Zambrano traded to Marlins for Chris Volstad (P. 8)

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't mind Volstad being the main player coming back at all. We all wanted Theo in part due to his ability to use statistics to find undervalued players, yet when it comes to acquiring these people we immediately revolt. I say let Theo succeed or fail before we completely judge his moves as horrible.

 

Pretty much how I feel.

 

i agree except for the last sentence. much more fun to ignore his several-year track record and call him a moron within two months of him starting with the cubs.

 

Nobody's called him a moron. The best GMs make stupid moves too.

[ctcf]

the main argument from people who like this trade is basically "why take the chance of getting nothing next july when we can get nothing right now?"

 

There isn't much of an argument on the other side of things, either.

[USSoccer]

the main argument from people who like this trade is basically "why take the chance of getting nothing next july when we can get nothing right now?"

 

A nothing in the hand is worth two nothings in the bush

[davell]

Unrelated in a way, but I still don't see Wells being part of our 2012 rotation. Garza or part of Garza trade/Dempster/Wood/Volstad/?. I'm not sure why, but I just haven't heard anything about Wells from the FO. My guess is he's dealt or he's our long guy/6th starter.

[XZero771679666304]

the main argument from people who like this trade is basically "why take the chance of getting nothing next july when we can get nothing right now?"

 

Jesus Christ, Volstad isn't nothing. What hyperbolic garbage.

 

 

This is what a Z trade was always going to be, I don't know why some people are so shocked by it.

[SouthSideRyan]

If we had a choice between Volstad OR Dominguez, did we go the right way? I guess so. But, I'd have rather held onto a motivated, contract seeking Z and see what we've got at the deadline......

 

I'm not crazy about Dominguez, but I'd have rather had him. At least Dominguez would be under control for 6 seasons where we're trying. Volstad will give us 2.

[SouthSideRyan]

Would it be that hard to get a Chris Volstad for him at the deadline?

 

if volstad's improving peripherals last year were a sign of him becoming a better pitcher, or if zambrano bashes a teammate in the head with a fungo bat, then yes it probably would be hard to get a chris volstad for him at the deadline.

 

Or maybe Volstad stays really bad, and we avoid getting him and get somebody else who'll turn into something.

[XZero771679666304]

If we had a choice between Volstad OR Dominguez, did we go the right way? I guess so. But, I'd have rather held onto a motivated, contract seeking Z and see what we've got at the deadline......

 

I'm not crazy about Dominguez, but I'd have rather had him. At least Dominguez would be under control for 6 seasons where we're trying. Volstad will give us 2.

 

I question whether Dominguez will ever been even a mediocre regular. His offensive numbers have been pretty bad at just about every level. If we got him, I'd try and spin him somewhere else.

[TruffleShuffle]

the main argument from people who like this trade is basically "why take the chance of getting nothing next july when we can get nothing right now?"

 

a) don't know if volstad is all that's coming back.

b) some people think volstad is likely to have a better year given his improved K and BB rates last year, and a HR rate that was quite high. plus he's only 25 so he should still be getting better.

c) zambrano was mediocre last year, his line drive rate has increased for 5 years and his K rate dropped by almost 2 per 9 innings in 2012.

d) we don't really know how zambrano was regarded in the locker room. his teammates may have been fed up with him to the point that removing him from a team that is likely to be lousy is preferable to having him around with the small hope that he pitching and behaves better.

[SouthSideRyan]

Not that it's a telling statistic or anything, but the Cubs were 0-5 in the postseason when Zambrano started including a horrendous outing in Game 1 of the NLCS.

 

This is a really [expletive] stupid post.

[Guest]

d) we don't really know how zambrano was regarded in the locker room. his teammates may have been fed up with him to the point that removing him from a team that is likely to be lousy is preferable to having him around with the small hope that he pitching and behaves better.

 

Yea, I don't normally buy into chemistry arguments. Ever. But Zambrano is pretty much the definition of the exception to that belief.

[SouthSideRyan]

Unrelated in a way, but I still don't see Wells being part of our 2012 rotation. Garza or part of Garza trade/Dempster/Wood/Volstad/?. I'm not sure why, but I just haven't heard anything about Wells from the FO. My guess is he's dealt or he's our long guy/6th starter.

 

Good thing we keep acquiring more Randy Wellses in order to push out Randy Wells.

[ctcf]

d) we don't really know how zambrano was regarded in the locker room. his teammates may have been fed up with him to the point that removing him from a team that is likely to be lousy is preferable to having him around with the small hope that he pitching and behaves better.

 

Yea, I don't normally buy into chemistry arguments. Ever. But Zambrano is pretty much the definition of the exception to that belief.

 

Same here. Also, I think it probably isn't that hard to come up with a good idea of how he was perceived...

[sneakypower]

pitch selection?

 

His performance collapses when pitching out of the stretch, for whatever reason. I'd be curious to see how many of his HRs were given up with men on base and how that stacks up across baseball.

Volstad - career

bases empty: 44 HR surrendered vs. 1462 batters faced (.261 opp avg)

runners on: 28 HR surrendered vs. 1062 batters faced (.296 opp avg)

 

league wide (team avgs) - 2011

bases empty: 89 HR surrendered in 784 IP (.251 opp avg)

runners on: 63 HR surrendered in 666 IP (.260 opp avg)

[SouthSideRyan]

d) we don't really know how zambrano was regarded in the locker room. his teammates may have been fed up with him to the point that removing him from a team that is likely to be lousy is preferable to having him around with the small hope that he pitching and behaves better.

 

Yea, I don't normally buy into chemistry arguments. Ever. But Zambrano is pretty much the definition of the exception to that belief.

 

I'll ask the same question I asked about Milton Bradley. Who on the team last year struggled due to Zambrano's presence?

[Guest]

It's like the Ricketts and Theo are trying to pretend the Cubs are an expansion team. Either there is something we don't know about Ricketts ability to service the debt or the egos involved here are beyond huge.

 

Aramis and Z were my two favorite Cubs, guess its time to find new favorites.

[XZero771679666304]

d) we don't really know how zambrano was regarded in the locker room. his teammates may have been fed up with him to the point that removing him from a team that is likely to be lousy is preferable to having him around with the small hope that he pitching and behaves better.

 

Yea, I don't normally buy into chemistry arguments. Ever. But Zambrano is pretty much the definition of the exception to that belief.

 

I don't even care about the chemistry/attitude stuff. I just think his trade value had very little chance to increase before the deadline and a fair to good chance to decrease due to on the field factors. Keeping for the full year would have been pointless.

[WilcoFan]

d) we don't really know how zambrano was regarded in the locker room. his teammates may have been fed up with him to the point that removing him from a team that is likely to be lousy is preferable to having him around with the small hope that he pitching and behaves better.

 

Yea, I don't normally buy into chemistry arguments. Ever. But Zambrano is pretty much the definition of the exception to that belief.

 

I'll ask the same question I asked about Milton Bradley. Who on the team last year struggled due to Zambrano's presence?

 

Zambrano did.

[WilcoFan]

It's like the Ricketts and Theo are trying to pretend the Cubs are an expansion team. Either there is something we don't know about Ricketts ability to service the debt or the egos involved here are beyond huge.

 

Aramis and Z were my two favorite Cubs, guess its time to find new favorites.

 

Or they're building the team for long-term purposes exactly like they said they were going to do.

[XZero771679666304]

 

Aramis and Z were my two favorite Cubs

 

I suspect this sort of thing has much more to do with the angst over this (and Aramis) than actual logical reasons.

 

I loved those guys, Z in particular, but there's a time to let it go.

[davell]

If Z was arbitration eligible this year, at what money amount would you nontender him? Would you pay him 10 mill for 2012, in this scenario? How about 5 mill? I think I'd have kept him around 8 mill myself. And unless he's literally HATED by everyone in the lockerroom and also had told us the only trade he was ever going to accept was to Miami, I just wouldn't have made THIS deal. At least should have had some semblance of salary relief.

[Guest]

d) we don't really know how zambrano was regarded in the locker room. his teammates may have been fed up with him to the point that removing him from a team that is likely to be lousy is preferable to having him around with the small hope that he pitching and behaves better.

 

Yea, I don't normally buy into chemistry arguments. Ever. But Zambrano is pretty much the definition of the exception to that belief.

 

I'll ask the same question I asked about Milton Bradley. Who on the team last year struggled due to Zambrano's presence?

 

I have no idea. It's certainly possible nobody did. Hell, it's possible some random player did better because there was a [expletive] he hated on the team or something. I just don't think it's worth putting up with a piece of [expletive] who treats at least some of his teammates like [expletive]. Not while he pretty much sucks and is only likely to get worse.

 

 

If he were actually good, different story.

Edited January 5, 2012 by David

[Sammys Boombox]

Not that it's a telling statistic or anything, but the Cubs were 0-5 in the postseason when Zambrano started including a horrendous outing in Game 1 of the NLCS.

 

This is a really [expletive] stupid post.

 

Not if you weren't supposed to derive anything from it other than, "Oh yeah. Guess they were." It's not like I made the claim, "This guy sucks in big games!" You need to lighten up.

[TruffleShuffle]

d) we don't really know how zambrano was regarded in the locker room. his teammates may have been fed up with him to the point that removing him from a team that is likely to be lousy is preferable to having him around with the small hope that he pitching and behaves better.

 

Yea, I don't normally buy into chemistry arguments. Ever. But Zambrano is pretty much the definition of the exception to that belief.

 

I'll ask the same question I asked about Milton Bradley. Who on the team last year struggled due to Zambrano's presence?

 

that's a silly question. obviously nobody can quantify what impact a misbehaving player has on his teammates. are you suggesting that chemistry problems don't exist and that bad teammates don't ever have an effect on the performances of players around them?

[Guest]

Not that it's a telling statistic or anything, but the Cubs were 0-5 in the postseason when Zambrano started including a horrendous outing in Game 1 of the NLCS.

 

This is a really [expletive] stupid post.

 

Not if you weren't supposed to derive anything from it other than, "Oh yeah. Guess they were." It's not like I made the claim, "This guy sucks in big games!" You need to lighten up.

 

No, it was still really stupid. What's really weird is that you pretty much acknowledged that it was stupid and made it anyway. And then defended it.