dew1679666265

Upgrade it how? Maybe a Fox/Hoff platoon, but we can do that with Soriano on the roster. Soriano has a chance throughout his contract to have some hot streaks here and there and be somewhat productive. Zito hasn't even been average since 2006. We're not likely to be adding significant payroll even when Ricketts takes over, so swapping bad contract for bad contract won't allow us to upgrade with another decently paid player in LF. Whether we have Sori at this point or not, the only upgrade we can have in left are inexpensive players. So we might as well keep the player who might have some value - and that's more likely to be Soriano. You are thinking short term, I am thinking long term. Soriano's contract is going to burn us way beyond this year. While I am certain that he isn't as bad as he's been playing, he undoubtably will be a much worse player than he was in years 1 and 2 at the end of his contract. I say trade him if you can. Zito will make the same amount of money roughly but he will be taking a bullpen spot (in my mind) of which there are several, instead of the LF spot of which there is one. Ricketts might not have money now but 1-2 years from now when Fukudome and Bradley and Lees contracts come off the books, he will have money to play with. Why can't we just sit Soriano on the bench if we have a better option? If we can move Zito (a starter) to the bullpen, surely we can move Soriano (a starter) to the bench and use him as a pinch hitter/spot starter/platoon partner/etc. Long term Soriano has a better chance of being decent to good than Zito. Both can be moved to the bench or bullpen if needed, so go with the player who is more likely to be productive.

The Mets have a higher payroll and are one game under .500.

He won't cost much monetarily, so the only cost to the team would be prospects. If Bell cost something like Wells/Thomas or something like that, we probably would still have the means to add offense - if the money's there. Ping will be thrilled by this, I suspect. I guess. It's a very smart move if they still have the resources/money to make some kind of improvement to the offense, too. That's what makes me wonder. I keep thinking we're going to have to overpay too much for a young, cheap, productive closer like Bell. If we do, the question becomes "do we have enough left to acquire an offensive player?" I don't know the answer. If he comes at a reasonable cost, though, it'd be a good move.

Upgrade it how? Maybe a Fox/Hoff platoon, but we can do that with Soriano on the roster. Soriano has a chance throughout his contract to have some hot streaks here and there and be somewhat productive. Zito hasn't even been average since 2006. We're not likely to be adding significant payroll even when Ricketts takes over, so swapping bad contract for bad contract won't allow us to upgrade with another decently paid player in LF. Whether we have Sori at this point or not, the only upgrade we can have in left are inexpensive players. So we might as well keep the player who might have some value - and that's more likely to be Soriano.

He won't cost much monetarily, so the only cost to the team would be prospects. If Bell cost something like Wells/Thomas or something like that, we probably would still have the means to add offense - if the money's there. Ping will be thrilled by this, I suspect.

Each player having full NTCs might be an issue. We're also not saving any money. We're swapping one bad contract for an equally bad contract. I'd rather have Soriano through 2014 than Zito for the same time. EDIT: Actually, we'd have Zito for one less season. He's got a vesting option for 2014 that I'm sure we could avoid. Even still, I'd rather have Soriano through 2014 than Zito through 2013 (and Zito is actually a bit more expensive in 2012 and 2013).

Bradley has been as good as Hoff this year and the safe money is on Bradley being the better hitter the rest of the way. Fox has been very good to this point, but what if he regresses? I'd say it's more likely than Bradley improving. Smith would be very interesting, but what are we giving up for him? What's the Rockies' incentive to trade a young, cheap for a long time, productive outfielder?

Do you have to be contrarian about everything? Did you mean to quote gooney? It can be said about a lot of people. But clarify your argument on this; Gaudin is nothing special, I won't quarrel with that, but on a team with Harden and ? at #5, is it wise to trade away guys like Marquis and Gaudin, who are at least durable and can provide some margin for error? As I stated, were it not for Wells' amazing season, the media would giving the FO as much flak for the Marquis/Gaudin deals as they are the Derosa trade. Jim has really dodged a bullet (so far). Marshall was doing well before he was moved to the pen. We had a good starting 5 before Wells came up.

It would probably help him if they would have given him regular work instead of doing the normal Cubs thing of pitch 1 day, off 3, pitch another, off 2. In June Ascanio has had fairly consistent work. He's never been off more than 2 days this month and his games off in between outings have gone 2,1,1,2,0,2,2. In May it was 1,2,3,2,2. He's gotten pretty regular work. His usage is 05/28 then off till 05/31. He then didnt pitch again until 06/07 when he pitched 3 innings of really good ball. Then wasnt used till 6/11, which is understandable given he pitched 3 innings on the 7th. He then pitched 6/13, and wasnt seen again till 6/17. Then pitched on back to back days on the 20th and 21. He then pitched on the 24, and then next on the 27. Not a real consistent pattern of usage in my opinion. With the exception of the game he pitched three innings in, he was off about 2-3 days between most of his starts. That's pretty consistent. I agree that Ascanio deserves to be up. I really like his potential.

The problem is, Castillo will be 35 before his contract runs out. He likely won't have much of the value he currently has now by then. And he's not as valuable as Bradley right now. Feliciano makes the trade a bit more interesting, but I still don't think I'd do it. It wouldn't begin to free up enough money for any kind of impact bat. We'd free up $3 million in 2010 and $6 million in 2011. I think you underestimate the effect of saving $3 million in 2010 and $6 million in 2011, Harden and Gregg (app. $12 million) coming off the books in 2010, and new ownership ready to spend some new money (hopefully). $3 million isn't going to make much of an impact on anything. It's certainly not enough to downgrade the talent on our roster like a Castillo for Bradley swap would. We're not going to get much significant for Bradley, I agree, but I don't see the benefit in saving enough money for one decent player and downgrading the talent on our roster at the same time.

It would probably help him if they would have given him regular work instead of doing the normal Cubs thing of pitch 1 day, off 3, pitch another, off 2. In June Ascanio has had fairly consistent work. He's never been off more than 2 days this month and his games off in between outings have gone 2,1,1,2,0,2,2. In May it was 1,2,3,2,2. He's gotten pretty regular work.

It wouldn't begin to free up enough money for any kind of impact bat. We'd free up $3 million in 2010 and $6 million in 2011. Well in that case its probably not a good idea if we can't somehow acquire a replacement for RF. I could live with a Hoff/Fox platoon in RF if we got a good bat back somewhere else (2B). Luis Castillo is not an upgrade though. If only we had signed Ibanez :( Dunn would've been ideal.

I'm just not a big fan of a plan for the rest of the year where we wait for people just suddenly start playing better. I might be entertaining this idea more just because it involves getting rid of Bradley, who I've really grown to dislike. I haven't been the biggest Bradley fan myself - even since before we signed him. But, the answer to a disappointing couple of months is not to trade him for a 33 year old very average (at best) second baseman with a decent OBP and no power. If the trade either brought back a player that could really help us this year or freed up a significant amount of money, I'd be fine with it. This just trades potential for the certainty of being average. You shouldn't downgrade the talent on a roster (unless you're rebuilding) simply because guys are underperforming.

It wouldn't begin to free up enough money for any kind of impact bat. We'd free up $3 million in 2010 and $6 million in 2011.

Exactly. I'd probably be behind this trade if Castillo's salary were off the books after 09. If we still have to pay him through 2011, though, I'd much rather take my chances that Bradley can stay healthy and produce. Especially since Fontenot and a platoon partner at second would likely be around as productive as Castillo - if not more.

If Miles was anywhere near that in 2009, I'd have a much different opinion about this. And clearly, as you mentioned, the platoon situation last year helped out Fontenot a ton. The platoon helped Fontenot out a ton, true, but is he very likely to stick at .232? I would doubt it. I'd say he'll be similar to Castillo by the end of the year. Especially if, when Aramis returns, Lou moves Fontenot back to second and platoons him with someone (Scales or Blanco perhaps?). And I wouldn't take 2008 Aaron Miles as my leadoff hitter.

Just throwing it out there, Fontenot had a .304 EqA last year. Granted that was in a platoon, however. Castillo's EqA last season was .261. Take it for what you will. Also: Castillo 2008 EqA: .261 Aaron Miles 2008 EqA: .265

You give up the possibly good bat (but so far, pretty bad bat) for the almost sure thing OBP. Castillo has been very consistent. Plus you open up a spot in RF for Jake Fox, where you hopefully get that power back that you lose from Bradley's potential. If you wait till Aramis is back, I think this could be a nice money saving deal. You're not saving much money though. If Castillo were in the final year of his deal and we would have $9+ million each of the next two years to play with, I'd be for it. But to save $3 million and $6 million the next two years is not worth trading away the potential that Bradley has for, at best, a .350-.370 OBP. Bradley's OBP is already back up to .352 and he's slugging 50 points better than Castillo this year. Castillo has a much better batting average and 20 points higher OBP, that's it. Bradley is OPSing 28 points higher than Castillo right now. You're comparing what is supposed to be a power hitting RF to a light hitting, leadoff-type 2B though. The comparisons you should be making should be Jake Fox/Hoffpauir to Bradley, and Castillo to Fontenot. I suspect in both cases those are going to be upgrades over the current numbers at both 2B and RF. Granted, Bradley has played way below his ability up to now this year, but with his injuries factored in...this would be a risk I'd be willing to take. If we saved significant money, I'd agree. But we'll save enough money for an extra bullpen arm or moderate starter (maybe) the next two years. Hoff has the same EqA as Bradley right now (.257) and Bradley has the track record to expect improvement. Hoff may or may not. Fox is at .307 right now, but that's in very limited ABs. Castillo does have a much better EqA (.267) than Fontenot (.232), however. If you make this trade you basically free up some cash the next two years to be certain you'll have average play instead of having the potential for good to very good output. If you're high enough on Hoff/Fox that you think they can be good starters (in a platoon) and don't think Bradley has a very good chance of improving at all, then the trade makes more sense. I tend to think Fontenot will close the gap on Castillo by the end of the year and Bradley will start slugging at some point.

Bradley has almost been better this year than Castillo. And he has room to improve further, unlike Castillo. Bradley 2009 EqA: .257 Castillo 2009 EqA: .267

You give up the possibly good bat (but so far, pretty bad bat) for the almost sure thing OBP. Castillo has been very consistent. Plus you open up a spot in RF for Jake Fox, where you hopefully get that power back that you lose from Bradley's potential. If you wait till Aramis is back, I think this could be a nice money saving deal. You're not saving much money though. If Castillo were in the final year of his deal and we would have $9+ million each of the next two years to play with, I'd be for it. But to save $3 million and $6 million the next two years is not worth trading away the potential that Bradley has for, at best, a .350-.370 OBP. Bradley's OBP is already back up to .352 and he's slugging 50 points better than Castillo this year. Castillo has a much better batting average and 20 points higher OBP, that's it. Bradley is OPSing 28 points higher than Castillo right now.

I'd take Freddy Sanchez and I'd try buying low on Matt Capps, though I doubt they have the incentive to trade him.

I wouldn't call trading Nyjer Morgan and Eric Hinske the makings of a fire sale. Nyjer Morgan for Milledge? Really? Is that all it takes? Has Milledge gotten THAT bad? He's OPSing .594 in AAA for the Nationals so far this year.

Cot's has Castillo signed through 2011 at $6 million each of the next two years. Bradley is at $9 million next year and $12 million in 2011. So, we save $3 million next year and $6 million in 2011 in order to send off a potentially very good bat for a guy who will give us a .350-.370 OBP and that's it. I don't like it much for the Cubs.

A 6'6 center, isnt Matt Birk the tallest center at 6'4, thats crazy. Not only is that crazy but the most solid position on the Lions oline is center. The Lions are funny. They may be thinking about shifting Raiola to a guard or tackle spot (could he play left tackle?). Or they may just want to see how versatile Jansen is and use him as a backup at multiple spots. Geoff Hangartner (Bills), John Wade (Oak) and Rudy Niswanger (Chiefs) are actually the tallest centers - at 6'5". Andre Gurode, Chris Myers, Jake Grove, John Sullivan, Nick Mangold, Jamaal Jackson, Justin Hartwig, Nick Hardwick, Kevin Mawae, Casey Rabach and Birk are also 6'4".

Didn't we make the trade for Simon later on, like after the deadline? Yep, August 17 was the Simon deal. Aramis and Lofton came over July 22.