Corey Patterson traded to Balt. (per Levine)

[J.R.]

There is just no sense in the manner in which this management team negotiates, evaluates or makes transactions in general.

 

Cosigned.

[SouthSideRyan]

It shouldn't take that long to realize that the answer wasn't to continue to turn him into leadoff hitter.

 

BUT HE WAS A FAST BLACK CENTER FIELDER!!

[treebird]

It shouldn't take that long to realize that the answer wasn't to continue to turn him into leadoff hitter.

 

BUT HE WAS A FAST BLACK CENTER FIELDER!!

 

and he was small

 

otherwise he's just ken griffey jr

[JC]

I haven't read the 8 pages of this thread. I just want to exress my disappointment in the Cubs once again settling on making a deal with no leverage whatsoever. There is just no sense in the manner in which this management team negotiates, evaluates or makes transactions in general.

 

Leverage, what leverage? As Bruce Miles stated on this forum just a few days ago Corey was not a hot name at all throughout the baseball world.

 

Well, you've made the point for me. He had no leverage. At all. Thus, it makes more sense to gamble into creating some leverage through 1) better play at the ML level; 2) better play at AAA; or 3) need created though injury in ST or the first part of the season.

 

Negotiating is all about leverage. Trading players without any is just stupid when you know a player has talent (e.g. Corey). If it were some clown like Macias, when you are unlikely to get anything more than you've seen over his stay with the Cubs, then the likelihood of gaining leverage is low if not non-existent. But, that isn't the case with Corey.

 

It is bad negotiating, pure and simple.

[Jon]

Yeah, small trumps fast.

 

I remember Keller raving about how well the ball jumped off Corey's bat and how you rarely see that from a guy that small. But he did recognize the power pretty quickly.

[CheeseHead Cubs Fan]

I haven't read the 8 pages of this thread. I just want to exress my disappointment in the Cubs once again settling on making a deal with no leverage whatsoever. There is just no sense in the manner in which this management team negotiates, evaluates or makes transactions in general.

 

Leverage, what leverage? As Bruce Miles stated on this forum just a few days ago Corey was not a hot name at all throughout the baseball world.

 

Well, you've made the point for me. He had no leverage. At all. Thus, it makes more sense to gamble into creating some leverage through 1) better play at the ML level; 2) better play at AAA; or 3) need created though injury in ST or the first part of the season.

 

Negotiating is all about leverage. Trading players without any is just stupid when you know a player has talent (e.g. Corey). If it were some clown like Macias, when you are unlikely to get anything more than you've seen over his stay with the Cubs, then the likelihood of gaining leverage is low if not non-existent. But, that isn't the case with Corey.

 

It is bad negotiating, pure and simple.

 

I certainly understand the leverage principle you describe and agree. However, how do you gain the edge you need in order to pull off a solid trade with Corey?

 

Send him to Winterball? - he wouldn't go

Showcase him in ST - possiblity

Start him in LF over Murton - possible, but has other issues associated

 

Point is, Corey made his own bed with Chicago. It's similar to selling damaged goods to someone. The buyer knows the product has potential, but also realizes it carries a "as is" tag. Unfortunetly, Corey played on a stage, everyone in Baseball knew he struggled horribly the last month of 04 and most if not all of 05. He didn't play for Tampa Bay or some other low market team. He played for the Cubs and all of America knew he lost his swing. Damaged goods don't bring much in return.

[Blueheart05]

I don't think Corey accepted his demotion well at all. Also, when he went to the minor leagues he reportedly told his new hitting coach that the Cubs staff had not tried to help him close the holes in his swing (which prompted him to later retract his statement). I don't disagree that the Cubs wanted a true "leadoff man," but I do believe that if Corey had shown the organization that he was willing to follow their direction he would not have been traded. I believe they would have considered moving him to RF and batting him lower in the lineup.

I don't recall that being anything more than a sports radio rumor. He also went to Mesa first to work with Keller...in July...during the day...outside. And reports indicated that he worked a lot down there. He did more than plenty, clearly outweighing the benefit of playing winter ball. There's no reason that should overshadow his other work.

 

One of the biggest cliches in sports right now is to not get too high with the highs and too low with the lows. That describes Corey very well, yet his lack of visible frustration let the media and fans walk all over him.

 

Corey went into the season needing to work on increasing contact and improving strike zone recognition. The bottom line is that the coaches decided not to focus on that without drastically deemphasizing his power while reconstructing his swing. They made a big mistake. The organization made a big mistake by rushing him and allowing that mistake to be made. And none of them were penalized. Clines and Sarge are still the hitting coaches. There is no indication that this organization learned anything from all of this. That's what scares me.

 

The general tone of your comments is about how others let Corey down. When does Corey take responsibility for his wildness at the plate? Coaches can talk until they're blue in the face (and I think that's exactly what they did) but if the player is unable or unwilling to make adjustments no real change will occur. Let's not fool ourselves. Corey Patterson has never been a disciplined hitter. In his one 'good' year (2003) he had a .329 OBP with .839 OPS which is not impressive. Corey was far too content being a hacker and quite frankly, he was misguided; He fashioned himself as a middle of the lineup run producer but he has yet to make the kind of concerted effort needed to be a real offensive threat. That is no one's fault but his own.

 

I also disagree that the Cubs haven't learned from rushing Corey to the Major Leagues. Pie will be spending an additional year (or more) in the minors for just this reason.

[USSoccer]

I think JC is right in principle. Even though everyone here saw this move coming (I don't really think anyone though Corey would be traded for any real talent), the intelligent thing to do would have been to keep him through ST, because at the least you could have done the exact same trade then, and you never know. Maybe Corey shows improvement enough to keep him as a 4th OF, backing up all 3 positions. Maybe Reed, Damon or whoever goes down, and some team gets itchy for a CF who can at the least field his position. Or, if you want to, option him to AAA and see if he can get off to a fast start, and get more value that way.

 

Is his salary prohibitive? Not really-Hendry can't justify not paying $3m for a 4th or 5th OF when he guaranteed $5m to Neifi and $5m to Rusch, both of whom are basically back end players.

 

Bottom line is that the Cubs still could have moved him, but by doing so now they guaranteed the lowest payoff possible. That's not smart business. You cannot keep selling low and expect success.

[Blueheart05]

Jon, realistically, what should the Cubs have done during the course of Corey's awfulness during the season?

 

And honestly, how many chances do we have to give a guy before we realize its not going to work out here?

Gotten a clue to start. It shouldn't take that long to realize that the answer wasn't to continue to turn him into leadoff hitter. Things went south in a hurry. The best option was to go back to his original swing and work from that. He needed to continue to work on his contact and strike zone recognition. It's normal progress that should've been emphasized with more time in the minors to being with, but since they can't go back in time, that should have been the primary focus. It wasn't.

 

How many young players are going to have good seasons when the management and coaching staff tries to completely change a player's mechanics and approach at the plate in the big leagues while the season is in progress and have other basic areas they need to work on? Very few.

 

It is true that the Cubs tried to turn him into a leadoff hitter but they also gave him the opportunity to bat third in the lineup last year (among other spots). The truth is he batted horribly throughout the season.

[Blueheart05]

It shouldn't take that long to realize that the answer wasn't to continue to turn him into leadoff hitter.

 

BUT HE WAS A FAST BLACK CENTER FIELDER!!

 

Ok...

[RockTheIvy]

So any guesses on what Hendry does with the money saved?

[cjbucks]

I haven't read the 8 pages of this thread. I just want to exress my disappointment in the Cubs once again settling on making a deal with no leverage whatsoever. There is just no sense in the manner in which this management team negotiates, evaluates or makes transactions in general.

 

But isn't this better than not tending him a contract? I mean I think (K)orey pretty hit rock bottom here and needs a change of scenery. Hendry totally mishandled the Sosa and Farnsworth deals, but I think this is different. If he never pans out, then this isn't a terrible trade, IMO.

 

JHJ clearly outplayed Sosa last year and will probably do the same this year - seems like a good deal to me?

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I think Hendry did a good job here. What more can you expect for a 3m player who put up a .215/.254/.348 last year and is .252/.293/.414 for his career? Hendry had to trade him and everyone in MLB knew it. Patterson would have been nothing but an overpriced media fiasco in Chicago because of all the boobirds at Wrigley. One more thing, it would have been inhuman not to trade Corey, please try and remember that.

 

 

Good luck CPatt!

[USSoccer]

So any guesses on what Hendry does with the money saved?

 

I think he squirrels it away for either Lee, or Ramirez if he opts out, or a midseason move.

[CUBZ99]

I haven't read the 8 pages of this thread. I just want to exress my disappointment in the Cubs once again settling on making a deal with no leverage whatsoever. There is just no sense in the manner in which this management team negotiates, evaluates or makes transactions in general.

 

Leverage, what leverage? As Bruce Miles stated on this forum just a few days ago Corey was not a hot name at all throughout the baseball world.

 

Well, you've made the point for me. He had no leverage. At all. Thus, it makes more sense to gamble into creating some leverage through 1) better play at the ML level; 2) better play at AAA; or 3) need created though injury in ST or the first part of the season.

 

Negotiating is all about leverage. Trading players without any is just stupid when you know a player has talent (e.g. Corey). If it were some clown like Macias, when you are unlikely to get anything more than you've seen over his stay with the Cubs, then the likelihood of gaining leverage is low if not non-existent. But, that isn't the case with Corey.

 

It is bad negotiating, pure and simple.

 

It is always easier to make comments like this after the fact. Sure if Hendry would have had any idea that Corey would have turned out as bad as he did, I'm sure he would have traded him when he had "leverage." Instead, he took a gamble that Corey would improve and Patterson floundered.

 

Last year, Hendry sent him to AAA to get his stuff together, he called him up late in the year and the Cubs even let him get significant playing time, possible to increase his trade value. Sooner or later you have to cut bait and get what you can get.

 

The fact that the Cubs were able to get anything for him is remarkable and with Corey going to ST as a 5th OF or AAA bound, it is hard to see how he would have increased his trade value.

[Jon]

The general tone of your comments is about how others let Corey down. When does Corey take responsibility for his wildness at the plate? Coaches can talk until they're blue in the face (and I think that's exactly what they did) but if the player is unable or unwilling to make adjustments no real change will occur. Let's not fool ourselves. Corey Patterson has never been a disciplined hitter. In his one 'good' year (2003) he had a .329 OBP with .839 OPS which is not impressive. Corey was far too content being a hacker and quite frankly, he was misguided; He fashioned himself as a middle of the lineup run producer but he has yet to make the kind of concerted effort needed to be a real offensive threat. That is no one's fault but his own.

 

I also disagree that the Cubs haven't learned from rushing Corey to the Major Leagues. Pie will be spending an additional year (or more) in the minors for just this reason.

But he did make adjustments. That was the problem. They were completely the wrong ones to make. He fashioned himself a middle of the lineup run producer because that's the kind of player he is, yet the Cubs decided to ignore what his talents with the bat actually were. If or when he progresses to a point nearing his ceiling, the middle of the lineup is exactly where he was going to be. He led the Lugnuts in 2Bs, 3Bs, and HRs and the Diamond Jaxx in 2Bs and HRs right before making his big league debut at the age of 20. That's a middle of the order hitter.

 

Corey had a ways to go before getting there. Contact and strike recognition were his main problems and he had to really work on that. Everyone knew it wasn't going to be easy for him and yet they decided to pile it on by trying to change his whole game. It ruined his season.

 

And Pie was going to be up last season at the age of 20 if not for his ankle injury. Hendry already confirmed that.

[USSoccer]

I haven't read the 8 pages of this thread. I just want to exress my disappointment in the Cubs once again settling on making a deal with no leverage whatsoever. There is just no sense in the manner in which this management team negotiates, evaluates or makes transactions in general.

 

Leverage, what leverage? As Bruce Miles stated on this forum just a few days ago Corey was not a hot name at all throughout the baseball world.

 

Well, you've made the point for me. He had no leverage. At all. Thus, it makes more sense to gamble into creating some leverage through 1) better play at the ML level; 2) better play at AAA; or 3) need created though injury in ST or the first part of the season.

 

Negotiating is all about leverage. Trading players without any is just stupid when you know a player has talent (e.g. Corey). If it were some clown like Macias, when you are unlikely to get anything more than you've seen over his stay with the Cubs, then the likelihood of gaining leverage is low if not non-existent. But, that isn't the case with Corey.

 

It is bad negotiating, pure and simple.

 

It is always easier to make comments like this after the fact. Sure if Hendry would have had any idea that Corey would have turned out as bad as he did, I'm sure he would have traded him when he had "leverage." Instead, he took a gamble that Corey would improve and Patterson floundered.

 

Last year, Hendry sent him to AAA to get his stuff together, he called him up late in the year and the Cubs even let him get significant playing time, possible to increase his trade value. Sooner or later you have to cut bait and get what you can get.

 

The fact that the Cubs were able to get anything for him is remarkable and with Corey going to ST as a 5th OF or AAA bound, it is hard to see how he would have increased his trade value.

 

But the point is this: Why not wait until ST, and then, at worst, you can make this same trade then? If an injury happens or Corey's performance turns around, then maybe you can get more for him than a "maybe" and a filler lefty.

 

I understand moving him, and knew it would happen. I even called it happening like this, but that doesn't mean I think Hendry couldn't have played his cards better than he did. You can't keep selling low like he does.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

I haven't read the 8 pages of this thread. I just want to exress my disappointment in the Cubs once again settling on making a deal with no leverage whatsoever. There is just no sense in the manner in which this management team negotiates, evaluates or makes transactions in general.

 

Leverage, what leverage? As Bruce Miles stated on this forum just a few days ago Corey was not a hot name at all throughout the baseball world. I am seeing more and more us Cub fans value players much more than they are worth. How was JH supposed to get quality talent in return when he was giving up someone who everyone knew had a horrible year and frankly hasn't done much since his knee injury. The baseball world, heck even the casual Cubs fan knew Corey needed to go. He has talent, no doubt...but how many 23, 24, 25 year old ballplayers have a world of talent yet can't seem to put it together for love or money? Much more than the players who stand out and become legitimate players throughout MLB.

 

Think about it, JH traded Sosa for a decent player in JHJ. Sosa might end up shinning shoes again this spring as no team has interest in him. He traded Hawkins for a potential 4/5 starter in Williams. Other than the Farnsy trade and possibly the Juan Cruz trade, JH has done well IMO.

 

I would take issue that the Farnsworth trade wasn't decent. We all knew the Cubs would let Farns walk in free agency anyways. Getting ANYTHING for him would be a bonus. But the Cubs got a little something worthwhile, which is better than just anything. Scott Moore is a former 1st round pick who, while his big league prospects are weak, has jumped into most folks' Top 15 Cubs prospects lists. Roberto Novoa is a serviceable middle reliever. Bo Flowers I'll give you is nothing.

 

The only deal besides Patterson that Hendry literally gave someone away was Cruz for Pratt and Lewis. That one sucked, regardless of the fact that Cruz clearly is never going to be the stud big league starter everyone thought he would be. In fact, it's safe to say he's a bust at this point, seeing how he's 27 years old. Still, Andy Pratt, what a joke that was.

Edited January 10, 2006 by don_kessinger_was_good

[Jon]

It is true that the Cubs tried to turn him into a leadoff hitter but they also gave him the opportunity to bat third in the lineup last year (among other spots). The truth is he batted horribly throughout the season.

Only 30 ABs. And he actually put up a .900 OPS batting third. But it's not about where they hit him as much as it is the kind of hitter they tried to make him. The effects from the failed leadoff experiment lasted the whole season since they significantly altered his mechanics. He didn't/couldn't just go back to his 2004 swing when he was really struggling.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

But the point is this: Why not wait until ST, and then, at worst, you can make this same trade then? If an injury happens or Corey's performance turns around, then maybe you can get more for him than a "maybe" and a filler lefty.

 

I understand moving him, and knew it would happen. I even called it happening like this, but that doesn't mean I think Hendry couldn't have played his cards better than he did. You can't keep selling low like he does.

 

I think you are way overstating the market for CPatt. He's a 3m player who put up a .215/.254/.348 last year and is .252/.293/.414 for his career. How do you know the market for him wouldn't have dried up once ST rolled around? It was time for Corey to move on with his life. I think the fact that Hendry got anything for him is a testament to his trading skills.

Edited January 10, 2006 by CardsFanInChiTown

[CUBZ99]

I haven't read the 8 pages of this thread. I just want to exress my disappointment in the Cubs once again settling on making a deal with no leverage whatsoever. There is just no sense in the manner in which this management team negotiates, evaluates or makes transactions in general.

 

Leverage, what leverage? As Bruce Miles stated on this forum just a few days ago Corey was not a hot name at all throughout the baseball world.

 

Well, you've made the point for me. He had no leverage. At all. Thus, it makes more sense to gamble into creating some leverage through 1) better play at the ML level; 2) better play at AAA; or 3) need created though injury in ST or the first part of the season.

 

Negotiating is all about leverage. Trading players without any is just stupid when you know a player has talent (e.g. Corey). If it were some clown like Macias, when you are unlikely to get anything more than you've seen over his stay with the Cubs, then the likelihood of gaining leverage is low if not non-existent. But, that isn't the case with Corey.

 

It is bad negotiating, pure and simple.

 

It is always easier to make comments like this after the fact. Sure if Hendry would have had any idea that Corey would have turned out as bad as he did, I'm sure he would have traded him when he had "leverage." Instead, he took a gamble that Corey would improve and Patterson floundered.

 

Last year, Hendry sent him to AAA to get his stuff together, he called him up late in the year and the Cubs even let him get significant playing time, possible to increase his trade value. Sooner or later you have to cut bait and get what you can get.

 

The fact that the Cubs were able to get anything for him is remarkable and with Corey going to ST as a 5th OF or AAA bound, it is hard to see how he would have increased his trade value.

 

But the point is this: Why not wait until ST, and then, at worst, you can make this same trade then? If an injury happens or Corey's performance turns around, then maybe you can get more for him than a "maybe" and a filler lefty.

 

I understand moving him, and knew it would happen. I even called it happening like this, but that doesn't mean I think Hendry couldn't have played his cards better than he did. You can't keep selling low like he does.

 

I see what you are saying, but the fact is that as CardFan pointed out Corey's career numbers are atrocious and, believe it or not, he gets on base less than Neifi Perez. So while many on here think it is ridiculous to pay a guy $2.5M to be a defensive specialist at SS/2B, somehow it is ok to pay a guy $3M a year to sit on the bench or spend the season in AAA.

 

Sure it is possible that Corey would have a decent ST, but his career numbers indicate that he would continue to hit worse than Neifi and it is possible that Hendry would have been stuck with nothing.

[JC]

I haven't read the 8 pages of this thread. I just want to exress my disappointment in the Cubs once again settling on making a deal with no leverage whatsoever. There is just no sense in the manner in which this management team negotiates, evaluates or makes transactions in general.

 

Leverage, what leverage? As Bruce Miles stated on this forum just a few days ago Corey was not a hot name at all throughout the baseball world.

 

Well, you've made the point for me. He had no leverage. At all. Thus, it makes more sense to gamble into creating some leverage through 1) better play at the ML level; 2) better play at AAA; or 3) need created though injury in ST or the first part of the season.

 

Negotiating is all about leverage. Trading players without any is just stupid when you know a player has talent (e.g. Corey). If it were some clown like Macias, when you are unlikely to get anything more than you've seen over his stay with the Cubs, then the likelihood of gaining leverage is low if not non-existent. But, that isn't the case with Corey.

 

It is bad negotiating, pure and simple.

 

It is always easier to make comments like this after the fact.

 

Why, pray tell, is that the case? I have been anticipating this lackluster move (as have many) since October. Hendry moved Sammy at his lowest value (and, in fact, contributed to lowering his value). Hendry is more interested in a clean clubhouse rather than addressing messes that he had his hand in manufacturing.

 

Don't try to diminish my point by making me appear as if I am only preying on hindsight. It doesn't take a clariavoyant or baseball executive to derive the opinion that this was a trade in which Hendry would be hard pressed to get less value at a later date. I am 100% certain that Hendry at some level decided to move Patterson prior to the Convention so as not to repeat the 05 Sosa debacle. His moves regularly have a tinge of panic to them as of late.

[Wheelimus]

Personally, I would have kept Corey, told him he was competing against Matt Murton for the left field job, and seen what he could do. Really, he isn't going to disappoint worse than last year. His value will not go down anymore. All you've done is took a 3 or 4 million dollar gamble that you can get something out of him.

 

It isn't like our return would have been any worse if he didn't outplay Murton for the job. Without building up his value, we were going to get a prospect or two from some teams top 25 list. Best case scenario without showcasing him.

 

But, if you keep him, and maybe even bring in a special spring training coach just for him, he might break out, and you either have a very tradeable commodity, or a starting outfielder on your team.

 

If we would have gotten talent back that helped us in the upcoming season, I'd appreciate the trade more. But since we didn't, unless you really need the money for something else, you've shortchanged yourself. We held a card, and we played it too soon :?

[CUBZ99]

 

Don't try to diminish my point by making me appear as if I am only preying on hindsight. It doesn't take a clariavoyant or baseball executive to derive the opinion that this was a trade in which Hendry would be hard pressed to get less value at a later date. I am 100% certain that Hendry at some level decided to move Patterson prior to the Convention so as not to repeat the 05 Sosa debacle. His moves regularly have a tinge of panic to them as of late.

 

It is possible that Hendry would have gotten zero in return for Patterson. Corey has shown absolutely nothing as major leaguer and it is doubtful that he ever would as a Cub. It is difficult to see why you would get so excited over losing a guy with worse career numbers than Neifi Perez.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I haven't read the 8 pages of this thread. I just want to exress my disappointment in the Cubs once again settling on making a deal with no leverage whatsoever. There is just no sense in the manner in which this management team negotiates, evaluates or makes transactions in general.

 

Leverage, what leverage? As Bruce Miles stated on this forum just a few days ago Corey was not a hot name at all throughout the baseball world.

 

Well, you've made the point for me. He had no leverage. At all. Thus, it makes more sense to gamble into creating some leverage through 1) better play at the ML level; 2) better play at AAA; or 3) need created though injury in ST or the first part of the season.

 

Negotiating is all about leverage. Trading players without any is just stupid when you know a player has talent (e.g. Corey). If it were some clown like Macias, when you are unlikely to get anything more than you've seen over his stay with the Cubs, then the likelihood of gaining leverage is low if not non-existent. But, that isn't the case with Corey.

 

It is bad negotiating, pure and simple.

 

It is always easier to make comments like this after the fact.

 

Why, pray tell, is that the case? I have been anticipating this lackluster move (as have many) since October. Hendry moved Sammy at his lowest value (and, in fact, contributed to lowering his value). Hendry is more interested in a clean clubhouse rather than addressing messes that he had his hand in manufacturing.

 

Don't try to diminish my point by making me appear as if I am only preying on hindsight. It doesn't take a clariavoyant or baseball executive to derive the opinion that this was a trade in which Hendry would be hard pressed to get less value at a later date. I am 100% certain that Hendry at some level decided to move Patterson prior to the Convention so as not to repeat the 05 Sosa debacle. His moves regularly have a tinge of panic to them as of late.

 

How would you have created more leverage for a 3m player who hit .215/.254/.348 last year and was the fans least favorite guy at Wrigley?

Edited January 10, 2006 by CardsFanInChiTown