Carlos Zambrano has been the Cubs most reliable pitcher for years. When the hype-affected player was taking Kerry Wood or Mark Prior at fantasy drafts, the sharks were taking Zambrano.
For seven years, Zambrano made at least 30 starts and never had an ERA over 4.02. Zambrano has his faults. His fiery temperment is a dream for ESPN News producers. When producing results, Cub management dismissed his temper as the will to win. Despite that temper,he was the constant amid the Cub Management chaos.
If Cubs management were at one of those aforementioned drafts, they too, would have taken Wood or Prior. Cubs management is like a crow, they swoop down and pick up anything shiny. Once the shiny object is brought back to the nest, they realize it is of little value and fly off to do the same thing, again...and again. This philosophy has left them with a lot of contracts, a lot of age, and a lot of mediocrity.
The marriage between Zambrano and Cub management is coming to an end. Zambrano isn't shiny anymore.
One thing Cub management did do well is get the most out of Zambrano. Zambrano just turned 29. He is an old 29.
Cubs management treated Zambrano much as an industry titan would treat a lifetime employee, squeezing every bit of production out of him and then showing him the door. Now that the Cubs have gotten that production over the years, it is time to use Zambrano's flaws against him.
It is time to trade something fiery for something shiny.
[ June 28, 2010, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
Zambrano
Zambrano
For the past three full years, Zambrano has been overpaid for his results. Some $46+ million for around $40.4 worth of work. And, now about halfway through the 2010 season, another $8+ million for less than $3 million worth of value. In each of those years, his salary has exceeded his production. So let's try not to demonize the Cubs as some industry "titan" that has profited greatly in recent years from his services.
Moreover, there is no indication that he is being traded. He is expected back later this week. In fact, his contract is pretty much unmovable. $18 million per for this year and likely three more for a declining 29 year old. Seems the Cubs have rewarded him quite handsomely for his prior work.
Finally, for the record, he started 28 games last year, not 30+ as you indicate.
Moreover, there is no indication that he is being traded. He is expected back later this week. In fact, his contract is pretty much unmovable. $18 million per for this year and likely three more for a declining 29 year old. Seems the Cubs have rewarded him quite handsomely for his prior work.
Finally, for the record, he started 28 games last year, not 30+ as you indicate.
Zambrano
Good stuff and good arguments.
I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
When a ballclub signs a pitcher to a long term contract, I feel that the club does not expect the same production throughout the contract. I believe they are doing it, mostly, to outbid other teams for that players services.
For instance, the Yankees signed CC Sabathia to, I believe, a seven year contract last year. My feeling is that the last two years of that contact were "free money" years, used only to gain Sabathia's services for the first five years. If the Yankees get production out of those last two years, it'll be a bonus. Probably,a warped way of looking at things, but my way.
The Zambrano arguments are valid. Zambrano was signed at a younger age and has/had a better chance to fulfill his contract than Sabathia does. He probably will not, though. At least for the Cubs. I do believe he will be moved.
One thing Milton Bradley has taught us, is that nobody is 'unmoveable'.
With the Cubs being successful with their 'My trash for your trash' trade of Bradley for Silva, maybe they can strike a trade with the Yankees and give them Zambrano for Burnett.
I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
When a ballclub signs a pitcher to a long term contract, I feel that the club does not expect the same production throughout the contract. I believe they are doing it, mostly, to outbid other teams for that players services.
For instance, the Yankees signed CC Sabathia to, I believe, a seven year contract last year. My feeling is that the last two years of that contact were "free money" years, used only to gain Sabathia's services for the first five years. If the Yankees get production out of those last two years, it'll be a bonus. Probably,a warped way of looking at things, but my way.
The Zambrano arguments are valid. Zambrano was signed at a younger age and has/had a better chance to fulfill his contract than Sabathia does. He probably will not, though. At least for the Cubs. I do believe he will be moved.
One thing Milton Bradley has taught us, is that nobody is 'unmoveable'.
With the Cubs being successful with their 'My trash for your trash' trade of Bradley for Silva, maybe they can strike a trade with the Yankees and give them Zambrano for Burnett.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Zambrano
I assume teams are rational actors and don't pay more for a player than they're worth. Sure, you expect a player's production to decline after they pass the peak years, but in total teams should expect a player to outperform their contract. Otherwise they paid too much.
Comparing Zambrano to CC Sabathia is apples and oranges. Sabathia is an elite pitcher. Zambrano has never been elite. Zambrano has never once been a 5 WAR player. Sabathia, in a similar length career to Zambrano, has FOUR such seasons, including two 7+ WAR seasons.
Some contracts are unmovable. Barry Zito is unmovable. Bradley was 2 years and $20-some million for an outfielder. Zambrano is twice the years and almost three times the money. His contract is a far bigger albatross than Bradley's ever could have been.
Comparing Zambrano to CC Sabathia is apples and oranges. Sabathia is an elite pitcher. Zambrano has never been elite. Zambrano has never once been a 5 WAR player. Sabathia, in a similar length career to Zambrano, has FOUR such seasons, including two 7+ WAR seasons.
Some contracts are unmovable. Barry Zito is unmovable. Bradley was 2 years and $20-some million for an outfielder. Zambrano is twice the years and almost three times the money. His contract is a far bigger albatross than Bradley's ever could have been.
-
Return of the Aces
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:00 pm
Zambrano
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
Good stuff and good arguments.
I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
When a ballclub signs a pitcher to a long term contract, I feel that the club does not expect the same production throughout the contract. I believe they are doing it, mostly, to outbid other teams for that players services.
For instance, the Yankees signed CC Sabathia to, I believe, a seven year contract last year. My feeling is that the last two years of that contact were "free money" years, used only to gain Sabathia's services for the first five years. If the Yankees get production out of those last two years, it'll be a bonus. Probably,a warped way of looking at things, but my way.
The Zambrano arguments are valid. Zambrano was signed at a younger age and has/had a better chance to fulfill his contract than Sabathia does. He probably will not, though. At least for the Cubs. I do believe he will be moved.
One thing Milton Bradley has taught us, is that nobody is 'unmoveable'.
With the Cubs being successful with their 'My trash for your trash' trade of Bradley for Silva, maybe they can strike a trade with the Yankees and give them Zambrano for Burnett. Even with Burnett's struggles, that is not going to happen.
Good stuff and good arguments.
I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
When a ballclub signs a pitcher to a long term contract, I feel that the club does not expect the same production throughout the contract. I believe they are doing it, mostly, to outbid other teams for that players services.
For instance, the Yankees signed CC Sabathia to, I believe, a seven year contract last year. My feeling is that the last two years of that contact were "free money" years, used only to gain Sabathia's services for the first five years. If the Yankees get production out of those last two years, it'll be a bonus. Probably,a warped way of looking at things, but my way.
The Zambrano arguments are valid. Zambrano was signed at a younger age and has/had a better chance to fulfill his contract than Sabathia does. He probably will not, though. At least for the Cubs. I do believe he will be moved.
One thing Milton Bradley has taught us, is that nobody is 'unmoveable'.
With the Cubs being successful with their 'My trash for your trash' trade of Bradley for Silva, maybe they can strike a trade with the Yankees and give them Zambrano for Burnett. Even with Burnett's struggles, that is not going to happen.
Zambrano
Originally posted by whipsaw:
teams should expect a player to outperform their contract.
Comparing Zambrano to CC Sabathia is apples and oranges. .
Some contracts are unmovable.When signing a pitcher, long term, any club that expects that pitcher to outperform his contract has pie in the sky mentality.
Sabathia was a 'for instance' in pitchers signing contracts, not a comparison of abilities.
Any baseball contract is moveable.
[ June 28, 2010, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
teams should expect a player to outperform their contract.
Comparing Zambrano to CC Sabathia is apples and oranges. .
Some contracts are unmovable.When signing a pitcher, long term, any club that expects that pitcher to outperform his contract has pie in the sky mentality.
Sabathia was a 'for instance' in pitchers signing contracts, not a comparison of abilities.
Any baseball contract is moveable.
[ June 28, 2010, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Zambrano
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
quote:Originally posted by whipsaw:
teams should expect a player to outperform their contract.
Comparing Zambrano to CC Sabathia is apples and oranges. .
Some contracts are unmovable.When signing a pitcher, long term, any club that expects that pitcher to outperform his contract has pie in the sky mentality.
Sabathia was a 'for instance' in pitchers signing contracts, not a comparison of abilities.
Any baseball contract is moveable. [/QUOTE]Do teams hate money? Why would they knowingly buy a $40 million pitcher for $60 million? Are they not businessmen?
The reason Sabathia is a poor example is exactly because their abilities are so different. If there was ever a pitcher that could extract some additional "free money" years out of a team it was Sabathia, because he has been so dominant. Zambrano could never hope to have that kind of market power.
You don't think the Giants were looking for takers for Zito last year? Sure, in theory every contract is movable, but not in reality.
quote:Originally posted by whipsaw:
teams should expect a player to outperform their contract.
Comparing Zambrano to CC Sabathia is apples and oranges. .
Some contracts are unmovable.When signing a pitcher, long term, any club that expects that pitcher to outperform his contract has pie in the sky mentality.
Sabathia was a 'for instance' in pitchers signing contracts, not a comparison of abilities.
Any baseball contract is moveable. [/QUOTE]Do teams hate money? Why would they knowingly buy a $40 million pitcher for $60 million? Are they not businessmen?
The reason Sabathia is a poor example is exactly because their abilities are so different. If there was ever a pitcher that could extract some additional "free money" years out of a team it was Sabathia, because he has been so dominant. Zambrano could never hope to have that kind of market power.
You don't think the Giants were looking for takers for Zito last year? Sure, in theory every contract is movable, but not in reality.
-
headhunters
- Posts: 1976
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:00 pm
Zambrano
if you believe in a limited definition of "businessmen" ie- in a "free" market and to make a profit- no, major league owners are not businessmen. if you think that is a free market- trying buying a team. second- and because of the 1st- these prices keep going up- far beyond inflation- because some owners WAY overpay for talent. there are many reasons. 2 are- some owners have way more revenue than others and another is- once you reach a cetain number of wins- each win means more to you. having said that- moving zambrano without someone picking up most of that contract would set a new high/low in the movement of high contracts bar.
Zambrano
Originally posted by whipsaw:
Moreover, there is no indication that he is being traded. He is expected back later this week. There is every indication he will be traded. The first indication was demoting him to the pen. The second was throwing him under the bus publicly for something that would've been forgotten in the past. Compare Zambrano's outburst to BJ Upton. Z was yelling, not fighting. Upton wanted to fight his teammate, yet hours later all is forgiven. Days later, Z is suspended and will remain so through the All-Star break ... and now the team is saying he "needs help".
The public bashing/humiliation/degradation will continue until he tells Hendry that he will accept a trade to anyone that will take him. Someone will happily take over his contract after the Cubs eat all but $5-7 million per yr.
[ June 28, 2010, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Moreover, there is no indication that he is being traded. He is expected back later this week. There is every indication he will be traded. The first indication was demoting him to the pen. The second was throwing him under the bus publicly for something that would've been forgotten in the past. Compare Zambrano's outburst to BJ Upton. Z was yelling, not fighting. Upton wanted to fight his teammate, yet hours later all is forgiven. Days later, Z is suspended and will remain so through the All-Star break ... and now the team is saying he "needs help".
The public bashing/humiliation/degradation will continue until he tells Hendry that he will accept a trade to anyone that will take him. Someone will happily take over his contract after the Cubs eat all but $5-7 million per yr.
[ June 28, 2010, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Zambrano
Such a brilliant gambit would befit an organization that has handed out several poor contracts recently. Convince Z to waive the NTC by publicly demeaning him? I could maybe see that. But even more brilliantly, ruin any trade leverage you have by letting every other team in the league know what a cancer he is to a team? Seems like basically burning money. If the team is willing to ship him out of town for a box of girl scout cookies and at the same time picking up $10-12 million per year on the contract? Seems a better approach would be to simply buy out the contract and release him. Would probably be cheaper.
-
mallorys killers
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Zambrano
Don't Worry be happy,,Zambrano will be pitching for the Mets soon...Omar is already negotiating.
mk