Backtobanks

My blog would be named "Smart Trade Ideas".

Got my 5/14 tickets Thursday.

I agree that he's not a great trade target right now, but I figured he would help the team more that Viscaino. Trading Viscaino will involve eating most of his salary and getting a non-prospect.

From Foxsports: •The Rangers are confident they can trade infielder-outfielder Frank Catalanotto if they pay a sizable chunk of his remaining $6 million obligation or accept a comparable salary in return. Viscaino for Catalanotto. Cubs get a versatile player who can basically back up most positions and can be used as a pinch hitter. Unfortunately he bats lefty.

Yeah, I don't really understand wanting to dump Gaudin for nothing either. I don't see how Patton is a better bet to produce than Gaudin. If it was a matter of whether to pay Gaudin ~$3 million or Patton the minimum, then I could see the argument, but we're paying Gaudin either way, so I don't see the problem with keeping him. I wouldn't mind it, however, if Hendry could work out some kind trade to keep Patton. Not giving up too much, but Patton seems to have potential. Is everybody willing to throw Gaudin away for nothing or wanting to dump him for nothing? I feel like I missed something. That's the feeling I got from your posts. Comments like "A god awful pitcher" and "ever since he became a Cub, he's sucked" and "I dislike veteran relievers assured of spots despite horrible performances because of contract situations" don't make me think you see a high return for him. I wouldn't be against trading Gaudin, but I would want something decent for an average 26-year-old reliever/starter who has a little upside. I posted that I thought Hendry ought to be able to get something for Gaudin. If you tie this thread in with the "Trade Targets" thread, maybe Gaudin can get us a decent backup 3B/1B who can pinch hit.

Mark Loretta is also an option. With the numbers crunch in the bullpen, maybe Gaudin can be used to acquire one of the better options listed above. Keppinger is the only oen of these guys who doesnt make me throw up in my mouth just a bit when I think of them in a Cubs uniform, and I dont see any reason for the Reds, like you said, a division rival to send him to us so we can bench him. As I said in my initial post, very few of these guys are players to get excited about, but most of them would make the team and the bench deeper. I think the Cubs are at the point of just needing to "fine tune" to make sure they remain the favorites in the NL.

Trade for Peavy and use Zambrano as backup 3B/1B/pinch hitter. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mark Loretta is also an option. With the numbers crunch in the bullpen, maybe Gaudin can be used to acquire one of the better options listed above.

Not at all unpredictable, that a promising young arm would be lost because the Cubs have to find space for overpaid veteran relievers with no roster flexibility. It's a real shame they trade Marquis for an immovable object. Actually, jersey the way I look at it is that the Cubs are prolly going to lose two "promising young arms" because of Gaudin and Viz. Unless Guzman gets mysteriously injured at the end of spring training, the Cubs would lose both Patton and Guzman, and that proposition sickens me, because both Gooz and Patton have higher upsides and future with the Cubs that Gaudin and Viz doesn't. Gregg Marmol Heilman Cotts Gaudin / Vizcaino Guzman Patton If one of Gaudin & Vizcaino exits the picture somehow, there should be room for both Guzman and Patton. I have my doubts that they'd manage to get rid of either. I can't believe Hendry can't find a taker for Gaudin, assuming he doesn't ask for much. Gaudin is still young with ML experience starting and relieving.

I think Lou won't feel comfortable without a backup 3B on the roster. After looking at the players that might be available as back up 3B/1B/pinch hitter, I came up with these names: Wigginton- best choice, but probably not available Garciaparra Helms Keppinger - might not be available because of division rivalry Ensberg Belliard Aurillia I'm sure most of us aren't too excited about some of those names, but I think Lou would feel better with a veteran coming off the bench.

Paul Sullivan suggests that Shark may be sent down while Guzman makes the team. I do think the Cubs don't want to lose him for nothing, so they might try to keep him or show that he's healthy in order to increase his trade value.

I understand all of the "player without a position" argument, but if he could just be decent defensively at 3B/1B, his bat would be a welcome addition to the bench. Hoff, Fox, Johnson, Miles, and Bako/Hill would be a decent bench assuming Fox could produce at the ML level.

I think we all would be he's the token LHP I don't understand why the Cubs didn't look into Beimal, Ohman, and Reyes while they were available at bargain-basement prices.

Too bad. Koskie was a good guy and would have been a good bat off of the bench. Koskie would have been the better choice, but I thought Aurilia would have been a decent signing for 1B/3B/pinch hitting.

I'm sure a good business man isn't going to increase payroll until the deal is finalized. As for when the Cubs go after Peavy, I'm sure a lot will depend on other factors (Harden's health, Marshall's success, etc.). Waiting for the trade deadline could get complicated if the Padres get Peavy to agree to include other teams in his waiver of a NTC.

I can't think of any reason why the Padres would want Hoff when they have a great young 1B (Gonzalez) and a top 1B prospect (Kyle Banks).

He's waiting for the Cards to get back to him on the Pujols for Lee trade.

But then we wouldn't have a leadoff man. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I don't see why the A's would like a bum like Vizcaino but I would like to see this trade take place. Two reasons: 1. They have 1 SS too many. 2. We have better options for the bullpen. They would be trading 1 high-priced bum for another plus they get a prospect. Hopefully it would be a low-level prospect. Just saw on MLBTR: Speaking of Crosby, Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune wonders if the Cubs could work out a deal involving reliever Luis Vizcaino. Despite the $4MM owed to Vizcaino, he's not a lock for the Cubs' bullpen. We learned last week that the Cubs do not appear interested in Crosby.

I posted a while ago that he might be an interesting option for the bench if he can hit with some power off the bench and fill in at 1B, 3B, LF, and emergency catcher. He may be pretty bad as a catcher, but he has to be at least as good as Murton or Neifi Perez were as emergency catchers.

If Grudz is past his prime then why haven't his numbers dropped off? I guess that I should have specified that he's past his prime defensively and can only back up 2B. Offensively, Grudz and Durham can still do okay.

Crosby is terrible and we should want no part of him. That being said, Vicaino plus a prospect is really overpaying for Crosby. The A's will definitely have to eat 4-4.5 million unless they take back a really bad contract (won't happen).

I found it on the internet. If it was my trade idea there would be at least one more team involved. :lol: :lol: :lol:

And you've been wrong all along. 1. He's still there, so they can afford him for now. 2. Peavy will go to any team that will pick up his option. What about that do not understand? Let me repeat it in case you didn't catch it. PEAVY WILL GO TO ANY TEAM THAT PICKS UP HIS OPTION. PEAVY WILL GO TO ANY TEAM THAT PICKS UP HIS OPTION. PEAVY WILL GO TO ANY TEAM THAT PICKS UP HIS OPTION. Do you really honestly think he'd turn down a trade to LA, Mil, NYY, Sea, or any other club willing to pick up his option because he's so dead set on being a Cub? He's still there for 2 reasons: 1. The Cubs had to wait for the ownership situation to clear. 2. Peavy repeatedly stated that he would only waive his NTC for the Cubs (and Braves before they dropped out) so there weren't any other parties involved. Will he change his mind about other teams? Apparently you are a mind reader by stating as fact that he will okay a trade TO ANY TEAM THAT WILL PICK UP HIS OPTION, but until he says that I'm going by what has been reported. Judging by your join date, I assume you've followed baseball long to recognize his posturing as a common negotiating tactic, that's been used many times by many players before. He'll go to whomever gives him the best financial terms. They always do. So why did he agree to waive his NTC for the Cubs and Braves without any discussion about picking up his option? While I agree with you about most (not all) players taking the best deal (some opt for a winner or a location), I'm sure that most major-market teams would extend him barring an injury.

Yeah. Poor guy. How can one reasonably expect to live any sort of comfortably on a lousy $10 million a year? I wonder if he can qualify for welfare on that sort of pay. Juan Pierre is making like 10 million a year, isn't he? I can understand him not wanting to play for that annual salary. I'm not saying that it isn't a lot of money, just that it makes a lot more sense for him to turn it down knowing that info. Is zero dollars for zero years more palatable? Back to the basic question. With little to no interest from the rest of baseball, what terms are Boras and Manny expecting, market value? I don't hate him for turning down the deal and trying to get a better one. I find it comical that his camp thinks it has some kind of leverage. No matter how much he helps the Dodgers, they're not going to guarantee him anything more than what he turned down. Considering that they keep running back to him with new offers, why do you think they're suddenly finished doing that? They've made a few early offers. One for a single year, and the latest a 2 year deal with deferred money. That's not exactly running to him with new offers. They have stayed in the same money area that they started. I haven;t heard of another offer from anyone. It's March. I think if the Giants were sincerely interested they would have made an offer by now. They are likely waiting to see the talks with the Dodgers fall apart so they can get him cheaper. Most teams yearly profit margin is what Manny is asking for. With the state of the economy not hitting baseball on a everyday basis yet, few teams are going to be willing to outbid the Dodgers. McCourt indicated that with the recent economic downturn, the Dodgers' financial parameters might be different from what they were even four months ago. "Every day things are changing, and we need to be mindful of that,'' McCourt said. "We kept our offer virtually where it was in November. And you know what? The world isn't anything like it was in November. So we're going to start fresh and look at this the way we'll look at it sometime next week.'' That doesn't sound like a guy who thinks he's in a weak bargaining position. I predict Manny and Boras will take the first offer (1/$25 mil) if the Dodgers resubmit it and try their luck again next year. Clearly, the one thing we can almost safely predict, is that the dream of a 3 to 4 year deal is not going to materialize in this market. At the end of the day when you pimp your way out of Bostons $20 mil in '09 for the Dodgers $25mil, one can safely assume it was all about the money for that turdball. The problem with taking the 1 year deal and going the FA route again next year is that Manny will have to be motivated and interested for a whole year. That's not easy when you're basically unmotivated and disinterested.