Derosa to Indians for Jeff Stevens, Chris Archer, John Gaub

[17 Seconds]

Nolasco/Pinto/Mitre for Pierre

Soriano for 8/136

Fukudome was overpaid

Jones was overpaid and we ended up dumping him for nothing before the contract even ended

Marquis was overpaid and we're about to dump him for basically nothing

Jerry Blevins for 3 months of Jason Kendall

2 prospects for Steve Traschel

 

 

I was talking about Hendry since Piniella took over, the last two years. There's plenty of other good moves Hendry made between 03-05. The Pierre trade is one of the only trades I really feel are poor, and some of the other stuff you listed is very debateable. Soriano is a 17m per year player in this market, we don't know if we will age good or bad yet. Jones made 5.3m per year, and we got two solid years from him and dumped him before he lost it.

 

 

I don't see how it's a bad move to sign a guy, but get rid of him before he's bad. Sometimes you gotta sign a guy for more years then you want to get him to come to your team, and if you got the most use out of him, then get rid of him before he goes into the tank thats still a good outcome. Same thing goes with Marquis, he's gone 23-18 with a 4.43 in 61 starts(with a good chunk of innings) the last two years, and been a solid 4-5 starter for us. He's been worth the contract we paid him for the last two years. Were now dumping him because we no longer have use for a pitcher like him due to better cheaper options on the roster. With all the free agent pitchers signings over the last two years, I'm sure Marquis deal would be on the postive outcome list so far. At the time we signed Marquis we need a pitcher who could eat up innings and who was durable.

 

 

 

Fukudome looks like he could be a bust right now, but lets see how he does next season before we draw a outcome there. As for the Kendall/Blevins trade, keep in mind we got Ryan Flaherty due to having Kendall on the roster. The Steve Trachsel deal was crap for crap, we gave up two crappy guys to see if Trachsel can give us 4-5 solid starts. It didn't work out, but it didn't really hurt us either when you look at the crap we gave up.

 

The thng is that number 4-5 starters don't get 21 million over 3 years. If you ewant to say we got what we wanted in a league average "innings eater" then fine. The problem is that he's not paid like one. This is what I'm talking about with Hendry overpaying. Marquis was coming off ana atrocious year and all indications were that nobody else would have come close to giving him what the Cubs gave him. And if Marquis was valuable enough to warrant that contract, we wouldn't be having such a hard time dumping him for one year when we're basically turning him into a 5 million dollar pitcher for the other team. Plus we're not simply "dumping him". We're being forced to eat one million and also take back a crappy reliever making 3.5 mil. That's 4.5 mil being wasted, which is almost DeRosa's 2009 salary. The Blevins trade still looks bad ewven with Flaherty. He had a really nice season with Oakland last year and we look really good in our pen. Even though Moore and Cherry weren't great prospects, they still had value and they were wasted on Traschel. Not to mention we then had to sit through watching Traschel get lit up everytime he pitched instead of actually giving the starts to a better pitcher that was already on the staff. I mean, all these prospects have valuable, you can't just throw them away because they aren't great. Also I don't really see how Soriano is a 17 million dollar player in this market. Manny can't even find a job, Dunn is going to settle for way less than we thought, I haven't seen Burrell's name mentioned once, etc. Soriano's cotnract is bad, any way you look at it. Even if you want to argue he's worth 17 mil a year right now, he's certainly not going to be for the next 6 years, especially considering he turns 33 next week and his body is already breaking down like crazy. It's only a matter of time before the performance starts to slip as well.

[Guest]

http://cubs.scout.com/a.z?s=260&p=2&c=826220

 

The three pitchers going to Chicago were all going to be ranked in the top 50 of the Indians Ink Magazine annual list of top 100 prospects in the Cleveland farm system. The issue is days away from going to print and had Stevens ranked No. 14, Gaub at No. 30 and Archer at No. 43.

[cubsfan26]

The thng is that number 4-5 starters don't get 21 million over 3 years.

 

Well I call him a 4-5 starter for us, but he could have been a number 3 on some teams. When you look at how the market was in 06/07 and 07/08 offseasons and how much pitchers were getting then. Going 11-9 and 12-9 with a 4.43 era in 61 starts for 7m per season was the going rate for a pitcher with those numbers. There's a ton of pitchers making alot more money or simliar money who weren't close to as good as Marquis has been. I recall at the time Suppan was one of the only other solid starting pitchers left on the market.

 

 

 

I bet the Brewers wished they signed Marquis to a 3y, at 21m deal instead of signing Suppan to 4y at 42m right now. The only reason why the Cubs have to take on Vizcaino contract, is because Marquis deal is so much this year because it was backloaded. So we would have owed him that money in previous seasons anyways. But part of the reason why Marquis is tough to trade right now is because of the economy. Teams don't wanna spend 7m on 3-4 starters right now, when the last few years that was the going rate for that type of pitcher. If Marquis had 1y at 7m(with us eating 2.8m we owed him due only paying him 4.5 and 6.7m in 07-08), last offseason we would have had no problem trading him IMO.

 

 

 

Also I don't really see how Soriano is a 17 million dollar player in this market

 

Ok maybe not in this market, but he's a 17m player with the market the way it has been the last few years. When you consider Beltran, Carlos Lee, Torii Hunter and others are making simliar money per year with simliar career stats or worse then Soriano. The economy is so bad right now, only the top 4-6 free agents will be getting big money. The rest of the guys will suffer, so you will get some bargins this year, compared to the past. But Soriano isn't overpaid on a yearly bases compared to other guys making what he makes. Soriano is very unlikely to be a 17m player 6 years from now, but the investment in Soriano was to win now. When teams sign guys to 6-8 plus year deals, they realize most of the time their overpaying the guy the final year or two of the deal. I'm sure the Yankees don't expect Texeria being a 20m plus player in eight years, or A-Rod being worth 25m at age 42 either.

 

 

 

What will make Soriano deal good or bad IMO. Will be how many prime level years he has, and how much he drops off later in his career. If Soriano is hitting at the level he is now for another 4 years, and still a 800 OPS type hitter at age 37-38, I don't think his contract will be bad. Of course if Soriano only has 2 or 3 really good years left, and is awful at age 37-38, then it will be a bad contract. But the point I'm making is we don't know how that will turn out yet, nobody can predict the future. It all depends on how well Soriano ages, or not.

Edited January 2, 2009 by cubsfan26

[anabiono]

http://cubs.scout.com/a.z?s=260&p=2&c=826220

 

The three pitchers going to Chicago were all going to be ranked in the top 50 of the Indians Ink Magazine annual list of top 100 prospects in the Cleveland farm system. The issue is days away from going to print and had Stevens ranked No. 14, Gaub at No. 30 and Archer at No. 43.

 

lol...quite the haul...

[cubsfan26]

http://cubs.scout.com/a.z?s=260&p=2&c=826220

 

The three pitchers going to Chicago were all going to be ranked in the top 50 of the Indians Ink Magazine annual list of top 100 prospects in the Cleveland farm system. The issue is days away from going to print and had Stevens ranked No. 14, Gaub at No. 30 and Archer at No. 43.

 

lol...quite the haul...

 

I see Archer and Gaub kinda like Ceda when we got him. Both have high upside, but both are risky prospects because their so young/raw right now. Both have potential to turn into quality prospects, but both could also be flops. I think Stevens is the most sure thing of the group, but he might have the least amount of upside. I heard he's projected to be a solid young Bob Howry type reliever.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ok maybe not in this market, but he's a 17m player with the market the way it has been the last few years. When you consider Beltran, Carlos Lee, Torii Hunter and others are making simliar money per year with simliar career stats or worse then Soriano.

 

Two of the players you mentioned play a premium defensive position, and the third is making significantly less than Soriano.

[jersey cubs fan]

The thng is that number 4-5 starters don't get 21 million over 3 years.

 

Well I call him a 4-5 starter for us, but he could have been a number 3 on some teams.

 

Sure, on really bad teams that can't afford to waste that kind of money on mediocrity.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The thng is that number 4-5 starters don't get 21 million over 3 years.

 

Well I call him a 4-5 starter for us, but he could have been a number 3 on some teams.

 

Sure, on really bad teams that can't afford to waste that kind of money on mediocrity.

 

Are we talking about Marquis? The guy is about as league-average as it gets. I really doubt only really bad teams have fewer than three starters better.

[hardcorecubfan]

Just hoping that we get a Rick Sutcliffe type of player like we did in the 80's

[RynoRules]

http://cubs.scout.com/a.z?s=260&p=2&c=826220

 

The three pitchers going to Chicago were all going to be ranked in the top 50 of the Indians Ink Magazine annual list of top 100 prospects in the Cleveland farm system. The issue is days away from going to print and had Stevens ranked No. 14, Gaub at No. 30 and Archer at No. 43.

 

lol...quite the haul...

 

I am not sure what you expected to fetch for a 34 yr old MIF'er who just had a career yr and has one yr left on his contract.

[dew1679666265]

Sorry but I think they may be on to something, and to enter the post season with Fukudome and Gathright as your main LH hitters is pathetic.

 

But Aaron Miles makes that less pathetic?

 

DeRosa is much better at hitting RHP than Miles.

 

But this isn't about Miles, it's about acquiring Milton Bradley. Look, I hate losing DeRosa, never said I didn't, but as Hendry said, they couldn't move Ramirez, Soriano, Fukudome, or Lee, so DeRosa was the next name on the list that Hendry considered expendable to make salary room for a Milton Bradley contract. 3yrs of Milton Bradley + the 3 prospects from the Indians V.S. 1 more year of DeRosa...I don't like it necessarily, but I understand it.

 

There are ways to get a left handed bat into the lineup without moving DeRosa. Jeremy Hermida and Luke Scott are both available through trades - and with either we wouldn't have to downgrade from DeRosa to Aaron Miles.

 

I don't have a problem with trading DeRosa - I'd have been in favor of it if it improved the team. This trade did not improve the team, all it did was allow Milton Bradley to play 90 games for us and give us Aaron Miles for second base.

[dew1679666265]

http://cubs.scout.com/a.z?s=260&p=2&c=826220

 

The three pitchers going to Chicago were all going to be ranked in the top 50 of the Indians Ink Magazine annual list of top 100 prospects in the Cleveland farm system. The issue is days away from going to print and had Stevens ranked No. 14, Gaub at No. 30 and Archer at No. 43.

 

lol...quite the haul...

 

I am not sure what you expected to fetch for a 34 yr old MIF'er who just had a career yr and has one yr left on his contract.

 

DeRosa, it seems, was a case where keeping him provided far more value than trading him. Sadly, we had to have Aaron Miles' left handed bat.

[Soul]

Who is going to be super sub now? We didn't just lose DeRosa as a 2nd base starter. We lost all the flexibility DeRosa gave us.

[dew1679666265]

Who is going to be super sub now? We didn't just lose DeRosa as a 2nd base starter. We lost all the flexibility DeRosa gave us.

 

Aaron Miles.

[Soul]

Who is going to be super sub now? We didn't just lose DeRosa as a 2nd base starter. We lost all the flexibility DeRosa gave us.

 

Aaron Miles.

 

That's quite a step down then, even with Bradley.

[dew1679666265]

Who is going to be super sub now? We didn't just lose DeRosa as a 2nd base starter. We lost all the flexibility DeRosa gave us.

 

Aaron Miles.

 

That's quite a step down then, even with Bradley.

 

You're not joking. We'll now have Fontenot/Miles platooning at 2B and Bradley in RF for 85-90 games and the Hoff/Reed/Gathright three-headed monster in right for 72-77 games.

 

We better get Peavy.

[dew1679666265]

Among players with at least 1,000 plate appearances in that stretch, DeRosa's .368 OBP ranks third among second baseman, trailing only Chase Utley (.388) and 2008 American League MVP Dustin Pedroia (.369).

 

He's one of the 10 best second basemen in the game, somewhere on on the periphery of the top five after Utley, Pedroia, Brian Roberts, Ian Kinsler and Placido Polanco.

 

:cry:

[BigbadB]

I generally like the idea of taking the sell high approach in some cases. I don't think DeRosa was one of those cases. Paying 10m a year for the next 3 years for a guy who is just as likely to find himself on the DL than on the field screams for the need for quality depth, which is what DeRosa provides.

 

Bradley had 32 doubles and 22 HR's last year.

DeRosa had 30 doubles and 21 HR's last year.

Edmonds had 17 doubles and 19 HR's last year.

 

While we can all agree that DeRosa won't have another year like he did last year, although it isn't completely out of the question, Bradley will have quite the challenge to replace the production of DeRosa and Edmonds combined.

 

I certainly have reservations about how well Fontenot can match the production he provided last year.

 

And this doesn't even discuss the loss of depth at SP.

 

If all these deals mean that the Cubs get Bradley and Peavy, then I will be satisfied with the offseason.

 

If all these deals were made just to get an oft injured LH bat into the line up, I'm going to be extremely dissapointed in this offseason.

 

I would have much rather traded for a lesser talented lefty bat, or even given Edmonds or someone of that nature another 1 year deal.

 

It's going to be a long year when Bradley tweaks his knee and Joey Gathright, Aaron Miles, Fukudome and Ryan Theriot are all in the line up together.

 

Why not package Pie and DeRosa for Choo or Hawpe or someone who has shown to be healthy all year long?

 

The reason I'm so down on trading DeRosa at this juncture (unless it is a percursor to getting Peavy) is that he was sure to be a Type A free agent next year, and the Cubs could certainly offer him arby and get draft picks (quite possibly better than what they got from Cleveland) while still having a productive replacement for those days Bradley is hurt.

[jersey cubs fan]

I generally like the idea of taking the sell high approach in some cases. I don't think DeRosa was one of those cases.

 

I was all for selling high on DeRosa. I didn't think that would mean trading for marginal relief prospects and signing Aaron Freaking Miles.

[CUBZ99]

Among players with at least 1,000 plate appearances in that stretch, DeRosa's .368 OBP ranks third among second baseman, trailing only Chase Utley (.388) and 2008 American League MVP Dustin Pedroia (.369).

 

He's one of the 10 best second basemen in the game, somewhere on on the periphery of the top five after Utley, Pedroia, Brian Roberts, Ian Kinsler and Placido Polanco.

 

:cry:

 

For good humor, go back and read what this board was saying about DeRosa when he signed his deal.

 

A $4.3m platoon player/utility guy? That's crazy talk.

This just smacks of a typical Hendry signing. Overpay for a guy that no one else values nearly as much as him. Makes no sense whatsoever (given the years/$$$)

It's Perez and Macias all over again.

We're actually paying DeRosa a little more than what we paid both Macias and Perez in 2005.

 

And being able to play 6 different positions is useless if you're bad at all 6. I could play 6 different positions (badly), do I deserve this kind of deal?

Same ol Hendry... Jeez what a terrible move.

He will be come the super Neifi Macias! Which means he will be overpaid and overrated by the organiza...Oh crap...to late...

We overpaid for mediocrity again. It's a good thing the payroll is higher.

 

Rotoworld even compared DeRosa to Neifi Perez. :-))

 

It's way too much of a commitment to someone who only figures to be an asset against left-handers. A platoon of Jacque Jones and DeRosa in right field would be very productive, but the Cubs are probably going to give DeRosa a chance to be their primary second baseman. DeRosa turns 32 in February and is a career .260/.316/.366 hitter against righties (to put that in perspective, Neifi Perez is a career .268/.298/.376 hitter). Versus lefties, he has an impressive .306/.367/.497 line.

[CUBZ99]

I generally like the idea of taking the sell high approach in some cases. I don't think DeRosa was one of those cases.

 

I was all for selling high on DeRosa. I didn't think that would mean trading for marginal relief prospects and signing Aaron Freaking Miles.

 

In all fairness, we don't know how the rest of the offseason is going to shake out. But in general I agree with you, so far it has been very disappointing.

[dew1679666265]

Among players with at least 1,000 plate appearances in that stretch, DeRosa's .368 OBP ranks third among second baseman, trailing only Chase Utley (.388) and 2008 American League MVP Dustin Pedroia (.369).

 

He's one of the 10 best second basemen in the game, somewhere on on the periphery of the top five after Utley, Pedroia, Brian Roberts, Ian Kinsler and Placido Polanco.

 

:cry:

 

For good humor, go back and read what this board was saying about DeRosa when he signed his deal.

 

A $4.3m platoon player/utility guy? That's crazy talk.

This just smacks of a typical Hendry signing. Overpay for a guy that no one else values nearly as much as him. Makes no sense whatsoever (given the years/$$$)

It's Perez and Macias all over again.

We're actually paying DeRosa a little more than what we paid both Macias and Perez in 2005.

 

And being able to play 6 different positions is useless if you're bad at all 6. I could play 6 different positions (badly), do I deserve this kind of deal?

Same ol Hendry... Jeez what a terrible move.

He will be come the super Neifi Macias! Which means he will be overpaid and overrated by the organiza...Oh crap...to late...

We overpaid for mediocrity again. It's a good thing the payroll is higher.

 

Rotoworld even compared DeRosa to Neifi Perez. :-))

 

It's way too much of a commitment to someone who only figures to be an asset against left-handers. A platoon of Jacque Jones and DeRosa in right field would be very productive, but the Cubs are probably going to give DeRosa a chance to be their primary second baseman. DeRosa turns 32 in February and is a career .260/.316/.366 hitter against righties (to put that in perspective, Neifi Perez is a career .268/.298/.376 hitter). Versus lefties, he has an impressive .306/.367/.497 line.

 

I can only hope Aaron Miles turns into DeRosa. It's insanely unlikely, though.

 

And for the record, I was not one of those opposed to the DeRosa signing.

[jersey cubs fan]

They got somewhat lucky that DeRosa improved upon his career when he did. But his age 31 career season prior to coming to Chicago was significantly better than Miles season, and that followed up an age 30 season that was a heck of a lot better than Miles. DeRosa's career to that point was not impressive, but it was better than what Miles has done.

[Soul]

Yes, DeRosa's "career year" was better than Miles' is.

 

Also, you can go to the well with these 30+ players coming off a career year all you want. It's playing with fire. DeRosa worked out. Many others do not. If that's the philosophy of finding talent, I'd suggest a re-examination of that philosophy.

[CUBZ99]

They got somewhat lucky that DeRosa improved upon his career when he did. But his age 31 career season prior to coming to Chicago was significantly better than Miles season, and that followed up an age 30 season that was a heck of a lot better than Miles. DeRosa's career to that point was not impressive, but it was better than what Miles has done.

 

Actually DeRosa's and Miles' careers prior to signing with the Cubs were almost identical. Including the fact, that both had career years prior to signing.

 

Miles career prior to signing at 32 .289/.329/.364

Derosa's career #'s prior to signing .260/.316/.366

at 32

 

Based on those #'s you would be a fool to assume that Miles would turn out to put up #'s similar to DeRosa's, but I suppose it is possible that Mile's numbers could still improve over his career year, last year. I think the real swap is Fontenot for DeRosa, as the Cubs will be mainly facing RHP.

 

I will be interested to see if Fontenot continues to improve this year. If Fontenot can continue his career .853 OPS vs. RHP. The loss of DeRosa isn't all that bad.