Re: What do you predict the 2011 Cubs will look like?

[ConstableRabbit]

I thought Guzman was done...

For this year, yes. For the future, that remains to be seen. I do recall reading that when the surgery was performed the damage wasn't as bad as first feared. I think the Cubs need to operate under the assumption that he's done and if he can return it's a nice bonus.

I seem to remember hearing that it was career threatening or career ending.

 

Guess I was wrong.

[NCCubFan]

I thought Guzman was done...

For this year, yes. For the future, that remains to be seen. I do recall reading that when the surgery was performed the damage wasn't as bad as first feared. I think the Cubs need to operate under the assumption that he's done and if he can return it's a nice bonus.

I seem to remember hearing that it was career threatening or career ending.

 

Guess I was wrong.

You're not necessarily wrong. Career threatening, yes. Career ending, remains to be seen. At least that's the latest I remember.

[dew1679666265]

In practicality, you are clearly correct. The Cubs had no desire to trade either player before their 10/5 rights accrued, rendering the no-trade clauses moot.

 

I just don't think that reasoning vindicates the no-trade clauses (especially vis-a-vis Lee). Almost exclusively, teams don't sign players they desire to trade. Teams certainly don't often sign players they desire to trade to multi-year, eight-digit contracts. So, of course, the Cubs didn't desire to trade Lee or Ramirez when they were signed. However, flexibility and contingency are not merely desirable in retrospect. Perhaps this is personal preference, but I would gladly pay a little premium for those in almost all scenarios. I would also look to trade players before 10/5 rights accrued, in many scenarios (Ramirez would have been an exception to that).

 

You're assuming here that GMs never sign players to contracts longer than they want to. I don't think that's accurate at all. I could easily see a deal like Dempster's being one where Hendry hoped he'd be pitching well enough to trade him with a year or two left. The hope is that the player is so good in the first few years of the contract that it makes it worth having that player overpaid (perhaps significantly) late in the deal. Or that you can trade the player while he still has value.

 

Lee signed a small enough monetary deal (for a premiere first baseman) and Aramis was young enough that both could have realistically been expected to produce well enough to justify their contract through the length of the deal.

 

Finally, the latter argument which I didn't originally address is a fundamental two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right situation. I'm also not sure I agree with it, because I could definitely envision someone taking Soriano or Zambrano when fewer years remain on their respective contracts (depending on how either player performs in the meantime).

 

That's the thing, though. Soriano was a desperation move of sorts and I have to think Hendry knew he'd be untradeable. Early in the deal he's got too much left on the deal to trade him, late in the deal he's likely to fall off a cliff. I'm not arguing signing the contract was right, I am saying that since the contract was signed, cutting off some money or a year in a trade for a NTC was a good idea - with the idea that Soriano almost certainly wouldn't be tradeable at any point anyway.

 

Z was almost as much a PR signing as anything. I liked it at the time and still don't dislike the contract. He's still a quality pitcher, though not living up to the pricetag. It's really, really hard to pass up re-signing an elite (at the time) young pitcher who you developed in your own system willing to take a hometown discount. I would argue that even without the NTC, the Cubs shouldn't trade Z because the money left on the deal will lessen the return greatly. Especially considering the reputation he's garnered, he provides far more value to us in the rotation (if they'll put him back there) than he does as trade bait.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The way I see it, the Cubs only have 4 minor flaws: offense, defense, starting pitching, and middle relief. We can plug all those holes for relatively cheap, right?

[KaiserCesar]

MLBTR just tackled the issue

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/08/the-cubs-offseason.html

 

 

Despite all the innings to young relievers this year, who actually has performed well enough to stick around in 2011? I get the feeling a FA signing or two for the bullpen is pretty much guaranteed. Aside from that, a big 1B acquisition needs to be made and some depth additions that can't be fulfilled from within. We really have no idea who will come back in a dump of Fukudome or Zambrano, but there will probably be some high paid bench player(s)/bullpen arms next year.

[javy knows my name]

The way I see it, the Cubs only have 4 minor flaws: offense, defense, starting pitching, and middle relief. We can plug all those holes for relatively cheap, right?

hahaha

[CubsWin]

If the Cubs are going to compete with the best next season, they need to acquire Adrian Gonzalez, at least one top of the line starter, get lucky filling out their bullpen with young arms, have Tyler Colvin learn plate discipline against major league pitchers, have Aramis return to form and not opt out of his contract, have Starlin Castro keep performing at his current level, somehow get someone to take Fukudome and Zambrano off their hands (or somehow turn Z around performance wise and emotionally), oh, and stay healthy.

 

Tall order.

 

What will they look like?

 

I agree with those who say that it will look like Soriano, Byrd and Colvin in the outfield, Ramirez, Castro and DeWitt third to second and Soto behind the plate. My wish is to trade for Gonzalez with a package of Vitters, pitching maybe Wells like another poster said (anyone but Archer, McNutt and Simpson) and whoever else they want not named Brett Jackson or Hak-Ju Lee. I just don't think that San Diego will go for it. Short of that, I'm hoping to sign Adam Dunn to play first. It's a pipe dream, but it would be best for the Cubs if it were a front loaded 2 or 3 year contract. That way if the Cubs are somehow able to sign Gonzalez, Dunn's contract would make him tradable. He's 30 though. This is his last chance to get a 4 or 5 year deal. I don't see that happening.

 

Pitching? Zambrano's a mess. I guess they should just eat the salary and cut him loose, but, gah, what a waste. What's harder, to get a decent return in a trade for Carlos Zambrano right now or to whip him back into some semblance of his former self? The Cubs certainly have the depth to let him go. Dempster, Silva, Gorzelanny, Wells still remain. The competition for the 5th spot would be between Diamond, Jackson, Cashner, Samardzija and Coleman. The glaring problem is the lack of one or two top of the line starters.

 

The closer is set for years to come assuming they pay Marmol well enough to keep him. The rest of the pen is anybody's guess. Marshall has been awesome as a reliever, but he could easily be a candidate for the rotation along with Cashner. I doubt the Cubs let him do that though despite his wishes in the matter. Will Grabow be back to his average self? Will the losers of the 5th starter competition fill out the rest of the pen? They could.

 

Ugh, this is depressing.

 

Here's hoping ownership agrees to eat a bunch of salary and Hendry can package Zambrano, Fukudome, Vitters, and others for Gonzalez and the Cubs can start over. :roll:

[TruffleShuffle]

you can't just take a dump in a box and exchange that for one of the 10 or 15 players in the game. if you want gonzalez they're going to want either proven young major league talent (though they have to know that castro is off-limits) and/or premium prospects. vitters plus someone other than the cubs other top 5 prospects isn't good enough. if you want to trade for a player that good, it has to be pretty painful (like wells, vitters, jackson/archer plus a low minors live arm, i guess).

 

as for zambrano, his babip is .385 and yes, he's allowing more line drives, but .385 is ridiculous. part of that is the cubs' lousy defense but most is bad luck. his xFIP is 4.33, which is really not far from where it's been since 2006. so yes, zambrano has had a lousy year, but it's not as bad as it looks and his offense really does add a lot to his value. releasing him or eating almost his entire salary would be a stupid overreaction (which is why the cubs will probably do it). hang onto him; he'll probably put up #3/4 starter numbers with his offense adding several runs above most pitchers.

[dew1679666265]

you can't just take a dump in a box and exchange that for one of the 10 or 15 players in the game. if you want gonzalez they're going to want either proven young major league talent (though they have to know that castro is off-limits) and/or premium prospects. vitters plus someone other than the cubs other top 5 prospects isn't good enough. if you want to trade for a player that good, it has to be pretty painful (like wells, vitters, jackson/archer plus a low minors live arm, i guess).

 

If we could get Gonzalez for Vitters, Wells, J Jackson and a low minors live arm, I'd do it. And I think that could be realistic.

 

as for zambrano, his babip is .385 and yes, he's allowing more line drives, but .385 is ridiculous. part of that is the cubs' lousy defense but most is bad luck. his xFIP is 4.33, which is really not far from where it's been since 2006. so yes, zambrano has had a lousy year, but it's not as bad as it looks and his offense really does add a lot to his value. releasing him or eating almost his entire salary would be a stupid overreaction (which is why the cubs will probably do it). hang onto him; he'll probably put up #3/4 starter numbers with his offense adding several runs above most pitchers.

 

Yeah, Zs struggles have been blown way out of proportion this year. He hasn't been good, but he's not bad Carlos Silva or anything.

[NCCubFan]

Here's hoping ownership agrees to eat a bunch of salary and Hendry a new GM can package Zambrano, Fukudome, Vitters, and others for Gonzalez and the Cubs can start over. :roll:

Fixed.

[TruffleShuffle]

If we could get Gonzalez for Vitters, Wells, J Jackson and a low minors live arm, I'd do it. And I think that could be realistic.

 

i'm not sure if that would be enough because when teams trade a great player, they usually want at least one guy whose star is rising - like mcnutt or archer or something. not a guy who didn't hit in AA, a pitcher who pretty much stagnated in AAA and a starting pitcher who pitched like a #4/#5 type in the big leagues. it's hard to sell that to the fans.

[Guest]

A 3 win pitcher under team control for 4 more years plus 2 of the team's top 5-10 prospects is plenty for Gonzalez. Probably too much.

[TruffleShuffle]

A 3 win pitcher under team control for 4 more years plus 2 of the team's top 5-10 prospects is plenty for Gonzalez. Probably too much.

 

maybe so, but i don't think they'd do it.

[dew1679666265]

A 3 win pitcher under team control for 4 more years plus 2 of the team's top 5-10 prospects is plenty for Gonzalez. Probably too much.

 

It might be a bit too much, but any trade for Gonzalez is likely to be overpaying. This deal overpays in the Cubs' strength (starting pitching), though, and that helps us absorb it better. If the deal were similar in talent given up, but that talent was offensive, I'd be a whole lot less inclined to do it.

[dew1679666265]

A 3 win pitcher under team control for 4 more years plus 2 of the team's top 5-10 prospects is plenty for Gonzalez. Probably too much.

 

maybe so, but i don't think they'd do it.

 

It would at least get us in the ballpark and could be enough, depending on what other teams offered.

[Guest]

Actually, the more that I look at it, even just Wells is probably too much to give up from the Cubs perspective.

[Guest]

Considering the incremental value Gonzalez would provide above Dunn (whom we can sign for just money this offseason), I wouldn't come close to doing that deal.

 

1) Dunn is older, but will sign a significantly shorter contract

2) The difference in production between Gonz & Dunn is less than the expected long-term and cheap production from the guys in that package (and short-term production in the case of Wells, who is extremely under-rated)

3) The difference in the amount required to lock up Gonzalez long-term and the amount being talked about to sign Dunn could be used to get another impact player like Cliff Lee all on its own.

 

In short, I'd much rather have Dunn + Cliffy + Wells + Vitters + ... than Gonzalez.

[UMFan83]

I wonder if people think we are farther away or closer to the top of the mountain than we were in 2006? After 2006, I thought we were so far away that nothing we did could get us to the playoffs within 2-3 years. Of course I was wrong, but looking back then, it was depressing because there were really no young players that were ready to come in and take any positions, besides Felix Pie who was 1 year away. The pitching was OK...I think 2006 was the year everyone finally gave up on Prior. Zambrano was still an All-Star caliber ace in most people's minds, so at least we had that.

 

This year, despite the awful year, we've seen Soto rebound to have a very nice year, and we've also seen Castro come up and get a ton of playing time, and so far he has proven that he's gonna be our starting SS for awhile. Colvin meanwhile keeps surprising, and although I still have a hard time believing he's the long term solution, he's still a player with value. On the other side of the ledger, in 06 we could say at least we had 2 cornerstone offensive players in Lee and Ramirez, but in 2010, they are 4 years older, both in their 30's, and Lee is a FA. Also, there is really no one currently in the majors, except maybe Cashner, that projects to be an ace quality or even top of the line number 2 starter. Dempster has been and could be a 2 on a good team but ideally a 3 on a championship contender, Zambrano, assuming a bounce back is a 2 most likely, Wells a 4-5, Silva is a short term fix. The other problem that we have in 10 that we didn't have in 6 is that obviously our payroll is much much higher than in 06...I think close to $60 million higher. And esentially that was the difference maker that allowed the 06 team to rebuild into a playoff team quickly that we just don't have in 10.

 

There are some things to feel positive about, but in this man's opinion we were better off in 06 than right now.

[pccubfan]

Would it be possible to save $5 million on Fukudome next year?

 

Use Lee, Lilly, Nady, Theriot and Fukudome money (approx $36 million) to buy Dunn, Lee and still provide raises to Byrd, Marmol, Marshall, and Soto. Would that be enough?

[Guest]

It seems there's a collective underappreciation of how good Dempster, Wells, and to a lesser extent Gorzelanny are. They are far better off now than they were in 2006.

[Sammy Sofa]

It seems there's a collective underappreciation of how good Dempster, Wells, and to a lesser extent Gorzelanny are. They are far better off now than they were in 2006.

 

Right. Between that and young players the Cubs have who are doing well they are much better off than they were in 2006.

[dew1679666265]

1) Dunn is older, but will sign a significantly shorter contract

 

There's likely to be a difference between his demands and what he gets, but reports are Dunn wants 4 years. I'd guess Gonzalez will re-up for 6-7 years tops. That's not all that significant. Especially if Gonzo goes 4-5 years with the idea of getting one more big contract after this one.

 

2) The difference in production between Gonz & Dunn is less than the expected long-term and cheap production from the guys in that package (and short-term production in the case of Wells, who is extremely under-rated)

 

I don't want to talk down our prospects first off. I'd hate to give up any of those players, but there are significant questions about each of them, save for Wells.

 

However, Gonzalez has 6-7 WAR upside. Dunn hasn't been more than a 3.4 WAR player since 2004. Granted, Dunn and Wells together equal the same number of wins as Gonzalez's upside, but Dunn is likely to regress and perhaps quickly from here. Gonzalez is likely to get better. While Wells will likely also get better, we have an abundance of high quality pitchers ready for the majors and could take the hit of losing a couple of them in this trade.

 

I don't think Dunn turning 31-34 during his contract while Gonzo will be less than 30 for the first two years of the deal can be understated. Gonzo is also, I'd say, more likely to age well than Dunn (better walk and K rates for Gonzalez).

 

3) The difference in the amount required to lock up Gonzalez long-term and the amount being talked about to sign Dunn could be used to get another impact player like Cliff Lee all on its own.

 

In short, I'd much rather have Dunn + Cliffy + Wells + Vitters + ... than Gonzalez.

 

Dunn is asking for $15 mil a year and might get close to that with first base now being a proven position for him – he certainly will if he relents and becomes willing to go to an AL team to DH. The absolute max I could see Gonzalez getting is $25 mil a year and probably less in this economy. There's now way I can see us getting a Cliff Lee for no more than $10 mil a year.

 

I can understand not wanting to give up a lot of talent for one player, but with our farm system having nobody on the horizon at first base, we pretty much have to make a move for one. As much as I like Adam Dunn, I just don't see him being productive enough into his mid-30s to warrant the kind of money he's asking for and may very well get.

[Guest]

Considering the incremental value Gonzalez would provide above Dunn (whom we can sign for just money this offseason), I wouldn't come close to doing that deal.

 

1) Dunn is older, but will sign a significantly shorter contract

2) The difference in production between Gonz & Dunn is less than the expected long-term and cheap production from the guys in that package (and short-term production in the case of Wells, who is extremely under-rated)

3) The difference in the amount required to lock up Gonzalez long-term and the amount being talked about to sign Dunn could be used to get another impact player like Cliff Lee all on its own.

 

In short, I'd much rather have Dunn + Cliffy + Wells + Vitters + ... than Gonzalez.

 

I think Lee is going to be far closer to Gonzalez money than Dunn money, but it brings up an interesting point. What if you paid up for Lee and then overwhelmed a team for someone like Billy Butler? You think Moore would turn down Colvin, J Jackson, and Vitters with Hosmer getting close? Use the Nady-of-the-year to platoon with Kosuke until Jackson is ready?

 

Castro

Kosuke/Byrd

Soto

Butler

Soriano

Ramirez

Byrd/Nady

DeWitt(or Fontenot or Baker)

 

with Lee/Dempster/Wells/Gorzelanny/Zambrano/Cashner and Marshall/Marmol at the back of the pen? That looks a lot more 2008 than 2006.

[KaiserCesar]

Considering the incremental value Gonzalez would provide above Dunn (whom we can sign for just money this offseason), I wouldn't come close to doing that deal.

 

1) Dunn is older, but will sign a significantly shorter contract

2) The difference in production between Gonz & Dunn is less than the expected long-term and cheap production from the guys in that package (and short-term production in the case of Wells, who is extremely under-rated)

3) The difference in the amount required to lock up Gonzalez long-term and the amount being talked about to sign Dunn could be used to get another impact player like Cliff Lee all on its own.

 

In short, I'd much rather have Dunn + Cliffy + Wells + Vitters + ... than Gonzalez.

 

I think Lee is going to be far closer to Gonzalez money than Dunn money, but it brings up an interesting point. What if you paid up for Lee and then overwhelmed a team for someone like Billy Butler? You think Moore would turn down Colvin, J Jackson, and Vitters with Hosmer getting close? Use the Nady-of-the-year to platoon with Kosuke until Jackson is ready?

 

Castro

Kosuke/Byrd

Soto

Butler

Soriano

Ramirez

Byrd/Nady

DeWitt(or Fontenot or Baker)

 

with Lee/Dempster/Wells/Gorzelanny/Zambrano/Cashner and Marshall/Marmol at the back of the pen? That looks a lot more 2008 than 2006.

 

How sure are you Butler is going to be worth that investment? So far he's shown he can be a strong .850 OPS guy with some pretty good pop, but if you aren't guaranteed a big slugger it may not be worth the price.

[Guest]

Butler was an example, and it might not even take that much to get him. But the point is to get elite players before they start commanding 8 figures and your first born son. Butler has great pedigree, sustained success(so there's a higher floor for him), and he's only 24 years old. He's a great example of who the Cubs should target. They need top end players, and the best way to get those is to scout well and get them before they blow up.