Yanks Inquire about Zambrano

[Tim M]

I'd love to get a nice package of players for Z but it isn't very likely. The NTC and his contract will probably prevent a deal.

[Sever82]

My feelings: article

 

Good article. Thats understandble, i would be down for just getting hughes and salary relief. I still prefer Cano over hughes because Cano is a proven player, i still have my doubts on hughes. If the cubs are able to trade Z to the yanks for someone like hughes, i would use the money to sign Chapman for the future and then also sign some Vets like Hudson, Cabrera or byrd to one year deals so that there's no commitment.

[Sever82]

http://espn.go.com/chicago/columns/blog/_/post/4761659/name/levine

 

Nothing to it

 

Cubs source refutes report about talking to Yanks about Zambrano

 

December 21, 2009, 11:29 AM

 

 

A New York Post article regarding the Chicago Cubs talking to the New York Yankees about sending Carlos Zambrano to New York for a center fielder is premature.

 

 

[+] EnlargeRonald C. Modra/Sports Imagery/Getty Images

 

Carlos Zambrano's agent said the Cubs have not approached him with a trade proposal.

 

First and foremost, Zambrano has a full no-trade clause in his contract that runs through 2012. Zambrano's agent, Barry Praver, said he has not been contacted about a trade. And a Cubs source told ESPNChicago.com there is nothing to the speculation at this point.

 

"I've had zero discussions with the Cubs about a possible trade," Praver said. "I've talked to them on numerous occasions, and the topic has never come up."

 

-- snip

 

(Please don't post entire articles - mgmt. :) )

[Guest]

My feelings: article

 

Good article. Thats understandble, i would be down for just getting hughes and salary relief. I still prefer Cano over hughes because Cano is a proven player, i still have my doubts on hughes. If the cubs are able to trade Z to the yanks for someone like hughes, i would use the money to sign Chapman for the future and then also sign some Vets like Hudson, Cabrera or byrd to one year deals so that there's no commitment.

1) you're probably not going to get Cano

2) you'd have a huge hole in the rotation

3) Chapman is really overrated - how can you still have doubts about Hughes, but then want to pay the $20M or so to sign Chapman?

4) only Cabrera is likely to sign a one year deal out of those guys (though I could be wrong on Hudson) and I'd have no interest in Cabrera

[Sever82]

My feelings: article

 

Good article. Thats understandble, i would be down for just getting hughes and salary relief. I still prefer Cano over hughes because Cano is a proven player, i still have my doubts on hughes. If the cubs are able to trade Z to the yanks for someone like hughes, i would use the money to sign Chapman for the future and then also sign some Vets like Hudson, Cabrera or byrd to one year deals so that there's no commitment.

1) you're probably not going to get Cano

2) you'd have a huge hole in the rotation

3) Chapman is really overrated - how can you still have doubts about Hughes, but then want to pay the $20M or so to sign Chapman?

4) only Cabrera is likely to sign a one year deal out of those guys (though I could be wrong on Hudson) and I'd have no interest in Cabrera

 

I dont think Chapman is overrated and the only contract that been thrown out there is the marlins 5yr 12 million deal which is about 2.5 million for a young Lefty who has potential. Its not a steep price to pay. I have doubt about hughes because yeah he's been decent in the bullpen but he's struggled as a starter.

 

As for vets signing a one year deal, i dont know about that. I think you have to wait for what the market demands. I mean abreau signed a one yr deal last year and no one expected that. I think the cubs should just offer a multi year deal only if they see someone offering it. They shouldn't bid against themselves like they did last year with Bradley.

[jersey cubs fan]

Tim, the problem I have with your scenario is the pocket the money and wait for the free agent you want strategy is just far too risky. It's not the same thing, but the Bulls have failed miserably trying this (and they are going to do it again). The Cubs can't play this game with the Yankees and Red Sox around, not to mention the occasional Mets splash or Dodgers/Angels spending spree. There's too much competition for the top flight free agents to think the Cubs can get away with essentially tanking and waiting for guys to come to them. He could sign elsewhere, be traded elsewhere, get hurt or maybe even start to decline. As to Mauer specifically, he's over 5000 innings caught already in the majors, and he'd be going to an NL team that can no longer hide him at DH for a couple dozen extra games a year. So you either spend a crap load on a guy who will only play 130 games a year, or you maximize your investment and make him play 150 games and risk running him ragged before he comes close to fulfilling the contract.

 

I'm not against taking a one year hiatus for the good of the organization, or against the deals you are discussing, necessarily. But I just think they can't really deal him, pocket the money and expect to fix everything by signing Mauer in 2011, when they will also have 3B, 1B, CF, RF and/or LF and middle infield holes to fill.

[Sever82]

Tim, the problem I have with your scenario is the pocket the money and wait for the free agent you want strategy is just far too risky. It's not the same thing, but the Bulls have failed miserably trying this (and they are going to do it again). The Cubs can't play this game with the Yankees and Red Sox around, not to mention the occasional Mets splash or Dodgers/Angels spending spree. There's too much competition for the top flight free agents to think the Cubs can get away with essentially tanking and waiting for guys to come to them. He could sign elsewhere, be traded elsewhere, get hurt or maybe even start to decline. As to Mauer specifically, he's over 5000 innings caught already in the majors, and he'd be going to an NL team that can no longer hide him at DH for a couple dozen extra games a year. So you either spend a crap load on a guy who will only play 130 games a year, or you maximize your investment and make him play 150 games and risk running him ragged before he comes close to fulfilling the contract.

 

I'm not against taking a one year hiatus for the good of the organization, or against the deals you are discussing, necessarily. But I just think they can't really deal him, pocket the money and expect to fix everything by signing Mauer in 2011, when they will also have 3B, 1B, CF, RF and/or LF and middle infield holes to fill.

 

As much as i like Mauer, i have to agree, i would be afraid to give Mauer a long term deal for big money. Mauer will product when he's out there but i think he might have some nagging injuries throughout his career.

[Guest]

Tim, the problem I have with your scenario is the pocket the money and wait for the free agent you want strategy is just far too risky. It's not the same thing, but the Bulls have failed miserably trying this (and they are going to do it again). The Cubs can't play this game with the Yankees and Red Sox around, not to mention the occasional Mets splash or Dodgers/Angels spending spree. There's too much competition for the top flight free agents to think the Cubs can get away with essentially tanking and waiting for guys to come to them. He could sign elsewhere, be traded elsewhere, get hurt or maybe even start to decline. As to Mauer specifically, he's over 5000 innings caught already in the majors, and he'd be going to an NL team that can no longer hide him at DH for a couple dozen extra games a year. So you either spend a crap load on a guy who will only play 130 games a year, or you maximize your investment and make him play 150 games and risk running him ragged before he comes close to fulfilling the contract.

 

I'm not against taking a one year hiatus for the good of the organization, or against the deals you are discussing, necessarily. But I just think they can't really deal him, pocket the money and expect to fix everything by signing Mauer in 2011, when they will also have 3B, 1B, CF, RF and/or LF and middle infield holes to fill.

Fair points.

 

1) I'm not really suggesting pocketing the money as I'm suggesting we invest that in building the farm and/or trade acquisitions if we're in it at the deadline.

2) I'm certainly not suggesting we tank 2010. I believe Hughes will provide the value Z will at this point in time. Part of that is the slow decay of Z's value, part is the maturation of Hughes.

3) Mauer would be a great hitter if he were playing first, which is where I'd put him if Soto is still performing behind the plate.

4) Those additional holes will also come with additional money from the other contracts coming off the books

[SouthSideRyan]

Tim, the problem I have with your scenario is the pocket the money and wait for the free agent you want strategy is just far too risky. It's not the same thing, but the Bulls have failed miserably trying this (and they are going to do it again). The Cubs can't play this game with the Yankees and Red Sox around, not to mention the occasional Mets splash or Dodgers/Angels spending spree. There's too much competition for the top flight free agents to think the Cubs can get away with essentially tanking and waiting for guys to come to them. He could sign elsewhere, be traded elsewhere, get hurt or maybe even start to decline. As to Mauer specifically, he's over 5000 innings caught already in the majors, and he'd be going to an NL team that can no longer hide him at DH for a couple dozen extra games a year. So you either spend a crap load on a guy who will only play 130 games a year, or you maximize your investment and make him play 150 games and risk running him ragged before he comes close to fulfilling the contract.

 

I'm not against taking a one year hiatus for the good of the organization, or against the deals you are discussing, necessarily. But I just think they can't really deal him, pocket the money and expect to fix everything by signing Mauer in 2011, when they will also have 3B, 1B, CF, RF and/or LF and middle infield holes to fill.

Fair points.

 

1) I'm not really suggesting pocketing the money as I'm suggesting we invest that in building the farm and/or trade acquisitions if we're in it at the deadline.

2) I'm certainly not suggesting we tank 2010. I believe Hughes will provide the value Z will at this point in time. Part of that is the slow decay of Z's value, part is the maturation of Hughes.

3) Mauer would be a great hitter if he were playing first, which is where I'd put him if Soto is still performing behind the plate.

4) Those additional holes will also come with additional money from the other contracts coming off the books

 

2) I like Hughes a lot, but I don't think it's that likely he matches Z's output next year. He's been hovering in the low 100s for innings pitched the last 3 years.(following a career high of 146) I'm not sure he can step right in for a full season right away.(and he'll certainly give back the marginal value Zambrano has at the plate/on the basepaths) I think it's obviously a win on a pure talent standpoint(when taking into account the salary), but disagree with the notion that Hughes = Zambrano.

 

3) If Mauer winds up as a 1B from the word go, it's most likely a bad deal. Mauer's going to get an assload of money because of his ability to catch. To pay him like a catcher while he's playing 1B is a waste of money.

[Outshined_One]

1) I'm not really suggesting pocketing the money as I'm suggesting we invest that in building the farm and/or trade acquisitions if we're in it at the deadline.

 

This is the one area where I take some issue with the argument that the Cubs should trade Zambrano for financial reasons.

 

According to BA (subscription only), the Cubs spent $4,044,200 on this year's draft. The Nationals came in at #1 as the top spender at $11,511,500. Now, in fairness, they handed out a historically large contract to Strasburg and also had a second first round pick in Drew Storen. Only one other team handed out anything close to that (Mariners at $10.9m). While the Cubs were on the low end of the spectrum, there was only a few million separating the Cubs from being in the Top 5 in draft spending (the Padres clocked in at #5 with $9.1m).

 

While this is a substantial amount of money in real terms, I don't think the Cubs need to dump Zambrano just to clear up the space needed to be a team that spends a lot of money on the draft and in player development. The new ownership was going to divert existing resources to doing exactly that. I don't think the Cubs need to use all of the $17.875m owed to Zambrano in order to strengthen the farm system. The resources needed to do that are available to the Cubs; they just need to divert or develop those resources accordingly. Plus, as we have seen in the past, successful drafts don't have to involve throwing around money like a teenage billionaire.

 

I'm fine with the idea of trading Zambrano, waiting a year or two, and using the money to splurge in free agency. However, I don't think the Cubs need to trade him in order to put together a better farm system.

[jersey cubs fan]

1) I'm not really suggesting pocketing the money as I'm suggesting we invest that in building the farm and/or trade acquisitions if we're in it at the deadline.

 

This is the one area where I take some issue with the argument that the Cubs should trade Zambrano for financial reasons.

 

While this is a substantial amount of money in real terms, I don't think the Cubs need to dump Zambrano just to clear up the space needed to be a team that spends a lot of money on the draft and in player development. The new ownership was going to divert existing resources to doing exactly that. I don't think the Cubs need to use all of the $17.875m owed to Zambrano in order to strengthen the farm system. The resources needed to do that are available to the Cubs; they just need to divert or develop those resources accordingly.

 

Tim was basically saying you could use a portion of the savings toward that upgrade for one year, not the entire thing.

[Guest]

1) I'm not really suggesting pocketing the money as I'm suggesting we invest that in building the farm and/or trade acquisitions if we're in it at the deadline.

 

This is the one area where I take some issue with the argument that the Cubs should trade Zambrano for financial reasons.

 

According to BA (subscription only), the Cubs spent $4,044,200 on this year's draft. The Nationals came in at #1 as the top spender at $11,511,500. Now, in fairness, they handed out a historically large contract to Strasburg and also had a second first round pick in Drew Storen. Only one other team handed out anything close to that (Mariners at $10.9m). While the Cubs were on the low end of the spectrum, there was only a few million separating the Cubs from being in the Top 5 in draft spending (the Padres clocked in at #5 with $9.1m).

 

While this is a substantial amount of money in real terms, I don't think the Cubs need to dump Zambrano just to clear up the space needed to be a team that spends a lot of money on the draft and in player development. The new ownership was going to divert existing resources to doing exactly that. I don't think the Cubs need to use all of the $17.875m owed to Zambrano in order to strengthen the farm system. The resources needed to do that are available to the Cubs; they just need to divert or develop those resources accordingly. Plus, as we have seen in the past, successful drafts don't have to involve throwing around money like a teenage billionaire.

 

I'm fine with the idea of trading Zambrano, waiting a year or two, and using the money to splurge in free agency. However, I don't think the Cubs need to trade him in order to put together a better farm system.

I'm not really suggesting you have to move Zambrano to upgrade the farm. I'm saying that if you move Z and don't immediately put that cash towards someone like Bay, I'd like to reinvest some of those savings back into the farm for this one season then make a run at Mauer, Crawford, Lee, Reyes or others in next year's FA class.

[Outshined_One]

1) I'm not really suggesting pocketing the money as I'm suggesting we invest that in building the farm and/or trade acquisitions if we're in it at the deadline.

 

This is the one area where I take some issue with the argument that the Cubs should trade Zambrano for financial reasons.

 

While this is a substantial amount of money in real terms, I don't think the Cubs need to dump Zambrano just to clear up the space needed to be a team that spends a lot of money on the draft and in player development. The new ownership was going to divert existing resources to doing exactly that. I don't think the Cubs need to use all of the $17.875m owed to Zambrano in order to strengthen the farm system. The resources needed to do that are available to the Cubs; they just need to divert or develop those resources accordingly.

 

Tim was basically saying you could use a portion of the savings toward that upgrade for one year, not the entire thing.

 

I know he wasn't arguing that the Cubs should put the entirety of the $17.875m due to Zambrano to use on the farm system (although that would be a rather interesting experiment). My argument was that the Cubs didn't need to trade Zambrano and use a portion of the money saved to upgrade the farm system.

 

My basic argument was that the Cubs don't have to trade Zambrano if they want to upgrade the farm system.

[Guest]

1) I'm not really suggesting pocketing the money as I'm suggesting we invest that in building the farm and/or trade acquisitions if we're in it at the deadline.

 

This is the one area where I take some issue with the argument that the Cubs should trade Zambrano for financial reasons.

 

While this is a substantial amount of money in real terms, I don't think the Cubs need to dump Zambrano just to clear up the space needed to be a team that spends a lot of money on the draft and in player development. The new ownership was going to divert existing resources to doing exactly that. I don't think the Cubs need to use all of the $17.875m owed to Zambrano in order to strengthen the farm system. The resources needed to do that are available to the Cubs; they just need to divert or develop those resources accordingly.

 

Tim was basically saying you could use a portion of the savings toward that upgrade for one year, not the entire thing.

 

I know he wasn't arguing that the Cubs should put the entirety of the $17.875m due to Zambrano to use on the farm system (although that would be a rather interesting experiment). My argument was that the Cubs didn't need to trade Zambrano and use a portion of the money saved to upgrade the farm system.

 

My basic argument was that the Cubs don't have to trade Zambrano if they want to upgrade the farm system.

I agree with your point, but don't see what it has to do with the article as that wasn't one of the stated premises.

 

(btw - you're also ignoring opportunities for spending on international signings)

[jersey cubs fan]

1) I'm not really suggesting pocketing the money as I'm suggesting we invest that in building the farm and/or trade acquisitions if we're in it at the deadline.

 

This is the one area where I take some issue with the argument that the Cubs should trade Zambrano for financial reasons.

 

While this is a substantial amount of money in real terms, I don't think the Cubs need to dump Zambrano just to clear up the space needed to be a team that spends a lot of money on the draft and in player development. The new ownership was going to divert existing resources to doing exactly that. I don't think the Cubs need to use all of the $17.875m owed to Zambrano in order to strengthen the farm system. The resources needed to do that are available to the Cubs; they just need to divert or develop those resources accordingly.

 

Tim was basically saying you could use a portion of the savings toward that upgrade for one year, not the entire thing.

 

I know he wasn't arguing that the Cubs should put the entirety of the $17.875m due to Zambrano to use on the farm system (although that would be a rather interesting experiment). My argument was that the Cubs didn't need to trade Zambrano and use a portion of the money saved to upgrade the farm system.

 

My basic argument was that the Cubs don't have to trade Zambrano if they want to upgrade the farm system.

No, they don't "need" to, but that money could make the investment that much more valuable. I don't think he was saying, "trade Zambrano so we can afford a better farm system". He was saying "trade Zambrano because you can get back something of value and better use that money on others players, plus maybe have a little extra leftover to throw toward the farm in the short-term."

[mul21]

 

3) If Mauer winds up as a 1B from the word go, it's most likely a bad deal. Mauer's going to get an assload of money because of his ability to catch. To pay him like a catcher while he's playing 1B is a waste of money.

 

How much more do you think he'll actually get if signed as a catcher vs. 1B? Also, assuming it's going to be a 5-7 year deal, wouldn't it be worth it to maybe overpay for a guy like that with a fantastic track record and really good peripherals to play 1B for 150-160 games a year and do the best you can to guarantee he's healthy for the duration of the contract than to have him play 130 games a year and possibly get hurt or fall off a cliff in the 4th or 5th year of that deal? All of this is assuming of course that Soto doesn't continue to be terrible like he was this year.

[Sever82]

Not sure why this topic has turned into Mauer 2010 but quick question. Was wondering if this would be too much but lets say the yanks really did want Z. Would a trade of Z+Guzman for Hughes, Cabrera and Cano be too much? I would think this would be an even trade. Guzman to me has just as good of stuff as hughes except that guzman has been injury prone in the past and is older. I think if the cubs trade Z to the yanks without any cash going there way, they would definitely only be getting one really good player back (Cano or Hughes). The Yanks taking back Z's salary is pretty much as if the cubs are getting a huge asset in return.

[Guancous]

Not sure why this topic has turned into Mauer 2010 but quick question. Was wondering if this would be too much but lets say the yanks really did want Z. Would a trade of Z+Guzman for Hughes, Cabrera and Cano be too much? I would think this would be an even trade. Guzman to me has just as good of stuff as hughes except that guzman has been injury prone in the past and is older. I think if the cubs trade Z to the yanks without any cash going there way, they would definitely only be getting one really good player back (Cano or Hughes). The Yanks taking back Z's salary is pretty much as if the cubs are getting a huge asset in return.

 

Minnesota is building a new publicly funded stadium, partly to raise revenue for Mauer's new contract. There's no way the Twins won't resign their local hero. The citizens wouldn't let his car get to the airport.

[davearm2]

Not sure why this topic has turned into Mauer 2010 but quick question. Was wondering if this would be too much but lets say the yanks really did want Z. Would a trade of Z+Guzman for Hughes, Cabrera and Cano be too much? I would think this would be an even trade. Guzman to me has just as good of stuff as hughes except that guzman has been injury prone in the past and is older. I think if the cubs trade Z to the yanks without any cash going there way, they would definitely only be getting one really good player back (Cano or Hughes). The Yanks taking back Z's salary is pretty much as if the cubs are getting a huge asset in return.

 

Minnesota is building a new publicly funded stadium, partly to raise revenue for Mauer's new contract. There's no way the Twins won't resign their local hero. The citizens wouldn't let his car get to the airport.

Does Mauer get a vote?

[Benchwarmer]

Addition by subtraction. I would absolutely trade Z, but don't know if Hendry has the smarts or a plan to pull it off. I don't want poor contracts and some banjo-hitting second baseman back in return.

[inari]

Add benchwarmer to the list of accounts that simply must be a joke.

[Benchwarmer]

Add benchwarmer to the list of accounts that simply must be a joke.

 

And I'll add you to the list of 'I'm satisfied with 102 years of losing' fans.

[inari]

You think Robinson Cano is a bad hitter and wins are the most important statistic for a pitcher. Come on.

[rocket]

Not sure why this topic has turned into Mauer 2010 but quick question. Was wondering if this would be too much but lets say the yanks really did want Z. Would a trade of Z+Guzman for Hughes, Cabrera and Cano be too much? I would think this would be an even trade. Guzman to me has just as good of stuff as hughes except that guzman has been injury prone in the past and is older. I think if the cubs trade Z to the yanks without any cash going there way, they would definitely only be getting one really good player back (Cano or Hughes). The Yanks taking back Z's salary is pretty much as if the cubs are getting a huge asset in return.

 

holy mother of god the yankees are getting robbed in that deal. do some of you people not realize that robinson cano is probably the 2nd or 3rd best 2B in all of baseball, and he's just now entering his prime? he's untouchable, especially for zambrano, who is a pretty good pitcher who's very expensive, and probably won't be nearly as successful in the al east. then throwing in hughes and cabrera on top of that? good heavens.

[shnsajax]

Not sure why this topic has turned into Mauer 2010 but quick question. Was wondering if this would be too much but lets say the yanks really did want Z. Would a trade of Z+Guzman for Hughes, Cabrera and Cano be too much? I would think this would be an even trade. Guzman to me has just as good of stuff as hughes except that guzman has been injury prone in the past and is older. I think if the cubs trade Z to the yanks without any cash going there way, they would definitely only be getting one really good player back (Cano or Hughes). The Yanks taking back Z's salary is pretty much as if the cubs are getting a huge asset in return.

 

Minnesota is building a new publicly funded stadium, partly to raise revenue for Mauer's new contract. There's no way the Twins won't resign their local hero. The citizens wouldn't let his car get to the airport.

Does Mauer get a vote?

 

The Twins were the only team he would sign with out of the draft in 2001. There is probably a good chance he will entertain the idea of resigning with his hometown team. The odds of him leaving are too small to even think about right now.