OK, I'll admit it. I'm spoiled.
After years of seeing Cubs ownership pocket the profits while the play on the field suffered, it was refreshing to see the Cubs actually go out and spend money on free agents and become an instant contender. Sure, it was mainly done to drive up the price of the team, but it was nice to finally see the Cubs act like a large market team.
Now I'm concerned that we are heading back towards the old way of doing things. I'm not talking about the Cubs apparent unwillingness to go out and sign Prince Fielder to a 10 year $240 million contract. I actually think that's probably in the Cubs best interest, in the long run.
What concerns me is the Cubs dangling pitchers Matt Garza and Sean Marshall, guys who are actually paid what they are worth, in an attempt to acquire younger, cheaper players. These are guys who the Cubs should be trying to sign to extensions, not trade.
The Marshall rumors make the least sense to me, as the Cubs appear to be looking to trade him to the Reds for starter Travis Wood (and perhaps a couple minor leaguers). If the Cubs are really that desperate to find starting pitching, why not just convert Marshall back to a starter role? C.J. Wilson worked as a reliever in the majors for the better part of 5 years, before becoming a starter. It worked out so well for him, that he was the most highly sought after free agent starter on the market this year, eventually signing for 5 years and $77 million.
I could see Marshall becoming a successful starter in the majors, if the Cubs would just give him the chance. However, he was pigeonholed into the bullpen and, largely due to his success in that role, that is where he has stayed.
With Theo Epstein (large market) and Jed Hoyer (small market) at the helm, the Cubs should have the experience to work both sides of the equation. Utilize the draft and international signings to build from within, while spending when necessary to fill in the gaps.
While the carryover effects of some of the large contracts from past management may limit the clubs ability to go out and land the big fish, they should not prevent the Cubs from retaining the valuable commodities they already have.
This blog reminded me of how little you actually know about baseball operations. The Cubs know that they are not going to contend this year, next year, and maybe not the year after that. So if they aren't contenders in the immediate future why would a GM go buy a couple of expensive pieces for an incomplete puzzle. Marshall being a free agent at year end means the Cubs can go out and resign him, or at least have the same chance they would otherwise and get some talent/prospects in exchange to help build the organization from within. I am happy to see that Theo and Co. are taking the right approach to building an organization. Look at the St. Louis Cardinals who are always contenders, this is b/c they rarely overspend for talent and they have built an amazing farm system that allows them to trade for the pieces they need when they are in the hunt for the playoffs. The Cubs have a horrible farm system, a bloated payroll, and limited talent. Adding a few Allstars isn't going to fix the problem short or long term. Remember there is nothing stopping the Cubs from Picking up Garza or Marshall in free agency if and when they feel like they are pieces that are important.
ReplyDeleteYo Mark...I can see where you're coming from. But, I like the Marshall trade because we are actually selling high on the one controllable year. Selling high has not been done often in the 32 years I've been a fan.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so much concerned about the 103 year drought. I just want the Cubs to become an organization that is more sustainable, fundamental, and competitive over the next 10 years. I'm done with the ALL-OR_NOTHING approach...so, I like what Theo and Jed are doing. Adiosyo...Justin
Anon,
ReplyDeleteDo you really think Marshall or Garza will want to sign as free agents with a rebuilding team? Most players want to sign with a contender. Otherwise, you get teams like the Nats who have to overspend to get players to come there.
The Cubs should have locked up Marshall when they had the chance. Now they will likely never see him again.
horrible post. look at marshall's numbers as a starter and then try writing this article. this deal saves half a million in payroll, adds a back end starter who is cost controlled for the long term, all while adding depth to a depleted system. also, keep in mind the CBA changes that will prevent the cubs from acquiring draft compensation for Marshall unless they offer him a one year deal worth approxiamtely 12 million. (average of top 100 mlb players) I expect better from this site; this article has al yellon all over it
ReplyDeleteYou are going to base his potential success as a starter on stats from over 3 years ago? Is it possible that he could have learned how to pitch since then?
ReplyDeleteHistory is filled with young starting pitchers who have struggled in their first couple years in the bigs before finally figuring it out. Check out the stats of Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux's first years and let me know how that worked out for them.
I'm not saying Marshall could be a hall of famer, but I don't think the Cubs truly gave him a decent shot at starting before relegating him to the bullpen. In 2007, his second year as primarily a starter, he posted a 4.05 ERA in 19 starts.
He also seemed to get better the second time through the order, posting an ERA of 3.46 in innings 4-6, compared to a 4.07 ERA in innings 1-3.
The Cubs should have had him starting all along. A lot of Cubs fans raised a stink when Carlos Zambrano was moved from the rotation to the pen, stating that you don't put one of your better pitchers in the pen where they don't have as much impact. So why wouldn't you want the same for Marshall?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow. Just checked out the comments for the first time on this blog. I have been a long time fan but this writer is taking these remarks like a bitch. There is no crying in baseball.
ReplyDeleteI do not see how defending my position is "crying". I'm trying to get my point across and stimulate debate.
ReplyDeleteI do not censor my comments (unless its obvious spam) and I don't hide from my critics. If you want to debate my position, this is an open forum.