Cubs continue to tell other teams Marshall is off-limits
I don't think I understand this stance. We only have Marshall for one more season after this. Outside of a hyper-aggressive deadline and off-season, we aren't likely to be competitive next year.
If a reliever like Marshall is truely worth a top 50 type prospect, why wouldn't you at least listen to offers? I would much rather have a top 50-prospect level starting pitcher than a great set-up man. Not saying setup men grow on trees, but a year and a half of a setup man doesn't equate to 6 years of a young starter.
See if the Yankees would part with Banuelos or Betances. Allow a bidding war to start, and if you don't like the return then keep him. But the "everyone good is unavailable" stance sounds like something that would come from a desperate GM that has sold his owner on the idea that he can get the team competitive again by next year despite 90 losses this year.
10 months ago
tomas21
442 comments
3 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I agree--the stance is very hard to understand.
The only scenario that makes sense to me is that they expect to be contenders in 2012.
"Playoffs?!" -Jim Mora
by Castro Por Presidente on Jul 23, 2011 2:54 PM CDT reply actions
le sigh
"Playoffs?!" -Jim Mora
by Castro Por Presidente on Jul 23, 2011 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, he should
I never thought I’d see the day when Cubs fans are actively HOPING their team won’t even try to contend next year.
Ah, but just wait until 2016, right? Only if those 25 “kids” work out … and if they don’t … there’s always 2021, I guess …
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Yknow, Senor Gato already beat you to this tired schtick
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions
It's not "tired schtick"
If anything, your constant “trade everybody” mantra is not only tired schtick, but it’s also unnecessary and impractical.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions
And here it is, right here, Bruce.
Not once have I EVER said “trade everybody.” Not freaking once. You keep creating these garbage straw men to beat down and act like you’ve proven a point. You haven’t. At all.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 23, 2011 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
I think I have, shoe
Who wouldn’t you trade who isn’t named Castro?
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions
No, dude, you haven't.
You and SG have this habit now where you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is subscribed to the TJ school of thought. No one has ever said this team can’t compete until 2021, and it’s pretty rude to someone like Castro Por Presidente, who has always offered solid and reasonable insight, to sit there and mock him and put words in his mouth.
I’ll trade anyone who makes this team better. And I’ll always say that. Wouldn’t you?
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 23, 2011 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
If it means trading young, proven talent
for unproven prospects, absolutely not.
And it isn’t rude to CPP at all. Nobody is putting words in his mouth. HIs post is crystal clear.
Trade Fukudome, Pena, Byrd, Soriano, Baker/DeWitt, maybe even Z if you get something that bowls you over. Probably keep Ramirez, although again, if the deal is too good to resist …
Trading young, good players like Marshall, Marmol and Soto is ridiculous and leads me to think people who advocate that would like to see a 10-year run of sucking (like the Rays, Pirates, etc.) just to prove their fantasy-GM chops.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions
His post is crystal clear.
He doesn’t believe they will compete in 2012. That’s one year. Then you come in with this mocking 5-10 year stuff. You go to extremes to prove a point that no one is arguing with.
And perhaps there are people out there who want to go the route of the Rays or Pirates. I’ve never stated anything like that, nor have I seen Nunya or CPP say that either. Just because someone thinks the team can’t compete next year doesn’t mean he/she thinks the team is doomed for the next decade. If you see someone who says something like that, then by all means, bring up the points you’re making. But those people are very few, yet people who aren’t 100% optimistic keep getting lumped in with them.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 23, 2011 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
NO ONE is arguing with that point?
I’d beg to differ pretty severly.
You might want to read some other posts around here, shoe.
Of course, those of us who want a more balanced, reasoned approach to whom to keep and whom to trade are accused of being sheep and sunshine pumpers, so I guess it cuts both ways.
If you decide to take “years off” in competing, particuarly this franchise, that’s ridiculous.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions
You need to stop getting so upset with the folks on the fringes ...
and realize there are a lot more folks in the reasonable middle.
Where have you gone, Kiko Calero. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
by elgato on Jul 23, 2011 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 6 recs
Who are they and where are they?
They need to be a little more vocal and try to disassociate themselves from the noise the other fringe is making.
I thought Orval’s post below was reasonable and reasoned. What do you think?
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions
They're everywhere, dude.
EG is one of them. CPP is another. I’m sure CPP would be willing to have a pleasant and well reasoned conversation with you if your response didn’t mock and put words in his mouth.
Just because TJ annoys you that doesn’t mean that anyone not optimistic is in 100% agreement with him. That’s what is increasingly tiresome.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 23, 2011 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions 11 recs
EG definitely is one
We’ve had our disagreements, but he’s always civil and I respect his acumen and his opinion.
Based on what I’ve seen of CPP’s stuff, I don’t think I’m putting words in his mouth. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, I've probably spoken for the guy enough already.
So I’ll just say I’ve never seen him post anything about not competing until 2016 at the earliest.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
It is stupid for a team this bad to have so many "Untouchables"
Why would you not at least listen to see what you could get…..
Typical Cubs crap……
If I had to choose between
a year and a half of Marshall in the bullpen or getting a prospect with the potential to be an above average starter or position player in a year or two that we’d keep for 6 years—that’s an easy choice.
Nobody is saying wait 5 years to compete, or 10 years to compete as you so absurdly put it. But when you lose 90 games and you have an old team you have to temper your expectations for next year. It’s certainly possible that we compete next year, but not without some pretty aggressive moves. Trading Marshall would be one of them.
I wouldn’t trade Marshall for anything less than a player who is nearly MLB ready and has high upside. I don’t want to trade him to trade him, I would be willing to listen to trades if I thought it was in the best long-term interests of the team. Unfortunately, we’ve had a GM who has only had the team’s short-term interests in mind for the past 5 years, and that’s why we find ourselves in this mess of a season.
DEJESUS!!!
A nice, reasoned argument
Acutally, I agree with the idea of not necessarily rejecting a trade of Marshall out of hand. But I would want MLB-ready talent, not a prospect.
All in all, the Cubs are better off keeping him than dealing him.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 8:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Anyone would listen if they got a good enough offer.
Hendry shouldn’t be saying anything that would drop their price. No one in the organization should be saying anything that drops the price. There’s nothing that states have to announce their intentions.
I don't see this team being a serious contender next year.
I don’t see relief pitchers as important as everyday players or starters. If we can trade a very good relief pitcher for a guy that we can reasonably expect to be an everyday player or sp in 2013/14 and who has the upside to be a key member of our team moving forward, I would definitely advocate making that trade.
Moreover, relief pitchers are no guaranteed thing from year to year. Good relief performance is so fleeting.
I can appreciate that, given the Cubs resources, Hendry should be able to put a team together that can usually be serious contenders. But, for whatever reason, the team we have now doesn’t have the building blocks to do that.
I want the Cubs to build to maximize the chances of winning a world series in a single season. Sometimes that requires sacrificing players that can help you now or next season, when the team doesn’t have good chances of seriously contending, in order to stack the team a couple years down the road. What I see is Hendry doing everything he can to keep the team marginally competitive even though our core is worn out and the next wave of players is only starting to arrive. That’s just not a good combination.
I’m not hoping the Cubs won’t try to contend next year. I’m hoping they focus their resources on acquiring high cieling players that will be contributing in 2013-2014.
"Playoffs?!" -Jim Mora
by Castro Por Presidente on Jul 24, 2011 5:21 AM CDT up reply actions 4 recs
I agree
The Cubs have already done the “load up this year and hope we win it this year or next” scenario with nothing to show for it. Be smart and load up for at least 4-5 years of opportunities.
Look at the Red Sox. In the post season 6 of the last 8 years and 2 championships with most likely another post season appearance this year.
We felt the highs of 2007-2008 and now are reeling in the lows because of how the team shot their wad with underachievers and guys that don’t have it anymore.
"WGN, Channel 9 Cubs Baseball, Excitingly, Importantly, Dramatically Yours." - Jack Brickhouse
OK
I disagree. We’ll see what happens.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 24, 2011 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions
That's what you said before this season.
The “let’s see what happens” card is really a useless one to play.
No, it isn't
I don’t know what kind of mentality writes off 2012 before 2011 is even over. A strange one, I think.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 25, 2011 12:27 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
A lot of people wrote off 2011 before 2010 was over.
Doesn’t appear they were wrong.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
So what?
So you can jump up and down and say, “Look! I was right! Give me a cookie!”?
None of us know what’s going to happen next season, or what this team will look like.
How many of you were proclaiming the Pirates would be in the NL Central race by the end of July? Nobody? Exactly.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 25, 2011 12:30 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't see anyone bragging.
Some people did say this year’s team will be bad last year. You criticized them for it, and now they’re being proven right. It appears you’re going to continue being snarky anyway.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Yes, I'm going to
And they deserved that criticism. I’m not sure how you can make a prediction on a team that isn’t even assembled yet, let alone one that has a 162-game season.
If they could have told me the Pirates would be on the doorstep of first place today, or that Cleveland would contend, or that the White Sox would be tremendous underachievers, then maybe I’ll give them credit.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 25, 2011 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions
Because the architect and a lot of the same players returned?
I’m not asking you to give them credit or anything. I just don’t see how you can be bewildered about the whole situation.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Who said I was bewildered?
I just don’t get that mentality, that’s all.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 25, 2011 12:50 AM CDT up reply actions
I disagree
It’s not like any of us were HOPING the Cubs would be crap in 2011.
Those of us that expected a bad year were basing our expectations on the then current state of the franchise and the premise that the architect would be back, the expected budget and Hendry’s track record.
It bewilders me that someone can’t understand how someone might assume given the information that we had that the team might not contend the following season. I didn’t think that they’d be this bad, but I certainly thought contention would be a mighty big stretch.
I don’t think anyone wants a cookie, but I do think that it’s reasonable to expect not to be mocked for being correct.
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 25, 2011 7:05 AM CDT up reply actions
No one answered the Pirates question, either.
The point isn’t that people were “right”, it’s that some appear to be proud of being right, as if they’d rather be right than have the Cubs win.
Again, who predicted the Pirates would be in first place in late July? No one, that’s who.
(Although, if you check my preseason predictions, I did pick them to have a winning record this year.)
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Geez Al, want a cookie?!?! I kid...
I agree though. I think a lot of us believed this team would have a hell of a time competing, myself included, however I still don’t like seeing it. As you stated, some seem to be rubbing in the fact that they thought this team would suck. We are all unhappy enough, there is no need to rub the proverbial salt in the wound.
Yes, exactly
And it appears those same people already have rendered judgment about 2012. It’s not exactly a difficult call, because more teams don’t contend than do.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 25, 2011 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions
There are also some people who made a prediction
Were mocked for it, and are now being proven right.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Again
What’s more important? Being proven right? Or winning?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
What's it matter?
I’m saying I see no issue with people defending themselves. No one’s predictions have an effect on the team’s play.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
True.
But you seem to feel being proven right is important, for some reason.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I would say
that when you make an educated prediction and are dismissed rudely by people saying “if you’re so smart what are the powerball numbers”, and that prediction comes more or less true, you are allowed to feel somewhat vindicated.
You can’t reject people’s predictions as impossible when they are made and meaningless when they are found to be correct.
DEJESUS!!!
I'm not saying that in any way.
If I made a prediction and no one cared, then whatever. If I make a prediction and get harassed for it, like Bruce has done with people who wrote off this season, then I see no issue with pointing it out.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I'm one of those...
… who doesn’t think you should write off ANY season in advance.
Sure, this team didn’t look great. But many thought it could be a .500 club. That would currently have it in the race. Anyone think the Pirates would be in first place on July 25?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Obviously you're welcome to predict whatever you want.
I’m just saying if it’s done in a respectful way, there’s no need for personal criticisms.
And I’m sure some people out there predicted the Pirates would be good. So bully for them.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Agreed 100%, shoe
And Al, even if you disagree with the basic premise, I’m sure you’d agree that the mocking is uncalled for.
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 25, 2011 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions
IMO
There’s a huge difference between “writing a season off” and seeing the outlook as mostly cloudy.
Can the Cubs compete in 2012? Sure. Do I believe it is likely? No. No I do not.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
In July 2011...
… it’s impossible to say whether the Cubs can compete in 2012, because the composition of the roster cannot be known at this time.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
True to a point.
And I understand your larger premise.
I would counter that we do know the bulk of the roster (pretty easy to peg 18 or maybe up to 22 names that probably won’t change).
So I can amend my statement… without significant roster improvement, I believe it is unlikely the Cubs will contend.
But I’m not ‘writing the season off’… and I’ll surely be rooting for them the entire way.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
It is...
when people claim you’re wrong, sometimes vociferously and disrespectfully, and then you end up being right, and the same people want to vilify you for being right instead of admitting they were wrong.
When people said the Cubs would be no better than a 4th best team (speaking for myself, though I was hardly the only one), it doesn’t make them wrong because they didn’t the Pirates would pass them too.
I didn’t want to be right about how bad this team would be… but I don’t lie to myself… especially for other people’s benefit.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 26, 2011 2:49 AM CDT up reply actions
While I agree...
Others will say “But they actually had PROSPECTS!”
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 25, 2011 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Is a top 50 being offered?
I doubt one is. Maybe Hendry’s thinking is exactly like yours and this is the way to drive up the market. I don’t know with what’s been said that a bidding war couldn’t ensue,
by jerry morales rules on Jul 23, 2011 2:55 PM CDT reply actions
Reports are that the Phillies are offering a top-50 for Mike Adams
And the assumption is that Marshall has similar value.
"Playoffs?!" -Jim Mora
by Castro Por Presidente on Jul 23, 2011 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions
if thats true
HIAFI
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jul 23, 2011 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions
ha pretty much
i’m torn between (1) wanting it to be true for the hope of getting the prospect and (2) not wanting it to be true so i don’t have the mental anguish that goes along with rejecting that deal.
"Playoffs?!" -Jim Mora
by Castro Por Presidente on Jul 23, 2011 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, if a top 50 is being offered, I take that in a heartbeat.
Especially with Russell doing so well.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions
I like Russell, but do you think
he is as adept at getting out righties as Marshall has shown?
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions
as a reliever
russell has better numbers this year than marshall. so, maybe?
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, maybe
But I don’t think it’s a lead-pipe cinch, either.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions
everyone you know someday will day
as lead pipe cinches go, that’s about all we have.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, I guess it could depend on what kind of money he wants this offseason.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Or maybe Hendry has been told he's getting the axe and doesn't feel like he can trade anyone.
All I have heard from the cubs thus far about trades this dead is
Sorry but
Aramis Ramirez
Kerry Wood
Jeff Baker
Blake DeWitt
Shawn Marshal
Matt Garza
Ryan Dempster
Carlos Marmol
Darwin Barney
Geo Soto
Starlin Castro
Are off limits.
This makes me wonder if the cubs are going to trade anyone, which mean next year we will have the same piece of shit team to watch all summer.
This organization is joke!
by BrewCrew'sPrinceofDarkness on Jul 23, 2011 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
They'll probably dump Fukudome.
Grabow, too. That’ll probably be it.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I thought Rosenthal or someone said they were gonna keep Baker.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I think this is more of Gato's funny..funny joking
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions
as opposed to the substance rich postings you're pooping out all over this board?
I’m just following your lead
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm sure he'll follow that advice
When you do it to begin with.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 4/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jul 24, 2011 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions
He's over 30, about to be a FA, and we have multiple talents...
in DeWitt, Flaherty, Barney, and LeMahieu that can probably do what he does.
If they keep him then maybe I’ll join you guys. I don’t think it’s even close to a good idea to do so unless they think he’ll reject arb and bring back a pick (if he even gets the designation).
By probably I mean definitely since...
Baker really isn’t all that good. Useful? Sure.
I don't get why you put DeWitt's name in there.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
ruh roh...
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jul 23, 2011 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Because DeWitt > Baker.
Not that complicated really…Baker would have been lucky to be DeWitt at 25…instead it took him two more years to make his first positive impact on a ML roster.
I know I know though…I shouldn’t let stupid facts like that get in the way. The guy infamously just took the LF job for a couple of weeks from the likes of Lou Montanez and Tony Campana…lIke Hendry he just reeks of being a complete POS.
During the time period he had his LF starts...
He was in the top 5 hitters for average in the lineup.
FACT: Jeff Baker had a great 58 PA at 25 (186 OPS+), which was sandwiched between a 73 OPS+ and a 61 OPS+. Now Baker is simply a slightly below average bat who’s versatile. I get the feeling that’s doable.
Baker's career OPS against LHP is 904.
That’s his value. I know you’ve continued to ignore this, so I don’t know why I’m typing it again.
Blake DeWitt has no value. He is not a good major league baseball player. He is 25, yes. However, he is not a good major league baseball player.
FACT: During his time in left, his OBP was under 300. That’s not good, but it’s to be expected, because he’s not a good major league baseball player.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Have you even brought that up?
DeWitt’s LH splits:
.278/.356/.407/.763 (.691 against RHs) – Career
.346/.370/.423/.793 (.634 against RHs) – 2011
So he hits lefties well himself, and he’s just as crappy as Baker defensively in as many positions except with 6 years of youth on his side, less money owed to him, and better early career performance.
Fact: DeWitt’s 2.5 WAR in 4 years >>>> Baker’s 2.4 WAR in over 6.
Baker hits lefties over 100 OPS points higher.
That’s the point. And I’m glad DeWitt used to be good, but he’s not anymore. That’s a fact.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Yeah no...
as Baker himself shows, players do improve. DeWitt is entirely capable of playing well, and like Baker is entirely capable of being a bench/replacement level player. Baker sucks dude, he’s not that good. He’s not worth buying in FA. It’d be an Aaron Miles-esque signing, when there’s more than one possible Aaron Miles-esque option on the roster for a quarter or even less of the price.
I’d be willing to do a long term bet where DeWitt >>>> Baker over the next 5 years starting next year. Once he’s on a more stable roster with a more defined role he should be a pretty valuable piece. Given the money to spend, FA talent available, and freed positions on the Cubs that could and arguably should happen as soon as next year.
Well, here, I'll say this.
I’m not some massive Baker fan. I thought it was a solid trade by Hendry, but that’s about it. He has a skill, which is hitting lefties, but if he leaves, fine. Not gonna be a big deal to me.
However, Blake DeWitt is bad. The stats back that up. The year is 2011, not 2008. Maybe DeWitt will be better long term. I dunno, and I really don’t care. And his role is defined: End of the bench.
I hope you’re right that he’s valuable (I’m guessing you’re not), because I think it’d be awesome if they could get something back for him in a trade.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Jeff Baker is bad.
The stats back that up too. There’s stats that say DeWitt isn’t the level of bad you say he is, and he’s certainly got the pedigree Baker did as both were top ten prospects in their systems coming up.
My guess is that DeWitt from 26-29 will be >>>> Baker from that age and probably Baker at any age, because he’s not that good.
I’m guessing I’m right. Just as I was right on Garza. Frankly, I trust my ability to evaluate players better than most on this board. So yes, while this isn’t 2008 for DeWitt, 2008 wasn’t so long ago nor has he shat the bed since. Hell, 2010 was right last year and in 292 PA with the Dodgers he was a league average hitter (101 OPS+). He’s made 166 appearances all year here.
The stats claim that Jeff Baker has a skill.
It’s hitting left handed pitching. Show me the stats that say that DeWitt has a skill that aren’t from 2008.
And LOL at your argument about prospect rankings when you dismissed any arbitrary ranking earlier in this thread. Apparently now pedigree matters. It’s a prime example of why people don’t bother taking you seriously.
And you were no more right about Garza than the people who criticized the move were. They said 4.00-4.50 ERA, and you said 3.00-3.50 ERA. He’s right in between currently. You can quit patting yourself on the back for the moment. You’ve also continued to defend DeWitt, and he’s continued to be bad. So brag away, buddy. You’re wrong, but that’s never stopped you.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 23, 2011 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
DeWitt hits LHP.
He’s hitting .346 against them this year. He’s 6 years younger than Baker. Baker’s about to get paid more money than he’s worth. DeWitt has similar skills, background as a prospect, and upside to Baker. He could and should easily be a pretty good bench option moving forward.
DeWitt, like Baker, was universally ranked in his system’s top 10 as a prospect. It’s like you’re throwing crap against the wall and hoping something works. Is that really the best you’ve got? Both were highly thought of prospects, and both were ranked accordingly within their respective systems. Really not that hard of a concept.
And no, I was very right on Garza, just like I’ll be right about DeWitt. Looks like that home run rate isn’t killing him, neither is his mediocre K rate, and it seems like the AL East to NL Central move betters yet another pitcher. They said all those would play in, and look at that…wrong, wrong and wrong. But OH…I got the ERA wrong…even as his FIP and xFIP hover around 3. Many here just can’t admit to being wrong. It’s OK though, sometimes you just need things to be really in your face obvious.
Ignore ERA, cite BA.
Yawn. DeWitt’s OPS this year against lefties is 90 points lower than Baker’s. So you’re wrong. I see a pattern developing.
I dunno what all this mumbo jumbo about being a ranked prospect is supposed to mean to me, since you told me arbitrary rankings are irrelevant in this thread. Strike that aimless paragraph from the record.
And no, you said Garza would improve moving to the NL Central. His WHIP is higher than it’s been since 2007 (But wait, that’s the year before DeWitt tore it up!)
(For the record, I like Garza. I think he’s a good pitcher. He’s not as good as you think he is though, and he’s comically not as good as Hendry claimed with his top 10 pitcher garbage. And don’t bother coming back with him being the best starter on the worst staff in baseball. I’m not interested in your tallest midget arguments)
Finally, I’m not sure I agree with your theory that sometimes things need to be really in your face obvious, cause I see a 134 million dollar team that’s in fifth place for the second year in a row, and you don’t seem to have a problem with it.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 24, 2011 12:30 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Um...a .346 BA is a .346 BA...
If you’re looking for anything there it should maybe be that that BA comes in something like 27 ABs.
And please stop trying so hard on the Garza thing. It’s OK to be wrong. I’m not even going to dive back into it, just patting myself on the back for the call. Turns out, he’s a little more talented than the Paul Wilsons and whoever else he was compared to here.
DeWitt > Baker.
Let me correct that...
Moving forward keeping DeWitt > keeping Baker, and I bet that it just becomes DeWitt >>>> Baker.
I'm not trying hard on the Garza thing.
You said the porous defense of the Cubs wouldn’t matter, and when the stats prove that they do, you dive into FIP. No surprise. You’re wrong.
And dump DeWitt and Baker then. I don’t care. DeWitt stinks, and has no place on the team.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
The porous defense on the Cubs doesn't matter...
as he’s still pitching pretty damn awesome and has become our best starter (pitcher really) in no time.
You’re trying hard. You’re looking for eeeeeeevery minor reason to say I wasn’t perfectly right on Garza, when lets face it, the image I painted of the guy is waaaaaay more accurate than what most here tried to paint.
W/e on DeWitt…if he’s here next year he’ll be a positive contributor and I have few worries on that.
The porous defense of the Cubs definitely matters
When the only stat he’s improved upon is his FIP, and you argued the crappy Cubs defense wouldn’t detract.
I’m not trying too hard at all. It’s not like I’m digging into some obscure stats in an effort to prove you right. Your main detractors appear to be wrong. I’ve seen one or two admit that. That doesn’t mean you are right. You’ll never admit that, though.
As for DeWitt, he’s bad. The stats say so. Argue with them, I guess.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Yeah he's also improved his...
K rate, HR rate, and GB rate. It’s cool to ignore that, because you can’t admit to being wrong. I understand that. You’re trying hard.
As for DeWitt, the stats also say that at 22 he was a 2 WAR player. The stats also say that over 292 PA in 2010, otherwise known as last year, he was a league average hitter who could be moved around positionally. The stats say that he’s been all of -.02 WAR bad this year, with a flat 0 in oWAR. Not anywhere near as bad as you so desperately want him to be, for whatever purposes that may serve you.
I'm not trying hard at all.
You want to brag about his groundball rate while ignoring his WHIP. Sorry, one stat is more important than the other. Grasp away, SG. Talk about how the defense behind him won’t matter then cite his FIP. You’re not fooling anyone, especially not me.
And DeWitt has been -0.2 WAR this year…wait, are you agreeing with me now?
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
You're seriously trying to hard.
I’m bragging about being right because I was right on Garza. K rate up. GB rate up. FIP and xFIP right where I said they’d be (though not ERA, zomg you got me!). Improved periphs from a move from the AL East to NL Central. Best pitcher on the staff….Yep, I’m the one grasping…
-.2 is actually a record low. There’s never been…wait no…Jeff Baker’s putting up a -.4 this year.
As I said, dump Baker then.
It doesn’t bother me. I’ve said that quite a few times.
You said the defense behind him wouldn’t matter. It clearly has, as his ERA is higher than you predicted, and his WHIP is the highest it’s been since 2007. Those other stats ignore the defense behind him, the same way you do. The scoreboard says differently. The arguments that you so easily ignored are hurting his stats, but now you’ve decided they don’t matter because they don’t suit your argument, same with prospect rankings.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I also said he'd increase his K's,
see an improvement in his HR rate, and generally pitch better in the NL. Oh look, me showing off my rightness again. I’m really liking this opportunity to pat myself on the back. You’re trying so gosh darn hard…Yet the best you can do is point to WHIP (an ungodly 1.31 lol) and raw ERA. Lawlz.
Oh, and Baker will be dumped, no worries.
Yea keep telling yourself what you'd like.
I know this is just a matter of you wanting to be right, and that’s fine. My arm’s tired from all this patting on the back I’m doing. It was fun to bask in that for a minute. I’m heading to bed.
Peace out dude.
I’ll keep telling myself the facts.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
And really lol...
His WHIP was lower in 2007? Whooooa then I guess the guy’s falling off.
OH wait that’s right…he’s not.
Seriously…it’s not hard to admit you’re wrong.
Oh, and once again, both were universally ranked highly in their systems. So while the rankings were arbitrary, clearly there was a common thought that both had ML potential. Both were first round picks. Both even came up as 2B prospects in the minors.
Rankings only seem to matter when they suit your argument.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 24, 2011 12:45 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Or when everyone agrees.
One or the other…Both were highly thought of prospects who were first round picks. Both were well thought of in the minors.
I thought someone who appreciates hearing that a player was a top random number prospect on a list. After all we should be handing out young, cheap ML pitching talent for guys like that.
It's simply a risk.
Eventually, you stop judging someone on what they did in the minors and judge them on what they’ve done the past four years in the majors.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
If that happened then Baker would never
have gotten a job here. Why? Because he sucked, and he sucked for a while. He sucked pretty badly too.
Wait, so now prospect rankings matter?
I’m so confused. Oh wait, they suit your argument. Got it.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Aww someone's mad at being wrong.
It’s OK. You’ll be alright. You don’t have to be pretend to be that dumb just to give yourself some kind of pretend leverage in this little conversation.
I don't have to pretend anything.
You’ve been wildly wrong this entire conversation. “DEWITT IS AWESOME, HE’S BELOW A REPLACEMENT PLAYER!”
“GARZA WILL BE AWESOME REGARDLESS OF DEFENSE BEHIND HIM. I’LL PROVE IT BY POINTING OUT HIS FIP IS BETTER, WHILE HIS WHIP AND ERA+ HAVE DECLINED!”
Contort it as you may, Senor.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
You're right.
So I hope you’re doing okay.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Oh no I'm doing fine...
I’m more worried about you. You seem to be having alot of trouble coping. I mean yeah you have such a fool proof case with WHIP, ERA, and even ERA+ in your head, which can’t help, but I’m sure you’ll get over it as all wee lads will tend to do. Buck up chap. One day you may prove to be quite shrewd, but today is not that day.
One day I could spend 134 million dollars on a fifth place team?
I look forward to it, friend.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 24, 2011 1:42 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I have a feeling you didn't read any of their argument
and just decided to say this because you saw SG had a lot of comments.
We'll all miss you Ron.
Keep going, guys, that was fun.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 24, 2011 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions
umm holy crap....
I don’t even know how to refute this except to say…hahaahahahaahahaahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahaahahaahahahahahaahahahahaha
gasp gasp gasp
hahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
What one thing does DeWitt do better than Baker?
I honestly can’t think of anything. Baker is a better hitter, more power, more versatile. I’ve heard DeWitt is a very hard worker, si I’ll give him that, but he doesn’t really do anything better than Jeff Baker.
Give it up already. He's only on the DeWitt train because he's younger than Baker.
If Baker was the same age, he wouldn’t be arguing so hard for DeWitt over Baker.
by ubercubsfan on Jul 26, 2011 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Lets see…more career value in less years using WAR…6 years younger…plays the same Positions and is not a dropoff defensively…oh and at least half the cost…at least.
Jeff Baker sucks.
by SenorGato on Jul 26, 2011 6:51 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Psst...
So does DeWitt… and he won’t be half Baker’s cost next year.
I know math isn’t really your strong point, but Baker just turned 30… and DeWitt is about to turn 26. How is that 6 years younger?
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 26, 2011 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Baker sucks??
Huh?? He mashes leftiiiii…….wait. What is the point. Jeff Baker fill a role – and does not suck.
He is not a stud either.
"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry
"Cubs win....what a lucky break!!" ---Harry
Still clinging to age huh?
And I’d take Baker over DeWitt at second and in the OF. face it, DeWitt is the definition of mediocre. It’s amazing how ridiculous you look when you say Baker sucks and that DeWitt is good. It’s official, you are the most clueless poster I’ve seen on this site, and you have some pretty tough competition.
An age he has ridiculously wrong.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 27, 2011 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions
LOLOLOLOL
Here are their lines (BA/OBP/SLG/OPS):
DeWitt: .259/.281/.367/.648
Baker: .297/.316/.405/.721
So DeWitt is really better than Baker? Doesn’t look like it here. And DeWitt had 19 more at-bats than Baker going into today’s game. He’s had more chances behind the plate, but he’s not doing much either way.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 4/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jul 28, 2011 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes well it took Baker a few years to do much of anything at all...
Good for him that he’s picking his game up a tad as he gets closer to his big MLB pay day.
DeWitt > Baker?
Thanks for the laughs!
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 4/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jul 28, 2011 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Because he's a franchise player!
In all honesty, I wouldn’t be upset if DeWitt was kept, because he’s still only 25, and it’s not like he has a huge contract.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Where did you read Aramis is off-limits?
Sources or it didn’t happen. All the reporting is that Aramis is making himself off-limits, as he has the right to do as a 10/5 guy. No one says he wouldn’t trade him.
Same question re Baker, DeWitt, and Soto. I’ve seen nothing suggesting they wouldn’t be moved if there’s a right deal someplace. And absent a big haul, Soto wouldn’t be worth moving anyway.
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Pretty sure there was word that Baker wasn't going to be traded.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Yeah, there was.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Hill & Shark are available
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 25, 2011 12:12 AM CDT up reply actions
I wonder if this is a situation where Hendry is trying to be "nice" to his successor
by not saddling him with a complete rebuild job? Of course, if he WAS trying to do that, it would indicate he KNOWS he’s gone after this season and at that point, there’s no point in him being here NOW
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
Maybe he's just holding out for the next Blake DeWitt.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
ramiro pena!
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jul 23, 2011 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
We could only hope to be so lucky.
Have you seen this team’s record? These veterans ain’t helping anybody..
A few points:
A) We can be good next year. Maybe that’s not the smart, safe path to building a real champion, but with this team’s resources, the free agents out there, and a better year from some guys with injuries this year – yes, we can contend.
B) Crazy thought, but this city/fanbase would revolt if the Cubs tried to build a team on the model of Tampa Bay or the Nationals or the Royals. Those teams had two things in common: year after year of horrific losses, resulting in high draft picks that now make hte GMs look like geniuses. This city/fanbase won’t tolerate that. Look how nuts this year is making people – you really think its a sustainable model to go young and have 4 more years of this so that we can draft our Price/Longoria/Beckham, or our own Strasburg/Storen/Harper? Not happening. If the GM does not try to build a winner next year, the pitchforks and torches crowd will be even more agitated than they now are.
C) If Marshall has trade value this year, he will have trade value next year barring an injury or a serious and unforseen decline in ability.
D) We’re not operating on the budget of the Pirates or the Royals, so no one of value should be looked at as a player that is ours for “just” one more year, instead of “just one more year before we re-sign him to a multi-year deal.” Your hard earned ca$h helps ensure this team can do that where others might not. Marshall should be looked at as part of a longer term investment, and re-signed.
E) Jon Heyman is a hack that depends on volume of reporting, not quality of reporting. What he characterizes as Hendry refusing offers is almost certainly grumbling from a rival GM who opened the call with “So, how about [low value player X] for Marshall, any interest?” to which Hendry responded “No”. and put down the phone. We have absolutely zero insight into whether Hendry would move Marshall for a top 50 player, because we have no idea if one has been offered (and I highly doubt that one has).
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 3:26 PM CDT reply actions 3 recs
Your B is wrong.
If you read here clearly the fanbase is ready and willing to lose for a few more years in the sake of gather top picks and prospects so that ONE DAY…ONE DAY the Cubs will rise again!
Since your B is wrong, your A is just delusional. Are you Jim Hendry?
Excellent points, OO
Well written and reasoned.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions
so you admit you don't know
what has been offered for marshall, yet you assume that it’s nothing of value? seems illogical.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions
No different than people assuming that we could get a top 50 prospect for Marshall
Because it was rumored by an outside source that someone may have considered offering a top 50 prospect for another good relief pitcher that receives more national attention than Marshall?
Or build a team like Pittsburgh.
Tabata, Karstens, and Daniel McCutchen were aquired in the same trade. For who? Nady and Marte. James McDonald was traded for Octavio Dotel, Charlie Morton was in the Nat McLouth trade, Hanrahan was aquired for Nyjer Morgan and Sean Burnett. Point is: the guys they traded weren’t very good, with the exception of McLouth or Nady, but they still got good returns.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions
If you want to go through what the Pirates did
to get to this point …. well, that makes one of us.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions
That's not what I'm saying we do.
I’m saying that you can get value in return for any trade.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions
You can
Not sure the value you would get for Marshall would outweigh Marshall’s value. I don’t like trading good pitching, even though I realize bullpens are fungible, to an extent.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions
1st of all, this is a guy that will pitch 60 innings a year, a mere fraction of the total innings.
2nd, we have another good and younger lefty, in James Russell. You can’t pay both of them. 3rd, it’s unlikely that Marshall will pitch for a Cubs team that contends. I’m not saying they CAN’T contend next year, but maybe we could get some ML ready prospects?
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions
1. Yes, that is what relievers do.
2. We can’t pay both of them?
3. This is under the assumption Marshall has no desire to return to Chicago and we have no desire to re-sign him?
We'll all miss you Ron.
And by the way, 60 innings?
He’s averaged approximately 75 innings the past 3 years and is on pace for 74.1 innings this year.
We'll all miss you Ron.
Ok, you want to pay two lefties out of the pen 5 million dollars a year?
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions
The figures remain to be seen.
There’s nothing saying they’re both going to cost 5 million a year.
We'll all miss you Ron.
The 'We can't pay both of them' bit makes me chuckle
It’s not as if this is Kansas City. Why do some people think that way?
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions
They want to be the Royals.
Have you heard about those prospects they have out there?
If you don't care about money, fine, why are you complaining about Soriano?
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 24, 2011 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions
You're really asking that question?
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 24, 2011 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions
Do you want to pay two guys 5 million dollars to split innings...
Or the younger and better one to take ALL of the innings?
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 24, 2011 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions
I rarely find myself on the side of SG or NBF
but IMO, you’ve created a false scenario here.
First, there are plenty of innings for both Russell and Marshall.
Second, and more importantly, Russell is pre-arb next year according to Cot’s. So his price tag should be south of 500K. Even with Marshall’s salary jumping to 3.1, there’s absolutely no issue paying both of them.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
Congratulations, Nitpicker King
Doesn’t change the concept if you assume 75 IP vs 60… yet another concept you fail to grasp.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 24, 2011 6:13 AM CDT up reply actions
You apparently fail to grasp what relievers do then...
Why ever have any good relievers since they only pitch 75 innings.
We'll all miss you Ron.
Marsahll is stealing innings from a YOUNGER and BETTER left-janded bullpen option.
See my point now?
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 24, 2011 9:51 AM CDT up reply actions
What? No?
I’d rather have 2 good bullpen arms throwing an equal number of innings rather than 1 good bullpen arm, and 1 just there to mop up blowouts. I still want Sean Marshall over James Russell in a 1 run game any day. Before you tell me that JR’s ERA is better than Marshall’s in a relief role.. Sean’s FIP is 1.83… I mean hell, that’s like saying Jonny Venters is stealing innings from Craig Kimbrel, wouldn’t you just rather have both?
We'll all miss you Ron.
And color me shocked if Russell demands 5 million per year
after this season.
We'll all miss you Ron.
Russell can't demand anything after this season...
check back in 2 or 3 years though.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 24, 2011 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Ahhh... just looked at the 1 year deal, didn't realize he was under team control
We'll all miss you Ron.
How much do Kimbrel and Venters get paid?
I’d love to have 5 pitchers like that, especially at their ages. The Braves need both of them (and others) because they actually have leads to protect and titles within reach. But if a team wanted to give them a premium for either of them, you better believe they’d be on the next shuttle out of town.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 24, 2011 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Well this is assuming we're being offered a premium for Marshall then
If we’re being offered anything less than a premium (which neither of us know) I’d rather keep him.
We'll all miss you Ron.
We won't have an opportunity
to be offered a premium because Hendry publically told people not to call about Marshall.
DEJESUS!!!
Seriously?
Suppose you are a GM who decides you really need Marshall for your playoff run and you don’t bother to talk to Hednry because he states to journalists Marshall is not available? You think Hendry just hangs up on Theo Epstein when he says "What do want for Marshall?. I don’t think the Cubs will get an offer worth taking but contrary to popular belief, Hendry is not an idiot and he will listen to offers even if he would strongly prefer to keep Marshall.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 25, 2011 12:17 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Hendry
didn’t tell reporters Marshall was off-limits, other GMs leaked to the press that Hendry told them Marshall was off-limits.
I trust you see the difference. One could be posturing to get the media to spread the word that only a top propsect will do. The other is him telling other GMs directly not to bother.
DEJESUS!!!
The difference is evident but the former is not what you said.
because Hendry publically told people not to call about Marshall.
The other is, if you want to win and you feel you need a player you will bother. The only thing Hendry can tell you again is no.
"I wasn’t asked to catch the ball and go out in the flats and run routes, because that wasn’t how our offense was," Lawrence Vickers said. "Now people are lying and people think I can’t catch. I guess I shouldn’t have started knocking people out."
Something tells me
you’d be an easy poker mark, tomas.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 25, 2011 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions
I, in fact, do NOT have pocket aces.
That is all.
“Okay, all in then!”
Funny you should ask
I played in a poker tourney 3 days ago and one $900. Pretty good profit on my $50 entry. Guess if you were there you could have told them all my tells, right?
DEJESUS!!!
Depends...
he’s only a short-reliever. If they have no plans to turn him back into a starter, your idea of premium is probably higher than it should be. He’s worth more to a team that has 85 wins they need to protect. The Cubs are just wasting him with their performances. They’ll give up more than he’s worth the Cubs (it wouldn’t be hard to do), especially because he’s not just a one-year rental.
Trading him costs the Cubs a couple wins (hypothetically) the rest of this year and next year, while hopefully gains a player package worth at least a couple wins the next time the Cubs actually need those wins… and in the meantime they save a bunch of money they can use for other things like signing their Trevor Gretzkys.
Trading him only risks that they get nothing in the trade and do nothing with the money they save. Not trading him is taking a risk on 24 other guys.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 24, 2011 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions
What are you talking about?
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 24, 2011 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Ah the daily Hendry bashing thread...or well one of the daily Hendry bashing threads.
What a POS general manager. Marshall isn’t part of the future here. No one is really, because the future won’t be around for another 4-5 years at the absolute earliest. Does Hendry not get that? Does he not get that we need PROSPECTS now, not MLB players. Prospects are the key to having a future, that’s why they’re called prospects. He just doesn’t get it.
Trade Soto too you stupid POS POS. You don’t understand basic economics? Buy high sell low! Play it safe! Don’t ask for too much either, you fool, because then you’ll ruin our chances for a 2045 WS run. Stupid POS POS. All for your stupid delusions that the Cubs can compete earlier than that…He’s sick…He’s got to be…it’s the only reasonable explanation. The man is deluded, and doesn’t understand REAL value. The value in today’s game is in prospects. If a prospect turns out then you have him cheap for 6 years. How do you not take a prospect for cheap young vets deal when you and I BOTH KNOW that the Cubs are CENTURIES away from significance? Those vets ain’t going to take us nowhere I tells ya. Get ’em out of here.
Sell Marmol now too. He’s pitching at his worst. Now is the time.
What's not go get?
If Hendry trades these guys then we’re one step closer to having the farm system necessary to one day compete. Get the cogs going Hendry? Or should I said….HIAIFI111
Well, I figure it'd be alright if he traded some guys.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
NO! THE TEAM IS PERFECT! THIS TEAM RIGHT HERE IS GOING TO WIN THE WORLD SERIES NEXT YEAR
Those of you who think that there is any chance that Quade and Hendry are not perfect are just so damn dumb!
I mean MY GOD! haven’t you seen the grand plan?!? The one where Hendry drives the franchise into the ground for three years only to resurrect it magically in 2012? How can you possibly doubt that will happen! Senor Gato told you it would!
amidoingitrite?
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Yep, pretty darn good.
Be the kind of woman that when your feet hit the ground each morning the devil says, "OH CRAP, SHE'S UP"!
Yeah I think mine was more nail on head.
A little more based on what’s actually said…
No. It's really not.
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions
NO WAY! WE'RE MAKING A COMEBACK AND WINNING THIS YEAR!
Hendry and Quade have just been playing possum
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Have you gone mad?
Do you not realize that this the absolute worst season in Cubs history? There is no hope man. Don’t lie to the people like that.
23224024812 more years…just have patience.
You've lost your mind.
We’re winning this year.
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Think about it...
If the Cubs were able to convert those guys to prospect + ?? then surely it’d end in nothing but profit.
But, then Jim would be admitting that not every player was 100% perfect
And not only don’t I see him admitting that, I don’t think that is physically possible.
Jim Hendry is just so darn SHREWD, I can’t believe he didn’t already put together the perfect roster.
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions
I thought this roster was perfect?
What happened to 5 posts above?
He is pretty stupid though…What reason does he have to keep Soto and Marshall? It’s as if he’s actually deluded himself into believing this team is anything less than 42 MILLION years away from competing.
Now your arguing with me, when I'm saying the same thing you are?
Man, does your complete lack of reading comprehension have no limits?
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Also, fwiw, 2009 Cubs > .500 =/= "driven into the ground"
And the turnaround from 2006 to 2007/2008 was no more “magical” than would be a turnaround from 2011 to a contending 2012.
See Wreckard’s “Anatomy of a Turnaround” post for further explanation.
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions
You mean like they'll have this year?
I do agree though…Ricketts should pocket that. He bought this team to turn a profit, and its much easier to do that with prospects and even cheaper than Marshall/Soto talent.
I mean, having a payroll over 150 million next year.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
you don't need a payroll that high
because you have close to $50 million coming off the books anyway.
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions
They will reject the option and sign him for cheaper.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Well then he's not gonna be a Cub.
And if he doesn’t want to be a Cubs, why doesn’t he want to be traded?
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions
the real question is
why would the cubs want him back? he’ll be 34 next year. he’s a mediocre to bad defender at 3B and likely won’t be able to remain there thru the life of his next contract. the last two years he hasn’t started to produce until the cubs were well out of contention.
i think it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t want to be traded because he wants to build his free agent value by focusing on putting up meaningless stats for an also-ran team that he knows isn’t going to exercise his option.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions
lack of options
FA 3b class sucks for the next few years
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jul 23, 2011 6:19 PM CDT up reply actions
so making a huge mistake
is the best option?
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Just because you view it as a mistake doesn't make it one.
Whether or not people like it, Ramirez is one of the best offensive 3B in the NL and is without a doubt the best 3B in FA this offseason. If we can get Ramirez back at a reasonable deal, say 2 years 24M, it would be worthwhile.
i'm sure i wouldn't be the only one
and it’s very highly unlikely that ramirez will sign for just 2yrs/$24 million.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions
But isn't he a lazy good for nothing
non-hustler?
something like that
i wouldn’t call him good for nothing, that’s harsh. selfish and soft.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't throw facts into this...
This is about anger! Emotion! Feeling! Passion! Lust! Quick turnarounds don’t just happen. You have to clean house for that.
Yep falling to the cellar of the division
is NEEDED before you can make a real run. That’s how the GOOD GM’s do it. Consistency is for losers. You’re right Gato, those other guys are just dumb for doubting Hendry at all.
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions
ALL.PART.OF.THE.PLAN
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Well it kind of is.
Those Rays and Nationals teams that have such bright futures?
They were drafting number 1. For a lot of years. And as a DC resident, it was brutal reading the Sports section each day as the team lost series after series after series for literally years, and spent nothing on free agents in the interim. I’m not even a fan of the team and it was painful to watch from up close.
That’s how you get Strasburg and Harper into your system. Finish slightly better than that and you get Josh Vitters. The difference is very real.
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't even know how to respond to this, unless you knew I was kidding
and are playing along. You think Hendry was literally TRYING to suck?
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions
No I was really replying to about 3 comments up, but for feng shui reasons just put it at the bottom of the thread
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions
The Nationals, on the other hand
were literally trying to suck. They were trying to save payroll at all costs, hope that the excitement of a new ballpark could be enough to sell tickets while they trotted out a AAAA lineup, and then drafted really, really high each year.
I’m not saying its a crazy longterm strategy. I’m just saying it takes a high tolerance for pain that this city doesn’t have when it comes to the Cubs.
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not surprised you're having trouble...
Logic is kind of a weak point.
So...you really do believe Jim has been trying to suck?
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions
No I believe things fell apart
quickly and can come together just as quickly.
We need to stop comparing ourselves to teams like the Rays and Nationals and Pirates or whatever.
That’s not the plan, and it never has been. Teams like the Braves, Red Sox, Phillies, are the proper comparisons. And we aren’t even close to them.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I would be all in favor of those models.
And I agree, their front offices simply pantsed ours over the last decade.
I still don’t see how trading Marshall – except for an elite guy that I doubt is being offered – makes us better.
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Look, I'm only speaking in hypotheticals.
My point is that he shouldn’t be completely untouchable. If the haul is Blake DeWitt, then hell yeah keep him.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
OK, we agree
I just don’t believe that’s the case, no matter what Heyman says. If it later turns out a really special talent was on the table and we turned it down, that would make me mad as well. Just right now I don’t see a reason to believe that’s happening/will happen.
Anyways, it’s been fun — CIAO
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions
That's fine, shoe
and I actually agree with that. You certainly didn’t make that clear above.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions
While I agree, it's a way of rebuilding.
Which we pretty clearly need to do. We just have more tools to do it. Even if our idiot owner won’t use them.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions
That same idiot owner who is blowing out the budget with draft and IFA signings?
Can we please stop the Ricketts wont spend money or doesn’t have a plan posts for awhile? If you’re going to attack him, at least make it for something he’s screwed up.
Because he hasn't spent any money on guys that will produce NOW.
We’re a big market team, we shouldn’t have to “rebuild.” When’s the last time the Yankees have rebuilt? Red Sox? The Dodgers are the same as us, big market, big city, stuck with an idiot owner.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions
I'd say McCourt is more than an idiot
he’s almost a criminal.
And say what you want about Ricketts, but I don’t think he’s an idiot.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Almost a criminal??
He should be in jail after the IRS talks with him.
Who was Ricketts supposed to spend on in the last 2 years to make this a winning team??
Seriously? The ONLY option he’s had is to spend money on the farm until these contracts fall off the books.
He walked into a crappy situation and is spending a LOT of money to try and make it a better one. You are seriously trying to villainize him with the likes of McCourt because he hasn’t put more money into the majors when all the money in the world couldn’t have fixed them this year?
You mean the same Holliday that will likely be Soriano 2.0?
And the Cliff Lee we NEVER had a chance to get?
I don’t see how those two were ever in play, we need to at least be realistic here.
i meant the same matt holliday
that has a .951 OPS this year, and had a .922 mark last year. that guy.
by circuitclout on Jul 24, 2011 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions
How about you look at Sorianos OPS the first 2 years of his deal here...
Also, no one but the Phillies were going to sign Lee. That’s pretty obvious due to the fact he took a significant discount to play there. Not much anyone can do about that one.
Holliday would’ve been a horrible mistake for the Cubs.
they were free agents
anyone could have signed them.
by circuitclout on Jul 24, 2011 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Its not July 31 yet.
If the deadline comes and goes, and each of Fukudome, Johnson, Soriano and Ramirez are all on the roster, then this would be a valid criticism.
Right now, it just sounds impatient.
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think that's what SenorGato was talking about.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I'm Switzerland in that one.
I’m just responding to your point that it would be nice if he traded someone. Indeed it would be – and there’s still a week left to do it, and most trades tend to happen during that week, especially in the final 24 hours.
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions
So you think he'll do something?
You must run amongst fools then…
I don't need him to trade anyone right at this moment.
Sorry if I came across as thinking that way. I just meant trading players in general at this year’s deadline.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
agreed
and where we likely disagree is whether that group of players should include guys like Marshall who are under contract and hold value in 2012. I think that’d be a real shame – and as I said above, part of a long-term strategy that this city simply will not tolerate. Some teams have no choice but to shed their talent as it starts to get expensive, we have the luxury of not doing that.
But the guys whose careers are ending or who hold no long-term value (I should’ve added Pena to my list…), we should happily take what we can get for them and would be foolish not to do so by 7/31 or at least 8/31.
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, it all depends on the haul for Marshall, of course.
If they could get a top 50 SP prospect, I say go for it. Trading away a talented player like Marshall doesn’t automatically make the Cubs the Pirates or Royals.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
But if we trade away ANYONE then we're ruining the beautiful plan Hendry has made
don’t you get it? Jeeze.
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Look man, if you can't tell what a genius Jim is
by lulling the rest of the National League into a false sense of security by us sucking the last few years, then I really can’t help you.
The cards are on the table. We’re going to win it all next year. I just wish Jim hadn’t bowed to public pressure and traded away Milton. He was the lynchpin
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions
If that's really what's being offered
And the top 50 guy is one of the ones that pans out, as opposed to the next C-Pat or F-Pie, sure you’d love that deal.
But (a), there’s no reason to think that’s been offered/declined. No basis at all.
And (b), it may not make us the Pirates/Royals, but what would make us into them is adopting a strategy that writes off 2012 and 2013 with a goal of stockpiling talent for 2014 and beyond. Trading Marshall in and of itself isn’t sufficient to embark on that course. But to me – absent an absolute blockbuster offer of the kind I doubt anyone is making – you can only rationalize trading Marshall if that’s the strategy you’re going for. If you decide that you’re going to try and compete in 2012 and 2013 (as a very high priced club needs to in order to put butts in seats and eyeballs on tv screens for the sponsonrs), then you keep Marshall because he makes you better next year.
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions
I think the idea is that...
You don’t really need strategy if you have prospects. Prospects can do it all.
You don't need actual strategy if you're Jim Hendry
success just falls into his lap
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah that's what I just said...
You don’t need strategy, you need prospects. Jim Hendry or no Jim Hendry the path to success is prospects.
But with Jim Hendry, all you need is magic!
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions
And Bobby Valentine
those two guys can literally rule the baseball world.
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Prospects are magic.
They’re the most magical things about baseball. Good, cheap MLB talent? Pshaw. Are you a good cheap PROSPECT talent? Oh please baby give daddy some love.
I surrender
I thought I could out “Gato” you, but you enjoy completely misconstruing what other people are saying and acting like someone who’s never been outside of your mother’s basement WAAAAAAAAY more than I do.
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions
you're cracking me up
But you’re also killing me here. You know that, right?
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah if I was smart I'd just leave this to you.
Perhaps I still shall…
No one can out debate a strawman like you.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Hey...cmon, I'm TRYING here!
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Thank you...
considering I’m speaking to one of the masters of strawman arguments I find that to be a deep, heartfelt compliment. Top 50 SP prospect here we come baby! If we get lucky!
I just think you're overstating what trading Marshall signifies.
I do think he’s very talented, same as you do, I’m sure. But if the Cubs can get a good haul in return, I say go for it. SP is lacking in the system. I’m not calling for a fire sale, and I don’t think trading Marshall means they think they won’t compete next year.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I'll put it in the BCB-friendlist terms I can.
When you don’t have Marshall as a set up guy, that’s when you go out and spend $12mm on John Grabow.
Yes, Marshall is replaceable. But why do we want to replace him when that’s the likely path?
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Not to mention you're then counting on this nameless...
top 50 SP prospect to become something, one day, hopefully.
I’m not against it, but with no actual concrete ideas or names…Meh. Just seems like a load of wishy washy crap to me…and usually I like wishy washy crap.
Russell can't become that guy?
And yes, I expect SG to come in with his strawman claiming that everyone said he was terrible earlier, when 99% of people were referring to him as a starter, so I’ll just ignore his oncoming freak out.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
JUST A LOOGY!
Do not put him in a position to fail.
At this point Russell is even outperforming Marshall, he's much more than a LOOGY.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Res-signing Grabow was an awful decision.
But you’re off by 4.5M. He was signed for 7.5M over two years. Again… still dumb… but not quite 12M dumb.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
So now it's gone from top 50 prospect to top 50 SP prospect...
Maybe…maybe since Marshall is a reliever we can shoot for a top 50 relief prospect? Surely that’d be asking too much and they’ll say no…oh what to do what to do…
He plans to trade no one.
He said it already. Thats why I went on my rant.
I thought Al asked you to stop this nonsense?
Be the kind of woman that when your feet hit the ground each morning the devil says, "OH CRAP, SHE'S UP"!
If we all ignore him, maybe he'll....aw hell, he'll just get dumber
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions
The only way he'll go away is
if he gets banned so if he keeps this up that will happen. Keep going SG.
Be the kind of woman that when your feet hit the ground each morning the devil says, "OH CRAP, SHE'S UP"!
TOP 50 PROSPECT OFFERED?
Take the deal!! Ask for nothing else because it might get taken away. Look how quickly Hoyer got rid of Adams.
You really should stop thinking.
Be the kind of woman that when your feet hit the ground each morning the devil says, "OH CRAP, SHE'S UP"!
You are just making a fool of yourself
but if that is your intent by all means continue.
Be the kind of woman that when your feet hit the ground each morning the devil says, "OH CRAP, SHE'S UP"!
You have to START doing something, before you can stop
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions
You seem to have an interest in the minor leagues in general.
So how about you state whether or not you think Marshall is worth a top 50 type prospect?
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I've stated multiple times that he is.
High K, young, cheap LH relief doesn’t grow on trees, though I realize where I’m saying this and that he’s valued much less than that here.
Probably could've said that without making a dig at the community at the end.
But while guys like Marshall don’t grow on trees, neither do top 50 SP prospects, considering we have none, and aren’t even close. You seem pretty high on the relievers coming up through the system. You wouldn’t be interested in trading from a position of strength to improve one of the weaknesses of the minor leagues?
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 23, 2011 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I've said it multiple times.
And I didn’t “take a dig at the community” there…I spoke the truth based on the 500+ posts that have been dedicated to Marshall’s trade value within the community.
SP prospects grow on trees. The ones that turn into actual ML talent don’t. Who’re you looking to grab? ANY top 50 SP prospect so long as they’re top 50 and have made a list somewhere? Would just the one be sufficient for one of the better LH relievers in baseball? Should we dare ask for more? Can you actually throw a name on the table so that there’s a point of reference to work with?
Do you think I work in an MLB front office or something?
I’m trying, but it’s seriously impossible to talk to you. I try and throw out a hypothetical that Orval seems to be able to discuss with me calmly and rationally, yet you have no interest in doing so, and would rather run around doing your own version of TJ speak. You want to disagree with me, fine. I make a point that the SP in the farm system is a weakness (which I guess is a criticism, and obviously we can’t have that), so I say it’s a risk worth taking.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
So should I assume...
you don’t have a name to offer?
The SP in the system is a weakness. Trading one of our best pitchers for a SP prospect just for the sake of getting a SP prospect is not a good idea, and doesn’t necessarily fix our weakness.
I might agree with you on it being a risk worth taking if you know…You had something besides a strawman/hypothetical based on arbitrary rankings to work with.
arbitrary rankings?
you want to keep marshall because he is one of the best pitchers on one of the worst staffs in baseball. doesn’t get much more arbitrary than that.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah no can you translate it to something that makes sense.
Oh, and prospect lists are arbitrary.
you
want someone else to make sense? cmon now.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions
where would u say sean marshall ranks
among LH relievers. top 5? top 10? top 20?
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions
good thing
that marshall isn’t really young anymore and is about to get rather expensive.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions
we can afford expensive. next time you're stuck in rush hour traffic, remember this is the silver lining
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions
i'm also optimistic
that the cubs should be able to fill out the LH side of the bullpen with some combo of russell/gaub/believeau/rusin/raley.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah 29 is ancient.
Look at the troubles all these really good pitchers nowadays are having when they turn 30…It’s like someone just shuts off the talent.
in baseball speak
he’s not young. and marshall will be due a large payday after next season if he has another strong year. personally, i’d like to see the cubs give marshall one more shot at the rotation but if they aren’t going to do that they should trade him because the return in prospects is likely to be more valuable than marshall will be over the next 2-3 years.
are you getting any of this?
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Ok, so I guess when we resign him to a $5 million+ contract when he's 31, I don't want to hear you complain.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 6:03 PM CDT up reply actions
If he's good enough to warrant it,
I won’t complain one bit.
You know, the Cubs never are going to have a team full of cheap 25-year-olds. Nor should they.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions
of course not
they are married to zambrano and soriano.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions
So that's why they're apparently trying to get rid of Soriano?
Because they’re married to him?
I just don’t get this mentality, I guess. Or pathology, more accurately.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
i agree
that the cubs aren’t and shouldn’t have a team full of cheap 25 year olds because they will be paying guys like soriano and zambrano for years. trying to get rid of them and getting rid of them are two different things and they’d still have to pay them in any event.
please, diagnose the pathology. i can’t wait to hear this….
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions
I won't.
He’s a good pitcher. I’d prefer to keep those.
Who are you gonna pay? Russell or Marshall?
They will want around the same amount, and are both left-handed “shut-down” bullpen guys. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to pay two of those guys 5 million a year. Russell wins because
A. He’s outperforming Marshall and
B. He’s younger.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions
He's a free agent after next year, Mr. Cat.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 24, 2011 9:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Marshall -- not Russell -- is a free agent after 2012.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
You're correct, Russell is a free agent after this year.
So, do you want to pay both of them?
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 24, 2011 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions
That's not accurate.
Russell is under team control. He’ll be cheap for another couple years.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 24, 2011 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Um, no.
Russell won’t be a free agent until 2016. The Cubs control his rights up to that point. He might start getting ‘expensive’ in 2014.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
Ok then, Cots has nothing about arbitration listed.
Point is, Marshall is still extremely tradeable, and not “necessary” to have a good team.
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 24, 2011 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Is Marshall himself necessary? No..
Is a consistent set up man necessary for a good team? Yes.
Find me a consistent set up guy for as much as Marshall will command in 2012 and beyond that is available and will sign with the Cubs.
Chris Carpenter, Andrew Cashner, Shark, Russell...
Cashner being the most likely. You do know he was like our top prospect last year, right?
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 25, 2011 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions
While I understand your process...
I wouldn’t consider any of those pitchers consistent.
Cashner is also going to be given every opportunity to start again, so putting him in the pen long term is not currently an option.
Arb information is listed on the 'future payroll page I linked to in my post.
As for your point, Marshall as an individual may not be necessary… but a top notch set-up guy is.
Let’s see more than half a season out of Russell before assuming he can take those reigns… particularly since he is still inconsistent at best when it comes to getting RH hitters out.
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
I thought he is signed through next year?
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 23, 2011 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions
he is
but at $3 million he isn’t really cheap anymore and he’s a free agent after the 2012 season.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Thankfully
The Cubs don’t have a $50 million payroll, so they can afford to keep players like that.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions
simply put
if the cubs have depth anywhere in their organization it is LH relief. so paying marshall $3million+ a year makes little sense if the return you could get in prospects is substantial.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions
That's a very, very unlikely case
Unless your socks are absolutely knocked off, and I doubt they will be, Marshall should stay right where he is.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions
marshall is a good, not great, pitcher
and having a good 8th inning guy should really be one of the cubs least pressing concerns. its not as if the cubs are a lock to re-sign him after 2012.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Then who pitches in the eighth?
I think someone who can be a good setup man AND who also can close is worth his weight in gold.
The Cubs aren’t a lock to sign him after ‘12, true. But I’d say that scenario is more likely than some prospect you’d get for him in a trade panning out.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions
again
sean marshall isn’t an elite pitcher and he’s hardly irreplaceable.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions
No sense getting rid of good pitching
Unless you’re getting more good pitching, or better pitching.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions
yes
better to let the good pitching leave via free agency.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Some would say that, yes.
Not to mention that Marshall should easily be a type A so he’d bring back one of those fancy draft picks I hear they give out.
wait
so you don’t want prospects, but you’re okay with getting draft picks?
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Trading veterans for prospects
And letting FA you couldn’t/didnt want to resign walk for prospects is quite different. I assume you understand that?
Oh and a reasonable reason
why they should choose to downgrade AND get rid of young, cheap, homegrown, proven MLB talent?
i don't think they should downgrade
i think they could find someone to do the same job for less money. internal options would include wood or samardzija. one of their power minor league arms could also be used. hell, even russell could step into marshall’s role of primary lefty out of the pen.
marshall is neither young nor particularly cheap. being homegrown and “proven” really doesn’t mean anything.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions
What would you do
with the money you allegedly would save by not re-signing or by trading Marshall?
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions
how is it alleged?
if marshall wasn’t on the team the cubs wouldn’t have to pay him. and considering the cubs are going to have needs at just about every spot on the diamond i’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to identify a spot to spend an extra $2.5 million or so.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions
So you don't know, in other words
I don’t know why you’re hell bent on getting rid of good, relatively young relief pitching, but I’m just glad you aren’t the GM.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions
obviously
before i suggested trading marshall i should have researched every player that may become available over the next two seasons.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 9:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Any kind of research or complex knowledge at all would be welcome.
Something a little more substantial than “we can get someone cheaper to do his job.” Cheaper usually means worse, and not surprisingly the two names you offered are worse.
it's not my fault
you don’t like the two names i mentioned. maybe the cubs should sign dj lemahieu to an extension.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions
This is the kind of poster that
in the end makes me the poster that makes me the poster I am.
The other two names you mentioned are worse. Your idea makes the team worse.
with sean marshall
the team is 20 games (give or take) under .500. could they even be worse?
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions
That they're 19 games under .500
is not Sean Marshall’s fault.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions
OK and with Sean Marshall the Cubs won the most
games in the NL 3 years ago.
Wtf kind of logic is that?
Marshall was a very, very marginal part of that team...
Nice try.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 24, 2011 1:36 AM CDT up reply actions
Yet a major part of a team that's 19 under .500?
It’s one or the other, he can’t be responsible for them sucking this year and not responsible for them being good another.
2009 is not 2011.
They aren’t using him in 2011 like they did (or didn’t) in 2009.
He had almost nothing to do with how many games the Cubs won in 2009. He’s a major reason why the Cubs aren’t 21 games under .500 in 2011.
Happy now?
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 24, 2011 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't get it...
where the hell have I ever said Marshal was responsible for this team sucking or anything like that? I said he should have made the All-Star team this year, and I stand by that to this day.
You try way, way too hard to put words in my mouth. I don’t appreciate it at all, but do whatever you want.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 24, 2011 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Turns out my argument was more than one person, was my fault.
Was flipping through comments too quickly and confused myself.
So which is it??
Either he’s not elite and he’s replaceable or he’s worth a top 50 prospect?
It can’t be both.
Actually it can be.
Teams in contention overpay at this time of year. I’m really not on one side of the argument or the other, but your statement is a fallacy.
Some team might decide it is worth offering up a top 50 type prospect in order to land a good bullpen arm (as apparently has been talked about for Mike Adams)
This doesn’t make Sean Marshall irreplaceable, it makes him more valuable, to certain teams, at this time of year.
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions
That doesn't mean he has to be traded...
Certainly not for the one guy who’s name has made the website, Singleton from the Phillies.
Good pitching is some valuable stuff.
do u type for the exercise
i don’t think a single person has said he must be traded, just that there is an argument for doing so.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 9:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Yea if that's what was being said...
we wouldn’t be on Marshall thread #3 or 4 with 500+ posts on the guy’s value…500+ posts easy.
he's not elite
and i never said he was worth a top 50 prospect, tho that has been bandied about by others here and elsewhere.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions
He's elite to a contending team...
and replaceable on a team that doesn’t have many leads to hold or games to keep close. Not a hard concept to understand.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 24, 2011 1:37 AM CDT up reply actions
But, Sue -- HE'S the SANE one
We’re all dolts!
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 23, 2011 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, we bow to your genius
And your people skills
by Shanghai Badger on Jul 24, 2011 6:48 AM CDT up reply actions
He wishes.
Be the kind of woman that when your feet hit the ground each morning the devil says, "OH CRAP, SHE'S UP"!
Yeah, selling players at their lowest value is a GREAT idea!
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 23, 2011 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions
You know
You could really make your point without mocking others and making an ass out of yourself. I’m really tired of reading the same crap. The thing is, you know alot about this team and the farm system but you always take the wrong path in defending your point.
If you’d focus you mocking and belittling of others on this website, you’d actually be a poster that was well liked instead of the other way around.
R.I.P. to my grandfather, Andrew Wiley
The reason I am a Cub fan forever
by Unique on Jul 23, 2011 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions 4 recs
SG, I do like you, and enjoy your posts normally
But there is something to be said for what Unique is saying, nothing wrong with picking your battles, but more often than not you’ll draw more flies with honey than vinegar (or whatever the hell that phrase is).
Having said that, I think NBF is a perfect example of someone who has learned that lesson, but somehow he still has a strong anti-NBF crowd still, which leads me to believe it’s more about the fact that we’re pro-Cubs F.O. (relatively speaking) than the delivery.
We'll all miss you Ron.
No, there's still a strong anti-NBF crowd because he uses ridiculous hyperbole and calls people names
on a daily basis.
It has literally NOTHING to do with being Pro-Cubs F.O.
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hmmmm... where have I seen ridiculous hyperbole before...
NO! THE TEAM IS PERFECT! THIS TEAM RIGHT HERE IS GOING TO WIN THE WORLD SERIES NEXT YEAR
Oh that’s right, that was you… on this very thread.
We'll all miss you Ron.
That was actually sarcasm, complete and total, unadulterated sarcasm
it was also a direct reaction and illustration of your buddy SG’s tactics in “discussions”
You want to ACTUALLY see hyperbole, check out several of BRUCE’S statements in this thread. I’m not getting into this with you. You’re not going to admit it anyway.
I’m just going to point out that the wide dislike of Bruce has nothing to do with his stance, it’s HOW he takes his stance people don’t like
I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers
by Nunyabidness on Jul 23, 2011 8:59 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Oh you're doing sarcasm.
I’m using tactics.
Wompwomp.
If your intent is to strawman and belittle us,
Then yes, you are using “tactics”.
Minor League Contributing Writer, Athletics Nation.
State high point count: 4/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jul 24, 2011 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, I'm calling BS.
I’ve had many pleasant convos with NBF. I’ve also had many unpleasant ones as well. The unpleasant ones include the ridiculous hyperbole Nunya is talking about.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 23, 2011 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nobody ever uses hyperbole here to make a point
Is that what you’re saying, shoe?
Read enough of these posts and I’d say it isn’t exactly hyperbole.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm saying your use of hyperbole is becoming more and more frequent.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 23, 2011 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think if I had the same beliefs as the people who get so offended by what I write...
they’d be alot less offended.
Should I have waited for the next “ZOMG no one says what we want to hear, fire them!” thread? It’d pop up in a couple hours anyway.
I think you're ignoring the fact that the way you talk to people needs work.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Jul 23, 2011 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
You are stereotyping this website SG.
There is a middle ground of posters here that don’t feel the world is always coming to an end when the Cubs have a bad year. Instead of generalizing and over reacting in every single thread, make your point with facts instead of mocking everyone.
R.I.P. to my grandfather, Andrew Wiley
The reason I am a Cub fan forever
by Unique on Jul 23, 2011 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
While true...
My “act” is only as exaggerated as it is because “lets fire everyone!” is that exaggerated. It’s all over this site, everyday.
SG, I don't always agree with your tactics, but
You’re right about this.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 23, 2011 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, I've heard.
We’re locked into 5th place forever now and blah blah blah….
No one ever said that.
But there you go with that hyperbole you despise so much.
Point is, the past two years have been failures. People think management should be held accountable. Not really a novel concept.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
i still dont get why you bother
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jul 23, 2011 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Some days I do, some days I don't.
I gotta give him credit though, since I do take the bait far too often.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
you do
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jul 23, 2011 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions
That's because you know I know what I'm talking about say...
98% of the time.
Accountable isn't fired.
And two years of failures is two years of failures. Stuff happens. Teams go through periods like this at various levels. I feel many here push the idea that 5th place is our new home because it’s been a couple years. Maybe in different, usually less direct words (like “we’re not competing for a while”), but I feel like the ideas have been planted. Not only do I think it’s been planted, I think it’s bloomed well due to careful, constantl nurturing.
So stooping to their level is the path you choose?
Why not be the bigger and more intelligent person and just disregard the majority of them?
R.I.P. to my grandfather, Andrew Wiley
The reason I am a Cub fan forever
I do...
These kind of things could happen far more often if I showed up for a thread. Why…the other day I missed another one of these “How DARE you defend Hendry” talks and it went the same way…with or without me. It even got locked it got so bad in there.
Makes you wonder…
i dont know why you guys even bother anymore
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
In my case probably that AND stupidity.
Just no point with SG & NFB or BLou etc. I should save my keystrokes for something important like another Fuld highlight or Maddux anecdote.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 23, 2011 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions
BCB PPV!
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jul 23, 2011 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions
I prefer BLou to SG and NBF.
Those two have become intolerable. I think they are both intelligent posters but they can’t see anything from anybody else’s perspective. BLou wasn’t too rational himself, but at least his criticism turned out to be true. Check out one of his last posts before the beginning of last season—he is on point with how that season turned out.
Too bad about Amy Winehouse
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Marshall
So is Marshall a free agent or arbitration eligable after next year?
he's a free agent
after the 2012 season.
by circuitclout on Jul 23, 2011 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions
you guys are boring me
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jul 23, 2011 4:15 PM CDT reply actions 3 recs
Rec'd
I’m anti-Hendry but taking every news rumor as another chance to bash him is getting boring.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
by rlpete on Jul 23, 2011 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
I think the son of god was expressing his boredom
at both sides of the debate. And rightfully so. I’ve even bored myself at this point. I’m signing off, and going out to get a beer.
by Orval Overall on Jul 23, 2011 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions
this
but i appreciate the free rec
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jul 23, 2011 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions
in more ways than one!
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jul 23, 2011 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions
This thread came and went pretty quickly.
Good row guys.
I can't think of another .406 team which had this many guys who could help
a contender. I don’t know exactly what that means, but I don’t think you can come back next year with this many decent—not great-guys over 30. Most of them will crash within the next year or two.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
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 Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
