FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Is anyone really surprised the Cubs are bungling the Pena situation?

    Comment by stumanji — August 25, 2011 @ 11:05 am

  2. I am a little. I wonder if their reluctance is due to their GM situation. Hendry might not have been allowed to make any moves knowing he was leaving, and similar restraints may be in place now. But if that’s true, why play the elwaiver game at all?

    Comment by Deadpool — August 25, 2011 @ 11:16 am

  3. I understand the July 31st failure (put blame on Ricketts for timing of firing), but I don’t understand today’s failure.
    There is NO reason to keep him. If they (who?) see him as an option for 2012, doesn’t that imply that the new GM will have to receive input from someone instead of being given complete control?
    If the new GM DOES have complete control, Pena would become a free agent anyway.
    Finally, the new GM won’t be hired until the offseason, when Pena is a free agent!
    Being a Yankee should have NO impact on Pena’s 2012 options with the Cubs.
    UNLESS, Pena explicitly told Ricketts/Randy Bush, that if he were traded to the Yanks, he would 100% not return, and that made the decision to keep him, so that the new GM still has Pena as an option.

    Comment by Norm — August 25, 2011 @ 11:23 am

  4. Norm, exactly what I wrote. From the article: “He could conceivably return to the Cubs next season, but unless they are convinced that he is the answer at first base, and that in being traded he would vow to never return to the Windy City, the season-long reluctance to trade him is particularly baffling.”

    Comment by Eric Seidman — August 25, 2011 @ 11:25 am

  5. Agree, it’s baffling. I just don’t get it.

    Comment by Norm — August 25, 2011 @ 11:41 am

  6. Doesn’t the fact that Pena made it to the Yankees mean the other teams mentioned in the article passed on claiming him (i.e., he has to clear the NL and then AL teams with worse records than the Yankees)?

    Comment by James — August 25, 2011 @ 11:52 am

  7. I’ve seen vets traded for prospective LOOGYs. Not current LOOGYs, not even promising LOOGYs. Just prospective ones. A guy who someday might have the most nominal, easily replaceable, value.

    If the Cubs re-sign Pena next year, and he has a good season, perhaps he gets them to the post-season a la this year’s Diamondbacks (may make it). If the Cubs re-sign Pena next year, and he has a good season, perhaps they can flip him then at the deadline for something of honest-to-gosh value.

    You folks’ reasoning has those two holes. How more likely is it to re-sign a guy who finishes the season with you? (I’m sure it’s some; a researchable question, though probably not worth the effort) Just how much value did the Cubs turn down to instead keep Pena? (very close to nada, I’d suspect)

    I’d suggest a 5% greater chance of signing Pena for next year, then multiplied by a 5% greater chance of getting something of value out of/for him, has more value than trading him for a someday-maybe-LOOGY.

    Comment by Richie — August 25, 2011 @ 12:19 pm

  8. If the Padres weren’t aware before the deadline that Bell had said he would accept arbitration if offered, then they weren’t paying attention. Heck, even I knew that he had said it. And I’m not a Padres fan, nor do I live on the West Coast.

    Comment by ecp — August 25, 2011 @ 12:20 pm

  9. I’m sure it had to do with the fact that Hendry was “secretly fired” by this point, and didn’t want to risk dumping pena in case the next guy might have wanted him for next year. Don’t the cubs get draft pick compensation if they try to re-sign and he walks?

    Comment by slash12 — August 25, 2011 @ 12:20 pm

  10. Carlos Pena is currently slated to be a Type B free agent. And with the limited market at 1b next year after Prince/Pujols he’s unlikely to accept arbitration. So you don’t just dump him, you hold out unless/until you get an offer worth as much as that compensation pick, minus enough to compensate for the risk that he slumps enough to fall out of Type B status.

    Comment by Jilly — August 25, 2011 @ 12:35 pm

  11. But the article says he’s owed $5M. Is the value of a sandwich pick greater than or equal to $5M? I kindof doubt it.

    Comment by Steve — August 25, 2011 @ 1:09 pm

  12. Deferred money. They need to pay him the $5M no matter what.

    Comment by DavidCEisen — August 25, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

  13. Since it is deferred money the Cubs still owe him that 5 million even after a trade. This isn’t an Alex Rios situation where when the Yankees claimed him the Cubs could have just let him go and gotten out from under the entire ~6 million owed. Their options were that they could have either let him go and gotten out from under about a million of it, which is the prorated portion of the 5 million he’s being payed this year, or they could have worked out a trade.

    Comment by Jilly — August 25, 2011 @ 1:26 pm

  14. no, but that’s what andrew friedman is for.

    Comment by ezb230 — August 26, 2011 @ 3:04 am

  15. Cubs management is ridiculous. Refusing to part ways with garbage like Blake DeWitt and Reed Johnson like they are some sort of untouchable pieces is laughable. And now they told everyone that Carlos Pena is UNTOUCHABLE as well. Jeez you would think if all these players that are so great and untouchable the Cubs would be in the NL Central hunt.

    Comment by Shaun Catron — August 26, 2011 @ 5:22 am

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.

0.263 Powered by WordPress