If you could have a Marlins style fire sale, would you?

[UMFan83]

Just curious to see what people's thoughts were. I am not sure why I am so apathetic about this team, but for whatever reason it just doesn't interest me in the least. The only thing that interests me is how Castro and now Cashner do. Anyways, to the question at hand:

 

If the Cubs could have a Marlins like firesale, trading away basically every asset on the team, throw away a couple of seasons, lower payroll dramatically, would you accept that?

 

Obviously you aren't going to get great value for a ton of them. Soriano you'd have to eat a lot of money and take back almost nothing, whatever. It's impossible to do a true Marlins freestyle, because unlike the Marlins, we don't have good young players that don't make a ridiculous amount of money. But the concept of stripping the team bare, and starting all over building it again intregues me.

 

Assume that all NTC clauses were waived, because it'd be impossilbe to do this otherwise since half the team has them. Also, you can't assume that Hendry won't be the one rebuilding this team, otherwise it would just make your choice too easy.

 

So basically the team is stripped bare, the payroll goes down to around $60 million (probably about as low as it can go with all the crazy money eating we'd have to do), build the team around prospects and cheap stopgaps. And then once most of those big contracts slowly come off and we figure out which prospects are here to stay (lets say after 2012), Ricketts then allows the payroll to slowly (or quickly, whatever) build back up to $130 million range.

 

I dunno, is that completely crazy? I know it would never ever happen with this team because of a number of reasons, but it would make us so much more exciting to follow IMO. For the past 2 years we've been stuck with no room to make any trades, both monetarily and on the field with almost every position locked in by a big contract with NTC. I would love to have the excitement of throwing a bunch of new pieces together and seeing if they mesh.

 

If anyone has any suggestions about how an imaginary firesale would look, I'd love to see that too, in terms of how the team would look after it is done.

[CubColtPacer]

I don't mind a sale but a Marlins type firesale is too much IMO. At most, you trade the players whose contract is up after the year (Lee, Lilly) and the players who may be blocking players (Fukudome, Silva).

 

You shouldn't be opposed to trading anybody, but for example let's take a look at Ramirez. He would be traded in a Marlins type firesale at the worst time for value and would be replaced by no worthwhile prospect. There's no reason to trade him this year other than an emotional one. This season is also likely one of the worst times to try to trade Zambrano.

 

I can understand the desire to want to do a big firesale, but it would end up being pretty shortsighted IMO with all the dead money. The Cubs should do a transition year next year where they let Cashner and Jackson get long looks in the rotation, Colvin getting PT in the OF, etc. That gives all the benefits of a firesale and gives the Cubs a chance to contend or trade players like Ramirez or Z when they have a little more value. They don't need to look to contend but there's no reason to save money just to have roster filler play either.

 

By the start of 2012, the Cubs only have 54 million committed. If they're willing, they could easily have 3 pre free agency pitchers in the rotation (Wells, Cashner, and either Gorzelanny, Jackson, or Coleman). They could have 3 pre free agency starting position players (Soto, Castro, Colvin (or maybe Brett Jackson). And they'd have 75 million to fill in 5 position players, bench, and bullpen. And that's assuming none of the prospects that the Cubs get for their current players work and the Cubs haven't found deals for Z or Soriano during that time frame.

 

So I just don't see why you would do a big firesale. Why would you commit to losing until at least 2013 when the team could accomplish it faster using a less drastic but still just as disciplined approach? A Marlins type firesale is rarely the best approach for a big market team.

[Sammy Sofa]

Soriano you'd have to eat a lot of money and take back almost nothing, whatever.

 

Then what would be the point?

 

And yes, I would love to see them move Lilly, Fukudome, Lee and Zambrano.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yes please. I'm bored with this team. Tear it up.

[Guest]

You have to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and don't go messing with Mr. Inbetween.

 

Or as Billy Beane said, " You are either something or going to be something, anything else is a waste of time".

 

The Cubs are a waste of time as currently constructed. Back the truck up.

[dew1679666265]

You have to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and don't go messing with Mr. Inbetween.

 

Or as Billy Beane said, " You are either something or going to be something, anything else is a waste of time".

 

The Cubs are a waste of time as currently constructed. Back the truck up.

 

Is the correct solution to dump everybody (or nearly so) on the team and eat a ton of money for relatively little in return while losing 90+ games with minor league fillers? Or to make some changes, get younger in spots where we have quality minor leaguers and still keep the productive players who aren't blocking anybody?

[Guest]

You have to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and don't go messing with Mr. Inbetween.

 

Or as Billy Beane said, " You are either something or going to be something, anything else is a waste of time".

 

The Cubs are a waste of time as currently constructed. Back the truck up.

 

Is the correct solution to dump everybody (or nearly so) on the team and eat a ton of money for relatively little in return while losing 90+ games with minor league fillers? Or to make some changes, get younger in spots where we have quality minor leaguers and still keep the productive players who aren't blocking anybody?

 

The money is irrelevant b/c of guaranteed contracts. The Cubs are paying for guys to play for them or some % for them to play for someone else. It's a sunk cost. I'd rather they pay a higher % to get a better return on the future, than try to get some team to pay most of contract. They have enough resources to weather the storm for a few years.

 

Get rid of who is not going to be part of the future according to your baseball people. Aramis, Lee, Soriano, Lilly, and perhaps Big Z (although I will always love him) are not part of the future.

 

Really what does it matter if the Cubs win 70, 75, or 80 games vs. winning 60? The only thing that changes is draft slot. At this point, I'd rather the Cubs clean house, starting with GM and plan for the future. Losing 90+ games maybe a key component to building a winning team.

 

EDIT: The biggest problem with my plan is that the Cubs have guys with NTC making my plan almost impossible to execute. In that case I say we execute the GM (just kidding).

[dew1679666265]

The money is irrelevant b/c of guaranteed contracts. The Cubs are paying for guys to play for them or some % for them to play for someone else. It's a sunk cost. I'd rather they pay a higher % to get a better return on the future, than try to get some team to pay most of contract. They have enough resources to weather the storm for a few years.

 

Your last sentence is the key point there. A team with the monetary resources the Cubs have shouldn't and don't need to get rid of every veteran making big money – or any kind of money if we go by a Marlins-esque firesale. We have a decent chunk of cash coming off the books after this year (Lilly, Lee, maybe Aramis) and more than that the next year (maybe Dempster, Kosuke, Aramis, Silva, Grabow).

 

After this season, we'll have $103.5 mil invested in 9 players. Aramis, Grabow and Shark are the only ones who haven't been productive this year. If payroll stays the same as it is this year (no indication it won't go up), we'll have $42 mil to spend to fill holes – not counting the young pitching ready to come up. After the 2011 season, we'll have $62.5 mil invested in 7 players. There's no reason we can't keep some productive veterans and still rebuild the team.

 

Get rid of who is not going to be part of the future according to your baseball people. Aramis, Lee, Soriano, Lilly, and perhaps Big Z (although I will always love him) are not part of the future.

 

Z is only 28, he can still be part of the future. And with as well as he's pitched in a starting role the past few years, I don't know why he wouldn't be. I also wouldn't trade Aramis now. There's a realistic chance he rebounds and there's no reason to get pennies on the dollar for him now when he could be an .850+ OPS guy again.

 

Really what does it matter if the Cubs win 70, 75, or 80 games vs. winning 60? The only thing that changes is draft slot. At this point, I'd rather the Cubs clean house, starting with GM and plan for the future. Losing 90+ games maybe a key component to building a winning team.

 

EDIT: The biggest problem with my plan is that the Cubs have guys with NTC making my plan almost impossible to execute. In that case I say we execute the GM (just kidding).

 

The difference in record isn't as big a deal as playing games with a bunch of minor league filler. We're a big market club, there's no reason we can't wait out some of these big money veterans who have proven recently they can perform (Aramis, Lee) instead of trading them for extremely marginal return and sending out a bunch of players who have no chance to perform at the major league level.

 

If you're talking about selling high on some guys like Soriano, Lilly, Silva, etc., I'm fine with that. If you're talking about selling extremely low on guys like Lee, Aramis, Z, etc., just so we can play Hoffpauir, Tracy, Atkins, etc., I don't see the logic.

[Guest]

The money is irrelevant b/c of guaranteed contracts. The Cubs are paying for guys to play for them or some % for them to play for someone else. It's a sunk cost. I'd rather they pay a higher % to get a better return on the future, than try to get some team to pay most of contract. They have enough resources to weather the storm for a few years.

 

Your last sentence is the key point there. A team with the monetary resources the Cubs have shouldn't and don't need to get rid of every veteran making big money – or any kind of money if we go by a Marlins-esque firesale. We have a decent chunk of cash coming off the books after this year (Lilly, Lee, maybe Aramis) and more than that the next year (maybe Dempster, Kosuke, Aramis, Silva, Grabow).

 

"Shouldn't" and "don't need" are not the point.

 

The Cubs are not going to get better by plugging hole with FAs. They aren't the Yankees or the Red Sox. They don't have the resources. They do have the resources to let guys get paid by them to play badly for other teams.

 

Currently the Cubs are a dog chasing its tail. They are stuck with [expletive] players making gobs of money. They are going to finish with a crappy record with or without them. It's stupid to keep guys around who aren't part of your future when you aren't going to win.

 

The SHOULD be building for the future and not try to market the Wrigley experience and all the other nonsense we have put up with for.... forever.

[dew1679666265]

"Shouldn't" and "don't need" are not the point.

 

The Cubs are not going to get better by plugging hole with FAs. They aren't the Yankees or the Red Sox. They don't have the resources. They do have the resources to let guys get paid by them to play badly for other teams.

 

They are $20 mil behind the Red Sox in payroll this year and were ahead of Boston last year in payroll. They have the resources to compete with Boston, but not New York. That said, plugging holes with free agents isn't the only solution. They absolutely should be building up the farm system, but selling incredibly low on Aramis, Z and others isn't going to do much for the farm.

 

Selling for the sake of selling isn't the right thing to do here. We don't have many huge contracts swallowing up all our payroll, even if we do have one or two huge, long term contracts. We have plenty of payroll room to compete without selling players for pennies on the dollar at their lowest point of value.

 

Currently the Cubs are a dog chasing its tail. They are stuck with [expletive] players making gobs of money. They are going to finish with a crappy record with or without them. It's stupid to keep guys around who aren't part of your future when you aren't going to win.

 

The SHOULD be building for the future and not try to market the Wrigley experience and all the other nonsense we have put up with for.... forever.

 

If those players have no trade value whatsoever at the moment, but likely will in a season or so, there's absolutely a reason to keep them around. Aramis, Z, Grabow, etc. could all have exponentially more trade value in the offseason or early next year than they do right now. At this moment, we'd do well to get a team to eat some of Aramis and Grabow's contracts, much less restocking the farm. If, however, Aramis posts an .850 OPS the rest of the way and starts off 2011 hot, we could get some nice prospects and dump most or all of his contract.

 

Selling is as much about timing as anything. This is not the right time to be selling off a lot of our pieces.

[jersey cubs fan]

Selling for the sake of selling isn't the right thing to do here. We don't have many huge contracts swallowing up all our payroll, even if we do have one or two huge, long term contracts. We have plenty of payroll room to compete without selling players for pennies on the dollar at their lowest point of value.

 

It's not selling for the sake of selling, it's selling of the sake of getting better later. And I don't know how you can say they have plenty of room. They have an obscene amount of money tied up in the 2011 payroll, and are just going to be that much older, and that much past these guys primes. Sure, there's a chance they could comtend within the division, but that piss poor strategy is what doomed them during the MacPhail years.

[dew1679666265]

It's not selling for the sake of selling, it's selling of the sake of getting better later. And I don't know how you can say they have plenty of room. They have an obscene amount of money tied up in the 2011 payroll, and are just going to be that much older, and that much past these guys primes. Sure, there's a chance they could comtend within the division, but that piss poor strategy is what doomed them during the MacPhail years.

 

If we traded Aramis, Z and Grabow right now (or once Grabow gets healthy), how much salary relief and prospects do you think we'd get?

 

As for current salary availability, we have more than you'd like invested in not enough players and likely won't be great in 2011 whether we keep the status quo or we have a Marlins-esque firesale. However, we do have roughly $42 million to spend next year and roughly $80 mil the year after if we don't raise payroll a bit. That's more than enough money to, along with the likely additions we'll get from the farm, to put together a very competitive, if not great, baseball team by 2012.