New Cubs owner Tom Ricketts joined WSCR's Mully and Hanley show this morning; listen to the audio here. Asked about payroll flexibility, Ricketts replied:
With respect to this season, there's still some flexibility in the payroll should there be something that comes up down the line that looks like a fit or a need.
The Cubs' payroll is already north of $140MM, but it appears that family ownership will allow for added flexibility. Over the offseason the Cubs added $26.7MM total for four free agents ($9.9MM in 2010 salaries). Raises for current players exceeded $14MM, led by Ryan Dempster's $4.5MM increase. On the flip side, money was saved by the departures of Milton Bradley, Aaron Miles, Neal Cotts, Kevin Gregg, Rich Harden, Aaron Heilman, and Reed Johnson.
It wouldn't be surprising to see the Cubs add a reliever this summer. The offense could be tricky to augment, as the Cubs are locked in with sizeable contracts aside from catcher and the middle infield.
I’m okay with getting a reliever as long as it’s not a Jose Ceda for Kevin Gregg type deal — or Kyle Lohse for Rick Aguilera — or trading Dontrelle Willis to get Antonio Alfonseca (although in fairness we also got Matt Clement in that deal)– or like the Jon Garland for Matt Karchner and #1 prospect Todd Noel for Felix Heredia deals from the Ed Lynch days– . I’m resigned to the likelihood that we’ll overpay financially but the thing that worries me is that we’ll overpay with a prospect. The Cubs history when it comes to trading for relievers has been pretty spotty. Should I even bother to hope the Cubs won’t deal a Jay Jackson or Chris Carpenter this time around or should I resign myself to that now?
Yeah, the Cubs still haven’t bounced back from the loss of Todd Noel.
That’s not the point. Trading your best prospect for a middle reliever is just a bad idea no matter what the prospect does. Look at it this way, if you’re going to trade your #1 prospect wouldn’t you want some value in return? That Noel got hurt and never got to pitch in the majors is nearly irrelevant. The Cubs squandered away the value of their #1 prospect for a garbage reliever who hurt them more than he helped. It’s the same principle with Jose Ceda. The Cubs dumped him to get Kevin Gregg…wouldn’t the Cubs have been better off using Ceda as part of a deal to get Roberts?? If you’re going to trade a top prospect, you have to maximize their value and if the Cubs use one to get Jason Frasor or something, that’s squandering away that value.
Hey, look, he is one of us just like he said! Because, really, tell me that statement doesnt sound like a Cubs fan who watched this weeks games thinking to himself “Oh my Lord, this bullpen is just beyond unacceptable” much like we did! (well, of course, our wording would be different but he’s a business man so there is the possibility he thinks with less swear words. And too himself. Without throwing things. And of course without eventually sleeping it off in the drunk tank…).
Anyway, now it looks like we just sit back and wait for the inevitable. That is, Hendry negotiating a trade for one of the very, very few relievers who are available, almost all of which play on teams with a more cunning GM.
Oh, and will Elmer Fudd target a BP arm like each and every other BP arm he has targeted? That is, will the addition be someone with no control off an unsustainable-success season like all the others? Who am I kidding, its almost guaranteed to be someone like that… This merry-go-round like cycle we are on is ridiculous.
I’m predicting something lame like Jay Jackson for Jason Frasor. Jackson is a guy who seems to be as well-liked outside the organization as he inside. Jackson will rise among the prospect ranks while we watch Jason Frasor have the same kind of control problems that everyone outside of Marshall and Russell are having so far. Financially, it’s going to cost us 6.2M to watch the mediocre set-up tandem of Frasor/Grabow. Barf.
“I’m predicting something lame like Jay Jackson for Jason Frasor.”
Well I would hope it doesnt get THAT bad, but I’m definitely prepared for it
“Financially, it’s going to cost us 6.2M to watch the mediocre set-up tandem of Frasor/Grabow. Barf.”
On the bright side, Marmol probably wouldnt have many chances to blow it in the 9th. That could be a positive, right? Maybe? Oh never mind, this sucks…
Me neither. It’s just that our history when it comes to trading for relievers hasn’t been good. If we do make a trade, I hope it’s more along the lines of the Grabow trade. Not that I think the world of Grabow, it’s just that we didn’t give up much on that deal…basically Kevin Hart and a tiny Class A middle infielder who was about 10th on the Cubs middle infield prospect depth chart.
Long term I would have liked Willis/Tavares but Clement was a great pitcher down the stretch for us in ’03. In fact, when Baker kept trotting Prior out there against the Marlins in Game 4 even though he was throwing 80 mph fastballs, I was hoping they’d throw Clement in there to get us out of that inning. If that would have happened (and I guess we’ll never know) and we would have gone on to the WS, I would have lived with that deal. But Baker apparently had a plan to see if he could blow game 4 and ruin Prior’s arm at the same time. When I think of ’03, I don’t think of Bartman. I think of a completely gassed Prior on the mound and Baker refusing to take him out of the game.
I agree with what you are saying on Clement, and agree on the Prior/Baker playoff assessment.
But, I think you may have forgotten something – that was also the year Willis was winning the ROY award. Replace Clement with Willis on our club that season and we may well be saying the same exact stuff.
Dang! You’re right. I didn’t realize that Willis had come up that quickly. He was only in Class A when the Cubs dealt him the year before. In that case, I agree. I would take that deal back short and long term because you could have used Willis in the same capacity as Clement in the 2003 playoffs. Plus you could have had the extra solid bullpen arm in Tavares. Something that could have been useful during the playoffs!
Yeah, stings even more now doesnt it?
And Clement did pitch well for us in 2003 – 4.11 ERA over 200 IP with a 14-12 record. I wont complain about him at all.
BUT, for fun, let’s think about what might have been
18-6, 2.43 ERA, 211 IP – Prior
14-11, 3.20 ERA, 211 IP – Wood
13-11, 3.11 ERA, 214 IP – Zambrano
14-6, 3.30 ERA, 160 IP – Willis
with
3-3, 3.66 ERA, 83.2 IP – Tavarez (signed for only 750K)
replacing
3-1, 5.83 ERA, 66.1 IP – Alfonseca (making 4 Million)
leaving up to an extra 7 million that could have been spent elseware – Clement made 4 as well, where of course Willis made the minimum, so 4 + 4 -0.75 -0.25 = 7 million to spend as we pleased. Does that mean possibly replacing Shawn Estes (8-11, 5.73 ERA, 150 IP after signing for 3 MM) with maybe Woddy Williams (18-9, 3.87 ERA, 220 IP after signing for 6 MM with the Cards) and still not spending it all?
Doubt we would have won the division by just one game. And you have to wonder about how the playoffs might of gone. But even getting past that – can we say possibly one of the best, and definitely one of the most dynamic, rotations ever seen? And I mean thats before Estes is even replaced in the 5th spot with our extra 7 million!
Oh well, what can ya do (well, other then stop the organizational trend of trading studs for duds already!!!)
Subtract Baker from the equation and you’ve got yourself a team that could have been a legitimate contender for years. Despite the 2008-2009 playoff “runs”, that was our best chance to really build something since the Banks-Santo-Williams-Jenkins teams of the late 60s, early 70s.
Oh, and I wanted to mention something you said above…
“or trading Dontrelle Willis to get Antonio Alfonseca (although in fairness we also got Matt Clement in that deal)”
Yeah, but we also included Julian Tavares. Now, we were one of the foolish teams still trying to force him as a starter, but I would like to point out that within 2 years he was finally, rightfully put in the pen before going on a 3 year run as the reliever we didnt get in the six-fingered freak. And I for one would have much rather of had Willis and Tavares then Clement and Alfonseca…
I don’t know, I still think the Cubs bullpen has promise. Sure there are issues right now but it’s early, sample size etc… I’d rather live with what’s out there now than spend money and prospects on something that’s no guarantee either. Don’t do anything rash right now, wait a couple months if possible.
That would be the best case scenario and I think the Cubs will wait. There’s been little to cheer about but I think a whole lot of problems could be solved if we could just throw more strikes! Another solution they could try first is Jeff Gray who at least has better control than a few of the guys we’ve been throwing out there.
Yeah, there are enough young guys to give a try before they go deal those guys for someone probably not much better but certainly more expensive. I hope Hendry and the Ricketts don’t panic. The bullpen looked pretty good today, 2 2/3 innings, 1 hit, 1 bb, 3 k’s, 1 hbp, 0 runs. All told it was solid and I would expect that more often than not.
Russell striking out Fielder when Milwaukee was trying to mount a rally was the bullpen moment of the day. I think some of these guys are pretty decent — but only when they throw strikes. That’s the key. The only one who has good enough stuff to get away with walking a batter or two is Marmol (not that I want him to walk anybody either, but the rest of them absolutely have to throw strikes to succeed)
“I think a whole lot of problems could be solved if we could just throw more strikes”
which leads us back to our system, and the Hendry-factor.
It sucks because this was 100% predictable. Shoot, the organization even knew it; a reliever was the target all offseason we just couldnt find one we liked for the price. And when Guzman went down we lost the best arm we had, compounding the issue immensely. So while its early, we also have to remember this pen is fresh and rested following fantastic starts yet has still done exactly what so many were saying they would.
We have arms in the system, and we can treat the first month or so as extended spring training as we try out different callups – that is an option. But most of the pitchers in the system suffer from the problem the ones in the majors hold. And it will take someone having a pretty unlikely season to replace what we expected from Guzman where Guzman’s spot isnt even the only one the front office wanted to fill. Thats two solid, experienced relievers down from what they felt we needed in the first place.
Guzman’s got that average control too but at least his stuff is good enough to overcome a walk or two. Given his history we should have had a better backup plan. Well, in fairness, we do know they gave it a shot with Capps and Park. They also looked into Calero but something obviously scared them off. Capps was the guy I wanted because normally he’s got pretty good control and would have given us closer insurance at the same time in case Marmol imploded. I’d still rather have him than Frasor.
“Guzman’s got that average control too but at least his stuff is good enough to overcome a walk or two.”
Oh yeah, I hope it didnt come off as if I think he’s a God or anything. But yeah, he still represented the best arm we had – he had more then enough ability to get the outs he needed. Really sucks his career might be over at this point.
As far as the pen and why we didnt sign a pitcher – everything always indicated money :*( Money Ricketts now of course has allotted to spend on our needs after watching the first 6 games of the season. (which, hello, full lineup, full bench, full rotation… gee, wonder what he is talking about, Lol) Now I just hope waiting till now (when every option is gone) doesnt mean yet another in a long line of reactionary trades like the one you outline above.
The Cubs have needed to clean house for some time. Their manager is over-the-hill. Their pitching can be excellent but never consistent. Their hitting is average at best with getting on base.