Levine: Hendry secure but firesale could begin

[Men in Blue]

I can't think of a player on the Cubs who'd be a worse comparison at the plate.

ETA: Ok, Darwin Barney I guess, but Soriano and Soto have completely different approaches. I really don't know where you're coming from on this.

 

Not in approach, but in looking absolutely lost at any breaking ball thrown to them. Geo looks overmatched at the plate, much like Soriano does on any breaking stuff.

[MWV]

I can't think of a player on the Cubs who'd be a worse comparison at the plate.

ETA: Ok, Darwin Barney I guess, but Soriano and Soto have completely different approaches. I really don't know where you're coming from on this.

 

Not in approach, but in looking absolutely lost at any breaking ball thrown to them. Geo looks overmatched at the plate, much like Soriano does on any breaking stuff.

Total pitches swung at:

Soriano: 57.9%

Soto: 39.7%

Pitches swung at outside the strike zone:

Soriano: 48.5%

Soto: 21.9%

 

I still don't see the similarity.

[javy knows my name]

I can't think of a player on the Cubs who'd be a worse comparison at the plate.

ETA: Ok, Darwin Barney I guess, but Soriano and Soto have completely different approaches. I really don't know where you're coming from on this.

 

Not in approach, but in looking absolutely lost at any breaking ball thrown to them. Geo looks overmatched at the plate, much like Soriano does on any breaking stuff.

Total pitches swung at:

Soriano: 57.9%

Soto: 39.7%

Pitches swung at outside the strike zone:

Soriano: 48.5%

Soto: 21.9%

 

I still don't see the similarity.

 

Yeah, that's great.

 

What do your EYES see though?

[jersey cubs fan]

I can't think of a player on the Cubs who'd be a worse comparison at the plate.

ETA: Ok, Darwin Barney I guess, but Soriano and Soto have completely different approaches. I really don't know where you're coming from on this.

 

Not in approach, but in looking absolutely lost at any breaking ball thrown to them. Geo looks overmatched at the plate, much like Soriano does on any breaking stuff.

Total pitches swung at:

Soriano: 57.9%

Soto: 39.7%

Pitches swung at outside the strike zone:

Soriano: 48.5%

Soto: 21.9%

 

I still don't see the similarity.

 

When Soriano looks bad swinging and missing at a breaking ball out of the zone it looks similar to when Soto looks bad swinging and missing at a breaking ball out of the zone. I didn't say it happened at the same rate.

[Bruno7481]

There is no similarity. Soriano has out-produced Soto by a pretty wide margin.

[woodchip2153]

I can't think of a player on the Cubs who'd be a worse comparison at the plate.

ETA: Ok, Darwin Barney I guess, but Soriano and Soto have completely different approaches. I really don't know where you're coming from on this.

 

Not in approach, but in looking absolutely lost at any breaking ball thrown to them. Geo looks overmatched at the plate, much like Soriano does on any breaking stuff.

Total pitches swung at:

Soriano: 57.9%

Soto: 39.7%

Pitches swung at outside the strike zone:

Soriano: 48.5%

Soto: 21.9%

 

I still don't see the similarity.

 

Yeah, that's great.

 

What do your EYES see though?

 

Or he was talking about how he has a negative run value on breaking balls. Not as bad as Soriano or even Byrd, but still bad.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-pedro-cerrano-all-stars/

[questionmarkgrace]

the thing with soto is not whether he can be a great catcher. We know he can he has been twice in the last 4 years. The problem is his prospects of staying healthy going forward are not that great. the debate should be whether or not the prospects received from trading him now will be equivalent to the potential first round or sandwich pick we may get from offering arbitration and letting him walk next year.

[Men in Blue]

Or he was talking about how he has a negative run value on breaking balls. Not as bad as Soriano or even Byrd, but still bad.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-pedro-cerrano-all-stars/

 

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/baseball/images/g/geovany_soto_of_the_cubs-514.jpg

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XywFo1vEFuY/TagQkkNHIqI/AAAAAAAAFW0/ukF83iNK7vU/s1600/Alfonso+Soriano+by+cool+sports+players+%25284%2529.jpg

 

 

http://landofkam.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/cinema-majorleague-jobosmoking.jpg

[Irrelevant Dude]

ps...there is NO WAY you are dumping contracts AND getting good prospects for zambrano/soriano. you're probably not doing either, actually.

I haven't ever been the biggest Zambrano fan, but I don't see any purpose whatsoever to dealing him as a salary dump. First of all, his contract isn't that bad. Yes, he has a lot of money on the books for the next few years, but he is also still a very productive starting pitcher. Secondly, who are the Cubs going to replace him with? Why dump salary to leave a gaping hole that you need to spend more money to fill? There is clearly nobody in the minor league system who is ready to step into the rotation at any point in the near future. Unless someone is willing to pay his salary and send something in return, I don't see any reason to consider a trade.

[Pushfrog98]

OH MY GOD! We're having a FIRE. sale.

 

http://www.ifc.com/videos/arrested-development-top-banana.php

[TruffleShuffle]

OH MY GOD! We're having a FIRE. sale.

 

http://www.ifc.com/videos/arrested-development-top-banana.php

 

=D>

[CubColtPacer]

ps...there is NO WAY you are dumping contracts AND getting good prospects for zambrano/soriano. you're probably not doing either, actually.

I haven't ever been the biggest Zambrano fan, but I don't see any purpose whatsoever to dealing him as a salary dump. First of all, his contract isn't that bad. Yes, he has a lot of money on the books for the next few years, but he is also still a very productive starting pitcher. Secondly, who are the Cubs going to replace him with? Why dump salary to leave a gaping hole that you need to spend more money to fill? There is clearly nobody in the minor league system who is ready to step into the rotation at any point in the near future. Unless someone is willing to pay his salary and send something in return, I don't see any reason to consider a trade.

 

He actually only has 1 more year beyond this one left on his deal. And the upside to trading him is that you might be able to find a pitcher who can fill his spot for less money than Z makes next year. The pitching market is a bit thin after the season but there are a few interesting names. If you sign one of them for 10-12 million and he gives you the same production that Z was doing for 18 then you have much more flexibility.

 

But it really depends on how good you view Z as this point. If you see him as a lock for a sub 3.8 ERA then your options for replacement become much more limited. If he's a guy who could put up a 3.7 or an ERA above 4 in a given year then they start to open up.

 

I wouldn't be thrilled if they only got salary relief, but would be ok if it got rid of his whole contract. I definitely would be upset if the Cubs are paying any appreciable amount with no solid prospects coming back because then there's no upside to the deal.

[dew1679666265]

/Cubs pessimism on

 

 

I don't like Hendry being trusted to try moving assets. Why trust him to do this when he is hopefully going to be let go at the end of this year? In the words of Terry Boers, it makes my ass weary about the possibility of him being here next year

 

/pessimism off

 

Reposted from another thread:

 

If you fire Hendry tomorrow, who replaces him? Unless there's just some random awesome GM sitting around doing nothing, then the answer is Randy Bush. If Randy Bush becomes the interim GM, his #1 job is not going to be making the Cubs better in the long run, it's going to be making desperation moves in hopes to make the Cubs better in the short term so that he can win the job outright.

 

If you keep Hendry, there's a decent chance he feels secure in his job and considers to take the long term health of the club into account. There's really no upside in firing Hendry now, especially since it'd be a near certainty that the interim GM would make rash desperation moves.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Under that justification, the only time you could fire a GM would be when the club is winning.

[questionmarkgrace]

/Cubs pessimism on

 

 

I don't like Hendry being trusted to try moving assets. Why trust him to do this when he is hopefully going to be let go at the end of this year? In the words of Terry Boers, it makes my ass weary about the possibility of him being here next year

 

/pessimism off

 

Reposted from another thread:

 

If you fire Hendry tomorrow, who replaces him? Unless there's just some random awesome GM sitting around doing nothing, then the answer is Randy Bush. If Randy Bush becomes the interim GM, his #1 job is not going to be making the Cubs better in the long run, it's going to be making desperation moves in hopes to make the Cubs better in the short term so that he can win the job outright.

 

If you keep Hendry, there's a decent chance he feels secure in his job and considers to take the long term health of the club into account. There's really no upside in firing Hendry now, especially since it'd be a near certainty that the interim GM would make rash desperation moves.

 

 

Any gm that would take over would likely get at least a 3-4 year deal. So making rash decisions to ensure the team is in win-now mode next year shouldn't come into play.

 

There are definitely guys out there. IMO, no way do you keep randy bush. If you want to change the organization you don't promote from within. there are plenty of ex-gm's or up and coming baseball exec's that would fit the bill. Paul depodesta or Pat Gillick come to mind (although he is 75). Heck Maybe Bob Watson wants to get away from MLB's rules board. There are other experienced guys out there that have done a good job. Plus there are a bunch of young guys who have brought along in the right organizations.

 

list of the young guys:

 

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/cubs-den/2011/05/top-cubs-gm-candidates-if-cubs-dont-retain-jim-hendry.html

[dew1679666265]

Under that justification, the only time you could fire a GM would be when the club is winning.

 

There's very little to no benefit to firing a GM midseason unless you have a long term replacement in mind that you can hire then. Any replacement you name as interim is going to do everything he can to keep the job long term, unless he's the one in a million front office guy who has no interest in being a full time GM.

 

The reasoning isn't applicable at all to the offseason because games aren't being played then and you don't generally have interim GMs in the offseason.

[questionmarkgrace]

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.

 

 

He was the red-sox top prospect in 03 and in 04. He also moved two levels in 04 from low A to AA. I would say that they knew he was a going to be a good player. Plus I remember reading a lot of hype about him in BA back then.

[questionmarkgrace]

Under that justification, the only time you could fire a GM would be when the club is winning.

 

There's very little to no benefit to firing a GM midseason unless you have a long term replacement in mind that you can hire then. Any replacement you name as interim is going to do everything he can to keep the job long term, unless he's the one in a million front office guy who has no interest in being a full time GM.

 

The reasoning isn't applicable at all to the offseason because games aren't being played then and you don't generally have interim GMs in the offseason.

 

I'm saying that there are long term guys out there.

[dew1679666265]

Any gm that would take over would likely get at least a 3-4 year deal. So making rash decisions to ensure the team is in win-now mode next year shouldn't come into play.

 

There are definitely guys out there. IMO, no way do you keep randy bush. If you want to change the organization you don't promote from within. there are plenty of ex-gm's or up and coming baseball exec's that would fit the bill. Paul depodesta or Pat Gillick come to mind (although he is 75). Heck Maybe Bob Watson wants to get away from MLB's rules board. There are other experienced guys out there that have done a good job. Plus there are a bunch of young guys who have brought along in the right organizations.

 

list of the young guys:

 

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/cubs-den/2011/05/top-cubs-gm-candidates-if-cubs-dont-retain-jim-hendry.html

 

When GMs are fired midseason, just like managers, an interim GM is generally named to serve the remainder of the season. At times, that interim GM impresses the owner enough to convince him to remove the interim tag and make the new GM permanent. Were the Cubs to take this route (the extremely most likely route) then someone in the organization like Randy Bush would take over for the rest of the season.

 

Long term candidates aren't really an option midseason because they're all employed and likely loyal enough to not bolt on their team midseason. Unless you're looking at unemployed GMs, but usually they're unemployed for a good reason - they're not good.

 

I'm not arguing against firing Hendry at all, I'm saying there's no benefit to firing him midseason unless Ricketts has a long term replacement in mind and can lure him away from his current organization now.

[dew1679666265]

Under that justification, the only time you could fire a GM would be when the club is winning.

 

There's very little to no benefit to firing a GM midseason unless you have a long term replacement in mind that you can hire then. Any replacement you name as interim is going to do everything he can to keep the job long term, unless he's the one in a million front office guy who has no interest in being a full time GM.

 

The reasoning isn't applicable at all to the offseason because games aren't being played then and you don't generally have interim GMs in the offseason.

 

I'm saying that there are long term guys out there.

 

Right, but those long term guys are extremely unlikely to leave their current organization midseason, even for a promotion. When's the most recent time a young, up and coming GM was hired away from an organization midseason to replace a fired GM? I haven't looked it up, but I don't recall an instance where that happened.

[Shilzzz]

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

 

It's gonna happen.

[Shilzzz]

1) i'd like to know what the marmol-before-his-arm-explodes argument is about. delivery on the slider?

 

2) i'd have to imagine that the "hendry secure" part is inherent in the whole being allowed to be head-of-voltron for a fire sale

 

3) marshall. i like the possible return to role on team ratio with him

 

4) there is no way soriano is movable. to whom and for what?

 

5) a-ok with moving soto. castillo is close enough with the bat (though his difference in obp worries me a bit, though not as much as the likelihood of hill getting ++ > starts over whoever else can catch).

 

6) what team in competition does not already have a firstbaseman comparable to pena enough to desire him?

 

7) damn i hate hendry.

 

8) what has hendry ever received prospect-wise in a deal sending major league talent of decent ability for said youngsters?

 

9) how do the cubs obtain one of the yankees good catching prospects?

[Guest]

1) yes, we can only hope his catching career helps his arm last to free agency

 

3) I'm confused, I think you like the idea of trading Marshall though.

 

6) There's several teams in contention without big production at 1B, most of them smaller market

 

8) Archer(among others) for DeRosa leaps to mind

 

9) Talk them into Zambrano

[Dallas Green]

There's only one untouchable guy - Castro - but there are other guys that you'd only really trade if you were getting something that would immediately contribute to your team next year. You don't trade guys like Barney, Soto, Garza, Marmol, Marshall, Byrd, or Wells for salary relief or for prospects who are a long way from making it to the Bigs. If there's a baseball trade to be made - major league player for major league player, that improves the team, great.

 

Your trade targets are guys who won't be back next year and can net you some future prospects - Pena, Fukudome, and Baker.

 

Or you try to trade a bad contract for salary relief - Soriano. I'm assuming that Ramirez simply can't be moved and the Cubs will just let him walk after this season.

 

Zambrano and Dempster both sort of straddle the fence. Their contracts are bad, but not horrible, and they can be productive members of the team in 2012. Both contracts come off the books after 2012. I think you only trade them if you get immediate help.

 

For all the doom and gloom the media spreads about the Cubs' contract situation, Ramirez' 14.6M, Fukudome's 13.5M, Pena's ~5M, Grabow's 4.8M, and Samardjiza's 3M are all off the books after this season if the Cubs do nothing.

 

Doesn't Ramirez have a buyout ($2M) if the mutual option isn't picked up by the Cubs?

 

The Cubs will pay the $2M instead of bringing him back for $16M. The $16M option becomes guaranteed if he gets traded. So, the Cubs simply will not trade him unless they can negotiate a deal where they're only on the hook for less than the remainder of this season plus $2M or get significant player value back that justifies the additional expenditure.

 

I don't see either scenario as being likely. I think Ramirez is on the Cubs for the remainder of the season and then becomes a free agent.

 

EDIT - "unless" > "if" Big difference.

 

Ramirez deal doesnt get kicked in with trade according to Levine

[CubColtPacer]

There's only one untouchable guy - Castro - but there are other guys that you'd only really trade if you were getting something that would immediately contribute to your team next year. You don't trade guys like Barney, Soto, Garza, Marmol, Marshall, Byrd, or Wells for salary relief or for prospects who are a long way from making it to the Bigs. If there's a baseball trade to be made - major league player for major league player, that improves the team, great.

 

Your trade targets are guys who won't be back next year and can net you some future prospects - Pena, Fukudome, and Baker.

 

Or you try to trade a bad contract for salary relief - Soriano. I'm assuming that Ramirez simply can't be moved and the Cubs will just let him walk after this season.

 

Zambrano and Dempster both sort of straddle the fence. Their contracts are bad, but not horrible, and they can be productive members of the team in 2012. Both contracts come off the books after 2012. I think you only trade them if you get immediate help.

 

For all the doom and gloom the media spreads about the Cubs' contract situation, Ramirez' 14.6M, Fukudome's 13.5M, Pena's ~5M, Grabow's 4.8M, and Samardjiza's 3M are all off the books after this season if the Cubs do nothing.

 

Doesn't Ramirez have a buyout ($2M) if the mutual option isn't picked up by the Cubs?

 

The Cubs will pay the $2M instead of bringing him back for $16M. The $16M option becomes guaranteed if he gets traded. So, the Cubs simply will not trade him unless they can negotiate a deal where they're only on the hook for less than the remainder of this season plus $2M or get significant player value back that justifies the additional expenditure.

 

I don't see either scenario as being likely. I think Ramirez is on the Cubs for the remainder of the season and then becomes a free agent.

 

EDIT - "unless" > "if" Big difference.

 

Ramirez deal doesnt get kicked in with trade according to Levine

 

Yeah, I saw someone mention that on a comment on one of the fangraphs articles as well. That clause has apparently expired at this point.