Backtobanks

Adams' numbers are still phenomenal away from Petco, and he's been doing it for four years now. Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall has become, but man, I hope he has a run like Adams'. You keep saying soft tossing LH as if that's a huge strike against him. I thought LH pitchers were at least if not more valuable than their RH counterparts. Am I reading something into your posts that isn't intended? It is a strike against him in terms of the idea that the Cubs missed out on an opportunity to trade him for a big return, so yes, you're reading into it incorrectly. I think Marshall is very, very valuable to the Cubs and very, very good...but he's not going to bring enough back to justify trading him. The last sentence sums up many of the Cub players (Pena, Baker, Byrd, Zambrano, Marshall, etc.). They have more value to the Cubs than they do on the trade market because of performance, salary, and/or lack of replacement in the farm system.

The other GMs probably played hardball with Hendry now with the thought that most of the players that were available (Pena, Byrd, Johnson, Baker?, Grabow, Soriano, Zambrano, etc) will be available on waivers if they decide they need to pick someone up. No use overpaying now when you can still get the same player(s) for cheap in a few weeks.

These tweets are ridiculous. These "experts" have to keep posting or tweeting something every 5 minutes to keep their reputation. None of them had a clue on the Jiminez or Rasmus trades. Most GMs are pretty quiet about what's going on so the "experts" have to speculate about everything (i.e. Team A needs an OF and these OFs are available, so Team A must be talking to the teams that might have an OF available)

When you have one of the best trading chips on the market, however, you need to shoot higher than a couple of low ceiling, high floor guys who probably will be no better than league average their entire time with the Cubs. With a farm system as deep as ours, we're bound to get a handful or more players like Young and Slowey, so there's really very little benefit to acquiring them. Getting 1-2 of the top 5-10 prospects on another team is far more valuable since those guys have a much higher likelihood of becoming major leaguers than the vast majority of prospects and will also have much higher ceilings than Young and Slowey have. The only guarantee that Young and Slowey bring us is to not be terrible and you need more than that when you're trading one of the best third basemen in the game. I totally agree as long as we're going to get 2 of the other team's top 10 prospects and we're not paying 50%+ of ARam's contract. I'm worried about getting a few prospects with a ton of potential but become great AAAA players.

My point is that there isn't any guarantee with getting some team's prospects (unless they're someone like Harper or Trout - which isn't going to happen) for a "decent bargaining chip". I agree that it's possible one (or 2) of the prospects might become stars, but there's also a chance that the prospects might never reach the ML. Also the fact that Slowey and Young are making ML money certainly would reduce any money we might have to send with ARam. I'm not a big fan of paying 50%-80% of a player's salary to another team, especially if a player is reasonably productive.

I'd want a whole lot more than Young and Slowey for Aramis. Young is 26 this year, his best season is an .826 OPS and he has a .634 OPS this year. Slowey is 27 and has consistently been a mid 4.00s ERA and xFIP pitcher. The deal could be expanded, but those guys would be be the big names. I'm not saying these guys are fantastic, but they are young guys with some success at the ML level rather than prospects. Maybe Jaramillo could help Young. Slowey at mid 4.00s ERA might translate into a decent middle of the rotation pitcher with a switch to the NL.

From MLBTR: •The Twins are open to trading Delmon Young and Kevin Slowey, but interest in Young has been “tepid.” Slowey has drawn interest from the Rockies and others. How about a deal centered around ARam for Young and Slowey.

ARam to the WS for Morel and Danks.

I do see your point, and I'm willing to concede that I am foolish to think nobody would just take Z. Fair enough. I think the main thing in this is we don't know how much of his contract the Cubs are offering to absorb. It's likely not much if they're getting refusals. Or they've just made him available and they targeting the Yankees because of someone they wanted in return and we've yet to hear who else might be willing to offer what. yeah, its hard to say without knowing for sure. I wouldn't be surprised if the yankees rejected it based on money or prospects or both. However I would be equally less surprised if it was a combination of those factors and their perception Z as a mediocre pitcher in a mediocre division. Its probably not just one or the other as multiple factors go into making a trade. That's been one point that I've made all along in any Hendry discussion - none of us know exactly what's being discussed. All of us (myself included) discuss deals and trade proposals without any "real" information. The part we can all agree on is that we're getting a lot of "inside nformation" from 2 of the biggest hacks around (Phil Rogers and Paul Sullivan).

So you don't think any team would want him to be their closer if he continues his current production through next season? Marshall is as good as any of them, but there's a reason most teams don't have soft-tossing lefties as their closers.

From MLBTR: Cardinals, White Sox Talking Colby Rasmus By Luke Adams [July 24 at 10:56am CST] Despite publicly insisting they don't intend to trade Colby Rasmus, the Cardinals have engaged in discussions with the White Sox about the outfielder, reports Joe Strauss of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Strauss says talks between the two teams have "accelerated" within the last few days. According to Strauss, Edwin Jackson and Matt Thornton are among the players who could interest the Cardinals. The Cards would also be looking for minor league talent from the White Sox, and a third team "may be sought to facilitate a deal." The Nationals and Rays also remain interested in Rasmus, who has seen a recent decline in his playing time as Jon Jay has taken over as St. Louis's primary center fielder.

As others have stated, you aren't going to "sell high" on Marshall. Nobody is going to give you much for a set-up man.

That's the bigger issue to me. I think Go Cubs Go is pointless but harmless (especially since I usually turn the TV off once the game ends anyway). But the guest conductors (especially the interviews following the stretch) need to go. What do you have against Barry Weiss of Storage Wars? The follow up interview with him was riveting and very informative.

No idea how that moron keeps his job. Assuming the plan was to let Aramis walk at the end of the year, Id definitely take Morel in a trade for him despite his offensive struggles in the bigs, but I dont see why we want broken down Jake Peavy over Matt Garza. Morel plus a lot more for ARam. We would want Peavy to take over the #1 spot in the rotation.

Phil Rogers suggests trading ARam to the White Sox so he will not have to move his family. The ridiculous suggestion included ideas like getting Morel in return and possibly finding a way to make the money work so that they could include Peavy allowing Hendry to trade Garza. :-k What an idiot.

To be useful next year, Baker wouldn't have to be an everyday starter. He'd just have to be the right handed side of a platoon at either 2nd or 3rd (isn't Flaherty a lefty?). That's his best role and one he could thrive in. Also, I'm not sold that Baker would garner that much interest in trade. A team with a pressing need for right handed power might overpay, but it was just a couple of years ago that we got Baker for Al Albuqerque, a nice reliever now but a lightly regarded prospect at the time. Baker's done more since the Cubs acquired him, but he's still the same basic player he was then - a power bat against lefties, bad against righties and a couple years older. Right, WSR is again vastly overrating a Cubs player when it comes to what they're likely get in return for a trade. Obviously, if there's a good offer out there, go for it, but Baker has relatively limited use that arguably is more valuable for the Cubs next year than shipping him off. Re-signing Aramis is a big if, and just assuming that it'll get done is foolish. Baker certainly wouldn't get us much especially since Kepppinger is being actively shopped.

Developing our own players is going to take a long time with the improvements in scouting and the minor leagues. It's a lot like the economy, everybody expects an immediate answer to a problem that took decades to develop. I think the balance has to come by making trades for younger players with some experience (Garza, Chris Davis?, Upton?, etc.), developing our own prospects (Castro, Flaherty/LeMahieu, Cashner, Jackson, McNutt,etc.), and mixing in an overpaid FA (Fielder) when necessary. This team can contend next year and be in contention for the foreseeable future with a decent trade or two, a wise FA signing or two, and a little luck with some of our prospects.

Holy crap, please stop. WE'RE NOT GOING DOWN ANY ROAD "AGAIN." Pujols and Fielder are not Soriano, no many times you attempt to compare signing them to signing him. And you never know what any FA will be 6 years after you sign them. You're going to be signing big name FA who are pushing 30 (or past it) unless you develop them internally. Well, the Cubs have absolutely nobody even close to that on the horizon, thus they need to go out and spend. When you sign big names you've got to pay. The key, again, is overpaying for the right guys, and yes, you WILL be overpaying for players like that. Always. And the Cubs are a big market with lots of money to spend, so I don't know why you want them to just automatically not spend money on big contracts unless it's on a player they developed themselves. They have the money to make these kind of signings and SHOULD make them. Yes, I wish the Cubs would develop players like Fielder and Pujols...but they haven't and they won't any time soon. In the meantime they need to sign good FA to go along with more and more players they hopefully develop from within who can be useful everyday players. I actually don't think we're that far apart. I just think we should take our pain for a little while, develop our system, and then re-engage in the free agent market because I think it would result in shorter, relatively lower-cost deals. I don't know how long you've been a Cub fan, but the pain is over 100 years old and counting.

From MLBTR: If The Rays Become Buyers By Tim Dierkes [July 11 at 12:26pm CST] The Rays are five games out in the wild card and six out in the AL East. With less than three weeks remaining until the trade deadline, they're currently sitting on the uncomfortable borderline of contention. The Rays rank eighth among the 14 AL teams with 4.22 runs scored per game. They're eleventh in OBP and seventh in SLG. Evan Longoria missed most of April with an oblique strain, so just having him for the entire second half would provide a boost. On the flip side, Matt Joyce may be unable to reproduce his strong first half. How might the Rays go about improving the offense? •Catcher: John Jaso and Kelly Shoppach have struggled offensively. Some names on which the Rays could kick the tires: Ramon Hernandez, Chris Iannetta, Ryan Doumit (when healthy), Ronny Paulino, and Geovany Soto. •Shortstop: Out of Reid Brignac, Elliot Johnson, and Sean Rodriguez, Rodriguez has the most useful bat. The Rays might not be able to beat his .223/.308/.408 line on the trade market, with Jose Reyes, J.J. Hardy, and Hanley Ramirez unlikely to be dealt. Rafael Furcal could be worth a look, if the Dodgers pick up most of the tab. •Left field: As I mentioned today, possible reasonably-priced trade candidates include Josh Willingham, Ryan Ludwick, David DeJesus, and Luke Scott (when healthy). Desmond Jennings and Brandon Guyer could be considerations from the Rays' Triple-A team. Who would hang up first? Byrd, Soto, and Baker for Upton, Niemann, and Brignac. (Baker plays 2B and Zobrist moves to SS)

And that is why some of us are pretty optimistic about 2012 assuming we spend money wisely.

Top 100 is a broad spectrum. Depending on which end of the Top 100 were talking, that could very well be worth it. I highly doubt we could get a top 25 guy, but if we could get someone in the top 26-50, Id definitely listen, maybe even top 75. If guys like Belevieu, Rhoderick, Dolis, and Batista are the real deal, and Carpenter and Shark can keep doing what theyve done for the most part, we could have a decent crop of back of the pen guys to go along with Marmol. I would think that when somebody mentions a top 100 prospect, it probably means someone in the 76-100 range. If the prospect was 26-50, they would have said top 50.

http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/07/06/the-complete-2011-chicago-cubs-trade-candidates-and-rumors-cheat-sheet/

Which if true might make him better than some of those "better options waiting in the minors". This is especially true when you consider the Cubs' record on developing position players. Right now, I imagine Ryan Flaherty could top Darwin Barney and his post-April .600 OPS. We'll have to wait and see whether Flaherty and/or the other prospects take over 2B next year. As I stated before, he won the job this year and has managed to keep Baker and DeWitt on the bench as utility players.

Which if true might make him better than some of those "better options waiting in the minors". This is especially true when you consider the Cubs' record on developing position players.

Right about now, Barney is getting the same love that Theriot was at the height of his popularity. I try telling people that there are better options waiting in the minors, but they'll hear none of it. However,even the most casual of fans seem to be taking notice of Vintage Aramis. Theres also a lot of Campana love out there, but then again, Cubs fans always love their small, white players. While I don't think Barney is amazing, he is doing a decent job at the major league level. As for the "better options waiting in the minors", let's see how they develop before deciding they can handle a full-time position in the majors.