CubColtPacer

Apparently Campana is the first Cub to have his first home run of his career be an inside the park home run since 1948.

Byrd's been really good over the last month before having a tough last 3 games. I don't see why he would need another day off.

Rollins has had a .719, .694, and .736 OPS the last 3 years. I'm not sure his stolen bases and defense are enough to pay for him when the Cubs have a few 2B options that can do almost as well there.

The Cubs will probably be worse in the walks category than they are in other offensive categories again in 2012 because players like Castro and Byrd are productive players that don't walk much. If Barney is back at 2B next year, he won't hurt the Cubs a great deal overall but doesn't walk much either. Soriano's another player who is mildly productive without walking. If the Cubs add somebody like Fielder, I could see them having an offense that is ranked 5th or 6th while only being around 12th-13th in the NL in walks. But it's definitely going to be hard for them to be much better than they are this year (exactly average 8th-9th in the league) if they continue to be dead last in walks.

Teams not being able to afford the expense is not the same thing as overpaying for a player. There are plenty of players every year that are not overpaid that are out of many teams budget ranges-especially in July. Obviously. So it's crappy when the avenues for trading are even more limited by what's arguably an unwise contract. I'm not saying they should only give out reasonable contracts with the idea they might have to trade a guy. I just don't understand how someone can think that trying to trade a player to only 4 teams instead of 24 is the same thing in terms of what you can potentially get back. It's harder to justify trading someone when there's fewer teams you can trade someone to. It means those few teams know that the team doing the trading is over a barrel because of the cost. The only thing that seems even questionable about the contract though is the years. Marmol was going to make more money that that this year in arbitration guaranteed (both arbitration figures were well above what he actually got) and the next two years were likely arbitration awards if not a decent bit more. So the teams trading for him would have had to of been willing to pay that much money regardless if the Cubs gave him the deal or not. The only thing that changed is the team would have to assume more risk due to injury. So I don't see how the contract limited the number of teams because of money concerns.

Teams not being able to afford the expense is not the same thing as overpaying for a player. There are plenty of players every year that are not overpaid that are out of many teams budget ranges-especially in July.

They'll also have lost Pujols. Right, but they'll still have Holliday and Wainwright, along with productive cheap players like Jaime Garcia, Jay and Frese and elite prospects in Shelby Miller and that other guy whose name I can't remember offhand. We have Starlin Castro and Brett Jackson. That's pretty much it. And Garza, Dempster and Zambrano. Soto and Ramirez possibly. Forgot about Garza and Soto (although I also forgot Molina). Dempster, Zambrano and Ramirez aren't part of any core going forward, as they could all be gone this year or next year. Well if you count Dempster and Zambrano being gone then the Cubs would have much more money available than the Cardinals will. I'm not sure if the discussion is who can build a better team in 2012 or which team has the better situation for beyond that, but Dempster and Z have to be counted if we're just talking about 2012, and the Cubs have a bigger amount of money to spend if we're talking post 2012.

Sure, but it's not like the 4th OF doesn't get plenty of PA. No, he's not starting, but if a guy has talent it's going to show through even in a semi-regular capacity. Colvin did the exact opposite and looked about as bad as an MLB player can be. Then he went to the minors and, outside of a relatively brief blip, sucked some more. If he had shown he was capable of doing ANYTHING this year he would have gotten more than enough playing time, but he didn't. Again, no one is saying that Colvin SHOULD have gotten more opportunity. But 100 PA's, even though they were horrendous, just isn't much to go on when he put up a 111 OPS+ in 400 PA's last year. Not only that, but also because the peripherals aren't nearly as horrendous as his batting line. More than half his hits on the season have gone for extra bases. His overall BB/K ratio is the same as last season (less walks but less strikeouts as well). He clearly still has power capability with both the fact that his home runs have traveled really far, and he's hit at least 2 balls off the wall in addition to his 3 home runs so far. The jury is still out on Colvin right now. Well, no, that's just reinforcing what many were saying last year about how his performance was largely propped up by an unsustainable power display. On the one hand it's impressive when 71% of your hits for the first month of the season are for extra bases. It's worrisome when that means you only had 7 hits total in 57 PA. And yeah, he walked 6 times vs. 13 k's in that month as well. But then in June, the month with the next most PA, he gave us a smaller repeat of April, with only 3 hits in 34 PA and 1 of them being a double, couple with 2 walks and 7 k's. How is Colvin showing that he has anything except flashes of power? That seems to be literally the only thing he has going for him. It shows that a .139 BABIP is ridiculously unsustainable. He's had a max of 9 hits all season that have not hit the wall on the fly that have dropped in. That's ridiculous. I'm not worried about his singles-his singles will come. Last year, he had a .296 BABIP and was constrained by that high strikeout rate.

Sure, but it's not like the 4th OF doesn't get plenty of PA. No, he's not starting, but if a guy has talent it's going to show through even in a semi-regular capacity. Colvin did the exact opposite and looked about as bad as an MLB player can be. Then he went to the minors and, outside of a relatively brief blip, sucked some more. If he had shown he was capable of doing ANYTHING this year he would have gotten more than enough playing time, but he didn't. Again, no one is saying that Colvin SHOULD have gotten more opportunity. But 100 PA's, even though they were horrendous, just isn't much to go on when he put up a 111 OPS+ in 400 PA's last year. Not only that, but also because the peripherals aren't nearly as horrendous as his batting line. More than half his hits on the season have gone for extra bases. His overall BB/K ratio is the same as last season (less walks but less strikeouts as well). He clearly still has power capability with both the fact that his home runs have traveled really far, and he's hit at least 2 balls off the wall in addition to his 3 home runs so far. The jury is still out on Colvin right now.

How do you know Hendry turned down a good deal for Byrd? Because a younger, better, more valuable player netted four prospects and the Astros have been roundly criticized for taking too little for him? The Cubs have as much or more money than any other team in baseball available to spend on players this offseason - that's why there's a belief that we can net Fielder and Wilson. Is it a certainty that we will? Of course not, but just because we might not get both doesn't mean we shouldn't try to contend next year. Bourne is younger yes but whether he is better than Byrd (when healthy for a full season) is a point of contention. comparing his last year numbers to bourne this year he has a higher WAR. Plus he is a centerfielder who has some power of which bourn has none. I think he offers more. No one said the cubs shouldn't try to contend next year. The fact of the matter is that without any trades at the deadline to bring in young major league ready talent we are entirely dependent upon free agency to fill our needs at first base/starting pitching. We would have been better off trading from an area of depth and getting back a couple mlb ready pitchers than depending entirely upon free agency which I think is a much bigger crap shoot then most are acknowledging. Someone argued that free agents wouldnt want to come here if we traded guys away. Well why would they want to come here when it looks like this team has no plan except to add two players to a 90 loss team? Bourn's only played 4 months this year. After he plays August and September he'll have a better WAR number than Byrd did last year. And Bourn at that point will have 3 straight higher WAR numbers than Byrd has ever had in his career and is 5 years younger.

Well, sure. But that seems like sort of an unfair scenario you've set up. There's no guarantee that hanging onto prospects, rather than trading them, will make a team "great" for 10-15 years. There's no guarantee that the Phillies will even win one world series either from these moves. It is playing the percentages.

I think someone was going to give him a contact that was more than the one gave to him by the Cubs. The Braves were reported to have more interest in Dempster than Lowe for example.

it doesn't really matter that much if your team is getting old if they're still good. halladay is 7 years past most baseball players' peak ages and is the best pitcher in baseball. cliff lee is not far behind him. utley is still one of the best 2b in baseball. victorino is one of the best cf. i guess you can hand-wring about what will happen when your players reach free agency, whether they'll be overpaid or worth keeping, but the phillies are going to win the NL east for the 5th year in a row, they've won two pennants and one world series, they're favorites to make the world series again this year, and on paper they're expected to be very good next year. if you can be the best team in your league for a six-year stretch and win at least one championship, why would you piss away that chance because you don't want to give up kyle drabek or jonathon singleton? plus i don't know what your suggestion is for "making this team a little better while making sure they had some plan beyond the next year or two." nobody is looking to trade tim lincecum or felix hernandez. roy halladay was available and they went out and got him for a price that looks pretty modest in hindsight. the price they paid for oswalt wasn't too bad either, selling high on j.a. happ. pence looks to be part of the team for the next 2+ years. i just don't see where you think they're improving the team significantly without paying a price in prospects. very few teams are trading good 20-something players, and the team that did trade one just gave their best player to the phillies. My feeling is that there was no reason for them to sell out in order to win now. They built up an almost perfect organizational structure-they had the pieces to both win now and win in the future. They've lost that over the last couple of years in an effort to build the perfect team. I'd rather have a great team for 10-15 years than an almost perfect team for 5 and an average team the other 5. There are times where even a contending teams shouldn't make a marginal improvement for now at the expense of later and I think the Phillies hit that point a while ago.

well now they have a second, because pence isn't a free agent until after the 2013 season. i like this trade a lot for philly. they didn't give up brown (the offer was never brown/singleton/cosart), didn't give up worley (who will probably be the #5 next year), singleton was always going to be blocked by howard... basically ibanez goes away after this year and they've got pence, victorino and brown in the OF for another year or two. it's not paying big for a one year rental, they'll have the same loaded SP core next year (hamels is RFA - possibly traded?) and the same offensive core, possibly minus rollins. but the point remains that their window will remain very open next year and probably into 2013, and even when their window closes with their current core of talent, they've been so successful that they're now run like a very large market team and have the resources to improve quickly. Not including Brown makes this deal a whole lot better for the Phillies (even Brown instead of the prospects was likely going to be a bad switch for Philadelphia). Pence will probably make about 10 million next year and probably be worth that. The only issue I have is that the Phillies are starting to get very old very quickly. Most of their offensive guys will either be overpaid in their next contract or have to be let go because they're in the danger zone (early to mid 30's). Pence will be younger then most, but even he will be about to turn 31 when he hits free agency. Howard's deal will continue to get worse and worse. Who on the current Phillies roster is it worth it to re-sign? Hamels, and that might be it. So as those players come to free agency they will increasingly have a hard time finding replacements for them. And if they have few prospects who will come up and help, they are basically going to be re-working almost their entire team through free agency by the end of 2013 (with some coming due at the end of each of those years). That's not a good model. They could have found ways to make this team a little better while making sure they had some plan for beyond the next year or two.

From this ESPN report here: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/rumblings110729/ranking-mlb-trade-chips What is the Phillies plan for 3 years from now? They seem to actively be getting rid of all their young players. Hunter Pence isn't old and has 2 more arbitration years left, but that's just one more big contract for them-and if they're getting rid of Brown and their top two prospects they can't seem to have too much ready to come up and provide cheap production. Edit: Of course, it never says they offered all three together. Still the general point is there-I understand improving your team, but how far do you do that at the expense of your future?

I was going off of CCP's estimate of what we would need, but I have to imagine that 45 million would be the high end for the two of them. I was being very conservative and only projecting 35 million between two of them (and projecting 20 between arbitration/minimum salary guys) If it was more then the budget would have to be shaved even more.

I don't disagree, but would point out that they are not very far from being able to afford all 3. It wouldn't take seismic changes to get all 3, and you have to keep in mind they're paying 33 million for SP production(Dempster, Z) they could replace for far less the following season. From my calculations they're 7-10 million short even after declining Samardzija's option, not re-signing Wood, and going with minimum salary players for the bench and most of the bullpen. That's a lot of extra money to shed. They could trade Byrd to do it, but they have nobody to replace him. That's also assuming none of Pena's money counts for the 2012 budget.

Right, that's comparable. IU succeeding in football, to the degree they can, would essentially have no effect on me. It's not like Notre Dame and IU are consistently battling for recruits, and it's not like I said I hope IU is gonna compete for titles. I just have a few friends who are fans, that's all. Not sure why it's such a big deal, and I certainly apologize for offending all the non-IU B1G fanboys. If IU became above average, they'd be battling Notre Dame for recruits. At least the top state kids, and maybe some solid Illinois kids. It would probably be more damaging to Notre Dame's recruiting for someone like Rutgers to get good rather than Indiana. Indiana/Illinois combined only produces 3 of 4 recruits per year for ND and most of those guys are more in Purdue territory than Indiana territory. It's pretty inconsequential. Rutgers? No. I agree it's not a huge deal. But NJ isn't an ND hot bed or anything. It would only be significant in that when there's a high-4 or 5-star recruit in ND and he fits ND's system, ND should get him (in ND's opinion and recruiting services' opinions, etc). If they don't, it's a black mark on ND to some degree. The more football programs they have to compete with in Indiana, the worse it is on ND. But the risk on IU becoming a legit football school anytime soon seems pretty minor. NJ hasn't been a huge hotbed only because there is only so much talent in NJ. But ND has consistently gotten good talent especially offensively out of there (in the last 10 years, they got Fasano, Olsen, Kamara, Ragone, Riddick, and Jackson on the offensive side of the ball, and a few others on defense). They got 12 players out of NJ over a 10 year period and 12 players out of Indiana (and most of the Indiana players are northern Indiana players who would likely come to ND anyway even if Indiana became good).

I would trade Ramirez for a good price. He's still a great player and the Cubs would miss his production quite a bit. It would be sad to see him go. But my thinking is this: the Cubs would have the opportunity to get 3 major pieces in the offseason: an elite first baseman, a great starting pitcher, or Ramirez. They can only afford 2 of them, and IMO Ramirez is the least necessary of those three because that's where the Cubs at least have OK options from within the system. Plus, the Cubs would get talent from the Ramirez trade and some of that talent might be ready next year to help the 2012 team. So I don't see trading Ramirez as giving up on 2012-it's just throwing your limited assets in a different direction. And if the Cubs are unsure about signing those elite pieces, trading Ramirez gives them more flexibility in the offseason.

Abreu is interesting enough to make this deal IMO even if 95% of the time we'll have forgotten about him in 2 years. If he cuts that strikeout down from 30 to 22-23 he would be a nice player. And while it's likely the Cubs paid some of his contract they probably didn't pay all of it so they might still have some savings from the deal.

Abreu must be quite the athlete. Already this year he has 12 HR, 19 SB, 5 3B, and a great arm? So a guy with some definite upside but very unlikely to reach it with that BB/K ratio.

I can't imagine Kosuke's value will be any higher than 2 players in the 15-20 range. I bet it will be lower than that, but I would be pretty happy to get 2 decent prospects back. This may be a dumb question on my part and I offer my apologies in advance...but it bothers me that instead of getting one top 10 guy in a trade like this we seem to settle for two guys in the 15-20 range. Maybe I'm a fool but I would much rather get one guy with a good chance at reaching his projections than two guys with a lesser chance. I probably would too depending on the situation and how close the rankings were, but that doesn't seem to be a choice that's usually given for a marginal player like Fukudome. Quantity is better than nothing.

I can't imagine Kosuke's value will be any higher than 2 players in the 15-20 range. I bet it will be lower than that, but I would be pretty happy to get 2 decent prospects back.

But it's not like we're 6 games back and can say, if we only had clutch hitting* this year, we'd be right in it. Instead you can say, if we only had clutch hitting this year, we'd be run of the mill bad, rather than terrible, and realize we're not 45 years away from contending. *I have no idea if our clutch hitting has been worse than it should be. It's only a little bit worse than it should be. Not enough to make a big difference (although combined with poor baserunning and a relative lack of productive outs probably contributes to the frustration about clutch hitting).