Aramis Ramirez’s 2012 Option Does NOT Vest if He’s Traded

[Sammy Sofa]

Signing guys like Wilson and Prince/Pujols isn't just "a couple of tweaks."

 

how often in baseball does one team sign two of the top 3 free agents? Granted I know we have the money but it just doesnt seem to happen to anyone other than the yankees and redsox.

 

And it might not happen here. But the Cubs certainly have the means to do so and the glaring need to do so.

[Guest]

Signing guys like Wilson and Prince/Pujols isn't just "a couple of tweaks."

 

how often in baseball does one team sign two of the top 3 free agents? Granted I know we have the money but it just doesnt seem to happen to anyone other than the yankees and redsox.

 

How many times has a team tried?

[Outshined_One]

If Ramirez is traded, the entire team should be blown up. I just don't see how this team could compete without him, especially considering the list of available 3Bs in free agency in the offseason is ugly. I don't see anyone in this system capable of replacing his production come 2012, either.

 

There's really no reason to blow this team up. The division is likely to be mediocre, at best, next year and there are some really big time FAs on the market this offseason. The only reason we should trade Aramis is if somebody blows us away, but if we do I think we can still have a chance to compete next year with the right moves.

 

Who would you trade as part of blowing the team up?

 

If the Cubs are attempting a run in 2012, I'd shop Pena and seriously listen to offers for Zambrano and Soriano. The goal would be to keep most of the team intact while substantially upgrading areas where holes will exist in the offseason (1B, SP, and possibly OF).

 

If there are no plans of competing, then I would advocate seriously listening to offers for everyone on this team short of Castro and Soto. Ramirez, Pena, Byrd, Zambrano, Dempster, you name it. The goal would be to acquire as many quality prospects as possible and get as much payroll flexibility as possible for a splash after the 2012 offseason to compete in 2013 and beyond.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Im all for keeping Aramis, but it isnt our decision, and if the powers that be have already decided hes not in the future plans, he really needs to be traded if he'll accept it, because hes a guy we should be able to score a legit top prospect for, maybe top 50.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why wouldn't Garza be an exception?

 

I swear, people act like he's 32 or a FA after next year or something.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If there were to be only 2 guys on the current 25 man roster that they Cubs decided to keep around long term, Castro and Garza would be my picks, no question with Soto 3rd.

[questionmarkgrace]

If there were to be only 2 guys on the current 25 man roster that they Cubs decided to keep around long term, Castro and Garza would be my picks, no question with Soto 3rd.

 

I would move soto. He has had a lot of injuries in his short career and those can add up quickly for a catcher of his size. I really think he will have trouble staying healthy going forward. That said this is probably not the greatest time to move him though because his value is down. Hypothetically speaking though, i would keep castro, garza, and dempster.

[dew1679666265]

If the Cubs are attempting a run in 2012, I'd shop Pena and seriously listen to offers for Zambrano and Soriano. The goal would be to keep most of the team intact while substantially upgrading areas where holes will exist in the offseason (1B, SP, and possibly OF).

 

I'm with you on trading Pena and at least trying to dump Soriano, but there's no reason at all to trade Z unless a team blows us away. We probably already need a guy like CJ Wilson to fill one rotation spot next year, we don't need to dump Z and open up another hole in the rotation. Unless somebody just blew me away with an offer for Z, I'd keep him.

 

I'd look to trade Pena primarily here at the deadline and then in the offseason make a run at Pujols/Fielder. I'd also either go after CJ Wilson and let Aramis go, or try to bring Aramis back on a smaller deal and go after one of the second tier starters. My preference would probably be to sign Wilson and turn third base over to a Flaherty/Baker platoon. There'd be a dropoff in production at third, but that platoon could still be league average or better. If that team doesn't contend, I look to trade off all expiring contracts at next year's deadline.

 

If there are no plans of competing, then I would advocate seriously listening to offers for everyone on this team short of Castro and Soto. Ramirez, Pena, Byrd, Zambrano, Dempster, you name it. The goal would be to acquire as many quality prospects as possible and get as much payroll flexibility as possible for a splash after the 2012 offseason to compete in 2013 and beyond.

 

I just don't see any reason to take this route. The division is filled with a bunch of mediocre teams that will probably just get worse from this year to next (with the possible exceptions of the Reds and Pirates) and there are impact FAs on the market. With our resources and the terrible division, there's just no reason to not make an attempt. Especially when you consider with the exception of Aramis and Pena, all the guys we'd be looking to trade for significant pieces are at their lowest value. Dempster's value can only go up as his luck evens out and Z could very well rebound next year and have decent to good numbers at next year's deadline. Other guys like Baker, Byrd, Marmol, Marshall, etc., will all be under contract again next year anyway and can be traded then instead of throwing this season needlessly.

[dew1679666265]

I would move soto. He has had a lot of injuries in his short career and those can add up quickly for a catcher of his size. I really think he will have trouble staying healthy going forward. That said this is probably not the greatest time to move him though because his value is down. Hypothetically speaking though, i would keep castro, garza, and dempster.

 

The problem with trading Soto now is that we don't have anybody behind him in the minors who is likely to be productive offensively. We can call up guys like Castillo or Clevenger, but neither projects to be anywhere close to Soto's production offensively. In trading Soto we'd be taking a big hit offensively with little to no gain defensively.

[Outshined_One]

Why wouldn't Garza be an exception?

 

I swear, people act like he's 32 or a FA after next year or something.

 

I strongly considered putting Garza in that group, but he's not on the same level as Soto or Castro are for me. Garza's on pace for the best year of his career by a longshot and I'm skeptical about whether or not he'd be able to keep that up over the next two years. Putting it bluntly, he's a fantastic sell high candidate. He should be worth a ton in the trade market and I don't think he should be untouchable.

 

I would move soto. He has had a lot of injuries in his short career and those can add up quickly for a catcher of his size. I really think he will have trouble staying healthy going forward. That said this is probably not the greatest time to move him though because his value is down. Hypothetically speaking though, i would keep castro, garza, and dempster.

 

Even in his down years, Soto is still an above average catcher compared to the rest of MLB. I'm doubtful the Cubs could get Soto's 2011 production from Castillo/Clevenger going forward. Unless you think some team will grossly overpay to get him, Soto should not be traded.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why wouldn't Garza be an exception?

 

I swear, people act like he's 32 or a FA after next year or something.

 

I strongly considered putting Garza in that group, but he's not on the same level as Soto or Castro are for me. Garza's on pace for the best year of his career by a longshot and I'm skeptical about whether or not he'd be able to keep that up over the next two years. Putting it bluntly, he's a fantastic sell high candidate. He should be worth a ton in the trade market and I don't think he should be untouchable.

 

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. He's only 27, he's under their control for the next 2 seasons and he's an excellent pitcher. What is your skepticism based on? And why are you seemingly saying he has to match or better this year to be worth keeping?

[Guest]

Why wouldn't Garza be an exception?

 

I swear, people act like he's 32 or a FA after next year or something.

 

I strongly considered putting Garza in that group, but he's not on the same level as Soto or Castro are for me. Garza's on pace for the best year of his career by a longshot and I'm skeptical about whether or not he'd be able to keep that up over the next two years. Putting it bluntly, he's a fantastic sell high candidate. He should be worth a ton in the trade market and I don't think he should be untouchable.

 

In what universe is Garza on pace for the best year of his career by a longshot?

 

His ERA is the same as it was in 07 and 08. His WHIP is worse than any of the last three years. He's allowing the same amount of hits as last year and more than in 08 and 09. He's walking slightly more than in 08 and 10. His ERA+ is worse than 07, 08 and 09. His WAR so far this year is 1.8 which puts him on pace for about 2.7, which would be easily worse than 08 and 09.

 

The only things that are career-bests are his HR rate (0.6 HR/9 this year vs. a previous best of 0.9 before) and his K/9 rate (which is up 0.8 over his 09 season).

 

I can see an argument where he's been as good as previous years, but not that his 2011 blows anything else he's done in his career out of the water. I also don't see how he's a sell-high candidate. Yeah he would fetch a very good return, but that's because he's a very good player.

[TruffleShuffle]

eh his FIP/xFIP are way lower than they've been previous years. that's a combination of good pitching and not having to face the yankees and red sox so much.... but his ERA is due to bad defense and bad luck. you could certainly make a good case that this is easily his best year, but when it comes to selling that to opposing GMs when his ERA isn't that great, that would be tougher to do.

 

and i'm not saying that other GMs don't realize that he's been good, but they're going to use that (highest WHIP in 4 years; ERA+ only marginally above average) as an excuse to not pay a heavy price for him.

[dew1679666265]

eh his FIP/xFIP are way lower than they've been previous years. that's a combination of good pitching and not having to face the yankees and red sox so much.... but his ERA is due to bad defense and bad luck. you could certainly make a good case that this is easily his best year, but when it comes to selling that to opposing GMs when his ERA isn't that great, that would be tougher to do.

 

and i'm not saying that other GMs don't realize that he's been good, but they're going to use that (highest WHIP in 4 years; ERA+ only marginally above average) as an excuse to not pay a heavy price for him.

 

Yeah, Garza's in the same position as Dempster this season. Both have had much better years than their traditional numbers would indicate, but it's the traditional numbers that other GMs will use to talk down their return. I'd be pretty opposed to trading either this year because you'd almost certainly be selling low in comparison to the season they're having.

[CubColtPacer]

I would trade Ramirez for a good price. He's still a great player and the Cubs would miss his production quite a bit. It would be sad to see him go. But my thinking is this: the Cubs would have the opportunity to get 3 major pieces in the offseason: an elite first baseman, a great starting pitcher, or Ramirez. They can only afford 2 of them, and IMO Ramirez is the least necessary of those three because that's where the Cubs at least have OK options from within the system. Plus, the Cubs would get talent from the Ramirez trade and some of that talent might be ready next year to help the 2012 team. So I don't see trading Ramirez as giving up on 2012-it's just throwing your limited assets in a different direction.

 

And if the Cubs are unsure about signing those elite pieces, trading Ramirez gives them more flexibility in the offseason.

[hawkeyecub]

I would trade Ramirez for a good price. He's still a great player and the Cubs would miss his production quite a bit. It would be sad to see him go. But my thinking is this: the Cubs would have the opportunity to get 3 major pieces in the offseason: an elite first baseman, a great starting pitcher, or Ramirez. They can only afford 2 of them, and IMO Ramirez is the least necessary of those three because that's where the Cubs at least have OK options from within the system. Plus, the Cubs would get talent from the Ramirez trade and some of that talent might be ready next year to help the 2012 team. So I don't see trading Ramirez as giving up on 2012-it's just throwing your limited assets in a different direction.

 

And if the Cubs are unsure about signing those elite pieces, trading Ramirez gives them more flexibility in the offseason.

 

That pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.

[Exile on Waveland]

how often in baseball does one team sign two of the top 3 free agents?

 

Jose Reyes weeps.

[dew1679666265]

11:15pm: Agent Paul Kinzer tells Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports that Ramirez remains reluctant to waive his no-trade protection this month. “He doesn’t want to go anywhere,” Kinzer told Rosenthal after speaking with Ramirez. However, Ramirez may still consider trades during August.

 

MLB Trade Rumors

[Little Slide Rooter]

Whatever. as far as Im concerned, if Aramis is a Cub in Spetember, he needs to be a Cub in April.

[Guest]

I would trade Ramirez for a good price. He's still a great player and the Cubs would miss his production quite a bit. It would be sad to see him go. But my thinking is this: the Cubs would have the opportunity to get 3 major pieces in the offseason: an elite first baseman, a great starting pitcher, or Ramirez. They can only afford 2 of them, and IMO Ramirez is the least necessary of those three because that's where the Cubs at least have OK options from within the system. Plus, the Cubs would get talent from the Ramirez trade and some of that talent might be ready next year to help the 2012 team. So I don't see trading Ramirez as giving up on 2012-it's just throwing your limited assets in a different direction.

 

And if the Cubs are unsure about signing those elite pieces, trading Ramirez gives them more flexibility in the offseason.

 

I don't disagree, but would point out that they are not very far from being able to afford all 3. It wouldn't take seismic changes to get all 3, and you have to keep in mind they're paying 33 million for SP production(Dempster, Z) they could replace for far less the following season.

[CubColtPacer]

I would trade Ramirez for a good price. He's still a great player and the Cubs would miss his production quite a bit. It would be sad to see him go. But my thinking is this: the Cubs would have the opportunity to get 3 major pieces in the offseason: an elite first baseman, a great starting pitcher, or Ramirez. They can only afford 2 of them, and IMO Ramirez is the least necessary of those three because that's where the Cubs at least have OK options from within the system. Plus, the Cubs would get talent from the Ramirez trade and some of that talent might be ready next year to help the 2012 team. So I don't see trading Ramirez as giving up on 2012-it's just throwing your limited assets in a different direction.

 

And if the Cubs are unsure about signing those elite pieces, trading Ramirez gives them more flexibility in the offseason.

 

I don't disagree, but would point out that they are not very far from being able to afford all 3. It wouldn't take seismic changes to get all 3, and you have to keep in mind they're paying 33 million for SP production(Dempster, Z) they could replace for far less the following season.

 

From my calculations they're 7-10 million short even after declining Samardzija's option, not re-signing Wood, and going with minimum salary players for the bench and most of the bullpen. That's a lot of extra money to shed. They could trade Byrd to do it, but they have nobody to replace him. That's also assuming none of Pena's money counts for the 2012 budget.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I would trade Ramirez for a good price. He's still a great player and the Cubs would miss his production quite a bit. It would be sad to see him go. But my thinking is this: the Cubs would have the opportunity to get 3 major pieces in the offseason: an elite first baseman, a great starting pitcher, or Ramirez. They can only afford 2 of them, and IMO Ramirez is the least necessary of those three because that's where the Cubs at least have OK options from within the system. Plus, the Cubs would get talent from the Ramirez trade and some of that talent might be ready next year to help the 2012 team. So I don't see trading Ramirez as giving up on 2012-it's just throwing your limited assets in a different direction.

 

And if the Cubs are unsure about signing those elite pieces, trading Ramirez gives them more flexibility in the offseason.

 

I don't disagree, but would point out that they are not very far from being able to afford all 3. It wouldn't take seismic changes to get all 3, and you have to keep in mind they're paying 33 million for SP production(Dempster, Z) they could replace for far less the following season.

 

From my calculations they're 7-10 million short even after declining Samardzija's option, not re-signing Wood, and going with minimum salary players for the bench and most of the bullpen. That's a lot of extra money to shed. They could trade Byrd to do it, but they have nobody to replace him.

 

I suppose they could do some backloading.

[Guest]

I would trade Ramirez for a good price. He's still a great player and the Cubs would miss his production quite a bit. It would be sad to see him go. But my thinking is this: the Cubs would have the opportunity to get 3 major pieces in the offseason: an elite first baseman, a great starting pitcher, or Ramirez. They can only afford 2 of them, and IMO Ramirez is the least necessary of those three because that's where the Cubs at least have OK options from within the system. Plus, the Cubs would get talent from the Ramirez trade and some of that talent might be ready next year to help the 2012 team. So I don't see trading Ramirez as giving up on 2012-it's just throwing your limited assets in a different direction.

 

And if the Cubs are unsure about signing those elite pieces, trading Ramirez gives them more flexibility in the offseason.

 

I don't disagree, but would point out that they are not very far from being able to afford all 3. It wouldn't take seismic changes to get all 3, and you have to keep in mind they're paying 33 million for SP production(Dempster, Z) they could replace for far less the following season.

 

From my calculations they're 7-10 million short even after declining Samardzija's option, not re-signing Wood, and going with minimum salary players for the bench and most of the bullpen. That's a lot of extra money to shed. They could trade Byrd to do it, but they have nobody to replace him.

 

Trading Byrd with Jackson right there isn't a worst case scenario, although the much more likely alternative would be selling off Soriano or trading Zambrano. You'd also be able to potentially get a RF or replacement pen arms in such deals. I mean, you can deal with a bit more stars and scrubs when you have something like:

 

Garza/Wilson/Dempster/Z/Wells/(SP acquired for Byrd)

Marmol/Marshall/Cashner/Wood*/Russell/LOOGY

 

Jackson

Castro

Pujols/Fielder

Ramirez

Soto

Colvin/Baker

Soriano

Barney/Flaherty/DJL

 

*They'd make it work with as little as he makes

 

 

There's a good bit of downside with that lineup, but if you pay 2/3 of Soriano's deal to make him go away instead of trading Byrd a lot of that is fixed too. And the pitching would be only a half step from the Philly/SF rotations that have won with worse offenses than that.

[davearm2]

I would trade Ramirez for a good price. He's still a great player and the Cubs would miss his production quite a bit. It would be sad to see him go. But my thinking is this: the Cubs would have the opportunity to get 3 major pieces in the offseason: an elite first baseman, a great starting pitcher, or Ramirez. They can only afford 2 of them, and IMO Ramirez is the least necessary of those three because that's where the Cubs at least have OK options from within the system. Plus, the Cubs would get talent from the Ramirez trade and some of that talent might be ready next year to help the 2012 team. So I don't see trading Ramirez as giving up on 2012-it's just throwing your limited assets in a different direction.

 

And if the Cubs are unsure about signing those elite pieces, trading Ramirez gives them more flexibility in the offseason.

Of course those elite free agents would have to choose the Cubs, too.

 

It's not at all farfetched that they make a strong push for these guys, but come up empty. Then it's, "hello, Carlos Boozer".

[scarey]

I would trade Ramirez for a good price. He's still a great player and the Cubs would miss his production quite a bit. It would be sad to see him go. But my thinking is this: the Cubs would have the opportunity to get 3 major pieces in the offseason: an elite first baseman, a great starting pitcher, or Ramirez. They can only afford 2 of them, and IMO Ramirez is the least necessary of those three because that's where the Cubs at least have OK options from within the system. Plus, the Cubs would get talent from the Ramirez trade and some of that talent might be ready next year to help the 2012 team. So I don't see trading Ramirez as giving up on 2012-it's just throwing your limited assets in a different direction.

 

And if the Cubs are unsure about signing those elite pieces, trading Ramirez gives them more flexibility in the offseason.

 

I don't disagree, but would point out that they are not very far from being able to afford all 3. It wouldn't take seismic changes to get all 3, and you have to keep in mind they're paying 33 million for SP production(Dempster, Z) they could replace for far less the following season.

 

From my calculations they're 7-10 million short even after declining Samardzija's option, not re-signing Wood, and going with minimum salary players for the bench and most of the bullpen. That's a lot of extra money to shed. They could trade Byrd to do it, but they have nobody to replace him.

 

Trading Byrd with Jackson right there isn't a worst case scenario, although the much more likely alternative would be selling off Soriano or trading Zambrano. You'd also be able to potentially get a RF or replacement pen arms in such deals. I mean, you can deal with a bit more stars and scrubs when you have something like:

 

Garza/Wilson/Dempster/Z/Wells/(SP acquired for Byrd)

Marmol/Marshall/Cashner/Wood*/Russell/LOOGY

 

Jackson

Castro

Pujols/Fielder

Ramirez

Soto

Colvin/Baker

Soriano

Barney/Flaherty/DJL

 

*They'd make it work with as little as he makes

 

 

There's a good bit of downside with that lineup, but if you pay 2/3 of Soriano's deal to make him go away instead of trading Byrd a lot of that is fixed too. And the pitching would be only a half step from the Philly/SF rotations that have won with worse offenses than that.

 

What are you assuming Fielder, Pujols, and Wilson's salaries to be?