Cubs "not motivated" to move Pena

[Bruno7481]

So....are you excited for the last two months of this season?

[Outshined_One]

Retaining Hendry for 2011 to end up firing him in the winter (if thats what they intend on doing) is a perfectly wasteful and "Cubbish" move.

Wasn't the idea that the Cubs needed to keep Hendry through the trade deadline so that he could do what he does best... make trades? Now that the deadline has come and gone with only one rather insubstantial move, is there any reason whatsoever to keep him any longer? Unless the guy Ricketts wants as his next GM is already under contract, there is no more benefit to allowing Hendry to finish the season.

 

There's still the September 1st waiver wire deadline...but I get the feeling we won't even see Pena et al. moved by then, either.

[Little Slide Rooter]

WERE KEEPING THE BAND TOGETHER!!!

[Outshined_One]

This team is on pace to be the worst Cubs team of my lifetime. They're older than the average MLB team. There were players on this team who clearly attracted attention from contenders. Yet...all that happened was Fukudome got traded and Wood vetoed a trade. That's it. Maybe someone gets shipped out on waivers, but if the Cubs were shooing away teams before the non-waiver deadline, why would they change their attitudes for the waiver deadline?

 

This team keeps reaching new lows. I'm impressed.

[questionmarkgrace]

I certainly think Hendry turned down a good deal for Byrd. The braves really wanted him, more so than Bourne and he brought the astros back 4 nice prospects. Bryd probably would have garnered more as the tweet suggested.

 

How do you know Hendry turned down a good deal for Byrd? Because a younger, better, more valuable player netted four prospects and the Astros have been roundly criticized for taking too little for him?

 

All the comments Hendry has made suggests that he thinks this team is close to competing. As I stated in another thread; even if we sign Fielder and lose Ramirez thats basically a wash. If we add wilson it will make us better but probably not 23 games better. Those are two big ifs though. Everyone on this board seems to assume that other teams wont go out and sign free agents next year or pursue trades to make their teams better than this year. And yet they presume that the cubs will be able to sign two of the top three free agents. That is alot of things going the cubs way. They may be better next year but wont contend for a wild card.

 

The Cubs have as much or more money than any other team in baseball available to spend on players this offseason - that's why there's a belief that we can net Fielder and Wilson. Is it a certainty that we will? Of course not, but just because we might not get both doesn't mean we shouldn't try to contend next year.

 

Bourne is younger yes but whether he is better than Byrd (when healthy for a full season) is a point of contention. comparing his last year numbers to bourne this year he has a higher WAR. Plus he is a centerfielder who has some power of which bourn has none. I think he offers more.

 

No one said the cubs shouldn't try to contend next year. The fact of the matter is that without any trades at the deadline to bring in young major league ready talent we are entirely dependent upon free agency to fill our needs at first base/starting pitching. We would have been better off trading from an area of depth and getting back a couple mlb ready pitchers than depending entirely upon free agency which I think is a much bigger crap shoot then most are acknowledging. Someone argued that free agents wouldnt want to come here if we traded guys away. Well why would they want to come here when it looks like this team has no plan except to add two players to a 90 loss team?

Edited July 31, 2011 by questionmarkgrace

[Little Slide Rooter]

All we can do at this point is hope that this was Hendrys doing and not Ricketts.

[Tarver]

Hendry's retention was Ricketts doing.

 

I'm starting to kind of hope Hendry is extended, just to see how far some of his supporters around here will go to defend it.

[CubColtPacer]

I certainly think Hendry turned down a good deal for Byrd. The braves really wanted him, more so than Bourne and he brought the astros back 4 nice prospects. Bryd probably would have garnered more as the tweet suggested.

 

How do you know Hendry turned down a good deal for Byrd? Because a younger, better, more valuable player netted four prospects and the Astros have been roundly criticized for taking too little for him?

 

All the comments Hendry has made suggests that he thinks this team is close to competing. As I stated in another thread; even if we sign Fielder and lose Ramirez thats basically a wash. If we add wilson it will make us better but probably not 23 games better. Those are two big ifs though. Everyone on this board seems to assume that other teams wont go out and sign free agents next year or pursue trades to make their teams better than this year. And yet they presume that the cubs will be able to sign two of the top three free agents. That is alot of things going the cubs way. They may be better next year but wont contend for a wild card.

 

The Cubs have as much or more money than any other team in baseball available to spend on players this offseason - that's why there's a belief that we can net Fielder and Wilson. Is it a certainty that we will? Of course not, but just because we might not get both doesn't mean we shouldn't try to contend next year.

 

Bourne is younger yes but whether he is better than Byrd (when healthy for a full season) is a point of contention. comparing his last year numbers to bourne this year he has a higher WAR. Plus he is a centerfielder who has some power of which bourn has none. I think he offers more.

 

No one said the cubs shouldn't try to contend next year. The fact of the matter is that without any trades at the deadline to bring in young major league ready talent we are entirely dependent upon free agency to fill our needs at first base/starting pitching. We would have been better off trading from an area of depth and getting back a couple mlb ready pitchers than depending entirely upon free agency which I think is a much bigger crap shoot then most are acknowledging. Someone argued that free agents wouldnt want to come here if we traded guys away. Well why would they want to come here when it looks like this team has no plan except to add two players to a 90 loss team?

 

 

Bourn's only played 4 months this year. After he plays August and September he'll have a better WAR number than Byrd did last year. And Bourn at that point will have 3 straight higher WAR numbers than Byrd has ever had in his career and is 5 years younger.

[dew1679666265]

Bourne is younger yes but whether he is better than Byrd (when healthy for a full season) is a point of contention. comparing his last year numbers to bourne this year he has a higher WAR. Plus he is a centerfielder who has some power of which bourn has none. I think he offers more.

 

CCP answered this question well.

 

No one said the cubs shouldn't try to contend next year. The fact of the matter is that without any trades at the deadline to bring in young major league ready talent we are entirely dependent upon free agency to fill our needs at first base/starting pitching. We would have been better off trading from an area of depth and getting back a couple mlb ready pitchers than depending entirely upon free agency which I think is a much bigger crap shoot then most are acknowledging. Someone argued that free agents wouldnt want to come here if we traded guys away. Well why would they want to come here when it looks like this team has no plan except to add two players to a 90 loss team?

 

Who were we supposed to trade to bring in this young major league ready talent? Marmol or Aramis might have garnered that, but the only rumors I've heard on either that specify was a guy saying the Cubs could expect a mid-tier prospect for Aramis.

 

If Hendry got offers for current players where teams were offering multiple players better than the guys we have ready to come up next year (Flaherty, Jackson) then Hendry is very wrong for passing it up. I strongly doubt those offers were on the table, however.

Edited July 31, 2011 by dew

[XZero771679666304]

Hendry's retention was Ricketts doing.

 

I'm starting to kind of hope Hendry is extended, just to see how far some of his supporters around here will go to defend it.

 

I don't think there are really many Hendry "defenders" here. If he's retained beyond this season, I think just about everyone will be pretty pissed off.

[erik316wttn]

This team is on pace to be the worst Cubs team of my lifetime. They're older than the average MLB team. There were players on this team who clearly attracted attention from contenders. Yet...all that happened was Fukudome got traded and Wood vetoed a trade. That's it. Maybe someone gets shipped out on waivers, but if the Cubs were shooing away teams before the non-waiver deadline, why would they change their attitudes for the waiver deadline?

 

This team keeps reaching new lows. I'm impressed.

 

I don't really think there is a "rock bottom" with this team. They get there, then they rent some heavy-duty equipment and just keep digging.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Given what we know about Cubs management, if you absolutely positively *had* to guess one or the other, would you expect they are:

 

a) Planning to try to get draft pick compensation out of Pena and plan to offer him arbitration, assuming he'd decline.

 

b) Intending to re-sign Pena and pass on Fielder or Pujols.

 

Which do you think it is?

[Sammy Sofa]

Losing Marlon Byrd would create a big hole in the line-up??? Is it the 5 whole home runs or 16 RBIs or is it swinging at the first pitch after two walks and popping up on the infield that the Cubs will miss. It is not Marlon's fault, he is who he is which is a 7 hitter on a good team but the Cubs have forced him to be a 3-4-5 hitter.

 

I know even you are not this dense.

 

Yes, trading Byrd creates a hole in the lineup, especially if the Cubs are trying to maximize their spending dollars for next year. Byrd is a useful, productive player. He's only making $6.5 million next year. The OF FA class is uninspiring to say the least. If the Cubs are smart they should be keeping their eye towards having Jackson in CF and either Kemp or Ethier in RF in 2013. That means you've fortunately got a relatively cheap, productive OF in Byrd to help hold things down out in there over the next year, and that's important if they hope to compete since they have the big question mark of RF in the meantime. Trading Byrd now just creates another question that really can't be filled well for next year if he's gone. Plus it's not like they need to trade him now. If they end up sucking again next year they can just trade him then. This isn't a do or die scenario.

 

And way to rag on his numbers like he didn't miss a ton of games this year because he was hit in the [expletive] face. Brilliant.

 

And Baker's name keeps coming up because fans are frustrated by an organization that thinks Baker is some big contributor. It is not necessarily Baker, it is the thought process of the organization that values a guy that can't beat out a guy like Darwin Barney - a guy that a lot of fans see as Ryan Theriot part II.

 

And this justifies trading Baker...how? The organization values him because he's useful, and he is. Again, question marks at potentially both 2B and 3B next year. Baker's abilities against lefties and being able to play both spots makes him valuable to the Cubs as a bench and platoon player. On the flipside, his skills are limited to the point that he's not going to net much of anything in return. There's no pressing need to trade him now since, like Byrd, he can just be traded for a likely meaningless return next year instead of this year.

 

They are 23 games under .500 with these guys, what makes anyone think they will somehow be better next year with the same guys?

 

Nobody is expecting them to come back next year with the exact same team. Don't be ridiculous.

[UMFan83]

I am almost certain that other baseball executives are laughing at the Cubs ineptitude. Some of the things this team does so against the grain of rational thinking.

 

I've learned that bad teams don't drive away fans, bad organizations do.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't know why people don't understand how keeping Byrd is a good idea. Moving him creates a big hole in the lineup that the Cubs can't fill without spending more money on an unimpressive FA OF class. The only candidate to replace him is Jackson, but the ideal situation is that ultimately he comes up and mans center while Byrd shifts over to RF for the final year of his very, very affordable contract.

That would leave us with an outfield that could potentially have nobody with an OPS over .800. We're not competing with a team like that because the rest of the team probably won't be good enough to overcome that. Either Byrd stays in center while Jackson improves in AAA, or you trade Byrd because he's our most marketable trade piece right now, unless Hendry is getting offered garbage for him. And that could be a real possibility right now. Teams obviously know that Hendry's job is on the chopping block, and they could be trying to take advantage of a potentially desperate GM.

 

I'm not saying Byrd in RF is ideal, but it might be the best solution to just hold down the fort until you can beef up RF via FA for 2013 so you're not stuck overpaying for some crappy 1-year-rental.

 

And again, it's not like the Cubs can't trade him next year, too.

[Sammy Sofa]

Given what we know about Cubs management, if you absolutely positively *had* to guess one or the other, would you expect they are:

 

a) Planning to try to get draft pick compensation out of Pena and plan to offer him arbitration, assuming he'd decline.

 

b) Intending to re-sign Pena and pass on Fielder or Pujols.

 

Which do you think it is?

 

Hendry left to his own devices? The latter. With the Ricketts in play? I honestly don't know.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hendry's retention was Ricketts doing.

 

I'm starting to kind of hope Hendry is extended, just to see how far some of his supporters around here will go to defend it.

 

What the what?

 

What supporters?

[dew1679666265]

Given what we know about Cubs management, if you absolutely positively *had* to guess one or the other, would you expect they are:

 

a) Planning to try to get draft pick compensation out of Pena and plan to offer him arbitration, assuming he'd decline.

 

b) Intending to re-sign Pena and pass on Fielder or Pujols.

 

Which do you think it is?

 

I think it's A, but I have a feeling it may be B.

[erik316wttn]

Given what we know about Cubs management, if you absolutely positively *had* to guess one or the other, would you expect they are:

 

a) Planning to try to get draft pick compensation out of Pena and plan to offer him arbitration, assuming he'd decline.

 

b) Intending to re-sign Pena and pass on Fielder or Pujols.

 

Which do you think it is?

 

Hendry left to his own devices? The latter. With the Ricketts in play? I honestly don't know.

 

Yes, but the Ricketts for the most part have left Hendry to his own devices.

[Sammy Sofa]

Given what we know about Cubs management, if you absolutely positively *had* to guess one or the other, would you expect they are:

 

a) Planning to try to get draft pick compensation out of Pena and plan to offer him arbitration, assuming he'd decline.

 

b) Intending to re-sign Pena and pass on Fielder or Pujols.

 

Which do you think it is?

 

Hendry left to his own devices? The latter. With the Ricketts in play? I honestly don't know.

 

Yes, but the Ricketts for the most part have left Hendry to his own devices.

 

Doesn't mean much to me in terms of how I think the offseason is going to play out. I'm still pretty confident that Hendry is going to be fired at the end of the season. I'm not as confident, however, that the Ricketts will let the new guy spend his way out of crappiness like we're hoping.

[Rob]

In fairness to Hendry, this deadline doesn't mean all that much. The guys we all wanted moved are almost all paid enough money that nobody is going to just claim them on waivers... and if they do, that's probably a better deal than we would have gotten anyways. About the only guy we should have traded but may have trouble doing so now is Reed Johnson.

 

That said, I'm very disappointed at our inactivity... and as much as I like Carlos Pena, he better not be our plan at 1B going forward.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'll bet nobody wanted Johnson.

[questionmarkgrace]

Bourne is younger yes but whether he is better than Byrd (when healthy for a full season) is a point of contention. comparing his last year numbers to bourne this year he has a higher WAR. Plus he is a centerfielder who has some power of which bourn has none. I think he offers more.

 

CCP answered this question well.

 

No one said the cubs shouldn't try to contend next year. The fact of the matter is that without any trades at the deadline to bring in young major league ready talent we are entirely dependent upon free agency to fill our needs at first base/starting pitching. We would have been better off trading from an area of depth and getting back a couple mlb ready pitchers than depending entirely upon free agency which I think is a much bigger crap shoot then most are acknowledging. Someone argued that free agents wouldnt want to come here if we traded guys away. Well why would they want to come here when it looks like this team has no plan except to add two players to a 90 loss team?

 

Who were we supposed to trade to bring in this young major league ready talent? Marmol or Aramis might have garnered that, but the only rumors I've heard on either that specify was a guy saying the Cubs could expect a mid-tier prospect for Aramis.

 

If Hendry got offers for current players where teams were offering multiple players better than the guys we have ready to come up next year (Flaherty, Jackson) then Hendry is very wrong for passing it up. I strongly doubt those offers were on the table, however.

 

There is no way aramis would have garnered a mid tier prospect if Beltran grabbed a top prospect. Don't play ignorant. The cubs never made him available and really, that mid tier prospect claim was never confirmed anywhere outside of this board. Marmol and Marshal probably would have gotten us back what we needed. Especially marshal because he is cheap and under control for two years. What bourne doesnt have is power at a non-traditional power position, which teams value irrationally high. Bryd offers that and my guess would be close to matching Bourne on WAR given last year. Plus we have guys tweeting that Bryd would have brought a nice haul. So yes its not out of the realm of possibility that Hendry simply wanted to keep these guys as a ploy for attracting free agents. indeed it seems highly likely.

[Rob]

I'll bet nobody wanted Johnson.

 

That's certainly possible. But somebody should have been.

[Sammy Sofa]

You're overrating what Marshall would bring back and underselling how much Marmol's awful contract is going to negate any value for him unless the Cubs pick up too much of it.

 

And you've just decimated your bullpen. I could see moving one of them if miraculously a good deal came along, but both? Bad idea, especially Marshall.