Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays


Photo

Bad Contract Swap


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Cubs Dude

Cubs Dude

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:26 PM

Ok, let me start this off by admitting that I really can't believe I am saying this, but what about Lackey for Soriano. I know Lackey is coming off TJS and was horrible in Boston. But lets face it, trading Soriano for any type of value is next to impossible because of his criteria of teams, his age, and his knee history. Do people think he can be that good next yr at his age? I have my doubts..
And will Lackey come back and be a workhorse again? Maybe not, but I can see him easily coming back and being a serviceable pitcher that we could ride for awhile, and dump at the right opportunity. Lackey is hated in Boston, and could use a change of scenary. Soriano seems to have an affection for the East coast, could dh some, and would hit well with the green monster. The Cubs could save several million in salary too.

Obviously we would all love good prospects, but it's not happening.

#2 Tommy

Tommy

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 696 posts
  • LocationPekin, IL

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:50 PM

If Lackey were 4 years younger, maybe. Soriano put up some decent numbers last year and actually has some real trade value now, while Lackey will have to show that he can recover.

Personally, I wouldn't do this (even if Soriano would accept a trade to Boston, which I don't believe he would).
- diehard fanclub member #002

#3 Cubs Dude

Cubs Dude

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:55 PM

I hear ya. But if Lackey were 4 yrs younger Boston wouldn't do the trade. And I have no idea if Sori would accept the trade anyways. It's obviously not ideal for the Cubs, but I do think Lackey may have something left in the tank.

#4 King Jeff

King Jeff

    King of all Cubs fans!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,478 posts
  • Twitter:@peaceknuckle
  • LocationSouth Florida

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:35 PM

I like my chances with Soriano's bat more than I do with Lackey's arm. The one caveat is that the Cubs might get Lackey to pitch for the league minimum in 2015 since he's been hurt so much over the last two years. I also think Soriano is a better leader for this team and wouldn't want the staff exposed to any stink Lackey has left over from Boston. I don't trust Lackey on the field or off the field, so no way in hell would I make the trade unless the Cubs got some prospects in return.

#5 fromthemitten

fromthemitten

    sleeps in too late to answer the calendar trivia

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Twitter:fromthemitten
  • Locationin a van down by the river

Posted 15 November 2012 - 11:25 PM

NO F'N WAY

Lackey was reported to be part of the bad clubhouse atmosphere that's plagued Boston the last few years. On the other hand, despite numerous losses, the Cubs had a good atmosphere. I've heard nothing but good things about Sori's work effort and has been leading by example. I don't want him to be drinking beer and eating chicken wings with Shark and Wood in the middle of a game. Lackey wasn't "overpaid overachiever bad" in 2011, he was Chris Volstad bad. At least Volstad was $10 mil+ cheaper.

I could see, maybe, Carlos Zambrano or Milton Bradley for Lackey but this deal would be awful for the Cubs.

#6 FFP

FFP

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 406 posts
  • LocationWorcester County, Massachusetts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:22 AM

Lackey is the worst thing to happen to clubhouse chemistry since BALCO.

#7 Cubs Dude

Cubs Dude

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:56 AM

Boston had way more issues than Lackey in the clubhouse. Sure he may have been chugging beer and eating chicken in the clubhouse, but leaders who had won World Series with the Sox like Beckett and Lester were involved too. Plus many other deep rooted problems. I never heard any issue with him in LA. It's not like he's been psycho his whole career like Big Z and Bradley. All I am doing is stating how little value Soriano has with that NTC even after last yr, and trying to come up with alternative ideas.

We save $4 mill in salary (that they can invest in a dude that really matters), and get a valuable option year if he's effective at all. OBVIOUSLY Lackey is not a guy to get exctied about and has his faults. Bu just an idea, so chill... He may not be Mother Teresa in the clubhouse like Soriano and his insane turnaround either. But if he can eat innings, show some effectiveness, and not block trades like the clubhouse Saint, I would do the trade.

Pluse any chance Lackey's bad pitching had anything to do with the fact he needed TJS??? Just saying...

#8 King Jeff

King Jeff

    King of all Cubs fans!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,478 posts
  • Twitter:@peaceknuckle
  • LocationSouth Florida

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:24 AM

Boston had way more issues than Lackey in the clubhouse. Sure he may have been chugging beer and eating chicken in the clubhouse, but leaders who had won World Series with the Sox like Beckett and Lester were involved too. Plus many other deep rooted problems. I never heard any issue with him in LA. It's not like he's been psycho his whole career like Big Z and Bradley. All I am doing is stating how little value Soriano has with that NTC even after last yr, and trying to come up with alternative ideas.

We save $4 mill in salary (that they can invest in a dude that really matters), and get a valuable option year if he's effective at all. OBVIOUSLY Lackey is not a guy to get exctied about and has his faults. Bu just an idea, so chill... He may not be Mother Teresa in the clubhouse like Soriano and his insane turnaround either. But if he can eat innings, show some effectiveness, and not block trades like the clubhouse Saint, I would do the trade.

Pluse any chance Lackey's bad pitching had anything to do with the fact he needed TJS??? Just saying...

That's a lot of if's on Lackey. Like I said before, I'm more comfortable with Soriano and what he brings to the table. You are suggesting that the Cubs trade one of their only veteran clubhouse leaders and trade him for someone who only brings questions to a team that doesn't need any expensive question marks. We know that Soriano's going to hit 20 homeruns and play mediocre defense in left, and be a positive influence on the young players. Lackey has so much more potential to hurt the team than Soriano, on the field and off.

#9 fromthemitten

fromthemitten

    sleeps in too late to answer the calendar trivia

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Twitter:fromthemitten
  • Locationin a van down by the river

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:32 AM

For all their shortcomings, neither Big Z nor Milton Bradley divorced their respective wives months after they underwent a double mastectomy for breast cancer. That's Newt Gingrich territory.

#10 Cubs Dude

Cubs Dude

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:04 AM

For all their shortcomings, neither Big Z nor Milton Bradley divorced their respective wives months after they underwent a double mastectomy for breast cancer. That's Newt Gingrich territory.

I know nothing of this and this is terrible, but has little to do with what I am saying. If you want to go that route look up Soriano on deadspin and see what he has been up to as a married man... I know everyone loves Soriano after last yrs turn around. But what the hell was he doing the other 5 yrs while raking in $18 mill? Obviously he wasnt praticing dfence, or trying to improve as a player. It's not all him "not being taught correctly in left field". That's a huge cop out, and I am sick of hearing it. Lackey is a huge risk, but we save some money and can flip Lackey if he proves to be a little decent, thats it. We can't do shit with Soriano because of his NTC. In the whole scheme of things Soriano probably wouldn't accept a Boston deal anyways, so forget it. But I still maintain it's not as bad of a deal as you guys make it out to be.

#11 CubChymyst

CubChymyst

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 426 posts
  • LocationManhattan, Kansas

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:10 AM

I'd rather take another chance on a younger pitcher who might emerge into a decent starter.

#12 King Jeff

King Jeff

    King of all Cubs fans!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,478 posts
  • Twitter:@peaceknuckle
  • LocationSouth Florida

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:42 AM

I very much disagree that Soriano has less trade value than Lackey. I don't think it's a terrible idea, but you create some more problems by trading Soriano for Lackey. You put a big hole in left field and behind Rizzo in the lineup, and you still have a question mark at best in the rotation. That mean's that not only do they have to hedge their bet on Lackey by signing/trading for another starter, they have to shell out for a middle of the order bat, and those aren't easy to find any more. Torii Hunter just got 13 million a season, and that's probably the floor for the kind of bat the Cubs need. I just don't think the net risk is worth it, not that I don't see how the upside could be.

#13 Cubs Dude

Cubs Dude

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:45 AM

I very much disagree that Soriano has less trade value than Lackey. I don't think it's a terrible idea, but you create some more problems by trading Soriano for Lackey. You put a big hole in left field and behind Rizzo in the lineup, and you still have a question mark at best in the rotation. That mean's that not only do they have to hedge their bet on Lackey by signing/trading for another starter, they have to shell out for a middle of the order bat, and those aren't easy to find any more. Torii Hunter just got 13 million a season, and that's probably the floor for the kind of bat the Cubs need. I just don't think the net risk is worth it, not that I don't see how the upside could be.


I am not saying at all the Soriano is less valuable than Lackey. But Soriano has a NTC that makes the market like 2 or 3 teams for him. Which makes his value shit. I think an effective Lackey would be easier to flip because Soriano has made it clear he could care less about winning at this point in his career. Plus that option yr on Lackey is pretty sweet if he can be ok.

#14 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:23 PM

But Soriano has a NTC that makes the market like 2 or 3 teams for him. Which makes his value shit. ... Soriano has made it clear he could care less about winning at this point in his career.


I get where you're coming from on these, or think I do, but I'm not sure I agree with either. He seems to have worked awfully hard last year for a guy who could not care less about winning. I think he'll accept a trade when he's convinced it's the right fit, not a team that's rebuilding (like Baltimore was... in hindsight he should have taken that deal) or one that comes with health related weather or terrain concerns (which aren't as invalid as a lot fans seem to let on, even in San Francisco).

I very much doubt the idea that he wants to stay in Chicago because he just doesn't care anymore is simply looking to go through the motions while cashing in his pay check. Absolutely nothing he has done on the field supports that notion.

#15 Cubs Dude

Cubs Dude

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:02 AM


But Soriano has a NTC that makes the market like 2 or 3 teams for him. Which makes his value shit. ... Soriano has made it clear he could care less about winning at this point in his career.


I get where you're coming from on these, or think I do, but I'm not sure I agree with either. He seems to have worked awfully hard last year for a guy who could not care less about winning. I think he'll accept a trade when he's convinced it's the right fit, not a team that's rebuilding (like Baltimore was... in hindsight he should have taken that deal) or one that comes with health related weather or terrain concerns (which aren't as invalid as a lot fans seem to let on, even in San Francisco).

I very much doubt the idea that he wants to stay in Chicago because he just doesn't care anymore is simply looking to go through the motions while cashing in his pay check. Absolutely nothing he has done on the field supports that notion.


I never said at all that he dosn't care anymore. I think he definitely cares about his on field performance. He obviously worked very hard to improve in a lot ways last year. I am still not sure why the hell it took 5 yrs, but whatever (and I don't think it's all coaching). All I am saying is that he prefers to stay and play with a bunch of young kids when it's clear the Cubs will not be competing for a champinship next year. If I am in my mid 30's I don't think I would make that choice. But thats me..




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).