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

[Guest]

 

There's a very real chance it wouldn't be a gaping hole, though.

 

I'm really having a hard time understanding why you think that. If they let Aramis walk there's a very real possibility 3rd will be a black hole both offensively and defensively. Your projections border on the realm of Jim Hendry territory.

[Guest]

Since this seems to be the general offseason target thread for now, I'll just throw this out there:

 

Soriano+as much of the money owed to him as necessary, Soto, Marshall(hopefully between Shark, Carpenter, Dolis, and Beliveau we can fill his void), Barney, and Colvin for James Shields and BJ Upton. Laugh away if you will.

 

We should probably throw in Castro and Brett Jackson to be safe.

[Sammy Sofa]

Personally, I think this is the key quote from Ramirez so far:

 

"We were the worst team in 2006, and in 2007 we went to the playoffs," he said. "So you can get better if you want to. But you have to go out and get some quality players. It's my priority to stay here, but they have to show me they want to be better. "

 

The guy's already given the Cubs a hometown discount (when he could have gotten the biggest contract of his career), so I think he does honestly want to stay here, so this likely means the ball is in the Ricketts' court. This is all going to come down to them being willing to make the necessary money available. If they go hard after guys like Wilson and Pujols/Fielder then I think they'll be able to get Aramis back at a reasonable price.

 

Sounds like a win-win to me. I would love for him to sign a two year extension, but reality favors a three year deal. Netting Pujols, Wilson, and Aramis would be a real nice off season. I think the bookends are very possible, but Wilson is going to be tough. Lots and lots of teams are going to be going after him very hard.

 

Backload-backload-backload. I really think the Cubs can get this done without dramatically jacking up their payroll.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Since this seems to be the general offseason target thread for now, I'll just throw this out there:

 

Soriano+as much of the money owed to him as necessary, Soto, Marshall(hopefully between Shark, Carpenter, Dolis, and Beliveau we can fill his void), Barney, and Colvin for James Shields and BJ Upton. Laugh away if you will.

 

We should probably throw in Castro and Brett Jackson to be safe.

 

I'm pretty sure the Rays would be insulted by such a low offer.

 

Anyway, I think BJ Upton is a very, very good idea here, particularly if they land one of the 1B.

 

I'm indifferent on Shields as a trade guy. He's one of my favorite pitchers to watch and he, like seemingly all the Rays pitchers, has exceptional makeup and intelligent on the mound. That said, I never think it's a good idea to trade for someone coming off their best season unless scouts and/or the numbers say there's untapped potential there. I don't feel that way about Shields.

[Sammy Sofa]

That said, I never think it's a good idea to trade for someone coming off their best season unless scouts and/or the numbers say there's untapped potential there. I don't feel that way about Shields.

 

The [expletive]?

[dew1679666265]

I'm really having a hard time understanding why you think that. If they let Aramis walk there's a very real possibility 3rd will be a black hole both offensively and defensively. Your projections border on the realm of Jim Hendry territory.

 

You don't think a Flaherty/Baker platoon could surpass a .701 OPS? That's not my ideal choice certainly, but if that's what it takes to net elite talent at first and in the rotation in the primes of their careers, then I'll take it.

 

There are other cheap options we could look into - Mark Reynolds comes to mind, though he's very flawed - but those two are in-house options who would likely produce better than league average in a platoon role.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

That said, I never think it's a good idea to trade for someone coming off their best season unless scouts and/or the numbers say there's untapped potential there. I don't feel that way about Shields.

 

The [expletive]?

 

The [expletive] what?

[Sammy Sofa]

That said, I never think it's a good idea to trade for someone coming off their best season unless scouts and/or the numbers say there's untapped potential there. I don't feel that way about Shields.

 

The [expletive]?

 

The [expletive] what?

 

What about his numbers this season are saying there's no "untapped potential" in a 29-year-old pitcher?

 

(No, I'm not saying the Cubs should trade for Shields)

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

What about his numbers this season are saying there's no "untapped potential" in a 29-year-old pitcher?

 

(No, I'm not saying the Cubs should trade for Shields)

 

Somewhat of a career year weirdly morphed with a return to his younger self after a couple years of being a little off. His HR/FB% returned 11.whatever, groundballs came back, the LOB% was a career high after a career low, his BABIP was a big career low after a big career high, his K's went up but the K:BB wasn't as strong....Basically he's probably very close to the pitcher he is right now but not quite *this* good. He's plenty good if you're looking for a pseudo-ace/#2 type (~4-5 WAR) , but specifically for the Cubs I think they already made that trade.

 

I wouldn't argue too hard on him not having untapped potential, because he's the kind of junk balling RH who could pull off maybe a better season (especially in the NL), maybe even two. I just don't think it's all that likely. He's kind of in a perfect storm right now as he pitches for a very strong defensive team in a very strong pitchers park in a run depressed league. I know that I dismissed this heavily for Garza, but I did that because my eyes told me (as well as the numbers actually) that Garza's fastball and breaking balls were better pitches and I'd always take a hard thrower over a finesse guy given that both are healthy, young, MLB starters already. I think power guys age with better stuff, and can last longer into their 30's.

 

Mostly though, I decided in context of the Cubs, who I feel should be chasing bigger fish right now. CJ Wilson's a better pseudo-ace for instance, and he's LH and would only cost money. That's where my focus on a high end pitcher would be, with young power arms as the goal.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nobody suggested going after Shields over Wilson.

 

You rely too much on your eyes.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Nobody suggested going after Shields over Wilson.

 

You rely too much on your eyes.

 

http://shop.customscooters.com/images/razorparts/on_off_button.jpg

 

For the love of Jah please...There's only so much going nowhere conversation can entertain in a night....There's two paragraphs there that answers your question that doesn't mention a word of CJ Wilson. If it doesn't satisfy you say so so I can file it with my Department of Care. At the very least pretend you're doing something more than just being annoying.

[17 Seconds]

it's ok guys, vitters should be ready to replace ramirez by now. that's why we drafted him. this couldn't have worked out any better.

[Backtobanks]

it's ok guys, vitters should be ready to replace ramirez by now. that's why we drafted him. this couldn't have worked out any better.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nobody suggested going after Shields over Wilson.

 

You rely too much on your eyes.

 

http://shop.customscooters.com/images/razorparts/on_off_button.jpg

 

For the love of Jah please...There's only so much going nowhere conversation can entertain in a night....There's two paragraphs there that answers your question that doesn't mention a word of CJ Wilson. If it doesn't satisfy you say so so I can file it with my Department of Care. At the very least pretend you're doing something more than just being annoying.

 

Those two paragraphs were swell (though don't necessarily back up the idea that he doesn't have "untapped potential"), but then you capped it off as if someone was suggesting pursuing Price as opposed to Wilson. The closest to that is WSR's nonsensical monster trade spitballing.

 

Those two paragraphs also make the eyes part more glaring, too.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm really having a hard time understanding why you think that. If they let Aramis walk there's a very real possibility 3rd will be a black hole both offensively and defensively. Your projections border on the realm of Jim Hendry territory.

 

You don't think a Flaherty/Baker platoon could surpass a .701 OPS? That's not my ideal choice certainly, but if that's what it takes to net elite talent at first and in the rotation in the primes of their careers, then I'll take it.

 

There are other cheap options we could look into - Mark Reynolds comes to mind, though he's very flawed - but those two are in-house options who would likely produce better than league average in a platoon role.

 

Except simply letting Ramirez goes does absolutely nothing to "net elite talent at first and in the rotation." Letting your best player go does not increase your odds of acquiring other teams' free agents.

[Guest]

Except simply letting Ramirez goes does absolutely nothing to "net elite talent at first and in the rotation." Letting your best player go does not increase your odds of acquiring other teams' free agents.

 

Yes it does, because keeping Ramirez at 16 million significantly lowers your odds of adding elite talent with the remaining payroll.

[dew1679666265]

Except simply letting Ramirez goes does absolutely nothing to "net elite talent at first and in the rotation." Letting your best player go does not increase your odds of acquiring other teams' free agents.

 

If by giving Aramis $16 million you can't afford that elite talent, then yes it certainly does decrease your odds of acquiring those players.

 

I'm working under the assumption that the Cubs don't raise payroll this year. If that's the case, they cannot afford Aramis, Wilson, and Fielder. Therefore, if you bring Aramis back, you cannot sign one of Fielder/Wilson.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Nobody suggested going after Shields over Wilson.

 

You rely too much on your eyes.

 

http://shop.customscooters.com/images/razorparts/on_off_button.jpg

 

For the love of Jah please...There's only so much going nowhere conversation can entertain in a night....There's two paragraphs there that answers your question that doesn't mention a word of CJ Wilson. If it doesn't satisfy you say so so I can file it with my Department of Care. At the very least pretend you're doing something more than just being annoying.

 

Those two paragraphs were swell (though don't necessarily back up the idea that he doesn't have "untapped potential"), but then you capped it off as if someone was suggesting pursuing Price as opposed to Wilson. The closest to that is WSR's nonsensical monster trade spitballing.

 

Those two paragraphs also make the eyes part more glaring, too.

 

There are other options to CJ Wilson, who will be the prized pig to any team looking for starting pitching. Yes, we can afford him, but so do others. The only way you can guarantee him is if you do a Sorianoesque blow everyone else out of the water contract offer.

 

Otherwise, there are options available through trade. James Shields is already rumored to be available. Brandon Morrow is another guy who there has always been talk of him having ace stuff, though it has yet to translate. Any of these guys will be costly, but we need an upgrade in the rotation.

 

I wouldn't call my trade proposal nonsensical. Soriano could be attractive to them if they don't have to pay much. Soto too, assuming we're comfortable with the Castillo/Clevenger tandem. Marshalls a great releiver, and we have guys who can hopefuly take his place. Barney and Colvin would basically be throw ins to sweeten the deal to try to work Upton into it, though they might prefer a few prospects to them. Maybe it's giving up a lot, but that front end starting pitcher is what we really need.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Except simply letting Ramirez goes does absolutely nothing to "net elite talent at first and in the rotation." Letting your best player go does not increase your odds of acquiring other teams' free agents.

 

If by giving Aramis $16 million you can't afford that elite talent, then yes it certainly does decrease your odds of acquiring those players.

 

I'm working under the assumption that the Cubs don't raise payroll this year. If that's the case, they cannot afford Aramis, Wilson, and Fielder. Therefore, if you bring Aramis back, you cannot sign one of Fielder/Wilson.

 

You can though. Do a bit of backloading. Try to trade Soriano and/or Zambrano for as much salary relief as possible. If you can't move Soriano, move Byrd for full relief of his salary. Remember how much money is coming off the books in the next 2 years. Fukudome, Bradley/Silva, Zambrano, Dempster, Grabow, Byrd, and then finally Soriano. Assuming our rotation starts with Wilson, Garza, Cashner once Z and Dempster are gone, in time we sign or trade for another middle of the rotation type starter and hope we can bring up a #5 through the system. If our offensive core is Fielder, Ramirez, Castro, Jackson, and Soto. In 2013, we go out and get an outfielder. Doesn't have to be Matt Kemp who could end up with a 200Mil deal.

[dew1679666265]

You can though. Do a bit of backloading. Try to trade Soriano and/or Zambrano for as much salary relief as possible. If you can't move Soriano, move Byrd for full relief of his salary.

 

I'm thinking in terms of not giving up on next season. If you can trade Soriano and get any measure of salary relief, do it. However, trading Z and only getting minimal salary relief or trading Byrd at all is very counterproductive. If people hate the idea of a Flaherty/Baker platoon at third where offense across the league is almost non-existant, wait til they think about a Reed/Colvin platoon in right where offense actually exists.

 

The backloading might work, only if payroll is bumped up a little. I think we have something in the area of $30-40 million coming off the books after arbitration this offseason (largely depending on how Pena's extra $5 mil is counted), so to bring back Aramis and add both Fielder and Wilson you'd probably have to do something like this:

 

Aramis: 2 years - 8/17 (25 mil total)

Fielder: 8 years - 18/22/23/24/25/28/30/30 (200 mil total)

Wilson: 5 years - 10/18/22/25/25 (100 mil total)

 

That's adding $36 mil next year, which would fall inside of that range that I've seen estimated to this point. You'd have to fill literally everything else internally and might have to bump payroll up a bit, but it might be doable.

 

If there is a way to have all three on the team next year, I'm all for that. I'm just uncomfortable assuming a bump in payroll when Ricketts may not authorize one. That's why I've been assuming we can only have 2 of the 3 on the team.

[Little Slide Rooter]

You can though. Do a bit of backloading. Try to trade Soriano and/or Zambrano for as much salary relief as possible. If you can't move Soriano, move Byrd for full relief of his salary.

 

I'm thinking in terms of not giving up on next season. If you can trade Soriano and get any measure of salary relief, do it. However, trading Z and only getting minimal salary relief or trading Byrd at all is very counterproductive. If people hate the idea of a Flaherty/Baker platoon at third where offense across the league is almost non-existant, wait til they think about a Reed/Colvin platoon in right where offense actually exists.

 

The backloading might work, only if payroll is bumped up a little. I think we have something in the area of $30-40 million coming off the books after arbitration this offseason (largely depending on how Pena's extra $5 mil is counted), so to bring back Aramis and add both Fielder and Wilson you'd probably have to do something like this:

 

Aramis: 2 years - 8/17 (25 mil total)

Fielder: 8 years - 18/22/23/24/25/28/30/30 (200 mil total)

Wilson: 5 years - 10/18/22/25/25 (100 mil total)

 

That's adding $36 mil next year, which would fall inside of that range that I've seen estimated to this point. You'd have to fill literally everything else internally and might have to bump payroll up a bit, but it might be doable.

 

If there is a way to have all three on the team next year, I'm all for that. I'm just uncomfortable assuming a bump in payroll when Ricketts may not authorize one. That's why I've been assuming we can only have 2 of the 3 on the team.

 

I wouldn't say "give up" next season, but we'd be building toward 2013 and beyond. Anyone who doesn't figure into those plans should be moved. This is why I keep saying try to trade Marlon Byrd although he's relatively cheap and productive, and probably better than whoever would replace him. I'd take that Reed/Colvin or LaHair platoon for now, and upgrade next year or mid season if we're contending. Maybe we could get something like what we got for DeRosa for him. Sean Marshall is another guy we could move. He's a great, cheap set up guy, but with guys like Shark, Carpenter, Dolis, and Beliveau, we have options.

[dew1679666265]

I wouldn't say "give up" next season, but we'd be building toward 2013 and beyond. Anyone who doesn't figure into those plans should be moved. This is why I keep saying try to trade Marlon Byrd although he's relatively cheap and productive, and probably better than whoever would replace him. I'd take that Reed/Colvin or LaHair platoon for now, and upgrade next year or mid season if we're contending. Maybe we could get something like what we got for DeRosa for him. Sean Marshall is another guy we could move. He's a great, cheap set up guy, but with guys like Shark, Carpenter, Dolis, and Beliveau, we have options.

 

The problem is, it's unlikely already that we'll compete next year if we keep the current team intact and add Fielder and Wilson. If you start downgrading CF, LF, and the rotation, it becomes even more unlikely to compete.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I wouldn't say "give up" next season, but we'd be building toward 2013 and beyond. Anyone who doesn't figure into those plans should be moved. This is why I keep saying try to trade Marlon Byrd although he's relatively cheap and productive, and probably better than whoever would replace him. I'd take that Reed/Colvin or LaHair platoon for now, and upgrade next year or mid season if we're contending. Maybe we could get something like what we got for DeRosa for him. Sean Marshall is another guy we could move. He's a great, cheap set up guy, but with guys like Shark, Carpenter, Dolis, and Beliveau, we have options.

 

The problem is, it's unlikely already that we'll compete next year if we keep the current team intact and add Fielder and Wilson. If you start downgrading CF, LF, and the rotation, it becomes even more unlikely to compete.

 

I don't see the rotation downgrade. You're basically switiching Z for Wilson, and hoping for Cashner and Wells to be healthy. It's an upgrade over what we had this year.

 

As for the OF, I think you mean RF. Time will tell if Jackson will be a downgrade over Byrd in CF, and Sorianos likely still in LF.

[dew1679666265]

I don't see the rotation downgrade. You're basically switiching Z for Wilson, and hoping for Cashner and Wells to be healthy. It's an upgrade over what we had this year.

 

Poor wording on my part. It'd be a downgrade from the rotation of Garza/Dempster/Wilson/Z/Wells that we could field if we didn't dump Z for next to nothing. I think the options behind Z are worse than the options behind Aramis, even with the potential for decline Z has.

 

As for the OF, I think you mean RF. Time will tell if Jackson will be a downgrade over Byrd in CF, and Sorianos likely still in LF.

 

Yep, I meant right. Was typing that post too quickly apparently. I'm ok with Jackson being worse than Byrd if he is since it'll be his rookie year. The problem is throwing a Reed/Colvin platoon out there in right instead of Byrd - I'm very concerned about Reed's health out there and Colvin's general ability to hit.

[Little Slide Rooter]

It's possible that we could get someone like Mark DeRosa, Mike Cameron, or Andruw Jones on a 1 year 1 mil type contract.