ESPN: Cedeno & Olson Traded for Heilman (P. 4)

[sneakypower]

For 2009, who is a better pitcher, Heilman or Olson? I'm saying Heilman.

wait, are we being contracted next year?

[Mephistopheles]

For 2009, who is a better pitcher, Heilman or Olson? I'm saying Heilman.

wait, are we being contracted next year?

 

For 2011 who is a better pitcher, Heilman or Olson? I'm saying Heilman.

[jersey cubs fan]

The funny thing about this trade is this move actually makes us better for 09.

 

How is that funny? They better get better for 2009, because that is the only year they have a chance of getting value out of this deal. I'd find it more valuable to have a guy with upside and options shuttling between AAA and the majors than to have a 30 year old with such a mediocre resume as Heilman and no flexibility to option out if he struggles.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

For 2009, who is a better pitcher, Heilman or Olson? I'm saying Heilman.

wait, are we being contracted next year?

 

 

Did I say "this is the only relevant factor for evaluating the deal?"

 

Maybe there was a glitch in the internet and that showed up in your version of the post, but I don't think I typed it.

[bcl412]

For 2009, who is a better pitcher, Heilman or Olson? I'm saying Heilman.

wait, are we being contracted next year?

 

I'm not saying this is correct but wouldn't we want to compare Heilman to Marquis or Marshall (if he gets traded)? If that is so than I would rather have Marquis and Marshall.

[Backtobanks]

Let's all relax until the dust settles. If anyone thinks Hendry is through trading, they aren't paying attention. I'm sure that if Hendry trades for Peavy without including Marshall or Vitters some of you will jump all over him for giving up 5 prospects.

 

I don't see how Hendry has earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt this offseason. Also, whether ot nor he makes other moves doesn't really excuse some of the other dumb things he's done. Getting as little as he did for DeRosa is basd. Giving Miles the contract he did is bad. Giving Bradley what he didis bad. Trading Cedeno and Olson for Heilman is bad. Those are bad moves, regardless of what follows them.

 

What he got for DeRosa was pitching prospects which presumably will lead to Peavy. Who knows how the contracts to Miles and Bradley will work out? Waiting for their prices to go down might have resulted in them signing with another team and then posters would jump all over Hendry for not signing them. On the surface, the Cedeno + Olsen for Heilman deal doesn't look great, but Olson's strongest traits were that he had an option left and it was rumored that the Padres wanted him in a Peavy deal. He has been a terrible major league pitcher. I'm not defending any of the moves Hendry has made, but none of us are fully aware of what's happening financially with the Cubs and other clubs and what kinds of discussions are going on with other GMs. That's why I said we need to wait and see what the final roster looks like.

 

Why are you presuming the guys they got from Cleveland are going in a Peavy trade?

 

Stephens is one of the rumored names in a Peavy deal, but if none of them go to SD they still add to the minor league depth to replace pitching prospects that would be in the deal.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

For 2009, who is a better pitcher, Heilman or Olson? I'm saying Heilman.

wait, are we being contracted next year?

 

I'm not saying this is correct but wouldn't we want to compare Heilman to Marquis or Marshall (if he gets traded)? If that is so than I would rather have Marquis and Marshall.

 

Is Heilman starting? If so, then yes, that's a problem.

[UK1679666180]

Here is my scouting report for Aaron Heilman:

2 seam FB (sink): 91-94 MPH above average velocity and average movement for a sinker.

Splitter: 82-85 MPH average velocity and average downward movement for a split-finger.

Slider: 82-85 MPH appeared to use it much more in ’08 and was an effective pitch.

 

Heilman definitely has the stuff to be a set-up man as he has 2-3 plus pitches, but struggled last year his command and likely his confidence while struggling mightily in the second half of last year. He has never been real solid vs. LH’ers, but last year his splitter and FB whether it was lack of command or mechanical flaw, they were just teeing off on him. In 149 Abs, left-handers hit 8 HRs and drew 24 BBs for a line of (.308/.425/.567).

 

There are some encouraging signs if he does stick with the Cubs, he used his slider very well against RH’ers and with Rothschild I expect his slider to become an even more effective weapon. I don’t expect Heilman to do as poorly as he did, but I don’t expect him to be much better than Luis Vizcaino or Mike Wuertz. Also, I can’t see his plus FB or his plus splitter to be as hittable as they were in ’07, but that will depend on his command more than anything else.

 

I’m hoping SD covets Heilman more than Olson because that is the only logical explanation I have for this trade from the Cubs’ standpoint. I’m not against this trade as I explained why I’m not that high on Cedeno or Olson just that all previous signs were pointing towards SD wanting Olson which is why I thought the Cubs traded for Olson in the 1st place.

[RedFlash]

Let's all relax until the dust settles. If anyone thinks Hendry is through trading, they aren't paying attention. I'm sure that if Hendry trades for Peavy without including Marshall or Vitters some of you will jump all over him for giving up 5 prospects.

 

Thank you.

 

After reading the posts after the trade was announced, people made i sound like the Cubs traded Stephen Drew and Jon Lester for Kent Bottenfield.

 

The simple reality is the Cubs traded a ultilty player and a back end of the rotation pitcher (whose career MLB ERA is over 6, and I know that will come down as he gets more experience) for a reliever who is more likely to help the Cubs in 2009 then Cedeno/Olson COMBINED. I know trading chips should be more valued, but apparently Olson was overrated by the O's seeing as they moved him with another prospect for Pie. And the Cubs clearly wasn't going to keep him, and the Padres clearly was not as interested in him as some thought.

 

The truth is of all the moves this offseason this one rates a meh more female dog and groaning. This move doesn't warrant the garbage that has been posed in this thread. FRUSTRATED sure, but the garbage that I read should be deleted. Olson simply isn't that good right now, and Cedeno will never any good (he is better then Miles, who I am more upset about getting then this trade).

[Mephistopheles]

Perhaps, for w/e reason the Peavy talks died after the Pie trade and the Cubs value Heilman more than they do Olson.

[UMFan83]

I don't like this trade, and yes it probably didn't improve the club long term but I think people are overreacting. I don't mean the people who are saying "WTH is Hendry doing", I'm talking about the people that think that Jim Hendry's poor moves will result in the team collapsing next year. As long as the Cubs stay relatively healthy, we will be good enough to make the playoffs. Since the playoffs are a crapshoot, its good enough for now.

 

Would I love Peavy? yes. Would I love DeRosa back? yes. Would I love a power bat off the bench? Absolutely. But I'm not giving up on the season, just lambasting Hendry for tinkering too much with a 97 win team. But then again at the same time, I was the one in October that said minor changes wouldn't be good enough.

 

Edit: Actually the thing that bugs me the most is the fact that Hendry has had his eye on this guy for years and seemingly would have done anything to acquire him. Just because he went to ND and you are friends with him doesn't mean we have to acquire him.

Edited January 28, 2009 by UMFan83

[jersey cubs fan]

Let's all relax until the dust settles. If anyone thinks Hendry is through trading, they aren't paying attention. I'm sure that if Hendry trades for Peavy without including Marshall or Vitters some of you will jump all over him for giving up 5 prospects.

 

Thank you.

 

After reading the posts after the trade was announced, people made i sound like the Cubs traded Stephen Drew and Jon Lester for Kent Bottenfield.

 

The simple reality is the Cubs traded a ultilty player and a back end of the rotation pitcher (whose career MLB ERA is over 6, and I know that will come down as he gets more experience) for a reliever who is more likely to help the Cubs in 2009 then Cedeno/Olson COMBINED. I know trading chips should be more valued, but apparently Olson was overrated by the O's seeing as they moved him with another prospect for Pie. And the Cubs clearly wasn't going to keep him, and the Padres clearly was not as interested in him as some thought.

 

The truth is of all the moves this offseason this one rates a meh more female dog and groaning. This move doesn't warrant the garbage that has been posed in this thread. FRUSTRATED sure, but the garbage that I read should be deleted. Olson simply isn't that good right now, and Cedeno will never any good (he is better then Miles, who I am more upset about getting then this trade).

 

Oh shut up.

[UMFan83]

Perhaps, for w/e reason the Peavy talks died after the Pie trade and the Cubs value Heilman more than they do Olson.

 

The Cubs shouldn't have made those moves with Peavy in mind unless they were pretty damn sure they would be getting Peavy eventually. Otherwise, you are stuck with wondering why you traded DeRosa for 3 lightly regarded prospects and are replacing him with 2 players making combined as much as him and neither as good.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't like this trade, and yes it probably didn't improve the club long term but I think people are overreacting. I don't mean the people who are saying "WTH is Hendry doing", I'm talking about the people that think that Jim Hendry's poor moves will result in the team collapsing next year.

 

Are people talking about the team collapsing? I haven't seen that.

 

 

The Cubs have made a million moves without getting any better or positioning themselves to be better in the future. That's frustrating.

[cubsfan26]

Not even remotely close to being true.

 

Even if it were close in raw numbers (and it isn't), losing Wood in high-leverage situations (or rather, having Marmol move into his spot and losing him in high-leverage situations), makes it much, much worse.

 

 

Huh? Not really Wood usually started the 9th inning with nobody on base last year. He wasn't in a ton of high leverage situations, there won't be a huge difference between him and Gregg results wise. Even if Marmol is the closer, he will be having a ton of 4 or 5 out saves. He would just be pitching the 8th and 9th innings instead of the 7th and 8th inning. The guy will still be used like a weapon, that won't change. But the overall depth of the pen is much better, and could keep from having to use Marmol everyday(which could help him from sucking for two weeks like last year). Most of last season the Cubs had two relievers they can count on. I think odds are we can have 3-4 good relievers we can count on next year.

 

Not true. People are pissed because this is a bad trade and a waste of resources.

 

Because they believe those resources had more value then they really did.

 

They didn't replace DeRosa with Fontenot. Fontenot was already on the team.

 

Ok well then their replacing DeRosa with 150-200 more AB's from Fontenot.

[UK1679666180]

I wouldn't get upset over Olson, he had a below avg. FB, good slider and no change-up. he projected as a #5 or long-relief, eh.

[AZCub]

Ick. It's almost as if Hendry was pissed that he went out, got Olson, the Padres were still being pansies...so he decided to trade Olson to spite them.

 

Awful. Peavy to Seattle.

[SouthSideRyan]

Can anybody tell me the difference between what we could expect #s wise(I mean runs allowed, not peripherals) between Vizcaino, Gaudin, Heilman, and Wuertz?

 

This is exactly what we needed a 6th-7th righty bullpen arm.

 

You know that runs allowed doesn't tell the whole story with relievers

 

I qualified that because I didn't want to get into the difference between pitchers' stuff and what makes them successful. What I wanted to get at was that we already have 3 moderately successful right handed relievers on the roster to go along with Gregg and Marmol. Heilman has no place on this team.

[jmajew]

Our rotation as of now is Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster, Harden. With 2 swingmen and 1 starter out of the group of Heilman, Marshall, Samardizja, Guzman and Gaudin. Then the rest of the staff is filled out by Wuertz, Gregg, Marmol, Vizcaino. I’m sorry but I like the fact we have 5 guys to fight for the 5th sport (six oif a Rich Hill miracle occurs) and then we will have 4 guys who can spot start for an injury.

 

This provides our staff with a great deal of flexibility which is a good thing. Too bad he took away some by trading DeRosa.

[bcl412]

I don't like this trade, and yes it probably didn't improve the club long term but I think people are overreacting. I don't mean the people who are saying "WTH is Hendry doing", I'm talking about the people that think that Jim Hendry's poor moves will result in the team collapsing next year. As long as the Cubs stay relatively healthy, we will be good enough to make the playoffs. Since the playoffs are a crapshoot, its good enough for now.

 

Would I love Peavy? yes. Would I love DeRosa back? yes. Would I love a power bat off the bench? Absolutely. But I'm not giving up on the season, just lambasting Hendry for tinkering too much with a 97 win team. But then again at the same time, I was the one in October that said minor changes wouldn't be good enough.

 

I'm wondering if ultimately the team would be all that different anyways. I highly doubt that last years team would win 97 games again and this group of players is still probably the best in the Central. It's frustrating though that we keep trading players who are better than what they are being traded for.

 

I think it boils down to the bitter taste of the playoffs last year and when Hendry makes weird trades it just adds fuel to the fire.

[17 Seconds]

Let's all relax until the dust settles. If anyone thinks Hendry is through trading, they aren't paying attention. I'm sure that if Hendry trades for Peavy without including Marshall or Vitters some of you will jump all over him for giving up 5 prospects.

 

I don't see how Hendry has earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt this offseason. Also, whether ot nor he makes other moves doesn't really excuse some of the other dumb things he's done. Getting as little as he did for DeRosa is basd. Giving Miles the contract he did is bad. Giving Bradley what he didis bad. Trading Cedeno and Olson for Heilman is bad. Those are bad moves, regardless of what follows them.

 

What he got for DeRosa was pitching prospects which presumably will lead to Peavy. Who knows how the contracts to Miles and Bradley will work out? Waiting for their prices to go down might have resulted in them signing with another team and then posters would jump all over Hendry for not signing them. On the surface, the Cedeno + Olsen for Heilman deal doesn't look great, but Olson's strongest traits were that he had an option left and it was rumored that the Padres wanted him in a Peavy deal. He has been a terrible major league pitcher. I'm not defending any of the moves Hendry has made, but none of us are fully aware of what's happening financially with the Cubs and other clubs and what kinds of discussions are going on with other GMs. That's why I said we need to wait and see what the final roster looks like.

 

Why are you presuming the guys they got from Cleveland are going in a Peavy trade?

 

Stephens is one of the rumored names in a Peavy deal, but if none of them go to SD they still add to the minor league depth to replace pitching prospects that would be in the deal.

 

I haven't seen anything about Stevens being involved. And yes they add to the system, of course they do. The point was that they weren't a good enough package for the player we traded for them.

Edited January 28, 2009 by 17 Seconds

[jersey cubs fan]

I wouldn't get upset over Olson, he had a below avg. FB, good slider and no change-up. he projected as a #5 or long-relief, eh.

 

I'm not lamenting the loss of Olson, but what you described is what they got for him, only older, more expensive and closer to free agency.

[UMFan83]

I don't like this trade, and yes it probably didn't improve the club long term but I think people are overreacting. I don't mean the people who are saying "WTH is Hendry doing", I'm talking about the people that think that Jim Hendry's poor moves will result in the team collapsing next year.

 

Are people talking about the team collapsing? I haven't seen that.

 

 

The Cubs have made a million moves without getting any better or positioning themselves to be better in the future. That's frustrating.

 

There were some posts a few pages back saying that Hendry is going to be surprised that his team is a couple games over .500 halfway through the season.

 

I agree its frustrating though.

[cubbinalltheway]

Let's all relax until the dust settles. If anyone thinks Hendry is through trading, they aren't paying attention. I'm sure that if Hendry trades for Peavy without including Marshall or Vitters some of you will jump all over him for giving up 5 prospects.

 

Thank you.

 

After reading the posts after the trade was announced, people made i sound like the Cubs traded Stephen Drew and Jon Lester for Kent Bottenfield.

 

The simple reality is the Cubs traded a ultilty player and a back end of the rotation pitcher (whose career MLB ERA is over 6, and I know that will come down as he gets more experience) for a reliever who is more likely to help the Cubs in 2009 then Cedeno/Olson COMBINED. I know trading chips should be more valued, but apparently Olson was overrated by the O's seeing as they moved him with another prospect for Pie. And the Cubs clearly wasn't going to keep him, and the Padres clearly was not as interested in him as some thought.

 

The truth is of all the moves this offseason this one rates a meh more female dog and groaning. This move doesn't warrant the garbage that has been posed in this thread. FRUSTRATED sure, but the garbage that I read should be deleted. Olson simply isn't that good right now, and Cedeno will never any good (he is better then Miles, who I am more upset about getting then this trade).

 

Oh shut up.

:roll:

[UK1679666180]

I wouldn't get upset over Olson, he had a below avg. FB, good slider and no change-up. he projected as a #5 or long-relief, eh.

 

I'm not lamenting the loss of Olson, but what you described is what they got for him, only older, more expensive and closer to free agency.

 

Despite last year, Heilman still has a plus FB, he just lost all command of it as well as his splitter, espec. against lefties. If Olson had that FB and that 3rd pitch, he would still in Baltimore's rotation.