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

[CUBZ99]

Wasn't Volstad a potential non-tender candidate? I don't think the move is terrible, but watching the Cubs in 2012 is going to be depressing, unless Theo actually does something to improve the team. Based on last year's numbers this appears to be a lateral move. I guess I would have been more willing to bet that Z could bounce back, but that may be more based on the fact that he was one of my favorite players on the Cubs.

 

I think this is the wrong mindset. This is how it looks when a team has a bunch of bloated, underperforming contracts and needs to unload and rebuild from the ground up.

 

Yes, 2012 is going to suck. But it shouldn't be viewed as a single, crappy year. It should be viewed as the beginning of something that will grow into success.

 

If they were making more positive moves that were geared toward the future I would agree. But, Volstad is not a long term move. If he does turn out to be an above average pitcher he will get very expensive quickly. I guess what I would like to see more than anything is a move that actually makes the Cubs better in the future.

[SouthSideRyan]

How is 2012 going to be the beginning of something that will grow into success other than the fact that it will be the worst record for a while?

 

an actual vision for the future and not taking on more bad contracts.

 

let's be realistic, the cubs' core was lousy and the only way the cubs were going to be any good in 2012 was to make at least a couple of expensive free agent signings or trade the few good prospects we have for good major league players on other teams.

 

Doing literally nothing would also help us have a vision for the future and not take on more bad contracts.

[CUBZ99]

Z has had declining peripherals and velocity for years now. He hasn't pitched 200 IP since 2007 (for a variety of reasons, but injury is definitely one of them). He has stubbornly refused to modify his mix of pitches to ones that are more effective.

 

He certainly could bounce back in 2012. Best case scenario, though, is that he pitches better and is traded at the deadline. But even then he'd only have similar value to what he has now due to the decreased time of control and the new CBA.

 

Volstad isn't great, but there are reasons to hope that a change of scenery and a new pitching coach may help him. IMO, there's a significantly better chance of Volstad having a jump in performance than Z for 2012. If he does, he'd certainly have more value at the deadline for trades than Carlos.

 

All in all, this is about what we could have expected for Z. I'm sad to see him go as I've been a fan for a long time, but I'm not upset with the trade.

 

I think you may be on to something in regard to their intentions with Volstad. There is no way that they view him as a long term solution, so maybe they think that if they catch lightning in bottle and he tears it up for half a season, he will be a valuable trading chip at the deadline. Less baggage and much cheaper.

[toonsterwu]

At this point Im really wondering why in he hell Dejusus was signed? Obious they are in ful rebuild mode so why sign an over 30 RF'er to a multi million contact? Just plug in a minor leaguer and save that money too.

 

plug in ... who? DeJesus also gives us a top of the order option, allowing us to shift Starlin away from that role.

[Andy]

I'm certain I'm underrating the 'clubhouse cancer' dynamic, but dumping Zambrano and paying almost his entire contract for a nonentity like Volstad doesn't strike me as economically smart no matter how much of an idiot Zambrano is.

[Soul]

How is 2012 going to be the beginning of something that will grow into success other than the fact that it will be the worst record for a while?

 

an actual vision for the future and not taking on more bad contracts.

 

let's be realistic, the cubs' core was lousy and the only way the cubs were going to be any good in 2012 was to make at least a couple of expensive free agent signings or trade the few good prospects we have for good major league players on other teams.

 

Doing literally nothing would also help us have a vision for the future and not take on more bad contracts.

 

What do you mean? That would just run out contracts with absolutely nothing in return.

[Guest]

I'm certain I'm underrating the 'clubhouse cancer' dynamic, but dumping Zambrano and paying almost his entire contract for a nonentity like Volstad doesn't strike me as economically smart no matter how much of an idiot Zambrano is.

- Zambrano's contract is a sunk cost, money didn't matter

- Z is pretty much a non-entity at this point in his career

- We got a non-entity in return who has a better chance of being valuable for the Cubs in 2012 and beyond

- our new non-entity also has a better chance of being valued at the deadline

[toonsterwu]

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?"

 

No, I think the main arguments are (in order, a and b are interchangeable though) -

 

a) We don't lose much in the rotation from Z to Volstad. I'm reading through this thread, and I must not be seeing the same Z the last two years that some others are seeing. The Z I saw the last two years was, at best, a passable "3", but more of a "4/5". His fastball velocity was on a steady decline.

 

b) Volstad is a young, lefty arm who velo is still there (this isn't say, a Brian Matusz case where there was a drop in velocity). He didn't struggle as badly with HR's in the minors and in 2010, but did in 2009/2011. It feels like he could correct it.

 

c) We remove a headache.

 

d) Last, but not least, we get something for Z, rather than take the risk into the year.

 

I'm finding it hard to see why everyone is claiming that Volstad is "nothing". He's a solid end of the rotation lefty with the potential to be more. He has above average velo for a lefty, and he's still young enough, barely in his prime years, to develop a bit more.

 

Is this a great return? Of course not. But for Z? Hard to expect a great return.

[Little Slide Rooter]

How is 2012 going to be the beginning of something that will grow into success other than the fact that it will be the worst record for a while?

 

an actual vision for the future and not taking on more bad contracts.

 

let's be realistic, the cubs' core was lousy and the only way the cubs were going to be any good in 2012 was to make at least a couple of expensive free agent signings or trade the few good prospects we have for good major league players on other teams.

 

Making the 2012 Cubs winners would have taken Fielder or Pujols, Ramirez and 1 of Wilson or Darvish which would have costed over 50 mil assuming 22-26 mil for Fielder or Pujols, 12 mil for Ramirez, and 16-18 mil for Darvish or Wilson. Also, add in the 4.5 for DeJesus which would be a great addition if we went that direction. Doable considering however much money came off the books from Fukudome(11) Pena(5) Bradley/Silva(?) and Grabow(4.5) and we could have backloaded a bit due to even more coming off the books after 2012 in Z, Demp, and Byrd. None of this mortgages the future. Now in this world, the Z trade would have been more palatable and a rotation of Darvish/Wilson, Garza, Demp, Wood(assuming that trade went down), and Volstad doesn't look half bad. There'd also be room to trade Byrd or Soriano for prospects or cash. Assuming the Stewart trade went down and he could play 2nd, the lineup could be DeJesus, Castro, Ramirez, Fielder, Byrd/Sori, Stewart, Soto, Jackson. Doesn't look bad to me. Bullpen solid with Marmol, Wood, Cashner, Shark, Russell, Carpenter, and Beliveau. Would have been expensive but good and we wouldn't have had to give up any prospects to get there. What would it look like 4 years from now? Who knows but that's where the front office dream team comes in.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Little Slide Rooter

[toonsterwu]

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.

 

Honestly, my hunch is that he's around, they try to see if he rebounds and then ship him off at midseason if he does. If not, it's not that much money for them. I can see a rotation of Garza/Dempster/Volstad/Wells/Wood (if we keep Garza).

[XZero771679666304]

I'm certain I'm underrating the 'clubhouse cancer' dynamic, but dumping Zambrano and paying almost his entire contract for a nonentity like Volstad doesn't strike me as economically smart no matter how much of an idiot Zambrano is.

 

And keeping him for that run to 75 wins makes sense? Or keeping him until the deadline to get the same return (assuming he pitches well, which is at best 50/50) for two months of him and no draft pick?

 

I think some people had some serious misconceptions about what the best case scenario for a Z trade was, because this was pretty close. I knew this was gonna be a rough ride when the news first broke and people started tossing LoMo's name out there.

[Andy]

I'm certain I'm underrating the 'clubhouse cancer' dynamic, but dumping Zambrano and paying almost his entire contract for a nonentity like Volstad doesn't strike me as economically smart no matter how much of an idiot Zambrano is.

- Zambrano's contract is a sunk cost, money didn't matter

- Z is pretty much a non-entity at this point in his career

- We got a non-entity in return who has a better chance of being valuable for the Cubs in 2012 and beyond

- our new non-entity also has a better chance of being valued at the deadline

Fair points. I'm fairly meh on this trade, I just hate to see Z's Cubs career end like this. Before he stopped being just a knucklehead and started being a flat-out idiot, he was my favorite Cub. Here's hoping for a randomly awesome year out of Volstad.

[toonsterwu]

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.

 

If I had to guess, I'd guess it's more ego and a belief that they can build an organization in the right way, and fairly quick at that too. I don't think Theo comes here unless he gets some assurances that the Cubs can spend enough (perhaps not at the rate before, but enough), and I don't think Ricketts is going to be all that pleased with a 3-5 year rebuild job.

[WilcoFan]

How is 2012 going to be the beginning of something that will grow into success other than the fact that it will be the worst record for a while?

 

an actual vision for the future and not taking on more bad contracts.

 

let's be realistic, the cubs' core was lousy and the only way the cubs were going to be any good in 2012 was to make at least a couple of expensive free agent signings or trade the few good prospects we have for good major league players on other teams.

 

Making the 2012 Cubs winners would have taken Fielder or Pujols, Ramirez and 1 of Wilson or Darvish which would have costed over 50 mil assuming 22-26 mil for Fielder or Pujols, 12 mil for Ramirez, and 16-18 mil for Darvish or Wilson. Also, add in the 4.5 for DeJesus which would be a great addition if we went that direction. Doable considering however much money came off the books from Fukudome(11) Pena(5) Bradley/Silva(?) and Grabow(4.5) and we could have backloaded a bit due to even more coming off the books after 2012 in Z, Demp, and Byrd. None of this mortgages the future. Now in this world, the Z trade would have been more palatable and a rotation of Darvish/Wilson, Garza, Demp, Wood(assuming that trade went down), and Volstad doesn't look half bad. There'd also be room to trade Byrd or Soriano for prospects or cash. Assuming the Stewart trade went down and he could play 2nd, the lineup could be DeJesus, Castro, Ramirez, Fielder, Byrd/Sori, Stewart, Soto, Jackson. Doesn't look bad to me. Bullpen solid with Marmol, Wood, Cashner, Shark, Russell, Carpenter, and Beliveau. Would have been expensive but good and we wouldn't have had to give up any prospects to get there. What would it look like 4 years from now? Who knows but that's where the front office dream team comes in.

 

You need to prorate the posting fee on Darvish, which was 51 , plus the salary (according to BP, around 5/$75), which would put you at $25 mil for Darvish. Wilson turned down $100 mil from the marlins so it would have probably taken at least 20 for him. You're talking an outlay of $65-70 for a team that might contend his year, but still has major holes in the rotation (especially if Wilson or Darvish are no better than a 3, which many believe).

[toonsterwu]

some decent but not top prospects

 

the next time you find yourself typing the phrase "some decent prospects" or "a few prospects," try listing some names. proposals like "throw in a few prospects and get logan morrison back" are pointless.

 

I dont know the Marlins farm system but is Matt Dominguez + some equivalent of Dae Eun Rhee or Aaron Kurcz more to your liking? As for us, I'd have been willin to send Zambrano his entire salary, Szczur, and McNutt for Morrison and if they truely were trying to move LoMo for personal reasons, that would have been a sufficient package. If they wanted to throw in Volstad, that would be fine by me.

 

Honestly, I doubt Z, Szczur, McNutt would get them to budge on Morrison. Nothing to base it on, just hypothetical, but both those guys, much as I've defended McNutt, have big question marks in the upcoming season.

[bukie]

The only thing I really don't like about the trade is Kaplan's resulting smugness about it.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

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?"

 

No, I think the main arguments are (in order, a and b are interchangeable though) -

 

a) We don't lose much in the rotation from Z to Volstad. I'm reading through this thread, and I must not be seeing the same Z the last two years that some others are seeing. The Z I saw the last two years was, at best, a passable "3", but more of a "4/5". His fastball velocity was on a steady decline.

 

b) Volstad is a young, lefty arm who velo is still there (this isn't say, a Brian Matusz case where there was a drop in velocity). He didn't struggle as badly with HR's in the minors and in 2010, but did in 2009/2011. It feels like he could correct it.

 

c) We remove a headache.

 

d) Last, but not least, we get something for Z, rather than take the risk into the year.

 

I'm finding it hard to see why everyone is claiming that Volstad is "nothing". He's a solid end of the rotation lefty with the potential to be more. He has above average velo for a lefty, and he's still young enough, barely in his prime years, to develop a bit more.

 

Is this a great return? Of course not. But for Z? Hard to expect a great return.

 

Volstad is a right-hander.

 

And I would rather have him than Z.

[KingCubsFan]

Z has had declining peripherals and velocity for years now. He hasn't pitched 200 IP since 2007 (for a variety of reasons, but injury is definitely one of them). He has stubbornly refused to modify his mix of pitches to ones that are more effective.

 

He certainly could bounce back in 2012. Best case scenario, though, is that he pitches better and is traded at the deadline. But even then he'd only have similar value to what he has now due to the decreased time of control and the new CBA.

 

Volstad isn't great, but there are reasons to hope that a change of scenery and a new pitching coach may help him. IMO, there's a significantly better chance of Volstad having a jump in performance than Z for 2012. If he does, he'd certainly have more value at the deadline for trades than Carlos.

 

All in all, this is about what we could have expected for Z. I'm sad to see him go as I've been a fan for a long time, but I'm not upset with the trade.

 

I think you may be on to something in regard to their intentions with Volstad. There is no way that they view him as a long term solution, so maybe they think that if they catch lightning in bottle and he tears it up for half a season, he will be a valuable trading chip at the deadline. Less baggage and much cheaper.

Not necessarily. He's been healthy his whole career (which Epstein has indicated he values), and is a groundball pitcher who would seem to benefit from improved defense behind him/Wrigley Field. By GB%, he's right by Cole Hamels, Ivan Nova, Jaime Garcia and Ricky Romero.

[erik316wttn]

The only thing I really don't like about the trade is Kaplan's resulting smugness about it.

 

Now that Aramis and Z are gone, the only other lazy player on the team is Soriano.

[scarey]

Wasn't Volstad a potential non-tender candidate? I don't think the move is terrible, but watching the Cubs in 2012 is going to be depressing, unless Theo actually does something to improve the team. Based on last year's numbers this appears to be a lateral move. I guess I would have been more willing to bet that Z could bounce back, but that may be more based on the fact that he was one of my favorite players on the Cubs.

 

I think this is the wrong mindset. This is how it looks when a team has a bunch of bloated, underperforming contracts and needs to unload and rebuild from the ground up.

 

Yes, 2012 is going to suck. But it shouldn't be viewed as a single, crappy year. It should be viewed as the beginning of something that will grow into success.

 

If they were making more positive moves that were geared toward the future I would agree. But, Volstad is not a long term move. If he does turn out to be an above average pitcher he will get very expensive quickly. I guess what I would like to see more than anything is a move that actually makes the Cubs better in the future.

 

Just because Volstad will be eligible for free agency relatively soon, does not mean he can't be a long term move. While acquiring cost controlled talent is a goal for this regime, part of the equation is also acquiring young talent. The guy is 25. He's a high risk high reward type. If the high reward comes around, I don't think the Cubs should have any problem ponying up the money to keep his services.

[treebird]

The only thing I really don't like about the trade is Kaplan's resulting smugness about it.

 

why shouldn't he be smug? he was completely right all along. the cubs absolutely positively couldn't bring zambrano back. he knows a lot more about this team than i do.

[Castro13]

At this point Im really wondering why in he hell Dejusus was signed? Obious they are in ful rebuild mode so why sign an over 30 RF'er to a multi million contact? Just plug in a minor leaguer and save that money too.

 

plug in ... who? DeJesus also gives us a top of the order option, allowing us to shift Starlin away from that role.

 

Does it matter who they plug in at this point? Lehair Montanez Snyder....Move Byrd to right and put BJax in CF....if you are in total rebuild mode then plug anyone in and save the money spent on Dejusus.

[UMFan83]

How is 2012 going to be the beginning of something that will grow into success other than the fact that it will be the worst record for a while?

 

an actual vision for the future and not taking on more bad contracts.

 

let's be realistic, the cubs' core was lousy and the only way the cubs were going to be any good in 2012 was to make at least a couple of expensive free agent signings or trade the few good prospects we have for good major league players on other teams.

 

 

If they weren't going to go after high priced long term FAs, to me the next best thing would have been to sign some veterans on 1-2 year deals to fill the holes. It has a duel purpose, it at least somewhat gives the fans the impression that they are not punting this year, and who knows, maybe its the right combo and we catch lightning in a bottle. Not likely but crazier things have happened. The other purpose of doing this, and this is the key, is that if it doesn't work out, which it likely won't, you have the ability to trade away these guys at the trading deadline to get more minor league prospects - the stated goal of the organization.

 

It seems like trading away a decent veteran player at the deadline typically yields a larger return than in the offseason, as teams are trying to fill holes to keep their teams in contention. It doesn't really hurt the Cubs long term strategy this year because there really isn't anyone thats ready to fill most of the positions where we have a hole. Also, we clearly have space in the payroll to afford a couple of guys at 1 year/$8mil or something like that.

 

I dunno, it seemed like a no brainer to me, but I'm not as smart as Theo so maybe his strategy is better. To me it seems like a decent way to use resources to get more talent. As it stands right now, it doesn't seem like we are even close to spending the supposed $200 mil budget that many reported, unless that budget is going to fixing Wrigley Field.

Edited January 5, 2012 by UMFan83

[toonsterwu]

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?"

 

No, I think the main arguments are (in order, a and b are interchangeable though) -

 

a) We don't lose much in the rotation from Z to Volstad. I'm reading through this thread, and I must not be seeing the same Z the last two years that some others are seeing. The Z I saw the last two years was, at best, a passable "3", but more of a "4/5". His fastball velocity was on a steady decline.

 

b) Volstad is a young, lefty arm who velo is still there (this isn't say, a Brian Matusz case where there was a drop in velocity). He didn't struggle as badly with HR's in the minors and in 2010, but did in 2009/2011. It feels like he could correct it.

 

c) We remove a headache.

 

d) Last, but not least, we get something for Z, rather than take the risk into the year.

 

I'm finding it hard to see why everyone is claiming that Volstad is "nothing". He's a solid end of the rotation lefty with the potential to be more. He has above average velo for a lefty, and he's still young enough, barely in his prime years, to develop a bit more.

 

Is this a great return? Of course not. But for Z? Hard to expect a great return.

 

Volstad is a right-hander.

 

And I would rather have him than Z.

 

yeah, i don't know why i kept on thinking left-hander earlier.

[toonsterwu]

At this point Im really wondering why in he hell Dejusus was signed? Obious they are in ful rebuild mode so why sign an over 30 RF'er to a multi million contact? Just plug in a minor leaguer and save that money too.

 

plug in ... who? DeJesus also gives us a top of the order option, allowing us to shift Starlin away from that role.

 

Does it matter who they plug in at this point? Lehair Montanez Snyder....Move Byrd to right and put BJax in CF....if you are in total rebuild mode then plug anyone in and save the money spent on Dejusus.

 

off the top, both Montanez and Snyder are out of the organization. Matt Spencer moved to pitcher. Bobby Scales ... well, i think he's around. It feels like they don't want to rush BJax.

 

All in all, it's a signing that doesn't hurt the club's long term prognosis in any way. If someone better emerges, he becomes a nice 4th OF. If not, he's a passable starter for a year or two.