Z to the Pen

[Butcher]

Incredible.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=96695:date=May 18 2010, 09:34 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ May 18 2010, 09:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=96691:date=May 18 2010, 10:27 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 18 2010, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I doubt that we'll be sellers at the deadline, especially in this pathetic division. I also can't imagine dealing Z while his value is the lowest of his career. Now, if he goes back to the rotation and pitches well, maybe finishes the season strong, then it's possible we try to convince him to waive his no trade clause while his value is up a bit in the offseason, but it's hard to imagine such a move during the season. <b>I doubt that is how Ricketts wants to begin his legacy.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Trading a declining head case for salary relief would benefit the Rickett's legacy. Holding on to him until its too late would be the typical Cub way. So more of the same is what you're preaching?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I would say right now is "too late". He has to rebuild value.

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=96698:date=May 18 2010, 10:37 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 18 2010, 10:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=96695:date=May 18 2010, 09:34 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ May 18 2010, 09:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=96691:date=May 18 2010, 10:27 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 18 2010, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I doubt that we'll be sellers at the deadline, especially in this pathetic division. I also can't imagine dealing Z while his value is the lowest of his career. Now, if he goes back to the rotation and pitches well, maybe finishes the season strong, then it's possible we try to convince him to waive his no trade clause while his value is up a bit in the offseason, but it's hard to imagine such a move during the season. <b>I doubt that is how Ricketts wants to begin his legacy.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Trading a declining head case for salary relief would benefit the Rickett's legacy. Holding on to him until its too late would be the typical Cub way. So more of the same is what you're preaching?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I would say right now is "too late". He has to rebuild value.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much, which is why I advocated trading him prior to the season and blowing up this embarassment of a team at that time.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=96698:date=May 18 2010, 09:37 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 18 2010, 09:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=96695:date=May 18 2010, 09:34 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ May 18 2010, 09:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=96691:date=May 18 2010, 10:27 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 18 2010, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I doubt that we'll be sellers at the deadline, especially in this pathetic division. I also can't imagine dealing Z while his value is the lowest of his career. Now, if he goes back to the rotation and pitches well, maybe finishes the season strong, then it's possible we try to convince him to waive his no trade clause while his value is up a bit in the offseason, but it's hard to imagine such a move during the season. <b>I doubt that is how Ricketts wants to begin his legacy.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Trading a declining head case for salary relief would benefit the Rickett's legacy. Holding on to him until its too late would be the typical Cub way. So more of the same is what you're preaching?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I would say right now is "too late". He has to rebuild value.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. Right now we'd get almost zero salary relief and zero value in return. You have to be patient and see if he can return to form, and even if he doesn't completely, trading him is still a risky bet. Would you want to be the new owner that sold low on your team's ace and have it blow up in your face? It isn't as easy a decision as some of you guys make it seem.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=96701:date=May 18 2010, 09:40 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ May 18 2010, 09:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=96698:date=May 18 2010, 10:37 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 18 2010, 10:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=96695:date=May 18 2010, 09:34 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ May 18 2010, 09:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=96691:date=May 18 2010, 10:27 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 18 2010, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I doubt that we'll be sellers at the deadline, especially in this pathetic division. I also can't imagine dealing Z while his value is the lowest of his career. Now, if he goes back to the rotation and pitches well, maybe finishes the season strong, then it's possible we try to convince him to waive his no trade clause while his value is up a bit in the offseason, but it's hard to imagine such a move during the season. <b>I doubt that is how Ricketts wants to begin his legacy.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Trading a declining head case for salary relief would benefit the Rickett's legacy. Holding on to him until its too late would be the typical Cub way. So more of the same is what you're preaching?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I would say right now is "too late". He has to rebuild value.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much, which is why I advocated trading him prior to the season and blowing up this embarassment of a team at that time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You may have suggested it, but that had about as much chance of happening as me growing curly red afro.

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=96702:date=May 18 2010, 10:41 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ May 18 2010, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=96698:date=May 18 2010, 09:37 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 18 2010, 09:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=96695:date=May 18 2010, 09:34 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ May 18 2010, 09:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=96691:date=May 18 2010, 10:27 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 18 2010, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I doubt that we'll be sellers at the deadline, especially in this pathetic division. I also can't imagine dealing Z while his value is the lowest of his career. Now, if he goes back to the rotation and pitches well, maybe finishes the season strong, then it's possible we try to convince him to waive his no trade clause while his value is up a bit in the offseason, but it's hard to imagine such a move during the season. <b>I doubt that is how Ricketts wants to begin his legacy.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Trading a declining head case for salary relief would benefit the Rickett's legacy. Holding on to him until its too late would be the typical Cub way. So more of the same is what you're preaching?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I would say right now is "too late". He has to rebuild value.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. Right now we'd get almost zero salary relief and zero value in return. You have to be patient and see if he can return to form, and even if he doesn't completely, trading him is still a risky bet. Would you want to be the new owner that sold low on your team's ace and have it blow up in your face? It isn't as easy a decision as some of you guys make it seem.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think its a pretty easy decision. Z is getting paid #1 money, while not being even close to that. If you can find someone to take it off your hands you do it. And I think there may be a team or two willing to do it at the deadline. Z has great stuff and that excited GMs and scouts. He's the type of guy teams will take a chance on.

[Kid]

Nobody is taking Zambrano's contract with 3 years & $55 million left on it, and we absolutely should not trade him if it requires us to eat any portion of the salary. That doesn't take into account the fact that he has a full no-trade.

Coldneck always think you just cut and trade everybody and has no concept of reality.

[rok]

Anytime you have to potentially pay 50% of someone's giant multi-year salary and expect to sell low at the same time in terms of return, it is never an easy decision IMO.

[1060Ivy]

Would have liked to see Z used as a 2 - 3 inning reliever, two to three times a week, since they moved him into the bullpen. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case.

Maybe now that he is a "long reliever" will see this approach.

The Cubs haven't won so the Z bullpen experiment has been a failure. Other than Friday's Cubs loss and a win against the National, I can't identify another game in which Z affected the outcome from the bullpen.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=96709:date=May 18 2010, 09:49 AM:name=1060Ivy)-->QUOTE (1060Ivy @ May 18 2010, 09:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The Cubs haven't won so the Z bullpen experiment has been a failure. Other than Friday's Cubs loss and a win against the National, I can't identify another game in which Z affected the outcome from the bullpen.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's true, but I'd also add that we haven't lost any games because our starter sucked. Gorz had a bad start, but the Cubs were leading when he left the game (and, ironically, Zambrano blew up) and a bad start or 2 by Wells and Lilly (who were really never options to leave the rotation), but for the most part, our starters, without Z, have not been a problem.

[ColoradoCub]

I'm starting to think that Z IS hurt. His velocity is down, he hasn't pitched well all season, he's spent nearly a month in the pen and has pitched all of 8.2 innings, and he wasn't used last night in an extra innings game even though he hasn't pitched in 3 days... something's fishy.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=96716:date=May 18 2010, 10:27 AM:name=ColoradoCub)-->QUOTE (ColoradoCub @ May 18 2010, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm starting to think that Z IS hurt. His velocity is down, he hasn't pitched well all season, he's spent nearly a month in the pen and has pitched all of 8.2 innings, and he wasn't used last night in an extra innings game even though he hasn't pitched in 3 days... something's fishy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've wondered that myself, but if he was hurt, why put him in the pen for a month and only bring him in during high pressure situations? Maybe he hurt himself recently, but that would also be hard to keep from the media unless he did something dumb off the field that we weren't told about.

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=96707:date=May 18 2010, 10:49 AM:name=Kid)-->QUOTE (Kid @ May 18 2010, 10:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Nobody is taking Zambrano's contract with 3 years & $55 million left on it, and we absolutely should not trade him if it requires us to eat any portion of the salary. That doesn't take into account the fact that he has a full no-trade.

Coldneck always think you just cut and trade everybody and has no concept of reality.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last year I made the same argument as Kid, that nobody would take Zambrano off our hands at his salary. Everyone told me I was crazy and said that many teams would take him and that JH would be stupid to give him away for nothing. Can someone find that thread? Now, everyone is arguing the exact opposite. I think I'm living in bizarro world.

[Coldneck]

Found it. I was actually arguing we should place Z on waivers and give him away to whomever would take his salary. I didn't think anyone would. Everyone else argued that many teams would claim him and we'd be stupid to give him away for nothing.

http://www.thecubsbrickyard.com/sonsofivy/...=2113&st=60

Kid said this:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->If he signed a new contract this offseason, he might not get 4/72, but I think he very well might. That doesn't mean that a team, or numerous teams, wouldn't take on his contract with that left on it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Has a month and a half really destroyed his value? And were you guys wrong last year that we shouldn't have just given him away.

[ruby23]

<!--quoteo(post=96726:date=May 18 2010, 11:45 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ May 18 2010, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Found it. I was actually arguing we should place Z on waivers and give him away to whomever would take his salary. I didn't think anyone would. Everyone else argued that many teams would claim him and we'd be stupid to give him away for nothing.

http://www.thecubsbrickyard.com/sonsofivy/...=2113&st=60

Kid said this:

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->If he signed a new contract this offseason, he might not get 4/72, but I think he very well might. That doesn't mean that a team, or numerous teams, wouldn't take on his contract with that left on it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Has a month and a half really destroyed his value? And were you guys wrong last year that we shouldn't have just given him away.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're trying to use that and fit it into this discussion? Really? You're giving KB a run for his money.