Backtobanks

Lowell might be a decent option if the Red Sox eat 80% of his contract and take a low-A prospect. Otherwise, Baker (if healthy), Fontenot, and Tracy should be able to fill in.

If he stays hot until the trading deadline and we were pretty significantly out of it, I could actually see Hendry offering him up. I don't know what interest there would be, but it could be there if we footed some of the bill. I'm pretty sure I remember that Hendry was trying to deal him in the offseason, but there was no interest in him. I'm not sure there would be much interest in him even if the Cubs paid 75-80% of his contract because of the years involved. Yeah, but I don't think that'll keep Hendry from offering him up. It'd have to be a pure salary dump, but somebody might bite if we paid half or more. I doubt it. Half would mean paying Soriano about $40 million over the next 4 1/2 years and I don't see any team throwing that much at an aging slugger. If the Cubs paid 80%, the other team would pay about $16.2 million over the 4 1/2 years.

If he stays hot until the trading deadline and we were pretty significantly out of it, I could actually see Hendry offering him up. I don't know what interest there would be, but it could be there if we footed some of the bill. I'm pretty sure I remember that Hendry was trying to deal him in the offseason, but there was no interest in him. I'm not sure there would be much interest in him even if the Cubs paid 75-80% of his contract because of the years involved.

I'm sure throwing off the rubber changed his 80 mph fastball into a 95 mph fastball.

I've been suggesting that ARam get his eyes checked, not Baker.

I see what you're saying, but would you turn Gorzelanny into a closer? Or Randy Wells? Those guys are much more valuable as starters because, even though neither is a top of the line type starter, both will put up quality numbers for their team. I'd probably only look at guys who can't cut it in a major league rotation (Gagne, potentially Shark, etc.) to move to a closer's role rather than significantly decrease the number of innings a quality starter will throw. I think the original point was a hard throwing pitcher, which is why I mentioned Shark. Most closers usually have one overwhelming pitch(often a fastball) and one other pitch. Gorzelanny and Wells don't have that dominant fastball, but they do have 3-4 decent pitches.

And the top 12 starters (by salary) average $17 million this year. Jason Marquis makes nearly as much as the average salary of the best closers. There's more money to be made as a #4-5 starter than there is as a closer - unless maybe you're in the truly elite closer ranks (Rivera). Some guys move to the bullpen because they don't have the stamina to go more than 2-3 innings at a time. Others move to the pen because they just weren't good enough as a starter to cut it and they were able to magnify their stuff in the pen (Gagne). However, if you've got a good, quality starter, he should stay in the rotation ideally. With Marmol, his stuff has looked much better to me in the pen than in his short (MLB) stint as a starter. It's pretty clear to me he's dialing it up a little extra knowing he's only throwing, at most, 25-30 pitches. I totally agree with most of what you're saying. If you have the stuff to be a solid starter (#1-#3), you should remain a starter, but if your potential is to be a #4 or #5 starter maybe you ought to try being groomed as a closer. Samardzija is an example of what I'm talking about. I don't think he's ever going to be a great starter, but he might develop into a good closer. As others have pointed out, the top 12 starters are a small percentage of all starters while the top 12 closers are a significant percentage.

Like goony said, there are very few closers in the league in comparison to the number of starters and even fewer closers who make even average starter money. Mariano Rivera is one of the top closers in the history of the game and his salary for this year is $15 million. Derek Lowe is a pretty good pitcher with a strong track record and he's making $15 million this year. There's far, far more money in it for a starter than for a closer. And I'm not saying it's easy to be successful in the pen, just that there's less overall stress on a pitcher's arm when he throws an inning at a time rather than throwing 100+ pitchers an outing. And because of that, the pitcher doesn't have to tone down his stuff at all. The top (in salary) 12 closers average $9.6 million this year. Also, there are more than a few closers who will get that kind of money when the time comes (Marmol, Corpas, Feliz, Soria, Broxton, etc.). I'm not saying you take your #1 starter and turn him into a closer, but many of these pitchers might end up being a #3-#5 starter in the ML. My point is that there are many hard throwing prospects who might be better off by being groomed to be closers rather than being a #5 starter.

I think that's where potentially an argument could be made. Playing devils advocate here, but how many hard throwing starting pitchers would be able to be unhittable if they only pitched one inning at a time? Certainly there'd be plenty that couldn't make the transition, but still...you have to think his role as a reliever helps him with those stats. That said, he's crazy good...not really trying to diminish that. I think there aren't as many hard throwing starting pitchers that could make that transition as you think. Many starting pitchers struggle in their first inning. Obviously, in All Star games and the playoffs it happens, but I doubt if very many of them could do it consistently. Maybe they struggle early because they are purposefully holding back as they have to pace themselves for 6+ innings and 100+ pitches instead of going balls to the wall for 15-25 pitches. I think that's the thing. A reliever can go all out because he's not throwing as many pitches (obviously). Generally a pitcher who goes from the rotation to the pen will see an improvement in stuff and velocity, but also the bullpen role is less important and impactful. I still don't think it's as likely as you think. With the modern emphasis on closers and the big money to go along with it, I would think there would be a lot of hard-throwing pitchers eager to make the switch if it was so easy.

I think that's where potentially an argument could be made. Playing devils advocate here, but how many hard throwing starting pitchers would be able to be unhittable if they only pitched one inning at a time? Certainly there'd be plenty that couldn't make the transition, but still...you have to think his role as a reliever helps him with those stats. That said, he's crazy good...not really trying to diminish that. I think there aren't as many hard throwing starting pitchers that could make that transition as you think. Many starting pitchers struggle in their first inning. Obviously, in All Star games and the playoffs it happens, but I doubt if very many of them could do it consistently.

Even if thats true, as soon as the Cubs were ready to compete again, and if they do make their way to the world series, I guarantee all the focus and money would shift right back to them, and Im not just talking Chicago. Yeah, but you're talking about at least 2-3 years of lost revenue (1 year of mediocrity and 1-2 years of semi-contention before serious contention.) Also, realize that the economy has limited the money that many corporations can spend so switching those dollars back to the Cubs after sponsoring a successful Bears/Bulls/Black Hawks team may not be easy.

Obviously, let him stay in the bullpen. Our rotation is good and deep while our bullpen is problematic and thin.

"And for the record, I really dont think that whatever happens with the Bulls, Bears, or Blackhawks has any bearing whatsoever on Ricketts offseason plans. Granted, a Labron/D Rose combo would get me back into the NBA for the first time since the Jordan era, but it would have no effect on how I feel about the Cubs". With all due respect westside, a few of us die hard Cub fans wouldn't change our feelings for the Cubs, but when the corporate money and advertising dollars go to the "hot" sports team in the city you had better believe it will affect Ricketts offseason plans. A Stanley Cup or a run at the Super Bowl or NBA Championship could switch tens of millions of dollars from the Cubs to another team.

I wonder if anyone in authority has suggested getting his eyes checked. Obviously if his vision is altered slightly it certainly could affect his strikeout rate and missing the "sweet spot" on the bat leading to outs instead of hits. It might be worth a try.

I'm not sure Ricketts is willing to wait for 2012, especially since your scenario is based on a bunch of prospects becoming solid ML starters. Counting on Colvin, Vitters, Jackson, Cashner, Diamond, Coleman, Stevens, Parker, Gaub, and a return of Guzman to be contributors in 2012 is really optimistic. Also, let's not forget the PR war going on in Chicago with a possible Stanley Cup, an improved Bear team, and possibly a Lebron James/Derrick Rose combo for the Bulls.

Let's say, for example, we trade Z's contract and let Lee and Lilly walk. That's $17 mil in savings for Z, $13 mil in savings from Lee and $12 mil in savings from Lilly. Their respective ages are 28, 34 and 34. Let's then say we sign Prince Fielder (roughly $18 mil for 5 years, say), Jorge De La Rosa (roughly $10 mil for 3 years, say) and Jose Reyes (roughly $15 mil for 4 years, say, with him or Castro playing second). Their respective ages are 26, 29 and 27. We've likely improved the current team overall and we've added about $1 million in salary. Fielder's not a guy who's going to age well, but if we give him a 5 year contract at 27, we likely have him for at least 3 productive years, probably more. De La Rosa will be 30, but has been very productive (his FIP has improved each of the past three years to 3.36 so far this year) and we could probably get him for 3-4 years and 10-12 million – a Lilly-esque bargain. Reyes would be a huge improvement over Theriot and, while he would cost more, we'd have him through his age 32-33 year and he'd bridge the gap nicely to, hopefully, Hak-Ju Lee. Now, these names are just examples and I'm not saying they'll all definitely be available, but the point is to show that we could let some older players go and bring in younger players and not have to go into a long-term rebuilding process. I'm not saying we should trade Z, but if we could free up his salary and get a decent young player (Quentin maybe), it gives us more options on building more of a long-term contender going into next season. I think Zambrano is one of those players that is better than whatever you can get for him. I saw a quote that other GMs don't think very highly of him and probably wouldn't take him unless the Cubs ate a chunk of his contract. If the Cubs had to eat part of his contract plus get minimal return for him, then in my opinion, Z's not worth trading. Whether we like it or not, if Lee gets his numbers up to respectable, he will be extended.

I understand the salary relief issue, but I can't see Ricketts spending all that money on the Cubs and then go into a rebuilding mode for 3-4 years, especially with the Black Hawks going for the Stanley Cup, the Bulls rumored to be after LeBron, and the new offensive-minded Martz coaching the Bears. I don't know for sure that I'd do either of those moves (I'd have to look more closely at Quentin), but trading Z for salary relief doesn't mean we're going into a 3-4 year rebuilding mode. Actually, getting relief from Z, Lee and Lilly's salaries might actually help us contend within the next 2 years since we'd be able to go after some high-salary players (somebody like Fielder). So we're going to dump salary just to pour it back into some other long term/high price FA? Players like Fielder and Cliff Lee are going to cost you $30 million or more per year for 4-5 years, so then you're locked into old, expensive players that will have reduced production. Plus Fielder has the type of body that won't age well. you think cliff lee and prince fielder are going to get 30 million a year? I meant together. Actually they will probably get more than $30 million per year together.

I understand the salary relief issue, but I can't see Ricketts spending all that money on the Cubs and then go into a rebuilding mode for 3-4 years, especially with the Black Hawks going for the Stanley Cup, the Bulls rumored to be after LeBron, and the new offensive-minded Martz coaching the Bears. I don't know for sure that I'd do either of those moves (I'd have to look more closely at Quentin), but trading Z for salary relief doesn't mean we're going into a 3-4 year rebuilding mode. Actually, getting relief from Z, Lee and Lilly's salaries might actually help us contend within the next 2 years since we'd be able to go after some high-salary players (somebody like Fielder). So we're going to dump salary just to pour it back into some other long term/high price FA? Players like Fielder and Cliff Lee are going to cost you $30 million or more per year for 4-5 years, so then you're locked into old, expensive players that will have reduced production. Plus Fielder has the type of body that won't age well.

I understand the salary relief issue, but I can't see Ricketts spending all that money on the Cubs and then go into a rebuilding mode for 3-4 years, especially with the Black Hawks going for the Stanley Cup, the Bulls rumored to be after LeBron, and the new offensive-minded Martz coaching the Bears.

I know his contract is bloated and he's been underperforming, but I thought the answers to these 2 questions were pretty insulting to Zambrano. From MLBTR Chat: [Comment From MaxMax: ] Would either the yanks or cubs consider a deal built around a Javy Vasquez/Carlos Zambrano swap? Wednesday May 19, 2010 2:28 Max 2:28 I imagine the Cubs would immediately pull the trigger, while the Yankees would not consider it. [Comment From GuestGuest: ] Would you trade Carlos Zambrano for Carlos Quentin? Wednesday May 19, 2010 2:42 Guest 2:42 Cubs don't need OFs, but I'd probably do it anyway. Z's contract - it's a huge burden. If you could dump it Alex Rios style you'd probably want to.

I don't think the Cubs will have a "fire sale" because many of their veterans have next-to-unmovable contracts. Secondly, the NL Central is weak and the Cubs probably won't be too far out to give up on the season. They have sucked as bad as I can remember this year and they're still only 5 1/2 games out with over 3/4 of the season to go. This is with ARam hitting like Aaron Miles, DLee struggling, and the "Ace of the rotation" doing a mediocre job out of the bullpen.

I certainly agree with #30.

I guess I'm just not sure why you need to "go deeper" than W/L. Isn't that the bottom line? His job is to put together teams that win. His record is barely over .500. End of story, IMO. Every team has injuries. One can even excuse one bad year because of injuries, but it's been 7-8 years now. In that time, there's really only been one team that was very good (2008). In fact, that's the only team that won more than 90 games. He's out of excuses. Every team that has had the number and severity of injuries that the Cubs have had has had poor seasons. I'd like to see what the Cards could do without Carpeter, Wainwright, and Pujols for a couple of months. Look at the injuries the Mets have had causing them to have horrible seasons.

One interesting statistic that I saw. The Cubs had 6 winning seasons in the last decade for the first time since the 1930's. Doesn't mean he's a great GM, but he deserves some credit for that.

Every GM has made bad trades, not nearly as many have acquired talent like Lee, Ramirez, Lofton, Harden, Nomar, Karros and Grudz for guys who have done little in the majors. With the exceptions of the Maddux and Pierre trades, Hendry's bad trades have consisted of trading decent to solid bullpen guys (Cruz, Wuertz) for players who didn't turn out. Those are bad trades, but are overshadowed by the very good trades. Like TT said, I'm not arguing that Hendry has been great. I'm not even defending Hendry in any way. I think it's time for a new GM. I just don't see what the big deal is about discussing good trades he's made and how, overall, he's good at pulling off trades. That's exactly my point. It's not the end of the world if he's fired, but it bothers me that posters just can't look at both sides of a discussion. Also, be careful what you wish for. Everyone wanted Baker gone and most thought Piniella was a great hire. Now we have threads on firing Lou because he's an idiot.