. Send the suggestion to support (at) sbnation (dot) com. Send them a screenshot so they know what you mean.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Cameron
has been a very consistent player throughout his career but I agree with Shawn. I also hate to into next season without a bonafide leadoff hitter. Our interests would be much better served by trying to pry Granderson away from the Tigers…even if it means giving up some of our young talent (besides Castro).
Granderson isn't a bonafide leadoff hitter
He’d probably hit fifth or sixth with the Cubs.
The Cubs HAVE a leadoff hitter.
His name is Kosuke Fukudome.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Yeah, I think Kosuke leads off with Cameron in the lineup.
I think the bigger problem is the lack of a LH bat other than Fukudome.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 5:02 PM CST up reply actions
IF the Cubs get Castillo ...
Castillo
Theriot
Lee
Ramirez
Soriano
Fukudome
Cameron
Soto
Not ideal, but I could see something like this happpening.
I'd still bat Fukudome 1st in that lineup...
… and Castillo 8th.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
or theriot 8th and castillo second
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 5, 2009 6:36 PM CST up reply actions
I'd prefer a Fonetnot/Baker platoon...
to Castillo.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:02 PM CST up reply actions
ugh ...
Why? I like Baker, but I have no confidence in Fontenot.
The way I see it - there's no need to formalize it.
Let them compete for time both pushing each other and protecting each other. At the end of the year, Lou will have figured out their playing time, I think.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 6:37 PM CST up reply actions
Platoon is still a possibility
Fontenot hits righties well and Baker hits lefties well
I think you’ll see a platoon until there’s an injury where Baker can shift over
"If I were playing third base and my mother were rounding third with the run that was going to beat us, I'd trip her. Oh, I'd pick her up and brush her off and say, 'Sorry, Mom,' but nobody beats me." ~ Leo Durocher
I can't see a straight platoon
I think we’ll see a 50-50 split.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 7, 2009 9:21 AM CST up reply actions
Because although I don't think the world of Fontenot,
a Baker/Fontenot platoon will likely be about as successful as Castillo would be, for a much, much smaller cost.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:41 PM CST up reply actions
maybe
I’ve just had it with Fontenot. I know there were other bigger disappointments on the Cubs last year (Soriano, Soto), but I think the Cubs predicated a lot of moves on counting on Fontenot.
All that aside, if Castillo’s the return in a deal to get rid of Bradley, awesome — and start Casillo every day at second.
I agree, start Castillo
Trade Baker or Fontenot and if Castillo continues to play poorly platoon him with whoever is left.
Castillo is much better against LHP.
So that would mean you’d keep Fontenot. The problem is I think Baker a lot more likely to put together good numbers.
I really don’t like the idea of getting Castillo.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 7:12 PM CST up reply actions
I go 50/50 on this.
I love Cameron’s glove, his veteran presence, however him and Soriano will combine for 300 K’s and when the Cubs played the Brewers I loved it when Cameron came up with runners on. Soriano and him are the same, sliders away all day.
But if this keeps Marmol and Castro as Cubs, it is a good move.
Question: what market is there for Cameron? Do the Cubs have to go balls deep and sign him the first day of the winter meetings? Why not have some patience and see what the market is for Byrd.
by Grockcubs on Dec 5, 2009 2:23 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
I don't like to overreact to strikeouts
but there is an issue batting Soriano and Cameron side-by-side in the lineup.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 2:26 PM CST up reply actions
Basically, Cameron is only a good fit in the following way:
He’s an underpriced, talented CF.
Other than that he is too similar to what the Cubs already have on offense, and in that sense is not a good fit.
If the Cubs had more financial flexibility i’d be less in favor of this. As it is, Cameron is one of the better options out there.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 2:30 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
That's my big dislike about Cameron
He’s basically Soriano in CF. Having those two back-to-back in the lineup will be awful.
eh ...
Cameron has a great glove, so the “Soriano in CF” analogy is off.
I'd like it if we coupled a Cameron acquisition
with a trade for someone like Jordan Schafer and let Schafer (in the ideal result) earn more and more playing time – resting all of Sori, Dome, and Cameron.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 3:15 PM CST up reply actions
+ 1000
Blue mountains high .. Blue valleys low
I don't know which way we will go ..
One summer dream .. one summer dream ..
coda
ELO, 1975
Right now, the market on Cameron is a bit unknown
The Angels and Yankees have both been rumored, and I imagine some other teams may poke around a bit. If I had to take a guess at another team, I’d say the Braves, who could use a righty bat and could shift McLouth to LF. that said, just a guess on my part. Things are wide open on the Cameron front, unless I’ve missed something.
Cameron is not the answer
He’s 37 and will probably cost $8M for 1 or 2 years. His CHONE projection has him at .234 next year with 145 K. His SB were down to only 7 last year We hav to do better than an aging playr whose best years are well behind him.
With who?
The FA options on the market are Byrd, Cameron, and Ankiel.
Byrd
made $3M last year with better numbers. He has a lifetime RISP of .285. There is also the trade route.
Byrd is a good option, too.
They’re very similar in overall talent. I’d take the one that costs less or asks for fewer years on his deal.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions
Cameron's better defensively
… has been more consistent, has played in big markets AND plays better D. No Marlon Byrd.
Byrd is a better hitter, though.
I think they’re roughly a wash. One has more offnsive value, and the other has more defensive value. I’d take the less expensive option.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 5:03 PM CST up reply actions
Byrd won't repeat his 2009 numbers
I’d bet a lot of money on it.
I'm concerned the Cubs may see Byrd as a leadoff hitter or #2 hitter
and Byrd’s OBP and running skills are Theriot redux. A Cubs’ lineup with Byrd and Theriot batting some combo of 1-2 will be very frustrating.
Cub fans should be hoping that one of Jeff Baker or Mike Fontenot has a huge first half before Castro gets up.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 5:44 PM CST up reply actions
The projection is .234/.320/.418 with 21 HR.
For a player with Cameron’s centerfield defense, I’d be perfectly happy with that.
For the curious, Granderson projects at .264/.341/.465. Better, but I don’t think it’s better by enough to make up for Cameron’s superior glove in that position.
Granderson has had better defensive seasons than last year
and could easily out-perform Cameron on defense given Cameron’s age. If I had to bet on just defense, I’d bet on Cameron, but if I was looking at total player, Granderson wins by a far amount.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 3:17 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, Granderson is the better option by a mile.
The difference is Cameron is a FA, and Granderson isn’t. In a world where they’re both FA’s you go after Granderson first.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 4:38 PM CST up reply actions
that would really depend on the cost, Shawn
But here’s one reason I like the Cameron deal. The Cubs window with this group of players is closing. After 2011, we’ll see a much different club — maybe even a quasi youth movement.
Byrd and Granderson (if he was a free agent) would require more than a one or two year deal. Cameron, because of his age, won’t.
He strikes out too much and he’s right handed. But unless the Cubs can get Granderson in a trade relatively cheaply, Cameron is a good, good fit.
In theory yes
but if the price is Marmol and a SS we won’t miss with Castro nearly ready (in the Cubs’ eyes) – and that SS could be Theriot, Lee, or Barney, not sure what they’re looking for – then you might as well make the trade and sign one of the many good closer options, because Granderson isn’t just a better option, he’s both a short term and long term solution to many of the Cubs problems.
And Marmol is just as likely to have no trade value at the end of 2010 as to have any.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions
I agree that if the cost is Marmol+Theriot...
+ a prospect (Tyler Colvin?) then I’d pull the trigger. The question is how much the guy will cost. That’s something we simply don’t know.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Granderson is by far the best fit for the Cubs’ current needs. I just think Cameron is a serviceable Plan B.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:04 PM CST up reply actions
This is pretty much how I feel
Cameron is a good short-term backup plan
Officially Aaron Free since 12/3/2009. Good work Hendry.
Yup, and stress short-term.
with the hope that B. Jackson can take over CF in a couple years.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:58 PM CST up reply actions
I think some people think that
Cameron would get a Bradley or Dome like deal. That isn’t what would happen. One or two years is all. Which is exactly what this team needs right now if a long-term solution can’t be found.
Officially Aaron Free since 12/3/2009. Good work Hendry.
Bo
don’t know diddly.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 5, 2009 8:16 PM CST up reply actions
Marmol is just as likely to have no trade value as any?
That’s a bit much, isn’t it? Even with all of the control problems last year, overall he was still an asset, and has been a tremendous asset for the past three years now.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
I'll admit to a little exaggeration
but Marmol has two issues that could easily end his value – one, he could stop throwing strikes altogether – eek. Two, his arm could fall off.
But looking at less dramatic options – Marmol has a real problem. Players aren’t swinging and umps aren’t calling strikes when they don’t swing. In a situation like that, it should be a recipe for a good pitcher to start pounding first pitch strikes. But Marmol couldn’t. He’s on a precipice here. He could pull back, but he also might not.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 1:29 PM CST up reply actions
If the Cubs
are willing to spend $8M-$10M on a decent defensive CF, we’ll be lucky to duplicate last year’s record. There are only 2 positions you can live with hitting .234, SS and C.
Welcome to the 90s. Like, where have you been?
In the year 2009 it’s well known that you can be productive offensively batting .234 if you do other things well. Because Cameron has some power and gets on base better than most guys with his batting average, even if his average dips to .234 per CHONE’s projection he’ll still be basically a league-average hitter. A league-average hitter that plays an average CF is a valuable player, and Cameron’s D has been significantly above average.
Listen to yourself
CF avg. last year was .268 BA .339 OBP .424 SLG. Those numbers are ALL above Cameron’s projections. And you are willing to pay him $8M-$10M? Just think what we could do with 25 average players making $10M each. How many .500 teams do you see winning the Series?
Cameron is a terrible choice if we are looking to go to the playoffs.
You're only looking at one side of the equation.
Cameron is a very good defender at a very difficult position. That’s where his value comes from.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 8:59 PM CST up reply actions
$8 million ways of crazy
That’s the market for a guy to catch fly balls in CF and flail away at the plate in the hopes he makes contact and it flies out of the park? That’s just plain crazy. To hell with the equally silly notion of having your kids hit left-handed, let them swing hard, run fast and catch fly balls apparently.
I don’t like Cameron for the Cubs. His addition would make the Cubs offense more like Milwaukee’s…way too much swing and miss, way too much completely hot and cold…without Braun and Fielder of course. I’d much, much rather have Granderson.
Who needs a stinkin' tag line? What are they for anyway?
$8million ways of AWESOME.
I think you drastically underestimate the value of a guy that is good at chasing down balls in CF and at hitting for power, but not much else.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 4:46 PM CST up reply actions
are you willing to give up Castro?
Because that’s what it would likely take.
I think we'd all rather have Granderson.
But you don’t always get what you want? What if Gradnerson is unavailable or prohibitively expensive in terms of prospects? In that case, Cameron is a good option.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:19 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
that should be the stance we all agree on
And, I think, for many of us, it is.
Yep.
I think this is the position most of us take. We’d love Granderson, but he may not be available. So, the next best AVAILABLE choice is probably Cameron.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Thanks for the update, Al...
And I stand by my initial claim that Cameron will be starting in center for the 2010 Cubs.
And he'll have to change his number.
25 is taken.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
With Chad Fox put out to pasture....
#44’s available, which he wore with Seattle and the Mets…
Nobody cares about your fantasy baseball team
by carmen_fanzone on Dec 5, 2009 7:30 PM CST up reply actions
Vintage AWFUL move by Cubs
Mike Cameron is OLD. Mike Cameron strikes out at prodigious rates. Mike Cameron is the mini-Soriano in terms of going into prolonged cold streaks.
I hate the Cubs. I cannot wait until Jim Hendry is gone.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
To quote you,
“I hate the Cubs.”
And yet you’re still here. If that really was the case, wouldn’t you be elsewhere (such as VEB)?
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Dec 5, 2009 5:55 PM CST up reply actions
Here, let me make a few corrections to that comment.
Vintage AWFUL post by BLou.
BLou is OLD. BLou is overbearing at prodigious rates. BLou is the anti-Al in terms of liking the Cubs.
I hate BLou. I cannot wait until he is gone.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Dec 5, 2009 6:05 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 5, 2009 6:41 PM CST up reply actions
What is he voting for?
Bound for New York City: January 6-9! Can't wait!
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Dec 5, 2009 9:54 PM CST up reply actions
If only his progenitors had practiced prudent fornication, then this would never have happened
Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.
- The Mock Turtle, Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll -
Tell us something we don't know
Glad to see you finally admit you hate the Cubs.
Many of us aren’t happy with the current situation but we don’t wish for bad things just to say we are right.
I hate Hendry
Every season it is the same thing…a deeply REGRETTABLE foray into free agency for an outfielder
2006 – Jacque Jones — AWFUL signing
2007 – Alfonso Soriano — AWFUL signing
2008 – Kosuke Fukudome — INSANE contract
2009 – Milton Bradley — AWFUL signing
and now…
2010 – Mike Friggin Cameron
Wake me up when this national nightmare is over and a new competent front office is in place at Clark and Addison.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
I'm not too sure about
bad contracts being a “national nightmare”. Well not Cubs related contracts, that is.
National League
nightmare. :P
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 5, 2009 5:31 PM CST up reply actions
A 1 to 2 year deal is fine.
I find Free Agency to be an awful option for any team. I prefer homegrown players and trades. Once they get that money it’s like, “Why should I play hard?”
Randy Wells. A product of the Roy Halladay School of Pitching, located in Toronto, Canada. Possible relocation.
What about Sosa?
His career only took off after getting paid.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:08 PM CST up reply actions
And after... other things
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 5, 2009 6:42 PM CST up reply actions
What's that saying...
you have to have money to make money? Maybe he could only afford the premium “training options” after his big payday?
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:43 PM CST up reply actions
Possibly
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 5, 2009 6:45 PM CST up reply actions
Wake up!
The national nightmare is over!
Now, we just need to do what we should, which is wait and see how things pan out.
"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Dec 5, 2009 5:57 PM CST up reply actions
I sympathize, but I've got bad news to give you.
When you actually look at the Wittenmeyer article, it’s clear that this is all from Lou’s perspetive – not Hendry’s. Lou is the one who wants to add Cameron. “I love the guy,” Lou says. We don’t know what Hendry wants. So, that’s the bad news – you need to shift your hatred to Lou.
I can understand being tempted to give in and just hate Lou. I mean, he’s the reason we’re in this mess at CF. Hendry wanted him to give Felix Pie a chance but Lou benched him after 4 games and now Pie’s proven Lou wrong in Baltimore.
But don’t give in to the hate – Lou’s really a good guy. He’s had some misjdugments and he’s caused the Cubs to throw away a lot of talent, but he brings a lot more good than bad to the Cubs.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Lou and Hendry...
have both been more than competent. They’ve made their share of mistakes, but who hasn’t? I agree with you here. They’re both a net benefit to the club.
Even as “bad” as the Cubs current situation is, it’s not disastrous. With a couple slick moves they could be the favorites to win the NL Central in 2010, and will simultaneously have the best farm system in the division (perhaps 2nd behind Cincy). That’s a good place to be.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:45 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I suspect Lou may have Hendry's ear on this one.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
It will be interesting to see.
I think the Cubs could go in different ways depending on how things turn out with the MB trade. If they don’t end up with Castillo, will they really be comfortable fielding the 7 RH bats?
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 6:49 PM CST up reply actions
Could be.
I think Cameron fits the Cubs’ needs nicely, though, and that Hendry would be considering him either way. Cameron, Byrd, and even Coco Crisp would be fairly legit options for CF next season.
Actually, now that I look at Crisp’s numbers I think he may be the best option. He’s a switch hitter and is likely to be the least expensive option of the 3. He’ll also post a high enough OBP and has enough speed to be serviceable as a leadoff batter.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:55 PM CST up reply actions
Just to be clear...
Given equal salaries/contract length I’d take Cameron, then Byrd, and then Crisp. But Crisp may be the cheapest of the 3 and if that allows the Cubs to get someone else in the middle IF I’d go after him. If he’s cheap enough, he’d be an excellent 4th OF.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 6:57 PM CST up reply actions
I doubt the Cubs are looking for infield help.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Crisp has yet to crack a .350 OBP
I would hate to see him at the top of the Cubs’ order. He had two very good seasons with Cleveland in ’04 and ’05, but other than that has been a dreadful offensive player.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
Cameron
has had only 1 season over .350 since 2001 and that was .355 in 2006. His numbers are below average and he’s 37. Why all the love?
First of all, I was responding to the comment that Crisp could be
a serviceable leadoff hitter, which i don’t see. Also, Cameron has a decent amount of power, something Crisp hasn’t shown in years. And Cameron’s not coming off a season ending surgery.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
Because he's been a 2-4 win player.
Stop looking at just offense. It’s only part of the story.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 9:00 PM CST up reply actions
So Blou lists four guys the cubs have signed and complains about them
Four guys that Jim Hendry signed, and Blou should hate Lou for that? Really? What do you consider Jim’s job to be?
I just find this argument of DGU's to be tiresome.
People complain about Lou and his lineups, bullpen usage, etc, and it’s fine, and I agree with some, and disagree with others. But this constant attempt to shield Jim Hendry from any accountability as a GM is bewildering.
I’ve said I don’t really care if Lou would have gotten canned, but then what happens when, let’s say, Sandberg comes in? Is every poor decision by Jim going to be his fault too?
It's not about defending Hendry's bad moves...
it’s about realizing he’s made more good ones than bad, particularly since Lou came to the team. Hendry is a little ahead of the curve when it comes to FA contracts, and way ahead of it when it comes to trades. He’s a good GM. It’s that simple.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 7:04 PM CST up reply actions
Fair enough.
He is the ultimate decider. But as I said below, I think he’s better than most, even if you give him 100% of the credit/blame for all the moves during his tenure.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 3:27 AM CST up reply actions
I also wonder how much the Soriano signing in particular was
an edict from the Trib to make a splash, damn the costs. Remember he was signed after that God-awful 2006 season where the fans started staying away in droves at the end of the season.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
I'd say that's exactly what happened
there were two big-name FAs that year – Soriano and Carlos Lee. Cubs decided that year instead of getting a FA like one of the big names, they were going to get a big name. Not sure how close of a decision it was, but they rolled the dice on Soriano instead of Lee.
Of coures, the ballhawk in me was hoping for Lee, but as a Cub fan, I thought Soriano was a better choice at the time. The only thing that gave me pause was the length of the deal.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Right. And as bad as Soriano's contract looks now...
without it the Cubs don’t win back-2-back division titles. And in those years Soriano outperformed his contract significantly. We knew this would be a deal that would be bad in the long run, but that was the cost of being a team that could compete for a title for a couple of seasons.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 12:36 PM CST up reply actions
Carlos Lee
wasn’t looking to move.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 8:42 PM CST up reply actions
What does that have to do with the fact that lee wanted to stay in texas?
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 6, 2009 9:04 PM CST up reply actions
What makes
you believe that, He spent only 2 months in Arlington and 8 years in Chicago and Milwaukee. I’m confidant he could have been had if Hendry wanted him. But Soriano was the star attraction and JH needed a superstar after a 96 loss year.
the talk that carlos lee wanted to stay
in texas had little to do with how long he played there, but rather, that he had a house there.
Lee did not live in Houston
prior to the signing. In fact, he has a large cattle ranch in Panama where he spends his off season. Here is his comment which came after the trade.
“I know this is a team where I have a good chance to win a championship. I’ve always liked this team, they’re always very good, and I like this ballpark. I like a lot about Houston. That’s why I told my agent this was one of the places I’d like to play.”
He signed 4 days AFTER the Cubs signed Soriano and Lee said on numerous occasions he loved Wrigley. No way was he committed to Houston or Texas.
Lee had a ranch in Houston
prior to signing with the Astros. This was the article on the day he signed, noting that he had a ranch in Wharton.
How big a factor was that in his decision making process? I don’t know, but in this Richard Justice blog post, it clearly was a topic that people were aware of.
So what?
Soriano still out-performed his contract in that time period.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 9:01 PM CST up reply actions
there's absolutely no way
to know that.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 10:41 PM CST up reply actions
all that does
is state what they did in the places they were at. You cannot simply pick up someone’s stats and plunk them down in a completely different team and say “see? He would have been glorious.”
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 7, 2009 9:22 AM CST up reply actions
Hmmm.
Could have said that about a certain Texas Rangers hitter after the 2008 season.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al Yellon on Dec 7, 2009 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
of course it could have been
And it was. I said it myself.
But you sign players for what they’ve done in the past, not for what they’ll do in the future.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 7, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions
That is stupid
Why wouldn’t you sign a player for what they are going to do for you now? Who cares what they did in the past. Its nice to know, but it isn’t everything.
Frank Thomas was good in the past. You want him?
Its called scouting, which the Cubs do not do well.
Because you don’t know what they are going to do in the future.
Also isn’t scouting looking at what someone has done?
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
you sign a player
for what you HOPE they’re going to do in the future, based on what they’ve done in the past.
That’s what scouting IS.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 7, 2009 10:42 PM CST up reply actions
nor can you say "there's no way he couldn't have been glorious"
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I've never suggested that.
All I say is that there’s no way to know.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 7, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions
he didn't
it was only until this past year that you could argue that Lee has, overall, outperformed his contract. Prior to this, in 2007 and 2008, Soriano outperformed his contract by 12.5 million over those two years (roughly, not including incentives) where as Lee outperformed his contract by 4.5 million. Now, Lee did outperform Soriano contract wise for 2008, but shawn was simply responding to your comment about 2007 and 2008.
Let's be honest about this
Soriano’s contract was heavily backloaded so it appears that he was a better value in 07 and 08. However, Lee’s numbers for those years exceeded Alfonso’s. And cumulatively for the three years, it’s not even close.
I was asserting that Lee would have gotten us to the playoffs just as well as it has been claimed Sori did. I still stand by that.
Sure, he probably would have.
But I still don’t understand your point. Lee doing well doesn’t make Soriano a bad signing.
And they’ve been very comparable in the 3 years. Lee has been worth 9.1 wins. Soriano has been worth 7.9. The difference has been 0.4 wins/year. That’s significant, for sure. But Soriano could conceivably make that up in a month if last year’s bad numbers were health related.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 7, 2009 2:34 AM CST up reply actions
Why is it that you try to
place a value on wins, which is a made up formula when the easy comparison of OPS is available? Lee out performed Soriano. That’s a fact. What they’ll do in the future is questionable albeit expert’s projections.
I jumped in when people claimed Soriano was worth his contract because he supposedly made us a playoff team in 07 and 08. I claimed Lee would have actually done the same thing for us at a much cheaper price. I am still waiting for proof that is not the case.
such proof
is impossible to generate. Lee did not play for the Cubs, there’s no way to tell what might have happened.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 7, 2009 10:43 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not sure how
the backloaded contract is a factor here when assessing 07 and 08. Over the span of 2007 and 2008, Lee’s salary was 24 million. Soriano’s was 23 million. Even if you account for the 1 million in difference, Soriano, due primarily to 2007, was still a far superior player over that 2 year period relative to their contract.
As for whether or not we would’ve been in the playoffs with Lee instead of Soriano, I don’t know. What I would note is that, you can’t swap Lee and Soriano from those two years without making other moves because of the differing roles those two guys played.
Wouldn't it be more effective to look at the
average annual value of the contract when discussing backloaded contracts like Sori’s?
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
It won't end up mattering
if you just wait to do the analysis when both contracts are done – and I still think Soriano will age much better than Carlos Lee.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 7, 2009 8:47 AM CST up reply actions
the original argument
that the OP made was that Lee outperformed his contract by a greater amount.
Look at the numbers
Lee OPS 2007 .882 2008 .937 2009 .831
Sori OPS 2007 .897 2008 .876 2009 .726
Tell me how you can make the case that Soriano was a FAR SUPERIOR player based upon their actual performance? The truth is you can’t whether you’re looking at their OPS numbers or comparing their value to contract.
What is catastrophic is that when Lee’s contract is done and gone, Soriano will still be sucking out $18M per year at the age of 37 and 38.
I'll ask again:
So what? You can’t always sign the best guy available every year. If you get better than average value on a contract, you’ve succeeded.
You’re setting a ridiculously high standard.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 7, 2009 2:30 AM CST up reply actions
I'd also argue...
that I’d rather have a GM like Hendry that will go out and get the guys that will work within the coach’s system than a guy like Jerry Angelo (Bears GM) that will get the guys for the system he likes, regardless of the coach. That sort of thing is more important in football than in baseball, but I still respect it.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 7:06 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Well put.
I think that’s one of the things people refuse to see when spewing Hendryhate. He’s more old school in terms of the relationship between field manager and general manager. He gives his field manager a lot of say on the 25-man. It was really annoying for me when Hendry was following Dusty’s lead – it’s been much better under Lou, although, clearly, there have been issues I’ve disliked.
And – no, it’s not absolute, as if they aren’t Hendry’s moves – no one’s saying that. It’s simply that Lou is quite open in the press with what he wants.
All told, this is who Hendry is. It’s not going to change. And like you I can respect this kind of working arrangement, even if I might prefer a total organizational philosophy that wouldn’t allow the hiring of Dusty Baker’s philosophy in the first place.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 7:34 PM CST up reply actions
That's right...
and my opinion of Hendry has changed dramatically since Lou took over for Dusty. Acquiring Juan Pierre was pretty silly, but it made sense if you were trying to build a “Dusty Baker-type winner.”
Hendry does his best to get the types of players his manager asks for. And his best is pretty damn good.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 3:29 AM CST up reply actions
I'm sorry
But what you’re saying is crazy talk. A “coach’s system” in major league baseball? Surely you jest. What do you suppose it is about Lou’s “system” that allows Cameron to “flourish”? Does he write out his lineup card in colored pencil? Highlighters?
Obviously I jest but point of the matter is, Cameron likes Piniella because he played him. Pineilla likes Cameron because he answered the bell daily and was reliable even if he wasn’t specatcular. That is the epitome of a situation where the manager or GM “likes” a guy and has nothing to do with any sort of “coach system”.
Who needs a stinkin' tag line? What are they for anyway?
you're right.
There really isn’t such a thing in baseball. The point is I’d rather have a GM that’s willing to acquire the types of players that the manager wants on the roster. Think of it this way: if Lou doesn’t like a certain type of player, then the acquisition of one could be a waste of resources if that leads to a decrease in that player’s time on the field.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions
And to which manager I'd say
Grow up.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
You have fun...
telling Lou Piniella that.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 7, 2009 2:34 AM CST up reply actions
Shoemile, you're either not paying attention or you're straw-manning.
I blamed Hendry for Gregg. I blamed Hendry for giving in to Lou when Pie was sent down in ‘08. I’ve criticized Hendry in the past – and in this very thread I’m critical of Hendry in a conditional way – if it’s true he won’t trade Marmol.
Now I don’t expect you to remember every position I’ve taken, but don’t characterize my arguments as a “constant attempt to shield Jim Hendry” if you don’t remember.
The fact of the matter is that we have not heard what Hendry is looking for. Lou is clearly pushing for Cameron. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hendry prefers Byrd. Hendry has shied away from players at Cameron’s age in the past. So, when BLou – a near “constant” Lou apologist – rattles off about hating Hendry’s moves, how is it not relevant to point out that this current news is all FROM LOU?
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 7:09 PM CST up reply actions
Alright, but
If you’re going to characterize Blou as a near constant Lou apologist, then at least admit yourself to be a near constant Jim apologist.
Yes, I know you blamed Hendry for Gregg. The last time you were accused of continuing to shield Hendry (by MPH, probably), you used the same lone example. Meanwhile, Wuertz and Pie are apparently all Lou’s fault, and almost every move after 08 was apparently due to Lou’s mythical lefty “obsession”, which changed the makeup of the team but didn’t really add many lefties.
And yes, I understand that the current news is from Lou. I don’t mean to speak for Blou, but I think his defense of Lou is probably based on his managing (which is his job), and not signing players (which is Jim’s job). But from what I’ve gathered about Lou and Jim’s working relationship from you, it sounds like Lou is just Jim’s puppeteer.
So, what? I have to list all the Jim Hendry moves I don't like?
Here’s the biggest: I don’t like the way Jim Hendry runs down the value of players he trades who were once stars or top prospects for the sake of Chicago PR.
But I’ll defend Jim Hendry as a GM because he’s clearly a better GM than half of the other GMs in baseball, and we are more likely to have a worse GM as a successor to Hendry than a better GM.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 5, 2009 7:42 PM CST up reply actions
I guess we'll have to disagree then.
For a guy who continues to have one of the top payrolls in the NL (and baseball), I’d think he could have gotten a playoff win at some point in the last six years. We can blame the players and managers for that, but it’s Hendry who is responsible for them all.
I watch these world series teams and see how much of their real talent is produced from within. I look at the Cubs roster and I don’t see that. Yes, I know all about prospects being traded for Aramis and D Lee. I also know guys like that were making millions of dollars when we acquired them. To win, you need young, cheap, talent to accompany guys like that. Instead, the cubs sign players to large, back loaded deals that can only be traded if we swallow a big chunk of the contract (Blou mentioned a few above).
Regardless of what people think of Jake Fox, he clearly had value if he Beane was willing to take Miles along with him. Of course, we had to sacrifice that value to get rid of Hendry’s mistake. And when we eventually trade Milton, we’ll have to be taking someone’s trash back.
Until I see some of that real homegrown talent that propels the best teams forward in a cubs uniform, I’m not willing to call Jim a good GM. He’s just a guy with a massive payroll.
If money won baseball games
the Yankees would have 100 WS victories, not 26.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 5, 2009 10:26 PM CST up reply actions
Indeed they would have
But as we’ve seen in modern times, it takes money AND a farm system that can produce elite talent.
money and a farm system are, of course, important. But you can have both and STILL not succeed.
Because you actually have to play and win the games.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 12:51 PM CST up reply actions
I guess
Seems like you’re using a circular logic that shields Hendry from any blame. I don’t think any team president would take a GM seriously if he said “sorry boss, I know this is the team I’ve assembled, but they didn’t play and win the game. I know you’ve given a top five payroll, but I can’t be accountable for the guys I hired.”
I'm not shielding Hendry from blame
But it’s the players who play the game. In the end, THEY are responsible for what they do on the field. Hendry tries to put all the right puzzle pieces in the box, but he doesn’t put the puzzle together.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 2:46 PM CST up reply actions
There is really shared respnsbility
Simply because the players actually play the game doesn’t absolve the manager and GM and coaches from their part of the puzzle.
I recognize that.
Most of us do, I think.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 9:05 PM CST up reply actions
Thank you. I think Cub fans are so used to the system
producing zero in the way of position players that they have reduced the job of GM to signing free agents and making trades.
I’ve been a Cub fan since around ‘63-’64. Hendry has simply continued a sad tradition that,with a brief respite in the mid-late 80s, stretches back to the Kennedy Administration. The fact that in the past 45 years, the Cubs have been unable to produce such things as a viable leadoff hitter (Bill North who was, of course, traded and, for a season, Jerome Walton the exceptions) a third baseman, a second baseman, even a handful of outfielders etc. is pathetic. In the era of free agency, it is crippling.
I know there are fans of Hendry here but he, like all his predecessors save for Dallas Green, has failed at the most important job of the GM: Keeping a steady flow of everyday playing talent rising from the minors to keep overall costs down and to give the team financial flexibility when signing free agents is necessary.
Last year the Cubs payed a fortune for a lousy starting outfield with no home-grown talent. The middle infield didn’t cost much and it pretty much played like it. The corner infielders are making top dollar and are going nowhere since there is barely a blip on the radar at their positions.
Yeah, I know the GM has made some good trades in the past, but Jim Hendry is a failure at the most important part of his job.
If Hendry had been working for a team in a smaller market with a smaller payroll he would have been gone long ago. His failures have been camouflaged by the $135 million he has to work with. At the least, he should have been fired when Ricketts took over.
by the nth on Dec 6, 2009 12:06 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
Look at the Phillies the past two years. Howard, Utley, Rollins: All home grown. Or the Rockies before that (Holliday, Hawpe, Atkins, Tulowitzki). That’s what it takes.
Clearly, those players are more the exception than the rule. But we can’t come even close to that. We have to counter with Theriot and Soto.
Maybe I’m alone in thinking this, but I believe the Cubs to be a top flight organization, and thus the GM job to be a top flight gig (and in case anyone wants to argue about the cubs having such a small front office, how about Jim promises to cut one million bucks from the payroll to fund an expanded F.O?).
There are more built in advantages to being the Cubs GM than almost every club in the NL. How many other teams can afford a 140 million dollar payroll? Or can offer the opportunity to play at Wrigley Field in front of packed houses of devoted Cubs fans every game (which many players rave about)? Again, those are BUILT IN ADVANTAGES. They are even more pronounced today then they were in the days of Dallas Green, and hell, even in the days of Eddie Lynch. You think a guy is gonna pick the Reds or Brewers over the Cubs all things being equal money wise? I doubt it.
And yet, Hendry has done little to facilitate this advantage. Sure, he’s signed some good guys, made some good trades. But with this payroll and reputation, GM of the Cubs is a premiere job. And Jim has yet to prove he’s a premiere GM.
This is because you've built this unnecessary distinction into your argument.
Jim Hendry’s farm has been very productive in terms of high impact arms, both starters and relievers. So, why focus on only position players?
Some of the Cubs’ farm-developed pitchers have had their arms fallen apart which makes their impact seem less, but you can’t blame the arm problems on the farm system.
Finally – if you’re case is that JH isn’t premiere, well, then there’s not much point in having this conversation. Let me know when a premiere GM is available.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 1:40 PM CST up reply actions
Relievers are cheap
Producing some solid relievers is nice, for sure. But outside of GM’s who spend exorbitant amounts on closers (which Jim hasn’t done, which I appreciate), solid relievers can be had for a few million dollars.
Starters are expensive, most definitely. I’ll give him credit for Z. Wood and Prior? Alright, credit there too. And maybe Wells will turn out to be great.
But position players? How much more flexible would the payroll have been last year if Pie was in center instead of Kosuke? (Blah blah that’s all Lou’s fault: Then Jim shouldn’t have hired him). Or if they could’ve put someone in right from in house instead of spending 30 million dollars on a guy that everyone is ready to run out of town?
As far as being premiere, sorry, but for 140 million dollars a lot of guys could do just as well as he has. This team needs someone who can do BETTER zero playoff wins in six years. I firmly believe that. And apparently you disagree.
I agree with you on Pie.
I think DGU does, as well.
On the “0 playoff wins” argument, that’s a function of small sample size and nothing else. This team was one of the best in the league in 2007 and was the best in the NL in 2008 for 162 games. They also have been a contender for most of Hendry’s regime. And that’s what you want: a team that is competing for a playoff spot every year. When you’re doing that, you’ll eventuall string together some wins in the postseason and win it all.
So the lack of playoff wins is not something I’d put on Hendry. And your 6-year time frame is using highly selective endpoints.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 2:06 PM CST up reply actions
Ok on the no playoff wins
But I don’t see the case you’re making on highly selective endpoints. After 2003 the organization changed. They realized there was no reason they couldn’t be the best. They have the money. They’ve spent it.
Yes, you do want a team that can compete for a playoff spot every year. And yes, the Cubs aren’t going to win the World Series every year. But after 2003, there’s no reason the Cubs shouldn’t be in the playoff hunt every year. As far as markets go, they’re the big fish in the little pond. They can outspend every divisional foe by a significant margin.
I agree with the "big fish" part.
And they have been competitive since 2003, more or less. In 2004, the Cubs were in contention and won more games than in 2003. Only a disaster of a month kept them out of the playoffs. In 2005 and 2006 they were pretty bad, but I think the big problem there was a dependence on the health of guys like Nomar, Wood, and Prior. But I’ll grant those teams were disappointments. And I wasn’t a fan of Hendry at the end of 2006. But my opinion of him has improved over the last two seasons as he built a perennial contender for 2007-2009.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 2:24 PM CST up reply actions
Even the 2005 team was a marginal contender.
It wasn’t that much worse than the 2009 club. So since Hendry took over, this team has been decent-to-good-to-excellent for seven seasons, save the 2006 disaster.
There isn’t a Cub GM in the last 70 years who can say that other than Hendry.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Exactly.
He may not be a “premiere” GM, but he is well above average. And I think the Cubs are much more likely to do worse than do better if he’s gone.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions
There isn't a Cubs GM in the last 70 years
Who has had the distinct, built in advantages over divisional foes that Jim has had either.
"Advantages"?
We’ve been competing against St. Louis in the Hendry tenure while they hit the lottery ticket of drafting the best player in baseball #478601 in the draft – and for most of that time they had a really smart GM.
We had to go against Houston when they were gifted Clemens/Pettite on deals that paid for themselves.
And we did this while Hendry’s first manager, brought in to handle the big personality, absolutely failed at handling the big personality and proceeded to decimate two top prospects and numerous other players. Yes, Hendry hired Dusty Baker. Yes, he’s accountable for that. But Jim paid in spades for that mistake and still managed to do well. He’s gotten much better since being paired with a competent manager.
But remember, during the Baker era, we were not outspending Houston and St. Louis by any significant margin – sometimes being outspent by them.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 4:18 PM CST up reply actions
We're also just talking about being a contender
In a six team division that includes the Pirates.
Yes, 2003 was great. But 2004-2006 the Cubs just got worse and worse. Perhaps that was all Baker’s fault. And then Jim paid in spades for that mistake by…getting 200 million dollars to spend in the offseason! Woo-hoo!
Yes, St Louis did hit the jackpot with Pujols. And then they surrounded him with other talented guys from their farm system. You’re right about Houston. Now they’re close to a non factor because they can’t compete financially with the Cubs. No one in the division can.
and the Yankees
play in a division that includes the Orioles. The Dodgers play against the Padres. The White Sox get to play the Royals.
Every division has stronger teams and weaker ones.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 4:38 PM CST up reply actions
Of course they do
But looking at the 2009 opening day payrolls, here are the differences in each division between the richest and the second richest:
AL East: Yankees over Red Sox by about 80 million dollars.
AL Central: Tigers over White Sox by about 19 million.
AL West: Angels over Mariners by about 15 million.
NL East: Mets over Phillies by 36 million dollars.
NL West: Dodgers over Giants by 18 million.
NL Central: Cubs over Astros by 30 million.
The Cubs are in a division filled with small market teams and/or teams who can’t afford or don’t want to spend the money. This year I bet the difference will be even more pronounced. I don’t see how that’s not incredibly advantageous (Unless you’re the Mets, apparently).
which continues to prove my point
that money doesn’t win baseball games.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 5:12 PM CST up reply actions
Someone better the yankees that theyre doing it wrong then
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 6, 2009 5:26 PM CST up reply actions
Which players from St. Louis' farm system are you talking about?
Adam Wainwright is the only one – well depending on how much you buy the hype on Yadier Molina – so, two. Rasmus hasn’t panned out yet – I expect him to, but St. Louis has been built on veterans like Larry Walker, Edgar Renteria, Jim Edmonds, Chris Carpenter, Scott Rolen, Ryan Franklin, Troy Glaus, Matt Holliday, etc., etc.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions
Mostly I was referring to this years team
Pujols, Molina, Ryan, Schumaker, Rasmus…are these guys elite players? Outside of Pujols, not at all. But when you trot out guys like that, then you’re able to afford players like Holliday and DeRosa. And if they stink? Cut ‘em. Trade ’em. They don’t have eight year contracts. You don’t have to eat 15 million dollars if they’re clubhouse cancers.
Well, decide what your argument is, then.
Because the Cubs ran out Fontenot, Theriot, Soto, Marshall, Wells, Marmol, Guzman, and held a Rule V guy to add more cost controlled talent.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 5:37 PM CST up reply actions
Ok DGU, just for you
I’d like the cubs farm system to produce position players who can ops+ more than 90. It’s important that the Cubs produce those players because it allows them to be flexible in other spots and not rely on free agents who are normally, and I’m paraphrasing you, costly and past their prime. Jim is pretty good at trading players. It’s too bad a lot of them have no trade clauses, but even if they didn’t, teams wouldn’t want them without Jim eating a big chunk of the money.
I’d like them to be position players because there isn’t as big a difference in cost between cost controlled relievers and FA relievers as there is between cost controlled position players and FA position players. Obviously cost controlled relievers are a benefit, but not as much as position players are.
OPS+ Geo Soto:
2007: 174 (small sample size, yes)
2008: 118
2009: 79
OPS+ Ryan Theriot:
2007: 71
2008: 92
2009: 83
OPS+ Mike Fontenot:
2007: 87
2008: 130
2009: 72
OPS+ Jake Fox:
2009: 92
OPS+ Sam Fuld:
2009: 111
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 6:02 PM CST up reply actions
My apologies
Let me rephrase: I’d like FULL TIME position players who can ops+ above 90. And more than two separate seasons.
The reason is because free agents who can be fifth outfielders (like Fuld) or big power bats who can’t play defense (like Fox) are cheap. There isn’t a huge difference between getting home grown guys who can do that and free agents. Of course, I’ll take Fuld over a free agent. It’ll save some cash. But not a lot.
I've given you an examples
of two full-time guys for 2008, and three from 2009. None of them have had more than three seasons in the bigs. Our starting catcher, our starting SS, the guy we expected to be our starting 2b. Maybe we give them five years before complaining that they haven’t OPS+ed over 90 for more than two.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 7:00 PM CST up reply actions
built in?
nothing’s built in. If there are advantages that the Cubs have, it’s because they’ve gone out and gotten them.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 4:36 PM CST up reply actions
It seems to me that you're exaggerating the differences
in payroll between Houston-St.Louis-Chicago during much of Hendry’s tenure. Since the Cubs pulled away, we’ve been in the playoffs 2/3 of the time and the other third was a winning season despite 4/8 of the lineup being injured.
Your “premiere” is unrealistic – it’s only possible in retrospect and as a armchair GM.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions
Hendry's farm also issued forth
Dontrelle Willis, Ricky Nolasco, Rich Hill, Juan Cruz, Angel Guzman, Carlos Marmol – and those are just guys who were front end starters or back end relievers at one point in their careers. How else do you want to define elite? Do you insist on producing a Hanley Ramirez every other year?
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 4:30 PM CST up reply actions
Of course not
Although one Hanley Ramirez would be nice.
The point I’m making is that you need guys who are cost controlled that would make a lot of money on the open market. Again, you’re mostly talking about a few relievers here. How much money is Guzman worth on the open market? Cruz? Is it as significant as the difference between paying a cost controlled Felix Pie instead of a FA Kosuke Fukudome?
The point you're making is wrong.
You don’t need cost controlled guys to win.
Who were the cost controlled players on the Cards’ 2006 team? Aaron Miles?
You need talented players to win.
The 2008 Cubs had a cost-controlled C who won ROTY, a cost-controlled SS who Lou thought should be an all-star, a cost-controlled 2B who hit as well as Chase Utley in half a season, a cost-controlled top reliever, a cost-controlled CF top prospect, a cost-controlled # 2 starter (who went bust), 4 cost-controlled players who were traded for the best 5-inning pitcher in baseball, and a cost-controlled 5th starter. They got swept out of the playoffs.
Meanwhile, that Hanley Ramirez you wanted – he was traded away by the Red Sox in the kind of move that wins championships. They used their payroll strength to trade an uncertain prospect for a certain ace. Do the Red Sox win the 2007 WS without Josh Beckett? No way.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 4:53 PM CST up reply actions
Do they win without Pedroia?
Ellsbury? Youkilis? It’s about balance, DGU. The 2008 team looked like they had it. They really did look like a WS team. Free agents, smart trades, and some good homegrown talent. For whatever reason, they didn’t do it. And now that window is closing. But the players who are getting older and likely not any better still need to get paid.
The Cubs have a lot of money. But they’re not the Yankees. They can’t continue to throw gobs of money at talent every year. They need to be smarter.
Mike Fontenot was great in 08, and awful in 09. It’s unfortunate, but the Cubs can fix that with ease. They aren’t saddled with a bloated contract of his like the entire outfield.
it's kind of funny that you talk about balance
and then pooh-pooh every home-grown player we bring up.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 5:14 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, I don't get it.
He says the Cubs ’08 team had the balance – but from ’08 to ’09, we made more room for cost-controlled players, saying goodbye to DeRosa and Wood and Marquis. Yes, some of these cost-controlled players had bad years, but then Cano and Melky and Hughes and Joba have all had bad years in the past two years. I agree it would have been better had we kept Pie, but that ship sailed long ago. The Cubs smelled an opportunity to win now and were willing to sacrifice to grab it.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 5:42 PM CST up reply actions
and that
is Jim Hendry’s fault? SRSLY?
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 6:03 PM CST up reply actions
+1 on firing Hendry
He should have gotten fired after this season, but Ricketts didn’t get involved with it.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
Silly?
Oh no, I wouldn’t go that far. Premature? Perhaps, but certainly not silly that some people think he’s simply not the man for the job. Apparently, the Ricketts don’t think so either, given that they could have easily given a more firm commitment to the Hendry team past 2010, but chose not to.
by Damen Jackson on Dec 6, 2009 1:29 PM CST up reply actions
I think you're undestimating...
the quality of the Bears farm system. It’s not great, but it’s pretty darn good,and is probably the best or 2nd-best one in the NL Central. Doesn’t Hendry get credit for re-building the farm system? And remember, he has turned prospects into a good deal of talent. Here is the talent that he’s acquired using what was a vastly over-rated farm system at the time he took over:
Aramis Ramirez
Kenny Lofton
Nomar Garciaparra
Derrek Lee
Rich Harden
That’s a damn impressive list, and none of those guys were signed as FA’s or acquired using veterans. They were all acquired through the farm system, and thus for the purposes of evaluating Hendry’s management of the team we should count them as “home grown players.”
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions
The "Bears" farm system?
Yep, it’s Sunday…. ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
LOL.
I’m watching the game. Obviously.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 1:44 PM CST up reply actions
plus
Soto
Wells
Theriot
Marshall
are all products of our farm system. Andres Blanco is a brilliant shortstop.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 1:01 PM CST up reply actions
I'd venture that every single farm system has produced guys that you've mentioned
Soto had a great year followed by an awful one. Jury is still out on the guy.
Wells was great this year. Let’s see if he can do it again.
Theriot is a below average shortstop.
Marshall is a pen arm or fifth starter.
Andres Blanco can barely hit, and he was drafted by the royals anyway.
The point is the Cubs need to produce ELITE talent from the farm. Maybe Soto bounces back and becomes what we thought he was in 08. Maybe Wells is the real deal. No one is saying the farm system has produced nothing. EVERY farm system produces something. But comparatively, the cubs have definitely produced less than average quality.
They have turned into elite talent!
Again, the Cubs farm system has produced the following players:
Lee, Ramirez, Lofton, Harden, and Garciaparra. If you don’t include them in your analysis of the farm system, you’re ignoring a major source of value from the system.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 1:52 PM CST up reply actions
Don't forget about Zambrano.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." ~Winston Churchill
I disagree
with the idea that they should be counted as home grown players. The best thing about home grown players is that they are cost controlled and cheap. None of the guys you mentioned were.
But this is precisely what you don't get
when you have payroll the Cubs have, you are smart to make just these kinds of moves. Take the Pirates and the Royals as opposite examples. They had lots of cheap cost controlled players, and those players weren’t good enough. It’s not just that these teams had lower payrolls. They also weren’t developing elite talent at a sufficient rate.
Having a high payroll is like having the biggest pile of money at the poker table. You use your money in a decidedly unthrifty way to lean on the smaller stacks. The Cubs could have kept Choi and Hill and Gallagher and F. Beltran and have cost controlled cheap players – and a much worse roster.
There is a huge law of diminishing returns in terms of payroll because most of the players available for large sums of money are past their primes. So, trading prospects for players like Lee and Ramirez – while they are in their primes – is a great use of the farm system for a second-tier top payroll team.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 1:51 PM CST up reply actions
Right.
And on top of all that, the Cubs have gotten good value out of those guys, even though they haven’t been “cost controlled.” The extensions that Ramirez and Lee have signed have been outperformed by those two players by a long shot. And Harden outperformed his contract when he was with the team.
The bottom line is that when you have the $$$ it makes sense to turn your prospects (which are called “prospects” for a reason) into established but more expensive talent. And that’s exactly what Hendry has done.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 1:54 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not claiming they were bad moves
They were great moves. But they need to be balanced with cost controlled players that come up through the farm, or else we end up having to throw money at the guys who are, like you said, only available for large sums of money and past their prime.
Just like the Pirates and Royals, the Cubs haven’t been developing elite talent at a sufficient rate. Luckily Jim has 140 million dollars to play around with. And I don’t see why having that makes him a better GM. It just means he has a better job.
This is a kick.
See, Shawn and Drew and I aren’t saying Hendry’s a good GM because he has money. We’re saying he’s a good GM because his team has a good record, because he makes smart trades, because he makes smart pickups of players like Ryan Dempster and Jim Edmonds, because he learns from his mistakes, etc.
But your argument is almost entirely based on the idea that he’s a bad GM just because he has a lot of money and should therefore have won a WS by now.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 4:57 PM CST up reply actions
or a playoff game in six years
But a big reason his team has a good record is because he can outbid everyone for those high priced free agents. And he can afford to make those trades for expensive players (with prospects six years ago). I’m sure there are plenty of GM’s out there who could do that.
My argument is that he’s a bad GM because he can’t build a freaking farm system. When you take away his huge built in advantage (money), and you put him on equal footing with the rest of the GM’s (young talent evaluation), he’s pretty woeful.
but if these FAs win us a good record
why aren’t they winning us playoff games?
Because money doesn’t win games. The players do.
And without that farm system, he doesn’t get those FAs.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 5:37 PM CST up reply actions
But above you said the farm is solid.
And no, Hendry can’t outbid everyone. This is part of my point about the law of dimishing returns. The Yankees have realized that their top-tier payroll allows them to take all the really solid FAs – the guys still in their 20s with high ceilings. And if the Yankees have a player there already, one of the Mets, Angels, or Red Sox will be there, too. And if the players is really good, he’ll fit the needs of at least one or two teams from the next tier, too.
Still, you’re missing the point – it’s not young talent evaluation which defines a GM. It’s talent evaluation in general. You want to discount Hendry evaluating Dempster and Aramis and DeRosa (all acquired in different ways), while simultaneously ignoring what the farm has developed.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 5:52 PM CST up reply actions
The farm looks solid right now
Of course, that’s fluid. All those guys could fall flat next year, like pretty much every positional prospect under Hendry’s tenure. But then again, he could probably trade them for major league players. Oh wait, he can’t afford to, because the payroll is bloated because all the good position players make ogles of money (and some of the bad ones too). Too bad none of the good position players are cheap.
I don’t discount Hendry evaluating that talent well. But then he offset that by poorly evaluating Soriano, Fukudome, and Bradley.
How can you simultaneously
discount the prospects while passing judgment on the free agents before their contracts are up? People thought Jason Marquis was a mistake, but he turned out more valuable than we paid him by the end of his contract.
Fukudome has shown promise in limited bursts. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a year where he put it together and earned his money. Soriano, too, was looking decent enough in years one and two of his contract. I still expect Soriano will be worth more over the course of his contract than Carlos Lee and Bradley will be worth more over the course of his contract than Raul Ibanez.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 6:12 PM CST up reply actions
Then why did we pay the Rockies to take Marquis?
Because that’s what we pretty much did when we dumped Vizcaino. Not the greatest foresight on Jim’s part.
And I hope you’re right about Fukudome. I like the guy. But we’re in a tough spot when you and I are both “hoping” he earns his money.
And you’re proving my point with Soriano and Bradley. What you’re pretty much saying is that Jim did a good job because the other two similar players he could’ve signed will probably be worse (although it probably wont’ matter about Bradley). But why did we only have those two choices? Why wasn’t there someone from the farm who was a viable option? Instead, he should be commended for possibly signing the lesser of two evils. That doesn’t make Bradley or Soriano good, however.
Your argument is Proteus.
Championship teams sign free agents. I’ve said that free agency doesn’t bring the best talent. But I’ve said Hendry’s done better in the free agent market than most GMs.
So, I’m not proving your point at all. Your points have been all over the board, but if you’re talking about the point that you have to have 0-3 guys of elite talent – you still haven’t proven that. There are guys in between 0-3 guys and free agents, guys we’ve built this team around, like DLee, Aram, etc. – the very guys you want to discount Hendry having talent at acquiring.
As for Marquis – this is more Proteus arguing – we moved Marquis because Jim believed one of Marshall, Wells, and Samardzija would be better than Marquis – and he was right! This would seem to be the kind of move you’d like, except that you’re ready to assume Wells will be a one-year wonder.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 7:12 PM CST up reply actions
Yes, championship teams sign free agents
I never claimed they didn’t, but you continue to believe that I think Free Agency is a bad thing. It’s not. I said you need balance. I said Jim Hendry has done a poor job of constructing a farm system.
Yes, you do need guys between 0-3 guys and free agents. When was the last time the cubs had one of those? Because the outfield is all overpaid free agents. DeRosa qualifies, but he was traded because he was the only one who was tradeable. But the Cubs need more contracts like that. And since I probably should mention Cameron at some point in this thread, I’m for getting him, definitely. But that’s because there’s no one who can realistically step in and do his job from within.
Good teams have a young players, plus what I suppose I’ll call “in between” players (Aramis and D Lee when they were acquired), and highly paid guys.
Aramis and D Lee, who I already stated were good acquisitions, have graduated to highly paid players. They’re worth it. But due to finances, it’s important that you have in between guys too, something that Soto, if he bounces back, could graduate to perhaps (and he would have solid trade value too). If he continues on that way, then he’ll move on to become a highly paid player. But if the only good position players are already highly paid because we weren’t able to develop them, then maybe Soto can’t be signed to that big deal. Again, the cubs need balance.
And I never claimed trading Marquis was a bad deal, please find where I said it was. I said the signing in the first place was poor foresight. I agreed with the deal for the reasons you stated above. But it’s the same thing with the miles and fox deal. Was it a good deal? I believe so, yes. But it was a deal that wouldn’t have been necessary if “God of talent evaluation” Jim Hendry hadn’t outbid himself for the services of the worst player in the majors in 2009.
As for Wells, I don’t know if he’ll be a one year wonder. I hope not. Either way, Hendry deserves credit for him.
The other thing I'd argue...
is that while there was a period of time when the Cubs didn’t do a great job with player development, they fixed that by bringing in Tim Wilken. This is part of DGU’s argument. It’s not just that Hendry is a good GM, it’s that he’s been getting better the longer he acts.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 9:07 PM CST up reply actions
so when we move a FA
to make room for a rookie, like Marquis for Wells, you’re unhappy.
You always hope that someone earns their money. You pay a FA on their past performance, and hope they replicate it. Most players AREN’T Pujols.
The viable option from the Farm for the OF was Pie, and he was considered unviable, for whatever reason. So when the farm didn’t come through, you have to play SOMEONE in that position.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 7:15 PM CST up reply actions
I said signing him was a bad idea
since we ended up having to eat a chunk of that money his last year.
And yes, when the farm didn’t come through, the Cubs have had to find someone to play there. And having to do that because the farm hasn’t come through (again and again position player wise) is what I’m complaining about.
but everyone does it like that. How many players go from drafted to even average in the bigs? Not many.
We didn’t eat a chunk of Marquis’ salary. We ate the guy we traded him for. In the end, it was a wash, more or less.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 8:43 PM CST up reply actions
Right, but the problem with your approach...
is that you’re ignoring a lot of the value and talent the Cubs have gotten out of their system. You could make the argument that none of the players the Cubs traded away panned out for those teams, either. But that argument just highlights Hendry’s success in the trade market.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 1:56 PM CST up reply actions
And for the most part, Hendry has done a solid job of making trades
I’m not going to argue that. But outside of Harden, we’re also talking about trades done 5+ years ago. Yes we’re still reaping the benefits of a couple of those, but I think it’s pretty clear building a good farm system is more important than being good at trading. Deals like Aramis and D Lee don’t come around all that often. I’m glad Hendry made them, but the little we’ve gotten from the farm just isn’t acceptable, because to offset that we have an overpaid outfield that is only tradeable is we eat most of the contract.
I will agree that the farm system has been sub-standard
the last 5 years or so. But he also has — with Tim Wilken’s help — built the system back up. Do you acknowledge that the system is fairly strong right now? I mean, I’m pretty excited about the current crop of players, highlighted by position players: Lee, B. Jackson, Vitters, and of course Castro. Colvin and one of the catchers are also probably going to provide the cost-controlled value you’re seeking. And I haven’t even mentioned the good arms the Cubs have.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 2:12 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, it does look like the system is fairly strong now
People thought that at the beginning of the decade too. I think (and really, really, hope) that some of these guys pan out. I enjoyed following their progress this past season. But until they come up and start producing, I can’t give Jim a bunch of credit for them.
Unfortunately for Jim, it might be too late anyway. Other than an Castro, who maybe has an outside chance of coming up this year, none of those players will be wearing a Chicago Cubs uniform this year. And if the Cubs miss the playoffs again due to all these awful contracts and a farm system that may not be able to make a big contribution this year, then he’ll probably be out of a job anyway.
I think you'll see some of the pitchers.
The Cubs bullpen will probably be a lot stronger this year due to the presence of some good, young arms.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 2:25 PM CST up reply actions
and Colvin.
You might see Colvin, too, as a 4th OF.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 2:26 PM CST up reply actions
Well, I certainly hope so
And I’m not saying the farm hasn’t produced anything. But it’s the lack of elite talent that has burned this team. A few pen arms will be nice, and I hope Gaub, Caridad, etc. will all come in and contribute. But like I noted above, the difference between having cost controlled pen arms and ones from FA aren’t nearly as pronounced as cost controlled outfielders vs free agent OF’s, for instance.
And Colvin may come up as a 4th OF. And I hope he can earn that. But again, that’s not elite. He most likely won’t be the difference maker.
Just to clarify, I don’t think Jim Hendry is a horrendous GM, or anything like that. But as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, there are some significant built in advantages to being the Cubs GM. And he’s used them. But when I look at what propels the best teams forward, I see that elite talent that comes from within. And even when I look at teams within our division, I see them churning out much more talent and wonder what the Cubs could do with their built in advantages PLUS a guy who is able to draft or sign young foreign guys who become that elite talent.
good
observations. You have brought out alot of good points. One being the talent that others within the division have talent the Cubs havent brought up or thru, thats hopefully changing, you have to remember 2003 to 2005 those players that you’ve seen from other systems arent showing up with the Cubs other than Soto and to couple that with the Cubs losing picks 2 thru 4 in 2006 and losing the number 2 pick in 2007 and only getting one pick back which they took Donaldson and he netted us Harden at that time, so finally they’re getting all their picks and it looks fairly decent on the horizon.
That's another good point.
When you’re signing free agents AND winning games it’s a lot tougher to build through the draft. Your picks are lower and you have less of them. Fortunately, Hendry has brought in some international talent (Lee, Castro, Soto, Guzman, Caridad, etc.).
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 7, 2009 2:35 AM CST up reply actions
I don't disagree
But with losing picks 2-4 in 06, that’s caused by an over reliance on free agency because the system hasn’t produced.
And yes, it does look fairly decent on the horizon.
Felix Pie is, at best, a 5th outfielder type
So get over yourself.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
Felix Pie
hit .290/.346/.497/.842 in the second half last year. That’s better than our center-fielder did.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 5, 2009 8:26 PM CST up reply actions
Corey patterson
had a fairly good year in baltimore after he left the cubs……do you want him back too?
I didn't say I wanted him back
although I think we will recognize that we do want him back in the future. I’m simply disputing the should-be-not-put-to-rest fallacy that Pie has a low ceiling and will never play well.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 1:02 PM CST up reply actions
Whadareya?
Somekind of Jeremy Burnitz fan?
"I'd rather hit home runs you don't have to run as hard." -- Dave Kingman
by BucknerKongCardenal on Dec 5, 2009 10:02 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Just no Byrd.
Then again 31 year old, who had a career year, in a hitters park, in his walk year, has Hendry written all over it.
Randy Wells. A product of the Roy Halladay School of Pitching, located in Toronto, Canada. Possible relocation.
This time, let's let Lou convince Hendry to take his guy.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
He's really been quite good for the past three years.
Last year he raised his power game at the expense of OBP, but I wouldn’t call it a career year. On this team, I’d prefer his numbers from ’08.
This might be an interesting debate within the front office. Could come down to lou’s guy, cameron vs. jaramillo’s guy, byrd.
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
A little OT, but I want to throw this out there:
Keep your eye on the Braves as a potential taker for MB. They just put spent a lot of money on their bullpen, and now we’re hearing rumors that Rafael Soriano will accept their arbitration offer. With all the talented young pitching they have, and the dearth of OF bats they may be interested in a deal that takes Bradley in exchange for someone like Kawakami. That would be a better option for the Cubs than most of the ones I’ve come across.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 5, 2009 7:03 PM CST reply actions
I think if the Cubs could afford Lowe's contract
they would be all over that deal. I would like to get Kawakami a lot more than Burrell, thats for sure.
Officially Aaron Free since 12/3/2009. Good work Hendry.
I've bee preaching that all along
But I think something along the lines of MB and maybe Fonty for Schafer and Lowe.
That could be a good take straight up for both clubs. Then we watch the Braves sign Byrd, and see how Schafer pans out.
Or, make the above trade, then sign Cameron to ashrt term deal and let Schafer learn and grow.
Basically, giving him the chance Pie was never given.
Jim Hendry is the GM, not Dusty Baker or Lou Piniella
Its a point lost on Al Yellon, DGU and several others on this board.
The buck stops with Jim Hendry. It is Jim Hendry who has pissed away millions on his annual foray to find an outfielder via free agency…Jones, Soriano, Kosuke, Milton have all been terrible signings.
The buck stops with Jim Hendry. It is Jim Hendry who has played a hand in the Cub minor league system since the mid-90’s, yet it remains a system that absolutely cannot produce viable major league position talent on a consistent basis.
It is Jim Hendry who runs the baseball operation. Not Dusty Baker in the past, and not Lou Piniella in the present.
It is Jim Hendry who sucks and has crafted a disastrous $140 million payroll situation.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
by BLou on Dec 5, 2009 7:31 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
So, let me get this straight...
..you’re blaming Jim Hendry?
Nobody cares about your fantasy baseball team
by carmen_fanzone on Dec 5, 2009 7:37 PM CST up reply actions
wha wha WHA!?
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 5, 2009 7:41 PM CST up reply actions
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 5, 2009 8:27 PM CST up reply actions
Blah, blah, blah blah
blah, blah, blah.
OK I don't know shit about basketball.
by SoulEater7 on Nov. 5, 2009 9:51 PM CST
I really hope
that somehow Colvin becomes the starting CF during Spring Training.
colvin is a 4th outfielder at best
This Chicago Cubs team is currently Aaron free. Keep it that way, please.
by jesus christos on Dec 6, 2009 12:05 PM CST up reply actions
i dont know
about cameron. sure we would all rather have granderson but trading prospects is not a good idea. i feel ricketts is not gonna be a big spender and will try to develop a team, the old way aka the farm system. hendry has done a good job of keeping players here for 7 years. i hate to go back to a new position player every 2 years. but thats the way it is now unfortunately.
What do you want?
I think is the real question. From where I sit, if you want to the Cubs to be competitive in 2010, you tinker around and sign Mike Cameron, find some reliever with miles on the tires and hope like hell the guys that had bad 2009’s can turn things around without any negative offset from other guys.
If you want the Cubs to contend for a World Series, you pass on Cameron and any other mediocre option, get creative and try to acquire legitimate difference-making players. How do you do that? That’s Hendry’s job, not mine. But acquiring guys like Cameron are not going to end the drought of championship titles. He’s just not good enough.
Who needs a stinkin' tag line? What are they for anyway?
"...some reliever with miles..."
Wait – what? We just got rid of Miles and now you want him back??? ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
I think CF is the position...
that gives the Cubs the biggest room for improvement. And out of the ones on the FA market, Cameron is the best. If you want to go “bigger” than that, it has to be a trade for someone like Granderson, Sizemore, or Beltran.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions
Here's the thing.
The Cubs will very probably be at least a .520 win team. That might be enough to make the playoffs as is. We don’t have a CF prospect to block. So if Ricketts is signing the checks anyway, why not give Cameron a one or two year deal and give this roster a chance to get that 1/8 lottery ticket?
You could wait and see what St. Louis does exactly, but again, if Ricketts is signing the checks anyway…
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 1:54 PM CST up reply actions
What's more...
there’s a chance Brett Jackson turns into a good CF prospect. So if you don’t want to block him you should be going after a CF’er that is only looking for a 1-2 year deal. That guy is Mike Cameron.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 1:58 PM CST up reply actions
Dumbfounded
Burnitz…terrible
Jones…terrible
Soriano…horrendous
Fukudome….ridiculously overpaid for what he is
Bradley…a trainwreck of the fullest magnitude
….and here you are professing absolute comfort in the dope General Manager going out and signing a 37 year old hack to play center field. A hack who doesn’t even provide the much needed benefit of hitting from the left-side.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
What would you do in CF for the 2010 Cubs?
I’m just curious. I’ll grant Cameron isn’t a perfect fit. But if the Cubs can’t get Granderson I’m not sure the perfect fit is available.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 7:13 PM CST up reply actions
Cameron is an AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL idea
Cameron is a hack who turns 37 years old and compouds the dilemma of not having more left-handedness. So Soriano and Cameron are going to hit back to back in the lineup card, say in the 5th and 6th slot?!?!? Good God man !!! TWO friggin HACKS hitting back to back and swinging from their asshole at every pitch.
And not a lefty at all for the middle of that lineup.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
Well I agree about the lineup thing
but Lou wants Cameron and Lou has 35 years of baseball experience, so I bow to his wisdom.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 7:14 PM CST up reply actions
I forgot
Jim Hendry exists in your world to be non-thinking and to serve as simple order taker. He can’t construct an even semi-productive farm system and manages to even screw up the extreme luxury of a $135 million plus payroll situation….yet to you he is God-like figure who would go down in the pantheon of outstanding baseball executives if only for the nuisance of having to fill orders by Dusty Baker and Lou Piniella.
Hendry has made his bed and has to sleep in it. Cubs wouldn’t need to continue to piss away tens of millions in free agency if his friggin farm system could actually produce a major league grade outfielder every decade.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
Well since Jim Hendry is utterly incompetent
in your world, shouldn’t you be glad that he’s taking Lou’s public advice?
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 7:43 PM CST up reply actions
So does this mean if Lou says he wants Derek Jeter its a lock that one of my favorite players will be at shortstop in Mesa in a few months?!?!
You need to get a grip. Lou Piniella is the manager, period. While he certainly has deep opinion and say on personnel, it is the GM whose job it is to set strategy and carry forth in developing and acquiring the players to implement.
Mke Cameron is a TERRIBLE idea. Lou Piniella mentions his name because he is smart enough to recognize the Cubs are boxed into a corner given that they will need to assume a bunch of Bradley’s salary to get rid of the cancer, are up against payroll limitations and have NOBODY remotely ready within the system to compete for a starting outfielder job.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
this:
Jim Hendry exists in your world to be non-thinking and to serve as simple order taker.
doesn’t jibe with this:
yet to you he is God-like figure who would go down in the pantheon of outstanding baseball executives if only for the nuisance of having to fill orders by Dusty Baker and Lou Piniella.
Which is it?
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 7:53 PM CST up reply actions
Piss off
You’re a feeble minded little douche bag who knows jack squat about baseball. Al Yellon can ban me for all I care too.
The Blackhawks and the Stanley Cup in 2010.
Oh well I better stop the whole Lou line if you're going to get this angry.
Let’s play the game this way. Name me a GM you think is ideal and I’ll see if I can’t find 6 deals on a par with the 6 that have become your fa-la-la-la-la chorus.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 8:11 PM CST up reply actions
For example - Theo Epstein
2004 – Pokey Reese
2005 – Edgar Renteria
2006 – Alex Gonzalez
2007 – Julio Lugo
And Scutaro looks even more questionable than Cameron.
The point is that every GM has bad FA deals, especially when filling that last spot on their roster.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 8:19 PM CST up reply actions
Scutaro is questionable?
I’m not so sure on that. The pick loss isn’t that big a deal as they move up in the first by getting Atlanta’s pick. Scutaro fit an immediate need. He didn’t get an insane contract – they held the line on 2 guaranteed years and the AAV is alright.
More questionable than Cameron, I'd say.
It seems this fangraphs article would agree.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 9:07 PM CST up reply actions
Rj noted that he wrote the article
prior to knowing contract details. Also, I didn’t mean to compare it to a Cameron signing (and we can’t really compare until we know what Cameron signs for, whoever he signs with). That said, basically, if Scutaro is a league average shortstop, he’ll be decent enough value for that contract. At worst, he becomes a slightly overpaid utility player for 1 year. When you factor in that shortstop was their biggest need, and that Scutaro was the best shortstop on the market, along with the fact that they held the line at 2 years without overpaying, and I thought it wasn’t a questionable move. Whether or not it pans out, only time will tell, but I think there was enough justification for the move.
Let me say that I think the contract is fine
for the reasons you say; what I’m claiming is that I expect Cameron to be worth more in 2010 than Scutaro. The comparison is the progression of contracts offered that BLou keeps singing.
Is he traded yet?
Scutaro looks extremely questionable...
This has a Julio Lugo redo written all over it.
by Damen Jackson on Dec 6, 2009 10:54 PM CST up reply actions
in other words
you contradicted yourself, and didn’t even figure it out till I pointed it out for you.
And then you resort to name calling. As usual.
Also as usual is your inability to see things in shades of grey. Hendry has made some good deals, and he’s made some bad deals. But all you can see is the bad, and all you can talk about is your hatred of the Cubs. Why do you persist? Just give up, man. They’re never going to be good enough for you. You’re like the minister’s daughter. Nothing. Is. Ever. Good. Enough.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Dec 6, 2009 8:45 PM CST up reply actions
You've probably seen enough of him to know that this is his act.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
You still haven't answered my question...
what would you do in CF? It’s easy to nipitck others’ decisions or suggestions if you’re not making your own.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 9:07 PM CST up reply actions
Did Lou actually say
he wants Cameron? All I read was that he likes him. I’m sure he likes Fuld and Johnson also but we aren’t suggesting either of them in CF next year. I hope that’s all there is to the Cameron lovefest here.
Quote from the article linked above
‘’I love the guy,’’ Piniella said Friday night in Cincinnati during a reunion event for the 1990 World Series champions at the annual Redsfest. ‘’Mike is somebody we’ve talked about. I’m looking forward to Sunday, [when team officials meet before] the meetings over in Indianapolis.’’
I guess if you’re parsing this, you can say that Lou hasn’t asked for Cameron per se, but the article seemed to intimate that to me when I read it.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 9:11 PM CST up reply actions
I think people are overstating the Cameron love.
He’s the best option for CF, that’s all.
No one is expecting him to be a hall of fame-caliber guy. He’s just better than what we have in-house.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 6, 2009 9:11 PM CST up reply actions
But we have to factor in
his cost to value. That being the case, I would much rather have the $8M-$10M to use elsewhere. And I do believe Byrd would be a better and cheaper solution.
And who would you play in CF?
I agree that if Byrd is cheaper you go with him.
I’m not convinced that’ll be the case.
by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on Dec 7, 2009 2:36 AM CST up reply actions
Too lazy to find a good place to put this
but it seems like this conversation is dovetailing from Cameron to another Hendry debate.
My own take on Hendry is this – he’s not a great GM, but he’s not a bad GM either. I think those that put him on the bad side undervalue the fact that he has built winning Cubs teams. It’s easy to point to the money he’s been given, but he he took a chance on a Ryan Dempster when others passed, he made a good call to sign Mark DeRosa. There’s examples on both sides of the fence in terms of signings. The reality is, all GM’s make their fair share of poor decisions. The organization, overall, has improved in recent years, in my opinion, as the system is stronger not only because of talent, but also because of some good hires in the lower levels.
That said, I certainly wouldn’t classify him as a great GM. Good? Perhaps, although I’m not sure on that one. The reason has little to do with his signings. The main reason is, I think it took him too long to get around to making changes within the organization. I’m talking about the system, I’m talking about minor league philosophy. I mean, if the Orioles hadn’t gone after Stockstill, I wonder where our system would still be. I give him credit for making some changes in recent years, but he deserves some blame on where we were. Now, I don’t completely fault the system’s failures in the middle of this decade on him, but the buck stops there. I don’t fault a GM for making a tough decision – I rather like it when they do, but I do think there are moments when Hendry is either overaggressive or a bit reactionary. At times, I’ve thought his plans were a bit shortsighted or flawed as well. At the end of the day, the buck does stop with Hendry.
As for the Cameron idea, I’m fine with it. It’s not great, but there’s few ideals this offseason. I’ve said it all offseason – Fuld/Baker might be as good as what we could do on the open market at the positions we could investigate, but I never expected that to happen. Simply put, though, the options this offseason weren’t pretty. Is Cameron a great solution? Of course not, but the other options aren’t exactly appealing either – Byrd? Meh. Not sold he’s more than a bench/platoon type. Crisp? We don’t need an 8th hitter. The trade market isn’t exactly teeming with options. You have to have the other team be willing to trade someone. It’s easy to talk about BJ Upton, Curtis Granderson, and others, and I have this offseason, but no one should be under any illusion that those guys are easily attainable.
Personally, my only hope is that he’s aggressive with Milton (move on and know where out budget is) and patient thereafter. I really don’t see a huge difference between Cameron/Crisp/Byrd or anyone else out there.
by toonsterwu on Dec 6, 2009 8:35 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
I agree with a lot of this.
What moves Hendry from plain average into the definitely good category for me is his growth in the job. He’s trending in the right direction on offensive philosophy, manager hirings, farm development, etc. In a job like ML GM, being able to learn and grow is invaluable.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Dec 6, 2009 8:41 PM CST up reply actions
Add Lilly to the good column too
The biggest problem I have is the poor farm system position player-wise. He has to take some of the blame. The fact that they couldn’t develop a single outfielder is what led to the Soriano, Fukudome, Bradley, Cameron? oversignings. No team can build a consistent winner through free agency and trades only.
by rlpete on Dec 6, 2009 9:15 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Whatever happened to the chance of getting Upton, slim that it might be
I haven’t heard much about him lately. Has TB’s outfield picture changed?
I’d still rather have Granderson in CF, but Upton is right up there too. Cameron would be a distant 3rd.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
it was more speculative than anything
based on the idea that Tampa had to clear salary. I believe there was a writer suggesting it (that Tampa could/would deal Upton) but I honestly don’t remember it jumping from speculative to rumor (as the Granderson thing did – it was Lynn Henning’s speculation at first that got the talk going). That said, I wonder if clearing Akinori Iwamura was enough.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
- Have you criticized Hanley Ramirez on Twitter? Your name may be on his bat!
- U.S. senator cries foul over Nationals plans to take back park from Phillies fans
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
