RUMOR: Ramirez to Anaheim if...

[soccer10k]

How many people were excited about bringing Michael Barrett in to be the Cubs starting catcher? He did a pretty nice job there.

 

*raises hand*

 

I was stoked when the Cubs acquired Barrett. I knew he wasn't a .208 hitter like he was in 2003 and I never dreamed he would be a .330 hitter either but I figured he would be a solid hitting catcher for the Cubs.

[USSoccer]

It's still not enough for me to want to trade Aramis.

 

We get it. You love Ramirez. What is wrong about acquiring a pretty good MI prospect and getting a top of the rotation guy?

 

I don't think Santana's a top of the rotation guy. I don't think Aybar is anything special.

 

It's not a matter of me loving Ramirez. It's me thinking that it's not a wise deal. If you want to trade Aramis, it has to be in the right kind of deal. Santana & Aybar, IMO, isn't the right deal. It assumes that you can trade for a replacement 3B AND aquire a power hitter in the offseason. I have doubts as to Hendry's ability to do that. If Hendry's here, the safest course of action would be to keep Aramis and build around our current core, which isn't as bad as our record indicates this season. I think we contend more easily with Ramirez, Lee, Z, Prior and Barrett here to add pieces around.

 

Why do you question Hendry's ability to get players(3b and power hitter) in the off season? He acquired three of the core guys you listed (Lee, Ramirez and Barrett) through trade. How many people were excited about bringing Michael Barrett in to be the Cubs starting catcher? He did a pretty nice job there.

 

Gee, why would I question the ability of a GM who has completely wasted the last 2 seasons with his various FA signings and inconsequetial trades?

 

Hendry has long passed the point where he can point to Ramirez & Lee (salary dumps) and Barrett and say "Look what I did!" He's made enough terrible decisions to warrant a total lack of trust.

[StMarksCubs]

The Arizona Diamondbacks reportedly approached the Cubs about acquiring Greg Maddux late Sunday night.

 

The Diamondbacks would be a decent fit for Maddux who wants to be traded closer to his Las Vegas home. Since he is a free agent at the end of 2007 the Diamondbacks might need to give up a top prospect and a low-level prospect in a deal for him.

 

(from rotoworld.com)

[E.J.]

The Arizona Diamondbacks reportedly approached the Cubs about acquiring Greg Maddux late Sunday night.

 

The Diamondbacks would be a decent fit for Maddux who wants to be traded closer to his Las Vegas home. Since he is a free agent at the end of 2007 the Diamondbacks might need to give up a top prospect and a low-level prospect in a deal for him.

 

(from rotoworld.com)

 

:?:

[minnesotacubsfan]

The Arizona Diamondbacks reportedly approached the Cubs about acquiring Greg Maddux late Sunday night.

 

The Diamondbacks would be a decent fit for Maddux who wants to be traded closer to his Las Vegas home. Since he is a free agent at the end of 2007 the Diamondbacks might need to give up a top prospect and a low-level prospect in a deal for him.

 

(from rotoworld.com)

 

:?:

 

I also dont understand. I would think if he was going to be a FA, they would have to give up less because he would be less desirable to trade for and give up too much if they may just loose him at the end of the season

[JeffH]

The first thing wrong with that is that Maddux is a FA after 2006, not after 2007.

[E.J.]

The first thing wrong with that is that Maddux is a FA after 2006, not after 2007.

 

Hence the question mark. I'm guessing rotoworld needs a better fact checker.

[Southpaw191679666239]

Hence the question mark. I'm guessing rotoworld needs a better fact checker.

 

Or just a better proof-reader... they have typos all the time.

[hawkeyecub]

The Arizona Diamondbacks reportedly approached the Cubs about acquiring Greg Maddux late Sunday night.

 

The Diamondbacks would be a decent fit for Maddux who wants to be traded closer to his Las Vegas home. Since he is a free agent at the end of 2007 the Diamondbacks might need to give up a top prospect and a low-level prospect in a deal for him.

 

(from rotoworld.com)

 

:?:

 

I also dont understand. I would think if he was going to be a FA, they would have to give up less because he would be less desirable to trade for and give up too much if they may just loose him at the end of the season

 

Yeah but the flip side is they aren't committed to him next year. That makes him a much less risky option. He's likely going to be an upgrade of the man he'll be replacing in the rotation, maybe enough for 2 wins to earn a spot in the playoffs for a team in the West. Either way they owe him nothing.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

It's still not enough for me to want to trade Aramis.

 

We get it. You love Ramirez. What is wrong about acquiring a pretty good MI prospect and getting a top of the rotation guy?

 

I don't think Santana's a top of the rotation guy. I don't think Aybar is anything special.

 

It's not a matter of me loving Ramirez. It's me thinking that it's not a wise deal. If you want to trade Aramis, it has to be in the right kind of deal. Santana & Aybar, IMO, isn't the right deal. It assumes that you can trade for a replacement 3B AND aquire a power hitter in the offseason. I have doubts as to Hendry's ability to do that. If Hendry's here, the safest course of action would be to keep Aramis and build around our current core, which isn't as bad as our record indicates this season. I think we contend more easily with Ramirez, Lee, Z, Prior and Barrett here to add pieces around.

 

Why do you question Hendry's ability to get players(3b and power hitter) in the off season? He acquired three of the core guys you listed (Lee, Ramirez and Barrett) through trade. How many people were excited about bringing Michael Barrett in to be the Cubs starting catcher? He did a pretty nice job there.

 

Gee, why would I question the ability of a GM who has completely wasted the last 2 seasons with his various FA signings and inconsequetial trades?

 

Hendry has long passed the point where he can point to Ramirez & Lee (salary dumps) and Barrett and say "Look what I did!" He's made enough terrible decisions to warrant a total lack of trust.

 

FA signings:

Jacque Jones - decent signing(although the third year is problematic)

Bob Howry - good

Scott Eyre - good

John Mabry - bat off the bench/versatile(not good or bad really)

 

 

 

The mark on him is the Pierre deal. If those pitchers falter then he could still come up smelling like roses on that one.

 

His major fault is retaining guys like Rusch and Perez.

 

Overall, the trades are the problem with Hendry.

 

So he gets no credit for acquiring Barrett, Lee, and Ramirez? Salary dump or not he got them. Like you said they have the "core" in place....so it is a bit unfair to discount them in Hendry's track record.

 

All GMs make some inconsequential trades along the lines of Koronka for Bynum.

 

Following you approach, how can he even obtain quality players via trade when you make anything of value off limits?

[goonys evil twin]

The mark on him is the Pierre deal. If those pitchers falter then he could still come up smelling like roses on that one.

 

The mark on him is the fact that the 2005 and 2006 Cubs have sucked. The Pierre trade is hardly the only blemish. It's a big picture problem that started long ago and is tied directly to his philosophies. And no, faltering prospects will not make him smell like roses.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

The mark on him is the Pierre deal. If those pitchers falter then he could still come up smelling like roses on that one.

 

The mark on him is the fact that the 2005 and 2006 Cubs have sucked. The Pierre trade is hardly the only blemish. It's a big picture problem that started long ago and is tied directly to his philosophies. And no, faltering prospects will not make him smell like roses.

 

I just meant smelling like roses as opposed to being railed for the Pierre trade(i.e. no ticker tape parades).

 

Believe me I hate Jim Hendry. I find him to be smug and arrogant. And his philosophies screw the pooch.

 

But, it is just unfair to throw out things he had sone well when looking at his track record. Just as it would be unfair to discount the times he screwed the pooch.

[goonys evil twin]

But, it is just unfair to throw out things he had sone well when looking at his track record. Just as it would be unfair to discount the times he screwed the pooch.

 

I think it's pointless to look back and try and find good moves and bad moves. What matters is the big picture. A general manager's job is big picture. If the team sucks, it's his fault. You can't really get pissed at a GM who builds a 91 win team that falls a game short. But when you have an upper echelon payroll and build two consecutive horrible teams, you've done a horrible job. Trying to look at a deal or two that weren't all that bad on the surface is pointless.

[RynoRules]

But, it is just unfair to throw out things he had sone well when looking at his track record. Just as it would be unfair to discount the times he screwed the pooch.

 

I think it's pointless to look back and try and find good moves and bad moves. What matters is the big picture. A general manager's job is big picture. If the team sucks, it's his fault. You can't really get pissed at a GM who builds a 91 win team that falls a game short. But when you have an upper echelon payroll and build two consecutive horrible teams, you've done a horrible job. Trying to look at a deal or two that weren't all that bad on the surface is pointless.

 

I don't know if its "pointless", but I agree with everything else you posted. I gave Jim a one-time pass in 05' b/c he had built up a team that should have won in 04' and looked like it was well on its wau. However, he has used up his free passes with me after watching the team he built for this season.

[rawaction]

But, it is just unfair to throw out things he had sone well when looking at his track record. Just as it would be unfair to discount the times he screwed the pooch.

 

I think it's pointless to look back and try and find good moves and bad moves. What matters is the big picture. A general manager's job is big picture. If the team sucks, it's his fault. You can't really get pissed at a GM who builds a 91 win team that falls a game short. But when you have an upper echelon payroll and build two consecutive horrible teams, you've done a horrible job. Trying to look at a deal or two that weren't all that bad on the surface is pointless.

 

Even if Nolasco, Pinto, and Mitre never throw another pitch it was a bad move, that just happened to work out well. It's bad for the simple fact that it's pretty likely that Hendry could have traded those 3 together or added into seperate deals for a better player than Pierre. The key to any trade is getting the most possible out of the players you give up. There's no doubt that Hendry could have gotten more than Pierre for 3 ML ready arms.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

But, it is just unfair to throw out things he had sone well when looking at his track record. Just as it would be unfair to discount the times he screwed the pooch.

 

I think it's pointless to look back and try and find good moves and bad moves. What matters is the big picture. A general manager's job is big picture. If the team sucks, it's his fault. You can't really get pissed at a GM who builds a 91 win team that falls a game short. But when you have an upper echelon payroll and build two consecutive horrible teams, you've done a horrible job. Trying to look at a deal or two that weren't all that bad on the surface is pointless.

 

I don't know if its "pointless", but I agree with everything else you posted. I gave Jim a one-time pass in 05' b/c he had built up a team that should have won in 04' and looked like it was well on its wau. However, he has used up his free passes with me after watching the team he built for this season.

 

My point as well. I felt the team improved from 03 to 04. 05 was a pass in my book as well, but this debacle has left me in the camp that Hendry needs to go. He hasn't done anything in the "big picture" category to make me believe he can build a consistent winner.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

But, it is just unfair to throw out things he had sone well when looking at his track record. Just as it would be unfair to discount the times he screwed the pooch.

 

I think it's pointless to look back and try and find good moves and bad moves. What matters is the big picture. A general manager's job is big picture. If the team sucks, it's his fault. You can't really get pissed at a GM who builds a 91 win team that falls a game short. But when you have an upper echelon payroll and build two consecutive horrible teams, you've done a horrible job. Trying to look at a deal or two that weren't all that bad on the surface is pointless.

 

I agree with your first statement and the overall picture right now is bleak. That is why I willing to part with guys like Ramirez to obtain good young talent. I think to look to 2007 as the year as some do is not the way to go. I really think the Cubs could benfit from obtaining young talent preferably AAA players and young major leaguers. That is why I think if Santana and Aybar(assuming this rumor is true) would be a step in the right direction for the Cubs.

[CubColtPacer]

From the ESPN chat why the Angels should not trade for Aramis:

 

I actually think the best thing for the Angels to do IS to stand pat. Aramis Ramirez doesn't seem to fit what the Angels do, though he is an offensive 3B. His makeup and lack of intensity always has been a red flag for clubs, and the Angels seem to value that kind of thing very highly. I think their recent track record supports their stance. I'd keep taking my chances with their young guys such as Howie Kendrick and see if Brandon Wood can make a move to 3B sooner than later, rather than giving up on good young talent for a possible poor fit like Ramirez

 

That's very funny considering the recent discussion of the board.