Carlos Pena Trade Candidate

[Elwood]

MLBTradeRumors.com sums up the Pena situation. Although it seems a bit heavy on conjecture, it's still informative.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/07/trade-candidate-carlos-pena.html

 

I just noticed some interesting ideas in the comments section. Overbay for Pena straight up? Good Lord.

[champaignchris]

Compared to Derrick Lee last year, Pena is cheaper, better, doesn't have a no trade clause, and is left handed. I would not be surprised to see the Cubs get a marginally better deal for Pena than they did for Lee last year.

[Tryptamine]

....wow there is not a lot of intriguing things down on the Pirate's farm. Obviously Allie and Taillon wont be part of any Pena deal and I don't see a whole lot of intrigue other than those guys. Starling Marte looks pretty good, but another CFer is the last position the farm needs. Maybe Colton Cain or Tony Sanchez? I'm not particularly thrilled by any of them.

[jersey cubs fan]

Compared to Derrick Lee last year, Pena is cheaper, better, doesn't have a no trade clause, and is left handed. I would not be surprised to see the Cubs get a marginally better deal for Pena than they did for Lee last year.

 

If the Cubs only get a marginally better deal than they shouldn't even trade him.

[rawaction]

Pena is a nice "bird-in-the-hand" in case Pujols or Fielder don't work out. And Pena won't be so sought after that the Cubs have to rush to a decision with him. And they should know pretty early on if they have a chance with one of the other 2. I'd gladly take Pena back for another year.

[dew1679666265]

Compared to Derrick Lee last year, Pena is cheaper, better, doesn't have a no trade clause, and is left handed. I would not be surprised to see the Cubs get a marginally better deal for Pena than they did for Lee last year.

 

If the Cubs only get a marginally better deal than they shouldn't even trade him.

 

What good does keeping Pena through the deadline do the team? I realize we've got a horde of players similar to the guys we got in the DLee trade so getting more of them for Pena isn't special, but Pena does us no good playing out the string and then leaving via FA.

[dew1679666265]

Pena is a nice "bird-in-the-hand" in case Pujols or Fielder don't work out. And Pena won't be so sought after that the Cubs have to rush to a decision with him. And they should know pretty early on if they have a chance with one of the other 2. I'd gladly take Pena back for another year.

 

We can re-sign him in the offseason, though, if that's what we choose to do. The only benefit to keeping him would be to have him during the exclusive negotiating period, but that will have ended by the time we can begin negotiations with Pujols/Fielder. I guess a team that acquires Pena could then re-sign him, but that's generally unlikely and it's not like Pena's a guy without peer on the FA market.

[jersey cubs fan]

Compared to Derrick Lee last year, Pena is cheaper, better, doesn't have a no trade clause, and is left handed. I would not be surprised to see the Cubs get a marginally better deal for Pena than they did for Lee last year.

 

If the Cubs only get a marginally better deal than they shouldn't even trade him.

 

What good does keeping Pena through the deadline do the team? I realize we've got a horde of players similar to the guys we got in the DLee trade so getting more of them for Pena isn't special, but Pena does us no good playing out the string and then leaving via FA.

 

Because he won't necessarily leave via free agency, and the Cubs have no internal options at the position. Getting more filler does the organization no good, keeping Pena as a potential fallback option when they realize Fielder/Pujols options aren't there has value.

[jersey cubs fan]

Pena is a nice "bird-in-the-hand" in case Pujols or Fielder don't work out. And Pena won't be so sought after that the Cubs have to rush to a decision with him. And they should know pretty early on if they have a chance with one of the other 2. I'd gladly take Pena back for another year.

 

We can re-sign him in the offseason, though, if that's what we choose to do. The only benefit to keeping him would be to have him during the exclusive negotiating period, but that will have ended by the time we can begin negotiations with Pujols/Fielder. I guess a team that acquires Pena could then re-sign him, but that's generally unlikely and it's not like Pena's a guy without peer on the FA market.

 

There's just no point in getting more filler. If that is your only offer, don't trade him. It is as simple as that. It would be stupid to trade the guy for more filler. Entertain all offers but don't get lowballed. If you are, pull him off the table.

 

Maybe somebody gets more desperate in August and you can swing a waiver deal.

[dew1679666265]

Because he won't necessarily leave via free agency, and the Cubs have no internal options at the position. Getting more filler does the organization no good, keeping Pena as a potential fallback option when they realize Fielder/Pujols options aren't there has value.

 

By the time we've ruled out Pujols and Fielder, Pena will be on the open market whether we trade him now or not. There is a window to negotiate with your own free agents after the year, but that window will have expired by the time we know we're out of the Pujols/Fielder sweepstakes. At that point, it's irrelevant whether we kept him the remainder of the season or not.

[jersey cubs fan]

Because he won't necessarily leave via free agency, and the Cubs have no internal options at the position. Getting more filler does the organization no good, keeping Pena as a potential fallback option when they realize Fielder/Pujols options aren't there has value.

 

By the time we've ruled out Pujols and Fielder, Pena will be on the open market whether we trade him now or not.

 

Not necessarily.

 

And it's still better than taking back more garbage.

[dew1679666265]

There's just no point in getting more filler. If that is your only offer, don't trade him. It is as simple as that. It would be stupid to trade the guy for more filler. Entertain all offers but don't get lowballed. If you are, pull him off the table.

 

Keeping him because you're not getting what you want isn't a good strategy. Adding three guys who have a small chance of becoming major leaguers is better than adding no guys at all. Is it ideal? No, but there is no upside whatsoever in keeping Pena unless we decide during the season not to pursue Pujols and Fielder. Trading Pena, even for a mediocre return, has even just a slight upside, so there's no reason to keep Pena around.

 

If he were under contract for 2012 already (much like Aramis is), this argument would make sense. But he's going to be on the market either way, so I don't see the upside for us.

 

Maybe somebody gets more desperate in August and you can swing a waiver deal.

 

This reasoning makes a lot more sense. I could see holding out the hope that you could get more in August, getting no offers and then just keeping him. But intentionally keeping him simply because teams aren't offering a great return has no upside whatsoever.

[jersey cubs fan]

This reasoning makes a lot more sense. I could see holding out the hope that you could get more in August, getting no offers and then just keeping him. But intentionally keeping him simply because teams aren't offering a great return has no upside whatsoever.

 

Yeah, sorry, you aren't making any sense. "Holding onto him because you don't like the offers is a bad idea but it could be a good idea to hold onto him to see if you can get better offers."

 

 

 

Don't trade him for more filler, end of discussion.

[dew1679666265]

Because he won't necessarily leave via free agency, and the Cubs have no internal options at the position. Getting more filler does the organization no good, keeping Pena as a potential fallback option when they realize Fielder/Pujols options aren't there has value.

 

By the time we've ruled out Pujols and Fielder, Pena will be on the open market whether we trade him now or not.

 

Not necessarily.

 

And it's still better than taking back more garbage.

 

Nothing is better than something? That doesn't make sense.

 

There is a small possibility somebody could re-sign Pena after trading for him, but again, it's not like there aren't other Carlos Pena's out there we can go after at that point. He's a nice player, but not some critical piece we should feel we need to hold onto.

[mul21]

Is there any chance the Cubs offer him arbitration and get a pick or 2 of guys they like/need? That seems like a better option than trading him for guys who you have no use for.

[Cubswin11]

Is there any chance the Cubs offer him arbitration and get a pick or 2 of guys they like/need? That seems like a better option than trading him for guys who you have no use for.

I was just going to ask this. Pena should at least be a Type B FA right?

[KingCubsFan]

Is there any chance the Cubs offer him arbitration and get a pick or 2 of guys they like/need? That seems like a better option than trading him for guys who you have no use for.

I don't think he's a type A. And there's no reason to hang on to Pena past the waiver deadline. Maybe the prospects work out, maybe they don't, but there's no reason to pass up a chance to add depth to a pretty thin farm system so we *may* have a better chance of resigning him. Pena isn't terrible, but if we don't add Pujols or Fielder in the offseason, there's a pretty good chance we'll be bad again.

[dew1679666265]

Yeah, sorry, you aren't making any sense. "Holding onto him because you don't like the offers is a bad idea but it could be a good idea to hold onto him to see if you can get better offers."

 

If the reasoning is that we want to keep him because we might decide in January or February that we want to bring him back, then not trading him makes no sense. If the reasoning behind keeping him through July 31 is to see if a team gets desperate, that reasoning makes a little bit of sense. Basically, I wouldn't be opposed to holding him through August and seeing if you could get a better deal, but by the end of August I'd advocate trading him in the best deal offered - whatever that is.

 

Don't trade him for more filler, end of discussion.

 

If all you're being offered if filler, then yes you do trade him for filler. Why is it bad to add potential cheap production to the minor leagues?

[jersey cubs fan]

Nothing is better than something? That doesn't make sense.

 

There is a small possibility somebody could re-sign Pena after trading for him, but again, it's not like there aren't other Carlos Pena's out there we can go after at that point. He's a nice player, but not some critical piece we should feel we need to hold onto.

 

You don't need to hold onto him, you hold onto him if you don't have a worthwhile offer. You don't just get rid of him to the highest bidder regardless of the price of the bid. Pujoles and Fielder could be off the market before the Cubs even have a shot at them for a variety of reasons. They have absolutely nothing even resembling an internal option. What they do have is a glut of organizational filler and absolutely do not need any more. If you don't get something more than a marginal upgrade to the Lee deal, you hold onto him.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is there any chance the Cubs offer him arbitration and get a pick or 2 of guys they like/need? That seems like a better option than trading him for guys who you have no use for.

I don't think he's a type A. And there's no reason to hang on to Pena past the waiver deadline. Maybe the prospects work out, maybe they don't, but there's no reason to pass up a chance to add depth to a pretty thin farm system so we *may* have a better chance of resigning him. Pena isn't terrible, but if we don't add Pujols or Fielder in the offseason, there's a pretty good chance we'll be bad again.

 

The Cubs do not lack depth in the system. They lack quality.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, sorry, you aren't making any sense. "Holding onto him because you don't like the offers is a bad idea but it could be a good idea to hold onto him to see if you can get better offers."

 

If the reasoning is that we want to keep him because we might decide in January or February that we want to bring him back, then not trading him makes no sense.

 

Who says that decision will only be made in January. It could be made for you before then.

[Guest]

Is there any chance the Cubs offer him arbitration and get a pick or 2 of guys they like/need? That seems like a better option than trading him for guys who you have no use for.

I was just going to ask this. Pena should at least be a Type B FA right?

 

Pena isn't exactly a surefire bet to decline arbitration, and I'm not even sure if he'd garner a pick with as awful as his 2010 was.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't like to speak in absolutes, but there is a 0% chance Fielder is re-signed before open free agency begins. Edited July 11, 2011 by SouthSideRyan

[dew1679666265]

I don't think he's a type A. And there's no reason to hang on to Pena past the waiver deadline. Maybe the prospects work out, maybe they don't, but there's no reason to pass up a chance to add depth to a pretty thin farm system so we *may* have a better chance of resigning him. Pena isn't terrible, but if we don't add Pujols or Fielder in the offseason, there's a pretty good chance we'll be bad again.

 

The farm isn't lacking in depth, but to me that doesn't mean you pass up more depth when it's the best offer that's out there.

 

If Pena were signed through 2012 then I'd be all for keeping him if we don't get an acceptable offer, but there's next to no benefit to keeping him when he's a FA after the year anyway. I could understand keeping him if he's going to be a Type A or B (I hadn't thought of that to this point), but then the question is would Hendry or whoever the GM is after the year offer him arbitration and how likely is he to be a Type A or B? His average will really hurt him in that regard, as would RBIs, I would think.

[dew1679666265]

You don't need to hold onto him, you hold onto him if you don't have a worthwhile offer. You don't just get rid of him to the highest bidder regardless of the price of the bid. Pujoles and Fielder could be off the market before the Cubs even have a shot at them for a variety of reasons. They have absolutely nothing even resembling an internal option. What they do have is a glut of organizational filler and absolutely do not need any more. If you don't get something more than a marginal upgrade to the Lee deal, you hold onto him.

 

There's a small chance Pujols could be re-signed by the Cards, but barring Fielder being traded at the deadline I don't know of any way he could be off the market before the Cubs can make an offer, considering there's basically no chance the Brewers can afford to re-sign Fielder, a Boras client.

 

Besides the unlikely event of a trade (the Brewers are still in it and the Cubs could then choose to just keep Pena if Fielder were traded) or the Brewers re-signing him (no way they have the money), what other ways can Fielder never make it to the market?