Would you mortgage the future for a better shot at the WS?

[Backtobanks]

With how many years it's been, and how bad we all want to see one in our lifetime,It's worth doing whatever it takes

 

I've been a Cub fan for 54 years and I'm ready to see the Cubs win a WS. Another reason to "mortgage the future" is that our top prospects (Pie and Hill) are starting to look like flops. Maybe it's time to trade them while they still have some trade value.

[hawkeyecub]

Most years I would say no for various reasons. This year yes. There isn't much I wouldn't trade to land Sabathia.

[brinoch]

I am only in favor of deals that actually help the Cubs. Any deal that includes Schneider or Ramon Hernandez will not help the Cubs. In fact, dealing Soto in such a situation would be a huge mistake because the downgrade from Soto to Schneider or whoever is going to be significantly greater than upgrading from DeRosa to Brian Roberts.

 

The Cubs do not need a wholesale makeover. In fact, they would be probably be fine without any changes. They could, though, like any team, could use some help/upgrades. SP is obvious. Perhaps some BP help if the price is right -- though I think we're more than fine in the 'pen. CF is another option that would make sense.

[rawaction]

Assuming you don't trade the only big contributors under 27 (Soto, Marmol), there is nobody who's future is so bright in this organization that they can't be traded to improve the team this year. I wouldn't go out trading Pie for a middle reliever, but that doesn't give the team a better shot anyway, IMO. Heck, I'd probably even give up Marmol for Sabathia depending on what else was in the deal.

[twothousandfive]

Another reason to "mortgage the future" is that our top prospects (Pie and Hill) are starting to look like flops. Maybe it's time to trade them while they still have some trade value.

 

Then they aren't the future. They are flotsam and jetsam. Trading young players who need help via an act of God to be all-star caliber players is easy.

 

Pedro Martinez comes back healthy after the All-Star break, and throws two consecutive seven inning, one-run games. On July 30, the Mets say you can have him in exchange for Gallagher, Hill, Marshall, Hart -- none of whom are a key to the season so far. Deal or no deal?

[rawaction]

Another reason to "mortgage the future" is that our top prospects (Pie and Hill) are starting to look like flops. Maybe it's time to trade them while they still have some trade value.

 

Then they aren't the future. They are flotsam and jetsam. Trading young players who need help via an act of God to be all-star caliber players is easy.

 

Pedro Martinez comes back healthy after the All-Star break, and throws two consecutive seven inning, one-run games. On July 30, the Mets say you can have him in exchange for Gallagher, Hill, Marshall, Hart -- none of whom are a key to the season so far. Deal or no deal?

 

 

100% no deal. Don't even think about it.

[brinoch]

This might very well be Pedro's last season, and while still good, he's a shadow of his glory years. No way. I'd tandem start Gallagher/Marshall well before even considering Pedro. (Tandem starting them to conserve innings for Gallagher isn't a bad idea, now that I think about it.)

[BigbadB]

I don't really look at it as mortgaging the future to win now. Good teams are built from the ground up. That's currently where the Cubs find themselves. They have talent that they have filtered through the system: Soto, Marmol, Wuertz, Theriot just to name a few. They have talent locked up long term: Zambrano, Lee, Ramirez, Soriano and Fukudome. They have key role players who don't have ridiculous price tags: DeRosa, Johnson, Ward, Edmonds. They have talent waiting in the wings: Murton, Hill, Gallagher, Patterson, Pie. They don't have a ton of dead weight hampering their budget: Marquis, Blanco, Howry, Eyre.

 

Looking at the big picture, the high priced talent that's locked up long term is doing most of the damage to opposing teams. They just can't do it all themselves, so between the farm (trade or promotion) and the role players, now is the time to go for it. No time made better sense than this year. If there isn't a guy on the farm who can help this year, then you make the necessary trades to increase the odds of winning it all, future be damned. However, I don't believe a trade now actually negates winning in the future.

 

The team has a solid enough foundation to come back for more for the next couple of years. After that, age may start playing a factor with Ramirez, Lee, Soriano and Fukudome. Their contracts aren't going to allow for more multiyear contracts in the budget, so strike while the iron is hot.

[inari]

I'm not sure how one could say DeRo's price tag is "ridiculous."

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm not sure how one could say DeRo's price tag is "ridiculous."

 

That's why he said it wasn't.

[inari]

Sorry, Fridays are my day for forgetting how to read.

[anabiono]

Another reason to "mortgage the future" is that our top prospects (Pie and Hill) are starting to look like flops. Maybe it's time to trade them while they still have some trade value.

 

Then they aren't the future. They are flotsam and jetsam. Trading young players who need help via an act of God to be all-star caliber players is easy.

 

Pedro Martinez comes back healthy after the All-Star break, and throws two consecutive seven inning, one-run games. On July 30, the Mets say you can have him in exchange for Gallagher, Hill, Marshall, Hart -- none of whom are a key to the season so far. Deal or no deal?

 

dude...no offense man...but you are throwing out some of the goofiest trade ideas i have ever seen

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Everything you do changes your odds of winning a WS both this season and in the future. This season, we are almost certainly going to the playoffs, and barring injuries we will do it as one of the better teams in the playoffs. Our odds of getting to the WS are at least 25%, probably a bit higher.

 

How much does a single extra player help our odds of winning two or three short playoff series? How much does a lost prospect effect our odds of making the playoffs in the future?

 

There arguments are silly, because there's no general rule about "future" vs. "now," just a balancing of various odds.

 

Of course we'd all give up the future for a WS this year. But we don't have that choice. We have the choice of a slightly better chance this season vs. perhaps slightly lower chances later.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's always a matter of how much you have to give up. It's annoying when people argue back at this, saying how long do you want to wait, it's been 100 years, trade em all. Getting Milton Bradley doesn't guarantee a world series, getting Brian Fuentes doesn't guarantee a world series, even getting C.C. doesn't guarantee a world series. It's not as cut and dry as either sell the farm and go straight to the world series or stand pat and do not pass go, do not win a game in the NLDS.

[SouthSideRyan]

Or I could start reading entire threads before I post rather than repeat what Kyle just said.

[Butterscup1679666578]

It's been 99 years. If we were say, 5 years removed from a world series, I'd say hang on to the pieces, lets get a NL postseason fixture going for the next few years. Instead, let's do whatever it takes to land Burnett or Sabathia soon and let's win this thing. This is the best team any of us have ever seen. let's get it done.

[17 Seconds]

I think this entire thread is pretty much a moot point, considering our farm system already blows. We don't really have much to mortgage.

[BigSlick]

Mmmmm, I don't know if its worth it honestly. It depends on what kind of deal, honestly.

 

There is diminishing returns as far as how 'good' you're team can be. Eventually each piece you add doesn't increase the chances your team has to win the world series that much. Improving over the average playoff team is nice, but at a certain point you can't really guarantee much in the playoffs, its not a total crapshoot but it might as well be one.

 

Making the playoffs is the number one concern, and if your goal is to win the World Series, the number one concern is making the playoffs for several years in order to give yourself a better chance. Frankly, and this is perhaps in error, I believe making the playoffs for several years in a row gives you a better chance to win the World Series than fielding one spectacular team.

 

Remember the 116 win Mariners and the 83 win Cardinals my friends.

[Roast]

Most years I would say no. But this year, like others have pointed out, we are just one or two pieces away from being an absolutely unstoppable juggernaut. So if we were to trade Hill, Pie, Colvin, Veal, etc all away and get something like a Sabathia or a Halladay in return? I'd do that in a second.

[JGalt73]

Mmmmm, I don't know if its worth it honestly. It depends on what kind of deal, honestly.

 

There is diminishing returns as far as how 'good' you're team can be. Eventually each piece you add doesn't increase the chances your team has to win the world series that much. Improving over the average playoff team is nice, but at a certain point you can't really guarantee much in the playoffs, its not a total crapshoot but it might as well be one.

 

Making the playoffs is the number one concern, and if your goal is to win the World Series, the number one concern is making the playoffs for several years in order to give yourself a better chance. Frankly, and this is perhaps in error, I believe making the playoffs for several years in a row gives you a better chance to win the World Series than fielding one spectacular team.

 

Remember the 116 win Mariners and the 83 win Cardinals my friends.

 

I'll second this. An amazing rotation in the playoffs is helpful, but no guarantee of success. How much help would this provide for winning the division? Would we win it anyway? Would you trade for one or two post season starts? I'm not sure how to evaluate that one.

[FergieJ31]

Mmmmm, I don't know if its worth it honestly. It depends on what kind of deal, honestly.

 

There is diminishing returns as far as how 'good' you're team can be. Eventually each piece you add doesn't increase the chances your team has to win the world series that much. Improving over the average playoff team is nice, but at a certain point you can't really guarantee much in the playoffs, its not a total crapshoot but it might as well be one.

 

Making the playoffs is the number one concern, and if your goal is to win the World Series, the number one concern is making the playoffs for several years in order to give yourself a better chance. Frankly, and this is perhaps in error, I believe making the playoffs for several years in a row gives you a better chance to win the World Series than fielding one spectacular team.

 

Remember the 116 win Mariners and the 83 win Cardinals my friends.

 

Excellent post. I completely agree that the best way to maximize the chance of winning a WS is to field a playoff-contending team for years to come, rather than go for broke in 2008.

 

That's why I'd say no to the Pedro trade proposed by twothousandfive, but I thought that was a very good post & interesting idea. It made concrete the central question posed by this thread, and he's right about one thing: for the question "would you mortgage the future..." to be interesting, a trade proposal has to involve some pain for the Cubs. Getting an effective Pedro for 1/2 year in exchange for Gallagher, Hill, et al, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Edited June 14, 2008 by FergieJ31

[Dallas Green]

I know I'll catch hell from at least a few people, but I'd do two things:

 

1.Do what I could, without being ridiculous( ex. a 3 1/2 month $20mil contract), to sign Barry Bonds. He could play left while Soriano is out, then be a 4th OF/PH/DH for the rest of the year, occasionally making up a Bonds/Soriano/Fukudome OF. Even with limited use, the numbers he could put up would make this lineup incredible.

 

So you are basically saying you would sell your soul to the devil for a Cubs World Series?

 

Me too.

 

If Bin Laden could help us win the WS, I'd sign him. (jk)

[anabiono]

I know I'll catch hell from at least a few people, but I'd do two things:

 

1.Do what I could, without being ridiculous( ex. a 3 1/2 month $20mil contract), to sign Barry Bonds. He could play left while Soriano is out, then be a 4th OF/PH/DH for the rest of the year, occasionally making up a Bonds/Soriano/Fukudome OF. Even with limited use, the numbers he could put up would make this lineup incredible.

 

So you are basically saying you would sell your soul to the devil for a Cubs World Series?

 

Me too.

 

If Bin Laden could help us win the WS, I'd sign him. (jk)

 

just make it easier and sign the democratic hopeful...apparently they are one in the same

[YearofDaCubs]

I would and I know Hendry is the type of GM that would too.

[tspain]

How many were willing to trade for Bedard and Roberts last year if it cost Rich Hill and Felix Pie and maybe Gallagher?

 

If we could have traded for Tim Lincumen and Aaron Rowand last winter but had to give up a boat load such as 6 players like Rich Hill, Carlos Marmol, Sean Gallagher, Felix Pie, then add Pawalek and Rhee. Would you have made that deal last winter?

 

No one saw Hill's problems coming. Probably can't get much him right now. But it sure would be nice to have another #1 starter like Bedard or Lincumen.

 

If we need anything, I would love another #1 starter to go with Big Z. in the short series called the play offs. It is not enough to make the playoffs this year. We have to win it all.

 

I would trade everyone in the minors to win this year. I would not trade Geo Soto however. No way. He is untouchable.

 

And if the Cubs sign Barry Bonds, I will no longer be a Cubs fan. That will be the final straw for me. And I have been with the Cubs since the 1960's.

 

Pastor Tom Spain