2015 cubs in season trades

[beckdawg]

I knew we should have went after Shark a couple of weeks ago. He is settling in and has been damn good for awhile. I think he has gone at least 7 his last 5 starts and shut out the Jays. The Jays offense is no joke.

Not sure how much he'd want to be on this Chicago though given it's pretty clear he's not going to get what he wants from them in the offseason.

 

[CSF77]

Not sure how much he'd want to be on this Chicago though given it's pretty clear he's not going to get what he wants from them in the offseason.

Pretty pointless to even go there. I for one would not want to give the sox any talent. Sorry it is a war zone not a friendly rivalry.

 

[beckdawg]

Let's talk about the rule 5 and the cubs 40 man issues. The following names are decent enough to mention and will be rule 5 eligible before next season

C - Willson Contreras - AA - .326/.399/.492 with 5 HRs
1B/DH - Dan Vogelbach - AA - .284/.410/.431 with 5 HRs
2B - Daniel Lockhart - A+ - .230/.275/.310 with 2 HRs
3B - Jeimer Candelario - A+ - .277/.325/.429 with 5 HRs
OF - Bijan Rademacher - AA - .244/.359/.353 with 3 HRs
SP - Daury Torrez - A+ - 3.80/3.43 ERA/FIP
SP - Ivan Pineyro - AA - 3.77/3.32 ERA/FIP
SP - Pierce Johnson - AA - 1.14/3.45 ERA/FIP
RP - Corey Black - AA - 3.41/3.18 ERA/FIP

Those are all guys on mlb.com's top 30 cubs prospects. There's some other interesting names rule 5 eligible. Bruno is one who would probably be a decent bench UTIL infielder to consider. I think Pierce and Black are pretty likely locks to be around as well as likely Conteras as he's a C. The guys at A+ are pretty hard to protect given they are worlds away. Candelario in particular seems to be likely to go. MLB.com has him as a 50 grade prospect(think top 150 or 200) and #12 on the cubs overall. They also have Villanueva and Olt at 3B for depth so keeping someone in A+ around seems pretty hard. And honestly, I'm not sure you keep both Olt and Villanueva.

Of these guys, most aren't really that exciting. Vogelbach and Candelario are the only two that might net you more than just being throw in pieces in a large trade. Well that's excluding the guys I mentioned who I think will stay around. That's not to say the other guys are worthless. Pineyro might be a fringy #5 or decent bullpen guy like Grimm/Ramirez turned into as part of the Garza deal.

Overall, you're not going to be able to protect all of these guys so I'm sort of assuming that some of these guys will be used to improve the team at the deadline where as some rebuilding team might have more room on their 40 man than the present cubs do.

 

[CSF77]

I would trade Vogelbach. Protect Johnson. Black has been too raw to protect. Rest wouldn't waste a 40 man spot on.

Johnson is the only starter that could end up as a long term option in the near future. I could see him end up replacing Hammel after his deal ends.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I would trade Vogelbach. Protect Johnson. Black has been too raw to protect. Rest wouldn't waste a 40 man spot on.

Johnson is the only starter that could end up as a long term option in the near future. I could see him end up replacing Hammel after his deal ends.

Yes but Johnson's ceiling is probably MOR starter and Black has an off chance to be a TOR starter. Someone will scoop Black up if they leave him unprotected. I think they'll find a way. Vogelbach will be traded rather than protected.

 

[beckdawg]

I would trade Vogelbach. Protect Johnson. Black has been too raw to protect. Rest wouldn't waste a 40 man spot on.

Johnson is the only starter that could end up as a long term option in the near future. I could see him end up replacing Hammel after his deal ends.

Black wouldn't have to be in the majors. Take Schlitter for example. I'd rather have Black on the 40 man than Schlitter.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Black wouldn't have to be in the majors. Take Schlitter for example. I'd rather have Black on the 40 man than Schlitter.

I agree with that.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I think its obvious Schwarber can rake like an all-star. I'd trade him immediately tot he AL where his value should be double what it is in NL and he can help somebody right now.

I guess the trouble is teams that want help want him, but aren't going to give you the world in pitching. Maybe the best move is to a win now AL team for some future pitching prospects of very high value.

I don't know, I guess I see the problem with moving him. Maybe he can be called up to LF in August.

 

[Parade_Rain]

C - Willson Contreras - AA - .326/.399/.492 with 5 HRs

Who is this Contreras fellow?

 

[beckdawg]

Who is this Contreras fellow?

I believe he was signed before last year. I might be mistaken. He wasn't a big deal signing but for whatever reason he's just taken off like crazy. I'll see if i can find a good write up on hm some where and if I do I'll post it in the prospect thread. I think he might be a converted player going to C so his defense isn't amazing but don't quote me on that.

Edit: did a bit more digging. Apparently he was an IFA signing from 2008 as a 3B. Also apparently i was mistaken that he was part of mlb.com's top 30 though he probably should be. The rest of those guys are though

 

[beckdawg]

So, in looking for a scouting report I basically came away with nothing. To be honest, I'm not all that surprised. Because he's a converted 3B, he probably has been some what over looked and may be under valued. He's supposedly got a decent arm but 3B > C isn't a very typical switch so he may take a little while to learn catching though he's been doing in for 2-3 years now I believe so he could be farther along. Defense in general is hard to get a feel for via minor league numbers and C is the worst because you have framing and all that jazz. Only other thing I gleaned from reading about him is he moves better than most catches as a former 3B though I'm not sure that really comes into play here.

Regardless, given the total lack of depth the cubs have at C and the fact he's raking in AA as a hitter makes him worth stashing. Also, while 3B > C is some what odd, 2B > C isn't that rare and vice versa. For example if memory serves, Craig Biggio was originally a C when being brought up. So 3B > C isn't *that* crazy.

 

[SilenceS]

I believe he was signed before last year. I might be mistaken. He wasn't a big deal signing but for whatever reason he's just taken off like crazy. I'll see if i can find a good write up on hm some where and if I do I'll post it in the prospect thread. I think he might be a converted player going to C so his defense isn't amazing but don't quote me on that.

Edit: did a bit more digging. Apparently he was an IFA signing from 2008 as a 3B. Also apparently i was mistaken that he was part of mlb.com's top 30 though he probably should be. The rest of those guys are though

He started off last season raking. Then , he fell of the map again. He caught my eye last year when he was batting .300 plus for the first month or so then he finished the year at .242. I haven't seen him play but almost no one talks about him so I would guess there is a reason for that.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

So, in looking for a scouting report I basically came away with nothing. To be honest, I'm not all that surprised. Because he's a converted 3B, he probably has been some what over looked and may be under valued. He's supposedly got a decent arm but 3B > C isn't a very typical switch so he may take a little while to learn catching though he's been doing in for 2-3 years now I believe so he could be farther along. Defense in general is hard to get a feel for via minor league numbers and C is the worst because you have framing and all that jazz. Only other thing I gleaned from reading about him is he moves better than most catches as a former 3B though I'm not sure that really comes into play here.

Regardless, given the total lack of depth the cubs have at C and the fact he's raking in AA as a hitter makes him worth stashing. Also, while 3B > C is some what odd, 2B > C isn't that rare and vice versa. For example if memory serves, Craig Biggio was originally a C when being brought up. So 3B > C isn't *that* crazy.

From everything I've seen over at Cubs Den from scouts that have seen Contreras at C he's above average defensively and has really become a complete player this year. I think he's a trade chip myself.

 

[TL1961]

I knew we should have went after Shark a couple of weeks ago. He is settling in and has been damn good for awhile. I think he has gone at least 7 his last 5 starts and shut out the Jays. The Jays offense is no joke.

You want to trade away people for a rental - a rental who has already made it very clear he does not want to be a Cub?

What sense would that make?

 

[beckdawg]

Just a follow up on Contreras, BA put out their top 10 cubs prospects today and he was #9 between Almora and Pierce Johnson.

Full list is
Schwarber
Torres
McKinney
Duane Underwood
Mark Zagunis
Carl Edwards
Dylan Cease
Albert Almora, Jr.
Willson Contreras
Pierce Johnson

Zagunis is also sort of surprising to see that high. He hit .299/.429/.422 with 2 HRs in 191 PAs last year in A-, .280/.419/.440 62 PAs in A and this year is hitting .296/.423/.440 with 5 HRs in 352 PAs in A+. He's 22 so he arguably should be beating up similar age competition(22.5 years old is median for A+). In some ways he seems like an older McKinney because he's probably only a corner OFer and while he has decent speed he's most like a 10-15 HR 20 SB guy. That being said the dude can hit.

Going back to Contreras bleacher nation had this to say on him

I don’t have a great sense of Contreras’s receiving skills, though I’ve heard that they are developing – BA describes his defense as solid average. Contreras is eligible for the Rule 5 Draft after this season, so, assuming he’s not dealt sooner, you can expect him to be added to the 40-man roster after the season.

Given he's right handed he might not be a bad platoon mate at C with Schwarber assuming Schwarber stays behind the plate.

 

[Diehardfan]

I've been a Cubs fan for over 50 years and I've learned more about up and coming young players here in the last two years than I've ever known. For the most part that came because of lack of access....no internet. Every now and then you'd catch a blurb in the newspaper or something mentioned on TV and that was about it. Some of you guys are really into it and your updates and info have me searching the net to see what these kids look like.

I'd just like to say thanks.

 

[willycat]

Where does Contreras rank in comparison to Teagarden?

 

[CSF77]

Cubs playing it safe with Edwards caused his ranking to nose dive.

 

[TL1961]

I've been a Cubs fan for over 50 years and I've learned more about up and coming young players here in the last two years than I've ever known. For the most part that came because of lack of access....no internet. Every now and then you'd catch a blurb in the newspaper or something mentioned on TV and that was about it. Some of you guys are really into it and your updates and info have me searching the net to see what these kids look like.

I'd just like to say thanks.

Once upon the time, for prospect news, you bought The Sporting News, and caught a sentence or two.

 

[SilenceS]

The internet. I hear scouts talk about this all the time. The internet exploded then prospects like Trout and Harper shows up and now people are so ridiculous about them. The average rookie is still 24 or 25 but to the internet if they are past 22 they are a bust. Look at the cards, how many have become something around 24 because of development? These are kids. Let them grow and learn.