Hendry declining all offers for Sean Marshall
According to Carrie Muskat, Hendry's getting phone calls from teams inquiring about players that he's not interested in moving, and he's telling teams that they have no interest in talking about Sean Marshall in any potential trade.
That's absurd. You have multiple suitors for a player of excellent trade value, on a team that won't contend any time soon, unless management is truly delusional. Listen to all offers, and create a small bidding war to land several prospects who can make this team a division winner in the future.
11 months ago
SackMan
438 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
How critical is excellent late inning relief for a team that doesn't even have a complete rotation?
And without any significant moves, they won’t have a competitive rotation next year either
Marshall’s value is at a premium right now. Move him and acquire pitching… or package him to the Yankees and somehow get Montero to be your 1st baseman of the future.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
I like the way you think
I’d love to see Montero in a Cubbie uniform. Castro, Jackson, Montero – now we’re talking
So if Marshall’s existing contract is worth $10 million over the next 1 1/2 years, could we get an A level prospect in return? I don’t know – that’s why I’m asking
The Yanks are not giving up Montero
for Sean Marshall.
by Josh Timmers on Jul 9, 2011 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions
You forget Josh
It is the responsibility of every major league team to offer the Cubs their best players and prospects for something of far lesser value. Marshall for Montero in a package is very fair, especially if the package includes Soriano & Grabow. Likewise the Braves will offer the Cubs Hanson for A-Ram with Chipper down, The Rays will offer us Jennings for Byrd and so on. These are the deals Hendry is supposed to make. It is common knowledge that all the reasons Cubs want to get rid of players ( bad contract, no plate patience, can’t throw a strike) are the very things other teams desire and will trade top players for.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 9, 2011 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
You're absolutely right... because trading top prospects for top releivers never happen.
Like when the Red Sox traded Bagwell to the Astros for 36-year old relief pitcher Larry Andersen to gear up for their playoff run.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
Or when the Marlins traded #1 overall pick Adrian Gonzalez
To the Rangers in a deal for Ugueth Urbina, to aid their playoff push in 2003, when they won it all.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
Or when the Mariners traded
Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek to the Red Sox for reliever Heathcliff Slocomb in ’97, because they were desperate for bullpen help during their playoff push…
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
So you're expecting other teams to be as dumb as the Mariners and Red Sox were in those deals?
Not likely.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Point is... top prospects DO get traded for good relief arms
When teams are in a playoff push, and there are multiple suitors for a pitcher.
There’s absolutely no reason why Hendry shouldn’t open the door to hear all offers for any of his players.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
They do, but only if teams are truly desperate.
I don’t see this happening with Marshall.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Marshall may be the most highly valued left-handed RP
The Yankees are scouting Sean Burnett for crying out loud. The guy sucks.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
Exactly
Sean Marshall is really valuable. Smart teams are able to sell their veterans when they’re at their highest value.
He’s a relief pitcher on a crappy team, there is literally no use for keeping him around if you can get back prospects.
Sean Marshall is 28 years old
… and one of the best LH relievers in the league.
Exactly the kind of guy you hang on to as you build a winner. If he were 32 or 35, sure, you deal him.
This isn’t fantasy baseball.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
You're missing the point
Sean Marshall can easily be replaced. Literally every year no name relievers have good years.
Marshall could easily be terrible next year and then nobody wants to trade for him.
It’s called selling high. For a rebuilding team it would be a sage move to trade him.
Sean Marshall can easily be replaced. Literally every year no name relievers have good years.
Strongly disagree. Sure, no-name relievers have good years every year. Try finding one that you can be reasonably certain of doing that. You can’t. That’s a crapshoot.
Instead, you already have one. Keep him. Again, if he’s 32 or older, sure. But he’s 28, exactly the kind of guy you want to keep.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Sean Marshall has been doing this for longer than a year
He’s a legit top LH reliever in the game at this point. Barring arm injures, he’s going to stay at this level for another 5 years, if not longer.
Not if I can get
a cheap starter. He’s only going to have a team friendly contract for another 1 1/2 years, which is hopefully the longest period of time that the Cubs suck.
I don’t want to lose Marshall but if I feel like I make my organization better, then I do it
Try finding one that you can be reasonably certain of doing that. You can’t.
Of course I can’t say “so and so will have a great year.” That’s a ridiculous proposition.
You make a couple low-cost signings of guys who have had success in the past and have lost a little bit of their shine.
A perfect example of this is Kyle Farnsworth. The guy always had the talent and stuff to become an effective closer but never harnessed that talent.
The Rays signed him for 1M and he’s been one of the best bargains in baseball. Even if he didn’t work out, it was a shrewd move.
Those are the kind of things the Cubs should be doing. Hopefully this is just posturing by Hendry.
Sure, every team should do that.
It’s not as easy as you think. How many teams gave up on Farnsworth before he finally got it together for the Rays?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Yep it SO easy to get good lefty relievers
and this why teams will give up top picks for them?
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 9, 2011 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Adrian Gonzalez
was considered a failed prospect when he was traded. The others were over 15 years ago when prospects were less highly regarded.
But the bigger issue is that if the Yankees are dangling Jesus Montero, the Padres would call up and say “Why do you want Sean Marshall? We’ll offer you Heath Bell, Mike Adams or Luke Gregerson. Take your pick.” Or the Royals would say “You want Joakim Soria?” The Marlins would say “You want Leo Nunez?”
The point is that if the Yankees were willing to trade Jesus Montero, why would Sean Marshall be the guy they had to have? That’s the thing everyone seems to forget—other teams don’t have to trade with the Cubs.
I realize
we’re not getting Montero. Looking at the article that I found regarding trade values of prospects made me quickly realize that was a pipe dream.
That’s fine – there are other prospects out there that could still be very useful to us. Marshall is a wonderful pitcher – he’s also a pitcher who is going to get expensive after 2012. If there’s a concern that we don’t have starting pitching that is close to ready, then why wouldn’t we see if we can acquire one? Our rotation isn’t exactly rock solid.
If you want something good, you have to give something good in return.
It makes sense to me that Hendry could be using some gamesmanship here – by saying that Marshall is not available, he could be saying Marshall is available for the guys you are discussing.
That's fine...
then make the asking price for jesus Montero one of those guys… not something less than that. Eventually, the market dries up and teams will up their offers for Marshall. If those offers end up high enough, then you do the deal. Nobody’s itching to get rid of Marshall, but there’s value there as a player who’s more than just a rental and headed for A-level free agent compensation. IF the Cubs can get that value or more, they’d be fools not to.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions
The arm Marshall throws with
is a huge advantage. He’s a high leverage lefty who can get K’s. I say that’s why we keep him, but I don’t think his haul would be small.
by SenorGato on Jul 9, 2011 6:04 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
They traded Lowe because he walked to many guys
and Lou could not stand him.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 9, 2011 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions
So what?
The Red Sox got a future 2x All-Star (Lowe) and future 3x All-Star (Varitek), both of whom wear Red Sox World Series rings.
A heck of a better pay dirt than the Cubs got for Slocumb, when they dealt him to Cleveland in 1993 for Jose Hernandez.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
However
Hernandez, in his second Cubs incarnation, eventually helped land Aramis Ramirez. So there’s that.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
That is way oversimplifying what happened with that trade.
That was nothing more than a GM trying to save his job by mortgaging the future for another failed playoff run.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Andersen wasn't even a top reliever.
That was a dumb deal.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
That trade happened at the deadline in 1990...
Bagwell went on to win ROY in 1991.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
Not quite right.
Andersen went to Boston on August 30, 1990 — one day before the eligibility deadline for postseason play. I remember that deal being widely panned at the time — a lot of people knew how good a prospect Bagwell was and that Andersen was near the end of his career and not really a closer. Most people thought the Red Sox got fleeced, and they were right.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
That's still the deadline, right?
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions
The waiver deadline.
A deal that smacked of desperation. Those kinds of deals aren’t made, not as much anyway, at the July 31 deadline.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Thankfully...
both deadlines still exist today, just as they did then.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 11:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Desperate teams make dumb deals...
and they do it often.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions
I'd use Montero to try to entice the D'Backs.
I think his best pro position will be as a LF/DH type.
Yes, I still hold out hope for Justin Upton one day.
Why would the D'Backs want a DH?
I here Montero’s problem is that he is a DH and can’t field any position.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 9, 2011 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
To play LF.
The home of the NL DH (except for Bonds, Raines, and whoever else had a good glove there).
But no one is going to offer much
I would hope if the Yankees offer Jesus Montero that Hendry would change his mind, but that’s not going to happen. What teams want is to get Marshall for a mid-level prospect.
He’s signed through next season. I don’t see any reason to move him.
by Josh Timmers on Jul 9, 2011 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Exactly.
Teams want Marshall, but aren’t likely to offer enough value to make it a good idea to move him.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
...but if they offered something worthwhile, they'd be fools to turn it down.
There are way too many people here overvaluing relievers.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions
A guy can dream
If we don’t get fair value for him, then we shouldn’t deal him but to just come out and say we’re not trading him under any circumstance, well, that just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I think Hendry is saying this to combat getting tons of calls..
..from teams offering mid-level prospects. If he gets offered a top flight prospect, I’m sure he would listen.
by Mulhollandmania on Jul 9, 2011 12:30 PM CDT reply actions
Sure
But unless he gets blown away with an offer, keep Marshall. He could be good in this role for a long time.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 9, 2011 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions
That's how I read it.
He said he’s not interested in trading Marshall. When did that ever stop a GM from making an offer?
Baseball is back!!
by cowsarecool220 on Jul 9, 2011 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions
It's not Hendry's job to combat getting tons of calls...
unless he doesn’t even want the job now, much less next year. It’s Hendry’s job to be making “tons of calls” and make the “tons of calls” he gets from others into something worthwhile for his team.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Sean Marshall is worth much more than mid level prospects
If he makes tons of calls, he shouldn’t be concerned with mid-level guys. Marshall is relatively young, relatively cheap, and highly effective. That’s worth a top 5 prospect. By saying this, it weeds out the people offering okay prospects to less than okay prospects. All he’s really saying is “If you want Marshall, you’re gonna have to blow me away.”
by Mulhollandmania on Jul 10, 2011 12:41 AM CDT up reply actions
You're saying Marshall should command a top 5 prospect??
So you’re looking for Trout, Harper, Teheran, Machado or Moore type pitcher out of him??
Not a chance in hell.
I took it to mean top 5 in one's organization.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Then that's what he should say.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions
That is what he's saying
He’s just saying the way a GM would say it.
by Mulhollandmania on Jul 10, 2011 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Not worth another fan shot, but...
just read where A-Rod’s gonna miss at least a month. Hows about we send them A-Ram, pay the remaining amount he’s owed this year + his buy-out AND Sean Marshall for Montero. This GM stuff is pretty simple, ya know?
With the 1st pick in the 2012 Baseball Amateur Draft, the Chicago Cubs select...
The Yankees aren't very high on Montero anymore
and there’s probably a reason. I’d rather sign Prince Fielder.
I have reasons worth $150m (+ draft picks) and 100 lbs to want Montero more than Fielder.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Save it for someone who buys that kinda crap by the pound...
They’d still lose draft picks for signing a Fielder even when they keep the 2nd overall pick. You know that. Nice try.
You don’t have to spend money to win. That’s a fallacy, and you know it. On the other hand, if you spend big money and make mistakes you lose big, especially when spending big money on this free agent class won’t be enough to save 2012. You don’t lose big on cost-controlled young talent. The Cubs need much more of that before they spend Fielder-type dollars.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions
27 year old Prince Fielder
would be worth a 2nd round draft pick, no if ands or buts with that one
by SenorGato on Jul 9, 2011 7:06 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
That's your opinion...
whether or not I share it is irrelevant. It doesn’t change the fact that it adds to the cost.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Who CARES about cost?
What’re you the franchise accountant? Money shouldn’t even be an issue. Making the team better should be the issue, and Fielder or Pujols is a huge step in that direction.
Cost isn't just money, which was the point.
I’m not a franchise accountant, but I’m a reasonable person… you should try it. It’s easy to make fantasy rosters when you’re not the one making the budget. Make a trip to Disney World if you want to keep up this fantasy land you live in.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions
The Cubs are far, far worse off than the Florida Marlins...
who are also run by several idiots… but they’re idiots with young talent, a brand new park to play in, oh yeah, and 2 titles in our lifetime, regardless of how they got them.
You’d rather be what the Cubs have been? Keep wanting them to repeat the same mistakes over and over and over…
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 11:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Yea sounds like a dream.
That young talent does get expensive. We should operate on their level and shoot for one WS a decade, then trade off everyone and start over again.
Generic reply is generic.
I know this. That doesn’t mean I’m looking to imitate that team, not completely anyway.
Exactly who can't they keep?
They signed Ramirez long term. They signed Johnson long term. Sanchez, Morrison, Stanton, A. Sanchez are all under team control. They have plenty left to come too. They’ve done all this with an idiot owner and an idiot president… and now they have a brand new park to help them retain all of their talent. What fantasy world do you live in where they aren’t superior in their past, present and future?
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions
There's no buyout if he's traded
It becomes a player option.
Plus he has full no trade protection and has said he isn’t going anywhere.
and as we know
no one ever changes their mind about waving a no trade clause
by circuitclout on Jul 10, 2011 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Ramirez has 10-and-5 rights.
The contract clause is irrelevant. He’d have to waive those. Derrek Lee didn’t, until he was asked twice.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Someone's going to have to blow him away.
PLAY IT COOL Hendry. Play it f’n cool man.
Why does this fanbase so strongly believe that we won't contend
“anytime soon?”
This isn’t the Rays or the Royals. The Cubs don’t need a decade of sucking to build some kind of hope for The Futcha. I’m all for trading Marshall IF THE RIGHT DEAL CAME AROUND, but I’m not just handing it over on this belief that we’re years away from significance.
This isn’t the Rays or the Royals. The Cubs don’t need a decade of sucking to build some kind of hope for The Futcha.
Nobody has every suggested that. Nobody. Not once, never, okay? Sean Marshall is a relief pitcher. Yes, he’s a good one but who cares? He’s a relief pitcher on an incredibly crappy team. Relief pitchers can be found for cheap every year. The best bullpens in baseball change every year because relief pitchers performance fluctuates greatly each year.
Marshall’s value will most likely never be higher. This is the best time to trade someone like him.
There are few people on the Cubs roster who will actually bring back legitimate prospects and Marshall is one of them.
Nobody is suggesting a fire sale. Only the trading off of valuable veterans in order to help the future of this team.
Yep easy to get relief pitchers
Cubs have NEVER had a problem getting good relief pitchers which is why their bullpen was so great in 09 & 10
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 9, 2011 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Ummm
They signed John Grabow to a terrible deal?? Remember, Grabow was sooooo good then when he got the contract he was bad? Remember that?
That’s what I’m talking about. You can easily scrape a bullpen together. Too bad the Cubs are terrible talent evaluators.
So terrible at evaluating talent that...
their whole bullpen, minus Grabow, is Cubs made.
That's the point
relievers can come out of nowhere.
That’s why the Grabow signing is so dumb. You can find relievers anywhere and they can become effective.
That’s why trading Marshall would be a shrew move.
Trading Marshall is only shrewd if
the return is significant. Otherwise it’s better to keep him and have as many good players as possible for 2012. Then take two picks when he’s a Type A after next season.
by SenorGato on Jul 9, 2011 7:08 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Who the heck is saying otherwise?
Nobody is saying give him away. People are talking Jesus Montero, and you’re still flailing away as if people are wanting to trade him for some A-ball fodder.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 7:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Jameslcrockett and Bad Midget are on fire!
Keep it up (no sarcasm).
Sean Marshall is at the peak of his career right now. If you package him with others to acquire a top 50 prospect that will help when the Cubs are good again in 2-3 years, why wouldn’t you do it?
No one should be untouchable, especially a relief pitcher.
Come on Lisa, I'm trying to impress people here. You don't win friends with salad. ~ Homer J. Simpson
by TheBeerBaron on Jul 11, 2011 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
Also you use the word easy too easily.
If it was that easy to build a bullpen contenders wouldn’t spend every trade period trying to upgrade it. Just like when you said Archer easily could match and pass Garza as a starter, you underestimate how easy it is to get quality pitching.
by SenorGato on Jul 9, 2011 7:12 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Pitching is at all time high. Literally no team in the league hits anymore.
Pitching is plenty easy to find.
Yeah it is true that this is sad.
There’s step one, I guess.
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 2:13 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
And this why so many teams overpay for relievers, especially lefties?
You and others act like relievers grow on trees and the key is just getting one who is on his “good” year. There is a reason lefty relievers ( and starters) last longer in baseball then anyone else, there is always a demand for them and good ones are hard to find.
You can easily “scrape” together a bullpen, just as you can easily “scape” together an OF, that does not mean you can scrape together a good one. Can you get lucky, sure, but good relievers are getting record money these days. The Yankees are in pickle because they signed two reliever for a LOT of money and both are injured.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 9, 2011 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions
I used to be of your perspective, but a couple of articles have changed my mind.
Bullpens can be pieced together and it’s exactly how they should be assembled.
Smart teams know where to find valuable relievers. The Rays got Soriano on the cheap and then let him walk when his contract exploded (and then got draft picks out of it). The Padres traded away nothing for Heath Bell because they realized he could be a successful pitcher in their stadium. At the time he was a no name.
Good teams get guys on the cheap and sell when they are at their peak value. That’s where Marshall is now. It’s been established that obviously it’s shrewd unless we get an actual prospect back and not some low level long shot. But I’m all for selling on him now. Marmol too. Closers and top of the line relievers are a luxury that the (second) worst team in baseball doesn’t need.
by mic on Jul 9, 2011 9:43 PM CDT up reply actions
It's questionable that Marshall is at peak value.
That usually comes with some recognition…like in the way that Bell is a star nowadays. Marshall doesn’t really have that.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 1:30 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Well, that's a discussion for talent evaluators.
Coming from a fan’s perspective, I think Marshall is at peak value. We know what we have in him. You can’t expect more than this. Most of the league knows he would be a decent closer. Bell is a star mostly because he’s pitching in PetCo. The Padres realized he was the type of pitcher that fits their park/team. But those traits were hidden when he was on the Mets. With Marshall, you don’t really have anything hidden. We know what type of pitcher he is. There is a very good chance that this is his peak. This is the peak for just about any back-end reliever minus like Mariano or somebody.
How were Bells traits hidden with the Mets?
They had and have a spacious park.
Marshall is not at peak value.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 9:09 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
How were Bells traits hidden with the Mets?
They had and have a spacious park.
Marshall is not at peak value. If anything he’s gotten better with age, and is moving up.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 9:10 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Show me how we're going to be a playoff contender in 2012?
It all starts with pitching, and we have no pitcher who would be categorized as an Ace, nor do we even boast a complete rotation.
We should be making deals now, if possible, to help build a quality rotation for tomorrow.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
How to contend in 2012:
Sign Prince Fielder or Albert Pujols.
Keep Aramis Ramirez.
Fight for CJ Wilson. The Yankees will be busy on CC, so we just might have a shot.
Sign Carlos Beltran for RF.
Hope Jackson comes up this year and shows some leadoff ability.
Lineup:
Jackson CF (Sorry Senor Byrd, I hope you get traded)
Castro SS
Beltran RF
Pujols/Fielder 1B
Ramirez 3B
Soriano LF
Soto C
LeMahieu/Barney 2B (Mostly LeMahieu, duh)
Rotation:
Wilson
Garza
Z
Wells
Cashner
We’re in a division where the Pirates of all teams are fighting, and a loaded Brewers team hasn’t stepped up. I see no reason at all to close to door on 2012 for some vague date in The Future.
What kind of contract is CJ Wilson going to be looking for?
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Apparently with the Yankees "distracted" by CC,
it will be one so low that we can sign him, Fielder, AND Beltran. I gave up that pipe dream long ago. First of all, I’m sure the Yankees are quite capable of multi-tasking. You better believe they’ll be making a full run at the best available SP. Then there’s nothing left on the market. I don’t see the Cubs acquiring a TOR guy this offseason unless they are trading for it. Also, I’m not in favor of Beltran. A bloated contract for an aging player is what got them into this mess. No more of that.
by mic on Jul 9, 2011 9:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Bloated contract for Beltran...
based on….what?
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 1:31 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Assuming JH is the GM going into next season...
his history of signing free agents. Beltran is going to get money from somebody. That somebody will regret it in about a year.
Crystal ball?
That someone will get a whole lot to like for as long as hes capable or signed for. That’s what top tier vets do.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 8:57 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
So you think players play as long and as well as their contracts state?
Is that really what you’re trying to say?
Yes.
Also that he’s not finished.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 10:31 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Then how do you answer for a player like Soriano?
You can’t say he’s worth the 19 million or so he makes or so? You can’t hardly say any player on the Cubs is as good as his contract—except maybe Pena(?) and the young guys who haven’t are still under their rookie contracts.
What does Soriano have to do with Beltran?
What does Soriano’s 19 million have to do with Beltran? What does…I don’t even know.
Those young guys on rookie contracts are what’s going to make all these potential FA signings possible.
Beltran has to do with Soriano because
Soriano is representative of all aging players who have injuries going into the end of the year. Guys like Jeter and Thome are exceptions to the rule. Jeter has played almost all of his career without injury and he still hit a dramatic decline going into his late 30s. Thome’s played most of his career as a DH so he really doesn’t compare to Beltran, who would have to be in right every day. Finally, aging pitchers cannot compare with aging position players. Beltran would probably be much better off back in the AL. He might have another shot next year to be productive, but after that he will not be worth the contract he signs.
Soriano now represents all aging players?
Excuse me while I call BS.
1 – Soriano is still hitting. Beltran hits better, all around, but Soriano still hits.
2 – Jeter and Thome are among a whole group of very high end ML talent that has lasted well into their 30’s and even their 40’s. Julio Franco…Chipper Jones…Jamie Moyer…Pettite…Clemens…Steve Finley….should I keep going? Mo Rivera…Craig Biggio…Jeff Kent…Omar Vizquel….Moises Alou…Kenny Lofton…Many of baseball’s best players have kept up productive careers are on this list…especially in modern times as training and medicine have gotten better.
3 – Beltran’s 2011:
.285/.377/.503 47 BB/58 K’s 28 2Bs/2 3Bs/13 HRs/58 RBIs/3 SB/0 CS
Yeah…so…I’m just going to close the book on this one.
You shouldn't cite Steve Finley as evidence of anything.
His career took an interesting turn when he hooked up again with his old buddy Ken Caminiti.
I think Beltran has a decent chance to be good for the next three years. I doubt he’ll be “great”. I also doubt he’ll be cheap. Someone is going to throw a Fukudome-type contract at him. If he’s cheap, I’d still sign him.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Why not?
What’s with the fear of spending here?
Spending is what you do after you've built up an organizational foundation.
The Cubs haven’t done that yet… haven’t even started and are currently wasting time and you want to them to start dropping $25m and $15m per on long term contracts on pieces that are extremely high-risk.
For more evidence see Fielder, Cecil. Soriano, Alfonso. Vaughn, Mo.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
No spending is what you do when
you have money and there’s talent out there that your money can get.
And believe it or not, many players do just fine after money. Mark T., Carlos Beltran, CC Sabathia…the point is to give money to talent that can last…like a Fielder/Pujols.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 5:00 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
And you have no precedent to lump Fielder in with Pujols...
or any of those guys, other than bad precedents, which I’ve pointed out to you.
And you tried to include Beltran in that? Do you have any clue whatsoever? That is an abysmal contract. How many winning seasons have the Mets had with that contract? How many bankruptcies have the Mets gone through? How many bad contracts have they signed on top of signing Beltran? You want to try having a clue before you advocate emulating a course of action?
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Umm
Isn’t the precedent Fielder’s 6 years of work through age 27?
And are you serious on the Beltran contract? I realize I should mind where I am, but that contract is almost universally considered one of the best 100 million dollar contracts in history.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-100-million-dollar-contract-over-time/
http://passion4baseball.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-carlos-beltrans-mets-contract-was.html
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/has-carlos-beltran-been-worth-it/
The last one even kind of gives you a half assed argument why the contract was has for the mets, but it has nothing to do with performance.
You should probably stop now I’m running circles around you.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 7:53 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Beltran was a great signing for the Mets, and would have been a great sign for the Cubs.
He got hurt and missed time. He also played at a consistently elite level during the course of the deal.
Beltran posted a 127 OPS+ during the course of his deal with the Mets, averaging 119 games per season. He posted a 150 OPS season in 2006, followed by a 120, 129, an half season due to injury where he posted a 144, then a 108, then this year’s 144 (so far).
How can that deal legitimately be criticized? Because the other players on the Mets spent the last 5 years being injured or not as incredibly awesome as Beltran?
I would be up for signing Beltran if he were cheap. After this year, he won’t be. Someone’s going to give him 3/40 or something, and I don’t think it should be the Cubs.
In contrast, Soriano’s greatest seasons have topped out in the high 120’s – which is where Beltran’s Mets average wound up. Soriano never posted a single season for the Cubs as good as Beltran’s average season.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
That's what then, 16 million per?
Add in 23-25 for Fielder, 10 for Beltran, Aram’s option picked up…even if those contracts are back loaded, you’re looking at a payroll increase of about 25 million or so. That’s pretty steep.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
It's just one route to go.
I’d look to sign Ramirez for 2 years 24- 28 million or something so it’s not 16 million.
AJ has 3 times, THREE TIMES, as many innings pitched
"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry
"Cubs win....what a lucky break!!" ---Harry
5/80 - the fantasy post sets up a payroll of at least $160M, probably more
And the dreamland rotation forgets Dempster’s player option for 2012.
Yea we've already discussed this.
I’d prioritize Fielder/Wilson…because they’re the ones who’ll be here for more than 2-3 years….and look to at least bring in one of Ramirez or Beltran…I don’t think 3 of 4 is impossible.
Dempster will come around when it comes around. If you want to count it already, feel free.
Also, don’t ignore that Ricketts is covering the mistakes of the Trib right now, and will look to make his mark with a bunch of Trib era contracts coming off the books. The Cubs are supposedly spending a ton on baseball operations this year, and he’s maintaining a 134 million dollar payroll with mostly players he himself wasn’t around for. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that payroll sees a bump, just as it’s not out of the realm of possibility that it goes down.
That team wouldn't even win the division.
and you just screwed the future of the team for even more years to come. Congrats
Why doesn't it compete in the worst division in baseball?
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 9, 2011 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Meh, it probably does
still, that hurts the long term outlook of the club even more. I mean come on. Carlos Beltran. Really?
We’re finally starting to get out of these awful contracts and the guy wants us saddled with Carlos Beltran?
That would be an unmovable contract from the minute he sings the contract.
What are you talking about?
Seriously. Beltran has been a high level player his whole career, and after everyone said he was done hes on the AS team. We’d be signing one of the best veteran players in baseball.
by SenorGato on Jul 9, 2011 7:17 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
He's a 34 year old who's been on the DL for most of the last 2.5 seasons.
He’s going to hit a sharp decline. We don’t need a Soriano in right.
by mic on Jul 9, 2011 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions
In the words of South Park Michael
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 1:32 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
In the words of South Park Michael Jackson...
That’s ignorant.
He was supposed to be done this year…instead he’s an AS leading the league in doubles and hitting .288. This is a borderline HoF talent, still very capable of performing, and still very clearly hungry. He’s on pace for the 5th 6 WAR season of his career, while giving his usual positive defense and baserunning value.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 1:38 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
So.....
because he delayed “being done” another year, we should sign him to a 3 year contract and hope he has (even though age, odds, and multiple other factors says he won’t have) another season like this?
No I'm saying he's not done.
Thanks for letting me make that clear, since I didn’t seem to be pulling it off the first dozen times.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 9:11 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
He'll be 35 at the beginning of next season.
You CANNOT CANNOT CANNOT say he will put these numbers up again. He’s only going to go down from here.
I can say that he'll he a good player.
I say that with confidence. I know it’s an impossible task, especially nowadays, but veterans like him are usually the guys who pull it off.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 10:41 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I want to be with you on this. I want to have confidence in him. Especially with a guy like Beltran.
But who—out of the steroid era—has hit into their late 30s? It’s not impossible, but I certainly wouldn’t put my money on a guy who’s been saddled with injuries for the better half of the past 2 years.
Jim Thome...
Derek Jeter…I’m lazy…some pitcher include Mo, Rhodes, and Oliver….
Not to mention that his injuries were supposed to end him already…instead he’s an All Star…an All Star leading the league in doubles. An AS leading league in doubles hitting in the high .280’s with OBP and power. Oh, and positive defense and baserunning.
So yeah…I don’t see an empty tank and don’t see it being empty for at least a couple seasons.
And this brings us to a bigger point which is this:
If it’s the worst division in baseball, why wouldn’t the Cubs be able to do full rebuild? If it’s so easy to contend in, why wouldn’t you want to set up a team that could annually get into the playoffs?
The Cubs have the money and the resources to wait through a rebuild. When the Cubs are on the precipice of contention, then yeah, sign the big contracts, sign veterans to huge deals in order to “go for it.”
It’s extremely dumb to build a roster with no upside whose ceiling is 88 wins, which is exactly what SenorGato’s proposed 2012 team would mean.
We just witnessed what that team looks like. This would be 2006 all over again. Yeah, we win in 2007 and 2008, but the window of contention slams shut in a nanosecond.
I want a Cubs team that can contend for a decade. Where we don’t need to sign every big name free agent. Where we have prospects to plug in when injuries occur.
That team would have a maxed out payroll and still have major flaws.
I know the Cubs are never going to go through a whole rebuild. That will never happen because the fans won’t allow it.
by Bad Midget on Jul 9, 2011 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Isn't a "full rebuild" what you're looking for?
Aren’t you a fan?
There’s no plan in what you say, simply mindless wandering hoping thatsome day you’ll wander right into a team that will compete for a decade.
Btw your analysis of my 2012 team is laughable at best.
by SenorGato on Jul 9, 2011 7:26 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Nor should there be
Small-market teams do full rebuilds because that’s usually the only option they have.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 9, 2011 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions
If you're as screwed as the Cubs are, a full rebuild would make sense
the organization is screwed from the top on down.
No, it doesn't
because they’re not as screwed as you think.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Because the teams in the "worst division in baseball"...
still would kick SG’s team’s butt (except the Astros). So all he did was make the butt kicking more expensive and push back the window for actually being a World Series contender another 2 years.
Brewers, Reds, Cardinals and Pirates aren’t beating the Cubs this year because they got lucky. They have talent, and they’ll still have talent next year, even more in the case of the Cardinals and the Reds. The Cubs need to load up on talent instead of returning to the franchise-crippling, free agent crapshoot that got them to this spot in the first place.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions
I honestly don't see what's wrong with SG's team
Fielder, Ramirez, and Wilson are all good signs depending on the contracts. I’d probably only want Ramirez on a one year contract. Beltran definitely depends on the deal. The first three probably take too much money anyway.
Well, then try harder.
I didn’t even notice that he left out Dempster who will be owed $14m next year… that eats up all of his CJ Wilson money right there, and thank god for that. The Cubs are better off with Dempster for one year vs Wilson at more money over 4+ years and a prayer. Everything would have to go right for that team to even get into the 85-win range… fat chance of that… and the Cubs don’t even have the money to put all of those pieces in place by next year, much less 2013. The Cubs will not win until they start to put together some cost-controlled young talent and then go try to play free agent bingo under a much smarter front office.
His plan would clog the present and cripple the future. It’s not much of a plan at all. It’s committing money the Cubs have proven over the last two years they won’t spend… and for once, I’m happy they didn’t. It’s a mistake to start spending that kind of money next year.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 7:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Clog the present and cripple the future....
Mucho lawlz.
Beltran and Ramirez on 2-3 year deals would be almost as awesome as locking up Fielder/Pujols for 5-7 with Wilson. This franchise would have a 2012 present and a very strong future.
Keep holding out hope for your “One day” plan.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 1:41 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Better than a plan that has to reach 100% potential to be a break even club
How many times do you need to be told you’re not getting Wilson? You keep forgetting about Dempster. His $14m is not going away and thank god… it will keep an idiot from wanting to give Wilson $15m per on a long-term deal. Those deals don’t work out. Since the Cubs aren’t looking to have a $150m+ payroll, hopefully Ricketts hires some guys who will hire some guys who are a lot smarter than that.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions
No, it's not a better plan.
It’s barely a coherent one. It’s certainly not a sensible one. Look at how you people take losing right now, you HOPE for YEARS of it for a one day? Please.
And seeing how most here evaluate talent…Garza for one and then the hilarious Beltran comments amongst many other players (LaHair is another that comes to mind from just this week)…Yeah I’ll trust that hopeful 2012 roster of mine to outperform your flimsy expectations. Break even club my balls…that’s a good f’n baseball team.
Keep telling yourself that when the dollars are enormous and the losses keep racking up.
Oh, yeah… make sure to keep your stock excuses on hand too. You’ll need them. Maybe DeWitt can keep plugging in there and save your sorry excuse for a team.
Your team is both unattainable and wouldn’t win anyway. I don’t want this team to be a loser for another decade of my life… and my grandfather’s life. Your plan dooms us to more Sorianos and Milton Bradleys.
A “One Day Plan” (whatever the hell that is. You really shouldn’t put words in my mouth, you’re nowhere near capable) is a lot better than a “Never Gonna Happen Plan”… and thank god for that.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Keep telling yourself that when the dollars are enormous and the losses keep racking up.
Oh, yeah… make sure to keep your stock excuses on hand too. You’ll need them. Maybe DeWitt can keep plugging in there and save your sorry excuse for a team.
Your team is both unattainable and wouldn’t win anyway. I don’t want this team to be a loser for another decade of my life… and my grandfather’s life. Your plan dooms us to more Sorianos and Milton Bradleys.
A “One Day Plan” (whatever the hell that is. You really shouldn’t put words in my mouth, you’re nowhere near capable) is a lot better than a “Never Gonna Happen Plan”… and thank god for that.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah...no.
Kaye that team is unattainable…as usual you have conceded defeat because hey that’s easy…but lol at the idea that that team wouldn’t compete.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 3:29 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm only living in reality.
You propose nothing in the realm of which is possible. You even base your fantasies on flawed information (such as not having to pay Ryan Dempster for next season). The reality I can propose which could fix things isn’t worth it, because the Cubs will never go down that route. It would have to start right now.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions
That offseason is entirely possible...
3 of the 4 can be easy.
Btw: Dempster could not take his option. It’s a player option and he’ll probably use it, but he hasnt so it’s still open. Me consciously skipping that isn’t operating on false info, it’s me not counting money spent when it isn’t garaunteed yet to be spent. I counted all the guys with garaunteed money…Z, Soriano, Marmol, Byrd, Penas 5, and I forget after that.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 8:02 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Dempster isn't going to voluntarily leave Chicago.
Especially not with that option on the table. There are off-field reasons why he’s likely to stay.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
Yes I realize that.
If you want to count him go right ahead, I hav not done or said a thing to stop that.
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 3:38 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
He has a $14MM option.
It’s a pretty safe assumption that he’s going to exercise it when the time comes.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
They also won't go your route because its
weak. Lose til profit is a bad idea. Were not the Pirates or some other team with no money to spend.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 8:04 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I don't think t's horrible either
depending on the period of the contracts for Ramirez and Beltran.
My only issue with the roster is that it isn’t possible financially. We’re freeing up $50 million this offseason including Ramirez. If we bring Ramirez back, we’re only losing $34 million. There’s no way that we sign Fielder, Beltran and CJ Wilson for $34 million. Fielder alone will be $20-$25. Wilson will probably be $10+ and Beltran will be $10+.
That's my worry.
Otherwise that team I’m imagining is loaded…strong vets…young studs…young useful players…versatility…defense…OBP…power..better pitching…It would make noise.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 1:43 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
The issue that I have with this
is that I don’t see it as financially feasible. Let’s say we have $50 million to spend
Fielder $25 million
Aramis $15 million
We already don’t have enough money to sign Wilson, let alone Beltran. I can’t see this happening.
Wells and Cashner in the back... again... oy...
How’s that working out right now? And Dempster, if he’s still a Cub at season’s end, has a player option for $14mil. He’ll take that (another awesome contract written by the Cubs).
Not big on Wilson… when the market is week and bidding will occur for a non-Ace.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
Yeah dude
That’s just wrong. Beltran? Really? Bad news right there man, just imagine the chaos the team would cause if Soriano, Beltran, and Ramirez all had down years? Three over the hill/over priced veterans having bad years…ouch. Not a huge fan of giving big $$$ to CJ Wilson either.
So what is the budget to sign
Ramirez, Fielder, Wilson and Beltran. I guess in the world of unlimited money the Cubs can compete in 2012.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
by rlpete on Jul 9, 2011 8:16 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Lol
That’s what I love about him. The guy bitches about people in “fantasy world” yet does the same exact thing. It’s quite hilarious.
Chris Archer can easily be as good or better than Matt Garza.
It’s easy to build a bullpen.
The Cubs with 50 million or so off the books sign 4 FAs, one of whom is already on the team.
I think my fantasy land is a little closer to home, and I’m more than willing to admit it’s only one route that isn’t a lock to happen.
Chris Archer can easily be as good or better than Matt Garza.
Yeah, a top prospect who’s been said by many prospect gurus to have #1 upside can never be as good as Matt Garza and his High 3 low 4 ERA’s. Yeah, I’m just soooooo crazy.
It’s easy to build a bullpen.
No, sir. I did not say that. I said you “can easily scrape together a bullpen.” Scraping a bullpen together is different from building.
I think my fantasy land is a little closer to home
Yeah spending money the Cubs don’t have. This is not fantasy baseball, SG. Try again.
You are crazy.
You just made up another thing and I didn’t even finish your post…no one has ever said Archer has #1 upside.
oh and FYI: The Cubs have money. I happened to glance at the last line.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 1:46 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Oh and this is Garzas first time in the 4s
since his debut 5 years ago, when he was a top pitching prospect in baseball and one of the best prospects period.
Clearly, you’re full of something. It could be a word.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 1:51 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
no one has ever said Archer has #1 upside.
5) Chris Archer, RHP, Grade B+: Acquired in Garza trade; would be the top pitching prospect in many systems.
BA:
He projects as a frontline starter if he refines his command
BOOM.
Couple things:
1 – I’ll have to ask Mr. Sickels for a follow up analysis, since that was written in the offseason. I’m sure he’d have more to say on a 23 year still walking 5 per 9 in AA. Notice he doesn’t say #1 starter anyway, he says top pitching prospect in many systems. Look around farm systems last year and it wasn’t a strong year for prospects.
2 – Notice how BA says he has to improve his command. Check his stats and notice that he hasn’t in any significant way, if at all.
But yeah…continue to delude yourself into how right you are.
Wait, where the hell did the goalposts go?
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
The same place where
“top pitching prospect in a system” automatically means future #1. Or where 5 BBs per 9 is the sign of a future #1.
Btw in BAs prospect handbook IIRC Archer is said to be a possible #2…which is front line….otherwise there’d be like 6 frontline pitchers in baseball.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 5:06 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
You keep on acting like
I’m insisting Chris Archer is the messiah. That’s now what I’m trying to say.
Chris Archer has the potential to be star. Is it likely? Probably not. But those are the types of players the Cubs should hold onto and try to build around.
We keep forgetting Hak-Ju Lee who has turned himself into one of the best prospects in all of baseball. He could easily take over for Castro at short.
No I'm not acting like you said Archer is the Messiah.
I’m acting like you made the laughable statement that he can EASILY be better than Garza.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 5:03 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
He's walked less than he did last year, while not striking out less and consistently going deeper into games.
You continue to ignore basic facts which are easy to look up.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions
He's only walked less because it was OVER
5 last year, while this year it hovers around there.
Mind you this is AA at 23. At 23 Garza was
Splitting time in the Majors and AAA. He was also even more highly though of as a prospect. So…yeah keep trying to argue a stupid point…it’s not going to easily happen nor is it even likely.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 8:26 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I love arguments like this...
He’s still walking around 5BB/9 which is WAY to high, but let’s not discount the fact that this is the first year since 2007 in rookie ball he’s giving up more than 1 hit per inning pitched. He’s allowed 100 hits in 89.2 IP to go along with his 47 walks. That brings his WHIP to 1.65 this season.
Last year in AA his Whips was 1.24 and last year in A+ his WHIP was 1.11.
I also absolutely love how you claim he’s walking less than last year, which he is… 4.74 vs 5.01 (a difference of 0.27), while claiming he ISNT striking out less, which he is, his numbers are 8.33 vs 8.61 in AA in 2010 (a difference of 0.28). Only in an argument on this site can lowering something 0.27 be notable and lowering something 0.28 wouldn’t be.
Archer is a very good pitcher… he’s not having a good year statistically compared to past performances.
nope, wrong
on the 2% chance we sign Prince we will become a 73 win team instead of a 69 win team and everything will be great // SenorGato’d
No
No you sign a 27 year old star knowing the first 2 years of his contract may not be great seasons overall but he can be part of a building team.
Nothing happens unless it's first a dream
by puckishcubsfan on Jul 9, 2011 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Congratulations...
you just justified wasting $50m without having any idea whether the system or the payroll can support the upgrades to make that worthwhile. I’m a Fielder supporter, but only the most naive person can say assuredly they know his body can hold up for 3 more years, much less 5 or 6.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions
What?
You’re being seriously? You’re pushing the belief that it’s naive to think that Fielder can last til he’s 30, let alone 32 or 33? Has he given any kind of hint that a decline is so imminent? Nope.
Give some examples of players that have his body type that have succeeded that long...
Try and tell me that’s worth taking that risk on the kind of contract you’re proposing… especially when your team doesn’t even have the DH to fall back on.
You lose on both sides of this argument. You can’t make a reasonable prediction that has him staying productive through that time frame with his body type. And even if he does, he’s still hasn’t been worth $25m per year up to this point. That’s the high end of his value because he can’t play defense worth a lick. (It’s a harrowing thought to think of Castro when you replace Pena with Fielder.) Making plans based on the high ends of overpaid free agents is what got this team to this place. They didn’t have the organization in place to make these kind of signings worthwhile. They didn’t have it then, and they don’t have it now. Your constant fantasy world wishing it doesn’t make it so.
Again… see Vaughn, Mo. There’s a deal that crippled two franchises.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions
I really don't think you have a clue about what you're talking about.
I have no coutner to what you’re saying, but mostly because what you’re saying is pretty bs-y to say the least.
Just to play your game though...
Since you lean so hard on body type…Why so completely ignore that in 6 seasons he’s missed a total of 13 games? Or that he’s never once been on the DL? Or that really, he’s never had a significant injury of any kind? And who the fuck is buying Prince Fielder, one of two players to hit 50 HRs in the past 5 years, to play defense? What about his lack of old player skills at the plate, where he’s a low K, high BB, high contact, high average, big power hitter?
Just…smh.
It was a simple question...
even for you. Who has succeeded into their 30s on that kind of body type? Show me who has had to carry his kind of weight on that kind of frame through his entire 20s. Somebody even close to that… give me some players that ended up worth $25m.
At least you just admitted you don’t understand that defense matters. Congratulations. The first step is admitting you have a problem. He was worth only $14m last year because defense matters. You might also want to look up what he was worth 2 years before that.
Shake your head all you want… spin it right off if that’s what it takes to get the point across.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Seriously....
you have no clue what you’re talking about. You can rant all you want about body type, but the fact is you have no facts on nutritional or physical health. Again, if he’s so destined to fail why hasn’t he been injured? Why on 6 years has he never been on the DL and only missed 13 games? Why do his stats not match this old player you seem to think he is?
This is a case of a fan of a losing team living in fear because theres risk involved. Enjoy that and I can only hope the FO doesn’t think in such wimpy terms.
Also, two years ago he was a 6 win player at 25…he’s a better all around player now having a very strong season…
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 3:36 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
The simple answer - Compare him to his Dad
Like this writer did.
And yes with his body type, a slow-down at age 30 is a definite risk. I would also be concerned about the toll playing more outdoor (non-dome) games would have on Fielder.
But the question about signing/not-signing Fielder can not be limited to “Will the Cubs be contenders in 2012?” You also need to ask “Do the Cubs have the available resources and will Fielder sell tickets?”
I think the answer is yes and yes. The Cubs need a new ticket draw whether they are rebuilding or reloading.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jul 10, 2011 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions
You do realize that
he’s so unlike his dad to the point where they barely talk right?
Comparing him to his dad…based completely around the fact that theyre big dudes and father and son…is lazy. His dad was worse defensively, in much worse shape, struck out more, walked less, and to top it off was done by 34…not 30. Throw on top Papa Fielders gambling problem are you guys juuuuuuuust might start to notice that these are two completely different human beings.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 3:49 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm not here to evaluate the family relationship
But when I read this:
"No player in Baseball-Reference.com’s database dating to 1901 carried so many pounds on such a squat body. Thus, finding a comparable player for aging purposes becomes a particularly trying task."
I understand why the lazy comparison to his father is made. If, at some point, his weight (which he is genetically predisposed to) will significantly affect his playing time and ability, that can’t be ignored.
His father also had the benefit of always playing in the AL and DH-ing during his prime years.
I pointed out additional benefits and risks to signing Fielder as well. Given the left-handed power benefit of Wrigley Field, I can the reasons to sign Fielder. But I’m not ignoring the risks either.
"On offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs" - Earl Weaver
by RiskyBusiness on Jul 10, 2011 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions
There is risk with literally anything that exists.
Fielder cuts his risk by keeping himself in better shape than his dad, by separating himself from his dads bs, by walking more, by King less…these things weigh in just as much, if not waaaaay more, than his body type. You’re allowed to not be sculpted from marble when you have as much talent as that guy, and besides what I’m going to pretend to believe about his body type there’s nothing that makes me think he won’t hold up.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 5:11 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm not sure on either...
and I’m damn sure he can’t sell tickets when the Cubs have to sell low on him because he can only be productive as a DH in 3 years. If the team doesn’t build up their organization, it will plain be a waste of $150m… if he comes that cheap.
I want Fielder on my team… but not at any cost. Teams that succeed when they add a Fielder-type contract already had a plan for success. The Cubs lack that plan. They could start putting that plan together now, but they’re not going to. Every day they don’t put themselves on that plan puts them farther away from Fielder having the impact he can have on this team and closer to him being a Alfonso Soriano-type signing.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions
How do you know the Cubs lack that
plan? It’s not on paper in front of you or translating into wins right now in real life?
And still with the 3 years thing…This is going nowhere. Ugh. Why would you sign him AT ALL if he’s only good for 3 years?
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 6:52 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
WHY does the first two years have to suck?
Seriously. I don’t get this line of thinking at all.
That's right... you don't.
You have a serious lack of understanding how far this team is from competing.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Ah.
And I assume you do? I will further assume that your answer is “a long ways away, and we should wait?”
Sounds kind of girly to me, and I know my assumptions aren’t far off. You keep wishing for that One Day plan to happen. You do seem to have the enjoying losing part down…
You enjoy perpetuating the losing.
Enjoy it all you want and making it even more expensive. I won’t be joining you in your abyss. I’m tired of having it forced down my throat. When ignorant people support these decisions, it makes me realize how far they are from optimal.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm perpetuating losing?
Was that really just said by one of the many here who’ve already quit on next season on top of this season?
Oh man…gold.
I haven't quit on next season...
the Cubs did, when the did things like call up LeMahieu and barely play him… same with Welington Castillo. …then the screwed with Tyler Colvin. They have not made even one single move progressing towards knowing what they might have for next year or even 2013! That’s not my call. That’s just the reality of this organization. Start acting like you understand that, then you can propose reasonable ways to get this team a World Series winner before you die.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions
You have to be a complete idiot
to believe a word you just said.
How’d they screw with Tyler Colvin Mr. Stone? Was there a second, Magic Baseball Bat, that stabbed him in the chest that the Cubs planned all along? Were they messing him up when he got almost 400 PA last year as a rookie on his way to hitting 20 HRs?
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 6:57 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Crockett's opinions are pretty ridiculous, for the most part
Don’t let him drive you crazy.
I think it’s hilarious that people who don’t like losing are advocating up to five more years of exactly that.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 10, 2011 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions
The part that makes it sad is that
they either have no idea they’re advocating that or they just really have trouble being honest about it.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 9:15 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Once again, a baseless insinuation coming from the keyboard of NBF
Nobody has ever said that. Not one person, not once, never.
De facto, that's exactly
what they are advocating. Nothing baseless about it.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 10, 2011 11:14 PM CDT up reply actions
We are not advocating that at all
We are advocating exploring trades for our only valuable trade pieces in order to help this team contend sooner rather than later.
We’re not advocating giving up five or six years for no reason.
You keep on perpetuating this baseless claim that we want an all prospect team (which would actually be somewhat more entertaining imo), we don’t, we want a team that can annually contend.
But no, keep on intentionally misinterpreting the crap out of my posts to make cheap little insinuations.
So get rid of good, proven, young players
to get players who might or might not work out. Yeah, that’s real smart.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, don't change anything about the team
that’s about to win 66 games. Don’t try to build for the future and be better for a longer period of time.
Don’t have a plan other than “uhhhhh, I don’t know, why don’t we sign Prince and Wilson,” that sounds like a good idea.
how about
try to get rid of as many pieces that are not a part of the future as you can and build around the good ones like Marshall and Soto…
Thank you very much
If you can get something for Fukudome, Pena, Ramirez, Byrd, Dempster … even Soriano … then do it.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions
In this future you speak of so proudly....
Will I be able to get to wrigley via flying car? Maybe tube teleportation?
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 3:41 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I think it’s hilarious that people who don’t like losing are advocating up to five more years of exactly that.
Nobody has ever said that you dope. Good god, you guys are relentless in your utter stupidity.
Not one person has ever said that. Not in this thread, not in some other post, and never once on this site.
Say it in those exact words? Maybe not,
but what you propose is likely to do exactly that.
And don’t call me a dope again, or else I’ll unleash the wrath of NBF all over you.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
LOL
I actually like you, and think you’re knowledgable, but I think you misinterpret my posts sometimes in order to make a point.
If I do, I don't do it intentionally
The education system in Peoria isn’t up to national standard … :)
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions
A good GM...
…can make the club competitive quite quickly, if he has the resources and is allowed to do his job.
What may take 4-5 years, is instilling a long term plan that goes deeper and involves; scouting and player development philosophy and changing the culture of the baseball organization from top to bottom.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
2012 contention
is going to be tough, but doable, 2013 is more likely
Right now it seems that the Cubs are trying to contend each year without having to sacrifice too much of the future – they are throwing tons of cash at the minors while keeping contracts reasonable on the big league team while they wait for the minors to start producing. The biggest thing that many people on this site need to realize is that 2011 is payment for the win-now philosiphy of 2007-2009.
If you wade through the bullcrap you can see a plan being put in place
Being competitive quickly...
…will come down to one key point; picking the right roster!!!
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Seriously??
I understand this year sucks, but to claim they’re blowing 2012 because they had DJ LaMehieu and Castillo on the bench for 15 games is laughable.
What moves are you supposed to make when you’re handcuffed at pretty much every position until October??
How does the presence of Darwin Barney
handcuff you from playing DJ Lemahieu at second for a month or two?
How were they handcuffed at catcher when Castillo was replacing Soto on the roster?
The statement I agreed with was that the Cubs haven’t done anything yet this year to figure out who will be ready to add to the club in 2012. Maybe the second half of the season is plenty of time to do that, fine. But it’s just a matter of fact they haven’t done so yet.
Angel Guzman is the man.
This is absolutely depressing to read
If you think the Cubs are going to contend next year, then by all means keep Marshall. If you don’t think the Cubs are going to contend next year, then you are building for years down the road. That means you “sell high” on anyone who is not going to be a part of your future contender. It’s taking a step backwards to hopefully take several steps forward. It’s doing to opposite of what the Mets do, which is adding patch pieces to a core that isn’t enough to make you a contender and staying perpetually mediocre, constantly chasing your tail.
Of course Hendry has no incentive to do the right thing for the long term success of the team. His motivation is making the team as good as it can be in the short term to save his job. Unfortunately that will come at the expense of long term success.
by kipwells2000 on Jul 9, 2011 2:59 PM CDT reply actions 3 recs
As I've said elsewhere
There should be nothing offered that we don’t consider. Nothing. Anyone ever hear this before? “If you continue to do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten”. In a few short years, we’ve gone from a 97 Wins team…to a team that may lose 97. It.Aint.Working.People.
"So sad, This Cubbie Thing" Courtesy of E-Man, 6/25/2011
Are you kidding me?
He’s a reliever, a good one, yeah, but still a reliever. There’s no reason trading him would be giving up on next year. “Oh Noooooo we lost a reliever, we’re screwed for the next 5 years”
I just saw this user name...
Kipwells2000 might be the single best user name on this site. F’n Kip Wells man….That guy had some good stuff…couldn’t come close to putting it together.
I had a Kip Wells bobble head in my freezer for two years
I only let him out when he left the Cardinals.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 10, 2011 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Jim Bowden once said he wouldn't trade Pokey Reese, not even for Junior Griffey
Never say never.
It's a simple question, Doctor: would you eat the moon if it were made of ribs??
by Invalid User on Jul 11, 2011 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions
I can't disagree...
…and will also add, I wouldn’t believe anything Hendry says about what he will or won’t do at the trade deadline.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Plus this might be a signal that he WOULD listen to offers for Marmol
Otherwise, why wouldn’t he say “neither Marshall nor Marmol are available?”
It's a simple question, Doctor: would you eat the moon if it were made of ribs??
by Invalid User on Jul 11, 2011 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree
I think this is Hendry’s way of telling other teams that you need to blow my socks off if you want Marshall – otherwise he is ours
Sean Marshall is much like Geo Soto
They are currently affordable, with a strong track record of success, and a few years before they hit free agency, PLUS the Cubs have halfway decent prospects who could take their place over the next year or two.
If a team thinks they can get one of them for a middling prospect or two, don’t trade them. If anyone comes through with a top 50 prospect for Soto or a top 100 prospect for Marshall, then Hendry should go for it.
Angel Guzman is the man.
Sure.
But no one’s likely to offer a prospect like that for those players.
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
I disagree with that completely
Geovany Soto is one of the best offensive catchers in the game. Even though he struggled in the first half, he’s having a pretty good year for a catcher.
He’s one of the more valuable trade pieces in all of baseball. I’m not saying just trade Soto for the sake of trading him. I’m saying getting talented prospects for Soto would be a better choice for the organization’s long-term health.
And you replace Soto with who, exactly?
Join us for complete MLB coverage at SB Nation's Baseball Nation
Probably Beef
But that’s besides the point. The Cubs are going nowhere. Does it really matter if we win 70 games instead of 73?
It doesn’t. Replacing Soto is irrelevant.
OK so next year the Cubs have
Castro, Barney, Cashner, Russell, Carpenter & Soriano
I am pretty sure those are the only guys who we have signed or controlled for more than two years. Every other position should be filled either from the minors or whatever we can pick up from trading Garza, Z , Demp, Byrd, Marmol,Marshall and if we can Pena , A Ram, Baker, RJ, DeWitt. Bottom line get rid of any and all players who are committed for less than 3 years because Cubs won’t compete in 12 or 13 ( OK could be wrong 13 but I gathered you thought it would take a few years)
We won’t sign and FA’s because we are looking for a few years down the road and the good ones ( Wilson, Prince etc) are not signing with a team that just dumped all it players save the kids and Sori.
Our roster
1B LaHair
2B Barney/DJ
SS Castro
3B Vitters
OF Soriano , Jackson Campana?
SP Cashner, Jackson, Wells, Coleman,not sure after that
RP Russell, Carpenter, Parker ?
Bench Ridling, and others.
Should be interesting. Remember we want no players who we can’t have till at least 2014 since the next two years are just a “rebuilding” period.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 9, 2011 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Beef catching of course
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 9, 2011 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions
Flaherty at 3rd...
but you’re close… don’t forget the team would also be getting talent from trading the above players. If they get full salary relief for some of them instead of talent, then the plan gets a lot different and the Cubs can add some high-upside free agent signings instead of having to overpay for the cream of free agency. You always have to overpay for the premium of those guys, which is why you don’t talk about them unless you have a plan to surround them with competitive talent. The Cubs farm system and payroll isn’t there in 2012. By 2013, it might be, especially if Cashner, Castro, Jackson and Szczur (+Colvin, Flaherty, DJ, Welington/Clevenger) reach their potential… but they have to play to make that even a possibility. When they have a better idea of which of those guys will make solid impacts, then they can address their other needs through trades and free agency. They should have spent this year doing that, but they haven’t so far and time’s a wastin’.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Whooosh
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions
It'd be ten wins in the name of the future.
One day!
by SenorGato on Jul 9, 2011 7:40 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Not a joke exactly
Just the team that one would have if those who feel the Cubs have no chance of competing for the next two years would look like. No point in keeping anyone who won’t be contributing in 2014 so trade them all and collect prospects and play the kids, thus that is the team you end up with.
By 2014 of course Wrigley would be ghost town and the payroll would be 30 million but hey they have to blow it all up and rebuild.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 9, 2011 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Beef/Clevenger
…if one of them still hasn’t panned out by 2013, then you go outside the organization for a catcher. The Cubs should be doing all they can to get surplus value out of Soto while they can.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 9, 2011 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions
#42 – Geovany Soto
like Montero, Soto is a young, offensive backstop with the ability to stay behind the plate. He’s rebounded from last year’s disappointing sophomore campaign, offering his usual blend of patience and power while inexplicably hitting eighth for the Cubs. Given his ability to drive the ball, he could hit in the middle of the order for most teams, and when you have a 27-year-old cacher who can provide that kind of punch, you have a highly valuable piece. The Cubs will control his rights for three more years, and it shouldn’t take them that long to figure out that he’s better than Koyie Hill
That was just over a year ago. Teams would be very interested in Soto.
A year later, he's not #42 overall.
And the org still hasn’t conclusively settled this Geo v. Koyie thing. :)
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Jul 9, 2011 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions
So certain of this...
What do the other GMs say when they call you?
Um who are the half way decent prospects who would be taking their place
Russell for left handed set up and Beef for starting catcher?
And what is exactly are you getting in return.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 9, 2011 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Prospects
Russell, Beliveau, and possibly Gaub as the lefty relievers.
Clevenger and Castillo at catcher.
I don’t know what exactly you’re getting in return. I proposed a top 50 prospect for Geo and a top 100 prospect for Marshall. Probably a preference for starting pitching, but you see what’s offered.
Angel Guzman is the man.
It is not worth giving up Geo for a top 50 prospect
Clevinger or Castillo is a HUGE step down from Geo, ditto Marshall and those guys. Would you want to trade Geo straight up for Bret Jackson ( currently #32 prospect) or Szczur (#48)
if they were not already Cubs? I would not.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 10, 2011 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions
We'd get more than just one top 50 prospect
Maybe it’s not a prospect. Maybe it’s a young starter already in the majors, or a top 50 and a top 100 prospect. It’d have to be a good deal, and I’d trust Hendry to do that. (Trust Hendry!?! GASP)
Heathen.
Hendry is a destroyer of franchises and can’t evaluate talent to save his life.
You're Crane Kenney. Wait, you're too dumb to be Crane.
who could you be that’s related to the Cubs yet sooooooooo braindead. Hmmmmmmm. Let me think. Oh, I know. You’re Todd Ricketts, that’s who you are!!!!
Hi Todd!!!! Tell Tom that he’s doing a fantastic job!!!!!!
Dude I could EASILY be Tom Ricketts.
It’s easy.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 7:01 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I respectfully disagree
The young catcher platoon would produce offensively at 90% of Geo’s production, and since there are two of them, if one gets hurt there’s less abysmal offense during the interim. (By 90% I mean that if Geo has an OPS+ of 120, their OPS+ would be 108). They would not be as good defensively in the first year, but could be his equal after a year or two of learning the league. And they’re cheap.
There is a dropoff from Marshall to the others, but I don’t believe you need a lefty “setup man” just a lefty or two as LOOGYs. Russell is a good one already. I’d like a better RH setup man than Wood or Samardzija in the pen.
Yes, I would trade Geo for a Bret Jackson. Geo has three expensive years of control and a history of injuries. Jackson is a near sure thing to be a major-league starter (not platoon player) at another key defensive position, and will be affordable for the next several years. I would prefer a player like Mike Minor of the Braves or another young starter in that class.
These wouldn’t be moves in isolation. Selling high on Soto and/or Marshall would get you more young talent and free up dollars to sign free agents or trade for veteran players. For instance, you might get a #4 starting pitcher, a key reliever, and save enough money to sign a starting outfielder.
Angel Guzman is the man.
I think you're massively underrating Geo's offensive capabilities
Or drastically overrating our farm catchers ability. If they could step in and offer an OPS+ of 110 or so, they wouldn’t be in the minors… they’d be playing for us or teams would be all over the phones to get them.
So which is it? Overrating or underrating?
Geo’s offensive production is an OPS+ of 118, 80, 133, and 96. His career OPS+ is 110.
Castillo and Clevenger aren’t playing for us because we have Soto right now. Castillo is only 24, still young for a catcher who has had to work on his defense. Clevenger is 25, but has only been catching since he joined the Cubs organization. They have needed this much time in the minors. Also, Clevenger’s power just emerged this year. He has always hit for average.
90% of Soto’s career production would be just under league average. Yes, I believe that platoon could achieve that. Castillo’s career minor league OPS is .746, this year at Iowa it’s .902. Clevenger’s career minor league OPS is .786. This year at AA and AAA it’s .868. Moreover, Castillo vs. lefties is at 1.094 and Clevenger vs. righties is at .867 (Tenn only available on milb.com). The median catcher (qualified leader) is hitting at about a .730 OPS in the majors right now.
Angel Guzman is the man.
ONLY PLAYERS THAT SHOULD BE UNTRADEABLE
STARLIN CASTRO
GEOVANY SOTO
DARWIN BARNEY
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
STOP SAYING DARWIN BARNEY IS UNTRADEABLE
YOU DONT MAKE YOUR FUTURE UTILITY PLAYER UNTRADEABLE.
I'm glad somebody caught onto that.
Seriously, though, Castro and Soto should be the only two untradeables.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
I like how people think it's real easy to replace the most difficult position in the game.
Soto is a better-than-average player. He plays the hardest postion. He should not be tradeable.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
Soto is a better-than-average player. He plays the hardest postion.
And that’s why you could get a lot for him and why he should be tradable.
Look, Soto could easily break down next year ala Joe Mauer and he would lose a ton of value.
Soto will most likely not be apart of the next contending Cubs team. He’s one of the few valuable trade commodities we actually have.
That’s why you trade him.
I understand the marketability for guys like Soto.
But in my opinion a MLB-level catcher that hits for power is the hardest position in the game to replace. Poor defensive catchers or light-hitting catchers are much easier to find.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
Hey we can have both!
We’ll call it The Future!
I don't want to give him away either...
I appreciate Soto, even if most Cubs fans make it hard to do so. But with his inconsistency, if some team wanted to bowl the team over with a deal, I’d have to look at it. Castillo/Clevenger might not be anywhere near as good, but they might be able to be the next Soto, and a heck of a lot cheaper than Soto will be over the next two years.
To see how easy poor catchers are to find, one needs only look over Soto’s shoulder. I don’t want to think of what might or might not be available two years from now. I just want the Cubs to get the most value in the organization right now and start using it and evaluating it.
If Soto is a part of that, then that’s great. If they can get more potential from trading him, that’s great too.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm with you, if trading him is going to make this team better, I'm all for it.
My concern is this: often I equate the “Let’s Trade For Prospects!” chant as a lottery ticket—you’re not going to win most of the time. Soto is the 7th highest rated catcher according to fWAR since he’s been in the bigs. Even further, he’s just below that top tier threshold of Mauer & McCann; in other words, he’s one of the most valuable catchers in all of MLB. He’s got great ISO, gets on base, and creates lots of runs. He’s not a super defensive catcher (obviously catcher defensive metrics are lacking) but he makes up for it with his bat. Soto is under control for two more years, at which we could move on without him, given he will be over 30. If I had to make a decision right now, I’d vote for keeping him until he’s a FA and then moving on to one of the two catchers in the minors. Hill can be let go after this year.
Dan
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
it is amazing how
some people on here want to trade away 2 of our best home grown players of teh last 20 years and then complain that we dont have any home grown talent.
Next year we could legitimately have a roster of
Colvin, Jackson, Castro, Soto, Marshall, Marmol and Zambrano – all home grown and all potentially highly productive. Thats not bad at all considering how terrible our farm system has been for the better part of the last 20 years.
Marshall and Soto won't be on the team in two years
and the Cubs won’t contend next year. That’s why you trade them.
Why do people think they can just say we won't contend?
What if we sign Fielder and a high value starter? What if we fire Quade and hire someone else? Did you expect the Pirates to contend this year (here comes the “we don’t have the farm system the pirates do!” answer)?
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 11, 2011 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions
they're on pace for around 65-66 wins with no stars coming up next year
what’s the best Fielder makes this team? A 70 win team?
So I assume Garza is at the top of the trade list?
He will probably bring the best return.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 11, 2011 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions
I admire your consistency
but per my mock line up next year sans all players who are not committed for 2014, who in the world is going to buy tickets, how do the Cubs sell advertising etc. and how do they survive the next two plus years?
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 11, 2011 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions
It's easy to say things like BM is saying
if you’re a fantasy baseball GM.
Real-world applications are a little different.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Fantasy GMs
Do not concern themselves with things like revenue, fan good will, press etc. Honestly I like my Fantasy team, but it would not happen in the real world.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 11, 2011 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions
How in the world is this being a fantasy GM?
Selling high on a relief pitcher is being a fantasy GM?
Trying to get a core of young cost controlled players is something a fantasy GM does?
who cares?
Season ticket holders, no matter what you think, will still show up.
I’m sure the season ticket waiting list is filled with people who would happily enjoy tickets.
If the Cubs can average around 27,000 a game, that’s not bad.
Dropping from almost 40,000 to 27,000
is absolutely horrible. Don’t forget that also means massive losses in concession revenue, merchandise, etc.
And the corresponding revenue loss also might mean the Cubs can’t pay all those wonderful “core” players when it’s time for them to get paid, providing they work out as well as you think they will.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Dropping from almost 40,000 to 27,000
I highly doubt they’re getting 40,000 at the gate. Believe me, I’d say they draw about 33,000 -35,000 a night.
I’m saying it’s not as dire as Stalker likes to think it is.
It’s not like we’re going to draw Tampa Bay crowds
40,000 was pretty standard until the last year or so
It also could drop below 27,000; those games in April/May or September could be a very tough sell for a team that isn’t in contention, particularly this team.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions
maybe for the league
but not for the Cubs…right now they have about 25,000 season ticket holders and there are people on the list like me who were hoping that their number wouldnt get called for another 10 years so we could afford the tickets…if they burn through the list quickly I wont be signing up
I actually agree with this
what I’m trying to say is that it’s not as dire a situation as I think people might think it its.
I’m guessing (with no real information) about 10-20% of the people on the season tickets waiting list are actually interested in buying.
I know some people who just put their name on there so they can say they did.
You're probably right about that
Not everybody who is on the list actually will/can buy tickets.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Do you think he could bring anyone on BA's top 25?
He did last offseason….
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
The greatest SS prospect in the history of
SS prospects.
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 11:38 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
The greatest SS prospect in the history of
SS prospects. One of the only two (5?) real prospects in our system, except due to sheer incompetence…I can’t bare to speak of it! I fear we will never see a talented SS prospect again! With the position in such dire straits for this franchise too!! Oh wooooooe! Woooooooe!
Sorry I’m f’n…..weird or sumpin.
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 11:48 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
The greatest SS prospect in the history of
SS prospects. One of the only two (5?) real prospects in our system, except due to sheer incompetence…I can’t bare to speak of it! I fear we will never see a talented SS prospect again! With the position in such dire straits for this franchise too!! Oh wooooooe! Woooooooe!
Sorry I’m f’n…..weird or sumpin.
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 11:52 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
ok so what happens
if we trade Marmol? Seems likely that you would want Marshall as a closer then, or shift him to the rotation. Also, Soto is here through 2013 which many on this site have said is the opening of our next window – why wouldnt you want one of the best catchers in the game on that team?
If he keeps his DL stints to one 15 day a year he will be highly valuable, then you have the options that teams like the Red Sox, Rays, Braves set themselves up for – sign him long term, trade him or offer arb and collect the draft picks.
Trade him while his value his
very few catchers remain productive past 30. Very few.
Soto could easily break down, then you have to move him to first base where he loses all of his value.
Soto’s value comes as a catcher.
ok
I understand his value as a catcher – but then who replaces him? What happens if we get a black hole at the C position for 25 years like we had pre-2003 at 3b? Right now we have the opportunity to keep one of the best catchers in the game for cheap, if he self-destructs in the next two years then that happens…this isnt a video game where you have the game spitting out value to you.
What happens if you can clear out Soriano this winter and are able to compete next year? We should be able to contend every year with the NL Central and trading off guys in their prime because you are having an abysmal year wont let that happen.
I don't think you worry about replacing Soto
If a good deal presents itself, you shouldn’t worry about who your immediate replacement is is.
I’d imagine Beef could do a passable job if needed.
Then come the Future
We can overpay for another C!
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 3:55 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
then we will all be bitching
about how we dont have a good Catcher and how you need a good catcher to contend and how the Cubs system doesnt have anyone and that it sucks…
Keep him until he hits FA and then decide – unless you get blown away in a trade
IMO...
…closers are overrated and many have a tendancy to have strong runs, followed by the wheels coming off. I’m not saying Marmol’s wheels are coming off, but his out pitch (his slider) has been much more hittable this year.
I know it is sexy to have a closer who strikes out the as many as Marmol, but the important stat is how many times a closer finishes his job, not how many he strikes out.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Marmol's got to be up there in innings pitched for a reliever for the last three years
Lou overworked him a ton.
I want Marmol traded
as soon as possible, I do like a K machine as closer but I think Marshall should be able to excell finishing games
K machines...
…are good, as long as they also aren’t a walk and hbp machine. No matter what your stuff is like, when you allow a lot of baserunners, it is going to catch up with you.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
If they get a good offer for Marmol
Then Marshall closes, Wood/Shark get the 8th, and Russell/Carpenter get the 7th. That leaves space for a long man and a rookie who can pitch the 9th at home when losing.
It's a simple question, Doctor: would you eat the moon if it were made of ribs??
by Invalid User on Jul 11, 2011 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions
I think you're agreeing with me about keeping Soto, I can't really tell.
And you’re right, that’s a pretty darn good return of our own talent. I’d like to see that coming regularly. I was listening to some Royals radio the other day, and somebody mentioned that Dayton Moore’s goal is to have 2-3 home grown pitchers make their way to the bigs every year, and a handful of position players. I envisioned a turnscicle (?), and that got me excited for what the Cubs can do in the future.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
you cant easily find the hustle and grit darwin has!
Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land
by jesus christos on Jul 9, 2011 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions
NEFI PEREZ
never forget...
1.7%
anything is possible...
by wrigleyrocker12 on Jul 9, 2011 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I say Castro...
…is the only “untouchable” on the club, with Soto being a close second (because it is so hard to find decent catchers).
Anyone else, should be fair game, if it is the best thing for the club’s future.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
Note
Note Muskat is reporting Hendry is saying he won’t listen to offers there are reports he won’t. Hendry hasn’t actually said it.
Nothing happens unless it's first a dream
Can we please stop
Can we please stop the idea we shouldn’t sign Fielder because we might not be competitive next year?
He’s a star and a youngish one. He’d sign for 6-8 years. OBviously you plan to win in that time period. You don’t pass on a chance to sign a player like him if the deal is right because you won’t win in 2012.
Nothing happens unless it's first a dream
Who is saying do not sign P Fielder?? HUH??
"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry
"Cubs win....what a lucky break!!" ---Harry
There are people who are against signing Fielder here.
I’m not one of them, but there are some.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
No one's directly saying don't sign him.
Most are just showing a tremendous amount of fear because for some reason he only makes this 69 win team a 73 win team…or something along those lines…like he’s done in 3 years…or he’s too expensive and you know how the Cubs shouldn’t spend….or that he’s a trap of some kind and we’ll never contend because something.
Of course you would.
He’d make us a 73 win team.
You finally said something in the vicinity of correct.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions
No mostly it was just dumb. The vicinity of true
is a good way to describe it, but prefer to call those things “not true.” Less words.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 7:03 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I just think it's asinine to think
that will solve all of our problems.
You just busted the budget for one player who won’t make you a contender for that year. It’s a risky move to say the least.
Obviously
There would still be alot of problems with the team, but it’s much easier to fix with a star first basemen. You don’t pass up the opportunity to sign someone like that. You’ll have to build the rest of the team quickly though for best possible chance to compete for more years. The rotation is the biggest problem, IMO, and we may have to trade for another starter to get it closer to where we want it. Maybe try to acquire one of the many Braves youngsters. Sign Fielder, possibly resign Ramirez, resign Wood, trade for Braves young pitcher (preferably Beachy, but I’d take Minor or Delgado-Jurrjens, Teheran would take too much probably.) A rotation of Garza/Beachy/Z/Dempster/Cashner is an upgrade, maybe not a huge one, but still an upgrade. Hope that they stay healthy, and Soto and others step up. That team could compete in the NL Central.
What exactly do you think the Cubs have that the Braves want or need?
They won’t trade their young pitching for nothing, and they don’t need salary relief. They’ve got young position players. They’ve got young relievers. They’ve got young starters and know to have more than 5 good options if you plan on weathering a MLB season. Good luck thinking the Braves are going to give them away for whatever you dream the Cubs have to give them.
Fielder is worth 4 wins more than Carlos Pena, and that’s if Fielder outperforms his expectations and Pena underperforms his. Even if others step up, it’s nowhere near enough.
I, too, would love to watch Fielder in a Cubs uniform… under different circumstances. I want them making sound decisions, not making splashy, over-valued free agent signings just to appease a disgruntled fan base, without having a plan that gets this team to winning a World Series. Obviously, Fielder can be a big piece of that, but he’s not the only piece that’s needed, and he’s not the last hope, if the Cubs don’t sign him and choose to develop their talent before making those kinds of commitments.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Fielder is entering his prime at 27.
Pena is leaving his and heading to his mid-30’s.
So yeah..I’d bet one Fielder outperforming his expectations…which seem to be pretty low Mr. He’ll Be Done by 30…and Pena seeing a drop off.
You and maybe a couple others here are the only people who’ve become convinced that the Cubs are convinced that Fielder is The Missing Piece. I think your whole “he’s not the only thing we need” would be answered with a “Really? No shyte!”
Also, the Cubs have chosen to develop their own talents. They have the best 21 year old SS in baseball, who was just the best 20 year old SS in baseball (screw you Andrus) last year). Not only that, they’ve developed a bullpen with MORE arms ready for it, traded for a young tested pitcher, and still haven’t even called the CF or 2B they’ve been developing up. This goes almost COMPLETELY ignored by the No Hopers here because of some losses…as if losses wouldn’t happen during a period of development. Whatever, you guys will see what they’re building when it punches you in the face, maybe.
And you keep saying the same ignorant rants over and over...
while not realizing that what you claim they have isn’t enough and Fielder and Beltran at the peak of their possible production isn’t enough and only puts the organization further and really expensively off the track… so expensively that they might miss better opportunities down the road, which is what happened when they signed Soriano.
You keep calling me a No Hoper, and I’ll heretofore refer to you as Ignorant And Insane… because that’s tantamount to wanting to repeat the same mistakes over and over and hope and pray something different happens. In fact… you’re the hoper… not me.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 10, 2011 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions
you're cute
so if i followed you correctly throughout this thread the cubs shouldn’t sign good players because they aren’t ready to be good and the good players will only get worse with age making it a bad investment. the cubs could be good if they just followed your plan but since they won’t your plan must remain a secret and instead you’ll just keep telling people that their ideas are wrong because your secret ideas are right. after all, you are realistic and reasonable even if your whole argument ignores the economic realities of baseball.
by circuitclout on Jul 11, 2011 7:24 AM CDT up reply actions 7 recs
Rotfl...
Good to see more posters on this board cutting through the bs. Rec’d and I’d rec a dozen times if I could.
I rec'd it, too
Only among Cubs fans would that philosophy make sense.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
“You don’t pass on a chance to sign a player like him if the deal is right because you won’t win in 2012.’
who are you speaking too??
"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry
"Cubs win....what a lucky break!!" ---Harry
James Russel might be able to step and be Marshall's replacement
Russel has a 1.57 era as a reliever. He has been very good but it’s been unnoticed because of Quade misusing him as a Starter.
wood
marshall and marmol. why screw with that?BUTif your over whelmed then maybe.and russell has been impressive. but with most relievers =good one year bad the next. marshall is pretty consistent.
and why
does everbody think fielder is automatic for the cubs? not the attractive destination it once was.
and completely unattractive
if you decide to trade any vet player and go with a bunch of kids and prospects. I am sure desirable FAs will just flock to a team that sends out a white flag for the next few seasons.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 10, 2011 7:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Not at all
There is BIG difference between blowing up the team and trading anyone you can move except Castro and trying to make major changes while still retaining a large number of current players.
The Cubs simply can not afford to dump every vet and work with prospects either current ones or ones obtained in trades. They have to sell tickets and get sponsors and if you think it is bad now imagine it with the all kid lineup and Soriano ( the only vet with a contract of more than two years). The Cubs are not going to trade every known player on the team not named Starlin, let alone all 3 names Carlos.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 10, 2011 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
No fans of a major market team or almost any team would.
Give me one example of a major market team that decided to just spend 2 years rebuilding with young players and prospects and dumping virtually all vets. You think it is bad selling tickets after 100 loss season, try selling them after 100 loss season and nearly all recognizable players gone. You will have no money at all to sign any decent FA because ticket sales, concession sales, advertising sales and corporate sponsorship will be gone. In 2 years you will have to trade Castro to to the Yankees as you won’t be able to afford what he will be awarded arbitration.
You do not have to blow something up to rebuild it, you can keep the valuable parts and work work around them since realistically you have neither the time nor the money to blow up a house and rebuild it from scratch.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 10, 2011 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions
You don't understand what a rebuild is, do you?
You people act like rebuilding means spending no money and becoming the Pirates.
Let’s take a little history lesson, shall we?
Look at the core of these teams:
Phillies: Utley, Howard, Victorino, Hamels. All home grown, all former top prospects.
Yankees : Jeter, Cano, Rivera, Andy P, Posada. All home grown. All former top prospects.
Red Sox: Ellsbury, Lester, Youk (acquired as a prospect), and they acquired Ortiz through a trade. All home grown. All former top prospects.
All of these big market teams have (or had) a core of young, cost controlled stars that they built their teams around.
Yes, they spent a copious amount of money, but that was after they had the core group of players.
The Phillies added to their core through FA. Ditto with the Red Sox. You can only spend in FA if you have the core to contend.
The Cubs have one player. ONE. Who has the potential to be a star. One.
And that is what is so damning about the current state of the Cubs. They’re nowhere near contention and have no superstars or even stars on the way.
The farm system lacks a star. With little talent at the major league level and little impact talent in the minors, the situation looks really bleak.
That’s why people are so negative. This team is absolutely going nowhere.
Except NONE of those teams "rebuilt"
They at no time got rid of all veteran players are many are suggesting.
Look may be you are arguing with the wrong person or I don’t get your argument. I get that the Phillies, Yankees and Red Sox drafted better and got better young players but none of them did it by getting rid of vets and finishing near last place to get the best FA.
What exactly is your plan for “rebuilding”? Dump the vets and play the kids and hope some top FAs will sign for you when you tell them it will be a few years of rebuilding? Finish last for two years and get some top picks?
FYI Ortiz was not acquired by trade, he was famously cut by the Twins and signed cheaply by the Red Sox as an FA.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 10, 2011 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm pretty sure those teams got rid of vets for prospects
And, no. You don’t have to field an all prospect team. That’s what the Carlos Pena’s of the world are there for. Sign some veterans to one year deals until your core is ready to compete.
The Brewers are the perfect example.
Youre sure but didn't check?
Sounds like you.
The Yankees have probably traded more prospects than they’ve acquired. I think they’re fine with that. Same for the Red Sox…Phillies….
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 5:15 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
You also don't have to get rid of most of your roster
until you have a suitable replacement. Pena was kind of blue plate special and you are a lot more likely to get a Jeremy Burnitz. Every team gets rid of vets and tried to get prospects. It is a question of degree and the willingness to dump say Marshall and Soto for less than a blow you away offer is not the way to “rebuild”.
I am stunned you would use the Brewers as an example, they have traded their farm twice and the clock is just about to hit midnight this year. They have a TERRIBLE farm system because they traded top prospects for short term value. They are rated dead last of 30 teams. Next year they lose a top hitter and while they might make the post season this year, they are not going far and the price was steap.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 10, 2011 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Look at who the Brewers gave up
to get Sabathia and Greinke alone.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 10, 2011 9:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Um I think the point would be
You mentioned the Brewers in a post about giving up Vets for prospects when they did the exact opposite and now have the worst farm system in the MLB and are about to lose one their top players. Not really a model I want to emulate.
Before you mention it , yes they are better than the Cubs but not good enough to go far and next year they will be bad for for long into their future as they have no one coming up and nothing to trade.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 11, 2011 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions
You mentioned the Brewers in a post about giving up Vets for prospects
I was taking about successful teams and how they always have a group of young, cost controlled players as their core.
Whether they acquire those players through trade or the draft.
OK, the Brewers won the wild card in 2008
What else have they done? They’ve had this core for five-six years and have one postseason appearance (and some pretty bad seasons otherwise) to show for it.
And like Jess said, they’re about to lose their best player, and their farm system is empty because they used most of their blue-chippers to get one pitcher who isn’t on the team anymore and another who is underachieving to this point.
They might end up in the postseason this year, but they could be looking at some tough times instead. What vets did the Brewers deal to get prospects?
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions
What else have they done? They’ve had this core for five-six years and have one postseason appearance (and some pretty bad seasons otherwise) to show for it.
I just addressed this. I said the Brewers we’re always a fringe contender if they could have gotten pitching; they just couldn’t afford it.
That’s how it relates to the Cubs. If the Brewers were like the Cub, and had the resources and the money, they could have easily competed for multiple championships.
Think of the Brewers with Lee or CC (for an extended period of time).
And like Jess said, they’re about to lose their best player, and their farm system is empty because they used most of their blue-chippers to get one pitcher who isn’t on the team anymore and another who is underachieving to this point.
They’re still in first place. They’re still in contention with Greinke getting ridiculously unlucky.
Even if they don’t win the WS, they’re still in much better condition than the Cubs.
Look at the players the Brewers have under contract for a long time:
Greinke, Marcum, Braun, Hart, Weeks, Axford
That’s still a core that contend. I would be falling over if the Cubs had that core.
Too bad they’re a small market team and can’t afford to sign Prince.
What vets did the Brewers deal to get prospects?
Never said they did. I was making a point how you have to acquire a core of young players in order to compete for a long time.
You can go about acquiring that core in different ways; through the draft or trades.
Too bad the Cubs are completely inept at drafting and like taking the 178th best talent as a first rounder.
As is Marcum.
Who they traded a monster bat top prospect for.
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 3:59 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Forgot entirely about the Marcum deal
The other guy was the Brewers’ top-rated prospect, no?
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Brett lawrie
One of the best offensive prospects in the game.
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 7:30 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Its bizarre
how players are warmed over garbage when they’re in the Brewers system, but when they leave, they’re treasures. Lawrie was a bad attitude and a stone glove with no position according to the kids on minorleagueball and around here as well. Who even remembers who was in the CC deal? Is Matt LaPorta really a big deal? Mickey Brantley’s kid?
"Prince Fielder is too fat even for the Oakland A’s" - Billy Beane
You mean kind of like what happened
with our prospects?
Lawrie is putting up an OPS over 1.000 at the AAA level at 21. Sickels has always been a big fan.
I'm talking about their core
In the beginning, all the had was these talented prospects
They molded that into a playoff bid and contention for most of the last couple years. Yes, they didn’t have a ton of success, but that’s because they don’t have the money to sign FA pitching, unlike the Cubs.
Fielder, Weeks, Hart, Braun, all home grown, all top prospects, all high impact players.
The Cubs have one player who may fit that mold. One on the entire ML roster.
They need to get their hands on that type of player and you may get one of those players by trading Soto or Marshall. That’s what I’ve been trying to say for the last two days.
by Bad Midget on Jul 10, 2011 9:53 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Castro
The Bullpen minus Grabow
On the way:
Jackson
Lemahieu
Cashner
Carpenter
Gaub/Beliveau
Colvin
Further down on the farm:
Szczur
Flaherty
Vitters
Ha
Simpson (one day!)
Etc.
Ha
Simpson
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 11:33 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
None of those players are ever going to be superstars. None.
Jackson is the only one who’s likely to have a huge impact. It’s more likely Jackson is an above average CF. He’s not a bad player, but he’s most likely not a star.
And the rest of the list is just hilarious. You’re not building your team around any of those players. I would be surprised if Vitters ever made the majors.
I see a bunch of bullpen arms and role players.
This is what the great Tim Wilken has got us?
This is what our farm system has produced? Mediocre role players who are good athletes and relievers? Wow
Color me unimpressed .
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Please stop replying to my posts. It’s like talking to a slightly dumber than average brick wall.
Oh so just trolling...
Got it. That was easy.
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 4:04 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
You’re comparing Tyler Colvin and Josh Vitters to Prince Fielder et al? Dude. And I like Tyler Colvin, but c’mon.
"Prince Fielder is too fat even for the Oakland A’s" - Billy Beane
Some guy with the last name starting Ax
made it in the same sentence with Fielder. Hell, Corey Hart isn’t on that level. I assumed there was a range.
Oh man rise of the apes looks awesome.
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 10:50 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
if you want that type of player
you need to draft and develop them because for the most part teams aren’t going to get it in trade.
in any event, your narrative needs some tweaking. first, in the beginning the brewers had a pretty miserable baseball team for over two decades. eventually they bottomed out with a run of 90+ loss seasons from 2001 to 2004 so they were able to use top 10 draft picks on fielder, braun, weeks and matt laporta, who they later turned into cc sabathia. out of that group only fielder and braun are really high impact players. both weeks and hart are good buy they have been inconsistent during their careers. despite a solid core however they have all of one post season appearance to show for their efforts.
of course, the cubs have had some top 10 picks in the last 10 years but they used those picks on mark prior, lou montanez, ryan harvey and josh vitters.
by circuitclout on Jul 11, 2011 7:20 AM CDT up reply actions
I would';t downgrade weeks.
The season he had last year was very impressive (.269, 29 HRs, 83 RBI). And he’s on pace for a similar season now. He’s in his prime and could produce these numbers for a few more years. That’s a very high impact for a second baseman.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
Loud, sustained applause
I agree with this 100 percent, Jess.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 10, 2011 8:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Got me but I hope that last part means something other
than the one thing I recognize.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 11, 2011 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions
That's the first thing I thought of
What is the other meaning?
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions
North American Man Boy Love Association.
www.facebook.com/craighudak
by Craig in South Bend on Jul 11, 2011 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions
I knew THAT meaning
I was wondering what meaning BM had in mind, since apparently that isn’t it.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 11, 2011 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Yet they call for it.
It’s so weird. It’s because the fans only want one thing, wins, coming up with how to do it is the FOs job. Trading away young, still cheap, proven MLB talent…like Soto or Marshall…is not a way to build a winner that will appease the people who kinda sorta don’t want to rebuild but kinda sorta do.
OOPS earth threatening to come off its axis again
( whenever we agree)
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
by Doggie Stalker on Jul 10, 2011 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions
That's exactly how you build a contender
You’re delaying the inevitable. The team is nowhere near contention. Holding onto Soto and Marshall and waiting for the team to contend will get you nowhere.
Eventually, you might not even be able to trade Marshall/Soto because the shine has worn off.
This is a chance to re-stock the farm system with impact talent.
I'm sorry...
Holding on to good cheap vets is a BAD idea?
And when is this great farm system we should build going to pay off? What year should I mark my calendar for?
Your plan sucks. It’s not well thought out, it considers nothing but some vague future one day, and literally you gamble the whole future on it. All I see is a deeper hole to be made with moves like that. These better be some amazing prospects that come with a warranty…
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 5:19 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Hilarious
Throwing money we don’t have at old, declining veterans in hopes of winning 86 games while screwing the future of the team for even more years is a viable plan.
Yet trading vets for prospects is a laughable plan.
You’re an idiot.
by Bad Midget on Jul 10, 2011 6:09 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
rotfl
Trading CHEAP, VERY GOOD, still young veterans IS laughable. That’s the opposite of what the Cubs should be doing, unless they really want to do that dumbass “suck for a decade then profit!” plan.
You know nothing about baseball, in nice terms. At this point you know how stupid your arguments are that you resort to name calling. What a hack.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 7:13 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
How many times do people have to tell you this?
THEY ARE NOT CHEAP. Soto, Marmol, Marshall are not cheap players. They are entering their second or third year of arb.
For the last time, it’s about selling high on guys who have relatively high value right now because they won’t be part of a future contending Cubs team.
by Bad Midget on Jul 10, 2011 7:34 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Wow.
What exactly is cheap to you? Holy crap your arguments are inept. Flipping your crap and writing in caps doesn’t make it smarter, just sadder.
The cubs can afford arb players…notice they just traded for Garza…you can caps lock all you want…nothing you just said is right.
As far as selling high…selling high would mean selling soto in a good year not a down one…selling high would be Marshall getting some national hype.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 8:45 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
What year are you guys shooting for again?
2020? 2030?
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 8:47 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
And is that why they're not part of our
Great Future that is One Day coming?
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 8:50 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
That stupid insinuation you keep throwing around has already been refuted multiple times
I’m done replying to you.
Enjoy your 85 win maxed out payroll no future team. I’m sure it will be great.
by Bad Midget on Jul 10, 2011 9:20 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm sure they'd be great too.
That’s why it’s my Armchair GM plan A All FA Route.
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 9:39 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Says the person who just used caps lock two posts above.
by Bad Midget on Jul 10, 2011 9:17 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Yea but mine was cooler and
my argument makes sense. Youd pay ALOT more than what the cubs are paying and will be paying for the services of Marshall or Soto.
Oh, and the bar for selling a catcher high has never been doing it in a down year. That’s any player actually…
by SenorGato on Jul 10, 2011 9:46 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Marshall is probably one of the most coveted trade targets right now. Which team’s FO do you think doesn’t know about him?
"Prince Fielder is too fat even for the Oakland A’s" - Billy Beane
Which teams FO do you think covets him as much as some of the closers available?
Until he reaches that top tier level, he wont be at max value. He’s worth more than he’s showing right now, as good as he is.
Umm, entering the 2nd year of arb means they're getting around 60% of market value
That would be the definition of a good value. If they aren’t worth their arb increase, you non tender them.
You don’t sell high on a top NL catcher having a bad year, no team in baseball would do that, not even the beloved Rays.
He's projected to have a .346 wOBA by ZIPS the rest of the way
Not only is that above average for a regular major leaguer, he’s one of the best offensive catchers in the game.
He’s extremely valuable.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Please stop replying to my posts. It’s like talking to a slightly dumber than average brick wall.
Trade him then
buy a new one! Sign high upside FAs for cheap! This can happen! One day!
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 5:07 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Sell him high!!!
While we can!!!
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 5:14 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Keep him!!!
for the playoff run!!!
"Prince Fielder is too fat even for the Oakland A’s" - Billy Beane
Dude with my plan I won't tell you
the Cubs will be contending in some time!
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 10:52 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Oh you should admit that you liked that one btw.
I’m reading it again and it was good. I might even use it again, maybe.
I think I misread what you meant by "any vet player"
It seems you meant “if you trade all your vet players” i.e. “any player who is a vet” but i read it to mean “if you trade even one vet player.”
I agree, free agents would find Chicago less attractive if the Cubs run out four or five first-year starters in 2012. But what I am advocating is to trade veterans for whom you can get the most value not necessarily just the ones you are certain will not be on the team next year. That probably means keeping some veterans. Personally, I would exercise Ramirez’ option for the 2012 and also try to acquire a power-hitting outfielder if I were going to build around Fielder or Pujols.
Angel Guzman is the man.
move marshall to the rotation
or trade him. those are really the only two options if sean marshall is going to have value to the chicago cubs.
I'm really not against a Marshall to the rotation move anymore.
If CJ Wilson can do it, then Marshall can too. They’ve been used in pretty much the same way as relievers, and Marshall is as much an excellent pitcher (shows feeling, command, control, stuff) as he is an excellent reliever. I like what Sean Marshall has done for himself these past few years, and it does make me kind of wonder if he can handle more. He’s got the talent, and he’s got the history as a SP behind him….Wait and see where that goes…He probably stays in the pen.
I think there's one thing we all can agree on...
Now would not be a bad time to trade Marmol.
by SenorGato on Jul 11, 2011 11:53 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
I just find it hard to believe that Hendry will think like this
I truly hope he is considering trading Soto, Marmol, and Marshall if a good deal came along.
I was thinking just Marshall.
The other two depends almost totally on the return, which would have to blow minds.
I really hope he isn't
Why get rid of good, young talent? I thought that was what Cubs fans wanted.
by Not Bruce Froemming on Jul 12, 2011 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions
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
