davearm2

He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of. There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is. We probably need to agree to disagree on Volstad. As others have mentioned, his peripherals provide reason to be cautiously optimistic, plus he's still young and presumably improving. And his "really bad" numbers haven't been much different than Zambrano's. Given the totality of circumstances, this is a really good resolution for the Cubs, IMO. I don't have a problem with this trade. It is what it is but you are trying to make it out as the Cubs are a clear winner here. Under what definition have Volstad's numbers been not much different than Zambrano's? If you're looking at 2011, then sure, but that is a case of trying to make the numbers fit your side of the argument. To expect Volstad to outperform Zambrano in 2012 is being optimistic. It is much more likely that he will match Zambrano's numbers or slightly underperform them. The comparison to Zambrano was made in the fangraphs article. And if Volstad matches Zambrano's numbers or slightly underperforms them (with the chance of outperforming them), then how do the Cubs not come out the clear winner? Volstad is younger, (presumably) improving, and has two additional years of team control. If 2012 winds up being a wash, then the Cubs have done great here.

Don't paint me with that broad brush. I'm not opposed to signing impact FA on the "wrong side" of 30. In fact as a generalization, I doubt anyone is. You just have to be smart about it. Obviously where opinions vary is on what it means to be smart about it.

I'm the one you ride constantly, though, so I thought it was a fair conclusion.

He's gonna have to work his ass off to be worth more than a headcase, declining pitcher whose team had to pay $15 million to be rid of. There's "buying low" in someone like Ian Stewart and then there's this, dave. Volstad has a long shot to maybe turn into something decent...but he's been really bad. This has all the markings of trying to ship someone out of town and saving face in any way possible. It is what it is. We probably need to agree to disagree on Volstad. As others have mentioned, his peripherals provide reason to be cautiously optimistic, plus he's still young and presumably improving. And his "really bad" numbers haven't been much different than Zambrano's. Given the totality of circumstances, this is a really good resolution for the Cubs, IMO.

Most people are all in favor of "buying low" on young players just like Volstad. Except when the team actually does it, you get posts like this. You get posts like this when the player is a non-tender candidate. And they didn't "buy low." All buy-low players in this service time category are non-tender candidates. But let's go ahead and play this out. Imagine the Cubs non-tender Volstad in November. What has been lost in that scenario?

Right. Signing Fielder right now would be a more prudent move than waiting for Votto (who may or may not even make it to FA). Banking on potential free agents not to be extended by their team or traded and extended while passing on current FAs is a flawed and dangerous strategy. The same old choruses are going to be repeated offseason after offseason (he's not an ideal age, we'll be overpaying in the last two years of the deal, let's wait for someone better to come along, etc.,) I don't know why people think things are going to be different in 2013 than they were this year. That's my point; I'm surprised/amused at how often Votto is brought up here as a FA target when he'd be turning 31 that first season after he's signed and you'd have so many arguments against signing Fielder due to fatness and Pujols because he's 32 and how they don't fit into the plan of "the new Cubs." OK, how does a 31-year-old signing a huge contract fit into "the new Cubs" for those people? I'm sure this is primarily directed at me. The issue with Fielder specifically is that I just happen to think he's a higher-than-average risk for the reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum. The issue with elite free agents in general is that you want to sign them when the team is positioned to contend immediately, so you aren't wasting the most valuable early year(s) of the contract on a non-contending team.

How is that risky? What are you risking? A young starting pitcher with some upside and 3 years of team control, apparently. 1 year (at market value) of team control that matters. Wrong. The Cubs could trade Volstad this July, next winter, or next July. He will have more than one year of team control remaining at each of those points. And the "market value" you mentioned is that of the arbitration market, not the free agent market.

How is that risky? What are you risking? Because it's very possible you get nothing but a headache from him. Volstad isn't great, but at least he has the potential to be something. Volstad is a serious non-tender candidate. Most people are all in favor of "buying low" on young players just like Volstad. Except when the team actually does it, you get posts like this.

How is that risky? What are you risking? A young starting pitcher with some upside and 3 years of team control, apparently.

Curious, what sort of OPS do you think LaHair would put up if given the bulk of the starts at 1B this year?

Theo hasn't "intentionally set the bar low". What he's done is he's committed to following what he believes is the proper path to building a perennial powerhouse. Telling people we'll err on the side of the future, if we have to make a choice and mentioning signing bigtime contracts only make sense when we have a team that's ready to compete is EXACTLY that. Setting the bar low. I'm not disagreeing with it either. It's smart. Tempering expectations, while still giving out some hope is what he should be doing. But, it's not us, he's worried about, it's the meatball guy. The guy who either doesn't or can't see the big picture. That's who Theo has to convinve he's doing the right thing, for revenue purposes. I just disagree with the notion that Theo is actively trying to manage expectations one way or another. He's being asked questions, and he's answering them as honestly as he can, without revealing more than he wants to about his strategy. The idea that his comments are somehow scripted to appease meatballs or protect revenues or somesuch just strikes me as unlikely.

Yeah, if Jim Hendry was known for anything it was how he shredded the reps of the Cliff Floyds and Jake Foxes of the world. Oh, right; davearm2 is no doubt talking about Zambrano. Yup, that sure was a "constant criticism" about Hendry across the board. Oh my lord. You don't recall the mountain of crap Hendry took over the Sosa situation? The Milton Bradley situation? People constantly complained about how Hendry killed guys' trade value by airing the dirty laundry, and making clear that he had to trade the player. Please tell me you haven't completely lost your mind, and want to challenge me on this.

Whether it would work isn't what I was arguing. It's the principle. Bagging on your own assets is stupid, as is openly bemoaning your needs. What's more, these were constant criticisms of Hendry. The new guy does the opposite, and apparently that's not right either.

Theo hasn't "intentionally set the bar low". What he's done is he's committed to following what he believes is the proper path to building a perennial powerhouse.

Thanks for the Cliff Notes, Treymon!

I have understood that all along. oh ok, so you just decided to argue against a point that i wasn't making, good work. I don't recall arguing.

I have understood that all along.

Nope.

"Whatever they can get" is ambiguous. So I clarified what it should take to deal these guys.

The Cubs absolutely should trade the guys you mentioned, if they can get back player(s) that can contribute on the bigleague club beyond 2012. If they have to eat money to get that return, so be it. But it's not a money issue. It's a "these guys aren't going to help us at all in the future, and they're not going to help us enough to matter in the present" issue.

Yep take away all of their good players, and the guys left aren't good. :)

There was an article a while back, I can't remember exactly what website it was on... but it detailed the dossiers that Boras creates for his clients. He makes these absurd, aggrandizing claims about players where he forecasts what they're on pace to do... even if it's an absurdly long ways away. If memory serves, there's a point in Prince Fielder's dossier pointed out what elite company he'll be in when he keeps up this pace through his age 37 season. The whole thing is kinda a running joke for most front offices in baseball, as most guys aren't dumb enough to buy into any of it. Yet Boras still distributes these dossiers every year... you know why? It works. It works mostly because owners aren't as smart as the front offices they employ, and the George Steinbrenners of the world love to go over their GMs heads when they see a shiny new toy. Boras will do everything he can to make the sale, because more often than we might like to believe, decisions about who signs where aren't always as simple as "is he good enough to be worth that contract?". Hey, who wants to bet davearm is gonna argue with me that owners can't be that stupid? I know about the infamous Boras dossiers. In fact I believe I mentioned, Boras is very aggressive in seeking top value for his clients. As best I can tell, we're not arguing at all.

Because that is what they are asking for. It's called a negotiation. You your sarcastic self just said that they have set the bar. No one thinks he will actually get that Blogo. The discussion is about what Fielder wants, not what he will get. They're setting the bar unreasonably high to make anything less seem reasonable. Remember how Pujols wanted $300 million to go with his 10 years? Big name FA's do this all the time, so inexplicably saying that Fielder has somehow eliminated himself from being signed as a DH because he and Boras want 10 years is nonsensical. It's hilarious that you think Scott Boras sells elite FAs to MLB GMs the same way used car salesmen sell 10 year old Civics to HS dropouts. It's hilarious how you apparently think there's absolutely no history of Boras doing this. There you go again, making everything black and white. Boras is obviously very aggressive in seeking top value for his clients, but he doesn't treat the GMs he's negotiating with like complete morons.

Because that is what they are asking for. It's called a negotiation. You your sarcastic self just said that they have set the bar. No one thinks he will actually get that Blogo. The discussion is about what Fielder wants, not what he will get. They're setting the bar unreasonably high to make anything less seem reasonable. Remember how Pujols wanted $300 million to go with his 10 years? Big name FA's do this all the time, so inexplicably saying that Fielder has somehow eliminated himself from being signed as a DH because he and Boras want 10 years is nonsensical. It's hilarious that you think Scott Boras sells elite FAs to MLB GMs the same way used car salesmen sell 10 year old Civics to HS dropouts.

this has to be a typo or something, you really didn't just say rizzo and hudson for barney Hey Barney is no great shakes but he's a guy that's league average for league min $, with several years of team control. Meanwhile, Hudson's value is in the red, especially for a club like SD. That deal is very reasonable so long as your opinion of Rizzo is somewhere south of awesome.