Cubs Trade Rob Bowen and Jerry Blevins for Jason Kendall

[Backtobanks]

So wait...

 

We get an old catcher who is terrible offensively and defensively, and takes up a huge chunk of the payroll.

 

In exchange, we give up a better young catcher under club control for a few more years, plus a prospect.

 

How much are the Brewers paying Hendry to do this?

 

I got a kick out of the line about Bowen being a better young catcher. The guy can't hit at all. Kendall is having a bad year, but has done good lately (.295). The Cubs are hoping to catch "lightning in a bottle" with Kendall for the next few months. The same would have true for many other possible acquisitions (Dye, Burrell, etc.) except they would have cost the Cubs more in young players. The Tribune makes it sound like the A's are picking up most of his salary, so the bottom line is the Cubs gave up next to nothing for a player that might provide a spark.

[Cubfan_N_nebraska]

Now that Kendall is on board instead of posting how much he sucks let's get behind this deal and hope that what fire has ignited in the Cub clubhouse will ignite Kendall back to his former self. Success is just like losing it's contagious. The majority of us who put our thoughts in these forums actually know that when it comes down to it we really don't know how to be a GM and all the dynamics of it. Is this good or bad only the next what 70 games or so will prove it. I'm just excited to sit and watch games again with a sense that we are going to win the game. My gut tells me the dealing is not done and the Cubs will make a bigger splash before the month is up. Go Cubs and Mr. Kendall welcome to Chicago! :D Edited July 17, 2007 by Cubfan_N_nebraska

[kente777]

Now that Kendall is on board instead of posting how much he sucks let's get behind this deal and hope that what fire has ignited in the cub clubhouse will ignite Kendall back to his former self. Success is just like losing it's contagious. The majority of us who put our thoughts in these forums actually know that when it comes down to it we really don't know how to be a GM and all the dynamics of it. Is this good or bad only the next what 70 games or so will prove it. I'm just excited to sit and watch games again with a sense that we are going to win the game. My gut tells me the dealing is not done and the Cubs will make a bigger splash before the month is up. Go Cubs and Mr. Kendall welcome to Chicago! :D

 

I couldn't agree more. Kendall is struggling this year, but he will be no worse than what we already have at that position, and with the Cubs in the playoff hunt, a veteran (who is likable) who knows how to handle a pitching staff WILL NOT hurt the Cubs. I agree that the Cubs need more, and if this is all they do, I will be disappinted.

 

Here's hoping for a BIG trade!

 

Ken

[nilodnayr]

Wow...didn't expect that from the A's fans. If they think that highly of a guy who's numbers look ridiculously bad, perhaps there is something we're missing. I'm not going to completely change my opinion on the matter...at best this is a mediocre trade in my opinion, but those comments from the A's fans certainly sound good to me.

 

You mean maybe we should wait and actually see how he does before arrogantly denouncing it as a horrible move? You must be new here.

 

 

Is it wrong to judge based on the facts right now? Theres nothing wrong with that, the D-train trade was meh at the time, same with the Hundley trade. In retrospect those are definitely uneven trades, but why can't you use foresight when trying to judge a trade? Unless GMs have crystal balls or deloreans, thats what they are using.

 

And regarding comments from A's fans, just because their GM is Billy Beane doesnt mean I'm going to annoint them all to MENSA. Its ignorant to blindly follow the opinion of others. Just like we really don't know whats going on in the clubhouse, neither do they.

 

Also, paying 900K is a hell of a lot better than the 3.5ish that was originally thought.

[AI]

LOL...Comcast just talked about the deal and then showed a graphic that showed his CERA...:roll:

 

Hendry really hit all the cliches too..."His recommendations were off the charts"..."It was a no-brainer for us"..."His career OBP is off the charts"...

I am still not a huge fan of the trade, but the money makes me feel better. Also, I apologize for being a smartass last night. I definitely overreacted.

[RynoRules]

CubinNY wrote:

 

Who gives a crap about what people say on a message board.

 

This was a trade brought about by an unnecessary trade of Barrett.

 

Kendall might have been the answer when the Pirates were trying to get rid of him, but he isn't now. To me this trade makes the Cubs slightly better but nothing that "puts them over the top". I'd like to see the Cubs add a legitimate power hitter. Then this trade will look a lot better. Kendall can get on base (this season nothwithstanding).

 

Until then the Cubs better keep hoping for more good luck and more good pitching.

 

Finally, Blevins was having a pretty good year.

 

I understand you are frustrated that they added Kendall - I did want him either and would have preferred to give Soto a shot. I agree that we need another bat, hopefully in RF or at SS.

 

However, I think that your statement implies that they have been lucky rather than good. I think this is unfair and untrue. You don't win as many games as they have since June 1 without playing good baseball. Everyone knows there is a bit of chance involved in all sports, but usually you have to do something well in addition to getting breaks. The Cubs have done plenty of that, IMO.

 

Also, this notion that giving up a minor league middle reliever for a guy one year removed from a solid major league season (at least in terms of OBP) and who will cost only $900k is just disengenious. I have seen many folks - you included, IIRC - rail against Hendry for overvaluing middle relievers and not treating them like the fungible commodities they are. Assuming that is true - and I think it is - its a bit hypocritical for you to now blast him for giving up a AA reliever with one-half of a good season to his credit for Kendall.

 

Now, if you look at it in the larger context - trading Barrett for Kendall - I agree it appears to be a loss. That said, Barrett may have worn out his welcome with the Cubs and the players - we will never know. What we do know is that we have not had many problems without him.

 

I'd also note that Kendall is a rental, and Soto may therefore get his shot next season, or could be used to get something we really need - someone who can play RF or SS and hit.

[Jake]

Wow!

 

Such hand wringing and teeth gnashing, and I only got to page 6! I didn't read the other 29 pages inbetween, so I'm most likely going to post what other people said.

 

I think, at worst, this trade is almost a non-issue.

 

First, I don't think his salary is an issue. Yeah, he's making 13 mil, but the Pirates are picking up 5.5 of it and the seasons > 1/2 over. And, Oakland threw in some cash. And, this is the final year of the contract, so there's no long term commitment.

 

You gave up a DFA'd catcher and a low minor league reliever, someone who was projected as a specialist? In other words, you gave up a guy you had given up on anyway, and a potential bit contributor for an experienced catcher.

 

OK, So, Kendall can't hit anymore. He usually comes on strong in the second 1/2, so, maybe he'll hit .250 for you guys if your lucky. And his defense? Not great either.

 

But, he'll call a better game than either Soto or Hill. With the offense you guys have, the game calling alone could be enough to put you over the top.

 

Or not.

 

I don't think you guys hurt yourself long term, and I don't think you made the team worse. And, the potential is there to have made your team better.

 

Not earth shattering, but a good trade, I think.

[CubinNY]

CubinNY wrote:

 

Who gives a crap about what people say on a message board.

 

This was a trade brought about by an unnecessary trade of Barrett.

 

Kendall might have been the answer when the Pirates were trying to get rid of him, but he isn't now. To me this trade makes the Cubs slightly better but nothing that "puts them over the top". I'd like to see the Cubs add a legitimate power hitter. Then this trade will look a lot better. Kendall can get on base (this season nothwithstanding).

 

Until then the Cubs better keep hoping for more good luck and more good pitching.

 

Finally, Blevins was having a pretty good year.

 

I understand you are frustrated that they added Kendall - I did want him either and would have preferred to give Soto a shot. I agree that we need another bat, hopefully in RF or at SS.

 

However, I think that your statement implies that they have been lucky rather than good. I think this is unfair and untrue. You don't win as many games as they have since June 1 without playing good baseball. Everyone knows there is a bit of chance involved in all sports, but usually you have to do something well in addition to getting breaks. The Cubs have done plenty of that, IMO.

 

Also, this notion that giving up a minor league middle reliever for a guy one year removed from a solid major league season (at least in terms of OBP) and who will cost only $900k is just disengenious. I have seen many folks - you included, IIRC - rail against Hendry for overvaluing middle relievers and not treating them like the fungible commodities they are. Assuming that is true - and I think it is - its a bit hypocritical for you to now blast him for giving up a AA reliever with one-half of a good season to his credit for Kendall.

 

Now, if you look at it in the larger context - trading Barrett for Kendall - I agree it appears to be a loss. That said, Barrett may have worn out his welcome with the Cubs and the players - we will never know. What we do know is that we have not had many problems without him.

 

I'd also note that Kendall is a rental, and Soto may therefore get his shot next season, or could be used to get something we really need - someone who can play RF or SS and hit.

 

Where is the hell did you get what you posted from my post? I'm not at all frustrated that the Cubs got Kendall for a minor league middle reliever and Bowen. I don't know where you would get that idea from my post. I don't think this trade was bad by any stretch.

 

Since the middle of June the Cubs have gotten good to great pitching from their bullpen, almost no offense outside of Aramis and Soriano, have caught lightning in a bottle from Fontenot and Theriot, and have been fortunate to play teams that stink more than they do. I don't think that is somthing to get overly excited about.

 

In my opinon, they are a slightly better team today than they were yesterday at this time.

 

I hope this is the first move and not the last.

[Keener98]

Wow!

 

Such hand wringing and teeth gnashing, and I only got to page 6! I didn't read the other 29 pages inbetween, so I'm most likely going to post what other people said.

 

I think, at worst, this trade is almost a non-issue.

 

First, I don't think his salary is an issue. Yeah, he's making 13 mil, but the Pirates are picking up 5.5 of it and the seasons > 1/2 over. And, Oakland threw in some cash. And, this is the final year of the contract, so there's no long term commitment.

 

You gave up a DFA'd catcher and a low minor league reliever, someone who was projected as a specialist? In other words, you gave up a guy you had given up on anyway, and a potential bit contributor for an experienced catcher.

 

OK, So, Kendall can't hit anymore. He usually comes on strong in the second 1/2, so, maybe he'll hit .250 for you guys if your lucky. And his defense? Not great either.

 

But, he'll call a better game than either Soto or Hill. With the offense you guys have, the game calling alone could be enough to put you over the top.

 

Or not.

 

I don't think you guys hurt yourself long term, and I don't think you made the team worse. And, the potential is there to have made your team better.

 

Not earth shattering, but a good trade, I think.

 

Agreed with most of what you said Jake, but Blevins isnt really projected as a specialist. Hes getting rightys out as well. But the point still remains, he projects as a bullpen arm. You can find people for your bullpen everywhere, and giving 1 up is not really a big deal. Giving up a possible decent/good starting pitcher I could see the bitching, but seriously this guy is a reliever, BIG DEAL! The sad thing is even if Kendall hits .240 with a .300-330 OBP for the rest of the season, its quite a bit better than what we have right now, and I really wouldnt be surprised to see a .275 .330-.350 line from Kendall. Add that line into this lineup and hes going to help.

[Derwood]

Oakland A's - Have reportedly acquired C Rob Bowen, an unnamed minor league pitcher and the state of existence which entails not having Jason Kendall on your team from the Chicago Cubs in exchange for, hopefully, something or other. You'd have to hope that the A's are at least chipping in something for Kendall's remaining salary this year, otherwise, this trade is just unecessarily cruel. Kurt Suzuki is going to be hard-pressed to be a league-average catcher, but just the improvement from Jason Kendall to Non-Joke is just about the biggest positional upgrade any contender will make

[YearofDaCubs]

CubinNY wrote:

 

Who gives a crap about what people say on a message board.

 

This was a trade brought about by an unnecessary trade of Barrett.

 

Kendall might have been the answer when the Pirates were trying to get rid of him, but he isn't now. To me this trade makes the Cubs slightly better but nothing that "puts them over the top". I'd like to see the Cubs add a legitimate power hitter. Then this trade will look a lot better. Kendall can get on base (this season nothwithstanding).

 

Until then the Cubs better keep hoping for more good luck and more good pitching.

 

Finally, Blevins was having a pretty good year.

 

I understand you are frustrated that they added Kendall - I did want him either and would have preferred to give Soto a shot. I agree that we need another bat, hopefully in RF or at SS.

 

However, I think that your statement implies that they have been lucky rather than good. I think this is unfair and untrue. You don't win as many games as they have since June 1 without playing good baseball. Everyone knows there is a bit of chance involved in all sports, but usually you have to do something well in addition to getting breaks. The Cubs have done plenty of that, IMO.

 

Also, this notion that giving up a minor league middle reliever for a guy one year removed from a solid major league season (at least in terms of OBP) and who will cost only $900k is just disengenious. I have seen many folks - you included, IIRC - rail against Hendry for overvaluing middle relievers and not treating them like the fungible commodities they are. Assuming that is true - and I think it is - its a bit hypocritical for you to now blast him for giving up a AA reliever with one-half of a good season to his credit for Kendall.

 

Now, if you look at it in the larger context - trading Barrett for Kendall - I agree it appears to be a loss. That said, Barrett may have worn out his welcome with the Cubs and the players - we will never know. What we do know is that we have not had many problems without him.

 

I'd also note that Kendall is a rental, and Soto may therefore get his shot next season, or could be used to get something we really need - someone who can play RF or SS and hit.

 

Where is the hell did you get what you posted from my post? I'm not at all frustrated that the Cubs got Kendall for a minor league middle reliever and Bowen. I don't know where you would get that idea from my post. I don't think this trade was bad by any stretch.

 

Since the middle of June the Cubs have gotten good to great pitching from their bullpen, almost no offense outside of Aramis and Soriano, have caught lightning in a bottle from Fontenot and Theriot, and have been fortunate to play teams that stink more than they do. I don't think that is somthing to get overly excited about.

 

In my opinon, they are a slightly better team today than they were yesterday at this time.

 

I hope this is the first move and not the last.

Bruce Miles mentioned in his last article on dailyherald.com that Hendry was hinting on another move to be made soon. I believe this. One thing I'll give Hendry is he will usually make a move to improve the team. I can see him upgrading either SS or the OF soon.

[gflore34]

CubinNY wrote:

 

Who gives a crap about what people say on a message board.

 

This was a trade brought about by an unnecessary trade of Barrett.

 

Kendall might have been the answer when the Pirates were trying to get rid of him, but he isn't now. To me this trade makes the Cubs slightly better but nothing that "puts them over the top". I'd like to see the Cubs add a legitimate power hitter. Then this trade will look a lot better. Kendall can get on base (this season nothwithstanding).

 

Until then the Cubs better keep hoping for more good luck and more good pitching.

 

Finally, Blevins was having a pretty good year.

 

I understand you are frustrated that they added Kendall - I did want him either and would have preferred to give Soto a shot. I agree that we need another bat, hopefully in RF or at SS.

 

However, I think that your statement implies that they have been lucky rather than good. I think this is unfair and untrue. You don't win as many games as they have since June 1 without playing good baseball. Everyone knows there is a bit of chance involved in all sports, but usually you have to do something well in addition to getting breaks. The Cubs have done plenty of that, IMO.

 

Also, this notion that giving up a minor league middle reliever for a guy one year removed from a solid major league season (at least in terms of OBP) and who will cost only $900k is just disengenious. I have seen many folks - you included, IIRC - rail against Hendry for overvaluing middle relievers and not treating them like the fungible commodities they are. Assuming that is true - and I think it is - its a bit hypocritical for you to now blast him for giving up a AA reliever with one-half of a good season to his credit for Kendall.

 

Now, if you look at it in the larger context - trading Barrett for Kendall - I agree it appears to be a loss. That said, Barrett may have worn out his welcome with the Cubs and the players - we will never know. What we do know is that we have not had many problems without him.

 

I'd also note that Kendall is a rental, and Soto may therefore get his shot next season, or could be used to get something we really need - someone who can play RF or SS and hit.

 

Seconded, the cost was nothing exorbitant and if Kendall returns to his career numbers for the last 2+ months - not an impossibility hell, didn't Neifi have a hot 2 months? An OPB of .367 out of the 2 spot (assuming Lou puts him there) with someone who knows the value of hitting behind base runners and setting the table for Lee and Ramirez? - I'll take it.

[GaborBako]

Since the middle of June the Cubs have gotten good to great pitching from their bullpen, almost no offense outside of Aramis and Soriano, have caught lightning in a bottle from Fontenot and Theriot, and have been fortunate to play teams that stink more than they do. I don't think that is somthing to get overly excited about.

 

Right, why would you get excited when the team you root for posts the best record in baseball over a 40 game span? Take a look at the rest of the Cubs' schedule. There will be very few teams on it who "stink" less than they do.

 

Three with the Mets, three with Milwaukee and four with the Dodgers. All at home.

 

Those are the only teams with a better record than the Cubs left on the schedule. You can throw in the Diamondbacks and Phillies to be fair (the Cubs have passed them both). That's three at home with Arizona, four at home with the Phillies and three out in Phoenix. That's it. Time to get overly excited.

 

71 games left, 20 against teams over .500.

[CUBZ99]

CubinNY wrote:

 

Who gives a crap about what people say on a message board.

 

This was a trade brought about by an unnecessary trade of Barrett.

 

Kendall might have been the answer when the Pirates were trying to get rid of him, but he isn't now. To me this trade makes the Cubs slightly better but nothing that "puts them over the top". I'd like to see the Cubs add a legitimate power hitter. Then this trade will look a lot better. Kendall can get on base (this season nothwithstanding).

 

Until then the Cubs better keep hoping for more good luck and more good pitching.

 

Finally, Blevins was having a pretty good year.

 

I understand you are frustrated that they added Kendall - I did want him either and would have preferred to give Soto a shot. I agree that we need another bat, hopefully in RF or at SS.

 

However, I think that your statement implies that they have been lucky rather than good. I think this is unfair and untrue. You don't win as many games as they have since June 1 without playing good baseball. Everyone knows there is a bit of chance involved in all sports, but usually you have to do something well in addition to getting breaks. The Cubs have done plenty of that, IMO.

 

Also, this notion that giving up a minor league middle reliever for a guy one year removed from a solid major league season (at least in terms of OBP) and who will cost only $900k is just disengenious. I have seen many folks - you included, IIRC - rail against Hendry for overvaluing middle relievers and not treating them like the fungible commodities they are. Assuming that is true - and I think it is - its a bit hypocritical for you to now blast him for giving up a AA reliever with one-half of a good season to his credit for Kendall.

 

Now, if you look at it in the larger context - trading Barrett for Kendall - I agree it appears to be a loss. That said, Barrett may have worn out his welcome with the Cubs and the players - we will never know. What we do know is that we have not had many problems without him.

 

I'd also note that Kendall is a rental, and Soto may therefore get his shot next season, or could be used to get something we really need - someone who can play RF or SS and hit.

 

Where is the hell did you get what you posted from my post? I'm not at all frustrated that the Cubs got Kendall for a minor league middle reliever and Bowen. I don't know where you would get that idea from my post. I don't think this trade was bad by any stretch.

 

Since the middle of June the Cubs have gotten good to great pitching from their bullpen, almost no offense outside of Aramis and Soriano, have caught lightning in a bottle from Fontenot and Theriot, and have been fortunate to play teams that stink more than they do. I don't think that is somthing to get overly excited about.

 

In my opinon, they are a slightly better team today than they were yesterday at this time.

 

I hope this is the first move and not the last.

Bruce Miles mentioned in his last article on dailyherald.com that Hendry was hinting on another move to be made soon. I believe this. One thing I'll give Hendry is he will usually make a move to improve the team. I can see him upgrading either SS or the OF soon.

 

Actually, I think he was saying that at the time the Cubs DFA'd Bowen earlier in the day, Hendry hinted that another move would be made soon. (Presumably, trading for Kendall).

[C.C.]

DAMN YOU HENDRY!!! DAMN YOU!!!

[PackLandVA]

For what it's worth, Steve Stone was on the local radio station (the Score) and thought it was a pretty good trade and the Cubs "really didn't give up much" for a veteran who's no worse than what they had and has the potetial to be very good for both the pitching staff and offense.

[C.C.]

For what it's worth, Steve Stone was on the local radio station (the Score) and thought it was a pretty good trade and the Cubs "really didn't give up much" for a veteran who's no worse than what they had and has the potetial to be very good for both the pitching staff and offense.

`

 

Steve Stone's a idiot.

[A New Era]

For what it's worth, Steve Stone was on the local radio station (the Score) and thought it was a pretty good trade and the Cubs "really didn't give up much" for a veteran who's no worse than what they had and has the potetial to be very good for both the pitching staff and offense.

 

He summed it up pretty nicely. Ofcourse he'll be wrong according to some here probably.

[Elrhino]

Now that Kendall is on board instead of posting how much he sucks let's get behind this deal and hope that what fire has ignited in the Cub clubhouse will ignite Kendall back to his former self.

 

New here, aren't ya?

 

Anyway, I like the trade. The Cubs basically gave up nothing and have a chance at capturing lightening in the bottle in a Kendall resurgence in the 2nd half. That's more than we had with the abysmal sense of doom I had with the position previously. I really see absolutely no downside to the trade whatsoever.

[USSoccer]

After sleeping on it, I've come to this conclusion:

 

We didn't give up much of anything, we aren't paying anything, and I'm glad Hendry bought low for once, but we aren't that much better offensively and we're probably worse defensively. I guess that's a wash, but again, if we're going to have catchers that don't hit, they'd better be able to play the position well. That's my biggest concern.

[Banedon]

After sleeping on it, I've come to this conclusion:

 

We didn't give up much of anything, we aren't paying anything, and I'm glad Hendry bought low for once, but we aren't that much better offensively and we're probably worse defensively. I guess that's a wash, but again, if we're going to have catchers that don't hit, they'd better be able to play the position well. That's my biggest concern.

 

I was worried you were gonna have a coronary last night.

[Wheelimus]

I'll give it a chance. If we can get a rebound second half out of him (perhaps aided by the easier competition, perhaps aided by not being seen much for three years) it might be a good deal.

 

I highly doubt he will hit worse than Bowen or Hill, and Soto was no sure thing.

 

So long as this isn't our "big move" and simply a small upgrade at a problem position, I'm happy.

[Danny82]

I'm not all that interested in wading through 38+ pages of posts, so I'll just ask: does anyone know how much money the A's kicked in and how much the Cubs will be on the hook for?

[RynoRules]

After sleeping on it, I've come to this conclusion:

 

We didn't give up much of anything, we aren't paying anything, and I'm glad Hendry bought low for once, but we aren't that much better offensively and we're probably worse defensively. I guess that's a wash, but again, if we're going to have catchers that don't hit, they'd better be able to play the position well. That's my biggest concern.

 

Well said.

 

I initially puked at the trade when I heard about it in my car on my way back from the game last night (my first time on a rooftop after about 200 games in the park; reaction - meh.). Then I wnet home and read about it some more and figured it doesn't make a difference either way so long as they upgrade at RF and SS in addition.

[PackLandVA]

For what it's worth, Steve Stone was on the local radio station (the Score) and thought it was a pretty good trade and the Cubs "really didn't give up much" for a veteran who's no worse than what they had and has the potetial to be very good for both the pitching staff and offense.

`

 

Steve Stone's a idiot.

 

Although most would agree he has a pretty good knowledge of baseball and the Cubs (though like most prognosticators, he benefits from 20/20 hindsight).

 

Listening to Stone several times a week on the radio, one thing is clear in my opinion: He seems to have a bit of an axe to grind with the Cubs. He is not very generous with positive comments about the organizatin and looks to take shots at them when possible, especially when he's on the Sox flagship.

 

For him to speak highly (or at least not negatively) of the trade makes me think it's not as bad as many on this board think and may actually be a good trade.