If you could only take one; Brian Roberts or Chone Figgins, who would it be?

Figgins can play everywhere. So if Pie and Fuld works in CF during the spring Figgins can play 2B. If neither can handle it Figgins could take that over and DeRosa, Fontenot, Patterson all fight for second base. Or K-FU could play center DeRo/Figgins platoon in RF. Who's on second? "No, Who's on first!" ----- Point: Figgins gives you more options; certainly in the field.

If it cost us the same players, I'd prefer Figgins ... but he will cost more than Roberts so for what they will likely cost in trade, I'd go with Roberts.

i would like figgins but there is no way id give up a clutch hitter and a guy that can produce 30+ homers and 100 rbi's (speaking of ramirez) for him.
Roberts numbers ar lower but not that much different.

i would like figgins but there is no way id give up a clutch hitter and a guy that can produce 30+ homers and 100 rbi's (speaking of ramirez) for him.
Roberts numbers ar lower but not that much different.

Neil's question seems to be "Where do we get a left-handed bat and pitching?" Figgins and Roberts loom large on the wish list. Both would be plusses in my mind if we can get a top righthander too. That pitcher could mean DeRosa is traded.

I'm wondering if we would want to include Rafael Furcal in the Dodgers pitching deal I've been suggesting (Billingsly or Lowe plus Elbert for DeRosa, Ceda and Marshall). He is 30, a lifetime .285, 15HR, 30SB guy, who had back issues and under-performed last season. The Dodgers would like to move him--with the announced reason being that Chin Lung Hu, their 2007 player of the year is ready to play short. Furcal is similar to Figgins with more power and less versatility. Furcal has one year left on his contract at a dicey $13 million plus a $4 million buyout. The Dodgers would likely pay the buyout. Adding Veal and #7 prospect catcher Donaldson could be enough to get Furcal.

Other than these three guys who can play one or more of the three spots that aren't locked up for us (ss, 2b and cf) I don't see where another lefty bat can play on a regular basis.

Among the complicated variables with one year expensive contract guys like Lowe and Furcal in addition to health and any character issues) is what happens the following year. I would be elated with trades for Roberts and Billingsly. I would settle for Furcal at short (assuming a good health report), Theriot at second and whomever emerges in CF from our in-house candidates. Billingsly (or Lowe)would be our #3 starter and Elbert could well be very good in a year or two. JimK

I'm sorry Jim, but we have no shot at Billingsley. They wouldn't even trade him for Rich Hill. It's the same as saying we should trade for Bucholz or Gallardo or Hughes. You'd have to have a Cabrera or Santana to get one of those guys. And we obviously have no one like that.

Nathanael...I guess you don't think Ceda is the second coming of Lee Smith and that LA doesn't need a Rolaids guy as badly as a stud starter. You could be right. Do LA's Lowe or Burnett of the Jays strike you as worthwhile and doable? JimK

Jim,

I think Burnett is intriguing, but risky. He's ALWAYS injured. However, he's very talented and the Blue Jays are tired of him. I think he'd be worth the risk for a Marshall/Patterson sort of deal.

I'd rather try to get the team younger, so I don't think Lowe is the answer. But he'd definitely be an upgrade over Marquis (so is my mom, for that matter).

JimK,

Ceda may very well be as good as you project (you're right about his stuff), but scouts don't currently rate him at that level yet so you're not going to get a ton in return for him. Also, the Dodogers have Broxton (who is rated that highly and generally considered to have more upside as a closer than even Marmol) waiting in the wings as their next closer. Given the way the Dodgers have resisted dealing their blue chip prospects in proposed deals for Santana, Cabrera and Bedard, I don't even think they'd deal Elbert (who is very highly rated by scouts) alone for Derosa, Ceda and Marshall. Lowe isn't going anywhere either unless you make them an offer they can't refuse.

I agree with you that Furcal may be available ... though I think they'd be looking for a high end prospect for him (which I'm not sure he's worth).

Burnett on the other hand is likely available at the right price ... probably would cost you Pie or Colvin though and not a combination of Marshall, Patterson, Ceda, Cedeno, Ascaino, etc. Would that be worth it? ... I'm not sure.

Men of Blue and the Blues, I'm trying to get to the Series in 08, and I recognize that JH and the rest of us may not have enough ammo to make that happen. While three or four NL teams may be stronger, we might get three or four career years, some good health experience and get into the NLCS where anything can happen. It's possible that a couple of the youngsters will rise rapidly to prominence and a couple others will make positive contributions.

I don't mind getting older with Lowe or getting Burnett and/or Roberts to possibly reduce the edge that a few teams may have over us. JH needs to and will get something more done.

One thing about our sometimes conflicting views, we can all say that, "We're occasionally wrong--but never in doubt." That's been my motto for a long time. So let's get a competent right hander, another lefty bat and a lefty reliever and take our chances. JimK

Jim K:

I like your philosophy! Solid on all points!

Lowe would without a doubt an upgrade, he had one of the best ERA's in the Majors last season and has always been consistent. Remember him on that Florida team with Beckett? However, I can't see why the Dodgers would ever want to make that trade. I realize that players like Santana can be traded for money reasons and Haren in rebuilding states but I don't think that the Dodgers consider them to be a rebuilding team. I can't see any scenerio where they would give up a legitamate ace for Marshall and Dero. Besides, I love Dero.

That being said, I was very intriguied with Nathanael's post. I spent most of the season being frustrated with Marquis and think that the city should really pull together to see what Nathanael's mom can do on the mound while they try to shop Marquis around.

Readers of the CCO -

I like the conversation today. While I am not a "The Hendry" apologist and never will be, I would like to point out one thing. Ceda seems to be the topic of a lot of conversation, a possible trading chip or future player. The Hendry acquire Ceda for...wait for it...Todd Walker.

At this point it appears to be a good trade. Sometimes we rag on Hendry, and some of it is deserved, but take a step back and remember some of the deals the man has pulled off. Hee-Seop and Bobby Hill became Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez.

I do not want to go down this road, but with all of the "Ceda" talk it got me to thinking.

That's all.

A question for all the would-be GMs on our boards :-)

Saw this statement in an MLB article about the Mariners interest in Bedard...

However, the word out of Baltimore is that the Orioles believe they strengthened their bargaining power for Bedard last week by acquiring several of the Astros' best young players in a trade involving shortstop Miguel Tejada.

In my mind, the Orioles actually weakened their bargaining position by officially passing the point of no return in their move toward a rebuilding effort. Now (to me) they are in a position that they HAVE to move Roberts and Bedard... which to me makes their bargaining position weaker - not stronger.

The only way (again, to me) that their position strengthened was that they now have a slew of young players they could potentially use as bargaining chips... which would defeat the purpose of making the deal to begin with. They want more youngsters not less.

Thoughts all?

JimK,

I glad we can agree to disagree on potential trades without any harsh feelings either way. While I may not agree with all you have to say, I enjoy hearing and value your opinions.

Gary,

I totally agree with your assessment of the Orioles. Then again, a lot of stuff that's been said/done by that front office over the past decade hasn't made a lot of sense. I still expect Roberts and Bedard to be dealt in the next few weeks and if I had to predict, I'd say Bedard to the Reds for Bailey, Votto, and Hamilton and Roberts to the Cubs for Gallagher, Patterson and Cedeno.

Gary,

I get that the O's are apparently in rebuilding mode.
What I don't get, is why that means they have to trade a young stud like Bedard?
Same goes for the Oakland A's.
Living in AZ, and following the DBacks a bit, I don't have a clue who any of the prospects are that the DBacks just traded for Danny Haren.
Yet Haren is young, a stud, and under reasonable contract terms for the next few years.

Why the A's traded Haren, and why the O's would trade Bedard is beyond me.

If I was a GM, and you asked me to build a team, I would want to build it around some young, but successful, pitching.

The Cubs got 5 great years out of Zambrano before they had to give him a big payday. In theory, they should have gotten the same out of Prior, but he got injured.
Why Wood missed 1999 with injury, he didn't get his first big payday until after 2003, I believe.

If you are a GM, you want to keep that young 23-28 year old pitching talent on your roster, while they are still operating under one of their earlier (and therefore more affordable) contracts.

So why get rid of Haren and Bedard?

You can say that Billy Beane did it before with Hudson and Mulder, but he received ready to pitch prospects at the time (including Haren) and Oakland continued to put a competitive team on the field.

This time around, Beane seems to be really going for potential, and not major-league-ready, which is a risky proposition. So why not hang onto Haren for 3 more years and try to trade some older guys like Eric Chavez instead?

To think that the A's might also consider trading Huston Street?!?! The guy is under 25, I believe, and a proven closer in the majors...this also makes no sense.

Let me give you a computerized analogy...completely removed of emotion: I used to like to play a PS2 videogame about the NBA. It had a GM mode, which was all I cared about...I really didn't even play the games...I just liked to build the teams.

Let's say a very high rating (ala Kevin Garnett) was a 96 and an upcoming young star (ala Luol Deng) was an 80.

In general, you wanted to draft or trade for guys that were under 24, but had an over 80 score. This means they would continue to get better in their peak years of 25-29, and you usually got them in their first pro contract, and then their next big contract wasn't usually too expensive.

You had a salary cap, so you couldn't just pretend you were the Knicks and buy all the top free agents.

The point of spelling all this out, is that I noticed something: in my quest to constantly get players that were younger, yet rated higher, I kept hitting a point of diminishing returns.

For example, I might have a roster of 8 guys, all rated over 90. It just doesn't get any better than that. That team almost goes undefeated, and wins the title every year.

But I got greedy.

I figured I could turn those 8 guys rated over 90 into 12 younger guys rated over 80-85, and that those 12 guys would mature into 12 guys rated over 90.

So I would make my trades (kind of like trading Kobe to the Bulls for 3 decent players, such as Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich).

However, the computer didn't buy it. Just like today's Boston Celtics can have 3 legitimate stars and go from worst to first, the computer favored the teams that had fewer guys with great ratings, rather than a balanced roster of younger guys with above-average (but not yet great) ratings.

Just like the Bulls and the Celtics of today. We are seeing that transcendent top-of-the-line talent is what creates winners. The A's and Twins regularly churned out hard-working solid "teams" yet the star-studded Red Sox have been more successful the past few years. The Yankees are always in the playoff mix with their stars, and the Cubs bought a superstar (and a bunch of decent players) and returned back to the playoffs immediately.

Stars are the key.
Great players are the key.
If you have a Bedard, or a Haren...keep him.
If you have a Zambrano, or an Aramis Ramirez, and you have the money that the NL Chicago team has, then you resign them.

If you are Pittsburgh, and Jason Bay will be getting too costly, then you trade him. But if he is under a reasonable contract for a number of more years, you hold onto him for dear life.

Don't fall in love with prospects.
Don't worry about finding a spot for all of them.
You don't need them all...you may just need one or two.
You may not even need those one or two prospects to be anything but role players.
The key is to have a couple of superstars, stay healthy, and have a little bit of luck.

50% of the Cubs batting lineup is made of guys making over $12M/yr...that is superstar money.
In the pitching department, we only have Zambrano in the superstar category.
Other pitchers have potential, but they are not proven like Zambrano.

So...really...the Cubs need more pitching, and that is it.
If the O's are dumb enough to give us Bedard, for 5-6 top prospects, then you do it...don't even hesitate.

Jason B,

I don't agree with you. Two things:

1. Small market ballclubs, like the A's, need to be MUCH MORE CAREFUL on budget-control than big market clubs like the Cubs.

2. There's a thing called career year.

And there's another thing called business foresighting. The A's, the Padres, the Sox (both colors), and the Twins need to plan two years ahead. It's not that Beanes doesn't want to sign Haren. He cannot afford it. And waiting Haren to hit his free-agent year then trade will give Beanes less choices (less interesting customers). That's why the GM traded Haren years beforehand.

And who can guarantee that Haren had not thrown his career year this past season?

By the way, here's an interesting article discussing pitch type-similarities of different pitchers. The breaking ball of Rich Hill is compared with Barry Zito:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/12/one_of_these_th.php

Hi Dorasaga,

Your two points really don't conflict with my views, as I also agree small market teams need to be more budget conscious and that there is always such a thing as a player having a career year.

Neither of those two points apply here, though.

From mlb.com:
"Haren, 27, has won at least 14 games in each of the past three seasons for Oakland. Last year, he was 15-9 with a 3.07 ERA, he was 14-13 in 2006 and 14-12 in 2005.

Not only has Haren been effective on the mound, he's cost-effective off it. The right-hander is under contract for $4 million in 2008, $5.5 million in 2009 and there is a club option for 2010 for $6.75 million."

If you are a small market team, and you have to be budget-conscious, then you want someone like Danny Haren on your team for the next 3 years at these prices.

You can't sign Jason Marquis for this kind of money, let alone a solid #2-type pitcher!

He will cost under $17 million for the next three years.
I think Zambrano makes that per year, just about.

Beane doesn't HAVE to sign Haren...he is already signed!

Not sure winning 14 games, then 14 games, and then 15 games indicates a guy just had a career year.

Kerry Wood never won more than 14 games in a season, and he certainly couldn't do it 3 years in a row. The only guy on the Cubs that can claim that type of success is our own Ace, Carlos Zambrano...so that should give you an idea of the value of keeping Danny Haren.

We can agree to disagree, but whether I was GM of a big-budget or small-budget team, I am keeping Danny Haren at those prices, because you can't get better value for your dollar, in today's market...you just can't.

Jason,

You're right that Haren was ridiculously cost effective. I think that Beane traded him because, unlike most general managers, he's intelligent and reasonable, and saw that the A's had little chance of contending in the next three years. He therefore traded him while his value was at the highest (still 3 inexpensive years for the team that obtained him), and got back the maximum amount to prepare for the future when all these prospects come together (like with the Rockies or Dbacks). I know you're not all about the prospects, but I think this is a sound baseball decision. I wouldn't mind such foresight from one Jim Hendry.

Hey Nat,

Will agree to disagree, but respect your (and Dorasaga's) opinion on this.

I believe, ironically, Beane has already proven his own type of trade does not work.

He traded two absolute studs, at the height of their value, in Hudson and Mulder, a couple of years ago. Oakland was supposed to be set with a ton of prospects to make their next run...yet here they are, just a couple of years later, already going through another rebuilding phase.

So if it didn't work when you traded Mulder and Hudson, what makes you think it will work now?

The odds are also horrible here. How many draftees make it as a big league starter or everyday player? How many of the Cubs "can't miss" top prospects, the past few decades, have turned into everyday players? Not many at all.

So if the theory is that you get a bunch of "can't miss" prospects now, and that in two years you will have an awesome ROI as a result, I believe that is a stretch and a huge unlikihood.

At various times, the Cubs have considered the following to be top prospects: Angel Guzman, Rich Hill, Corey Patterson, Jason DuBois, Bobby Hill, Hee Sop Choi, Bobby Brownlie, Mark Prior, Ronny Cedeno, etc...

If the Cubs had acquired Mulder, Hudson, and Zito from the A's for our entire farm system two years ago, what, exactly, would Oakland have to show for it?

Rich Hill? Maybe Carlos Marmol? A bunch of utility guys?

It is not a big deal, in my opinion, to trade 10 prospects for 1 proven star in his prime. The reason is because I believe you are lucky if 1 or 2 of the 10 prospects winds up contributing at a decent level at the majors.

Every year you get more draft picks...if you stack the team with proven talent now, and use your farm to acquire more proven talent, you will likely be a winner for the next 2-3 years. During those 2-3 years, you will be drafting more players, replenishing the system.

That is why I believe the Cubs hang onto prospects too long.
That is also why I believe the A's (and other low-budget teams) need to focus on keeping their proven, but affordable, stars as long as possible.

In the past, Oakland has allowed Tejada to become a free agent, as well as Zito. They were happy to receive a high draft pick as a result, and they received top production out of those players, for an affordable price...keeping their fans happy.

Hey I tried to post this earlier but the comp got stuck.

Jason/Dorasaga....at this precise historic point in time; the A's/Twins/Oriols and others trade their stud pitchers that are down to their last 1-2 years of being under control because

1)they are cheap
2)have no intention of winning a championship now
3)Think that they are not going to win in those next 2-3 years to come
4)They are playing PS2 videogames and cannot see what Boston has been doing!

Hey it is funny because you two have opposite opinions and yet both sound correct. Good arguments. One thing though Dorasaga; Billy Beane, to me is a ridiculous GM that likes the spotlight and the idea of having everybody follow his moves. Believe me, he has the money to keep his players…every team in baseball does at this point, including Tampa, it is just that Bean is obsessed with his theory and confuses OBP with “cheapness”. He wants to be bigger than the game and does not give a crap about that team fan base and does not know the meaning of the word loyalty. Besides I believe that the Twins are better in detecting stars.

I frankly don't see how Hendry long keeps his top prospects. He traded prospects to obtain veterans, like DLee or A-ram. We all know that good players like Roberts and Fukudome weren't refined or even close to being great in their first two or three years of career.

As of Beanes, I found the Baseball Cube webpage that ranks GMs:
http://mikesrants.baseballtoaster.com/archives/600543.html

With a win% of 56.6 out of 1457 games and an average salary at the bottom of all 30 MLB teams, only slightly ahead of the Pirates and the two Florida teams, during his career as a General Manager, Beanes had been building or at least planned ahead for a winning team.

While with an average of $$$ 88 million salary spending but 48.8% winning out of 727 until 2007, Hendry doesn't build a winning team.

How about the Red Sox? John Henry hired an entire crew of sabermetricians including Bill James to help Theo Epstein analyze players and ballpark effects. The only surprise to me was his signing of Okajima, but was resolved after I realized how much Okie's K/BB improved every year.

Therefore, think.