Sherman says trade Silva for Sherrill and Carroll
I think the Cubs say yes to this deal, but to make it realistic would have to send back more; maybe Baker would be enough. But I don't think anyone puts themselves on the hook for Silva's dollars until he's done this a lot longer. Gorzelanny seems more realistic to go; maybe Gorz for Ramon Troncoso.
about 2 years ago
DGU
96 comments
0 recs |
Comments
I'd be open to this, but
we have a ton of leftys in the pen.
by Don't Fear the Reaper on Apr 26, 2010 1:28 PM CDT reply actions
If the Dodgers would do this
I’d make the trade. We could move Z back to the rotation where he belongs and we’d have a set-up guy who’s got a solid track record, this season notwithstanding. He does have a bit of wildness problems, but some years he’s fine and others he struggles.
We’ve got no need for Jamie Carroll, but I’d give him a chance to take Fontenot’s job and if he doesn’t, just release him.
I never travel far without a little Big Star. R.I.P Alex
Basically, Sherrill would exactly fill the role the Cubs hoped Grabow would fill...
of course, it’s moot, because I can’t see LA wanting to do this deal.
If it was Gorz involved i na deal
Then they would do it.
Sounds like a fantasy league deal.
Now regular reporters are doing this? Sheesh.
Jamey Carroll is Jose Macias.
Sherrill is off to a rough start and was terrible in the NLCS last year.
Surely, the mainstream media can do better than this. Or, maybe not.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
LOL @ "regular reporters".
Just because George is off to a bad start, shouldn’t we consider buying high on him while we consider selling the guy with the 492 ERA+? Seems like the EXACT SAME THING to me.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
I think you might be overvaluing Silva, Al...
What do you really expect to get for a guy with Silva’s track record the past three years? Not to mention that Silva still has more money owed after this year.
That’d be an amazing deal for us. It’s a “fantasy league” trade, but not in the way you’re suggesting in this post.
No, he knows Silva won't keep this up.
Plus, he’s adding the most important aspect of trading off Silva: money. Basically, Al is indicating teams know that Silva is not worth what he’s getting paid (hence, he will not continue his stellar performance)
The fact that Silva is owed money after this year...
… would likely mean no one would do it without sending money back in return.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I completely agree with this...
For that reason, I think Sherrill+Carroll would be a fabulous return for us.
But as you said, it isn’t going to happen.
Pretty much agree....
The Dodgers wouldn’t touch this deal.
by Damen Jackson on Apr 26, 2010 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions
sounds like an ignorant blogger reply
how does that read?
can we lay off the negative connotations you constantly rip on fantasy players for?
I’m willing to bet the majority of fantasy players are FAR more educated than the casual fan
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Apr 26, 2010 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Which may be true.
However, trades like the one proposed don’t happen in real life, and definitely not after three weeks of the season.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
that's fine but no need to denigrate others
if you don’t believe the trade is realistic why not just state why and discredit the author
why do you have to discredit millions of people
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Apr 26, 2010 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Good grief, man
That comment read to you like he was denigrating others? I think you might be being a ‘lil over-sensitive here. I just took him to mean that that’s the kind of deal that happens within a Fantasy Baseball league. I don’t think he was ripping on or discrediting anyone that participates in Fantasy Baseball.
"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." ~Alvin Dark
by DamonBerryhillsMitt on Apr 26, 2010 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions
It's not discrediting people...
… it’s simply stating, which is true, that deals like this are made all the time in fantasy leagues. I have made trades like this myself — trading someone who’s doing well for perceived value elsewhere.
These types of deals simply never happen in real life.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Oh sweet Jesus yes.
Multiple reasons:
1 – SELL HIGH ON SILVA. For all you homer fans, his ERA+ of 492 this year isn’t gonna hold constant, like Penny is to Desmond (boo-ya, LOST reference). His 2006-2009 ERA+ of 78 doesn’t cut it. Look at facts and figures people, not extremely small sample sizes.
2 – This moves Zambrano back to the rotation. ’Nuff said.
3 – Sherrill is good. Again, his last 4 year ERA+ is
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
by dtpollitt on Apr 26, 2010 1:47 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Oh sweet Jesus yes.
Multiple reasons:
1 – SELL HIGH ON SILVA. For all you homer fans, his ERA+ of 492 this year isn’t gonna hold constant, like Penny is to Desmond (boo-ya, LOST reference). His 2006-2009 ERA+ of 78 doesn’t cut it. Look at facts and figures people, not extremely small sample sizes.
2 – This moves Zambrano back to the rotation. ’Nuff said.
3 – Sherrill is good. Again, his last 4 year ERA+ is 142. Again again, don’t look at his ERA+ this year, 52, because it’s through 6 innings.
4 – I don’t care about Carroll, he’s a wash.
Looks good to me.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
by dtpollitt on Apr 26, 2010 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Silva's ERA will be around low to mid 4's by the end of the year
He will give up more HRs later on. I totally agree, sell high ASAP on Silva, but it wont happen till midseason.
Remember, Silva is owed quite a big of money next year, too.
No one is going to make such a trade unless the Cubs take money back in return.
This isn’t fantasy baseball where you can trade a guy after he makes three good starts.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I agree and teams know Silva won't keep up this peformace
I say trade Gorz instead of Silva. Teams will expect the Cubs to pay off more than half of his remaining salary.
I agree with this...
not sure why you said it the other way above. Getting Sherrill and Carroll would be a very nice return for Silva. But it’s not going to happen.
I'm leery of Sherrill...
… and Carroll is roster filler.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'm a lot less leery of Sherrill than Silva...
and Silva has the bad contract to deal with. I completely agree with you that no one is dealing high value for Silva, though.
And yes, Carroll is roster filler.
I've been hoping...
… that the Zambrano to the bullpen move was, in part, an opportunity to showcase Silva and Gorzelanny in an attempt to move one (or both). As great of a job as Silva has done, odds are that he’s going to end up being a #4/5 starter. Much as I’d love to see the Cubs land a key piece for him, I’d be thrilled to be able to see them shed most of his salary. The question is whether or not Silva turns into a pumpkin before anyone would be willing to take on most of his salary.
In a perfect world, the Cubs trade both Silva and Gorzelanny at their peaks, shed most salary, and land some middle relief. Zambrano moves back into the rotation and then Hendry/Piniella can decide if they want Marshall starting or someone from AAA.
by dmlichte on Apr 26, 2010 2:01 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I believe that's part of Lou's intention
to provide more leverage to Hendry so he can have the chance to trade off either SP.
Gorzelanny is much more tradeable than Silva.
#1. He’s cost-controlled.
#2. He’s lefthanded.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
which is also the reason
he shouldn’t be traded…
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Apr 26, 2010 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Gorzelanny isn't part of our long-term plans.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
he should be part of the transition plans
i.e. the we have a guy to hold the spot so don’t go throw a ton of cash at an aging veteran (Ted Lilly)
Next year the rotation should include: Zambrano, Dempster, Gorzelanny, Wells, and 1 spot for Silva/Cashner/Jackson
unless we think 2 of those guys will be ready or Silva will continue his deal with the devil
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Apr 26, 2010 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions
yup
and I’d like to see Gorzelanny moved if he can land the Cubs some needed RH relief help. Gorzelanny could has some upside, but its more likely that he’ll be a guy who throws a solid outing, a mediocre outing and then a bad outing every three times through the rotation. I’d rather have Zambrano in the rotation and hopefully land a good RH reliever.
Moving Silva is wishful thinking as I’d just like to have an extra $10M to spend elsewhere.
100% agreed
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
No thanks
I actually read this last night and laughed. Sherril is LEFT handed and not pitching well and why do the Cubs need ANOTHER 2B. I would look to shop Gorzo for a decent set up guy.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
I'd rather
Heath Bell. But who know if they’d accept a trade considering they are actually winning games this year. So far at least.
2010 is OUR year.
Meh, they will slow down.
They would probably trade off Bell. However, will they be reasonable in their demands.
They should.
I wouldn’t give them no more than a #5 prospect (Jay Jackson) for him. I’m starting to think that might be too much.
2010 is OUR year.
Yeah, but the pads will prob demand a bit more
they know how desperate the cubs are for a RP.
That's where I would hang up.
We’re desperate but Jay Jackson is a legit prospect.
2010 is OUR year.
Oh I know he is
Jackson has been a bit surprising. However, with Colvin’s uprising, Jackson is expendable.
I think your confusing Jackson's.
Brett Jackson is in AA playing CF. Jay Jackson is another top prospect – a pitcher – pitching in AAA.
2010 is OUR year.
yeah, i am confusing the two jacksons
but nonetheless, pads are also desperate for SP and jackson fits the bill.
You meant Jason Frasor.
Who is pitching horribly this year.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I wouldn't keep weighing too much into this year.
We are not even a month into the season.
2010 is OUR year.
I think we all were...
He’s been in 10 games this season, and I don’t think he is as bad as he’s showing. He has a consistent track record of being good so I don’t know why we wouldn’t try to obtain him for an reasonable cost. Even if he’s pitching “horribly”.
2010 is OUR year.
you're the king of big judgments
on small sample sizes this year, eh?
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Apr 26, 2010 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions
If there was one RP I would go after, it would be the Blue Jays RP Frasor.
Idk how much they would ask in return for him, but for a reasonable price the Cubs should go for it.
Downs, maybe.
Frasor has been awful.
I think the Cubs will be keeping an eye on Luke Gregerson, too.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I know the Cubs scouted him all of spring training.
This is a deal that could happen. And it likely wouldn’t cost that much in prospects.
These other deals are fantasy league trades.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I'd hope not.
Trading top tier prospects for a reliever (non closer) should never be necessary.
2010 is OUR year.
why should we do this?
Silva has been fine so far and we can trade him later if he starts getting bad. Just wait to see what happens before we pull the trigger.
"They say you don’t win a pennant in April, but you can sure lose one." - Ryan Dempster
The problem with that is that most believe Silva will fall off this pace, so we should sell high.
On the other hand, I think Silva will throw a perfect game, go on to win the Cy Young this year, AND drop 50 pounds this year.
Silva's weight has nothing to do with him being in pitching shape.
Or maybe you think this guy is a bad pitcher because he’s fat:

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I think Bartolo Colon's Jenny Craig rep would like a word with you.
Just because Sabathia has been able to get away with it (so far), doesn’t mean it’s advisable to be a MLB pitcher and carry around an extra restaurant-sized sack of potatoes. (and while I’m not a professional athlete, I do acknowledge my own hypocrisy on the subject!)
"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin
That's one.
Carlos Silva is just plain ’ol fat.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
The idea is "sell high" if you expect a decline in a player...
waiting until the player falls back to Earth eliminates the trade value. So waiting to trade a player until he starts not producing is, in general, a bad idea. Then you are “selling low.” Unfortunately, this has typically been Hendry’s approach (see Pie, Patterson, Cedeno, etc).
It’s not easy to trade a player when they’re doing well. But you don’t get the best value for a player if you trade them when they’re playing poorly.
Now, obviously, most people expect Silva to return to Earth. That includes other teams’ GMs. So no one is trading for him right now, anyway. So it’s kind of a moot point.
Silva’s tradability won’t exist for another several months at the earliest. If he has 3-4 months of good pitching, someone may take him on. If he returns to form, then he stays our problem for at least another year (unless we cut him) because of his contract.
Selling high before an inevitable decline operates on the assumption that other GM's are idiots
Not even Omar Minaya would believe Silva can keep this up.
And now, back to DGU's post
Gorzelanny for Trancoso makes a lot of sense. Ramon has struggled a bit this year. Any indications as to why? I wouldn’t want to deal for someone with a sore arm, since he already doesn’t strike anybody out. Can he give us a different look than some of our bullpen arms?
Fontenot (fon-te-no): Cajun for "scrappy"
joe torre
has abused him, just like every other RH reliever Joe Torre gets his hands on
guy almost threw 85 innings last year out of the pen
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Apr 27, 2010 8:15 AM CDT up reply actions
This deal isn't Hendry's SOP
Since Silva is pitching well, he assumes he’ll continue to pitch like this all season. There is no such thing as selling high.
Once he is terrible for a few months, the Cubs will leak some information on what’s he’s done that’s bothered them, then trade him plus most of his contract for something we don’t want.
DEJESUS!!!
You don't know Hendry.
He’s done this with some prospects.
He’s had some managers do it to him with players they didn’t like.
Both of those are on Hendry, for caring more about PR and his relationship with the manager than player value.
But ask Billy Beane if Hendry sold high on anyone recently.
How did we do selling high on Hee Seop Choi and Bobby Hill?
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
So, anyway,
it is one thing for a sports writer to suggest Silva has trade value and another thing for a GM to think Silva has trade value. But it is one thing, and a necessary thing, before the latter can happen.
This is good.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
It's neccessary
for a sports writer to think Silva has value before a GM will think he has value?
Someone call Phil Rogers, get him to say Silva has value!
DEJESUS!!!
I'm not sure I buy this...
I don’t know how much influence the media blowhards have on GMs’ perceptions of players’ values.
It's not causative.
But no one’s going to trade for Silva if the sports stories about it will mock the GM for doing it.
What I mean is that people in baseball are starting to believe in Silva again. Any GM can look at Silva’s BABIP and say let’s see how he fares when the hits start falling in. So, there’s a way to go.
But imagine how implausible this story would have read had it been written two months ago.
4/9/10: Carlos Silva strikes out Joey Votto on three pitches. Is that what you mean by "small sample size"?
Setting aside the trade for a minute...
Let’s look at some of the other notes to check on the author’s viability as a writer.
Could Jim Edmonds and Andruw Jones be sprucing already interesting Hall of Fame resumes?
Putting “Jim Edmonds” and “Hall of Fame” in the same sentence should immediately negate anything you have to say. Edmonds has had a nice career… but to consider, with ANY sincerity, the HoF? Uh, no. Jones? A far better case… but we’ll see.
They already have turned Kosuke Fukudome into a part-time player midway through a four-year $48 million contract.
While not “wrong”, this is an incomplete thought. The way the sentence is worded, suggests KF plays sparingly. He is the Cubs starting RF and sits against LHP.
Cubs officials threatened the playing time of the highest-paid player in team history, Alfonso Soriano…
Do we in fact KNOW that the Cubs THREATENED Sori’s playing time? Isn’t “produce or sit” the standard for a whole lot of players? Again, maybe not “wrong”, but a bit of an overstatement.
Zambrano had to switch, in part, because the five-year, $10 million gamble to buy Jeff Samardzija out of his football career has not worked, and John Grabow has been a waste so far on his two-year, $7.5 million contract.
The move of Z had absolutely nada to do with Shark. And Grabow has pitched 6.2 innings. Disappointing? Sure. But probably a bit early to declare it “a waste”.
On the first page of that article…
And another issue that worries me feeds directly into attendance: Lack of competition. Three weeks does not a season make, but does anybody think the Twins and Cardinals are not going to run away in the two Central divisions? The Phillies have pitching problems, but so does every NL East team, and no divisional foe can boast Philadelphia’s lineup or confidence/toughness. So a fourth straight division title already feels like a lock.
Uh… I think there are SEVERAL people who aren’t ready to concede one or both of the Central divisions. And, as Al noted, the ENTIRE NATIONAL LEAGUE is within 4 games. I would think that is “competitive”.
Oh… and he’s a writer for the NY Post… so there’s that to consider.
On the trade… doubtful the Cubs have any use for Carroll. They would probably take Sherrill, even though he is LHP, but they’d sure prefer a RHP. And, as others have noted, Gorz would be far more tradeable.
So put it all together… and I would say you could file this trade proposal under “random musings” instead of “realistic possibility”.
by fsuapollo on Apr 26, 2010 8:45 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
C'mon ...
of course Shark had something to do with moving Z! If Shark was pitching as well as Hendry thought he could pitch — based on the money he was given — Z is still in the starting rotation. They’re both hard-throwing righties.
Well, if Shark could pitch as well as Hendry thought he could...
we’d have our own Roy Halladay.
Hyperbole aside… Shark wasn’t really pitching “8th inning” relief. Z was moved to solve the 8th inning problem.
Sure, if Shark had pitched well, he might’ve gotten a shot at the 8th… but Shark would be at best 4th on the list of reasons Z was moved, behind Guzman’s injury, Caridad, & Grabow (maybe lower, if you think Gray would’ve gotten a further shot if he hadn’t had the ST set back).
Basically, my feeling is if Guzman were healthy and/or Caridad or Grabow were “doing the job” in the 8th, Z never would’ve been moved. Whereas, if Shark were even pitching like a poor man’s imitation of a big league reliever, IMO they still would’ve moved Z back, since the others fell through.
But, to be fair, I guess I would change my “nothing to do” to an “awfully tangentially little to do”.
Um, what?
Putting "Jim Edmonds" and "Hall of Fame" in the same sentence should immediately negate anything you have to say. Edmonds has had a nice career… but to consider, with ANY sincerity, the HoF? Uh, no.
Edmonds is one of the best center fielders of all time. Using WAR, he is one of the top 100 players of all time.
You are massively undervaluing how good he was in his peak years, particularly on defense. He should be a shoe-in for the hall.
If WAR calls Jim Edmunds one of the 100 best players of all time
WAR is a joke. he is not even close to being a HOF player. I hope you were being sarcastic.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Apr 27, 2010 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions
No sarcasm.
1) You’re grossly underestimating the value of defense
2) If you’re writing off an entire model simply because one single data point disagrees with your expectations, I would suggest against being a statistician when you grow up.
No sarcasm? Sorry to hear that, it would have given you an out.
Calling Jim Edmunds one of the 100 best players of all time does not even pass the laugh test, despite your apparent fascination with stats.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Apr 28, 2010 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Well...
I enjoy the sabermetrics. I do. Seriously. I promise. (I state this this way because the following sentences will sound like I dismiss them, which isn’t the case.) But these numbers aren’t flawless, and this is certainly an example.
It is just pretty hard to take this stat seriously when it suggests Jim Edmonds is the 71st best player of all-time (and that list appears to be position players only, which does change the scope a bit). I mean… look at that list. Some of those things just don’t make any sense.
I like Edgar Martinez. But the 66th best player of ALL-TIME? He was a helluva hitter… but was only a DH. Jeff Bagwell… another really nice player. But the 35th best player of ALL-TIME?
Look at some of the names they are ahead of…
Willie McCovey 79
Ozzie Smith 82
Ernie Banks 83
Jackie Robinson 90
Ryne Sandberg 95
Dave Winfield 109
Mike Piazza 112
Billy Wililams 123
Ralph Kiner 209
Kirby Puckett 215
Nellie Fox 222
Lou Brock 292
Hack Wilson 297
Roy Campanella 328
Those are just examples, obviously. But, if you look at the head of the list, some important things stand out. The players at the top are absolute legends… and then a whole bunch of guys from the homer happy era. It kind of appears that WAR needs an adjustment for era.
The other aspect I would consider is, gulp, the eye-ball test. Even at his peak, would you have considered Edmonds even among the top 5-7 active hitters? He finished 4th once and 5th once in MVP voting (remember, that’s just for one league).
I dunno. I can surely admit that his numbers are better than I thought they were. I can be convinced that considering him for the HoF isn’t raw insanity. But even taking off my Cubbie-glasses… I certainly never felt like I was watching an ALL-TIME GREAT when watching Edmonds.
The Hall of Good? Sure.
A shoe-in for the Hall of Fame? No. Just…. no.
by fsuapollo on Apr 27, 2010 8:14 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Was Ozzie Smith ever one of the 5-6 top active hitters?
Of course not – but like Smith, Edmonds provided an excellent bat at a defensively valuable position, while providing spectacular, best-in-the-league defense for many years.
Unfortunately, most HoF voters are probably like you and vastly underestimate the value of defense. Edmonds was easily the best outfield defender of my lifetime, but fails to get the accolades he deserves for it.
WAR is not perfect (especially for historical data, where defensive metrics are largely guesswork) but it’s a great conversation starter. And one of the best things about advanced statistics is it brings a lot of attention to just how much more valuable a guy who’s good on both sides of the ball is than a guy who can mash but moves like a tank in the field.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
I value defense PLENTY. I would agree 1000% with this:
And one of the best things about advanced statistics is it brings a lot of attention to just how much more valuable a guy who’s good on both sides of the ball is than a guy who can mash but moves like a tank in the field.
On the other hand, if you think Edmonds was
easily the best outfield defender of my lifetime
again… I don’t know what to say.
Edmonds was a very, very, good OF. Smart, instinctual, all the tools. Certainly a Gold Glove defender.
But if anything, Edmonds gets TOO MUCH credit for his defense because of his ability to get on highlight reels. It is fairly widely thought that Jimmy turned a number of balls that could have been snagged standing up into diving catches.
I could see someone making an argument for Edmonds as the best CF (or OF in general) from his era… I would disagree, but that’s probably pretty well established.
But it is really hard to comprehend how someone could think he was “easily” the best OF defender from his era when he shared that era with Ken Griffey, Jr., Andruw Jones, Torii Hunter, and Ichiro Suzuki (as a RF).
Personally, I would go Junior, Jones, Ichiro, Edmonds, Hunter.
Again, could I see a healthy debate? Sure. But “EASILY”? No way.




















