Re: XM 175 - Orlando Hudson to the Dodgers....

[cubbinalltheway]

can someone please link me to something that says the payroll will be 140m? multiple people are speaking as though that's an absolute, so it should be fairly easy to find something that says that.

 

viewtopic.php?p=2085077#p2085077 (Levine)

 

viewtopic.php?p=2041881#p2041881 (Miles)

 

viewtopic.php?p=2042187#p2042187 (Wittenmeyer with words from Kenney)

thanks, but none of those links provides anything more than speculation.

 

oh come on. Things could have changed since those reports came out, but that's 3 guys whose sources have the same figure. Seems like a tad more than some guy at nsbb pulling a number out of thin air.

you're missing the point. people in this thread are using the 140m term as if it's absolute. i'd just like to see something - anything - that says that. has hendry ever even said anything along the lines of "we'll probably wind up in the 140 range" or anything similar?

 

I don't think I'm missing anything. If you expect Hendry to say that the payroll will be exactly $140m and nothing is going to change his mind, you're not going to get it. But what you're asking is pretty close to what Crane said in one or more of those linked articles.

no, you are.

 

people are arguing against the derosa trade because had the cubs have kept him, they still could've signed bradley and came in at 140m. not knowing what the cubs brass intends the payroll to be, the entire point is moot. IIRC, in the past hendry has been pretty forthcoming about what his budget is. i have yet to see anything concrete that says what that is this year.

[Guest]

you're missing the point. people in this thread are using the 140m term as if it's absolute. i'd just like to see something - anything - that says that. has hendry ever even said anything along the lines of "we'll probably wind up in the 140 range" or anything similar?

 

Hendry has no say in how much the Cubs spend. All he can do is spend what is made available. Kenney's quotes are probably about as close as you can get to how much the team is making available.

[cubbinalltheway]

you're missing the point. people in this thread are using the 140m term as if it's absolute. i'd just like to see something - anything - that says that. has hendry ever even said anything along the lines of "we'll probably wind up in the 140 range" or anything similar?

 

Hendry has no say in how much the Cubs spend. All he can do is spend what is made available. Kenney's quotes are probably about as close as you can get to how much the team is making available.

what quotes?

[Tracer Bullet]

can someone please link me to something that says the payroll will be 140m? multiple people are speaking as though that's an absolute, so it should be fairly easy to find something that says that.

 

viewtopic.php?p=2085077#p2085077 (Levine)

 

viewtopic.php?p=2041881#p2041881 (Miles)

 

viewtopic.php?p=2042187#p2042187 (Wittenmeyer with words from Kenney)

thanks, but none of those links provides anything more than speculation.

 

oh come on. Things could have changed since those reports came out, but that's 3 guys whose sources have the same figure. Seems like a tad more than some guy at nsbb pulling a number out of thin air.

you're missing the point. people in this thread are using the 140m term as if it's absolute. i'd just like to see something - anything - that says that. has hendry ever even said anything along the lines of "we'll probably wind up in the 140 range" or anything similar?

 

I don't think I'm missing anything. If you expect Hendry to say that the payroll will be exactly $140m and nothing is going to change his mind, you're not going to get it. But what you're asking is pretty close to what Crane said in one or more of those linked articles.

no, you are.

 

people are arguing against the derosa trade because had the cubs have kept him, they still could've signed bradley and came in at 140m. not knowing what the cubs brass intends the payroll to be, the entire point is moot. IIRC, in the past hendry has been pretty forthcoming about what his budget is. i have yet to see anything concrete that says what that is this year.

 

"no, you are" - so we're in 3rd grade now? If you want to know how much the Cubs are going to spend, words from the CEO are better than from the GM. Are you just being really difficult b/c TT gave you exactly what you were looking for when you didn't think he could?

[Guest]

I'm pissed about the DeRosa fiasco, but I think Hendry's intentions were to land Bradley and Peavy, and with that in mind, I could agree that moving DeRosa's contract would be well worth it for that kind of a haul.

 

Unfortunately, the new owners put the kabosh on trading for Peavy and Hendry didn't get near the return for DeRosa that he should have.

 

If Hendry knew that he couldn't get Peavy earlier, I wonder if he would have traded DeRosa. I would hope not. And I would hope that he didn't really trade DeRosa just to get more left handed. Because if he did, he should be taken out back and shot.

 

And the reason I say that is because DeRosa/Hoffpauir/Koyie Hill is better than Miles/Gathright/Bako. How much difference in salary are these 3 roster spots?

[cubbinalltheway]

"no, you are" - so we're in 3rd grade now?

what? i was responding to your "i'm not missing anything." you're clearly not following. which is fine. no big deal.

 

If you want to know how much the Cubs are going to spend, words from the CEO are better than from the GM. Are you just being really difficult b/c TT gave you exactly what you were looking for when you didn't think he could?

TT didn't give me exactly what i'm looking for (this is where you're missing what i'm saying, again). i asked for something concrete saying the cubs payroll is going to be 140m. the closest thing to that was from a third party -- "paul sullivan said crane kenney wouldn't give a specific figure, but his (paul's) sources said it would be 140-145."

 

how is that anything more than speculation?

 

Because if he did, he should be taken out back and shot.

is this garbage really necessary?

[dew1679666265]

people are arguing against the derosa trade because had the cubs have kept him, they still could've signed bradley and came in at 140m. not knowing what the cubs brass intends the payroll to be, the entire point is moot. IIRC, in the past hendry has been pretty forthcoming about what his budget is. i have yet to see anything concrete that says what that is this year.

 

The Cubs payroll right now is right around $137 million. That $140 million given by sources seems pretty accurate right now.

 

And if it was, I see no way we couldn't afford DeRo.

[dew1679666265]

I'm pissed about the DeRosa fiasco, but I think Hendry's intentions were to land Bradley and Peavy, and with that in mind, I could agree that moving DeRosa's contract would be well worth it for that kind of a haul.

 

Unfortunately, the new owners put the kabosh on trading for Peavy and Hendry didn't get near the return for DeRosa that he should have.

 

If Hendry knew that he couldn't get Peavy earlier, I wonder if he would have traded DeRosa. I would hope not. And I would hope that he didn't really trade DeRosa just to get more left handed. Because if he did, he should be taken out back and shot.

 

And the reason I say that is because DeRosa/Hoffpauir/Koyie Hill is better than Miles/Gathright/Bako. How much difference in salary are these 3 roster spots?

 

You may be right that he was setting up for a Peavy deal, but I don't like going ahead with the trade of DeRo (with a less than stellar offer on the table) before the Peavy deal is a sure thing.

[Guest]

people are arguing against the derosa trade because had the cubs have kept him, they still could've signed bradley and came in at 140m. not knowing what the cubs brass intends the payroll to be, the entire point is moot. IIRC, in the past hendry has been pretty forthcoming about what his budget is. i have yet to see anything concrete that says what that is this year.

 

The Cubs payroll right now is right around $137 million. That $140 million given by sources seems pretty accurate right now.

 

And if it was, I see no way we couldn't afford DeRo.

 

Exactly. However, if the Cubs traded for Peavy, then salary would have needed to be moved to afford his contract. And DeRosa's would have brought it back to about 140m again.

[dew1679666265]

And the reason I say that is because DeRosa/Hoffpauir/Koyie Hill is better than Miles/Gathright/Bako. How much difference in salary are these 3 roster spots?

 

By my estimation (going off CubFanPhilly's numbers in the Tracking the Payroll thread) the DeRo/Hoff/Hill trio is around $5.95 million. The Miles/Gath/Bako trio is around $3.725 million.

 

So roughly a $2.2 million difference.

[Guest]

You may be right that he was setting up for a Peavy deal, but I don't like going ahead with the trade of DeRo (with a less than stellar offer on the table) before the Peavy deal is a sure thing.

 

Yeah, it's definitely a horrible way to conduct business. If he pulls it off, he's a magician.

[dew1679666265]

people are arguing against the derosa trade because had the cubs have kept him, they still could've signed bradley and came in at 140m. not knowing what the cubs brass intends the payroll to be, the entire point is moot. IIRC, in the past hendry has been pretty forthcoming about what his budget is. i have yet to see anything concrete that says what that is this year.

 

The Cubs payroll right now is right around $137 million. That $140 million given by sources seems pretty accurate right now.

 

And if it was, I see no way we couldn't afford DeRo.

 

Exactly. However, if the Cubs traded for Peavy, then salary would have needed to be moved to afford his contract. And DeRosa's would have brought it back to about 140m again.

 

And I could have lived with that (and even been pretty happy). Right now, though, we're a worse team because of dumping DeRo.

[dew1679666265]

You may be right that he was setting up for a Peavy deal, but I don't like going ahead with the trade of DeRo (with a less than stellar offer on the table) before the Peavy deal is a sure thing.

 

Yeah, it's definitely a horrible way to conduct business. If he pulls it off, he's a magician.

 

Fontenot must be productive this year. With injury concerns in RF (major), 3B (moderate) and LF (minor) - and a terrible bench - and probably no better than above average production at short, we need consistently good production from second, I think.

 

That said, I still think we're one of the better teams in the NL (if not perhaps the best). But I'm thinking playoffs right now.

[Guest]

And I could have lived with that (and even been pretty happy). Right now, though, we're a worse team because of dumping DeRo.

 

Agreed. Basically, the appearance is that Hendry gambled with the house and the odds were totally in the houses favor. He should have stuck with a game that worked more in his favor.

 

I have no doubt that he could have peddled DeRosa anytime before the start of the season, and probably gotten a better return if he did manage to get Peavy.

 

There really was no reason to trade him when he did. The only reason he should have dealt him is if Towers had already signed off on a deal for Peavy. Then, Hendry could have said that as soon as DeRosa is off the books, we can announce the deal.

[dew1679666265]

And I could have lived with that (and even been pretty happy). Right now, though, we're a worse team because of dumping DeRo.

 

Agreed. Basically, the appearance is that Hendry gambled with the house and the odds were totally in the houses favor. He should have stuck with a game that worked more in his favor.

 

I have no doubt that he could have peddled DeRosa anytime before the start of the season, and probably gotten a better return if he did manage to get Peavy.

 

There really was no reason to trade him when he did. The only reason he should have dealt him is if Towers had already signed off on a deal for Peavy. Then, Hendry could have said that as soon as DeRosa is off the books, we can announce the deal.

 

Exactly. Had the rumors that came out been true about DeRo's worth (Phils' top prospect, for example), I could have understood dealing him before the Peavy deal was insured. It appears his true worth was closer to the deal with the Indians, and while some of those kids are interesting, it's not a deal you have to make.

 

He should have waited until the Peavy trade was a sure thing or not dealt DeRo at all.

[cubbinalltheway]

He should have waited until the Peavy trade was a sure thing or not dealt DeRo at all.

why? why should the cubs have kept the 34 year old mark derosa?

 

look, i like mark quite a bit. but we have to remember that he's just mark derosa. and he's 34 coming off of a career year. it's awfully unlikely that he repeats last year. i think people are getting carried away here. admittedly in about half the at bats, sure, but mike fontenot was better than derosa last year. he's also younger and much cheaper. it's really not that hard to see why the cubs traded dero. i'm thankful that they did when his value was at an all time high, which isn't exactly hendry's normal m.o.

[Guest]

He should have waited until the Peavy trade was a sure thing or not dealt DeRo at all.

why? why should the cubs have kept the 34 year old mark derosa?

 

look, i like mark quite a bit. but we have to remember that he's just mark derosa. and he's 34 coming off of a career year. it's awfully unlikely that he repeats last year. i think people are getting carried away here. admittedly in about half the at bats, sure, but mike fontenot was better than derosa last year. he's also younger and much cheaper. it's really not that hard to see why the cubs traded dero. i'm thankful that they did when his value was at an all time high, which isn't exactly hendry's normal m.o.

 

If his value was at an all time high, why on earth did DeRosa only net 3 guys I had never heard of prior to the trade? And I pay pretty close attention to the minor leagues.

 

While DeRosa is coming off a career year (I'll grant you that), Fontenot is still pretty much an unknown. His small sample is strictly against RH pitching.

 

Milton Bradley is about as injury prone as you can get. DeRosa isn't just a second baseman. He can play just about any position, and that's where his value truly lies. He was a fabulous fill in for Soriano last year.

 

DeRosa was in the last year of his contract going into 2009. It's somewhat possible the Cubs could have gotten significant compensation for leaving next year.

[CubColtPacer]

He should have waited until the Peavy trade was a sure thing or not dealt DeRo at all.

why? why should the cubs have kept the 34 year old mark derosa?

 

look, i like mark quite a bit. but we have to remember that he's just mark derosa. and he's 34 coming off of a career year. it's awfully unlikely that he repeats last year. i think people are getting carried away here. admittedly in about half the at bats, sure, but mike fontenot was better than derosa last year. he's also younger and much cheaper. it's really not that hard to see why the cubs traded dero. i'm thankful that they did when his value was at an all time high, which isn't exactly hendry's normal m.o.

 

 

Fontenot is only going to pick up between 150-200 at-bats of DeRosa's. That leaves 300-350 at-bats that will have to be filled by different players. Is there anybody on the Cubs roster that is going to take those at-bats that is likely to be anywhere near as productive as DeRosa? Barring Bradley, Soriano, and Ramirez all playing 150+ games, I don't see who else is going to be there that will not be a downgrade on those at-bats.

[jersey cubs fan]

He should have waited until the Peavy trade was a sure thing or not dealt DeRo at all.

why? why should the cubs have kept the 34 year old mark derosa?

 

look, i like mark quite a bit. but we have to remember that he's just mark derosa. and he's 34 coming off of a career year. it's awfully unlikely that he repeats last year. i think people are getting carried away here. admittedly in about half the at bats, sure, but mike fontenot was better than derosa last year. he's also younger and much cheaper. it's really not that hard to see why the cubs traded dero. i'm thankful that they did when his value was at an all time high, which isn't exactly hendry's normal m.o.

 

If his value was at an all time high, why on earth did DeRosa only net 3 guys I had never heard of prior to the trade? And I pay pretty close attention to the minor leagues.

 

My take on this is I have absolutely no problem with trading Mark DeRosa. I do have a problem with what they got back, and that the replacement was Aaron Miles. It seems to me the primary motivation was getting more left handed, which is just a stupid motivation for any trade. You make deals to get better players, and if you can get a little more LH (or RH if you are LH heavy), great. But the key is getting better bats, regardless of which hand they use. They turned DeRosa into Aaron Miles and a couple guys they hope can one day contribute to the bullpen, that's disappointing.

[dew1679666265]

He should have waited until the Peavy trade was a sure thing or not dealt DeRo at all.

why? why should the cubs have kept the 34 year old mark derosa?

 

look, i like mark quite a bit. but we have to remember that he's just mark derosa. and he's 34 coming off of a career year. it's awfully unlikely that he repeats last year. i think people are getting carried away here. admittedly in about half the at bats, sure, but mike fontenot was better than derosa last year. he's also younger and much cheaper. it's really not that hard to see why the cubs traded dero. i'm thankful that they did when his value was at an all time high, which isn't exactly hendry's normal m.o.

 

Much like the others have said, we didn't get very good value for DeRo's career year and I feel he would have been more valuable to the team staying here than turning into three fairly high potential relievers.

 

I don't think it's crazy to believe DeRo can OPS higher than .800 this year (perhaps into the .820 area). That's much better than we can hope for from his replacements (possibly save for the couple hundred ABs Fontenot will cover).

[Backtobanks]

We can throw names around all day, but I still have problems with comparing DeRosa with Miles. DeRosa was a starter who played many positions while Miles was brought in strictly as sub. Obviously their contracts and production are different partly because of that. The way I look at it, Miles is replacing Cedeno not DeRosa.

[dew1679666265]

We can throw names around all day, but I still have problems with comparing DeRosa with Miles. DeRosa was a starter who played many positions while Miles was brought in strictly as sub. Obviously their contracts and production are different partly because of that. The way I look at it, Miles is replacing Cedeno not DeRosa.

 

But you still have the at bats missed by Aramis, Soriano and Bradley when/if they get injured. That will be quite a few ABs - especially for Bradley. Had we still had DeRosa, those ABs would have gone to him. Now, they'll be mixed around among Miles, Hoff and Gathright.

 

That's why the DeRosa trade hurt so much.

[jersey cubs fan]

We can throw names around all day, but I still have problems with comparing DeRosa with Miles. DeRosa was a starter who played many positions while Miles was brought in strictly as sub. Obviously their contracts and production are different partly because of that. The way I look at it, Miles is replacing Cedeno not DeRosa.

 

Why? DeRosa was the versatile veteran making a few million to play regularly at 2B and fill-in at multiple positions. But he only hit RH. Miles is the versatile veteran making millions, who replaced him. Miles was brought in to play many positions and bring "balance" to the lineup. They wanted to get more LH and he is the only guy on the roster brought in to replace a RH in order to accomplish that goal. There's no reason not to compare the two.

[Backtobanks]

We can throw names around all day, but I still have problems with comparing DeRosa with Miles. DeRosa was a starter who played many positions while Miles was brought in strictly as sub. Obviously their contracts and production are different partly because of that. The way I look at it, Miles is replacing Cedeno not DeRosa.

 

But you still have the at bats missed by Aramis, Soriano and Bradley when/if they get injured. That will be quite a few ABs - especially for Bradley. Had we still had DeRosa, those ABs would have gone to him. Now, they'll be mixed around among Miles, Hoff and Gathright.

 

That's why the DeRosa trade hurt so much.

 

I agree that I would have tried to keep DeRosa, but I guess Hendry felt like he was the one that had to go for whatever reason (salary, need to be more LH, etc.). Once before you posted that time missed by Soriano and Bradley would be covered by Miles, Gathright, and Hoff, but I would think Johnson would get more of the OF ABs over Gathright if someone is injured.

[Backtobanks]

We can throw names around all day, but I still have problems with comparing DeRosa with Miles. DeRosa was a starter who played many positions while Miles was brought in strictly as sub. Obviously their contracts and production are different partly because of that. The way I look at it, Miles is replacing Cedeno not DeRosa.

 

Why? DeRosa was the versatile veteran making a few million to play regularly at 2B and fill-in at multiple positions. But he only hit RH. Miles is the versatile veteran making millions, who replaced him. Miles was brought in to play many positions and bring "balance" to the lineup. They wanted to get more LH and he is the only guy on the roster brought in to replace a RH in order to accomplish that goal. There's no reason not to compare the two.

 

I'm using a much simpler explanation. Miles was brought in as a sub middle IF who can play other positions in a pinch. That role for the past few years was Cedeno's and not DeRosa's. DeRosa was brought in to be the starting 2B and was versatile enough to play other positions in case of injuries. Therefore, Miles is replacing Cedeno.