Zambrano, Ramirez, and LaHair

[Guest]

Zambrano's market value is probably about 8-10 million for one year. So if we're getting nothing in return, I'd be willing to eat (symmetrically enough) 8-10 million to get rid of him.

 

why?

 

Why to what, exactly?

 

Why would you pay $8-10m for him to go away with nothing in return?

 

 

Because you could theoretically (in his argument) replace him with the amount that you're saving.

[jersey cubs fan]

Because you could theoretically (in his argument) replace him with the amount that you're saving.

 

Regardless of the fact that you probably can't, it still doesn't make any sense to pay $8-10m for him to play somewhere else.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because you could theoretically (in his argument) replace him with the amount that you're saving.

 

Regardless of the fact that you probably can't, it still doesn't make any sense to pay $8-10m for him to play somewhere else.

 

If you could, then it would.

[Guest]

Because you could theoretically (in his argument) replace him with the amount that you're saving.

Regardless of the fact that you probably can't, it still doesn't make any sense to pay $8-10m for him to play somewhere else.

 

 

How is the bolded part irrelevant?

 

If you can replace him for the amount of money you're saving, then it's a cost-neutral move. If you can save a little more, it's a positive move.

[jersey cubs fan]

Because you could theoretically (in his argument) replace him with the amount that you're saving.

Regardless of the fact that you probably can't, it still doesn't make any sense to pay $8-10m for him to play somewhere else.

 

 

How is the bolded part irrelevant?

 

If you can replace him for the amount of money you're saving, then it's a cost-neutral move. If you can save a little more, it's a positive move.

 

Because you can get value for the guy.

[Guest]

 

Because you can get value for the guy.

 

Isn't there value in the cost savings?

[Guest]

8-10 seems a little low, to be honest

 

in the worst season of his career, factoring offense, he still amassed 1.9 WAR (worth $8.4M) in just 24 starts (145 IP)

 

Oh right, the offensive value. Make it 10-12 and 6-8 then, it's not an exact number I have a lot of conviction about. The point is that finding a starter to put up roughly a 2 WAR is not a terribly difficult thing to do. You can do it at market value(Maholm starts to make sense as an example here), or you can go after a Gorzelanny type to fill that spot. There might be a little less certainty, but that money could be the difference between having Fielder/Wilson/Ramirez or just Fielder/Ramirez or something like that. The budget is tight, and there's just not enough ceiling or certainty in Zambrano's performance to not try to free up some payroll by dealing him. The same applies to Soriano really, although his is more difficult because we're talking a longer term contract.

[Guest]

 

Because you can get value for the guy.

 

Isn't there value in the cost savings?

Who can replace Z production for $8-10 million? What team would be willing to take Z and pay him $8 million, while the Cubs are paying Z $10 million and paying the person whose taking Z's place $8 million? (the numbers may be slightly off, so focus on the argument.

 

It's a fly-by-night mortgage lender's level of risk with almost no reward.

[treebird]

i'm as big a zambrano defender as you will find, but, in addition to weighting zambrano's injury risk or whatever, you do need to account for the fact that there is a nonzero chance z will punch someone in the face again and miss time as a result. that impacts his value.

[Guest]

 

Because you can get value for the guy.

 

Isn't there value in the cost savings?

Who can replace Z production for $8-10 million? What team would be willing to take Z and pay him $8 million, while the Cubs are paying Z $10 million and paying the person whose taking Z's place $8 million? (the numbers may be slightly off, so focus on the argument.

 

It's a fly-by-night mortgage lender's level of risk with almost no reward.

 

 

The amount itself is irrelevant as to the reasoning behind it, which is what we were discussing at that point. We were assuming, for the purposes of the discussion, that TT's number was accurate.

 

Whether another team would do it or not is also irrelevant because it's a damn hypothetical.

[jersey cubs fan]

8-10 seems a little low, to be honest

 

in the worst season of his career, factoring offense, he still amassed 1.9 WAR (worth $8.4M) in just 24 starts (145 IP)

 

Oh right, the offensive value. Make it 10-12 and 6-8 then, it's not an exact number I have a lot of conviction about. The point is that finding a starter to put up roughly a 2 WAR is not a terribly difficult thing to do. You can do it at market value(Maholm starts to make sense as an example here), or you can go after a Gorzelanny type to fill that spot. There might be a little less certainty, but that money could be the difference between having Fielder/Wilson/Ramirez or just Fielder/Ramirez or something like that. The budget is tight, and there's just not enough ceiling or certainty in Zambrano's performance to not try to free up some payroll by dealing him. The same applies to Soriano really, although his is more difficult because we're talking a longer term contract.

 

You aren't freeing up payroll if you are paying Zambrano to play elsewhere, getting nothing in return and going back out onto the market to pay for potential replacement production and/or trading other assets to acquire the replacement.

[jersey cubs fan]

The amount itself is irrelevant as to the reasoning behind it,

 

The amount is extremely relevant because you are talking about getting nothing in return. If you only eat $2m to get rid of him, and get nothing in return, then there is cost savings. If you pay half his damn salary to not play for you and get nothing in return you are intentionally screwing yourself.

[Guest]

 

Because you can get value for the guy.

 

Isn't there value in the cost savings?

Who can replace Z production for $8-10 million? What team would be willing to take Z and pay him $8 million, while the Cubs are paying Z $10 million and paying the person whose taking Z's place $8 million? (the numbers may be slightly off, so focus on the argument.

 

It's a fly-by-night mortgage lender's level of risk with almost no reward.

 

 

The amount itself is irrelevant as to the reasoning behind it, which is what we were discussing at that point. We were assuming, for the purposes of the discussion, that TT's number was accurate.

 

Whether another team would do it or not is also irrelevant because it's a damn hypothetical.

Even in the hypothetical it's a risky proposition with little upside. Z is damaged goods, he's worth more to the Cubs as a Cub than he will be to another team. If the Cubs have to pay half his salary to play elsewhere they have to find somebody to replace his level of production for the other half just to break even. SP is the most expensive commodity in baseball. If you try to make up Z's production at another position by using the theoretical savings, you leave yourself with hoping to get something for close to nothing in the starting pitching department.

 

It's one of those things that sounds sophisticated, but it's not very smart.

[Guest]

8-10 seems a little low, to be honest

 

in the worst season of his career, factoring offense, he still amassed 1.9 WAR (worth $8.4M) in just 24 starts (145 IP)

 

Oh right, the offensive value. Make it 10-12 and 6-8 then, it's not an exact number I have a lot of conviction about. The point is that finding a starter to put up roughly a 2 WAR is not a terribly difficult thing to do. You can do it at market value(Maholm starts to make sense as an example here), or you can go after a Gorzelanny type to fill that spot. There might be a little less certainty, but that money could be the difference between having Fielder/Wilson/Ramirez or just Fielder/Ramirez or something like that. The budget is tight, and there's just not enough ceiling or certainty in Zambrano's performance to not try to free up some payroll by dealing him. The same applies to Soriano really, although his is more difficult because we're talking a longer term contract.

 

You aren't freeing up payroll if you are paying Zambrano to play elsewhere, getting nothing in return and going back out onto the market to pay for potential replacement production and/or trading other assets to acquire the replacement.

 

Yes, if you're forced to pay 9 million(or whatever the number is) of Z's money and then sign Maholm at 9 million per, then you're cost neutral. That's why I listed it as the high end of what I'd be willing to give up. And again, finding someone to replicate ~2 WAR can be done on the open market, but it's not so high a bar that it can't be filled by someone who comes much cheaper(and with less certainty than a Maholm or even Z). If you could swap Z for a Gorzelanny type in order to be able to afford the upgrade from Lemahieu to Ramirez, or the upgrade from Wells/Cashner to Wilson/CC, would you not make that swap?

[Guest]

The amount itself is irrelevant as to the reasoning behind it,

 

The amount is extremely relevant because you are talking about getting nothing in return. If you only eat $2m to get rid of him, and get nothing in return, then there is cost savings. If you pay half his damn salary to not play for you and get nothing in return you are intentionally screwing yourself.

 

I'm saying that for the purposes of the argument, we're assuming that the amount TT suggested was his true worth. Whatever "x" is doesn't matter in terms of explaining why, at a certain point, the cost savings reaches a point where it is worth giving him up for nothing.

[Guest]

Even in the hypothetical it's a risky proposition with little upside. Z is damaged goods, he's worth more to the Cubs as a Cub than he will be to another team. If the Cubs have to pay half his salary to play elsewhere they have to find somebody to replace his level of production for the other half just to break even. SP is the most expensive commodity in baseball. If you try to make up Z's production at another position by using the theoretical savings, you leave yourself with hoping to get something for close to nothing in the starting pitching department.

 

It's one of those things that sounds sophisticated, but it's not very smart.

 

I already noted earlier that there's probably value in the fact that you actually have him.

 

Either way, at some point, there is an amount of cost savings where you can easily replace Zambrano's likely production, whether that savings is $10M (leaving us on the hook for like 9) or whether the savings is $13M (and we're on the hook for 6).

[Clem Fandango]

Aramis Ramirez told Bruce Levine of ESPNChicago.com that he is open to returning to the Cubs now that Theo Epstein is in the fold.

Ramirez intends to exercise his right to become a free agent if the Cubs pick up his $16 million option, but it's certainly possible he could return on a multi-year deal. This pronouncement isn't really a big surprise, as an impending free agent would be silly to rule out any team.

[Guest]

Even in the hypothetical it's a risky proposition with little upside. Z is damaged goods, he's worth more to the Cubs as a Cub than he will be to another team. If the Cubs have to pay half his salary to play elsewhere they have to find somebody to replace his level of production for the other half just to break even. SP is the most expensive commodity in baseball. If you try to make up Z's production at another position by using the theoretical savings, you leave yourself with hoping to get something for close to nothing in the starting pitching department.

 

It's one of those things that sounds sophisticated, but it's not very smart.

 

I already noted earlier that there's probably value in the fact that you actually have him.

 

Either way, at some point, there is an amount of cost savings where you can easily replace Zambrano's likely production, whether that savings is $10M (leaving us on the hook for like 9) or whether the savings is $13M (and we're on the hook for 6).

Yes, hypothetically there is some point where the cost of trading Zi is more beneficial than the cost of keeping Z. If Theo can pull that off and make the team better at the same time they should build him a statue somewhere.

[BeerHere]

Aramis Ramirez told Bruce Levine of ESPNChicago.com that he is open to returning to the Cubs now that Theo Epstein is in the fold.

Ramirez intends to exercise his right to become a free agent if the Cubs pick up his $16 million option, but it's certainly possible he could return on a multi-year deal. This pronouncement isn't really a big surprise, as an impending free agent would be silly to rule out any team.

If the Cubs pick up his option and Ramirez declines, is there any draft compensation if he sings with another club? I realize that this is different than offering arbitration, but I honestly don't know. I would think that Ramirez would be a type A, right?

[Rob]

Aramis Ramirez told Bruce Levine of ESPNChicago.com that he is open to returning to the Cubs now that Theo Epstein is in the fold.

Ramirez intends to exercise his right to become a free agent if the Cubs pick up his $16 million option, but it's certainly possible he could return on a multi-year deal. This pronouncement isn't really a big surprise, as an impending free agent would be silly to rule out any team.

If the Cubs pick up his option and Ramirez declines, is there any draft compensation if he sings with another club? I realize that this is different than offering arbitration, but I honestly don't know. I would think that Ramirez would be a type A, right?

 

Even if Ramirez declines his option, the Cubs retain the right to offer him arbitration. That's where the draft pick compensation comes from, same as with any other departing FA.

 

And weirdly enough, last I saw Ramirez was projected to be a Type B... which speaks again to the whole "lumping 2B, 3B, and SS together" thing as far as determining status. Jeff Keppinger is a Type A, for heaven's sake.

[Clem Fandango]

Aramis Ramirez told Bruce Levine of ESPNChicago.com that he is open to returning to the Cubs now that Theo Epstein is in the fold.

Ramirez intends to exercise his right to become a free agent if the Cubs pick up his $16 million option, but it's certainly possible he could return on a multi-year deal. This pronouncement isn't really a big surprise, as an impending free agent would be silly to rule out any team.

If the Cubs pick up his option and Ramirez declines, is there any draft compensation if he sings with another club? I realize that this is different than offering arbitration, but I honestly don't know. I would think that Ramirez would be a type A, right?

 

Even if Ramirez declines his option, the Cubs retain the right to offer him arbitration. That's where the draft pick compensation comes from, same as with any other departing FA.

 

And weirdly enough, last I saw Ramirez was projected to be a Type B... which speaks again to the whole "lumping 2B, 3B, and SS together" thing as far as determining status. Jeff Keppinger is a Type A, for heaven's sake.

 

It really is a shitty system. It's embarrassing that Keppinger is a Type A, but it's equally troubling for Keppinger because it pretty much relegates him to being forced to accept whatever the Giants throw at him because no one else will go near him.

[Rob]

Aramis Ramirez told Bruce Levine of ESPNChicago.com that he is open to returning to the Cubs now that Theo Epstein is in the fold.

Ramirez intends to exercise his right to become a free agent if the Cubs pick up his $16 million option, but it's certainly possible he could return on a multi-year deal. This pronouncement isn't really a big surprise, as an impending free agent would be silly to rule out any team.

If the Cubs pick up his option and Ramirez declines, is there any draft compensation if he sings with another club? I realize that this is different than offering arbitration, but I honestly don't know. I would think that Ramirez would be a type A, right?

 

Even if Ramirez declines his option, the Cubs retain the right to offer him arbitration. That's where the draft pick compensation comes from, same as with any other departing FA.

 

And weirdly enough, last I saw Ramirez was projected to be a Type B... which speaks again to the whole "lumping 2B, 3B, and SS together" thing as far as determining status. Jeff Keppinger is a Type A, for heaven's sake.

 

It really is a [expletive] system. It's embarrassing that Keppinger is a Type A, but it's equally troubling for Keppinger because it pretty much relegates him to being forced to accept whatever the Giants throw at him because no one else will go near him.

 

Some players who might walk that boundary of type A compensation are starting to have clauses put in their contracts that would prevent the club from offering them arbitration. I seem to remember Orlando Cabrera doing that a few years back.

[BeerHere]

Aramis Ramirez told Bruce Levine of ESPNChicago.com that he is open to returning to the Cubs now that Theo Epstein is in the fold.

Ramirez intends to exercise his right to become a free agent if the Cubs pick up his $16 million option, but it's certainly possible he could return on a multi-year deal. This pronouncement isn't really a big surprise, as an impending free agent would be silly to rule out any team.

If the Cubs pick up his option and Ramirez declines, is there any draft compensation if he sings with another club? I realize that this is different than offering arbitration, but I honestly don't know. I would think that Ramirez would be a type A, right?

 

Even if Ramirez declines his option, the Cubs retain the right to offer him arbitration. That's where the draft pick compensation comes from, same as with any other departing FA.

 

And weirdly enough, last I saw Ramirez was projected to be a Type B... which speaks again to the whole "lumping 2B, 3B, and SS together" thing as far as determining status. Jeff Keppinger is a Type A, for heaven's sake.

It would seem to make sense that they will offer him arbitration then, right? If he declines they get an extra pick if he walks but they can still try to sign him.

[Clem Fandango]

Some players who might walk that boundary of type A compensation are starting to have clauses put in their contracts that would prevent the club from offering them arbitration. I seem to remember Orlando Cabrera doing that a few years back.

 

Yeah... and I doubt San Fran offers him arbitration. I don't think they're that cold blooded.

[Guest]

It would seem to make sense that they will offer him arbitration then, right? If he declines they get an extra pick if he walks but they can still try to sign him.

 

 

I don't think you'll be seeing this regime decline to offer arbitration near as much as we had been seeing it in the last few years.