Backtobanks

Dierkes weighs in (from MLBTR): For Contenders With Deep Pockets By Tim Dierkes [June 20 at 9:32am CST] Payroll flexibility is a beautiful thing at the trade deadline, as it allows a team to acquire talent by providing salary relief to the other club. For teams with a little money to burn and an inclination to keep top prospects, here are some players who I think could be acquired mostly by taking on their contracts. This list doesn't take no-trade clauses into account, except for the elimination of Aramis Ramirez. •Catchers: None •First basemen: Derrek Lee, James Loney, Brad Hawpe, Juan Rivera •Second basemen: Mark Ellis •Shortstops: Rafael Furcal, Clint Barmes •Third basemen: Mark Reynolds, Casey Blake •Left fielders: Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Lee •Center fielders: None •Right fielders: Kosuke Fukudome, Michael Cuddyer •Designated hitters: Vladimir Guerrero, Hideki Matsui •Starting pitchers: Javier Vazquez, Kyle Davies, Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster •Relievers: Mike Gonzalez, Kevin Gregg, Joe Nathan, John Grabow, Jonathan Broxton I haven't included players on contending teams here, though it's certainly true someone could acquire players like Aaron Rowand and Jason Bay by only taking on their contracts Not that he knows anymore than we do, but if salary relief is the only compensation - forget it.

Prince Fielder just made about $30 million extra if Pujols is out for any extended period of time. I can see Boras now: "He's only 27, never been hurt, blah, blah, blah" And Hendry offering 8 years, 200 million. Fielder keeps playing the way he has and Hendry might not be the only one offering 8 years and $200 million.

Young players like Castro often make mistakes and learn bad habits because their amazing ability has been far superior to his peers at every level. Hopefully he will now see that he needs to improve at this level.

I don't see anybody in the system that would make him move. Many experts see Baez as a future 3B.

Are we not in rebuild mode? If not, then why not? Maybe it signals that everyone is being evaluated for jobs next year. I love Z, and I personally think he is much more than a #4 starter, but if the Cubs could get some value for him they have to do it. We have the 2nd worst record in baseball. There are plenty of holes to fill on this team and unfortunately you have to trade value to get value. And trading Z creates another hole which is why Im in the dont trade Z camp. It's always a gamble trading an established player for prospects. There are a ton of "can't-miss" prospects who never made it in the ML. As others have stated, the money coming off the books can change a lousy team into a contender pretty quickly. I wish there was some possible trade out there to pick up young, but established players (like Garza).

He has a .759 OPS at AAA. Obviously he's a desirable target, but if we're trading away a pair of 3 win players, I certainly want more back than Montero's questions about catcher defense and 1B viability. Amen to that. Don't forget that Zambrano and Soto are in the prime of their careers (30 & 28). Montero plus a prospect for Zambrano is a possibility with Soto being traded in a seperate deal later on after seeing whether Castillo and/or Montero are reasonable replacements.

I mentioned this in another thread a while back, bur I wonder if Z and Soto for Momtero and a few other prospects would work. I mentioned this in another thread a while back, bur I wonder if Z and Soto for Momtero and a few other prospects would work. Not for the Yankees Proof that Hendry isn't as bad as some of you think. Z & Soto for Montero and prospects #-o #-o #-o #-o

That's not a surprise. The only real possibilities are players like Pena, Byrd, Baker, and Grabow which would save very little money and net us no-name prospects.

Not if he has serious damage to his arm.

Crazy talk. And people are looking WAY too much into this. Of course the Ricketts are going to stand behind Hendry and Quade publicly right now when pressed. Absolutely right. Ricketts either has to stand behind them right now or fire them. Since he has no intention of firing anybody now, he has to stand behind them. Also, he has to see who might be available and at what price before moving forward since he would have to absorb both contracts for next year.

Damn Hendry, he should have known Barney was going to get hurt.

Nobody expects 2 of your starters to get injured early while one of your top prospects also gets injured. Also, Gorz was by far the best trading chip they had.

All this talk of pitching is wonderful, but let's not forget that you have half of the team's 8 other positions manned by minor leaguers. Barney, Castro, and Fukudome are the only regular position players to not miss significant time to injuries.

You must be counting Coleman as a pitcher.

That would be a horrible PR move. I can't see Ricketts or Hendry doing that.

From MLBTR: •Rosenthal "can't see" Jim Hendry returning as the Cubs' general manager given the team's current state. "Forget about signing a free agent such as the Cardinals' Albert Pujols or the Brewers' Prince Fielder," Rosenthal writes. "The Cubs are so far gone, they are much more than one player away." Carlos Pena, John Grabow, Kosuke Fukudome, Kerry Wood and Jeff Baker are all trade candidates this summer; MLBTR's Tim Dierkes recently looked at the values of these players and others on the struggling Cubbies.

The Twins won 94 games last year. We won 75. And we're 5.5 games in front of them. My point is that injuries are a valid excuse for the Twins not meeting expectations (contending in the AL Central) and it should be an excuse for the Cubs not meeting their expectations (borderline .500 team).

It's interesting that injuries can be used as an excuse for the Twins, but not the Cubs.

And Ricketts could simply say: "I am evaluating everyone and lets leave it that". After that, say: "Thanks, guys", and walk away. He really sounds like an idiot (whether he meant what he said or not) to use the injury card as an excuse for this horrid team. And speculation only increases that Hendry's days are numbered and then the first question (and an endless amount after that) in Hendry's next press conference is whether he thinks he'll be fired, whether he's talked to Ricketts about his job, etc. Thus making his job more tedious because he has to field even more questions about his job security. I think the earlier comment about expectations was right on. If Ricketts knew this would be a difficult year and that we'd be fighting to stay around .500 most of the year, then he made a 100% accurate statement that the biggest thing wrong with this team is injuries, because without all the injuries all at the same time this team is probably a lot closer to .500 than it is now. By answering the way he did, Ricketts showed faith in the original team that was constructed and didn't open any new cans of worms. I totally agree. Everybody knew this was going to be a difficult year and the Cubs would be a borderline .500 team. Any optimism was based on everything going right for the Cubs and going wrong for the Reds and Cards. The team has totally sucked, but all of the injuries has to be considered as the main reason this team hasn't played somewhere near expected (borderline .500, not contenders). With minor leaguers and bench players filling up 40% - 50% of the starting lineup and rotation on a daily basis, it's not surprising that they're getting their rear ends kicked daily. Isn't that kind of a pointless distinction? Either way the Cub's weren't going to contend, which is unacceptable. If they were a 80-85 win team, it gives you a direction for the future. Questions about whether Cashner can be a ML starter, whether Barney is legit, whether Ramirez has anything left, whether Colvin is ready to play regularly, whether 1 or 2 players can put them over the top, etc. could be answered and needs assessed if the Cubs had a healthy 2011.

And Ricketts could simply say: "I am evaluating everyone and lets leave it that". After that, say: "Thanks, guys", and walk away. He really sounds like an idiot (whether he meant what he said or not) to use the injury card as an excuse for this horrid team. And speculation only increases that Hendry's days are numbered and then the first question (and an endless amount after that) in Hendry's next press conference is whether he thinks he'll be fired, whether he's talked to Ricketts about his job, etc. Thus making his job more tedious because he has to field even more questions about his job security. I think the earlier comment about expectations was right on. If Ricketts knew this would be a difficult year and that we'd be fighting to stay around .500 most of the year, then he made a 100% accurate statement that the biggest thing wrong with this team is injuries, because without all the injuries all at the same time this team is probably a lot closer to .500 than it is now. By answering the way he did, Ricketts showed faith in the original team that was constructed and didn't open any new cans of worms. I totally agree. Everybody knew this was going to be a difficult year and the Cubs would be a borderline .500 team. Any optimism was based on everything going right for the Cubs and going wrong for the Reds and Cards. The team has totally sucked, but all of the injuries has to be considered as the main reason this team hasn't played somewhere near expected (borderline .500, not contenders). With minor leaguers and bench players filling up 40% - 50% of the starting lineup and rotation on a daily basis, it's not surprising that they're getting their rear ends kicked daily.

He hasn't done anything to have a lock on the job either. He's been a very pleasant surprise in a dismal season. He wasn't even mentioned as a possibility as a starter in spring training, but he completely eliminated DeWitt and DeWitt/Baker platoon as topics of discussion. There might be better options for the long-range future of the Cubs, but as of right this minute Barney is very close to being the least of the Cubs' problems.

I don't understand, should we not try LeMahieu at second because Barney is a role player and we don't have the Yankees' payroll? LeMahieu is going to be cheap for quite some time and has the ceiling to outproduce Barney by a pretty wide margin. If both hit their ceilings, LeMahieu will be the far more productive player. I don't think we should pass that up because in 4-5 years LeMahieu will be paid a lot more than Barney (if both hit their ceilings). Or am I misunderstanding your point? As for minor league numbers not translating - it's not like we're talking about an unproven rookie (LeMahieu) and a reliable, consistent veteran (Barney). Both are rookies and both are very unproven. Barney has more time in the majors and in that time he had a very productive month (.803 OPS in March/April) and a bad month (.647 OPS in May) and was awful in 30 games last year. Barney's no shoe-in to be productive at this point and doesn't have a lengthy track record to support passing on a guy who has a much higher ceiling for certainty of production. If I've got two players who have proven little to nothing in the majors, I'll take the guy with the far superior minor league numbers every time - and that player is LeMahieu. All that I'm saying is that Barney hasn't done anything to be benched in favor of an unproven rookie. If he continues to slump badly or later in the season when the Cubs raise the white flag, then give LeMahieu an extended look.

My point is that minor league numbers don't always translate in ML success (especially for the Cubs). Players like Barney (and Theriot) are role players. You can't have a superstar at every position unless you are the Yankees and are willing to have their payroll.

I'm not sure anyone would be willing to buy high on him at this point. Also, let's not give the job to LeMahieu just because he has a higher ceiling.

The way this year is going we need to hire Dr. Oz as the GM.