The PTBNL in the Van Buren deal is named

[WrigleyField 22]

Quick point of reference for people:

 

GCL (Gulf Coast League) = Rookie Ball

NYPL (New York-Penn League) = Short Season A

SAL (South Atlantic League) = Low A

 

Lowell is NYPL, Greenville is SAL.

 

Ciaramella would be slated to start next season in Daytona, imo.

 

Thanks for the corretion. I had postd in my earlier thread that each was one higher than that.

 

Maybe we could still try and get him on the fast track and knock out two levels next year, Daytona and WestTenn.

 

Always a possibility. Murton started out in Daytona when he came to the Cubs and didn't post much in terms of numbers worth mentioning. Then he went to West Tenn the next season and the rest is pretty much history.

 

The similarities between the two are enough for me to keep an eye on Ciaramella, though. I'll see what the Red Sox people have to say about him...

 

I've been looking at Red Sox sites ad haven't found anything yet.

 

By the way, was this anounced on the radio or is it on cubs.com?

[Diffusion]

JVB is a significantly better player than this kid. What a rip. Discard someone of value because you're an incompetent at managing a 40-man roster, how nice.

 

Macias gets released anyway, so why didn't Hendry protect JVB? And if he didn't like him, he could then trade him for a REAL player or prospect, or more likely, as part of a package for same.

 

Instead, Hendry gets buttkiss for him. Again.

 

Our GM sucks, plain and simple. Fire the bum.

 

BECAUSE HE HAD TO CLEAR OUT JVB'S SPOT ANYWAYS. The 40 man roster is full right now, whether he released Macias first and then traded JVB or did it in the order he did it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

 

The only reason the 40-man roster was full was because it was still populated at the time of Van Buren's DFA by Mitre, Wellemeyer, Soto/Reyes, Macias, Koronka, Dopirak and Moore.

 

Mitre and Wellemeyer should have been traded already, one of Soto/Reyes is surplus, Macias should have long been DFA'd, Koronka, Dopirak and Moore shouldn't ever have been added to 40.

 

Sorry, but needing to get rid of Van Buren was poor 40-man roster construction on Hendry's part, and so turning Van Buren into Ciaramella is not something that Hendry should be proud of. None of that means, as other people have written, that Van Buren was/is the second coming.

[Outshined_One]

I've been looking at Red Sox sites ad haven't found anything yet.

 

By the way, was this anounced on the radio or is it on cubs.com?

 

It was in a chat with Jim Callis on ESPN.

 

Not many people seem to know much of note about Ciaramella. Those who do know about him aren't very high on him.

 

Here's hoping Jimbo knows something we don't.

[WrigleyField 22]

Here is an iterview with Ciaramella with RedSoxNation

 

RSN: Do you usually go up to the plate looking to attack the first good pitch, or are you a believer in working the count?

 

MC: It depends on the situation. Baseball is a game where you're always learning, and understanding that situations can dictate your approach is a part of that. It's something I'm working on and trying to get better at.

 

RSN: Let's talk a little about the other side of the ball -- tell us about your defensive game.

 

MC: I mentioned wanting to improve my strength, but I need to stay flexible and keep my speed, too. I've played both right and left field, and handle them pretty equally. My arm is something I need to work on strengthening -- it could be better.

 

RSN: Tell us a little about your approach, and where you project yourself in the line-up.

 

MC: I generally look fastball and adjust to off-speed pitches. I'm a gap hitter, so I see myself as a middle-of-the-order guy. Getting stronger is a big priority, and that's something I'll work hard on during the off-season.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It doesn't matter who we got for him, JVB wasn't going to crack the major league staff in Chicago.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

By the way, was this anounced on the radio or is it on cubs.com?

 

It was announced here first! Link

 

we need to find a spot for Matt Ciaramella (PTBNL for JVB)

[mhuber92211]

Let's see if we can help you out here. A pop-gun Judy hitter, with a sub-200 BA at low A ball.\

 

Well that was in 164 AB's of an injury season... Last year he hit .302 (225 AB) at a higher level.

 

A Judy, A-ball hitter is not equal value for the minor league reliever of the year in AAA. Period. Someone like huber can spin that all they want. It's a bad baseball decision yet again from Hendry, who has done this repeatedly during his tenure.

 

You really have got to be kidding on this. How does a PTBNL need "spin"? Anyone know who we got for Leicester from Texas yet? I mean that right there will clearly be a shining example of Hendry's tenure. Why? Well becasue Leicester was actually somewhat talented and showed some sort of promise in the big leagues until he was inexplicably turned into a starter. Now I think that in order for that to be successful we need to get back Danks right? So we should have gotten more for JVB huh, like a prospect in to the top 25? Where was JVB ranked by BA? As for the "minor league pitcher of the year", who was that last season? How did JVB do in the big leagues at the end of the season? In reality this is barely a blip. JVB is nothing more then a ST invite that the Cubs actually got something back for. Just for that Hendry should be applauded.

[Diffusion]

It doesn't matter who we got for him, JVB wasn't going to crack the major league staff in Chicago.

 

Well ain't that a great logic.

[RynoRules]

It doesn't matter who we got for him, JVB wasn't going to crack the major league staff in Chicago.

 

Well ain't that a great logic.

 

Its obviously not an overly developed argument, but I think Vance's point is that JVB did not have a place on this club b/c he projects as a middle reliever, so why allow him to languish in the minors where his value is likely to go down?

 

I think we are overreacting a bit to this news. JVB's not a Pie talent. IMO, this type of player is a dime-a-dozen. I like him; I like Leicester. But not enough to kill JH for how he handled them. I have long argued that JH allows our mid-level and some of our upper-level prospects to languish in the minors for too long, thus exposing their worts and driving down their value. At least he's being a little bit more proactive now.

 

(NOTE: I thought he overpaid for Pierre, however)

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I would have expected better numbers from him at 23 years of age at A ball. He hit only 4 homers in over 200 at bats at A ball and doesn't seem to have speed. Doesn't seem like we received equal value for JVB.

 

Agreed. Not nearly enough power for a guy who is probably an OFer.

 

BUT he sounds like he's intelligent and knows he needs to get stronger.

 

I'll hold off judgement, but my initial thoughts was that Hendry once again got a contact and gaps hitter from the Red Sox. I like Murton and all, but without more power both of these guys are pretty easy to improve upon in the future.

[Diffusion]

It doesn't matter who we got for him, JVB wasn't going to crack the major league staff in Chicago.

 

Well ain't that a great logic.

 

Its obviously not an overly developed argument, but I think Vance's point is that JVB did not have a place on this club b/c he projects as a middle reliever, so why allow him to languish in the minors where his value is likely to go down?

 

If that was Vance's point, and it wasn't, then I wouldn't have disagreed with it.

 

Van Buren could easily fashion for himself a decent career as a major league middle reliever, and the fact that he's got three option years left and will be cheap for a while makes him potentially pretty useful.

 

At the same time, Van Buren wasn't going to make the club next year after the Howry and Eyre signings, injuries not withstanding, and the Cubs aren't exactly short of very good stuff guys with control problems anyway.

 

As a result, you're talking about a very good trading chip - someone worth more to other teams than he's worth to you. He's not worth that much to us in the minor leagues, is he? And had he ever cracked our bullpen, he'd have been right at the very back of it, not worth that much to us there either.

 

He's the kind of guy you can throw in to seal a big deal for an impact player. You take a look at some of the bullpens around the league and you put Van Buren in some of them and he's one of the better relievers. Look for instance at the Orioles' bullpen. Or the Phillies'. Or the Reds'. You know exactly who I'm thinking about.

 

Instead the Cubs cut bait with him before they had a chance to put together a deal simply because Hendry doesn't know how to effectively put a 40-man roster together.

 

Alone, one relatively small squandered opportunity cost isn't going to hurt us too much. The trouble is that with Hendry this kind of thing is typical, and put together Hendry's inability over the last few years to maximise the return on the pitching in the system has hugely hampered this organisation.

 

JVB's not a Pie talent. IMO, this type of player is a dime-a-dozen.

 

Actually, I'd say Van Buren is a pretty unique kind of player. He has excellent stuff, but absolutely awful mechanics that lead to moderate control problems. His numbers over the last two years are staggeringly dominant: 123 innings, 67 hits allowed, 8 home runs allowed, 147 strikeouts, 1.98 ERA. Triple-A relief pitcher of the year for 2005 as named by Baseball America. Dime-a-dozen I really don't think is an applicable expression here. Sure, he's a long, long way from a top prospect. But no-one's arguing he's a top prospect. No-one's even arguing as though he's a top prospect. Compare, for instance, the Sisco backlash last year to the Van Buren backlash this year, and there isn't a comparison.

 

I have long argued that JH allows our mid-level and some of our upper-level prospects to languish in the minors for too long, thus exposing their worts and driving down their value. At least he's being a little bit more proactive now.

 

That's about as stupid as arguments come. He did a bad job this way, but at least he's now doing a bad job in a more "proactive" way!

 

Not to mention that trading a player because you forced yourself to have to cut someone because you messed the 40-man roster up is a lot of things, but "proactive" is not one of them.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Looks like it's Diffusion and Don in the tag team against huber and Vance. I'll take that....

 

For the last time, the issue isn't JVB's major league upside, per se. He's a marginal prospect with real red flags regarding his screwed up delivery and his two pitch reportoire. That's not the point.

 

The point is, he DOES have value. He succeeded as a closer in two straight years, first at AA, then at AAA. With bullpen help at such a premium right now around the majors, that kind of success for JVB does not go unnoticed. He is worth something tangible to some team, and likely, to quite a few teams.

 

Now, you don't think he fits in with your club, he doesn't out-rate more highly thought-of relievers (Vance's argument) like Wuertz and Novoa--fine. But that doesn't mean you should just discard him and shrug your shoulders that you didn't get anything for him. That's not holding Hendry accountable. That's giving him a pass. No way.

 

He did this with Sisco. It would have happened with Hagerty too, had the kid ever been able to stay healthy. He's done it this year with JVB and to a lesser degree, Leicester. It's called horrible 40-man roster management, and no huber, Hendry does NOT get a pass on this. It's his friggin' JOB to do better than what he has done.

[Diffusion]

For the last time, the issue isn't JVB's major league upside, per se. He's a marginal prospect with real red flags regarding his screwed up delivery and his two pitch reportoire. That's not the point.

 

I know we're supposed to be on the same tag team, so I should agree with you, or something, but Van Buren doesn't have a "two pitch repetoire". He throws fastball, slider, changeup and curveball, all of them are at least average if not better, and he's willing to throw all of them in pretty much any count.

[Illini Iceman]

Looks like it's Diffusion and Don in the tag team against huber and Vance. I'll take that....

 

For the last time, the issue isn't JVB's major league upside, per se. He's a marginal prospect with real red flags regarding his screwed up delivery and his two pitch reportoire. That's not the point.

 

The point is, he DOES have value. He succeeded as a closer in two straight years, first at AA, then at AAA. With bullpen help at such a premium right now around the majors, that kind of success for JVB does not go unnoticed. He is worth something tangible to some team, and likely, to quite a few teams.

 

Now, you don't think he fits in with your club, he doesn't out-rate more highly thought-of relievers (Vance's argument) like Wuertz and Novoa--fine. But that doesn't mean you should just discard him and shrug your shoulders that you didn't get anything for him. That's not holding Hendry accountable. That's giving him a pass. No way.

 

He did this with Sisco. It would have happened with Hagerty too, had the kid ever been able to stay healthy. He's done it this year with JVB and to a lesser degree, Leicester. It's called horrible 40-man roster management, and no huber, Hendry does NOT get a pass on this. It's his friggin' JOB to do better than what he has done.

 

The fact that Hendry was shopping JVB and this was the best offer he could get is a pretty good indication about his "value". Sorry to say, but obviously there weren't many teams tripping over themselves to have JVB on their 40 man roster.

BTW, to say that the Cubs would have lost Hagerty if he would have stayed healthy is missing the point. The main reason he was left exposed was health concerns.

Leicester was out of options and I don't see any way he was making the opening day 25 man roster so he was gone after ST anyway.

[CUBZ99]

Looks like it's Diffusion and Don in the tag team against huber and Vance. I'll take that....

 

For the last time, the issue isn't JVB's major league upside, per se. He's a marginal prospect with real red flags regarding his screwed up delivery and his two pitch reportoire. That's not the point.

 

The point is, he DOES have value. He succeeded as a closer in two straight years, first at AA, then at AAA. With bullpen help at such a premium right now around the majors, that kind of success for JVB does not go unnoticed. He is worth something tangible to some team, and likely, to quite a few teams.

 

Now, you don't think he fits in with your club, he doesn't out-rate more highly thought-of relievers (Vance's argument) like Wuertz and Novoa--fine. But that doesn't mean you should just discard him and shrug your shoulders that you didn't get anything for him. That's not holding Hendry accountable. That's giving him a pass. No way.

 

He did this with Sisco. It would have happened with Hagerty too, had the kid ever been able to stay healthy. He's done it this year with JVB and to a lesser degree, Leicester. It's called horrible 40-man roster management, and no huber, Hendry does NOT get a pass on this. It's his friggin' JOB to do better than what he has done.

 

The fact that Hendry was shopping JVB and this was the best offer he could get is a pretty good indication about his "value". Sorry to say, but obviously there weren't many teams tripping over themselves to have JVB on their 40 man roster.

BTW, to say that the Cubs would have lost Hagerty if he would have stayed healthy is missing the point. The main reason he was left exposed was health concerns.

Leicester was out of options and I don't see any way he was making the opening day 25 man roster so he was gone after ST anyway.

 

I think that is the whole point, why trade a decent prospect while his value is low, when it is unecessary? The Cubs have plenty of guys on the 40 man that have no business being there and JVB does have some potential to be a decent/above average middle reliever. Instead, Hendry chose to sell him off for almost nothing.

[RockTheIvy]

Looks like it's Diffusion and Don in the tag team against huber and Vance. I'll take that....

 

http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1028336/0/nouser_1028/T0_-1_1028336.jpg

 

VS

 

http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1028338/0/nouser_1028/T0_-1_1028338.jpg

 

But which team is well oiled?

 

Sorry I couldn't resist.

[SouthSideRyan]

The only reason the 40-man roster was full was because it was still populated at the time of Van Buren's DFA by Mitre, Wellemeyer, Soto/Reyes, Macias, Koronka, Dopirak and Moore.

 

 

You're still not getting it. Macias could've been DFAd the day the season ended. Mitre could've been traded that same day and it wouldn't make a difference. A 40 man spot wouldn't magically open up if you removed guys off of it in a different order. The spot had to be opened up. Argue about keeping Koronka on the roster, or the utterly worthless rostering of Reyes(I'm assuming Wellemeyer will be cleared out for a bench guy at some point.), but bringing Macias into the conversation is inaccurate.

[Diffusion]

BTW, to say that the Cubs would have lost Hagerty if he would have stayed healthy is missing the point. The main reason he was left exposed was health concerns.

 

Now on that I agree with you. Not protecting Hagerty was a defensible though somewhat risky move, and in the end, sad to say for Hagerty's career, it turned out to be the right decision.

 

For the sake of historical accuracy, Hendry didn't actually just leave Sisco and Hagerty out there. He also chose not to protect Nolasco, Blasko and Connelly.

 

Leicester was out of options and I don't see any way he was making the opening day 25 man roster so he was gone after ST anyway.

 

And Hendry ought to have known since April 27th 2005 that Leicester would be out of options in 2006. He should have been aware since April 3rd 2005 that Mitre would also be out of options in 2006, and since April 12th 2005 that Wellemeyer would be in the exact same boat.

 

And so far, he's taken these three decent (not great, but decent) pitching prospects that have long been somewhat superfluous with the quality and depth of our staff, and as such ought to have long been designated as trading chips, and he's thrown one into a deal that was already lopsided, he's turned another into a PTBNL, and the last one is still closing in on a trip through waivers. Some return.

[Diffusion]

The only reason the 40-man roster was full was because it was still populated at the time of Van Buren's DFA by Mitre, Wellemeyer, Soto/Reyes, Macias, Koronka, Dopirak and Moore.

 

 

You're still not getting it. Macias could've been DFAd the day the season ended. Mitre could've been traded that same day and it wouldn't make a difference. A 40 man spot wouldn't magically open up if you removed guys off of it in a different order. The spot had to be opened up. Argue about keeping Koronka on the roster, or the utterly worthless rostering of Reyes(I'm assuming Wellemeyer will be cleared out for a bench guy at some point.), but bringing Macias into the conversation is inaccurate.

 

I'm getting it perfectly well.

 

Macias should have non-tendered in December 2004. Mitre should have been traded at the height of his value, when his two great starts in June 2005 were still fresh in the mind. In neither case is that just hindsight talking: that's what I was strongly in favour of at the time. I have certainly never argued for Mitre having a long-term role with the Cubs, I've never argued that Mitre should be used in short-stint relief, and I wouldn't ever have even thought about arguing that Jose Macias deserved a spot on the 2005 Cubs.

 

Of course, replacing Macias may have refilled that roster spot, or, alternatively, as I argued, the Cubs could have almost certainly more than replaced him with internal already-rostered options such as Mike Fontenot or, later, Ryan Theriot. As for Mitre, whether or not that would have opened up roster spots obviously depends on the nature of the deal that any GM worth his salt should have been able to work out given a couple of months, damn it.

 

And all of that ignores the fact that I named seven players that had no right to be on the 40-man roster the day that Van Buren was shipped out on the cheap to open up room for the not particularly high-impact signings of Eyre and Howry. Only one of them needs not have been there. Quibble about Mitre then if you will (Macias you simply don't have a case with, unless the date of his DFA was actually prior to the Van Buren trade, but I'm reasonably sure that it wasn't). That still leaves five that you chose not to contest at all.

[mhuber92211]

Gotta love the "tag-Team" pictures. For some reason wrestling seems to always make me laugh.

 

Anywho, I think that I must not value the marginal prospects as much as others. There was such a catch 22 argument for the last couple of years about the 40 man roster that no matter what someone that had value was going to be left off. IMO, the organization made a decision that signifies that Macais at the time of the JVB trade had more value. I can't fault this position considering the number of pitchers like JVB that were already in the system and the lack of positional depth. It made sense to keep Macias at the time until the Mabry and Pierre decisions were made. I would imagine that if thos transactions hadn't been made Macias would have been tendered and then DFA'd once a different role player was identified. Yes Macias is a poor choice but at the time was the only choice available until a better one was acquired. Obviously Hendry understood that the area needed improving and once it was, cut ties.

 

I realize that many are looking at this transaction as an indicator of Hendry's roster management but in reality his apparently poor management has resulted in the loss of 1 player. I am able to accept that considering the additions that He has been responsible since. I think that it is well known that I am one of the few Hendry supporters on this board and I know that its an uphill battle but one that I am comfortable with the side that I have chosen. Perhaps its the area in which I live. This way i can compare to the "hometown" teams rather then the team that is local being the only control group. FOr me Cubs baseball is rarely spoken about around here. Therefore I can listen to the bashing of the Dodgers, for example, and compare notes and say "wow, in comparison to what else is out there, Hendry has done some strange things but has really overall done a pretty good job".

[WrigleyField 22]

I think that is the whole point, why trade a decent prospect while his value is low, when it is unecessary? The Cubs have plenty of guys on the 40 man that have no business being there and JVB does have some potential to be a decent/above average middle reliever. Instead, Hendry chose to sell him off for almost nothing.

 

If he isn't at his highest value after the past two years, I doubt his value will rise much more.

 

Hendry may make some stupid moves (in fact he does, plain and simple), but the one thing Hendry knows more than ALL of us no matter how smart we think we are, is the real value of a player based upon the leagues opinion. None of us know how much interest Reyes could have recieved if left available to rule 5 or how good of a player Hendry could have gotten for JVB. Trades are tricky because you always wonder what other offers may have been available, but with Hendry's good track record of trades, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not even talking about the Lee/Nomar/Ramirez type trades, but even the small trades for Connelly, Barrett, etc.

[Cubfanintheknow]

Here's the real point to this argument, as I see it. Those who don't like Hendry believe this is another shining example of his ineptitude as general manager. Those who like Hendry or are still on the fence with him aren't putting a lot of stock in this transaction.

[Soul]

Just looked at his picture on the website.

 

*sigh*

 

So young. You know you're getting old when grown men in their 20's start looking like babies to you 8)

 

 

Here's hoping he excels and turns out to be a great ballplayer for us :)

[RynoRules]

It doesn't matter who we got for him, JVB wasn't going to crack the major league staff in Chicago.

 

Well ain't that a great logic.

 

Its obviously not an overly developed argument, but I think Vance's point is that JVB did not have a place on this club b/c he projects as a middle reliever, so why allow him to languish in the minors where his value is likely to go down?

 

If that was Vance's point, and it wasn't, then I wouldn't have disagreed with it.

 

Van Buren could easily fashion for himself a decent career as a major league middle reliever, and the fact that he's got three option years left and will be cheap for a while makes him potentially pretty useful.

 

At the same time, Van Buren wasn't going to make the club next year after the Howry and Eyre signings, injuries not withstanding, and the Cubs aren't exactly short of very good stuff guys with control problems anyway.

 

As a result, you're talking about a very good trading chip - someone worth more to other teams than he's worth to you. He's not worth that much to us in the minor leagues, is he? And had he ever cracked our bullpen, he'd have been right at the very back of it, not worth that much to us there either.

 

He's the kind of guy you can throw in to seal a big deal for an impact player. You take a look at some of the bullpens around the league and you put Van Buren in some of them and he's one of the better relievers. Look for instance at the Orioles' bullpen. Or the Phillies'. Or the Reds'. You know exactly who I'm thinking about.

 

Instead the Cubs cut bait with him before they had a chance to put together a deal simply because Hendry doesn't know how to effectively put a 40-man roster together.

 

Alone, one relatively small squandered opportunity cost isn't going to hurt us too much. The trouble is that with Hendry this kind of thing is typical, and put together Hendry's inability over the last few years to maximise the return on the pitching in the system has hugely hampered this organisation.

 

JVB's not a Pie talent. IMO, this type of player is a dime-a-dozen.

 

Actually, I'd say Van Buren is a pretty unique kind of player. He has excellent stuff, but absolutely awful mechanics that lead to moderate control problems. His numbers over the last two years are staggeringly dominant: 123 innings, 67 hits allowed, 8 home runs allowed, 147 strikeouts, 1.98 ERA. Triple-A relief pitcher of the year for 2005 as named by Baseball America. Dime-a-dozen I really don't think is an applicable expression here. Sure, he's a long, long way from a top prospect. But no-one's arguing he's a top prospect. No-one's even arguing as though he's a top prospect. Compare, for instance, the Sisco backlash last year to the Van Buren backlash this year, and there isn't a comparison.

 

I have long argued that JH allows our mid-level and some of our upper-level prospects to languish in the minors for too long, thus exposing their worts and driving down their value. At least he's being a little bit more proactive now.

 

That's about as stupid as arguments come. He did a bad job this way, but at least he's now doing a bad job in a more "proactive" way!

 

Not to mention that trading a player because you forced yourself to have to cut someone because you messed the 40-man roster up is a lot of things, but "proactive" is not one of them.

 

You kind of made my point for me. I acknowledged that he has messed up the 40-man by not dealing away these mid-level guys earlier. I am, at least, glad to see that he is trying to fix that issue, even if its a season too late. Moreover, IMO, we have a greater need for position-player depth than middle reliever depth. As such, I don't have a big problem with this deal.

 

May be JVB will set the world on fire, but its far more likely that he won't.

 

And thanks for calling me "stupid", BTW.

[SouthSideRyan]

Quibble about Mitre then if you will (Macias you simply don't have a case with, unless the date of his DFA was actually prior to the Van Buren trade, but I'm reasonably sure that it wasn't). That still leaves five that you chose not to contest at all.

 

As I said feel free to argue about Koronka or Reyes, I won't contest it. I wouldn't have rostered Dope, but I see the reasoning for it. I agreed with rostering Moore. You need a 3rd catcher on the 40 man IMO, so Soto should have stayed. Wellemeyer I addressed saying I assumed he'd be traded later this offseason. The order the guys are moved off the 40 man roster MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Flip flopping the order of the transactions would have no bearing on them. I don't understand what you're arguing about Macias or Mitre for.