Careful what you wish for
Yeah, I know that headline ends with a preposition. If it’s good enough for Winston Churchill, it’s good enough for me. (When upbraided by a woman for ending sentences with prepositions, Sir Winston shot back: “Madam, your insolence is something up with which I will not put.” So there you go.)
Anyway, if the Cubs are indeed “shopping” Carlos Zambrano (and people in the Cubs’ baseball operations department say that information is not coming from them), they better be thinking things through.
First off, why would you want to trade Zambrano? Sure, he’s a knucklehead, but he’s been a pretty effective knucklehead over the years, and we’ll look at some of the starts he lost or got a no-decision in this year that he could have or should have won.
Second, will he waive his no-trade clause, the one he took millions less from the Cubs to get?
Third, what are you going to get for Zambrano, especially if anybody in your organization is running down his value?
Fourth, who replaces him?
Perceptions are a funny thing. All year long, we’ve heard people lament how poor old Randy Wells should have a much better record than his 10-8 with a 2.96 ERA. And it’s true, he could well have a better record.
Guess what? So could Big Z. We talked about this a few weeks ago, but we’ll run some numbers past you again here. These are the starts this year, all quality starts, in which Big Z could have gotten a victory, but ended up with a loss or a no-decision:
April 11: ND, 6 IP, 3 ER
April 23: L, 7 IP, 3 ER
May 27: ND, 6 IP, 1 ER
June 10: ND, 8 IP, 1ER
June 18: ND, 7 IP, 3 ER
June 23: ND, 7 IP, 3 ER
July 3: ND, 7 IP, 1 ER
July 7: L 6 IP, 2 ER
July 27: ND, 7 IP, 1ER
Sept. 4: ND, 6 IP, 1ER
That’s 67.1 innings pitched and 19 earned runs over 10 starts for a 2.54 ERA. Yeah, pitchers like that grow on trees. And a writer in this town wanted simply to cut him loose a few weeks ago?
As I said, Z can be a knucklehead, or at least do knuckleheaded things. But perception again is a funny animal. For example, what if it was Z and not Ryan Dempster who hopped over the fence and broke his toe? Can you imagine the outcry? But it was Demp and it was funny and everybody had a good laugh. And remember, too, when Dempster came into camp in tip-top shape a couple years ago after admitting he had let himself go the previous year? Did anybody say he was “cheating his teammates” as they did when Zambrano talked about being “lazy” about his abs work?
On the field, what if it was Z and not Ted Lilly who had bowled over Yadier Molina last year? That’s a play where a pitcher risks big-time injury. When Ted did it, it was a “hard-nosed play.” If Z did it, it’s a major “OMG” moment on the Internet. Teddy Ballgame also has legged out a triple and tried for a stolen base when the “light was red as hell,” according to the manager. If Z lays down a bunt or takes batting practice a little too hard, he’s being “dumb” and “selfish” in a lot of people’s eyes.
Now, I like and get along with all of these pitchers, including Z. But let’s be a little bit fair and consistent when we tell them how they ought to be acting.
Could be an interesting off-season.
Back with the lineups and such later.
automatically means next years team is weaker than this years team. There is nothing the Cubs could get in return for him and his contract that will contribute more to the Cubs winning in 2010 than Zambrano would contribute himself.
These discussions are as crazy as the 'trade D.Lee and let Hoffpauir play' discussions from April.
But at some point his antics are running very thin. You can't argue that Cubs management, Rothschild, Piniella, every other Cubs manager prior, broadcasters, beat writers, and teammates aren't/have been fed up with foolish antics.
For every time that his antics pay off (no hitter), I can list numerous times that they are his own worse enemy. How many times are we going to hear somebody comment about if he can control his emotions he will be great? How many?
It's ridiculous. He has great stuff, but he walks a very thin line that enables him to pitch well.
As far as Lilly goes, you NEVER see Lilly show up a teammate.
Comcast reported this may be his last game in Chicago....at the post game he said if they don't want me I'll move on but added he didn't want to go....a reporter asked him about the rumor.......Z asked him if he was the GM now, it was funny..........
Z can throw the ball out of the park, stomp off the mount, beat up the gator container, and argue an ump's call, that's his baseball right. many players do it. what concerns me a "little" is his showing up his team mates. that can be corrected. would i trade him, NO. if you trade him and Harden walks they are in deep do....
now assuming this talk is real and he approves with Hendry/Lou wanting to trade him, they better ask for the best prospects, not some prospects, the best the other team has.
over paid players.........what bothers me is when Hendry/Lou, baseball people say the players are getting paid to produce but not producing. Bradley is close to his career stats, he never was an RBI or power hitter, Fukudome off his 2 years is what he is, an average player, both were over paid........... are Dempster and Z over paid? Fontenot is just a bench guy........they had no offense this year...........that's my story and I'm sticking to it, LOL
New owner, new way of doing business? Some things are easily changed -- or can be made challenges -- no, not he payroll, but Zambrano's attitude.
You have an asset in Zambrano. How many pitchers are capable of winning 20 games? Have to control that temper, have to be in great shape. Have to challenge Big Z to show something on his resume before he gets too old and is on the down side of his career. A real possibility is that the downside comes sooner for pitchers, being that they are fragile commodities due to wear and tar on thier arm/shoulder. So, can we challenge Zambrano and not trade him? You usually loose out in the end when you trade the best player in a deal. You only hope to win trades like that when maybe one of the minor leaguer's (typically involved in such trades) comes up huge. Our strength next year has to be starting pitching, and Z can be a big part of that, knucklehead and all that he is and may still continue to be. Now if we can straighten out the bullpen and Soriano recovers, and Bradley hits the road....maybe we can challenge. But St Louis has strength in their manager, top players and pitching coach as well.
The Cubs need a pitching coach, and not a baby sitter. Like I stated below, somebody has to sit his guy down and establish goals, weight training, diet, and a mental game plan. If I have a 18 million a year investment, and I hear that he admits that he's lazy, and out of shape....I'm furious.
The only way to pentalize him, is to take away starts. Make him earn it. He's not your opening day starter. He's not a guy you look to for wins, until he proves otherwise.
Obviously, anyone can write what they want about trading him, but until Carlos OKs it, he's not going anywhere, so why bother?
You would hope at some point, he would stop embarassing himself, the organization, and get it together. It was "cute" for awhile, but know it's a joke.
Maddening as he is, Zambrano is at his best when he pitches with his emotions on his sleeve. Sure it is going to get him into trouble at times, but he certainly hasn't been able to change effectively. He is still susceptible to the big inning, and I don't think that is ever going to change. I do think there are places where Zambrano would be much better suited than in Chicago. Chicago fans are the best and the worst, all rolled into one. Support a winner like no other, but ready to jump in for the kill at the first sign of blood in the water. You don't see that in St Louis. I hate the Cardinals, but I think Wrigley is a very counter productive environment for the players.
Also would no hurt to get his fat butt into shape. If Carlos were 25 lbs lighter, he would likely be a much more effective pitcher and probably spend less time on the DL.
I know what you are implying, but it's a very FINE line that Zambrano walks. Being emotional and being out of control is a battle that Zambrano continually loses every year.
Every team knows that if they can get under Zambrano's skin, he's done. Yeah, it's cool when he ks a guy, sprints off the mound, yells profanity, and gets the team excited. That sadly is not the norm.
Instead, you get the mental midget who can't handle himself and once he walks a guy, or his team makes an error, or a guy gets a fluke hit....he erupts. You then get a shot of Rothschild or Piniella shaking their heads in disbelief, and before you know it....he gives up 3-5 runs. Like tonight. First 4 innings he's ace worthy, and then his alter ego comes out of no where.
I 100% agree with the post about his 3.90 ERA. It's not "ace" worthy. I know QS are becoming the norm, but 3 ER in 6 IP is not worth 18 million a year. I know it's not every time, but for his money....I expect more of 7 IP, and 2 ER or less. A guy you look at for an automatic win every time out.
I look at Zambrano like I look at Terrell Owens. A great talent who takes himself out of games and is his own worst enemy. THe guy is not a leader. He's a selfish, fat @ss, who cares more about hitting 500 ft batting practice homers, then doing the job he is paid for.
At some point, the Cubs need to either move on, or bring in somebody who will either whip this guy into shape, or force him to go to the Cubs and ask for a trade. The coddling, kid gloves, walking on egg shells, needs to stop. Do your job. Stop pouting, beating up crap, cursing out teammates, and being lazy. Earn your money, and maybe the fans, media, and whoever else will get off your case.
If not, happy trails..........
Thank you Mr. Miles. You're the only Cubs writer who isn't repeating histrionic crap about "get rid of this player, the Cubs will market so-and-so". You're the only one I read anymore. I ignore Sullivan and Wittenmeyer. Sullivan admitted on air that the way Milton Bradley treated him effected they way he covered Bradley- is that even journalism? I'm not sure, but I don't bother to read it either way.
...Is try to divorce yourself from all of the emotional rhetoric that's out there, and being human beings, it's not the easiest thing in the world to do. I had a little set-to with Jim Edmonds last year, but we both got over it and were chatting a few days later. As I said, Z should grow up and cut out some of that knuckleheaded stuff. Last year, I called Dempster the de facto ace of the staff, and this year, I've said it's Lilly. But if I'm running a team, I'd rather have Zambrano than not.
I understand if you don't want to call Z an "Ace" as long as you realize the term Ace is almost meaningless because it's so undefined and arbitrary. It's not some mythical thing that some pitchers have and others don't. If you want to define an Ace each season as the best pitcher on the team in terms of value, then yes you would be right that Ryan Dempster was the "ace" last year and Ted Lilly is the 'ace" this year. But true talent level wise, Carlos Zambrano and Rich Harden lead this staff.
The Cubs don't have a top 10 pitcher (in baseball) on their staff, but you don't have to if you have a bunch of very good pitchers.
I just hope your not using that as a reason to discount the contributions of Carlos Zambrano to the Chicago Cubs or use his contract to say he's a bad pitcher that should be off a team.
The point is I think you do much better work than any other beat writer, but I hope you weren't involved in the situation this evening after the game. The beat writers ask about unsubstantiated trade rumors (from the Cubs org that is, as you pointed out) after he was visibly upset about it. Z might annoy some with his antics, but Ted Lilly has similar antics (running over Molina, hitting Renteria, slamming glove, getting tossed from a game he wasn't pitching in, etc) and catches 0 flak. Both pitch well with a fiery and competitive nature, but only one gets ripped for it. That is unfair treatment and you seem to be able to stay above that, kudos to you.
-Lilly hitting Renteria was because Soriano was drilled 3 or 4 times prior in the series. No other Cubs pitcher responded.
-Lilly running over Molina was clean, hard baseball. Same as when Z slides in hard to second. Piniella had just verbally trashed them the night before of playing timid, and Lilly gave them a spark on a CLEAN play.
-Lilly slamming his glove was the one instance in his Cubs tenure that he has let his emotions get the better of him. Zambrano has had at least 10+ in that same time frame. From yelling at Lou, yelling at Blanco/Soto, yelling at the fans or making gestures (memorial day 2007), throwing a ball down the left field line, beating the crap out of coolers (LA) or punching machines (Pittsburgh this year), beating the crap out of Michael Barrett, yelling profanity at Joey Cora after a homer he allowed at the cell... Should I go on further? That's just 2 years, and I'm sure I'm missing a BUNCH more. All of those games, I want to say the Cubs lost.
Come on man. You seem very articulate, but your blind defense for this guy and trying to compare him to Lilly is a far stretch that is foolish. I'm not saying trade him, but his antics are beyond old. IF there is a market, and IF he would waive his NTC, and IF you could get back LEGIT players....maybe you explore it. Lots of ifs.......
I asked him a couple questions about the game. A Chicago reporter picked up on the trade stuff.
Another great debate underway. Fans and media are notorious for going on witch hunts for players that rub them the wrong way for one reason or another. But shouldn't we all be more concerned about actual production than how a guy is with the media?
Bruce, your QS compilation clearly demonstrates that pitcher's wins and losses are a factor of things besides how good the starting pitcher is, such as run support, defensive support, and effectiveness of the bullpen.
Regardless of how long Zambrano has been with the Cubs or how many games he's "won" for them, the fact of the matter is that Z's ERA has been in the 3.9's the last two seasons and was in that same range again this year until his last start or two pushed it down to 3.77 coming into tonight's game. That is far from "ace" material for any team that would be considered a contender, especially in the NL. Wells has won two more games in one less start and his ERA is still under three, and he's making about $17.5M less than big Z. Certainly the large contract isn't Zambrano's fault, but the question should be: Could the $18/yr that is being paid to Zambrano be utilized for other players so that the team would be improved overall?
Could the $18/yr that is being paid to Zambrano be utilized for other players so that the team would be improved overall?
I don't think that's a concern though for one of the wealthiest franchises. You pay players what you have to even if its over market. Jeter, A-Rod, Sabbathia, Beckett, Drew, Bay, Lowel are all over payed based on performance, but they don't get blamed.
To get a really good pitcher like Carlos Zambrano you need to shell out $15 mil+ a year. Plus no one is going to take on his whole salary. The Cubs will end up paying for Z not to pitch for them the next few years. It's like the ARod thing in Texas.
that the Cubs ought to be able and should be willing to spend more money on payroll, especially since they haven't won the WS in a century now. But they have had been operating under a budget, as demonstrated this season when they had to trade DeRosa and let Wood go, to clear dollars to sign Bradley.
Look (Lou voice), the Cubs are locked into so much money (some of it bad) that they have no choice but to try one more year to go for it. That means ADDING pitchers, not subtracting them. If Zambrano isn't the ace, he's a close second on that staff. Trade him now? How about keep him, deal off one other bad contract in Bradley, get a solid 450 at bat outfielder and let er rip. If they fall short next year, you have one less year on those contracts to pay and they are all a little easier to deal. And if Zambrano helps the team, wins 15-20 games, then what's the down side? If you want to deal him then, he's worth a lot more than he is now when there are maybe three teams in the big leagues who can afford him, three or four he would consider playing for, and none of them who are going to offer anyone to MAKE THE TEAM BETTER.
It's a short contract and your asking for about 2.6 or so wins above a replacement player per season for him to match his contract. They're paying him to be an above average player, not a super star. 4 WAR or higher is when you start dealing with the super stars. They aren't asking for anything close to that.
If Milton Bradley's contract prevents them from signing anyone else, then this team is essentially bankrupt anyways.
I honestly think that Cubs fans are the Primadonas. I bleed Cubby blue, but to be honest, I think the problem is the fans and the media. They are both waiting for something bad to happen. And when it does, they can then say..."told ya so". They expect guys to hit 1.000 with 50 HR's and 100 RBI's. They expect the pitchers to have a 0.00 era with over 200 K's and 30 wins, and when they don't they are out of shape primadona bums.
Say what you want, but none of them are trying to lose. As Bradley so eloquently stated, they aren't out there to suck.
Has this team worked out? No, but don't you think they are trying to do everything in their power to win?
Who's to blame? Everyone, but the effort is there.
Be fans! Celebrate the wins, hate the losses, but most of all enjoy the games. After all, they are just games! But quit running people out of town, and whining every time a move doesn't work out! Trust me, the move was made with the best intentions.
I was thoroughly disgusted by last fall's displays of self-pity after the playoff loss (as I have been by the fan reactions to pretty much every season since 2003 -- not that they're behaving all that much better during the season). Not being Steve Stone, I can't prove fan histrionics put the 2009 Cubs at a disadvantage by making them play tight from pretty much the start of the season. But it seems plausible to me.
Please tell me that you aren't blaming the Wrigley Field crowd for making professional ball players play worse. I hope I am misreading your comments, but that is just a horrible excuse being made for a team that flat out stunk.
I agree with the thought process that some environments aren't made for everyone. Some guys like a pressure cooker like New York, Boston, LA, or even Chicago. While some guys prefer smaller markets where the media horde isn't large, and they aren't under a "microscope". However, each of these guys came here with the understanding of what it is, and fans expecting a championship yearly SHOULD/BETTER be the norm then people just happy to be sitting in the sun, drinking warm Old Style out of a paper cup.
Like I said, I hope I misread you, so don't take this personal.
He was only saying that the fans have showed an utter lack of respect for specific players who they are pointed/inclined to hate. It may or may not have anything to do with performance (the Cubs have played much better at Wrigley this season), but that doesn't excuse the stupidity.
Nor does "desiring a championship every year"excuse stupidity. Your desire to win does not permit you to be a jerk as a fan. We fans technically don't pay their salaries, we just provide part of the income that funds their salaries. We are paying to see a baseball game we are not paying to buy a baseball team. Buying tickets means the right to see a baseball game being played. If the players refused to take the field or refused to move from their positions after the ball was hit (don't say this is what Soriano does, I mean like not even trying to get the ball on any play. Not even trying to play the game), demanding a refund would be reasonable, but being a paying customer doesn't even give you the right to demand a win or winning baseball. You know how you demand an organization do better? STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCT. A ticket holder is not a share holder. A customer is not a share holder definitionally (though you can be both), nor do you have the right to put forth the same level of a demand for product quality that you do at a retail store.
If you go to a concert and band does not play well, but finishes their set and puts forth legit effort, the fans do not get to demand a refund or demand the band does anything. The only decision you have the right to about arena event(s)(sports, concerts, etc) is whether or not you spend money i.e. whether you go or not. You force change by withholding money. If Carlos Zambrano or Milton Bradley bothers you that much, stop going to games. That is the only demand you have the right to make, the demand for improvement by withholding your money. You cannot demand they say what you want them to say nor can you demand they play how you want them to play.
So if all this junk really bothers so many people, why are the Cubs again at the top of the attendance charts?
People are sheep. That's why the Cubs continue to lead in attendance, and that should not be a factor in judging anything.
The Cubs have become an event. They market it that way, even comparing it to Las Vegas "what happens in Wrigley...stays in Wrigley". It's a joke. Trace it back to 1998 and later when Sosa was crushing homers. They marketed him, had promotional giveaways (beanie babies), and created a HUGE demand for a product that didn't deserve it. THey bridged that gap with the 2003 success.
Finally, after watching a team implode in 2003....the realization of expecting more happened. 2004 proved that, as players folded under the microscope, and the team became disliked by anyone outside of the 25 man roster. Booing became a norm. Booing to boo is stupid, but if a guy doesn't run out a ground ball (bradley), implodes because he's a mental midget (Zambrano), or drops fly balls because he has to hop (Soriano), he deserves to hear it.
After last year, I made a conscience effort NOT to attend any Cubs games this year, and I have lived up to it. Why support a team that cares only about taking your money? This team has lost all 6 playoff games the past 2 years. It's beyond frustrating.
By the way, I completely disagree with your thought process about fans having a right. I can boo, or yell....as along it's done within reason. I pay money for my ticket. A portion of that goes to the salary of the players, sames hold true when I park, buy any food, or buy merchandise. Not to mention when you watch the game at home, you are giving them money. Advertisers flock to high rated products. People stop watching or going to games, maybe things will change......
Booooooooooo
And with the money you would save you could keep Lilly longer. He is their most consistant starter since coming here. You could also keep Harden or get somone else...for the same price as Zambrano.
Boozer it may not be their fault that they got the big contracts. However, it is their actions that would prompt a trade. There has been a classic double standard for forever...Zambrano beats up a gatorade machine and nothing happens...Bradley throws a helmet and Lou jumps all over him. Soriano walks to first nothing happens. It's their attitudes that need to go...This team needs a shake up...and Zambrano has has long enough to be a leader.
Of course it's about money!!!
And with the money you would save you could keep Lilly longer. He is their most consistant starter since coming here. You could also keep Harden or get somone else...for the same price as Zambrano.
Boozer it may not be their fault that they got the big contracts. However, it is their actions that would prompt a trade. There has been a classic double standard for forever...Zambrano beats up a gatorade machine and nothing happens...Bradley throws a helmet and Lou jumps all over him. Soriano walks to first nothing happens. It's their attitudes that need to go...This team needs a shake up...and Zambrano has has long enough to be a leader.
Of course the only proof you have that their attitudes actually hurt the team is purely anecdotal and entirely unfalsifiable. Meaning you can claim it without fear of ever being proven wrong hurrah! I can claim that Z and Bradley's passion are the only reason they are even a .500 team this year and because both our claims are unfalsifiable both of us have an equal chance of being right!
If your going to make claims at least back them up with something else but psycho-babel (i.e. fake psychology)
Lilly and Harden vs Zambrano long term? That's a slam dunk for me.
Great point. While I am not a big fan of what ifs, thanks to good ole Jimmy Hendry and his blank checkbook, and no trade clauses. That is an excellent point.
Harden is probably motivated for a pay day, so he may be pitching through pain or doing extra training (like Dempster and his marathon running last year), that he may/may not do next year.
While he is a Wood/Prior waiting to happen, he's also 10 times the pitcher Zambrano is when healthy. Look no further then his stats in the AL. Imagine Carlos in the AL. He would have an ERA near 5.
I like the points everybody is making. Let's not forget that manager in Toronto that Lilly got into the fistfight with or the time he threw down his glove in Arizona after giving up a homer. Just sayin'.
As much as I hated WHY he did that, I loved the passion he showed.
But boy, did that not epitimize generations and generations of Cub frustration in that one second act??
Do you love Z's passion as well?
If you look at the Cubs...the starting problem hasn't been the issue. I don't know where all the hatred for Zambrano has come from, but I'd look at the "primadona" offense that can't hit with a runner at 3rd with less then two outs. I'd look at the catcher who had to smoke pot in the offense and came to camp out of shape. I'd look at the closer that leads the league in homeruns given up. I'd look at the setup guy that leads the world in walks and hit batsmen.
I wouldn't look at the guy who may be wound a little tight, but gives everything he has and actually cares about wins and losses.
Steve Stone has articulated this better than I can but the Cubs have allowed Sosa and, now, Zambrano to become monster prima donnas. While some have underachieved, no one on offense has come close to deserving that label.
In re: "I wouldn't look at the guy who may be wound a little tight, but gives everything he has and actually cares about wins and losses." Nor would I but that is not Zambrano.
It is not surprising people do not see this as so many were also blindly loyal to Sosa for so long. Zambrano is the 500 pound gorilla who has underachieved, fought with team mates, showed up his manager on several occasions, failed to stay in shape and can be counted upon to become flustered instead of maintaining his composure when needed. He worries more about hitting than becoming a decent starter. He is paid to be an ace and has pitched like a number three starter.
It wasn't long ago I had people ask why the dis of Sosa. Now the egotisitcal, self centered captain who abandoned his team is a known cheater and folks no longer ask. Welcome to reality. Zambrano is on the same path, is bad for the team and I would like to see him pitching in Japan.
Is there no end to his accomplishments?
Speaking of reality, can you and/or Stone articulate why Zambrano has such a bad effect on Cubs hitters (but didn't last year) while not degrading the performance of his fellow pitchers? The Cubs staff, which tied for second in the league in ERA last season, is currently third in the league with practically the identical ERA; the Cubs offense, which led the league in runs scored last year, is scoring almost a run per game less this season and ranks 10th in scoring rate. Do you suggest that, should the Cubs trade Zambrano, all the things that led to the cumulative poor result on offense will miraculously reverse themselves to make the Cubs a top gun offense again?
I realize your question wasn't directed to me, but here's my ten cents worth. I'm guessing that what was suggested is that by trading Zambrano, the $18M/yr could be better spent elsewhere. I seriously doubt that anyone would suggest that the team would be improved simply by removing Zambrano.
The statement was, "Zambrano is bad for the team." How is that badness showing up in wins and losses? And if it isn't showing up in wins and losses, what's so bad about him that it has become such an urgent matter to get rid of him?
And, BTW, if Zambrano is so bad for the team, why would any GM in baseball take him? How can his badness be well-known to legions of Cubs fans, yet be secret to the scouts, managers, and highly paid front office personnel whose livelihood depends on knowing what's going on in the game? Don't they listen to Steve Stone?
As to your proposal, it sounds like you would trade him for prospects; otherwise, I can't see how Zambrano's salary is freed up to devote to other uses. If that's such a great course of action, why is another GM burning up his $18M a year *and* prospects to get Zambrano? Clearly he should keep his prospects and use the money in whatever way the Cubs would.
If you mean something else, please say so. What specifically beneficial trade are you advocating? What return do you expect that will so improve the offense and/or defense that it offsets the loss of a starter who in his worst year in 7 years has still thrown about 150 innings to this point with an ERA about half a run under league average?
isn't "bad" for the team. And he only takes away wins or adds losses if they aren't getting the production out of him to justify his salary. Would Lilly or Dempster still be "good" for the team if they were making $25M per year? They would still be the same pitchers, but if your team has a budget, paying all those pitchers would mean that the team would have to go with very inexpensive players to make up the remaining roster.
Zambrano does have an ERA below league average, but do you really think that is worth $18M/yr? That is the point of this debate isn't it? No player should be an untouchable if the GM is blown away by another team's offer for him. So yes, I would trade Zambrano under the right circumstances. And it wouldn't have to be for prospects. It could be for two $9M players, three $6M players, or any other combination for the money that was being spent on Zambrano. It would be Hendry's job to decide whether a trade was good for the Cubs or not, but Zambrano obviously would have value to other team's for the same reasons that many Cub fans could not stand to losing him.
1. If poorly allocated resources are your concern, you should be trying to reclaim the money owed to unproductive players first. From this point forward, Alfonso Soriano is owed even more money over more years. Whereas Zambrano was an above average major league starter in 2009, Soriano was a below average major league outfielder; and Soriano is much older and far less likely to play better in the future. You should be advocating the Cubs dispose of Soriano rather than Zambrano. In that case, you'd have my sympathy, though I don't think it can be done.
2. Again, if Zambrano is not worth the money, what kind of return on him do you really think you can get? If you know that Zambrano isn't worth his salary, don't you think all the highly paid GMs and their retinues of assistants and talent evaluators know that too? I think they know more about the matter than you do, in which case a Zambrano deal goes down only under one of the following circumstances:
a.) Zambrano rebounds in future years, becoming more worth the money;
b.) The Cubs eat the difference between Zambrano's true worth and his salary, in which case the other team just got a starter with a solid track record at a fair price while the Cubs have popped a hole in their rotation and still lost the excess money that you want to reallocate;
c.) The Cubs take in return somebody with a similarly dubious contract -- say, Michael Young from Texas -- in which case they might get lucky, but more likely have simply misallocated the money in a different direction that still doesn't deliver bang for the buck to the Cubs won-lost bottom line with even less chance of getting the money back.
3. I note you ignored my request for a discrete trade proposal that improves the Cubs. I'm not surprised: there really isn't much that works:
a.) The Cubs can't trade Zambrano for a cheaper, better, younger starting pitcher.
b.) They can't trade him for a monster middle-of-the-order hitter: the Cubs have all the big hitting positions blocked, and nobody would give up a middle infielder with that kind of offensive talent for a starter with Zambrano's numbers, no matter how desperate for starting pitching they are;
c.) Trading him for prospects would not improve the team for 2010, and either the Cubs still have to eat some money or they get back very low caliber prospects;
d.) Trading him for bench or bullpen parts would be mind-bogglingly stupid: players of that sort have little to no long-term value. I don't think even a Pittsburgh Pirates GM would do that.
4. Finally, assuming the Cubs could somehow recapture Zambrano's salary free and clear, what leads you to think they would do a better job allocating the money this time?
I do agree with the assertion that Zambrano is tradable *if* somebody comes in with an offer that blows you away. But how likely do you think that is to happen? I think it's exceptionally unlikely to happen when one of the town's major newspapers keeps bleating about how necessary it is to dump Zambrano, the other is starting to pick it up, and "fans" on Internet fora scream about what an overpaid cancer he is. GMs are always on the lookout for situations where other teams feel forced to get rid of players with value: they always look to get such players as cheaply as possible (as with the Cubs getting Derrek Lee). If Jim Hendry goes into the offseason with a public goal of trading Zambrano, the other GMs will treat him as a chump to be taken and make their offers for Zambrano accordingly.
I've made a few posts actually, advocating trading Soriano and eating roughly half of his salary if necessary to make it happen. As far as what they might be able to get for Zambrano right now goes, that depends upon how desperate another team is for starting pitching and if they feel that big Z could put them over the top. It should go without saying that the return in players would be higher if the Cubs ate more salary and vice versa. If the Cubs were thinking (if there was any truth to this rumor to begin with) they would be able to get another team to fully absorb Z's contract and give them any top prospects on top of it, they would be sadly mistaken IMO. I would think that eating say $5M/yr so that the trade partner would be paying $13M/yr, would gather some interest from at least a few teams, enough so that some quality talent could also be obtained in the deal. Again, it wouldn't necessarily be prospects that won't help the Cubs now. BTW...I didn't ignore your request to make a trade proposal, I stated that would be Hendry's job. Why come up with a hypothetical trade proposal?
So why don't you prioritize that for us: is it more important to trade Zambrano or get rid of Soriano?
In other words, you don't know how to make a Zambrano trade benefit the Cubs, but you know it's the right thing to do and that Jim Hendry can make it work somehow. Very convincing. I'm sure the Cubs' front office is hanging breathlessly on your posts, waiting for further words of guidance.
As you said if the Cubs get either great prospects or equal value in terms of MLB players + above average prospects then sure make that deal.
The Cubs should trade anyone if it makes them better. This whole rant is basically me railing against the notion that the Cubs need to trade Z at all costs. There is no reason why the Cubs have to get rid of either Z or Bradley. If they don't get equal value for Z or Bradley it's not worth it.
About the Bradley trade possibility: trading players at their lowest value is stupid. What the Cubs will be doing if they trade him (because they will have to eat a bunch of his contract) is pay for Bradley + incoming players. This would be selling low at it's worst.
I don't see how Zambrano is the problem. I think the "underachieving" label has been shown to be a little unjust in the wins and loss column.
MLP got it right when they said if you remove Zambrano will the offense improve? No
If you remove Zambrano will the Starting Pitching Improve? No
Zambrano is not "out of shape" either...The guy said he didn't do his sit ups like he was supposed to. I've NEVER seen Zambrano too tired to run, hit, pitch.
And isn't it the job of the coaches to get the most out of their players? IF they aren't...wouldn't you say they are lazy or underachieving too? Just saying because it seems like Duncan with the Cardinals could turn you or I into a 10 game winner, but Larry Rothschild continues to get a pass????
Oh, and if the almighty Steve Stone is such a great talent evaluator, and judge of character....why is he still a broadcaster?
Maybe he carries it well, but he is fat. He could be better physically than he is by losing 25 lbs and doing core training. It would help his legs, his back, and his endurance.
Are you his physical trainer as well as his psychologist now?
Remove a prima donna cancer as should have been done with Sammy soso early on
...trading Z....for what????? I certainly hope that is way off base.
I agree that the team is in no position to trade Big Z unless they are overwhelmed with an offer that can help them now, which is unlikely. Without Z they are going to have a hole in the rotation and still have a bunch of older players on the roster that is built to win for a couple more years.
I think accountability is currently lacking on this team. Before the season ends Lou or Hendry or Ricketts or someone (Brenly and Santo!) needs to sit the entire team down and explain to them what is expected of them as major league players and to ask themselves if they were satisfied with the effort that was put forth this year. A few guys can say yes, but I'd anticipate most finding some faults in their game that could have been corrected with deeper focus and a sense of pride.
I think accountability is currently lacking on this team. Before the season ends Lou or Hendry or Ricketts or someone (Brenly and Santo!) needs to sit the entire team down and explain to them what is expected of them as major league players and to ask themselves if they were satisfied with the effort that was put forth this year. A few guys can say yes, but I'd anticipate most finding some faults in their game that could have been corrected with deeper focus and a sense of pride.
I don't see exactly how you go about proving they haven't given forth their best effort except simply saying that this is the case or that you bet it is the case. You really think that Tom Ricketts (no experience in MLB) can tell them how they should be as baseball players? Did Ricketts have some secret MLB career I'm not aware of?
Sitting them down is not going to do anything. Baseball is a game of great fluctuation and sometimes utter randomness. Despite Jim Hendry's best efforts this season went to heck. It happens. People need to stop looking to blame a few people for the season. As they say, "The best laid schemes of mice and men..."
The more you make in this town, the more heat you're going to get. Like its Zambrano's fault or its Soriano's fault that Hendry offered them those big contracts? So then they don't "earn" their 8 figure salary and it turns into animosity.
Same thing with "Trade D. Lee, start Hoffpauir" we heard people crying in April. People need to chill out and think about what they are really saying; but then you get these "cut zambrano" articles and everyone gets worked up again....
The biggest problem with Carlos is his contract. He is being paid as an ace, but he doesn't pitch close to that level, even though he has the physical tools to do it. If the Cubs are paying Zambrano 18million, can they afford a real ace? I agree it is money, and to some extent you are dead on about Cubs fans, but it is also logistics of trying to field a playoff team. Zambrano is certainly a positive on a team. Is he an 18 million dollar positive? No chance.
I would not trade him to dump him. Only if you get back something very useful for him.
No he's not worth 18 Million dollars a season over the last 3 or 4 years. He was a the beginning of his career, but he isn't any longer. I don't see why it matters what he makes because if you get rid of him you have to eat some of the contract. Paying some of Z's contract + a better pitchers contract is more money than just paying Z's contract.