Should Z Still Get Big Money?

[Soriano12]

I guess a potential down year after several above-average years is enough for people to start flipping 180.

 

When it comes to a starting pitchers...yes.

[Sammy Sofa]

I just don't follow the injury reasoning. Maybe, possibly, there's the remote chance that something's wrong with his arm. But if that is the case, then at the moment it's clearly not apparent to either Z, Rothschild, Piniella, Hendry or anyone else.

 

Evidence? They keep throwing him out there for each start. Pitch counts so far this year? 92, 109, 87, 113, 103, 113, 105, 117. Even the biggest brahma of the bulls isn't going to throw those totals if he's pitching with pain. Wouldn't Rothschild or Piniella have the inside track on determining the problem? They haven't opted to sit Z once this season. If he winds up going down with an arm problem, then they both deserve to get skewered for missing something obvious and compounding the problem by leaving him in there.

 

Unfortunately, Prior/Wood history shows us that the Cubs aren't always forthright regarding injuries. I think it's breeding some paranoia in this case.

 

OK, so what do you say to the problem that Z has back problems that tie into his weight, weight which he has shown he has trouble keeping off, weight which will just be harder and harder to keep off? Is that really the kind of situation you want to invest a maybe 5+-year-deal with?

 

What about his mental/emotional/whatever you want to call it maturity? I think it's very difficult to show that he's "grown" in that area...if anything, he's just gotten worse. How many times do we need to see him basically throw a tantrum on the mound and dig a hole for his team that can easily cost them a win?

 

What about his increasing walk numbers? What about that he's giving up more and more home runs? These are all very worrisome things that can just be brushed aside.

 

Yes, he's been a very good pitcher and I think he still can be a good pitcher. That said, I don't think paying him #1 or ace money is prudent, because he's not showing that he is one. In a perfect world, he's the #3 pitcher behind Prior and Wood. As it stands right now, he's not even the #3. Yeah, I know he'll likely get better, if he's not injured, but I really don't think it's that unusual or overreactionary to question how good he is for the Cubs and how much he's worth if he's resigned.

[soccer10k]

Regardless, we've got a couple of months to evaluate things before starting talks with other teams about trades. Let's see if he improves. Another perspective: if he does have a poor season, our price for locking up a pitcher who is Cy Young material 3 out of 4 seasons suddenly falls to a more reasonable level.

 

1. As long as the Cubs are in contention (which they likely will be for most of the year) there is absolutely no way Hendry trades Zambrano. He's just not going to do it. Hendry's job is on the line right now and if he trades Z, the pitcher who steps in for Z stinks it up and the Cubs falter down the stretch to miss the playoffs, Hendry's gone. He won't trade Z. There's no way.

 

2. Even if Z has a piss poor season, that's not necessarily going to drive down his price all that much. In his four full years as a starter so far, he's put up an ERA+ over 130. Jeff Weaver had a 5.76 ERA and is getting $8M this year. Z might drop from $18M to $15M (and at $15M it would still be vastly overpaying) but he's not going to drop to $10M with one bad year based on what he's done in the past. He may not have as many teams putting up big bids for him, but some team will fork up a ton of money.

[RynoRules]

Z and Cedeno or Izturis for Tejada and a AA level pitching prospect.

[fromthestretch]

I just don't follow the injury reasoning. Maybe, possibly, there's the remote chance that something's wrong with his arm. But if that is the case, then at the moment it's clearly not apparent to either Z, Rothschild, Piniella, Hendry or anyone else.

 

Evidence? They keep throwing him out there for each start. Pitch counts so far this year? 92, 109, 87, 113, 103, 113, 105, 117. Even the biggest brahma of the bulls isn't going to throw those totals if he's pitching with pain. Wouldn't Rothschild or Piniella have the inside track on determining the problem? They haven't opted to sit Z once this season. If he winds up going down with an arm problem, then they both deserve to get skewered for missing something obvious and compounding the problem by leaving him in there.

 

Unfortunately, Prior/Wood history shows us that the Cubs aren't always forthright regarding injuries. I think it's breeding some paranoia in this case.

 

Brad Radke pitched last season in pain with his shoulder hanging on with chewing gum and duct tape and had a stretch in May/June where he was over 100 pitches for six straight starts. Yes, I understand he's nowhere near the same style of pitcher as Zambrano, and by then Radke probably knew it would be the final season of his career. But this is an example of a guy pitching through pain.

 

Zambrano's a proud guy. He could very well be having pain, but he just might not deem it significant enough to say anything about it. He also might not want it to be known that he's having pain as it could affect his ability to get a long-term deal from someone.

[Balsa]

No, he shouldn't get big money, he should get less money.

 

Something along the lines of 4/60.

 

Or, if we get an offer we can't refuse, trade him.

 

To trade him for peanuts would be selling too low, and to let him walk would be even greater insanity.

[cheapseats]

I just don't follow the injury reasoning. Maybe, possibly, there's the remote chance that something's wrong with his arm. But if that is the case, then at the moment it's clearly not apparent to either Z, Rothschild, Piniella, Hendry or anyone else.

 

Evidence? They keep throwing him out there for each start. Pitch counts so far this year? 92, 109, 87, 113, 103, 113, 105, 117. Even the biggest brahma of the bulls isn't going to throw those totals if he's pitching with pain. Wouldn't Rothschild or Piniella have the inside track on determining the problem? They haven't opted to sit Z once this season. If he winds up going down with an arm problem, then they both deserve to get skewered for missing something obvious and compounding the problem by leaving him in there.

 

Unfortunately, Prior/Wood history shows us that the Cubs aren't always forthright regarding injuries. I think it's breeding some paranoia in this case.

 

Prior's surgery revealed that his arm has been damaged for at least two years. But he was third in baseball in pitcher abuse points in the 2005 season (Z was second), throwing as many as 131 pitches in a game.

 

Just because Z throws a lot of pitches doesn't mean he isn't hurt.

 

Will Carroll recently (within the last week) mentioned Z's change in arm slot as a sign that something could be wrong.

 

And most of Z's comps in PECOTA flamed out in their age 25 or 26 seasons.

 

There were several on this board suggesting that Z should be traded before the season started. As Steve Stone would say, there was a lot of first-guessing going on.

[Mephistopheles]

Yes. Anyone who says no is wrong. Five weeks doesn't erase five seasons.

[ctcf]

Yes. Anyone who says no is wrong. Five weeks doesn't erase five seasons.

 

Again! Sense!

[jersey cubs fan]

Yes. Anyone who says no is wrong. Five weeks doesn't erase five seasons.

 

Again! Sense!

 

There's absolutely no sense in that statement.

 

If we find out tomorrow he needs TJS, do you ignore that and say it doesn't erase the past 5 years? We aren't talking about a down year. He's been downright awful. That's not normal. Something isn't right.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Yes. Anyone who says no is wrong. Five weeks doesn't erase five seasons.

 

 

True, but there was weakness in Z's peripherals last season to suggestion he wasn't right. I think he's injured.

[ctcf]

Yes. Anyone who says no is wrong. Five weeks doesn't erase five seasons.

 

Again! Sense!

 

There's absolutely no sense in that statement.

 

If we find out tomorrow he needs TJS, do you ignore that and say it doesn't erase the past 5 years? We aren't talking about a down year. He's been downright awful. That's not normal. Something isn't right.

 

I'm assuming that he doesn't actually need TJS. Call me crazy.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yes. Anyone who says no is wrong. Five weeks doesn't erase five seasons.

 

Again! Sense!

 

There's absolutely no sense in that statement.

 

If we find out tomorrow he needs TJS, do you ignore that and say it doesn't erase the past 5 years? We aren't talking about a down year. He's been downright awful. That's not normal. Something isn't right.

 

I'm assuming that he doesn't actually need TJS. Call me crazy.

 

Even if it's an issue other than TJS related, there's no sense in saying you have to give a guy a huge contract based on the past 5 years when there is something clearly wrong right now. Mark Mulder put up a pretty good 5 year run before his career fell apart. The good thing is the Cubs don't need to make a decision today. But hopefully there are people in charge that are using more sense than the "well he's been great for 5 years and right now doesn't change that fact" method to determine player value.

 

We're talking about a pitcher here, not a left fielder.

[Mephistopheles]

Yes. Anyone who says no is wrong. Five weeks doesn't erase five seasons.

 

 

True, but there was weakness in Z's peripherals last season to suggestion he wasn't right. I think he's injured.

 

There's also this:

 

 

 

 I Split         G   PA   AB   R   H  2B 3B HR  BB IBB  SO HBP  SH  SF ROE GDP  SB CS Pk   BA   OBP   SLG   OPS  BAbip sOPS+ tOPS+ Split
+-+------------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------------+
2003
  vs RHB as RH  32  554  480  48 113 24  0  4  54   5  94   8   7   5   3  17   1  2  1  .235  .320  .310  .630  .282    77    92 vs RHB as RH 
  vs LHB as RH  32  353  306  32  75 19  1  5  40   7  74   2   4   1   5   7   2  3  1  .245  .335  .363  .698  .307    80   112 vs LHB as RH 
2004
  vs RHB as RH  31  461  403  39  88 16  4  7  38   2 106  11   8   1   6  12   2  1  0  .218  .302  .330  .632  .278    74    94 vs RHB as RH 
  vs LHB as RH  31  426  370  32  86 17  2  7  43   2  82   9   2   2   2   5   5  3  1  .232  .325  .346  .671  .279    72   106 vs LHB as RH 
2005
  vs RHB as RH  33  491  443  41  94 22  1  7  35   0 127   5   6   2   3   8   1  3  2  .212  .276  .314  .590  .280    64    87 vs RHB as RH 
  vs LHB as RH  33  418  358  44  76 14  0 14  51   3  75   3   3   3   6  10   0  6  2  .212  .313  .369  .682  .228    77   116 vs LHB as RH 
2006
  vs RHB as RH  33  463  409  51  71 19  1 10  40   2 131   6   5   3   4   9   1  2  2  .174  .255  .298  .553  .225    50    66 vs RHB as RH 
  vs LHB as RH  33  454  369  38  91 22  4 10  75   2  79   3   6   1   7   9   1  1  0  .247  .377  .409  .786  .288    98   136 vs LHB as RH 
2007
  vs RHB as RH   8  105   87  16  17  2  0  6  12   0  20   3   1   2   1   1   0  0  1  .195  .308  .425  .733  .175   108    65 vs RHB as RH 
  vs LHB as RH   8  106   93  14  33  9  1  4  12   1  15   1   0   0   0   4   0  0  1  .355  .434  .602 1.036  .392   173   133 vs LHB as RH 

 

Now the ratios don't look like an injury's hurting him. It looks like there's been a change of philosophy that has hurt his ability to keep a decent K:BB against lefties.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes. Anyone who says no is wrong. Five weeks doesn't erase five seasons.

 

Again! Sense!

 

Apparently five seasons where the good is all that will be paid attention to and the increasing bad is totally ignored. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

[cheapseats]

Yes. Anyone who says no is wrong. Five weeks doesn't erase five seasons.

 

 

True, but there was weakness in Z's peripherals last season to suggestion he wasn't right. I think he's injured.

 

There's also this:

 

 

 

 I Split         G   PA   AB   R   H  2B 3B HR  BB IBB  SO HBP  SH  SF ROE GDP  SB CS Pk   BA   OBP   SLG   OPS  BAbip sOPS+ tOPS+ Split
+-+------------+---+----+----+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+--+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------------+
2003
  vs RHB as RH  32  554  480  48 113 24  0  4  54   5  94   8   7   5   3  17   1  2  1  .235  .320  .310  .630  .282    77    92 vs RHB as RH 
  vs LHB as RH  32  353  306  32  75 19  1  5  40   7  74   2   4   1   5   7   2  3  1  .245  .335  .363  .698  .307    80   112 vs LHB as RH 
2004
  vs RHB as RH  31  461  403  39  88 16  4  7  38   2 106  11   8   1   6  12   2  1  0  .218  .302  .330  .632  .278    74    94 vs RHB as RH 
  vs LHB as RH  31  426  370  32  86 17  2  7  43   2  82   9   2   2   2   5   5  3  1  .232  .325  .346  .671  .279    72   106 vs LHB as RH 
2005
  vs RHB as RH  33  491  443  41  94 22  1  7  35   0 127   5   6   2   3   8   1  3  2  .212  .276  .314  .590  .280    64    87 vs RHB as RH 
  vs LHB as RH  33  418  358  44  76 14  0 14  51   3  75   3   3   3   6  10   0  6  2  .212  .313  .369  .682  .228    77   116 vs LHB as RH 
2006
  vs RHB as RH  33  463  409  51  71 19  1 10  40   2 131   6   5   3   4   9   1  2  2  .174  .255  .298  .553  .225    50    66 vs RHB as RH 
  vs LHB as RH  33  454  369  38  91 22  4 10  75   2  79   3   6   1   7   9   1  1  0  .247  .377  .409  .786  .288    98   136 vs LHB as RH 
2007
  vs RHB as RH   8  105   87  16  17  2  0  6  12   0  20   3   1   2   1   1   0  0  1  .195  .308  .425  .733  .175   108    65 vs RHB as RH 
  vs LHB as RH   8  106   93  14  33  9  1  4  12   1  15   1   0   0   0   4   0  0  1  .355  .434  .602 1.036  .392   173   133 vs LHB as RH 

 

Now the ratios don't look like an injury's hurting him. It looks like there's been a change of philosophy that has hurt his ability to keep a decent K:BB against lefties.

 

And he's become more of a strikeout/flyball pitcher and less of a groundball pitcher.

 

But you're presenting a false dilemma: either he's hurt or there's been a change in philosophy.

 

Obviously, both could be true.

 

Furthermore, the change in approach (more drastic righty/lefty splits, more strikeouts, lower groundball:flyball ratio) over the past few years hasn't made him less effective. One could argue that he was a more effective pitcher in 2006 than he was in 2003.

 

His arm slot has definitely lowered. Just because he realizes such is the case doesn't rule out injury.

 

On his peripherals in BP 2007: "It`s might be nothing, but it could be the first warning sign that his years of hard pitching at tender ages are catching up to him."

 

I hope he's not hurt, but the idea that the possibility is "remote" (as another posted argued) is wishful thinking. I would have traded him before the season started if I were the GM. I would be hated for it, but I would have done it.

[Mephistopheles]

both could be but its unlikely that an injury would only result in struggles against lefties while improving dominance against righties.

[jersey cubs fan]

both could be but its unlikely that an injury would only result in struggles against lefties while improving dominance against righties.

 

Is this any different than what happened with Clement and Lieber before they went down? Lieber was his best against RHP in the 2 years just prior to getting injured.

 

Your theory doesn't come close to saying an injury is unlikely, let alone improbable.

 

If anything he appears to be getting more gimmicky, which could explain the increase in k's as well as the increase in BB. And he's given up more and more HR to RH batters as well.

[cheapseats]

both could be but its unlikely that an injury would only result in struggles against lefties while improving dominance against righties.

 

I agree. Which is why I think the data you cite is a red herring.

[Drew Doughty]

I hope he's not hurt, but the idea that the possibility is "remote" (as another posted argued) is wishful thinking. I would have traded him before the season started if I were the GM. I would be hated for it, but I would have done it.

 

you would be more than hated.

 

if you were going into the season with a rotation of

 

Zambrano

Lilly

Marquis

Hill

Miller

 

and you traded Zambrano, you should have been fired. it sounds good in hindsight, but unless you thought you weren't contending this year -- which really should never be an option for a big market team like the Cubs -- trading Zambrano would have been a terrible idea.

[Backtobanks]

No, he shouldn't get big money, he should get less money.

 

Something along the lines of 4/60.

 

Or, if we get an offer we can't refuse, trade him.

 

To trade him for peanuts would be selling too low, and to let him walk would be even greater insanity.

 

The key to this whole argument is that there's no hurry in trading him or signing him. The deadline that they set has already passed. Wait for awhile to see whether he corrects his situation or not. If he becomes the Zambrano of old, make him a good offer. If he continues having poor starts, make him a lower offer and if he doesn't accept, then trade him. If an injury shows up, obviously an offer can be made based on the probability of his return to top form. Another factor might be the success of some of our minor league prospects. Getting top price for a mediocre Zambrano might be in the best interest of the Cubs especially if our minor league prospects and the players we get in trade are ready to step into the starting rotation.

[cheapseats]

I hope he's not hurt, but the idea that the possibility is "remote" (as another posted argued) is wishful thinking. I would have traded him before the season started if I were the GM. I would be hated for it, but I would have done it.

 

you would be more than hated.

 

if you were going into the season with a rotation of

 

Zambrano

Lilly

Marquis

Hill

Miller

 

and you traded Zambrano, you should have been fired. it sounds good in hindsight, but unless you thought you weren't contending this year -- which really should never be an option for a big market team like the Cubs -- trading Zambrano would have been a terrible idea.

 

Well, if you look back through preseason posts, I was one of several people who advocating trading Zambrano for the purpose of winning now, so it's not hindsight, and it wouldn't have (necessarily) been a white flag.

 

Of course, I never would have signed Marquis, either, so I'm not claiming genius status.

[GhostRunner]

Carlos Zambrano took a bullpen session before Saturday's game against the Phillies under the watchful eye of Cubs manager Lou Piniella, and the Cubs skipper liked what he saw.

 

Zambrano has been recently struggling slightly with his mechanics, opening up his hips on his delivery. What it's done is cause opposing hitters to get an early look at what the right-hander is throwing. It's led to a .361 batting average against and 13 runs in the first inning.

 

Piniella feels the problem is corrected.

 

"What I saw basically was him shortening his arc a little bit and staying closed a little longer, which makes things more compact," Piniella said. "That makes him a more aggressive pitcher. When a pitcher is a little long, as a hitter, you get a longer look at the ball. It makes it easier to see the pitch."

 

Zambrano is 2-1 over his last three starts, but he has a 4.26 ERA in 19 innings pitched, surrendering 13 hits and eight earned runs over his last two starts.

 

Piniella said he expects Zambrano to be back to form very soon.

 

"We're looking for a little consistency factor," Piniella said. "His stuff looks good."

"Problem corrected"? "Back to form"? "Stuff looks good"?

 

Doesn't Rothschild and Piniella realize that NSBB posters have already declared Zambrano to be clearly-injured, trade-bait material? Quit tweaking his delivery and ship him off to the Yankees already! :P

[Sammy Sofa]

Carlos Zambrano took a bullpen session before Saturday's game against the Phillies under the watchful eye of Cubs manager Lou Piniella, and the Cubs skipper liked what he saw.

 

Zambrano has been recently struggling slightly with his mechanics, opening up his hips on his delivery. What it's done is cause opposing hitters to get an early look at what the right-hander is throwing. It's led to a .361 batting average against and 13 runs in the first inning.

 

Piniella feels the problem is corrected.

 

"What I saw basically was him shortening his arc a little bit and staying closed a little longer, which makes things more compact," Piniella said. "That makes him a more aggressive pitcher. When a pitcher is a little long, as a hitter, you get a longer look at the ball. It makes it easier to see the pitch."

 

Zambrano is 2-1 over his last three starts, but he has a 4.26 ERA in 19 innings pitched, surrendering 13 hits and eight earned runs over his last two starts.

 

Piniella said he expects Zambrano to be back to form very soon.

 

"We're looking for a little consistency factor," Piniella said. "His stuff looks good."

"Problem corrected"? "Back to form"? "Stuff looks good"?

 

Doesn't Rothschild and Piniella realize that NSBB posters have already declared Zambrano to be clearly-injured, trade-bait material? Quit tweaking his delivery and ship him off to the Yankees already! :P

 

I'd still want to trade him even if he was 110% healthy. Do you really think all NSBB posters want to trade him only over supposed injuries? Or that none of us have good reasons for wanting to do so? No, please, dismiss us again.

[GhostRunner]

I'd still want to trade him even if he was 110% healthy. Do you really think all NSBB posters want to trade him only over supposed injuries? Or that none of us have good reasons for wanting to do so? No, please, dismiss us again.

Sensitive much? You seem to not be in touch with the "sky is falling" mentality that this place exudes . . . I never claimed that all NSBB posters are advocating trading Z because of (potential?) injury, but a great number posting in this thread, and on this board, clearly are.

 

You're the exception? That's wonderful! My recently-posted comments don't and never did apply to you. I'll just put together a different list of reasons as to why trading a 110%-healthy Zambrano would be a bad idea as well . . .