Cuts for 2012

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I was thinking about who might be "cut" in 2012. I'm talking about players who are under team control, would normally be major leaguers, and we just decide they don't have a spot for them on the team. Whether it be sent to the minors, dumped in a worthless trade, waivers, non-tender, whatever.

 

Koyie Hill non-tender is an obvious one

 

Does Tyler Colvin have a place on an Hoystein-produced ball club?

 

Blake DeWitt seems kinda superfluous, but he might have enough trade value to not really be a straight "cut."

 

Anyone else on the chopping block?

[Bull]

wow, I read the title to mean there was news of the Cubs cutting payroll.

 

in response to the actual post:

 

I don't think there will be too many "cuts" as much as much as not pursuing exiting free agents like Hill, Johnson and Grabow.

 

Baker, Dewitt and Wells remain fairly cheap and should be back.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Colvin still has options.

 

eta: I guess you covered Colvin having options by saying "sent down". I suppose Colvin's future depends on who is brought in. i.e., I'm not prevented from trading for an outfielder because of Colvin, but I'm not pressured in negotiations for that outfielder, because my trading partner knows I have Colvin to fall back on as a fourth/fifth outfielder or half of a platoon.

[El Duderino]

Koyie Hill non-tender is an obvious one

 

somewhere, Brenly is weeping.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Baker would make the most sense if anyone. With LeMahieu and Flaherty he's expendable. The same could be said for DeWitt but he still has somewhat of a ceiling whereas Baker is what he is. However, he's more likely to be traded or shipped to Boston than non tendered.

[Guest]

Baker would make the most sense if anyone. With LeMahieu and Flaherty he's expendable. The same could be said for DeWitt but he still has somewhat of a ceiling whereas Baker is what he is. However, he's more likely to be traded or shipped to Boston than non tendered.

Baker has a role to mash lefties that no other bench player fills nearly as well. DeWitt is much more redundant than Baker. I'm not sure why you think he's got much more ceiling he's yet to reach, but he pretty much is what he's going to be, as well.

 

Also - it's doubtful that anyone off the MLB roster will get sent to Boston as part of the compensation.

[dew1679666265]

Koyie Hill non-tender is an obvious one

 

Agreed.

 

Does Tyler Colvin have a place on an Hoystein-produced ball club?

 

Blake DeWitt seems kinda superfluous, but he might have enough trade value to not really be a straight "cut."

 

With both of these players, I don't think there's a lot of value to straight out cutting them. I don't think either has a particularly strong future role for the team, however both are pretty cheap and could be in some way enticing to other teams. Neither will be the cornerstone of a trade, but both could be semi-valued throw-ins if they perform well in whatever role Theo/Hoyer has for them in 2012.

 

Certainly more value than just cutting them and the cost to keep them is pretty minimal - especially for Colvin.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Baker would make the most sense if anyone. With LeMahieu and Flaherty he's expendable. The same could be said for DeWitt but he still has somewhat of a ceiling whereas Baker is what he is. However, he's more likely to be traded or shipped to Boston than non tendered.

Baker has a role to mash lefties that no other bench player fills nearly as well. DeWitt is much more redundant than Baker. I'm not sure why you think he's got much more ceiling he's yet to reach, but he pretty much is what he's going to be, as well.

 

Also - it's doubtful that anyone off the MLB roster will get sent to Boston as part of the compensation.

 

He's also slated to make 2 mil in 2012. Especially if they decide that 2012 is to be more of a building year than a go for it year, wouldn't you rather spend that 2 mil on either the draft or international? In baseball dollars, 2 mil is nothing, but if we have 2 guys that could step in and fill the role Baker does even though they don't mash lefties like Baker, wouldn't you want to give them the job? Whatever happens, Baker isn't a part of the Cubs plans so I'd definitely prefer either save the 2 mil and non tender him or see what we could get in trade, and even if we just get a 20 year old high ceiling A ball pitcher for him I'd be all for it. LeMahieu clock is already ticking and Flaherty's about to be 26 and will have to be rostered anyway for Rule 5 purposes, and he's a guy that a team would take and hide at the end of the bench if nothing else, so as far as I'm concerned they can take Baker and DeWitts spots and find some kind of cheap 3B stop gap through FA or trade while we wait and see if either of them or Vitters can take over full time in the next few years.

[mul21]

He's also slated to make 2 mil in 2012. Especially if they decide that 2012 is to be more of a building year than a go for it year, wouldn't you rather spend that 2 mil on either the draft or international? In baseball dollars, 2 mil is nothing, but if we have 2 guys that could step in and fill the role Baker does even though they don't mash lefties like Baker, wouldn't you want to give them the job? Whatever happens, Baker isn't a part of the Cubs plans so I'd definitely prefer either save the 2 mil and non tender him or see what we could get in trade, and even if we just get a 20 year old high ceiling A ball pitcher for him I'd be all for it. LeMahieu clock is already ticking and Flaherty's about to be 26 and will have to be rostered anyway for Rule 5 purposes, and he's a guy that a team would take and hide at the end of the bench if nothing else, so as far as I'm concerned they can take Baker and DeWitts spots and find some kind of cheap 3B stop gap through FA or trade while we wait and see if either of them or Vitters can take over full time in the next few years.

 

To try to say this with any kind of certainty is just dumb and something you can't possibly know.

[dew1679666265]

He's also slated to make 2 mil in 2012. Especially if they decide that 2012 is to be more of a building year than a go for it year, wouldn't you rather spend that 2 mil on either the draft or international? In baseball dollars, 2 mil is nothing, but if we have 2 guys that could step in and fill the role Baker does even though they don't mash lefties like Baker, wouldn't you want to give them the job? Whatever happens, Baker isn't a part of the Cubs plans so I'd definitely prefer either save the 2 mil and non tender him or see what we could get in trade, and even if we just get a 20 year old high ceiling A ball pitcher for him I'd be all for it.

 

If Baker didn't provide a value off the bench, I'd agree with you. However, he provides a skill that we don't have much of (or any) on the bench and does it at a relatively low cost. He also could part of a platoon at third if trade options like Headley and Stewart fall through. There's a lot of value in that.

 

And you don't let players with value and no real replacement go just to free up extra money for the draft/international signings. Nobody we have is going to mash lefties like Baker and anybody we bring in to do it is going to cost at least what Baker does, if not more.

[davell]

If we sign or trade for a legit 3B, then I want Baker gone. Because he's not going to have a platoon opportunity at another spot. And he's not worth 2 mill as a pinch hitter, if you ask me. If we do enough this offseason to where we fashion ourselves as contenders, I'd change my stance here, but if not, then using his money elsewhere and giving LeMahieu his at bats is the better solution.

[dew1679666265]

If we sign or trade for a legit 3B, then I want Baker gone. Because he's not going to have a platoon opportunity at another spot. And he's not worth 2 mill as a pinch hitter, if you ask me. If we do enough this offseason to where we fashion ourselves as contenders, I'd change my stance here, but if not, then using his money elsewhere and giving LeMahieu his at bats is the better solution.

 

The problem is you're most likely not going to get anything of value for Baker. The Cubs gave up Al Alburquerque to get Baker a few years ago and, at the time, Alburquerque wasn't on any prospect list at all. Now he's older and more expensive than he was then. His value to the Cubs as a pinch hitter is higher than his value to other teams and unless we have a need for his money (i.e. we need to free up a couple million to be able to afford Pujols and Wilson or something) then there's very little value in trading him.

[jersey cubs fan]

Epstein has talked a lot about scouring for assets. My interpretation is they aren't going to be cutting anybody who has a chance to contribute. Colvin isn't a valuable asset, but he is an asset, and could contribute. Dewitt is similar, especially with the team letting Ramirez go. They probably need to handle 2B and 3B with quantity at the moment and he would be a part of that.

 

James Russel is somebody who is an asset when the team isn't mindlessly trying to use him as a starter. On the other hand, Coleman is kind of useless. If you aren't a legit starter, and don't offer some sort of stand out skill for the bullpen like Russel does with lefties, you probably aren't worth keeping around with the numbers they have, or will have after acquiring a starter.

[davearm2]

He's also slated to make 2 mil in 2012. Especially if they decide that 2012 is to be more of a building year than a go for it year, wouldn't you rather spend that 2 mil on either the draft or international? In baseball dollars, 2 mil is nothing, but if we have 2 guys that could step in and fill the role Baker does even though they don't mash lefties like Baker, wouldn't you want to give them the job? Whatever happens, Baker isn't a part of the Cubs plans so I'd definitely prefer either save the 2 mil and non tender him or see what we could get in trade, and even if we just get a 20 year old high ceiling A ball pitcher for him I'd be all for it. LeMahieu clock is already ticking and Flaherty's about to be 26 and will have to be rostered anyway for Rule 5 purposes, and he's a guy that a team would take and hide at the end of the bench if nothing else, so as far as I'm concerned they can take Baker and DeWitts spots and find some kind of cheap 3B stop gap through FA or trade while we wait and see if either of them or Vitters can take over full time in the next few years.

 

To try to say this with any kind of certainty is just dumb and something you can't possibly know.

We know that Baker can't hit righties, and something like 75% of the season's ABs are against righties.

 

Given those facts, we should all hope that Baker isn't a part of the Cubs plans. He's a bench player or the short half of a platoon. Those guys are easily replaceable and imminently expendable.

[Guest]

What? No.

[Guest]

Epstein has talked a lot about scouring for assets. My interpretation is they aren't going to be cutting anybody who has a chance to contribute. Colvin isn't a valuable asset, but he is an asset, and could contribute. Dewitt is similar, especially with the team letting Ramirez go. They probably need to handle 2B and 3B with quantity at the moment and he would be a part of that.

 

James Russel is somebody who is an asset when the team isn't mindlessly trying to use him as a starter. On the other hand, Coleman is kind of useless. If you aren't a legit starter, and don't offer some sort of stand out skill for the bullpen like Russel does with lefties, you probably aren't worth keeping around with the numbers they have, or will have after acquiring a starter.

Coleman has value as an injury replacement as long as he has options remaining. As soon as he is out of options, he is out of value.

[Guest]

He's also slated to make 2 mil in 2012. Especially if they decide that 2012 is to be more of a building year than a go for it year, wouldn't you rather spend that 2 mil on either the draft or international? In baseball dollars, 2 mil is nothing, but if we have 2 guys that could step in and fill the role Baker does even though they don't mash lefties like Baker, wouldn't you want to give them the job? Whatever happens, Baker isn't a part of the Cubs plans so I'd definitely prefer either save the 2 mil and non tender him or see what we could get in trade, and even if we just get a 20 year old high ceiling A ball pitcher for him I'd be all for it. LeMahieu clock is already ticking and Flaherty's about to be 26 and will have to be rostered anyway for Rule 5 purposes, and he's a guy that a team would take and hide at the end of the bench if nothing else, so as far as I'm concerned they can take Baker and DeWitts spots and find some kind of cheap 3B stop gap through FA or trade while we wait and see if either of them or Vitters can take over full time in the next few years.

 

To try to say this with any kind of certainty is just dumb and something you can't possibly know.

We know that Baker can't hit righties, and something like 75% of the season's ABs are against righties.

 

Given those facts, we should all hope that Baker isn't a part of the Cubs plans. He's a bench player or the short half of a platoon. Those guys are easily replaceable and imminently expendable.

Baker hits lefties well enough that having him on the bench changes late game strategy. Opposing managers have to hesitate bringing in a lefty against someone like Colvin because they wouldn't want their lefty facing Baker. Players that can consistently put up? 850 on either side of the platoon do not grow on trees. He'd certainly have more value on the other side, but he is worth what he makes right now.

[Guest]

Coleman doesn't have value because he shouldn't crack the Top 10 list of SP options for next year, and he's without any additional upside or value as a reliever.

[Guest]

Coleman doesn't have value because he shouldn't crack the Top 10 list of SP options for next year, and he's without any additional upside or value as a reliever.

Not at all curious if he can maintain the increased strikeout rate while reducing the bb and he rates?

[jersey cubs fan]

Coleman doesn't have value because he shouldn't crack the Top 10 list of SP options for next year, and he's without any additional upside or value as a reliever.

Not at all curious if he can maintain the increased strikeout rate while reducing the bb and he rates?

 

I think he's shown all he has and it is next to nothing.

[Little Slide Rooter]

He's also slated to make 2 mil in 2012. Especially if they decide that 2012 is to be more of a building year than a go for it year, wouldn't you rather spend that 2 mil on either the draft or international? In baseball dollars, 2 mil is nothing, but if we have 2 guys that could step in and fill the role Baker does even though they don't mash lefties like Baker, wouldn't you want to give them the job? Whatever happens, Baker isn't a part of the Cubs plans so I'd definitely prefer either save the 2 mil and non tender him or see what we could get in trade, and even if we just get a 20 year old high ceiling A ball pitcher for him I'd be all for it. LeMahieu clock is already ticking and Flaherty's about to be 26 and will have to be rostered anyway for Rule 5 purposes, and he's a guy that a team would take and hide at the end of the bench if nothing else, so as far as I'm concerned they can take Baker and DeWitts spots and find some kind of cheap 3B stop gap through FA or trade while we wait and see if either of them or Vitters can take over full time in the next few years.

 

To try to say this with any kind of certainty is just dumb and something you can't possibly know.

We know that Baker can't hit righties, and something like 75% of the season's ABs are against righties.

 

Given those facts, we should all hope that Baker isn't a part of the Cubs plans. He's a bench player or the short half of a platoon. Those guys are easily replaceable and imminently expendable.

Baker hits lefties well enough that having him on the bench changes late game strategy. Opposing managers have to hesitate bringing in a lefty against someone like Colvin because they wouldn't want their lefty facing Baker. Players that can consistently put up? 850 on either side of the platoon do not grow on trees. He'd certainly have more value on the other side, but he is worth what he makes right now.

 

But wouldn't you rather find a way to acquire a full time 3B rather than a platoon in which the guy who get the majority of the playing time is so-so against righties and the guy who gets much less mashes? If this is a building year, I still say let both Baker and DeWitt go and see what the younger guys can do. I have nothing against Baker, but unless the feel he's part of the future, see what he's worth in trade.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Coleman doesn't have value because he shouldn't crack the Top 10 list of SP options for next year, and he's without any additional upside or value as a reliever.

Not at all curious if he can maintain the increased strikeout rate while reducing the bb and he rates?

 

I think he's shown all he has and it is next to nothing.

 

Pretty much. I'm pretty sure he still has options. Also, he could be of interest to someone else as part of a trade package. Obviously not the key to any trade but a throw in. We have too many guys with higher ceiling coming up behind him at all levels to waste any more time on him.

[jersey cubs fan]

But wouldn't you rather find a way to acquire a full time 3B rather than a platoon in which the guy who get the majority of the playing time is so-so against righties and the guy who gets much less mashes? If this is a building year, I still say let both Baker and DeWitt go and see what the younger guys can do. I have nothing against Baker, but unless the feel he's part of the future, see what he's worth in trade.

 

Who is this theoretical full time 3B? If you can get a real one, sure, but that's a lot easier said than done. You also have bench spots to fill, and you might as well fill them with people who do something useful, like mash lefties and play multiple spots.

 

 

The fact that somebody might not be a part of this team in 3 years is no reason to get rid of them today. You put the best players you have in 2012 on the 2012 team.

[Little Slide Rooter]

But wouldn't you rather find a way to acquire a full time 3B rather than a platoon in which the guy who get the majority of the playing time is so-so against righties and the guy who gets much less mashes? If this is a building year, I still say let both Baker and DeWitt go and see what the younger guys can do. I have nothing against Baker, but unless the feel he's part of the future, see what he's worth in trade.

 

Who is this theoretical full time 3B? If you can get a real one, sure, but that's a lot easier said than done. You also have bench spots to fill, and you might as well fill them with people who do something useful, like mash lefties and play multiple spots.

 

 

The fact that somebody might not be a part of this team in 3 years is no reason to get rid of them today. You put the best players you have in 2012 on the 2012 team.

 

There are really only 4 spots for infielders on a team. Castro is 1. Barney is 2, although I'd prefer he be the backup MI than starting 2B. Then, there are 2 spots leftover for DeWitt, Baker, LeMahieu, and Flaherty, with Vitters and Lake hopefully a few years away. My choice would be to give LeMa and Flaherty to opportunity to see what they can do for now and save 3-4 mil between both Baker and DeWitt. Baker could potentially stay on as he can also play 1B and a bit of outfield as well, and he does mash lefties where as the majority of the bench options (DeWitt, Flaherty, Colvin, LaHair, Campana) are lefites, so I guess that if it were to come down to Baker or DeWitt, that would give Baker a leg up but I'd just as soon see what we can get for him.

 

Basically, there are 4 bench spots available beside the backup C. There will be a lot of guys competing for those jobs, unless 1 or 2 end up as starters which I'd really rather not see unless it's at 2nd.

[Guest]

But wouldn't you rather find a way to acquire a full time 3B rather than a platoon in which the guy who get the majority of the playing time is so-so against righties and the guy who gets much less mashes? If this is a building year, I still say let both Baker and DeWitt go and see what the younger guys can do. I have nothing against Baker, but unless the feel he's part of the future, see what he's worth in trade.

Sure I'd rather have a full-time 3B. When that imaginary player is on the team, Baker's value will decrease. Until then, Baker provides significant value. Also, Baker currently also has a potential role in the OF as the short side of a platoon with Colvin or Jackson. He's your first right handed bat off the bench. He backs up five positions on the field.

 

I don't understand why people are in a hurry to get rid of Baker.

[jersey cubs fan]

Basically, there are 4 bench spots available beside the backup C. There will be a lot of guys competing for those jobs, unless 1 or 2 end up as starters which I'd really rather not see unless it's at 2nd.

 

And not a lot of guys who do something as useful as mash lefties like Baker does. There are 4 non-catcher spots. And a guy who mashes lefties plus plays 3B, 2B, corner OF and the occasional 1B can fit there.

 

I would rather have a guy like Baker who we know can do an adequate job on the bench, be a part of that bench, instead of introducing a second rate prospect to the major leagues via a bench role. Baker is the first RH bat off the bench, if his role is taken over by a kid, that kid is probably the last guy off the bench and won't play enough.