Trading Soriano

[davell]

Reed has wound up as a decent signing. He may bring back some sort of lottery ticket. Maybe an Abner Abreu type guy, like we got last year for Fukudome.

 

I'd love to see if the Dodgers would take all 3 of Dempster/LaHair/Russell. It'd help us maximize the return, we wouldn't be getting a TON from them, even for all 3, so it'd leave them the ability to go add more, if they see fit. With Ethier going on the DL, they could play Lahair in RF, platoon him with Rivera for now and keep Loney at 1B, if they're really concerned with LaHair's defense. If his bat doesn't heat up, you use him off the bench once Ethier comes back. If it does, then he plays 1B for them. Don't think Zach Lee is a remote possibility, but Eovaldi and Gould for those 3 would be an extremely good haul for those 3 guys.

[Guest]

I think there are people on here that just don't want to admit that signing Reed ended up being a pretty good choice....or at least a move that people shouldn't be extremely pissed about

 

in what way did it end up being a very good choice?

 

a roster spot didn't need to be wasted on 35 year old gritty mcgritt. nor did we need to pay him $1.2 million. it was just a pointless signing and still is.

[Guest]

Reed has wound up as a decent signing. He may bring back some sort of lottery ticket.

 

because he's flukishly putting up good numbers?

 

what if dave sappelt had put up his line (which was probably just about as likely going into the season) while a decade younger and making league minimum?

[Sammy Sofa]

I think there are people on here that just don't want to admit that signing Reed ended up being a pretty good choice....or at least a move that people shouldn't be extremely pissed about

 

in what way did it end up being a very good choice?

 

a roster spot didn't need to be wasted on 35 year old gritty mcgritt. nor did we need to pay him $1.2 million. it was just a pointless signing and still is.

 

Yes, this.

[davell]

Reed has wound up as a decent signing. He may bring back some sort of lottery ticket.

 

because he's flukishly putting up good numbers?

 

what if dave sappelt had put up his line (which was probably just about as likely going into the season) while a decade younger and making league minimum?

 

But instead Sappelt has put up a line of .238/.295/324 in AAA. Which makes the Reed signing much easier to take. And if it brings us a lottery ticket type that we didn't have in our system previously, it makes it just fine. Because he hasn't blocked anyone, to this point, with Brett and Sappelt struggling. You can argue we should have signed a younger guy, instead of Reed, and I won't dispute it whatsoever. But, in the end, it hasn't hurt us at all and he may even bring us back something in return. I find it hard to criticize the signing, due to those things.

[Elrhino]

I think there are people on here that just don't want to admit that signing Reed ended up being a pretty good choice....or at least a move that people shouldn't be extremely pissed about

 

in what way did it end up being a very good choice?

 

a roster spot didn't need to be wasted on 35 year old gritty mcgritt. nor did we need to pay him $1.2 million. it was just a pointless signing and still is.

 

Gilby didn't say a "very" good choice. He said pretty good choice, which it will be if we could get anything in return in a trade. The money spent wouldn't have been allocated anywhere of significance, nor would the roster spot. Getting anything in return will be a better outcome than giving those at bats to Dave Sappelt or an overly aggressive promotion for an unprepared Brett Jackson.

[Guest]

Reed has wound up as a decent signing. He may bring back some sort of lottery ticket.

 

because he's flukishly putting up good numbers?

 

what if dave sappelt had put up his line (which was probably just about as likely going into the season) while a decade younger and making league minimum?

 

But instead Sappelt has put up a line of .238/.295/324 in AAA. Which makes the Reed signing much easier to take. And if it brings us a lottery ticket type that we didn't have in our system previously, it makes it just fine. Because he hasn't blocked anyone, to this point, with Brett and Sappelt struggling. You can argue we should have signed a younger guy, instead of Reed, and I won't dispute it whatsoever. But, in the end, it hasn't hurt us at all and he may even bring us back something in return. I find it hard to criticize the signing, due to those things.

 

This is results based thinking and I do not like it.

[Guest]

I think there are people on here that just don't want to admit that signing Reed ended up being a pretty good choice....or at least a move that people shouldn't be extremely pissed about

 

in what way did it end up being a very good choice?

 

a roster spot didn't need to be wasted on 35 year old gritty mcgritt. nor did we need to pay him $1.2 million. it was just a pointless signing and still is.

 

Gilby didn't say a "very" good choice. He said pretty good choice, which it will be if we could get anything in return in a trade. The money spent wouldn't have been allocated anywhere of significance, nor would the roster spot. Getting anything in return will be a better outcome than giving those at bats to Dave Sappelt or an overly aggressive promotion for an unprepared Brett Jackson.

 

Whatever.

 

And results based evaluation is stupid.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Matching game, players to BABIP

 

Sappelt

Johnson

.372

.261

[davell]

David, in a year where we weren't winning obviously, did the Reed Johnson signing make sense when we could have played Sappelt? No, admittedly not. And I hate to bring the 'veteran" crap up, because as a rule, I don't really believe in it. But, to not have ANY veterans around(because they were trying like hell to trade Byrd and Soriano) could have been a bad thing. Reed evidently wants to get into coaching and if he was there to show Brett, Sappelt, Campana, or whoever else some of the stuff he's done to give them good habits or whatever, I'm OK with that. Being that it WAS going to be a shitty year anyway.

 

If you bring up that we have DeJesus, you basically win. Or that Wood looked like [expletive] in ST, but Volstad looked great and we went with him. My flimsiest of flimsy excuses becomes "but DeJesus doesn't know Chicago that well" but I think his wife is from Chicago and even shoots that down. [expletive] it, I lose.

 

But, for results sake, it may wind up netting us something we didn't have, so while dumb, it still could wind up being solid, in spite of it being dumb.

[Guest]

David, in a year where we weren't winning obviously, did the Reed Johnson signing make sense when we could have played Sappelt? No, admittedly not. And I hate to bring the 'veteran" crap up, because as a rule, I don't really believe in it. But, to not have ANY veterans around(because they were trying like hell to trade Byrd and Soriano) could have been a bad thing. Reed evidently wants to get into coaching and if he was there to show Brett, Sappelt, Campana, or whoever else some of the stuff he's done to give them good habits or whatever, I'm OK with that. Being that it WAS going to be a [expletive] year anyway.

 

If you bring up that we have DeJesus, you basically win. Or that Wood looked like [expletive] in ST, but Volstad looked great and we went with him. My flimsiest of flimsy excuses becomes "but DeJesus doesn't know Chicago that well" but I think his wife is from Chicago and even shoots that down. [expletive] it, I lose.

 

But, for results sake, it may wind up netting us something we didn't have, so while dumb, it still could wind up being solid, in spite of it being dumb.

 

This is an honest evaluation of the situation.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Reed's numbers are pretty much what they were last year. This being said, had we signed Reed to a minor league deal with an invite, hed have been a decent pickup, but there was really no reason to give him 1.25 MM as early in the offseason as they did.

[Elrhino]

I think there are people on here that just don't want to admit that signing Reed ended up being a pretty good choice....or at least a move that people shouldn't be extremely pissed about

 

in what way did it end up being a very good choice?

 

a roster spot didn't need to be wasted on 35 year old gritty mcgritt. nor did we need to pay him $1.2 million. it was just a pointless signing and still is.

 

Gilby didn't say a "very" good choice. He said pretty good choice, which it will be if we could get anything in return in a trade. The money spent wouldn't have been allocated anywhere of significance, nor would the roster spot. Getting anything in return will be a better outcome than giving those at bats to Dave Sappelt or an overly aggressive promotion for an unprepared Brett Jackson.

 

Whatever.

 

And results based evaluation is stupid.

 

Yeah, whatevs broseph.

 

It didn't take hindsight for most of us to say whatever marginal value Reed Johnson has or had, it was more than Dave Sappelt.

[Guest]

Signing Johnson was the one move of the offseason that didn't make sense. Considering how small the role is and that it was the lone explicable decision, it's not a big deal one way or the other. Especially since the team isn't competitive, it's not terribly important that Johnson has managed a .750 OPS by facing a steady diet of LHP. If they felt Sappelt wasn't ready or wanted the depth, I would've preferred someone who had a potential future(if only as a bench player) beyond 2012, but Johnson hasn't taken away PT from more deserving candidates, and Sappelt hasn't exactly shown reasons to believe, so it's a move without consequence.

[Guest]

It didn't take hindsight for most of us to say whatever marginal value Reed Johnson has or had, it was more than Dave Sappelt.

 

lol no. and especially not with salary and age taken into account.

 

that's absurd.

[Gilby]

Reed has wound up as a decent signing. He may bring back some sort of lottery ticket.

 

because he's flukishly putting up good numbers?

 

what if dave sappelt had put up his line (which was probably just about as likely going into the season) while a decade younger and making league minimum?

 

Well that hasn't happened, but if Sappelt was doing really well at Iowa and Reed was struggling, then Sappelt would've likely taken his spot/maybe Reed retires.

 

I'm not really sure why I brought Reed up, other than to point out it was silly how much hatred the move received. I'll even agree with you that the move was pointless, but the anger over it was a tad silly. Heck, I'm not even a big Reed fan.

[TruffleShuffle]

how often do teams really get "lottery tickets" (kinda hate that term) for the likes of reed johnson. i feel like it's usually some 25 year old in AA with marginal stuff or the chance to hang on for a bit as a 4th outfielder.

[Sammy Sofa]

Reed has wound up as a decent signing. He may bring back some sort of lottery ticket.

 

because he's flukishly putting up good numbers?

 

what if dave sappelt had put up his line (which was probably just about as likely going into the season) while a decade younger and making league minimum?

 

Well that hasn't happened, but if Sappelt was doing really well at Iowa and Reed was struggling, then Sappelt would've likely taken his spot/maybe Reed retires.

 

I'm not really sure why I brought Reed up, other than to point out it was silly how much hatred the move received. I'll even agree with you that the move was pointless, but the anger over it was a tad silly. Heck, I'm not even a big Reed fan.

 

Why is it "silly?" He's a mediocre player needlessly being paid too much money; people tend to dislike that.

[17 Seconds]

i'm not saying the reed johnson signing was good or anything, but it's funny seeing how people on here get all worked up over it. it was an irrelevent amount of money and he isn't taking playing time away from anybody important. they wanted a mascot and apparently he's a good clubhouse guy, so they chose they wanted him around. who gives a [expletive].

[jersey cubs fan]

i'm not saying the reed johnson signing was good or anything, but it's funny seeing how people on here get all worked up over it. it was an irrelevent amount of money and he isn't taking playing time away from anybody important. they wanted a mascot and apparently he's a good clubhouse guy, so they chose they wanted him around. who gives a [expletive].

 

I give a [expletive] because "good clubhouse guy" is absolute mythological nonsense for idiots, and he's the symbol of management not even trying this year.

[Guest]

i'm not saying the reed johnson signing was good or anything, but it's funny seeing how people on here get all worked up over it. it was an irrelevent amount of money and he isn't taking playing time away from anybody important. they wanted a mascot and apparently he's a good clubhouse guy, so they chose they wanted him around. who gives a [expletive].

 

I give a [expletive] because "good clubhouse guy" is absolute mythological nonsense for idiots, and he's the symbol of management not even trying this year.

 

Plus, I had hoped that overpaying bad bench players was behind us.

[dew1679666265]

Plus, I had hoped that overpaying bad bench players was behind us.

 

This was my biggest problem with the Reed re-signing. We had just gotten rid of Hendry whose biggest problem (at the major league level) was giving bad role players too much money. Then we get Theo in and one of the first things he does is pay a bad role player $1.25 mil when we could have either brought up somebody from the minors or looked for somebody who might have some sort of a future.

 

It was too much of a Hendry move, basically.

[Sammy Sofa]

i'm not saying the reed johnson signing was good or anything, but it's funny seeing how people on here get all worked up over it. it was an irrelevent amount of money and he isn't taking playing time away from anybody important. they wanted a mascot and apparently he's a good clubhouse guy, so they chose they wanted him around. who gives a [expletive].

 

I thought that was the excuse for signing Kerry Wood.

[pitchcs]

i'm not saying the reed johnson signing was good or anything, but it's funny seeing how people on here get all worked up over it. it was an irrelevent amount of money and he isn't taking playing time away from anybody important. they wanted a mascot and apparently he's a good clubhouse guy, so they chose they wanted him around. who gives a [expletive].

 

I give a [expletive] because "good clubhouse guy" is absolute mythological nonsense for idiots, and he's the symbol of management not even trying this year.

 

That's a bit much.

 

Baseball is like any other sport...if the last couple guys are similar in talent and cost of course teams are going to go with the ones who they feel are a better fit for their clubhouse and organization.

 

Looking back, would anyone really want Z on this team? Nothing good would come of that. He wouldn't be happy, fans wouldn't be happy and his teammates may not be happy.

[pitchcs]

Also, when I google Carlos Zambrano, why does a picture of a strapping Latino soccer player come up?