CubColtPacer

He's been pretty bad this year. Teams taking him on are going to be doing so out of the hope that he rebounds at least somewhat next season. Remembering that he's an emotional roller coaster, he's been bad this year on a horrible team with no offense and pitiful defense. I think Zambrano on a winning team with good defensive and offensive support would be a completely different pitcher. Also, a change of scenary and a move from near the top of the rotation to near the back of the rotation certainly would lower the expectation level. If Z was emotionally upset, wouldn't he be trying to strike everybody out instead of lobbing pitches over the plate? That theory doesn't really fit with the reasons he's struggled this season. And the person who expects the most out of Zambrano is Zambrano-a change of scenery won't change that. He might improve working with an improved defense, but his BABIP isn't high especially compared to his LD percentage.

I tried to read all of the thread and jubilation but had to stop at this post. Well said and a much better summary than any other blog or writer so far. In the 9 years Hendry was GM, the Cubs became more successful than any other time during my life. He had some colossal successes and some colossal blunders. However, many of those blunders are now seen with hindsight that I suspect even he would agree with. Looking at a "top 5" list of failures on another site, Hendry's mistakes are poor now but put in perspective of the moves at the time, weren't as poor as they seemed. Zambrano's contract was actually a savings from what the market value that year was (although the no trade clauses he always gave were poor management). Soriano was market value as well and despite many prognosticators being right on the number of years becoming an albatross, that deal was not Hendry's fault. The Willis trade for Alfonseca is hardly a bad trade and was pretty even at the time given Clement's success. I think that for all the jubilation about the dismissal (and justifiably so) we should be fair to the last 9 years and look back on the Jim Hendry era with fondness for all that went right as well as all that went wrong. The last 9 years have been some of the highest cubs fans have ever been and some of the lowest. At least it was always this low Soriano was not "market value." It's pretty well known at this point that Hendry blew away the closest offers at the behest of the owners. Yes, he was the biggest FA in that offseason and Hendry was told to spend, but let's not act like that contract was something he was going to get from another team. Yeah. Soriano was looking at a 6/110 deal or 7/115 deal (just slightly over what Carlos Lee got that same offseason who was considered slightly inferior) that turned into an 8/136 deal. Definitely over market value.

If more than one team wants him, then the Cubs aren't over a barrel. If he still has value to other teams, the Cubs can get that value. Relatively speaking, sure. But in the grand scheme of things they're unfortunately over a barrel. They're not going to trade him without either getting a horrible contract back in return, paying for most of Zambrano's 2012 contract or simply getting scraps. Given that he's still 30, his significant past success and his relative offensive value the Cubs shouldn't be in that kind of corner...and yet, here we are. I'm not sure about that. All of Z's deeper numbers are scary this season. His stuff is declining and he has become much more hittable. Line drive percentage is up, HR percentage is up, swinging strike is down, contact against is up, and he throws less fastballs every year. Knowing his arm history that is not a good sign at all. And with the run environment the last two seasons, the bar for pitchers is higher than it used to be. Z can probably put up a few more below average to average type seasons with some decent added value for his bat. Even if he were a model citizen and was on the free agent market this year, I probably wouldn't pay him more than 8 million a year and less if it was an AL team. He's that risky at this point without much upside. Some team will take a chance on him, but I'm not sure how much the Cubs are losing by him having character issues. Apparently rival teams were saying last year that they didn't see him as much more than a #5, and I bet his reduced stuff brings up red flags among scouts.

Castro has never really needed to take a walk though. Growing up with little power and a unbelievably elite hit tool makes it very hard to have any reason to walk. There's no need to wait for a good pitch when you're hitting singles anyway and you can reach out and hit a bad pitch for a single. Hopefully as his power continues to develop he realizes that he will have to wait in order to get the type of pitches that he can hit over the fence. But anybody with that elite of plate coverage is going to have a hard time holding back.

It was a straight steal and Castro swung at the pitch. Cards defenders deked Campana. Bob (who gets hard for hit and runs) blamed Campana for not picking up the third base coach, but if anyone's at fault there, it's Castro. Why? Presumably for swinging at a pitch out of the zone when his teammate was stealing. It wasn't out of the zone though. The video of that play is up on Gameday, and the pitch is a clear strike. In fact, it was a really good pitch to hit. That's on Campana there. Unless there was a take sign (unlikely with a 2-1 count), he has to know Castro is going to swing if he gets a pitch like that and he just has to have more awareness of what's going on there. He had a ton of time to get back.

Running a top 3 baseball market team with a top 5 payroll in a division full of small market teams? I can't imagine how there'd be interest in a position like that. Especially now. A year ago, there might not have been quite as much interest because of the Cubs contract situation. But now, there's an owner who is willing to spend on both the draft and major league talent and plenty of contract flexibility. Any new GM will be able to put his stamp on the franchise within 2 years.

Given how athletic and relatively young he is as a pitcher....hell no. It's just not happening for at least another couple seasons IMO. So how long would it take him to get stretched out again and ready to go? Let's say hypothetically Wells goes down for a long period of time early next year again; how long until Shark could start in place of Wells? It depends on how they pitch him in spring training. If it is completely as a short reliever than probably it would take a while for him to get stretched out.

I believe so yes, but Cots lists him as making 3.3 million this year. If that's true, the least the Cubs could offer would be 2.64 million. It might not be worth it to go through that and lose the potential club option for 2013 for that little savings (and they'd have to drag it to arbitration to go that low or settle with Samardzija for a slightly higher amount anyway).

Other than maybe Ramirez, Samardzija could be the most tricky of the Cubs possible free agents this offseason. At the beginning of this year, it was assumed the Cubs wouldn't be picking up his option. In fact, many wanted him released altogether. Has he done enough to change that? Here are his stats by month: April: 15 1/3 IP, 2.93 ERA, 0 HR/9, 9.39 BB/9, 9.98 K/9 May: 14 2/3 IP, 4.91 ERA, 0.61 HR/9, 5.52 BB/9, 11.04 K/9 June: 15 1/3 IP, 4.11 ERA, 1.17 HR/9, 4.70 BB/9, 8.22 K/9 July: 14 IP, 3.21 ERA, 0.64 HR/9, 3.86 BB/9, 7.07 K/9 August: 9 1/3 IP, 0.96 ERA, 0 HR/9, 1.92 BB/9, 9.65 K/9 Totals: 68 2/3 IP, 3.41 ERA, 0.52 HR/9, 5.37 BB/9, 9.17 K/9, 3.69 FIP, 4.33 xFIP, 3.74 SIERA The walk totals are still way too high over the course of the full season, but they have been coming down every single month. The xFIP is high, but Samardzija is an outlier with infield popups which throws that off (15.2% this year and 12.2% over his Cubs career). Fangraphs grades his slider and splitfinger as much better than previous years and he is throwing his slider 10 more percent of the time than he ever has before. His HR rate is much, much better than it was in 2009 or 2010 after not giving up any in 2008 which could either be a severe outlier or an indication of his improved stuff. So is he worth a 3 million club option with a possible 3.5 million club option for 2013? Today, I would say yes. There's enough potential in those numbers to make it worth it. He's a pretty strong pitcher with what he's done this year, and if he truly has figured something out he could be even better next year. But there are certainly reasons to be wary. So has he done enough?

You've gotta think that Carimi will move to LT at some point, barring Webb turning into a total stud that none of us think he'll become. The question is-do you put your best lineman at a position he's probably going to fail at but is still better than the alternatives or a less important position that he'll probably succeed at? The reason Carimi fell in the draft in the first place was because people thought that he was the best right tackle in the draft but probably wouldn't be able to play left tackle in the NFL.

I think the only question is the fanbase. The Cubs might decide that the hit to the fanbase from keeping Zambrano is worth more to them than the amount that Z can give you on the field. Otherwise there's no reason why they couldn't make up again. Wow. That's some opinion. I'll join in the throngs of people who disagree 100% with this. To quote Charlie Sheen, "winning". That's what its about. San Francisco obviously had no fans when Barry was carrying the team. Nobody cares too much about character in team sports. They will forgive anything if the bad characters are producing. Sammy was beloved when he was good. And he was hated when he sucked. To think that keeping Zambrano would lose fans is absolutely untrue. And to bring up the Pacers analogy is also wrong. The Pacers have sucked for a long time. Ron Artest had nothing to do with them losing fans. Sorry. So the implication is they care about character in individual sports? Would Tiger Woods have as many fans today if he started dominating again? Especially among women? Multiple people have given testimonies of people leaving because of character concerns some even while their team was still winning. To dismiss that would require calling all of them liars. Is there any proof that they are lying? I've said and will continue to say that winning is by far the biggest factor in attendance in pro sports. That doesn't mean there are not other factors that contribute. To say there's no point of no return (to extend it out to the absurd, would people really support a team full of murderers) is hard for me to swallow. Now, the argument that what Z did is minor enough that it will not break that point for more than a negligible amount of fans, that argument I can buy.

Maybe do something where compensation is at least partially based on contract value? That separates out your superstars from everybody else. It's probably the most objective way of determining market value (although not perfect). It's a fair system for small market teams because it rewards them most for the players they have the toughest time keeping. It helps players out because declining players won't have trouble finding jobs just because their team offered them arbitration. And if you separate out the picks over several rounds, there isn't such a huge gulf between picks for any team.

I thought that too, but the current draft doesn't support that. 17 of the 27 compensatory picks went to teams that were in the bottom 10 of payroll in 2010. That was mostly 3 teams (Tampa Bay, Toronto, and San Diego) who combined for 14 of those. The big gap was in the middle. 5 went to the top 5 payroll teams, 5 went to the next 15, and then 17 to the last 10. I don't know if that's supported by previous years though.

In just the past decade the Cubs have suffered through Todd Hundley, Moises Alou, Milton Bradley, and whoever you want to blame for the Steve Stone stuff. The effect on attendance has been zero. There is no reason to think Carlos Zambrano is the tipping point for fans. ETA: Forgot about the demonization of Sosa ETA: Do Latroy Hawkins and Jacque Jones count? That's an interesting point. The only two that were nearly as high profile as Z is though are Bradley and Sosa and the Cubs quickly got rid of each one. I also think discontent is pretty high right now among Cubs fans without the Z situation and that is just exacerbating it.

You are still talking out of your butt. You have no freaking idea if they have been lost forever. You are making this nonsense up based on a team that has stunk for five years in a bad pro sports market to begin with. Maybe you have some blowhard 65 year old tea party type who cannot fathom ever liking that team again. He will be dead soon and is meaningless in the net gain/loss of fans. And I don't think there is anywhere else to go with this discussion. I have brought up an argument that I believe has a strong possibility of being true, but also has a possibility of not being true (or more likely just be negligible enough to not matter). You have said it is not possible. Even if I provided you testimonies from many people, you would say they are lying. So there is no way to prove the argument to your satisfaction. Remember though, it doesn't actually have to be proven true to be a factor in the Cubs decision. All it has to be is possibly true to make it a concern they have to factor in.

I would bet that if you had a who would you want to leave first poll between those 3 Z would win for better or for worse. Personally, I hope that they mend fences but I can understand why they might want to trade him for the business reasons I mentioned. As for the Pacers, it was just an example of how fans can be turned off when things go too far. Of course, the Pacers situation was a lot worse than anything that has ever happened with Z as well. The Pacers were getting into legal trouble left and right while Z's questionable decisions haven't really hurt anyone. The Pacers keep losing, quit pretending that isn't the main problem. I've said repeatedly that losing was the biggest cause of the Pacers losing fans during the last few years. The problem with losing fans to character issues is that you don't often get those fans back like you do the fans who just leave because you're losing. Those fans who left because of character issues are often the fans who would have stuck with a franchise even when they're losing (winning isn't everything to them) and so provide key ticket sales during downturns. The Pacers will likely get back more than half of the fans they lost when they start winning. But they'll miss the ones they did lose.

I would bet that if you had a who would you want to leave first poll between those 3 Z would win for better or for worse. Personally, I hope that they mend fences but I can understand why they might want to trade him for the business reasons I mentioned. As for the Pacers, it was just an example of how fans can be turned off when things go too far. Of course, the Pacers situation was a lot worse than anything that has ever happened with Z as well. The Pacers were getting into legal trouble left and right while Z's questionable decisions haven't really hurt anyone.

Yup, they really cut the WGN games. I think it's just under 50 this year. While owning 20% of CSN Chicago helps their bottom line, it is killing interest for Cub fans outside of the Chicagoland area. I'm all for them to put the CSN games back on WGN America and having this silly local blackout rule lifted for the out of towners. If I'm in LA and don't want to watch the Dodgers or Angels, I should be able to watch the Cubs. By the way, tv ratings for the Cubs are down 14% from last year and down 47% from 2008. It looks to be 64 this year. It just made too much sense financially for them to switch. MLB was forcing them to pay for games shown on WGN, and they receive money from their partnership for CSN. If one of those were removed, maybe they consider it. But there's no way they pay money when they could be receiving money instead.

Maybe so (although this next year they almost certainly won't be anywhere near boring with their core+immense cap space...of course the NBA might not have a season this year). I'm just basing this off of conversations I've had with people. Some of them I believe and some of them I don't. I believe it is possible for something other than losing to turn off a fan though. I don't think people are automatically fans for life, especially the casual side of the fanbase (which is probably 70% of most fanbases). I believe you are taking out of your behind. People aren't going to stay away from a winning Cubs team. The Oakland A's may struggle to draw support regardless of record because their stadium is horrible and it's in a horrible place. The Atlanta Braves may struggle to sell playoff tickets because Atlanta is quite possibly the worst major sports town in America. Southern cities may struggle to draw support for winning hockey teams because hockey in the South is still very much a new idea with no built in support. But the Chicago freaking Cubs are not going to suffer a net loss of revenue because they continue to employ a player with personality problems. If they continue to suck, they will continue to suffer financially. If they continue to focus on finding scapegoats insteady of stocking their roster with high quality players, they will probably continue to suck. But dumping Zambrano solves nothing and only opens up more short-to-intermediate-term holes. Do I think Wrigley will sell out with a winning Cubs team no matter who is on the team? Yes. The Cubs fanbase is too large for that not to happen. Could this affect attendance of the mediocre Cubs teams and/or merchandise and TV ratings? Yes....not nearly as much as winning or losing does, but somewhat.

Artest wasn't the big problem (although the Pacers didn't give up on him immediately-it was only after he demanded to be traded that they sent him home and then out). It was Stephen Jackson, Shawne Williams, and especially Jamaal Tinsley that eventually brought it all tumbling down. They eventually got rid of all those guys (and told Tinsley to stay home for years without trading him or buying him out) but it was too late by that point. Do you think if they had a team full of malcontents and jagoffs the past 5 years but won 50 games a year (think the Jailblazers era) that they'd have sold less tickets? Nope, they would have sold more tickets because the part of the fanbase who cares about winning is bigger than the character part. Besides, by then the character damage was already done. Now, if you had asked me which would be better for ticket sales in 2011-2020...that the Brawl had never happened and the Pacers won 35 games for the last 7 years, or that the Pacers just kept getting into legal trouble and won 50 games a year over the past 7, I think more people would buy tickets in the first scenario. Once the Pacers become good again, the fanbase would have been larger if the only reason they went away in the first place was because of losing.

Artest wasn't the big problem (although the Pacers didn't give up on him immediately-it was only after he demanded to be traded that they sent him home and then out). It was Stephen Jackson, Shawne Williams, and especially Jamaal Tinsley that eventually brought it all tumbling down. They eventually got rid of all those guys (and told Tinsley to stay home for years without trading him or buying him out) but it was too late by that point.

Maybe so (although this next year they almost certainly won't be anywhere near boring with their core+immense cap space...of course the NBA might not have a season this year). I'm just basing this off of conversations I've had with people. Some of them I believe and some of them I don't. I believe it is possible for something other than losing to turn off a fan though. I don't think people are automatically fans for life, especially the casual side of the fanbase (which is probably 70% of most fanbases).

When? You may think that could theoretically happen, but there is absolutely no reason to pretend it's at all likely with the Cubs. The minute this team looks like a contender everybody will be on the bandwagon with or without a malcontent. Some blowhards may talk about giving up on the Cubs because Zambrano is still there, but they are liars and/or idiots, and easily replacable with the next round of success. The Pacers. Most people I talk to about the team don't want anything to do with them. They went to games previously, but they just have no interest right now even with the Pacers getting better. Some of the Pacers fans will come back as they get closer and closer to contention, but the town will never be Pacers crazy again like they were during the 90's. Obviously the Cubs are still going to be really high in attendance no matter what because their fanbase is so huge that losing a small percentage of them isn't going to make a huge difference. But if keeping Z doesn't provide much extra value either, then losing those fans might be considered the worse choice.

I think the only question is the fanbase. The Cubs might decide that the hit to the fanbase from keeping Zambrano is worth more to them than the amount that Z can give you on the field. Otherwise there's no reason why they couldn't make up again. You think keeping Z will drive away fans en masse? En masse? No. But it will probably reinforce the belief that seems to have developed that the Cubs don't have any standards for their players. That belief is probably not true, but perception means so much for marketing. With Z gone, they can say they're going with a fresh start and sell some more tickets. I've seen a fanbase finally turn on a team because of character issues, and it's not pretty. Once those fans leave, you will never get some of them back. That is different from fans leaving because of perpretually losing, because they will usually come back when the team starts winning again.

I think the only question is the fanbase. The Cubs might decide that the hit to the fanbase from keeping Zambrano is worth more to them than the amount that Z can give you on the field. Otherwise there's no reason why they couldn't make up again.