Lou wants a lefty

dew1679666265 · July 22, 2009

How much extra cash we'd have would depend on how much Edmonds cost us. He made $8 million last year and would obviously have made less this year. But how much less was he willing to go? Money may well be a reason he's unsigned right now.
I bet Edmonds would have signed for 1-2 mil just to stay with the Cubs.

That's just a guess, though. If you're right, that might have been a decent option, but the likelihood is against it.

Also, what big bat in right field is available right now that we could have acquired had Edmonds not worked out?
I'm sure we could have snagged Nate McLouth pretty easily and played Kosuke in right. Or, we could have moved DeRosa to the outfield and gone after an infielder (Sanchez or whoever).

That's if Edmonds would have signed on cheap enough for DeRosa to remain. Bradley's only making $5 million this year, so Edmonds couldn't be making much at all for DeRosa to stay.

As for McLouth, would the Pirates have traded him within the division? And if they would have, I suspect it would have been for much more than what they got from the Braves.

fromthestretch · July 22, 2009

I'm sure we could have snagged Nate McLouth pretty easily

What makes you think that? I would think the Pirates would have asked for a lot to trade a 27-year old CF coming off a breakout season to a division rival.

vance_the_cubs_fan · July 22, 2009

Signing Edmonds for 2009 would have had a strong chance of ending up like Gary Gaetti.

Letting Edmonds leave was the right decision.

Cubbie Swagger · July 22, 2009

That's just a guess, though. If you're right, that might have been a decent option, but the likelihood is against it.

Well, I would only have considered Edmonds if he was willing to sign an affordable deal. I wouldn't have given him 5 mil or anything like that.

That's if Edmonds would have signed on cheap enough for DeRosa to remain. Bradley's only making $5 million this year, so Edmonds couldn't be making much at all for DeRosa to stay.

As for McLouth, would the Pirates have traded him within the division? And if they would have, I suspect it would have been for much more than what they got from the Braves.

I think you're missing my point here. If Edmonds refused to sign cheap enough to keep DeRosa, then screw him. I'm just saying if we had the chance to keep both of them, I'd jump all over it.

And the Pirates probably don't care about trading within the division. It's not like they plan on competing or anything. And they had no problem sending Ramirez and Lofton our way. Either way, McLouth and Sanchez are just a couple examples. If you were to say that there isn't a single good outfielder or infielder in all of baseball that we could acquire, that would not be true. No use splitting hairs over a couple names I threw out there. Plus, if the Pirates aren't gonna trade with us, then all the "Sanchez to the Cubs" rumors need to stop right now.

wabash_cannonball · July 22, 2009

How much extra cash we'd have would depend on how much Edmonds cost us. He made $8 million last year and would obviously have made less this year. But how much less was he willing to go? Money may well be a reason he's unsigned right now.
I bet Edmonds would have signed for 1-2 mil just to stay with the Cubs.

Also, what big bat in right field is available right now that we could have acquired had Edmonds not worked out?
I'm sure we could have snagged Nate McLouth pretty easily and played Kosuke in right. Or, we could have moved DeRosa to the outfield and gone after an infielder (Sanchez or whoever).

We don't have anything in the farm that anyone wants and Nate would have not really solved any of the current woes. He adds depth for the Bo Sox and we have depth we just choose not to play it...see Jake Fox

Cubbie Swagger · July 22, 2009

I'm sure we could have snagged Nate McLouth pretty easily

What makes you think that? I would think the Pirates would have asked for a lot to trade a 27-year old CF coming off a breakout season to a division rival.

But they'll trade us Ramirez without thinking twice? And we are not a rival of the Pirates. The Pirates don't have rivals.

Signing Edmonds for 2009 would have had a strong chance of ending up like Gary Gaetti.

Letting Edmonds leave was the right decision.

Um. That's a horrible comparison. Gary Gaetti didn't have nearly the career that Edmonds had.

Cubbie Swagger · July 22, 2009

We don't have anything in the farm that anyone wants and Nate would have not really solved any of the current woes. He adds depth for the Bo Sox and we have depth we just choose not to play it...see Jake Fox

:-))

Nate McLouth plays for Atlanta.

Exile on Waveland · July 22, 2009

Signing Edmonds for 2009 would have had a strong chance of ending up like Gary Gaetti.

But Gaetti had a strong track record of performance as a Cub.

dew1679666265 · July 22, 2009

That's just a guess, though. If you're right, that might have been a decent option, but the likelihood is against it.
Well, I would only have considered Edmonds if he was willing to sign an affordable deal. I wouldn't have given him 5 mil or anything like that.

Ok.

And the Pirates probably don't care about trading within the division. It's not like they plan on competing or anything. And they had no problem sending Ramirez and Lofton our way. Either way, McLouth and Sanchez are just a couple examples. If you were to say that there isn't a single good outfielder or infielder in all of baseball that we could acquire, that would not be true. No use splitting hairs over a couple names I threw out there. Plus, if the Pirates aren't gonna trade with us, then all the "Sanchez to the Cubs" rumors need to stop right now.

A player like Sanchez who is 31 is not going to be a long term part of our team. He'd help us the rest of this year and maybe next year and then he'd be gone. We would have McLouth for the next 5 years or so very cheaply. The Pirates probably have ideas of contending in that time period.

As for the Aramis/Lofton trade, that was a different situation. Aramis was, to them, a somewhat failed prospect that hadn't done much in the majors outside of one season. McLouth is an established, productive 27-year-old outfielder. It's also a completely different (and better) Pirates front office now than 6 years ago. What the past front office did has no bearing on what this one would do.

fromthestretch · July 22, 2009

And the Pirates probably don't care about trading within the division. It's not like they plan on competing or anything. And they had no problem sending Ramirez and Lofton our way. Either way, McLouth and Sanchez are just a couple examples. If you were to say that there isn't a single good outfielder or infielder in all of baseball that we could acquire, that would not be true. No use splitting hairs over a couple names I threw out there. Plus, if the Pirates aren't gonna trade with us, then all the "Sanchez to the Cubs" rumors need to stop right now.

It's not that the Pirates won't trade with the Cubs. However, if McLouth was available to be easily had in a trade this offseason, I can guarantee the Cubs wouldn't have been the only team calling the Pirates. And while the Pirates might listen to an offer from the Cubs, if other teams are making offers, I'm sure the Pirates would prefer to send him out of the division.

Also, the Ramirez/Lofton deal was done under a different GM in Pittsburgh.

dew1679666265 · July 22, 2009

I'm sure we could have snagged Nate McLouth pretty easily

What makes you think that? I would think the Pirates would have asked for a lot to trade a 27-year old CF coming off a breakout season to a division rival.
But they'll trade us Ramirez without thinking twice? And we are not a rival of the Pirates. The Pirates don't have rivals.

I explained it in my post, but the situations are completely different. McLouth is proven, Aramis was not at the time. This is also a different front office in Pittsburgh than what was there in 2003.

wabash_cannonball · July 22, 2009

We don't have anything in the farm that anyone wants and Nate would have not really solved any of the current woes. He adds depth for the Bo Sox and we have depth we just choose not to play it...see Jake Fox
:-))

Nate McLouth plays for Atlanta.

my bad been rough day.....I was thinking about someone totally different....yeah I'm done posting today :doh:

fromthestretch · July 22, 2009

I'm sure we could have snagged Nate McLouth pretty easily

What makes you think that? I would think the Pirates would have asked for a lot to trade a 27-year old CF coming off a breakout season to a division rival.
But they'll trade us Ramirez without thinking twice? And we are not a rival of the Pirates. The Pirates don't have rivals.

They had a different GM for that trade. And who says they didn't think twice about it? There were most likely other circumstances you about which you have no idea.

Also, anyone in your division can be considered a rival when all teams are gunning for the division title. It's just that some teams have a more legitimate shot at it.

dew1679666265 · July 22, 2009

I'm sure we could have snagged Nate McLouth pretty easily

What makes you think that? I would think the Pirates would have asked for a lot to trade a 27-year old CF coming off a breakout season to a division rival.
But they'll trade us Ramirez without thinking twice? And we are not a rival of the Pirates. The Pirates don't have rivals.

They had a different GM for that trade. And who says they didn't think twice about it? There were most likely other circumstances you about which you have no idea.

Also, anyone in your division can be considered a rival when all teams are gunning for the division title. It's just that some teams have a more legitimate shot at it.

If you'll recall as well, Bobby Hill at the time was considered a very good, potential all-star second base prospect. Matt Bruback was also fairly highly considered, I believe.

Many people thought we gave up way too much at the time for Lofton and an unproven third baseman.

fromthestretch · July 22, 2009

I'm sure we could have snagged Nate McLouth pretty easily

What makes you think that? I would think the Pirates would have asked for a lot to trade a 27-year old CF coming off a breakout season to a division rival.
But they'll trade us Ramirez without thinking twice? And we are not a rival of the Pirates. The Pirates don't have rivals.

They had a different GM for that trade. And who says they didn't think twice about it? There were most likely other circumstances you about which you have no idea.

Also, anyone in your division can be considered a rival when all teams are gunning for the division title. It's just that some teams have a more legitimate shot at it.

If you'll recall as well, Bobby Hill at the time was considered a very good, potential all-star second base prospect. Matt Bruback was also fairly highly considered, I believe.

Many people thought we gave up way too much at the time for Lofton and an unproven third baseman.

Another thing to consider is that Aramis had one really good season under his belt but had regressed significantly the following year. McLouth was just coming off a breakout season. I have little doubt that the Cubs would have been outbid in any attempt to trade for McLouth.

Cubbie Swagger · July 22, 2009

It's not that the Pirates won't trade with the Cubs. However, if McLouth was available to be easily had in a trade this offseason, I can guarantee the Cubs wouldn't have been the only team calling the Pirates. And while the Pirates might listen to an offer from the Cubs, if other teams are making offers, I'm sure the Pirates would prefer to send him out of the division.

I wasn't talking about the offseason.

I explained it in my post, but the situations are completely different. McLouth is proven, Aramis was not at the time. This is also a different front office in Pittsburgh than what was there in 2003.

McLouth and Aramis had each only had one good year when they were traded. McLouth's other years weren't anything special.

EDIT: Okay maybe McLouth had one other year where he was decent, but it wasn't even a full season.

my bad been rough day.....I was thinking about someone totally different....yeah I'm done posting today :doh:

It's cool. I knew you were thinking of LaRoche.

Also, anyone in your division can be considered a rival when all teams are gunning for the division title. It's just that some teams have a more legitimate shot at it.

The Pirates are not gunning for the division title. They've been rebuilding for decades.

If you'll recall as well, Bobby Hill at the time was considered a very good, potential all-star second base prospect. Matt Bruback was also fairly highly considered, I believe.

Many people thought we gave up way too much at the time for Lofton and an unproven third baseman.

Many stupid people. I was jumping for joy when I heard about the trade. I knew we had stolen a stud third baseman.

And Bobby Hill always sucked. I never thought he had a chance to be good.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Cubbie Swagger

SouthSideRyan · July 22, 2009

I always feel the need to point out that Ramirez hadn't regressed, he was playing on a severely injured ankle and the Pirates front office/management was too stupid to let it heal. Which in turn led to the accusations of laziness and dogging it, when the guy was playing on one foot. The Pirates have come a long way since then actually.

Sorry Jake.

17 Seconds · July 22, 2009

Instead he signed the injury prone headcase who has mediocre overall career numbers and terrible career numbers from the left side. Even if Bradley was performing as expected, he still owuldn't be fitting the description of what Lou and Jim so desperately wanted. He's always sucked from the left side.

.792 career OPS as a left handed batter is terrible? It's not exactly all world, but is it terrible? Especially considering the last four years before signing as a Cub he had OPS of .940, .937, .793, and .856 as a lefty?

Really?

And a career OPS of .820 is mediocre? Really? Even whille hitting in non-band box type stadiums at home like in 2007 when he OPSed 1.000 as a Padre?

don't bother, we've tried this before with dexter.

Tried what, making it look like Bradley has had some great career when he hasn't? Yeah, you've tried that a bunch.

dew1679666265 · July 22, 2009

McLouth and Aramis had each only had one good year when they were traded. McLouth's other years weren't anything special.

EDIT: Okay maybe McLouth had one other year where he was decent, but it wasn't even a full season.

OPS in seasons before each was traded:

Aramis: .646, .695, .885, .666

McLouth: .755, .678, .810, .853

McLouth has had much better seasons overall than Aramis did for Pittsburgh.

Also, anyone in your division can be considered a rival when all teams are gunning for the division title. It's just that some teams have a more legitimate shot at it.
The Pirates are not gunning for the division title. They've been rebuilding for decades.

The Pirates are not going to contend this season, thus they'd be interested in pawning off Sanchez to us because he likely won't help us much beyond this year.

McLouth, however, would have helped us beyond this season and would have made it harder for them to win. Thus, he would likely have cost us more than he did the Braves.

If you'll recall as well, Bobby Hill at the time was considered a very good, potential all-star second base prospect. Matt Bruback was also fairly highly considered, I believe.

Many people thought we gave up way too much at the time for Lofton and an unproven third baseman.
Many stupid people. I was jumping for joy when I heard about the trade. I knew we had stolen a stud third baseman.

And Bobby Hill always sucked. I never thought he had a chance to be good.

Baseball America ranked Hill 8th in the Cubs system in 2001 and 5th in 2002. He was also in the top 50 of all minor leaguers in 2002. And those Cubs systems were rated one of the best in the game. There were plenty of smart people who thought very highly of Bobby Hill.

He OPSd .780 and .812 as a 22 and 23 year old in AA and AAA. That's pretty good for a second baseman. Then, if I recall correctly, he was considered to be at least decent defensively.

17 Seconds · July 22, 2009

Instead he signed the injury prone headcase who has mediocre overall career numbers and terrible career numbers from the left side. Even if Bradley was performing as expected, he still owuldn't be fitting the description of what Lou and Jim so desperately wanted. He's always sucked from the left side.

.792 career OPS as a left handed batter is terrible? It's not exactly all world, but is it terrible? Especially considering the last four years before signing as a Cub he had OPS of .940, .937, .793, and .856 as a lefty?

Really?

And a career OPS of .820 is mediocre? Really? Even whille hitting in non-band box type stadiums at home like in 2007 when he OPSed 1.000 as a Padre?

I'm sorry, but all these people like you with I-told-ya-so's about Bradley have no ground to stand on because the chief complaint was that he would be injured. At this pont he's played in 5 less games than our iron man Derek Lee. Nobody was predicting that he wouldn't perform when he played.

It all comes down to the fact that he's having a terrible year at the plate. Nothing more, nothing less. Slumps happen in baseball. Just look at our beloved Jim Edmonds who OPSed a whopping .728 in the '07 season and .458 to start the '08 season before miraculously turning it around with the Cubs and hitting for a .937 OPS.

Ugh. First of all, you know exactly what I meant. No, a .792 OPS by itself isn't "terrible', but in the context of the situation, it is. The main goal of Hendry's offseason was to get a big left handed bat. When you trade key players just to make that happen and you're taling about a corner outfielder who is supposed to be a sluggr from that side, yes, a .792 OPS is terrible. Maybe if Bradley was a middle infielder that would be nice production.

And for a corner outfielder, how can you say an .820 OPS is anything but mediocre? I mean, seriously.

Among qualified RF in the NL this season, an .820 OPS would be exactly in the middle of the pack. It would be 8th of 16. In the AL it would be 8th of 15.

It literally is the very definition of mediocre.

And no, nobody thought he would be this bad, but he didn't have to be this bad for it to be a bad signing and for people wanting his head. If he was putting up an .820 OPS right now, we'd be saying the same things. I questioned how good he would be before the season (although I thought he'd be a high .800's OPS guy) and I remember other people questioning as well, so don't say that nobody did. It was stupid to think it was a foregone conclusion that he'd rake.

And for people saying his career numbers aren't relevant. Guess what? He's now performed at them or below them in 4 of the last 6 season. Umm, that's pretty relevant. Not to mention the fact that one of the 2 good "seasons" that break up the 4 career average ones was a total of 144 ABs in San Diego, and the other was played in Arlington.

Cubbie Swagger · July 22, 2009

OPS in seasons before each was traded:

Aramis: .646, .695, .885, .666

McLouth: .755, .678, .810, .853

McLouth has had much better seasons overall than Aramis did for Pittsburgh.

Sure, if you want to count the seasons where they didn't play every day and got very few at bats.

Aramis had one really good year, and one bad year where he was hurt but played through it.

McLouth had one pretty good year, and then one pretty good year where he only got 300 or so at bats.

I don't see how one of them had been "much" better than the other.

But either way, we've sorta gotten off track. My point is that the Cubs could have given Edmonds a chance, and they still would have been able to cover their ass if he turned out to be washed up. Whether it was McLouth or some other outfielder. Or an infielder.

dew1679666265 · July 22, 2009

OPS in seasons before each was traded:

Aramis: .646, .695, .885, .666

McLouth: .755, .678, .810, .853

McLouth has had much better seasons overall than Aramis did for Pittsburgh.
Sure, if you want to count the seasons where they didn't play every day and got very few at bats.

Aramis had one really good year, and one bad year where he was hurt but played through it.

McLouth had one pretty good year, and then one pretty good year where he only got 300 or so at bats.

I don't see how one of them had been "much" better than the other.

But either way, we've sorta gotten off track. My point is that the Cubs could have given Edmonds a chance, and they still would have been able to cover their ass if he turned out to be washed up. Whether it was McLouth or some other outfielder. Or an infielder.

I just don't know of many very productive bats that are available now. Sanchez, McLouth and Holliday are the best bats I can think of. If there were highly productive bats out there to trade for, it would seem the Cardinals would be all over them.

Plus, with Edmonds getting, say, $1 million and DeRosa's $5 million still on the books, we'd be able to take on less salary than we can now with Bradley's $5 million salary. We'd likely still not be able to afford Holliday's salary.

Cubbie Swagger · July 22, 2009

Plus, with Edmonds getting, say, $1 million and DeRosa's $5 million still on the books, we'd be able to take on less salary than we can now with Bradley's $5 million salary. We'd likely still not be able to afford Holliday's salary.

I think the issue with Bradley's contract is not what he's making this year, it's what he's making the next two. So it would be hard to add significant salary this year, knowing that it will be an issue in the future. Although I'm not 100% sure exactly how much we can increase our 2009 payroll (say, if we added someone who's contract was up after this season).

dew1679666265 · July 23, 2009

Plus, with Edmonds getting, say, $1 million and DeRosa's $5 million still on the books, we'd be able to take on less salary than we can now with Bradley's $5 million salary. We'd likely still not be able to afford Holliday's salary.
I think the issue with Bradley's contract is not what he's making this year, it's what he's making the next two. So it would be hard to add significant salary this year, knowing that it will be an issue in the future. Although I'm not 100% sure exactly how much we can increase our 2009 payroll (say, if we added someone who's contract was up after this season).

Future years are an issue as well, but I'm not sure we can add much payroll this season either.

Holliday has an expiring contract, but it's fairly large this season.

Gingerballs Lives · July 23, 2009

I thought this was a joke! :-)) On a side point, it looked like the work Lou has done with Bradley paid off in spades tonight. Nice AB.

Yes, bringing in a mentally unstable player to play under the pressure of wrigley and the Cub's fan was a terrible move. I was hoping initially that Hendry was on to something, but its obvious more than half way through the season the move is not paying off.

I just never saw it from him. He put up great numbers last year playing in a bandbox with 12 people in the stands. Nobody was there to watch him anyway, it was all about Hamilton and his great story. Plus, they had the luxury of playing him at DH.

Some players can handle the fishbowl of playing for the Cubs. I never thought bradley was one of those guys and, unfortunately, I think we're stuck with him.

Milton Bradley is OPSing 900+ in front of those crazy Wrigley fans that he can't handle.

Heh, is sure doesn't feel like he's produced liked that (even at home so far). He certainly hasn't performed like I had hoped.

Lou wants a lefty

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