Carlos Beltran to Giants

[SouthSideRyan]

There is no chance in hell the Cubs could get a Chris Archer or Michael Burgess type for Baker. We probably couldn't get the current version of Michael Burgess.

[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.

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.

 

He has zero chance of bringing back guys like that and your conclusion as to what the 2012 Cubs can be seems bizarrely open and shut.

[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.

 

He has zero chance of bringing back guys like that and your conclusion as to what the 2012 Cubs can be seems bizarrely open and shut.

As we speak the Cub would need a 20 or so win improvement to get to mediocre. I'd say I'm being generous.

 

And Gorzelanny can bring back Burgess ++, DeRosa can bring back Archer ++, but yet it's asinine to think Baker could bring back a Archer/Burgess type and nothing else? Come on.

[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.

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.

 

He has zero chance of bringing back guys like that and your conclusion as to what the 2012 Cubs can be seems bizarrely open and shut.

As we speak the Cub would need a 20 or so win improvement to get to mediocre. I'd say I'm being generous.

 

And Gorzelanny can bring back Burgess ++, DeRosa can bring back Archer ++, but yet it's asinine to think Baker could bring back a Archer/Burgess type and nothing else? Come on.

 

Yes, the guy you yourself described as a bench/platoon player can bring back the same return as a LH starting pitcher and a starting 2B who can multiple positions. [G.O.B.]COME ON.[/G.O.B.]

 

The Cubs made such a jump 5 years ago. You're also still seemingly hung up on the idea that a team winning less than 90 games isn't worth your time.

[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.

 

He has zero chance of bringing back guys like that and your conclusion as to what the 2012 Cubs can be seems bizarrely open and shut.

As we speak the Cub would need a 20 or so win improvement to get to mediocre. I'd say I'm being generous.

 

And Gorzelanny can bring back Burgess ++, DeRosa can bring back Archer ++, but yet it's asinine to think Baker could bring back a Archer/Burgess type and nothing else? Come on.

 

Yes, the guy you yourself described as a bench/platoon player can bring back the same return as a LH starting pitcher and a starting 2B who can multiple positions. [G.O.B.]COME ON.[/G.O.B.]

 

The Cubs made such a jump 5 years ago. You're also still seemingly hung up on the idea that a team winning less than 90 games isn't worth your time.

The difference between Baker and the other two isn't nearly so great as you want to make it seem, but whatever.

 

How about this. If the Cubs reach the postseason in 2012, I'll stop posting here.

 

If they don't, you'll stop posting here.

 

Deal?

Edited July 28, 2011 by davearm2

[Sammy Sofa]

No, because we have no idea what the 2012 Cubs are going to look like. I'll give you my answer when pitchers and catchers report.

[Productive Outs]

How about you just ignore/foe each other?

[Sammy Sofa]

Why? He entertains me.

[SouthSideRyan]

How much more valuable do you think Jeff Baker is now compared to when we acquired him, because judging by BAs ranking of the Cubs system before the '09 season, Albuquerque didn't even show up on the depth charts for right-handed starters or relievers. 70 guys showed up on organizational depth charts, and he wasn't one of them.

[Guest]

Even if you do get a player like Archer or Burgess, the odds are so stacked against them becoming "difference makers"/better than the Bakers of the world that it's not a winning proposition to trade 1.5 years of the latter to get the former. Plus, a similar opportunity presents itself next year with all of these guys if the Cubs aren't competing, unless you think that the difference between Michael Burgess and Abner Abreu is so vast that it's worth forfeiting 2012 for.

[Little Slide Rooter]

How about you just ignore/foe each other?

 

How entertaining would the WWF have been in the 1990's had Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart simply ignored each other?

[dew1679666265]

The difference between Baker and the other two isn't nearly so great as you want to make it seem, but whatever.

 

Jeff Baker's highest season OPS is .791 and his highest season WAR is 1.3. At the time of the trade, DeRosa's highest season OPS was .857 and his highest season WAR was 4.3. Both players had similar starts to their careers but DeRosa broke out with the Cubs and became a valuable everyday starter, whereas Baker is a valuable platoon guy. DeRosa's value at the time of the trade dwarfs any value Baker may ever have.

 

I could agree with your argument about not cobbling together a mediocre team next year if we were looking at the Cubs signing Edwin Jackson, trading for Aubrey Huff and overpaying for Hiroki Kuroda. Those are all short term, low impact moves that rely on luck to win. What people on here are advocating, however, is that the Cubs go after Prince Fielder and C.J. Wilson, two of the best players in the league at their positions and guys who can help the Cubs win for the next 4-8 years by providing 5+ wins each potentially. These are long term, high impact moves that, like the Garza trade, will help the Cubs next year and long term.

 

Signing those guys and holding on to players like Barney, Baker, and Dempster allows the Cubs to compete for 82-85+ wins next year, possibly make the playoffs, and then continue to improve the roster in 2013 and beyond. Building a consistent winner doesn't necessarily mean you have to be awful for at least one year and maybe more before getting better. We can keep the current core intact, sign a couple of long term, high impact guys to improve next year and then start filling the roster with more FA stars (Kemp perhaps) and minor leaguers to continue the improvement.

[davearm2]

The difference between Baker and the other two isn't nearly so great as you want to make it seem, but whatever.

 

Jeff Baker's highest season OPS is .791 and his highest season WAR is 1.3. At the time of the trade, DeRosa's highest season OPS was .857 and his highest season WAR was 4.3. Both players had similar starts to their careers but DeRosa broke out with the Cubs and became a valuable everyday starter, whereas Baker is a valuable platoon guy. DeRosa's value at the time of the trade dwarfs any value Baker may ever have.

 

I could agree with your argument about not cobbling together a mediocre team next year if we were looking at the Cubs signing Edwin Jackson, trading for Aubrey Huff and overpaying for Hiroki Kuroda. Those are all short term, low impact moves that rely on luck to win. What people on here are advocating, however, is that the Cubs go after Prince Fielder and C.J. Wilson, two of the best players in the league at their positions and guys who can help the Cubs win for the next 4-8 years by providing 5+ wins each potentially. These are long term, high impact moves that, like the Garza trade, will help the Cubs next year and long term.

 

Signing those guys and holding on to players like Barney, Baker, and Dempster allows the Cubs to compete for 82-85+ wins next year, possibly make the playoffs, and then continue to improve the roster in 2013 and beyond. Building a consistent winner doesn't necessarily mean you have to be awful for at least one year and maybe more before getting better. We can keep the current core intact, sign a couple of long term, high impact guys to improve next year and then start filling the roster with more FA stars (Kemp perhaps) and minor leaguers to continue the improvement.

All that sounds very reasonable, especially the part about the long-term, high impact moves. The Cubs will need that sort of boost just to get back to mediocre in the first year, IMO. I'd love to be wrong but that's how things look to me on paper.

 

But refusing to trade any of the current guys in hopes that mediocre is good enough seems ill-conceived, for the very same reason that an Edwin Jackson or an Aubrey Huff isn't putting the Cubs over the top in 2012.

[Sammy Sofa]

You keep defining very narrow parameters in regards to 2012 in order to make your argument. Now it's "refusing to trade any of the current guys in hopes that mediocre is good enough" when the reality is that the Cubs have a decent chance to be better than that (even though your metric of "mediocre," between 85 and 89 wins, is nothing to dismiss, yet you keep doing just that) and Baker cheaply fills a need, in his platoon-y way, at 2B but also potentially 3B if they end up not bringing Aramis back. He simply has too much specific value to the Cubs next year, a year where they could easily contend, while not having enough general value to net the type of return you're talking about. Like it or not, the Cubs simply do not have any guys right now where you could justify moving them (or are even able to move them) and taking a hit next year because of the return they'd bring.

 

The bottom line is that you are drastically overestimating what the Cubs can get in return for these players vs. what they can ideally provide for an ideally contending Cubs team next season.

[Little Slide Rooter]

All I know is while firing Quade at this point in time would be pointless and serve no purpose other than appease the "meatballs", if they do indeed plan on going all in next year, Quade has no business at the helm. Would anyone disagree with that statement?

[Sammy Sofa]

Probably not. I really wouldn't lose any sleep if he was kept on for his final year, but I doubt a new FO would do such a thing.

[Tarver]

All I know is while firing Quade at this point in time would be pointless and serve no purpose other than appease the "meatballs", if they do indeed plan on going all in next year, Quade has no business at the helm. Would anyone disagree with that statement?

 

If Quade refuses to give rookies/call-ups adequate playing time then he should absolutely be fired sooner than later. Lame duck managers get fired at the tail end of seasons all the time.

[dew1679666265]

All that sounds very reasonable, especially the part about the long-term, high impact moves. The Cubs will need that sort of boost just to get back to mediocre in the first year, IMO. I'd love to be wrong but that's how things look to me on paper.

 

But refusing to trade any of the current guys in hopes that mediocre is good enough seems ill-conceived, for the very same reason that an Edwin Jackson or an Aubrey Huff isn't putting the Cubs over the top in 2012.

 

My guess would be despite what he said, if Brian Cashman called up Jim Hendry and offered him Jesus Montero for Sean Marshall, Hendry wouldn't hang up the phone. That might be what he meant, but I'm guessing he made that comment knowing that all the guys he was tagging as "untouchable" wouldn't garner the kind of fantastic value that would make them worth trading.

 

You said you'd trade Jeff Baker for Al Albuquerque, but Albuquerque was a non-prospect at the time who is in his third organization and is only a middle reliever anyway. Why trade a guy who can give us an .850-.900 OPS next year against lefties for a guy who might become a middle reliever for us or somebody else 3 years from now?

 

For all of the guys you mentioned, if somebody blew us away with an offer I'd be fine with trading them. But the likelihood of that happening is pretty significantly less than the Cubs' chances of making the playoffs next year. We can just as easily trade Baker for an Al Albuquerque clone at next year's deadline, so I don't see what the rush is to ship him and the other players out now when they're all under contract for next season.