Cubs acquire Kevin Gregg for Jose Ceda

SouthSideRyan · November 13, 2008

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

You could look at it that way, or you could look at it like Gregg and 4-6m to spend on other players to upgrade the team for Ceda and Wood.

Oh good, I hope we can spend the 4-6M on Mike Fetters.

TheRaven · November 13, 2008

Decent move by Hendry. This always seems to be his MO, by taking an unproven and getting something of value. Looking at Gregg's numbers over the last 2 years it is hard to understand the criticism. The only difference in Gregg and Ceda's numbers is that Gregg is producing at the major league level. Sure Ceda may figure it out someday (even next year) and make a decent reliever, but if I had to pick between which one I would want to go into Spring Training with in 2009, I would pick Gregg no doubt.

I have a feeling you're only looking at ERA. Kevin Gregg really isn't very good. He's a mediocre reliever who is going to make millions next season. How is he better than Michael Wuertz?

Also yuou seem to be forgetting that Ceda's value to the Cubs is not just what he can contribute to our team. He has trade value and we just wasted it on a guy who isn't an upgrade to a lot of guys we already have.

Where is Ceda's trade value?

And what other stats are you evaluating Gregg on? I am not disagreeing with you, I am just wanting to know.

SouthSideRyan · November 13, 2008

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

Then state it as the deal is:

Gregg for Ceda + Wood and a 4 year guaranteed high dollar contract.

Unless saving 7-10 million per year on Wood frees up payroll to trade for someone like Peavy or a solid bat.

10M??? How little do you expect Gregg to make? How much do you expect Kerry to?

Soul · November 13, 2008

Come on, the idea that the Cubs *HAD* to let Kerry go so they could save a couple million to upgrade elsewhere is ridiculous nonsense. I expect more from people on this board.

imb · November 13, 2008

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

Wow that is some interesting logic

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

you're talking about a 4-year commitment to a guy with an arm put together by duct tape.

i don't necessarily like the trade for gregg or even gregg himself, really, but woody was long gone and the deals had nothing to do with each other besides the fact that we needed another body in there.

Going with Gregg instead of wood this year is only a difference of $5 mil, but it's a difference of over $30 mil over the lifetime of his would be contract. you really want to make that commitment? i don't

mul21 · November 13, 2008

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

Wow that is some interesting logic

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

It's horrible logic to think this way. And you're not just saving $4-5M. You're saving $25-35 million over 4 years and you're not getting locked into what could turn into an awful contract based on Wood's injury history.

It may not be an ideal situation, but sometimes you're forced to take the lesser of two evils.

UK1679666180 · November 13, 2008

I don't know what other moves can be made by saving the 7.5+ mil and years in this deal, but Gregg is a slightly above avg. reliever with slightly above avg. stuff without a true out pitch.

They still another reliever, IMO.

Going from Gregg to Wood is a decent step backwards as far as a player to player comparison.

I would like to see Gregg throw that splitter more than he does.

Soul · November 13, 2008

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

Wow that is some interesting logic

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

you're talking about a 4-year commitment to a guy with an arm put together by duct tape.

i don't necessarily like the trade for gregg or even gregg himself, really, but woody was long gone and the deals had nothing to do with each other besides the fact that we needed another body in there.

Going with Gregg instead of wood this year is only a difference of $5 mil, but it's a difference of over $30 mil over the lifetime of his would be contract. you really want to make that commitment? i don't

It's change for this team with a payroll that might push $150 million and will undoubtedly expand even more as we go along.

TheRaven · November 13, 2008

Come on, the idea that the Cubs *HAD* to let Kerry go so they could save a couple million to upgrade elsewhere is ridiculous nonsense. I expect more from people on this board.

It is the duration of that guaranteed money that is more frightening.

Vanilla Ice · November 13, 2008

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

Then state it as the deal is:

Gregg for Ceda + Wood and a 4 year guaranteed high dollar contract.

Actually it should be

Gregg + 2 1st round picks + 2 sandwich picks + 35ish million dollars for Ceda + Wood

mul21 · November 13, 2008

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

Wow that is some interesting logic

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

you're talking about a 4-year commitment to a guy with an arm put together by duct tape.

i don't necessarily like the trade for gregg or even gregg himself, really, but woody was long gone and the deals had nothing to do with each other besides the fact that we needed another body in there.

Going with Gregg instead of wood this year is only a difference of $5 mil, but it's a difference of over $30 mil over the lifetime of his would be contract. you really want to make that commitment? i don't

It's change for this team with a payroll that might push $150 million and will undoubtedly expand even more as we go along.

With an uncertain ownership situation and a crapload of backloaded contracts.

Soul · November 13, 2008

It's horrible logic to think this way. And you're not just saving $4-5M. You're saving $25-35 million over 4 years and you're not getting locked into what could turn into an awful contract based on Wood's injury history.

It may not be an ideal situation, but sometimes you're forced to take the lesser of two evils.

You're all treating this as if it's a 5 year, $12 million per deal. It just wouldn't be on that level, can't be seen in the same light at all.

Who is this going to allow us to sign that will make us so much better? Answer me THAT.

17 Seconds · November 13, 2008

Decent move by Hendry. This always seems to be his MO, by taking an unproven and getting something of value. Looking at Gregg's numbers over the last 2 years it is hard to understand the criticism. The only difference in Gregg and Ceda's numbers is that Gregg is producing at the major league level. Sure Ceda may figure it out someday (even next year) and make a decent reliever, but if I had to pick between which one I would want to go into Spring Training with in 2009, I would pick Gregg no doubt.

I have a feeling you're only looking at ERA. Kevin Gregg really isn't very good. He's a mediocre reliever who is going to make millions next season. How is he better than Michael Wuertz?

Also yuou seem to be forgetting that Ceda's value to the Cubs is not just what he can contribute to our team. He has trade value and we just wasted it on a guy who isn't an upgrade to a lot of guys we already have.

Where is Ceda's trade value?

And what other stats are you evaluating Gregg on? I am not disagreeing with you, I am just wanting to know.

What do you mean by "where is Ceda's trade value"? I don't understand that question.

As for Gregg, you can simply look at his stats yourself. He's basically Michael Wuertz. He walks a ton of guys and gives up a lot of baserunners. He's another "hold your breath" reliever. We have enough of those already and they don't make as much as he will this season.

imb · November 13, 2008

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

Wow that is some interesting logic

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

you're talking about a 4-year commitment to a guy with an arm put together by duct tape.

i don't necessarily like the trade for gregg or even gregg himself, really, but woody was long gone and the deals had nothing to do with each other besides the fact that we needed another body in there.

Going with Gregg instead of wood this year is only a difference of $5 mil, but it's a difference of over $30 mil over the lifetime of his would be contract. you really want to make that commitment? i don't

It's change for this team with a payroll that might push $150 million and will undoubtedly expand even more as we go along.

$40 million over 4 years to a guy whose career was an inch away from being done just over a year ago is not change

how can you seriously believe yourself

BigbadB · November 13, 2008

I don't know what other moves can be made by saving the 7.5+ mil and years in this deal, but Gregg is a slightly above avg. reliever with slightly above avg. stuff without a true out pitch.

They still another reliever, IMO.

Going from Gregg to Wood is a decent step backwards as far as a player to player comparison.

I would like to see Gregg throw that splitter more than he does.

Granted, Guzman is hard to count on due to health reasons, but I like Guzman more than I like Gregg.

mul21 · November 13, 2008

It's horrible logic to think this way. And you're not just saving $4-5M. You're saving $25-35 million over 4 years and you're not getting locked into what could turn into an awful contract based on Wood's injury history.

It may not be an ideal situation, but sometimes you're forced to take the lesser of two evils.

You're all treating this as if it's a 5 year, $12 million per deal. It just wouldn't be on that level, can't be seen in the same light at all.

Who is this going to allow us to sign that will make us so much better? Answer me THAT.

?????????????????????????

17 Seconds · November 13, 2008

Come on, the idea that the Cubs *HAD* to let Kerry go so they could save a couple million to upgrade elsewhere is ridiculous nonsense. I expect more from people on this board.

I have a feeling that if Hendry gave Wood 4/40 and he got hurt sometime next year you'd be trashing him for giving out such a ridiculous contract to a reliever who was almost guaranteed to get injured.

17 Seconds · November 13, 2008

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

Wow that is some interesting logic

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

you're talking about a 4-year commitment to a guy with an arm put together by duct tape.

i don't necessarily like the trade for gregg or even gregg himself, really, but woody was long gone and the deals had nothing to do with each other besides the fact that we needed another body in there.

Going with Gregg instead of wood this year is only a difference of $5 mil, but it's a difference of over $30 mil over the lifetime of his would be contract. you really want to make that commitment? i don't

It's change for this team with a payroll that might push $150 million and will undoubtedly expand even more as we go along.

$40 million over 4 years to a guy whose career was an inch away from being done just over a year ago is not change

how can you seriously believe yourself

BUT TELL ME WHAT PLAYER WE COULD SIGN WITH THAT MONEY THAT MAKES US BETTER. ANSWER ME THAT

cubsfan26 · November 13, 2008

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

Wow that is some interesting logic

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

It's horrible logic to think this way. And you're not just saving $4-5M. You're saving $25-35 million over 4 years and you're not getting locked into what could turn into an awful contract based on Wood's injury history.

It may not be an ideal situation, but sometimes you're forced to take the lesser of two evils.

Plus the Cubs could always trade Gregg next offseason and get more in return, or get draft picks after 2010 to replace Ceda. Thats why I said this deal should be a wait and see situation. Because as long as Gregg pitches like he has for most of the last two years he will have pretty good value around the league.

nilodnayr · November 13, 2008

So is that the argument you would use if you were calling a MLB GM in trade discussions in why they should consider Ceda to be a major piece in a trade?

If Ceda can harness his control, he can be a dominant major league reliever? I am sorry, but can't the same be said for 95% of relievers? Or pitchers in general?

95% of relievers or pitchers or whomever do not regularly sit in the 94-97 range and often reach 100 and absolutely dominate hitters with a knockout fastball/power slider combo. Starting this year helped him turn a corner as evidenced by his second half of the season in the pen in AA with a respectable 3 BB/9. Its not an "if" Ceda can harness his control, its "if" Ceda can maintain his control or somewhere around it he'll be a dominant closer. "If" he doesn't, he'll be a set up guy. If you are really concerned about his control, then man, I hate to show you Kevin Gregg's (or even Carlos Marmol's) BB rates. And thats my whole point. If you don't like Ceda, then you shouldn't like Gregg.

True, not all pitchers can hit that. But there are a lot of bad pitchers that can do that and never make it quite like they should have because they never could learn how to control it.

I am not saying that Ceda WILL NOT. I am just not going to go around and talk like he is going to do it for sure. That is what this board is reacting with. And it is ridiculous.

No one is going to do anything "for sure".

It's not even a high enough percentage to say it is likely. Yet this is a move that is worthy calling Hendry an idiot?

A minor league RP that may or may not be good?

We're going to pretend that we could have gotten so much more for him?

There is no real market for Jose Ceda. There is no justification to come out and say that next year, he would be able to outperform Kevin Gregg.

Sample size alert, but...

Ceda's MLE for his 2008 relief stats:

FIP=3.68

Average against: 261

BABIP: 346

BB/9: 3.67

K/9: 9.17

Gregg's 2008 stats

FIP=3.80

Average against: 208

BABIP: 261

BB/9: 4.85

K/9: 7.60

Its not out of the realm of possibility. You act as if I'm saying Larry Suarez could be better than Kevin Gregg next year.

imb · November 13, 2008

Just so we're clear, the deal really is (from our perspective):

Gregg for Ceda and Wood.

That's an undeniably, unmistakably, irrefutably, bad thing for the Cubs.

Wow that is some interesting logic

Yeah, that makes no sense. this deal was done because of the decision to not bring back wood. it wasn't a choice between keeping woody and trading for gregg.

The end result is, Gregg will be there instead of Woody. As for saving 4-5 million -- that seems like a pretty small amount of money for a team to be unloading an all-star pitcher with a 1.085 WHIP when they're already spending over 100 million and talking about taking on more.

you're talking about a 4-year commitment to a guy with an arm put together by duct tape.

i don't necessarily like the trade for gregg or even gregg himself, really, but woody was long gone and the deals had nothing to do with each other besides the fact that we needed another body in there.

Going with Gregg instead of wood this year is only a difference of $5 mil, but it's a difference of over $30 mil over the lifetime of his would be contract. you really want to make that commitment? i don't

It's change for this team with a payroll that might push $150 million and will undoubtedly expand even more as we go along.

$40 million over 4 years to a guy whose career was an inch away from being done just over a year ago is not change

how can you seriously believe yourself

BUT TELL ME WHAT PLAYER WE COULD SIGN WITH THAT MONEY THAT MAKES US BETTER. ANSWER ME THAT

seriously. i don't get how anyone can think this way. i mean, soul, try and look more than 6 months into the future, man.

jersey cubs fan · November 13, 2008

I don't know what other moves can be made by saving the 7.5+ mil

What does $7.5m have to do with anything?

Gregg is due a big raise in arbitration and is going to be a free agent soon. You can be certain Hendry has thought long and hard about signing him longterm.

17 Seconds · November 13, 2008

All I know is that if hendry locks up Gregg long term in an attempt to save face I'm going to seriously flip out

TheRaven · November 13, 2008

Decent move by Hendry. This always seems to be his MO, by taking an unproven and getting something of value. Looking at Gregg's numbers over the last 2 years it is hard to understand the criticism. The only difference in Gregg and Ceda's numbers is that Gregg is producing at the major league level. Sure Ceda may figure it out someday (even next year) and make a decent reliever, but if I had to pick between which one I would want to go into Spring Training with in 2009, I would pick Gregg no doubt.

I have a feeling you're only looking at ERA. Kevin Gregg really isn't very good. He's a mediocre reliever who is going to make millions next season. How is he better than Michael Wuertz?

Also yuou seem to be forgetting that Ceda's value to the Cubs is not just what he can contribute to our team. He has trade value and we just wasted it on a guy who isn't an upgrade to a lot of guys we already have.

Where is Ceda's trade value?

And what other stats are you evaluating Gregg on? I am not disagreeing with you, I am just wanting to know.

What do you mean by "where is Ceda's trade value"? I don't understand that question.

As for Gregg, you can simply look at his stats yourself. He's basically Michael Wuertz. He walks a ton of guys and gives up a lot of baserunners. He's another "hold your breath" reliever. We have enough of those already and they don't make as much as he will this season.

You said he has trade value. What is that value? I assume you have some information on what that value is, that it is considerate enough that we made a huge blunder trading away someone with an escalated value such as Ceda?

I can look at the stats. I have looked at the stats. The 'stats' is not very specific though. Which ones are you using to measure? If it is a few simple ones, it should be relatively easy to say which ones. Note that I said I didn't disagree with you on Gregg. I still don't. I just am curious as to which ones you are using to make that statement.

XZero771679666304 · November 13, 2008

Come on, the idea that the Cubs *HAD* to let Kerry go so they could save a couple million to upgrade elsewhere is ridiculous nonsense. I expect more from people on this board.

The idea that the Cubs should have given Kerry a big dollar multiyear contract just because of the emotional attachment or that is wouldn't have been a bad idea is patently ludicrous. They let Kerry go because giving him a multiyear deal @ 10 million+ would have been moronic, a far poorer decision than any of the recent poor decisions.

It isn't a move you make with a payroll of zero.

I have been one of Wood's biggest fans for his entire Cubs tenure, but honestly, the lack of objectivity over this is mind boggling.

Cubs acquire Kevin Gregg for Jose Ceda

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs