Revisiting Joe Nathan

[cbbryan]

There's been speculation that the Twins will be trading Nathan after finalizing a trade for Santana. Considering what they where willing to take for Santana would you be interested in Nathan?

 

The Score 670AM is already speculating that the Cubs have interest and that it would be a "perfect fit" for both Nathan and the Cubs, but I don't really trust the Score to be accurate! LOL!

 

I have mixed feelings about signing a closer as I'd like to see Woody grow into that role, but on the same hand if the Cubs traded for Nathan to close the Cubs would have Howry in the 7th/8th, Marmol and Wood 7th/8th, etc.

 

The bullpen would be nasty and shorten games quite a bit.

[Post Count Padder]

It would be awesome to have him at the end of a game, but is it necessary? And how much would we have to give up? I bet they'd want Marmol and others in return.

[SouthSideRyan]

So we're looking at a second baseman and now a righty power bullpen arm. I predict our next move is to find a starting corner infielder.

[Post Count Padder]

So we're looking at a second baseman and now a righty power bullpen arm. I predict our next move is to find a starting corner infielder.

Nah, starting first baseman.

[Derwood]

think they'd take Brian Roberts for Nathan straight up?

[CubColtPacer]

So we're looking at a second baseman and now a righty power bullpen arm. I predict our next move is to find a starting corner infielder.

Nah, starting first baseman.

 

I believe a starting first baseman is a starting corner infielder :D

 

The only reason the Twins got so little out of Santana is the contract he was going to require. Nathan doesn't have that problem, and the benefit to getting Nathan would be nice for the Cubs, not not huge. Pass. They're not going to give him away when they can get 2 draft picks at the end of the year for him.

[JWCUB]

1 Trade for Roberts

2 Trade for Nathan - not sure who Minny would want

3 Trade Demp and Dero for Burnett

 

I could live with that.

[Post Count Padder]

So we're looking at a second baseman and now a righty power bullpen arm. I predict our next move is to find a starting corner infielder.

Nah, starting first baseman.

 

I believe a starting first baseman is a starting corner infielder :D

 

#-o

 

I misread it as corner "outfielder".

[David]

1 Trade for Roberts

2 Trade for Nathan - not sure who Minny would want

3 Trade Demp and Dero for Burnett

 

I could live with that.

 

 

Turn #2 into a trade for Greene instead of another righty reliever and you're getting somewhere.

[BudHouse]

I think it's a bad idea to go after Nathan. I'm pretty sure that Marmol will finally surface this year or next as our closer, putting Howry back as setup. I believe that Nathan will want some major bucks in his next contract. Balsa Wood, who has never had one save in his career(notice the Cubs have so little faith in him last year he never entered one game with the team ahead), can't be expected to do anything beyond the 7th inning. The prospect of him being a closer and going 3 days in a row is a pipedream.

 

With all these team desperate for 3-5 starters, why haven't we had a taker for Marshall, Marquis, Dempster, etc..? Before we can even consider a trade for anyone established, we have to unload some long term $$$.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

If we trade valuable pieces for a reliever, Ima gonna be pissed off.

[David]

Why people continually insist that you should put your best reliever in some of the easiest spots you would bring a reliever into is beyond me.

 

The closer is up there with the leadoff hitter among the most overrated roles in baseball. They come in in the 9th, with a lead, often of 2 or 3 runs, and nobody on and nobody out. Meanwhile, you're bringing other (supposedly lesser) guys into tight spots with men on and often less comfortable (and sometimes no) leads.

 

Where on earth is the logic?

[UMFan83]

Any way we can trade like Dempster, Ceda, Donaldson and Wuertz? Or am I waaaaaaaaaaaaaay lowballing? Basically I don't want to give up Marmol, but I would assume any trade for Nathan would include Marmol.

 

If we can keep him though

 

CL - Nathan

8th - Marmol

7th - Howry

6th - Wood

LHR - Eyre

[biittner77]

If we trade valuable pieces for a reliever, Ima gonna be pissed off.

 

Hopefully this isn't one of the legendary "2 deals on the table" that we've been hearing about.

 

Unfortunately Hendry is dumb enough to see Nathan as a priority.

[SABR Gamer]

Why people continually insist that you should put your best reliever in some of the easiest spots you would bring a reliever into is beyond me.

 

The closer is up there with the leadoff hitter among the most overrated roles in baseball. They come in in the 9th, with a lead, often of 2 or 3 runs, and nobody on and nobody out. Meanwhile, you're bringing other (supposedly lesser) guys into tight spots with men on and often less comfortable (and sometimes no) leads.

 

Where on earth is the logic?

 

 

I feel the same way, it really bothers me. So they would rather have Eyre, Dempster, or Cotts or someone coming in, in the 6th or 7th with 2 or 3 men on, 0 or 1 outs and a 1 or 2 run lead, and then use Marmol to start the 9th with no one on base (AND THE HITTERS ARE THE SAME, THEY DONT DRINK MAGICAL CRANBERRY JUICE BEFORE THE 9TH TO MAKE THEM HIT BETTER!), rather than use Marmol in the jam and the other guys in the less important/less threatening situations? Okay then.

[SouthSideRyan]

Any way we can trade like Dempster, Ceda, Donaldson and Wuertz? Or am I waaaaaaaaaaaaaay lowballing? Basically I don't want to give up Marmol, but I would assume any trade for Nathan would include Marmol.

 

If we can keep him though

 

CL - Nathan

8th - Marmol

7th - Howry

6th - Wood

LHR - Eyre

 

Donaldson can't be traded til a year after he signed. And trading one of our few good prospects for more things we don't have a pressing need for is not a great idea IMO.

[BigbadB]

If we trade valuable pieces for a reliever, Ima gonna be pissed off.

 

Hopefully this isn't one of the legendary "2 deals on the table" that we've been hearing about.

 

Unfortunately Hendry is dumb enough to see Nathan as a priority.

 

I'm pretty sure the rumored trades were for 2 bats, so we should be safe.

 

Minnesota will be asking for the world for Nathan. He's not worth the world.

[UMFan83]

Any way we can trade like Dempster, Ceda, Donaldson and Wuertz? Or am I waaaaaaaaaaaaaay lowballing? Basically I don't want to give up Marmol, but I would assume any trade for Nathan would include Marmol.

 

If we can keep him though

 

CL - Nathan

8th - Marmol

7th - Howry

6th - Wood

LHR - Eyre

 

Donaldson can't be traded til a year after he signed. And trading one of our few good prospects for more things we don't have a pressing need for is not a great idea IMO.

 

It's definitely not a need. But I wouldn't mind having literally 5 inning games. Can you imagine how a team feels going into the 6th inning down by a run and having to face Wood, Howry, Marmol, Nathan? It would also help our weak backend of our rotation. You don't need to rely on Lieber and Marquis going 7 innings every time

[wrigley23]

what part of starting the game w/ an out makes your team better?

[BigbadB]

what part of starting the game w/ an out makes your team better?

 

I prefer a Soriano lead off home run and a single by Roberts to start off the game much more than I like Roberts getting a single and Theriot grounding into a double play.

[anabiono]

what part of starting the game w/ an out makes your team better?

 

what?

[anabiono]

what part of starting the game w/ an out makes your team better?

 

I prefer a Soriano lead off home run and a single by Roberts to start off the game much more than I like Roberts getting a single and Theriot grounding into a double play.

 

oh i see where he was going with that now...

 

yeah...i like the first option as well...

 

theriot is a blackhole...he needs to be nowhere near the top of the order

[BigbadB]

what part of starting the game w/ an out makes your team better?

 

I prefer a Soriano lead off home run and a single by Roberts to start off the game much more than I like Roberts getting a single and Theriot grounding into a double play.

 

oh i see where he was going with that now...

 

yeah...i like the first option as well...

 

theriot is a blackhole...he needs to be nowhere near the top of the order

 

I was just guessing that's what he meant. This is a Joe Nathan thread and he typically doesn't start a game off with an out. Or does Minnesota use their closer in the 1st?

[anabiono]

that has to be what he meant because he is favor of moving soriano down in the order

[SABR Gamer]

what part of starting the game w/ an out makes your team better?

 

wrigley23 ftl, your posts give me the same feeling as the Cubs.com message board

 

Anyway, getting Theriot away from the top of the order by any means, is a good thing.