Gaudin Released and Samardzija sent down

by CA Cub Fan on Apr 5, 2009 3:43 PM CDT Comment 58 comments

The roster is now set. No big surprise that the Cubs could find no takers for Gaudin and had to just drop him. I am okay with that as the upside with Guzman is too high to risk losing him.

Sending Jeff down was also the right move- he can always be brought back up later for the bullpen. If his future is really starting then let him do it in the minors.

Also means that Patton makes the club. Can he stick and do well having only played in A ball? Time will tell.

Here are a couple links...

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-cubsmoves&prov=ap&type=lgns

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20090405&content_id=4131752&vkey=pr_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 58 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Why didn't they just

Keep Gaudin!?!?!?!?!? Spring training means NOTHING!!! He was good for a while with the Cubs last year and he was good with the A’s!!!

"Check the magic of a winning season and there are always reasons beyond the talent." Ned Colleti

by wrigleyrocker12 on Apr 5, 2009 3:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

once in lou's doghouse

you can never get out. very happy guzman made it though, id love to see what he can do even with just 60 innings of relief.

Lou: hit Aramis 3rd for the love of everything baseball.

by kylejo on Apr 5, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

seen what he did in 60 innings before

www.chicago.cubs.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=425768

I am not impressed with Guzman, and I hope he makes me eat crow by kicking ass in a Cubs uni

Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.

by Cubbie-Tim on Apr 5, 2009 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I would have kept Gaudin over Guzman as Gaudin has at least proven to have some major league success. Both had bad springs and Guzman has just never come close to reaching his potential.

by dmlichte on Apr 5, 2009 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lou liked Patton

Seems that simple. With options left on Shark he goes down. And if they let Vizcaino loose it was a bigger hit salary wise. I can see why they did this move. Gaudin had problems at the end of last year, too. It wasn’t just the spring. You keep Patton and Guzman who appear to have more upside in their careers. If Guzman can avoid his traditional injury issue this is a good move.

by Nibbles on Apr 5, 2009 3:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Gaudin's goatee

was longer that Reed Johnson and had to “cut” him.
Hey bottom line Patton threw well, Gaudin was BP all spring. Shark gets stretched out. This bullpen is going to be an issue for the whole year I fear.

"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"

by Grockcubs on Apr 5, 2009 3:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Releasing vs. Waiving

I hope that Bruce M. might be able to clarify this for me.

Could the Cubs have waived Gaudin, and, if he had slipped through, sent him to Iowa? If so, is there a reason they chose not to do that, and instead just released him?

In the middle of a good time, Truth gave me her icy kiss. Look around, you must be joking. All that way, all that way for this? -Oysterband

by Ross on Apr 5, 2009 4:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Gaudin had to much MLB service time and could refuse a trip to the minors?

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Apr 5, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bruce writes on the Gaudin/Patton/Guzman move...

…here.

"Let it begin! Let it begin!" ~ Rhino

by dat cubfan daver on Apr 6, 2009 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh, it had to be expected

and I’m okay with the move, but I just wonder who ends up being the long man if we need one? Granted, early in the year, and all the arms are fresh, but it is a thought that comes to mind, and I preferred keeping Guzman’s upside as well. Patton’s performance earned him the nod, as he was just too good to return when you can try to keep him as the 12th man on the staff.

by toonsterwu on Apr 5, 2009 4:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Heilmann

Don’t forget he was in the running for the 5th starter spot, and actually had a pretty good spring. I think he fills that role if we need it.

by madcow256 on Apr 6, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doubt it.

The pen needs Fully K.

"Let it begin! Let it begin!" ~ Rhino

by dat cubfan daver on Apr 6, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're missing a link:

http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2009/4/5/823417/final-roster-decision-day

Ron Santo should sing TMOTTBG everyday. Period.

by Schwa on Apr 5, 2009 4:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

If you thought the Cubs

should have kept Gaudin….you are in the minority. Jim Hendry was shopping him most of spring training, as I have been informed.

Nobody wanted him, unless he was free. That’s how bad he was this spring, and it all cannot be blamed on the “hot, dry” air of Arizona.

Probably, somebody — at no cost — probably the Padres — will pick him up.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Apr 5, 2009 5:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Marmol...

is the only reliever with options… I don’t like that.

by kanderber on Apr 5, 2009 5:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

who will truly give us relief??

Guzman and Patton have enough “upside” to be kept (and not exposed to other teams)

Samardzija has options and a future as a starter.

Gaudin has, well, a big contract. He stunk up the spring.
His back could act up at any moment.
Having said that, we probably should have kept him because he is a proven pitcher with a track record. Spring training stats mean very little.

by PalatineRol on Apr 5, 2009 5:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, that certainly clarifies matters.

"Let it begin! Let it begin!" ~ Rhino

by dat cubfan daver on Apr 6, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hard to believe it came to that for Gaudin

He seemed like a huge bonus in the Harden deal given his performance in Oakland, strange he didnt seem to handle the transition to the DH-Free league

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Apr 5, 2009 5:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Gaudin wasn't much

last year either. This is no huge loss for us.

by leothelip on Apr 5, 2009 5:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

2 million dollar loss

that money could have been spent on a lefty specialist or we could have kept Dero. I don’t like this move. Could they have started Gaudin off on the DL to start the season to maybe see if there’s any hope toward improvement??? It seems to me like a lack of patience and waste of money.

Life is a crazy game of poker

by Steve Sax on Apr 5, 2009 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Relax

I’m not sweating the loss of Gaudin.

by rlpete on Apr 5, 2009 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It wasn't a $2M loss

that money was spent the moment we got him. The only question that had to be answered was which 2 relievers offered the best opportunity to help the team win this year and in the future. I believe the combination of Patton and Guzman was the right choice. I’d bet that other teams who had no interest in Gaudin reaffirmed Hendry’s decision.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Apr 5, 2009 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually not

The Cubs could have released him before the arbitration deadline and owed him nothing , but the agreed to a 2 million dollar contract. IF he is picked they will get back the $400.000 league minimum any team would have to pay him.

"I daydream just like everybody else, I just do it with my body facing the field, so everybody thinks I'm paying attention."- Greg Maddux

by Doggie Stalker on Apr 5, 2009 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I don't get is why they signed Gaudin to a guaranteed contract.

Since he was an an arbitration player, they could have signed him to a non-guaranteed contract and have the flexibility to release Gaudin in Spring Training for termination pay.

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Apr 5, 2009 8:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Life is a crazy game of poker

by Steve Sax on Apr 6, 2009 12:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He was given the contract

in December, well before spring training. So at the time of the decision to keep Patton and Guzman, they were committed to the $2M. At the time he was signed the Cubs were afraid he could get significantly more in arbitration and the team thought he might well be the 5 starter.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Apr 6, 2009 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except that...

… they could have cut him either on March 18 or March 27 and saved a portion of that $2 million.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 6, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They ended up

paying him $1.6M, not $2M. Also, I believe his contract was guaranteed. The Cubs were planning on trading him so they kept him until April 5 rather than cutting him 10 or 17 days earlier. That seemed like a reasonable decision at the time. It’s easy to look back and suggest the decision to cut him earlier would have been a better choice but all Gaudin needed was one decent outing to justify their thinking.

BTW, what would the team have saved if he had been released earlier since his contract was guaranteed?

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Apr 9, 2009 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We were never going to keep DeRo.

(Well, unless he learned to switch-hit in the off-season.)

Happy Opening Day!

by DGU on Apr 5, 2009 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably not

but they claimed the Dero move was to make room on the payroll but moneywise Miles + Gaudin = Dero, or Orlando Hudson for that matter. My point is we didn’t get enough value out of these moves when you add it all up. I’m happy with Fontenot but I think the money spent on Gaudin and Miles could have been applied towards bullpen help.

Life is a crazy game of poker

by Steve Sax on Apr 6, 2009 1:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is, uh, kinda stupid.

I has a blog. | Ask a sabermagician!

by cwyers on Apr 5, 2009 7:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Your take is usually quite interesting...

care to elaborate?

Free Ronny Cedeno

by Kansas25 on Apr 5, 2009 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because the notion that Patton is a better pitcher than Gaudin...

…based upon the results of Cactus League play is, um, questionable.

And I’m trying to be charitable here.

I has a blog. | Ask a sabermagician!

by cwyers on Apr 6, 2009 3:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your point is taken...

… as we have often debated the merits of spring training stats here.

However, Gaudin was bad after his injury last year and bad in spring training. I have to believe there are lingering effects. However, I agree with cowsarecool220 above, who said he should probably have been let go earlier, so the Cubs didn’t owe him more than termination pay. I guess Hendry thought he could trade him — turned out that was incorrect.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 6, 2009 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's definitely not a risk-averse move.

I, too, would guess that the combination of Gaudin’s ill-timed (and questionably incurred) injury, poor end-of-’08 performance and awful spring put him decidely on the outs with Lou and Hendry. I think this was partly a people decision as well as a baseball one.

"Let it begin! Let it begin!" ~ Rhino

by dat cubfan daver on Apr 6, 2009 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No dropping

2 million on a pitcher and releasing him is stupid. Not to take anything away from Patton or Guz. Even if he gets picked up it is still $1.6 million dollar loss….. With all the bargains out there this off season Henry shouda denied Gaudin arb and shop for better value. Yes I agree. This move is stupid

Life is a crazy game of poker

by Steve Sax on Apr 6, 2009 12:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right decision

There would be a TON more bitching if Guzman was let go than Gaudin. Guzman at least has potential, they might eventually have to get rid of him this season with no options left, but Gaudin just ‘lost it’ somehow if he ever really had it. The money is nothing…peanuts.

by jeff_pico on Apr 5, 2009 9:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm glad

they kept Guz but pissed that we guaranteed that contract for $2 million. Horrible business move.

Life is a crazy game of poker

by Steve Sax on Apr 6, 2009 1:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not every move works out

I suspect that the Cubs really thought Gaudin would be on the team. It’s only $1.6 Mil though, not the end of the world.

by rlpete on Apr 6, 2009 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right.

They COULD have released Vizcaino; that would have cost them at least $3 million (if another team had picked him up).

Now we have to hope that Vizcaino isn’t as bad as he was in the spring.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 6, 2009 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They kept Vizcaino because he killed us so many times

Cubs fans think Vizcaino is better than he actually is because he seemed to do so well against the Cubs back when he was with the Brewers. If we released him, and the Brewers grabbed him, and he played well against us—even if just us—people would have been like WTF?

by arrowman on Apr 6, 2009 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Gaudin sealed his fate...

… with the dumpster dive last year. Lou appreciates honest effort — if you then fail, well then, he’ll replace you (except if you’re Bob Howry).

But Gaudin did that in a stupid extracurricular event — we still don’t know exactly why or how it happened, but he hasn’t been the same since then.

If Gaudin had had a perfect spring, he’d probably have won Lou back over. But not only did that not happen, he was awful. This seemed preordained — the only question was whether anyone would take him in a deal.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 6, 2009 12:13 AM CDT reply actions 4 recs

Totally agree and rec'd.

"Let it begin! Let it begin!" ~ Rhino

by dat cubfan daver on Apr 6, 2009 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I concur

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! --Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Apr 6, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i wonder if it would have made more sense

to send heilman down to iowa to get some starts & let samardzija stay in chicago & work out of the bullpen

by brian custer on Apr 6, 2009 9:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

what?

Send a proven major leaguer down to the minor leagues and keep someone who had a bad spring on the team? What would these prove?

Piss of Heilman for sure thats about all that would do. Heilman should be a positive addition to the team.

by jeff_pico on Apr 6, 2009 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus...

… as a veteran, Heilman would have had to clear “release waivers” to be sent down — that would never happen. Silly idea.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 6, 2009 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe heilman

would say “OK” to the move. how do we know he wouldn’t?

by brian custer on Apr 6, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

he's a 6 year major league veteran with a proven track record

How many of these guys are just ‘ok’ to play in the PCL and take bus rides?

by jeff_pico on Apr 6, 2009 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

heilman wants to start

he’ll start in iowa… we know what he can do in the pen. let’s give him a half doz starts and see what happens…

by brian custer on Apr 6, 2009 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not a matter of saying "OK".

It’s a matter of clearing release waivers. Someone else would claim him. You want to lose him? Then do this.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 6, 2009 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not. In. A. Million. Years.

"Let it begin! Let it begin!" ~ Rhino

by dat cubfan daver on Apr 6, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

why would that be a better move

in the first place? Spellcheck has to get stretched out. We want him to be a starter. ~~Ted Lilly~~ Ryan Dempster isn’t going to live forever, ya know…

"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella

by drewishdrewid on Apr 6, 2009 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i don't think

there is not very much difference between heils & shark as far as coming out of the bullpen. heils wants to start, let him start for a while.

the technical stuff about release waivers i did not know…

by brian custer on Apr 6, 2009 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Regardless of the waiver rules

If Samardzija’s future is as a starter, he should be starting. It’s not like he is expected to be the closer this year. He’d be a middle reliever likely no better than Heilman in that role. Samardzija is the younger player with more upside so let him start in AAA for the future.

by rlpete on Apr 6, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Shark needs to work on his pitching repetoire and getting better

He’s a top prospect, and his development needs to be invested in wisely. That means starting 2009 at Triple A and working on his pitches, getting hitters out, etc. He’s not a finished product by any stretch and it is a mistake therefore to get overly seduced by the abbreviated stats he put up with the Cubs last season.

by BLou on Apr 6, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just about every pitcher "wants" to start.

I initially thought maybe Fully K would sweet talk/pitch his way into the rotation, but the Cubs seem committed to Marshall as the No. 5 starter (which is fine with me). The bullpen needs Heilman for stability. I think he, Marmol, Gregg and Cotts (yes, Cotts) make up a fairly solid pen. Vizcaino, Patton and Guzman are the question marks in my mind – but, at least, Gooz and The Good General have lots of upside.

"Let it begin! Let it begin!" ~ Rhino

by dat cubfan daver on Apr 6, 2009 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs