dew1679666265
-
Posts
20,547 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by dew1679666265
-
I assume you mean there's no indication that Derosa was traded for the purpose of signing Miles? http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/team/transactions.jsp?c_id=chc&year=2008&month=12 It's pretty hard to argue that Hendry didn't already have Miles in mind when he traded Derosa. Oops, yeah. That's what I meant. I'm sure he had Miles in mind, but his point in trading DeRosa was not a need to get Miles on the team. And even if the purpose was flawed (an attempt to get more ABs for Fontenot) the return was still good. He just needed to follow up better than he did.
-
If the plan is poor, that doesn't mean the initial move is poor, though. If Hendry traded Lee and Bradley for Albert Pujols tomorrow and then promoted Miles to play right field every day, that wouldn't make the Lee/Bradley for Pujols trade a bad idea. That initial trade was still a good move, no matter the follow up. It's the same idea with the DeRosa trade. Dealing DeRo was not a bad idea. The bad idea was - as it turns out - starting Fontenot and signing Miles.
-
When you evaluate a trade, though, you shouldn't take into account following moves. Any moves made after a trade should be evaluated as they are - unless a trade is made specifically to make room for a player. There's been no indication that Hendry traded Miles for the express purpose of signing Miles. Absolutely you should. Stupid trades that necessitate more stupid trades can set back a franchise for years. Look at the aftermath of the Lee Smith trade back in the day that led us to trade Palmiero for Williams, etc... Hendry didn't trade DeRosa for the express purpose of acquiring Miles, though. The DeRosa trade itself was a good move. That good move created an opening on the roster. Hendry didn't do so well filling that opening. All that means, however, is that the follow-up move was bad, not the initial move itself. Like I said, if the DeRosa trade had been followed up with signing Hudson, there's no debate whether the DeRosa trade itself was a good move or not.
-
If you want to get hyper-technical, we traded Jacque Jones, Omar Infante, Will Ohman, Phil Norton, John Koronka, Freddie Bynum, and Josh Harrison for Grabow and Gorzelanny. Oddly enough, I'd still make that trade if the Cubs had all those guys. Didn't we trade Jacque for Infante? If so, then it'd be Jacque, Ohman, Norton, Koronka, Bynum and Harrison for Grabow and Gorzo.
-
When you evaluate a trade, though, you shouldn't take into account following moves. Any moves made after a trade should be evaluated as they are - unless a trade is made specifically to make room for a player. There's been no indication that Hendry traded Miles for the express purpose of signing Miles. Had Hendry traded DeRosa for Stevens/Gaub/Archer and then signed Orlando Hudson to play second, there's probably little complaint about the original trade. The trade itself was good - we got good value for DeRosa and one of the three players we got are helping us right now - but the follow up was not good.
-
I'll take that action It's rare the times when Hendry makes a bad trade. Yeah it happens often. Miles for Derosa. Edmonds for that angry black guy. Well, except those weren't trades. :)
-
That's why I'm not calling it a good deal. Hendry got good value for DeRosa, but it's easily debatable that he should have kept DeRo since we're trying to win the WS now. Had he signed someone like Orlando Hudson after trading DeRosa, though, that deal looks better. The only thing that makes it look bad is that we signed Miles to replace DeRo. Stevens is contributing right now and might be a bullpen arm in the playoffs this year. Gaub might see the majors in September when rosters expand - so it wasn't only a long term trade.
-
I'll take that action It's rare the times when Hendry makes a bad trade. And when he does, it's pretty obvious the moment he does it....Pierre and DeRosa. Both were instantaneously hated. The DeRosa trade is actually looking like a decent deal at this point. It would have been nice to have him, but I think over the next five or more years we'll be happy to have Stevens, Archer and Gaub.
-
I'll take that action It's rare the times when Hendry makes a bad trade.
-
I think from their perspective' date=' they don't have to trade him, so why sell extremely low. If somebody will give decent value it makes sense for them to trade him, otherwise he's not getting paid a ton and he might hit an extended hot streak to peak his value.[/quote'] I was for getting Hermida in the offseason as a buy low alternative, but now, the Cubs DON'T need Hermida and I would prefer they move on. If he didn't cost a lot in terms of prospects, he'd still be a nice guy to pick up. If nothing else he's a decent bat off the bench. If he develops then he becomes a good trading chip or allows us to move one of our OFs if the interest is there.
-
I think from their perspective, they don't have to trade him, so why sell extremely low. If somebody will give decent value it makes sense for them to trade him, otherwise he's not getting paid a ton and he might hit an extended hot streak to peak his value.
-
That settles that then. Thanks CCP.
-
I'd like Ross and think he'd be useful, but there's no room for him if Reed's going to be back in a couple weeks. The Marlins arent looking to sell. They're looking to move Hermida, as they were all off season. You're probably right, but Ross' name was brought up and I responded. They have no real reason to trade him. I'd still kind of like Hermida for cheap.
-
I like this trade well enough. Grabow's 3-year splits show him as a pretty good LOOGY and Gorzelanny has some good stuff with the potential to be a decent back of the rotation starter for moderately cheap. As for who we gave up, Ascanio is the only player who likely will become an impact player and even that is iffy. Ascanio's upside is probably a very good setup man.
-
Marshall has been terrific in the pen.. how exactly is Lou misusing him? He can be effective against more than just lefties and can be more of an asset to the team pitching a full inning or two.
-
It actually sounds like this trade will allow Lou to use Marshall more in his appearances (for 1-2 innings at a time for instance) since he'll still have Grabow as the LOOGY. I'd prefer Marshall in the rotation, but Gorzelanny intrigues me.
-
MLBtraderumors
-
Ah, thanks.
-
The morons going to send Jackson and Fox to the Pirates for these 2 pieces of crap, isnt he? Goony mentioned earlier in the thread that the Fox for a reliever rumor was brought up by a caller. Not a caller. The guests on CTL and boers/bernstein Oh, sorry. Was it a legit rumor or just an idea they were throwing around?
-
The morons going to send Jackson and Fox to the Pirates for these 2 pieces of crap, isnt he? Goony mentioned earlier in the thread that the Fox for a reliever rumor was brought up by a caller. And who brought up Jackson? One of the posters mentioned he heard something about Jackson for a reliever, but didn't indicate where he heard it.
-
The morons going to send Jackson and Fox to the Pirates for these 2 pieces of crap, isnt he? Goony mentioned earlier in the thread that the Fox for a reliever rumor was brought up by a caller.
-
Depends on what you want confirmed. Did some talking head on some sport show say, "we might trade Fox for a reliever" - probably. Is there any chance of us trading Fox for Grabow straight up? No, Hendry isn't exactly golden when it comes to free agents, but he is fairly good when it comes to making trades... I really can't remember a bad midseason trade Hendry has made. He is usually very good making trades.
-
I'd like Ross and think he'd be useful, but there's no room for him if Reed's going to be back in a couple weeks.
-
Like I said, I wouldn't give much for Hermida. Even though he's cheap, he's not producing at a high level overall, so it'd be difficult for the Marlins to ask for anything of significance for him. If they do, I'm not interested. But if the cost for Hermida is reasonable, then I wouldn't be opposed.
-
If you put any stock in Rivals' 40 time measurement before he entered college, they have him at a 4.69 40. If he can get that down into the high 4.5, low 4.6 range, put up good bench/squat numbers and show at least decent hands, I could see him as a possibility on the first day. He'd have to be very impressive on his combine day and a team would have to be willing to be creative with him, but a late first isn't out of the question, I don't think. Especially if the Wildcat package continues to succeed in the NFL this year. Never put stock in HS 40 times, they're even worse than the college 40 times that schools list. Yeah, I was wary about it. Rivals is generally reliable though (as far as recruiting services go), so I thought it might be worth a mention. Where Tebow is picked in the draft will rely primarily on his draft combine, though. That and what the drafting team envisions him being.