dew1679666265

Who was the third? I thought the deal was just Aramis, Lofton and cash for Hernandez, Hill and Bruback. I think he's thinking of Randall Simon who came over for Ray Sadler in a separate trade. He could be. That was definitely another decent deadline move by Hendry.

Who was the third? I thought the deal was just Aramis, Lofton and cash for Hernandez, Hill and Bruback.

This is correct. There was never a possibility of keeping him.

The Pierre trade, by a huge margin. Yeah, it's not even particularly questionable. We lost three pretty good young pitchers (one of those very good - Nolasco) in the Pierre deal and got back a decent piece. In the DeRo deal, we gained three decent, high-ceiling prospects for an aging, yet still productive second baseman.

Giving away Zambrano should not be an option. He may not be a shutdown ace anymore, but he's still a very good starter and only 28. If Hendry offered him up, a team would very likely be more than willing to take him - and pay a very good price for him. If Hendry got a terrific deal, trading Zambrano wouldn't be a bad idea. Giving him away would be a bad deal, though. That would probably be just about the only way to deal Soriano. I still don't think he's completely done, but if we could do that deal and get a decent return, I'd seriously consider it.

Yeah, 16 RBIs at this point is far too low, but it's not entirely his fault. He's underperforming, but so are the guys hitting in front of him.

Corey Patterson, Eric Patterson, Felix Pie and Brian Dopriak called. :-" Corey's OPS dropped from .949 in A ball to .829 in AA to .694 in AAA. EPatt's OPS dropped from .917 in A ball to .591 in AA and then never broke .817 in a full season again. Pie's OPS did rise, but it was never very good. It was .604 (A), .637 (AA), .633 (AAA). Dopirak went from a .670 OPS in his final season of A ball to .662 in his first season in AA and then started 2007 in advanced A again. None of these players really go against what CCP is talking about. It's still early with these players, but they were good (to very good) in A ball and are still good (to very good) in AA. If Jay Jackson, Chris Carpenter, etc. all collapse the remainder of the season, you'll have a point. Otherwise, it's too early to call them busts (or even expect it).

If those are the only stats you're better off assuming that player B was on a better team. :shock: Or, if I were to look at the history of those players RBI per year, I could determine that player B was a consistent run producer, and player A wasn't. Which player would you prefer? Player A: .335/.418/.662/1.080 107 RBI Player B: .265/.324/.487/.811 114 RBI Player C: .263/.347/.575/.922 128 RBI

Or need may be higher when a GM that spends like a drunken sailor panics during an offseason when nobody was spending money and he wanted left handed bats and to save a couple bucks. The panic must not have been too high because Hendry got the better deal. I think this trade makes it more likely that Hendry got the best value he could for DeRo, but I won't argue that he shouldn't have been traded in the first place.

Ugh. No, he didn't. "Sold high" implies that you got max value for the guy. Hendry oculdn't even get a major league reliever for DeRosa. He did not sell high. The Indians just got a better package for him than the Cubs got. Umm, no. Sold high doesn't mean that at all. Sold high means that he traded that player when that player's value was higher than it's ever previously been. YOUR perceived value of DeRosa doesn't mean anything. Especially when we have evidence of what his actual value was -- three marginal prosects, and then a few months later, one fairly decent prospect. Okay, so if "selling high" can include things like selling a player for an unimpressive package when he's at his peak value, then why is "selling high" so good in this situation? At least the Indians got a guy who is helping the major league team right now. Plus the Cards traded for 3 months of him. The Indians traded for 6 months of him when they got him from the Cubs. The key to selling high is making sure you get appropriate value. DeRosa was sold high when we traded him for three decent prospects with high upside. The problem is, I think he was worth more to this team than those three prospects were. And you can't just consider one player the best and thus the package is better. If all three of Archer, Gaub and Stevens become close to the talent level of Perez, the Cubs got the better deal by a longshot. You have to consider the entire package, not just increments of it. You also can't ignore the desperation factor. The Cardinals were just trading for 3 months of DeRo, but the Indians had the ability to play off the need much more in the middle of the season than were it the offseason. Need most definitely plays a factor in the return for a deal and need is highest when a team is fighting for a playoff spot.

Not really. At least they got a major league reliever, and Perez is a pretty good prospect. We got 3 mediocre prospects who can't throw strikes. I'd take Perez..... plus they said the PTBNL is a significant factor in the deal. I like Perez, but he alone isn't better than the potential of the three guys the Cubs got. If the PTBNL is really good that may change it, but right now what the Cubs got is still better than what the Indians got.

Ugh. No, he didn't. "Sold high" implies that you got max value for the guy. Hendry oculdn't even get a major league reliever for DeRosa. He did not sell high. The Indians just got a better package for him than the Cubs got. You're wrong. Sold high means that you got rid of the player when his value was at its highest or close to it. It doesn't speak to what the team got back in return for a player. The Cubs certainly sold high on DeRosa, but whether he got enough in return is a completely different issue. Exactly right. If Sam Fuld is called up, hits four home runs in his first four ABs and then is shipped off for a B+ level prospect, that's selling high at its best. The return isn't in the majors yet, but you're never going to get a better deal than that - thus the term "selling high."

With Reed on the DL we need somebody to spell Kosuke in center. That would be the reasoning to call up Fuld.

Numerous issues with that article. Here are a couple. First, he wants to bench everybody who's not performing. So, we bench Soriano, Fontenot, Kosuke and Bradley and we play Hoff, Blanco, Miles and ?. I don't know how that latter group is any better than the former. With the possible exception of Hoff, it's likely worse. Second, he cites Hendry making bad moves in the offseason and then opines that surely he can manage to maker more. More what? More bad trades? That's likely what you get if you rush into a deal or just make a move to make one. If the Cubs are maxed out on salary and can't add more then we're only making lateral moves at very best. Nobody is running away with the division and we're not collapsing out of it. Desperation won't help the situation.

Which likely means the Cubs had an interest, but couldn't go through with the trade for whatever reason. Whether it's that Hendry didn't want to top the trade, couldn't get the clearance to make it or wanted a little more time, I'm not sure. But the likelihood is that Hendry was interested in bringing back DeRo.

Best burger I've ever had. The fries are good and you get a lot of them. And...free peanuts. Apparently one of those is going up in the town I work in. I'm definitely looking forward to it.

I didn't like the combo of trading DeRosa and signing Bradley. Had it been dealing DeRo and signing Dunn, for instance, I would have been much more behind it.

True, not making a trade at all sure is working How much help would a Mark Teahen or someone like that be? That's likely all we can afford and we'd likely overpay in prospects for him. If a good deal is there that we can do, we should go for it. Given Hendry's willingness to make trades in the past, though, I suspect either a good trade is not there or we can't add payroll.

The thinking is that Miles' reputation is that he can play shortstop. Hudson cannot. Yeah but, Hudson has shown he can play this game we call baseball at a very good level, Miles have proven he should be a librarian. You are correct.

The thinking is that Miles' reputation is that he can play shortstop. Hudson cannot.

HRs do, but RBIs really have very little value alone when judging two separate players in two separate situations. Now, if both players have good guys getting on base in front of them, using RBIs has some meaning. Otherwise, they tell you the player has been unproductive but give you no indication of why the player has been unproductive. For example: citing RBIs as a reason that Ludwick has been better than Holliday is erroneous at it's core. Ludwick's numbers: .225/.299/.419/.718 Holliday's numbers: .274/.373/.432/.806 Holliday has been a better hitter in every way possible this season. Significantly in most areas. The difference likely is that the players in front of Holliday are not getting on in front of him as well as they are in front of Ludwick. Doesn't Pujols hit in front of Ludwick? Just an FYI as well, Holliday now has 39 RBIs and Ludwick has 38.

Does it matter? Yes. The HRs do have an importance when considering personal performance. But the RBIs don't have much. Consider a player who has a .900 OPS with a .500 SLG who is hitting third behind players with OBPs of .275 and .260. The player is going to have a very low RBI total. Is that the player's fault? Of course not. RBIs are a very team-oriented stat. If the guys don't get on in front of a hitter, he's not going to drive in very many runs no matter how well he hits.

Lions trade S Gerald Alexander for WR Dennis Northcutt. Not earth-shattering at all, but interesting, I think. Lions also picked up Jon Jansen a while back and are trying him a bit at center.

7 HR and 22 RBI in 131 at bats is crappy? Its not spectacular but it's better than most other Cubs. you're going by home runs and rbi? he had like a .750 OPS when i posted that. so yeah, for a corner outfielder/1b, that's crappy for a pinch hitter that's pretty damn good. His OBP is what's dragging down the OPS, but I'm pretty happy with a lefty power bat who's slugging .456.

Soriano's really not bad at all in the outfield. He's probably average to above average. I tend to agree that defense is a large reason why Hendry didn't pursue Dunn, though.