CubColtPacer

Sounds like a deal! Wow, that is awesome. =D> I'm trying to decide whether to like this deal. I like Hill, but I liked Leonard and the Pacers lost both their 2nd round pick and the rights to Lorbek. Lorbek will be annoying because he'll probably come over now that he's on the Spurs even though he wouldn't come over to Indiana all these years. I'm just trying to figure out where Hill fits. Is he just the backup point guard/shooting guard? Are they going to push Collison or George to the bench?

Arizona named an interim general manger when Byrnes was fired from inside the organization. The Mariners also named a interim general manager from inside the organization when Bavasi was fired midseason. DePodesta was fired after the season. If the Cubs fired Hendry now the precedent that other teams have set would have Bush take over as the interim.

I haven't ever been the biggest Zambrano fan, but I don't see any purpose whatsoever to dealing him as a salary dump. First of all, his contract isn't that bad. Yes, he has a lot of money on the books for the next few years, but he is also still a very productive starting pitcher. Secondly, who are the Cubs going to replace him with? Why dump salary to leave a gaping hole that you need to spend more money to fill? There is clearly nobody in the minor league system who is ready to step into the rotation at any point in the near future. Unless someone is willing to pay his salary and send something in return, I don't see any reason to consider a trade. He actually only has 1 more year beyond this one left on his deal. And the upside to trading him is that you might be able to find a pitcher who can fill his spot for less money than Z makes next year. The pitching market is a bit thin after the season but there are a few interesting names. If you sign one of them for 10-12 million and he gives you the same production that Z was doing for 18 then you have much more flexibility. But it really depends on how good you view Z as this point. If you see him as a lock for a sub 3.8 ERA then your options for replacement become much more limited. If he's a guy who could put up a 3.7 or an ERA above 4 in a given year then they start to open up. I wouldn't be thrilled if they only got salary relief, but would be ok if it got rid of his whole contract. I definitely would be upset if the Cubs are paying any appreciable amount with no solid prospects coming back because then there's no upside to the deal.

You just made me look up his hit chart. Interesting to see that he makes the majority of his outs on ground balls to the left side and his fly ball outs are almost exclusively to center or right (at least from his home data). His hits are pretty close to as all over the field as you can get though.

They might wait the whole season because of how young he is, although I don't know Tampa's philosophy on promoting prospects. Lee is having a fantastic season and will move up prospect lists although his total numbers are a bit inflated. His BABIP is still crazy high (.401), the 7 3B is probably a little bit of an anomaly and after hitting 2 HR in April he hasn't hit one since. So his numbers will probably keep falling as they have been in May and June, but it's still been a very big step forward for him.

4 WAR is probably understating Soriano a little bit. He was hurt most of 2009 when he put up that -0.1. He rebounded with a 3 last year and looks to be on pace for about a 2.5 this year. I would eat 20-30 million of it right now for him to go away. I doubt you'd find anybody to take him at that price though. In another year or two the options for trading him might open up a little more.

That's kind of a ridiculous claim to make. You should never trade any potential star for a Cy Young caliber pitcher? They got a very young stud arm. It's not like they traded him for an innings eater. Sure, they probably weren't expected 950 OPS seasons out of him, but pretending they had no inclinations that he was going to be good is just wrong. Well, there's a big difference in believing somebody's going to be good and knowing they are going to be a star. You don't trade your 21 year old SS if you know they're going to be a star because that is the most valuable piece you can have in baseball. 25 year old pitchers like that don't come on the market very often either (although Beckett was only 2 years away from free agency at the time) so I understand why they did it but they clearly undervalued Hanley by a lot.

Yeah, if they knew he would be a star then trading for Beckett was incredibly short-sighted. They would have much rather had Hanley than Beckett the last 6 years, and that isn't even accounting for the money they would have saved to use on another pitcher. I was under the impression that Hanley was widely considered to be a star in the making at the time of the trade. Maybe they didn't think he'd be as good as he ending up being so soon, but he was star material nonetheless. He was rated as the #30th best prospect in baseball at the time of the trade after being the 10th best the year before (he had a .720 OPS at the age of 21 in AA the year before the trade which dropped him a little bit). Boston didn't have SS blocked though-they ended up putting Alex Gonzalez there the next year. If they had any confidence at all that he was going to be a star, they shouldn't have made the deal. They could have gone out and bought a pitcher in free agency instead. It looks more like they tried to sell high while Hanley's value was still good and it ended up biting them pretty badly.

Yeah, if they knew he would be a star then trading for Beckett was incredibly short-sighted. They would have much rather had Hanley than Beckett the last 6 years, and that isn't even accounting for the money they would have saved to use on another pitcher.

If he stays hot through July it shouldn't be a problem, but that is still up for debate. And you have to get more than the mediocrity they've gotten for some other veteran dumps in recent years. I just don't see the point in acquiring more filler for the system. If they can get a potential impact player, terrific. If he was blocking somebody there could be motivation for moving him for the sake of moving him, but he's not even close to blocking somebody already in the system. Because trading for raw prospects pans out sometimes. Ceda and Hart weren't thought of as good prospects when the Cubs acquired them but they were later used as currency in other deals. Murton wasn't a key piece but gave the Cubs a couple pretty good seasons. And I can see the Cubs getting better than that for Pena. They should get 1 guy in the back end of somebody's top 10 and another guy in the top 20 which would be useful to have. The only real benefit I see to keeping him is if you want to offer arbitration. I bet he'll sneak into B level compensation so then you either bring him back or get a draft pick. If they aren't planning on offering arbitration they might as well trade him and either save some money, get some prospects, or both.

I'd be surprised if Pena couldn't get a multi-year deal if he wanted it. He'll probably end up in the 825-850 OPS range with good defense and 25-35 homers. That will be a big change from last year with both the disappointing year and possible injury concerns. Well, I guess I wonder with "multi-year" is. I could see him getting 2-3 years, but I wouldn't consider that "long-term". For his age 3 years is a long-term deal. I would think he'd get either 2-3 years on a deal.

I'd be surprised if Pena couldn't get a multi-year deal if he wanted it. He'll probably end up in the 825-850 OPS range with good defense and 25-35 homers. That will be a big change from last year with both the disappointing year and possible injury concerns.

I think you have to wait for his numbers to start looking a lot more impressive, and then think long and hard about what you are going to do at 1B next year. The Cubs were never going to get Pujols, and the likelihood probably went down with the injury. But they need a 1B next year, regardless. If you are just going to get another fringe prospect, there's really no point. I really think folks are missing the possibility that the Cubs may be angling to extend Pena. They certainly might be. If they do want to trade him though, I have no idea why they would have a hard time convincing teams. Over 900 OPS each of the last two months. Much better in his career after the All-Star Break than before (.885 after vs .797 before). If they can't convince a team that Pena'a April was a combination of a cold start/April weather, then that is a pretty poor negotiating job.

Hendry's best move this year. So much for all of the wannabe GMs here who were begging for Adam Dunn. You're kidding, right? You're going to sit there and pretend that ANYONE predicted that Dunn would fall off a cliff this season? I thought he was going to put up monster power numbers in the Cell and I think most people felt the same way. His sudden fall off is really shocking. Anyone who says they foresaw this is almost certainly a liar. The guy had been the model of consistency for years. I was not in favor of signing him to a multiyear deal, but I thought he was absolutely going to be productive offensively. I would say it's surprising but not shocking. Players with Dunn's skills have fallen off suddenly before. And Dunn's BB/K ratio did get much worse last season which is a warning sign. But I tend to believe he's out of rhythm after his appendectomy, and even if he doesn't turn it around this season he has at least one very good season left in him.

I'm definitely not seeing the same thing you are. 10/10 SB is pretty solid. I have noticed the same thing that 9YR has when Castro runs to 1st especially on a few of his DP balls. There have been balls that I expect a middle IF to beat out the relay throw that he has been thrown out easily on. But his play in the field and his SB numbers don't suggest he's slow, so I don't know if it's just perception.

Not necessarily. Average is defined by all the players who play in MLB in a given year, but the pool of available players is deeper than that. Between backups and minor leaguers there are plenty of people who could be above average if just given the opportunity. The amount of players who could realistically do that could vary based on position. That is especially true in the middle infield, where some teams may promote a defensive first player and others are more likely to give playing time based off of offensive potential.

I feel like the Cubs went cheap in the 2010 draft. A big market team should not be spending in the middle of the pack. I'm not condoning wasting money and if someone told me that the 2010 pool of players was below average I guess that would make a difference. Simpson was not/is not a first round talent, at least at this point. Sure he had the illness, but he is doing very little right now in A ball to warrant that selection. I realize that the draft is a gamble in some respects but an aging team with an average farm system should be spending BIG on the draft IMO. I didn't see that last year and until I see more signings from the 2011 class I'll stick by my gut feeling that Ricketts is saying what the fans want to hear while not following up on those statements. It makes no sense that the Cubs would go with the draft philosophy they did in 2011 if they were planning to go cheap. I have no idea how many of the guys they will actually sign, but you don't draft a bunch of players out of high school along with a few guys that will require major overslots without some indication that you will have a pretty good budget at your disposal. How desperate will the Cubs get if some of these players ask for more money than expected? I don't know. But they had a pathway to draft decent talent without spending tons of money and they chose to go with the high upside high risk guys instead. I HATE the fact that I have become so cynical. Having said that...... ...if the Cubs didn't want to spend and they don't sign these kids, they could easily blame it on unrealistic bonus demands. I know it sounds hard to believe but it sincerely bothers me that I have become so cynical. Like I said above, I'll believe it when I see it with Ricketts. If they sign all these draftees I'll eat my words. edit: formatting I understand somewhat being cynical, but I don't get the motive for the Cubs. Why would they want to draft those guys just to not sign them? They have to fill their minor league rosters somehow. If they just wanted to do that with cheap guys they could have drafted college players who didn't have as many options. It's not like they're getting good PR for drafting all these guys because most of the fanbase doesn't know or care about overslots or draft budgets. Now will they chicken out when it comes time to actually put up the money? That is certainly possible. But the draft they had is not consistent with going into the draft intent on not spending money.

Their theoretical ceilings say nothing about how easy it will be to get above average production in 2012. The Cubs have Carlos Pena and tons of cash. Those two options are at least as likely to result in above average production at 1B in 2012. The original point was that the Cubs should use that money on other positions besides second base because 2B was the best chance of filling a position with decent to good players from the farm system. Your example of Pena and money is irrelevant to that point.

He has been for a month and a half. They started out toward the top of that list, have been plummetting, and will go even lower once Utley registers enough PA to bump their totals. The Cubs sucked at 2B in 2009 and 2010. They could easily be on their way to sucking at 2B in 2011. There is no way you can claim they will easily fill 2B with above average production next year. That is a baseless comment. I said easiest, not necessarily easily. The Cubs prospects may bust. That doesn't mean they should block them because they're afraid of that happening. The Cubs have to identify areas that they can get cheap average to above average production at. Right now, 2B seems to be the top of the list in that department. They have close to 5 legitimate options there to start next season. And it's going to be pretty hard for the Cubs to drop much further in the rankings. Philly will pass them, but everybody else behind them is way behind them. Again, it's a baseless comment. I could say 1B will be the easiest to fill with above average production. You could, but I'm not sure what it would be based on. My comment is based on the Cubs prospects minor league statistics (and a little bit of scouting reports) compared to the major league averages for the position. I'm not sure what more you can base things off of when deciding when it is worth it to bring up a prospect to play a position.

I feel like the Cubs went cheap in the 2010 draft. A big market team should not be spending in the middle of the pack. I'm not condoning wasting money and if someone told me that the 2010 pool of players was below average I guess that would make a difference. Simpson was not/is not a first round talent, at least at this point. Sure he had the illness, but he is doing very little right now in A ball to warrant that selection. I realize that the draft is a gamble in some respects but an aging team with an average farm system should be spending BIG on the draft IMO. I didn't see that last year and until I see more signings from the 2011 class I'll stick by my gut feeling that Ricketts is saying what the fans want to hear while not following up on those statements. It makes no sense that the Cubs would go with the draft philosophy they did in 2011 if they were planning to go cheap. I have no idea how many of the guys they will actually sign, but you don't draft a bunch of players out of high school along with a few guys that will require major overslots without some indication that you will have a pretty good budget at your disposal. How desperate will the Cubs get if some of these players ask for more money than expected? I don't know. But they had a pathway to draft decent talent without spending tons of money and they chose to go with the high upside high risk guys instead.

He has been for a month and a half. They started out toward the top of that list, have been plummetting, and will go even lower once Utley registers enough PA to bump their totals. The Cubs sucked at 2B in 2009 and 2010. They could easily be on their way to sucking at 2B in 2011. There is no way you can claim they will easily fill 2B with above average production next year. That is a baseless comment. I said easiest, not necessarily easily. The Cubs prospects may bust. That doesn't mean they should block them because they're afraid of that happening. The Cubs have to identify areas that they can get cheap average to above average production at. Right now, 2B seems to be the top of the list in that department. They have close to 5 legitimate options there to start next season. And it's going to be pretty hard for the Cubs to drop much further in the rankings. Philly will pass them, but everybody else behind them is way behind them.

Who specifically are you talking about? Barney, DeWitt, Baker, Lemahieu? If you want a good hitting 2B, you actually need a pretty good hitter. It's a productive position nowadays. They Cubs have been plugging holes at 2B for a while now and they have only on occasion filled it with actual production. and Flaherty and others. The Cubs system is filled with middle infield options. And 2B is still not that productive overall-most teams tend to still fill it with poor hitting players. Sure, the crappy teams have crappy 2B. But the good ones generally get actual production there. And the point is to try and be good. True, the good teams tend to get slightly better production out of 2B than the others. The key point is that of all the spots on the field that's the one the Cubs should be able to fill easiest with an above average player. So it's less effective to get a stud there when there are other holes that the system will not be able to fill so easily. Barney hasn't been terrible at 2nd, and he's probably the worst option of all the ones in the Cubs system.

Who specifically are you talking about? Barney, DeWitt, Baker, Lemahieu? If you want a good hitting 2B, you actually need a pretty good hitter. It's a productive position nowadays. They Cubs have been plugging holes at 2B for a while now and they have only on occasion filled it with actual production. and Flaherty and others. The Cubs system is filled with middle infield options. And 2B is still not that productive overall-most teams tend to still fill it with poor hitting players.

I did forget about Silva and more importantly Ramirez, so 85 million is more accurate as a raw number. Still, like CCP's example illustrates, that gets eaten up quickly with the raises to other players coming up(and that example assumes we let Marmol and Marshall walk, which is a frightening thought at this point). Marmol's one of the two players under contract for 2013 so that's not an issue.

Ack, had a post then lost it. Long story short, the Cubs have about 64 million coming off the payroll the next 2 years . Considering Prince/Kemp/Reyes are looking at 17-18+ per year, that doesn't really leave you the necessary resources to fill out a rotation that would consist of Garza, Wells, and a pocketful of wishes. ? Am I missing something? Cots shows a payroll of $134 mil this year, $72.6 for 2012 and 28.8 for 2013. Even figuring the number of arbitration eligible guys they have, appears to be six, and the raises they'll get, that's a lot more than $64 mil coming off over the next two years. They could sign Prince and Reyes this year and have plenty of money next year for Kemp and at least one high quality pitcher. And still end up with a lower payroll than they have now. If you have 28.8 million in 2013 and you add Kemp/Prince/Reyes at 18 each per year and a high quality pitcher at 13, then you have a payroll of 95 million already. Garza/Soto will probably together be around 20 million by that point so you're already at 115. Wells will probably be 3-5 million by then so 118-120. Castro will probably be another 4-5. So that's 122-125 and that's only 10 players. So they would only have 10 million or so for the other 15 players. Unless the Cubs go to a complete stars/scrubs model, there's no way they can sign that many elite players.