Author Topic: Around Baseball 2/16/11 - 5/9/13  (Read 147798 times)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14445
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4950 on: November 13, 2012, 11:57:56 pm »
For the Blue Jays, though, why the hell not?  The Red Sox have lost their way the last couple of seasons.  Seems like Tampa's financial situation is starting to catch up with them.  It's a good time for them to be bold, especially since they haven't been very relevant in a long time.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5916
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4951 on: November 14, 2012, 10:06:02 am »
Agree re: the Jays. Truth is, they held on to their top prospects, IMO. d'Arnaud is the cream of the crop, no question about it. And I'd much rather have Syndergaard and Sanchez than Nicolino. Marisnick is very similar to Jackson - great talent if it all breaks right, but there are major questions about his contact ability. Escobar is a nice SS, sure, but you only have control of him for 2 years.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1758
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4952 on: November 14, 2012, 12:04:58 pm »
That's the only saving grace of the deal. At least the dumped players went to a) the AL,  b) the AL East, and c) a team that hasn't "been very relevant in a long time."

Probably too much to ask for, but perhaps the Blue Jays, Orioles and Rays will all be better than Boston and New York next year. 

May have cost the Cubs the inside track at the worst record in the NL, though...

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4953 on: November 14, 2012, 12:09:54 pm »
Torii Hunter signs with the Tigers for 2 years, $26 million.  probably smart of him to sign early...outfield is the one place this free agent market is fairly deep, and I think anyone who holds out for too long is going to end up accepting a much smaller contract than they wanted.

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29618
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4954 on: November 14, 2012, 01:04:40 pm »
Nolasco is rumored to be the next to go, even though his contract is kind of an albatross at this point.  Stanton is mad at the Marlins.  Time to call up and offer Baez+ for Nolasco and Stanton, with the Cubs playing all of Nolasco's contract.  I mean, it would be insane for them to trade Stanton for just about anything...but with the Marlins, anything could happen.

I'm wondering about this.  I don't think the guys would do this for the same reason that we aren't pursuing Greinke or Hamilton.  We're still years away and giving up prize prospects for even good players like Stanton doesn't do much for us.  br, you've suggested a number of possible trades, but, though they improve us short term, it creates the same old problem long term.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4955 on: November 14, 2012, 01:43:07 pm »
Curt, that comment was only half serious because it makes so little sense for the Marlins to trade Stanton.  That said, if (hypothetically) the Marlins decided to listen to offers, I think the Cubs should be willing to trade anyone in their system for him.  Other than Castro, I'm not sure they should hold anyone in the organization back--it might even make sense to trade Rizzo for him.  Stanton just turned 23 last week and is already one of the top 10 or so players in baseball.  He has four years of control left, and there's no reason the Cubs wouldn't have the money to extend him past that.  The likelihood of Baez (or any other prospect in baseball, for that matter) ever being as good as Stanton is now is almost zero.

Stanton is a truly elite, very young, MVP caliber player with several years of control left--for someone like that, being close to competing is irrelevant because he becomes the #1 core piece in your long term plans.  It's likely that acquiring Stanton would put the Cubs closer to where the front office wants them to be than developing any one prospect ever could.

But again, I don't think it makes any sense for the Marlins at all so it would never happen.  So this is all probably a pointless discussion.

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29618
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4956 on: November 14, 2012, 01:45:51 pm »
Since when does much of what the Marlins do make sense?  I understand your reasoning.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4957 on: November 14, 2012, 02:22:44 pm »
True, nothing the Marlins do ever makes sense.  For example, they're apparently trying to trade Logan Morrison:

Quote from: MLBTradeRumors
The Marlins aren’t done yet. One day after agreeing to a blockbuster trade with the Blue Jays, they’re shopping outfielder/first baseman Logan Morrison, according to Joe Capozzi of the Palm Beach Post (on Twitter). Furthermore, several general managers expect Ricky Nolasco to be traded as well.

Morrison makes the major league minimum, finally has his natural position (1B) open in Miami, and is coming off a bad year which has crushed his trade value.  It makes less than no sense to trade him--sending him away right now would be actively working against the Marlins' best interests.  At least if they traded Stanton, they could argue that his value is greater now than it'll be in 2 years when he starts to get really expensive. 

I had a lot of interest in Morrison last year before the Cubs got Rizzo, but now I'm not sure he's worth it.  He'd be a nice buy low opportunity if they're not asking for too much.  But he's only an option at 1B and LF--they're not moving Rizzo out of the way for Morrison, so that would require moving Soriano.  If they did that, the lineup would then be devoid of proven RH HR power, and Castro would be the only RH hitter you could count on getting anything out of.  I guess the Cubs are going to lose a lot so that doesn't matter all that much...but games vs. LHP would be really ugly next year if Castillo doesn't develop.

I'm assuming Nolasco is going to be a salary dump and taking his full salary would make it easier to acquire Morrison.  So I'd have some moderate interest in a Nolasco/Morrison package.  Nolasco is intriguing to me because he always underperforms his peripherals--that makes me think he might be someone who could really benefit from a change of scenery and a fresh coaching voice.  He has also turned into a pretty strong ground ball pitcher the last two years, so he may benefit from the Cubs' positioning strategies.  At the very least, he's a reasonably cheap (in trade cost) innings eater with 1 year left on his contract who could gain value by midseason. 

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4958 on: November 14, 2012, 05:07:42 pm »
A damn shame the Cubs lost to these clowns in 2003.

And if the Cubs had, Hendry would have remained GM until he wanted to retire or died.

No way he ever would have been fired after getting the Cubs to the WS.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5916
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4959 on: November 14, 2012, 06:32:42 pm »
br, I agree with everything you say about Stanton. And so I wonder why do you advocate holding back Rizzo or Castro in a deal? Stanton is vastly superior to either of them.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14445
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4960 on: November 14, 2012, 06:41:15 pm »
br, I agree with everything you say about Stanton. And so I wonder why do you advocate holding back Rizzo or Castro in a deal? Stanton is vastly superior to either of them.

Well one reason would be, you need to have other building blocks to go with Stanton if we could manage to get him.  Giancarlo Stanton and a lineup full of guys like Ty Wright and Tony Campana won't accomplish that much.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4961 on: November 14, 2012, 06:52:21 pm »
I'd hold back Castro just because he plays a harder position to fill and his contract situation is settled.  He's going to be in Chicago through the end of the decade, while Stanton would only be around for about half as long.  I think the settled contract situation puts him over the top.  I can see the argument the other way (Stanton is a better player), but Castro is good enough, has a high enough ceiling, plays SS well enough, and is under contract long enough that I wouldn't deal him for Stanton.

On Rizzo, I probably wouldn't hold him back.  But I can see the argument for taking 6 years of him over 4 years of Stanton, especially if you think there might be some trouble extending Stanton down the road (for example, if his agent is Boras).  I'd have to think about him for a few minutes.  But I don't hesitate on anyone else in the organization (including Samardzija).

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5916
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4962 on: November 14, 2012, 07:06:00 pm »
I hear both your arguments. However, our system is stacked in SS. I'd be happy to make Castro the centerpiece of a deal.  If we were lacking in true SS prospects, I'd be more hesitant, but we're not going to contend for a couple years at least, and by then, one of the SS's should be knocking on the door.

I'd run the deal like this:
- Marlins pick one of Castro, Rizzo, Baez
- Cubs pull the other two off the table
- Marlins pick one of Almora, Soler, Vogelbach
- Cubs pull the other two off the table
- Cubs throw in a couple mid-tier arms

- Cubs get an exclusive window within which to negotiate an extension. If Stanton is unwilling, deal is off. Marlins also send over Morrison if Rizzo is taken, Hechavarria if Castro is taken, or Nicolino if Baez is taken. Cubs also take on Nolasco and all his salary.

This makes sense for both sides, right?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 07:12:52 pm by ticohans »

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4963 on: November 14, 2012, 07:06:16 pm »
Stanton is a truly elite, very young, MVP caliber player with several years of control left....

Yes.... but....

The guy last year hit .290 with 37 HR and a raw OPS of .969, but he only has 86 RBI.  And with men on in his 3 year career he has an OPS of .825, compared to .962 with runners on base.

After 3 years, it would seem we might not be talking about sample size and might be talking about problems performing under pressure.

Stanton doesn't do much for us.  br, you've suggested a number of possible trades, but, though they improve us short term, it creates the same old problem long term.

Despite my comment above in response to br, I have to agree with his obvious point that Stanton just turned 23, and there are not many guys who enter a full season at age 23 with 93 career HR and a career OPS+ of 140 after close to 1500 PA.  The guy should be around for another ten years, and he has already established himself as a top hitter in the league.  He certainly is someone the Cubs could build around for years.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26959
Re: Around Baseball
« Reply #4964 on: November 14, 2012, 07:25:28 pm »
I hear both your arguments. However, our system is stacked in SS. I'd be happy to make Castro the centerpiece of a deal.  If we were lacking in true SS prospects, I'd be more hesitant, but we're not going to contend for a couple years at least, and by then, one of the SS's should be knocking on the door.

I guess I just lean more towards the "bird in the hand" philosophy than you do.  Castro's floor at this point is what he's been the last 3 years--an above average major league shortstop, with the potential to be the best shortstop in the game over the next decade.  Except for Baez, though, I don't think any of the shortstops in the system are seen as having star potential.  And there are enough questions surrounding Baez's ability to stay at SS that I just wouldn't be able to give up Castro because of a prospect in A ball.

Your framework works for me except for a couple of things...one is Castro (I'd only give them the choice of Rizzo or Baez as the headliner), and two is that Almora and Soler can't be traded for another 8-9 months.  A Baez/Vogelbach package would be amazing.  But, as I've said, even the Marlins are unlikely to trade Stanton.