Bleacher Bums Forum

I'm really pretty turned off on going after any of the big name starters this offseason except maybe Price. ... I think the bidding war for him is going to go beyond what the Cubs will pay.  I think they'll still be focused on a trade for a cost-controlled younger starter this offseason, even though it's going to cost a ton in a trade.  Hopefully Baez has shown enough in the minors and in September that he can be a key part of a deal.

I also expect a high OBP leadoff type will be added in CF or at 2B.  ....  They'll try on Fowler (but may settle on Span or a trade).  If they get their leadoff type in CF, Kendrick is an option at 2B (his name came up at midseason as a free agent target for the Cubs).  If not, it could be Zobrist. 

Good thoughts, br.  Several thoughts in response:
1.  In general, a trade is an exchange of talent and an exchange of assets, not the creation of new talent/new assets.
2.  When you sign a guy in FA, you are bringing in talent without losing any. 
3.  Given that the Cubs may (theoretically) have a chunk of discretionary cash, I'd like to see them able to parlay that into NEW talent.  If possible, acquiring new talent that doesn't cost any talent has advantage over trading for talent. 
4.  Fowler is an OBP guy at the CF position where we are otherwise most lacking.  Why not pay Fowler fair-market price?  Fowler is an excellent clubhouse guy, he's not old, and he knows he's part of a potentially magic recipe.  The Cubs may not need to outbid the world to retain him; a reasonably fair-market market-competitive offer may well suffice.  If you later on end up with a surplus in CF, you can always play Fowler or Almora in a corner; do the flexibility shuffle; or trade Fowler or Almora for fair value. 
5.  All pitchers have risk.  FA will be risk.  But trade will have risk too.  Including both injury and limited club control.  Of course, due diligence, and evaluate whether dollar-per-value ratio is justifiable. 
6.  Even if kids turn out to be superstars, they won't be budget busters through their first year or two of arb.  So, it's really going to be four years or more until they really start costing a lot. 
7.  If you assign $8-mill per each of the 13 starter spots, that only costs  $104 million to cover the 8 regular starters and 5 rotation spots.  Every "discount" starter frees cash to high-spend at other spots.  With up to six discount starters, the Cubs have freedom to high-spend at a number of the other spots.  Perhaps so much freedom that even if a high-spend risk goes bad, it won't cripple either team or budget.

My gosh are some you long winded.

As usual, you ignore the point of the post and argue peripherals.  Rose did NOT lose whatever skills he had as an infielder after playing a couple of years in the outfield.  NO ONE loses their skills at playing infield after a couple of years in the outfield.  To argue that is foolish.  Even if they were a little rusty, it could easily be refreshed in a month of spring training.

You completely ignore Epstein's comments that the good thing about drafting infielders is that they can play anywhere on the field.  What sense would there be in that if you are NEVER going to play them anywhere on the field.

It goes back to the discussion that we has several months ago.  IF the Cubs wanted to play BOTH Olt and Bryant at the same time, and IF one had to be at third base and the other at left field, only an idiot would play Bryant at third and Olt in left field if that would be weaker defensively than the other way around.

Quite simply put, NO infielder in his early 20s is going to lose his infielding skills by playing the outfield for a couple of years.  Barring injury, it just wouldn't happen.  Nor would he lose trade value, since every GM in the country would realize that they could play him in the infield if they acquired him.

First, Rose did not play a "couple years" in the OF before moving to 3B. It was seven years, actually eight as a regular. You  even previously said six years, so you're not even on the same page with yourself.

Second, players actually do lose positional skills when moved off more demanding positions for a significant time. They rarely return to a more demanding position. The best evidence of that is that the only player you cited as a contra example is Pete Rose, which is flat wrong and even Rose will tell you that. Rose played because it was only option and he played poorly and it was Pete Rose.

We discussed this previously, as you note, and someone mentioned Molitor--another HOFer.  You say nobody could lose skills, so give us 5 or 6 examples of guys who went back and played well defensively from less demanding to demanding on the spectrum. Or, went back at all, as a regular. You have  the entire universe from 1900 forward to consider. Better if no HOFers but will take that for now.

Third, You totally garble what Epstein said as relevant here. Yes, you can move players from more-- to less demanding positions on the defensive spectrum. Just talked about Baez as 3B. Of course he will play well there. The issue is whether it's smart to do that full-time, whether it's good value. What would have been monumentally  dumb would have been to short circuit Bryant's development as a 3B and move him to LF in order to accommodate Mike Olt at 3B--which you STILL seem to think would have been fine. That has rendered me speechless. The End.

Wow.  If I said 6 years, and it was actually 7 years in the outfield, then obviously that disproves everything I said, and it is now obvious that 23 year old infielders lose their ability to play the infield after two years in the outfield.

Sarcasm aside, I doubt that you would find any baseball person that would accept that a 23 year old would lose his skills for a particular position due to playing the outfield for 2 years.  Of course, you are more intent on defending the indefensible than in conducting a rational discussion.

Rose was never a good infielder.  But after playing the outfield for SEVEN years, he was able to fill a team need and return to the infield while in his thirties.  He didn't do it well, but doing it helped the team and he was able to accomplish it in an acceptable manor.

And in the interest of accuracy, I never said that Rose only played the outfield for only a couple of years.  I specifically said that he played there 6 years.  I was merely pointing out that YOU said that a player would lose his skills after a couple of years, and gave an example of someone that surpassed that time.  Unless you somehow believe that a player would lose his skills after two years, but get them back after seven years, your argument is deteriorating quickly.

And it is you that is misstating Epsteins position.  What sense is there to draft a player because he can play other positions if you never intend for him to play other positions even if it would improve the team?  That is as silly as saying that you would deliberately degrade the defensive ability of your team because somehow you lose hypothetical value of one single player.  You say this even in the face of evidence to the contrary.  Do you actually believe that the Cubs will keep Castro on the bench because Russell is playing shortstop.  They moved him to a less valued position because he is better there than the other options.  And he will continue to play there until his hitting declines or until he is traded.  No GM or manager would cut off his nose to cut his face, as you seem to advocate.

From Heyman

Could the Cubs revisit Jeff Samardzija in the winter? David Price is expected to be their top pitching target due partly to the obvious Joe Maddon/Rays connection, but could Samardzija be a fallback guy? They offered him in the "low $80s (millions)," a few years back, and made multiple offers (though they included option years), that deal still looks reasonable considering his surprising struggles this year. Plus, he pitched best for them.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/25324936/inside-baseball-nationals-to-let-williams-go-and-more-mlb-moves

From Heyman

Could the Cubs revisit Jeff Samardzija in the winter? David Price is expected to be their top pitching target due partly to the obvious Joe Maddon/Rays connection, but could Samardzija be a fallback guy? They offered him in the "low $80s (millions)," a few years back, and made multiple offers (though they included option years), that deal still looks reasonable considering his surprising struggles this year. Plus, he pitched best for them.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/25324936/inside-baseball-nationals-to-let-williams-go-and-more-mlb-moves

Oh, good Goc.

Dusty, do I have too much hate for Smarj.  Chime in.

No Curt.

Not too much.

I never liked him even when he was a scrub in AA but for the right price he could be our #3 starter.

...Could the Cubs revisit Jeff Samardzija in the winter? .... could Samardzija be a fallback guy? They offered him in the "low $80s (millions)," a few years back, and made multiple offers (though they included option years), that deal still looks reasonable considering his surprising struggles this year. Plus, he pitched best for them.....

It's an interesting concept.  As much as Curt dislikes the guy, the Cubs have had him for years.  They should know how good/bad his chemistry and personal qualities are.  Maybe Heyman is nuts, and the Cubs totally know that Samardz would be an awful disruption to a beautiful clubhouse environment.  So, perhaps they'll be the last team interested because they know him best.  But, that they offered him extensions into his trade season would suggest they don't think he's prohibitively bad, Milton Bradley bad or anything like that.  Of course, they might be foolishly misremembering and misperceiving him as the good pitcher that they created, rather than the recent always-been-a-gopher-boy but now oh-so-hittable bad pitcher he's been this year. 

Favorable opportunity possibilities:
1.  His bad year means he'll be really signable for relatively cheap?  Bargain opportunity?
2.  He kept whining about how much he wanted to be on a winner and the Cubs weren't good enough for him.  If that's real, might he be pretty interested in the current Cubs?
3.  He never wanted long-term security; had the arrogance to think he could earn ace-money.  Perhaps he'd sign for a short deal to get another big-contract shot? 
4.  Bosio might think he knows what's wrong, mechanically or strategically, and that he could fix him back into a decent #3 starter? 

I guess if you thought you could get 2011-2014-vintage Samardzija, but on a modest contract, he might have better bargain-potential than some of the other FA pitchers.  If his clubhouse personality wasn't perceived as prohibitively bad.