The PTBNL in the Van Buren deal is named

[Diffusion]

I think that I must not value the marginal prospects as much as others.

 

There isn't a debate here about Van Buren's value. No, this is about how to put a 40-man roster together so that you don't need to cut bait with players you'd be better off keeping, if only for another trade later down the line.

 

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 isn't just the value of a player to our team that counts, it's also the value of a player to every team.

 

As such, the fact that Van Buren was opportunistically gobbled up by the Red Sox while Macias cleared waivers tells you a huge amount about their relative values.

 

As for value to our team, which of Van Buren and Macias has contributed more wins above replacement level (WARP1) over the last three years to the Chicago Cubs? I'll save you looking it up: Van Buren, in spite of throwing just six innings for this team.

 

Yes, Jose Macias over the last three years combined has contributed a pathetic 0.5 wins above replacement level, a figure that Van Buren managed to surpass in 6 innings towards the back end of last year. Last year Macias was even below replacement level, and, turning 34 this January, let's just say I doubt he's going to get any better in a hurry.

 

So, even if the Mabry and Pierre transactions had inexplicably fallen through, who cares if we'd already DFA'd Macias? For crying out loud, free agent demand for Macias is so great that if the Cubs felt they needed to bring him back, they could! And even if Macias felt so aggrieved at being DFA'd that he refused to come back, there are numerous other readily available replacement level players out there to be had that could do just as good a job. Numerous.

 

You find me a readily and freely available Jermaine Van Buren, a guy with really good stuff that'll cost $1m over the next three years, and then you'll have a leg to stand on in this argument.

 

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.

 

Andy Sisco, Sergio Mitre, Jon Leicester, Todd Wellemeyer, Renyel Pinto, Jermaine Van Buren, Joe Borowski.

 

The loss of all of these players (Wellemeyer will go, don't worry about that), and the pathetic return on them of about half of Juan Pierre, plus Matt Ciaramella, another PTBNL and maybe something for Wellemeyer, can be attributed to poor and inefficient 40-man roster construction by Hendry. That's seven players over the last two off-seasons, not one.

 

In Sisco's case he inexplicably didn't protect him, and he lost him in the Rule 5 draft. In the cases of Mitre, Leicester and Wellemeyer he didn't show any foresight whatsoever, instead letting their value erode as they creeped towards a trip through waivers. In Pinto's case, Hendry added him to the 40-man roster a year too soon, and, in fairness actually showing some foresight, that Pinto as a result would be out of options next year was probably a factor in him being moved this winter. Van Buren and Borowski were forced out by a 40-man roster crunches of Hendry's own making. Borowski's a bit of a stretch, I admit that, because I didn't foresee what he'd do in Tampa Bay, I thought he was done, and I had no problem with the DFA at the time, which was the only real way to get him off the 25. All the same, that's six or seven players, and some serious value flying out the window there, squandered.

 

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".

 

I really really don't care at all about how Hendry stacks up relative to the Dodgers. I care only about how Hendry stacks up relative to the best job he could (and should) have done.

[Diffusion]

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.

 

Jose Reyes projects as a backup catcher. Really, big deal if someone wants him really badly in the Rule 5 draft, chances are he's almost certainly not going to stick and even if he does, so what? As for your point about Van Buren, some negotiating 101 for you: you have a lot more leverage when there's no obligation on your part to move the player. Via the roster crunch, Hendry effectively gave himself that obligation, needlessly.

[Diffusion]

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.

 

I didn't call you stupid. I said "that's about as stupid as arguments come". So, unless you are a stupid argument, which I'm guessing not, you don't need to pretend to be so offended.

 

How is Hendry fixing any issue here? You're rightly criticising Hendry for not dealing away Mitre, Leicester and Wellemeyer earlier. So he deals Van Buren when he still has three options years left (and not because he really wants to part with Van Buren, but rather because he needs to clear roster space) and you want to give him credit for not allowing Van Buren to reach a stage where he's out of options? You want to call him "pro-active" for forcing himself into making any Van Buren deal now instead of potentially making no Van Buren deal at all for the next three maybe more years? Ridiculous.

 

The only reason you don't hold onto a player that's marginal to you until he's out of options is because you're not maximising his trade value. The possibility of an immiment journey through waivers, where teams will be able to have him for nothing besides the $20k price of a waiver claim really harms a prospect's value. That's why what Hendry did with Mitre, Leicester and Wellemeyer was wrong.

 

The reason why what he's done with Van Buren is wrong is the exact same reason, only this time he's gone about it in an entirely different way. When a General Manager obliges himself to get rid of a player, he lessens the player's trade value. In this case it wasn't a case of the Sammy Sosa's or the Milton Bradley's, in was a case of there being a roster crunch. The reason for that roster crunch: the presence of numerous players on the roster that shouldn't have been there. As a result, with Hendry needing to clear roster room fast, when the Red Sox came calling offering just a PTBNL, Hendry jumped on it only because he saw an opportunity to lessen the roster crunch.

 

I don't know much about the player Hendry got in return, except that he was 22 last year and playing in Low-A, which isn't particuarly promising. But that doesn't matter. What Hendry got back in this deal is entirely irrelevant. No matter how good or bad the player he got in this deal is, because Hendry failed to maximise Van Buren's trade value, via the roster crunch, he could almost certainly have got better if he'd had no good reason to move Van Buren other than to improve the ballclub. That is what's at stake here.

 

Failing to maximise a player's trade value via a roster crunch is not progress relative to failing to maximuise a player's trade value via letting them get to the stage where they're out of options. If you criticise one, you have to criticise the other. It's the principle of not maximising a player's trade value that you're against, or you should be.

 

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.

 

Koronka and Reyes are uncontestable. Wellemeyer shouldn't be on the roster now and you've argued as much yourself. That leaves just the two hitting prospects...

 

Dopirak is not in my mind a top prospect, bringing little to the table besides power, and he's absolutely light years away from the major anyway. Having completely flopped in High-A last year, the chances of him succeeding in the majors are none to zero. No team in baseball can carry a first baseman that won't hit anything whatsoever, not in the same way as you can carry a pitcher at the back of your bullpen: there's no need for a hitter to eat meaningless at-bats in the same way as there's one for pitchers to eat junk innings. And even if the Royals liked Dopirak, with Sweeney, Huber, now Mientkiewicz too, they have absolutely no need for him. As a result, as far as I'm concerned, the rostering of Dopirak is just an over-reaction by Hendry to the loss of Sisco.

 

As for Scott Moore, a third baseman that hits .281/.358/485 in High-A with more than a strikeout a game and plays bleh defence (he'll probably end up at first base before long) isn't a candidate to be anywhere near good enough in the majors that a team would even consider selecting him in the Rule 5 draft. Consider, for instance, the fact that the unprotected older Brandon Sing wasn't selected. He doesn't have the same tools, but his track record is a lot better and at a higher level too. Why Moore was rostered I have no idea. I have even less idea why you agree with it.

[WrigleyField 22]

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.

 

Jose Reyes projects as a backup catcher. Really, big deal if someone wants him really badly in the Rule 5 draft, chances are he's almost certainly not going to stick and even if he does, so what? As for your point about Van Buren, some negotiating 101 for you: you have a lot more leverage when there's no obligation on your part to move the player. Via the roster crunch, Hendry effectively gave himself that obligation, needlessly.

 

Well from reports I've heard, Reyes could be a very capable backup catcher just based on his defense. If that it indeed the case, it would be a lot better to have your defensive specialist catcher at league minimum next year rather than paying whatever it is we are paying to Blanco. And Reyes is still very young. I would guess he will play in AA again this year, and will still be about average age at 22, correct?

 

And I have to say that I don't know anything about mechanics, if Van Buren's mechanics are a concern, I'm glad we got something for him before we were left with nothing. Even if he was still healthy by next year, you might want that spot for Gallagher(who I believe is 40man eligible next year) or maybe even Grant Johnson. If you were in that position where you needed to get rid of him, then that leverage you speak of would be gone. Perhaps Hendry used that leverage this year,and that was the best he could do.

 

Now I don't agree with all of Hendry's 40man moves, but I don't see the huge problem in this one.

[Diffusion]

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.

 

Jose Reyes projects as a backup catcher. Really, big deal if someone wants him really badly in the Rule 5 draft, chances are he's almost certainly not going to stick and even if he does, so what? As for your point about Van Buren, some negotiating 101 for you: you have a lot more leverage when there's no obligation on your part to move the player. Via the roster crunch, Hendry effectively gave himself that obligation, needlessly.

 

Well from reports I've heard, Reyes could be a very capable backup catcher just based on his defense. If that it indeed the case, it would be a lot better to have your defensive specialist catcher at league minimum next year rather than paying whatever it is we are paying to Blanco. And Reyes is still very young. I would guess he will play in AA again this year, and will still be about average age at 22, correct?

 

Trouble is the Cubs have three (future) backup catchers on the 40-man roster right now: Blanco, Soto and Reyes. At least one of them is entirely superfluous. Backup catchers, no matter how good, have very little trade value, and with little value to us either, the extremely unlikely loss of Reyes had he not been protected from the Rule 5 draft would have been just about insignificant anyway.

 

Absolutely it would be better if our defensive specialist wasn't earning Henry Blanco money. Certainly, I wouldn't be complaining if the catchers on our 40-man roster were Barrett, Soto and Reyes. But Henry Blanco is around and he's earning Henry Blanco money, and he's not going anywhere until he's picked up every last cent of it. As a result, adding Reyes to the third backup catcher is just so unnecessary.

 

And I have to say that I don't know anything about mechanics, if Van Buren's mechanics are a concern, I'm glad we got something for him before we were left with nothing.

 

Van Buren's mechanics pose for him three problems. Firstly, and most significantly, difficulty successfully hitting his spots on a regular basis. Secondly, a probable increase in the chance of injury. Thirdly, and least significantly, an occasional complete inability to field his position.

 

Aside from that, Van Buren has excellent stuff and he has absolutely the right mindset: he's confident, aggressive, goes after hitters, gives them his best and asks only that they better it. In the minor leagues at least, more often that not they've simply not been able to. Again, consider his "stuff" numbers over the last two years, put up mostly at Double-A and Triple-A (with short stints at Low-A and the majors): 123 IP, 67 H, 8 HR, 144 K, 1.98 ERA. Those ratios are simply mind-bogglingly good.

 

There's little reason to suspect that Van Buren's value is going to lower any time soon, short of him getting injured, which is obviously a possibility, but that possibility applies in some measure to all pitchers, and because of the way Van Buren's built, despite his mechanics the possibility may be no greater for Van Buren than for anyone else. Right now, short of someone ahead of him getting injured, he'll go back to Iowa, and he'll probably tear up that league again, strengthening the case for a major league promotion. His stuff is good enough to play in the majors, and any kind of success at all in the majors if he gets a chance will definately improve his value. If he fails, that's hardly the end of the world, for failure is something that the vast majority of pitchers experience when they first reach the majors.

 

Let's though run with the possibility that Van Buren's value is never going to be higher than it is now, perhaps because he does get injured and he's never the same again. That still doesn't mean that you should content yourself with trading him now if, when trading him, we failed to cash in on his value being at its highest by moving him for cents on the dollar just because we needed to clear roster room. Had there not been a roster crunch, and had Hendry not had to move someone, Van Buren being the most convenient because of the interest in him, Hendry could still have moved Van Buren later this winter, without the

 

Your entire argument hangs on the premise that had Hendry not moved Van Buren when he did, he never would have, plus the assumption that Van Buren's value is at its highest point now. I see absolutely no justification for either. I don't believe Van Buren's value is at its highest right now, because I believe he can fashion for himself a very decent career as a middle reliever. And, with Van Buren having more value to other teams than he has to the Cubs, I think that Hendry realised that his greatest value to the Cubs was as a trading chip, which was part of the reason why Hendry, needing to open up a number of spots on the 40-man roster, was open to moving Van Buren.

 

Given the situation that Hendry was in, I don't think that moving Van Buren was indefensible, even though it's plainly not a good move. It was probably the least harmful of moves that he could have made in that situation, even though it's still harmful. Being punched in the face hurts, but it's preferable to being hit over the head with a sledgehammer. But that doesn't absolve Hendry, for he was entirely responsible for getting himself into such a situation. That is the entire premise of my argument, and absolutely nobody has successfully argued it. You want to give Hendry a free pass because maybe Van Buren won't turn out that great, or maybe the prospect he got for him will, or maybe this or maybe that. You seemingly don't realise though that all of that is completely besides the point. Irrelevant. It doesn't matter one bit.

 

Even if he was still healthy by next year, you might want that spot for Gallagher(who I believe is 40man eligible next year) or maybe even Grant Johnson. If you were in that position where you needed to get rid of him, then that leverage you speak of would be gone. Perhaps Hendry used that leverage this year,and that was the best he could do.

 

Which spot? Point is, thanks to Hendry's 40-man roster moves, there was no spot. The 40-man roster was full, and Hendry wanted to finalise the Bob Howry deal. Someone had to go. That someone ended up being Van Buren, mainly I suspect because, via the Red Sox showing interest, it became the easiest way out of the roster crunch (outrighting the lesser players on the 40 to the minors wasn't possible at the time because minor league rosters are frozen in the run-up to the Rule 5). And if you're in a position where you need to get rid of a player, then you have no leverage. Even you've just acknowledged that. As a result, the Red Sox got Van Buren a lot cheaper than they would otherwise have done had Hendry not needed to move Van Buren, or someone, because of the roster crunch. This has been my point all along!

 

The Cubs had no leverage this year. The revelance of the possibility that they may have also had no leverage next year escapes me.

[Bull]

I can't take one more reference to Andy Sisco. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: