Heath Bell Rumor?

[nolanwood]

He'd be a good addition to a shaky bullpen, but this move makes no sense without a bat. When you're bottom 26th in runs scored and 6th in runs allowed, your needs are kind of obvious.

 

The bullpen is 4th highest in MLB in BLSV and has an ERA that is almost in the bottom 1/3 of MLB (19th). However, I agree that this moves makes no sense without an improvement to the offense.

[Little Slide Rooter]

He'd be a good addition to a shaky bullpen, but this move makes no sense without a bat. When you're bottom 26th in runs scored and 6th in runs allowed, your needs are kind of obvious.

 

The bullpen is 4th highest in MLB in BLSV and has an ERA that is almost in the bottom 1/3 of MLB (19th). However, I agree that this moves makes no sense without an improvement to the offense.

 

The Padres have 1 bat Id want, and thats Adrian GOnzalez, and we really dont need help at 1st. Yeah, if we ould get Adrian, Id find a way but I doubt that if the Pads were to trade him, it would be at a reasonable price.

[jersey cubs fan]

So the plan is to trade a starting pitcher who in his first exposure to the major leagues has been terrific for another freaking reliever? Awesome. Hope they keep racking up these guys. What a terrific job Hendry has done so far getting nothing but high quality bullpen arms that consistently year-in-year-out justify their contracts and stabilize the late innings. Oh wait, I'm sorry, this always blows up in their face and they end up cutting guys because they have one or two good years, at best and then get overpaid and take up space before the manager refuses to use them. Sometimes I get those scenarios confused. Fing brilliant. Do it again big fella, you've never missed on a bullpen acquisition and I'm sure you never will. Because if there's one thing a team that can't hit can use, it's more relievers.

 

A guy who has spent his entire career in pitchers parks, Shea and Petco, has a 150 point differential between home and away OPS against, and a 1.60 different in home and away ERA. What a must have.

[Banedon]

What if Shark was called up to show him off for a trade? Could it be Shark for Bell?

[jersey cubs fan]

What if Shark was called up to show him off for a trade? Could it be Shark for Bell?

 

I hope not. It would be nice if they traded for something that mattered, like a person who can hit the ball, instead of a post 30 year old reliever who is nothing special away from cavernous pitcher's parks.

[dew1679666265]

What if Shark was called up to show him off for a trade? Could it be Shark for Bell?

 

I hope not. It would be nice if they traded for something that mattered, like a person who can hit the ball, instead of a post 30 year old reliever who is nothing special away from cavernous pitcher's parks.

 

This season he's got a better WHIP and K:BB ratio on the road than at home. His ERA is higher, but that's only because he gave up 3 runs in 13 innings (road) instead of 2 runs in 20 innings (home).

 

He was much worse on the road last year, but in 2007 he was only slightly worse on the road than he was at home (better ERA on the road, .150 points worse WHIP on the road). Two out of his three years in San Diego he's been something special on the road.

[jersey cubs fan]

What if Shark was called up to show him off for a trade? Could it be Shark for Bell?

 

I hope not. It would be nice if they traded for something that mattered, like a person who can hit the ball, instead of a post 30 year old reliever who is nothing special away from cavernous pitcher's parks.

 

This season he's got a better WHIP and K:BB ratio on the road than at home. His ERA is higher, but that's only because he gave up 3 runs in 13 innings (road) instead of 2 runs in 20 innings (home).

 

He was much worse on the road last year, but in 2007 he was only slightly worse on the road than he was at home (better ERA on the road, .150 points worse WHIP on the road). Two out of his three years in San Diego he's been something special on the road.

 

Why does it only matter what he's doing most recently? He's a reliever. He's not going to consistently put up solid numbers. This obsession with getting guys who are doing well in the last year or two is mind boggling. A one or two year trend does not define a player, especially a reliever.

[Backtobanks]

What if Shark was called up to show him off for a trade? Could it be Shark for Bell?

 

NTC

[Banedon]

What if Shark was called up to show him off for a trade? Could it be Shark for Bell?

 

NTC

 

I wondered that as soon as I hit "submit".

[dew1679666265]

What if Shark was called up to show him off for a trade? Could it be Shark for Bell?

 

I hope not. It would be nice if they traded for something that mattered, like a person who can hit the ball, instead of a post 30 year old reliever who is nothing special away from cavernous pitcher's parks.

 

This season he's got a better WHIP and K:BB ratio on the road than at home. His ERA is higher, but that's only because he gave up 3 runs in 13 innings (road) instead of 2 runs in 20 innings (home).

 

He was much worse on the road last year, but in 2007 he was only slightly worse on the road than he was at home (better ERA on the road, .150 points worse WHIP on the road). Two out of his three years in San Diego he's been something special on the road.

 

Why does it only matter what he's doing most recently? He's a reliever. He's not going to consistently put up solid numbers. This obsession with getting guys who are doing well in the last year or two is mind boggling. A one or two year trend does not define a player, especially a reliever.

 

We're not signing him to a 3-year $30 million deal here. We're acquiring him for the stretch run - this season. He's been excellent this year and, given his last two of three years, it's likely he will continue it throughout the remainder of the year.

 

Then, we likely don't bring him back. If we were giving him a long-term deal, I would agree. But we're adding a player to a team weakness in order to improve ourselves for the next 2-3 months. Are you arguing that relievers should never be acquired for the stretch run?

[jersey cubs fan]

We're not signing him to a 3-year $30 million deal here. We're acquiring him for the stretch run - this season. He's been excellent this year and, given his last two of three years, it's likely he will continue it throughout the remainder of the year.

 

Then, we likely don't bring him back. If we were giving him a long-term deal, I would agree. But we're adding a player to a team weakness in order to improve ourselves for the next 2-3 months. Are you arguing that relievers should never be acquired for the stretch run?

 

Won't bring him back, right.

 

I sure as heck don't think you waste resources on another freaking reliever when the team can't score a damn run.

[dew1679666265]

We're not signing him to a 3-year $30 million deal here. We're acquiring him for the stretch run - this season. He's been excellent this year and, given his last two of three years, it's likely he will continue it throughout the remainder of the year.

 

Then, we likely don't bring him back. If we were giving him a long-term deal, I would agree. But we're adding a player to a team weakness in order to improve ourselves for the next 2-3 months. Are you arguing that relievers should never be acquired for the stretch run?

 

Won't bring him back, right.

 

I sure as heck don't think you waste resources on another freaking reliever when the team can't score a damn run.

 

The team is also struggling to hold the few leads the offense can get. If you can shore up the pen with a shutdown reliever for a reasonable price (a guy pitching way above his head is a reasonable price), I don't see why you don't do it. If all we gave up was Wells, we'd still have the prospects and the money (if the money's there now) to upgrade the offense as well.

 

I don't think Bell would cost just Wells, hence why I don't think we should make the trade, but if the hypothetical is Wells for Bell, I'd do it.

[Guest]

We're not signing him to a 3-year $30 million deal here. We're acquiring him for the stretch run - this season. He's been excellent this year and, given his last two of three years, it's likely he will continue it throughout the remainder of the year.

 

Then, we likely don't bring him back. If we were giving him a long-term deal, I would agree. But we're adding a player to a team weakness in order to improve ourselves for the next 2-3 months. Are you arguing that relievers should never be acquired for the stretch run?

 

Won't bring him back, right.

 

I sure as heck don't think you waste resources on another freaking reliever when the team can't score a damn run.

 

The team is also struggling to hold the few leads the offense can get. If you can shore up the pen with a shutdown reliever for a reasonable price (a guy pitching way above his head is a reasonable price), I don't see why you don't do it. If all we gave up was Wells, we'd still have the prospects and the money (if the money's there now) to upgrade the offense as well.

 

I don't think Bell would cost just Wells, hence why I don't think we should make the trade, but if the hypothetical is Wells for Bell, I'd do it.

 

If the Cubs traded Wells for Bell, I think I'll quit baseball forever.

 

You just don't trade quality starting pitching for bullpen arms. You just don't do it.

 

If you really did find yourself with too many starting pitchers, trade them for young and talented position players, or maybe even convert them to bullpen arms if you must, but when most teams in the league are scrounging around for starting pitchers, it's a slap in the face to all the other teams in the league that would offer you MUCH, MUCH more than a freaking reliever for a guy like Randy Wells.

[dew1679666265]

If the Cubs traded Wells for Bell, I think I'll quit baseball forever.

 

You just don't trade quality starting pitching for bullpen arms. You just don't do it.

 

If you really did find yourself with too many starting pitchers, trade them for young and talented position players, or maybe even convert them to bullpen arms if you must, but when most teams in the league are scrounging around for starting pitchers, it's a slap in the face to all the other teams in the league that would offer you MUCH, MUCH more than a freaking reliever for a guy like Randy Wells.

 

Before the season was there a chance Wells was worth even a major league reliever? His stock is sky high for him, but I don't think he's got immense value to most teams. He wasn't much of a prospect before this season and isn't likely to keep up his current pace.

 

If I believed he would keep this pace up or even close to it, I'd agree with you that we should keep him. But the likelihood is that he'll regress at some point and be a fringe starter/bullpen arm as was expected. If he's worth more now, then fantastic. Or if the Cubs truly believe he can keep this up, great, let's keep him.

 

He wasn't a top 30 prospect in the Cubs system before the season, keep in mind. And the Cubs system was terrible entering the year.

[Rusch33]

Sell high, sell high.

[dew1679666265]

Sell high, sell high.

 

Yes. I will admit I don't know what Wells' value would be around the league. He wasn't in the top 30 prospects for the Cubs before the year - no value at all there - but has been pretty dominant in the majors this year.

 

He was basically Kevin Hart or Mitch Atkins before the season, but has definitely improved the stock significantly.

[Guest]

He wasn't a top 30 prospect in the Cubs system before the season, keep in mind. And the Cubs system was terrible entering the year.

 

Be the team that trades Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir, not the other way around.

[jersey cubs fan]

Sell high, sell high.

 

Absolutely. But for something that matters, not another bullpen arm.

[Guest]

Sell high, sell high.

 

Yes. I will admit I don't know what Wells' value would be around the league. He wasn't in the top 30 prospects for the Cubs before the year - no value at all there - but has been pretty dominant in the majors this year.

 

He was basically Kevin Hart or Mitch Atkins before the season, but has definitely improved the stock significantly.

 

It really doesn't matter what someone's perceived value was prior to the start of the season. It's what someone's value is currently that matters, and Randy Wells' value is currently worth more than a bullpen arm on a last place team in the NL.

[Post Count Padder]

I believe is selling high, and Wells' value is pretty high right now, but I wouldn't trade him for Bell straight up.

[A-Cal]

Sell high, sell high.

 

Yes. I will admit I don't know what Wells' value would be around the league. He wasn't in the top 30 prospects for the Cubs before the year - no value at all there - but has been pretty dominant in the majors this year.

 

He was basically Kevin Hart or Mitch Atkins before the season, but has definitely improved the stock significantly.

 

It really doesn't matter what someone's perceived value was prior to the start of the season. It's what someone's value is currently that matters, and Randy Wells' value is currently worth more than a bullpen arm on a last place team in the NL.

ERA WHIP BAA

2007 2.02 0.96 .185

2008 3.58 1.21 .229

2009 1.34 1.01 .171

 

 

Randy Wells is a nothing and you sell high...Wells for Bell...those are bells numbers the past two seasons and the first half of this season

 

fair trade

[jersey cubs fan]

fair trade

Fair? Probably. But useful? Not really. The Cubs waste too much money on relievers every year, and they keep spending valuable resources replacing the guys that were going to be the solution when they figure out how terribly inconsistent relief pitchers can be. SD would be selling high on Bell as well, seeing as how he's a 31 year old reliever entering his most profitable arbitration seasons with the benefit of playing all his home games in cavernous pitcher's parks. He's a reliever. And now that he has spent a few months racking up saves, he's got "proven closer" label attached to his name, driving up his price, if not his real value. They can't just offer him arby and hope somebody else signs him as a free agent, thus netting draft picks, like when the Cubs signing Latroy Hawkins as a gift to Minnesota.

[dew1679666265]

He wasn't a top 30 prospect in the Cubs system before the season, keep in mind. And the Cubs system was terrible entering the year.

 

Be the team that trades Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir, not the other way around.

 

Scott Kazmir was always an elite prospect. He had terrific stuff and an extremely bright future. Wells has pretty good control and average or so stuff. There's a world of difference between Kazmir and Wells. The Mets traded a guy that had the potential to be a top of the line, elite ace. The Cubs would be trading a guy that might be a decent fifth starter throughout his career, unless he's able to dominate with average stuff.

[jersey cubs fan]

He wasn't a top 30 prospect in the Cubs system before the season, keep in mind. And the Cubs system was terrible entering the year.

 

Be the team that trades Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir, not the other way around.

 

Scott Kazmir was always an elite prospect. He had terrific stuff and an extremely bright future. Wells has pretty good control and average or so stuff. There's a world of difference between Kazmir and Wells. The Mets traded a guy that had the potential to be a top of the line, elite ace. The Cubs would be trading a guy that might be a decent fifth starter throughout his career, unless he's able to dominate with average stuff.

 

Why is it either 5th starter or dominant? What about being a decent 3rd-4th starter, those guys are valuable. They get $10m+ contracts.

 

But yes, Kazmir and Wells are not similar.

[dew1679666265]

Sell high, sell high.

 

Yes. I will admit I don't know what Wells' value would be around the league. He wasn't in the top 30 prospects for the Cubs before the year - no value at all there - but has been pretty dominant in the majors this year.

 

He was basically Kevin Hart or Mitch Atkins before the season, but has definitely improved the stock significantly.

 

It really doesn't matter what someone's perceived value was prior to the start of the season. It's what someone's value is currently that matters, and Randy Wells' value is currently worth more than a bullpen arm on a last place team in the NL.

 

Perceived value before the season is very important in a player's current value. Teams aren't likely to look at Wells and see a dominant starter. They're more likely to see a rookie who was never well thought of, was a fringe prospect at best and now is dominating in the majors. They're going to question whether he can keep it up long term because he's doing this without great stuff.

 

In order for him to be extremely valuable to another team, they'd have to completely overlook that he wasn't highly touted at all throughout his minor league career and that he doesn't have the kind of stuff that makes you think he can continue this success throughout his career. I'm not sure what his value is right now, but I find it hard to believe a pitcher with average stuff can go from off the radar to worth a significant package all because of a few very good ML starts.