Ryan Madson?

[KingCubsFan]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/ryan-madson-loser-of-the-offseason/

This article makes a pretty good point. With money to burn and Marshall gone, it would be smart to try and sign him to a one or two year deal. Given what the Cubs just got for Marshall, and what the Padres got for Mike Adams, Madson would be a good asset to have at the trading deadline. The best case scenario is trading Marmol, putting Madson at closer, and then trading him at the deadline. It doesn't look like Marmol would bring significant value right now though.

[jersey cubs fan]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/ryan-madson-loser-of-the-offseason/

This article makes a pretty good point. With money to burn and Marshall gone, it would be smart to try and sign him to a one or two year deal. Given what the Cubs just got for Marshall, and what the Padres got for Mike Adams, Madson would be a good asset to have at the trading deadline. The best case scenario is trading Marmol, putting Madson at closer, and then trading him at the deadline. It doesn't look like Marmol would bring significant value right now though.

 

It would be a dumb baseball decision to sign Madson now, but a potentially beneficial organizational move if they have the payroll flexibility and trade one or both of he and Marmol at the deadline. I'd have to think he would look for many other options before accepting a one year deal from the Cubs this season, given that the obvious purpose would be to trade him somewhere else in July.

[NewUserName]

I would think that signing a player for the purpose of trading him in July would be a bad precedent to set.

[SouthSideRyan]

I would think that signing a player for the purpose of trading him in July would be a bad precedent to set.

 

It is one way for a player to ensure they play for a contender.

[jersey cubs fan]

I would think that signing a player for the purpose of trading him in July would be a bad precedent to set.

 

Has it not already been set? Teams have been acquiring players for the purpose of letting them walk via free agency and getting the picks, for years. Teams have signed players on one year deals before quickly moving them, probably forever. It would be weird in this case because the team sucks, and they have an expensive closer already, but you can always pretend you are just filling a bullpen need.

[The Post]

This move would fit in with what I believe Theo and Co. are doing right now. They are filling the roster with a lot of buy low sell high candidates in hopes they hit on one or two so they can maximize their return. If you can't go out and spend money on prospects like you used to be able to do then I say go out and spend money on a guy that you will eventually be able to get prospects for in the future. However, I see no reason to trade Marmol right now. He has extremely low trade value. Let's see if Bosio can straighten him out and then trade him at the deadline for much more.

[jersey cubs fan]

It would be interesting, given Theo's closer by committee history that ended abruptly. If you can't do it with just relievers, do it with multiple closers. But hopefully he'd trade both of them at the deadline to competing contenders.

[davell]

It would be interesting, given Theo's closer by committee history that ended abruptly. If you can't do it with just relievers, do it with multiple closers. But hopefully he'd trade both of them at the deadline to competing contenders.

Yo-yoing proven closers into a committee has a pretty solid chance of blowing up in your face, I would think. It's a risk that just doesn't need to happen. You do this and EITHER of them struggles, you're in the same situation you were in before you did this, just with the added salary involved now.

[jersey cubs fan]

It would be interesting, given Theo's closer by committee history that ended abruptly. If you can't do it with just relievers, do it with multiple closers. But hopefully he'd trade both of them at the deadline to competing contenders.

Yo-yoing proven closers into a committee has a pretty solid chance of blowing up in your face, I would think. It's a risk that just doesn't need to happen. You do this and EITHER of them struggles, you're in the same situation you were in before you did this, just with the added salary involved now.

 

How exactly would it blow up in your face?

 

This isn't an ideal way to build a baseball team in 2012 but they already threw away the notion of building an ideal club in 2012. This isn't about 2012, this is about that thing everybody seems to be all giddy about, building the organization from the ground up. You have the money to spend and aren't spending it on useful parts, might as well spend it on something tradeable.

[MPrior]

I'm not sure it would be a great idea unless we trade Marmol now (and that doesn't seem to be a wise move, as discussed elsewhere). I know teams have come a long way in their evaluation of players, but many of them are still going to put a lot of value on the "closer" label and on saves totals. If we've got Marmol and Madson on the roster, we're going to have de-value one of them by keeping him out of the closer role. That doesn't seem like an efficient way to gather assets.

[KingCubsFan]

I'm not sure it would be a great idea unless we trade Marmol now (and that doesn't seem to be a wise move, as discussed elsewhere). I know teams have come a long way in their evaluation of players, but many of them are still going to put a lot of value on the "closer" label and on saves totals. If we've got Marmol and Madson on the roster, we're going to have de-value one of them by keeping him out of the closer role. That doesn't seem like an efficient way to gather assets.

Closers certainly have more value, but teams will give good value to elite setup men as well.

[Tracer Bullet]

Would Madson sign up to be a setup guy for the Cubs or does he have a realistic shot at fighting for a closing gig somewhere?

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not sure it would be a great idea unless we trade Marmol now (and that doesn't seem to be a wise move, as discussed elsewhere). I know teams have come a long way in their evaluation of players, but many of them are still going to put a lot of value on the "closer" label and on saves totals. If we've got Marmol and Madson on the roster, we're going to have de-value one of them by keeping him out of the closer role. That doesn't seem like an efficient way to gather assets.

Closers certainly have more value, but teams will give good value to elite setup men as well.

 

Plus, this is baseball, once you've done something you are considered that type of player (hit .300, drive in 100, be a GM, manage, be a closer). Both of these guys have histories of racking up save totals, a lack of save totals from April thru July isn't going to suddenly cause teams to doubt if they can handle the role they've already handled. And yes, teams are still trading a lot for set-up men.

[davell]

It would be interesting, given Theo's closer by committee history that ended abruptly. If you can't do it with just relievers, do it with multiple closers. But hopefully he'd trade both of them at the deadline to competing contenders.

Yo-yoing proven closers into a committee has a pretty solid chance of blowing up in your face, I would think. It's a risk that just doesn't need to happen. You do this and EITHER of them struggles, you're in the same situation you were in before you did this, just with the added salary involved now.

 

How exactly would it blow up in your face?

 

This isn't an ideal way to build a baseball team in 2012 but they already threw away the notion of building an ideal club in 2012. This isn't about 2012, this is about that thing everybody seems to be all giddy about, building the organization from the ground up. You have the money to spend and aren't spending it on useful parts, might as well spend it on something tradeable.

I just explained how it'd blow up: One of them struggles in this type of environment. Trade value is lost. You're right back where you started. One closer you can deal. Except now you have to pay another one as well.

[jersey cubs fan]

Would Madson sign up to be a setup guy for the Cubs or does he have a realistic shot at fighting for a closing gig somewhere?

 

My guess is he has a shot to be a closer elsewhere. However, the Cubs could always install him as their closer and demote Marmol to set-up guy. He's signed longer, so they have more time to get trade value out of him. Plus, he sucked last year so a demotion is warrented.

[davell]

Would Madson sign up to be a setup guy for the Cubs or does he have a realistic shot at fighting for a closing gig somewhere?

The Angels and Reds are both still looking for a closer as far as contenders go. So is Tampa, but they probably couldn't afford Madson. The White Sox and Orioles are looking as well. Getting Madson to take a one year gig here would result in us severely overpaying.

[jersey cubs fan]

I just explained how it'd blow up: One of them struggles in this type of environment. Trade value is lost. You're right back where you started. One closer you can deal. Except now you have to pay another one as well.

 

You didn't explain how it would blow up in your face. That "explanation" holds true for any player you acquire. If they aren't good they hold no value. Wow, breaking news. If that qualifies as blowing up in your face then I'd hate to see how you'd describe something bad actually happening.

 

The Cubs are going to suck in 2012 and the one thing they have is plenty of payroll space. It's a risk, and probably a stupid move if you are trying to build the ideal 2012 roster, but that ship has sailed, and the risk has a potential pay-off.

[Guest]

I just explained how it'd blow up: One of them struggles in this type of environment. Trade value is lost. You're right back where you started. One closer you can deal. Except now you have to pay another one as well.

 

You didn't explain how it would blow up in your face. That "explanation" holds true for any player you acquire. If they aren't good they hold no value. Wow, breaking news. If that qualifies as blowing up in your face then I'd hate to see how you'd describe something bad actually happening.

 

The Cubs are going to suck in 2012 and the one thing they have is plenty of payroll space. It's a risk, and probably a stupid move if you are trying to build the ideal 2012 roster, but that ship has sailed, and the risk has a potential pay-off.

 

I think he's implying that you're inviting it to blow up by putting two traditional closers into non-traditional roles.

 

I don't buy it.

[davell]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Why take a chance like that? If you want Madson, to try and trade him, trade Marmol now. It IS a risk to try and run 2 closers out there, especially on a team that probably won't be winning all that many games to begin with. Plus, you'd have to overpay to get Madson here, in all likelihood. Not to mention the fact that look at what trades have brought teams dealing away closers so far this year: 5 years of cost control of Santos brought back one solid B prospect. Bailey, also cheap as hell, just brought back an extremely "meh" package as well. Which tells me this: Marmol's current trade value isn't all that special at the moment, so why deal him now? And adding another closer as well, banking on more than one team needing one at the deadline, hoping both your guys pitch well, and expect to get a solid return when closers aren't bringing solid returns, just seems like a bad idea to me. Assuming Madson costs over 10 mill, leaving him being owed half of that by the time he's dealt and only receiving a solid B prospect at best most likely, wouldn't we just be better off spending this money towards IFA's to begin with? I sure think so.

[KingCubsFan]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Why take a chance like that? If you want Madson, to try and trade him, trade Marmol now. It IS a risk to try and run 2 closers out there, especially on a team that probably won't be winning all that many games to begin with. Plus, you'd have to overpay to get Madson here, in all likelihood. Not to mention the fact that look at what trades have brought teams dealing away closers so far this year: 5 years of cost control of Santos brought back one solid B prospect. Bailey, also cheap as hell, just brought back an extremely "meh" package as well. Which tells me this: Marmol's current trade value isn't all that special at the moment, so why deal him now? And adding another closer as well, banking on more than one team needing one at the deadline, hoping both your guys pitch well, and expect to get a solid return when closers aren't bringing solid returns, just seems like a bad idea to me. Assuming Madson costs over 10 mill, leaving him being owed half of that by the time he's dealt and only receiving a solid B prospect at best most likely, wouldn't we just be better off spending this money towards IFA's to begin with? I sure think so.

It's not like we're talking about Mariano Rivera. Neither of these guys have been closers for very long, and both were excellent setup men before becoming closers. There's only so much you can spend on international free agents.

[Neuby]

I think the Cubs in a unique spot to still possibly maximize Marmols trade vaule. With eating a good portion of his paycheck he could be tacked on to a Garza deal with the Tigers. Getting value for Marmol and flipping Madson at the deadline would a great way to help Theo and company accelerate the rebuilding process. I

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Why take a chance like that?

 

What the hell is this chance you are taking? The team sucks. The money is available. You are making up nonsensical worries about nothing. Worst comes to worse, you aren't able to trade him and he leaves at year end. Oh well. That didn't blow up in your face. You sucked before and you sucked after. So [expletive] what? First off, the fear of them somehow being worse because they are on the same team is kind of stupid. Neither guy is elite, but both could be trade bait in July. If one struggles, you trade the one that is doing well. If they both struggle, so what, you were already throwing away 2012 and are only out money.

 

 

The whole point is to acquire assets that can help in the future. It's not about constructing an ideal roster in 2012. They've already given up on that notion. If you aren't acquiring guys who can help you the most in 2012, acquire guys you can trade later.

[davell]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Why take a chance like that?

 

What the hell is this chance you are taking? The team sucks. The money is available. You are making up nonsensical worries about nothing. Worst comes to worse, you aren't able to trade him and he leaves at year end. Oh well. That didn't blow up in your face. You sucked before and you sucked after. So [expletive] what? First off, the fear of them somehow being worse because they are on the same team is kind of stupid. Neither guy is elite, but both could be trade bait in July. If one struggles, you trade the one that is doing well. If they both struggle, so what, you were already throwing away 2012 and are only out money.

 

 

The whole point is to acquire assets that can help in the future. It's not about constructing an ideal roster in 2012. They've already given up on that notion. If you aren't acquiring guys who can help you the most in 2012, acquire guys you can trade later.

Way to concentrate on one sentence. Read the rest of what I said. You think it's a better idea to spend money on a closer, where the objective is to trade him for prospects anyway, than to spend the same money on prospects to begin with. Smart. My way at least ensures you know what you're spending your money on. Your way is a total flyer, that's hoping for both solid pitching on our end and a market to develop among contenders that is much better than it has been for closers. It's far from "nonsensical" as you put it. And there's plenty of IFA out there currently to where you can spend a ton of cash on, even if Cespedes is NOT involved.

[jersey cubs fan]

Way to concentrate on one sentence. Read the rest of what I said.

 

I'm concentrating on it because it was a nonsensical statement by you. "Blowing up in your face" is an overly dramatic way of describing the limited downside to such a move. It's not going to blow up in their face.

 

 

There's only so many prospects worth spending big on. And there's a crapload of unspent payroll available for 2012. It's not "my way". I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to talk about the risk of blowing up in your face. The season is a waste going in, might as well look at every option to acquire more talent in the future. Signing guys you can trade later is one way, and the fact that he's a "closer" and you already have a "closer" shouldn't affect your decision making on the matter.

[mookie]

Ryan Madson isn't an ideal use of resources for the Cubs. What an odd discussion.