A non-story here in Chicago. No moves were made by the Bulls.
Did they need to make a move? Well, not just for the sake of making a move. It appeared to me (with the limited effort I put into looking at the market) there wasn't anything out there that would justify giving up something they already have.
I wouldn't have minded if they'd kicked the tires on a big man. Others seem to want to get a wing who can spread the floor. Seems to me that they've got those players on their team in Dunleavy, Butler, maybe Snell and McDermott. OTOH, they've got bigs, sure, but they're OLD or banged-up bigs. Nazr Mohammed is just taking up a spot on the bench mostly. Joakim and Pau are both playing too many minutes, Gibson is solid but not as impressive as he was last year in my view, and Mirotic is more of a stretch four, not really a power forward even if he has the size.
Maybe this team has been playing it right. Players like Dunleavy, Rose and Butler, and even Joakim have taken time off for illnesses and minor (or major, in Dunleavy's case) injuries. Even McDermott got time off, but that was not so great because he needed minutes and reps in game situations.
Maybe Pau or Joakim should think up some injuries that will keep them out for a little bit in this stretch run so that everyone is healthy and rested for the real season: the playoffs.
*****
Showing posts with label trades. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trades. Show all posts
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Trade deadline tomorrow for the NBA...
So here comes the trade deadline -- and the Bulls are NOT expected to be a player in any way, shape or form. Is there something that they can use? Well, there's always SOMETHING that a team can use, but the more pertinent question is, is any player available that makes sense for the Bulls?
That's a question I can't answer. I look at the bottom teams and I don't see much that would truly help the Bulls. Teams like the Pacers aren't going to give up pieces of their future because their 'future" (Paul George) will presumably be back next year and they don't want to have him return to a gutted team. Amare Stoudamire would have possibly made some sense; a scoring big who can give limited minutes (18-20 per game?) off the bench, but he made sense for Dallas and they didn't hesitate.
I suspect that this year's deadline (like many in the past) will come and go without notice here in Chi-town.
*****
That's a question I can't answer. I look at the bottom teams and I don't see much that would truly help the Bulls. Teams like the Pacers aren't going to give up pieces of their future because their 'future" (Paul George) will presumably be back next year and they don't want to have him return to a gutted team. Amare Stoudamire would have possibly made some sense; a scoring big who can give limited minutes (18-20 per game?) off the bench, but he made sense for Dallas and they didn't hesitate.
I suspect that this year's deadline (like many in the past) will come and go without notice here in Chi-town.
*****
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Busy Chicago Winter...
So a lot has been happening in Chitown sports. I don't have time to do much in-depth writing about anything in particular, so I'm just going to touch on the high points:
*****
- Bears go 5-11, fire Emery, Trestman, Kromer, and every other coach. They turn around and hire John Fox, fresh off a playoff appearance with the Broncos after being in the Super Bowl last year. Fox has hired good coordinators (a d- coordinator from the 49'ers who's supposed to be great, and the o- coordinator from Denver who seems pretty good too) and a bunch of decent position coaches. Chicagoans are giddy about having a REAL head coach who knows how to run an NFL franchise. Oh, and they hired a young fresh GM named Ryan Pace, who seems to not be threatened by making strong hires like Fox.
- Cubs already had announced Joe Maddon as their field manager, and then they turned around and grabbed Jon Lester, the top free agent pitcher. They made a few other signings as well, including Jason Hamel (who was traded with Samarzidja for the A's top prospects last summer) and a catcher (name escapes me) from the D-backs. Then they traded for Dexter Fowler, a high OBP guy from Houston and a switch-hitting CF.
- The White Sox made headlines by trading for Samarzidja, getting him from the A's for a package of prospects. They also signed Adam LaRoche and a closer named Robertson. They should get significantly better next year.
- The Bulls were doing great but seem to have hit a wall, with injuries slowing Noah and Mike Dunleavy, and with Jimmy Butler coming back down to Earth after a pretty incredible start to the season. Taj, Derek and Hinrich have also missed a few games (as has Butler) due to injuries and illness. The best thing has been Pau Gasol, who has been absolutely outstanding at the PF for the Bulls.
- The Black Hawks look a little inconsistent, but they're coming off their All Star break, and they should look better into the second part of the season. Their rookie, Tavo Taravinin (I know I butchered that spelling) has received some valuable experience, as has rookie goalie Scott Darling. Kane and Toews are doing great, and Sharp is back from an injury. Versteeg is out currently, but should be back sometimes soon.
- Ernie Banks died at age 83. Was there a better person to represent Chicago baseball, indeed, Chicago sports? Incredible player, and as nice a guy as you'd want to meet, by all accounts. He's one of the players I never had a chance to get an autograph. He was never down in Arizona for spring training. (I got Billy Williams, Fergie Jenkins and Ron Santo down in Mesa, and got guys like Hundley, Beckert, Kessinger, and many others at my one and only Cubs Convention.)
*****
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Not that strange...
So NBA free agency signings are winding down, and LeBron James' decision to leave the Heat for his hometown Cavaliers changed the balance of power in the East. Suddenly the Heat are an aging Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh and Luol Deng. Not bad, but not the superteam that they were with LeBron and Wade near his prime.
My Bulls made an important signing, though not exactly where they probably needed one. With a dearth of impact free agents at the 2 and 3, they instead signed Pau Gasol, an aging big man who can score with his back to the basket. Will he be what Derrick Rose needs (assuming Rose can stay on the court after two years of injuries)? Maybe. Boozer is gone, but Gibson remains. And so does Dunleavy and Butler and Hinrich and most importantly, Noah. Added to the team are draft pick Doug McDermott and Euro star Nikola Mirotic. Is that enough to surpass the Heat and (now) the Cavs and the Pacers? Maybe. Just maybe.
So now the big talk all over is a potential trade. It seems that the Cavaliers are really pushing to get Kevin Love from the T-wolves. They've offered their number one pick, top overall selection Andrew Wiggins (no, not the kid from Ender's Game, this is Mitchell Wiggins' son) and other assets in an attempt to acquire the all-star power forward. And the Bulls are in the hunt as well. According to at least one report, they've offered Taj Gibson, Nikola Mirotic and Doug McDermott for Love.
I'm torn. Is it too much? Does it decimate their depth in order to get a superstar at a position where they're not all that weak? Is Love plus Gasol that much greater than Gasol plus Gibson? Is it enough better to absorb the loss of Mirotic's and McDermott's potential scoring? On paper I'd say no. I'd say that if they were going to move that many assets, they should instead go for an impact shooting guard or an impact small forward. Are there any of those such players available? Or is it Love or nothing?
On the other hand, Mirotic and McDermott are, at this point in time, nothing more than "potential". Let's put it a different way. If they had, two months ago, dealt Gibson, their 16th and 19th picks in the draft, and the rights to Mirotic for Love, would I have applauded the deal? (This before the Gasol signing...) I think I would have been cool with that deal. I was nervous about including Butler in the deal but that was because I knew what Butler brought to the table in a more concrete sense. But this is basically the exact same deal as that one.
In the end, does it make the Bulls a better team? I'm not sure it does. Unless I'm sure, I don't think I'd get behind such a deal. Love's a good player, but I've heard it pointed out that he got those boards and points on a bad team with very few options for scoring and rebounding. On the Bulls, where Noah is the rebounder and Rose will also score, does he really have the impact? Or is the hard-working Gibson just as valuable to this team?
If there's a deal out there for a SF or a SG, I'd rethink the deal. Otherwise, for now - no deal.
*****
My Bulls made an important signing, though not exactly where they probably needed one. With a dearth of impact free agents at the 2 and 3, they instead signed Pau Gasol, an aging big man who can score with his back to the basket. Will he be what Derrick Rose needs (assuming Rose can stay on the court after two years of injuries)? Maybe. Boozer is gone, but Gibson remains. And so does Dunleavy and Butler and Hinrich and most importantly, Noah. Added to the team are draft pick Doug McDermott and Euro star Nikola Mirotic. Is that enough to surpass the Heat and (now) the Cavs and the Pacers? Maybe. Just maybe.
So now the big talk all over is a potential trade. It seems that the Cavaliers are really pushing to get Kevin Love from the T-wolves. They've offered their number one pick, top overall selection Andrew Wiggins (no, not the kid from Ender's Game, this is Mitchell Wiggins' son) and other assets in an attempt to acquire the all-star power forward. And the Bulls are in the hunt as well. According to at least one report, they've offered Taj Gibson, Nikola Mirotic and Doug McDermott for Love.
I'm torn. Is it too much? Does it decimate their depth in order to get a superstar at a position where they're not all that weak? Is Love plus Gasol that much greater than Gasol plus Gibson? Is it enough better to absorb the loss of Mirotic's and McDermott's potential scoring? On paper I'd say no. I'd say that if they were going to move that many assets, they should instead go for an impact shooting guard or an impact small forward. Are there any of those such players available? Or is it Love or nothing?
On the other hand, Mirotic and McDermott are, at this point in time, nothing more than "potential". Let's put it a different way. If they had, two months ago, dealt Gibson, their 16th and 19th picks in the draft, and the rights to Mirotic for Love, would I have applauded the deal? (This before the Gasol signing...) I think I would have been cool with that deal. I was nervous about including Butler in the deal but that was because I knew what Butler brought to the table in a more concrete sense. But this is basically the exact same deal as that one.
In the end, does it make the Bulls a better team? I'm not sure it does. Unless I'm sure, I don't think I'd get behind such a deal. Love's a good player, but I've heard it pointed out that he got those boards and points on a bad team with very few options for scoring and rebounding. On the Bulls, where Noah is the rebounder and Rose will also score, does he really have the impact? Or is the hard-working Gibson just as valuable to this team?
If there's a deal out there for a SF or a SG, I'd rethink the deal. Otherwise, for now - no deal.
*****
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Carmelo as a Bull - Good idea?
Okay, I know...this is probably off the table now that Phil Jackson has agreed to run the Knicks as their president and has endorsed the idea of committing to Carmelo Anthony. Phil knows how to win, and he knows how to work with star players. He's got 11 rings as a coach, and 2 as a player. If I had to bet money on the outcome, I'd bet that Anthony will stay with the Knicks, where he can earn the most money in the biggest market, and take a chance on Phil turning things around for that franchise.
But what if Phil is blowing smoke? What if when Phil says that he believes that Carmelo can help the team, he means that Carmelo can help the team by being dealt in a sign-and-trade? And who has what it would take to make that sort of a deal? Who has assets that might just help the Knicks rebuild this year and in the future? Or what if Carmelo looks at the picture in the short term and says, "There is no way we're going to compete next year...and probably not the year after either. Not with as bad as the Knicks look and as capped out as they are."
What if either one of those things is the real truth? I submit that the Bulls are one of, and maybe the only team that makes sense to make a move for Anthony, from both the Bulls' and Knicks' points of view.
For the Bulls, is Anthony a fit? I don't know...but I do know that this Bulls team as it is currently constituted is not going to win an NBA championship. So let's say they amnesty Boozer and they have the cap room for a really good player (which should be the case). Who is that player? After Anthony, who is the next best free agent? Well, it looks to me like it is probably...wait for it...
Luol Deng!
Here's one list of free agents for 2014: Sports Illustrated List
Notice that most of the free agents above #10 (Deng's position) are centers and power forwards. Also note that many of them (Lebron, Bosh, Wade, Duncan, Nowitski, Kobe, and even Anthony) are likely to resign with their own teams. Pao Gasol and Zach Randolph make some sense for the Bulls (especially Randolph, if they do indeed amnesty Boozer) but their real need is for a scorer at either shooting guard or small forward. Anthony is the only one on that list before Deng who fits that role, and might possibly be available in a sign-and-trade.
Does Anthony make the Bulls a championship contender? I think he does. But if he doesn't, so what? No one else, either free agent or draft pick (outside of maybe Parker or Wiggins or a couple of others who will be long gone when the Bulls draft) makes the Bulls a contender. Anthony provides what the Bulls need - scoring. With Derrick Rose (even if he isn't as good as he used to be), and a supporting cast including Noah and Gibson, and whatever is left that the Bulls don't trade to the Knicks to get Anthony, it's a Bulls team that can go deeper in the playoffs. They have their secret weapon as well - coach Thibodeaux. (I'm probably spelling that wrong.)
So why would it make sense for the Knicks? The biggest asset they'd get in the deal would be Boozer and his 16 million dollar expiring contract. Assuming Anthony's max deal with the Knicks is 130 million over 5 years (a figure I heard on the radio this morning, but I'd previously heard 23 million a year over 6 years), that means the Bulls have to match 26 million a year. Boozer accounts for 16 million of that amount. 10 million to go.
What would the Knicks want? I'd think they want a young player. Butler, probably. Butler's valuable to the Bulls but not indispensable, and Anthony is going to be the starting "3". I don't know what he makes but it can't be too much. So what else goes east? Could they sign-and-trade Hinrich to a team-friendly deal that would make him very attractive to the Knicks, who could use veteran leadership at the point? Or could they decide that Jimmer Fredette is their three-point shooter and deal Mike Dunleavy? I think his contract is about 5 million a year. Let's just guess-timate that Butler is around 3 million. That brings us to 24 million. Two to go. I'm positive that they'd want the Bulls' pick. I'd rather trade both Bulls' first rounders (2014 and 2015) if that's possible. I know there's a league rule about dealing successive first round picks, but I don't know if it applies when you also have other teams' first round picks. If it does, then keep the 2015 pick and send them the pick they got for Deng (the Kings' pick, I believe, protected this year but not next?). I think all the Bulls have to do is find another million dollars in salary to deal. I'm sure it could be done. That's if the Bulls have to match 26 million. If it's 23 million, it's a little easier.
The key is Boozer. Does he work for the Knicks, who will also have Stoudamire under contract? I think it does. First, Boozer is expiring after next season. Second, Boozer is a good player (if not a great player, and if not worth the big contract the Bulls gave him), and Stoudamire can swing between center and power forward. Butler replaces Anthony, and Hinrich gives them veteran leadership for a couple of years. Or Dunleavy gives them a year of a solid small forward and three point shooter. And they get some young players with not-too-low draft picks. Would that work for someone like Phil Jackson and the Knicks?
So is this likely? I doubt it. Like I said earlier, I'd bet that Anthony will stay in New York and the Bulls will have to find somewhere else to spend the money. Maybe they don't amnesty Boozer, maybe they bring Mirotic over and draft a couple of more pieces and see what they have in Rose. Maybe they make a run at Paul Pierce or something like that. There are options.
But none of those options lead to a Bulls championship next year, in my opinion. The only scenario where I see a championship in the picture is one where they get Carmelo Anthony.
*****
You can find my short story NIGHT FAMILY on Amazon!
You can also find another of my short stories DEAD OR ALIVE on Amazon!
*****
But what if Phil is blowing smoke? What if when Phil says that he believes that Carmelo can help the team, he means that Carmelo can help the team by being dealt in a sign-and-trade? And who has what it would take to make that sort of a deal? Who has assets that might just help the Knicks rebuild this year and in the future? Or what if Carmelo looks at the picture in the short term and says, "There is no way we're going to compete next year...and probably not the year after either. Not with as bad as the Knicks look and as capped out as they are."
What if either one of those things is the real truth? I submit that the Bulls are one of, and maybe the only team that makes sense to make a move for Anthony, from both the Bulls' and Knicks' points of view.
For the Bulls, is Anthony a fit? I don't know...but I do know that this Bulls team as it is currently constituted is not going to win an NBA championship. So let's say they amnesty Boozer and they have the cap room for a really good player (which should be the case). Who is that player? After Anthony, who is the next best free agent? Well, it looks to me like it is probably...wait for it...
Luol Deng!
Here's one list of free agents for 2014: Sports Illustrated List
Notice that most of the free agents above #10 (Deng's position) are centers and power forwards. Also note that many of them (Lebron, Bosh, Wade, Duncan, Nowitski, Kobe, and even Anthony) are likely to resign with their own teams. Pao Gasol and Zach Randolph make some sense for the Bulls (especially Randolph, if they do indeed amnesty Boozer) but their real need is for a scorer at either shooting guard or small forward. Anthony is the only one on that list before Deng who fits that role, and might possibly be available in a sign-and-trade.
Does Anthony make the Bulls a championship contender? I think he does. But if he doesn't, so what? No one else, either free agent or draft pick (outside of maybe Parker or Wiggins or a couple of others who will be long gone when the Bulls draft) makes the Bulls a contender. Anthony provides what the Bulls need - scoring. With Derrick Rose (even if he isn't as good as he used to be), and a supporting cast including Noah and Gibson, and whatever is left that the Bulls don't trade to the Knicks to get Anthony, it's a Bulls team that can go deeper in the playoffs. They have their secret weapon as well - coach Thibodeaux. (I'm probably spelling that wrong.)
So why would it make sense for the Knicks? The biggest asset they'd get in the deal would be Boozer and his 16 million dollar expiring contract. Assuming Anthony's max deal with the Knicks is 130 million over 5 years (a figure I heard on the radio this morning, but I'd previously heard 23 million a year over 6 years), that means the Bulls have to match 26 million a year. Boozer accounts for 16 million of that amount. 10 million to go.
What would the Knicks want? I'd think they want a young player. Butler, probably. Butler's valuable to the Bulls but not indispensable, and Anthony is going to be the starting "3". I don't know what he makes but it can't be too much. So what else goes east? Could they sign-and-trade Hinrich to a team-friendly deal that would make him very attractive to the Knicks, who could use veteran leadership at the point? Or could they decide that Jimmer Fredette is their three-point shooter and deal Mike Dunleavy? I think his contract is about 5 million a year. Let's just guess-timate that Butler is around 3 million. That brings us to 24 million. Two to go. I'm positive that they'd want the Bulls' pick. I'd rather trade both Bulls' first rounders (2014 and 2015) if that's possible. I know there's a league rule about dealing successive first round picks, but I don't know if it applies when you also have other teams' first round picks. If it does, then keep the 2015 pick and send them the pick they got for Deng (the Kings' pick, I believe, protected this year but not next?). I think all the Bulls have to do is find another million dollars in salary to deal. I'm sure it could be done. That's if the Bulls have to match 26 million. If it's 23 million, it's a little easier.
The key is Boozer. Does he work for the Knicks, who will also have Stoudamire under contract? I think it does. First, Boozer is expiring after next season. Second, Boozer is a good player (if not a great player, and if not worth the big contract the Bulls gave him), and Stoudamire can swing between center and power forward. Butler replaces Anthony, and Hinrich gives them veteran leadership for a couple of years. Or Dunleavy gives them a year of a solid small forward and three point shooter. And they get some young players with not-too-low draft picks. Would that work for someone like Phil Jackson and the Knicks?
So is this likely? I doubt it. Like I said earlier, I'd bet that Anthony will stay in New York and the Bulls will have to find somewhere else to spend the money. Maybe they don't amnesty Boozer, maybe they bring Mirotic over and draft a couple of more pieces and see what they have in Rose. Maybe they make a run at Paul Pierce or something like that. There are options.
But none of those options lead to a Bulls championship next year, in my opinion. The only scenario where I see a championship in the picture is one where they get Carmelo Anthony.
*****
You can find my short story NIGHT FAMILY on Amazon!
You can also find another of my short stories DEAD OR ALIVE on Amazon!
*****
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Baseball Trading Deadline...
So here we are at the All Star Break, and both the Cubs and White Sox are about 14 games out, thought the Cubs have the better record.
Both teams are sellers as we approach the deadline for non-waiver deals. Both teams have a few chips. The Sox have Alex Rios and Jake Peavy, both of who they would love to more. The Cubs have Matt Garza, who may be the best available pitcher in baseball, if not for the fact that he is a free agent at the end of the year.
Others could go as well. I've read that the Sox wouldn't mind moving Alexi Ramirez and of course they'd let Adam Dunn go at the drop of a hat, if there was a taker. They've already moved lefty reliever Matt Thornton to the BoSox. The Cubs have already moved Scott Feldman, and I would guess they would consider trading Edwin Jackson for the right amount of prospects. Likewise with David DeJesus, Kevin Gregg, and Nate Schuerholz, if the deals make sense. Like Dunn, the Cubs also would move Soriano provided they don't have to eat every last bite of his contract, and Carlos Marmol.
Here's how I feel about trade deadline deals. There are a couple of reasons to make trades. First, you want salary relief. (See Alfonso Soriano.) Second, you have a young player coming up the ladder who you want to make playing time for. Third, you can get players who likely can help you in the future.
As a Cubs fan, I've seen too many of the "salary dump" types of deals where the players coming back are little more than minor league roster filler, no matter how management tried to spin them. That was a different management team. This year it's different. It seems perhaps the Cubs have people in place who can actually evaluate talent.
Still, I wouldn't trade a guy like Kevin Gregg for nothing. Cash in on him, yes. He's been really good as closer since being signed off the major league scrap heap, and if someone wants to give the team one of those players who can help you in the future, not just minor league filler but a true prospect, by all means deal him. But to trade him for this year's version of Micah Bowie, I don't think I'd do it. First, he doesn't cost much. Second, there is no young player pushing for innings in the closer role. Third, he is helping the team win a few games.
See, I feel these two teams still have an obligation to their fans to try to put a major league quality product on the field. This obligation will continue unless they slash ticket prices to minor league levels or something not much more than that. If someone tells me that they are "building for the future but sacrificing the present", I will tell them that I don't feel I should pay premium prices for an admittedly inferior product, especially one that is inferior by design. I'm all for getting better, but I still don't have to spend my money on bad baseball.
Right now Kevin Gregg makes the Cubs a little better. If they can get a real prospect for him go for it. But don't deal him just to be trading him, and have some B-level prospect come back to the organization in return. I feel the same way about Schuerholz, Scott Hairston and others. They are major leaguers and I'd like to see them stay around.
Unless they bring back real prospects in return, as we all expect Matt Garza to do. Maybe not that quality of prospect, but still - guys with a major league future.
Let's see what happens now...
*****
Both teams are sellers as we approach the deadline for non-waiver deals. Both teams have a few chips. The Sox have Alex Rios and Jake Peavy, both of who they would love to more. The Cubs have Matt Garza, who may be the best available pitcher in baseball, if not for the fact that he is a free agent at the end of the year.
Others could go as well. I've read that the Sox wouldn't mind moving Alexi Ramirez and of course they'd let Adam Dunn go at the drop of a hat, if there was a taker. They've already moved lefty reliever Matt Thornton to the BoSox. The Cubs have already moved Scott Feldman, and I would guess they would consider trading Edwin Jackson for the right amount of prospects. Likewise with David DeJesus, Kevin Gregg, and Nate Schuerholz, if the deals make sense. Like Dunn, the Cubs also would move Soriano provided they don't have to eat every last bite of his contract, and Carlos Marmol.
Here's how I feel about trade deadline deals. There are a couple of reasons to make trades. First, you want salary relief. (See Alfonso Soriano.) Second, you have a young player coming up the ladder who you want to make playing time for. Third, you can get players who likely can help you in the future.
As a Cubs fan, I've seen too many of the "salary dump" types of deals where the players coming back are little more than minor league roster filler, no matter how management tried to spin them. That was a different management team. This year it's different. It seems perhaps the Cubs have people in place who can actually evaluate talent.
Still, I wouldn't trade a guy like Kevin Gregg for nothing. Cash in on him, yes. He's been really good as closer since being signed off the major league scrap heap, and if someone wants to give the team one of those players who can help you in the future, not just minor league filler but a true prospect, by all means deal him. But to trade him for this year's version of Micah Bowie, I don't think I'd do it. First, he doesn't cost much. Second, there is no young player pushing for innings in the closer role. Third, he is helping the team win a few games.
See, I feel these two teams still have an obligation to their fans to try to put a major league quality product on the field. This obligation will continue unless they slash ticket prices to minor league levels or something not much more than that. If someone tells me that they are "building for the future but sacrificing the present", I will tell them that I don't feel I should pay premium prices for an admittedly inferior product, especially one that is inferior by design. I'm all for getting better, but I still don't have to spend my money on bad baseball.
Right now Kevin Gregg makes the Cubs a little better. If they can get a real prospect for him go for it. But don't deal him just to be trading him, and have some B-level prospect come back to the organization in return. I feel the same way about Schuerholz, Scott Hairston and others. They are major leaguers and I'd like to see them stay around.
Unless they bring back real prospects in return, as we all expect Matt Garza to do. Maybe not that quality of prospect, but still - guys with a major league future.
Let's see what happens now...
*****
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Cubs trade for Garza
The Cubs dealt 5 minor league prospects to the Tampa Bay Rays for pitcher Matt Garza, who went 15 and 10 last year with an ERA just under 4. He did not finish strong. I dont' have the exact numbers, but I think he was something like 2-5 with an ERA of over 5 to end the year.
Garza is a good pitcher; he will slot somewhere in that top 3 for the Cubs. The Cubs now have a pretty solid rotation with Zambrano, Garza, Dempster, Wells, and Cashner or one of the other rookies.
Is it a good move for the Cubs? I have mixed feelings. I think they are a solid enough team to compete in the NL Central for the top spot. I think they could possibly go to the playoffs with this team. But I don't know that they didn't give up far too much for Garza.
Chris Archer is/was a pitcher with a high ceiling. He could have developed into a major league pitcher as early as this season, though more likely 2012, which is apparently when the Rays expect him to arrive on the scene. Lee, the Korean shortstop, is also projected to be a major league middle infielder, with the range, speed and defensive ability to play short and play it wall. (His offense is a question.) With Castro at short, though, it seems the Cubs are set. They also have plenty of middle infield prospects, though perhaps none with as high a ceiling as him.
Brandon Guyer is a highly thought of outfielder. Of course the Cubs have Colvin in right, Byrd in CF with number 1 pick Brett Jackson coming up fast behind him, and Soriano entrenched in left for too many more years. So perhaps he was expendable, but I'd have liked to have him around for insurance in case Colvin doesn't pan out.
Chirinos, the catching prospect, had at least one other prospect (Wellington Castillo) between him and the majors, and so you don't mind his loss so much. Likewise with Sam Fuld. Fuld was a guy whose time in Chicago was past. No, the guy that I think they might live to regret losing is Archer.
Of course, all prospects are crap shoots. So I suppose you should take the chance on acquiring major league talent when it comes around.
As far as Garza, I've heard several people say that since he pitched in the AL East, he is going to a weaker league and division. But as a poster on the AOL Cubs board pointed out, he is going from a pitcher's park to a hitter's park, and he is going from a team with perhaps the best defense in baseball behind him to a team with a much more questionable defense. And yes, he did have to face the Yankees and Red Sox in his division, but the offenses in the NL Central are not terrible. The Reds and Brewers are both pretty potent and the Cardinals have the potential to be, also. Garza is also a fly ball pitcher coming to a park where some of those fly balls are going to end up in the seats.
Well, as a Cubs fan I have to hope for the best as far as results go. Garza does strengthen this team in the short run. He makes them more solid going into next season. Beyond that, we'll see if the organization regrets losing Guyer, Lee and especially Archer.
*****
Garza is a good pitcher; he will slot somewhere in that top 3 for the Cubs. The Cubs now have a pretty solid rotation with Zambrano, Garza, Dempster, Wells, and Cashner or one of the other rookies.
Is it a good move for the Cubs? I have mixed feelings. I think they are a solid enough team to compete in the NL Central for the top spot. I think they could possibly go to the playoffs with this team. But I don't know that they didn't give up far too much for Garza.
Chris Archer is/was a pitcher with a high ceiling. He could have developed into a major league pitcher as early as this season, though more likely 2012, which is apparently when the Rays expect him to arrive on the scene. Lee, the Korean shortstop, is also projected to be a major league middle infielder, with the range, speed and defensive ability to play short and play it wall. (His offense is a question.) With Castro at short, though, it seems the Cubs are set. They also have plenty of middle infield prospects, though perhaps none with as high a ceiling as him.
Brandon Guyer is a highly thought of outfielder. Of course the Cubs have Colvin in right, Byrd in CF with number 1 pick Brett Jackson coming up fast behind him, and Soriano entrenched in left for too many more years. So perhaps he was expendable, but I'd have liked to have him around for insurance in case Colvin doesn't pan out.
Chirinos, the catching prospect, had at least one other prospect (Wellington Castillo) between him and the majors, and so you don't mind his loss so much. Likewise with Sam Fuld. Fuld was a guy whose time in Chicago was past. No, the guy that I think they might live to regret losing is Archer.
Of course, all prospects are crap shoots. So I suppose you should take the chance on acquiring major league talent when it comes around.
As far as Garza, I've heard several people say that since he pitched in the AL East, he is going to a weaker league and division. But as a poster on the AOL Cubs board pointed out, he is going from a pitcher's park to a hitter's park, and he is going from a team with perhaps the best defense in baseball behind him to a team with a much more questionable defense. And yes, he did have to face the Yankees and Red Sox in his division, but the offenses in the NL Central are not terrible. The Reds and Brewers are both pretty potent and the Cardinals have the potential to be, also. Garza is also a fly ball pitcher coming to a park where some of those fly balls are going to end up in the seats.
Well, as a Cubs fan I have to hope for the best as far as results go. Garza does strengthen this team in the short run. He makes them more solid going into next season. Beyond that, we'll see if the organization regrets losing Guyer, Lee and especially Archer.
*****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
