Cubs "not motivated" to move Pena

[Guest]

I keep reading in this thread that the Cubs will offer Pena arbitration with the likelihood that he would reject it. Granted, being a "B" won't cost the signing team a compensation pick, but I'm not really all that convinced he would decline the arbitration offer. And if he accepts the offer, doesn't that basically kill any chance of getting Fielder or Pujols?

 

I've heard of waiving a player that accepts arbitration and only being responsible for a percentage of what the player was likely to receive in arbitration, but that would still be throwing money out the window, which is something this team can't afford to do these days.

 

What teams would realistically want to give Pena 10m+ a year beyond next year, which is the gamble he would be taking if he turns down the arbitration offer? The guy barely has 30 XBH's and is earning 10m.

 

A compensation sandwich pick just doesn't seem worth it to me if the Cubs are saddled with the battle of what to do with Pena when he accepts arbitration in the middle of the Fielder/Pujols sweeptstakes.

 

If he doesn't grade out to a "B" pick, I guess it really won't matter. But, if he does grade out to a "B", I sure hope that they don't mess around trying to get something out of nothing from Pena, only to really miss out on Pujols or Fielder.

[dew1679666265]

I keep reading in this thread that the Cubs will offer Pena arbitration with the likelihood that he would reject it. Granted, being a "B" won't cost the signing team a compensation pick, but I'm not really all that convinced he would decline the arbitration offer. And if he accepts the offer, doesn't that basically kill any chance of getting Fielder or Pujols?

 

I've heard of waiving a player that accepts arbitration and only being responsible for a percentage of what the player was likely to receive in arbitration, but that would still be throwing money out the window, which is something this team can't afford to do these days.

 

What teams would realistically want to give Pena 10m+ a year beyond next year, which is the gamble he would be taking if he turns down the arbitration offer? The guy barely has 30 XBH's and is earning 10m.

 

A compensation sandwich pick just doesn't seem worth it to me if the Cubs are saddled with the battle of what to do with Pena when he accepts arbitration in the middle of the Fielder/Pujols sweeptstakes.

 

If he doesn't grade out to a "B" pick, I guess it really won't matter. But, if he does grade out to a "B", I sure hope that they don't mess around trying to get something out of nothing from Pena, only to really miss out on Pujols or Fielder.

 

Phil Rogers made a good point that both Pena and Fielder are Boras agents. Rogers pointed out that Boras knows the Cubs are going to pursue Fielder in the offseason and, thus, will not want Pena accepting arbitration from the Cubs.

 

This idea makes sense - Boras stands to gain a huge amount more money from the Fielder deal if the Cubs are involved in the sweepstakes rather than settling on Pena. Obviously Pena could ignore Boras' advice and take the arbitration offer, but I think there's a fairly good chance some team will give him a 2/20 type deal even if it's fairly incentive laden. I could see the Cubs offering something like that if they lose out on both Pujols and Fielder (which they really shouldn't).

[Guest]

I'm not going to shed tears over not getting filler for Pena, Johnson, or Baker, and I'm 100% on board with not trading Byrd or Marshall this year. Marmol is a different story, but not for lower level guys like was rumored. All that said, Marshall is every bit as good as Adams, if not a touch better. Petco is a big factor.

[sneakypower]

i despise the reality that we don't even have anybody worth giving a look to at AA or AAA, so that playing Pena and Johnson isn't even the travesty it should be

 

this has been a completely wasted season in every conceivable aspect of development for our organization (including Castro), and our talent throughout has considerably worsened

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not going to shed tears over not getting filler for Pena, Johnson, or Baker, and I'm 100% on board with not trading Byrd or Marshall this year. Marmol is a different story, but not for lower level guys like was rumored. All that said, Marshall is every bit as good as Adams, if not a touch better. Petco is a big factor.

 

Adams' numbers are still phenomenal away from Petco, and he's been doing it for four years now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall has become, but man, I hope he has a run like Adams'.

[Tracer Bullet]

Wait, actually, what he said was we don't have enough prospects and also he's worried about having too many prospects.

 

Yes. I'm not sure I disagree. We have no impact bats at the high minor level and we have a lot of decent to good prospects. It's Jim's fault, but those two statements can be, and apparently are, accurate.

 

Now, that also assumes Hendry knows not only how good our prospects are but how good the prospects offered are. That might be a leap of faith I'm not willing to make.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'm not going to shed tears over not getting filler for Pena, Johnson, or Baker, and I'm 100% on board with not trading Byrd or Marshall this year. Marmol is a different story, but not for lower level guys like was rumored. All that said, Marshall is every bit as good as Adams, if not a touch better. Petco is a big factor.

 

Adams' numbers are still phenomenal away from Petco, and he's been doing it for four years now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall has become, but man, I hope he has a run like Adams'.

 

You keep saying soft tossing LH as if that's a huge strike against him. I thought LH pitchers were at least if not more valuable than their RH counterparts. Am I reading something into your posts that isn't intended?

[questionmarkgrace]

I'm not going to shed tears over not getting filler for Pena, Johnson, or Baker, and I'm 100% on board with not trading Byrd or Marshall this year. Marmol is a different story, but not for lower level guys like was rumored. All that said, Marshall is every bit as good as Adams, if not a touch better. Petco is a big factor.

 

Adams' numbers are still phenomenal away from Petco, and he's been doing it for four years now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall has become, but man, I hope he has a run like Adams'.

 

 

Yeah I would say Marshall is better as well. At least two out of the last three years. Plus younger and cheaper. Marmol as expected is up and down but that 2010 season looks ridiculous.

 

 

WAR/Relieving (Runs above replacement as a reliever based on FIP)

 

 

_____ Adams ___ Marshall ___ Marmol

2009_ 1.3/12.1 ___ 1/4.4 ___ .6/6

2010_ 1.6/16.5 ___ 2.2/21.1 ___ 3.1/28.9

2011_ 1.4/12.3 ___ 1.8/15.9 ___ .7/6.4

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not going to shed tears over not getting filler for Pena, Johnson, or Baker, and I'm 100% on board with not trading Byrd or Marshall this year. Marmol is a different story, but not for lower level guys like was rumored. All that said, Marshall is every bit as good as Adams, if not a touch better. Petco is a big factor.

 

Adams' numbers are still phenomenal away from Petco, and he's been doing it for four years now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall has become, but man, I hope he has a run like Adams'.

 

You keep saying soft tossing LH as if that's a huge strike against him. I thought LH pitchers were at least if not more valuable than their RH counterparts. Am I reading something into your posts that isn't intended?

 

It is a strike against him in terms of the idea that the Cubs missed out on an opportunity to trade him for a big return, so yes, you're reading into it incorrectly. I think Marshall is very, very valuable to the Cubs and very, very good...but he's not going to bring enough back to justify trading him.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not going to shed tears over not getting filler for Pena, Johnson, or Baker, and I'm 100% on board with not trading Byrd or Marshall this year. Marmol is a different story, but not for lower level guys like was rumored. All that said, Marshall is every bit as good as Adams, if not a touch better. Petco is a big factor.

 

Adams' numbers are still phenomenal away from Petco, and he's been doing it for four years now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall has become, but man, I hope he has a run like Adams'.

 

 

Yeah I would say Marshall is better as well. At least two out of the last three years. Plus younger and cheaper. Marmol as expected is up and down but that 2010 season looks ridiculous.

 

 

WAR/Relieving (Runs above replacement as a reliever based on FIP)

 

 

_____ Adams ___ Marshall ___ Marmol

2009_ 1.3/12.1 ___ 1/4.4 ___ .6/6

2010_ 1.6/16.5 ___ 2.2/21.1 ___ 3.1/28.9

2011_ 1.4/12.3 ___ 1.8/15.9 ___ .7/6.4

 

This is where I have to plead ignorance in certain stat areas, because glancing at their numbers on BR I have no [expletive] clue how that works out. How is Marshall rated higher than Adams this year when they've pitched the same number of innings and Adams is better in practically every major category?

[questionmarkgrace]

I'm not going to shed tears over not getting filler for Pena, Johnson, or Baker, and I'm 100% on board with not trading Byrd or Marshall this year. Marmol is a different story, but not for lower level guys like was rumored. All that said, Marshall is every bit as good as Adams, if not a touch better. Petco is a big factor.

 

Adams' numbers are still phenomenal away from Petco, and he's been doing it for four years now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall has become, but man, I hope he has a run like Adams'.

 

 

Yeah I would say Marshall is better as well. At least two out of the last three years. Plus younger and cheaper. Marmol as expected is up and down but that 2010 season looks ridiculous.

 

 

WAR/Relieving (Runs above replacement as a reliever based on FIP)

 

 

_____ Adams ___ Marshall ___ Marmol

2009_ 1.3/12.1 ___ 1/4.4 ___ .6/6

2010_ 1.6/16.5 ___ 2.2/21.1 ___ 3.1/28.9

2011_ 1.4/12.3 ___ 1.8/15.9 ___ .7/6.4

 

This is where I have to plead ignorance in certain stat areas, because glancing at their numbers on BR I have no [expletive] clue how that works out. How is Marshall rated higher than Adams this year when they've pitched the same number of innings and Adams is better in practically every major category?

 

marshall's FIP is lower which is basically era adjusted for what it should be. Mainly though I think that it is because it takes into account that marshall has a higher K per 9 and lower walks per 9. But just glancing at the stats Marshall's Babip has been pretty high in the .300's consistently vs. Adams in .200's. I would venture to guess that yes petco has made a difference but also it shows that the padres have played solid defense while marshall has been a victim of poor defense. It explains why Adam's whip is lower than marshalls. Although I dont think that BABIP is included in WAR or Relieving above.

 

It will certainly be interesting to see how Adams fairs in texas' hitters haven after pitching if petco all these years.

[Sammy Sofa]

Well, it's not like Adams suffers from drastic home/away splits.

[questionmarkgrace]

Well, it's not like Adams suffers from drastic home/away splits.

 

maybe not but moving to the AL and that park down their can be like coors in the summer time. Really though its amazing that he has sustained such a low babip compared to marshall's being so high while being two comparable pitchers.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'm not going to shed tears over not getting filler for Pena, Johnson, or Baker, and I'm 100% on board with not trading Byrd or Marshall this year. Marmol is a different story, but not for lower level guys like was rumored. All that said, Marshall is every bit as good as Adams, if not a touch better. Petco is a big factor.

 

Adams' numbers are still phenomenal away from Petco, and he's been doing it for four years now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall has become, but man, I hope he has a run like Adams'.

 

You keep saying soft tossing LH as if that's a huge strike against him. I thought LH pitchers were at least if not more valuable than their RH counterparts. Am I reading something into your posts that isn't intended?

 

It is a strike against him in terms of the idea that the Cubs missed out on an opportunity to trade him for a big return, so yes, you're reading into it incorrectly. I think Marshall is very, very valuable to the Cubs and very, very good...but he's not going to bring enough back to justify trading him.

 

I wholly agree with your last sentence. I just don't see why the soft tossing lefty thing is relevant go that. He's a strikeout machine that doesn't give up walks or HRs. The fact that he's also LH makes him a god (not the God, I don't think).

[Tracer Bullet]

Well, it's not like Adams suffers from drastic home/away splits.

 

maybe not but moving to the AL and that park down their can be like coors in the summer time. Really though its amazing that he has sustained such a low babip compared to marshall's being so high while being two comparable pitchers.

 

What about other SD pitchers? So they have similarly low babip? Seems like the entire cubs staff has suffered bc of [expletive] defense. Maybe most SD pitchers are seeing a bump bc of good D. I'm admittedly spit-balling.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not going to shed tears over not getting filler for Pena, Johnson, or Baker, and I'm 100% on board with not trading Byrd or Marshall this year. Marmol is a different story, but not for lower level guys like was rumored. All that said, Marshall is every bit as good as Adams, if not a touch better. Petco is a big factor.

 

Adams' numbers are still phenomenal away from Petco, and he's been doing it for four years now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall has become, but man, I hope he has a run like Adams'.

 

You keep saying soft tossing LH as if that's a huge strike against him. I thought LH pitchers were at least if not more valuable than their RH counterparts. Am I reading something into your posts that isn't intended?

 

It is a strike against him in terms of the idea that the Cubs missed out on an opportunity to trade him for a big return, so yes, you're reading into it incorrectly. I think Marshall is very, very valuable to the Cubs and very, very good...but he's not going to bring enough back to justify trading him.

 

I wholly agree with your last sentence. I just don't see why the soft tossing lefty thing is relevant go that. He's a strikeout machine that doesn't give up walks or HRs. The fact that he's also LH makes him a god (not the God, I don't think).

 

You generally don't see teams going hard after soft-tossing LH relievers at the trade deadline. It seems most of the relievers that net good returns are closers or are RH guys that throw harder.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Tracer Bullet]

Maybe that's true. Obviously closers net top returns. But guys with Marshall's K, BB, & HR numbers for 2 straight years should do pretty well. I guess it seems that big curve LHs that don't throw hard are accepted as effective more than similar RHs.

 

Doesn't matter. I don't want to trade him anyway.

[Backtobanks]

I'm not going to shed tears over not getting filler for Pena, Johnson, or Baker, and I'm 100% on board with not trading Byrd or Marshall this year. Marmol is a different story, but not for lower level guys like was rumored. All that said, Marshall is every bit as good as Adams, if not a touch better. Petco is a big factor.

 

Adams' numbers are still phenomenal away from Petco, and he's been doing it for four years now.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall has become, but man, I hope he has a run like Adams'.

 

You keep saying soft tossing LH as if that's a huge strike against him. I thought LH pitchers were at least if not more valuable than their RH counterparts. Am I reading something into your posts that isn't intended?

 

It is a strike against him in terms of the idea that the Cubs missed out on an opportunity to trade him for a big return, so yes, you're reading into it incorrectly. I think Marshall is very, very valuable to the Cubs and very, very good...but he's not going to bring enough back to justify trading him.

 

The last sentence sums up many of the Cub players (Pena, Baker, Byrd, Zambrano, Marshall, etc.). They have more value to the Cubs than they do on the trade market because of performance, salary, and/or lack of replacement in the farm system.

[SouthSideRyan]

Pena is only more valuable to the Cubs if you're worried about your record the rest of the season.

[KingCubsFan]

Pena is only more valuable to the Cubs if you're worried about your record the rest of the season.

Exactly. There was no good reason to keep Pena, unless you somehow think you'll get a better return at the waiver deadline.

[TheDude]

Pena is only more valuable to the Cubs if you're worried about your record the rest of the season.

Exactly. There was no good reason to keep Pena, unless you somehow think you'll get a better return at the waiver deadline.

 

ESPN is reporting that the Cubs motivation was that none of the offers for Pena were better than the compensation draft pick the Cubs would get should Pena sign elsewhere in the off-season.

[mookie]

Would anyone be opposed to snagging Wandy?

 

2011

 

Garza

Wandy

Dempster

Z

Cashner??

 

He would kind of be like having Lilly back with pretty much the same price tag to boot.

[KingCubsFan]

Pena is only more valuable to the Cubs if you're worried about your record the rest of the season.

Exactly. There was no good reason to keep Pena, unless you somehow think you'll get a better return at the waiver deadline.

 

ESPN is reporting that the Cubs motivation was that none of the offers for Pena were better than the compensation draft pick the Cubs would get should Pena sign elsewhere in the off-season.

That's way too much of a risk for a team that needs to spend every available dollar this offseason on actual improvements. I can't see Pena getting 10 million in the offseason as a 34 year old with two straight disappointing years. If you go that route, you have to be sure that the player will in fact leave or, at the very least, won't kill your budget if he does come back.

[SouthSideRyan]

Pena is only more valuable to the Cubs if you're worried about your record the rest of the season.

Exactly. There was no good reason to keep Pena, unless you somehow think you'll get a better return at the waiver deadline.

 

ESPN is reporting that the Cubs motivation was that none of the offers for Pena were better than the compensation draft pick the Cubs would get should Pena sign elsewhere in the off-season.

 

I mean, I guess Pena wouldn't return much, but I don't like offering Pena arbitration on the chance he accepts it. And who's making this decision? When's the last time Hendry's offered arbitration to a guy with the intent of picking up a draft pick out of it vs. wanting to bring the player back.