PDA

View Full Version : What the Cubs Must Do (Update)



Yagyu+
06-29-2010, 01:16 PM
A follow-up to the original article (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-the-chicago-cubs-should-do/) posted June 21. Can't say that I agree with it entirely, but here it is. From fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-the-cubs-must-do/):


Like Carlos Zambrano, I have reached my boiling point with the Cubs organization. There have been worse seasons than this one, but rarely has one seemed this disappointing. Perhaps that’s because one look at this roster and you realize: this modern era of Cubs success, 2003-2008, is over. An aging roster filled with bad salaries isn’t going to blossom into playoff caliber anytime soon. As I see it, there are two, and only two, moves that the Cubs can make:

1) Fire everybody.
2) Rebuild.

Preferably in that order. I have many written positive words about Jim Hendry, about Tim Wilken, about the Cubs front office in general over the last decade or so, as Hendry helped engineer an era of competitiveness. His mistakes were usually more subtle — the failure to sign Player X, Y or Z — although he’ll be remembered for ill-fated contracts given to Carlos Zambrano, Alfonso Soriano, and perhaps unfairly, Milton Bradley. But more, with talented rosters that were sometimes chosen by pundits to win a title, this front office and coaching staff never broke the curse that haunts the organization.

The Cubs now need a new leader, one with less personal ties to the assets in this organization, to begin anew. A person that would start with these moves:

1. Trade Ted Lilly and Kosuke Fukudome. This was the main point Jack Moore made in his “What Should the Cubs do” piece from last week, and since then, Lilly only lowered his ERA. The difference between that number (3.28) and his xFIP (4.63) is now staggering, and he represents the most typical mid-season trade chip the Cubs have. Trading Fukudome would mean eating salary in 2011, but if that means acquiring a decent prospect, it’s worth it.

2. Put Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Zambrano on waivers in August. This won’t work. But desperate times…

3. Keep Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez. This rebuild is not geared at success in 2011, so selling low won’t do any good. The draft compensation from Lee’s next signing will likely surpass his 2010 midseason trade value. Ramirez is a sure bet to pick up his $14.6 million player option for 2011, so I’m not sure you could trade him now anyway. But keeping him does allow for a bounce-back next season (while adding a year of development for Josh Vitters), which would allow you to trade him July 31, 2011.

4. Trade Marlon Byrd and Carlos Silva. Credit to Hendry where it’s due, as he may have created two assets out of thin air here. Byrd has been extremely valuable, and is signed to a team-friendly contract through 2012. A team like Atlanta, with their outfield problems and limited finances, would surely part with a good young player for Byrd. Silva’s value on the open market is a little less transparent, but given the Mariners commitment to his salary, he’d only come at $4 million for this year and $6 million for next year, without accounting for what the Cubs might kick in, too.

5. Trade Carlos Marmol. This would be wildly unpopular given Marmol’s quest to shatter the K/9 single-season record. But relievers tend to be overvalued in midseason markets, and Marmol would offer a team 2.5 seasons of arbitration-controlled salaries. He would, semi-deservedly, attract the biggest haul of the bunch. The Cubs could also afford to be stingy with their demands, as he might bring in just as much this winter.

Without question, these moves would be met with scrutiny from Cubs fans and media alike, but they also exist the only chance this team has to compete in a couple years. Hopefully the new person in charge could handle easy decisions like getting rid of the Koyie Hill temptation, returning Sean Marshall and Andrew Cashner to their rightful places in a rotation, riding the Tyler Colvin never-ending hot streak, etc. It shouldn’t be difficult.

Ownership groups are not remembered for the sponsors they land, or the renovations to bathrooms they finance. The Ricketts family must be decisive, and quickly, to salvage something from their inherited regime, and to ensure some eventual success.

Dear Mr. Ricketts: Fire them all. Start over.

Ron!n
06-29-2010, 01:44 PM
I agree with most of these things except for maybe trading Marmol and keeping Lee. Its becoming apparent that we wont be able to offer him arbitration so we might as well trade to him a team like LA for whatever we can get.

As far as Marmol goes, I just dont think we can get back enough to justify trading him.

ChiTownBearCub
06-29-2010, 01:48 PM
I also agree with basically all of that. I don't think we should trade Marmol unless we get a VERY good prospect. He's just too good to let go for nothing. Plus we're trying to get younger and getting rid of one of our younger players just isn't the way to go.

Captain Obvious
06-29-2010, 02:49 PM
I agree with most of these things except for maybe trading Marmol and keeping Lee. Its becoming apparent that we wont be able to offer him arbitration so we might as well trade to him a team like LA for whatever we can get.

As far as Marmol goes, I just dont think we can get back enough to justify trading him.

This.

Plus, I say fire Lou, give Tram the manager position and give Ryno the bench coach position.

Jilly Bohnson
06-29-2010, 03:20 PM
This is kind of a ****ty article. Almost everything's either obvious or wrong. I do like the idea of trading Marmol though. Didn't really think about that but it'd be a great idea.

Mell413
06-29-2010, 03:23 PM
I agreed with some of the article. I'm not in favor of keeping Lee. I doubt we offer him arbitration so I'd rather get something for him now. I'm not opposed to dealing Marmol, but he's one of the few closers in baseball that I want. Plus I think he's going to be relatively cheap for the next few years. Most of the ideas mentioned were obvious. I don't like the idea of titling an article on what they must do as if that's the only way they can win.

BDawk4Prez
06-29-2010, 03:25 PM
I agreed with some of the article. I'm not in favor of keeping Lee. I doubt we offer him arbitration so I'd rather get something for him now. I'm not opposed to dealing Marmol, but he's one of the few closers in baseball that I want. Plus I think he's going to be relatively cheap for the next few years. Most of the ideas mentioned were obvious. I don't like the idea of titling an article on what they must do as if that's the only way they can win.

No need to have a good closer when we can;t get to closing situations but 1 out of every 6 games.

Yagyu+
06-29-2010, 03:25 PM
This is kind of a ****ty article. Almost everything's either obvious or wrong. I do like the idea of trading Marmol though. Didn't really think about that but it'd be a great idea.

I think it's obvious to many of the regulars on here, but there's probably a great many Cubs fans out there who wouldn't know where to begin. That could probably be applied to most things we discuss though.

Anyways, I'm all for the Cubs openly identifying a list of untouchables and then fielding offers for the rest.

ggross
06-29-2010, 03:26 PM
No need to have a good closer when we can;t get to closing situations but 1 out of every 6 games.

Less than that when you play the Pirates.

Jilly Bohnson
06-29-2010, 03:26 PM
I agreed with some of the article. I'm not in favor of keeping Lee. I doubt we offer him arbitration so I'd rather get something for him now. I'm not opposed to dealing Marmol, but he's one of the few closers in baseball that I want. Plus I think he's going to be relatively cheap for the next few years. Most of the ideas mentioned were obvious. I don't like the idea of titling an article on what they must do as if that's the only way they can win.

Yeah, hte Lee thing is the main thing I was thinking of that is just flat out wrong. Lee will not be a guy we want to offer arbitration to.

Illinirob83
06-29-2010, 03:27 PM
Problem with this team's immediate future is who is making these decisions? Jim Hendry is walking on thin ice....actually the ice has probably broken and he is sinking. He gonna be the guy who makes the decisions for the start of the rebuilding effort? First things first......get a new GM to start the cleaning.

BDawk4Prez
06-29-2010, 03:28 PM
The answer is simple:

Jose Macias and Neifi perez reunion!

Captain Obvious
06-29-2010, 03:29 PM
Problem with this team's immediate future is who is making these decisions? Jim Hendry is walking on thin ice....actually the ice has probably broken and he is sinking. He gonna be the guy who makes the decisions for the start of the rebuilding effort? First things first......get a new GM to start the cleaning.

Why? What has Jim Hendry done wrong?

Jilly Bohnson
06-29-2010, 03:34 PM
I think it's obvious to many of the regulars on here, but there's probably a great many cubs fans out there who wouldn't know where to begin. That could probably be applied to most things we discuss though.

Anyways, I'm all for the Cubs openly identifying a list of untouchables and then fielding offers for the rest.

Yeah, we're not exactly their target audience.

But yeah, I wouldn't really have any untouchables except maybe Geo. And I don't mean that in a "For the right price everyone shoudl be available" type of way, we just don't have anyone that's irreplaceable. Castro and Cashner both, while it's not as talented, have a lot of minor league depth behind them. If one or both of them has to go for a good deal to happen that's okay. Same with any of our veterans, and we don't really have any untouchable prospects(though give me a few months and Jackson might change my mind).

I don't think we need a full overhaul, but if we can get good value for anyone then they're free to go. Again, Geo being the guy I'd probably be least likely to trade.

Kirel
06-29-2010, 03:34 PM
Why? What has Jim Hendry done wrong?
Didn't win, that's enough for the average fan.

Kirel
06-29-2010, 03:36 PM
Yeah, we're not exactly their target audience.

But yeah, I wouldn't really have any untouchables except maybe Geo. And I don't mean that in a "For the right price everyone shoudl be available" type of way, we just don't have anyone that's irreplaceable. Castro and Cashner both, while it's not as talented, have a lot of minor league depth behind them. If one or both of them has to go for a good deal to happen that's okay. Same with any of our veterans, and we don't really have any untouchable prospects(though give me a few months and Jackson might change my mind).

I don't think we need a full overhaul, but if we can get good value for anyone then they're free to go. Again, Geo being the guy I'd probably be least likely to trade.
The practical case where the Cubs give up more than 10 combined club controlled years of two good players and get better is awful thin. Evan Longoria comes to mind.

Being irreplacable is one thing, being of high value is another entirely.

Jilly Bohnson
06-29-2010, 03:43 PM
The practical case where the Cubs give up more than 10 combined club controlled years of two good players and get better is awful thin. Evan Longoria comes to mind.

Being irreplacable is one thing, being of high value is another entirely.

Oh yeah it'd take something good, particularly a deal involving both of them, but if someone that we need to jump on comes on the market, like Matt Kemp or something, they can be moved. Basically while they're both very good and I'm very excited for them, it's not like Jason Heyward or something where I'd refuse to deal them in any realistic offer.

Captain Obvious
06-29-2010, 03:48 PM
Didn't win, that's enough for the average fan.

Touche. But that's not enough for me.:mad:

Kirel
06-29-2010, 03:48 PM
Oh yeah it'd take something good, particularly a deal involving both of them, but if someone that we need to jump on comes on the market, like Matt Kemp or something, they can be moved. Basically while they're both very good and I'm very excited for them, it's not like Jason Heyward or something where I'd refuse to deal them in any realistic offer.
Matt Kemp isn't good enough to trade one of those guys for. As nice as 2009 was, Kemp is closer to a 3 WAR guy than 5.

Dealing that kind of known value better bring back closer to a solid, predictable 6 WAR or the Cubs are going probably to lose the deal badly. 2.5 WAR for 390k way, way trumps 4 war for 10+ million.

Jilly Bohnson
06-29-2010, 04:09 PM
Matt Kemp isn't good enough to trade one of those guys for. As nice as 2009 was, Kemp is closer to a 3 WAR guy than 5.

Dealing that kind of known value better bring back closer to a solid, predictable 6 WAR or the Cubs are going probably to lose the deal badly. 2.5 WAR for 390k way, way trumps 4 war for 10+ million.

I was just spitballing. A non-lazy Kemp or something in that mold comes up and they're dealable.

Mell413
06-29-2010, 04:10 PM
I know most people would not be opposed to rebuilding. I still think you can do it selectively as was pointed out in the article. I'm not sure if we should give up on 2011 though. I also don't think Ricketts wants to either considering the empty seats in the ballpark.

Another thing to consider is the Sox are doing well, the Hawks won the cup, the Bulls might sign the biggest free agent of all time, and there is a buzz going around about the Bears this year also. I'm not going to pretend like I know Ricketts, but I doubt he bought the Cubs to be overlooked by the teams I mentioned. I guess I'm just saying I would not be surprised if Ricketts made some kind of splash during the off season to get some buzz around the team.

Kirel
06-29-2010, 04:16 PM
I was just spitballing. A non-lazy Kemp or something in that mold comes up and they're dealable.
I don't agree. That's just bad management IMHO, spending cheap, postive, replacable major league resources on expensive positive, replacable major league resources that likely aren't significantly better.

Jilly Bohnson
06-29-2010, 04:23 PM
I don't agree. That's just bad management IMHO, spending cheap, postive, replacable major league resources on expensive positive, replacable major league resources that likely aren't significantly better.

Hypothetical hardworking Matt Kemp or someone in that vein, basically a young star but not a superstar and with a few years in the league, is worth more than one of those guys. You get 3-4 years of a player who you know, as much as you reasonably can with any player, is going to give you badass production at arbitration prices. Thats worth a guy who was a very good prospect but not nearly in the Heyward/Strasburg neighborhood. You're getting a more expensive but you're also losing a lot of risk and getting now production from a player that's still pretty young. For a team that for the foreseeable future is going to have a top 5 payroll you make that trade IMO.

windycityD
06-29-2010, 04:34 PM
A follow-up to the original article (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-the-chicago-cubs-should-do/) posted June 21. Can't say that I agree with it entirely, but here it is. From fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-the-cubs-must-do/):

2004, 05, and 06 sure as hell were not success years in that "era of success" time frame.

If this org has confidence in Russell and Gaub, then Marshall is right up there in terms of vet pieces that would have trade value. That said, I'd keep him and keep him where he's been most effective, in the pen. As far as Marmol goes, hells no. Although the walks are still a nagging issue dating back to last season, if not an outright concern, I'd ink him up for 2-3 years this winter if at all possible.

Flipping Byrd is starting to become more and more of a worthy of consideration option imo and I agree that Hendry hit some gold there. As far as Silva, I really feel that a lot rides on what transpires with Zambrano. Although I think he's entirely capable of having a year not anywhere near this one again, unless wowed by another GM via a good young arm or bat, I'd actually hold on Silva for now, see what goes down the rest of the way, and revisit him this winter once a fuller picture develops.

Lilly, Lee, Nady, and Theriot, deal away. In the case of Lilly, he's going to hit the market this winter, he would be waaay cheaper than Cliff Lee (who I like tons), and still has some vintage Ted left in there somewhere imho. If I were Detroit or especially Minnesota, I'd be gunning hardcore for Ted via trade. Although I think the White Sox & their own crap offense will fall back to earth by August (if not sooner), they have the overall pitching to scare both clubs. Exploit that.

Considering we would have our lead off hitter and #3 hitter squared away for 2011, keeping Fukudome and Soriano seems wise to me. And well, not playing Koyie Hill this much or batting Soto 7th/8th seems pretty wise as well. I think A Ram will be a Cub into 2011.

Doogolas
06-29-2010, 04:39 PM
Hypothetical hardworking Matt Kemp or someone in that vein, basically a young star but not a superstar and with a few years in the league, is worth more than one of those guys. You get 3-4 years of a player who you know, as much as you reasonably can with any player, is going to give you badass production at arbitration prices. Thats worth a guy who was a very good prospect but not nearly in the Heyward/Strasburg neighborhood. You're getting a more expensive but you're also losing a lot of risk and getting now production from a player that's still pretty young. For a team that for the foreseeable future is going to have a top 5 payroll you make that trade IMO.

I'm sorry JB, but Heyward is not on Strasburg's level. Honestly, I don't even think they're in the same stratosphere in terms of ability. As good as Heyward is gonna be, he has no shot at being the best hitter in baseball. Strasburg very well may be the best pitcher in baseball within the next calendar year.

Kirel
06-29-2010, 04:51 PM
Hypothetical hardworking Matt Kemp or someone in that vein, basically a young star but not a superstar and with a few years in the league, is worth more than one of those guys. You get 3-4 years of a player who you know, as much as you reasonably can with any player, is going to give you badass production at arbitration prices. Thats worth a guy who was a very good prospect but not nearly in the Heyward/Strasburg neighborhood. You're getting a more expensive but you're also losing a lot of risk and getting now production from a player that's still pretty young. For a team that for the foreseeable future is going to have a top 5 payroll you make that trade IMO.
3-4 years? Are you serious?

By the end of the season Kemp will have 2 left. one at a bit over 6 million and one at 3rd year arbitration prices. It'll task Cashner or Castro 3 additional years to even hit that6 million mark, let alone the more like 14 Kemp will cost you.

It's simply foolish to bet on 2 years of 4 WAR at about 14 mililon combined over 6 years of 3 WAR at roughly 16 million total. Right now, IMHO, Kemp and others of his ilk is essentially Castro or Cashner just 4 years later. Top 5 payroll or not that deal is bad. Real bad. Like worst in a career bad. In fact that is the same line of thinking and justification that lead to things like the Kazmir-Zambrano deal.

Kirel
06-29-2010, 04:52 PM
I'm sorry JB, but Heyward is not on Strasburg's level. Honestly, I don't even think they're in the same stratosphere in terms of ability. As good as Heyward is gonna be, he has no shot at being the best hitter in baseball. Strasburg very well may be the best pitcher in baseball within the next calendar year.
And that's relevent how?

They may not be on the same level, but they are arguably the top 2 prospects in the game. Thats about all he was saying. There is no need to have to split hairs here.

windycityD
06-29-2010, 04:52 PM
I know most people would not be opposed to rebuilding. I still think you can do it selectively as was pointed out in the article. I'm not sure if we should give up on 2011 though. I also don't think Ricketts wants to either considering the empty seats in the ballpark.

Another thing to consider is the Sox are doing well, the Hawks won the cup, the Bulls might sign the biggest free agent of all time, and there is a buzz going around about the Bears this year also. I'm not going to pretend like I know Ricketts, but I doubt he bought the Cubs to be overlooked by the teams I mentioned. I guess I'm just saying I would not be surprised if Ricketts made some kind of splash during the off season to get some buzz around the team.

You see, that's part of the problem. The "big market" mentality here has to a very real degree been a detriment to building a longer-term success story. I've smelled three times more **** in my lifetime from the Cubs than roses and I don't need a one-time splash or some pricey glad hand to the fan base, 70% of which is more into all the fake **** & beer garden atmosphere of Wrigley. This isn't a situation like the Marlins had in 1996/1997 where they literally went out and bought a championship. You could level the same judgment & scenario with Arizona in 2000/2001.

The reality we're looking at seems rather simple to me. Unlike The Marlins, we don't need or require a near-full roster blow up, so this is not a true rebuild situation. If we use the rest of this season and all/ most of 2011 as a bridge to 2012, making the moves we need to make and giving the youth we have/ might get to develop at this level, we could be looking at competitive & successful baseball for a decade. Yes please.

Doogolas
06-29-2010, 05:02 PM
And that's relevent how?

They may not be on the same level, but they are arguably the top 2 prospects in the game. Thats about all he was saying. There is no need to have to split hairs here.

It's not SUPER relevant. But IMO there's a HUGE jump from Heyward to Strasburg. If you're gonna say Strasburg level prospect say Strasburg level prospect. But Heyward/Strasburg implies some kind of equality, and they're not even close to equals.

poodski
06-29-2010, 05:09 PM
Honestly the Cubs should look into possibly trading every single person on the 25 man besides Castro and Cashner. Maybe Colvin so we can be like the Astros with the Killer C'ees.

Cubs420
06-29-2010, 05:18 PM
I like the Idea of putting Cashner into the starting rotation before the season is over, I Like the idea of Marshall in the rotation, But I think Gorz would probably do as good of a job and we don't have to lose a solid bullpen arm in the process.

I disagree with not trading Lee, IMO he has to go. Theriot, Fukudome, Lee, Lilly and Silva should all be shipped for as much young talent as you can get... I like the idea of trading Byrd to a team like Atlanta for one of their top ten prospects. Also I can live with Rammy and Sori for another year.

Anyone think we will go into free agency looking for a number 2 or 3 starter? I sure hope so.. I would love an ace but I don't know if any will be available or even if the Cubs have the money.

Jilly Bohnson
06-29-2010, 05:21 PM
3-4 years? Are you serious?

By the end of the season Kemp will have 2 left. one at a bit over 6 million and one at 3rd year arbitration prices. It'll task Cashner or Castro 3 additional years to even hit that6 million mark, let alone the more like 14 Kemp will cost you.

It's simply foolish to bet on 2 years of 4 WAR at about 14 mililon combined over 6 years of 3 WAR at roughly 16 million total. Right now, IMHO, Kemp and others of his ilk is essentially Castro or Cashner just 4 years later. Top 5 payroll or not that deal is bad. Real bad. Like worst in a career bad. In fact that is the same line of thinking and justification that lead to things like the Kazmir-Zambrano deal.

Come on, that was a top prospect for a downright bad pitcher who was already almost 30. Not the same at all.

But yeah with just two years left it's probably a loss, unless you have good reason to think they're going to break out and go to the next level. Although there's probably some additional value they should get for being less risky. But for three I think it's a win. the value of a prospect at Castro's level is worth what, 15-20 million or so (http://philbirnbaum.com/btn2007-11.pdf)? A few less than that for Cashner since he's a pitcher? For a young 4 win guy with his 3 arbitration years left wouldn't he be worth about 20-25 million? That'd make it a win.

Jilly Bohnson
06-29-2010, 05:24 PM
I'm sorry JB, but Heyward is not on Strasburg's level. Honestly, I don't even think they're in the same stratosphere in terms of ability. As good as Heyward is gonna be, he has no shot at being the best hitter in baseball. Strasburg very well may be the best pitcher in baseball within the next calendar year.

Heyward was the better prospect and is still probably the better bet going forward, but yeah, that's not really all that relevant.

lilboytwister99
06-29-2010, 05:28 PM
Honestly the Cubs should look into possibly trading every single person on the 25 man besides Castro and Cashner. Maybe Colvin so we can be like the Astros with the Killer C'ees.

:D

Yep, the Astros and the killer C's. I just hate to see the Cubs team fold like this. But it does seem like it's time to regroup and put a better team on the field.

I'm not sure about the status of Big Z, but I can see him being traded, unfortunately. I know he went on his tirade, but he did have a point. I think this Cubs team may be better than they have been playing. Or perhaps, not, and it's time for a rebuild of sorts. I just don't want to see a complete firesale and see the team have nothing but inexperienced youngsters on the field.

As far as trading Lilly, he might be the most valued trade bait. But I wouldn't like to see him leave Chicago either. He's got good stuff.

I really hope to see the Cubs rebound in the next year or two. God knows the Astros won't LOL. They're about 3 to 4 years away from being a good team again.

Good luck to the Cubs. Hope they do what's best for the team.

Doogolas
06-29-2010, 05:30 PM
Heyward was the better prospect and is still probably the better bet going forward, but yeah, that's not really all that relevant.

Wait what? You think Heyward is a better bet than Strasburg? I'm confused. I may have missed something...

Jilly Bohnson
06-29-2010, 05:35 PM
Every pitcher is a pitch away from a serious arm injury that either ends their career or greatly diminishes their ability. Strasburg is better than Heyward right now, but if you were a betting man you should bet on Heyward having the better career because there's far less risk with him. For that same reason, Heyward was a better prospect than Strasburg.

Mell413
06-29-2010, 05:35 PM
You see, that's part of the problem. The "big market" mentality here has to a very real degree been a detriment to building a longer-term success story. I've smelled three times more **** in my lifetime from the Cubs than roses and I don't need a one-time splash or some pricey glad hand to the fan base, 70% of which is more into all the fake **** & beer garden atmosphere of Wrigley. This isn't a situation like the Marlins had in 1996/1997 where they literally went out and bought a championship. You could level the same judgment & scenario with Arizona in 2000/2001.

The reality we're looking at seems rather simple to me. Unlike The Marlins, we don't need or require a near-full roster blow up, so this is not a true rebuild situation. If we use the rest of this season and all/ most of 2011 as a bridge to 2012, making the moves we need to make and giving the youth we have/ might get to develop at this level, we could be looking at competitive & successful baseball for a decade. Yes please.

I'm fine with playing the young guys like Colvin for the rest of the year. I just think considering how mediocre the divisions is I think Ricketts would be doing a disservice to the team and the fans by giving up on 2011. Attendance is bad now with some players that have decent drawing power. So I doubt Ricketts puts a lineup with all young guys out there. I just don't see a lot of people spending a lot of money to watch a team with all young guys. I'm not saying I want or need a big splash, but I can see it happening. The last two years have been a pain in the *** and I can see Ricketts doing something to win people over. Unless his big idea is Ryne Sandberg as manager to help draw fans. I'm not that old so I have no idea if Sandberg alone has that kind of drawing power. Another thing to consider is that I don't want guys like Cashner, Castro, and Colvin getting used to losing games.

I think you can still spend some money this off season to have a shot at 2011 and build toward 2012. Ideally i'd deal Byrd and put Colvin in center. Then sign a young star like Crawford and put either him or Soriano in right. IIRC there are a lot of first baseman available so I think we can sign someone like Dunn on a one year deal. If you can get him on a one year deal you still give yourself a chance to sign Prince or Gonzalez. Hudson keeps getting one year deals and I doubt he will get a multi year deal at his age. So maybe sign him on a one year deal. I think you can sign guys as stop gaps and make a possible run at 2011 and still leaving the door open for 2012.

windycityD
06-29-2010, 07:16 PM
I'm fine with playing the young guys like Colvin for the rest of the year. I just think considering how mediocre the divisions is I think Ricketts would be doing a disservice to the team and the fans by giving up on 2011. Attendance is bad now with some players that have decent drawing power. So I doubt Ricketts puts a lineup with all young guys out there. I just don't see a lot of people spending a lot of money to watch a team with all young guys. I'm not saying I want or need a big splash, but I can see it happening. The last two years have been a pain in the *** and I can see Ricketts doing something to win people over. Unless his big idea is Ryne Sandberg as manager to help draw fans. I'm not that old so I have no idea if Sandberg alone has that kind of drawing power. Another thing to consider is that I don't want guys like Cashner, Castro, and Colvin getting used to losing games.

I think you can still spend some money this off season to have a shot at 2011 and build toward 2012. Ideally i'd deal Byrd and put Colvin in center. Then sign a young star like Crawford and put either him or Soriano in right. IIRC there are a lot of first baseman available so I think we can sign someone like Dunn on a one year deal. If you can get him on a one year deal you still give yourself a chance to sign Prince or Gonzalez. Hudson keeps getting one year deals and I doubt he will get a multi year deal at his age. So maybe sign him on a one year deal. I think you can sign guys as stop gaps and make a possible run at 2011 and still leaving the door open for 2012.

Putting Cashner & Gorzo in the rotation and playing guys like Jackson, Gaub, and even Vitters at some point perhaps next season is not "giving up" in 2011 as they would still be surrounded with vet players, who even in this **** of a season, have performed (Soriano, Soto, Byrd). This is about getting young guys experience at this level so that by 2012, you have youth with some real mlb experience & development. I'm not talking about waiving a 1.5 year white flag, and if there's any division in baseball where this modified approach could work, it's the NL Central. This division is fairly flawed, top to bottom. I'm not drinking the Kool Aid on the Reds yet, this year or next, and The Brewers have made it clear they wont go out and buy what they desperatley need to get better, which is more starting pitching around Gallardo. Pittsburgh and Houston are a total wreck.

The only "big name" I'm really jazzed about is Cliff Lee, who is going to get money well into the stratosphere. We simply don't have that kind of payroll flexibility.

Kirel
06-29-2010, 08:04 PM
It's not SUPER relevant. But IMO there's a HUGE jump from Heyward to Strasburg. If you're gonna say Strasburg level prospect say Strasburg level prospect. But Heyward/Strasburg implies some kind of equality, and they're not even close to equals.
No, but they are both untouchable. That they don't have one particular thing in common that isn't relevant to the discussion does not mean they do not have things in common that *ARE* relevant.

Kirel
06-29-2010, 08:08 PM
Come on, that was a top prospect for a downright bad pitcher who was already almost 30. Not the same at all.

But yeah with just two years left it's probably a loss, unless you have good reason to think they're going to break out and go to the next level. Although there's probably some additional value they should get for being less risky. But for three I think it's a win. the value of a prospect at Castro's level is worth what, 15-20 million or so (http://philbirnbaum.com/btn2007-11.pdf)? A few less than that for Cashner since he's a pitcher? For a young 4 win guy with his 3 arbitration years left wouldn't he be worth about 20-25 million? That'd make it a win.
And the cost of replacing Castro or Cashner on the major league team doesn't factor in here? Spending Castro to get Kemp and then paying a free agent to play shortstop is pointless if you can just pay a free agent to play CF.

Castro in AA was worth 20 million. The moment they gave him the every day spot I'd say his value jumped towards 40, maybe 50. Being in the majors and holding his own matters. He only needs to put up what, .8, .9 WAR a season to end up being worth 20 mil. At 2 WAR over the next 5 seasons we're talking 45ish million. The reality is that Castro isn't a prospect any more, he's a young major league player.

Jilly Bohnson
06-29-2010, 08:20 PM
And the cost of replacing Castro or Cashner on the major league team doesn't factor in here? Spending Castro to get Kemp and then paying a free agent to play shortstop is pointless if you can just pay a free agent to play CF.

Castro in AA was worth 20 million. The moment they gave him the every day spot I'd say his value jumped towards 40, maybe 50. Being in the majors and holding his own matters. He only needs to put up what, .8, .9 WAR a season to end up being worth 20 mil. At 2 WAR over the next 5 seasons we're talking 45ish million. The reality is that Castro isn't a prospect any more, he's a young major league player.

Someone like Barney could do what he's done so far. His value to us isn't in what he's currently doing, it's in what he is hopefully going to do going forward. The cost of replacing his current production is almost nil. Also there's always the possibility of the person we acquire with him being a shortstop, plus the fact that whatever position that guy plays the guy we currently have there can be moved.

WorldChamps1908
06-29-2010, 08:28 PM
I agree..this team/organization (the pro level atleast) is a train wreck...start over.

I definitely think that Marshall and Cashner should be in the rotation as well.

Kirel
06-29-2010, 08:33 PM
Someone like Barney could do what he's done so far. His value to us isn't in what he's currently doing, it's in what he is hopefully going to do going forward. The cost of replacing his current production is almost nil. Also there's always the possibility of the person we acquire with him being a shortstop, plus the fact that whatever position that guy plays the guy we currently have there can be moved.
Heh, whatever man.

I don't agree on this one, but I am also not going to spend 6 hours drawing up charts to back up my position. I see the chances of the Cubs winning a deal dealing Castro for anything short of a superstar to be between minimal and non-existant. And given that the team may well not compete next year either way, I don't see a real case where even a 3 year player ends up being worth it.

Just tell me this, do you honestly believe that the chances of the Cubs winning any scuh deal are above 50/50? I'd have a hard time saying about 5% personally. Castro doesn't even have to be average for the Cubs to lose. If he manages to be worth evne 3 wins, there is nearly no chance, as the returned player would probably have to put up something akin to 6 wins a season once you account for pay(no matter how you slice it, 5 win players make more than 3 win players).

Also, I'll point out that replacing Castro with Barney costs Barney. You no longer have that chip to trade, at Barney's level we're probably talking about a win or so in value, but still, it is relevant and could easily be a deciding factor.

Jilly Bohnson
06-29-2010, 09:01 PM
Heh, whatever man.

I don't agree on this one, but I am also not going to spend 6 hours drawing up charts to back up my position. I see the chances of the Cubs winning a deal dealing Castro for anything short of a superstar to be between minimal and non-existant. And given that the team may well not compete next year either way, I don't see a real case where even a 3 year player ends up being worth it.

Just tell me this, do you honestly believe that the chances of the Cubs winning any scuh deal are above 50/50? I'd have a hard time saying about 5% personally. Castro doesn't even have to be average for the Cubs to lose. If he manages to be worth evne 3 wins, there is nearly no chance, as the returned player would probably have to put up something akin to 6 wins a season once you account for pay(no matter how you slice it, 5 win players make more than 3 win players).

Also, I'll point out that replacing Castro with Barney costs Barney. You no longer have that chip to trade, at Barney's level we're probably talking about a win or so in value, but still, it is relevant and could easily be a deciding factor.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but here's how I see it.

This hypothetical 4 win trade target has three years left. 12 wins times 4.5 million a win is 54 million. The rule of thumb for Arbitration is 40/60/80, so he should cost 32.4 million, for a net gain of 21.6 million. The value of a #10-25 prospect like Castro is 15 million to 20 million. Now Castro's not a prospect anymore, but it's still only a quarter of a season of below average play, so while he does have more value then someone who hasn't even played in the majors(simply because of the number of prospects that don't make it at all), I don't think it's 40 to 50 million like you're saying. The question is, is his value improved enough to make up for the gap between him and that the guy we're trading for? Maybe. But you also have to think about risk, the established player is obviously much less risky. Also, the guy that we're trading for is still young and talented, he's not some 32 year old, there's still room for improvement with that guy. If he takes the next step and becomes a 5 win guy, he now gives us 27 million dollars of surplus value.

I think there's at least a 50/50 chance that we win that deal. I mean sure, if it works out like the Hanley-Beckett deal it looks awful. But then again, if Castro goes all Rey Ordonez or Ronny Cedeno on us, we come out as overwhelming winners, like we did in the Lee and Ramirez trades.

I just don't think it's as tough to get value for him as you're saying. Sure, me throwing out Matt Kemp was dumb (I thought he had 3.5 years left), but, if we were to target someone who is closer to what my mistaken meme of Matt Kemp, a young 4-5 win guy just entering arbitration, I think Castro should very much be in the discussion. I don't think it necessarily needs to be someone with extreme value like Longoria.

Kirel
06-29-2010, 09:38 PM
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but here's how I see it.

This hypothetical 4 win trade target has three years left. 12 wins times 4.5 million a win is 54 million. The rule of thumb for Arbitration is 40/60/80, so he should cost 32.4 million, for a net gain of 21.6 million. The value of a #10-25 prospect like Castro is 15 million to 20 million. Now Castro's not a prospect anymore, but it's still only a quarter of a season of below average play, so while he does have more value then someone who hasn't even played in the majors(simply because of the number of prospects that don't make it at all), I don't think it's 40 to 50 million like you're saying. The question is, is his value improved enough to make up for the gap between him and that the guy we're trading for? Maybe. But you also have to think about risk, the established player is obviously much less risky. Also, the guy that we're trading for is still young and talented, he's not some 32 year old, there's still room for improvement with that guy. If he takes the next step and becomes a 5 win guy, he now gives us 27 million dollars of surplus value.

I think there's at least a 50/50 chance that we win that deal. I mean sure, if it works out like the Hanley-Beckett deal it looks awful. But then again, if Castro goes all Rey Ordonez or Ronny Cedeno on us, we come out as overwhelming winners, like we did in the Lee and Ramirez trades.

I just don't think it's as tough to get value for him as you're saying. Sure, me throwing out Matt Kemp was dumb (I thought he had 3.5 years left), but, if we were to target someone who is closer to what my mistaken meme of Matt Kemp, a young 4-5 win guy just entering arbitration, I think Castro should very much be in the discussion. I don't think it necessarily needs to be someone with extreme value like Longoria.
Well, as I see it, 21.6 million/4.5 million is 4.8 wins. If Castro is a 2.5 win player for the next two seasons, the deal is lost. Over the 5 year remaining control after this year, and assuming Castro earns something like 25 million in his three arb years(seems fair since we are talking about Castro as a 2-2.5 win guy here), he'd have to only accumulate about 21.6+25 million, just shy of 47 million or about 10.5 wins in 5 years, for the deal to be a loser. One 4 win campaign probably kills it. In terms of raw 5 year value there is almost no circumstance where a rational acting 4-5 win player wins out, given that they'd demand a market or near market contract for the last 2 years.

Factor in the win to win and a half Barney buys and it's probably closer to 43 million Castro has to produce to win out. 9.5 wins in 5 years. That is really not a high barrier to meet. Young, even sub average major leaguers are hard to justify moving, especially if they play premium position.

Also, while there is room for improvement for your theoretical guy, I don't think we can honestly factor that in. Chances are much better than Castro improves than an established player. Some go on to great things, but most don't permanently improve. When you are discussing the risk that Castro won't succeed you have to balance that against the risk that the established player won't, as well as the risks that Castro and the established player won't improve. The chances that a Matt Kemp or any other 3rd year player that a team is likely to let go moves on to being a 5 win player is small. Teams don't let potential superstars go in their first year of arbitration often. To my mind these risks tend to cancel each other out. Castro is both more likely to bust and to reach the 5 win plateau than any reasonable acquisition would be. You shouldn't be measuring Castros chance of failure vs the acquisitions chance of improvement, but Castros chance of failure vs his own chance of improvement.

For that matter, you have to consider the risk that Barney fails, something that you are ignoring here. A Barney putting up a negative WAR every year chips away at the bottom line, another trade or FA signing to acquire a replacement for Castro almost certainly crushes the deal. Are you more confident that Barney can produce 1 WAR a year or that Castro can produce 2.5? Castro has been so-so thus far, over 600 plate appearances at his current rate he'd be worth nearly a win and a half.

If you don't think Castro will improve, make the deal by all means. If you think he'll improve even a little, it's a loser deal.

All that said, I am surprised you are being this conservative at this point. You argued vehemently for risky prospects during the draft, but you are also arguing strongly to exercise moderation and caution in this thread. This is very much the Whitson vs Vitek discussion we had in the draft thread, we are just taking the opposite sides now.

Jilly Bohnson
06-30-2010, 03:56 AM
Well, as I see it, 21.6 million/4.5 million is 4.8 wins. If Castro is a 2.5 win player for the next two seasons, the deal is lost. Over the 5 year remaining control after this year, and assuming Castro earns something like 25 million in his three arb years(seems fair since we are talking about Castro as a 2-2.5 win guy here), he'd have to only accumulate about 21.6+25 million, just shy of 47 million or about 10.5 wins in 5 years, for the deal to be a loser. One 4 win campaign probably kills it. In terms of raw 5 year value there is almost no circumstance where a rational acting 4-5 win player wins out, given that they'd demand a market or near market contract for the last 2 years.

Factor in the win to win and a half Barney buys and it's probably closer to 43 million Castro has to produce to win out. 9.5 wins in 5 years. That is really not a high barrier to meet. Young, even sub average major leaguers are hard to justify moving, especially if they play premium position.

Also, while there is room for improvement for your theoretical guy, I don't think we can honestly factor that in. Chances are much better than Castro improves than an established player. Some go on to great things, but most don't permanently improve. When you are discussing the risk that Castro won't succeed you have to balance that against the risk that the established player won't, as well as the risks that Castro and the established player won't improve. The chances that a Matt Kemp or any other 3rd year player that a team is likely to let go moves on to being a 5 win player is small. Teams don't let potential superstars go in their first year of arbitration often. To my mind these risks tend to cancel each other out. Castro is both more likely to bust and to reach the 5 win plateau than any reasonable acquisition would be. You shouldn't be measuring Castros chance of failure vs the acquisitions chance of improvement, but Castros chance of failure vs his own chance of improvement.

For that matter, you have to consider the risk that Barney fails, something that you are ignoring here. A Barney putting up a negative WAR every year chips away at the bottom line, another trade or FA signing to acquire a replacement for Castro almost certainly crushes the deal. Are you more confident that Barney can produce 1 WAR a year or that Castro can produce 2.5? Castro has been so-so thus far, over 600 plate appearances at his current rate he'd be worth nearly a win and a half.

If you don't think Castro will improve, make the deal by all means. If you think he'll improve even a little, it's a loser deal.

All that said, I am surprised you are being this conservative at this point. You argued vehemently for risky prospects during the draft, but you are also arguing strongly to exercise moderation and caution in this thread. This is very much the Whitson vs Vitek discussion we had in the draft thread, we are just taking the opposite sides now.

Fair enough, I think you've got me again. Damn, it's like every debate I have with you is a an econ quiz that I end up bombing :laugh2:

As for my risk aversion though, I never really thought of it like that but I guess it is weird. I guess just the farther away from the majors it is the more I'm willing to take risks. I guess I just prefer a lottery ticket for a potential star rather than an I.O.U. for a mediocre guy. I think I very much fall into that trap where I underrate the league average player.

Str1fe5
06-30-2010, 12:55 PM
Fair enough, I think you've got me again. Damn, it's like every debate I have with you is a an econ quiz that I end up bombing :laugh2:

As for my risk aversion though, I never really thought of it like that but I guess it is weird. I guess just the farther away from the majors it is the more I'm willing to take risks. I guess I just prefer a lottery ticket for a potential star rather than an I.O.U. for a mediocre guy. I think I very much fall into that trap where I underrate the league average player.

Yeah, sorry, but after reading every post of your guys debate, for once I agree with Kirel over you :shrug:

Castro isn't untouchable but he's got to be part of only a megadeal rather than a deal for a 4 win type guy.

poodski
06-30-2010, 01:34 PM
Yeah, sorry, but after reading every post of your guys debate, for once I agree with Kirel over you :shrug:

Castro isn't untouchable but he's got to be part of only a megadeal rather than a deal for a 4 win type guy.

Yo please sign up for the 1969 sim league.

Gracias.

4cubs
06-30-2010, 06:29 PM
Well, as I see it, 21.6 million/4.5 million is 4.8 wins. If Castro is a 2.5 win player for the next two seasons, the deal is lost. Over the 5 year remaining control after this year, and assuming Castro earns something like 25 million in his three arb years(seems fair since we are talking about Castro as a 2-2.5 win guy here), he'd have to only accumulate about 21.6+25 million, just shy of 47 million or about 10.5 wins in 5 years, for the deal to be a loser. One 4 win campaign probably kills it. In terms of raw 5 year value there is almost no circumstance where a rational acting 4-5 win player wins out, given that they'd demand a market or near market contract for the last 2 years.

Factor in the win to win and a half Barney buys and it's probably closer to 43 million Castro has to produce to win out. 9.5 wins in 5 years. That is really not a high barrier to meet. Young, even sub average major leaguers are hard to justify moving, especially if they play premium position.

Also, while there is room for improvement for your theoretical guy, I don't think we can honestly factor that in. Chances are much better than Castro improves than an established player. Some go on to great things, but most don't permanently improve. When you are discussing the risk that Castro won't succeed you have to balance that against the risk that the established player won't, as well as the risks that Castro and the established player won't improve. The chances that a Matt Kemp or any other 3rd year player that a team is likely to let go moves on to being a 5 win player is small. Teams don't let potential superstars go in their first year of arbitration often. To my mind these risks tend to cancel each other out. Castro is both more likely to bust and to reach the 5 win plateau than any reasonable acquisition would be. You shouldn't be measuring Castros chance of failure vs the acquisitions chance of improvement, but Castros chance of failure vs his own chance of improvement.

For that matter, you have to consider the risk that Barney fails, something that you are ignoring here. A Barney putting up a negative WAR every year chips away at the bottom line, another trade or FA signing to acquire a replacement for Castro almost certainly crushes the deal. Are you more confident that Barney can produce 1 WAR a year or that Castro can produce 2.5? Castro has been so-so thus far, over 600 plate appearances at his current rate he'd be worth nearly a win and a half.

If you don't think Castro will improve, make the deal by all means. If you think he'll improve even a little, it's a loser deal.

All that said, I am surprised you are being this conservative at this point. You argued vehemently for risky prospects during the draft, but you are also arguing strongly to exercise moderation and caution in this thread. This is very much the Whitson vs Vitek discussion we had in the draft thread, we are just taking the opposite sides now.Considering Theriot used to play the same "premium" position as Castro prior to the change, doesn't he fit into this sub average major leaguer that is hard to justify moving category?

ABTY7
06-30-2010, 06:34 PM
This is kind of a ****ty article. Almost everything's either obvious or wrong. I do like the idea of trading Marmol though. Didn't really think about that but it'd be a great idea.

Agreed... gotta wonder what a team like say the Phillies (Drabek?), Angels (along with DLee) or even the White Sox (would be willing to pony up for 2 1/2 years of Marmol...

Doogolas
06-30-2010, 06:36 PM
Considering Theriot used to play the same "premium" position as Castro prior to the change, doesn't he fit into this sub average major leaguer that is hard to justify moving category?

Seeing as prior to this year Theriot was an above average major league SS. No.

1908_Cubs
06-30-2010, 06:39 PM
Yo please sign up for the 1969 sim league.

Gracias.

What about this 1969 sim league? I'm unemployed. I need something to do.

Doogolas
06-30-2010, 06:56 PM
What about this 1969 sim league? I'm unemployed. I need something to do.

Go to the OOTP forum.

Kirel
06-30-2010, 07:37 PM
Considering Theriot used to play the same "premium" position as Castro prior to the change, doesn't he fit into this sub average major leaguer that is hard to justify moving category?
IF he was young, sure. And the Cubs didn't deal him when he was both above average at a premium position and cheap.

Now, he's average to below and is already in arbitration. Very different scenario.

Mell413
07-01-2010, 01:22 AM
I noticed one of the comments on the Fangraphs website mentioned that Crane Kenney was the one responsible for the Soriano contract and not Hendry. I've heard that mentioned before. I was just curious as to who is responsible for that contract?

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 01:34 AM
I noticed one of the comments on the Fangraphs website mentioned that Crane Kenney was the one responsible for the Soriano contract and not Hendry. I've heard that mentioned before. I was just curious as to who is responsible for that contract?

I never heard that but it would make sense. There was no way we weren't walking out of that offseason without some star power. And IIRC Soriano was the biggest free agent that winter by a decent margin. Weren't Zito and JD Drew the next best things?

Mell413
07-01-2010, 01:39 AM
I never heard that but it would make sense. There was no way we weren't walking out of that offseason without some star power. And IIRC Soriano was the biggest free agent that winter by a decent margin. Weren't Zito and JD Drew the next best things?

I think you're right in regards to Zito and Drew. Take it with several grains of salt, but I do have a friend that knows someone within the organization and he told me that Carlos lee was the guy Hendry wanted. I believe Kenney told Hendry to get Soriano at all costs. That would probably explain why they outbid themselves. I think I've heard on the Score as well that the Soriano deal was not all Hendry's doing. Daisuke was also in that class as well. Jason Schmidt was too, but I'm not sure how highly regarded he was then.

Str1fe5
07-01-2010, 10:24 AM
While we're on the topic of the 2007 offseason:

During the offseason between 2006 and 2007, my father was eating at one of his favorite restaurants: The Mirabel on the North Side (off of Addison, a couple blocks west of Kimball). While there, John McDonaugh and two other guys were eating there as well. My dad overheard one of the other guys ask John how he thought the Cubs would do in his first season as president. And he said I think we're going to make the playoffs. Why do you think that the other asked. And John McDonaugh said "Because I have Alfonso Soriano's cell phone number" said McDonaugh.

My dad called me as soon as he heard that convo. Sure enough, a week or two later, there the Cubs were introducing Soriano. The other two could have included Crane Kenney, my dad didn't recognize those two guys though.

BDawk4Prez
07-01-2010, 10:33 AM
Here's what we can do - Update

Blow this mother ****er up!!!!

windycityD
07-01-2010, 12:30 PM
While we're on the topic of the 2007 offseason:

During the offseason between 2006 and 2007, my father was eating at one of his favorite restaurants: The Mirabel on the North Side (off of Addison, a couple blocks west of Kimball). While there, John McDonaugh and two other guys were eating there as well. My dad overheard one of the other guys ask John how he thought the Cubs would do in his first season as president. And he said I think we're going to make the playoffs. Why do you think that the other asked. And John McDonaugh said "Because I have Alfonso Soriano's cell phone number" said McDonaugh.

My dad called me as soon as he heard that convo. Sure enough, a week or two later, there the Cubs were introducing Soriano. The other two could have included Crane Kenney, my dad didn't recognize those two guys though.

Funny how Soriano and his deal are near the least of our troubles now.

I'm sorry, but as GM, Hendry was in this mix somewhere. Not even a mutual or club option & sizeable buyout on the back end w/ AS. Zambrano got a full NTC, same for Lee. The blame game if you will is plural and all those involved were basically spending mad money.

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 12:40 PM
Funny how Soriano and his deal are near the least of our troubles now.

I'm sorry, but as GM, Hendry was in this mix somewhere. Not even a mutual or club option & sizeable buyout on the back end w/ AS. Zambrano got a full NTC, same for Lee. The blame game if you will is plural and all those involved were basically spending mad money.

Most of those NTC's aren't really a big deal though. Lee got 10/5 rights during the 08/09 offseason. Ramirez got his last offseason. Soriano would have gotten his next winter, same with Z. Aside from the Z one, none of them have hurt us because guys would have gotten a NTC through 10/5 anyway. And even the Z one who would have predicted we wanted him gone before he turned 30? The Lee and Soriano ones have so far actually helped us, because we probably would have dumped Lee after the 08 season, and might have dumepd Soriano last winter.

Yagyu+
07-01-2010, 12:45 PM
Most of those NTC's aren't really a big deal though. Lee got 10/5 rights during the 08/09 offseason. Ramirez got his last offseason. Soriano would have gotten his next winter, same with Z. Aside from the Z one, none of them have hurt us because guys would have gotten a NTC through 10/5 anyway. And even the Z one who would have predicted we wanted him gone before he turned 30? The Lee and Soriano ones have so far actually helped us, because we probably would have dumped Lee after the 08 season, and might have dumepd Soriano last winter.

That's a point I had never considered. I feel like we won't ever really know how damaging guaranteeing those clauses are. We can speculate as to whether or not a player would/wouldn't veto going somewhere, but we'll never have an idea of what potential trades we lost out on as a result. The Derrek Lee to east coast mystery team that he shot down right before we signed Bradley comes to mind.

windycityD
07-01-2010, 12:47 PM
Most of those NTC's aren't really a big deal though. Lee got 10/5 rights during the 08/09 offseason. Ramirez got his last offseason. Soriano would have gotten his next winter, same with Z. Aside from the Z one, none of them have hurt us because guys would have gotten a NTC through 10/5 anyway. And even the Z one who would have predicted we wanted him gone before he turned 30? The Lee and Soriano ones have so far actually helped us, because we probably would have dumped Lee after the 08 season, and might have dumepd Soriano last winter.

If reports & my memory were correct, Hendry tried to work a deal out involving Lee in winter 08/ 09. My guess is, because Dunn, aka the left handed power bat, middle of the order hitter & run producer Bradley was not, was available then & didn't sign w The Nationals until Feb '09.

Soriano last winter was an injured question mark.

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 12:52 PM
If reports & my memory were correct, Hendry tried to work a deal out involving Lee in winter 08/ 09. My guess is, because Dunn, aka the left handed power bat, middle of the order hitter & run producer Bradley was not, was available then & didn't sign w The Nationals until Feb '09.

Soriano last winter was an injured question mark.

Yeah I think it was the Giants Lee was going to go to, I'm just saying that in the Lee case his NTC actually helped us, although in a month it might do the opposite. Same with Soriano, this past winter it helped us, although this time next year we might be cursing it.

windycityD
07-01-2010, 01:02 PM
Yeah I think it was the Giants Lee was going to go to, I'm just saying that in the Lee case his NTC actually helped us, although in a month it might do the opposite. Same with Soriano, this past winter it helped us, although this time next year we might be cursing it.

I don't disagree with you.

What we'll be cursing is the bloated, three year deal Dunn could get from Hendry or the next GM here. If Rickett's signs off on adding another big contract this winter, Dunn will be that player & signing imo for 1b.

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 01:15 PM
I don't disagree with you.

What we'll be cursing is the bloated, three year deal Dunn could get from Hendry or the next GM here. If Rickett's signs off on adding another big contract this winter, Dunn will be that player & signing imo for 1b.

You know, I see where you're coming from with that, because it does make a lot of sense, but I get a sneaking suspicion it's going to be the opposite. I think we're going to make a run at Carl Crawford or Jayson Werth. Now maybe this is me reading into things too much since those are the guys I want, but hear me out.

- Every year the Cubs have some sort of problem, and then the Cubs act like that was their only problem and the only thing they need to address in the winter. In the 05 offseason it was the bullpen and a leadoff hitter, in 06 it was everything, in 07 it was outfield help, in 08 it was getting more lefthanded, and I think this year it's going to be speed and defense. What have we heard so far this year? That we're too reliant on the three run homer and that we've been making too many errors. A speed demon like Crawford(and Werth to a lesser extent) would help fix both of those issues.

- I know he's not going to be back, but Lou's been complaining forever about the lack of basestealing speed on this team, I'd imagine the new guy will probably want it too.

- We're having a really bad year so Ricketts is going to want to make a please the fanbase get everyone back on his good side type of move. Crawford, Werth, and Cliff Lee are the only huge names on the market this winter, and we have too much pitching to spend a ton of money on Lee.

I think Crawford, or if he's too much money a trade for someone who's a lesser version, is going to be in the offing this winter.

Yagyu+
07-01-2010, 01:19 PM
- We're having a really bad year so Ricketts is going to want to make a please the fanbase get everyone back on his good side type of move. Crawford, Werth, and Cliff Lee are the only huge names on the market this winter, and we have too much pitching to spend a ton of money on Lee.

It probably doesn't have the greatest odds of happening, but by the end of July we might not have anything close to the rotation we have now. If we trade away a number of players I could see us being in the running for Lee.

Radio in LA keeps mentioning Cliff Lee to Minnesota or the Yankees.

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 01:24 PM
It probably doesn't have the greatest odds of happening, but by the end of July we might not have anything close to the rotation we have now. If we trade away a number of players I could see us being in the running for Lee.

Radio in LA keeps mentioning Cliff Lee to Minnesota or the Yankees.

I can't see it happening unless we trade Lilly and both Carloses. Or we trade Lilly, one Carlos, and either Gorzelanny or Wells gets sent off into doghouse purgatory. We right now have 7 legit rotation options(8 if you still count Marshall) on the major league roster plus several more in AA and AAA. Lilly's for sure gone after this year and I'd imagine one of the Carloses is too. But I don't see us shopping for pitching this winter unless it's something like a reclamation project on Webb or something. I think the focus will be on the offense and possibly the defense.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 01:26 PM
I can't see it happening unless we trade Lilly and both Carloses. Or we trade Lilly, one Carlos, and either Gorzelanny or Wells gets sent off into doghouse purgatory. We right now have 7 legit rotation options(8 if you still count Marshall) on the major league roster plus several more in AA and AAA. Lilly's for sure gone after this year and I'd imagine one of the Carloses is too. But I don't see us shopping for pitching this winter unless it's something like a reclamation project on Webb or something. I think the focus will be on the offense and possibly the defense.
This is the Cubs man. A team with no grasp that offense exists outside of the home run.

dyceman
07-01-2010, 01:27 PM
It probably doesn't have the greatest odds of happening, but by the end of July we might not have anything close to the rotation we have now. If we trade away a number of players I could see us being in the running for Lee.

Radio in LA keeps mentioning Cliff Lee to Minnesota or the Yankees.

Yagyu, are they also mentioning that Dunn is on the Angels' short-list?
I don't think that Lee is on anyone's list right now...

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 01:29 PM
This is the Cubs man. A team with no grasp that offense exists outside of the home run.

I don't mind sitting around waiting for the three run homerun, as long as it's like 07 or 08 where we get enough of them, but I think if he's still here Hendry's "mission" this winter is going to be speed and defense. I really think it's going to be the new real leadoff man or getting more lefthanded.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 02:14 PM
I don't mind sitting around waiting for the three run homerun, as long as it's like 07 or 08 where we get enough of them, but I think if he's still here Hendry's "mission" this winter is going to be speed and defense. I really think it's going to be the new real leadoff man or getting more lefthanded.
Based on?

Outside of Juan Pierre and maybe Milton Bradley, I don't recall the team actively seeking anything but pitching and home runs. Speed and defense is probably one of the worst things the team can do. That's just about all it currently has.

Yagyu+
07-01-2010, 02:20 PM
I can't see it happening unless we trade Lilly and both Carloses. Or we trade Lilly, one Carlos, and either Gorzelanny or Wells gets sent off into doghouse purgatory. We right now have 7 legit rotation options(8 if you still count Marshall) on the major league roster plus several more in AA and AAA. Lilly's for sure gone after this year and I'd imagine one of the Carloses is too. But I don't see us shopping for pitching this winter unless it's something like a reclamation project on Webb or something. I think the focus will be on the offense and possibly the defense.

I like that we can discuss multiple Carloses.

I miss the box scores that read Carlos-Carlos-Sean-Carlos.


Yagyu, are they also mentioning that Dunn is on the Angels' short-list?
I don't think that Lee is on anyone's list right now...

There's some Angels fans here that have been talking about getting Konerko since 2005. I don't know much about what that organization is pushing for. The Kazmir move surprised the hell out of me last year. I'll keep my ears piqued though.

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 02:23 PM
Based on?

Outside of Juan Pierre and maybe Milton Bradley, I don't recall the team actively seeking anything but pitching and home runs. Speed and defense is probably one of the worst things the team can do. That's just about all it currently has.

There's been a lot of complaining about our reliance on the homerun. Also pretty much his entire time Lou has been here he's been disappointed that Theriot is our only basestealing threat. And lately they've been harping on the defense. I think someone like Crawford or Werth that's got speed and defense is going to be what we're looking for.

And Hendry does have that tendency to zero in on something and focus in on that. In the 05 the bullpen sucked and we didn't have a "true leadoff man", so we spent a good bit of money on Howry and Eyre and overpaid for Pierre. And then after 08 there was that ridiculous left handed fetish. Now I mean obviously it's not a for sure thing, but I think in late September or early October we're going to be hearing all about how we need to improve the speed and defense and that's going to be the focus this offseason. That is assuming Hendry's still the man though.

Doogolas
07-01-2010, 02:37 PM
Based on?

Outside of Juan Pierre and maybe Milton Bradley, I don't recall the team actively seeking anything but pitching and home runs. Speed and defense is probably one of the worst things the team can do. That's just about all it currently has.

Teams who hit lot's of home runs win World Series. I even researched it a bit. Not a massive sample size. But of the teams who won the WS the last I think 6 or 7 years, they have a .350-ish win percentage when they don't homer.

Mell413
07-01-2010, 02:53 PM
You know, I see where you're coming from with that, because it does make a lot of sense, but I get a sneaking suspicion it's going to be the opposite. I think we're going to make a run at Carl Crawford or Jayson Werth. Now maybe this is me reading into things too much since those are the guys I want, but hear me out.

- Every year the Cubs have some sort of problem, and then the Cubs act like that was their only problem and the only thing they need to address in the winter. In the 05 offseason it was the bullpen and a leadoff hitter, in 06 it was everything, in 07 it was outfield help, in 08 it was getting more lefthanded, and I think this year it's going to be speed and defense. What have we heard so far this year? That we're too reliant on the three run homer and that we've been making too many errors. A speed demon like Crawford(and Werth to a lesser extent) would help fix both of those issues.

- I know he's not going to be back, but Lou's been complaining forever about the lack of basestealing speed on this team, I'd imagine the new guy will probably want it too.

- We're having a really bad year so Ricketts is going to want to make a please the fanbase get everyone back on his good side type of move. Crawford, Werth, and Cliff Lee are the only huge names on the market this winter, and we have too much pitching to spend a ton of money on Lee.

I think Crawford, or if he's too much money a trade for someone who's a lesser version, is going to be in the offing this winter.

I agree with you on this. I even suggested that Ricketts is going to have to do something to win the fans over. I hate to say it since the Cubs are my favorite team, but they are an afterthought now. Minus 3B I don't see any bad defenders on the team so I'm not sure how you upgrade the defense when they have plus defenders at most spots.

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 02:58 PM
I agree with you on this. I even suggested that Ricketts is going to have to do something to win the fans over. I hate to say it since the Cubs are my favorite team, but they are an afterthought now. Minus 3B I don't see any bad defenders on the team so I'm not sure how you upgrade the defense when they have plus defenders at most spots.

Crawford would be a pretty big improvement in the OF, and werth would be a decent one. Or we could trade for an infielder who's a badass defender, but none that would likely be available come to mind.

windycityD
07-01-2010, 03:59 PM
You know, I see where you're coming from with that, because it does make a lot of sense, but I get a sneaking suspicion it's going to be the opposite. I think we're going to make a run at Carl Crawford or Jayson Werth. Now maybe this is me reading into things too much since those are the guys I want, but hear me out.

- Every year the Cubs have some sort of problem, and then the Cubs act like that was their only problem and the only thing they need to address in the winter. In the 05 offseason it was the bullpen and a leadoff hitter, in 06 it was everything, in 07 it was outfield help, in 08 it was getting more lefthanded, and I think this year it's going to be speed and defense. What have we heard so far this year? That we're too reliant on the three run homer and that we've been making too many errors. A speed demon like Crawford(and Werth to a lesser extent) would help fix both of those issues.

- I know he's not going to be back, but Lou's been complaining forever about the lack of basestealing speed on this team, I'd imagine the new guy will probably want it too.

- We're having a really bad year so Ricketts is going to want to make a please the fanbase get everyone back on his good side type of move. Crawford, Werth, and Cliff Lee are the only huge names on the market this winter, and we have too much pitching to spend a ton of money on Lee.

I think Crawford, or if he's too much money a trade for someone who's a lesser version, is going to be in the offing this winter.

I'm going to assume here that Hendry gets one more year, is not fired after this season, and is allowed to sing the proverbial "big bat" once again. If that's the case, this is exactly how I see this going down:

1) In the winter, he'll flip Byrd and Silva to help clear some payroll at pretty good value. In the case of Byrd, a very DeRosa-like return for pitching.
2) Colvin will get the CF gig for 2011, Fukudome wont be dealt b/c of his contract. He will sign a vet 4th OF who can hit from the right side and play CF. Reed Johnson would be on that short list.
3) He will give Dunn three years at 15, 16, and 18 per.

Like it or not (and I don't), the "we need left handed power" need will win the day. In addition to a larger contract, Crawford is ideally a LF, and well, we don't have an opening there. Werth is a RF and I really believe we wont have an opening there either. That's why I see Dunn as more "viable."

cowboydoc45
07-01-2010, 04:39 PM
I'm going to assume here that Hendry gets one more year, is not fired after this season, and is allowed to sing the proverbial "big bat" once again. If that's the case, this is exactly how I see this going down:

1) In the winter, he'll flip Byrd and Silva to help clear some payroll at pretty good value. In the case of Byrd, a very DeRosa-like return for pitching.
2) Colvin will get the CF gig for 2011, Fukudome wont be dealt b/c of his contract. He will sign a vet 4th OF who can hit from the right side and play CF. Reed Johnson would be on that short list.
3) He will give Dunn three years at 15, 16, and 18 per.

Like it or not (and I don't), the "we need left handed power" need will win the day. In addition to a larger contract, Crawford is ideally a LF, and well, we don't have an opening there. Werth is a RF and I really believe we wont have an opening there either. That's why I see Dunn as more "viable."

Honestly, depending on what happens with Zambrano and Lilly, that isn't a bad idea, the problem is, if we trade Zambrano, Lilly, and Silva, that leaves us with rotation of Dempster, Wells, Gorzo, and ?? ??. This could be offset by getting someone back that would be rotation ready in one of the Silva, Byrd deals.

I like the idea of Dunn at 1b next season, maybe have Cashner pitch some winter league to stretch his arm back out a bit, and put him in the rotation, which would only leave one hole. The 4th OF could very well be Nady again (depending on how this season goes), it could also give us a chance to see someone like Jackson.

Captain Obvious
07-01-2010, 04:42 PM
I think that Hendry will be here for the rest of his contract, because like it has been said before, why would Ricketts wanna pay 2 GMs?

As for this offseason, I think we are going to hear a bunch of rumors involving Adrian Gonzalez. I doubt we will get him, but it will get things swirling for 2011, in which I think we will sign him as a FA. As for this offseason, I don't see us doing a lot, maybe, maybe, maybe signing Cliff Lee, but I see it being more trades than anything else.

windycityD
07-01-2010, 04:59 PM
Honestly, depending on what happens with Zambrano and Lilly, that isn't a bad idea, the problem is, if we trade Zambrano, Lilly, and Silva, that leaves us with rotation of Dempster, Wells, Gorzo, and ?? ??. This could be offset by getting someone back that would be rotation ready in one of the Silva, Byrd deals.

I like the idea of Dunn at 1b next season, maybe have Cashner pitch some winter league to stretch his arm back out a bit, and put him in the rotation, which would only leave one hole. The 4th OF could very well be Nady again (depending on how this season goes), it could also give us a chance to see someone like Jackson.

I'm presenting this on the premise of Hendry's mo as GM. A new GM might be equally capable of this, but with Hendry, I think these kinda moves are about as safe of a bet as one could guesstimate. In his defense, where Hendry could possibly make hay would be the specs coming back, particularly via trading Byrd. However, signing Dunn to those numbers would effectively maintain a status quo that would only hamstring us further & long-term.

In terms of established & productive lefty starters, Lilly (who I feel we should deal for specs) is going to hit the market this winter, right along with Cliff Lee. Obviously, Cliff Lee is not going to be pitching here if we were to ink Dunn under those terms and numbers. Re-upping Lilly can and could happen. The other part of this equation is yes, Zambrano. Although I feel moves will be explored this winter, I do not feel Z will or can be moved where it's truly beneficial to us. Whether that's a good thing or not, TBD. If our 2011 rotation were Lilly, Dempster, Zambrano, Gorzo, and Cashner, I'd wager we would be better than ok there.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 05:51 PM
Teams who hit lot's of home runs win World Series. I even researched it a bit. Not a massive sample size. But of the teams who won the WS the last I think 6 or 7 years, they have a .350-ish win percentage when they don't homer.
And, again, that has *NOTHING* to do with anything.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 05:52 PM
There's been a lot of complaining about our reliance on the homerun. Also pretty much his entire time Lou has been here he's been disappointed that Theriot is our only basestealing threat. And lately they've been harping on the defense. I think someone like Crawford or Werth that's got speed and defense is going to be what we're looking for.

And Hendry does have that tendency to zero in on something and focus in on that. In the 05 the bullpen sucked and we didn't have a "true leadoff man", so we spent a good bit of money on Howry and Eyre and overpaid for Pierre. And then after 08 there was that ridiculous left handed fetish. Now I mean obviously it's not a for sure thing, but I think in late September or early October we're going to be hearing all about how we need to improve the speed and defense and that's going to be the focus this offseason. That is assuming Hendry's still the man though.
If that is how the offseason ends up, you can basically write 2011 and 2012 off too.

This team needs to reevaluate, not continually try to patch itself up. I don't think a fire sale is the right way to go, but spending big FA dollars on old players with young player skills is just replaying Soriano over again.

For now I'm going to cross my fingers and hope someone, somewhere has learned that just signing the hot free agent no matter how well he actually fits isn't a particularly good idea.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 05:53 PM
Crawford would be a pretty big improvement in the OF, and werth would be a decent one. Or we could trade for an infielder who's a badass defender, but none that would likely be available come to mind.
Werth is probably the single worst thing the Cubs could possibly do. He'll cost too much and end up heavily disappointing the fanbase.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 06:01 PM
Crawford would be a pretty big improvement in the OF, and werth would be a decent one. Or we could trade for an infielder who's a badass defender, but none that would likely be available come to mind.
I have a hard time seeing a scenario where Werth or Crawford improve the OF defensively without moving Soriano to first base. They may help offensively but Crawford in CF or Werth in RF is probably a defensive downgrade.

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 06:03 PM
If that is how the offseason ends up, you can basically write 2011 and 2012 off too.

This team needs to reevaluate, not continually try to patch itself up. I don't think a fire sale is the right way to go, but spending big FA dollars on old players with young player skills is just replaying Soriano over again.

I don't think we ever will, and I'm not sure we necessarily should, ever write off a season as long as the NL Central is as week as it is. I would spend some money but I think it depends on who. I think getting Crawford would be a good idea if he could be had for a reasonable amount(Matt Holliday money?) because he's a legit star that's likely to age well, and he'll only be 29 next year.

But I really do think speed/defense is going to be the way we go. I'm just really getting that vibe that we're gonna have to "go back to an old school style of baseball" or something like that.


Werth is probably the single worst thing the Cubs could possibly do. He'll cost too much and end up heavily disappointing the fanbase.

I think it depends on money. If he'll take Jason Bay money I think he'd probably end up being worth it. Probably not likely that he could be signed for that little, but with how few big market teams need outfielders and with Crawford on the market it's possible.

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 06:06 PM
I have a hard time seeing a scenario where Werth or Crawford improve the OF defensively without moving Soriano to first base. They may help offensively but Crawford in CF or Werth in RF is probably a defensive downgrade.

I think Fuku's going to be gone in the near future so as to continue giving Colvin a shot. If Colvin's the real deal we could move him to first, since all the FA first basemen this winter have big questions or are old, and have a Sori-Byrd-Crawford outfield.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 06:20 PM
I don't think we ever will, and I'm not sure we necessarily should, ever write off a season as long as the NL Central is as week as it is. I would spend some money but I think it depends on who. I think getting Crawford would be a good idea if he could be had for a reasonable amount(Matt Holliday money?) because he's a legit star that's likely to age well, and he'll only be 29 next year.

But I really do think speed/defense is going to be the way we go. I'm just really getting that vibe that we're gonna have to "go back to an old school style of baseball" or something like that.



I think it depends on money. If he'll take Jason Bay money I think he'd probably end up being worth it. Probably not likely that he could be signed for that little, but with how few big market teams need outfielders and with Crawford on the market it's possible.
Which is troubling. For all of Ricketts talk about the Red Sox, going old school is basically failing to grasp that it's old school for a reason: it doesn't really work. It's generally just an excuse to not spend since speed and defense tends to be cheap.

Crawford I can handle, although I don't know where he'd play. He's at best a little more than average in CF, very possibly a bit below. Paying a fortune for another player who doesn't really have an ideal spot to play sits poorly with me. The Soriano mistake wasn't in Soriano himself, it was signing Soriano with the belief he'd be a long term CF. Doing the same again with Crawford does not bode well. Practically Soriano is here through 2014, playing Crawford out of position for 4 seasons so he can play in position for hte last couple of years of his deal is hard to justify.

As for Werth, there is no way I want to sign him for 4/66, Bay is earning 16 million a year and has a vesting 17 million dollar option. Paying a 38 year old Soriano 18 million and a 35 Werth 16 million in 2014 is *NOT* attractive. Especially given that Werth probably gets 16 million for his age 36 season as well, and given that Bays vests easy, 17 at age 37. He's a bad big money signing. Whats more he plays one of the few positions the Cubs are reasonably likely to produce minor leaguers to play.

I don't think you sign him for more than the cubs signed Milton Bradly. Jason Bay money is way too much for this team if it actually wants to do something before 2020.

I really don't think free agents are a good idea for this team.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 06:22 PM
I think Fuku's going to be gone in the near future so as to continue giving Colvin a shot. If Colvin's the real deal we could move him to first, since all the FA first basemen this winter have big questions or are old, and have a Sori-Byrd-Crawford outfield.
So the back to basics cubs are going to put a likely 120 million dollar, fringe average armed outfielder into right field? Hope he doesn't injure his leg.

And Colvin is going to come close to producing appropriately for a 1B and end up being a postive on defense?

Don't call me convinced on either topic.

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 06:27 PM
Which is troubling. For all of Ricketts talk about the Red Sox, going old school is basically failing to grasp that it's old school for a reason: it doesn't really work. It's generally just an excuse to not spend since speed and defense tends to be cheap.

Crawford I can handle, although I don't know where he'd play. He's at best a little more than average in CF, very possibly a bit below. Paying a fortune for another player who doesn't really have an ideal spot to play sits poorly with me. The Soriano mistake wasn't in Soriano himself, it was signing Soriano with the belief he'd be a long term CF. Doing the same again with Crawford does not bode well. Practically Soriano is here through 2014, playing Crawford out of position for 4 seasons so he can play in position for hte last couple of years of his deal is hard to justify.

As for Werth, there is no way I want to sign him for 4/66, Bay is earning 16 million a year and has a vesting 17 million dollar option. Paying a 38 year old Soriano 18 million and a 35 Werth 16 million in 2014 is *NOT* attractive. Especially given that Werth probably gets 16 million for his age 36 season as well, and given that Bays vests easy, 17 at age 37. He's a bad big money signing. Whats more he plays one of the few positions the Cubs are reasonably likely to produce minor leaguers to play.

I don't think you sign him for more than the cubs signed Milton Bradly. Jason Bay money is way too much for this team if it actually wants to do something before 2020.

I really don't think free agents are a good idea for this team.

I didn't realize Bay had a vesting option, I just saw 4/66. But yeah, 2014 would be ugly in that scenario.

I like Crawford though. I think he could handle RF without much dropoff from how he plays LF. And if he doesn't like it and really wants to stay in LF, we could move Soriano. He'd lose some more balls in the sun but his arm would play there better so I don't think it'd be too big of a dropoff defensively for him. And I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to do it, as aside from the initial stink he raised when he got moved off of 2b he's been pretty accommodation of moves. He was willing to play CF for us, then moved back to left without a peep, and even moved out of leadoff without any *****ing, at least publicly.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 06:31 PM
I didn't realize Bay had a vesting option, I just saw 4/66. But yeah, 2014 would be ugly in that scenario.

I like Crawford though. I think he could handle RF without much dropoff from how he plays LF. And if he doesn't like it and really wants to stay in LF, we could move Soriano. He'd lose some more balls in the sun but his arm would play there better so I don't think it'd be too big of a dropoff defensively for him. And I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to do it, as aside from the initial stink he raised when he got moved off of 2b he's been pretty accommodation of moves. He was willing to play CF for us, then moved back to left without a peep, and even moved out of leadoff without any *****ing, at least publicly.
Soriano in RF is interesting. Crawford doesn't strike me as a horrible deal...if risky and essentially as flawed as the Zambrano and Soriano deals. I doubt Crawford is going to be a bargain.

And even without the option, you're basically proposing paying Jayson Werth 16 million dollars per season for his age 32 to 36 seasons. What are the chances he manages to a mass the 15ish wins he'd need to justify the contract while in his decline phase? Especially without Howard and Utley around him?

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 06:33 PM
So the back to basics cubs are going to put a likely 120 million dollar, fringe average armed outfielder into right field? Hope he doesn't injure his leg.

And Colvin is going to come close to producing appropriately for a 1B and end up being a postive on defense?

Don't call me convinced on either topic.

We'll see what Colvin does, first and foremost lets see how his bat holds up fore the rest of the season. Because if he has enough bat to be a good corner outfielder then he should have enough to be a decent 1b. Seriously at 1b our external options are older guys having poor seasons(Lee, Pena, Berkman), hoping Adam Dunn is no longer a butcher at 1b, some lesser guy like a Branyan or a Hinske, or a trade. If Colvin ends the season at something like .270/.330/.480 he's probably our best bet at 1b for a year before we can hopefully get an Agon or Fielder or have some other option emerge.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 06:38 PM
We'll see what Colvin does, first and foremost lets see how his bat holds up fore the rest of the season. Because if he has enough bat to be a good corner outfielder then he should have enough to be a decent 1b. Seriously at 1b our external options are older guys having poor seasons(Lee, Pena, Berkman), hoping Adam Dunn is no longer a butcher at 1b, some lesser guy like a Branyan or a Hinske, or a trade. If Colvin ends the season at something like .270/.330/.480 he's probably our best bet at 1b for a year before we can hopefully get an Agon or Fielder or have some other option emerge.
Still, that means having to trade COlvin or Jackson away while they are cheap since Colvin isn't that likely to live up to contending team 1B standards, and if you fill RF with a very expensive OF...

I simply prefer 1-2 year risk deals on older players like Lee or Berkman than giving someone a 4, 5, or 7 year commitment at another position and forcing a prospect who's best skill is his defense play a largely defensively irrelevent position.

More troubling still, if Colvin holds the fort down at 1B and hits, the .270/.330/.480 you suggest...coming close to 30 homers...I don't really think they'll *GET* AGon, they'll keep Colvin there for 4 or 5 years. Wouldn't it be easier just to pay the Diamondbacks whatever paltry sum they'll want for Adam LaRoche?

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 06:38 PM
Soriano in RF is interesting. Crawford doesn't strike me as a horrible deal...if risky and essentially as flawed as the Zambrano and Soriano deals. I doubt Crawford is going to be a bargain.

And even without the option, you're basically proposing paying Jayson Werth 16 million dollars per season for his age 32 to 36 seasons. What are the chances he manages to a mass the 15ish wins he'd need to justify the contract while in his decline phase? Especially without Howard and Utley around him?

Yeah Werth's probably not a great idea at least not for that money. Although he's been a 4-5 win guy the past few years so if he did something like 4.5, 4, 3, 2, and the value of a win went back to about 5 he'd end up being worth it.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 06:40 PM
Yeah Werth's probably not a great idea at least not for that money. Although he's been a 4-5 win guy the past few years so if he did something like 4.5, 4, 3, 2, and the value of a win went back to about 5 he'd end up being worth it.
Technically he would be, but he'd also be the least popular player on the team and a massive albatross those two years.

Cubs fans don't like 2 win players making more than about 4 million dollars.

It's honestly robbing peter to pay paul. You get a 2011 team thats markedly better at the cost of a 2013 team that is worse. Thats basically what this season is, the "worse" that the Cubs got for what they paid for 2008. If the Cubs want to be consistent contenders, they have to stop making moves designed to be valuable for only half of the time they are paying the player.

Str1fe5
07-01-2010, 06:42 PM
I still say the blueprint should be to shop Lee for whatever you can get at the deadline, move Soriano to 1B, play Colvin in LF and move Fukudome at the following deadline, and hold on any big FA acquisitions this off season. The big ticket FA class is the following year, when there are going to be what, 3 big time FA 1B? Fielder, Gonzalez, and possibly Pujols. I'm perfectly okay with signing or trading for a 2B. But I don't like the idea of getting fat on a guy like Dunn and/or Crawford/Werth. As Kirel said, Crawford would have to play out of position, Dunn is a mixed bag, and Werth is just too old and will likely demand money he's not really worth.

A lineup of:

1. Fukudome
2. Castro
3. Soriano
4. Ramirez
5. Byrd
6. Soto
7. Colvin
8. FA 2B
9. Dempster/Gorzo/Wells/Cashner/Silva(or Zambrano)

and a payroll of 115 to 125 million (the Cubs have 105 million on the books before arb or any other FA next year as it is), with attendance down, I sincerely doubt the budget will be 145 million again. Ricketts is going to want it in the 130 to 135 range anyway. I'd rather wait and make this team great for the long haul instead of trying to get marginally better and not any younger so we can tread water in a mediocre division.

Str1fe5
07-01-2010, 06:45 PM
Still, that means having to trade COlvin or Jackson away while they are cheap since Colvin isn't that likely to live up to contending team 1B standards, and if you fill RF with a very expensive OF...

I simply prefer 1-2 year risk deals on older players like Lee or Berkman than giving someone a 4, 5, or 7 year commitment at another position and forcing a prospect who's best skill is his defense play a largely defensively irrelevent position.

More troubling still, if Colvin holds the fort down at 1B and hits, the .270/.330/.480 you suggest...coming close to 30 homers...I don't really think they'll *GET* AGon, they'll keep Colvin there for 4 or 5 years. Wouldn't it be easier just to pay the Diamondbacks whatever paltry sum they'll want for Adam LaRoche?

Which is why I say lets not spend money on an OF at all this off season, or a 1B, hold onto Fukudome for another 2/3 of a season in 2011 and just slide Colvin into RF if he holds up in 2012 and go after bigger name guys.

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 06:46 PM
Still, that means having to trade COlvin or Jackson away while they are cheap since Colvin isn't that likely to live up to contending team 1B standards, and if you fill RF with a very expensive OF...

I simply prefer 1-2 year risk deals on older players like Lee or Berkman than giving someone a 4, 5, or 7 year commitment at another position and forcing a prospect who's best skill is his defense play a largely defensively irrelevent position.

More troubling still, if Colvin holds the fort down at 1B and hits, the .270/.330/.480 you suggest...coming close to 30 homers...I don't really think they'll *GET* AGon, they'll keep Colvin there for 4 or 5 years. Wouldn't it be easier just to pay the Diamondbacks whatever paltry sum they'll want for Adam LaRoche?

Next year's just so hard. The NL Central is going to suck again in all likelihood, and depending on what happens with Fuku and Silva we could have a lot of money to play with. It's hard to balance out competing next year with not hurting ourselves going forward. I think Crawford could do that and he might be the only one. If Colvin hits, we can put him at 1b for a year and then trade him to hopefully get a real elite 1b in here. If he doesn't and Fukudome is indeed traded this month then we'll have an outfield spot open over the winter and I think I'd rather wait for Jackson to push his way to the majors and then move Byrd than to hold that spot in limbo to wait for him.

Kirel
07-01-2010, 06:49 PM
I still say the blueprint should be to shop Lee for whatever you can get at the deadline, move Soriano to 1B, play Colvin in LF and move Fukudome at the following deadline, and hold on any big FA acquisitions this off season. The big ticket FA class is the following year, when there are going to be what, 3 big time FA 1B? Fielder, Gonzalez, and possibly Pujols. I'm perfectly okay with signing or trading for a 2B. But I don't like the idea of getting fat on a guy like Dunn and/or Crawford/Werth. As Kirel said, Crawford would have to play out of position, Dunn is a mixed bag, and Werth is just too old and will likely demand money he's not really worth.

A lineup of:

1. Fukudome
2. Castro
3. Soriano
4. Ramirez
5. Byrd
6. Soto
7. Colvin
8. FA 2B
9. Dempster/Gorzo/Wells/Cashner/Silva(or Zambrano)

and a payroll of 115 to 125 million (the Cubs have 105 million on the books before arb or any other FA next year as it is), with attendance down, I sincerely doubt the budget will be 145 million again. Ricketts is going to want it in the 130 to 135 range anyway. I'd rather wait and make this team great for the long haul instead of trying to get marginally better and not any younger so we can tread water in a mediocre division.
I agree with this mostly, although if you can trade Byrd and Fukudome, I'd be ok with a Soriano-Colvin-Crawford(Or Crawford-Colvin-Soriano) outfield for a year or two, retaining Derrek Lee or some other short term 1B(Branyan, LaRoche) and dealing with 1B at the deadline or post 2011. Or trade for someone like Kila Ka'aihue or maybe even trying to get someone like Scott Sizemore at 2B, moving the three headed Fontenot\Theriot\Baker monster to 3B and Ramirez to 1B for a year.

I am not a big fan of moving Soriano to 1B just to move him somewhere else a season later. So I think that should be off the table.

Jilly Bohnson
07-01-2010, 06:51 PM
Technically he would be, but he'd also be the least popular player on the team and a massive albatross those two years.

Cubs fans don't like 2 win players making more than about 4 million dollars.

It's honestly robbing peter to pay paul. You get a 2011 team thats markedly better at the cost of a 2013 team that is worse. Thats basically what this season is, the "worse" that the Cubs got for what they paid for 2008. If the Cubs want to be consistent contenders, they have to stop making moves designed to be valuable for only half of the time they are paying the player.

Fair enough. I just don't like the prospects of the NL Central going forward. Houston's dying, the Cardinals are going to be up **** creek once they have to pay Pujols market value, the Brewers are dying, the Reds are pretty good but nothing scarey, and I kind of like Neil Huntinton but it's still hard to take the Pirates seriously. I think robbing Peter to pay Paul, as long as you don't do it too extensively, might be the best idea while the division is in shambles.

Also, I'm curious as to what you would do. And I don't mean that in a snobby "Fine you don't like my ideas lets see yours" way, I mean that in a "I'm genuinely curious what your plan would be" way. Do you pretty much just stand pat with a Laroche and maybe a reclamation project like Webb or something and just wait for 2012?

Kirel
07-01-2010, 07:11 PM
Fair enough. I just don't like the prospects of the NL Central going forward. Houston's dying, the Cardinals are going to be up **** creek once they have to pay Pujols market value, the Brewers are dying, the Reds are pretty good but nothing scarey, and I kind of like Neil Huntinton but it's still hard to take the Pirates seriously. I think robbing Peter to pay Paul, as long as you don't do it too extensively, might be the best idea while the division is in shambles.

Also, I'm curious as to what you would do. And I don't mean that in a snobby "Fine you don't like my ideas lets see yours" way, I mean that in a "I'm genuinely curious what your plan would be" way. Do you pretty much just stand pat with a Laroche and maybe a reclamation project like Webb or something and just wait for 2012?
Well, no, not exactly, although it's much harder to put what I would do in solid names.

Like I said above, I like the idea of going a bit...unexpected.
A very vauge plan of action that I'd call the "up the middle" approach.

1. Trade Silva, Byrd, Theriot, and Fukudome if they aren't already gone.
2. Look for a rotation reclamation prospect: Brandon Webb, Scott Kazmir.
3. Look for an undervalued 2B/3B type. Players like: Ian Stewert, Scott Sizemore, Kevin Kouzmanoff, Chase Headly(I think he'd be considerably more impressive away from Petco), Rickie Weeks, Kelly Johnson, even Alberto Callaspo.\
4. Move Ramirez to 1B
5. Move Fontenot\Baker to 3B if you acquire a 2B, leave them at 2B if you do not.
6. Play Colvin in CF
7. Take a good shot at Crawford for a COF spot

Another possible plan would be to do essentially the same thing but look for unlikely 1Bs instead of less obvious 2b/3b guys. Mike Napoli could look good playing 1B, Ka'auhie or whatever it is from the Royals, try to get Josh Willingham out of the Nationals for a reasonable price.

Talk to the Marlins about Cody Ross. Maybe put Dan Uggla at 1B or 3B.

Or a really wild suggestion: Acquire Ryan Doumit, play Doumit and Wellington Castillo at C and move Soto to 1B.

Of course my rotatoin in all of this is probably Dempster, Zambrano, and three of Wells, Cashner, Jackson, Marshall, and Gorzellany.

Doogolas
07-01-2010, 07:25 PM
I don't like Soriano at 1B. He's a good defensive OF, why give up his good defense there for what will likely be mediocre to poor defense at 1B? That makes no sense. Also while a small sample size still. Dunn's had the most innings ever in his career at 1B this year and is playing... extremely mediocre. If that keeps up the rest of the year he's easily our best option going into next year if we can sign him.

Mell413
07-02-2010, 12:43 AM
I've heard Scott Sizemore's name mentioned here a few times. He's struggled this year. I'm curious as to what you guys see in him?

The Stick
07-02-2010, 08:11 AM
If Cashner is moved to the rotation, the Cubs need to find someone to get the ball to Marmol or a closer and move Marmol back to late inning man.

Str1fe5
07-02-2010, 09:52 AM
I still think Soriano would be fine @ 1B. He's had experience in the infield before. If Adam Dunn can be mediocre there, Soriano can be mediocre there. I just don't see Colvin as any better of a defensive 1B than Soriano, and I am firmly against paying for a stopgap. I want 1B and money wide open for the 2012 class. Dunn won't take a 1 year deal, he's going to want at least 2 and probably 3.

If we move Byrd, then I'm fine with Crawford, although defensively I think they are close to a wash and offensively Crawford is better, but I'm not sure he's twice as good, which is about what he will cost monetarily.

I still think just holding onto the guys we have and making room for Colvin and Cashner is our best plan right now.

Getting a stop gap 3B and playing Ramirez @ 1B is fine too if we can move Fukudome/Byrd at the deadline/offsesaon.

windycityD
07-02-2010, 11:09 AM
If Cashner is moved to the rotation, the Cubs need to find someone to get the ball to Marmol or a closer and move Marmol back to late inning man.

If Cashner is put in the 5, Jackson will be brought up to replace him in the pen. I'm not saying Jackson should be or will be given the opp to be a main late inning set up guy after Marshall w/ Lou still around this season, but I sure as hell would give him that experience since this season is a wash.

Going into 2011, the one real deal bright spot we could have is our pen. Pending what's done or not done w/ Z, in addition to what we do or not do with Lilly, our rotation next season could also be a strength. This is my guess for both next year:

Rotation
Lilly (traded this July, hits FA market, re-signed for 2 years, plus player option for 2013)
Dempster
Zambrano or Silva
Gorzo
Cashner

Pen
Marmol
Marshall
Jackson
Grabow or Russell
Stevens
Russell or Gaub
(if we start off with seven...) Parker or Gray

I think whoever is GM will package Wells in a deal this winter for a bat & will try to move Grabow, whether it's eating some payroll or a like contract swap with a like vet arm. The 3rd starter situation in my mind will start with & come down to whether or not Z can bring a legitimate return in proportion to payroll eaten. If not, he stays & Silva gets dealt.

Kirel
07-02-2010, 11:22 AM
I still think Soriano would be fine @ 1B. He's had experience in the infield before. If Adam Dunn can be mediocre there, Soriano can be mediocre there. I just don't see Colvin as any better of a defensive 1B than Soriano, and I am firmly against paying for a stopgap. I want 1B and money wide open for the 2012 class. Dunn won't take a 1 year deal, he's going to want at least 2 and probably 3.

If we move Byrd, then I'm fine with Crawford, although defensively I think they are close to a wash and offensively Crawford is better, but I'm not sure he's twice as good, which is about what he will cost monetarily.

I still think just holding onto the guys we have and making room for Colvin and Cashner is our best plan right now.

Getting a stop gap 3B and playing Ramirez @ 1B is fine too if we can move Fukudome/Byrd at the deadline/offsesaon.
Crawford is 29, Byrd what, 32?

There is a strong chance Byrd ends up being a sub .750 OPS, somewhat disappointing defender before his contract ends

Str1fe5
07-02-2010, 01:31 PM
Crawford is 29, Byrd what, 32?

There is a strong chance Byrd ends up being a sub .750 OPS, somewhat disappointing defender before his contract ends

strong chance? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Do you mean its likely? Or that there is just a meaningful chance?

I'd say expecting this type of offensive season out of Byrd again isn't a good bet, but I'd say something in the .775 to .825 OPS and somewhere in the -2.5 to +2.5 CF defense range is probably the 50th percentile when Byrd is in year 3 of the deal. For what, 7 million that's a pretty decent bargain.

Crawford is going to want 5 years and somewhere in the 65-75 million range, right? I don't know, Crawford is most certainly a better player, something in the vicinity of 1 to 1.5 WAR per season better, I'd imagine, and he is younger, so a longer deal is justifiable, but with the logjam we already have in the OF I just don't see trying to squeeze another bat into the OF and spending pennies on the corner IF (either 1B or 3B) as being a good use of resources.

poodski
07-02-2010, 01:40 PM
strong chance? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Do you mean its likely? Or that there is just a meaningful chance?

I'd say expecting this type of offensive season out of Byrd again isn't a good bet, but I'd say something in the .775 to .825 OPS and somewhere in the -2.5 to +2.5 CF defense range is probably the 50th percentile when Byrd is in year 3 of the deal. For what, 7 million that's a pretty decent bargain.

Crawford is going to want 5 years and somewhere in the 65-75 million range, right? I don't know, Crawford is most certainly a better player, something in the vicinity of 1 to 1.5 WAR per season better, I'd imagine, and he is younger, so a longer deal is justifiable, but with the logjam we already have in the OF I just don't see trying to squeeze another bat into the OF and spending pennies on the corner IF (either 1B or 3B) as being a good use of resources.

Just to put it out there Byrd is having the best year of his life and Crawford is already a win better than him on the season.

I think Crawford is quite a bit better than Byrd, but they don't and won't be playing the same position.

Kirel
07-02-2010, 01:57 PM
strong chance? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Do you mean its likely? Or that there is just a meaningful chance?

I'd say expecting this type of offensive season out of Byrd again isn't a good bet, but I'd say something in the .775 to .825 OPS and somewhere in the -2.5 to +2.5 CF defense range is probably the 50th percentile when Byrd is in year 3 of the deal. For what, 7 million that's a pretty decent bargain.

Crawford is going to want 5 years and somewhere in the 65-75 million range, right? I don't know, Crawford is most certainly a better player, something in the vicinity of 1 to 1.5 WAR per season better, I'd imagine, and he is younger, so a longer deal is justifiable, but with the logjam we already have in the OF I just don't see trying to squeeze another bat into the OF and spending pennies on the corner IF (either 1B or 3B) as being a good use of resources.
I se zero reason to keep Byrd tomorrow, let alone next year, is what I mean.

No chance he repeats this year, almost no chance he ends up being worth his spot(even if he's worth his pay) the following 2 years. Don't fuss about an OF logjam, get rid of it and replace it with useful players.

We can't acquire a Crawford level player on the infield next year, and when one becomes available it's not gonna be 5 years, 85 mil, it's going to be closer to 7 years 130 million.

It's silly, IMHO, to not spend on hte OF because you want to spend on the IF, but then not spend on the IF because there is nothing to buy.

Position wise the Cubs have Soto, Soriano, Ramirez and Castro that should be considered for next yera and that is literally it. Fukudome, Colvin, Theriot, Fontenot, Byrd, Lee, etc should be disposed of or used as stopgap players, not used as justification for not acquiring a better player.

windycityD
07-02-2010, 03:59 PM
Just to put it out there Byrd is having the best year of his life and Crawford is already a win better than him on the season.

I think Crawford is quite a bit better than Byrd, but they don't and won't be playing the same position.

In addition to being younger, he is better. But...

1) Crawford will want and get a five year deal, minimum
2) He's a LF
3) We certainly don't have the money for #1 or probably the fit for #2

To add a bat, 2b and/ or 1b are the two most likely positions, assuming A Ram stays and stays at 3b. I know a lot of people on here are jazzed for trying to get Uggla (I'm not). If I were a betting man, along with Dunn for 1b, Uggla could also be in the mix as the one impact bat we add this winter. He would be cheaper than Dunn of course.

Jilly Bohnson
07-02-2010, 04:45 PM
Well, no, not exactly, although it's much harder to put what I would do in solid names.

Like I said above, I like the idea of going a bit...unexpected.
A very vauge plan of action that I'd call the "up the middle" approach.

1. Trade Silva, Byrd, Theriot, and Fukudome if they aren't already gone.
2. Look for a rotation reclamation prospect: Brandon Webb, Scott Kazmir.
3. Look for an undervalued 2B/3B type. Players like: Ian Stewert, Scott Sizemore, Kevin Kouzmanoff, Chase Headly(I think he'd be considerably more impressive away from Petco), Rickie Weeks, Kelly Johnson, even Alberto Callaspo.\
4. Move Ramirez to 1B
5. Move Fontenot\Baker to 3B if you acquire a 2B, leave them at 2B if you do not.
6. Play Colvin in CF
7. Take a good shot at Crawford for a COF spot

Another possible plan would be to do essentially the same thing but look for unlikely 1Bs instead of less obvious 2b/3b guys. Mike Napoli could look good playing 1B, Ka'auhie or whatever it is from the Royals, try to get Josh Willingham out of the Nationals for a reasonable price.

Talk to the Marlins about Cody Ross. Maybe put Dan Uggla at 1B or 3B.

Or a really wild suggestion: Acquire Ryan Doumit, play Doumit and Wellington Castillo at C and move Soto to 1B.

Of course my rotatoin in all of this is probably Dempster, Zambrano, and three of Wells, Cashner, Jackson, Marshall, and Gorzellany.

I like it

Jilly Bohnson
07-02-2010, 04:51 PM
In addition to being younger, he is better. But...

1) Crawford will want and get a five year deal, minimum
2) He's a LF
3) We certainly don't have the money for #1 or probably the fit for #2

To add a bat, 2b and/ or 1b are the two most likely positions, assuming A Ram stays and stays at 3b. I know a lot of people on here are jazzed for trying to get Uggla (I'm not). If I were a betting man, along with Dunn for 1b, Uggla could also be in the mix as the one impact bat we add this winter. He would be cheaper than Dunn of course.

We do have money for number 1. Lee, Lilly, and Nady alone coming off is just under 30 million dollars this winter. That should be enough for Crawford and all of our guys going to arbitration without raising payroll, unless Marmol gets REAL expensive. Get rid of Silva or Fukudome and we have even more money to play with.

Doogolas
07-02-2010, 04:55 PM
I would love to see what Roesthchild could do for Kazmir.

Jilly Bohnson
07-02-2010, 05:05 PM
I would love to see what Roesthchild could do for Kazmir.

I think James Andrews probably needs a crack at Kazmir before another pitching coach.

windycityD
07-02-2010, 05:22 PM
We do have money for number 1. Lee, Lilly, and Nady alone coming off is just under 30 million dollars this winter. That should be enough for Crawford and all of our guys going to arbitration without raising payroll, unless Marmol gets REAL expensive. Get rid of Silva or Fukudome and we have even more money to play with.

If it came down to the big and bloated contracts of Crawford (5 years minimum) or Dunn (3) versus a deal for Uggla, I'd actually choose Uggla. And I'm not a big fan of him.

Another reason I don't want yet another huge contract on the balance sheet is that sooner rather than later, we need to have the coin to lock down Marmol. Despite the walks, the guy is electricity incarnate on the mound, still young, and about as close to dominating as any young pen arm in the game.

Kriel is probably spot on when he mentions names like Berkman and Branyan. You assume less risk, payroll hit, and decline in 1-2 years versus 5-6 year deals.

I don't know who the GM will be this winter. I do know that the guy who has that gig now needs to pull off some solid specs for vets moves and officially put the "For Sale" sign out front.