Questions: Zambrano, Archer, Cashner, Duchscherer

by nickler on Jan 12, 2011 11:10 AM CST

As always, thank you in advance for your wisdom.

1. There was a lot of talk regarding Zambrano being traded to the Yankees, or at least with their looking at him as a potential target. With them losing out on Cliff Lee and Matt Garza, and with a very limited rotation presently, it would only make sense that they would look at Zambrano as a potential "ace" for their rotation-- especially with Rothschild as their pitching coach.

Could this be why the Cubs were so willing to part with Rothschild? They are trying to cut costs, and I doubt they really see Zambrano as the ace they envisioned. At this point, with so few options left and with the Red Sox having made such huge strides this offseason, the Cubs may be able to ask for quite a lot in return for Zambrano.

While he is an emotional disaster, he would be pitching for a team that gives him outstanding run support with the same coach who brought him up, in a team structure where nobody would tolerate his BS. The Yankees have been known to consider players like this with the thought that their structure will "tame" whatever emotional issues present themselves (Gary Sheffield).

Could this also be why the Cubs gave up quite a bit to get Garza, to limit the Yankees' options of tradeable pitchers, and increase their leverage? Everyone is discussing Gorzelanny as the one who may go, but I have to wonder if it might be Zambrano. Maybe the Cubs liked the Yankees' young pitching prospects as much as or better than Archer.

2. Archer's numbers suggest that his control was very poor, even at a low minors type level, and this is with havnig only two pitches. I am far from an expert in scouting, but could anyone explain how he could be such a high level prospect? After all, when we acquired him from the Indians, nobody felt that he had potential to be an ace (otherwise I highly doubt the Indians would have traded him... for Mark DeRosa).

3. Any word on whether Cashner will be in the rotation? Wouldn't this make the most sense? I am puzzled as to why there is still talk that he would be in the bullpen.

4. Are the Cubs still considering a cheap reclamation project a la Justin Ducscherer? There was a lot of talk of Brandon Webb for a while, and Hendry has repeatedly stated that he was looking for a reclamation. With the addition of Garza is this still the case? If so, perhaps there really is interest in moving Zambrano.

Thanks again for your wisdom!

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.

Tweet Comment 72 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Hmmm...

1. I’d love to trade Z in a highway robbery type deal, but don’t see it happening.

2. Archer is not a high end pitching prospect, he’s a pretty good but highly flawed on. What makes this Garza deal so awesome to me is that the Cubs used a prospect they acquired from someone else, built his perceived value up, and got a big league player out of him. They did exactly what they should do on pitching prospects like Archer. It’s not like he’ll be the last decent pitching prospect to grace this organization.

3. I really would like Cashner to see some AAA time in the rotation, and then get a late season callup to get maybe 8-12 starts in.

4. Ducscherer is a good but very fragile pitcher…I’d be OK with the signing if it actually happened, but it’s not something I’m going to promote. I’d rather give the innings to guys like Jackson and Cashner, though I understand the need/want to load up on MLB pitching talent of any nature.

by SenorGato on Jan 12, 2011 11:48 AM CST reply actions

Zambrano is staying a Cub

If there was any interest by the Yankees to get Zambrano it was to get him on the cheap from the Cubs. They would want the Cubs to pay at least 50% of the salary and there’s no benefit for the Cubs there. The Cubs would need actual talent back from the Yankees and the Yankees have no desire to do that. Not to mention Z’s NTC which he has said he would not waive. At best, the Rothschild connection is just circumstantial.

I think the Cubs want Cashner in the rotation but they have some other individuals to work through before that. They need some resolution on Silva, Wells, and Gorzo before they’d commit. I will say this … if Cashner has a great spring, he’ll be in the rotation on Opening Day. Regardless, unless he really has a rough go of it, he’ll be in the rotation by mid-year.

I’d be willing to take a flyer on Ducscherer. However, I do think that Silva, Wells, and Gorzo need some sort clarity first.

by jerry morales rules on Jan 12, 2011 11:56 AM CST reply actions

Trade Wells...

I’m 85% for this now.

by SenorGato on Jan 12, 2011 12:00 PM CST up reply actions

Depends on who you get

Wells has value. Unload Silva on whomever will pay any of the salary, but Wells and Gorzo must get value in return.

by jerry morales rules on Jan 12, 2011 12:08 PM CST up reply actions

The problem will be getting actual value for him in a trade

For a team that is a solid contender, he’s probably not that attractive at this point. He is a cheap #4 quality starter – not a guy who is going to put a team over the top in a pennant race. And the low budget teams probably won’t want him because this is his last pre-arbitration year. They are more likely to want to hold on to minor league prospects who are even cheaper than Wells.

The scenario where he would have the most value is if he starts the season looking like the 2009 Wells and a contending team has a starter go down. But realizing that scenario would require that the Cubs have him in the rotation.

by ClarkFan on Jan 15, 2011 11:42 AM CST up reply actions

if you move Wells

how do you replace his production cheaply?

While this team has a lot of contracts coming off the books next year, if the payroll is going to be around $125 million or so, they won’t have the opportunity to replace all the holes they have through FA

We have $63 million committed to just Soriano, Zambrano, Dempster, Byrd. Then we have arb figures for Garza, Marmol, Soto, Marshall to add into that (say $25 million or so), gets us to around $88 million for 8 roster spots with the following holes:

1B, 3B, 2 SP

Those suggesting trading Wells either A) have some very creative ways to fix the rest of the club B) have some creative ways to replace his production cheaply or C) have no understanding of our payroll structure

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 12, 2011 12:26 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Hmm...

if you move Wells

how do you replace his production cheaply?

Problem with this thinking is that Randy Wells is not the guy going to make us a contender. Trading him would give the organization a chance to recoup some farm system talent while opening up spots for the many young arms in the system to get some big league innings.

While losing the innings of proven decent pitching, that’s not going to take this franchise to where both fans and the organization want to be. He’s still a smoke and mirrors RHP who gave us less than 200 IP of average ball…Not exactly forcing me to miss his production already.

by SenorGato on Jan 12, 2011 12:41 PM CST up reply actions

well...

then we’re moving completely counter-intuitive to acquiring Garza, since we just traded what many consider our top SP option to fill some of those big league innings from the system… and the guy we acquired in Garza though likely better than Wells, hasn’t significantly separated himself from Wells yet in terms of performance

In addition, if we moved off of Wells we’d still have 2 rotation spots for 2012 to be filled by: Gorzelanny (1 yr, arb3), Cashner, McNutt, Carpenter, Jay Jackson? and…. ?. That number would jump to 4 rotation spots for 2013 (Z, Dempster contracts expire). So basically, we’re relying on 2 out of this group to come through in 2012 and 3-4 out of that group to come through in 2013 (or we’d have to spend on 2 big name FA SP’s, to replace Z/Dempster)

Is Randy Wells going to make us a contender? No, you’re correct on that. However, having a guy who can give you 200 IP of slightly above league average production for less than $5 million dollars, allows us the extra financial flexibility to pursue players that ARE going to make us a contender

Wells level of production costs about $10-15 million a year on the FA market. We’re going to pay less than $5 million for Wells over the next 2 years. The extra financial flexibility is a big deal and an impt part of the picture when constructing a club and thinking about the future implications of dealing him.

Given that we don’t have enough bulk in quantity to reliably replace him in our system. We just made a trade that is going in the exact opposite of that direction AND replacing him on the FA market means significantly limiting your funds to improve the club in other areas, there would appear to reasonably be far more downside to dealing Wells than upside if you’re thinking of contending now OR in the immediate future (unless the return on dealing Wells would be in the ballpark of what we gave up to get Garza)

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 12, 2011 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Sadly, we couldn't get close to what we gave up for Garza for Wells

Statistically (just like Garza) Wells isn’t special, and no GM is going to convince themselves that Wells is better than his stats because his raw stuff isn’t all that impressive.

by JSB on Jan 12, 2011 1:43 PM CST up reply actions

I don't get how you are down on Wells but so high on Garza

Statistically there isn’t much of a difference between the two.

by JSB on Jan 12, 2011 1:41 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

And while I respect your world of numbers...

there is a clear and visible difference between these two pitchers.

Garza’s talent level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Randy Wells

by SenorGato on Jan 12, 2011 2:33 PM CST up reply actions

Results are what matters moreso, no?

So far Garza hasn’t turned that talent into significantly better production than Wells so far. Hopefully he does make that next step forward given the talent he does have, though.

by madcow256 on Jan 12, 2011 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Hmmm...

I guess thats interesting.

I guess statistically the production hasn’t been better, but I’d saying throwing up a league ERA in the AL East is worlds better than putting up a league average ERA for a bad NL Central team….This isn’t even touching playing for a better team and making it to the WS by 27…while Randy Wells was busy convincing people what he was doing was real…still is.

Question that should make this easy:

D’you really believe Wells will be a better pitcher than Garza over the next 3 years? Does Wells even compete on the same level stuff wise?

by SenorGato on Jan 12, 2011 2:49 PM CST up reply actions

No, but we didn't just trade 4 prospects for him

And we aren’t going to pay him close to $30 million the next 3 years.

I would bet that Garza will be a bit better than Wells. We are talking like 3.50 ERA vs. 4.00 ERA.

by JSB on Jan 12, 2011 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

That's if you assume Wells will be 4 guy...

for a while, which I guess is fine to assume. I don’t think he’s got that kind of stuff, but who knows…

Even then, big game…Wells or Garza? I’m taking Garza. Cubs are trying to get BETTER, not wade in their own mediocrity until the time is ripe.

by SenorGato on Jan 12, 2011 3:14 PM CST up reply actions

Just because Garza pitched in the AL East and the playoffs....

Doesn’t mean his 4.00 ERA will all of a sudden translate to a 3.00 ERA in the NL Central. At best we are talking about that translating to a 3.50 ERA in the Central.

Nobody think Randy Wells is a better pitcher, but it seems a bit incongruent to be crowing about acquiring Garza for 4 prospects and then wanting to trade away Wells for “something decent.”

by JSB on Jan 12, 2011 3:11 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Why is is it,

at best a 3.50 ERA? Why not a 3.22 or a 3.38 or 3.12?

And again, where we disagree is that you’re overrating the crap out of guys formerly or currently owned /developed by the Cubs.

I’m not sure of this incongruency you speak of. I see a soft tossing RHP who came out of absolutely nowhere to put up two decent seasons for us putting his value at an all time high…vs. a former top prospect who was awesome for a top/former WS team coming over to the weaker league.

by SenorGato on Jan 12, 2011 3:18 PM CST up reply actions

Everyone agrees Garza is better

You are making Garza out to be a Cy Young candidate and Wells to be potential bullpen fodder. All because Wells throws 90 and Garza throws 95.

If Garza wants to be a 3.22 ERA pitcher, he is going to have to bring his GB and K rates up. That’s a fact. It’s not as easy as just going to an easier league.

Wells has now thrown 365 MLB IP with a 3.95 FIP. I think he deserves a bit more respect than you are giving him.

by JSB on Jan 12, 2011 3:22 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs

I don't feel I'm disrespecting Wells...

He’s pitched well enough to be an average pitcher who could be a solid 4-5 guy in a rotation…Cubs are looking to be better than that. If they can get a decent return for him, why not sell high? D’you think we’ve yet to see the best of Randy Wells?

And I think it’s fairly safe to assume that Garza’s stats will see an improvement this upcoming season. Again, not something I feel I’m making a crazy claim with.

by SenorGato on Jan 12, 2011 9:52 PM CST up reply actions

Well, you've stated that he "isn't special"...

…and at least implied that he’s mediocre. And, at the risk of getting into semantics, Wells has been an above average pitcher for both of his full MLB seasons thus far, per ERA+ (146 and 102, respectively). He has a career 121 ERA+. And, as stated, his 3+ WAR puts him well above replacement level for both years, too.

All that said, I don’t disagree that Hendry should certainly listen to offers on Wells if any are out there. But I still doubt that anything other GMs would put on the table would be “decent” enough to warrant a trade. If someone would give up a really good third base prospect for Wells (and, perhaps, other pieces), however, I’d be interested.

Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!

by daver on Jan 13, 2011 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Wells is not special

he is a at best a middle of the rotation guy, nothing special. Special pitchers top rotations.

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 Jan 14, 2011 7:43 AM CST up reply actions

Exactly.

And what is he…a 146 ERA+ pitcher or a 102 ERA+ pitcher…the guy’s ERA was a full run+ higher in his second year…strike while iron is hot!

by SenorGato on Jan 14, 2011 8:34 AM CST up reply actions

if his ERA was higher last year

wouldn’t the time to “strike while iron is hot!” have been the year before?

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 14, 2011 9:24 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs

Probably somewhere in between.

Which is still above average and likely more valuable to the Cubs at this point than anything they could get in return for him.

Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!

by daver on Jan 14, 2011 9:54 AM CST up reply actions 3 recs

No, elite pitchers top rotations.

Middle-of-the-rotation pitchers are still quite valuable — especially ones who come out of nowhere at such a low cost as Randy Wells.

Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!

by daver on Jan 14, 2011 9:53 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Yes, middle guys are important

but a lot easier to find, too, and the Cubs appear to have a bunch of them. Wells is nothing special, certainly not so good that he has clinched a spot in the rotation.

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 Jan 15, 2011 9:35 AM CST up reply actions

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

IMHO, bottom of the rotation starters are (relatively) easy to find. Middle ones not so much and, as we’ve all seen, top of the rotation starters are in exceedingly short supply. A guy like Wells who essentially comes out of nowhere to put up back-to-back 3+ WAR seasons is something special and should be considered worthy of a rotation spot well before Samardzija and Coleman.

Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!

by daver on Jan 15, 2011 10:55 AM CST up reply actions

it happens

otherwise this board would be awfully dull

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 Jan 17, 2011 10:47 AM CST up reply actions

Yep...

with Cashner, Coleman, Jackson, and McNutt likely looking for rotation innings in the next couple years…iunno I don’t see why not. He’s very unlikely to get better anyway…let someone who really feels desperate for SP innings overpay for him.

by SenorGato on Jan 17, 2011 10:42 PM CST up reply actions

If Hendry can get another team...

…to overpay, fine. But something tells me that’s not in the cards right now. And, again, if Wells remains a 3 WAR pitcher going forward…well…that’s still pretty good.

Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!

by daver on Jan 18, 2011 9:53 AM CST up reply actions

Personally,

I have ZERO clue how we didn’t win this Garza trade…unless of course, someone makes the choice to overrated the crap out of what we gave up.

For instance, on Archer being our best SP pitching prospect…you’d try him in the rotation before Cashner? Is he really so much better than Carpenter? He’s certainly not more ready than Coleman or even Jackson. What’d we lose? Exactly what we gave up…a prospect, and one not so special that we just can’t fathom losing him.

Talking about money is just bullshit…none of us know the true financial state of the team and paying less than a 5 million for a guy who is so close to being a below average pitcher is still paying a guy less than 5 million to be below average…which I’m almost certain will happen with Wells. There’s more talented guys we could do that to…

by SenorGato on Jan 12, 2011 2:56 PM CST up reply actions

Um, we gave up FOUR prospects.

I doubt many people would be bitching about a straight-up trade of Garza for Archer.

by elgato on Jan 12, 2011 3:01 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

and Fuld!!!!!!!!!!

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Jan 12, 2011 8:03 PM CST up reply actions

In all fairness to Randy...

…he threw 194.1 innings last season — that’s awfully close to 200. And the season before he didn’t start pitching until May 8 and still threw 165.1. Plus, if you’re calling him a “smoke and mirrors” pitcher, opposing scouts presumably are as well, so the Cubs probably aren’t going to get top prospects for him.

Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!

by daver on Jan 12, 2011 2:23 PM CST up reply actions

They aren't....

BUT they can probably get something decent if they find a match.

The point is to be shrewd, as they were with the Garza trade…..I’m not saying hand Wells out for free. The guy was basically an average pitcher last year, and his WHIP flew up to the 1.4 range…PLUS he gave up 15 more hits than IP…he’s nothing special, though he’s likable, cheap, and has been productive on some terrible Cubs teams.

by SenorGato on Jan 12, 2011 2:35 PM CST up reply actions

He's been a 3+ WAR pitcher for two straight seasons.

For me, that is something special. Not top-of-the-rotation special, but something. And that WHIP and all those hits are heavily influenced by defense and bad luck. On the things Randy could control, he was pretty good. And he struck out more batters, too.

Also, I’m not sure the Cubs should be looking for just something decent in terms of prospects. The organization still has some depth in its system, just no real impact prospects.

Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!

by daver on Jan 12, 2011 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

The 2009 Cubs weren't terrible.

They won 83 games, and Wells was a good pitcher on that squad.

He regressed (in some ways) in 2010 as the Cubs regressed in almost all ways — other than heightened manager frustration and increased poor lineup choices.

I’m not saying any of this goes against your larger point.

by elgato on Jan 12, 2011 2:49 PM CST up reply actions

The Cubs do have some organizational depth here

Right now, we know that Garza, Z, and Dempster are in the rotation. Wells, Silva, Gorzo, Samardzija, and Coleman are all in the mix for the last two spots. Plus there’s Carpenter, Jackson, and McNutt not too far away. Silva, I’m sure, will not be on the Cubs by June 1. The Cubs already have the replacement for Wells and his cost-controlledness (New word)..

by jerry morales rules on Jan 12, 2011 12:52 PM CST up reply actions

Wondering...

The Royals badly need starting pitching, anywhere they can get it. I doubt they really want to pay Bruce Chen for the multiyear deal he wants.

I wonder if the Cubs paid all of his salary, if they could get some blocked prospect out of the deal. Might be the best way to deal with the situation.

by nickler on Jan 12, 2011 1:02 PM CST up reply actions

Wait...what?

If the Cubs paid all of who’s salary? And what would Bruce Chen have to do with anything? If Bruce Chen is the answer to anything, you’ve gotta be asking the wrong question.

"Enough foreplay- let's get crackin'"- Fred Garvin

by davidalanu on Jan 12, 2011 1:58 PM CST up reply actions

I sure hope you are right about Silva

Unless a couple of other pitchers come up lame, there really is no gain to having him on the team. I’m stating that so strongly because I think Silva used up all his fairy dust going 10-3 and has turned back into a pumpkin. If he is in the rotation, the team is missing several opportunities – 1) not showcasing Wells and Gorzo to improve their trade value (if trade is their destiny); and 2) blocking upcoming prospects like Cashner, McNutt, Carpenter and even Shark if they are the starters of the future.

by ClarkFan on Jan 15, 2011 11:55 AM CST up reply actions

To jerry morales;

Thanks so much for the reply. Very coherent and well thought out.

However….

What other choice do the Yankees have? Greinke is gone. Garza is gone. Lee is gone. There are no high end free agent starting pitchers left.

This is a team whose fans and whose boss INSISTS that they contend every year. They got smacked around in the playoffs last year, and realistically only made it because the Red Sox had so many injuries. With a rotation of CC and Hughes, I’m just not sure they’re going to contend this year, and I am sure the fans will cry out.

The Yankees have really little other choice. The only other high-end pitchers that I can think of are on contenders and are not getting traded. The reports, along with the signing of Rothschild, just seem too coincidental for me.

We may have to take on a bad contract of theirs, but I would think it is the Cubs, not the Yankees, that have the leverage. Maybe Zambrano for Burnett and prospects? If the prospects were very good, I would think this would be something to consider.

Thanks again for your thoughts!

by nickler on Jan 12, 2011 12:59 PM CST reply actions

The Yankees weren't willing to give up a lot to get Garza.

They will be less willing to give up prospects for Z.

Would you really rather have Burnett than Z?

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Jan 12, 2011 1:22 PM CST up reply actions

No.

But I’d rather have Burnett and some top end prospects for Z.

Also, it has been well documented that because the Yankees were in their division, the Rays were insisting on an insane amount of talent for Garza.

In any event, you do have to admit it limits the options that the Yankees have, and if they want to contend this year they might not have a choice.

by nickler on Jan 12, 2011 1:31 PM CST up reply actions

What is Burnett's contract? $$/YRs

by ubercubsfan on Jan 12, 2011 1:35 PM CST up reply actions

Burnett will make $16.5 million per year through 2013.

Z makes $18.75 million in 2011, $19 million in 2012, and has the $19 million option for 2013.

http://thefrustratedfan.blogspot.com/

by Jody Jody Davis on Jan 12, 2011 2:06 PM CST up reply actions

Well, if a great prospect or 2 comes back I'd make that move. Maybe that catcher guy that will end up as a 1B/DH they have.

by ubercubsfan on Jan 12, 2011 2:16 PM CST up reply actions

the Yankees can contend just fine

without another SP

they’ll again be projected to be a 90 win team or more and likely once again win 95+ games.

They have some SP depth working its way through their system. Its not going to immediately replace the hole left by Pettitte, but they’re not going to force a round peg (Zambrano) into a square hole at the cost that comes with Zambrano. Z isn’t an elite starter anymore. He’s a mid-rotation guy in the NL. The Yankees were focused on trying to land another elite starter (Lee, Greinke). They’re going to spend 19 million a year AND prospects to get a #4 starter

follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com

by DartmouthCubsFan on Jan 12, 2011 1:38 PM CST up reply actions

And the Rays aren't likely to be as strong a team in 2011

which will makes the playoff path for the Yankees much clearer.

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Jan 12, 2011 1:52 PM CST up reply actions

I think a sneaky suspicion that the wild card comes out of ALC this year.

by ubercubsfan on Jan 12, 2011 2:17 PM CST up reply actions

I wouldn't assume that the Rays are going to fall in a hole

They retained their top producers from 2010 and have young players waiting to replace Garza and Pena.

by ClarkFan on Jan 15, 2011 11:58 AM CST up reply actions

I believe the Yankees on face value

They’re going to try to win it using an incredible bullpen. I don’t think that the Yankees feel desperate or backed into a corner. They’ve still got an incredible team.

Zambrano still is a huge question mark. The Yankees just don’t operate with the “Well, maybe if he puts it together ..” mindset. They want proven commodities. That’s the only way they’ll trade for a player. They could also be thinking that the will tread water until July 31 and then pull the trigger on someone.

I think it comes down to the fact that the Yankees would take Z at a bargain price, but the Cubs want talent in return. There just won’t be any middle ground here. And … there is the issue of Z’s NTC.

by jerry morales rules on Jan 12, 2011 2:06 PM CST up reply actions

Why don't we believe that Z won't waive his no trade?

Unless/until he does, it really is a moot point.

No to Otto, etc.; Yes to Moreland for the 2011 Radio Booth

by Dan Serafini on Jan 12, 2011 2:15 PM CST reply actions

He's flip flopped on this subject 3 or 4 times over the last few years. I think he would do well in NYC when he isn't relied upon to be an ace of a staff.

by ubercubsfan on Jan 12, 2011 2:19 PM CST up reply actions

I just don't think anyone's crazy enough to take him right now...

maybe at the deadline, but even that’s doubtful. It’s just not something I’ll believe until I see it.

by SenorGato on Jan 12, 2011 2:37 PM CST up reply actions

He would at least have to show that the stretch at the end of 2010 wasn't a fluke

by ClarkFan on Jan 15, 2011 11:59 AM CST up reply actions

We don't

It’s an issue, but it is one that can be negotiated away. I think the bigger issues is to find a trade that works with him involved. I think he’s more valuable to the Cubs than he is to any other team and that’s the primary issue. However, in addition to that, you’d have to overcome Z’s NTC. It’s doubtful he’ll just waive it away. He did negotiate for it to be included in his contract.

by jerry morales rules on Jan 12, 2011 3:01 PM CST up reply actions

Totally agree

More valuable to the Cubs on the roster than for what you would get for him. As aboutthecubs says below, he only pitched limited innings last year, so perhaps he will have more in the tank.

Too many people want him gone at any cost, and that’s just wrongheaded. He was part of the last three playoff teams.

No to Otto, etc.; Yes to Moreland for the 2011 Radio Booth

by Dan Serafini on Jan 13, 2011 8:43 AM CST up reply actions

Zambrano and the Yankees

Zambrano has two years left on his contract. By extending the contract, Zambrano might agree to a trade. Something like guaranteeing 2013 might do. NTC is probably a big hump when comtemplating a trade.

Zambrano only pitched 113 innings as a starter and 129 total in 2010 with the drop in his velocity, etc. well documented in the media. Even though Pettitte didn’t come through with much in the second half, the Yankees might be better off talking him out of retirement again if they have no better options.

Don’t mean to instigate by mentioning this; just a thought. Zambrano’s relationship with team management wasn’t very good. There wasn’t much said about how he was getting along with Rothschild. I wouldn’t assume that Rotschild and Zambrano want to be in the same dugout anymore.

by AboutTheCubs on Jan 12, 2011 7:37 PM CST up reply actions

'Any word on whether Cashner will be in the rotation?'

Yes. Lots of words that say precisely that — including words from Bruce Levine that are linked in a fanshot.

I don’t have issues with some reasoned speculation. But why ask this question instead of reading the material that most of us read?

by elgato on Jan 12, 2011 2:37 PM CST reply actions

Is there a limit

to how many fanshots or fanposts that this site allows? Is the site going to just stop working when it reaches a certain amount of them?

People need to lighten up. If you disagree with this persons topic dont read or respond to it.

by Kchance on Jan 12, 2011 3:23 PM CST up reply actions

Well, I'd say YOU need to lighten up.

As I said in my post, it’s fine to discuss things like Z going to the Yankees. What I don’t get is asking questions in a post when there are other posts — one that was posted today, in fact — that easily answer your question.

by elgato on Jan 12, 2011 3:26 PM CST up reply actions

reply fail*

!
V

by Kchance on Jan 12, 2011 3:32 PM CST up reply actions

Im sorry if it seemed like

I was targeting you. Was simply using your post as an example.

I think that alot of time people come to this site looking for information that he/she doesnt commonly know or check this site everyday like we do. And they get alot of people giving them shit for looking to knowledgable cubs fans for info.

by Kchance on Jan 12, 2011 3:31 PM CST reply actions

Fine.

But why would anyone write a long post like this instead of opening up the fanpost about Bruce Levine’s thoughts on the rotation? That’s all I was saying.

by elgato on Jan 12, 2011 3:32 PM CST up reply actions

Wish I knew the answer to that.

by Kchance on Jan 12, 2011 3:35 PM CST up reply actions

Cubs have very little leverage with Z

Ask yourself this Nickler – if the Cubs put Z on waivers, do you really think any club would claim him and his contract? Not even Kenny Williams (he of the Alex Rios claim) would do that.

It is far more likely the Yankees will be the one to take a flyer on a reclamation project like Justin Duchscherer, With the position lineup they have, they can afford to throw a couple million each at several reclamation projects and just keep running them out there until one of them clicks.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Jan 12, 2011 8:14 PM CST reply actions

I wouldnt want to eat up the salary

Its better to wait for a turn around, in only 129 ip he put up a 2.7 WAR. If you dont waste his talent in the bullpen, then he has a shot of putting up a WAR close to 2006. Remember he only turns 30 in june.

Also I think Z hit his bottom low last year. Z always seemed to break under the pressure. Nobody expects them to better than 4th ( except me), and now no one is looking too Z and hes considered nothing more than a middle rotation guy.

by Mitchener on Jan 12, 2011 9:36 PM CST reply actions

Trading Z now makes little sense to me.

It would make giving up all those prospects for Graza seem pointless.

"I'd rather hit home runs you don't have to run as hard." -- Dave Kingman

by BucknerKongCardenal on Jan 12, 2011 11:16 PM CST reply actions

It looks like Hendry is still trying to build a 2011 contender

And trading Zambrano would be a 180 degree turn from that strategy.

by ClarkFan on Jan 15, 2011 12:02 PM CST up reply actions

Gorzellany

Why is Hendry down on Gorzellany, our only solid lefty starter. I think Gorzo will be better than wells in the long haul. Wells is over-rated as a big-time pitching prospect. Why does the organization play around with the pitchers minds. They are toying with cashner
talking starter, relief, AAA. This is non-sense. They talk about Big Z & Gorzo getting traded. I hope our new pitching coach is better than Larry Rothschild in handling the staff.

by kingdomusa on Jan 17, 2011 5:43 AM CST reply actions