Cubs "not motivated" to move Pena

[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.

 

And why in God's name does Baker keep coming up? I can understand why other teams would want him, but I can also guarantee that they're offering garbage for him. It's easy to see why he's more valuable to the Cubs given the questions they potentially have at both 2B and 3B next season given how well he hits lefties than just trading him off for squat. Baker is what he is; if the Cubs are garbage again next year they can move him for a similar return before the deadline then. Same with Byrd.

 

Pena is a different story, since he's only signed through this year, but hey, if they're only being offered lousy deals then it's easily worth it to gamble on the comp pick.

 

The bottom line is that the Cubs' poor teambuilding during Hendry's tenure have left them with a bad team where the guys you can move aren't going to net you much in return (Baker, Fukudome, Pena) and the guys you arguably should move or wish you could move you need next year (Aramis, Dempster, Byrd, Baker again). That's the fallout of having a bad FO.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[Little Slide Rooter]

I get the sinking feeling that the 2012 Cubs will look very similar to the 2011 Cubs, maybe with some version of Jeromy Burnitz or if were lucky, Jacque Jones added to the mix.

[Tyrant]

I get the sinking feeling that the 2012 Cubs will look very similar to the 2011 Cubs, maybe with some version of Jeromy Burnitz or if were lucky, Jacque Jones added to the mix.

 

Wrong. They'll look like an OLDER version of the 2011 Cubs.

[Bruno7481]

The 2012 Cubs in all probability won't be that good. The Cubs have the fortune of playing in one of the weaker division in baseball, but it will take more than that. The good thing is that there is money coming off the books (I'm starting to sound like Hendry), but the Cubs will still have some declining and unproductive deadweight on this team.

 

Hopefully they can make some good signings and other acquisitions that might start the effort of righting the ship. I wouldn't expect super improvement though with obvious holes.

 

1B?

2B? Barney's job?

3B? New Ramirez deal?

LF Ugh

RF Who?

 

It is badly constructed team at the moment and might be for a bit longer.

[Ballgame64]

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.

 

And why in God's name does Baker keep coming up? I can understand why other teams would want him, but I can also guarantee that they're offering garbage for him. It's easy to see why he's more valuable to the Cubs given the questions they potentially have at both 2B and 3B next season given how well he hits lefties than just trading him off for squat. Baker is what he is; if the Cubs are garbage again next year they can move him for a similar return before the deadline then. Same with Byrd.

 

Pena is a different story, since he's only signed through this year, but hey, if they're only being offered lousy deals then it's easily worth it to gamble on the comp pick.

 

The bottom line is that the Cubs' poor teambuilding during Hendry's tenure have left them with a bad team where the guys you can move aren't going to net you much in return (Baker, Fukudome, Pena) and the guys you arguably should move or wish you could move you need next year (Aramis, Dempster, Byrd, Baker again). That's the fallout of having a bad FO.

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.

 

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.

 

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

[Little Slide Rooter]

I get the sinking feeling that the 2012 Cubs will look very similar to the 2011 Cubs, maybe with some version of Jeromy Burnitz or if were lucky, Jacque Jones added to the mix.

 

Wrong. They'll look like an OLDER version of the 2011 Cubs.

 

Either that, or it will look like a non contenders mid September roster all season long. Not sure which is worse.

[KingCubsFan]

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.

[Backtobanks]

And it's Tweets like this that do it for me...

 

@SI_JonHeyman

Jon Heyman

 

#cubs told others they want to keep carlos pena & marlon byrd. pena's a FA, but byrd mighta brought a haul. #tradedeadline

 

These tweets are ridiculous. These "experts" have to keep posting or tweeting something every 5 minutes to keep their reputation. None of them had a clue on the Jiminez or Rasmus trades. Most GMs are pretty quiet about what's going on so the "experts" have to speculate about everything (i.e. Team A needs an OF and these OFs are available, so Team A must be talking to the teams that might have an OF available)

[NonProfitCow]

These tweets are ridiculous. These "experts" have to keep posting or tweeting something every 5 minutes to keep their reputation. None of them had a clue on the Jiminez or Rasmus trades. Most GMs are pretty quiet about what's going on so the "experts" have to speculate about everything (i.e. Team A needs an OF and these OFs are available, so Team A must be talking to the teams that might have an OF available)

If you are wondering what the #Cubs are (not) doing, you are not alone, front office guy just asked me the same thing

[Guest]

to me it really depends on what's going on behind the scenes. if teams are basically taking a dump in a paper bag and offering that for pena and his whole salary, then i'm glad that hendry is telling them to screw off. there's possibility that a better trade opportunity arises and even if it doesn't, they might be able to offer him arbitration and get a sandwich pick.

 

but if there are teams that are interested in guys like baker, pena, byrd, etc and hendry is just telling them that they're not on the market, then that would be really stupid and incompetent.

 

Yeah, if teams are making solid offers for Pena, there's no reason to sit on him. You want to win the division next year, you have to go for Fielder or Pujols. You can still get Pena as a free agent if you whiff on the big two.

[BigSlick]

Welp, I knew they didn't have much room to make many moves, and really couldn't net much in return, but making a move or two at least tells your fanbase you're motivated to do something about the team.

 

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. Fiscally irresponsible (while purporting to save money) in a vain attempt to uphold the status quo, while subverting any attempt to create a future.

[TruffleShuffle]

These tweets are ridiculous. These "experts" have to keep posting or tweeting something every 5 minutes to keep their reputation. None of them had a clue on the Jiminez or Rasmus trades. Most GMs are pretty quiet about what's going on so the "experts" have to speculate about everything (i.e. Team A needs an OF and these OFs are available, so Team A must be talking to the teams that might have an OF available)

If you are wondering what the #Cubs are (not) doing, you are not alone, front office guy just asked me the same thing

 

if it were one or two people saying this, i'd think that maybe some GM just wants a couple of pieces from the cubs and is putting out some misinformation to turn up the pressure on hendry. but everyone seems to be saying that he's showing little interest in dealing his players who do have some value, and he himself has talked about guys like baker being almost untouchable. it really seems absurd.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

He has only 5 home runs and only 16 RBIs because he got hit in the face earlier this year and missed a large part of the season. That's the problem with counting stats - they don't take into account getting hit in the face.

 

Marlon is a high .700s/low .800s OPS guy (.775-.842 since 2007) and will probably be worth 3+ wins again this year (worth 4.3 last year) despite getting plunked in the face. He's a valuable piece to the offense and a guy we need to keep around if we plan on contending next year (which we should).

 

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.

 

Is it possible that the Cubs don't see the point in giving away a guy who has value to the team but probably won't bring back anything of any value in trade? Just two years ago Baker came to the Cubs in exchange for Al Albuquerque - a guy who wasn't even considered a prospect at the time and didn't make the majors with the team that acquired him. Baker's not a star obviously, but he can be very valuable in a platoon situation - he's almost a certainty to provide an .850-.900 OPS against lefties.

 

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

 

They won't be better with the same guys (maybe slightly). However, if they bring back the bulk of this team and add two of the best players in baseball - Fielder and Wilson - they will be better. And possibly better enough to compete in a division that will likely be horrid next year.

[dew1679666265]

Welp, I knew they didn't have much room to make many moves, and really couldn't net much in return, but making a move or two at least tells your fanbase you're motivated to do something about the team.

 

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. Fiscally irresponsible (while purporting to save money) in a vain attempt to uphold the status quo, while subverting any attempt to create a future.

 

Nitpicking probably, but we did make a move - we dealt Kosuke.

[dew1679666265]

Yeah, if teams are making solid offers for Pena, there's no reason to sit on him. You want to win the division next year, you have to go for Fielder or Pujols. You can still get Pena as a free agent if you whiff on the big two.

 

Phil Rogers was on MLB Network earlier today saying that Hendry wasn't getting much in offers for Pena and decided to hold onto him in the hopes that we can offer arbitration in the offseason and get a comp pick. Rogers sounded optimistic that Pena would turn down the arbitration offer since his agent is Scott Boras (same as Fielder) and Boras knows the Cubs will pursue Fielder. He then went on to say that not tearing the roster apart at the deadline is part of hoping to entice Fielder to sign with us - the thinking is if we sold off all our pieces we'd be a less attractive destination.

 

No idea if this is all Rogers speculation or if he has solid sources on this one, though.

[javy knows my name]

He has only 5 home runs and only 16 RBIs because he got hit in the face earlier this year and missed a large part of the season. That's the problem with counting stats - they don't take into account getting hit in the face.

 

This is awesome.

[Guest]

Yeah, if teams are making solid offers for Pena, there's no reason to sit on him. You want to win the division next year, you have to go for Fielder or Pujols. You can still get Pena as a free agent if you whiff on the big two.

 

Phil Rogers was on MLB Network earlier today saying that Hendry wasn't getting much in offers for Pena and decided to hold onto him in the hopes that we can offer arbitration in the offseason and get a comp pick. Rogers sounded optimistic that Pena would turn down the arbitration offer since his agent is Scott Boras (same as Fielder) and Boras knows the Cubs will pursue Fielder. He then went on to say that not tearing the roster apart at the deadline is part of hoping to entice Fielder to sign with us - the thinking is if we sold off all our pieces we'd be a less attractive destination.

 

No idea if this is all Rogers speculation or if he has solid sources on this one, though.

 

That'd be nice if the Cubs got back to offering arbitration for draft picks.

[Ballgame64]

"He has only 5 home runs and only 16 RBIs because he got hit in the face earlier this year and missed a large part of the season. That's the problem with counting stats - they don't take into account getting hit in the face.

 

Marlon is a high .700s/low .800s OPS guy (.775-.842 since 2007) and will probably be worth 3+ wins again this year (worth 4.3 last year) despite getting plunked in the face. He's a valuable piece to the offense and a guy we need to keep around if we plan on contending next year (which we should)."

 

So you tell me there is a problem with counting stats because he got hit in the face. What was he doing before he got hit in the face? And if he has been cleared to play, can't we expect some production?

 

And what stats can we use? How about hitting with runners in scoring position? Is that valuable? Because his OPS then is .614 in 2011. Are we supposed to assume he will get back to his career numbers by the end of the year? What will he do next year when he is 34? Like everyone else, I have an opinion and mine is not as high as other people when it comes to Marlon Byrd.

 

Also, does anyone entertain the possibility that Hendry was offered a decent prospect but the prospect wasn't Hendry's type of player but might be someone people on this board who follow the minors closely would have thought Hendry was crazy for turning down? We'll never know.

[ChiCubsFan]

I have no idea what that last paragraph means and citing OPS with runners in scoring position over half a season is nothing but laughable.

[Guest]

He then went on to say that not tearing the roster apart at the deadline is part of hoping to entice Fielder to sign with us - the thinking is if we sold off all our pieces we'd be a less attractive destination.

 

That is an angle I hadn't considered. FA's generally follow the money, but you don't want to be forced to offer something above and beyond like a Soriano or Werth deal in order to get a big FA to come either.

[dew1679666265]

So you tell me there is a problem with counting stats because he got hit in the face. What was he doing before he got hit in the face? And if he has been cleared to play, can't we expect some production?

 

We've been getting production. He's got a .797 OPS so far this season, which translates to a .352 wOBA. He's never been a big home run hitter, as he only hit 12 last year and 20 the season before. With only 278 PAs I wouldn't expect him to have 15 home runs at this point.

 

However, it's entirely feasible that he could finish the year with around 10-12 home runs, which would match his output from last season. Even if he falls a little short of that, it's understandable since he missed a decent amount of time this year.

 

And what stats can we use? How about hitting with runners in scoring position? Is that valuable? Because his OPS then is .614 in 2011. Are we supposed to assume he will get back to his career numbers by the end of the year? What will he do next year when he is 34? Like everyone else, I have an opinion and mine is not as high as other people when it comes to Marlon Byrd.

 

You can use any stats you want, but looking at counting stats and situational stats don't tell you all that much. Rate stats (OBP, SLG, OPS, wOBA, etc) give you a much better idea on how productive he's been when he's played. Situational stats (w/runners in scoring position, for example) are very volatile stats that often vary from season to season and from month to month. His sample size of PAs in that situation is so low that 2-3 hits with runners in scoring position could skyrocket his OPS and give you a much different picture.

 

Overall, he's having a better year than his 2010 and is close to his 2008/2009 numbers in Texas if you look at rate stats. His rate stats are right in line with his career since joining the Rangers and is perfectly in line with his low salary. He's also been worth 1.9 wins already this season and could come close to the 4.3 WAR he posted last year - I'm thinking he could settle in somewhere between 3.5-4 wins.

 

Also, does anyone entertain the possibility that Hendry was offered a decent prospect but the prospect wasn't Hendry's type of player but might be someone people on this board who follow the minors closely would have thought Hendry was crazy for turning down? We'll never know.

 

I guess it's possible. Like you said, though, there's no way we'll ever know.

[questionmarkgrace]

"He has only 5 home runs and only 16 RBIs because he got hit in the face earlier this year and missed a large part of the season. That's the problem with counting stats - they don't take into account getting hit in the face.

 

Marlon is a high .700s/low .800s OPS guy (.775-.842 since 2007) and will probably be worth 3+ wins again this year (worth 4.3 last year) despite getting plunked in the face. He's a valuable piece to the offense and a guy we need to keep around if we plan on contending next year (which we should)."

 

So you tell me there is a problem with counting stats because he got hit in the face. What was he doing before he got hit in the face? And if he has been cleared to play, can't we expect some production?

 

And what stats can we use? How about hitting with runners in scoring position? Is that valuable? Because his OPS then is .614 in 2011. Are we supposed to assume he will get back to his career numbers by the end of the year? What will he do next year when he is 34? Like everyone else, I have an opinion and mine is not as high as other people when it comes to Marlon Byrd.

 

Also, does anyone entertain the possibility that Hendry was offered a decent prospect but the prospect wasn't Hendry's type of player but might be someone people on this board who follow the minors closely would have thought Hendry was crazy for turning down? We'll never know.

 

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.

 

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.

[CincyCubsFan]

"He has only 5 home runs and only 16 RBIs because he got hit in the face earlier this year and missed a large part of the season. That's the problem with counting stats - they don't take into account getting hit in the face.

 

Marlon is a high .700s/low .800s OPS guy (.775-.842 since 2007) and will probably be worth 3+ wins again this year (worth 4.3 last year) despite getting plunked in the face. He's a valuable piece to the offense and a guy we need to keep around if we plan on contending next year (which we should)."

 

So you tell me there is a problem with counting stats because he got hit in the face. What was he doing before he got hit in the face? And if he has been cleared to play, can't we expect some production?

 

And what stats can we use? How about hitting with runners in scoring position? Is that valuable? Because his OPS then is .614 in 2011. Are we supposed to assume he will get back to his career numbers by the end of the year? What will he do next year when he is 34? Like everyone else, I have an opinion and mine is not as high as other people when it comes to Marlon Byrd.

 

Also, does anyone entertain the possibility that Hendry was offered a decent prospect but the prospect wasn't Hendry's type of player but might be someone people on this board who follow the minors closely would have thought Hendry was crazy for turning down? We'll never know.

 

Where are you going to find equal or better production in CF next year for the money he's making? Byrd is a productive player, a bargain, and is not the problem with this team. Just shut up already.

[dew1679666265]

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.

[Irrelevant Dude]

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.