Recent Topics
-
Cubs v. Cardinals - June 19, 2013 (TV: CSN)Brett - Yesterday, 01:08 PM
-
Cubs Calendar - 6/19 - Run Homehansman1982 - Yesterday, 06:57 AM
-
Baseball Rules QuizSpencer - Jun 18 2013 04:49 PM
-
Cubs v. Cardinals - June 18, 2013 (TV: CSN)Brett - Jun 18 2013 02:45 PM
-
Pure awesomnessCubbie Blues - Jun 18 2013 11:31 AM
Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:
Follow @BleacherNation
Bleacher Nation Posts
- Enhanced Box Score: Cubs 1, Cardinals 4 – June 19, 2013
Yesterday, 09:16 PM - Chicago Cubs Sign 3rd Rounder Jacob Hannemann for $1 Million, Which is Well Over Slot
Yesterday, 04:59 PM - Pre-Gamin’: Cubs v. Cardinals (7:15 CT) – Lineups, Broadcast Info, etc.
Yesterday, 03:55 PM - Astros Officially Sign Top Pick Mark Appel for $6.35 Million – Well Below Slot
Yesterday, 12:40 PM - Around the League: Huge Stories Brewing, Including PED Suspensions and a Monopoly Lawsuit
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
Upcoming Calendar Events
Today's birthdays
-
MightyBear (50)
-
YTOWNCubsFan (32)
Bowden
#1
Posted 17 May 2012 - 11:35 AM
Obvioulsy, the Volstad for Z trade doesn't look good either but at least that makes some sense.. My point is if the Cubs are paying the salaries, shouldn't the return be better? I know the F.O. is in a tough spot with some of these players, but if someone can explain to me what they were thinking I would appreciate it. I do love Theo and Jed, but just curious on what goes thru their heads on certain stuff.
#2
Posted 17 May 2012 - 02:21 PM
Would Byrd's slash gone up over time? Sure it would have. But at what cost?
#3
Posted 17 May 2012 - 03:30 PM
If Rizzo turns out to be a perennial all star, all will be forgiven, but right now: Thed is about 1 for 5.
#7
Posted 18 May 2012 - 07:08 AM
The 5.8 mil is irrelevant..Byrd had a horrible year last year and looks even worse so far this year. When you look at these trades you actually have to take the dollars and cents out of the equation at some point. Understand...the BoSox didn't get the money...they got Byrd. Big difference.The point the OP was making is that 5.8m dollars cash should get you something better than Bowden and a D prospect. I agree with this. This was a horrendous trade for the Cubs.
#10
Posted 18 May 2012 - 10:58 AM
The 5.8 mil is irrelevant..Byrd had a horrible year last year and looks even worse so far this year. When you look at these trades you actually have to take the dollars and cents out of the equation at some point. Understand...the BoSox didn't get the money...they got Byrd. Big difference.
The point the OP was making is that 5.8m dollars cash should get you something better than Bowden and a D prospect. I agree with this. This was a horrendous trade for the Cubs.
This makes zero sense. And the dollars and cents are a huge part of the trade equation, ignoring them is just...dumb.
#11
Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:00 AM
Is Byrd worth 5.8 mil this year? Hell no!! He should be making league minimum for the numbers he is making. In fact, if he were a up and comer versus a vet...he wouldn't even be there...he would be in Pawtucket.
I know Byrd sucks and has minimal value and not worth the salary. In my opinion Bowden is worthless. So why not wait to see if Byrd can get back a little bit. The Red Sox have a player that could give them something, and they DFA's Bowden. So they thought he was worthless too. And the Sox pen is a mess, so that says something.
#12
Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:29 PM
Not exactly. The $5.8 million was spent, owed by the Cubs. Yes, the Cubs "sent" that money to the Red Sox, but it's not like the Red Sox got a $5.8 million player. The money, in that sense, is irrelevant.
The 5.8 mil is irrelevant..Byrd had a horrible year last year and looks even worse so far this year. When you look at these trades you actually have to take the dollars and cents out of the equation at some point. Understand...the BoSox didn't get the money...they got Byrd. Big difference.
The point the OP was making is that 5.8m dollars cash should get you something better than Bowden and a D prospect. I agree with this. This was a horrendous trade for the Cubs.
This makes zero sense. And the dollars and cents are a huge part of the trade equation, ignoring them is just...dumb.
If that were true, the Cubs should expect to get quite a haul for Alfonso Soriano and $20 million, right? After all, they sent $20 million!
#13
Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:49 PM
You make a good point. I guess the fact they are sending a bunch of money makes it seem worse when we only get a player Bowden's caliber back. But we can get caught up in that. Hopefully Bowden pans out to be at least roster worthy over the next couple years.Not exactly. The $5.8 million was spent, owed by the Cubs. Yes, the Cubs "sent" that money to the Red Sox, but it's not like the Red Sox got a $5.8 million player. The money, in that sense, is irrelevant.
The 5.8 mil is irrelevant..Byrd had a horrible year last year and looks even worse so far this year. When you look at these trades you actually have to take the dollars and cents out of the equation at some point. Understand...the BoSox didn't get the money...they got Byrd. Big difference.
The point the OP was making is that 5.8m dollars cash should get you something better than Bowden and a D prospect. I agree with this. This was a horrendous trade for the Cubs.
This makes zero sense. And the dollars and cents are a huge part of the trade equation, ignoring them is just...dumb.
If that were true, the Cubs should expect to get quite a haul for Alfonso Soriano and $20 million, right? After all, they sent $20 million!
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).










