I would strongly consider trading Ryan Dempster

[A New Era]

No. Aside from a shaky last couple of weeks he has been good. 11 out of 14 save opportunities. We need to dump the garbage and build on the GOOD players. I guess I wouldn't mind seeing him go if some big team "overpays" for him in players.

 

But if he goes. Who is going to pie and shaving cream people's faces during interviews? Dempster has a funny personality and I like having him on the team.

[davearm]

i beg to differ. name a team that has been successful without a dominate closer. i cant think of one. most baseball peoplei have heard including steve stone put having a dominate closer right after good starting pitching on the mut have list for a championship team.

Atlanta is an obvious one. They've had a different guy lead them in saves just about every year of their 14-year run atop the division.

 

Other teams have won the WS with rookie closers (Jenks, FRod).

[CubinNY]

For years Billy Beane has ripped off other teams by trading off his "dominate" closer. Edited June 22, 2006 by CubinNY

[Balsa]

i beg to differ. name a team that has been successful without a dominate closer. i cant think of one. most baseball peoplei have heard including steve stone put having a dominate closer right after good starting pitching on the mut have list for a championship team.

Atlanta is an obvious one. They've had a different guy lead them in saves just about every year of their 14-year run atop the division.

 

Other teams have won the WS with rookie closers (Jenks, FRod).

Boston as well?

[soccer10k]

i beg to differ. name a team that has been successful without a dominate closer. i cant think of one. most baseball peoplei have heard including steve stone put having a dominate closer right after good starting pitching on the mut have list for a championship team.

Atlanta is an obvious one. They've had a different guy lead them in saves just about every year of their 14-year run atop the division.

 

Other teams have won the WS with rookie closers (Jenks, FRod).

Boston as well?

 

Foulke was dominant in the 2004 postseason. Without looking it up I'm not sure how good he was in the regular season, but in the playoffs he was lights out.

[goonys evil twin]

i beg to differ. name a team that has been successful without a dominate closer. i cant think of one. most baseball peoplei have heard including steve stone put having a dominate closer right after good starting pitching on the mut have list for a championship team.

 

Lots and lots and lots of teams treat the closer position like an internship, one year on and then out the door. How many closers did the white sox have last year? There is only one team that has been consistently successful with the same closer year after year, and that's the Yankees. Everybody else has either spent big on a guy only to have it not work out for the duration of the contract, or they rotate guys year after year. I said closer is overrated because teams are willing to spend too much on the position. I never said strong relievers aren't important. The problem is very few relievers are very good on anything close to a consistent basis. Last year's fantasy hero in the save category could be this year's overpaid mediocrity.

[davearm]

Dempster for Marcus Giles would look nice to me. Put an end to this 3+ year revolving door at 2B and create a nice bridge to 2008, when EPat might be ready to step in.

 

Giles also gives the Cubs a leadoff option when Pierre is gone.

 

Seems like the proverbial buy low opportunity, if ATL is serious about giving his job to Betemit.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Dempster for Marcus Giles would look nice to me. Put an end to this 3+ year revolving door at 2B and create a nice bridge to 2008, when EPat might be ready to step in.

 

Giles also gives the Cubs a leadoff option when Pierre is gone.

 

Seems like the proverbial buy low opportunity, if ATL is serious about giving his job to Betemit.

 

That's confusing to me. You want to stop the revolving door by bringing in someone for basically 1 year? Why would you want to trade Dempster to fill a position that is already adequately filled and in no real danger of being vacant in the future?

[davearm]

Dempster for Marcus Giles would look nice to me. Put an end to this 3+ year revolving door at 2B and create a nice bridge to 2008, when EPat might be ready to step in.

 

Giles also gives the Cubs a leadoff option when Pierre is gone.

 

Seems like the proverbial buy low opportunity, if ATL is serious about giving his job to Betemit.

 

That's confusing to me. You want to stop the revolving door by bringing in someone for basically 1 year? Why would you want to trade Dempster to fill a position that is already adequately filled and in no real danger of being vacant in the future?

Having the same everyday 2B for the next 1 1/2 years (and perhaps longer) would be a welcome change from what we've seen for the last several years, where the starts are shared amongst several guys each with their own deficiencies. Especially considering that Giles represents the best combination of positives from the whole lot of them -- he's got as much speed, defense, pop, OBP, etc. as anyone we've run out there.

 

And how is it that you figure that 2B is "in no real danger of being vacant in the future"? Who's playing there next year?

[Sammy Sofa]

Ideally? Walker. The guy is a perfect #2 hitter, or could fill in nicely at the leadoff role if the Cubs' get their heads out of their collective butts and pick up another power bat.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Having the same everyday 2B for the next 1 1/2 years (and perhaps longer) would be a welcome change from what we've seen for the last several years, where the starts are shared amongst several guys each with their own deficiencies. Especially considering that Giles represents the best combination of positives from the whole lot of them -- he's got as much speed, defense, pop, OBP, etc. as anyone we've run out there.

 

And how is it that you figure that 2B is "in no real danger of being vacant in the future"? Who's playing there next year?

 

By future, I'm looking farther ahead than next season. Barring any unexpected setbacks, Patterson has the job in 2008. Walker won't bring us much of anything in a trade, so why not keep him? Ideally, Walker would be back for 1 more season next year, but there are also other options like Belliard out there that can be had on a 1 year deal. My point is, if you're going to trade Dempster, the last thing this franchise needs is someone to play 2B. We already have 4.

[goonys evil twin]

By future, I'm looking farther ahead than next season. Barring any unexpected setbacks, Patterson has the job in 2008.

 

I would say, at this point, the unexpected future would be one that includes EPatt as the starting 2B in 2008. He's not exactly lighting it up in AA (760 OPS). Setbacks for prospects can never be considered unexpected, especially the non-elite type of prospect.

 

I'd make moves assuming Patterson won't be good enough to earn the job. And if he makes it, that's just icing.

[davearm]

Having the same everyday 2B for the next 1 1/2 years (and perhaps longer) would be a welcome change from what we've seen for the last several years, where the starts are shared amongst several guys each with their own deficiencies. Especially considering that Giles represents the best combination of positives from the whole lot of them -- he's got as much speed, defense, pop, OBP, etc. as anyone we've run out there.

 

And how is it that you figure that 2B is "in no real danger of being vacant in the future"? Who's playing there next year?

 

By future, I'm looking farther ahead than next season. Barring any unexpected setbacks, Patterson has the job in 2008. Walker won't bring us much of anything in a trade, so why not keep him? Ideally, Walker would be back for 1 more season next year, but there are also other options like Belliard out there that can be had on a 1 year deal. My point is, if you're going to trade Dempster, the last thing this franchise needs is someone to play 2B. We already have 4.

What goony said.

 

Counting on Patterson to be the 2B of the future is a foolish thing to do at this stage. If it works out that way, great, but don't plan around it.

 

Giles solidifies the position for a minimum of this year and next, and possibly much longer than that if he wants to stay and they want to extend him.

 

People talk a lot about how, until Ramirez arrived, 3B had been a wasteland since the Santo days.

 

Well don't look now, but the same is true of 2B since the Sandberg days.

[E.J.]

It's not exactly like Giles is producing this year. His line so far this year:

 

.244/.330/.358/.688

 

I would definitely be up for trading Dempster though. He's got a very reasonable contract and there are quite a few contenders who need bullpen help. We could really fleece a team if Hendry plays his cards right.

[soccer10k]

i beg to differ. name a team that has been successful without a dominate closer. i cant think of one. most baseball peoplei have heard including steve stone put having a dominate closer right after good starting pitching on the mut have list for a championship team.

 

The Marlins in 2003 had Brandon Looper as their closer for a majority of the year (28 saves). Ugueth Urbina also had 6 saves.

 

To go back a couple more years, the Diamondbacks in 2001 had Byung-Hyun Kim as their closer. Not exactly intimidating.

 

So it is possible.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

By future, I'm looking farther ahead than next season. Barring any unexpected setbacks, Patterson has the job in 2008.

 

I would say, at this point, the unexpected future would be one that includes EPatt as the starting 2B in 2008. He's not exactly lighting it up in AA (760 OPS). Setbacks for prospects can never be considered unexpected, especially the non-elite type of prospect.

 

I'd make moves assuming Patterson won't be good enough to earn the job. And if he makes it, that's just icing.

 

I don't disagree with that. However, there are plenty of positions where upgrades are necessary and moving Dempster should be done with those positions in mind. Walker doesn't appear to be going anywhere this season, and there are other options for 2B next season and beyond that are just as good as Marcus Giles.

[Fro]

There's no reason to trade Dempster with all the money that should be freed up next year. The bullpen is the least of our problems, and getting some scrub OF prospect that our coaches would ruin is pretty dumb.

[goonys evil twin]

There's no reason to trade Dempster with all the money that should be freed up next year. The bullpen is the least of our problems, and getting some scrub OF prospect that our coaches would ruin is pretty dumb.

 

There is a reason, if you could get great value for him. I wouldn't trade him for a scrub OF prospect. I would trade him for something that could help the lineup and rotation next year and in the future. Just because the bullpen is the least of our troubles doesn't mean you can't trade guys from that bullpen.

 

Hendry had a ton of money freed up last year and wasted it. He sucks at signing free agents. I'd much rather take the chance that one of this trades works out.

[Monco]

When have the Cubs ever had a fire sale? Deadline deals would be for prospects. Why would a contender open up one hole to fill another? Dempster should be moved. Its hard to have confidence in a closer that walks alot of batters. Hes always been like that,so its not a lack of work. The Cubs will most likely do very little.Probably trade Rusch for a 24 year old A ball pitcher.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Point of order: Giles has been criminally unlucky BABIP wise. His power is down a little bit, but he's hitting as many line drives as he always has and his BABIP is 50 points lower.

[frostwyrm]

i beg to differ. name a team that has been successful without a dominate closer. i cant think of one. most baseball peoplei have heard including steve stone put having a dominate closer right after good starting pitching on the mut have list for a championship team.

Don't most successful teams also have a utility infielder? Utility guys actually play more than closers, and appear in many more tense game situations too. So are utility infielders necessary ingredients of success?

[EricG]

They say you should reserve your best reliever for the 9th, but it really is just a way to get the best reliever the save opportunities so that he can have the best stats and earn his salary. Similar to having your best hitter in the #3 slot to give him RBI opportunities.

[CubinNY]

They say you should reserve your best reliever for the 9th, but it really is just a way to get the best reliever the save opportunities so that he can have the best stats and earn his salary. Similar to having your best hitter in the #3 slot to give him RBI opportunities.

 

the Save is perhaps the most worthless stat in baseball, right after the Win.

 

Suppose the Cubs are up 2-1, it is the sixth inning runners on second and third with one out and the starting pitcher just walked the bases loaded. Weurtz comes in and strikes out the next batter and gets the final batter to fly out to CF.

 

Now, same score the bottom of the 9, nobody on, no outs. Dempster pitches a 1-2-3 ninth and gets the save.

 

Which outs where the most valuable?

 

Reserving your best pitcher for the bottom of the ninth is convential baseball wisdom. Sure, there are guys like Rivera and Gagne but those guys are rare.