Is Zambrano Back?

[SouthSideRyan]

I still don't get how he's show yet again that his upside far outweighs any perceived downside. Opinion or not, I really don't see how that can be considered true at all. His upside isn't all that high. His downside is deep.

 

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher.

 

He's already there, so it's not an upside. It's what he's been. And that downside is huge.

 

He's not a stock where you say he's at his upside now, get rid of him. His actual value to the Cubs is very likely not equal to the return value you'd get in a trade.

[jersey cubs fan]

I still don't get how he's show yet again that his upside far outweighs any perceived downside. Opinion or not, I really don't see how that can be considered true at all. His upside isn't all that high. His downside is deep.

 

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher.

 

Yeah, I don't get what Jersey is saying at all. Unless people think he's going to snap and actually murder someone on the field, I don't know what crazy bad downsides he has that other pitchers don't.

 

He's had multiple run-ins and discipline issues, strange injuries and is a guy who works dangerously with a very high walk rate without a very high strikeout rate. He walks a tightrope with his persona and performance. The downside is very real and I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.

[Sammy Sofa]

I still don't get how he's show yet again that his upside far outweighs any perceived downside. Opinion or not, I really don't see how that can be considered true at all. His upside isn't all that high. His downside is deep.

 

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher.

 

He's already there, so it's not an upside. It's what he's been. And that downside is huge.

 

Wait, what?

 

[expletive], it's another Jersey semantics trap.

 

"Upside" means he can easily be a useful pitcher, and there's no reason that the Cubs "need" to trade him. We're not talking a Carlos Silva-type mess or disaster here. People tend to talk about him like just because he can't live up to making ace money that he's a bust and the Cubs have to cut ties, and that's obviously not the case. Unless the Cubs are able to shake a very clear pattern of underselling players that they smear, I think he holds much more value to them next year actually starting for them than being traded to another team.

[Guest]

Unless you're wrongly including his contract(he makes the same whether he's great or sucks), Zambrano's downside is actually less than 99% of pitchers.

[jersey cubs fan]

I still don't get how he's show yet again that his upside far outweighs any perceived downside. Opinion or not, I really don't see how that can be considered true at all. His upside isn't all that high. His downside is deep.

 

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher.

 

He's already there, so it's not an upside. It's what he's been. And that downside is huge.

 

He's not a stock where you say he's at his upside now, get rid of him. His actual value to the Cubs is very likely not equal to the return value you'd get in a trade.

 

In which case you don't trade him, but that's not a fact and doesn't change the fact that he's got a big downside. You can argue against the nonsense of just getting rid of him for the sake of it without making up stuff.

[Sammy Sofa]

I still don't get how he's show yet again that his upside far outweighs any perceived downside. Opinion or not, I really don't see how that can be considered true at all. His upside isn't all that high. His downside is deep.

 

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher.

 

Yeah, I don't get what Jersey is saying at all. Unless people think he's going to snap and actually murder someone on the field, I don't know what crazy bad downsides he has that other pitchers don't.

 

He's had multiple run-ins and discipline issues, strange injuries and is a guy who works dangerously with a very high walk rate without a very high strikeout rate. He walks a tightrope with his persona and performance. The downside is very real and I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.

 

And I still think his talents as a pitcher outweigh the negatives (in terms of value to the Cubs), especially if you're trying to sell him off with a huge contract and he's been painted as some kind of crazy monster by his own team.

[Sammy Sofa]

I still don't get how he's show yet again that his upside far outweighs any perceived downside. Opinion or not, I really don't see how that can be considered true at all. His upside isn't all that high. His downside is deep.

 

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher.

 

He's already there, so it's not an upside. It's what he's been. And that downside is huge.

 

He's not a stock where you say he's at his upside now, get rid of him. His actual value to the Cubs is very likely not equal to the return value you'd get in a trade.

 

In which case you don't trade him, but that's not a fact and doesn't change the fact that he's got a big downside. You can argue against the nonsense of just getting rid of him for the sake of it without making up stuff.

 

What the [expletive] are you talking about?

[jersey cubs fan]

Unless you're wrongly including his contract(he makes the same whether he's great or sucks), Zambrano's downside is actually less than 99% of pitchers.

 

You don't make any sense. Not counting his contract in the discussion is stupid. If he's good, it's tolerable, if he sucks or gets injured that's a terrible burden on the tema.

[jersey cubs fan]

What the [expletive] are you talking about?

 

I'm talking about reality and not overstating the case for keeping Zambrano.

[Sammy Sofa]

Oh, OK.

 

Guys, let's bring it in. It was a bit much when I said he could fly and that flames shot from his hands when he threw the ball.

[Guest]

You don't make any sense. Not counting his contract in the discussion is stupid. If he's good, it's tolerable, if he sucks or gets injured that's a terrible burden on the tema.

 

The Cubs don't get penalized wins if their bad players make more money than the bad players of other teams. Zambrano's contract is a sunk cost once he's on the team(which is assumed if you're talking about his performance on the year). His downside is a mediocre starter like he was in 2007, that's far better than the downside of most pitchers.

[jersey cubs fan]

You don't make any sense. Not counting his contract in the discussion is stupid. If he's good, it's tolerable, if he sucks or gets injured that's a terrible burden on the tema.

 

The Cubs don't get penalized wins if their bad players make more money than the bad players of other teams. Zambrano's contract is a sunk cost once he's on the team(which is assumed if you're talking about his performance on the year). His downside is a mediocre starter like he was in 2007, that's far better than the downside of most pitchers.

 

That's not how sunk costs work. If he's good, the contract is both tolerable and movable, if he's bad or hurt, it becomes a problem. There's very clearly significant downside with Zambrano and there's no reason to pretend otherwise. He's a volatile commodity. But it's almost certainly worth it to hold onto him despite the risks.

[Sammy Sofa]

That was my point the whole time. I have no idea how you turned "his upside far outweighs his downside" for the Cubs into "he doesn't have a significant downside." Every pitcher who gets paid has that downside and it's obvious that nobody with a functioning brain would pretend otherwise. The point of this was clearly in the context of "do the Cubs have to trade Zambrano because they've made him out to be a monster," because if you're talking only about ridiculously broad ideas like "well, any pitcher COULD turn bad or get hurt, etc., etc.," then why would ever NOT consider trading them?

[Guest]

Trading Zambrano is [expletive]. His rebound is meaningless if they want to trade him; with the way the Cubs dealt with him and talked about him during the season they'd still be getting pennies on the dollar for him. All he's done is show, yet again, is that his upside still far outweighs any perceived downside. This idea that if he's not an ace then he's useless is beyond stupid.

You're treating an awful lot of assumptions as fact in that argument.

 

None of it is "fact." Do you need me to hold your hand and specifically state "I think..." or "my opinion is..." whenever something is posted that is obviously someone's opinion?

Well, for starters, you could stop posting so abrasively. That would be a welcome change. Aside from that, when you state your opinion in such a way that nothing else is really even possible, expect to be called out on it.

[Guest]

I still don't get how he's show yet again that his upside far outweighs any perceived downside. Opinion or not, I really don't see how that can be considered true at all. His upside isn't all that high. His downside is deep.

 

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher.

 

Yeah, I don't get what Jersey is saying at all. Unless people think he's going to snap and actually murder someone on the field, I don't know what crazy bad downsides he has that other pitchers don't.

His crazy downside that most other pitchers don't have is being down for the year with a $17M anchor to the budget.

[Guest]

Unless you're wrongly including his contract(he makes the same whether he's great or sucks), Zambrano's downside is actually less than 99% of pitchers.

When you're talking about whether to trade him (assuming there's a taker for his salary), then what he's making is definitely part of the discussion.

[Guest]

That was my point the whole time. I have no idea how you turned "his upside far outweighs his downside" for the Cubs into "he doesn't have a significant downside." Every pitcher who gets paid has that downside and it's obvious that nobody with a functioning brain would pretend otherwise. The point of this was clearly in the context of "do the Cubs have to trade Zambrano because they've made him out to be a monster," because if you're talking only about ridiculously broad ideas like "well, any pitcher COULD turn bad or get hurt, etc., etc.," then why would ever NOT consider trading them?

I disagree with the way you're painting the context. The question is a very rational one: Depending on what the structure of a potential trade, should the Cubs consider trading Zambrano?

 

To me, the answer to that question is yes if the other team will pick up the whole (or 90+%) of the salary and give us something halfway decent in return. And the generics of the situation definitely come into play. Any pitcher making that kind of money is a huge risk to the team. For that kind of money you want a pitcher with Halladay kind of upside. What we're likely to get as a best case is mid-3's era with good (for a pitcher) hitting.

 

Obviously, if a good trade isn't there then just keep him on the roster, send him to his anger management therapy and hope for the best.

[SouthSideRyan]

To me, the answer to that question is yes if the other team will pick up the whole (or 90+%) of the salary and give us something halfway decent in return.

 

This reminds me of the guy in the Grabow thread who yelled at everyone for freaking out about us re-signing him as he assumed we'd resign him to a 3Y/3M deal. That hypothetical trade isn't happening.

[Sammy Sofa]

I disagree with the way you're painting the context. The question is a very rational one: Depending on what the structure of a potential trade, should the Cubs consider trading Zambrano?

 

To me, the answer to that question is yes if the other team will pick up the whole (or 90+%) of the salary and give us something halfway decent in return.

 

That's just common sense. It shouldn't even have to be stated. It's nigh impossible that that happens.

[Sammy Sofa]

Trading Zambrano is [expletive]. His rebound is meaningless if they want to trade him; with the way the Cubs dealt with him and talked about him during the season they'd still be getting pennies on the dollar for him. All he's done is show, yet again, is that his upside still far outweighs any perceived downside. This idea that if he's not an ace then he's useless is beyond stupid.

You're treating an awful lot of assumptions as fact in that argument.

 

None of it is "fact." Do you need me to hold your hand and specifically state "I think..." or "my opinion is..." whenever something is posted that is obviously someone's opinion?

Well, for starters, you could stop posting so abrasively. That would be a welcome change. Aside from that, when you state your opinion in such a way that nothing else is really even possible, expect to be called out on it.

 

It's not my problem if people are too dense to think that something that obviously isn't fact being spouted by some anonymous jerk on the internet is actually fact. Hyperbole is something that exists, and it's pretty easy to spot.

[Guest]

Trading Zambrano is [expletive]. His rebound is meaningless if they want to trade him; with the way the Cubs dealt with him and talked about him during the season they'd still be getting pennies on the dollar for him. All he's done is show, yet again, is that his upside still far outweighs any perceived downside. This idea that if he's not an ace then he's useless is beyond stupid.

You're treating an awful lot of assumptions as fact in that argument.

 

None of it is "fact." Do you need me to hold your hand and specifically state "I think..." or "my opinion is..." whenever something is posted that is obviously someone's opinion?

Well, for starters, you could stop posting so abrasively. That would be a welcome change. Aside from that, when you state your opinion in such a way that nothing else is really even possible, expect to be called out on it.

 

It's not my problem if people are too dense to think that something that obviously isn't fact being spouted by some anonymous jerk on the internet is actually fact. Hyperbole is something that exists, and it's pretty easy to spot.

It's not really the hyperbole I have issues with as much as the constant acidic, abrasive style.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's just how I roll, baby. I'm like sandpaper dipped in battery acid.

[Northside Blues]

I still don't get how he's show yet again that his upside far outweighs any perceived downside. Opinion or not, I really don't see how that can be considered true at all. His upside isn't all that high. His downside is deep.

 

His upside is a mid 3 ERA pitcher with plus batting and baserunning. How that not all that high?? His downside is season lost to injury, like every other pitcher.

 

He's already there, so it's not an upside. It's what he's been. And that downside is huge.

 

Show me one pitcher that doesn't have that downside and I'll show you a player who doesn't pitch. I'd say his upside is a 3.00ish guy with plus offensive skills. I'd say his likely area is mid 3s to 4. Say 30% <3.50, 50% 3.50-4.00, 10% >4.00, 10% major injury

[jersey cubs fan]

I think at this point in his career it's pretty clear 3-ish ERA is a bit overly aggressive for his upside. He's probably got a 4-ish WAR upside.

[Northside Blues]

he hasnt had an ERA over 4.00 since he was 18 and has been sitting 3.50-4.00 for several years now. and he's doing that now..amazingly.