Levine: Hendry secure but firesale could begin

[Men in Blue]

Trading players with expiring contracts isn't the same as "blowing a team up." "Blwoing a team up" means you're moving guys like Marmol and Zambrano and Soto as well

 

This might happen.

[BeerHere]

"Blowing a team up" is typically resigning yourself to several years of being a really, really bad team. The Cubs don't have to do that.

 

No, but they have a ton of money coming off the books next year and can fill holes via FA. If you can get something for Rammy right now, go for it. Or if someone is dumb enough to eat most of Soriano's contract, do it in a heartbeat. Re-stock the farm and sign who you need.

 

Trading players with expiring contracts isn't the same as "blowing a team up." "Blwoing a team up" means you're moving guys like Marmol and Zambrano and Soto as well. And nobody is taking Soriano unless the Cubs pick up most of the tab.

 

Then I was not clear as to what I wanted.

 

I'm open to trading anyone on the team, save for Castro, and if you trade Soto, Garza, or Marmol you'd better get a haul in return. Anyone else on the team can be had for a fair price, so shop just about anyone because we're not doing jack this year.

I agree, anyone is fair game save Castro and Garza. I would add that Marshall could be good trade material as well since there are always teams looking to overpay for relievers. Or is that just the Cubs?

[Men in Blue]

Since when did Soto become an untouchable? He's been pretty damn lousy.

[MWV]

I think Marmol has very good value right now.

While I don't disagree, what could one expect to receive for Marmol? I'm trying to think of historical precedent for a trade of this sort and all I can come up with are Billy Wagner and Matt Capps. The Phils sent Brandon Duckworth, Taylor Buchholz and Ezequiel Astacio for Wagner. Matt Capps netted the Nats Wilson Ramos. What is Marmol worth?

[Guest]

Since when did Soto become an untouchable? He's been pretty damn lousy.

 

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=59454

[soapy]

Since when did Soto become an untouchable? He's been pretty damn lousy.

 

.262/.354/.458 career for a catcher (even including his "bad" 2009 and 2011 so far). In other words, not lousy.

[SouthSideRyan]

I think Marmol has very good value right now.

While I don't disagree, what could one expect to receive for Marmol? I'm trying to think of historical precedent for a trade of this sort and all I can come up with are Billy Wagner and Matt Capps. The Phils sent Brandon Duckworth, Taylor Buchholz and Ezequiel Astacio for Wagner. Matt Capps netted the Nats Wilson Ramos. What is Marmol worth?

 

Matt Capps certainly isn't a comparable situation.

[BeerHere]

I think Marmol has very good value right now.

While I don't disagree, what could one expect to receive for Marmol? I'm trying to think of historical precedent for a trade of this sort and all I can come up with are Billy Wagner and Matt Capps. The Phils sent Brandon Duckworth, Taylor Buchholz and Ezequiel Astacio for Wagner. Matt Capps netted the Nats Wilson Ramos. What is Marmol worth?

He's very effective, young and comparatively cheap. While his mechanics leave a lot to be desired he doesn't have a lot of mileage on his arm and he has no injury history. Off the top of my head I can't think of a playoff bound team that needs a closer, but anything less than two top 5 prospects for Marmol and I don't do it.

[Sammy Sofa]

Trading players with expiring contracts isn't the same as "blowing a team up." "Blwoing a team up" means you're moving guys like Marmol and Zambrano and Soto as well

 

This might happen.

 

Then they're even more stupid than we feared.

[BeerHere]

Since when did Soto become an untouchable? He's been pretty damn lousy.

 

.262/.354/.458 career for a catcher (even including his "bad" 2009 and 2011 so far). In other words, not lousy.

Given that the position is a weak around baseball, I would think that he would fetch a decent return. He's 100% expendable in my book provided we get decent return.

[Sammy Sofa]

Since when did Soto become an untouchable? He's been pretty damn lousy.

 

.262/.354/.458 career for a catcher (even including his "bad" 2009 and 2011 so far). In other words, not lousy.

Given that the position is a weak around baseball, I would think that he would fetch a decent return. He's 100% expendable in my book provided we get decent return.

 

Jesus [expletive] Christ.

 

"100% expendable?" Congratulations, you've just created a hole at catcher to go with the one in the starting rotation, RF, 1B, 2B and 3B. Anything else we want to add on there?

Edited June 23, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Banedon]

Since when did Soto become an untouchable? He's been pretty damn lousy.

 

Others have pointed out that this isn't true, but when you're calling him lousy, who are you comparing him to?

[SouthSideRyan]

And Boston is lying if they said they knew he'd be a star.

 

Yeah, if they knew he would be a star then trading for Beckett was incredibly short-sighted. They would have much rather had Hanley than Beckett the last 6 years, and that isn't even accounting for the money they would have saved to use on another pitcher.

 

I was under the impression that Hanley was widely considered to be a star in the making at the time of the trade. Maybe they didn't think he'd be as good as he ending up being so soon, but he was star material nonetheless.

 

#30 in BA the offseason he was traded. Coming off a poor year at AA. Unless people are willing to relent on the Cubs having high-end talent and claim Brett Jackson as a star, the Red Sox are full of it.

[soapy]

Since when did Soto become an untouchable? He's been pretty damn lousy.

 

.262/.354/.458 career for a catcher (even including his "bad" 2009 and 2011 so far). In other words, not lousy.

Given that the position is a weak around baseball, I would think that he would fetch a decent return. He's 100% expendable in my book provided we get decent return.

 

Depends on how you define "decent return". Given his low cost and above average production (particularly at his position), I don't see why you look to move a guy that could be a big part of your near-term future. They are going to have multiple holes to fill. I don't see a reason to add another for (what I would call) a decent return.

 

They need more guys like Geo, (productive, low-priced, good defensively, can take a walk) not fewer.

[MSG T]

Just wondering, what would it take for people to be happy with a Soriano deal?

 

Meaning, would the Cubs kicking 50% of the remaining contract and getting a living, breathing baseball player back be enough. Cubs only kicking in 25% and getting nothing, 80% and getting someone decent? I'll admit, I have no idea what it would take to get someone to take him.

 

I'll also admit, I'd be willing to kick in a substantial amount if I could get someone (through that deal or another trade, MiL, whatever) that could play better D and come close to his numbers, along with saving some of the money. However, I have no idea it that would have even a moderate chance of happening.

 

As an example...

 

Fangraphs has Soriano as a 4 WAR (total) player over the last three seasons, and will make approx. $19 mil per over the next three years. If the Cubs could trade him and acquire, bring up, somehow put some guy in LF avg. 1 WAR per year for a combined $17 mil per, at least until they can improve performance, would it be worth it? Let's say they pick up half his money, $9.5 mil per, and sign someone else for $7 mil and get nothing back in return for Soriano. That's $16.5 mil to replicate his WAR over the next three years. Do you do it?

 

Like I said, I don't know there's even a chance, but until something actually happens it's all hypothetical anyway.

[Guest]

On an individual basis, you can create reasonable arguments to trade any player on the roster with the exception of Castro. The problem is that when you start talking "firesale" and "no one is untouchable", the fact that the Cubs are not the Pirates gets lost. They don't need to blow up the roster for 3 years to win, but they do need talented players who can win them games. So while making a deal for Soto or for Marmol(please before his arm explodes and we're paying him nearly 10 million) can make sense, trading more than one of those guys that still provide solid value(Soto, Marmol, Marshall, Dempster, Z kinda) is probably a losing proposition.

[Men in Blue]

Then they're even more stupid than we feared.

 

I laughed hard at this. That said, I have no problem moving anyone should the return be excellent. It's like someone saying I have a million dollars and another guy saying I will offer you two million for your million. Ok, no prob.

[MWV]

I think Marmol has very good value right now.

While I don't disagree, what could one expect to receive for Marmol? I'm trying to think of historical precedent for a trade of this sort and all I can come up with are Billy Wagner and Matt Capps. The Phils sent Brandon Duckworth, Taylor Buchholz and Ezequiel Astacio for Wagner. Matt Capps netted the Nats Wilson Ramos. What is Marmol worth?

 

Matt Capps certainly isn't a comparable situation.

Yeah, I realize. I'm just kinda spitballing, trying to think of anything remotely comparable.

[CubColtPacer]

4 WAR is probably understating Soriano a little bit. He was hurt most of 2009 when he put up that -0.1. He rebounded with a 3 last year and looks to be on pace for about a 2.5 this year.

 

I would eat 20-30 million of it right now for him to go away. I doubt you'd find anybody to take him at that price though. In another year or two the options for trading him might open up a little more.

[BeerHere]

Since when did Soto become an untouchable? He's been pretty damn lousy.

 

.262/.354/.458 career for a catcher (even including his "bad" 2009 and 2011 so far). In other words, not lousy.

Given that the position is a weak around baseball, I would think that he would fetch a decent return. He's 100% expendable in my book provided we get decent return.

 

Jesus [expletive] Christ.

 

"100% expendable?" Congratulations, you've just created a whole at catcher to go with the one in the starting rotation, RF, 1B, 2B and 3B. Anything else we want to add on there?

 

If the Royals offered you Moustakas, Hosmer and Montgomery for Soto, you wouldn't do it? I'm NOT saying that they would offer that but I am saying that unless your answer to that question is "No" then Soto should be considered available. Unless you put him out there and negotiate you'll never know. This team is going NOWHERE and any assets should at least be considered.

[Sammy Sofa]

Since when did Soto become an untouchable? He's been pretty damn lousy.

 

.262/.354/.458 career for a catcher (even including his "bad" 2009 and 2011 so far). In other words, not lousy.

Given that the position is a weak around baseball, I would think that he would fetch a decent return. He's 100% expendable in my book provided we get decent return.

 

Jesus [expletive] Christ.

 

"100% expendable?" Congratulations, you've just created a whole at catcher to go with the one in the starting rotation, RF, 1B, 2B and 3B. Anything else we want to add on there?

 

If the Royals offered you Moustakas, Hosmer and Montgomery for Soto, you wouldn't do it? I'm NOT saying that they would offer that but I am saying that unless your answer to that question is "No" then Soto should be considered available. Unless you put him out there and negotiate you'll never know. This team is going NOWHERE and any assets should at least be considered.

 

That's a pointless hypothetical since nobody is offering a deal like that. The team is going "nowhere" this season, but can easily be right back in it next season with a good offseason. Blowing up the team sets them up to be bad for years.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[soapy]

Since when did Soto become an untouchable? He's been pretty damn lousy.

 

.262/.354/.458 career for a catcher (even including his "bad" 2009 and 2011 so far). In other words, not lousy.

Given that the position is a weak around baseball, I would think that he would fetch a decent return. He's 100% expendable in my book provided we get decent return.

 

Jesus [expletive] Christ.

 

"100% expendable?" Congratulations, you've just created a whole at catcher to go with the one in the starting rotation, RF, 1B, 2B and 3B. Anything else we want to add on there?

 

If the Royals offered you Moustakas, Hosmer and Montgomery for Soto, you wouldn't do it? I'm NOT saying that they would offer that but I am saying that unless your answer to that question is "No" then Soto should be considered available. Unless you put him out there and negotiate you'll never know. This team is going NOWHERE and any assets should at least be considered.

 

ok, but you said "decent return"...twice.

[SouthSideRyan]

Those WAR #s are understating Soriano by a lot. Edited June 23, 2011 by SouthSideRyan

[Men in Blue]

Since when did Soto become an untouchable? He's been pretty damn lousy.

 

Others have pointed out that this isn't true, but when you're calling him lousy, who are you comparing him to?

 

For me, it's the eye test. He just looks terrilble at the plate. That said, there is not a lot out there. All I am saying is if Geo gets you a fantastic haul, you'd have to consider it.

[BeerHere]

ok, but you said "decent return"...twice.

Honestly I don't know what would be a "decent return" for Soto but that is sort of my point. If you automatically say he's off the market you'll never know. The people that are saying that he is untouchable are ignoring the fact that there may be teams that are willing to overpay for a guy to fill a position of deep need. PURE SPECULATION: If the Royals offered just Montgomery, would you do it? How about Moustakas? Again I'm not saying that I would do it either, but it at least has to be considered. Soto cannot be untouchable on a team that has a pile of needs.