A 115 Million Payroll?

[CubsWin]

I wouldnt put Jones in the untouchable category, but at this point in Tim Hudson's career, he's simply not good.

Well, he certainly had an off year this season. But he isn't too far removed from success, so there is a chance that he can return to his previous performance level.

 

However, I'm not in favor of acquiring Hudson as the #2 behind Zambrano. If taking on Hudson's contract does indeed make it easier to acquire Andruw Jones, that might be reason enough to take him. IMO, the Cubs need to sign a top of the line starter. My choice would Matsuzaka. If the Cubs fail to acquire the right to bargain with him, then I would go after Schmidt. If they can get one of those two pitchers, then Hudson would be filling the 4th or 5th spot in the rotation depending on how Prior does next spring. Hudson in that spot is fine. Expensive, but fine. If the payroll is going up, and if he brings with him Andruw Jones, and if the other options are Soriano or Dunn, I say bring on Hudson and his contract.

[Mephistopheles]

I meant Veal not Jones. Oops.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

4) Trade Marshall, Veal, Jones for Hudson.

 

WHAT?!

 

My thoughts as well. Now if it were Marshall, Veal, Jones for Andruw and Hudson...that's a good deal.

 

Sorry vance, I'm not purposedly trying to pick fights with you, or it's not my intention, but imo, if there is one minor leaguer who is OFF-LIMITS, it is Donald Veal. And I certainly would not part with him for two massively overpriced contracts. And I think the Cubs could get Jones and Hudson WITHOUT having to put Veal in. Now, Jones/Marhsall/Marmol/Patterson for Hudson/AJ would atleast get to the table, especially if the Braves don't have to eat much of the contract.

 

Oh, I'd definitely try to make the move without including Veal as well. Somewhere in some thread, I think I've proposed a deal for Jones and Hudson that didn't include Veal. On the other hand, if I could get Jones and Hudson in a package, I don't think I'd let the inclusion of Veal become a deal breaker. As much as I hope it's not so, but I think if the Braves are moving Jones and Hudson in the same deal, they are going to want one of Veal, Murton, or Pie.

 

My deal was Pie and Marshall for Hudson and Jones. The Cubs probably have to add another player to the deal, but I don't think it would have to be a high ceiling guy. The Cubs might even be able to get the Braves to take Novoa or someone of his ilk back.

[rawaction]

I wouldnt put Jones in the untouchable category, but at this point in Tim Hudson's career, he's simply not good.

Well, he certainly had an off year this season. But he isn't too far removed from success, so there is a chance that he can return to his previous performance level.

 

However, I'm not in favor of acquiring Hudson as the #2 behind Zambrano. If taking on Hudson's contract does indeed make it easier to acquire Andruw Jones, that might be reason enough to take him. IMO, the Cubs need to sign a top of the line starter. My choice would Matsuzaka. If the Cubs fail to acquire the right to bargain with him, then I would go after Schmidt. If they can get one of those two pitchers, then Hudson would be filling the 4th or 5th spot in the rotation depending on how Prior does next spring. Hudson in that spot is fine. Expensive, but fine. If the payroll is going up, and if he brings with him Andruw Jones, and if the other options are Soriano or Dunn, I say bring on Hudson and his contract.

 

I don't see how Hudson is all of a sudden, "not good". 2006 was by far his worst year with a 91 ERA+. He has a career ERA+ of 128, and is just a year removed from that level posting a 125 ERA+ in the previous season. Even in a down year, he improved his K rate, walk rate didn't change much, if at all, and GB/FB ratio was right at his career norm. He was still dominant vs. RH hitters. His biggest problem this year was giving up extra bases. He gave up career worsts 25 HRs and a .435 SLG against.

 

He's only 31 years old, so he should still have a couple solid years left. Statistically, he's one of the top 10 active pitchers in the league, career wise. I'm not gonna argue that he will continue on that level, but there's no reason to expect that 2006 is gonna be the norm for him. I expect him in the 110-120 ERA+ range for at least 2 more years, putting him as a middle of the road #2. That would likely give him an ERA within 0.2 either way of a 4.00 ERA. Combined that with him throwing at least 185 innings every year, that's a solid pickup.

 

For the record, everyone's favorite FA signee, Jason Schmidt had a 125 ERA+ this season, after posting a 94 in 2005. Schmidt and Hudson are different types of pitchers, but have been very similar recently as far as durability and overall effectiveness is concerned. Schmidt improved greatly at age 33. I'll gamble that Hudson can have similar improvement 2 years younger, and with about 300 less innings under his belt this time last year.

[jmajew]

4) Trade Marshall, Veal, Jones for Hudson.

 

WHAT?!

 

My thoughts as well. Now if it were Marshall, Veal, Jones for Andruw and Hudson...that's a good deal.

 

I'm just trying to make a trade that seems plausible. Don't forget last year the Red Sox traded both Anibal Sanchez and Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett and the Red Sox took on Mike Lowell's contract. I think you guys may be a bit unrealistic on what you can obtain. If you switch in Cesar Izturis for Jacque Jones would the trade become more palatable?

 

ONe more thing if you are willing to overpay for guys like Soriano and Lee in free agency why is not acceptable to overpay to get guys through a trade? If you want to build a winner immediately you are going ot have to overpay.

[Jazz]

4) Trade Marshall, Veal, Jones for Hudson.

 

WHAT?!

 

My thoughts as well. Now if it were Marshall, Veal, Jones for Andruw and Hudson...that's a good deal.

 

I'm just trying to make a trade that seems plausible. Don't forget last year the Red Sox traded both Anibal Sanchez and Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett and the Red Sox took on Mike Lowell's contract. I think you guys may be a bit unrealistic on what you can obtain. If you switch in Cesar Izturis for Jacque Jones would the trade become more palatable?

 

ONe more thing if you are willing to overpay for guys like Soriano and Lee in free agency why is not acceptable to overpay to get guys through a trade? If you want to build a winner immediately you are going ot have to overpay.

 

but you're trading for a guy who is probably on the back end of productivity in his career, and has an albatross contract that might be the difference between us being able to sign our core players to extensions.

[jmajew]

4) Trade Marshall, Veal, Jones for Hudson.

 

WHAT?!

 

My thoughts as well. Now if it were Marshall, Veal, Jones for Andruw and Hudson...that's a good deal.

 

I'm just trying to make a trade that seems plausible. Don't forget last year the Red Sox traded both Anibal Sanchez and Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett and the Red Sox took on Mike Lowell's contract. I think you guys may be a bit unrealistic on what you can obtain. If you switch in Cesar Izturis for Jacque Jones would the trade become more palatable?

 

ONe more thing if you are willing to overpay for guys like Soriano and Lee in free agency why is not acceptable to overpay to get guys through a trade? If you want to build a winner immediately you are going ot have to overpay.

 

but you're trading for a guy who is probably on the back end of productivity in his career, and has an albatross contract that might be the difference between us being able to sign our core players to extensions.

 

Every free agent we can sign is on the backend of his career. Carlos Lee is gonna be 32. Soriano is gonna be 31. Schmidt will be 33. I would rather pay Hudson 30 million over three years than Schmidt 48 million over 4.

[Rob]

4) Trade Marshall, Veal, Jones for Hudson.

 

WHAT?!

 

My thoughts as well. Now if it were Marshall, Veal, Jones for Andruw and Hudson...that's a good deal.

 

I'm just trying to make a trade that seems plausible. Don't forget last year the Red Sox traded both Anibal Sanchez and Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett and the Red Sox took on Mike Lowell's contract. I think you guys may be a bit unrealistic on what you can obtain. If you switch in Cesar Izturis for Jacque Jones would the trade become more palatable?

 

ONe more thing if you are willing to overpay for guys like Soriano and Lee in free agency why is not acceptable to overpay to get guys through a trade? If you want to build a winner immediately you are going ot have to overpay.

 

but you're trading for a guy who is probably on the back end of productivity in his career, and has an albatross contract that might be the difference between us being able to sign our core players to extensions.

 

Every free agent we can sign is on the backend of his career. Carlos Lee is gonna be 32. Soriano is gonna be 31. Schmidt will be 33. I would rather pay Hudson 30 million over three years than Schmidt 48 million over 4.

 

Matsuzaka

[CUBZ99]

4) Trade Marshall, Veal, Jones for Hudson.

 

WHAT?!

 

My thoughts as well. Now if it were Marshall, Veal, Jones for Andruw and Hudson...that's a good deal.

 

I'm just trying to make a trade that seems plausible. Don't forget last year the Red Sox traded both Anibal Sanchez and Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett and the Red Sox took on Mike Lowell's contract. I think you guys may be a bit unrealistic on what you can obtain. If you switch in Cesar Izturis for Jacque Jones would the trade become more palatable?

 

ONe more thing if you are willing to overpay for guys like Soriano and Lee in free agency why is not acceptable to overpay to get guys through a trade? If you want to build a winner immediately you are going ot have to overpay.

 

but you're trading for a guy who is probably on the back end of productivity in his career, and has an albatross contract that might be the difference between us being able to sign our core players to extensions.

 

Every free agent we can sign is on the backend of his career. Carlos Lee is gonna be 32. Soriano is gonna be 31. Schmidt will be 33. I would rather pay Hudson 30 million over three years than Schmidt 48 million over 4.

 

What is the scoop on Hudson? Did he lose some velocity this year or was there some other factor contributing to this average numbers?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

What is the scoop on Hudson? Did he lose some velocity this year or was there some other factor contributing to this average numbers?

 

Like Raw pointed out, Hudson's peripherals were as good if not better than they were in previous years. It seems to be a batted balls thing, which should return to previous norms, and not a case of declining stuff.

[Mephistopheles]

Like Raw pointed out, Hudson's peripherals were as good if not better than they were in previous years. It seems to be a batted balls thing, which should return to previous norms, and not a case of declining stuff.

 

Is it really a batted balls thing? His BABIP last season was .307, which is only slightly higher than it should be. His K rate has fallen from his established 1999-2003 rate and he has walked more guys the last two seasons than he did in 2002-2004. For his last two seasons in Oakland he was helped by an extremely lucky HR to flyball ratio - and that evaporated when he moved to Atlanta. Looking at his peripherals the last two seasons, it becomes apparent that 2006 was in line and 2005 was not.

[rawaction]

Like Raw pointed out, Hudson's peripherals were as good if not better than they were in previous years. It seems to be a batted balls thing, which should return to previous norms, and not a case of declining stuff.

 

Is it really a batted balls thing? His BABIP last season was .307, which is only slightly higher than it should be. His K rate has fallen from his established 1999-2003 rate and he has walked more guys the last two seasons than he did in 2002-2004. For his last two seasons in Oakland he was helped by an extremely lucky HR to flyball ratio - and that evaporated when he moved to Atlanta. Looking at his peripherals the last two seasons, it becomes apparent that 2006 was in line and 2005 was not.

 

I agree somewhat. Obviously his 05-06 is a far cry from his previous seasons in Oakland. But his peripherals from 06 weren't that much different than they were in 05, which says to me that he was probably a little lucky in 05 and a little unlucky in 06. Which is why I said I think he will settle somewhere between his 05-06 numbers.

[Mephistopheles]

right around the 4.40-4.50 range - which isn't terrible but isn't good either. It's certainly not worth trading for. A cheap guy like Vicente Padilla is just as likely to put up that kind of season

[rawaction]

right around the 4.40-4.50 range - which isn't terrible but isn't good either. It's certainly not worth trading for. A cheap guy like Vicente Padilla is just as likely to put up that kind of season

 

The middle ground would be about 4.20. Which is above league average. And I do agree that he's not worth seeking out in a trade and Padilla is very likely to put up similar numbers. But the scenario here involves taking Hudson to facilitate getting Andruw Jones. And if the Braves eat some of Hudson's deal, Padilla won't be much cheaper. Hudson only makes 6M next year, Padilla will likely make more in 2007.

 

FWIW, that 4.20 ERA would likely be about a 108 ERA+ next year. Padilla's career ERA+ is 106, and he hasn't been that high in 3 years.

[Soriano12]

A cheap guy like Vicente Padilla is just as likely to put up that kind of season

 

Padilla won't come cheap this offseason.

[Jazz]

right around the 4.40-4.50 range - which isn't terrible but isn't good either. It's certainly not worth trading for. A cheap guy like Vicente Padilla is just as likely to put up that kind of season

 

The middle ground would be about 4.20. Which is above league average. And I do agree that he's not worth seeking out in a trade and Padilla is very likely to put up similar numbers. But the scenario here involves taking Hudson to facilitate getting Andruw Jones. And if the Braves eat some of Hudson's deal, Padilla won't be much cheaper. Hudson only makes 6M next year, Padilla will likely make more in 2007.

 

FWIW, that 4.20 ERA would likely be about a 108 ERA+ next year. Padilla's career ERA+ is 106, and he hasn't been that high in 3 years.

 

I might be more happy with Hudson if Jones was coming back in the trade. There's also always that possibility he has a resurgance and we get a ERA of 3.5-3.7 and an ERA+ of something like 120

[CubsWin]

right around the 4.40-4.50 range - which isn't terrible but isn't good either. It's certainly not worth trading for. A cheap guy like Vicente Padilla is just as likely to put up that kind of season

 

The middle ground would be about 4.20. Which is above league average. And I do agree that he's not worth seeking out in a trade and Padilla is very likely to put up similar numbers. But the scenario here involves taking Hudson to facilitate getting Andruw Jones. And if the Braves eat some of Hudson's deal, Padilla won't be much cheaper. Hudson only makes 6M next year, Padilla will likely make more in 2007.

 

FWIW, that 4.20 ERA would likely be about a 108 ERA+ next year. Padilla's career ERA+ is 106, and he hasn't been that high in 3 years.

kc,

 

So knowing that the trade isn't for Hudson, but is for Andruw Jones, and knowing the Cubs desperate need to add a power bat to their line-up and CF is one of the openings the Cubs need to fill, would you refuse to take on Hudson and his contract if it meant being able to add Jones?

[A New Era]

From Rozner's latest, there is this little line tucked deep within the article.

 

There are whispers of the Cubs bumping their payroll to about $115 million in 2007, which would be about $20 million more than last year.

 

 

A 115 million payroll would give the Cubs roughly 35-40 million to spend this offseason. Even if five million were eaten up in Ramirez's extension, there's still plenty to improve the team.

 

Bruce Miles / The Daily Herald[/url]"] Piniella has said he’s interested in managing a team that’s ready to win. The Cubs finished 2006 with a record of 66-96 and in last place in the NL Central.

 

But new Cubs president John McDonough has made it his stated goal for the Cubs to get to and win the World Series immediately, and the parent Tribune Co. could be ready to shell out big bucks in an effort for that to happen. ...

 

Hendry will explore trades and free agency. Also, expect the Cubs to express interest in Japanese pitching sensation Daisuke Matsuzaka, who is playing in the postseason for the Seibu Lions.

 

:)

 

I love this set of quotes Serena. \:D/

 

here are some snippets from Mcdunough.

 

"JH will be given all the resources to do that"

"We possibly haven't been prodent in that department" (FA signings)

"The goal is to win the world series"

 

Piniella: Interested in winning. If he is, then he was probably told in secret about the increase in payroll and the huge drive this offseason to bring in some major talent.

 

Bruce Miles and Sulivan both hinting about whispers of raised payroll. .

 

It ALL points to the Tribune raising the payroll. And honestly, and truthfully "wanting to win" (for the fans). .

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

One of the advantages of McDonough taking over for MacPhail may be a willingness to pursue the top FA. I think MacPhail, because of his work with the CBA, was often reluctant to drop too much money on one player because it might skew the salary structure and appear to be irresponsible. I think his relationship with Selig may have kept him from letting Hendry play free with the company resources. McDonough may be more willing to allow Hendry to spend on the big fish.

[Mephistopheles]

The middle ground would be about 4.20. Which is above league average. And I do agree that he's not worth seeking out in a trade and Padilla is very likely to put up similar numbers. But the scenario here involves taking Hudson to facilitate getting Andruw Jones. And if the Braves eat some of Hudson's deal, Padilla won't be much cheaper. Hudson only makes 6M next year, Padilla will likely make more in 2007.

 

FWIW, that 4.20 ERA would likely be about a 108 ERA+ next year. Padilla's career ERA+ is 106, and he hasn't been that high in 3 years.

 

That's nice, but his periph's for 2005 suggest about 4.50 and his periph's for 2006 suggest about a 4.50. He's also moving to a tougher park to pitch in, although he would benefit from the high grass as he still can keep on the ground. Of course if it meant getting Andruw Jones, eat the salary, but I was originally talking about the Marshall, Veal, & Jacque Jones for Hudson deal the person above me quoted. Yes Hudson is listed to only make $6M next season, but there's another $4M of his signing bonus remaining, though I have no idea if the Cubs have to pay that or not. Then he's due 26 mil over the next two seasons, which is pretty much a sunk cost that he has no chance of producing at, and Andruw Jones by then will be gone considering he's an FA after '07. The only way we can make the Jones and Hudson deal is if we're certain that we can win next year - and we're a long ways away from that. It'll screw our finances in 2008-09 and cost us a couple solid prospects from a system with little talent to draw from.

 

If we had a 72 hour window to sign Jones to an extension, it's a different story. Scott Boras would laugh us off into the sunset though.

 

I might be more happy with Hudson if Jones was coming back in the trade. There's also always that possibility he has a resurgance and we get a ERA of 3.5-3.7 and an ERA+ of something like 120

 

Given the decline of his ability to strike guys out, I wouldn't bet on it. There's a chance, but who's to say it's a high chance. I'd bet on someone like Angel Guzman having an ERA in the 3.50 range before Hudson returns there. Hudson's simply not the pitcher he once was. There's no way we'd get him for a fair price, in every scenario we'd be severly overpaying for him.

 

So knowing that the trade isn't for Hudson, but is for Andruw Jones, and knowing the Cubs desperate need to add a power bat to their line-up and CF is one of the openings the Cubs need to fill, would you refuse to take on Hudson and his contract if it meant being able to add Jones?

 

If I figured we have no chance in 2007 (which I don't think we do), I'd certainly pass on the deal. After next season Torii Hunter, Andruw Jones, Andrew Rowand, and Vernon Wells are eligible for free agency. One of them may sign an extension before then, but three of those will be there. The teams with a lot of money who would be in the market for a centerfielder by then would be the Sox, Angels and Cubs. Also Coco Crisp, Carl Crawford, and Wily Mo Pena would be available in potential trades. 2007 also looks to be a banner year elsewhere. After 07 a lot of pitching hits the market, and so the year before, that 13 mil might be better used in trades and such. There's a lot of impact talent out there after next season, and spending 13 mil on a pretty average starter isn't going to help a team with quite a few holes.

 

Trading for one year of Andruw Jones and acquiring a sunk contract in Tim Hudson would be a ill-advised short-sighted move by Jim Hendry. If I was guaranteed to keep Jones I'd do it, but since I am not. I can't pull the trigger.

[A New Era]

God, why do these threads always turn into arguments of who's better than who. Including long thesis paper like messeges including BPPIP, ERA+, OPS, and Neifi?

[Mephistopheles]

Did I mention Hudsons 0 PADHFE?

[A New Era]

Did I mention Hudsons 0 PADHFE?

 

Pitch and Ditch Hit for Errors?

[CubsWin]

Trading for one year of Andruw Jones and acquiring a sunk contract in Tim Hudson would be a ill-advised short-sighted move by Jim Hendry. If I was guaranteed to keep Jones I'd do it, but since I am not. I can't pull the trigger.

Here we are in agreement. I only do this trade if the Cubs can extend Jones as part of the deal.

[frostwyrm]

A $115M payroll might make me bitch a little less about that $20M bullpen I keep hearing people asking for.