Trading Marlon Byrd

[Little Slide Rooter]

•Olney suggests the Red Sox and Nationals could have interest in Cubs outfielder Marlon Byrd, who will earn $6.5MM in 2012, the final year of his contract. The Red Sox could play Byrd in right and the Nationals could use him in center.

 

While Byrds return would likely be the least of our tradeable assets, he's also arguebly the most tradeable, aside from Garza. With both Boston and Washington listed, each of them have a young 1st baseman that could be an interesting optiong for us to autidion if we don't get Fielder. With Boston, Lars Anderson won't be taking A Gons job anytime soon, although I don't know if they've considered moving him to the ourfield. He's lost most of his luster as a prospect, but he's still better than most of the existing, realisitc option. Washington has Chris Marrerro, and while Adam Laroche is nowhere near the obstacle that A Gon is, they could also go for Fielder making Marrero very expendable. Neither Anderson or Marrero are sure things to be the long term answer, but it's definitely time to start the auditions. I know that Marlon Byrd on his own wouldn't be able to land us either one on his own, but if we put him as the center of a package, we could work something out.

[jersey cubs fan]

At this point I really just want to see how much lower they can get the payroll.

[El Duderino]

At this point I really just want to see how much lower they can get the payroll.

 

Same.

[davell]

I'm all for trading Byrd and whatever else that makes sense at this point. Maybe we can change our team name to the Chicago Cost Controlleds for a year or two.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm all for trading Byrd and whatever else that makes sense at this point. Maybe we can change our team name to the Chicago Cost Controlleds for a year or two.

 

Maybe license out the Cubs name to other organizations in an effort to maximize revenues.

[ScrubMD]

At this point I really just want to see how much lower they can get the payroll.

 

Same.

 

Soriano, Zambrano, Dempster, Garza, Marmol, and Byrd are the only guys left that make real money, and Byrd is just barely real money (I decided to set my arbitrary "real money" line at $5m).

 

They all have been linked to trades. We could be down to A's territory before long.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

At this point I really just want to see how much lower they can get the payroll.

 

Spot on.

 

Don't know why, but it's really entertaining for me to imagine us having like a $60 million payroll this season......and being no worse than last year. They can give Byrd away at this point. I just want to see the $6.5 erased from the books.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Bryant's Disco Ball

[hardcorecubfan]

I'm all for trading Byrd and whatever else that makes sense at this point. Maybe we can change our team name to the Chicago Cost Controlleds for a year or two.

 

Disagree, keep until trade deadline, and hope he starts well and then trade for some pitching prospects.

[Clem Fandango]

I'm all for trading Byrd and whatever else that makes sense at this point. Maybe we can change our team name to the Chicago Cost Controlleds for a year or two.

 

Disagree, keep until trade deadline, and hope he starts well and then trade for some pitching prospects.

 

I think his value is not going to get any better than it is right now. He's getting old, there's no guarantee he'll be as good as he has been in the past this season, and the amount left on his contract is not burdensome enough that people aren't willing to take a chance on him. I think we can get more for him now than we can later. We'd have to hope there's a team in contention who desperately needs an outfielder at the deadline who would be willing to overpay then in order to get what we could probably get for him now a lot easier.

[davell]

At this point I really just want to see how much lower they can get the payroll.

Every time we trade someone, we should throw a massive party, where Tom, Theo, Jed, and the gang get to do the Limbo. Bar gets lowered each time payroll drops.

[The Other One]

At this point I really just want to see how much lower they can get the payroll.

Every time we trade someone, we should throw a massive party, where Tom, Theo, Jed, and the gang get to do the Limbo. Bar gets lowered each time payroll drops.

 

I know we were a high payroll team with low payroll results. I was, though, hoping we would move to a high payroll team with high payroll results, rather than match the low payroll results with a low payroll.

 

While I understand the need to go through a transition, it doesn't take a high priced front office to get poor results while saving the owner money. Salty Saltwell did that for Wrigley at a much lower salary than Epstein and Hoyer.

 

At the end of the day, I want top results. If we pay a little for that great, especially if it lowers ticket prices. If not, I don't care how much or little they spend if it doesn't affect me.

[Conky]

At this point I really just want to see how much lower they can get the payroll.

Every time we trade someone, we should throw a massive party, where Tom, Theo, Jed, and the gang get to do the Limbo. Bar gets lowered each time payroll drops.

 

I know we were a high payroll team with low payroll results. I was, though, hoping we would move to a high payroll team with high payroll results, rather than match the low payroll results with a low payroll.

 

While I understand the need to go through a transition, it doesn't take a high priced front office to get poor results while saving the owner money. Salty Saltwell did that for Wrigley at a much lower salary than Epstein and Hoyer.

 

At the end of the day, I want top results. If we pay a little for that great, especially if it lowers ticket prices. If not, I don't care how much or little they spend if it doesn't affect me.

 

What are the poor results you are alluding to here? If you are going to call out the front office, please enlighten us with your perceived mishandling of the team thus far under Epstein and Hoyer. Salty Saltwell? Really? A google search and 1 minute read told me that he was the one that traded Bill Madlock for Bobby Murcer. Is that the type of front office you see here?

[Beer Kaese]

I suppose we can get carried away with the shrinking payroll a bit but there is a method here. The escalating contracts and aging core that was the 07/08 success imploded. It's time to clean house and get the maximum high level minor, potential turnaround and spring training competition to begin to lay the foundation for the next run.

 

The Farm system lacks players with the potential of being special. Trade whatever you have (except Starlin Castro) and fix that problem. Bring in players who are not expensive yet that have the potential of having a good year and, if they do, decide if they fit the plan or flip them for younger and better players near the deadline. Then, make sure you have six starting pitchers on your 40 man roster at the beginning of the season.

 

I haven't felt this good about the Cubs since 2009 and I think they can exceed the success of 07/08 around 14/15.

[NewUserName]

[quote name="Conky"

 

What are the poor results you are alluding to here? If you are going to call out the front office' date=' please enlighten us with your perceived mishandling of the team thus far under Epstein and Hoyer. Salty Saltwell? Really? A google search and 1 minute read told me that he was the one that traded Bill Madlock for Bobby Murcer. Is that the type of front office you see here?[/quote]

 

I think at the time BA was way over rated, which has made this trade seem a lot worse than it really was. If I remember correctly Madlock only had 1 or 2 more really good years in his career after he left the Cubs. Murcer and Ontiveros were not very good, but they both put up at least 1 solid season for the Cubs. I can easily think of 3 much worse trades that the Cubs have made.

[JeffH]

 

What are the poor results you are alluding to here? If you are going to call out the front office, please enlighten us with your perceived mishandling of the team thus far under Epstein and Hoyer. Salty Saltwell? Really? A google search and 1 minute read told me that he was the one that traded Bill Madlock for Bobby Murcer. Is that the type of front office you see here?

 

I think at the time BA was way over rated, which has made this trade seem a lot worse than it really was. If I remember correctly Madlock only had 1 or 2 more really good years in his career after he left the Cubs. Murcer and Ontiveros were not very good, but they both put up at least 1 solid season for the Cubs. I can easily think of 3 much worse trades that the Cubs have made.

 

Bill Madlock was a very, very, very good baseball player.

 

Career OPS+:

 

Ron Santo - 125

Bill Madlock - 123

 

By the way, Bobby Murcer was also a very, very, very good baseball player. The problem was that he was 30 years old at the time of the trade. Madlock was 25.

[The Other One]

At this point I really just want to see how much lower they can get the payroll.

Every time we trade someone, we should throw a massive party, where Tom, Theo, Jed, and the gang get to do the Limbo. Bar gets lowered each time payroll drops.

 

I know we were a high payroll team with low payroll results. I was, though, hoping we would move to a high payroll team with high payroll results, rather than match the low payroll results with a low payroll.

 

While I understand the need to go through a transition, it doesn't take a high priced front office to get poor results while saving the owner money. Salty Saltwell did that for Wrigley at a much lower salary than Epstein and Hoyer.

 

At the end of the day, I want top results. If we pay a little for that great, especially if it lowers ticket prices. If not, I don't care how much or little they spend if it doesn't affect me.

 

What are the poor results you are alluding to here? If you are going to call out the front office, please enlighten us with your perceived mishandling of the team thus far under Epstein and Hoyer. Salty Saltwell? Really? A google search and 1 minute read told me that he was the one that traded Bill Madlock for Bobby Murcer. Is that the type of front office you see here?

 

My comment was pointed towards enthusiasm to drop payroll as the quotes I copied suggested. I understand the hyperbole/sarcasm in what they said, but I only meant to point out as others have that a big market team such as the Cubs have the resources to build at both the MLB roster and farm system.

 

I have utmost confidence in this front office and support their moves. If they deem they need to trade for the future since the present is a no win situation then I support that. Personally, I was hoping for signing international guys like the Cubans and free agents such as Pujols or Fielder. And in fact, the window is not closed on that front.

 

I will admit, I threw Saltwell out there as a lackey without thought to any specific moves. I don't post often, but I did weigh in on Madlock's trade in another thread. He was traded because he demanded more money and then they signed Murcer to more money than Madlock asked for (precursor to the Maddux situation later under Himes). But it also happened in times of poor attendance and getting Murcer was as much a way to potentially increase draw.

 

Year Attendance Record

1970 1,642,705 84-78

1971 1,653,007 83-79

1972 1,299,163 85-70

1973 1,351,705 77-84

1974 1,015,378 66-96 Madlock

1975 1,034,819 75-87 Madlock

1976 1,026,217 75-87 Madlock

1977 1,439,834 81-81 Murcer

1978 1,525,311 79-83 Murcer

1979 1,648,587 80-82

 

So, no there is no correlation to this move and the current front office's moves. But, perhaps it does point out that attendance is not a given. And being a big market team is dependent on revenue. Cutting payroll for the sake of future flexibility alone may not yield the results if revenues drop.

[davell]

What I went into this offseason wanting was an impact bat, an impact arm, and some serious money thrown at IFA. Now, with no impact arma left and only one bat, if we blow it up completely, I'm OK with it. It's not my first choice, but I do have confidence in this group as to what they're doing. I think they know we can't go through a 5 year rebuild as a major market team who's ticket prices are sky high. One year of stockpiling young talent and reassessing everything at that point? Sure, I'm OK with that and I think they're talented enough to turn the roster upside down that quickly. Let some guys sink or swim, cut bait with those who drown, make some trades where we're adding on, instead of selling off, and then start spending again next year with a true intent on making the playoffs in 2013 or 2014 at the latest. They have their work cut out for them, as I said in another thread, at a glance I only found 4 organizations I thought had less assets than what we do. The Twins, White Sox, Astros, and Mets from top to bottom. Let's see how quickly that changes. The Marshall trade was the first true move we made going in this direction and it was very solid. Let's see what else they've got in store........

[Conky]

At this point I really just want to see how much lower they can get the payroll.

Every time we trade someone, we should throw a massive party, where Tom, Theo, Jed, and the gang get to do the Limbo. Bar gets lowered each time payroll drops.

 

I know we were a high payroll team with low payroll results. I was, though, hoping we would move to a high payroll team with high payroll results, rather than match the low payroll results with a low payroll.

 

While I understand the need to go through a transition, it doesn't take a high priced front office to get poor results while saving the owner money. Salty Saltwell did that for Wrigley at a much lower salary than Epstein and Hoyer.

 

At the end of the day, I want top results. If we pay a little for that great, especially if it lowers ticket prices. If not, I don't care how much or little they spend if it doesn't affect me.

 

What are the poor results you are alluding to here? If you are going to call out the front office, please enlighten us with your perceived mishandling of the team thus far under Epstein and Hoyer. Salty Saltwell? Really? A google search and 1 minute read told me that he was the one that traded Bill Madlock for Bobby Murcer. Is that the type of front office you see here?

 

My comment was pointed towards enthusiasm to drop payroll as the quotes I copied suggested. I understand the hyperbole/sarcasm in what they said, but I only meant to point out as others have that a big market team such as the Cubs have the resources to build at both the MLB roster and farm system.

 

I have utmost confidence in this front office and support their moves. If they deem they need to trade for the future since the present is a no win situation then I support that. Personally, I was hoping for signing international guys like the Cubans and free agents such as Pujols or Fielder. And in fact, the window is not closed on that front.

 

I will admit, I threw Saltwell out there as a lackey without thought to any specific moves. I don't post often, but I did weigh in on Madlock's trade in another thread. He was traded because he demanded more money and then they signed Murcer to more money than Madlock asked for (precursor to the Maddux situation later under Himes). But it also happened in times of poor attendance and getting Murcer was as much a way to potentially increase draw.

 

Year Attendance Record

1970 1,642,705 84-78

1971 1,653,007 83-79

1972 1,299,163 85-70

1973 1,351,705 77-84

1974 1,015,378 66-96 Madlock

1975 1,034,819 75-87 Madlock

1976 1,026,217 75-87 Madlock

1977 1,439,834 81-81 Murcer

1978 1,525,311 79-83 Murcer

1979 1,648,587 80-82

 

So, no there is no correlation to this move and the current front office's moves. But, perhaps it does point out that attendance is not a given. And being a big market team is dependent on revenue. Cutting payroll for the sake of future flexibility alone may not yield the results if revenues drop.

 

No worries, TOO.

 

Couple things:

 

Nice to see you back away from vilifying the current brain-trust. They deserve a shot, I think.

 

The other thing that stands out to me is your fixation on attendance. I have seen this from other respected posters here. How is it that a fanboy type Forbes 400 family and Ivy League educated underlings running your team is not enough? 2 months brings us here? Wow. Does anyone think they might consider the effects their actions during this off-season have on revenue? I'm guessing maybe.

 

The Madlock thing is a different issue. Way off base there as well. Sending Madlock away was only outdone by trading Palmeiro and allowing Maddux to walk. There were no contract issues with Madlock. He had just won 2 consecutive batting titles and was in line for MVP. He went on to a pretty "decent" career elsewhere.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/madlobi01.shtml

 

Past decisions/ failures aside, it was time to blow this thing up and start over. I trust the people doing it. The end result is going to be cataclysmic I think.

[questionmarkgrace]

At this point I really just want to see how much lower they can get the payroll.

Every time we trade someone, we should throw a massive party, where Tom, Theo, Jed, and the gang get to do the Limbo. Bar gets lowered each time payroll drops.

 

I know we were a high payroll team with low payroll results. I was, though, hoping we would move to a high payroll team with high payroll results, rather than match the low payroll results with a low payroll.

 

While I understand the need to go through a transition, it doesn't take a high priced front office to get poor results while saving the owner money. Salty Saltwell did that for Wrigley at a much lower salary than Epstein and Hoyer.

 

At the end of the day, I want top results. If we pay a little for that great, especially if it lowers ticket prices. If not, I don't care how much or little they spend if it doesn't affect me.

 

What are the poor results you are alluding to here? If you are going to call out the front office, please enlighten us with your perceived mishandling of the team thus far under Epstein and Hoyer. Salty Saltwell? Really? A google search and 1 minute read told me that he was the one that traded Bill Madlock for Bobby Murcer. Is that the type of front office you see here?

 

My comment was pointed towards enthusiasm to drop payroll as the quotes I copied suggested. I understand the hyperbole/sarcasm in what they said, but I only meant to point out as others have that a big market team such as the Cubs have the resources to build at both the MLB roster and farm system.

 

I have utmost confidence in this front office and support their moves. If they deem they need to trade for the future since the present is a no win situation then I support that. Personally, I was hoping for signing international guys like the Cubans and free agents such as Pujols or Fielder. And in fact, the window is not closed on that front.

 

I will admit, I threw Saltwell out there as a lackey without thought to any specific moves. I don't post often, but I did weigh in on Madlock's trade in another thread. He was traded because he demanded more money and then they signed Murcer to more money than Madlock asked for (precursor to the Maddux situation later under Himes). But it also happened in times of poor attendance and getting Murcer was as much a way to potentially increase draw.

 

Year Attendance Record

1970 1,642,705 84-78

1971 1,653,007 83-79

1972 1,299,163 85-70

1973 1,351,705 77-84

1974 1,015,378 66-96 Madlock

1975 1,034,819 75-87 Madlock

1976 1,026,217 75-87 Madlock

1977 1,439,834 81-81 Murcer

1978 1,525,311 79-83 Murcer

1979 1,648,587 80-82

 

So, no there is no correlation to this move and the current front office's moves. But, perhaps it does point out that attendance is not a given. And being a big market team is dependent on revenue. Cutting payroll for the sake of future flexibility alone may not yield the results if revenues drop.

 

No worries, TOO.

 

Couple things:

 

Nice to see you back away from vilifying the current brain-trust. They deserve a shot, I think.

 

The other thing that stands out to me is your fixation on attendance. I have seen this from other respected posters here. How is it that a fanboy type Forbes 400 family and Ivy League educated underlings running your team is not enough? 2 months brings us here? Wow. Does anyone think they might consider the effects their actions during this off-season have on revenue? I'm guessing maybe.

 

The Madlock thing is a different issue. Way off base there as well. Sending Madlock away was only outdone by trading Palmeiro and allowing Maddux to walk. There were no contract issues with Madlock. He had just won 2 consecutive batting titles and was in line for MVP. He went on to a pretty "decent" career elsewhere.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/madlobi01.shtml

 

Past decisions/ failures aside, it was time to blow this thing up and start over. I trust the people doing it. The end result is going to be cataclysmic I think.

 

A couple thoughts: 1) the revenue loss for this year will dwarf the couple of million dollars they can save if they run this current team out there. The team wont be that much worse than last year but the perception of ownership sure will be. This is what they are underestimating. There will be a large contingent of fans that will not by tickets if this is the team that is on the field. I will be one of them. The media pressure will also be immense. Its great to say that we are more efficient but when you're in the cellar of the worst division in baseball then who cares about efficiency of output. Input will soon be the problem.

 

2) Fixing the farm system doesnt require us save boat loads of money. The cubs problem hasnt been spending the money its been on how they spend the money. Under theo and jed they will most definitely put the funds to better use. But there is no reason to slash the payroll and go into full rebuilding mode in the name of fixing the farm. The farm fixes itself once we put the right people in place. Between last years draft, past international drafts, and the next few years to come the farm is on its way. Plus with the new rules in place for international spending and hard slotting the days of out spending other organizations is gone. So again lowering payroll in the name of the fixing the farm just does not equate.

 

3) Building solely via free agency or only through development just doesnt work. We need to develop and sign players. So turning a blind eye to one of the best classes of young high impact free agents in years seems just plain misguided. With all of the money coming off the books and players available at our positions it doesnt make sense not to invest in free agents. We will be able to get by with cheap years from several good young players at a number of positions. So it shouldnt be much of a hindrance to future moves to make a big splash. Signing a bigger name also keeps fans interested, revenue flowing, and best of all allows us to be competitive within the division here on out. Then when some of our farm guys develop we feather them in or trade them all the while getting better. In short if we develop guys there is no reason not to sign key free agents. If we go the development only route we run the risk of perpetual rebuilding a la the royals who have some great talent on their team but never seem to get over the hump.

 

As is, this plan will prove to be nothing more than a flawed business model. Punting away multiple seasons for some abstract rebuilding plan will put the cubs even farther away from the prize then they already are.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Even if we did "punt" this season we wouldn't have to trade solely for 18-20 year olds we wont see for 3-5 years. We should also be looking into some 22-26 year olds that can step in in the next year or. As I've said befor, unlike the A's and Pirates when we rebuild we shouldn't be relying solely on the acquired prospects because we can also afford to sign big name free agents, even if we don't start until next year. I'd be willing to begrudgingly accept 1 punted season but after the I expect the team to at least start shaping up to something watchable.

[Backtobanks]

Even if we did "punt" this season we wouldn't have to trade solely for 18-20 year olds we wont see for 3-5 years. We should also be looking into some 22-26 year olds that can step in in the next year or. As I've said befor, unlike the A's and Pirates when we rebuild we shouldn't be relying solely on the acquired prospects because we can also afford to sign big name free agents, even if we don't start until next year. I'd be willing to begrudgingly accept 1 punted season but after the I expect the team to at least start shaping up to something watchable.

 

I totally agree. My first expectations were for a "decent" team in 2012 and a contender in 2013, but I've accepted kissing off 2012. To me that should push back expectations 1 year, not 4-5 years like some posters are expecting. If Theo & CO. are going to take 5-6 years to build a serious contender, then in my book they have failed. Let's not forget that rebuilding the farm system is great, but there's no guarantee that these prospects will become solid ML players.

[d_money]

At the end of the day, I want top results. If we pay a little for that great, especially if it lowers ticket prices.

 

Lowering ticket prices? Good luck with that. That'll never happen and if it does, the decrease will be minimal, at best.

[jersey cubs fan]

I suppose we can get carried away with the shrinking payroll a bit but there is a method here. The escalating contracts and aging core that was the 07/08 success imploded. It's time to clean house and get the maximum high level minor, potential turnaround and spring training competition to begin to lay the foundation for the next run.

 

The Farm system lacks players with the potential of being special. Trade whatever you have (except Starlin Castro) and fix that problem. Bring in players who are not expensive yet that have the potential of having a good year and, if they do, decide if they fit the plan or flip them for younger and better players near the deadline. Then, make sure you have six starting pitchers on your 40 man roster at the beginning of the season.

 

I haven't felt this good about the Cubs since 2009 and I think they can exceed the success of 07/08 around 14/15.

 

There's no reason it should take that long.

[Old Style]

 

What are the poor results you are alluding to here? If you are going to call out the front office, please enlighten us with your perceived mishandling of the team thus far under Epstein and Hoyer. Salty Saltwell? Really? A google search and 1 minute read told me that he was the one that traded Bill Madlock for Bobby Murcer. Is that the type of front office you see here?

 

I think at the time BA was way over rated, which has made this trade seem a lot worse than it really was. If I remember correctly Madlock only had 1 or 2 more really good years in his career after he left the Cubs. Murcer and Ontiveros were not very good, but they both put up at least 1 solid season for the Cubs. I can easily think of 3 much worse trades that the Cubs have made.

 

Bill Madlock was a very, very, very good baseball player.

 

Career OPS+:

 

Ron Santo - 125

Bill Madlock - 123

 

By the way, Bobby Murcer was also a very, very, very good baseball player. The problem was that he was 30 years old at the time of the trade. Madlock was 25.

Two of my favorite Cubs as a kid were Madlock & Murcer.

[Backtobanks]

I suppose we can get carried away with the shrinking payroll a bit but there is a method here. The escalating contracts and aging core that was the 07/08 success imploded. It's time to clean house and get the maximum high level minor, potential turnaround and spring training competition to begin to lay the foundation for the next run.

 

The Farm system lacks players with the potential of being special. Trade whatever you have (except Starlin Castro) and fix that problem. Bring in players who are not expensive yet that have the potential of having a good year and, if they do, decide if they fit the plan or flip them for younger and better players near the deadline. Then, make sure you have six starting pitchers on your 40 man roster at the beginning of the season.

 

I haven't felt this good about the Cubs since 2009 and I think they can exceed the success of 07/08 around 14/15.

 

There's no reason it should take that long.

 

It shouldn't take that long, but early indications are that it will. The Cubs look awful for 2012, have a ton of holes and question marks for 2013, and 2014 is a possibility assuming their prospects develop as hoped.