Hendry looking per Kaplan

[Sammy Sofa]

For the love of...

 

Adding a reliever isn't going to fix the team. There is zero point in overpaying in a trade for a reliever right now so long as the offense isn't given any indication it can produce with any kind of regularity AND before they've even bothered to try cycling in some of the pitchers from the minors AND actually given the young arms we currently have up more work.

 

If you read my post, I never said that adding a reliever was going to fix the team.

 

You certainly implied it. Why else bring up the Edmonds move, which had a significant impact on the team? You seem to be implying that there's a good chance that the Cubs would get similar results out of a reliever if they pick one up off the scrap heap or buy low. That's tremendously unlikely.

 

The offense is slumping now, but their track record says they will rebound.

 

Actually, their "track record" indicates that this could very easily be a very long year. Just last year we went through a similar streaky/feast or famine style of offense, and the team has changed little and it's old core group of players has only gotten older.

 

That's not true about the bullpen.

 

What a ridiculous conclusion. This bullpen largely doesn't have much of a track record because of how many young pitchers are a part of it and likely will be a part of it from the minors.

 

Getting a dependable reliever and setting up the roles in the bullpen could make a big difference. Obviously if ARam and DLee hit under .250 with reduced production all year, we're screwed. Also, I never wrote anything about overpaying for a reliever.

 

The Cubs would have to overpay to get a dependable reliever. There's no way around that. You're deluding yourself if you think they're going to somehow sneak a good reliever away from another team without having to overpay, and the guys available right now are out there because they're NOT dependable. Picking up any bullpen FA's right now would be a crap shoot, just like actually seeing what you have in-house. Getting a bullpen FA wouldn't be a huge deal, but if you're counting on them to make a "big difference" you're almost certainly going to be very disappointed.

 

One of the worst things Hendry could do right now is trade for a reliever. If he wants to take a gamble on an unsigned or released one, hey, great, but trading for a reliever right now is not smart at all.

[Backtobanks]

For the love of...

 

Adding a reliever isn't going to fix the team. There is zero point in overpaying in a trade for a reliever right now so long as the offense isn't given any indication it can produce with any kind of regularity AND before they've even bothered to try cycling in some of the pitchers from the minors AND actually given the young arms we currently have up more work.

 

If you read my post, I never said that adding a reliever was going to fix the team.

 

You certainly implied it. Why else bring up the Edmonds move, which had a significant impact on the team? You seem to be implying that there's a good chance that the Cubs would get similar results out of a reliever if they pick one up off the scrap heap or buy low. That's tremendously unlikely.

 

Adding a dependable reliever would help, not fix the team. I agree getting one from the scrap heap won't help the team.

 

The offense is slumping now, but their track record says they will rebound.

 

Actually, their "track record" indicates that this could very easily be a very long year. Just last year we went through a similar streaky/feast or famine style of offense, and the team has changed little and it's old core group of players has only gotten older.

 

DLee and ARam have been two very consistent hitters throughout their careers and both are well below career averages. ARam is at .127/.188/.302/.490 while is career averages are .284/.342/.500/.843, so expecting a turnaround is not out of the question.

 

That's not true about the bullpen.

 

What a ridiculous conclusion. This bullpen largely doesn't have much of a track record because of how many young pitchers are a part of it and likely will be a part of it from the minors.

 

With the addition of a dependable reliever, the young pitchers could have a better understanding of their role in the bullpen and settle into that role.

 

Getting a dependable reliever and setting up the roles in the bullpen could make a big difference. Obviously if ARam and DLee hit under .250 with reduced production all year, we're screwed. Also, I never wrote anything about overpaying for a reliever.

 

The Cubs would have to overpay to get a dependable reliever. There's no way around that. You're deluding yourself if you think they're going to somehow sneak a good reliever away from another team without having to overpay, and the guys available right now are out there because they're NOT dependable. Picking up any bullpen FA's right now would be a crap shoot, just like actually seeing what you have in-house. Getting a bullpen FA wouldn't be a huge deal, but if you're counting on them to make a "big difference" you're almost certainly going to be very disappointed.

 

One of the worst things Hendry could do right now is trade for a reliever. If he wants to take a gamble on an unsigned or released one, hey, great, but trading for a reliever right now is not smart at all.

 

My point is that the bullpen is a problem and getting a decent, dependable reliever without overpaying would help in solving part of the problem with the team. Cruz (with some Rothschild pixie dust) could be an option. Another poster mentioned Adams from the Padres who wouldn't cost you top prospects. Also, while nobody has given up on the season yet, there are rumblings in certain cities about changes that need to be made.

[E.J.]

Ah! My eyes!

[Sammy Sofa]

BtB, stop saying the Cubs can get a good, dependable reliever without overpaying. This is the real world. They can take chances on scrap heap relievers who might pull a decent season out of their asses, which is a totally different thing. There are no dependable relievers just sitting around waiting to be signed right now. They'd have to be traded for. Stop pretending otherwise.

[Backtobanks]

BtB, stop saying the Cubs can get a good, dependable reliever without overpaying. This is the real world. They can take chances on scrap heap relievers who might pull a decent season out of their asses, which is a totally different thing. There are no dependable relievers just sitting around waiting to be signed right now. They'd have to be traded for. Stop pretending otherwise.

 

A trade for a decent reliever doesn't have to mean you're overpaying. I realize that you would have to overpay for someone like Bell, but there are other relievers out there that might be available. 1 or 2 mid to low-level prospect(s) for a relief pitcher that could settle down the pen situation isn't overpaying. Any of our top 10 prospects for a reliever is overpaying.

[Sammy Sofa]

You seem to be suggesting different things. Yes, you probably could snag a reliever for a couple of low level prospects...but he's not going to be, as you put it yourself, good and dependable. Good and dependable relievers are a luxury. Teams aren't just going to give them up without demanding a good return.

[Backtobanks]

I guess our definitions of a decent, dependable reliever are different.

[Sammy Sofa]

Clearly.

 

Relievers that tend to be reliable also tend to be relatively rare commodities that teams hold onto or trade only for a decent return. Teams that are bursting at the seams with reliable relievers and are nice enough to let them go for marginal prospects are mythical.

[Tracer Bullet]

I guess our definitions of a decent, dependable reliever are different.

 

I don't see how they can be. If you think a dependable reliever could help the team, he must be good (or better than what we have now anyway). The problem doesn't seem to be the definition of dependable reliever. I think it's a disagreement about what good relievers would cost. Unless you catch lightning in a bottle, good, dependable RPs aren't available for a mid-level prospect right now. If you're suggesting Hendry roll the dice on some reliever with a spotty history, that doesn't at all jibe with your earlier post.

 

I'm struggling to figure out just what type of reliever you think Hendry should be targeting. It doesn't seem clear at all.

[Backtobanks]

I haven't checked on the possible availability this year of the type of pitcher that I'm talking about, but in previous years you could have acquired Chad Qualls, Jon Rauch, Mike Adams, Mike Wuertz, Matt Thornton, Nick Masset, Juan Cruz, Matt Capps, etc. for mid-level or lower prospects. Of course now that some of these guys are closers their price has increased.

[Sammy Sofa]

But that's not what you've been talking about. You're saying they need to go out and get a reliable guy as if it is known that the pitcher is a dependable reliever, and none of those guys were considered that when they moved for low-level prospects, hence why they were moved for low-level prospects. The vast majority of relievers moved for marginal prospects are not reliable pitchers and will not be reliable pitchers.

[Backtobanks]

But that's not what you've been talking about. You're saying they need to go out and get a reliable guy as if it is known that the pitcher is a dependable reliever, and none of those guys were considered that when they moved for low-level prospects, hence why they were moved for low-level prospects. The vast majority of relievers moved for marginal prospects are not reliable pitchers and will not be reliable pitchers.

 

I guess it's a matter of semantics. Adams has done a decent job, Wuertz did fine until he got in Lou's doghouse, Rauch was a decent pitcher, Capps did a good job, etc. Let's turn the discussion around: I think Sean Marshall is a good reliable reliever, what do you think another team would offer for him? My guess is a mid-level and a low-level prospect. What we need to find is a RH Sean Marshall.

[Guest]

Let's turn the discussion around: I think Sean Marshall is a good reliable reliever, what do you think another team would offer for him? My guess is a mid-level and a low-level prospect. What we need to find is a RH Sean Marshall.

 

And the Cubs would most assuredly turn that down, which is the entire point.

[treebird]

Let's turn the discussion around: I think Sean Marshall is a good reliable reliever, what do you think another team would offer for him? My guess is a mid-level and a low-level prospect. What we need to find is a RH Sean Marshall.

 

And the Cubs would most assuredly turn that down, which is the entire point.

 

maybe he thinks midlevel means like the middle of the baseball america top 100 prospects

[TakeMeToManos]

Speaking of KC, I wonder if we could dangle Cashner for Soria.

Holy Garland for Karchner Batman!

 

 

This is a horrible, horrible comparison.

 

Soria is 26 years old. His lifetime ERA is 2.09, while his lifetime WHIP is 0.95. He strikes out more than a guy an inning, and has a 4:1 strikeout to walk ratio. If not for playing for the Royals, he'd reguarly be in the discussion for the best reliever in all of baseball.

 

As you asserted, the original poster may have not kept a very good eye on Cashner this year, but you're selling Soria severely short here.

[cubfan]

Speaking of KC, I wonder if we could dangle Cashner for Soria.

Holy Garland for Karchner Batman!

 

 

This is a horrible, horrible comparison.

 

Soria is 26 years old. His lifetime ERA is 2.09, while his lifetime WHIP is 0.95. He strikes out more than a guy an inning, and has a 4:1 strikeout to walk ratio. If not for playing for the Royals, he'd reguarly be in the discussion for the best reliever in all of baseball.

 

As you asserted, the original poster may have not kept a very good eye on Cashner this year, but you're selling Soria severely short here.

 

To be fair, I think Cashner is a better prospect at this point than Garland was at the time of the trade for Karchner. So I agree that Soria is better than Karchner was but I also think that Cashner has more trade value right now than Garland had at the time of the trade. The difference between Soria and Karchner may be greater than the difference between Cashner and Garland but both would be bad trades for the Cubs.

Edited April 27, 2010 by cubfan

[Guest]

Speaking of KC, I wonder if we could dangle Cashner for Soria.

Holy Garland for Karchner Batman!

 

 

This is a horrible, horrible comparison.

 

Soria is 26 years old. His lifetime ERA is 2.09, while his lifetime WHIP is 0.95. He strikes out more than a guy an inning, and has a 4:1 strikeout to walk ratio. If not for playing for the Royals, he'd reguarly be in the discussion for the best reliever in all of baseball.

 

As you asserted, the original poster may have not kept a very good eye on Cashner this year, but you're selling Soria severely short here.

You're taking it way too literally.

[biittner77]

How about Gorzelanny, someone like Blake Parker and someone like Tony Thomas for a "dependable" reliever? That seems like the kind of deal that a team that was trying to save money could make and it would be reasonable. That would be overpaying on the part of the Cubs but they could absorb those costs.

 

The problem is finding a team that needs a starter more than they need a reliever.

[chasinf5s]

How about Gorzelanny, someone like Blake Parker and someone like Tony Thomas for a "dependable" reliever? That seems like the kind of deal that a team that was trying to save money could make and it would be reasonable. That would be overpaying on the part of the Cubs but they could absorb those costs.

 

The problem is finding a team that needs a starter more than they need a reliever.

 

I could see Gorzelanny being traded for relief help and Zambrano being moved back into the rotation

[Sammy Sofa]

Why not just move Gorzelanny to the bullpen?

[17 Seconds]

Why not just move Gorzelanny to the bullpen?

 

i want to see what he can do as a starter. he has great minor league numbers and he's been very good this year so far. he was good in his time with the cubs last year too.

[biittner77]

Why not just move Gorzelanny to the bullpen?

 

I think they like having another LH in the rotation. I would guess that Silva moves to the pen before Gorzelanny for that reason. Then again, who knows what crazy old Lou is thinking?

[jersey cubs fan]

Why not just move Gorzelanny to the bullpen?

 

Because they are the goldilocks of bullpens, with one or two LH relievers being too little and 3 or 4 being too much.

[SouthSideRyan]

Why not just move Gorzelanny to the bullpen?

 

Because lefty starters can face right handed batters, but lefty relievers cannot.

[Guest]

Why not just move Gorzelanny to the bullpen?

 

Because lefty starters can face right handed batters, but lefty relievers cannot.

 

Well even when Gorzelanny was good in Pittsburgh, against RH hitters he wasn't much different than, say, Braden Looper.