Starting a Fire Sale

[Backtobanks]

My point is that Ricketts has to put a product on the field next year to sell tickets. Following some of the posts here, we should trade ARam, Marmol, Byrd, Theriot, Gorzelanny, Colvin, Lilly, Lee, Fukudome, etc. As I've posted before, the Cubs will go into 2011 with a team they think can compete with their eye on contending in 2012. Obviously Ricketts plans to cut the payroll (at least for 2011). I would think that you need to keep players like Byrd, ARam, Colvin, Gorzelanny, Castro, Soto, Cashner, Marshall, Marmol, Dempster, Soriano (unfortunately), and Wells to be the core so that you can fill in the rest of the spots with prospects and/or reasonably priced FAs. As for the Hendry part of the discussion, my point has always been that he will be criticized no matter what he does or doesn't do. If he "sells high" on Marmol, there will be dozens of pages criticizing him for not geting enough and paying too much for relief help in 2012 (if they're contending). Everybody knows who they should be trying to trade - Lilly, DLee, Silva, Soriano, Fukudome, Zambrano, Theriot, Nady, etc. to open spots and get salary relief. Listen to offers for anybody on the team, but unless you're going to get the second coming of Albert Pujols, you don't trade away a young, superstar closer who is still very affordable.

 

"who they should be trying to trade" seems to include a lot of overpaid and/or unproductive players that nobody else will really give up anything of value for. with the likely exception of lilly.

 

I agree that the list of players they should be trying to trade does include overpaid and/or underproductive players, but what's the alternative for a team that has to retool? Trading away your young players for another team's young players is a crapshoot.

[A New Era]

The simple matter of fact is, we're screwed. No one wants any of our crap players, and we have crap players, with a tiny few exceptions. Unfortunately we don't have a nice little core of really young players to build around, and don't really have any "big time" pick ups for contending teams. Save maybe 1 or 2.

 

So in other words, there is no way to fix this in just the time span of one year.

[TruffleShuffle]

The bullpen numbers are dragged down by the terrible start too many of the relievers got off to coupled with Lou's inability to manage any kind of bullpen (ie-insisting on using certain pitchers well passed it being obvious that they're terrible). It's not an ideal bullpen, but it's mostly serviceable. Bullpens usually need to be tweaked every year anyway, so whatever. Marmol being there doesn't change that, and he's not making or breaking the team while also having tremendous value for teams that actually are in the mix. He's just going to get more expensive and he's a huge injury risk. Why cling to him unnecessarily when trading him can actually be much more useful to the team in the long run than him actually pitching for them?

 

well we will have agree to disagree; i think the cubs bullpen is lousy and has only about 3 guys who have major league ability.

 

when you say he will be much more useful in a trade than if the cubs kept him, you're assuming that they get a prospect or multiple prospects who turn into good players for the big club. that can work out but sometimes it does not, even if it looks like the team got good value for their star (c.c. sabathia trade being a recent example). i guess i don't really trust the cubs to not screw up a trade like that.

[Sammy Sofa]

You need to get off the video games if you think Marmol is going to net you very much in return. Relief pitchers (even great closers) don't net you great returns.

 

Well, no. If a pitcher is young, affordable and outstanding they can easily net you at least one decent player who has a ceiling above being a reliever that's a gain right there that I'd be very happy with. I'm not expecting a huge haul; just one or two good prospects.

 

So what's the point in trading him if he's young, affordable, and outstanding?

 

Because he's a huge injury risk, he's not affordable for much longer and he's never going to do anything beyond pitching out of the bullpen.

 

I don't "bemoan the Cubs having Soriano", but you must be the only person on this board who doesn't want him (and his contract) traded. The only reason I listed Soriano as a player to keep is because no team will take him, so there's no use in pretending that he won't be part of the 2011 Cubs.

 

I don't want him traded just to be traded. Nobody thinks that's a good contract, but it's one that can be worked around. For the time being he's an incredibly useful player and it's stupid to talk about him as if he's this burden holding the team back.

[Sammy Sofa]

The bullpen numbers are dragged down by the terrible start too many of the relievers got off to coupled with Lou's inability to manage any kind of bullpen (ie-insisting on using certain pitchers well passed it being obvious that they're terrible). It's not an ideal bullpen, but it's mostly serviceable. Bullpens usually need to be tweaked every year anyway, so whatever. Marmol being there doesn't change that, and he's not making or breaking the team while also having tremendous value for teams that actually are in the mix. He's just going to get more expensive and he's a huge injury risk. Why cling to him unnecessarily when trading him can actually be much more useful to the team in the long run than him actually pitching for them?

 

well we will have agree to disagree; i think the cubs bullpen is lousy and has only about 3 guys who have major league ability.

 

when you say he will be much more useful in a trade than if the cubs kept him, you're assuming that they get a prospect or multiple prospects who turn into good players for the big club. that can work out but sometimes it does not, even if it looks like the team got good value for their star (c.c. sabathia trade being a recent example). i guess i don't really trust the cubs to not screw up a trade like that.

 

Trading for prospects is always a gamble. Expecting Marmol to remain effective is a gamble. I prefer my chances with the trade.

[Guest]

I wouldn't trade Marmol away just to trade him. If someone was willing to cough up a top prospect for him, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Sammy Sofa]

I wouldn't trade Marmol away just to trade him. If someone was willing to cough up a top prospect for him, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

Right. I'm not saying the Cubs need to move him, but they should definitely be listening if people are offering.

[Backtobanks]

I wouldn't trade Marmol away just to trade him. If someone was willing to cough up a top prospect for him, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

Right. I'm not saying the Cubs need to move him, but they should definitely be listening if people are offering.

 

That's exactly what I've been saying, listen to all offers, but trading someone like Marmol would take an exceptional offer.

[Backtobanks]

You need to get off the video games if you think Marmol is going to net you very much in return. Relief pitchers (even great closers) don't net you great returns.

 

Well, no. If a pitcher is young, affordable and outstanding they can easily net you at least one decent player who has a ceiling above being a reliever that's a gain right there that I'd be very happy with. I'm not expecting a huge haul; just one or two good prospects.

 

So you would be happy with a prospect that might be a #4 or #5 starter over a sure-thing, lights-out, proven closer?

 

So what's the point in trading him if he's young, affordable, and outstanding?

 

Because he's a huge injury risk, he's not affordable for much longer and he's never going to do anything beyond pitching out of the bullpen.

 

Mariano Rivera seems to have done pretty well for a guy who's never done anything beyond pitching out of the bullpen. As for the injury risk, thank God he's doesn't have the perfect mechanics like Mark Prior.

[jersey cubs fan]

Mariano Rivera seems to have done pretty well for a guy who's never done anything beyond pitching out of the bullpen. As for the injury risk, thank God he's doesn't have the perfect mechanics like Mark Prior.

 

Rivera is the exception that proves the rule. He was also a guy with a K/BB ratio of 4/1 and a career WHIP of 1.00. Marmol is an incredibly inconsistent pitcher who will never be able to maintain his current K rate. If his BB rate does not come down sharply he's going to spend his career with inconsistent results that won't come close to Rivera.

 

Also, the mention of Mark Prior here is just dumb. I don't even know what you could be possibly trying to accomplish with that one.

[dew1679666265]

Mariano Rivera seems to have done pretty well for a guy who's never done anything beyond pitching out of the bullpen.

 

I'm not quite as big into the camp of devaluing relievers, but this is interesting:

 

Mariano Rivera total WAR over 16 seasons: 36.0

Javier Vazquez total WAR over 13 seasons: 52.6

[Tracer Bullet]

I wouldn't trade Marmol away just to trade him. If someone was willing to cough up a top prospect for him, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

Right. I'm not saying the Cubs need to move him, but they should definitely be listening if people are offering.

 

That's exactly what I've been saying, listen to all offers, but trading someone like Marmol would take an exceptional offer.

 

therein lies the disagreement. or maybe it's just a question of what you mean by "exceptional."

[Backtobanks]

Mariano Rivera seems to have done pretty well for a guy who's never done anything beyond pitching out of the bullpen. As for the injury risk, thank God he's doesn't have the perfect mechanics like Mark Prior.

 

Rivera is the exception that proves the rule. He was also a guy with a K/BB ratio of 4/1 and a career WHIP of 1.00. Marmol is an incredibly inconsistent pitcher who will never be able to maintain his current K rate. If his BB rate does not come down sharply he's going to spend his career with inconsistent results that won't come close to Rivera.

 

Also, the mention of Mark Prior here is just dumb. I don't even know what you could be possibly trying to accomplish with that one.

 

 

The reason I mentioned Prior is because many posters mention that Marmol is a serious risk and his arm is going to explode any minute. When Prior was pitching, many "experts" lauded his perfect mechanics and predicted he would never have arm problems.

[Guest]

That doesn't make the point you think it does.

[Guest]

Mariano Rivera seems to have done pretty well for a guy who's never done anything beyond pitching out of the bullpen. As for the injury risk, thank God he's doesn't have the perfect mechanics like Mark Prior.

 

Rivera is the exception that proves the rule. He was also a guy with a K/BB ratio of 4/1 and a career WHIP of 1.00. Marmol is an incredibly inconsistent pitcher who will never be able to maintain his current K rate. If his BB rate does not come down sharply he's going to spend his career with inconsistent results that won't come close to Rivera.

 

Also, the mention of Mark Prior here is just dumb. I don't even know what you could be possibly trying to accomplish with that one.

 

It's hard to compare him to Rivera anyway. Rivera is one reliever of thousands and thousands who stand the test of time. Sure, there are a few others like Eckersley and Hoffman that you can put in Rivera's class. But, considering the percentage of relievers who hold up for years and years compared to the guys who don't, it's absolutely nuts to assume you have a guy who will. It nears the percentage of prospects who make it to the HOF.

 

Buy a lottery ticket (B2B). I like your chances of winning better than Marmol sustaining his success for half the time Rivera has been finishing games for the Yankees. It's probably the reason why relievers don't get 10 year contracts, also. Eric Gagne was unhittable for a season or two. Where is he now?

[Backtobanks]

I guess I shouldn't have used Rivera's name, but my point was in answer to the suggestion that someone who does nothing beyond pitching out of the bullpen (Nuts and Gum) is borderline worthless. There are many outstanding closers (Lee Smith, Trevor Hoffman, Bruce Sutter, John Franco, etc.) that were very valuable role players to their respective teams. As for trading Marmol, I don't believe we would get equivalent value for him especially since prospects are unproven. Should Hendry listen to offers for Marmol (or anybody else)? Sure, but only if he can get equivalent value.

[Sammy Sofa]

I guess I shouldn't have used Rivera's name, but my point was in answer to the suggestion that someone who does nothing beyond pitching out of the bullpen (Nuts and Gum) is borderline worthless.

 

I didn't say he was worthless; you're completely making that up. I said I value someone who has a ceiling higher than being a reliever and has a good shot of getting near or hitting that ceiling than someone who is going to be anything more than a closer, and probably not even that for very long.

 

There are many outstanding closers (Lee Smith, Trevor Hoffman, Bruce Sutter, John Franco, etc.) that were very valuable role players to their respective teams. As for trading Marmol, I don't believe we would get equivalent value for him especially since prospects are unproven. Should Hendry listen to offers for Marmol (or anybody else)? Sure, but only if he can get equivalent value.

 

Your sense of "equivalent value" is skewed because you keep declaring him to be "exceptional" and comparing him to guys who have had abnormal longevity as closers that Marmol almost certainly can only dream of having. The bottom line is that he's a gigantic injury risk and most closers aren't effective for more than a few years. Selling high would be very smart, and it wouldn't require getting back an "exceptional" prospect for it to be a very smart move.

[TruffleShuffle]

Eric Gagne was unhittable for a season or two. Where is he now?

 

not on steroids any more, that's where.

[Tryptamine]

If he's not a superstar, he's on his way to becoming one. Using that logic, should we trade Castro, Cashner, or Soto? What's Marmol going to get you? Maybe a good AAA player and a decent AA player at most. Like I said earlier, listen to offers on anyone, but it would take an overwhelming offer to get Marmol (or Soto, Cashner, Castro, etc.)

 

So Marmol either is or will be a superstar...but you declare he won't net the Cubs much in return. Hey, it's great that you can have it both ways.

 

Stop lumping in a guy whose ceiling is being a closer with Soto, Cashner and Castro. Marmol's kicked ass, but it's extremely unlikely that he'll pan out to be some kind of freak that has a long effective career.

 

I also like how you bemoan the Cubs having Soriano, like he's terrible for them this season.

 

Just stick to your usual ridiculous video game trade suggestions.

 

You need to get off the video games if you think Marmol is going to net you very much in return. Relief pitchers (even great closers) don't net you great returns. So what's the point in trading him if he's young, affordable, and outstanding? I don't "bemoan the Cubs having Soriano", but you must be the only person on this board who doesn't want him (and his contract) traded. The only reason I listed Soriano as a player to keep is because no team will take him, so there's no use in pretending that he won't be part of the 2011 Cubs.

 

Did you see what Sherrill brought the O's last year? I would absolutely love to land a prospect the likes of Josh Bell.

[Rob]

Mariano Rivera seems to have done pretty well for a guy who's never done anything beyond pitching out of the bullpen.

 

I'm not quite as big into the camp of devaluing relievers, but this is interesting:

 

Mariano Rivera total WAR over 16 seasons: 36.0

Javier Vazquez total WAR over 13 seasons: 52.6

 

That's not really fair. WAR doesn't include leverage... and it is based on FIP, a metric which Rivera seems to have shown somewhat of an ability to outperform, and Vazquez has inexplicably shown an ability to perennially underperform.

[Backtobanks]

I guess I shouldn't have used Rivera's name, but my point was in answer to the suggestion that someone who does nothing beyond pitching out of the bullpen (Nuts and Gum) is borderline worthless.

 

I didn't say he was worthless; you're completely making that up. I said I value someone who has a ceiling higher than being a reliever and has a good shot of getting near or hitting that ceiling than someone who is going to be anything more than a closer, and probably not even that for very long.

 

There are many outstanding closers (Lee Smith, Trevor Hoffman, Bruce Sutter, John Franco, etc.) that were very valuable role players to their respective teams. As for trading Marmol, I don't believe we would get equivalent value for him especially since prospects are unproven. Should Hendry listen to offers for Marmol (or anybody else)? Sure, but only if he can get equivalent value.

 

Your sense of "equivalent value" is skewed because you keep declaring him to be "exceptional" and comparing him to guys who have had abnormal longevity as closers that Marmol almost certainly can only dream of having. The bottom line is that he's a gigantic injury risk and most closers aren't effective for more than a few years. Selling high would be very smart, and it wouldn't require getting back an "exceptional" prospect for it to be a very smart move.

 

I guess we'll have to disagree on how good Marmol is right now. Right now, I would describe him as "exceptional" and I don't have a crystal ball to predict that his career or effectiveness is going to end very soon. If he's not worth a "can't-miss" and a mid-level prospect, then they shouldn't trade him.

[Sammy Sofa]

I guess we'll have to disagree on how good Marmol is right now. Right now, I would describe him as "exceptional" and I don't have a crystal ball to predict that his career or effectiveness is going to end very soon. If he's not worth a "can't-miss" and a mid-level prospect, then they shouldn't trade him.

 

But guessing at his longevity is key to evaluating him since he's a reliever. You can't simply focus on what he's doing right now. He's ultimately only exceptional if he somehow manages to have a longer than usual career for a pitcher of his ilk, which would be very unusual.

[dew1679666265]

Mariano Rivera seems to have done pretty well for a guy who's never done anything beyond pitching out of the bullpen.

 

I'm not quite as big into the camp of devaluing relievers, but this is interesting:

 

Mariano Rivera total WAR over 16 seasons: 36.0

Javier Vazquez total WAR over 13 seasons: 52.6

 

That's not really fair. WAR doesn't include leverage... and it is based on FIP, a metric which Rivera seems to have shown somewhat of an ability to outperform, and Vazquez has inexplicably shown an ability to perennially underperform.

 

Yeah, leverage is a big reason I value closers more highly than many. Your points make sense, I just found it interesting that a no-doubt Hall of Fame closer would have a lower career WAR than an above average starting pitcher.

[hawkeyecub]

Eric Gagne was unhittable for a season or two. Where is he now?

 

not on steroids any more, that's where.

 

Roast wants to see the proof.

[inari]

A leadoff walk to Aaron Miles would be a fitting start to a horrible collapse.