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

[davearm2]

It just seems needlessly risky to wait for Zambrano to build his value up by the trading deadline.

 

How is that risky? What are you risking?

Because it's very possible you get nothing but a headache from him. Volstad isn't great, but at least he has the potential to be something.

 

Volstad is a serious non-tender candidate.

Most people are all in favor of "buying low" on young players just like Volstad.

 

Except when the team actually does it, you get posts like this.

[davearm2]

It just seems needlessly risky to wait for Zambrano to build his value up by the trading deadline.

 

How is that risky? What are you risking?

A young starting pitcher with some upside and 3 years of team control, apparently.

 

1 year (at market value) of team control that matters.

Wrong.

 

The Cubs could trade Volstad this July, next winter, or next July. He will have more than one year of team control remaining at each of those points.

 

And the "market value" you mentioned is that of the arbitration market, not the free agent market.

[Sammy Sofa]

It just seems needlessly risky to wait for Zambrano to build his value up by the trading deadline.

 

How is that risky? What are you risking?

Because it's very possible you get nothing but a headache from him. Volstad isn't great, but at least he has the potential to be something.

 

Volstad is a serious non-tender candidate.

Most people are all in favor of "buying low" on young players just like Volstad.

 

Except when the team actually does it, you get posts like this.

 

You get posts like this when the player is a non-tender candidate. And they didn't "buy low."

[Sammy Sofa]

It just seems needlessly risky to wait for Zambrano to build his value up by the trading deadline.

 

How is that risky? What are you risking?

A young starting pitcher with some upside and 3 years of team control, apparently.

 

1 year (at market value) of team control that matters.

Wrong.

 

The Cubs could trade Volstad this July, next winter, or next July. He will have more than one year of team control remaining at each of those points.

 

And the "market value" you mentioned is that of the arbitration market, not the free agent market.

 

He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of.

 

There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is.

[SouthSideRyan]

And the "market value" you mentioned is that of the arbitration market, not the free agent market.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/all-about-arbitration/

 

As a result, there is a "natural" progression of a player's salary in his career. For his first two or three years, he receives the major league minimum ($316,000 in 2005). He then goes through the arbitration process for three or four years (even if he doesn't go through the process, his salary will be heavily influenced by arbitration). During those years, his salary rises from the minimum to the level of a free agent in his final arbitration year. After that, his salary is subject to the free agent market.

 

Fair point on Volstad possibly returning something decent if he manages a good half season.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is.

 

Wow, somehow you think Stewart is the better buy low candidate?

 

Volstad has peripherals that say he could have turned the corner. Stewart's peripherals say he's completely toast.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is.

 

Wow, somehow you think Stewart is the better buy low candidate?

 

Volstad has peripherals that say he could have turned the corner. Stewart's peripherals say he's completely toast.

 

I think Stewart is the better buy low candidate in terms of how stale bread is better than moldy bread. They're both are pretty awful and are probably just going to get worse.

[CubColtPacer]

Wrong.

 

The Cubs could trade Volstad this July, next winter, or next July. He will have more than one year of team control remaining at each of those points.

 

And the "market value" you mentioned is that of the arbitration market, not the free agent market.

 

He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of.

 

There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is.

 

Volstad is not a long shot to turn into something decent. His K/BB ratio is already there. Now he just needs to either have some improvement in his HR rate (which was not a problem for him in the minors) or figure out why he strands so few runners. There's a reason that a couple sites have already mentioned him as a potential breakout candidate. Does he have elite potential? No. But he has a pretty decent shot of becoming average to above average.

[davearm2]

Volstad is a serious non-tender candidate.

Most people are all in favor of "buying low" on young players just like Volstad.

 

Except when the team actually does it, you get posts like this.

 

You get posts like this when the player is a non-tender candidate. And they didn't "buy low."

All buy-low players in this service time category are non-tender candidates.

 

But let's go ahead and play this out. Imagine the Cubs non-tender Volstad in November. What has been lost in that scenario?

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't really care if I'm wrong with something like this because then it means he doesn't suck. But he'll probably suck.

[Sammy Sofa]

Volstad is a serious non-tender candidate.

Most people are all in favor of "buying low" on young players just like Volstad.

 

Except when the team actually does it, you get posts like this.

 

You get posts like this when the player is a non-tender candidate. And they didn't "buy low."

All buy-low players in this service time category are non-tender candidates.

 

But let's go ahead and play this out. Imagine the Cubs non-tender Volstad in November. What has been lost in that scenario?

 

Nothing. I never said they shouldn't have traded Zambrano for him.

[davearm2]

Wrong.

 

The Cubs could trade Volstad this July, next winter, or next July. He will have more than one year of team control remaining at each of those points.

 

And the "market value" you mentioned is that of the arbitration market, not the free agent market.

 

He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of.

 

There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is.

We probably need to agree to disagree on Volstad. As others have mentioned, his peripherals provide reason to be cautiously optimistic, plus he's still young and presumably improving.

 

And his "really bad" numbers haven't been much different than Zambrano's. Given the totality of circumstances, this is a really good resolution for the Cubs, IMO.

[Sammy Sofa]

"Cautiously optimistic" is just the diplomatic way of saying what I'm saying. We pretty much have the same conclusion on this; I'm just more caustic about it.

[cubsfan26]

40 plus million came off the books this year. So far we have acquired a Mc Donalds, Theo, and a handful of change of scenery guys. So in the mean time why the heck arent the cubs spending money?

 

 

That's why us fans should be patient and see what the team looks like in spring training. Remember we still have a good amount of money to spend and there's still plenty of good free agents on the market. Personally I would be shocked if this team payroll is below 120-125 million come opening day and still think they will be competitive next season. According to the media this team is rebuilding and next season doesn't matter, but I don't believe that. Are they retooling with a long term version towards the future? Yes and they are willing to trade assets for a high price. But none of the moves they made so far has thrown away next season either. They signed DeJesus which helps next years team, they traded Marshall but got a SP back to pitch in the majors next year. Losing Marshall hurts the pen, but you will like have Cashner there this season and have other good young relievers to fill in. They traded Colvin/LeMahieu but got Ian Stewart to be their third baseman next season. Now they swapped Zambrano who pitched like a back end starter last year and got a back end starter in return to replace him. Both have upside to pitch better due to Zambrano past history and Volstad talent/upside/age.

 

 

So is the team better? Well you can make a case that the defense has improved with DeJesus and Stewart. You can make a case that the rotation is younger/deeper then last season. While the bullpen might not be as good. It can still be pretty good with Cashner likely taking Marshall spot and Wood to still resign. DeJesus is a upgrade in RF offensivly and you can make a case Stewart could come close to matching Carlos Pena offensive production from last year. Yes so far we added nobody who could replace Ramirez bat yet. But we also don't know yet who is playing first next season yet either. Or if they are going to get rid of Soriano and replace him with a better bat(you gotta hope Soto hits better next season as well). My point is this team hasn't done anything yet to make me think they will suck way worse then 2010-2011 and I think they could even be better. Is better enough to be a playoff team?

 

 

 

Probably not unless things really go there way. But I don't see any of this throwing away next year yet, especially when they have money to spend and good free agents still available. Of course we could trade Garza, Soto, Byrd and Marmol and that could all change. But right now that's all media hype and rumors. Plus who says they don't get a young front in starter ready to take over for Garza back in the deal if that does happen? Or don't go out and sign a SP to replace Garza. My point is this off season is still incomplete, they can still go in the direction of adding players to make them better and have the money to do so. I'm sure they will still consider selling off assets for high return. But I believe Theo when he says they aren't going to just punt away next season either. So far none of these off season moves would suggest that (most of players added help next season and beyond) and there still in the position to sign and trade for players who improve the major league team next year.

 

You have to be the most optimistic poster here or you're totally delusional. I'm betting on delusional.

 

That would probably be a bad bet. But it doesn't surprise me to see the veteran posters here at NSBB react the way they do. I been reading this board for a while and I guess some things never change. Like the negativity, overvalue of some players and the flipping out/overreaction of some roster moves. I can't even count some of the quality moves the Cubs made over the years, that the GM's around here flipped out over at first. That said this board does have some good discussions and some smart posters, if you can ignore all the other stuff. All I'm saying is I don't believe Theo/Hoyer are done adding players this off season and the team will be competitive in 2012. I don't think they are in a full rebuild especially when Kaplan and other media people with no inside knowledge are the ones reporting this stuff. I don't think Kaplan understands that you can make any player available for the right price doesn't mean you are going to trade them all and start over.

 

 

How many times has Theo said they weren't going to punt away the season next year? So they will try to make team competitive and give them a chance to win if a lot goes there way. I guess to a lot of people around here competitive and bad are the same thing. Too me competitive means there's a chance of being good if a few things go your way. Bad is no chance, even if a handful things go your way. Anyways keep in mind that Theo said that the team was in the position to wait out the market this year. There isn't that one player to put them over the top, so they aren't going to go hard after any one player or overpay for anyone. But with potentially 30 million dollars still to spend if they choose too and a lot of good free agents still on the market. I'm confident that they will end up with some players over the next month when the price tags start to go down. I could only imagine how different the tone would be towards next year a month from now. If say the Cubs signed Fielder and Kuroda(1 year deal), traded Soriano while replacing him with Luke Scott(1 year deal) and kept Garza. I'm not crazy and know that's all a long shot to happen. But I think a lot of fans would pull a 180 on their feelings on next years team if that did happen.

[SouthSideRyan]

How long does a guy have to put out numbers far worse than his xFIP before we can say it's meaningful? People seem to agree that Z had the ability to outperform his, and that Glendon Rusch wouldn't come close to his, at what point would you say we can say that about somebody? I don't think 3 seasons from Volstad is enough, but I find it simplistic to just say look at the peripherals and say he's primed to do better.

[bukie]

Rob Neyer weighs in on Sir Christopher of Volstad, Archduke of xFIP.

[pccubfan]

Wrong.

 

The Cubs could trade Volstad this July, next winter, or next July. He will have more than one year of team control remaining at each of those points.

 

And the "market value" you mentioned is that of the arbitration market, not the free agent market.

 

He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of.

 

There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is.

We probably need to agree to disagree on Volstad. As others have mentioned, his peripherals provide reason to be cautiously optimistic, plus he's still young and presumably improving.

 

And his "really bad" numbers haven't been much different than Zambrano's. Given the totality of circumstances, this is a really good resolution for the Cubs, IMO.

 

I don't have a problem with this trade. It is what it is but you are trying to make it out as the Cubs are a clear winner here. Under what definition have Volstad's numbers been not much different than Zambrano's? If you're looking at 2011, then sure, but that is a case of trying to make the numbers fit your side of the argument. To expect Volstad to outperform Zambrano in 2012 is being optimistic. It is much more likely that he will match Zambrano's numbers or slightly underperform them.

[Sammy Sofa]

40 plus million came off the books this year. So far we have acquired a Mc Donalds, Theo, and a handful of change of scenery guys. So in the mean time why the heck arent the cubs spending money?

 

 

That's why us fans should be patient and see what the team looks like in spring training. Remember we still have a good amount of money to spend and there's still plenty of good free agents on the market. Personally I would be shocked if this team payroll is below 120-125 million come opening day and still think they will be competitive next season. According to the media this team is rebuilding and next season doesn't matter, but I don't believe that. Are they retooling with a long term version towards the future? Yes and they are willing to trade assets for a high price. But none of the moves they made so far has thrown away next season either. They signed DeJesus which helps next years team, they traded Marshall but got a SP back to pitch in the majors next year. Losing Marshall hurts the pen, but you will like have Cashner there this season and have other good young relievers to fill in. They traded Colvin/LeMahieu but got Ian Stewart to be their third baseman next season. Now they swapped Zambrano who pitched like a back end starter last year and got a back end starter in return to replace him. Both have upside to pitch better due to Zambrano past history and Volstad talent/upside/age.

 

 

So is the team better? Well you can make a case that the defense has improved with DeJesus and Stewart. You can make a case that the rotation is younger/deeper then last season. While the bullpen might not be as good. It can still be pretty good with Cashner likely taking Marshall spot and Wood to still resign. DeJesus is a upgrade in RF offensivly and you can make a case Stewart could come close to matching Carlos Pena offensive production from last year. Yes so far we added nobody who could replace Ramirez bat yet. But we also don't know yet who is playing first next season yet either. Or if they are going to get rid of Soriano and replace him with a better bat(you gotta hope Soto hits better next season as well). My point is this team hasn't done anything yet to make me think they will suck way worse then 2010-2011 and I think they could even be better. Is better enough to be a playoff team?

 

 

 

Probably not unless things really go there way. But I don't see any of this throwing away next year yet, especially when they have money to spend and good free agents still available. Of course we could trade Garza, Soto, Byrd and Marmol and that could all change. But right now that's all media hype and rumors. Plus who says they don't get a young front in starter ready to take over for Garza back in the deal if that does happen? Or don't go out and sign a SP to replace Garza. My point is this off season is still incomplete, they can still go in the direction of adding players to make them better and have the money to do so. I'm sure they will still consider selling off assets for high return. But I believe Theo when he says they aren't going to just punt away next season either. So far none of these off season moves would suggest that (most of players added help next season and beyond) and there still in the position to sign and trade for players who improve the major league team next year.

 

You have to be the most optimistic poster here or you're totally delusional. I'm betting on delusional.

 

That would probably be a bad bet. But it doesn't surprise me to see the veteran posters here at NSBB react the way they do. I been reading this board for a while and I guess some things never change. Like the negativity, overvalue of some players and the flipping out/overreaction of some roster moves. I can't even count some of the quality moves the Cubs made over the years, that the GM's around here flipped out over at first. That said this board does have some good discussions and some smart posters, if you can ignore all the other stuff. All I'm saying is I don't believe Theo/Hoyer are done adding players this off season and the team will be competitive in 2012. I don't think they are in a full rebuild especially when Kaplan and other media people with no inside knowledge are the ones reporting this stuff. I don't think Kaplan understands that you can make any player available for the right price doesn't mean you are going to trade them all and start over.

 

 

How many times has Theo said they weren't going to punt away the season next year? So they will try to make team competitive and give them a chance to win if a lot goes there way. I guess to a lot of people around here competitive and bad are the same thing. Too me competitive means there's a chance of being good if a few things go your way. Bad is no chance, even if a handful things go your way. Anyways keep in mind that Theo said that the team was in the position to wait out the market this year. There isn't that one player to put them over the top, so they aren't going to go hard after any one player or overpay for anyone. But with potentially 30 million dollars still to spend if they choose too and a lot of good free agents still on the market. I'm confident that they will end up with some players over the next month when the price tags start to go down. I could only imagine how different the tone would be towards next year a month from now. If say the Cubs signed Fielder and Kuroda(1 year deal), traded Soriano while replacing him with Luke Scott(1 year deal) and kept Garza. I'm not crazy and know that's all a long shot to happen. But I think a lot of fans would pull a 180 on their feelings on next years team if that did happen.

 

I like the cut of your jib.

[davearm2]

Wrong.

 

The Cubs could trade Volstad this July, next winter, or next July. He will have more than one year of team control remaining at each of those points.

 

And the "market value" you mentioned is that of the arbitration market, not the free agent market.

 

He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of.

 

There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is.

We probably need to agree to disagree on Volstad. As others have mentioned, his peripherals provide reason to be cautiously optimistic, plus he's still young and presumably improving.

 

And his "really bad" numbers haven't been much different than Zambrano's. Given the totality of circumstances, this is a really good resolution for the Cubs, IMO.

 

I don't have a problem with this trade. It is what it is but you are trying to make it out as the Cubs are a clear winner here. Under what definition have Volstad's numbers been not much different than Zambrano's? If you're looking at 2011, then sure, but that is a case of trying to make the numbers fit your side of the argument. To expect Volstad to outperform Zambrano in 2012 is being optimistic. It is much more likely that he will match Zambrano's numbers or slightly underperform them.

The comparison to Zambrano was made in the fangraphs article.

 

And if Volstad matches Zambrano's numbers or slightly underperforms them (with the chance of outperforming them), then how do the Cubs not come out the clear winner? Volstad is younger, (presumably) improving, and has two additional years of team control. If 2012 winds up being a wash, then the Cubs have done great here.

[jersey cubs fan]

How many times has Theo said they weren't going to punt away the season next year? So they will try to make team competitive and give them a chance to win if a lot goes there way. I guess to a lot of people around here competitive and bad are the same thing.

 

When are they going to start trying?

[jersey cubs fan]

it kind of feels like they got rid of zambrano to appease casual fans who were wondering why we aren't getting anybody this offseason.

 

It's like the reverse pre-convention and ticket sale situation. They used to try and build hype in advance of those things, but instead of acquiring anybody to build that hype, they are getting rid of the ones who are most hated.

[treebird]

i like how we only hear about fip when discussing travis wood and only hear about xfip when discussing chris volstad.

[Post Count Padder]

I'm meh on this trade. Volstad was at one point a top draft pick and decent prospect. He's still fairly young so maybe he just hasn't broken out yet.

 

Also, weren't there rumblings that Matt Dominguez was being included in the trade too or did that not pan out?

[bukie]

i like how we only hear about fip when discussing travis wood and only hear about xfip when discussing chris volstad.

You can use either for either, a similar point applies either way. The biggest difference between FIP and xFIP is normalization of HRs/FB. For Wood, he was better than average at limiting HRs and Volstad was worse than average, which is a little odd considering where each played the majority of their games.

[pccubfan]

Wrong.

 

The Cubs could trade Volstad this July, next winter, or next July. He will have more than one year of team control remaining at each of those points.

 

And the "market value" you mentioned is that of the arbitration market, not the free agent market.

 

He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of.

 

There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is.

We probably need to agree to disagree on Volstad. As others have mentioned, his peripherals provide reason to be cautiously optimistic, plus he's still young and presumably improving.

 

And his "really bad" numbers haven't been much different than Zambrano's. Given the totality of circumstances, this is a really good resolution for the Cubs, IMO.

 

I don't have a problem with this trade. It is what it is but you are trying to make it out as the Cubs are a clear winner here. Under what definition have Volstad's numbers been not much different than Zambrano's? If you're looking at 2011, then sure, but that is a case of trying to make the numbers fit your side of the argument. To expect Volstad to outperform Zambrano in 2012 is being optimistic. It is much more likely that he will match Zambrano's numbers or slightly underperform them.

The comparison to Zambrano was made in the fangraphs article.

 

And if Volstad matches Zambrano's numbers or slightly underperforms them (with the chance of outperforming them), then how do the Cubs not come out the clear winner? Volstad is younger, (presumably) improving, and has two additional years of team control. If 2012 winds up being a wash, then the Cubs have done great here.

 

Because if both Volstad and Zambrano are bad it doesn't make it good for the Cubs.