Trade Market for Z

[NewUserName]

 

I don't know what you're smoking, but to say DLee will have 0 value at the deadline is crazy. I'm sure nobody would pay much for a 1B with a .970 OPS. :pig:

 

Ok 0 value was probably a little over the top. I will say that he has much more trade value today then he will at the deadline. 1st he currently is a .970 OPS. I would not bet that he is any better at the deadline adn will probably be lower. 2nd He currently has a whole year left on his contract. At the deadline it will only be 2 months. There is time currently for a team to work on an extension to get a trade approved. My guess a desperate team may give him an extention at teh deadline, but it will be more in Lee's favor then and will do more to decrease his trade value.

 

Anyway to me the current Cubs are good but cannot become great for many (Jim Hendry caused) reasons. Yes they may win the division and luck into a WS like the Cardinals a couple of years ago. They however are not even close to the Yankees and others. I have a hard time seeing them get there with the current core without a major payroll increase.

 

Lastly the Cubs are much closer to being a bad team then a great team in teh next couple of years with teh core players starting to be lessor players. These core players are going to cost the bulk of the payroll to be going into bad.

 

If you have a feasible solution to making the current Cubs core into a great team in teh next 2 years, I can surely change my mind on wanting to break it up.

[davearm2]

 

I don't know what you're smoking, but to say DLee will have 0 value at the deadline is crazy. I'm sure nobody would pay much for a 1B with a .970 OPS. :pig:

 

Ok 0 value was probably a little over the top. I will say that he has much more trade value today then he will at the deadline. 1st he currently is a .970 OPS. I would not bet that he is any better at the deadline adn will probably be lower. 2nd He currently has a whole year left on his contract. At the deadline it will only be 2 months. There is time currently for a team to work on an extension to get a trade approved. My guess a desperate team may give him an extention at teh deadline, but it will be more in Lee's favor then and will do more to decrease his trade value.

 

Anyway to me the current Cubs are good but cannot become great for many (Jim Hendry caused) reasons. Yes they may win the division and luck into a WS like the Cardinals a couple of years ago. They however are not even close to the Yankees and others. I have a hard time seeing them get there with the current core without a major payroll increase.

 

Lastly the Cubs are much closer to being a bad team then a great team in teh next couple of years with teh core players starting to be lessor players. These core players are going to cost the bulk of the payroll to be going into bad.

 

If you have a feasible solution to making the current Cubs core into a great team in teh next 2 years, I can surely change my mind on wanting to break it up.

Most folks would agree that the 2008 Cubs were a great team, and aside from being two years older (but still nobody older than, what, 34 or 35?), the same core is still intact.

 

I'd say a return to 2008's performance level is at the very least feasible, and even if it's not all the way to another 97 wins, anything 90 or above puts them in the postseason in all likelihood. That's reason enough to keep things intact and play to win in 2010.

[NewUserName]

Most folks would agree that the 2008 Cubs were a great team, and aside from being two years older (but still nobody older than, what, 34 or 35?), the same core is still intact.

 

I'd say a return to 2008's performance level is at the very least feasible, and even if it's not all the way to another 97 wins, anything 90 or above puts them in the postseason in all likelihood. That's reason enough to keep things intact and play to win in 2010.

 

I think it is possible, not sure I would call it feasible. I think it is much more feasible to say the Cubs are an 85 win team without much room for improvement with the current core and salary structure. I think it is much more feasible to come to the understanding that the current core is mostly in their prime to declining years. So unless an immediate impact of talent comes from the system or influx of talent through FA, I think it is most realistic to say the Cubs will be declining in the next couple of years.(as shown by last years performance)

[Backtobanks]

Most folks would agree that the 2008 Cubs were a great team, and aside from being two years older (but still nobody older than, what, 34 or 35?), the same core is still intact.

 

I'd say a return to 2008's performance level is at the very least feasible, and even if it's not all the way to another 97 wins, anything 90 or above puts them in the postseason in all likelihood. That's reason enough to keep things intact and play to win in 2010.

 

I think it is possible, not sure I would call it feasible. I think it is much more feasible to say the Cubs are an 85 win team without much room for improvement with the current core and salary structure. I think it is much more feasible to come to the understanding that the current core is mostly in their prime to declining years. So unless an immediate impact of talent comes from the system or influx of talent through FA, I think it is most realistic to say the Cubs will be declining in the next couple of years.(as shown by last years performance)

 

While I agree that the "current core is mostly in their prime to declining years", I do expect rebound years from Soriano, Soto, Fontenot, and Marmol. Also, DLee and ARam haven't shown any signs of slowing down and Zambrano (while still reasonably young) still hasn't been the big winner that everyone has expected.

[NewUserName]

Most folks would agree that the 2008 Cubs were a great team, and aside from being two years older (but still nobody older than, what, 34 or 35?), the same core is still intact.

 

I'd say a return to 2008's performance level is at the very least feasible, and even if it's not all the way to another 97 wins, anything 90 or above puts them in the postseason in all likelihood. That's reason enough to keep things intact and play to win in 2010.

 

I think it is possible, not sure I would call it feasible. I think it is much more feasible to say the Cubs are an 85 win team without much room for improvement with the current core and salary structure. I think it is much more feasible to come to the understanding that the current core is mostly in their prime to declining years. So unless an immediate impact of talent comes from the system or influx of talent through FA, I think it is most realistic to say the Cubs will be declining in the next couple of years.(as shown by last years performance)

 

While I agree that the "current core is mostly in their prime to declining years", I do expect rebound years from Soriano, Soto, Fontenot, and Marmol. Also, DLee and ARam haven't shown any signs of slowing down and Zambrano (while still reasonably young) still hasn't been the big winner that everyone has expected.

 

I think Soriano and Soto will be better, not sure they will be as good as they were in 08. Marmol is a relief pitcher so his improving will not have a large impact on win totals. Fontenot may improve but I suspect his career year was 08 and expecting him to return to that level is unrealistic. Lets not forget that Dempster also probably had a career year in 08. Also none of this replaces the Edmonds and DeRossa production from 08. Like I said, it is possible for the Cubs to return to this level, just not realistic.

[Soul]

I don't see any way the 2010 Cubs could return to 2008 performance levels, but they are quite welcome to prove me wrong.

 

Personally I think the writing is on the wall, and this team is going to need to be rebuilt. If the general consensus is that we'd like to give it a go in 2010 and delay that rebuilding effort for a year or so, I guess it's not going to kill me.

[Backtobanks]

I don't see any way the 2010 Cubs could return to 2008 performance levels, but they are quite welcome to prove me wrong.

 

Personally I think the writing is on the wall, and this team is going to need to be rebuilt. If the general consensus is that we'd like to give it a go in 2010 and delay that rebuilding effort for a year or so, I guess it's not going to kill me.

 

As I posted earlier, there's no way Ricketts comes in and tears up a team that has a decent chance of contending to rebuild for another 3-4 years. Being a large-market team, they might rebuild on a minor scale as contracts come off the books.

[dew1679666265]

I don't see any way the 2010 Cubs could return to 2008 performance levels, but they are quite welcome to prove me wrong.

 

Personally I think the writing is on the wall, and this team is going to need to be rebuilt. If the general consensus is that we'd like to give it a go in 2010 and delay that rebuilding effort for a year or so, I guess it's not going to kill me.

 

I don't think we'll see another 97-win season, but I think a 90-92 win season is fairly realistic. Not likely, but realistic.

[NewUserName]

I don't see any way the 2010 Cubs could return to 2008 performance levels, but they are quite welcome to prove me wrong.

 

Personally I think the writing is on the wall, and this team is going to need to be rebuilt. If the general consensus is that we'd like to give it a go in 2010 and delay that rebuilding effort for a year or so, I guess it's not going to kill me.

 

As I posted earlier, there's no way Ricketts comes in and tears up a team that has a decent chance of contending to rebuild for another 3-4 years. Being a large-market team, they might rebuild on a minor scale as contracts come off the books.

 

So basically what you are saying is that Ricketts is going to continue the Tribunes "strive for above average and good marketing" Well this sale was disappointing.

[Backtobanks]

I don't see any way the 2010 Cubs could return to 2008 performance levels, but they are quite welcome to prove me wrong.

 

Personally I think the writing is on the wall, and this team is going to need to be rebuilt. If the general consensus is that we'd like to give it a go in 2010 and delay that rebuilding effort for a year or so, I guess it's not going to kill me.

 

As I posted earlier, there's no way Ricketts comes in and tears up a team that has a decent chance of contending to rebuild for another 3-4 years. Being a large-market team, they might rebuild on a minor scale as contracts come off the books.

 

So basically what you are saying is that Ricketts is going to continue the Tribunes "strive for above average and good marketing" Well this sale was disappointing.

 

I guess it's easy for us to tell a successful businessman how to spend his money, but trading off all of your stars in an entertainment venue probably isn't the best way to make a profit. Even San Diego is rumored to be holding onto Gonzalez until the deadline because they "do have to put people in the seats". Hopefully some of the prospects can start making it into the ML so that we can see rebuilding taking place while we contend. In the next 1-3 years, we might be able to have young replacements for players like DLee, Aram, Theriot, Fukudome, Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster, etc. and use that money to fill in the right FA or two to stay competitive. So the options are: 1. Stay average-to-above average while integrating younger players into the lineup or 2. Go all out in an effort to trade our stars (and get out of NTCs) and suck for a few years while we hope that the prospects we received will take us to the promised land. Some of the posters might want to choose #2, but I would think the successful businessman will choose #1.

[NewUserName]

 

I guess it's easy for us to tell a successful businessman how to spend his money, but trading off all of your stars in an entertainment venue probably isn't the best way to make a profit. Even San Diego is rumored to be holding onto Gonzalez until the deadline because they "do have to put people in the seats". Hopefully some of the prospects can start making it into the ML so that we can see rebuilding taking place while we contend. In the next 1-3 years, we might be able to have young replacements for players like DLee, Aram, Theriot, Fukudome, Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster, etc. and use that money to fill in the right FA or two to stay competitive. So the options are: 1. Stay average-to-above average while integrating younger players into the lineup or 2. Go all out in an effort to trade our stars (and get out of NTCs) and suck for a few years while we hope that the prospects we received will take us to the promised land. Some of the posters might want to choose #2, but I would think the successful businessman will choose #1.

 

I think you are making this a black/white either/or thing. I am not suggesting that the Cubs go on a youth movement or purge payroll just to save a buck. I am suggesting that t current core is MOST probably not ever going to win a WS without some immediate infusion or quality youth or increasing payroll. I am suggesting that the next contracts ARam and DLee sign will be bad contracts because they will be declining in value through those contracts. I am just suggesting that if we can get good value for Z, Lee and ARam we should take it. If we can then use the money saved to either replace them or upgrade somewhere else with contracts that will not be bad contracts. To be honest with you I would be all for keeping them and resigning them if we didnt already have several contracts that are unmovable and low producing. I guess what I am saying is that it is obvious to me that the current thing is not going to work. Of course I want to win a WS, not be above average with good marketing

[Guest]

 

I guess it's easy for us to tell a successful businessman how to spend his money, but trading off all of your stars in an entertainment venue probably isn't the best way to make a profit. Even San Diego is rumored to be holding onto Gonzalez until the deadline because they "do have to put people in the seats". Hopefully some of the prospects can start making it into the ML so that we can see rebuilding taking place while we contend. In the next 1-3 years, we might be able to have young replacements for players like DLee, Aram, Theriot, Fukudome, Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster, etc. and use that money to fill in the right FA or two to stay competitive. So the options are: 1. Stay average-to-above average while integrating younger players into the lineup or 2. Go all out in an effort to trade our stars (and get out of NTCs) and suck for a few years while we hope that the prospects we received will take us to the promised land. Some of the posters might want to choose #2, but I would think the successful businessman will choose #1.

 

I think you are making this a black/white either/or thing. I am not suggesting that the Cubs go on a youth movement or purge payroll just to save a buck. I am suggesting that t current core is MOST probably not ever going to win a WS without some immediate infusion or quality youth or increasing payroll. I am suggesting that the next contracts ARam and DLee sign will be bad contracts because they will be declining in value through those contracts. I am just suggesting that if we can get good value for Z, Lee and ARam we should take it. If we can then use the money saved to either replace them or upgrade somewhere else with contracts that will not be bad contracts. To be honest with you I would be all for keeping them and resigning them if we didnt already have several contracts that are unmovable and low producing. I guess what I am saying is that it is obvious to me that the current thing is not going to work. Of course I want to win a WS, not be above average with good marketing

I think I understand what you're saying. Rather than re-sign Lee & ARam after these contracts to have them through their declining years, you'd rather move them now and sign someone like Holliday who is more likely to be productive throughout the duration of his contract. it's not necessarily about dumping our current core and rebuilding purely through the farm. It is about finding deals that help the overall talent level of the organization and then investing the savings in players that will still see more of their prime years than the current guys.

 

right?

[NewUserName]

I think I understand what you're saying. Rather than re-sign Lee & ARam after these contracts to have them through their declining years, you'd rather move them now and sign someone like Holliday who is more likely to be productive throughout the duration of his contract. it's not necessarily about dumping our current core and rebuilding purely through the farm. It is about finding deals that help the overall talent level of the organization and then investing the savings in players that will still see more of their prime years than the current guys.

 

right?

 

Pretty much. I dont think Hendry will or would even consider doing it though.

[Backtobanks]

 

I guess it's easy for us to tell a successful businessman how to spend his money, but trading off all of your stars in an entertainment venue probably isn't the best way to make a profit. Even San Diego is rumored to be holding onto Gonzalez until the deadline because they "do have to put people in the seats". Hopefully some of the prospects can start making it into the ML so that we can see rebuilding taking place while we contend. In the next 1-3 years, we might be able to have young replacements for players like DLee, Aram, Theriot, Fukudome, Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster, etc. and use that money to fill in the right FA or two to stay competitive. So the options are: 1. Stay average-to-above average while integrating younger players into the lineup or 2. Go all out in an effort to trade our stars (and get out of NTCs) and suck for a few years while we hope that the prospects we received will take us to the promised land. Some of the posters might want to choose #2, but I would think the successful businessman will choose #1.

 

I think you are making this a black/white either/or thing. I am not suggesting that the Cubs go on a youth movement or purge payroll just to save a buck. I am suggesting that t current core is MOST probably not ever going to win a WS without some immediate infusion or quality youth or increasing payroll. I am suggesting that the next contracts ARam and DLee sign will be bad contracts because they will be declining in value through those contracts. I am just suggesting that if we can get good value for Z, Lee and ARam we should take it. If we can then use the money saved to either replace them or upgrade somewhere else with contracts that will not be bad contracts. To be honest with you I would be all for keeping them and resigning them if we didnt already have several contracts that are unmovable and low producing. I guess what I am saying is that it is obvious to me that the current thing is not going to work. Of course I want to win a WS, not be above average with good marketing

I think I understand what you're saying. Rather than re-sign Lee & ARam after these contracts to have them through their declining years, you'd rather move them now and sign someone like Holliday who is more likely to be productive throughout the duration of his contract. it's not necessarily about dumping our current core and rebuilding purely through the farm. It is about finding deals that help the overall talent level of the organization and then investing the savings in players that will still see more of their prime years than the current guys.

 

right?

 

It all sounds good in theory, but who replaces the production of Lee and ARam right away? We all have fun making fantasy trades, signing FAs for less than market value, and overestimating our prospects and the ones we're getting back in trades, but I'm sure it's not as easy as all of us think it is. As all of us who follow the Cubs know, it takes decades to build a really productive farm system. Signing FAs who are very productive gets you back into the high price/long term committment problem we're in right now. Let's not forget that any productive FA is going to be on the radar screen of the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, etc. so you can bet they won't come cheap.

[Guest]

As all of us who follow the Cubs know, it takes decades to build a really productive farm system. Signing FAs who are very productive gets you back into the high price/long term committment problem we're in right now. Let's not forget that any productive FA is going to be on the radar screen of the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, etc. so you can bet they won't come cheap.

 

Decades? Did you say decades, as in the plural form of decade?

 

Any GM that were to use the word "decades" when asked how long it would take to restock the farm should never have gotten the job in the first place. I trust that you are aware that a decade is 10 years and decades are 20+.

[Guest]

I think the theory itself is sound, but I don't actually think this year is a good one for acting on that theory. As a large market team, I don't think the Cubs should sacrifice any season where they have a chance to compete.

 

I think there are particular things the Cubs can do on a smaller scale this offseason to employ the theory, but I don't see the replacements for the production of Lee and ARam to have the freedom of moving those guys this offseason.

[Backtobanks]

As all of us who follow the Cubs know, it takes decades to build a really productive farm system. Signing FAs who are very productive gets you back into the high price/long term committment problem we're in right now. Let's not forget that any productive FA is going to be on the radar screen of the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, etc. so you can bet they won't come cheap.

 

Decades? Did you say decades, as in the plural form of decade?

 

Any GM that were to use the word "decades" when asked how long it would take to restock the farm should never have gotten the job in the first place. I trust that you are aware that a decade is 10 years and decades are 20+.

 

I'm not saying that a GM should say "decades", but when you look at the reality of the Cubs (and many other teams) and see how long their farm system goes between an influx of productive players for 3-4 consecutive years, "decades" is not too far off.

[davell]

The Cubs were considered to have an excellent farm system earlier THIS decade. Considering players graduate from the minors to the majors within 4-5 years usually(if not sooner) I have no idea how it could take decades to build a good system.

[Soul]

The Cubs were considered to have an excellent farm system earlier THIS decade. Considering players graduate from the minors to the majors within 4-5 years usually(if not sooner) I have no idea how it could take decades to build a good system.

 

If you're failing along the path to building a good farm system, then yes.

[Burtonbell]

Something to keep the hot stove running I guess...From mlbtraderumors.com

 

By Tim Dierkes [December 28 at 4:45pm CST]

 

Links for Monday...

 

* A week ago, we heard conflicting reports about whether or not the Yankees had talked to the Cubs about acquiring Carlos Zambrano. SI.com's Jon Heyman reports, via Twitter, that the Yankees "definitely" inquired, and speculates that Zambrano is "eminently available."

[Backtobanks]

Something to keep the hot stove running I guess...From mlbtraderumors.com

 

By Tim Dierkes [December 28 at 4:45pm CST]

 

Links for Monday...

 

* A week ago, we heard conflicting reports about whether or not the Yankees had talked to the Cubs about acquiring Carlos Zambrano. SI.com's Jon Heyman reports, via Twitter, that the Yankees "definitely" inquired, and speculates that Zambrano is "eminently available."

 

 

How about a deal with the Mets:

 

Zambrano + Berg/Stevens + Fuld/Colvin + Blanco/Lee (ss) for Reyes + Pelfrey/Maine + Pagan

[SouthSideRyan]

Love that you have Hak Ju Lee as equivalent to Andres Blanco.

 

The Mets are giving up more talent and paying more money in that trade.

[Cubswin11]

Something to keep the hot stove running I guess...From mlbtraderumors.com

 

By Tim Dierkes [December 28 at 4:45pm CST]

 

Links for Monday...

 

* A week ago, we heard conflicting reports about whether or not the Yankees had talked to the Cubs about acquiring Carlos Zambrano. SI.com's Jon Heyman reports, via Twitter, that the Yankees "definitely" inquired, and speculates that Zambrano is "eminently available."

 

 

How about a deal with the Mets:

 

Zambrano + Berg/Stevens + Fuld/Colvin + Blanco/Lee (ss) for Reyes + Pelfrey/Maine + Pagan

We'd probably have to take Perez's contract back in this situation, Mets are rather strapped for cash and can't be bringing in another $15+ mil. contract annually when they would be giving up players who all have modest to small contracts.

[Sever82]

Something to keep the hot stove running I guess...From mlbtraderumors.com

 

By Tim Dierkes [December 28 at 4:45pm CST]

 

Links for Monday...

 

* A week ago, we heard conflicting reports about whether or not the Yankees had talked to the Cubs about acquiring Carlos Zambrano. SI.com's Jon Heyman reports, via Twitter, that the Yankees "definitely" inquired, and speculates that Zambrano is "eminently available."

 

 

How about a deal with the Mets:

 

Zambrano + Berg/Stevens + Fuld/Colvin + Blanco/Lee (ss) for Reyes + Pelfrey/Maine + Pagan

We'd probably have to take Perez's contract back in this situation, Mets are rather strapped for cash and can't be bringing in another $15+ mil. contract annually when they would be giving up players who all have modest to small contracts.

 

How about Zambrano, Colvin, Theriot for Reyes + Perez.

[imb]

Blanco/Lee (ss)

 

are you kidding me