really big trade

jimcat wrote:

> Neal Cotts P Traded to Chi Cubs
> (for Ps David Aardsma & Carlos Vasquez)
> heading to the white sox
> Yep really Big deal

Um, you do realize that every team makes several minor deals each off
season, don't you? There are large pieces and small pieces on every
team. why is it not okay to make a minor move that may solidify the bullpen?

DmL
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Michael Lanasa wrote:

>
> It's not a really big trade, but it might be a precursor for a really
> big trade. The Cubs don't need 3 lefties in the bullpen (Cotts, Eyre
> and Ohman), so this might be the first step in something bigger.
>

Cotts may also get a chance to start.

Venk
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

"Daniel M. Lichtenstein" <"Daniel M. Lichtenstein"> wrote in message
news:u6adnQc8KqBZdsDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> jimcat wrote:
>
>> Neal Cotts P Traded to Chi Cubs
>> (for Ps David Aardsma & Carlos Vasquez) heading to the white sox
>> Yep really Big deal
>
> Um, you do realize that every team makes several minor deals each off
> season, don't you? There are large pieces and small pieces on every team.
> why is it not okay to make a minor move that may solidify the bullpen?
>
> DmL

I guess it's because there are only 135 days until opening day and Boy, we
really have to know who is going to be on the team then right now!
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Frank Sereno wrote:

> Yeah, but Al says that idea is silly.
>

Well, silly or not, Hendry and Cotts seem to be indicating that
Cotts being in the rotation a possibility. To be honest, I think the
trade is silly -- two young pitchers with potential (admittedly with
flaws) for one iffy young lefty?

Venk
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

Venkatesh Natarajan wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Michael Lanasa wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not a really big trade, but it might be a precursor for a really
>> big trade. The Cubs don't need 3 lefties in the bullpen (Cotts, Eyre
>> and Ohman), so this might be the first step in something bigger.
>>
>
> Cotts may also get a chance to start.
>
> Venk

Yeah, but Al says that idea is silly.
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

Cuz in order for the CUBS To WIN they NEED MAJOR PLAYERS not liddle
minor players.

But of course most of the CUBBIE fans I have seen here think COtts is
a good idea.. and Dump Pierre who was above league averages for his
position as was Jacques Jones.. its get rid of the guys that are
playing good and take a chance on Kerry Wood again..

Yep, I see the CUBBIES going far with that kinda stuff

with the singing of derosa.. ya really think the Cubs are gona sign
Soriano? Not in his prime, they wont.

Jc

"Kasey Ignarski" <kaseyi DeleteThis @NcOoSmPcAaMst.net> wrote:

>
>"Daniel M. Lichtenstein" <"Daniel M. Lichtenstein"> wrote in message
>news:u6adnQc8KqBZdsDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> jimcat wrote:
>>
>>> Neal Cotts P Traded to Chi Cubs
>>> (for Ps David Aardsma & Carlos Vasquez) heading to the white sox
>>> Yep really Big deal
>>
>> Um, you do realize that every team makes several minor deals each off
>> season, don't you? There are large pieces and small pieces on every team.
>> why is it not okay to make a minor move that may solidify the bullpen?
>>
>> DmL
>
>I guess it's because there are only 135 days until opening day and Boy, we
>really have to know who is going to be on the team then right now!
>
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

"jimcat" <jc.TakeThisOut@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:amqsl2tt4nnb5icknt3dqd6d4i1dnk3dph@4ax.com...
> Cuz in order for the CUBS To WIN they NEED MAJOR PLAYERS not liddle
> minor players.
>
> But of course most of the CUBBIE fans I have seen here think COtts is
> a good idea.. and Dump Pierre who was above league averages for his
> position as was Jacques Jones.. its get rid of the guys that are
> playing good and take a chance on Kerry Wood again..
>
> Yep, I see the CUBBIES going far with that kinda stuff
>
> with the singing of derosa.. ya really think the Cubs are gona sign
> Soriano? Not in his prime, they wont.
>
> Jc
>
> "Kasey Ignarski" <kaseyi.TakeThisOut@NcOoSmPcAaMst.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Daniel M. Lichtenstein" <"Daniel M. Lichtenstein"> wrote in message
>>news:u6adnQc8KqBZdsDYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> jimcat wrote:
>>>
>>>> Neal Cotts P Traded to Chi Cubs
>>>> (for Ps David Aardsma & Carlos Vasquez) heading to the white sox
>>>> Yep really Big deal
>>>
>>> Um, you do realize that every team makes several minor deals each off
>>> season, don't you? There are large pieces and small pieces on every
>>> team.
>>> why is it not okay to make a minor move that may solidify the bullpen?
>>>
>>> DmL
>>
>>I guess it's because there are only 135 days until opening day and Boy, we
>>really have to know who is going to be on the team then right now!
>>

I agree with the basic premise that we shouldn't get rid of our players who
are "playing good" for risky players. The caveat is that we sometimes need
to get rid of a "good" player to get a better one, but I think we disagree
on who some of the good players are.

This is going to sound a little smart-alecky and similar to my post
regarding signing DeRosa and comparing him to Walker. My point is that we
just seem to be treading water and not getting better players than we
already had, and sometimes worse ones.

No. I don't want Corey back, BUT....look what he did with 463 AB compared to
Pierre's 699 AB. Only 12 less runs in 90 less times on base. A team stat, I
know. He also only stole 13 less bases and at an 83% success rate to Juan's
74%, which was a point higher than his career success rate of 73%. Corey is
at 80% and that includes those stupid pick-offs at first.
Corey's OPS was .018 below the AL league average, but Juan's was .080 lower
than the NL league average. OPS+ was 94 for Corey to 81 for Juan. No
comparison on arm strength. I sometimes think Juan needs one of those 4th
outfielders we had in Softball, but this one would be a relay man to the
infield.

Corey needed to get out of Chicago and that's been discussed, but did we
improve with Pierre?

We need guys who "clog the bases" With enough of those guys, and a hit works
too, those "cloggers" get pushed around the bases and score, which should be
the objective. I'm not sure Hendry really gets that. Dusty sure didn't.
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 Bubbamike_01.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:

>>
>> Well, silly or not, Hendry and Cotts seem to be indicating that
>> Cotts being in the rotation a possibility. To be honest, I think the
>> trade is silly -- two young pitchers with potential (admittedly with
>> flaws) for one iffy young lefty?
>>
>
> One iffy young lefty who had a tremendous 2005 and has potential.
>


So basically, we're giving up two potentials for one. And the
potential we're getting is the oldest of the bunch, with, other than 2005,
a record of poor performance in the majors.

Venk
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

In article <b3oul2t904qab5v8jv31n5gn2urh57qat0 DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
Bubbamike_01 DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:

> Every trade doesn't have to be a "really Big deal."
> Important trades don't have to appear to be "really Big deal."
> Who would have thought that getting Ryan Sandburg or Sammy Sosa would
> be really big deal?
>
>
>
> --
> BubbaRumDum

I agree with you about Sandberg, but I believe that Sosa was considered
a really big deal when the trade was made. My friends who followed the
Sox closely told me that Sosa was really good when the trade was made,
and the Cubs gave up a pretty good player to get him.

Boj
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

Venkatesh Natarajan wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 Bubbamike_01 RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Well, silly or not, Hendry and Cotts seem to be indicating that
>>> Cotts being in the rotation a possibility. To be honest, I think the
>>> trade is silly -- two young pitchers with potential (admittedly with
>>> flaws) for one iffy young lefty?
>>>
>>
>> One iffy young lefty who had a tremendous 2005 and has potential.
>>
>
>
> So basically, we're giving up two potentials for one. And the
> potential we're getting is the oldest of the bunch, with, other than
> 2005, a record of poor performance in the majors.
>
> Venk
>

Why is every trade looked at as though there are no surrounding issues?

Instead of looking at it as "two potentials for one", why not also look
at what this provides the Cubs.

I believe it is a safe statement to make that most people in the
business feel left-handed pitchers (with or without potential) are
scarce compared to right-handed pitchers (with or without potential).

The Cubs now have three decent to very good left-handed relief pitchers
not counting their left-handed starting pitchers.

This provides the Cubs trading flexibility when it comes to going after
voids that need to be filled.

IMO, keeping a right-handed pitcher with potential is not as important
as now having five decent left-handed pitchers (excluding O'Malley and
Rusch) to attract the attention of other GMs.

I just don't see why such a fuss is being made by this trade...There are
much more important issues ahead.

tks
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade 

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, tks wrote:

>
> Why is every trade looked at as though there are no surrounding issues?
>
> Instead of looking at it as "two potentials for one", why not also look at
> what this provides the Cubs.
>

Aardsma alone has more potential than Cotts. I'm not overly
concerned about Vasquez (he has his baggage), except that low-level guys
Hendry trades have this strange habit of being immediate contributors at
the major league level for their new team.

In fact, Hendry should evaluate his minor-leaguers by calling the
Marlins, ask what they want for Dontrelle Willis, then make sure never to
trade the players the Marlins want.

> The Cubs now have three decent to very good left-handed relief pitchers
> not counting their left-handed starting pitchers.
>

Now? I'm highly unconvinced that Cotts increases the count of
decent to very good left-handed relief pitchers the Cubs have.

> This provides the Cubs trading flexibility when it comes to going after
> voids that need to be filled.
>

Why couldn't Aardsma have been used for this purpose? Relievers
that throw 97 are always drooled over.

> I just don't see why such a fuss is being made by this trade...There are much
> more important issues ahead.
>

Until a major transaction occurs, why shouldn't we discuss the
minor ones?


Venk
 >> Stay informed about: really big trade