time to be sellers

[larhur]

After seeing wood go down again and watching the so-so play of walker, Burnitz, perez, left fielders and Center Fielders, Time to start to pass out our more experienced players to the contenders and get some younger pplayers in return and have them play some signifant innings to plan next year. I would name Prior, Zambrano, aram, and Lee as the Backbone of next years team. Hang on to Hill also, the rest can go.

As usual, wait until next year.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

why should this team ever be sellers? we aren't even close to violating the 60-40 rule.

 

selling now doesn't mean we get to use the money later. that just goes right into the trib. co.'s pockets.

 

btw, we aren't even close to being out of the WC race. :wink:

[rickrolled]

The Cubs should not be sellers. Like the poster before me said, we aren't out of the WC race and considering the teams we're chasing, it's unlikely we'll fall out of it. We have Nomar coming back soon which should give us a boost at SS, Williamson had a good start to his rehab and should help out this bullpen as well. Hendry needs to get us a LF, however, or we'll just keep seeing Hollandsworth churned out there on a daily basis.

 

And how has Walker been so-so? He's been on fire lately. Obviously, he's had a tough series against the Cards, but come on, he's been very solid for us at 2B.

[cheapseats]

watching the so-so play of walker, Burnitz, perez, left fielders and Center Fielders,

 

The so-so play of Walker? He's one of the top 10 offensive second basemen in baseball. There are only a handful of guys who are having better offensive years. His defense is slightly below average, but not as much as some claim.

 

Burnitz hasn't been a great offensive RF, but he's been fine, and has defense has been well above average.

 

Perez has been an adequate backup, but he shouldn't be an everyday player.

 

You're correct about CF and LF. Hairston's been fine, but I'd prefer to see him in his natural position or as a utility player. Hollandsworth is unacceptable in LF, but Baker will continue to play him most of the time instead of Murton, who should get a true shot. I would rather play Murton everyday instead of trading for Kearns, but Dusty believes in easing in rookies instead of treating them like any other players. See Bobby Cox for an example of how to use rookies properly.

[biittner77]

Who do the Cubs have to sell?

 

I'd just as soon keep the infield minus Perez but no one would want him.

 

I'd trade any of the current OF except Murton but who'd want Hollandsworth, Macias, Gerut or Burnitz?

 

Hairston might have some value but unless they're ready to bring Patterson back they can't afford to trade him.

 

They could probably find a taker for Remlinger and Rusch but unless some team drastically overpays there wouldn't be much coming back so why bother?

[shnsajax]

Why sell when their is nothing to buy in the offseason. We need to buy the parts we won't be able to through FA. Besides is it really selling when what your selling is crap.

[AlwaysaCub]

Above .500 and sellers?

[Larry Horse]

The Cubs should not be sellers. Like the poster before me said, we aren't out of the WC race and considering the teams we're chasing, it's unlikely we'll fall out of it. We have Nomar coming back soon which should give us a boost at SS, Williamson had a good start to his rehab and should help out this bullpen as well. Hendry needs to get us a LF, however, or we'll just keep seeing Hollandsworth churned out there on a daily basis.

 

And how has Walker been so-so? He's been on fire lately. Obviously, he's had a tough series against the Cards, but come on, he's been very solid for us at 2B.

 

Before Cub fans start pining for the return of Nomar, could someone tell me what he was hitting at the time of his injury?

[rickrolled]

The Cubs should not be sellers. Like the poster before me said, we aren't out of the WC race and considering the teams we're chasing, it's unlikely we'll fall out of it. We have Nomar coming back soon which should give us a boost at SS, Williamson had a good start to his rehab and should help out this bullpen as well. Hendry needs to get us a LF, however, or we'll just keep seeing Hollandsworth churned out there on a daily basis.

 

And how has Walker been so-so? He's been on fire lately. Obviously, he's had a tough series against the Cards, but come on, he's been very solid for us at 2B.

 

Before Cub fans start pining for the return of Nomar, could someone tell me what he was hitting at the time of his injury?

 

In what, 50 at bats?

[Rusch33]

Yes, let's be sellers after we take 2 outta 3 from St. Louis on their homefield.

 

 

*notice sarcasm*

[sandberg23]

why should this team ever be sellers? we aren't even close to violating the 60-40 rule.

 

selling now doesn't mean we get to use the money later. that just goes right into the trib. co.'s pockets.

 

btw, we aren't even close to being out of the WC race. :wink:

 

What is the 60-40 rule? :?

[hawkeyecub]

We're 4.5 back from a fading Washington for the Wild Card race and 1 back in the loss column from a bunch of less than spectacular teams. We have a favorable schedule the rest of the way and have a chance to beat the teams in front of us.

 

Getting Nomar and Williamson back will be a lift. If we can get an impact bat in the OF, we'll be in fine position to take the Wild Card.

[Outshined_One]

If by sellers you mean trading for equal or better talent with major league talent (i.e. Maddux for Teixiera on the better talent end), then yes, we should always be sellers.

 

If you mean selling off big contracts and guys in the last year of their contracts off for prospects...then no, not when adding a good bullpen arm and an everyday LF would help this team compete for the WC.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

why should this team ever be sellers? we aren't even close to violating the 60-40 rule.

 

selling now doesn't mean we get to use the money later. that just goes right into the trib. co.'s pockets.

 

btw, we aren't even close to being out of the WC race. :wink:

 

What is the 60-40 rule? :?

 

it's the mlb rule that says how much debt a club can have in relation to it's revenue (club can't have 40+% debt in relation to it's asset value). how the assets are defined is a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo that i really don't understand. the 60/40 rule is basically what caused the pittsburgh firesale...which netted us ARam for a couple low salary players since the pirates needed to dump salary.

 

basically, it is a de facto salary cap.

 

 

since we have such a huge market and large revenues...and fairly reasonable player contracts, we aren't close to violating the 60-40 rule. we have the ability to spend more money on players than we actually do. of course the Trib. Company would have to take a cut in profit...but it wouldn't violate MLB rules.

[Brian]

]Before Cub fans start pining for the return of Nomar, could someone tell me what he was hitting at the time of his injury?

 

And what was Aramis Ramirez doing for the first weeks of the season??

[sporrer17]

A team that's 4.5 games out of the wildcard with over 60 games left...should not be sellers. We're 1.5 out of 2nd in the wildcard. That's not too far off folks. A few wins strung together, we're in a great position to make a run.

 

This team should NEVER be sellers unless they are well under .500 heading into July. We don't need the money...the only reason to sell is to play the kids, but right now Dusty's here anyway, so we won't get that accomplished even if we do sell. We'll have 60+ games of Macias in RF with Holla in LF...that would be exciting.

[CubsFan4Life]

All you've gotta do is look at our schedule and the other WC contenders schedules to see that we've got a great chance to get real close and even lead if we simply beat the teams we should beat.

 

Next series:

 

Cubs vs SF

Houston vs Philly

Wash vs Atl

FL vs Pitt

NYM vs Col

[sporrer17]

Go Philly, Bravos, Pirates and Rocks...

[nolanwood]

I think this team is far off from being sellers!!! You're already giving up? - you get nowhere in life being a quitter.

[Crash]

I could see an argument that we not be buyers and just roll the dice on the rest of the season. See what happens and not trade anything valuable from the farm system. But really the Cubs don't have a reason or the players to becone sellers.

 

-The Cubs don't really have any contracts they want or need to dump. The only big salary on the Cubs for 2006 that isn't attached to a long term building block player is Maddux's 9 million. And from all reports the team isn't even considering trading Maddux.

 

-The Cubs don't have any player that could net a legit prospect yet isn't part of the team's long term plans. Only Lee, Ramirez, Prior, Zambrano, and maybe Barrett or Walker could get a good return and for obvious reasons they won't be traded this season.

[CubfaninCA]

With Washington falling apart, the Cubs are essentially 1 1/2 games out of the wildcard. Also, they don't really have anyone to sell who will bring back anything of significance.. No one will give them much for Wood. Maddux isn't the pitcher he used to be so they won't get much for him. Patterson's struggled this year. And trading Lee, ARam, Z or Prior would be insane.

[Guest]

why should this team ever be sellers? we aren't even close to violating the 60-40 rule.

 

selling now doesn't mean we get to use the money later. that just goes right into the trib. co.'s pockets.

 

btw, we aren't even close to being out of the WC race. :wink:

 

What is the 60-40 rule? :?

 

it's the mlb rule that says how much debt a club can have in relation to it's revenue (club can't have 40+% debt in relation to it's asset value). how the assets are defined is a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo that i really don't understand. the 60/40 rule is basically what caused the pittsburgh firesale...which netted us ARam for a couple low salary players since the pirates needed to dump salary.

 

basically, it is a de facto salary cap.

The "newly interpreted" 60/40 rule only counts long-term player contracts as debt. In other words, player salaries for the current season don't count against a team's debt total, only the future balance of long-term contracts. Since neither Ramiriez nor Lofton had a contract with the Pirates beyond 2003, their trade had nothing to do with the 60/40 rule and was more or less just a beaseball descision.

 

This new interpretation of debt of the 60/40 rule was cooked up by Selig around the time of the last labor negotiations. (The rule itself has been around since 1983.) While Selig claims he was merely efnorcing a rule that had previously been ignored, what he really did was change two interpretations of debt; the aforementioned long-term contracts and also any debt associated with the construction of a new stadium. (He also set the "value" of a franchise as twice it's yearly revenue for no apparent reason, but that's beside the point.) The goals of these interpretations were twofold; reduce the number of (and length of each individual) long-term player contracts and force teams seeking new stadiums to find public financing.

 

The 60/40 rule isn't a salary cap as teams can still spend $300 million on one-year player contracts and it woud be perfectly kosher as far as the 60/40 rule is concerned. While it doesn't have much of impact on the amount of a contract, it is a big reason why really long-term deals (5+ years) have beeen so rare over the past few years.

[Larry Horse]

]Before Cub fans start pining for the return of Nomar, could someone tell me what he was hitting at the time of his injury?

 

And what was Aramis Ramirez doing for the first weeks of the season??

 

I believe Nomar has played in about 60 games since being acquired. I'm not going to get to wrapped up in NomarMania quite yet.

[cheapseats]

]Before Cub fans start pining for the return of Nomar, could someone tell me what he was hitting at the time of his injury?

 

And what was Aramis Ramirez doing for the first weeks of the season??

 

I believe Nomar has played in about 60 games since being acquired. I'm not going to get to wrapped up in NomarMania quite yet.

 

In 43 games last year, playing hurt, he put up a .364 OBP and a .819 OPS. Those numbers look pretty good compared to Neifi's .286 and .666 (the OPS of the beast).

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

why should this team ever be sellers? we aren't even close to violating the 60-40 rule.

 

selling now doesn't mean we get to use the money later. that just goes right into the trib. co.'s pockets.

 

btw, we aren't even close to being out of the WC race. :wink:

 

What is the 60-40 rule? :?

 

it's the mlb rule that says how much debt a club can have in relation to it's revenue (club can't have 40+% debt in relation to it's asset value). how the assets are defined is a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo that i really don't understand. the 60/40 rule is basically what caused the pittsburgh firesale...which netted us ARam for a couple low salary players since the pirates needed to dump salary.

 

basically, it is a de facto salary cap.

The "newly interpreted" 60/40 rule only counts long-term player contracts as debt. In other words, player salaries for the current season don't count against a team's debt total, only the future balance of long-term contracts. Since neither Ramiriez nor Lofton had a contract with the Pirates beyond 2003, their trade had nothing to do with the 60/40 rule and was more or less just a beaseball descision.

 

This new interpretation of debt of the 60/40 rule was cooked up by Selig around the time of the last labor negotiations. (The rule itself has been around since 1983.) While Selig claims he was merely efnorcing a rule that had previously been ignored, what he really did was change two interpretations of debt; the aforementioned long-term contracts and also any debt associated with the construction of a new stadium. (He also set the "value" of a franchise as twice it's yearly revenue for no apparent reason, but that's beside the point.) The goals of these interpretations were twofold; reduce the number of (and length of each individual) long-term player contracts and force teams seeking new stadiums to find public financing.

 

The 60/40 rule isn't a salary cap as teams can still spend $300 million on one-year player contracts and it woud be perfectly kosher as far as the 60/40 rule is concerned. While it doesn't have much of impact on the amount of a contract, it is a big reason why really long-term deals (5+ years) have beeen so rare over the past few years.

 

are you sure the 60-40 rule didn't cause the sale of ARam? I remember they had Giles, Benson, and ARam who all had huge raises the next year. Benson was originally the one tabbed to keep salary down until he was injured a little before the trading deadline and no one wanted him then...and they shipped Giles out too (not sure why). the trade was about money, not restocking the farm system or anything like that.

 

ah, i found an article from way back when:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pirates/20030724rebuildbuc2.asp

 

ARam had a contract with the Pirates for 6 million the next year and he was offloaded b/c of the 60-40 rule.

 

 

i was wrong about the 60-40 rule being a de facto salary cap. :oops: