TheRaven

As a Yankee fan, I hope this is not true. :(

I would rather not risk it and just resign Demp.

Then state it as the deal is: Gregg for Ceda + Wood and a 4 year guaranteed high dollar contract. How about: 1 year of Gregg as closer four first round draft picks $35M to spend elsewhere over 4 years vs Ceda + Wood Does that make anyone feel any better? No. Trading Ceda for Gregg wasn't the only alternative to not signing Wood. What are some realistic alternatives that can be had? Perhaps comparing them will be helpful. We're not in contact with other GMs so there is no way we could possibly know who is available. That's kind of a silly thing to ask. Then it is kind of silly to say that there are better alternatives. A) He never said there were better alternatives B) Just because you can't give examples of something doesn't mean it's not true A) He said there are alternatives. He wishes they explored those alternatives. Can one not assume that he is referring to a better alternative then? B) When backing up words and statements, thus making them meaningful, there should be something there to back it up. Otherwise, they are just empty words. It might be what you believe, but it certainly does not make it fact. That is the beauty of stats and baseball. You can find stats to back up your arguments. When someone wants to know who is the best player, you can prove it rather than just saying it.

Then state it as the deal is: Gregg for Ceda + Wood and a 4 year guaranteed high dollar contract. How about: 1 year of Gregg as closer four first round draft picks $35M to spend elsewhere over 4 years vs Ceda + Wood Does that make anyone feel any better? No. Trading Ceda for Gregg wasn't the only alternative to not signing Wood. What are some realistic alternatives that can be had? Perhaps comparing them will be helpful. We're not in contact with other GMs so there is no way we could possibly know who is available. That's kind of a silly thing to ask. Then it is kind of silly to say that there are better alternatives.

Then state it as the deal is: Gregg for Ceda + Wood and a 4 year guaranteed high dollar contract. How about: 1 year of Gregg as closer four first round draft picks $35M to spend elsewhere over 4 years vs Ceda + Wood Does that make anyone feel any better? No. Trading Ceda for Gregg wasn't the only alternative to not signing Wood. What are some realistic alternatives that can be had? Perhaps comparing them will be helpful.

This looks like a good deal for the Yankees. Being a fan, I am pleased to see their first step into this offseason be a positive one. Now hopefully the CC rumors will not pan out.

Then state it as the deal is: Gregg for Ceda + Wood and a 4 year guaranteed high dollar contract. How about: 1 year of Gregg as closer four first round draft picks $35M to spend elsewhere over 4 years vs Ceda + Wood Does that make anyone feel any better? Surely they could have gotten more than Ceda, though. There are superior alternatives to replacing Wood's 9th inning and Marmol's 7th/8th innings. Why do you feel that Ceda could have commanded more?

I'm pretty sure he's confusing you with JeffH, who would still bash Hendry even if he brought home 4 straight World Series titles. that guy cracks me up. raven: are you really confusing me with that dude? No, I am not confusing you with anyone. It is clear, to me, where the conversation started and how it has continued. If it is not to you, then perhaps go back and read it again.

That hardly is trade value. As to the trade itself, I really haven't commented on the aspect of it being a good or bad move. I have commented numerous times that the deal is not worth blowing up the GM over. Where did I "blow up"? I said it was a bad trade. And why are you only questioning me when everyone else is saying the same thing? Did I bang your girl or something? That is precisely it.

That hardly is trade value. As to the trade itself, I really haven't commented on the aspect of it being a good or bad move. I have commented numerous times that the deal is not worth blowing up the GM over.

That is the whole point of this thread. You summed it up beautifully. If Ceda isn't that great of a player and we won't really regret getting rid of him, why is everyone up in arms about it? Ah, yes, my mistake. I did not know how to reference a WHIP stat, even though I brought up one. You, sir, are good. "That is the whole point of this thread. You summed it up beautifully. If Ceda isn't that great of a player and we won't really regret getting rid of him, why is everyone up in arms about it?" Oh my god. BECAUSE HE HAS TRADE VALUE. This really isn't hard to understand. Everybody and their mothers understand how trade value works and that Gregg's value is less than Ceda's....except you. Then take the time to show it to me. If you can take the time to respond to all of my messages, then surely that is not too much for you to do. What are you basing this statement of absolute truth off of? Surely there must be a better reason than 'because I said it was'. That is all you have shown thus far. And how can a player that isn't that great, that we won't miss, have such a high value that it is worth publicly trashing the GM over? Take time to show you what? His trade value? Are you being serious right now? How could I possibly do that? How about this..... show me that he doesn't have the best trade value of any player ever... in the history of baseball. SHOW ME OR IT ISN'T TRUE. Seriously, you're saying some pretty dumb things right now. I can show you what relief minor league prospects typically get traded for. That is what trade value is. It shows what the market values of that type of player in that type of position. Trust me, I am aware I say lots of dumb things. It does happen. I am just wondering how smart it is to say for fact that Ceda has more trade value than Gregg, and then come out and say you have no way to show that.

That is the whole point of this thread. You summed it up beautifully. If Ceda isn't that great of a player and we won't really regret getting rid of him, why is everyone up in arms about it? Ah, yes, my mistake. I did not know how to reference a WHIP stat, even though I brought up one. You, sir, are good. "That is the whole point of this thread. You summed it up beautifully. If Ceda isn't that great of a player and we won't really regret getting rid of him, why is everyone up in arms about it?" Oh my god. BECAUSE HE HAS TRADE VALUE. This really isn't hard to understand. Everybody and their mothers understand how trade value works and that Gregg's value is less than Ceda's....except you. Then take the time to show it to me. If you can take the time to respond to all of my messages, then surely that is not too much for you to do. What are you basing this statement of absolute truth off of? Surely there must be a better reason than 'because I said it was'. That is all you have shown thus far. And how can a player that isn't that great, that we won't miss, have such a high value that it is worth publicly trashing the GM over?

The numbers aren't valid for comparison as they were not facing even remotely the same talent pool. It is highly unlikely that Jose Ceda is major league ready next year, and to the point that he is ready to be an above average major league reliever. Those are not his actual numbers, those are his MLE (major league equivalents). Most players make the jump from AA to the majors. It is not highly unlikely that Ceda will pitch in the majors next year by any stretch of the imagination. I did miss the part where you began with MLE and just looked right at the numbers. My mistake on that aspect.

That is the whole point of this thread. You summed it up beautifully. If Ceda isn't that great of a player and we won't really regret getting rid of him, why is everyone up in arms about it? Ah, yes, my mistake. I did not know how to reference a WHIP stat, even though I brought up one. You, sir, are good.

You hit the nail on the head.

I have a feeling you're only looking at ERA. Kevin Gregg really isn't very good. He's a mediocre reliever who is going to make millions next season. How is he better than Michael Wuertz? Also yuou seem to be forgetting that Ceda's value to the Cubs is not just what he can contribute to our team. He has trade value and we just wasted it on a guy who isn't an upgrade to a lot of guys we already have. Where is Ceda's trade value? And what other stats are you evaluating Gregg on? I am not disagreeing with you, I am just wanting to know. What do you mean by "where is Ceda's trade value"? I don't understand that question. As for Gregg, you can simply look at his stats yourself. He's basically Michael Wuertz. He walks a ton of guys and gives up a lot of baserunners. He's another "hold your breath" reliever. We have enough of those already and they don't make as much as he will this season. You said he has trade value. What is that value? I assume you have some information on what that value is, that it is considerate enough that we made a huge blunder trading away someone with an escalated value such as Ceda? I can look at the stats. I have looked at the stats. The 'stats' is not very specific though. Which ones are you using to measure? If it is a few simple ones, it should be relatively easy to say which ones. Note that I said I didn't disagree with you on Gregg. I still don't. I just am curious as to which ones you are using to make that statement. Are you for real? So a guy only has trade value if I can name what players he can be traded for? wtf? And where did I say he had such escalated trade value? I never acted like he's some stud prospect who wuill be a key part in future trades. However, I do know that he's worth more than a mediocre reliever who will make millions next year and isn't much of an upgrade to a lot of guys we have now. As for the stats, I don't understand you. Do you not understand how to look at statistics? You can look at them and very easily come to the conclusion of why I think he's a very mediocre reliever. What do you want from me? Over the past 5 seasons he's basically been a 1.30 WHIP guy who walks everybody. Yes, a guy only has trade value if someone is willing to trade someone for him. But given that he is a minor league relief pitcher, which generally is not a position that holds that much of trade value, you may use other minor league relief options that are similar to Ceda to show how he could have been a part of a key trade. I assume that is your complaint since you said we just wasted his trade value. Escalated trade value would be a trade value higher than Gregg. He must have more, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining. I am wondering what you are basing that off of. Oh, so WHIP is the stat you are looking at. Did you not see Ceda's WHIP of 1.32 in AA last year?

95% of relievers or pitchers or whomever do not regularly sit in the 94-97 range and often reach 100 and absolutely dominate hitters with a knockout fastball/power slider combo. Starting this year helped him turn a corner as evidenced by his second half of the season in the pen in AA with a respectable 3 BB/9. Its not an "if" Ceda can harness his control, its "if" Ceda can maintain his control or somewhere around it he'll be a dominant closer. "If" he doesn't, he'll be a set up guy. If you are really concerned about his control, then man, I hate to show you Kevin Gregg's (or even Carlos Marmol's) BB rates. And thats my whole point. If you don't like Ceda, then you shouldn't like Gregg. True, not all pitchers can hit that. But there are a lot of bad pitchers that can do that and never make it quite like they should have because they never could learn how to control it. I am not saying that Ceda WILL NOT. I am just not going to go around and talk like he is going to do it for sure. That is what this board is reacting with. And it is ridiculous. No one is going to do anything "for sure". It's not even a high enough percentage to say it is likely. Yet this is a move that is worthy calling Hendry an idiot? A minor league RP that may or may not be good? We're going to pretend that we could have gotten so much more for him? There is no real market for Jose Ceda. There is no justification to come out and say that next year, he would be able to outperform Kevin Gregg. Sample size alert, but... Ceda's MLE for his 2008 relief stats: FIP=3.68 Average against: 261 BABIP: 346 BB/9: 3.67 K/9: 9.17 Gregg's 2008 stats FIP=3.80 Average against: 208 BABIP: 261 BB/9: 4.85 K/9: 7.60 Its not out of the realm of possibility. You act as if I'm saying Larry Suarez could be better than Kevin Gregg next year. The numbers aren't valid for comparison as they were not facing even remotely the same talent pool. It is highly unlikely that Jose Ceda is major league ready next year, and to the point that he is ready to be an above average major league reliever.

I have a feeling you're only looking at ERA. Kevin Gregg really isn't very good. He's a mediocre reliever who is going to make millions next season. How is he better than Michael Wuertz? Also yuou seem to be forgetting that Ceda's value to the Cubs is not just what he can contribute to our team. He has trade value and we just wasted it on a guy who isn't an upgrade to a lot of guys we already have. Where is Ceda's trade value? And what other stats are you evaluating Gregg on? I am not disagreeing with you, I am just wanting to know. What do you mean by "where is Ceda's trade value"? I don't understand that question. As for Gregg, you can simply look at his stats yourself. He's basically Michael Wuertz. He walks a ton of guys and gives up a lot of baserunners. He's another "hold your breath" reliever. We have enough of those already and they don't make as much as he will this season. You said he has trade value. What is that value? I assume you have some information on what that value is, that it is considerate enough that we made a huge blunder trading away someone with an escalated value such as Ceda? I can look at the stats. I have looked at the stats. The 'stats' is not very specific though. Which ones are you using to measure? If it is a few simple ones, it should be relatively easy to say which ones. Note that I said I didn't disagree with you on Gregg. I still don't. I just am curious as to which ones you are using to make that statement.

It is the duration of that guaranteed money that is more frightening.

I have a feeling you're only looking at ERA. Kevin Gregg really isn't very good. He's a mediocre reliever who is going to make millions next season. How is he better than Michael Wuertz? Also yuou seem to be forgetting that Ceda's value to the Cubs is not just what he can contribute to our team. He has trade value and we just wasted it on a guy who isn't an upgrade to a lot of guys we already have. Where is Ceda's trade value? And what other stats are you evaluating Gregg on? I am not disagreeing with you, I am just wanting to know.

Then state it as the deal is: Gregg for Ceda + Wood and a 4 year guaranteed high dollar contract.

95% of relievers or pitchers or whomever do not regularly sit in the 94-97 range and often reach 100 and absolutely dominate hitters with a knockout fastball/power slider combo. Starting this year helped him turn a corner as evidenced by his second half of the season in the pen in AA with a respectable 3 BB/9. Its not an "if" Ceda can harness his control, its "if" Ceda can maintain his control or somewhere around it he'll be a dominant closer. "If" he doesn't, he'll be a set up guy. If you are really concerned about his control, then man, I hate to show you Kevin Gregg's (or even Carlos Marmol's) BB rates. And thats my whole point. If you don't like Ceda, then you shouldn't like Gregg. True, not all pitchers can hit that. But there are a lot of bad pitchers that can do that and never make it quite like they should have because they never could learn how to control it. I am not saying that Ceda WILL NOT. I am just not going to go around and talk like he is going to do it for sure. That is what this board is reacting with. And it is ridiculous. No one is going to do anything "for sure". It's not even a high enough percentage to say it is likely. Yet this is a move that is worthy calling Hendry an idiot? A minor league RP that may or may not be good? We're going to pretend that we could have gotten so much more for him? There is no real market for Jose Ceda. There is no justification to come out and say that next year, he would be able to outperform Kevin Gregg.

95% of relievers or pitchers or whomever do not regularly sit in the 94-97 range and often reach 100 and absolutely dominate hitters with a knockout fastball/power slider combo. Starting this year helped him turn a corner as evidenced by his second half of the season in the pen in AA with a respectable 3 BB/9. Its not an "if" Ceda can harness his control, its "if" Ceda can maintain his control or somewhere around it he'll be a dominant closer. "If" he doesn't, he'll be a set up guy. If you are really concerned about his control, then man, I hate to show you Kevin Gregg's (or even Carlos Marmol's) BB rates. And thats my whole point. If you don't like Ceda, then you shouldn't like Gregg. True, not all pitchers can hit that. But there are a lot of bad pitchers that can do that and never make it quite like they should have because they never could learn how to control it. I am not saying that Ceda WILL NOT. I am just not going to go around and talk like he is going to do it for sure. That is what this board is reacting with. And it is ridiculous.

People are calling Hendry an idiot for trading Ceda for Kevin effing Gregg From what I see, many are also tying it into losing Wood. I am usually big on holding onto prospects, but I don't see the allure of a minor league reliever to get so damn upset at the GM to call him names and question whether he can do the job. For everyone who hates on a guy because hes a dominant reliever I would like you to familiarize yourself with a concept called "leverage". What leverage does Ceda hold on the market? Show me. Leverage as in "high leverage situation". You cast the scarlet R on him, but bringing in a guy to mow down a teams 2-3-4 hitters in the 8th inning in a close game is about as valuable as an average starter performing averagely for the first 6 innings of a game. You speak as if it is fact that Ceda will be that dominant of a major league reliever. That is a large reach as of right now. You speak like Gregg IS a dominant major leaguer, that's an irrefutable falsehood. I've hardly brought up Gregg. But I guess I can review my posts to see how I have been touting him.

People are calling Hendry an idiot for trading Ceda for Kevin effing Gregg From what I see, many are also tying it into losing Wood. I am usually big on holding onto prospects, but I don't see the allure of a minor league reliever to get so damn upset at the GM to call him names and question whether he can do the job. For everyone who hates on a guy because hes a dominant reliever I would like you to familiarize yourself with a concept called "leverage". What leverage does Ceda hold on the market? Show me. Leverage as in "high leverage situation". You cast the scarlet R on him, but bringing in a guy to mow down a teams 2-3-4 hitters in the 8th inning in a close game is about as valuable as an average starter performing averagely for the first 6 innings of a game. You speak as if it is fact that Ceda will be that dominant of a major league reliever. That is a large reach as of right now. I'm speaking of relievers in general. Only time will tell if Ceda turns out to be able to continue to somewhat harness his control, like he did while relieving last year, but if he does, yeah he'll be a dominant major league reliever. So is that the argument you would use if you were calling a MLB GM in trade discussions in why they should consider Ceda to be a major piece in a trade? If Ceda can harness his control, he can be a dominant major league reliever? I am sorry, but can't the same be said for 95% of relievers? Or pitchers in general?