Trading Derrek Lee

[Diffusion]

I'd try and offer Lee a pretty complicated new contract this winter. In 2006, he'd get a guaranteed $13m, a $5m improvement on what he's owed for 2006 under the terms of his current deal. From 2007-09, he'd get a guaranteed $7m per year, with another $2m per year if he reaches 600 plate appearances, and a $4m bonus for each top five placing in NL MVP voting. There'd be a $13m mutual option for 2010 versus a $3m buyout. Finally, Lee would receive full no-trade protection up until 2007, and the right to block a trade to between five and ten teams of his choice thereafter. In total, the deal could be worth anywhere between $37m/4yrs and $65m/5yrs.

 

Why might Lee take a deal like this rather than push for free agency?

 

Well, he can virtually double his 2006 salary here and now, and so start reaping the rewards of his 2005 straight away. He also gets himself quite a very considerable amount of guaranteed money from 2007-09, money that he could quite easily never see if he pushes for free agency but succumbs to injury or has a terrible year in 2006. At the same time though, Lee isn't having to give up on a big pay day for the sake of immediate long-term financial security: this deal allows him to earn $13m a year every time he puts up MVP calibre numbers over a full season, which is roughly what he'd be looking at via free agency based on recent deals given to Konerko, Delgado, Thome etc. Neither is he completely giving up on the idea of ever seeing free agency, since the deal only ties him to the Cubs through his age 33 season. At that point, if he wanted, he could opt out of the mutual option and try to get a final big contract on the free agent market. Finally, by signing the contract now, he shows loyalty to the Cubs and the city of Chicago, doesn't portray himself as a free agent mercenary, and he can book himself a nice long break in the Caribbean next winter rather than worrying about his next deal.

 

Why would the Cubs sign such a deal?

 

Well, there are a number of things the Cubs have to consider. First, they have to consider the consequences of not re-signing him. Given the reaction in this thread, excessively hostile, the lack of great minor league options at first base, and the price of elite players via free agency and trade of late, and as such how difficult it would be to replace Lee, I think that the Cubs are best off re-signing him. This deal achieves that if Lee bites, obviously. Second, the Cubs need to consider Derrek Lee's performance level. Regarding his 2005, there are two reasonable possibilities. It may have been a fluke, and he could revert to his old .270/.370/.500 with Gold Glove/good baserunning form. Or it may have been for real, and Lee could be on the verge of a number of .300/.400/.600 seasons. This deal covers the Cubs against both possibilities. Old Lee gets just $43m over 4 years out of this deal: expensive but not excessively so, and front-loaded so it doesn't eat too much into Prior and Zambrano money. New Lee, one of the best players in the NL, gets $55m/4yrs or $65m/5yrs: very fair but not extortionate. Finally, the Cubs have to consider Derrek Lee's age, likelihood of injury and of decline. And this deal keeps him around through his age 33 season, not too risky, and it's structured so that Lee in injured years gets just $7m. If that's the tradeoff for avoiding Lee repeating his 2005 numbers in 2006 and then as a free agent demanding about $70m through 2011, it's probably worth it.

Edited December 3, 2005 by Diffusion

[Roast]

It amazes me how people can totally scoff at the idea of trading Dlee with no consideration. Yes, he's damn good. Yes, he has a spectacular year last year. And its because of how good he was last year that we should at least see what he could net us. If he could net us Arod, would you not pull the trigger? I would. What about Dlee for Vlad and Figgins or something like that. I'd do that. If we could make a deal that improves the team, then trade him. Dont trade him for equal value, and dont trade him for less (obviously). But because of last year, teams will probably be willing to overpay for him.

[dacheezwhiz]

i would trade lee and pie for miguel cabrera. Seriously though, you're never going to get a repeat of that production unless you get it from someone else. And based on his stats this year, we could probably do that

[fearthecubs]

No offense to anyone, but is this the stupidest thread I've had the bad luck of reading. Trade Lee!?

 

it would be nice if you would tell us why you think this would be such a bad decision.

 

Because when you have the payroll flexibility that the Cubs do, something like this should be inexcuseable and totally unnecessary!

[Roast]

No offense to anyone, but is this the stupidest thread I've had the bad luck of reading. Trade Lee!?

 

it would be nice if you would tell us why you think this would be such a bad decision.

 

Because when you have the payroll flexibility that the Cubs do, something like this should be inexcuseable and totally unnecessary!

 

If we can improve our team by trading him, why would that be inexcusable.

[USSoccer]

No offense to anyone, but is this the stupidest thread I've had the bad luck of reading. Trade Lee!?

 

it would be nice if you would tell us why you think this would be such a bad decision.

 

Because when you have the payroll flexibility that the Cubs do, something like this should be inexcuseable and totally unnecessary!

 

If you move Lee and get a great OF and a serviceable 1B, then you think about doing it. I said it earlier in the thread, but you could probably offer Lee to Boston for Manny and others and they might do it.

 

There's nothing in Lee's history to suggest that 2005 is anything but an aberration. If he regresses to his career norms, that contract extension he's likely to want/get will look terrible.

 

You have to at least explore the idea.

[Andy]

No offense to anyone, but is this the stupidest thread I've had the bad luck of reading. Trade Lee!?

 

it would be nice if you would tell us why you think this would be such a bad decision.

 

Because when you have the payroll flexibility that the Cubs do, something like this should be inexcuseable and totally unnecessary!

 

If we can improve our team by trading him, why would that be inexcusable.

I'd trade DLee for ARod, Pujols, M. Cabrera and probably Santana in a second, but since there's no way DLee could net any of those four players, I wouldn't trade him. That was my point on why I don't want to trade him.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Lee just had the definition of a career year. He's not going to put up a 1.200 OPS again, his second half was the beginning of his regression. His current value is out of proportion with what he is going to be worth. If you can capitalize on that value, you do it, don't pay lip service to conventional wisdom that says you don't trade him.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Lee just had the definition of a career year. He's not going to put up a 1.200 OPS again, his second half was the beginning of his regression. His current value is out of proportion with what he is going to be worth. If you can capitalize on that value, you do it, don't pay lip service to conventional wisdom that says you don't trade him.

 

Hendry is talking about an extension for DLee, so I don't even know why this topic keeps being brought up. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of Lee being traded this offseason.

[Careless]

Gotta love signing guys to extensions at the moment when you know their value is higher than it will ever be again.

[treebird]

Lee just had the definition of a career year. He's not going to put up a 1.200 OPS again, his second half was the beginning of his regression. His current value is out of proportion with what he is going to be worth. If you can capitalize on that value, you do it, don't pay lip service to conventional wisdom that says you don't trade him.

 

Hendry is talking about an extension for DLee, so I don't even know why this topic keeps being brought up. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of Lee being traded this offseason.

 

people talk about the cubs winning the world series, and we all know that's never going to happen.

[USSoccer]

Lee just had the definition of a career year. He's not going to put up a 1.200 OPS again, his second half was the beginning of his regression. His current value is out of proportion with what he is going to be worth. If you can capitalize on that value, you do it, don't pay lip service to conventional wisdom that says you don't trade him.

 

Hendry is talking about an extension for DLee, so I don't even know why this topic keeps being brought up. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of Lee being traded this offseason.

 

people talk about the cubs winning the world series, and we all know that's never going to happen.

 

 

Not if our General Manager continues his recent performance we're not.

[CubbieSouthpaw]

Lee just had the definition of a career year. He's not going to put up a 1.200 OPS again, his second half was the beginning of his regression. His current value is out of proportion with what he is going to be worth. If you can capitalize on that value, you do it, don't pay lip service to conventional wisdom that says you don't trade him.

 

Hendry is talking about an extension for DLee, so I don't even know why this topic keeps being brought up. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of Lee being traded this offseason.

 

people talk about the cubs winning the world series, and we all know that's never going to happen.

 

 

Not if our General Manager continues his recent performance we're not.

 

Guys, I fully understand the frustration about the Cubs.

What I don't understand is the bashing of Hendry all the time. He's made good and bad moves. Just as all GM's do. We don't have that inside track of what he is being told to do or the boundries he has to work in. Some here have more insight/connections to the organization but no one knows exactly what goes on behind closed doors. If someone here has that information then they should be able to step in and take Hendry's job. Most people were all fired up about Dusty's hiring (including myself) now most want to run him out on a rail. I believe Dusty has taken this team to a higher, now its time to bring someone else in to finish the job. I admit that I can't spend the time that a lot of folks do researching and following baseball. But to bash a man like Hendry after some of the great things he has done seems wrong to me. Prior and Woods injuries weren't his fault, Sosa losing his edge wasn't his fault.

I'm probably out of line about this. But if we were able to do a better job then Hendry, don't you think we would've been hired for the job?

I'm not bashing you or anyone at all. I just think he's got a job to do like everyone else and has guidelines to follow. Even the owners have guidelines to follow and they have to dig into their own pocket to make the changes they want.

 

Let the hanging begin!!!

[NCCubFan]

No offense to anyone, but is this the stupidest thread I've had the bad luck of reading. Trade Lee!?

You're out of line with this comment. Just because you consider Lee untouchable doesn't mean it's stupid for others to discuss the possibility of trading Lee if he can be traded for equal value. There are several times throughout baseball history where superstars are traded for other superstars, so talking about the possibility isn't stupid. I'm not advocating trading Lee by any means, but you can't dismiss such talk as stupid just because you don't agree with it.

[USSoccer]

Lee just had the definition of a career year. He's not going to put up a 1.200 OPS again, his second half was the beginning of his regression. His current value is out of proportion with what he is going to be worth. If you can capitalize on that value, you do it, don't pay lip service to conventional wisdom that says you don't trade him.

 

Hendry is talking about an extension for DLee, so I don't even know why this topic keeps being brought up. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of Lee being traded this offseason.

 

people talk about the cubs winning the world series, and we all know that's never going to happen.

 

 

Not if our General Manager continues his recent performance we're not.

 

Guys, I fully understand the frustration about the Cubs.

What I don't understand is the bashing of Hendry all the time. He's made good and bad moves. Just as all GM's do. We don't have that inside track of what he is being told to do or the boundries he has to work in. Some here have more insight/connections to the organization but no one knows exactly what goes on behind closed doors. If someone here has that information then they should be able to step in and take Hendry's job. Most people were all fired up about Dusty's hiring (including myself) now most want to run him out on a rail. I believe Dusty has taken this team to a higher, now its time to bring someone else in to finish the job. I admit that I can't spend the time that a lot of folks do researching and following baseball. But to bash a man like Hendry after some of the great things he has done seems wrong to me. Prior and Woods injuries weren't his fault, Sosa losing his edge wasn't his fault.

I'm probably out of line about this. But if we were able to do a better job then Hendry, don't you think we would've been hired for the job?

I'm not bashing you or anyone at all. I just think he's got a job to do like everyone else and has guidelines to follow. Even the owners have guidelines to follow and they have to dig into their own pocket to make the changes they want.

 

Let the hanging begin!!!

 

That argument is getting pretty tired and has no legs. I could list about 20 reasons now why Hendry isn't getting the job done as of 12/03/2005. Sure, that might change, and I really hope it does, but just because he holds the position doesn't mean he's doing a good job, or even his best job. The fact of the matter is that he's showing a complete lack of skill in certain alarming, simple areas. Managing the 40 man roster. Managing the 25 man roster. Economics. Identifying weaknesses. Filling said weaknesses. Getting the most out of your manager. Holding off on extensions for players who had years wildly out of line with their career norms.

 

I can go on and on. He's made 4 really good moves as GM. That tells me he's not totally stupid. If he were totally stupid, people around here would be treating him like we have no other expectation. He can do better than he's showing.

[CubbieSouthpaw]

Lee just had the definition of a career year. He's not going to put up a 1.200 OPS again, his second half was the beginning of his regression. His current value is out of proportion with what he is going to be worth. If you can capitalize on that value, you do it, don't pay lip service to conventional wisdom that says you don't trade him.

 

Hendry is talking about an extension for DLee, so I don't even know why this topic keeps being brought up. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of Lee being traded this offseason.

 

people talk about the cubs winning the world series, and we all know that's never going to happen.

 

 

Not if our General Manager continues his recent performance we're not.

 

Guys, I fully understand the frustration about the Cubs.

What I don't understand is the bashing of Hendry all the time. He's made good and bad moves. Just as all GM's do. We don't have that inside track of what he is being told to do or the boundries he has to work in. Some here have more insight/connections to the organization but no one knows exactly what goes on behind closed doors. If someone here has that information then they should be able to step in and take Hendry's job. Most people were all fired up about Dusty's hiring (including myself) now most want to run him out on a rail. I believe Dusty has taken this team to a higher, now its time to bring someone else in to finish the job. I admit that I can't spend the time that a lot of folks do researching and following baseball. But to bash a man like Hendry after some of the great things he has done seems wrong to me. Prior and Woods injuries weren't his fault, Sosa losing his edge wasn't his fault.

I'm probably out of line about this. But if we were able to do a better job then Hendry, don't you think we would've been hired for the job?

I'm not bashing you or anyone at all. I just think he's got a job to do like everyone else and has guidelines to follow. Even the owners have guidelines to follow and they have to dig into their own pocket to make the changes they want.

 

Let the hanging begin!!!

 

That argument is getting pretty tired and has no legs. I could list about 20 reasons now why Hendry isn't getting the job done as of 12/03/2005. Sure, that might change, and I really hope it does, but just because he holds the position doesn't mean he's doing a good job, or even his best job. The fact of the matter is that he's showing a complete lack of skill in certain alarming, simple areas. Managing the 40 man roster. Managing the 25 man roster. Economics. Identifying weaknesses. Filling said weaknesses. Getting the most out of your manager. Holding off on extensions for players who had years wildly out of line with their career norms.

 

I can go on and on. He's made 4 really good moves as GM. That tells me he's not totally stupid. If he were totally stupid, people around here would be treating him like we have no other expectation. He can do better than he's showing.

 

If he were totally stupid people would have a rope at the back gate looking to hang him. :lol:

I'm just not so sure what his powers are. After all, the Trib still owns this team.

I believe that arguement does have legs. Who here has an inside track to the Cubs organization?

Until someone has all the facts, how can a correct and truthful answer be given?

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

All Hendry has to do is run things by his bosses at the last minute. That's the norm for GMs in baseball. Owners don't typically micromanage, and the Trib. Co. is no different.

 

Hendry has said repeatedly that he's never lacked the money/support from the Trib. to make a move he wanted to make. Either he's lying or we can take that at face value.

[USSoccer]

 

If he were totally stupid people would have a rope at the back gate looking to hang him. :lol:

I'm just not so sure what his powers are. After all, the Trib still owns this team.

I believe that arguement does have legs. Who here has an inside track to the Cubs organization?

Until someone has all the facts, how can a correct and truthful answer be given?

 

It doesn't matter if I, or anyone else here who is critical of the Cubs this winter has an inside track to the organization. You don't need a 30 yr career in baseball or a titled job position with the Cubs to know that protecting Jose Macias at the expense of better players left off the 40 man is dumb. You don't need a degree in economics to know that you don't overpay for something you have in abundance (utility IF and LHP). You don't just hand a giant contract extension to a player who's career BA is 100 points less than what he had in his most recent season. You don't have to be a doctor to know that, if Wood is behind schedule in ST, it's because of the indefensible decision to stick him in the bullpen for 3 weeks.

 

Most importantly, you don't need to be a Major League General Manager to realize that the Cubs' failure last season was due in large part to the fact that they had the absolute worst OBP from their 1 and 2 hitters in the entire league, and maybe, just maybe, that should be addressed.

 

The whole "You-Can't-Criticize-Cause-You-Don't-Know-Baseball-Cause You Aren't-Working-In-Baseball" angle is crap. You're telling me there aren't 20 posters here that couldn't be a better major league GM than some of the goofs that are currently major league GMs?

 

I'm sorry. I'll argue this point with you until it kills Tim's bandwidth. It's a bad argument. It's a foolish argument and a losing point.

[Mark Priors Calves]

Bowden is the GM of the Nationals. I know there are some people here at NSBB that can do at least an equally crappy job he has done.

[CubbieSouthpaw]

Bowden is the GM of the Nationals. I know there are some people here at NSBB that can do at least an equally crappy job he has done.

 

I don't know a single person on this site but I respect the views of everyone here. Maybe there are some who could do as well, maybe not. My question is. Why don't these people who could do better hold that position?

Granted, keeping Macias and not protecting Sisco might not have been the best thing to do. I but also read many, many times that people on this site were saying that no way Sisco would stay at the major league level therefore we would be getting him back. Most here have more of an insight on baseball then I do. But second guessing the past is still second guessing.

[Careless]

Bowden is the GM of the Nationals. I know there are some people here at NSBB that can do at least an equally crappy job he has done.

 

I don't know a single person on this site but I respect the views of everyone here. Maybe there are some who could do as well, maybe not. My question is. Why don't these people who could do better hold that position?

Granted, keeping Macias and not protecting Sisco might not have been the best thing to do. I but also read many, many times that people on this site were saying that no way Sisco would stay at the major league level therefore we would be getting him back. Most here have more of an insight on baseball then I do. But second guessing the past is still second guessing.

No job market is a perfect meritocracy. Baseball management isn't even a good meritocracy compared to other markets.

Aside from that, there are 30 gms of major league teams out there. If you want to be one, you have to dedicate yourself to that, knowing that there are only a few dozen decent positions out there total (unless you'd be happy if you wound up never getting close to GMing a major league team). The fact that I became an astronaut (not really) doesn't mean that I couldn't have been the best GM in the history of the world.

Of course, I'd be a terrible gm.

[USSoccer]

Bowden is the GM of the Nationals. I know there are some people here at NSBB that can do at least an equally crappy job he has done.

 

I don't know a single person on this site but I respect the views of everyone here. Maybe there are some who could do as well, maybe not. My question is. Why don't these people who could do better hold that position?

Granted, keeping Macias and not protecting Sisco might not have been the best thing to do. I but also read many, many times that people on this site were saying that no way Sisco would stay at the major league level therefore we would be getting him back. Most here have more of an insight on baseball then I do. But second guessing the past is still second guessing.

 

Because ML GM spots don't exactly get posted on Monster.com. No one here that I know of played baseball professionaly. Some of us played sports in college, but I for one played the wrong sport. Thus, opportunities for us to interview for GM spots are rare. I know JC got a call regarding the Boston position, but he didn't like Lucchino, and so he passed. Tim moved from California to avoid being contacted about the Dodgers position.

 

Point is, it's an exclusive club of insiders. It's not that easy to break in, but just because it's exclusive doesn't mean the people in it are the end all, be all. A lot of them are pretty baseball stupid. Look at Steve Phillips. Look at how Kevin Towers handled trading Dave Roberts, and then overpaid to get him back. Look at Jim Bowden, O'Brien in Cinci, Baird in KC, Littlefield in Pittsburgh, etc, etc. Those GM's make consistently bad decisions that defy logic.

[CubbieSouthpaw]

Bowden is the GM of the Nationals. I know there are some people here at NSBB that can do at least an equally crappy job he has done.

 

I don't know a single person on this site but I respect the views of everyone here. Maybe there are some who could do as well, maybe not. My question is. Why don't these people who could do better hold that position?

Granted, keeping Macias and not protecting Sisco might not have been the best thing to do. I but also read many, many times that people on this site were saying that no way Sisco would stay at the major league level therefore we would be getting him back. Most here have more of an insight on baseball then I do. But second guessing the past is still second guessing.

 

Because ML GM spots don't exactly get posted on Monster.com. No one here that I know of played baseball professionaly. Some of us played sports in college, but I for one played the wrong sport. Thus, opportunities for us to interview for GM spots are rare. I know JC got a call regarding the Boston position, but he didn't like Lucchino, and so he passed. Tim moved from California to avoid being contacted about the Dodgers position.

 

Point is, it's an exclusive club of insiders. It's not that easy to break in, but just because it's exclusive doesn't mean the people in it are the end all, be all. A lot of them are pretty baseball stupid. Look at Steve Phillips. Look at how Kevin Towers handled trading Dave Roberts, and then overpaid to get him back. Look at Jim Bowden, O'Brien in Cinci, Baird in KC, Littlefield in Pittsburgh, etc, etc. Those GM's make consistently bad decisions that defy logic.

 

How many people can honestly say they didn't want Hendry as the GM before he was officially in that position? Who said it was a bad idea to hire Dusty when Hendry hired him? If everyone is honest (and I believe people here are) you would have an overwhelming majority that people liked both of them for whatever reason.

Would I have liked Hendry to do different things or get different players heck yes.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about Hendry. GEEZ

[BCVM22]

Look at how Kevin Towers handled trading Dave Roberts, and then overpaid to get him back.

 

Dave Roberts was traded from the Dodgers to the Red Sox in 2004, and then from the Red Sox to the Padres last offseason. So then-Dodgers GM Paul DePodesta traded him away first, and then Kevin Towers traded for him. Overpaid, perhaps, but it wasn't to get back a player he originally gave up.

 

Your point on the dizzying world of GM work is well-taken, however.

[UK1679666180]

How many people can honestly say they didn't want Hendry as the GM before he was officially in that position? Who said it was a bad idea to hire Dusty when Hendry hired him? If everyone is honest (and I believe people here are) you would have an overwhelming majority that people liked both of them for whatever reason.

Would I have liked Hendry to do different things or get different players heck yes.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about Hendry. GEEZ

 

I was pro-Hendry when they hired him, I liked the move as he has a great work ethic and him along with the scouts did a great job of rebuilding the farm system. but, you have a large enough window to judge him on his job as GM, good or bad. Personally, I'm mixed on Hendry. I don't question his effort, I think has done overall a good job with most of the trades, he hasn't done well enough with FA, hired Baker, and the farm system has been depleted both in production and resources. I'd give him this year as his last chance to show progression in several areas as 4 years is plenty.

 

As far as Baker, I have been anti-Baker since he's been in SF. Those who know me, know I've wanted Mclaren when they hired Baker. He's been the disappointment that I expected.