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

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Bob Nightengale is saying Angels are very interested in Aramis. That's cool, except I'm a bit worried what he said afterward:

 

Saying the Angels would only have to give up low tier to middle tier prospects and the Cubs would pay most of the salary. Ahhhhhh, they better not do that.

 

http://twitter.com/#!/BNightengale

 

OR. It says or.

 

And that's probably not right, either

 

Where are you seeing 'or'? I'm hoping you are right, but I don't see it.

 

This is what he tweeted.

 

"The Angels likely would have to give up nothing more than mid- to lower tiered prospect or 2. Cubs would pay big part of salary."

 

Wow. Good call. Totally thought he was saying a low tier prospect or two. Thanks.

[Elwood]

Bob Nightengale is saying Angels are very interested in Aramis. That's cool, except I'm a bit worried what he said afterward:

 

Saying the Angels would only have to give up low tier to middle tier prospects and the Cubs would pay most of the salary. Ahhhhhh, they better not do that.

 

http://twitter.com/#!/BNightengale

 

OR. It says or.

 

And that's probably not right, either

 

Where are you seeing 'or'? I'm hoping you are right, but I don't see it.

 

This is what he tweeted.

 

"The Angels likely would have to give up nothing more than mid- to lower tiered prospect or 2. Cubs would pay big part of salary."

 

Wow. Good call. Totally thought he was saying a low tier prospect or two. Thanks.

 

Twitter strikes again.

[javy knows my name]

Bob Nightengale is saying Angels are very interested in Aramis. That's cool, except I'm a bit worried what he said afterward:

 

Saying the Angels would only have to give up low tier to middle tier prospects and the Cubs would pay most of the salary. Ahhhhhh, they better not do that.

 

http://twitter.com/#!/BNightengale

 

OR. It says or.

 

And that's probably not right, either

 

Where are you seeing 'or'? I'm hoping you are right, but I don't see it.

 

This is what he tweeted.

 

"The Angels likely would have to give up nothing more than mid- to lower tiered prospect or 2. Cubs would pay big part of salary."

 

Wow. Good call. Totally thought he was saying a low tier prospect or two. Thanks.

 

Hah. I see that now. Internet shorthand (and sometime its very implication) kind of sucks for exchanging information.

[dew1679666265]

"The Angels likely would have to give up nothing more than mid- to lower tiered prospect or 2. Cubs would pay big part of salary."

 

Wow. Good call. Totally thought he was saying a low tier prospect or two. Thanks.

 

Isn't that what he's saying? The period after 2 makes me think he's saying the Angels would give up nothing more than mid- to lower tiered prospect (singular implied I'm guessing) or two of them. If that's not what he's saying then it's really poorly written.

 

Later, in response to a tweet asking if the Cubs would get a high quality return, Nightengale responds:

 

BNightengale Bob Nightengale

@sportsdanny1979 No, just mid-tiered prospects

4 hours ago

[Outshined_One]

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?

 

The bottom line for me is that I agree with you 99%. Garza is having an excellent year and, even if his production declines in the next two seasons, he still would be valuable to the team as a 2-3 WAR pitcher. He is most certainly worth keeping around even if he drops to that level.

 

However...

 

The remaining 1% is based off the feeling I get that Garza's value may never be higher. As I mentioned, my skepticism is based on the fact that he's having a career year, namely as far as FIP, xFIP, and WAR go. I'll admit it, my basis for having that skepticism is somewhat flimsy, but so be it.

 

If I were running a team that was effectively punting 2012 in favor of competing in 2013 and beyond, Garza would be a really difficult case for me. On the one hand, he's young, he's pitching really well, and he'll still be with the team come 2013. On the other hand, if a team were to offer a package of prospects/young players equivalent to his value (say, the Rangers offering a package built around Martin Perez and Jurickson Profar)...I'd really have to think about it.

 

I don't think Garza should be actively shopped around. But, if someone came along with a serious offer for Garza and I didn't think this team was capable of contending in 2012, I'd be tempted.

[dew1679666265]

For what it's worth, from Muskat:

 

#Cubs Ramy says he talked to GM Jim Hendry a couple weeks ago and that the 3B is not on the market

[Little Slide Rooter]

For what it's worth, from Muskat:

 

#Cubs Ramy says he talked to GM Jim Hendry a couple weeks ago and that the 3B is not on the market

 

This just in, Aramis Ramirez to either be traded or not be traded. Seriously, this better mean hes in the 2012 plans.

[Backtobanks]

He's NSBB's master of the ghastly hypothetical trade. This is new for him, though. Usually he comes up with insane, video game-esque trades where the Cubs get like 5 teams involved and somehow end up with someone amazing while giving up scraps. Now he's apparently moved on to inexplicably wanting to give up players who are actually decent bargaining chips for cast-offs and reclamation projects. Go figure.

 

My point is that there isn't any guarantee with getting some team's prospects (unless they're someone like Harper or Trout - which isn't going to happen) for a "decent bargaining chip". I agree that it's possible one (or 2) of the prospects might become stars, but there's also a chance that the prospects might never reach the ML. Also the fact that Slowey and Young are making ML money certainly would reduce any money we might have to send with ARam. I'm not a big fan of paying 50%-80% of a player's salary to another team, especially if a player is reasonably productive.

[dew1679666265]

My point is that there isn't any guarantee with getting some team's prospects (unless they're someone like Harper or Trout - which isn't going to happen) for a "decent bargaining chip". I agree that it's possible one (or 2) of the prospects might become stars, but there's also a chance that the prospects might never reach the ML. Also the fact that Slowey and Young are making ML money certainly would reduce any money we might have to send with ARam. I'm not a big fan of paying 50%-80% of a player's salary to another team, especially if a player is reasonably productive.

 

When you have one of the best trading chips on the market, however, you need to shoot higher than a couple of low ceiling, high floor guys who probably will be no better than league average their entire time with the Cubs.

 

With a farm system as deep as ours, we're bound to get a handful or more players like Young and Slowey, so there's really very little benefit to acquiring them. Getting 1-2 of the top 5-10 prospects on another team is far more valuable since those guys have a much higher likelihood of becoming major leaguers than the vast majority of prospects and will also have much higher ceilings than Young and Slowey have.

 

The only guarantee that Young and Slowey bring us is to not be terrible and you need more than that when you're trading one of the best third basemen in the game.

[Backtobanks]

My point is that there isn't any guarantee with getting some team's prospects (unless they're someone like Harper or Trout - which isn't going to happen) for a "decent bargaining chip". I agree that it's possible one (or 2) of the prospects might become stars, but there's also a chance that the prospects might never reach the ML. Also the fact that Slowey and Young are making ML money certainly would reduce any money we might have to send with ARam. I'm not a big fan of paying 50%-80% of a player's salary to another team, especially if a player is reasonably productive.

 

When you have one of the best trading chips on the market, however, you need to shoot higher than a couple of low ceiling, high floor guys who probably will be no better than league average their entire time with the Cubs.

 

With a farm system as deep as ours, we're bound to get a handful or more players like Young and Slowey, so there's really very little benefit to acquiring them. Getting 1-2 of the top 5-10 prospects on another team is far more valuable since those guys have a much higher likelihood of becoming major leaguers than the vast majority of prospects and will also have much higher ceilings than Young and Slowey have.

 

The only guarantee that Young and Slowey bring us is to not be terrible and you need more than that when you're trading one of the best third basemen in the game.

 

I totally agree as long as we're going to get 2 of the other team's top 10 prospects and we're not paying 50%+ of ARam's contract. I'm worried about getting a few prospects with a ton of potential but become great AAAA players.

[dew1679666265]

I totally agree as long as we're going to get 2 of the other team's top 10 prospects and we're not paying 50%+ of ARam's contract. I'm worried about getting a few prospects with a ton of potential but become great AAAA players.

 

The choices shouldn't be either 2 great prospects + cash or a couple of average veterans. The choice should be 2 great prospects + cash or don't trade him.

 

And Young and Slowey aren't much better than AAAA players. Slowey has been worth an average of just over 1 WAR per season and Young has been worth a total of 1.7 WAR his entire career.

[Backtobanks]

From MLBTR:

 

•Angels GM Tony Reagins tells Mike DiGiovanna of the LA Times that having lots of powerful bats at first base is a "good problem." Kendrys Morales, Mark Trumbo and C.J. Cron give the Angels an abundance of power at first base and Reagins says situations like this "have a way of working themselves out."

 

If ARam decides to waive his no trade stance and the Cubs decide Pujols/Fielder are too expensive, I wouldn't mind Morales or Cron as part of a package in exchange for ARam.

[Little Slide Rooter]

From MLBTR:

 

•Angels GM Tony Reagins tells Mike DiGiovanna of the LA Times that having lots of powerful bats at first base is a "good problem." Kendrys Morales, Mark Trumbo and C.J. Cron give the Angels an abundance of power at first base and Reagins says situations like this "have a way of working themselves out."

 

If ARam decides to waive his no trade stance and the Cubs decide Pujols/Fielder are too expensive, I wouldn't mind Morales or Cron as part of a package in exchange for ARam.

 

So you think that we'll be able to get a package, built around either a 21 year old 2011 1st Round Draft pick, or a power hitting, but injured 1B whose under team control for a few more years for 2 months of A Ram?

[davearm2]

So you think that we'll be able to get a package, built around either a 21 year old 2011 1st Round Draft pick, or a power hitting, but injured 1B whose under team control for a few more years for 2 months of A Ram?

The Angels wouldn't trade Cron for Castro and Garza.

 

 

Since draft picks can't be traded within 12 months of signing.

 

[javy knows my name]

So you think that we'll be able to get a package, built around either a 21 year old 2011 1st Round Draft pick, or a power hitting, but injured 1B whose under team control for a few more years for 2 months of A Ram?

The Angels wouldn't trade Cron for Castro and Garza.

 

 

Since draft picks can't be traded within 12 months of signing.

 

PTBNL

[SouthSideRyan]

So you think that we'll be able to get a package, built around either a 21 year old 2011 1st Round Draft pick, or a power hitting, but injured 1B whose under team control for a few more years for 2 months of A Ram?

The Angels wouldn't trade Cron for Castro and Garza.

 

 

Since draft picks can't be traded within 12 months of signing.

 

PTBNL

 

Wouldn't work, they have to be named within 6 months

[CUBZ99]

I didn't realize that Ramirez has a mutual option for 2012 and can decline the option if he doesn't get a multi year contract at the end of the year. Makes it more puzzling why the Cubs didn't try harder to trade him at the deadline.

[seattlecub]

sorry if this has been discussed earlier in this thread or elsewhere (too tired to look right now) but if the Cubs exercise their option on ARam for 2012, but he declines it, can they offer him arbitration, thus potentially picking up a sandwich round compensation pick if he goes elsewhere?

[Backtobanks]

From MLBTR:

 

•Cubs third baseman Aramis Ramirez will be seeking a multiyear contract this offseason, according to his agent, Paul Kinzer, writes Fred Mitchell of the Chicago Tribune. A-Ram hasn't ruled out returning to the Cubs, apparently, but he "would have been more likely to re-sign with [Chicago] if Jim Hendry was there," Kinzer said. This is the same sentiment we heard from Kinzer in the wake of Hendry's dismissal a week or so back. The Cubs have a $16MM club option for 2012 on A-Ram, with a $2MM buyout. He can decline the option, though, in which case he'd forfeit any compensation.

[Little Slide Rooter]

So it's not a team option, it's a mutual option as I thought from the beginning. If this is the case, someone will like offer him something along the lines of a 3/35-40 deal with some added incentives. This is a case where you absolutely have to offer arbitration.

 

Question: if we do pick up the option, and he declines, can we still offer arb and receive the picks? He is a type A by now, right?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ewww. Mutual option that he's going to try to turn into a longer-term deal? That kind of sucks considerably.

[TruffleShuffle]

From MLBTR:

 

•Cubs third baseman Aramis Ramirez will be seeking a multiyear contract this offseason, according to his agent, Paul Kinzer, writes Fred Mitchell of the Chicago Tribune. A-Ram hasn't ruled out returning to the Cubs, apparently, but he "would have been more likely to re-sign with [Chicago] if Jim Hendry was there," Kinzer said. This is the same sentiment we heard from Kinzer in the wake of Hendry's dismissal a week or so back. The Cubs have a $16MM club option for 2012 on A-Ram, with a $2MM buyout. He can decline the option, though, in which case he'd forfeit any compensation.

 

is that because he really liked hendry or because he assumed that hendry would just give him some moronic amount of money like he's done with some other players?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Looking at the Elias Rankings, Aramis Ramirez is a Type B, while Orlando Hudson, Jeff Keppinger, and Placido Polanco are Type As, so I guess I'll never fully understand how that works. Edited September 2, 2011 by Little Slide Rooter

[Little Slide Rooter]

From MLBTR:

 

•Cubs third baseman Aramis Ramirez will be seeking a multiyear contract this offseason, according to his agent, Paul Kinzer, writes Fred Mitchell of the Chicago Tribune. A-Ram hasn't ruled out returning to the Cubs, apparently, but he "would have been more likely to re-sign with [Chicago] if Jim Hendry was there," Kinzer said. This is the same sentiment we heard from Kinzer in the wake of Hendry's dismissal a week or so back. The Cubs have a $16MM club option for 2012 on A-Ram, with a $2MM buyout. He can decline the option, though, in which case he'd forfeit any compensation.

 

is that because he really liked hendry or because he assumed that hendry would just give him some moronic amount of money like he's done with some other players?

 

I think that it's pretty safe to say that even if Hendry had stuck around, his giving out moronic amounts of money days would be over, unless it was to an elite player, and I'm sure that guys like Aramis were well aware of that. From everything I hear, Hendry is very well liked in the baseball world, by pretty much everyone other than Cubs fans.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Aramis Ramirez Seeks Multiyear Deal

By Ben Nicholson-Smith [september 12 at 8:54pm CST]

Aramis Ramirez might be the best third baseman available this offseason and he knows it. The 33-year-old told Bruce Levine of ESPNChicago.com that he’ll be looking for more than the $16MM option that’s on his current contract.

 

"If I hit the marketplace I should end up with a two or three-year deal," Ramirez told Levine. "The reason is, there aren't a lot of third baseman available this offseason. But if [the Cubs] approach me, I'm sure we can get something done. But probably not for one year."

 

 

Ramirez repeated that he wants to stay with the Cubs, who have a $16MM option for 2012. If they choose the option over a $2MM buyout, Ramirez will have to choose whether to accept the option or decline and become a free agent. Since the Cubs don’t have a permanent GM at the moment, it’s difficult to predict how they’ll approach the option or whether they'll have interest in a multiyear extension.

 

 

Heres the latest on Aramis. Nothing earth shattering. I wouldn't be opposed to giving him a 2-3 year deal at a home town discount as long as it means that they plan on picking up some additional pieces to win in the next year or two, otherwise, it's a waste as the team won't be contending in the time he's here.