BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Rockies trade Stewart, Weathers to Cubs for Colvin, LeMahieu

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, December 09, 2011

Rockies trade Stewart, Weathers to Cubs for Colvin, LeMahieu

According to Troy Renck of the Denver Post, the Rockies have traded third baseman Ian Stewart and right-hander Casey Weathers to the Cubs for outfielder Tyler Colvin and infielder DJ LeMahieu.

The District Attorney Posted: December 09, 2011 at 01:32 AM | 79 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: cubs, rockies

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Mike Emeigh

Posted: December 09, 2011 at 01:58 AM (#4010989)

Colvin's never going to make contact consistently enough to be a serviceable major leaguer, and LeMahieu doesn't have a defensive position or much power at all. Stewart was always overrated as a prospect because people overracted to what he did in Asheville, but he's still got some upside, as does Weathers if he can ever learn how to throw strikes. Overall, I like this better for the Cubs.

-- MWE

2. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:05 AM (#4011004)

Failed first round picks challenge trade.

You know whats funny? I remember when LeMahieu was coming out of HS, he was talked about for his power potential. That was his best tool, from what I remember at least. And now it is his worst tool. I guess that is what happens when you don't get any bigger or stronger from 18 to 24.

3. Justin T's pasta pass was not revoked Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:07 AM (#4011005)

Gesundheit.

4. SteveM. Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:07 AM (#4011007)

I will be a contrarion and say I don't like this trade. Yes, Colvin was horrible, but then again so was Stewart. The old regime contributed to it by sticking him on the bench early in the season, and then after recalling him, almost not playing him at all in September. LeMahieu is another guy Quade let molder on the bench in September. I would have preferred to see him get a shot at 2nd.

5. The District Attorney Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:15 AM (#4011020)

Colvin's never going to make contact consistently enough to be a serviceable major leaguer

You realize the other side is Ian Stewart, right? :) I mean, I think this is fine for the Cubs, but I dunno if you can justify it that way...

6. puck Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:29 AM (#4011039)

Stewart has been a serviceable major leaguer. I don't know if he can pull it together, but a change of scenery would probably help. It he doesn't turn it around, it doesn't seem like the Cubs have given up much. He's definitely got some tools.

7. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:33 AM (#4011048)

Yeah, Stewart had two full years as a perfectly adequate major league third baseman, at the age of 24 and 25. Last year was a disaster, but he got hurt, then got jerked around by both Jim Tracy and the organization as a whole. Perhaps I'm a bit balmy, but I would have been happy to go into 2012 with Ian Stewart as my third baseman. He's going to hit 35 homers in a season before he's through.

First Iannetta, then Ian Stewart, and the Rockies seem dead-set on getting rid of Seth Smith, which the acquisition of Colvin is likely to accelerate. All my favorites from the team are leaving town; if they trade Tulo, I'll probably give up on them for good.

8. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:39 AM (#4011054)

Colvin looked dreadful before he got sent down last season, but he seemed to hit into some hard luck with regularity after he came back up. It seemed like there was at least one AB a game where he'd SMOKE the ball and it'd get hit right a fielder or would end in a great defensive play.

9. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:49 AM (#4011065)

I'll probably give up on them for good.

This has to be the most uttered phrase this off-season. WTF? Don't you people like baseball?

I guess Colvin is to replace Seth Smith, who they'll deal to Atlanta for Prado? Otherwise I don't see how this makes that much sense for Colorado. I don't get why they have given up on Stewart without a bridge between him and Arenado. And they traded Wiggy away - say what you will, but he was about replacement value. So who plays third now? Jonathan Herrera? Chris Nelson? Vinny Castilla?

I like the deal very much for the Cubs. Give up a 4th OF and AAAA second baseman for a guy who was around a 1.0 WAR third baseman until he cratered last year and a once well-thought of pitching prospect lottery ticket. I think a change of scenery will do Stewart well. And if not, well they'll just non-tender him.

ARam really steadied that third base position for the Cubs. Remember the revolving door they had before him? Ron Coomer, Gary Gaetti, Kevin Orie, Steve Buechele, Todd Zeile. Remember Gary Scott was going to nail that position down finally? Fun times!

10. Dock Ellis

Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:59 AM (#4011077)

Considering how Theo stockpiles 4th OFs and he can replace Colvin in his sleep, I think this is a good trade for the Cubs.

11. Mike Emeigh

Posted: December 09, 2011 at 03:00 AM (#4011079)

You realize the other side is Ian Stewart, right? :)

Yes, I do. I left out a word in my post - should have said solid contact. I've seen very few guys take as many bad swings as Colvin.

-- MWE

12. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 09, 2011 at 03:00 AM (#4011080)

This has to be the most uttered phrase this off-season. WTF? Don't you people like baseball?

I didn't say I'd give up on baseball. There are 29 other teams I could follow.

13. Cooper Teenoh Posted: December 09, 2011 at 03:01 AM (#4011081)

The thing I wonder about here is that Stewart doesn't seem to play 3B very well. I had expected that the Cubs would look for a guy with some on-base skills and solid defense. Stewart seems to know how to walk, so maybe they figure they grab him, and if he's the best they can get, at least they got OBP and a little pop.

14. The District Attorney Posted: December 09, 2011 at 03:02 AM (#4011083)

This has to be the most uttered phrase this off-season. WTF? Don't you people like baseball?

I do not believe that the Rockies are going to trade Troy Tulowitzki, so it's not really much of a threat.

So who plays third now? Jonathan Herrera? Chris Nelson? Vinny Castilla?

There's been talk of them signing Placido Polanco.

15. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: December 09, 2011 at 03:08 AM (#4011089)

ARam really steadied that third base position for the Cubs. Remember the revolving door they had before him? Ron Coomer, Gary Gaetti, Kevin Orie, Steve Buechele, Todd Zeile. Remember Gary Scott was going to nail that position down finally? Fun times!

And Lenny Harris, Bill Mueller, Chris Stynes...

The thing I wonder about here is that Stewart doesn't seem to play 3B very well.

Neither does the Cubs now erstwhile third baseman of the 2000's.

16. Tom Nawrocki Posted: December 09, 2011 at 03:10 AM (#4011092)

The thing I wonder about here is that Stewart doesn't seem to play 3B very well.

He's fine at third, although of course the proximate comparison for Rockies fans is Ty Wigginton. Next to Ty Wigginton, Gary Coleman would look like a Gold Glove third baseman.

17. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 03:11 AM (#4011094)

There's been talk of them signing Placido Polanco.

Polanco is still under contract, although I'm guessing he could be had for a song.

18. The District Attorney Posted: December 09, 2011 at 03:13 AM (#4011095)

Really?? Heh, yeah, I got the impression from the stuff I read that he was freely available, so I apparently jumped to an incorrect conclusion there.

19. Andere Richtingen

Posted: December 09, 2011 at 03:24 AM (#4011102)

With DeJesus added and Ramirez gone, it makes sense for the Cubs to turn Colvin into Stewart. None of the players here looks to be worthy of much consideration; I'd rather have LeMahieu than Weathers, but that isn't saying much.

20. puck Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:47 AM (#4011164)

The thing I wonder about here is that Stewart doesn't seem to play 3B very well.

Why is this? He looks like a 3rd baseman w/quick reactions and a strong arm. He seems better going to his left (though that doesn't seem to play into Tulo's positioning, who seems strong to his right). He makes accurate throws to 2nd for a DP and on the throw to 1st.

His numbers seem ok. He does fairly well in Tango's fan's scouting report, with average scores in the 60's most years.

He's not a gold glover, but he seems solid and can occasionally make the spectacular play.

21. Meatwad Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:22 AM (#4011187)

Whats his contract situation? 2 arb years left? Im ok with this deal it fills a need on the roster plus a lottery ticket of an arm. Colvin isnt going to amount to much his rookie year he was over his head and seems to ensure that lahare will be in the outfield more often

22. Cooper Teenoh Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:24 AM (#4011190)

I based my comments on Stewart entirely on the numbers I quickly pulled from B-Ref, because I don't think I've ever seen him play. However, when I went back to look, I am not sure what I saw, because the numbers I found now suggest that he's a little below average (if you prefer Total Zone) or a little above average (if you prefer BIS fielding runs). So, I suppose slightly better than I first thought when I posted.

Re: Walks Clogs up the Bases comment - I understand that Ramirez was not great at 3B. My point was that I expected Jedstein to be favoring an inexpensive solution at 3B who was a solid glove and a decent on base guy, since the 3B market is fairly poor - if you can't replace Ramirez's bat with another bat, then replace him with a better glove and a passable bat. Other than his injury-shortened 2009 and his lost 2010, Ramirez is a 3.5-5.0 WAR player. Stewart has been a 1+ WAR player when given PT; maybe he has a little more gain in him. I'm just saying that I was hoping for someone a little better than Stewart, but I guess he'll do, and he's obviously way more affordable.

23. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:33 AM (#4011195)

Whats his contract situation? 2 arb years left? Im ok with this deal it fills a need on the roster plus a lottery ticket of an arm. Colvin isnt going to amount to much his rookie year he was over his head and seems to ensure that lahare will be in the outfield more often

3 Arb years left. Stewart might not turn into anything, but he didn't cost us much and won't cost much money if he doesn't get better.

24. Meatwad Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:45 AM (#4011202)

If nothing else he is place holder until vitters comes up and fails at it

25. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:51 AM (#4011209)

If nothing else he is place holder until vitters comes up and fails at it

And aside from Aramis, I don't think there are any better FA options out there.

26. KyleJRM Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:07 AM (#4011236)

So the Cubs' 3rd baseman in 2012 has the upside that he could maybe return to his days as an almost adequate starter, and the horrifecta of waving red flags and warning lights: terrible season, wrist injury, hugh K rate. Hideous.

27. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:01 AM (#4011252)

So the Cubs' 3rd baseman in 2012 has the upside that he could maybe return to his days as an almost adequate starter, and the horrifecta of waving red flags and warning lights: terrible season, wrist injury, hugh K rate. Hideous.

Maybe. But that comment isn't really relevant to this trade. This trade didn't cause the Cubs to have a bad 2012 3b man. Before this trade, the Cubs 2012 3b man was going to be a fringy player... after this trade, the Cubs 3b man is going to be a fringy player with some upside.

28. KyleJRM Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:33 PM (#4011304)

I don't see that much upside there. If you are going to settle for a scrapheap reclamation project, could you at least wait until February and not give up on having a competent MLB starter on Dec. 8?

29. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:47 PM (#4011310)

I love this trade for the Cubs. They gave up nothing and acquired the best player af anyone in the deal at a position of severe need.

There's a good chance Stewart doesn't actually solve their problem but what did it cost then to find out? Outfielders are easier to replace.

30. Zonk isn't banned, he's under review Posted: December 09, 2011 at 02:50 PM (#4011312)

I like it - I think Colvin is 4th OF at best and I've always liked Stewart.

Still doesn't cover for the terrible roster management in anticipation of the rule 5 - but I'll set my torch to just 'smolder' for now.

31. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:15 PM (#4011488)

I see very little point in this trade.

So far this offseason has created the upside of "hey, we might win 78 games this year if everything works out and we'll probably be terrible in 2013 too". It is like the Cubs suddenly turned into the Pirates. I wouldn't mind this trade if the Cubs were actually active this year buth they are not and these are the "big moves" of the offseason.

32. SouthSideRyan Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:19 PM (#4011498)

So far this offseason has been less than a month.

33. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:27 PM (#4011510)

Well, then that is okay then. I guess we got nothing to worry about. So I can expect an announcement any day now that the Cubs signed Reyes, Pujols, Wilson, Buehrle, Darvish, or Fielder?

34. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 09, 2011 at 05:33 PM (#4011515)

The important thing with Stewart is that he only has 3 years of service time, so he's under team control at sub-market prices for the next three seasons.

Also, WAR underrates Stewart a bit - well, it probably rates his past value reasonably well, but his past value is hurt by the idiocy of the Rockies trying to turn him into a second baseman. "Rightward shifts along the defensive spectrum almost never work." By TZ, Stewart is +2 / 150 games at 3B, by BIS he's +6 / 150, and by UZR he's +2 / 150. His negative defensive numbers are a function of the other positions he's been pushed to play. Stewart in the majors has an average bat and an average glove for a third baseman. He's been hanging around 1.0 WAR, but give him a full season and don't jerk him around between different positions, and he should be able to give you that league average 2 WAR at a discount price.

35. villageidiom Posted: December 09, 2011 at 06:19 PM (#4011603)

Well, then that is okay then. I guess we got nothing to worry about. So I can expect an announcement any day now that the Cubs signed Reyes, Pujols, Wilson, Buehrle, Darvish, or Fielder?

Possibly.

36. SouthSideRyan Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:10 PM (#4011670)

If I take one thing away from this offseason, it's how angry I am that we didn't sign Jose Reyes or Mark Buehrle to stupid contracts.

37. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:17 PM (#4011678)

As someone else said in the Pujols thread a BTF run team would be full of young players, 1 year contract players, and lottery ticket players that would be thoroughly cromulent but make a ton of money. I don't really care that the profits will go to the players instead of to Ricketts. The Cubs are a large market team and they can afford to sign elite players. Acting like the Pirates doesn't accomplish much other than give teams like the Pirates a chance to win.

38. SouthSideRyan Posted: December 09, 2011 at 07:56 PM (#4011735)

It is December 9th.

Jose Reyes plays the same position as our best player.
Albert Pujols was signed through age 42.
CJ Wilson took a hell of a lot less money because he wanted to go to Anaheim.

39. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:03 PM (#4011747)

And soon it is going to be March 1st and the biggest transaction is going to be David DeJesus. Yippee.

40. Zonk isn't banned, he's under review Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:10 PM (#4011755)

I see very little point in this trade.

So far this offseason has created the upside of "hey, we might win 78 games this year if everything works out and we'll probably be terrible in 2013 too". It is like the Cubs suddenly turned into the Pirates. I wouldn't mind this trade if the Cubs were actually active this year buth they are not and these are the "big moves" of the offseason.

Goood.... goood.... my young apprentice. Let the pessimism flow through you. Embrace the idea of writing off two years in favor of the great reward. Take your primate weapon and strike down the patch job proponents.

41. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:15 PM (#4011766)

Signing Wilson, Reyes, and or Pujols is not a patch job. And the Cubs are not writing off the next two years they are writing off an indefinite amount of future seasons. It could be one season, it could be two seasons, it could be 5 seasons. We don't know and so far the Ricketts tenure doesn't look to be a fun tenure.

42. Zonk isn't banned, he's under review Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:16 PM (#4011767)

NO... NOOOO!!!! IT'S NOT TRUE! I'LL NEVER JOIN YOU!

43. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:35 PM (#4011793)

Goood.... goood.... my young apprentice. Let the pessimism flow through you. Embrace the idea of writing off two years in favor of the great reward. Take your primate weapon and strike down the patch job proponents.

Your overconfidence is your weakness.

Your faith in the Cubs is yours.

44. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:49 PM (#4011801)

I don't see that much upside there. If you are going to settle for a scrapheap reclamation project, could you at least wait until February and not give up on having a competent MLB starter on Dec. 8?

That is ridiculous. Exactly how does this trade prevent you from making any other move this offseason?

Geez some of you folks are so demanding, a trade is only worthwhile if you trade #### and get silver apparently.

As for upside, Stewart merely has to play as well as he did 3 out of the past 4 years for the Cubs to have a league average starting 3b man.

45. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:57 PM (#4011809)

If you're sitting in dog shvt and someone tosses you a napkin it doesn't mean a whole helluva lot.

46. KB JBAR (trhn) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 08:59 PM (#4011810)

Tyler Colvin is a corner OF going into his age 26 season with a career OPS+ of 84. The Cubs needed a 3B, unless you want DeWitt starting there. Given that aren't any better options in FA and they don't have the pieces to deal for someone better, Stewart for Nothing is as good as it was going to get and had to be done.

As for the big, cornerstone pieces, Prince and Darvish are still out there.

47. KyleJRM Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:04 PM (#4011817)

"That is ridiculous. Exactly how does this trade prevent you from making any other move this offseason?"

The issue isn't the trade itself. One pile of dog poop for another pile of dog poop is technically a fair trade in terms of value.

The issue is the announcement that Ian Stewart is the Cubs' starting 3b for 2012. That's awful.

48. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:08 PM (#4011820)

The issue is the announcement that Ian Stewart is the Cubs' starting 3b for 2012. That's awful.

As opposed to the announcement of DJ LeMahieu as your starting 3b?

It isn't news that the Cubs are in dire straits and don't have much talent. That has been going on. That is the result of things that happened months and years before today.

49. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:10 PM (#4011822)

Congrats to the Cubs. They got a dollar for 80 cents. Now all they need is another 130 million dollars and they might win a game or two.

50. Kiko Sakata

Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:20 PM (#4011832)

The issue is the announcement that Ian Stewart is the Cubs' starting 3b for 2012. That's awful.

As of Dec. 9th, Ian Stewart is the best 3B in the Cubs' organization. As of Dec. 7th, the best 3B in the Cubs' organization was some guy who's worse than Ian Stewart (DeWitt playing out of position?, Vitters at least a year too soon?). The cost of this upgrade was nothing of value to the Cubs (Colvin's just not that good).

51. KyleJRM Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:24 PM (#4011837)

DJ LeMahieu was never announced as the starting 3b.

They could have said "We like having Ian Stewart on our roster and will continue to explore options to improve the team" or something generic like that.

Instead, on Dec. 9, they've announced that Ian Stewart will be the starting 3b. They've announced, essentially, that with two months to go until Spring Training, they've given up on finding a 3b better than Ian Stewart. And seeing as how Ian Stewart is bad, that's not good.

52. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:28 PM (#4011842)

Ian Stewart looks league average to me. Where are you getting "bad"?

53. Kiko Sakata

Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:30 PM (#4011843)

with two months to go until Spring Training, they've given up on finding a 3b better than Ian Stewart

Eh, I think you're putting too much stock in post-trade blather. The Cubs have a lot of work to do at a lot of positions and I'm sure they have a lot more that they'll do between now and spring training. The reality is that they're probably not going to find a better 3B than Stewart, because there aren't a lot of better 3B available out there. But if a better option presents itself, I'm pretty sure the Cubs aren't going to turn it down because they promised the starting job to Stewart four months before the season starts.

54. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:34 PM (#4011846)

DJ LeMahieu was never announced as the starting 3b.

They could have said "We like having Ian Stewart on our roster and will continue to explore options to improve the team" or something generic like that.

Instead, on Dec. 9, they've announced that Ian Stewart will be the starting 3b. They've announced, essentially, that with two months to go until Spring Training, they've given up on finding a 3b better than Ian Stewart. And seeing as how Ian Stewart is bad, that's not good

For ####'s sake, you're putting stock in some press conference announcement? Of course they're going to "announce" him as a starter. It's good for Stewart's confidence, lets him know what the expectations are and it shows your fan base "look we traded for a starter!"

IT. MEANS. NOTHING.

Its PR, its spin, its fluff.

And here is Hoyer's exact quote:
"We are expecting him to come in and he has to bounce back from last year. We are assuming he does. We are looking at him as our starting third baseman."

That doesn't exactly read as "IAN STEWART LOCKS DOWN 3B ROLE!" That reads as, Ian Stewart can start for us if doesn't suck like he did last year. They haven't committed anything to him. You really think if an opportunity to improve the club presents itself the Cubs are gonna go "Man, we'd love to make that deal... but we already picked up Ian Stewart! D'oh!"

And, as MCA said, Stewart isn't a bad player. If he hits like he did in 3 of the last 4 years, he will be a league average starting 3b and making minimum wage to boot.

55. KyleJRM Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:35 PM (#4011848)

"Ian Stewart looks league average to me. Where are you getting "bad"?"

The only way to get him to league average is to ignore his 2011 entirely, assume that there's no lingering effects from the major wrist injury, don't adjust his numbers for Coors, and project out his best partial seasons to full-time starting (which he's never really done).

56. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:39 PM (#4011850)

The only way to get him to league average is to ignore his 2011 entirely, assume that there's no lingering effects from the major wrist injury, don't adjust his numbers for Coors, and project out his best partial seasons to full-time starting (which he's never really done).

His 08-10 OPS+ (ie ADJUSTED FOR COORS) averages out to somewhere right below 100, and (as someone showed the other day) the average NL 3b man had a 97 OPS+ in 2011.

57. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:41 PM (#4011854)

The bigger problem is this dumb, dumb, mentality of "If this move doesn't make the Cubs a winning team I'm going to whine about it!"

By that logic ever move the Cubs make this year will be something dumb or pointless or terrible. Its just a terrible mentality. Look, I get it. Being a Cubs fan sucks. But that doesn't mean you whine about every little move that offers the potential of some incremental improvement.

Do you guys really think winning ballclubs are built by ignoring small upgrades and only making trades in which Tyler Colvin can be dealt for Evan Longoria?

58. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:46 PM (#4011862)

The Cubs have a lot of work to do at a lot of positions and I'm sure they have a lot more that they'll do between now and spring training.

Yes, shuffling the deck chairs is busy work and I'm betting that is all we are going to see from the Cubs this offseason.

59. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 09:49 PM (#4011869)

By that logic ever move the Cubs make this year will be something dumb or pointless or terrible

Yes because taken as a whole all they have done is make a 72 win team maybe a 75 win team. Hooray, lets all get excited. So far the moves do diddly squat in terms of getting the Cubs to playoffs next season or the seasons after that. The Cubs don't need to fill out their bench or get a league average huy here or there. They need guys that can add many wins to the bottom line and so far they haven't done it and look to completely forego getting any of those guys this offseason.

Do you guys really think winning ballclubs are built by ignoring small upgrades and only making trades in which Tyler Colvin can be dealt for Evan Longoria?

Do you really think winning ballclubs are made by taking a crappy team and adding guys that look to be minor upgrades over replacement?

60. Zonk isn't banned, he's under review Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:13 PM (#4011893)

What more than Ian Stewart were people expecting?

There's not much else available... I doubt the Mets move Wright after Reyes left. Youkilis? Precisely what do the Cubs have to trade FOR him (also keeping in mind that the near-miss playoff BoSox don't exactly have in-house replacement options either).

The minute the Cubs decided not to resign A-Ram -- which I'm fine with -- the 3B immediately and inevitably became someone like Ian Stewart. They have neither the chits nor is there the availability of anyone of higher quality.

61. Mark Edward Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:15 PM (#4011895)

As an outside observer, I was kinda surprised that the Cubs didn't make more of a run for Pujols. Now, I'm not saying they should have topped the Angels' offer, and signing Fielder will make this point moot, but I really thought the Cubs would've made a big splash this off-season(and, to be fair, the off-season isn't over yet).

62. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:16 PM (#4011896)

The minute the Cubs decided not to resign A-Ram -- which I'm fine with -- the 3B immediately and inevitably became someone like Ian Stewart. They have neither the chits nor is there the availability of anyone of higher quality.

The Cubs picked up A-Ram's option, but then A-Ram decided to exercise his own option to void the deal and become a free agent.

63. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:21 PM (#4011902)

As an outside observer, I was kinda surprised that the Cubs didn't make more of a run for Pujols. Now, I'm not saying they should have topped the Angels' offer, and signing Fielder will make this point moot, but I really thought the Cubs would've made a big splash this off-season(and, to be fair, the off-season isn't over yet).

64. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:25 PM (#4011909)

Yes, shuffling the deck chairs is busy work and I'm betting that is all we are going to see from the Cubs this offseason.

Do you really think winning ballclubs are made by taking a crappy team and adding guys that look to be minor upgrades over replacement?

It mostly doesn't matter what the Cubs do this offseason, they're going to be bad. There isn't any magic free agent out there to put them over the hump.

Long-term winning ballclubs are built in the first week of June and in the days after July 2nd. That is when you need to look at what the Cubs do.

65. KB JBAR (trhn) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:28 PM (#4011916)

Yes, shuffling the deck chairs is busy work and I'm betting that is all we are going to see from the Cubs this offseason.

66. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:36 PM (#4011935)

According to USA Today, it would have cost about 300 million over 10 years for the Cubs to best the income tax difference adjusted value of the highest bidder, which was the Marlins offering 10/275 plus no state income tax. Rosenthal reports that the Marlins were willing to offer CJ Wilson 100 million.

I suppose that is what McCoy wished the Cubs would have done. Just throw half a billion dollars out there and sign Pujols and Reyes and Wilson and everyone else out there.

But MIA wasn't offering no-trade clauses. Chicago could have beaten their offers with total dollars between LAA and MIA.

Not saying they should have, but I wish the Yankees had dangled 5/85 and a no-trade in front of CJ Wilson.

67. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:41 PM (#4011941)

According to USA Today, it would have cost about 300 million over 10 years for the Cubs to best the income tax difference adjusted value of the highest bidder, which was the Marlins offering 10/275 plus no state income tax.

I hadn't realized the Angels outbid the supposed bid of the Marlins.

There isn't any magic free agent out there to put them over the hump.

The Cubs are not the Pirates. They can get more than one free agent at a time.

68. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:45 PM (#4011947)

Shuffling deck chairs? The Cubs needed a 3rd basemen. Someone has to play that position. And prior to this deal, the best option was DeWitt. A guy who probably should be playing 2B because someone has to play that position too and Barney ain't all that great.

I'dve liked it if the Cubs woulda re-signed Aramis because I like him. Or Jose Reyes, if he'dve played 3rd. But there are reasons why those options aren't particularly realistic or all that great. So absent those, the Cubs had to get someone.

Ian Stewart is young, has a dollop of upside and could be a complimentary player on a championship caliber team.

David DeJesus needs to be around so the Cubs won't have to run a Tyler Colvinesque player out to RF every day. (Had he come cheap, Beltran may have been a better, older choice. Otherwise, Willingham? Coco Crisp?)

And again if the Cubs had gone out and gotten a couple of good players nobody would really care about these particular moves. The problem is that this is the Cubs' offseason. Both players basically solve a problem for next year for what looks to be a bad team. Yippee. Neither player solves anything long term nor does it look to put the Cubs into a position to solve those problems.

69. KyleJRM Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:49 PM (#4011951)

The Cubs could have signed Fielder and Wilson and Reyes, and I'd still be annoyed that Ian Stewart was the starting 3b.

70. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:50 PM (#4011954)

Oops, I overlooked the big key move this offseason so far. The Cubs picked up Jeff Bianchi off waivers today.

71. MM1f Posted: December 09, 2011 at 10:55 PM (#4011964)

The Cubs could have signed Fielder and Wilson and Reyes, and I'd still be annoyed that Ian Stewart was the starting 3b

Getting average-ish production from certain spots at minimum wage is a necessity if you want to be able sign superstars at other positions.

You're complaining for the sake of complaining. Enjoy 2012.

72. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2011 at 11:07 PM (#4011978)

So now sign those superstars.

But the Cubs have already got those average-ish players at minimum wage. What they are doing is simply filling out their entire lineup with average-ish players and surrounding them with highly paid bad players. I'm not sure why anyone should be joyful about these moves.

73. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 10, 2011 at 02:33 PM (#4012413)

Let's get specific. Who should the Cubs acquire to play third base?

74. McCoy Posted: December 10, 2011 at 04:41 PM (#4012495)

Aramis Ramirez

75. KyleJRM Posted: December 10, 2011 at 11:10 PM (#4012781)

"Getting average-ish production from certain spots at minimum wage is a necessity if you want to be able sign superstars at other positions."

I absolutely agree.

Unfortunately, Stewart is not a minimum wage and I'm very skeptical of his ability to produce at an average rate.

For all the condescension in that post, it's my point that's going over your head. I agree that going cheap with upside is the way to go at 3b. But Ian Stewart isn't that cheap and I don't see that much upside.

I would have been just fine with a Baker/Dewitt platoon or something if this is the alternative.

76. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 11, 2011 at 01:39 AM (#4012926)

Aramis Ramirez

Well, I'm glad they didn't go that route since it means giving up a draft pick that has more value down the road.

I would have been just fine with a Baker/Dewitt platoon or something if this is the alternative.

I am speechless.

77. McCoy Posted: December 11, 2011 at 01:49 AM (#4012941)

Well, I'm glad they didn't go that route since it means giving up a sandwich pick that means more for the future.

Sure it does.

I am speechless.

Why? Obviously the Cubs look to be punting the near future. Right now they have a lottery ticket's chance of doing something next year. What does it matter who is at third? Stewart isn't going to be the answer at third base for any other point in time other than next year and perhaps the year after that. And he isn't going to be a good answer.

78. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 11, 2011 at 02:06 AM (#4012961)

Well, I see Stewart as a guy with some remaining star potential. He draws walks and he's hit as many as 25 homers in a season - has a career ISO of almost .200. If he finds some BA he could easily be a .270/.380/.470 guy which, along with average-ish defense at third base, is an all-star.

What's the argument for Baker/DeWitt? DeWitt has never hit for average, he has never hit for power, and he's been consistently mediocre with patience. Jeff Baker will be 31 years old next season and has a career OPS+ of 94 (87 last year). The odds of those guys morphing into stars has to be as close to zero as it can get.

79. McCoy Posted: December 15, 2011 at 04:55 PM (#4017056)

ARam's contract with the Brewers:

2012: $6,000,000
2013: $10,000,000
2014: $16,000,000 of which 6 million is deferred
2015: $4,000,000 buyout on a $14,000,000 option

This is something the Cubs should have passed on?

80. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 18, 2011 at 06:06 PM (#4018940)

I don't see any scenario where the Cubs should be spending tomorrow's payroll to improve the team in the short term.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, December 09, 2011

Rockies trade Stewart, Weathers to Cubs for Colvin, LeMahieu

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics