dew1679666265

He was also at an 1.197 OPS in June. He had a .997 OPS in 2007 before rebounding to have three straight 1.000+ OPS seasons. Is this year the start of a decline overall? Possibly. Or it could be another down year like 2007 was and he'll rebound to three straight awesome seasons. I'm not ready to write off one of the greatest hitters in the history of the game because he got off to a slow start the first two months of the season.

What kind of contracts would guys like Iwakuma, Chen and Wada command, if you have any idea?

Off the top of my head (and correct me if any of these guys weren't Japanese imports): Hiroki Kuroda, Koji Uehara and Takashi Saito

His scenario was that Soriano would bat 6th against lefties. That would be a good idea: Soriano v lefties: 2011: .297/.342/.542/.882 Career: .282/.355/.534/.889

Phil Rogers made a good point that both Pena and Fielder are Boras agents. Rogers pointed out that Boras knows the Cubs are going to pursue Fielder in the offseason and, thus, will not want Pena accepting arbitration from the Cubs. This idea makes sense - Boras stands to gain a huge amount more money from the Fielder deal if the Cubs are involved in the sweepstakes rather than settling on Pena. Obviously Pena could ignore Boras' advice and take the arbitration offer, but I think there's a fairly good chance some team will give him a 2/20 type deal even if it's fairly incentive laden. I could see the Cubs offering something like that if they lose out on both Pujols and Fielder (which they really shouldn't).

Good article by Bruce Miles (as usual) on why the Cubs weren't active. Sounds like Hendry wasn't getting great offers for the guys he was trying to shop. On Pena:

I wasn't sure if I was clear enough there - I referred to McNutt and Whitenack as long term top of the rotation guys rather than next year.

That's probably true. Pujols/Fielder is the important signing anyway. We have a few guys who could be top of the rotation type guys in the future (McNutt, Whitenack close), but no elite middle of the order power bat in the minors. If we miss on Wilson we can bring back Aramis and settle for a lesser arm (Edwin Jackson?) and still maybe compete.

On Baker, if by future Hendry meant next season, then I'm fine with that. If he meant 2+ years down the road, I'm not a big fan of his thinking. On Reed, he shouldn't be part of our future whatever "future" you're referring to.

I tend to agree with this that the tweet was incorrect and the guy didn't know what he was talking about. But I also don't think he would have brought multiple, major league ready top prospects. I wonder, though, why you don't believe that tweet about Aramis and you do believe one tweet claiming that Byrd would have brought a big haul. I don't tend to buy that either, since he's going to be 34 next year and, while valuable, he isn't a top of the line player. Why is one more credible than another? Like I said, it's possible Marmol would have brought back what you suggested, but there's no guarantee. And I don't agree with criticizing Hendry just because you think Marmol might have brought that in trade without a shred of evidence. On Marshall, no chance he brings top major league ready talent. He's a setup man with no real closing experience and without dominant stuff - that doesn't net great returns on the market. In 10 years, Byrd has been worth 17.2 WAR. In 6 years, Bourn has been worth 14.6. Bourn is a more valuable player no matter how you look at it and when you factor in his age, it's logical to conclude that he would command a much bigger package than Byrd would.

I think it's A, but I have a feeling it may be B.

CCP answered this question well. Who were we supposed to trade to bring in this young major league ready talent? Marmol or Aramis might have garnered that, but the only rumors I've heard on either that specify was a guy saying the Cubs could expect a mid-tier prospect for Aramis. If Hendry got offers for current players where teams were offering multiple players better than the guys we have ready to come up next year (Flaherty, Jackson) then Hendry is very wrong for passing it up. I strongly doubt those offers were on the table, however.

Stephen Tulloch to the Lions, Barrett Ruud signed by the Titans to replace him. I'm not familiar enough with Ruud to say for sure, but my first reaction is this is a losing trade by the Titans.

Bedard to Boston.

How do you know Hendry turned down a good deal for Byrd? Because a younger, better, more valuable player netted four prospects and the Astros have been roundly criticized for taking too little for him? The Cubs have as much or more money than any other team in baseball available to spend on players this offseason - that's why there's a belief that we can net Fielder and Wilson. Is it a certainty that we will? Of course not, but just because we might not get both doesn't mean we shouldn't try to contend next year.

I dont know. At somepoint we have to stop making excuses for Hendry whether its our opinions about too much salary or not the right players in return. Others teams in the last couple of days have gotten very solid returns on their major league talent Hendry has made one meaningless trade and on this 90 plus loss team. This one is on him. So if the Rangers didn't make a very strong offer or if they demanded we pay Marmol's entire salary, Hendry should have taken the deal anyway because other teams are making trades? I'm in favor of dealing Marmol, but only if it makes the organization better, not simply because I want to see players traded.

We've been getting production. He's got a .797 OPS so far this season, which translates to a .352 wOBA. He's never been a big home run hitter, as he only hit 12 last year and 20 the season before. With only 278 PAs I wouldn't expect him to have 15 home runs at this point. However, it's entirely feasible that he could finish the year with around 10-12 home runs, which would match his output from last season. Even if he falls a little short of that, it's understandable since he missed a decent amount of time this year. You can use any stats you want, but looking at counting stats and situational stats don't tell you all that much. Rate stats (OBP, SLG, OPS, wOBA, etc) give you a much better idea on how productive he's been when he's played. Situational stats (w/runners in scoring position, for example) are very volatile stats that often vary from season to season and from month to month. His sample size of PAs in that situation is so low that 2-3 hits with runners in scoring position could skyrocket his OPS and give you a much different picture. Overall, he's having a better year than his 2010 and is close to his 2008/2009 numbers in Texas if you look at rate stats. His rate stats are right in line with his career since joining the Rangers and is perfectly in line with his low salary. He's also been worth 1.9 wins already this season and could come close to the 4.3 WAR he posted last year - I'm thinking he could settle in somewhere between 3.5-4 wins. I guess it's possible. Like you said, though, there's no way we'll ever know.

Phil Rogers was on MLB Network earlier today saying that Hendry wasn't getting much in offers for Pena and decided to hold onto him in the hopes that we can offer arbitration in the offseason and get a comp pick. Rogers sounded optimistic that Pena would turn down the arbitration offer since his agent is Scott Boras (same as Fielder) and Boras knows the Cubs will pursue Fielder. He then went on to say that not tearing the roster apart at the deadline is part of hoping to entice Fielder to sign with us - the thinking is if we sold off all our pieces we'd be a less attractive destination. No idea if this is all Rogers speculation or if he has solid sources on this one, though.

Nitpicking probably, but we did make a move - we dealt Kosuke.

He has only 5 home runs and only 16 RBIs because he got hit in the face earlier this year and missed a large part of the season. That's the problem with counting stats - they don't take into account getting hit in the face. Marlon is a high .700s/low .800s OPS guy (.775-.842 since 2007) and will probably be worth 3+ wins again this year (worth 4.3 last year) despite getting plunked in the face. He's a valuable piece to the offense and a guy we need to keep around if we plan on contending next year (which we should). Is it possible that the Cubs don't see the point in giving away a guy who has value to the team but probably won't bring back anything of any value in trade? Just two years ago Baker came to the Cubs in exchange for Al Albuquerque - a guy who wasn't even considered a prospect at the time and didn't make the majors with the team that acquired him. Baker's not a star obviously, but he can be very valuable in a platoon situation - he's almost a certainty to provide an .850-.900 OPS against lefties. They won't be better with the same guys (maybe slightly). However, if they bring back the bulk of this team and add two of the best players in baseball - Fielder and Wilson - they will be better. And possibly better enough to compete in a division that will likely be horrid next year.

Cardinals: As others have said, Pujols, Carpenter, Berkman, Furcal, Jackson all have their contracts up at the end of the year. The Cards and Pujols weren't anywhere close on terms before the season and if they lose him, that team looks really, really bad. If they give in and pay him anywhere near his asking price, they're looking at around $20-something million minus arbitration raises (so more like $12-15 million I'd guess) to replace Carpenter, Berkman, Furcal and Jackson. With all those players and Pujols, they're all of 6 games over .500 this year. Brewers: The Brewers currently lead the division at 9 games over .500 (still the second worst division leading record in baseball). After this season, they are almost certain to lose Fielder. It's pretty realistic to see them hovering around .500 next year with the same team minus Prince. Pirates: The darlings of contending teams this year, everybody's talking about the Pirates, but they're only 4 games over .500. They have one regular position player with an OPS over .800 (McCutcheon) and are winning largely on Jeff Karstens and Paul Maholm pitching out of their minds. They're pretty young, so the rest of the team could get better, but that would be offset by potential (likely?) regressions from Maholm and Karstens. They'll also have to pick up the options on guys like Maholm and Doumit to keep them. Reds: The Reds are currently 4 games under .500 and have an awful rotation outside of Cueto (awesome) and Leake (average). They won 91 games last year, but haven't won more than 80 in any season since 2000 other than that and are below .500 at the trade deadline - hard to see them as perennial winners. Their offense isn't all that young, with just four regulars under 30 and one of them is Paul Janish. Votto and Bruce are really good, but it'd be hard to see this team make any kind of big jump by next season. plus they have to pick up Phillips' $12 million club option to keep him next year along with Cordero's $12 million club option - that puts their 2012 payroll at $74 million before considering arbitration raises. Their payroll is $80 million this year. Astros: They're currently 7 games behind the Cubs and just traded one of their best players. If you don't think the Cubs can make a big jump next year, there's really no way the Astros could. The Cubs will have to make a big jump, obviously, but have more resources than any other team in the division and the best players in FA match up perfectly with their needs (Fielder/Pujols and Wilson). I simply don't see strong indications that the Central is going to be anything but extremely mediocre next year. As for Randy Wells, he had a 4.26 ERA and 3.94 xFIP last year. His ERA this year is 6.16 and his xFIP is 4.37. Nearly every peripheral is worse this year from last year and significantly so in some cases. The 2010 Wells was much closer to the 2009 Wells and that kind of production is perfectly fine as the 5th best starter on the team.

If this year's Randy Wells is the Randy Wells we're getting from here on out, I agree we need a couple of starters. I don't think we can just assume that, though. And Wilson has been far better than a solid starter the past couple of years. He's one of the best pitchers in baseball right now. As for the lineup, you'd have to play the left/right matchups well, but both Baker and Soriano have destroyed lefthanded pitching in their careers and that includes this year for both of them. Against righthanders who you put behind Fielder would be more nebulous and would depend largely on how Jackson and Flaherty were hitting them. The rotation would still clearly have to carry the team, but I think with a top three of Garza/Wilson/Dempster, the rotation would be capable of it. Especially when you consider we could be looking at a Cardinals team without Pujols and a Brewers team without Fielder. A .500 team might win the Central next year.

well its certainly a concern, now. I'm hoping the Ricketts are extremely upset with Hendry and have tied his hands until they can find a capable gm to fix this teams problems. My guess is that this is not the case however. Not allowing Hendry to trade guys you don't plan to bring back would be a terrible decision by Ricketts. My biggest concern is that Ricketts won't approve pursuing Fielder/Pujols - and that would be an indictment of him.

I'm thinking it's after the 2013 season that Votto becomes a FA (if he hits the market). Giving Pena a 2 year deal would bridge that gap nicely as he'd give us moderate production for 2012 and 2013 and then maybe we'd have the approval to go after Votto. I just don't see the point in playing somebody who, at best, will be a replacement level guy. Going for Pujols or Fielder is still the best option, however.