Congrats Carlos! Now Leave. Ted, You Can Stay.
In the last month or so, 4 pitchers have notched their 100th wins in the major leagues. Carlos Zambrano started the milestone march, hitting the century mark on June 5th. Brad Penny then followed on June 17th, with Ted Lilly and Josh Beckett reaching their marks on July 11th and 12th respectively. Each traveled their own path towards 100 wins, with Penny and Beckett both starting with the Marlins and winding up with the Red Sox, Lilly spanning most of North America (two stops in Canada, Oakland and New York, only to wind up in the middle of the Continent) and Zambrano staying in Chicago for all 100 of his wins.
With his circuitous route, Teddy Roosevelt Lilly took 271 games and 246 starts to reach the milestone, while Penny did it in 264 games and 260 starts.
What really drew my attention was the similarities between Josh Beckett and Carlos Zambrano. Each came into the league in 2001, with Beckett taking 211 starts while Carlos took 219 starts to reach 100 wins. The similarities don’t stop at wins either.
Career Numbers for Beckett through 1309 IP (blame it on the blisters):
ERA: 3.74
CG: 7
SHO: 4
Hits: 1186
Earned Runs: 544
Home Runs: 136
Strike Outs: 1241
Career Numbers for Zambrano through 1484 IP:
ERA: 3.48
CG: 8
SHO: 3
Hits: 1248
Earned Runs: 574
Home Runs: 123
Strike Outs: 1254
Yes, Beckett gives up the long ball more often, but also has a better K/9 rate. The other numbers aren’t so different considering the slight difference in innings pitched. Although as Carlos reminds us there is One Big Difference.
Beckett has won a World Series Ring, while the Cubs haven’t come close.
When Beckett was traded from the Marlins, it appeared as if the Marlins got a pretty good deal. Hanley Ramirez has performed at or above expectations becoming a fixture at shortstop for the foreseeable future or until the next youth (see High School) movement of the Marlins. The other players shipped from Boston included Jesus Delgado, Harvey Garcia and Anibal Sanchez. Delgado and Garcia have bounced around the minors with limited time in the majors, while Sanchez has been tantalizingly inconsistent, throwing a no-hitter in 2006 and tearing his labrum the next year.
Interestingly enough, the Marlins passed on a deal with the Rangers that would have reportedly yielded Hank Blalock and John Danks in exchange for the native Texan, Beckett. One could argue that the Marlins would be better off with this duo than the cache of prospects they received from Boston.
With all the talk of Zambrano’s trade prospects and Toronto’s requests for four major-league ready prospects in exchange for Roy Halladay, it got me wondering whether the Cubs should pull the trigger on a Zambrano trade and if so what approach should they take? He’s no Halladay but he’s still a #1 starter who routinely gets through the sixth and seventh innings. Rather than four prospects, why not two good prospects and a low A.
If the Cubs can’t win a playoff series with Zambrano as their #1 because of an anemic offense. While the Cubs have plenty of young guys who have shown they can have moderate success if they’re given the playing time, they are still stuck with Theriot, Fontenot in the infield and Soriano and Bradley in the corner outfield spots. The first priority for upgrading would be the middle infield, strengthening their lineup for the inevitable NL Wild Card Round.
Sam "The Investment Banker" Fuld
With Jake Fox and Sam Fuld showing some promise as outfielders in the Cubs system, there might be less of an emphasis on getting an outfielder in return, but I would expect the Cubs to look for two legitimate major league starters in return for Carlos Zambrano.
Why not look to where the Marlins missed? The White Sox certainly benefited from their trade of Brandon McCarthy for the aforementioned John Danks. With McCarthy’s demise and Nolan Ryan at the helm of the organization, there is certainly an emphasis on getting starting pitchers who do not need to be coddled or babied. Carlos might be crazy but you don’t have to coo in his ear to get him to pitch well. As an added plus, the Rangers are hanging tough in the AL West, only a game and a half behind the Angels in a competitive year for the entire division.
What might the Rangers have to offer, well, let’s start with the potential trade’s Hanley Ramirez, Rangers starting shortstop Elvis Andrus. Andrus was hitting .270 around the beginning of July before cooling off a bit over the last two weeks, but was widely regarded as one of the top 5 shortstop prospects in the league and so good that Hank Blalock was moved over to 3rd base to accommodate him.
The Cubs could replace Zambrano with another fellow Venezuelan, Martin Perez, a lefty with a great curveball who has pitched well at Single A this year, and is currently regarded as the 5th best prospect in the Rangers organization. Throw in another prospect or two and you’ve strengthed your infield in the now and your rotation for the near future, while further strengthening the farm system.
While this may be a little out of left field, it’s worth thinking of what the Cubs could get from trades since their recent history with free agent signings have left much to be desired. See Soriano, Bradley, Fukudome.
With that, who do you have your eyes on in other organizations? What do you think is the weak spot that could be strengthened in a trade?
Related Posts:
Comments
Comment from South Side Sheik
Time July 17, 2009 at 9:22 am
I acknowledged the fact that the Beckett deal was not as strong as originally thought for the Marlins since those other three guys involved haven’t done squat (outside of the anomaly that was Sanchez’s no-hitter). That really goes to show how stupid the Marlins were to pass on the Rangers’ deal. And since then, the Rangers have continued to have the same makeup: ridiculous hitting and awful pitching. Who knows, maybe they’d be willing to part with more, but I was just saying don’t go with the “stud and a whole bunch of arms” approach. Make sure you’re getting at least two of their best prospects.
Comment from Stormin’ Norman Disciple
Time July 17, 2009 at 10:03 am
Key word: Prospects. Z is a known entity. And a good known entity at that. Prospects are iffy at best, even highly-touted ones.
Comment from Ethan
Time July 17, 2009 at 10:05 am
Hanley Ramirez is one of the best players in the game. It boggles my mind how you could say they should have gone for blalock and danks.
Comment from Jake
Time July 17, 2009 at 11:50 am
Hank Blalock and John Danks would not be better than Hanley Ramirez in a trade. Blalock is a marginal corner infielder with some pop. They are a dime a dozen. John Danks is a serviceable starter but by no means anything spectacular. I’d much rather have the perennial allstar shortstop.
Also the Rangers moved Michael Young to 3B and Blalock to 1B to accomodate Andrus.
Comment from Kevin Tapani Fan Club
Time July 17, 2009 at 12:10 pm
You alluded to this in the post, but didn’t develop the possibility of trading Zambrano in order to replace him with Halladay. Don’t you think this would improve the team? I love Big Z and all he has done for the Cubs, but I think I’d rather have Halladay for an extra prospect or two. It kills me to give up the best hitting pitcher of all-time, but I think I would definitely test the waters to see what the Cubs would have to give up.
Comment from South Side Sheik
Time July 17, 2009 at 12:48 pm
All I’m hearing from you guys is that you would definitely have taken a highly touted shortstop that hadn’t played a single game in the majors along with three young arms, two of whom are now basically on their way out of the league, in exchange for your former closer, a third baseman and your #1 starter. This was a far better option than only trading the starter, and getting a starting 3B with pop (at least at that time) and a guy who could have the chops to be a Ted Lilly or Mark Buehrle clone.
Furthermore, when presented with an idea of getting a highly touted shortstop with half a season of big league experience under his belt, another young arm that is a top prospect in the organization and whatever other players might be included, in exchange for Zambrano, you now steadfastly refuse the offer.
Sounds like a fan base who enjoys the idea of getting swept out of the first round of the playoffs yet again (that is if they can even sneak in this year). Have fun pinning your hopes to a hot-headed starter who has announced to you that he plans on retiring in five years. Wouldn’t you want to trade a guy who might only be around for five years at the most, in exchange for a SS who could be around for the next 10 years?
Lovable losers…the most interesting news you’ve generated this week is that you beat the Nationals and you’re planning on declaring bankruptcy.
THIS IS YOUR YEAR BABY!
Pingback from LOTD: Hot Chicks, Beer Pong, and the New Fantasy Football TV Show
Time July 17, 2009 at 1:23 pm
[...] Congrats Carlos! Now Leave. Ted, You Can Stay — (Not Qualified to Comment) [...]
Comment from Matt Clapp
Time July 17, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I’m not looking to get rid of a 28-year-old horse that has 13+ wins(only 13 once) and an ERA under 4 the last 6 years.
And Kevin Tapani Fan Club, there’s reasons that both the Cubs and Blue Jays wouldn’t to a Zambrano/Halladay deal.
From the Cubs perspective, Zambrano is 4 years younger, and signed through 2012, with a vesting option for 2013(top 2 in 2011 Cy Young vote, top 4 in 2012 and healthy at end of year). Halladay is only signed through next season, so you’d have to be sure you can get him signed to a contract extension.
For the Blue Jays, the main reason they’re getting rid of Halladay is to cut salary. Zambrano is making $17.875 mil in 2010, $17.875 in 2011, $18 mil in 2012, and $19.25 mil in 2013 if the option requirements are met. This would put themselves in a worse position than they are now financially.
Comment from Kevin Tapani Fan Club
Time July 17, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I’m not saying trade Big Z and prospects to the Blue Jays for Halladay. I’m saying make a deal with another team looking for pitching and use what the Cubs get in that trade, in addition to one or two of their own prospects, to get Halladay. I agree that Halladay’s contract is risky and that the Cubs would have to be sure he would want to be there long-term, but it seems to me to be worth investigating. What if Halladay was the type of ace that could guarantee the Cubs two wins in a playoff series? Especially consider him going from the AL to the NL. I’d rather have a better pitcher for 3 years than a not as good pitcher for 5.
Comment from Jake
Time July 17, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Dammit I stick by my choices made clearly in hindsight!
Pingback from Ivy Envy » Who thinks the Cubs should get rid of Zambrano?
Time July 18, 2009 at 4:20 pm
[...] Not Qualified to Comment Blog [...]
Loading ...
Comment from Stormin’ Norman Disciple
Time July 17, 2009 at 9:08 am
This would be unconscionable. There are numerous holes in this argument. First off, just because Beckett brought back some young talent that panned out, doesn’t by implication mean Z would. In fact, for every Beckett deal that gets a Hanley, there are 10 others that get squat. Secondly, even though the Cubs have solid starting pitching and Z isn’t the best pitcher in the league, he is a bona fide ace and those are extremely hard to come by. Third, BLASPHEMY!