Bleacher Bums Forum

Thanks for the list, JR. Very interesting. Of course the results from trades made by the new leadership group last year  (Maholm for Vizcaino, Dempster for Villanueva and Hendricks, and Soto for Brigham) are unknown.  One or more could turn out to have been very valuable deals.

How often in the past have the Cubs traded vets for prospects at the trade deadline.  And if and when they did, how often was the vet traded in the Dempster class?  The only one I can think of was Ted Lilly, and we didn't get the kind of return we got for Dempster or Maholm.

Yeah Lilly was probably the only one comparable to Dempster or Maholm in the past few years.  Although really even in the Dempster and Maholm trades, right now all we have to show for it is a 3B with a .720 OPS in Double-A and a pitcher who will likely go two years without throwing a pitch.  It's just some food for thought when thinking about the likely future impact of a Garza trade.

But in talking this year, when we're talking about trading guys like Feldman, Villanueva, Valbuena, etc. the types of prospects my post earlier are pretty much the types of prospects you'll be getting in return for those guys . . . the types of prospects who might net you a future Kevin Gregg or David Weathers in the future. 

Again not to say prospect dump trades shouldn't be done and if the Theocracy does decide to clear house at the deadline, I'll definitely support it.  But if the Theocracy does decide to do minimal or no dumping at the deadline, my point is that likely isn't going to make a significant difference in the future of the franchise.  I wouldn't get too worked up about it if the Theocracy doesn't decide to do a lot of dumping.  We aren't likely to miss out on much.

Thanks Ron and DMF.

By the way, my point certainly isn't to say we shouldn't do deals like those or that we shouldn't be sellers at the deadline.  I just wouldn't get worked up about things if we decide not to do a lot selling, though. 

Zach Putnam has been called up.  Alex Burnett goes down to Iowa.

On that whole list the only players that were even somewhat interesting the season that they were traded was Hernandez/Lilly/maybe Rodriguez.

I'll grant you, there is a lot of crap on that list we were giving up, no question.

I'd argue that Walker (still a proven hitter and we did fetch a Cubs Top 10 guy in Jose Ceda for him) and Gordon (ERA was actually 3.42, 31 K's in 23 IP, and coming off a 27 save season) probably would be sort of close to some of the veterans we're contemplating trading right now.  Rodriguez with an .839 OPS is a little more than a "maybe" as having a useful season for a contender.  Derrek Lee, although past his prime, might be in the useful category for a contender and did have an .845 OPS for Atlanta.

So between good or at least useful veterans like Ted Lilly, Jose Hernandez, Henry Rodriguez, Todd Walker, Tom Gordon, and Derrek Lee, what did we get in return for those guys?  Even if we want to whittle it down to Lilly, Hernandez, and Rodriguez, we didn't get any difference makers.  Again, you're talking about prospects who were eventually flipped for Kevin Gregg and David Weathers.

Looking at DeJesus, Valbuena, Feldman, or Villanueva, why should we expect to do significantly better than that?  Is it really worth losing a lot of sleep over it if we did decide to hang on to them?  Would management be a bunch of dolts if they decided that keeping Valbuena, Feldman, and Villanueva for 2014 and perhaps trying to take a step up towards an 85 or 90 win season is a better use of those assets than cashing them in for prospects who likely won't be making much of an impact for the Cubs in the future?  Or if heaven forbid, we're within 4 or 5 games of the wild card and decide to just stand pat and to see what happens?  Just for future Kevin Gregg/David Weathers trade chips or other non-impact future players?

Again, not to say we absolutely shouldn't trade them in any of those instances, especially if we feel like we're getting a deal we can't refuse.  But standing pat in a quixotic attempt a wild card spot if we're 4-5 games out, hanging on to some of them to try to start building for 2014, or to just plain get rid of the "losing 95-100 games every year" culture probably isn't dumb as a lot of people make that out to be, when the most a full scale fire sale may likely accomplish is acquiring trade chips for a future Kevin Gregg.

Hey fair enough CBJ, I guess we still have a couple of months to see how things sort out, right? : )

By the way, I wonder if the Cubs might be viewing Feldman as a contract extension candidate.  The Cubs seemed to think he'd pitch closer to his peripherals, which he has so far this year, and he's a guy without a lot of mileage on his arm for a 30 year old starting pitcher.  I wonder what the chances of getting a club friendly extension from him are.

That might be another thing that gets evaluated as we get closer to the deadline.

It's too bad they didn't sign Feldman for more than just one year.  He'd be a much nicer trade prospect, or keeper prospect, if he'd been on a 2-year deal like Maholm. 

I agree with both JR and CuBlue.  We haven't really gotten much value, and we shouldn't expect that we will, or that we'll be missing some real value if we don't trade guys.  Teams aren't trading John Smoltz for Marmol or Soriano.  And teams aren't trading top-5 prospects for two months of Garza.  If you want to trade Samardzija or Castro, who knows what high-ceiling talent you might get back.  But 2-month rentals like Garza and Feldman aren't going to bring top talent back. 

That said, I think CuBlue's point is well taken, that since the Mulholland trade, Ted Lilly was the only desirable player traded until Dempster and Maholm.  Maybe Maddux to some limited degree.  Teams don't offer great stuff for 5 weeks of Matt Lawton.