Cubs Trade Rob Bowen and Jerry Blevins for Jason Kendall

[Mizzou]

Why are people still complaining about Blevins being tossed into the deal? Yes, he's having a very good year. But he was a terrible, terrible pitcher the last TWO years. It's not like he's a can't miss prospect or anything. He's a freaking middle reliever that's having a nice year in AA... after having two pathetic years. Big deal!

[Jon]

 

People need to look at who is being given up rather than the position.

 

People would've called Marmol nothing a year ago if he was included in a trade.

 

Kinda like Wellmeyer a few years ago. Or "can't miss" Juan Cruz. Or a whole host of other possibilities that are "something" in the minors but never amount to anything in the majors.

 

Minor leaguers are almost always gonna be an unknown. Hopefully this works in the Cubs favor. But it's not like Blevins was one of the Cubs top prospects for crying out loud. He's had a very good first half in A and AA ball.

And again, even if you don't keep a player like that in your system, he is still a valuable trade chip. That's just one of many reasons why the Pierre trade was so awful. Good, young, and cheap pitching can be quite important if you want to make a trade with a small market team. Including players like that in a package deal can make or break a trade.

[Drew Doughty]

 

Then I like the deal...maybe alot...even if he only puts up the awful putrid numbers he has so far its better offensively than what we've got from Hill/Bowen/Soto...if he can put up a solid OBP in the 2nd half I could really care less what his OPS or Slugging or ISODPDICRI is....if he gets on at a .340 pace it improves us about .100 points over what we were getting....and we gave up basically nothing....and are only spending a few more million, and thats only for this year....I think Hendry did a good job.

 

People need to look at who is being given up rather than the position.

 

People would've called Marmol nothing a year ago if he was included in a trade.

 

Young relievers have potential value espec. in an era of overspending and inconsistent FA relievers.

 

Look at the LH'ers out of the pen this year... Eyre, Ohman, and Cotts.

 

There's no guarantee he would provide production, which you can say for Kendall as well at this point,

 

Preach it, UK.

 

The other side of that argument is that we have gotten on Hendry for not selling high and buying low...now he does that, and we're on him about it.

 

that's an awful argument. signing williamson was buying low. signing dempster was buying low. hell, signing miller the first time was buying low. trading for a catcher on the decline is buying stupid.

[PackLandVA]

Preach it, St. Louis!!

[AI]

IF we owe the remaining 3.75 million on Kendall's contract, we just gave up much of our deadline payroll flexibility for a 33 year old catcher whose tired, worn out body can no longer produce at a ML level. And that's just offensively. He sucks behind the plate and opposing teams may now run at will. Making Soto the starter would very likely produced greater offensively and defensively. Instead it appears we've spent almost 4 million dollars to get worse behind the plate. If that was possible.

 

Saying this may get me in trouble, but if you like this trade, get your head examined.

 

Yea because there was so much talent at the Catcher postion on this team already.

 

You are missing the point. Now that we have Kendall, THERE STILL ISN'T ANY TALENT AT THE CATCHER POSITION! We spent precious payroll to NOT get any better.

[AlwaysaCub]

 

Then I like the deal...maybe alot...even if he only puts up the awful putrid numbers he has so far its better offensively than what we've got from Hill/Bowen/Soto...if he can put up a solid OBP in the 2nd half I could really care less what his OPS or Slugging or ISODPDICRI is....if he gets on at a .340 pace it improves us about .100 points over what we were getting....and we gave up basically nothing....and are only spending a few more million, and thats only for this year....I think Hendry did a good job.

 

People need to look at who is being given up rather than the position.

 

People would've called Marmol nothing a year ago if he was included in a trade.

 

Young relievers have potential value espec. in an era of overspending and inconsistent FA relievers.

 

Look at the LH'ers out of the pen this year... Eyre, Ohman, and Cotts.

 

There's no guarantee he would provide production, which you can say for Kendall as well at this point,

 

Preach it, UK.

 

The other side of that argument is that we have gotten on Hendry for not selling high and buying low...now he does that, and we're on him about it.

 

It's only good to buy low if you think the stock/player's production will rise.

 

The question is, if you buy low but then he only goes down, is it still buying low?

[JonnyRed]

Wow, I've never seen so much love for a minor league relief pitcher in my life.

[Mizzou]

Saying this may get me in trouble, but if you like this trade, get your head examined.

Yeah, because trading a crappy catcher and a minor league relief pitcher for a guy who has been solid in 11 out of his 12 MLB years is always a bad idea.

[Post Count Padder]

Not pleased with this move one bit.

[jdelaney5150]

 

People need to look at who is being given up rather than the position.

 

People would've called Marmol nothing a year ago if he was included in a trade.

 

Kinda like Wellmeyer a few years ago. Or "can't miss" Juan Cruz. Or a whole host of other possibilities that are "something" in the minors but never amount to anything in the majors.

 

Minor leaguers are almost always gonna be an unknown. Hopefully this works in the Cubs favor. But it's not like Blevins was one of the Cubs top prospects for crying out loud. He's had a very good first half in A and AA ball.

 

Juan Cruz had a decent ERA with the Cubs. To bad he never got run support. His stuff was good.

 

Um, you guys are aware that players continue to exist after they leave the Cubs, right? Cruz disappointed as a Cub, but he is having a very nice year for the D-Backs this year, and is still just 28.

 

Wellemeyer was and still is crap though . . .

[cheapseats]

Wow, I've never seen so much love for a minor league relief pitcher in my life.

 

If I'm going to get kicked in the balls, I'd rather not pay somebody $100 for the privilege of kicking me in the balls.

[Drew Doughty]

Saying this may get me in trouble, but if you like this trade, get your head examined.

Yeah, because trading a crappy catcher and a minor league relief pitcher for a guy who has been solid in 11 out of his 12 MLB years is always a bad idea.

 

what is your definition of "solid"? He's been a below average hitter in 5 of his last 7 seasons, including an awful year this year. By all accounts he's not very good defensively.

[JGalt73]

Error. Edited July 17, 2007 by JGalt73

[AI]

Saying this may get me in trouble, but if you like this trade, get your head examined.

Yeah, because trading a crappy catcher and a minor league relief pitcher for a guy who has been solid in 11 out of his 12 MLB years is always a bad idea.

His career is over. Yes, he used be great, but so did lots of other guys who got old and then weren't so great anymore. This would be example #23,456.

[CUBZ99]

IF we owe the remaining 3.75 million on Kendall's contract, we just gave up much of our deadline payroll flexibility for a 33 year old catcher whose tired, worn out body can no longer produce at a ML level. And that's just offensively. He sucks behind the plate and opposing teams may now run at will. Making Soto the starter would very likely produced greater offensively and defensively. Instead it appears we've spent almost 4 million dollars to get worse behind the plate. If that was possible.

 

Saying this may get me in trouble, but if you like this trade, get your head examined.

 

Maybe you should wait to see all of the details, as you, yourself admit you don't know how much CASH was coming he Cubs way.

 

If the A's pick up the remainder of Kendall's contract, it is hardly a terrible trade. Blevins may turn out to be a decent player some day, or he may hit a rut in AAA and never make it to the majors. And your statement that Soto would likely produce better than Kendall is based on what? Talk about over valuing minor league numbers. If Kendall can put together a 2nd half in line with his past seasons, the Cubs made a good trade.

[Banedon]

 

Then I like the deal...maybe alot...even if he only puts up the awful putrid numbers he has so far its better offensively than what we've got from Hill/Bowen/Soto...if he can put up a solid OBP in the 2nd half I could really care less what his OPS or Slugging or ISODPDICRI is....if he gets on at a .340 pace it improves us about .100 points over what we were getting....and we gave up basically nothing....and are only spending a few more million, and thats only for this year....I think Hendry did a good job.

 

People need to look at who is being given up rather than the position.

 

People would've called Marmol nothing a year ago if he was included in a trade.

 

Young relievers have potential value espec. in an era of overspending and inconsistent FA relievers.

 

Look at the LH'ers out of the pen this year... Eyre, Ohman, and Cotts.

 

There's no guarantee he would provide production, which you can say for Kendall as well at this point,

 

Preach it, UK.

 

The other side of that argument is that we have gotten on Hendry for not selling high and buying low...now he does that, and we're on him about it.

 

that's an awful argument. signing williamson was buying low. signing dempster was buying low. hell, signing miller the first time was buying low. trading for a catcher on the decline is buying stupid.

 

Look I'm not saying it was the mother of all trades. But Kendall has been hitting for the last couple of months, and the catchers that we have left since the awful Barrett trade weren't exactly tearing it up. Yes, I'd rather let Soto have a shot, but if we can get a decent half season out of Kendall, then I don't think this deal is the travesty it's being portrayed as.

[dew1679666265]

 

Then I like the deal...maybe alot...even if he only puts up the awful putrid numbers he has so far its better offensively than what we've got from Hill/Bowen/Soto...if he can put up a solid OBP in the 2nd half I could really care less what his OPS or Slugging or ISODPDICRI is....if he gets on at a .340 pace it improves us about .100 points over what we were getting....and we gave up basically nothing....and are only spending a few more million, and thats only for this year....I think Hendry did a good job.

 

People need to look at who is being given up rather than the position.

 

People would've called Marmol nothing a year ago if he was included in a trade.

 

Young relievers have potential value espec. in an era of overspending and inconsistent FA relievers.

 

Look at the LH'ers out of the pen this year... Eyre, Ohman, and Cotts.

 

There's no guarantee he would provide production, which you can say for Kendall as well at this point,

 

Preach it, UK.

 

The other side of that argument is that we have gotten on Hendry for not selling high and buying low...now he does that, and we're on him about it.

 

that's an awful argument. signing williamson was buying low. signing dempster was buying low. hell, signing miller the first time was buying low. trading for a catcher on the decline is buying stupid.

 

Not sure the evidence is clear that he's on the decline. He had a .345 OBP two years ago but was at .399 each of the two years before that and .367 last year.

 

And as Asmodai pointed out earlier, he was bad in the first half last year and quite good in the second half - at least in OBP, which is his value. I've seen no clear evidence he is on the decline.

[AI]

IF we owe the remaining 3.75 million on Kendall's contract, we just gave up much of our deadline payroll flexibility for a 33 year old catcher whose tired, worn out body can no longer produce at a ML level. And that's just offensively. He sucks behind the plate and opposing teams may now run at will. Making Soto the starter would very likely produced greater offensively and defensively. Instead it appears we've spent almost 4 million dollars to get worse behind the plate. If that was possible.

 

Saying this may get me in trouble, but if you like this trade, get your head examined.

 

Maybe you should wait to see all of the details, as you, yourself admit you don't know how much CASH was coming he Cubs way.

 

If the A's pick up the remainder of Kendall's contract, it is hardly a terrible trade. Blevins may turn out to be a decent player some day, or he may hit a rut in AAA and never make it to the majors. And your statement that Soto would likely produce better than Kendall is based on what? Talk about over valuing minor league numbers. If Kendall can put together a 2nd half in line with his past seasons, the Cubs made a good trade.

My entire feeling is based around the fact that its going to be impossible for broken-down shell of his former self Kendall to produce anywhere close to his previous seasons.

[Banedon]

Saying this may get me in trouble, but if you like this trade, get your head examined.

 

People are permitted to disagree with you without insult.

[UK1679666180]

 

People need to look at who is being given up rather than the position.

 

People would've called Marmol nothing a year ago if he was included in a trade.

 

Kinda like Wellmeyer a few years ago. Or "can't miss" Juan Cruz. Or a whole host of other possibilities that are "something" in the minors but never amount to anything in the majors.

 

Minor leaguers are almost always gonna be an unknown. Hopefully this works in the Cubs favor. But it's not like Blevins was one of the Cubs top prospects for crying out loud. He's had a very good first half in A and AA ball.

 

Or Marshall, Hill, Zambrano, Marmol, etc. when they were in the farm system.

 

Kendall is an unknown at this point, no one knows if he's going to turn it around, I'll repeat what I've said that Perry has worked with Kendall in the past and hopefully it is a somewhat easy correctable mechanical flaw rather than a slower bat.

 

Sure, Blevins doesn't make everyone wet their pants in BA's handbook when he's not listed but he has good stuff and been productive, which gives him value espec. from the left side. If he maintains production throughout the year and stays healthy, he'll be in BA's handbook.

 

I find it ironic that some say that the Cubs got Kendall for nothing, what does that say about Kendall's value?

[Drew Doughty]

Look I'm not saying it was the mother of all trades. But Kendall has been hitting for the last couple of months, and the catchers that we have left since the awful Barrett trade weren't exactly tearing it up. Yes, I'd rather let Soto have a shot, but if we can get a decent half season out of Kendall, then I don't think this deal is the travesty it's being portrayed as.

 

i don't tihnk it's a travesty from a value standpoint, i just don't see the reason we're trading for a guy that still makes us bad offensively and defensively from catcher. it's another in a series of bad moves (or non-moves in the ridiculous wait to bring up Soto) made this year by hendry to "fix" the hole we have at catcher.

[Banedon]

My entire feeling is based around the fact that its going to be impossible for broken-down shell of his former self Kendall to produce anywhere close to his previous seasons.

 

Well at least you aren't overstating things.

[TheDude]

Wow, I've never seen so much love for a minor league relief pitcher in my life.

It has more to do with venom for Hendry than anything, I can only guess anyway. Looks to me the Cubs got Kendall for nothing - although I'm not sure that's a good thing. I can only hope he is a change of scenery guy.

[cheapseats]

Saying this may get me in trouble, but if you like this trade, get your head examined.

Yeah, because trading a crappy catcher and a minor league relief pitcher for a guy who has been solid in 11 out of his 12 MLB years is always a bad idea.

 

Kendall hasn't been a top 20 catcher since he left Pittsburgh.

[JGalt73]

Which leaves just one question: Why on earth would the Cubs want Kendall? Bowen's probably nearly as good as Kendall, and prospect Geovany Soto is almost certainly better. Wasn't Soto's emergence this season one of the justifications for trading Michael Barrett? Granted, the Cubs are contenders no matter who's behind the plate. But it's awfully hard to figure how this deal could possibly make them better.