Quantcast

When the Texas Rangers added Adrian Beltre (with a hilariously awful contract, you’ll note) earlier this offseason, rumors began to swirl about incumbent third baseman Michael Young. Would he stay, would he go? Management says he’ll see time all over the field, and, in that way, a full complement of at bats – especially if he DH’s most of the time. But then the Rangers added Mike Napoli – a heavy-hitting, but light-catching catcher. So the presumption is that Napoli does most of the DH’ing, and Young sees his at bats… where? No one is quite sure.

But most think the Rangers will try to move Young, and some even suggest they’ll consider moving second baseman Ian Kinsler. Neither move seems likely, but each could walk right into the starting second base gig on a team like, say, the Cubs.

Napoli’s acquisition follows the Rangers’ signing of free-agent third baseman Adrian Beltre — the guy who made most sense for the Angels — and catcher Yorvit Torrealba. Napoli becomes essentially baseball’s best 10th man, likely to get at-bats at catcher, first base and DH. It also puts an even tighter squeeze on Michael Young, whom Beltre displaced.

Young said last weekend he doesn’t plan to be a DH forever, and the Napoli addition would make it easy to trade him or Ian Kinsler as scouts believe second base is Young’s best fit. The Rockies are interested in Young and at one point this winter the Rangers were offering to pay half of the $48 million left on his contract. Dealing Kinsler, guaranteed only $13.5 million over the next two years, might be more palatable and bring a higher return.

Either Young or Kinsler would upgrade two spots for the Cubs — second base and leadoff. The Rangers’ need is a starting pitcher to replace Cliff Lee. Nolan Ryan loves Andrew Cashner, but it’s hard to imagine the Cubs trading a second pitching prospect after putting Chris Archer in the Matt Garza trade. Chicago Tribune.

Unspoken in the rumormongering is how tightly the Cubs budget is now strained. By Jim Hendry’s own words, he’s out of cash. Would the Ricketts’ put some more money on the table if the Cubs could get a player like Kinsler? He’s 28, a natural 2B, and consistently over .800 OPS. But Young is 34, and was racked in decline until a resurgent 2009 season, which he followed up with a so-so 2010.

Even if the Rangers ate half of the $48 million owed to Young over the next three years, the Cubs still probably couldn’t (and shouldn’t) swing a deal for him. Obviously Kinsler is a different story, but the cost would be extremely steep. Andrew Cashner would probably be just the starting point.

  • Serio

    I Said Michael Young 3 weeks ago and people here laughed at me. im not saying the cubs should 100% go for him i just mentioned it

    • BT

      The only reason we laughed is because it’s still a terrible idea. The fact that Phil Rogers brought it up as well actually hurts your case, not helps. If it makes you feel any better, I laughed at Rogers as well.

      If Young were free, it would be a different story. He’s not.

      • Raymond Robert Koenig

        Somewhere on the ‘net I read that the Rangers might be willing to pick up all of Young’s contract in a trade. The Cubs should be talking to them. 2nd base looks like a black hole right now.

        • BT

          If they pick up all his salary, I’m all in. I don’t see why they would do that though.

        • Ace

          DeWitt is still just 25. I’m not saying he’s the answer long-term, but there’s starting-calibre upside there. Enough that I wouldn’t call the position a black hole.

          • Raymond Robert Koenig

            By the time the 2011 season gets into full swing, 2B will be a bigger problem than any other issue the Cubs will face.

            • Ace

              If we’re lucky. I think the outfield right now looks pretty crappy compared to other competitive teams.

              • Raymond Robert Koenig

                I agree on the OF. Soriano will continue to be himself. Byrd will regress and the Cubs will put the wrong player (Colvin) in RF.

                • Serio

                  Yeah the Cardinals outfield looks great defensively

        • Crazy Cubs fan

          The cubs have Blake Dewitt (acquired him in trade for Lilly and Theriot) He played real well with the cubs late season so i think their wanting to give him a shot.

  • Tex

    The one reason that I think there could be some validity to this is the recent aquisitions of Looper and Wellemeyer. Would the Rangers be willing to take Zambrano’s contract for Young? Would Z waive his no trade to go to Texas? Would trading Z for Young improve the Cubs? I say no…..but maybe the thought of getting Z off the books and with his recent exploits the last couple of years would be too appealing for Hendry to pass up! I don’t think this will happen but you could see how it would work for both teams.

    • Ace

      I highly doubt either side would even consider it. Attitude and all, Zambrano’s success in 2011 is a key piece to the Cubs being competitive. The upgrade from DeWitt/Baker to Young is not nearly as dramatic as the dropoff from Z to Silva, for example.

    • mike

      Why would the Cubs trade Z for Young? I could see trading Z for Kinsler if Z can start the season like he ended. But they don’t need another aging overpaid vet to sit next to Soriano? The Yankees will be in panic mode if they don’t get Pettite to come back and they struggle out of the gate.

      If Z can start the season like he finished, there will be teams lining up to not only take his entire contract but offer a quality prospect as well. The Cubs just need to sit tight and see where the chips fall.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Lukewarm Stove: Cubs Make Sense for Michael Young or Ian Kinsler | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary -- Topsy.com()

  • Mike S

    Ace,
    What would it take you think for Kinsler? You said Cashner as the starting block…who else? McNutt? Jackson?

    • Ace

      I’m sure the Rangers would ask for something like Cashner and one of those two. I believe I’d heard that, as of a few months ago, they really liked Colvin, too. None of those four are going to be traded – like it or lump it, that’s been made clear by the front office. So that said, could the Cubs trade for Kinsler? No, not without making at least one of those guys available, and then going nuts on middle tier prospects.

  • greg

    Let’s keep Cashner, please. I like Kinseler and all but…eh. That deal wouldn’t get me super excited.

    I wonder if they would’ve considered Gorz and a package of prospects?

    • Ace

      I doubt it – primarily because I’m sure the Cubs would have gladly done it, and it never even came up.

  • KB

    Young would be an upgrade at the duece, but his contract is absurd. Plus, he’s 34, and has a sense of entitlement.
    Pass.

    Kinsler would look great in our lineup. And we do have a surplus of hard-throwing pitchers, something Texas covets. But I’d be leery about shedding young arms, especially Cashner.

    • KB

      BTW, that’s not to say I wouldn’t trade Cashner for Kinsler (sounds like a alt-rock band).
      I would in a second, but I wonder who else the Rangers would want. I’m also a bit worried about Kinsler’s health…anyone know why he gets injured every single year?

      • Ace

        It should be emphasized that Rogers appears to have been pulling Kinsler out of his ass, based solely on the Rangers’ current roster configuration. Personally – and I should have said this in the post – I doubt the Rangers would consider moving Kinsler this year.

  • well…

    As Ace mentioned, Kinsler is not going to happen. Being a top 3-5 2B in the game, they wont trade him unless they get an absolute massive haul – a move which would completely destroy the current rebuilding direction of the Cubs in the process.

    Young is a possibility though. But the problem (outside cost and Age) with Young comes in this

    .307/.361/.509/.871, .202 ISO, .373 wOBA, 15.0 wRAA – At home in Texas 2010
    .260/.299/.380/.679, .120 ISO, .297 wOBA, -6.9 wRAA – away from Texas 2010

    .326/.376/.490/.866, .164 ISO, .375 wOBA, 122.4 wRAA – At home in Texas career
    .283/.326/.416/.743, .134 ISO, .316 wOBA, -8.3 wRAA – away from Texas career

    He has never really been that good of a hitter away from Texas, and is therefore a pretty big crap-shoot production wise on another club. When age is factored in, it gets even worse. Salary included, he becomes a shot not worth taking for 99.9% of the population.

    Of course, we have Hendry who has proven himself to be in that 0.1%. Thats why I think Hendry will at least try to get him – and this is what I see as his reasoning

    1) With the Garza deal, he has shown a willingness to trade from the future for a ever-so-slight upgrade to todays lineup while (still) ignoring future salary ramifications. He is obviously trying to stay competitive for the near future – Young would theoretically help the club be competitive.

    2) Ramirez will probably be gone next season, and Young would not only be a 3B replacement, but also a salary wash (to even savings if Texas eats anything from the 2012-13 salary or takes a long-term in return)

    3) Texas wont want much in return, and will probably even target Zambrano (or at least Dempster) alleviating the need to include prospects; plus make it financially beneficial for us.

    I could easily see a Depmster for Young + Scrub move taking place, with Hendry going with a Zambrano/Garza/Wells/Silva/Cashner rotation

    • Ace

      I like this “well…” guy. You gotta get a better handle, though. I’m already having visions of wanting to say “well… put that well,” and no one understands what I’m saying.

      And I agreed with everything you said until you got down to the 2 and 3. I’m not sure you were saying this, but there’s just about no way Young approximates Ramirez’s production in 2012. The only way they are each others equals at this point in their respective careers, as you note, is in the salary department. As for number 3, Dempster would net a whole, whole lot more than Young (especially with his contract) and a scrub. Dempster could net Young, salary relief, and a solid prospect, at least.

      • Serio

        hmmmm Demp on a on a pedestal? Demp for Pujols and meatball sub? Hey look Demp is a good pitcher. no question, but “Dempster would net a whole a whole, whole lot more than Young” NO NO NO!

        • Ace

          Young is signed for 3 years at $48 million – he’s worth less than half of that. Dempster is signed for 2011 at a very reasonable $13.5 million, and a $14 million player option for 2012. Even last year – his “bad” year – Dempster was the most valuable starting pitcher on the Cubs, and top 20 in the NL.

          • Serio

            Hey i love “The Demp,” The Demps great. I forgot about the money issue.

            • Ace

              If you took money out of it, would you rather have Young or Dempster? For me, it’s Dempster and it’s not particularly close.

      • well…

        “well… put that well,” is part of the fun…

        But to the serious part,

        Re: 2) Its not that Young would easily replace Ramirez’s production, but he would be seen as a capable, positive producer at 3rd while freeing up a ton of money (14 Million saved on Ramirez after 2 million buyout, plus 14 million saved on Dempster minus the 16 million to Young is an extra 12 million to spend (plus any other cash Texas picks up) while having 3B/Young plus Zambrano/Garza/Wells/Cashner locked in for 2012-2013 after the immediate 2011 upgrade he would provide)

        What other 3B options would we honestly have for 2012-13? The free agent market for Third is extremely weak and if we didnt make the move, we are probably left with our backs against the wall needing to pick up the Ramirez option and forcing him (probably illogically at that point) to stay at 3rd. If we made the move though, the 12+ we saved could even mean picking up the Ramirez option if we like and leaving Young at 2B or moving Ramirez to 1st and having Young slide to third

        Re: 3) Well… Think of it this way
        .295/.346/.451/.797, 37.1 wRAA, .348 wOBA, 109 wRC+
        .286/.335/.471/.805, 29.7 wRAA, .347 wOBA, 113 wRC+
        One of those is Young, one of those is Beltre (who signed a near exact copy of Youngs contract this offseason) Now granted, Beltre comes with the added Defensive value; but non the less, 3B is a premium position right now with few positive options easily available to clubs.

        That of course doesnt skyrocket Youngs value – but I think it is probably higher then you are giving credit. Plus remember, this is Hendry’s thinking we are talking about. Hendry’s logic and everyone elses logic is usually quite different! We all know he is willing to greatly overpay when he sets his sights on a “want”, and a 2011 2B upgrade who hits like Beltre and will save 2012 money… Well, that would probably fall into his “want” category. Texas sweetens the deal including a scrub or two plus maybe some cash, and I think its the type of move Hendry might make. Plus it saves including prospects to get him, which Hendry is likely weary about doing since he has already chopped the top off our system.

        And if he did make a move in that realm it of course wouldnt be a very good trade, but it wouldnt exactly be an absolutely horrific one either (on the surface at least; outside our knowing about the Age and Texas thing – but we have to assume Hendry doesnt factor such things after his track record). Dempster has been worth 12.4 WAR the last three seasons while Young has provided 9.1 – as good as we think Demp is and as bad as you are thinking about Young, they havent been that far off eachother value wise. But we need 2B/3B depth much, much more then we need another starter, and its going to be harder to find a 3B going forward then a Dempster-similar pitcher. Plus, again, its Hendry here…

        Honestly though, the roster and salary flexibility it would provide would not really make it that bad of a movie if Young is able to produce similar to his 2009-2010 range in Chicago (I am not sure he can, and Bradley sure didnt but Byrd at least got close to it with similar H/R splits). And Demp’s 2012 option being a player option, he might not be here next season anyway which would leave us with no Young, no Dempster and only the huge option on Ramirez who may or may-not be able to even play 3rd at that point – it would be jumping that gun a bit while vastly improving our 2011 odds and fixing the current rotation issues we have (or will have if Silva is whining after losing out on a spot or worse, taking the spot away from Wells)

        • Ace

          I think you’re undervaluing the difference between 12.4 WAR over three seasons and 9.1 (especially when the 12.4 is a starting pitcher, of whom there are fewer than positional players). As wins a player adds increase, they become incrementally more valuable – i.e., the difference between a 7 WAR player and a 6 WAR player is greater than a 4 WAR player and a 3 WAR player.

          Plus, we’re talking about projection – it’s not just that Dempster has been more valuable than Young over the past three years, it’s that I think he’s going to be vastly more valuable over the next two.

          And, to be honest, I believe the Cubs still see Vitters as the immediate future at 3B (with DeWitt as the fallback). Like it or lump it, as I tend to say.

          (these statistical discussions are making me all tingly!)

          • well…

            oh no, I understand the difference between the two. But it isnt as extreme as one would think at first thought was my point. But you also have to remember that Dempster has the 12 mainly because of the seemingly unrepeatable 2008 season, where realistically he should be considered a mid-3 producer. Young has been 2.5+ each of the three years and trend wise should be expected around 3 going forward.

            The real thing (which we know Hendry will be factoring into a decision) is value to the team though. With Zambrano for 3 more years, Garza for 2-3, Wells for 3+, Cashner for 5+, Silva for 1, Marshall for 2-3, Looper for 1, Samardzija for 5+ (cringe) plus prospects to choose from… Well, we hardly need SP – but if we wanted it, there are some fantastic free agents to choose from in 2012 with the extra 12+ million in our pocket to spend.

            When it comes to 2B or 3B though, we have Ramirez for 1-2 then platoon types in DeWitt, Baker and Barney, the miserable looking Vitters, a likely bench type who might be able to fill-in in Marquez Smith and then a bunch of questionable SS/2B prospects who are a while away still. After that, the 2012 FA market gives us the option of picking up the 16M Ramirez option or target someone like Casey Blake or Edwin Encarnacion.

            Really, I wouldnt be a fan of the possible trade, but I can at least make sense of it from Henry’s perspective and I do realize that Young probably has more value to the Cubs then Dempster under the teams current (post-Garza trade) configuration.

            • Ace

              We’ll have to agree to disagree on the conclusion. Even as currently configured, I don’t believe Young has nearly as much value to the Cubs as Dempster (the difference between Silva and Dempster, to me, is far greater than the difference between DeWitt/Baker and Young; and as for 2012, Young will only be worse, and there is no guarantee that a young starter (or a free agent for $12 million or less) could duplicate Dempster’s performance).

              I can see your point, however. Back to my original point – regardless of the merits of the trade, in no universe would (should) Dempster net merely Young and a scrub, unless the Rangers are eating all of Young’s salary. And I mean all.

              • well…

                Silva pitches to a 1.5-2.0 WAR (as he has done in 3 of the last 4 years) then you are looking at a 1.5-2.0 WAR loss. Young being a 2.5-3.0, DeWitt/Baker would have to better 1 WAR solely from their 2B play – and realistically, I dont see how much more they could top that. So I dont see where you even begin to get “far greater”. Slightly better I can see, but its likely to end up about the same honestly.

                • Ace

                  I know it’s unfair of me to say this, given I’m leaning on an outstanding an probably unrepeatable year from Dempster three years ago, but you can’t possibly be using Silva’s 2007 season as a part of his expected value next year. Let’s just throw that year right out. The question then is whether you think he’s the pitcher he was in the first half of 2010, or the pitcher he was in 2008, 2009, and the second half of 2010. I’m gonna go with that guy.

                  I also think Young’s numbers would fall drastically (as his splits suggest) outside of Arlington. Combine those presumptions – with which I understand reasonable minds can differ – and to me, the drop off from Dempster to Silva is far greater than the drop off from Young to DeWitt/Baker (and that’s without even considering the fact that DeWitt still has upside).

                  • well…

                    Nope, not factoring in Silva’s 2007 as some kind of average – but I am mentioning it as one of his last three full-seasons. And in those last three full-seasons (which is 3 of his last 4 overall), he has posted a WAR of 1.5-2 (or much higher in the 2007 case) each time. But I’ll tell you this about his 2010 – it goes to the other conversation we had. That is, luck. His first half and second half of 2010 actually look pretty similar outside of ERA:
                    April – 3.00 FIP, 4.08 xFIP
                    May – 4.46 FIP, 3.55 xFIP
                    June – 3.16 FIP, 4.02 xFIP
                    July – 3.89 FIP, 3.95 xFIP
                    Aug – injured basically whole month
                    Sept – 4.68 FIP, 3.44 xFIP

                    And yeah, I figure Young’s production likely would fall outside of Arlington too – we saw it happen to Bradley, we saw it affect Byrd. But you never know, and that is just our opinion without solid facts behind it. Solid facts point to Dempster + DeWitt/Baker being roughly the same value as Silva + Young. And that’s the kind of thing which will lead Hendry (who has shown an inability to factor much logic) to make such moves in the past; moves where you can semi-defend the move when looking at certain aspects while ignoring the big flashing neon warning signs all over the place.

                    But please don’t give me that “DeWitt still has upside” nonsense, we all know he never had any real upside to begin with. He’s a guy that struggled to produce even league average production in the minors, and has since been struggling to stay even a fair distance below it in the Majors. He’s just an average-patience, no-power, no-speed player with questionable D. He’s the less-talented Theriot I pray doesnt become the new organization obsession

                    • Ace

                      DeWitt is 25. He broke into the bigs when he was just 22. He was always young for his level. So, yes, I will give you the “DeWitt still has upside” nonsense. Because he does.

                      And as for Young, anticipating a production decline outside of Arlington is about as fact-y as anything else we’re discussing: his career OPS at home is .859. On the road, it’s a hilariously low .733. There’s not a ton of conjecture there – certainly no more than anticipating (based on one half of a season in the last three) Carlos Silva will be a useful pitcher in 2011.

                      And for the record, I never said you were using Silva’s 2007 as part of an average. I said you were using it as a part of his expected value in 2011 – which you are. And, in my opinion, given the nature of his performance and health over the last three years, I think his 2007 has as much relevance to his 2011 performance as does his years as a reliever with the Phillies. That is to say, not much.

                    • Jeff

                      Michael Young has three more years at 16 plus million a season on his contract. Unless Soriano is on his way to Texas, no way do the Cubs even think about picking up a 34 year old and paying him better than any other 2nd baseman in baseball through his 37th birthday. At the same time, you want them to send the Rangers Ryan Dempster?????? The only Cubs starter who has pitched with any kind of consistency in the past 5 years, and undoubtedly now the clubhouse leader. Not only would Carlos Silva not replace his productivity in the rotation, the void by Dempsters leadership could only be filled by Silva’s girth and the inevitable massive inflation to Zambrano’s ego since he would become the teams ace again. You can spout WAR and FIP and Silva’s flash in the pan two months of solid pitching last year all you want, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Silva/Young is far less desirable to the Cubs than Dempster/DeWitt/Baker.

                    • well…

                      Since when has age meant potential? You first have to have talent to have upside, and DeWitt just doesn’t really have any.

                      And since when has theory become fact? Sure one would have to conclude Young won’t be as good playing in another park, but that is anything but an actual fact. Look at Holiday – he had some of the most dramatic splits ever seen yet hasnt really skipped a beat since leaving Colorado.

                      As for Silva – 3.3 WAR, 1.4 WAR (over 150 IP), N/A (hurt), 2.1 WAR (over 115 IP) = no one should expect him to be able to provide a 1.5-2.0 WAR because it includes giving him half the credit from his 2007 season? Yet in the same post you’re willing to give credit to DeWitt for things he has never been able to do and discount Young because you just believe something will happen?

                      Besides, why are you so sure Silva is the comparison here anyway? You do know there is a pretty good chance Silva makes this years rotation regardless of Dempster being around, right? And if he did, its likely to mean a rotation of Zambrano/Dempster/Garza/Silva/Cashner with Wells being the odd man out. Would you argue a drop from Dempster + DeWitt/Baker to Wells + Young, because I sure wouldn’t.

                      But look, I don’t really know why you are continuing this off my saying “I could see Hendry doing such a trade” though, and my showing, as bad as it would seem, that there could be some illogical but factual logic behind it. I guess I can only assume you hate Young, think higher of Dempster then is probably warranted, want DeWitt to have ability never shown and I guess apparently feel Hendry wont make moves based off questionable logic – cool deal. But run this on as long as you want, you will never be able to remove the actual stats which show a much, much, much more even value (to even better value if Silva isn’t the factor) then your personal hopes and feelings want there to be, and the logic behind a move like this actually holding more then many of Hendrys others.

                    • Ace

                      At some point in the dialog, your tone became a little douchey. Cool deal, as you say. Not sure why that happened. We were just talking; and it’s a bit of a bummer, because you’re a smart guy with whom conversation could have been quite interesting. Either way, it’s not worth taking an e-dump. So I won’t.

                    • well…

                      And to Jeff, like it or not, the Cubs wont realistically compete in 2011 without big breaks going their way, don’t need 8+ starters for the next few years, stand a chance of loosing Dempster for nothing following the season, will have holes at 2B and 3B from 2012 on, will find it much, much easier to find a mid-rotation arm (if they even wanted one) then 2B and 3B come 2012/2013, could really stand to save cash (which such a move would do) and have a GM prone to make statistically questionable moves (which such a deal would even be much less statistically questionable then many of his other transactions anyway). I don’t want such a move and have never stated as much; but it’s a move I could easily see happen. And if it did, it would actually be an easier move to swallow then some of his many others – at least statistically this one would have some merit to it with factors like depth and cost clearly tilting the Cubs way.

  • CubSouth

    I would like to throw my hat in the ring and suggest putting Soriano at 2b, for 3 reasons. 1. He has played that position before. 2. It strengthens our OF with Colvin, Byrd and Fukudome. 3. It gives us production at a spot we pretty much expect next to nothing with DeWitt playing there. Plus, if Soriano misjudges a ball at 2b, it won’t cost us a runner at 3rd or even an in-the-park homerun, just a runner at 1st or 2nd.

    • Ace

      If Soriano could handle 2B anymore, he’d have been put back there years ago. It is no more an option than putting Byrd or Fukudome there.

    • Tex

      If anything I think Soriano should have been moved to 1B! He has played infield before and that way the Cubs could strenghthen their outfield and add more much needed team speed. That is the most logical move.

      • Ace

        Not sure he’s got the glove to handle the tough throws.

  • CubSouth

    He was put there at 2nd last year, albeit, we had a handful of injuries in our infield. I know a 2b needs to work a lot with his counterpart, the SS, but couldn’t we try it in ST? He has lost some speed and agility but would u really rather see him manning the OF or plugging the much smaller hole at 2nd. And I thought the reason he wasn’t at 2nd anymore was because he demanded not to be put there. When we got him from the Nats he had played 2nd and was sent to the OF where he publicly said he wanted no part of it. Then, once traded to the Cubs, I’m guessing he had a change of heart because he said he doesn’t want to be at 2nd anymore. I’m basing my information on Sportscenter, Baseball Tonight and the WGN broadcasters. This could all be mere speculation and accusations. Oh, and Ace, I love your blogs! I don’t go a single day without checking in and seeing what new tidbits you have for us fans.

    • Ace

      Thanks, CubSouth. I don’t go a single day without hoping that someone will say something like that, so it works out nicely.

      Soriano only played 2B last year in an emergency, and for (I believe) an inning. It’s just not a possibility for him at this point in his (and his legs’) career.

      • Bric

        I guess the real question is do you consider Sori more valuable to the Cubs at 2nd, LF, or on the IR. I’ll be the first to admit I want to blow up the team from what it didn’t produce for us in ’07 and ’08. As you and others predicted, the management kind of half assed it the last two years. The result is the same (even if the return is less than most fans wanted). The reality is the only lame duck still in his position on the roster is Soriano. Z was sent a message. Demp stood up. Soto tried harder. Woody came back. The rest have been shown the door. Why not put Sori back at 2nd? He’s the only head case left that hasn’t shown a lick respect or responsibilty for getting swept two years in a row. Does anybody honestly think this is the same player we signed four years ago? Stick his ass at second base. Let him suck there. At least he won’t be in the way of the crowded future outfield plans anymore. He might even get a message, as Z did. If not, let him break his leg. He’s useles anyway.

        • Ace

          I get what you’re saying – but only on the predicate that the Cubs cannot be competitive in 2011. I still think (I know, I know) they can be. The offseason plan was clearly a half-ass, middle of the road (bad choice), but here we are. And this team, as constructed, can compete. Maybe just 5 times out of 100, but they can compete. And as such, I think putting Soriano at 2B makes the 2011 Cubs worse, not better.

          • Bric

            All good points. So I guess we have to wait and see what the new management does to change the attitude of the 07-08 hold overs. Quade had better lay down the law because the inmates have been running this assylum for a year and a half too long.

  • CubSouth

    I disagree Tex, mainly for this reason only, Soriano has a hard time judging balls. 1b seems like the ideal position to move a guy when he is no longer useful with his legs but we had D Lee (oh how I miss him, though loved watching him everyday on FSS when he was in Atlanta), whom was great with the glove and could dig out throws from Aramis and Theriot. With Castro at SS and his high velocity, youthful accuracy which will progress in the yrs to come, it makes no sense to add to his error total with a clumsy, never played 1b character like Soriano. I’m glad we got Pena cause if nothing else, he is a solid defenseman.

    • Tex

      I am not saying Soriano would be a gold glove candidate at 1st at all !!!They signed Pena so it is a mute point for this year, but let’s say Soriano struggles badly this year in left but hits well???? His contract is very hard to move so in order to improve the defense, the logical move would be 1st base. Hopefully, Brett Jackson would be in cf and Colvin in right and you can add a big right handed bat for left or speed guy . I would prefer some speed guy. Many guys move to 1B later in their career and I am not ready to say that Soriano would be awful without seeing it first. He has infield experience already so it is worth a look.

  • http://None Blinda

    I would trade Cashner for Kinsler any day of the week. Prospects rarely come out to be everything they are hyped up to.

  • CubSouth

    I disagree with you as well Blinda, prospects aren’t just the future of your team but also great trade pieces for proven talented players. This would be a situation where trading a prospect for a talented player like Kinsler, but I believe Cashner is the real deal and you can probably trade Z for Kinsler without messing with any top prospects. You really have to know your Minor League players and trust the coaches if your a GM. Plus Hendry isn’t gonna burn off all of his prospects in one fell swoop, he couldn’t be that crazy, right?

  • Juniorbors

    With all this talk, how good is Julio bourbon? Would Texas remember the good soriano? Soriano for young as a basis with pieces put around it?

  • Butcher

    Ace — any time you quote Phil Rogers as a source for anything (even a lukewarm rumor), it diminishes your credibility. In this article, he calls Jose Bautista, “Juan” Bautista. And he states that the Cardinals have paid more for Kyle Lohse than Albert Pujols. Is he even trying anymore?

    • Ace

      Cram it, Butchie. Phil Rogers is the definition of Lukewarm – he’s the reason the feature exists.

  • Raymond Robert Koenig

    How about this? The Cubs offer the Rangers their choice of two trades. Prospects for Kinsler, or lesser prospects for Young but the Rangers pick up all or most of his contract.

  • Pingback: Young cubs | Micksmiracles()

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+