Hoyer, McLeod officially join Cubs

[Guest]

Given the choice(and it does look like it's the choice unfortunately), I think "You're good enough to help turn us around" is an easier sell than "We can't pay you as much because we wanted Aramis around to help protect you". I love Aramis, and it will be more difficult and take more good fortune to be any good next year without him, but he's only a solution for the next 2 years at the most. If the choice is between getting an additional long term piece like Pujols or Wilson or any number of trade targets, and bringing back Aramis, then you have to cut Aramis loose.

[Geech]

It's not just the platoon that needs to match Aramis' production, though. It's the platoon + whatever they can do with an extra $15M.

 

Great point. If letting Aramis go means we're playing Pujols instead of Pena, it's going to be worth it.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Relying on external solutions to build a winning baseball team is a bad idea and it's something we need to get past

 

Sorry, have to disagree there. If you look at all of the perennial contenders out there: Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, they have equal parts internal and external. This might be a good philosophy for a small market team, but with a team like The Cubs, you have the money, so spend it. Spending money is never a bad idea to build a winning team, it all depend how you spend that money.

[A New Era]

Relying on external solutions to build a winning baseball team is a bad idea and it's something we need to get past

 

Sorry, have to disagree there. If you look at all of the perennial contenders out there: Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, they have equal parts internal and external. This might be a good philosophy for a small market team, but with a team like The Cubs, you have the money, so spend it. Spending money is never a bad idea to build a winning team, it all depend how you spend that money.

 

I think the key word there is "build". Sure a big name big money guy is great to add as the final guy that gets you over the top. But right now we are in build mode. Meaning we intend to get better year by year, and in the next 3-4 years we could be perennial contenders. I'm just trying to read what he my be hinting at. I don't think he's saying let's never sign some big market guys. I think he's saying, we need more emphasis on building internally.

[USSoccer]

Given the choice(and it does look like it's the choice unfortunately), I think "You're good enough to help turn us around" is an easier sell than "We can't pay you as much because we wanted Aramis around to help protect you". I love Aramis, and it will be more difficult and take more good fortune to be any good next year without him, but he's only a solution for the next 2 years at the most. If the choice is between getting an additional long term piece like Pujols or Wilson or any number of trade targets, and bringing back Aramis, then you have to cut Aramis loose.

 

...balls. Stupid logical TT.

[treebird]

Given the choice(and it does look like it's the choice unfortunately), I think "You're good enough to help turn us around" is an easier sell than "We can't pay you as much because we wanted Aramis around to help protect you". I love Aramis, and it will be more difficult and take more good fortune to be any good next year without him, but he's only a solution for the next 2 years at the most. If the choice is between getting an additional long term piece like Pujols or Wilson or any number of trade targets, and bringing back Aramis, then you have to cut Aramis loose.

 

...balls. Stupid logical TT.

 

it's good logic so long as we get one of those guys and wouldn't have otherwise. if we don't we're a complete disaster team next year. and after that we still only have one particularly valuable piece.

[USSoccer]

Given the choice(and it does look like it's the choice unfortunately), I think "You're good enough to help turn us around" is an easier sell than "We can't pay you as much because we wanted Aramis around to help protect you". I love Aramis, and it will be more difficult and take more good fortune to be any good next year without him, but he's only a solution for the next 2 years at the most. If the choice is between getting an additional long term piece like Pujols or Wilson or any number of trade targets, and bringing back Aramis, then you have to cut Aramis loose.

 

...balls. Stupid logical TT.

 

it's good logic so long as we get one of those guys and wouldn't have otherwise. if we don't we're a complete disaster team next year. and after that we still only have one particularly valuable piece.

 

That's how I feel. Letting go of Aramis means we'd better be willing to go all in on Pujols or Fielder, or we're going to blow.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Carlos Pena + two good starting pitchers probably helps this team as much for 2012 as Pujols/Fielder + one good starting pitcher.

[USSoccer]

Carlos Pena + two good starting pitchers probably helps this team as much for 2012 as Pujols/Fielder + one good starting pitcher.

 

You've breathed in way too much of that Williston oil fume if you believe that.

[Guest]

Carlos Pena + two good starting pitchers probably helps this team as much for 2012 as Pujols/Fielder + one good starting pitcher.

Would you be dumping Z in that scenario or simply not giving Wells / Cashner / Shark / etc. a place in the rotation?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Carlos Pena + two good starting pitchers probably helps this team as much for 2012 as Pujols/Fielder + one good starting pitcher.

Would you be dumping Z in that scenario or simply not giving Wells / Cashner / Shark / etc. a place in the rotation?

 

Assuming we dump Zambrano. The difference between Pena and Pujielder, assuming a very good year from them, is still only 3 or 4 wins.

[CUBZ99]

He has not been a very productive pitcher over the last several years, and

 

I don't know how the hell you define productive or several, but that's nonsense.

 

I would say a starter that only avgs 137IP with a 1.45 WHIP, steadily increasing LD%, steadily decreasing GB% and an avg 1.6

WAR (over the last two years) is not very productive.

 

To put how bad he was last year into prospective there were 121 pitchers with at least 100IP that had a higher WAR than he did.

 

I get that the Cubs shouldn't give him away for nothing, but lets not pretend that he was good or even decent last year, or that he hasn't been trending in the wrong direction.

[treebird]

Carlos Pena + two good starting pitchers probably helps this team as much for 2012 as Pujols/Fielder + one good starting pitcher.

 

i'm not particularly excited to watch the 2012 cubs in which no position player slugs .500

[dew1679666265]

I would say a starter that only avgs 137IP with a 1.45 WHIP, steadily increasing LD%, steadily decreasing GB% and an avg 1.6

WAR (over the last two years) is not very productive.

 

To put how bad he was last year into prospective there were 121 pitchers with at least 100IP that had a higher WAR than he did.

 

I get that the Cubs shouldn't give him away for nothing, but lets not pretend that he was good or even decent last year, or that he hasn't been trending in the wrong direction.

 

I do agree that there are some troubling numbers from Z that don't necessarily give me a lot of confidence in him going forward. That said, Z is still a very unique pitcher in that his offense actually provides positive value (and significantly so at times).

 

If you include his offensive WAR in with his pitching WAR, you have this the past 3 years: 4.6, 2.8, 1.9. That bumps his two year average up to 2.3 and his three year average up to 3.1. For the record, Fangraphs has his offensive WAR as 1.0, .5, and 1.0 the past 3 seasons.

[dew1679666265]

Carlos Pena + two good starting pitchers probably helps this team as much for 2012 as Pujols/Fielder + one good starting pitcher.

 

i'm not particularly excited to watch the 2012 cubs in which no position player slugs .500

 

It's kind of exciting to think of a rotation including Garza/Wilson/Darvish/Dempster/Wells, though.

[USSoccer]

Carlos Pena + two good starting pitchers probably helps this team as much for 2012 as Pujols/Fielder + one good starting pitcher.

 

i'm not particularly excited to watch the 2012 cubs in which no position player slugs .500

 

It's kind of exciting to think of a rotation including Garza/Wilson/Darvish/Dempster/Wells, though.

 

It sounds boring as crap, losing games 3-1

[Butterscup1679666578]

[expletive], if we don't get Pujols/Fielder and a pitcher or two, go for a top-5 pick. No point in winning 78 games and finishing fourth.

[ConstableRabbit]

Given the choice(and it does look like it's the choice unfortunately), I think "You're good enough to help turn us around" is an easier sell than "We can't pay you as much because we wanted Aramis around to help protect you". I love Aramis, and it will be more difficult and take more good fortune to be any good next year without him, but he's only a solution for the next 2 years at the most. If the choice is between getting an additional long term piece like Pujols or Wilson or any number of trade targets, and bringing back Aramis, then you have to cut Aramis loose.

I agree with this statement, but is that the choice in our current situation?

[davell]

I kind of agree. If we miss on Pujols or Prince or maybe a top flight starter, I kind of hope we let the kids have a shot and just sign some one year contract guys. I wouldn't even mind if we decided to shop Soto or Marshall. I think both would bring us very solid returns. That said, I figure Theo already has plans A, B. C, and D formed if this happens and is currently working on plans E, F, and G right now.

[dew1679666265]

It sounds boring as crap, losing games 3-1

 

I think we could piecemeal together an offense good enough to score more than one run a game in that scenario. Add Chase Headley, maybe Grady Sizemore in right, find a lefty platoon partner for Soriano (DeJesus?), start BJax in center, watch Castro improve offensively. That's not going to be a good offense, but there's going to be some pretty impressive on-base ability there and some really good defense.

 

Rotation

Garza

Wilson

Darvish

Dempster

Wells

 

Lineup

Castro

Headley

Sizemore

Pena

Soto

Soriano/DeJesus

Jackson

Barney

P

Edited November 2, 2011 by dew

[davell]

By the way, no matter who we sign this offseason, I'm already thinking this is the best offseason I've seen as a Cub fan by our FO additions alone. And I'm not expecting us to know much of anything that's going on, especially since Hoyer said today they don't like leaks........

[dew1679666265]

I agree with this statement, but is that the choice in our current situation?

 

There's no reason it shouldn't be.

[CUBZ99]

I would say a starter that only avgs 137IP with a 1.45 WHIP, steadily increasing LD%, steadily decreasing GB% and an avg 1.6

WAR (over the last two years) is not very productive.

 

To put how bad he was last year into prospective there were 121 pitchers with at least 100IP that had a higher WAR than he did.

 

I get that the Cubs shouldn't give him away for nothing, but lets not pretend that he was good or even decent last year, or that he hasn't been trending in the wrong direction.

 

I do agree that there are some troubling numbers from Z that don't necessarily give me a lot of confidence in him going forward. That said, Z is still a very unique pitcher in that his offense actually provides positive value (and significantly so at times).

 

If you include his offensive WAR in with his pitching WAR, you have this the past 3 years: 4.6, 2.8, 1.9. That bumps his two year average up to 2.3 and his three year average up to 3.1. For the record, Fangraphs has his offensive WAR as 1.0, .5, and 1.0 the past 3 seasons.

 

Interesting stats. I didn't realize his offensive stats rated out that well. For kicks I looked at other pitchers combined WAR and saw that Dontrell Willis had a combined WAR of 1.7 last year (or only .2 lower than Big Z). :lol:

[davearm2]

It's not just the platoon that needs to match Aramis' production, though. It's the platoon + whatever they can do with an extra $15M.

 

Great point. If letting Aramis go means we're playing Pujols instead of Pena, it's going to be worth it.

I get that folks really want Pujols (or Fielder), and obviously they play different positions, but what's interesting to me is that Pena has put up better WAR numbers than Ramirez over the last 3 years.

[USSoccer]

It sounds boring as crap, losing games 3-1

 

I think we could piecemeal together an offense good enough to score more than one run a game in that scenario. Add Chase Headley, maybe Grady Sizemore in right, find a lefty platoon partner for Soriano (DeJesus?), start BJax in center, watch Castro improve offensively. That's not going to be a good offense, but there's going to be some pretty impressive on-base ability there and some really good defense.

 

Rotation

Garza

Wilson

Darvish

Dempster

Wells

 

Lineup

Castro

Headley

Sizemore

Pena

Soto

Soriano/DeJesus

Jackson

Barney

P

 

 

You had it right when you said "that's not a good offense". Holy crap, that team would lose 90 games.

Edited November 2, 2011 by USSoccer