Carlos Beltran to Giants

[Guest]

What are you talking about? Of course the odds are overwhelming that the Cubs would suck if they don't spend any of the roughly 30% of their payroll that will be free this offseason. They would also be terrible next year if half the team got lupus. Both of those things have the same likelihood of happening.

 

Spending money is not exclusively a "win now" decision.

[Little Slide Rooter]

What are you talking about? Of course the odds are overwhelming that the Cubs would suck if they don't spend any of the roughly 30% of their payroll that will be free this offseason. They would also be terrible next year if half the team got lupus. Both of those things have the same likelihood of happening.

 

Spending money is not exclusively a "win now" decision.

 

Its a win now and a win in the future. Again, if we do chase Fielder and Wilson, other teams are going to as well. There the best thing on the market, aside from Pujols who will likely end up staying put. As long as Fielder is willing to DH, there will be a loooong line of AL teams in the mix. Same goes for Wilson. I know its always easy to say we have money so just spend it, but other teams with money and similar needs are going to be thinking the same way. The Yankees and Red Sox would both love Fielder and Wilson, and as high as their payrolls are, they always seem to find a way to spend more, and they are very difficult teams to outbid, and once those guys are gone, the 1B market is highlighted by Carlos Pena, Lance Berkman, Michael Cuddyer, and Casey Cotchman. The next best 3Bs after Aram are, well, lets just say Jeff Baker would be next in line. The bst outfielders out there are Cuddyer, David DeJesus, Carlos Guillen, Ryan Ludwick, Kosuke, and perenial Hendry target Raul Ibanez. If were looking for starting pitching beyond Wilson, were looking at Edwon jackson, Hiroki Kuroda, and then on down to Jeff Francis and Joel Pinearo. None of those names are going to make us much better, so unless they come up with a mega trade or 2 out of nowhere, were pretty much counting on landing 3 of the most sought after free agents on the market. If we dont, the available free agents simply arent good enough to fix this team, and wed be pulling another throw as much money as possible at the best guy left.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I would like a link to a story that says a baseball team half-full of lupus couldn't compete.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Actually, with Plaquenil, a tem with lupus could compete, as long as they get yearly eye exams.

[Guest]

What are you talking about? Of course the odds are overwhelming that the Cubs would suck if they don't spend any of the roughly 30% of their payroll that will be free this offseason. They would also be terrible next year if half the team got lupus. Both of those things have the same likelihood of happening.

 

Spending money is not exclusively a "win now" decision.

 

Its a win now and a win in the future. Again, if we do chase Fielder and Wilson, other teams are going to as well. There the best thing on the market, aside from Pujols who will likely end up staying put. As long as Fielder is willing to DH, there will be a loooong line of AL teams in the mix. Same goes for Wilson. I know its always easy to say we have money so just spend it, but other teams with money and similar needs are going to be thinking the same way. The Yankees and Red Sox would both love Fielder and Wilson, and as high as their payrolls are, they always seem to find a way to spend more, and they are very difficult teams to outbid, and once those guys are gone, the 1B market is highlighted by Carlos Pena, Lance Berkman, Michael Cuddyer, and Casey Cotchman. The next best 3Bs after Aram are, well, lets just say Jeff Baker would be next in line. The bst outfielders out there are Cuddyer, David DeJesus, Carlos Guillen, Ryan Ludwick, Kosuke, and perenial Hendry target Raul Ibanez. If were looking for starting pitching beyond Wilson, were looking at Edwon jackson, Hiroki Kuroda, and then on down to Jeff Francis and Joel Pinearo. None of those names are going to make us much better, so unless they come up with a mega trade or 2 out of nowhere, were pretty much counting on landing 3 of the most sought after free agents on the market. If we dont, the available free agents simply arent good enough to fix this team, and wed be pulling another throw as much money as possible at the best guy left.

 

Wilson and Fielder/Pujols are just the path of least resistance, not the only options worthwhile. The Cubs(like many big market teams) acquired many of their best players through trades from teams that didn't want to pay a quality player's rising salary(Lee, Ramirez, Garza, Harden and Barrett to a lesser extent). Miguel Cabrera might fall out of favor in Detroit. Seattle may blow it up and move Felix. People are focusing on the Wilson/Fielder/Pujols trio because they are surefire bets to be available. If the Cubs aren't able to get two of them, it's far from a failure to go big or go home. They can find someone else worthwhile to use the money on, they just might have more of a player cost than a financial cost.

[SouthSideRyan]

It doesn't seem possible to have spelled that many players' names wrong in one post.

[davearm2]

Marshall

 

Soft-tossing middle reliever. As good as he is, the Cubs aren't likely to get enough of a return because he isn't a proven closer to justify trading him. In short you're proposing trading him just for the sake of trading him.

 

Byrd

 

If the ideal deal is out there, but again, there's zero reason for the Cubs to be in fire sale mode. As bad as they are they can easily compete again next year, and trading Byrd likely leaves a very large hole in the OF that can't be filled until 2012 since Fukudome will also be gone and potentially you're going to have to deal with a useless Soriano.

 

Baker

 

See Marshall. A useful player, but ultimately too limited (in this case by actually ability, or the lack thereof when it comes to hitting righties, as opposed to lack of a reputation). No reason not to trade him if the right deal is there...but it's very unlikely to be there. Give the Cubs' questions at 2B and potentially at 3B he likely holds much more value on the team than via a low-level trade.

 

Barney

 

Wait, what? I was probably the biggest Barney basher here, but he's turned out to be useful, young and cheap. Why ship him off when he's all of those things and the Cubs have no obvious answer at 2B? A Baker/Barney platoon at 2B next year has the very real shot of being very productive AND cost-effective.

 

Dempster

 

You'd be creating another hole in the rotation. Cashner and Wells both have big question marks right now, so subtracting a good pitcher from the rotation without an obvious replacement isn't a good idea. Yes, there's McNutt, but as we've seen this year you don't go shedding your pitching options just because you can. Besides, Dempster's player's option and his price tag likely preclude the Cubs getting a decent return short of them picking up too much of the tab.

All of the guys I mentioned are fairly easily replaced with internal options. The one that isn't (Dempster) would free up money to get a great (and younger) replacement through free agency.

 

Baker and Barney = DeWitt, LeMahieu, Flaherty

Marshall = Russell and the other lefties in AAA

Byrd = Jackson

Dempster = CJ Wilson for example

 

I don't want these guys traded just for the sake of trading them, and it should go without saying that if decent offers aren't out there, then you hold. But what we're hearing is that Hendry is making none of these guys available. Who knows if that really is true, but if so, I disagree with the approach. Specifically, I don't want the focus to be on cobbling together a mediocre team that might win a crappy division with a little luck. The focus should be on building a team that can dominate any division (short of the ALE), even if it takes more than a year to accomplish and involves some far-sighted trades that create a mini-youth movement in 2012.

[TruffleShuffle]

It doesn't seem possible to have spelled that many players' names wrong in one post.

 

yet somehow he spelled hiroki kuroda's name right!

[SouthSideRyan]

Sean Marshall isn't replaced by a LOOGY.

 

And who's replacing Kosuke in this scenario?

 

And you replace Dempster with Wilson...ok, who's replacing our 5th starter?

[Cubswin11]

Marshall

 

Soft-tossing middle reliever. As good as he is, the Cubs aren't likely to get enough of a return because he isn't a proven closer to justify trading him. In short you're proposing trading him just for the sake of trading him.

 

Byrd

 

If the ideal deal is out there, but again, there's zero reason for the Cubs to be in fire sale mode. As bad as they are they can easily compete again next year, and trading Byrd likely leaves a very large hole in the OF that can't be filled until 2012 since Fukudome will also be gone and potentially you're going to have to deal with a useless Soriano.

 

Baker

 

See Marshall. A useful player, but ultimately too limited (in this case by actually ability, or the lack thereof when it comes to hitting righties, as opposed to lack of a reputation). No reason not to trade him if the right deal is there...but it's very unlikely to be there. Give the Cubs' questions at 2B and potentially at 3B he likely holds much more value on the team than via a low-level trade.

 

Barney

 

Wait, what? I was probably the biggest Barney basher here, but he's turned out to be useful, young and cheap. Why ship him off when he's all of those things and the Cubs have no obvious answer at 2B? A Baker/Barney platoon at 2B next year has the very real shot of being very productive AND cost-effective.

 

Dempster

 

You'd be creating another hole in the rotation. Cashner and Wells both have big question marks right now, so subtracting a good pitcher from the rotation without an obvious replacement isn't a good idea. Yes, there's McNutt, but as we've seen this year you don't go shedding your pitching options just because you can. Besides, Dempster's player's option and his price tag likely preclude the Cubs getting a decent return short of them picking up too much of the tab.

All of the guys I mentioned are fairly easily replaced with internal options. The one that isn't (Dempster) would free up money to get a great (and younger) replacement through free agency.

 

Baker and Barney = DeWitt, LeMahieu, Flaherty

Marshall = Russell and the other lefties in AAA

Byrd = Jackson

Dempster = CJ Wilson for example

 

I don't want these guys traded just for the sake of trading them, and it should go without saying that if decent offers aren't out there, then you hold. But what we're hearing is that Hendry is making none of these guys available. Who knows if that really is true, but if so, I disagree with the approach. Specifically, I don't want the focus to be on cobbling together a mediocre team that might win a crappy division with a little luck. The focus should be on building a team that can dominate any division (short of the ALE), even if it takes more than a year to accomplish and involves some far-sighted trades that create a mini-youth movement in 2012.

Marshall is more than just a lefty specialist/LOOGY. He'd be missed and not easily replaced. He has turned into a solid, almost elite, set up man over the last two seasons. While I agree Byrd shouldn't stand in the way of promoting Jackson, I don't think Jackson will be ready to take over the center field job full time from the start of the season next year and I don't think he capable of putting up a .775-.810 OPS like you know Byrd will.

[davearm2]

Interesting that so many folks want the Cubs a) to sell high, and b) not spend $$$ on middle relievers since their production tends to be volatile.

 

Yet trading Marshall is off-limits.

[Cubswin11]

Interesting that so many folks want the Cubs a) to sell high, and b) not spend $$$ on middle relievers since their production tends to be volatile.

 

Yet trading Marshall is off-limits.

Keeping Marshall solves this problem, he is only making $3.1m next year and then is a FA. That's pretty cheap and if he has another good year the least we get are some draft picks if/when he leaves. It also keeps Hendry/whoever the new GM is from going out and giving a long term deal to a LH middle reliever in the offseason.

[Guest]

Interesting that so many folks want the Cubs a) to sell high, and b) not spend $$$ on middle relievers since their production tends to be volatile.

 

Yet trading Marshall is off-limits.

 

Marshall isn't some fly-by-night guy who's having a good season. He's always been a good pitcher, he was moved to the pen for health reasons, and he's been an elite reliever for 200 IP now.

[Sammy Sofa]

All of the guys I mentioned are fairly easily replaced with internal options. The one that isn't (Dempster) would free up money to get a great (and younger) replacement through free agency.

 

Baker and Barney = DeWitt, LeMahieu, Flaherty

Marshall = Russell and the other lefties in AAA

Byrd = Jackson

Dempster = CJ Wilson for example

 

I don't want these guys traded just for the sake of trading them, and it should go without saying that if decent offers aren't out there, then you hold. But what we're hearing is that Hendry is making none of these guys available. Who knows if that really is true, but if so, I disagree with the approach. Specifically, I don't want the focus to be on cobbling together a mediocre team that might win a crappy division with a little luck. The focus should be on building a team that can dominate any division (short of the ALE), even if it takes more than a year to accomplish and involves some far-sighted trades that create a mini-youth movement in 2012.

 

But you DO want to trade them just to trade them. You've yet to make a convincing argument that any of them could net the return you seem to think they could, and you're still ignoring holes created because you're convinced the Cubs can't compete next year.

 

Let's go one by one again:

 

Baker and Barney = DeWitt, LeMahieu, Flaherty

 

Yes, it's possible they might replace their production with the three mentioned...but you're trading two cheap and effective players that can help the Cubs right now. There's absolutely no need to move Baker and Barney because, again, they aren't going to command the return you think they would. They're in the middle ground where their value is apparent for the Cubs, but that doesn't mean their value is necessarily the same on the open market. Whether you like it or not it would just be trading them to trade them. With the kind of spending the Cubs are hopefully going to be doing, they're the type of cost-effective players the Cubs need to be utilizing, not casting off likely for a negative return simply because they're there.

 

Marshall = Russell and the other lefties in AAA

 

See above. Just because you can trade someone doesn't men you should. Marshall is an excellent reliever, but his trade value is greatly diminished due to him being a soft-tossing middle reliever without closing experience. Guys like that simply don't much command much. The difference in the return for Marshall and Russell would likely be negligible. Again, he's in the middle ground of being valuable for the Cubs, but not enough of a name to command anything of significance on the open market to justify trading him. Likely another case of trading just for the sake of trading.

 

Byrd = Jackson

 

Regardless of the trade next year, Kosuke was almost certainly going to be gone. That creates a hole in the OF that needs to be filled, hopefully just for next year. Byrd is a cheap, useful player who, while not ideal for a corner OF spot, could fill that hole serviceably for the final year of his deal while Jackson comes up to play CF. Look, like I said, if someone is knocking down the Cubs' door with a great offer for Byrd, they should take it, but he DOES actually hold significant value for the Cubs next year so, again, trading him just to trade him isn't automatically the smart move.

 

Dempster = CJ Wilson for example

 

The Cubs can afford Wilson without trading Dempster. Dempster is also very difficult to trade due to his expensive player's option and the perception that he's declining due to his ERA. Trading him ultimately creates a significant hole in an already shaky rotation and downgrades the team for next year, so what do you think the Cubs are going to get with his value as low as it is and their need for a starting pitcher of his ability? Again, like Byrd, if someone was offering a great deal for him, fine, but unlike Byrd, that's even less likely to happen.

 

You need to look at this from the perspective that the Cubs can very realistically compete next year with the right offseason moves. Most of the trades you're listing actually set them back from being able to do that while also providing minimal return.

[Little Slide Rooter]

What are you talking about? Of course the odds are overwhelming that the Cubs would suck if they don't spend any of the roughly 30% of their payroll that will be free this offseason. They would also be terrible next year if half the team got lupus. Both of those things have the same likelihood of happening.

 

Spending money is not exclusively a "win now" decision.

 

Its a win now and a win in the future. Again, if we do chase Fielder and Wilson, other teams are going to as well. There the best thing on the market, aside from Pujols who will likely end up staying put. As long as Fielder is willing to DH, there will be a loooong line of AL teams in the mix. Same goes for Wilson. I know its always easy to say we have money so just spend it, but other teams with money and similar needs are going to be thinking the same way. The Yankees and Red Sox would both love Fielder and Wilson, and as high as their payrolls are, they always seem to find a way to spend more, and they are very difficult teams to outbid, and once those guys are gone, the 1B market is highlighted by Carlos Pena, Lance Berkman, Michael Cuddyer, and Casey Cotchman. The next best 3Bs after Aram are, well, lets just say Jeff Baker would be next in line. The bst outfielders out there are Cuddyer, David DeJesus, Carlos Guillen, Ryan Ludwick, Kosuke, and perenial Hendry target Raul Ibanez. If were looking for starting pitching beyond Wilson, were looking at Edwon jackson, Hiroki Kuroda, and then on down to Jeff Francis and Joel Pinearo. None of those names are going to make us much better, so unless they come up with a mega trade or 2 out of nowhere, were pretty much counting on landing 3 of the most sought after free agents on the market. If we dont, the available free agents simply arent good enough to fix this team, and wed be pulling another throw as much money as possible at the best guy left.

 

Wilson and Fielder/Pujols are just the path of least resistance, not the only options worthwhile. The Cubs(like many big market teams) acquired many of their best players through trades from teams that didn't want to pay a quality player's rising salary(Lee, Ramirez, Garza, Harden and Barrett to a lesser extent). Miguel Cabrera might fall out of favor in Detroit. Seattle may blow it up and move Felix. People are focusing on the Wilson/Fielder/Pujols trio because they are surefire bets to be available. If the Cubs aren't able to get two of them, it's far from a failure to go big or go home. They can find someone else worthwhile to use the money on, they just might have more of a player cost than a financial cost.

 

I should probably clarify that Im not in the Cubs arent going to compete for the next 5+ years crowd. What I am saying is that without that afore mentioned trio, or perhaps some kind of trade or trades for significat upgrades, I cant see this team competing in 2012. If things go that way, Byrd and Dempster probably would have more value through trade than they would in another lost season, which would be the last under contract for each. Obviously, we need an upgrade, but I really dont think that something like Michael Cuddyer and Edwin Jackson is going to cut it.

[davearm2]

You need to look at this from the perspective that the Cubs can very realistically compete next year with the right offseason moves. Most of the trades you're listing actually set them back from being able to do that while also providing minimal return.

Well as I've said already, I don't think the Cubs' focus should be on cobbling together an 82-85 win team, if everything goes right, and hope that's good enough in the NLC. That's what you're advocating.

 

What I'm advocating is, do what it takes to build a 90+ win team, even if that means taking a small step back in 2012.

 

So the question is a fairly basic one. Look at every name on that list, and ask yourself whether you can imagine that player being a significant contributor (starter) on the Cubs' next 90+ win team.

 

Barney, Baker -- will never be significant, but could be useful as bench pieces.

Dempster, Marshall, Byrd, Z, Ramirez -- would have to be re-signed to extensions, since 90+ wins isn't happening in 2012.

 

If you don't want to commit the years and/or dollars needed to keep these guys beyond 2012, then the prudent thing to do is to trade them, provided of course that decent offers are out there. So don't trade them just to trade them, but also don't be making them untouchable either (which Hendry appears to be doing, and you are supporting) in hopes of competing in 2012 with a mediocre team. Aim higher than that.

[Sammy Sofa]

But those aren't the pieces to do what you're suggesting. And all you're going to get is a very minimal, likely inconsequential return seemingly just because you don't think the Cubs can win 90 games next year (which isn't a necessity, and it's not like if they don't win 90 games next year it's a lost cause and they won't for the foreseeable future, but whatever).

 

You conflating Hendry's rhetoric with the reality of them simply not netting enough in return to justify moving them given that that they do actually provide value to the Cubs. Some of Hendry's "untouchables" are indeed inexplicable when it comes to receiving that distinction, but in a roundabout way he's actually right. Guys like Marshall and Baker are effectively "untouchable" because they're not going to net you nearly the return you want to offset the loss in what they contribute to the team even just over the next year. Dempster and Z are effectively "untouchable" because of their contract situations and, again, the return you'd get almost certainly wouldn't offset what you'd be losing for next year AND likely wouldn't amount to much of anything at all. Yes, I'm saying that even just one more year of Zambrano and Dempster is more valuable to the Cubs than eating a bunch of [expletive] to move them when the optimal return is probably a fringe-y reliever or utility player who lingers for maybe a couple of seasons.

 

Basically your distinction of "will they be on the Cubs next 90 win team" is too arbitrary to really mean anything, and moving all of the guys you listed (with Byrd being the only realistic exception) would do little to to nothing to allow the Cubs to create a 90-win team in terms of resources they don't already have available to them starting after this season.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Guest]

You need to look at this from the perspective that the Cubs can very realistically compete next year with the right offseason moves. Most of the trades you're listing actually set them back from being able to do that while also providing minimal return.

Well as I've said already, I don't think the Cubs' focus should be on cobbling together an 82-85 win team, if everything goes right, and hope that's good enough in the NLC. That's what you're advocating.

 

What I'm advocating is, do what it takes to build a 90+ win team, even if that means taking a small step back in 2012.

 

Getting guys who hope to one day be Jeff Baker and Darwin Barney in exchange for Jeff Baker and Darwin Barney is not going to make the difference in 2013 and beyond. Using phrasing like cobbling together is disingenuous. People are advocating making lasting moves this offseason, and keeping some guys who are under contract for next season isn't going to make a huge difference. Maybe Byrd, and maybe Marshall, but those are both positions where you need a bunch of guys anyway, and Marshall could fit into the longer term plans of the organization as well. Either way, it's hardly so black and white as to say that holding on to Marshall and Byrd(who could easily provide 10-15 million in surplus value next year) is somehow inhibiting the Cubs from being a great team in the future.

 

The Cubs have role players and need stars. Trading the role players to get future role players is not part of the solution, especially when they have the means and opportunity to get the stars this offseason.

[SouthSideRyan]

I really want to know what you think we'll get in return for Jeff Baker or Darwin Barney.

[davearm2]

I really want to know what you think we'll get in return for Jeff Baker or Darwin Barney.

Al Albuquerque would be fine with me.

[Sammy Sofa]

But AA is far from a necessity and the Cubs will likely reproduce his equivalent themselves. And the Cubs have to fill potentially both 2B AND 3B next year and Baker would be a big part of both. This is where the "90 wins or bust" mentality is shown to be faulty, when you have a real shout at bouncing back and being competitive next year, but you're willing to trade away a guy who can help the team simply so you can have someone who might be on a 90-win team down the line (but it's debatable whether or not he'd have anything to do with it). Hell, AA emphasizes the flaws in this, since he's not even with the team the Cubs traded him to for Baker.

 

I'm pretty confident that Jeff Baker will have more value to the Cubs next year than anyone he can net in return would ever have for the Cubs at any point in their careers.

[EhDubya]

Well as I've said already, I don't think the Cubs' focus should be on cobbling together an 82-85 win team, if everything goes right, and hope that's good enough in the NLC. That's what you're advocating.

 

What I'm advocating is, do what it takes to build a 90+ win team, even if that means taking a small step back in 2012.

 

 

So to be clear, you wouldn't be satisfied with an 85 win team? As if an 85 win team with Barney and Baker on it will never have the ability to make the leap to a 90 win team the following year?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not clear on why the path to being a 90+ win team runs through taking a step back next year.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not clear on why the path to being a 90+ win team runs through taking a step back next year.

 

Because these guys apparently aren't really all that valuable to the Cubs, yet can somehow net returns that will obviously help them win at least 90 games a season. SCIENCE.

[davearm2]

But AA is far from a necessity and the Cubs will likely reproduce his equivalent themselves. And the Cubs have to fill potentially both 2B AND 3B next year and Baker would be a big part of both. This is where the "90 wins or bust" mentality is shown to be faulty, when you have a real shout at bouncing back and being competitive next year, but you're willing to trade away a guy who can help the team simply so you can have someone who might be on a 90-win team down the line (but it's debatable whether or not he'd have anything to do with it). Hell, AA emphasizes the flaws in this, since he's not even with the team the Cubs traded him to for Baker.

 

I'm pretty confident that Jeff Baker will have more value to the Cubs next year than anyone he can net in return would ever have for the Cubs at any point in their careers.

Jeff Baker will have modest value as a platoon/bench player on a Cubs team that has a ceiling of being mediocre. Then he'll be a free agent.

 

If you can trade him for a lottery ticket like, say, Chris Archer or Michael Burgess, then I'd do it. Those types of guys at least have a shot at being difference-makers at some point in the future.