Trib says Walker "probably as good as gone"

[YearofDaCubs]

What Stone just suggested on the Score. If indeed Walker is traded sign Furcal to play SS and move Cedeno to 2B. He mentioned that they moved him from 2B to SS in the fall league.

And this is why Stone will never be a major league GM. As was mentioned, Cedeno is a SS, and his value is as a SS. That means you would be giving Furcal shortstop-type money to play 2B. There's really no point in overpaying for less production.

I don't believe Stone suggested moving Furcal to 2B.

 

It seems like something was lost in the translation. The idea is Furcal at SS and Cedeno at 2B.

That's exactly what he said but he mentioned something about Cedeno moving from 2b to SS in the fall league which made no sense to me. I just wanted to post Stone's comments for everyone to read.

[jtownie]

What Stone just suggested on the Score. If indeed Walker is traded sign Furcal to play SS and move Cedeno to 2B. He mentioned that they moved him from 2B to SS in the fall league.

And this is why Stone will never be a major league GM. As was mentioned, Cedeno is a SS, and his value is as a SS. That means you would be giving Furcal shortstop-type money to play 2B. There's really no point in overpaying for less production.

I don't believe Stone suggested moving Furcal to 2B.

 

It seems like something was lost in the translation. The idea is Furcal at SS and Cedeno at 2B.

 

I could very happily live with that outcome, especially if the Cubs keep Hairston in reserve for the bench. Walker's money reduces Furcal's price tag by $2.75MM net (since Cedeno is league minimum), allowing even more money for addressing all three outfield positions, a starting pitcher, and two relievers.

 

why not just put Hairston in CF?

[TheDude]

What Stone just suggested on the Score. If indeed Walker is traded sign Furcal to play SS and move Cedeno to 2B. He mentioned that they moved him from 2B to SS in the fall league.

And this is why Stone will never be a major league GM. As was mentioned, Cedeno is a SS, and his value is as a SS. That means you would be giving Furcal shortstop-type money to play 2B. There's really no point in overpaying for less production.

I don't believe Stone suggested moving Furcal to 2B.

 

It seems like something was lost in the translation. The idea is Furcal at SS and Cedeno at 2B.

That's exactly what he said but he mentioned something about Cedeno moving from 2b to SS in the fall league which made no sense to me. I just wanted to post Stone's comments for everyone to read.

Perhaps Stone was pointing out Cedeno has experience at 2B already, having moved from the position in the past? And therefore a move back to 2B isn't as big a stretch as might otherwise seem?

[Tim]

What Stone just suggested on the Score. If indeed Walker is traded sign Furcal to play SS and move Cedeno to 2B. He mentioned that they moved him from 2B to SS in the fall league.

And this is why Stone will never be a major league GM. As was mentioned, Cedeno is a SS, and his value is as a SS. That means you would be giving Furcal shortstop-type money to play 2B. There's really no point in overpaying for less production.

I don't believe Stone suggested moving Furcal to 2B.

 

It seems like something was lost in the translation. The idea is Furcal at SS and Cedeno at 2B.

That's exactly what he said but he mentioned something about Cedeno moving from 2b to SS in the fall league which made no sense to me. I just wanted to post Stone's comments for everyone to read.

Perhaps Stone was pointing out Cedeno has experience at 2B already, having moved from the position in the past? And therefore a move back to 2B isn't as big a stretch as might otherwise seem?

While Ronny has received spot time at 2B in the past, he has been a shortstop throughout his minor league career.

[Exile on Waveland]

And if Murton can play CF effectively, that'll put off all this "he doesn't have enough power to play LF" garbage.

 

And, more than likely, simply turn it into "he doesn't have enough speed to play CF" garbage.

He doesn't have enough speed or superb enough OF instincts to make up the difference.

 

He's played like two innings of CF that I know of and I believe that was because the CF left the game and someone had to play there.

 

If he can't, he can't. I didn't mean to imply that I thought he could -- I really have no idea either way. I was just basing it off of erik's quote of "if he can play CF effectively" what the next possible complaint would be.

 

It is too bad if Murton can't handle CF. Even if the Cubs didn't plan on starting him there, it's always nice to have some versatility.

[Tim]

It's one thing to be capable of a few innings of emergency duty in CF - which Murton probably is. It's another thing to be stuck out there day after day. Having Murton out there full time in CF would lead to a lot of extra doubles + triples the pitching staff would have to overcome.

[USSoccer]

Given the track record of Hendry and Baker in regards to starting a rookie position player, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where Cedeno would be the starting SS or 2B next year.

 

Choi platooned with Karros until Baker phased Choi out

Hill was passed over in favor of Grudz (no real complaint here, though)

Dubois was yanked around in favor of a terrible Hollandsworth

Murton was trusted only to play against LHP for some reason

Cedeno didn'tt play much his second callup, and then only against LHP

 

Conversely, you can't really find an example of where a guy was trusted to be the everyday player at a position if there was a veteran alternative available.

 

In other words, I won't buy Hendry saying anything about Murton or Cedeno being counted on for 2006 until either Baker is gone or we see a final 2006 roster next spring.

[CubfaninCA]

Given the track record of Hendry and Baker in regards to starting a rookie position player, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where Cedeno would be the starting SS or 2B next year.

 

Choi platooned with Karros until Baker phased Choi out

Hill was passed over in favor of Grudz (no real complaint here, though)

Dubois was yanked around in favor of a terrible Hollandsworth

Murton was trusted only to play against LHP for some reason

Cedeno didn'tt play much his second callup, and then only against LHP

 

Conversely, you can't really find an example of where a guy was trusted to be the everyday player at a position if there was a veteran alternative available.

 

In other words, I won't buy Hendry saying anything about Murton or Cedeno being counted on for 2006 until either Baker is gone or we see a final 2006 roster next spring.

 

Choi's a pretty poor example. The guy still can't play.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Given the track record of Hendry and Baker in regards to starting a rookie position player, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where Cedeno would be the starting SS or 2B next year.

 

Choi platooned with Karros until Baker phased Choi out

Hill was passed over in favor of Grudz (no real complaint here, though)

Dubois was yanked around in favor of a terrible Hollandsworth

Murton was trusted only to play against LHP for some reason

Cedeno didn'tt play much his second callup, and then only against LHP

 

Conversely, you can't really find an example of where a guy was trusted to be the everyday player at a position if there was a veteran alternative available.

 

In other words, I won't buy Hendry saying anything about Murton or Cedeno being counted on for 2006 until either Baker is gone or we see a final 2006 roster next spring.

 

Choi's a pretty poor example. The guy still can't play.

 

And Karros still can't hit RHP.

[biittner77]

It's one thing to be capable of a few innings of emergency duty in CF - which Murton probably is. It's another thing to be stuck out there day after day. Having Murton out there full time in CF would lead to a lot of extra doubles + triples the pitching staff would have to overcome.

 

Just like Hairston did tonight. An experienced OF catches that ball and really changes the complexion of the whole game. Instead, Hairston runs in circles and it drops for a double. This is why CF defense is so important.

 

That being said, if the Cubs are willing to run Hairston out there I don't see where giving Murton some AAA time in CF would hurt.

[Blueheart05]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

[AlwaysaCub]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

 

Without DLee this team is pretty much the worst team in the NL, no better than the rockies or pirates. Trading Walker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trading Lee.

[CubfaninCA]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

 

The love for Walker is beyond bizarre.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

 

Without DLee this team is pretty much the worst team in the NL, no better than the rockies or pirates. Trading Walker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trading Lee.

 

Of course, that assumes you don't get anything in return. If you can capitalize on his inflated value, it might make sense to deal Lee, since he has an inflated value and may command more than he's actually worth after next season.

[AAApittsburgh]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

It makes more sense to entertain offers for Lee, because his value is so high and he'll be a FA after next season. Imagine what we could get for him. :shock:

 

Obviously, that's only if a team was really willing to overpay. Something like Lee for Richie Sexson and King Felix would be awesome.

[nilodnayr]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

 

The love for Walker is beyond bizarre.

 

Yes, it makes more sense to trade Lee because his value is at its highest and is in the national stage as a possible triple crown and MVP candidate. Lees production/salary will probably be fairly equivalent to Walkers next year (Walkers was higher last year).

[Blueheart05]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

 

Without DLee this team is pretty much the worst team in the NL, no better than the rockies or pirates. Trading Walker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trading Lee.

 

Of course, that assumes you don't get anything in return. If you can capitalize on his inflated value, it might make sense to deal Lee, since he has an inflated value and may command more than he's actually worth after next season.

 

One man's inflated value is another man's coming into his own... This year aside, Lee has been a consistent 30/98 man which is still far more productive than Walker. Besides, getting rid of Lee would cause BOTH an offensive and defensive deficiency.

[Blueheart05]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

 

The love for Walker is beyond bizarre.

 

Yes, it makes more sense to trade Lee because his value is at its highest and is in the national stage as a possible triple crown and MVP candidate. Lees production/salary will probably be fairly equivalent to Walkers next year (Walkers was higher last year).

 

You can't make the team better by weakening its core. Even if you think his offensive outbreak is a one year deal, it's hard to argue against Derrek Lee as one of the best defensive 1B in the league. The Cubs infield defense would suffer no matter what they could get for him in a trade.

Edited August 30, 2005 by Blueheart05

[CubfaninCA]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

 

The love for Walker is beyond bizarre.

 

Yes, it makes more sense to trade Lee because his value is at its highest and is in the national stage as a possible triple crown and MVP candidate. Lees production/salary will probably be fairly equivalent to Walkers next year (Walkers was higher last year).

 

Pretty stupid gamble to trade away Lee. Triple Crown guys don't come around often.

[nilodnayr]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

 

Without DLee this team is pretty much the worst team in the NL, no better than the rockies or pirates. Trading Walker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trading Lee.

 

Of course, that assumes you don't get anything in return. If you can capitalize on his inflated value, it might make sense to deal Lee, since he has an inflated value and may command more than he's actually worth after next season.

 

One man's inflated value is another man's coming into his own... This year aside, Lee has been a consistent 30/98 man which is still far more productive than Walker. Besides, getting rid of Lee would cause BOTH an offensive and defensive deficiency.

 

Offensively last year Walker had an 820 OPS and Lee had 860 OPS. At even money Id take an 820 OPS from my second baseman over an 860 OPS from my firstbaseman. Of course Lee was making 4 times what Walker made. Now, Walker had 250 less ABs and is average defensively with Lee being gold glove caliber. They both are great production/value but projecting the future, I would put Lee at around 950 OPS and not expect him to put up numbers over 1100. Lee had already played 1000 games before this year, im not saying its a fluke year, but i wouldnt say hes coming into his own.

[nilodnayr]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

 

The love for Walker is beyond bizarre.

 

Yes, it makes more sense to trade Lee because his value is at its highest and is in the national stage as a possible triple crown and MVP candidate. Lees production/salary will probably be fairly equivalent to Walkers next year (Walkers was higher last year).

 

You can't make the team better by weakening its core. Even if you think his offensive outbreak is a one year deal, it's hard to argue against Derrek Lee as one of the best defensive 1B in the league. The Cubs infield defense would suffer no matter what they could get for him in a trade.

 

Im not saying to trade either player, I think that would be very foolish.

[rocket]

i'm fairly certain imb wasn't advocating trading lee

[nilodnayr]

i'm fairly certain imb wasn't advocating trading lee

 

nope, i dont think any one is

[Blueheart05]

do not trade walker, this is probably the stupidest thing you could do.

 

hell, it makes more sense to trade lee than it does to trade walker.

 

if this happens, im going to complain a lot and then still watch every game next year.

 

It makes more sense to trade Lee? :shock: :shock: :shock: Walker doesn't make Lee better, in fact, the opposite is true. Lee's the anchor of the infield. Without DLee at first this team would be amazingly miserable defensively.

 

Without DLee this team is pretty much the worst team in the NL, no better than the rockies or pirates. Trading Walker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trading Lee.

 

Of course, that assumes you don't get anything in return. If you can capitalize on his inflated value, it might make sense to deal Lee, since he has an inflated value and may command more than he's actually worth after next season.

 

One man's inflated value is another man's coming into his own... This year aside, Lee has been a consistent 30/98 man which is still far more productive than Walker. Besides, getting rid of Lee would cause BOTH an offensive and defensive deficiency.

 

Offensively last year Walker had an 820 OPS and Lee had 860 OPS. At even money Id take an 820 OPS from my second baseman over an 860 OPS from my firstbaseman. Of course Lee was making 4 times what Walker made. Now, Walker had 250 less ABs and is average defensively with Lee being gold glove caliber. They both are great production/value but projecting the future, I would put Lee at around 950 OPS and not expect him to put up numbers over 1100. Lee had already played 1000 games before this year, im not saying its a fluke year, but i wouldnt say hes coming into his own.

 

Only time will tell if he is coming into his own; 2006 will answer this question to a large degree.

 

Also, you can't compare 2004 stats for Walker and Lee. Walker was injured for part of the year while Lee played, per usual, just about everyday.

 

Walker is one dimensional compared to Lee. I like Todd but the idea that we should keep him and see what we can get for Lee doesn't make sense to me, especially with the number of other holes to fill on the team. This club needs to improve it's defense not destroy it.

[Blueheart05]

i'm fairly certain imb wasn't advocating trading lee

 

That's not what I read. An argument was being made that if someone from the infield should be traded it should be Lee (and not Walker) because we can get more for him.