More disappointing NYE?

[Southpaw191679666239]

Last year on New Year's Eve was the DeRosa trade and the ill-fated Aaron Miles signing. If nothing is announced tomorrow, which is the bigger disappointing NYE?

[MSG T]

While I liked the DeRosa trade, but not who he was replaced with, I'd have to go with last year. I look at Hendry like I do the government, the less they do, the better.

[TheVolCub08]

I don't see how Hendry doing nothing could be worse than Hendry doing something, at this point.

 

I realize this is in retrospect, but look at what last NYE got the Cubs. 3 marginal prospects, Aaron Miles, and Milton Bradley (essentially, since the DeRo trade was a salary move to create room for Bradley... who became Carlos Silva.) Everyone was giddy last NYE, because we were all sure that those 3 arms were pieces in the imminent Peavy trade. :banghead:

 

So, a year later, I have trouble seeing a day that led to 3 guys who probably won't amount to much, Aaron Miles, and a year of Milton Bradley (and a future of Carlos Silva) as somehow better than likely doing nothing. So, in my opinion, last year has to be more disappointing.

 

Oh, and let's not forget that we watched DeRo and Peavy end the year with the Cards and White Sox, respectively. :banghead:

[A New Era]

This NYE has been much less dissapointing. Yes it sucked? Yes. But actually when you consider we were going to get crap for Bradley anyway (that dissapointment should lean more toward last year anyway). Consider how Silva has been announced to get the mop up role, which is the most perfect role for him, and the fact that we haven't handed out any long backloaded contracts (Grabow was only 2 years ok). This NYE hasn't been that bad at all.

 

The less, the better as was said. Right now I prefer to keep our prospects and let the weeds grow out as was said before. And so far, that's what is happening.

[Guest]

This NYE has been much less dissapointing. Yes it sucked? Yes. But actually when you consider we were going to get crap for Bradley anyway (that dissapointment should lean more toward last year anyway). Consider how Silva has been announced to get the mop up role, which is the most perfect role for him, and the fact that we haven't handed out any long backloaded contracts (Grabow was only 2 years ok). This NYE hasn't been that bad at all.

 

The less, the better as was said. Right now I prefer to keep our prospects and let the weeds grow out as was said before. And so far, that's what is happening.

Silva will probably start at least a few games due to injury and ineffectiveness of others.

 

Happy New Year! :blackeye:

[Sammy Sofa]

So, a year later, I have trouble seeing a day that led to 3 guys who probably won't amount to much

 

Wait, what?

 

And why was it painful watching DeRosa with the Cardinals? He was not very good last year at all.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I dont see how this NYE is dissapointing at all. I dont expect anything to happen, and more than likely, nothing will happen. You cant really be disspointed if you dont expect anything.

[NCCubFan]

Um.....

[TheVolCub08]

So, a year later, I have trouble seeing a day that led to 3 guys who probably won't amount to much

 

Wait, what?

 

And why was it painful watching DeRosa with the Cardinals? He was not very good last year at all.

 

I have no faith that Gaub, Archer, or Stevens will ever be anything worthwhile at the Major League level, hence the "3 guys who won't amount to much".

 

It was painful because I like DeRo. It's painful because DeRo could have remained a Cub and spared us the failure that was the Milton Bradley Experiment. Seriously... there is no way anyone could ever convince me that swapping Marquis and DeRosa for Bradley was good. Of course, that is all in hindsight.

[TheVolCub08]

Well, this conversation could change with the Byrd signing.

[dew1679666265]

So, a year later, I have trouble seeing a day that led to 3 guys who probably won't amount to much

 

Wait, what?

 

And why was it painful watching DeRosa with the Cardinals? He was not very good last year at all.

 

I have no faith that Gaub, Archer, or Stevens will ever be anything worthwhile at the Major League level, hence the "3 guys who won't amount to much".

 

There are some questions surrounding all three players, but I don't understand the complete lack of faith. All three have been very impressive in the minors and Stevens showed some good signs in the majors this season.

 

What is it that gives you no confidence whatsoever in them?

[Sammy Sofa]

I have no faith that Gaub, Archer, or Stevens will ever be anything worthwhile at the Major League level, hence the "3 guys who won't amount to much".

 

What are you basing this on? Right now it looks like the Cubs have a good chance of having sold high on DeRosa and gotten return for doing so given the performances of all three thus far.

 

And the end result of DeRosa being with the Cubs instead of Bradley wouldn't have changed much of anything in terms of the record since DeRosa wasn't very good last season. Granted, they wouldn't have to deal with the mess of having to deal with Bradley's contract, but in the grand scheme of things DeRosa having stuck around his last year wouldn't have changed much. I'd much happier that they have the three players they got for him instead of keeping DeRosa through the end of his contract and getting nothing.

[TheVolCub08]

So, a year later, I have trouble seeing a day that led to 3 guys who probably won't amount to much

 

Wait, what?

 

And why was it painful watching DeRosa with the Cardinals? He was not very good last year at all.

 

I have no faith that Gaub, Archer, or Stevens will ever be anything worthwhile at the Major League level, hence the "3 guys who won't amount to much".

 

There are some questions surrounding all three players, but I don't understand the complete lack of faith. All three have been very impressive in the minors and Stevens showed some good signs in the majors this season.

 

What is it that gives you no confidence whatsoever in them?

 

I guess that if I'm honest, the answer to this question is... I've been a Cubs fan for 30 years. Not exactly scientific, I realize. Plus, I'm not sure that I consider a middle reliever or two a decent return on a guy who was a solid player who could play multiple positions. I know that all 3 still have plenty of time to develop (and they may), but as of today, I just don't consider it a great trade- mostly because the chain of events it set off.

[TheVolCub08]

I have no faith that Gaub, Archer, or Stevens will ever be anything worthwhile at the Major League level, hence the "3 guys who won't amount to much".

 

What are you basing this on? Right now it looks like the Cubs have a good chance of having sold high on DeRosa and gotten return for doing so given the performances of all three thus far.

 

And the end result of DeRosa being with the Cubs instead of Bradley wouldn't have changed much of anything in terms of the record since DeRosa wasn't very good last season. Granted, they wouldn't have to deal with the mess of having to deal with Bradley's contract, but in the grand scheme of things DeRosa having stuck around his last year wouldn't have changed much. I'd much happier that they have the three players they got for him instead of keeping DeRosa through the end of his contract and getting nothing.

 

As I explained to dew, most of my cynicism is based on being a Cubs fan for 30 years. Maybe all 3 will turn into useful pieces, but if they do, I'd be shocked.

 

Personally, I would have much rather held onto DeRosa and not dealt with the fiasco that was Milton Bradley (nor the impending disaster that is Carlos Silva). Also, it could have kept the Cubs from signing Miles, who I simply cannot stand. And I personally don't feel that trading away a solid every day player who can slide in at 4 or 5 positions for guys who could potentially be serviceable middle relievers (could.. not will) is an equitable trade.

 

Not saying I'm right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, just stating a personal preference. In hindsight, it would have been my preference to hold onto DeRosa and foregone the Miles/Bradley/Silva disaster.

[17 Seconds]

the derosa trade was the one good part of last offseason.

[Sammy Sofa]

the derosa trade was the one good part of last offseason.

 

Pretty much. They sold high on an aging player coming off a career year and got a good return. Keeping him wouldn't have amounted to much more than making Cubs fans feel better while the team (and DeRosa) had a letdown of a season. Yeah, the contract issues would be different, but we wouldn't have the 3 promising pitchers we got for him.

[Sammy Sofa]

the derosa trade was the one good part of last offseason.

 

Pretty much. They sold high on an aging player coming off a career year and got a good return. Keeping him wouldn't have amounted to much more than making Cubs fans feel better while the team (and DeRosa) had a letdown of a season. Yeah, the contract issues would be different, but we wouldn't have the 3 promising pitchers we got for him.

 

And really, the Miles "disaster?" Talk about being melodramatic.

[SouthSideRyan]

The ceilings of Gaub, Archer, and Stevens are all higher than that of a middle reliever.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Im not going to complain about the return for DeRosa, however in hindsite, imagine we hung on to DeRosa and never signed Bradley. Imagine that the playoff choke didnt cause Lou and Jim to panic and get more left handed. We keep DeRosa for the 2009 season, and let him go after. Yeah, we dont get 3 very solid pitching prospects in return, however, we have about 20 milion dollars more to spend over the next 2 offseasons. Who knows, maybe we even end up with Peavy somehow. I know hindsite is 20/20, but I think that money would be more valuable than Gaub, Archer, and Stevens.

[Sammy Sofa]

How would they have ended up with Peavy?

[davell]

I remember thinking that when the DeRosa trade happened, we'd be sending some of those prospects to San Diego as part of the Peavy deal. I wish we could have found out EXACTLY what the offers were, what they wanted from us, and why it fell through.......

[Little Slide Rooter]

How would they have ended up with Peavy?

 

Just a possibility. While the 2 sides couldnt agree on the players, the money was also a factor, and had we kept DeRosa, and not spent the money on Bradley, there may have been the money left to make the Peavy thing work. What Im really trying to say is that while the players we got back for DeRosa were a more than satisfactory return, the money thrown away on Bradley more than cancels them out.

[Sammy Sofa]

It doesn't really sound like money was the issue with getting Peavy as much as what they would have had to give up to get him. I really don't see how keeping DeRosa would have changed that.

[Guest]

How would they have ended up with Peavy?

 

Just a possibility. While the 2 sides couldnt agree on the players, the money was also a factor, and had we kept DeRosa, and not spent the money on Bradley, there may have been the money left to make the Peavy thing work. What Im really trying to say is that while the players we got back for DeRosa were a more than satisfactory return, the money thrown away on Bradley more than cancels them out.

So you are disappointed with the Bradley signing, not the DeRosa trade.