Marmol extension?

[davearm2]

So you want them to cling to players in the short term who could bring them value in the long run via the trade because...why?

Many of the players mentioned could be major contributors on the next contending Cubs team. That's one reason why.

 

Another reason is because the firesale strategy usually fails. Bad teams that sell their good players for prospects tend to stay bad.

 

The Cubs don't have many good players that will still be good when the Cubs are competitive again. Relievers are flighty enough, and someone like Marmol is a massive injury waiting to happen, so why hold on to him for 2-3 years of mediocre Cubs teams when teams who are in the hunt will be willing to pay big for a guy as effective as him even if it is just for immediate impact? Like it was pointed out, catchers don't have a terribly long shelf life, and Soto has already had injury and weight issues that are just going to pile up as he gets older. He's already near 30, so again, why keep him on for 2-3 years of mediocre Cubs baseball when someone with his skills will command a very good return for 3-4 years of being a very good offensive catcher he probably has in him?

 

Why cling to someone like Byrd? Or Wells? Or Gorzelanny? Or Colvin?

I'm not clinging to anyone, and I'd be fine trading any of the players you mention (particularly Marmol for the reasons you state).

 

What I'm opposed to is the mindset that the Cubs ought to to trade as many of these guys as possible in some ill-fated rebuild plan.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why? Why hold on to Soto? Yes, he's cheap, but time is not on his side in terms of when it's likely that the Cubs can have him on a good team again. Why hold on to Byrd? He's older and only signed through 2012. Wells and Gorzelanny are useful but one of the few things the Cubs can produce are pitchers (and have a bunch of them in the pipeline in the near and relatively near future) so why not trade a couple of useful starters to help bolster the offensive side of things? Colvin is Colvin. These guys would be much more useful on the Cubs if the Cubs actually had a chance at a good team on the horizon in the next 2-3 years, but they don't. If they want a youth movement, then [expletive] go for a REAL youth movement and then look to sign smart FA signings down the line.

[davearm2]

Why? Why hold on to Soto? Yes, he's cheap, but time is not on his side in terms of when it's likely that the Cubs can have him on a good team again. Why hold on to Byrd? He's older and only signed through 2012. Wells and Gorzelanny are useful but one of the few things the Cubs can produce are pitchers (and have a bunch of them in the pipeline in the near and relatively near future) so why not trade a couple of useful starters to help bolster the offensive side of things? Colvin is Colvin. These guys would be much more useful on the Cubs if the Cubs actually had a chance at a good team on the horizon in the next 2-3 years, but they don't. If they want a youth movement, then [expletive] go for a REAL youth movement and then look to sign smart FA signings down the line.

Again, I'm not opposed to trading any of them, especially if you're getting good young ML players back. (Although arguably at that point you have to ask what is the purpose.)

 

What I'm opposed to is trading most of them in a series of 3-for-1 deals that leaves the Cubs with 15 prospects and no proven MLers.

 

You say the Cubs have a crap on-field product now. Just wait and see what it looks like if this plan is followed. And I don't just mean in 2011. The fallout would very likely linger for many years.

[Sammy Sofa]

Who said to only look for prospects? This isn't a matter of just dumping guys coming up on big paydays.

[JoshiQ]

Why? Why hold on to Soto? Yes, he's cheap, but time is not on his side in terms of when it's likely that the Cubs can have him on a good team again. Why hold on to Byrd? He's older and only signed through 2012. Wells and Gorzelanny are useful but one of the few things the Cubs can produce are pitchers (and have a bunch of them in the pipeline in the near and relatively near future) so why not trade a couple of useful starters to help bolster the offensive side of things? Colvin is Colvin. These guys would be much more useful on the Cubs if the Cubs actually had a chance at a good team on the horizon in the next 2-3 years, but they don't. If they want a youth movement, then [expletive] go for a REAL youth movement and then look to sign smart FA signings down the line.

Again, I'm not opposed to trading any of them, especially if you're getting good young ML players back. (Although arguably at that point you have to ask what is the purpose.)

 

What I'm opposed to is trading most of them in a series of 3-for-1 deals that leaves the Cubs with 15 prospects and no proven MLers.

 

You say the Cubs have a crap on-field product now. Just wait and see what it looks like if this plan is followed. And I don't just mean in 2011. The fallout would very likely linger for many years.

 

I follow the Royals pretty closely and I know exactly how this would look. The problem is, it looks like the Cubs are dropping in payroll, they don't have a very good on field product, and their prospects are still a couple of years away. Since we aren't going out and signing guys like Dunn or trading for AGone then we need to get rid of middle level talent and wait for our prospects to hit the majors. Then make some big FA signings at that same time and try and contend then.

 

There is no point in sending Byrd, Marmol, and whoever else out that there for the next two years when it's obvious the Cubs won't be allowed to go out and buy some big name talent. We won't contend and we will just waste money and not receive anything for it.

[davearm2]

Who said to only look for prospects? This isn't a matter of just dumping guys coming up on big paydays.

That's how I interpreted the comment, "take your lumps now instead of prolonging them for the next 3 years." Sounded like prospects to me :shrug:

[Sammy Sofa]

Who said to only look for prospects? This isn't a matter of just dumping guys coming up on big paydays.

That's how I interpreted the comment, "take your lumps now instead of prolonging them for the next 3 years." Sounded like prospects to me :shrug:

 

The players we're talking about trading aren't going to net you impact players that will turn this team around in the near future.

[davearm2]

Who said to only look for prospects? This isn't a matter of just dumping guys coming up on big paydays.

That's how I interpreted the comment, "take your lumps now instead of prolonging them for the next 3 years." Sounded like prospects to me :shrug:

 

The players we're talking about trading aren't going to net you impact players that will turn this team around in the near future.

If the return is not going to turn the team around, then what's the point?

 

Being mediocre with guys other than Byrd, Marmol, Soto etc. is preferable why?

[Sammy Sofa]

Because you can ideally get good prospects or maybe even good young players (at least younger and less risky than what they currently have) that are more valuable to the Cubs in the long run than who they already have. I really don't think this has to be spelled out for you.

[JoshiQ]

Because you can ideally get good prospects or maybe even good young players (at least younger and less risky than what they currently have) that are more valuable to the Cubs in the long run than who they already have. I really don't think this has to be spelled out for you.

 

Basically trading Byrd may not net you a future AGone or Greinke, but possibly a future Castro or Soto. This all depends on your scouting and how good your GM is at getting the prospects he wants from a trade.

[davearm2]

Because you can ideally get good prospects or maybe even good young players (at least younger and less risky than what they currently have) that are more valuable to the Cubs in the long run than who they already have. I really don't think this has to be spelled out for you.

Huh? Like 5 minutes ago you said "who said to only look for prospects"?

 

Now the answer to that question is you.

 

And once again I won't be sad to see any of these guys go, if they do, provided the return is worthwhile. What I think would be a mistake would be to trade several of them for prospect packages. To me that would ensure more losing in 2011, and very likely no improvement beyond that.

 

If you've got a long list of firesales that have worked out, then by all means set me straight.

[davearm2]

Because you can ideally get good prospects or maybe even good young players (at least younger and less risky than what they currently have) that are more valuable to the Cubs in the long run than who they already have. I really don't think this has to be spelled out for you.

 

Basically trading Byrd may not net you a future AGone or Greinke, but possibly a future Castro or Soto. This all depends on your scouting and how good your GM is at getting the prospects he wants from a trade.

I'd be totally fine with something like that, and at the risk of complete and utter scorn I'd venture to say that Hendry is a good guy to have picking the prospects coming back.

 

What I don't want to see the Cubs do is make a concerted, aggressive effort to trade as many guys as possible for prospects in some sweeping rebuilding plan. Not that I think they would in any event.

[Sammy Sofa]

Because you can ideally get good prospects or maybe even good young players (at least younger and less risky than what they currently have) that are more valuable to the Cubs in the long run than who they already have. I really don't think this has to be spelled out for you.

Huh? Like 5 minutes ago you said "who said to only look for prospects"?

 

Now the answer to that question is you.

 

What the [expletive] are you babbling about?

[JoshiQ]

Because you can ideally get good prospects or maybe even good young players (at least younger and less risky than what they currently have) that are more valuable to the Cubs in the long run than who they already have. I really don't think this has to be spelled out for you.

 

Basically trading Byrd may not net you a future AGone or Greinke, but possibly a future Castro or Soto. This all depends on your scouting and how good your GM is at getting the prospects he wants from a trade.

I'd be totally fine with something like that, and at the risk of complete and utter scorn I'd venture to say that Hendry is a good guy to have picking the prospects coming back.

 

What I don't want to see the Cubs do is make a concerted, aggressive effort to trade as many guys as possible for prospects in some sweeping rebuilding plan. Not that I think they would in any event.

 

I agree with you for the most part. If we are trading away most of the talent on the major league roster to save money, and we know we are only going to get back some Mike Fontenot and Sam Fuld types back, and then that money we saved doesn't get put back into the system...that's not worth it. If that's the case then we might as well at least just field a .500 team and hope to get lucky.

[davearm2]

Because you can ideally get good prospects or maybe even good young players (at least younger and less risky than what they currently have) that are more valuable to the Cubs in the long run than who they already have. I really don't think this has to be spelled out for you.

Huh? Like 5 minutes ago you said "who said to only look for prospects"?

 

Now the answer to that question is you.

 

What the [expletive] are you babbling about?

Me: I don't want to trade all these guys for a bunch of prospects.

 

You: Who said anything about just prospects?

 

Me: The guy who talked about taking your lumps now.

 

You: Well we can't get impact players.

 

Me: Then what's the point?

 

You: To get prospects.

 

Hope this helps.

[Sammy Sofa]

OK, you're either blind or delusional. Take your pick.