Backtobanks

How about a deal with the Mets: Zambrano + Berg/Stevens + Fuld/Colvin + Blanco/Lee (ss) for Reyes + Pelfrey/Maine + Pagan

Actually, many people here were against unloading the farm for Granderson. But I guess sine a few people wanted to, that should apply to the entire board, right? Did I say everybody wanted to trade a bunch of prospects for Granderson? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the sentiment for trading 3 good prospects for Granderson was pretty much favorable among a majority of the posters. No, but you made it seem like there were a lot, when there really wasn't. My bad, if I misinterpreted your point. That said, trading three good prospects does not equal unloading the farm. 3 good prospects (depending on who they are) does equal unloading the farm if you have a lousy farm system.

Decades? Did you say decades, as in the plural form of decade? Any GM that were to use the word "decades" when asked how long it would take to restock the farm should never have gotten the job in the first place. I trust that you are aware that a decade is 10 years and decades are 20+. I'm not saying that a GM should say "decades", but when you look at the reality of the Cubs (and many other teams) and see how long their farm system goes between an influx of productive players for 3-4 consecutive years, "decades" is not too far off.

OMG! Are you proposing that a RH batter face RH pitching? Radical thinking like that will get you into trouble. :-)) reed johnson should never get a start against right-handed pitching. evar. And yet posters were willing to give up half the farm system for Granderson and insisted he isn't a platoon player. Actually Johnson had an on-again-off-again career against RHP. Bad in 2009 and 2007, but fair in 2008 ( .280/.323/.398/.721) and great in 2006 (.317/.370/.498/.869). Actually, many people here were against unloading the farm for Granderson. But I guess sine a few people wanted to, that should apply to the entire board, right? Did I say everybody wanted to trade a bunch of prospects for Granderson? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the sentiment for trading 3 good prospects for Granderson was pretty much favorable among a majority of the posters.

I think you are making this a black/white either/or thing. I am not suggesting that the Cubs go on a youth movement or purge payroll just to save a buck. I am suggesting that t current core is MOST probably not ever going to win a WS without some immediate infusion or quality youth or increasing payroll. I am suggesting that the next contracts ARam and DLee sign will be bad contracts because they will be declining in value through those contracts. I am just suggesting that if we can get good value for Z, Lee and ARam we should take it. If we can then use the money saved to either replace them or upgrade somewhere else with contracts that will not be bad contracts. To be honest with you I would be all for keeping them and resigning them if we didnt already have several contracts that are unmovable and low producing. I guess what I am saying is that it is obvious to me that the current thing is not going to work. Of course I want to win a WS, not be above average with good marketing I think I understand what you're saying. Rather than re-sign Lee & ARam after these contracts to have them through their declining years, you'd rather move them now and sign someone like Holliday who is more likely to be productive throughout the duration of his contract. it's not necessarily about dumping our current core and rebuilding purely through the farm. It is about finding deals that help the overall talent level of the organization and then investing the savings in players that will still see more of their prime years than the current guys. right? It all sounds good in theory, but who replaces the production of Lee and ARam right away? We all have fun making fantasy trades, signing FAs for less than market value, and overestimating our prospects and the ones we're getting back in trades, but I'm sure it's not as easy as all of us think it is. As all of us who follow the Cubs know, it takes decades to build a really productive farm system. Signing FAs who are very productive gets you back into the high price/long term committment problem we're in right now. Let's not forget that any productive FA is going to be on the radar screen of the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, etc. so you can bet they won't come cheap.

As I posted earlier, there's no way Ricketts comes in and tears up a team that has a decent chance of contending to rebuild for another 3-4 years. Being a large-market team, they might rebuild on a minor scale as contracts come off the books. So basically what you are saying is that Ricketts is going to continue the Tribunes "strive for above average and good marketing" Well this sale was disappointing. I guess it's easy for us to tell a successful businessman how to spend his money, but trading off all of your stars in an entertainment venue probably isn't the best way to make a profit. Even San Diego is rumored to be holding onto Gonzalez until the deadline because they "do have to put people in the seats". Hopefully some of the prospects can start making it into the ML so that we can see rebuilding taking place while we contend. In the next 1-3 years, we might be able to have young replacements for players like DLee, Aram, Theriot, Fukudome, Zambrano, Lilly, Dempster, etc. and use that money to fill in the right FA or two to stay competitive. So the options are: 1. Stay average-to-above average while integrating younger players into the lineup or 2. Go all out in an effort to trade our stars (and get out of NTCs) and suck for a few years while we hope that the prospects we received will take us to the promised land. Some of the posters might want to choose #2, but I would think the successful businessman will choose #1.

OMG! Are you proposing that a RH batter face RH pitching? Radical thinking like that will get you into trouble. :-)) reed johnson should never get a start against right-handed pitching. evar. And yet posters were willing to give up half the farm system for Granderson and insisted he isn't a platoon player. Actually Johnson had an on-again-off-again career against RHP. Bad in 2009 and 2007, but fair in 2008 ( .280/.323/.398/.721) and great in 2006 (.317/.370/.498/.869).

As I posted earlier, there's no way Ricketts comes in and tears up a team that has a decent chance of contending to rebuild for another 3-4 years. Being a large-market team, they might rebuild on a minor scale as contracts come off the books.

OMG! Are you proposing that a RH batter face RH pitching? Radical thinking like that will get you into trouble. :-))

Valverde is good, but I'm not sure anyone wants him @ $20 million over 4 years.

I think it is possible, not sure I would call it feasible. I think it is much more feasible to say the Cubs are an 85 win team without much room for improvement with the current core and salary structure. I think it is much more feasible to come to the understanding that the current core is mostly in their prime to declining years. So unless an immediate impact of talent comes from the system or influx of talent through FA, I think it is most realistic to say the Cubs will be declining in the next couple of years.(as shown by last years performance) While I agree that the "current core is mostly in their prime to declining years", I do expect rebound years from Soriano, Soto, Fontenot, and Marmol. Also, DLee and ARam haven't shown any signs of slowing down and Zambrano (while still reasonably young) still hasn't been the big winner that everyone has expected.

I like Calero too, but when there were rumblings about getting a CF and a reliever in the same deal, I thought about KC with DeJesus and Cruz.

Amazing that any Cub fan would want to go back to the days of always losing again. Trading the core of the current team when they still have a good chance would be ignorant. The farm system is starting to produce again on its own, and the Cubs have absolutely no reason to shed that much payroll in the market they are in. I would much rather perfer that they try to win this year. The next contracts that DLee and Aram sign will be bad contracts. There is also a possibility it will not be with the Cubs after next year. I also think the rebuild is inevitable, so why not get it started now. Also, what are you trying to win? Division? NL? WS? I think the division is the only reasonable goal with this team. I dont think the Cubs will do it. So the playoffs are a crapshoot for every team but the Cubs? The Cubs farm system has made major strides over the past year but it's nowhere near close being able to anchor a rebuilding team. Castro is never going to be a middle of the order hitter and Vitter won't be for quite a while (though I personally doubt he ever will). Our pitching prospects are all projected to be #2 and #3 starters. As for trading Z, Lee and Ramirez, they all have NTC's so you're not going to get maximum value for them anyways. Teams that do firesales are teams that know they won't be able to resign their players on the open market AND won't be able to sign an adequate replacement on the open market so they try to maximize value by trading players as early as possible. That's not the position the Cubs are in, and there's no reason not to wait to trade them until the trading deadline if we're out of it. Lee will have 0 value at the Deadline. I would imagine that for Lee adn Aram to waive their NTC they would have to be extended by the teams that are going to trade for them. As I have said their next contracts will probably be bad contracts. So if the Cubs used some sense they would jettison them now for what would probably be not great return. However, the payroll relief may allow for close to equal talent in the FA market next year that may be younger. This is basically the same route the Tigers took in trading Granderson. In the case of Zambrano it may be better to wait until the deadline. He would really have to tank to lower his trade value. He may improve his trade value by pitching well though. I personally dont believe that the playoffs are a crapshoot. I do believe that the shortness of the postseason does make it easy for lessor teams to win. However I think the better teams win more often then not. I don't know what you're smoking, but to say DLee will have 0 value at the deadline is crazy. I'm sure nobody would pay much for a 1B with a .970 OPS. :pig:

Amazing that any Cub fan would want to go back to the days of always losing again. Trading the core of the current team when they still have a good chance would be ignorant. The farm system is starting to produce again on its own, and the Cubs have absolutely no reason to shed that much payroll in the market they are in. I would much rather perfer that they try to win this year. Yeah, I agree with you. No matter what all of the fantasy GMs think, I can't see Ricketts spending all of that money to rebuild for the next 2-3 years.

I would think the Cubs would have to get back a young starter who could step right into the rotation. As for Reyes, I don't think the Cubs would give up Zambrano when they think Castro is almost ready to take over at SS.

Of course that would make him 35 years old and looking for a decent contract.

I really admire the fact that Minnesota does it year after year with a low budget, but it does help playing in the AL Central. For all of the criticism the NL Central gets, I would still rank it ahead of the AL Central. Minnesota is the only consistent team in that division.

Definitely not going to happen, he's the cubs version of kirk hinrich. Management likes him too much and wont deal him. Even if Starlin bats .500 in spring training and makes the big league club, the cubs would then shift theriot to 2nd. I dont like theriot either and i think his range and noodle arm costs us on defense but i dont see the cubs trading him away. You're right. The next problem is that while other teams may like him, what would they be willing to give up for him.

I'm sorry, but this is pretty useless. What you would need to do is calculate marginal payroll (actual payroll minus league minimum times 25) over marginal wins (actual wins minus how many games a replacement level team would win [depending on the definition, usually between 30-50 games... probably on the higher side of that now that BP has adjusted their silly idea of replacement level fielding.]). And for what it's worth, the last few studies I've seen done like that had the Cubs in last or next to last. Without doing all the math, that formula would seem to put all the big payroll teams near the bottom and all of the low payroll teams toward the top. Small payroll teams that win an average or above number of games games ARE more efficient, though, so what is your point? In a system such as baseball free agency, each additional dollar you spend buys you a smaller incremental improvement. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case, but the biggest driver is the non-linear pay increases received at the top of the talent pyramid. If you have the worst third baseman in MLB history on your roster, he will make the minimum salary. If you improve your third baseman up to standard replacement level...you pay $0 incremental money because that guy will still make the minimum salary. You can most likely find some cheap guy to man the position at somewhere around halfway between replacement and average for very little above minimum salary. But...if you want to find a guy who will reliably give you league average performance, you're going to start to pay several million a year. And it starts to go up radically from there. Aramis is going to cost you a lot of money. If you want ARod-level performance...you have to pay ARod type money. There's an optimal point in there somewhere to get marginal performance per marginal dollar invested, which probably falls just below league average salary. Which is why the only way to beat the system and win championships as a small market team is to grow your own players from within and pay non-free agent wages. The discussion seemed to be that the Cubs overspend wildly for the number of wins they have produced especially against other large payroll teams. If someone is happy with a 65-win team that has a payroll of under $20 million because they're cost efficient, so be it. That's why I thought Davearm 2 had the right statistics. As I posted earlier, anyone can find statistics to prove or disprove just about anything.

If I was the Braves, I'd ask for Swisher instead.

I doubt it's Z. If it were, Bruce would be all over it. From MLBTR: Yankees Closing In On Javier Vazquez By Howard Megdal [December 22 at 8:34am CST] 8:34am: The Yankees are closing in on a deal for Vazquez, according to Jon Heyman of SI.com (via Twitter). Heyman says the Yankees will acquire Vazquez and Boone Logan for Melky Cabrera, Mike Dunn and a prospect.

I'm sorry, but this is pretty useless. What you would need to do is calculate marginal payroll (actual payroll minus league minimum times 25) over marginal wins (actual wins minus how many games a replacement level team would win [depending on the definition, usually between 30-50 games... probably on the higher side of that now that BP has adjusted their silly idea of replacement level fielding.]). And for what it's worth, the last few studies I've seen done like that had the Cubs in last or next to last. Without doing all the math, that formula would seem to put all the big payroll teams near the bottom and all of the low payroll teams toward the top.

Basically, the GM's job is to put together the best team "on paper". Not only does he have three postseason appearances, but a few seasons when he had the "best" team on paper. Posters get upset about using the "injury excuse" when discussing Hendry, but there are times like 2009 when the number of injuries were extraordinary and not just "to be expected".

1 New York Yankees $2.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 7 playoff app 2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M, 2 WS app, 2 Championship, 6 playoff app 3 New York Mets $1.5M, 0 WS app, last app 2000 (L), last WS Champ 1986, 1 playoff app 4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M, 1 WS app, 1 Championship, 6 playoff app 5 Los Angeles Dodgers$1.2M, 0 WS app, last app 1988 (W), 4 playoff app 6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M, 0 WS app, last app 1945, (L), last WS Champ 1908, 3 playoff app 7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M, 0 WS app, last app N/A, entered MLB 1977, 0 playoff app 8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M, 0 WS app, last app 1999, 4 playoff app 9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 3 playoff app 10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 4 playoff app Keyword is efficiency. Thing is, this isn't about 'being in line with other big payroll teams,' it's about winning the world series. As far as that goes, over the last 7 years we are in the bottom half with 4 other teams who have not appeared. Rhetoric about the playoffs being a crap shoot and that the most important thing is to appear leaves the Cubs tied for 7th with Philadephia with 3, ahead of the dismal Mets, who have a truly awful front office that doesn't understand team building (though they still made a WS appearance this decade), and a Mariners team who is turning a corner after letting Blavaski go. So, really, the only teams of these ten that I'd consider the Cubs to be ahead of, during this stretch, would be the Mariners and Mets. To take this a step further, I would have to believe that the Cubs currently are only ahead of the Mets, and really aren't better than by much, if at all, as Seattle has really started to take a great approach towards market inefficiencies under their new GM, fielding arguably the greatest defending team of all time (certainly the best defense since Fangraphs began keeping UZR ratings at least), to which point there is a good read here. Like any statistic, dollars per win paints a very narrow view of the whole. 2008 and 2003 were very well constructed teams, and i'd even say that 2004 should have been a great squad. But even then Hendry made himself look foolish by bullheadedly keeping Baker as manager when it had become clear that Dusty was at least partly responsible for murdering our young arms, was a poor game manager, and let the clubhouse go wild. Furthermore, Hendry has never had any visible foresight, or long term goal. He leaps ideologically year to year, either apathetic towards or ignorant of future costs. No reasonable person here is going to say that Hendry is the worst general manager in all of baseball. But most reasonable people would agree that he wastes resources to whimsically, seemingly assuming that the bottom of the well is always deeper. God forbid he was on a small market team, because then you'd see his executive flaws magnified even more. If the key is to win the WS, then people like Epstein were idiots this year because they didn't win the WS. I'm not defending Hendry, but it is interesting that posters throw around statistics like it's the gospel until the statistics disprove their point and then we need to re-analyze the statistics to show that those statistics are inaccurate.

Your example isn't "remotely competitive". I don't care how much Mauer loves MN, leaving $130 million on the table would be insane.