2015 Cubs Offseason Discussion

[beckdawg]

Every year a top arm is up for sale at the dead line. This is nothing new. The only question is if the teams have a match.

Even so I highly doubt the Cubs will be good enough to warrant going after a pricey TOR. Now seeing them trade Castro for a young project-able TOR type I could see happening.


That article pretty much spelled it out as good as it gets. They need a TOR right now. They also went on to say getting a mid tier arm like Madea makes sense as Hendricks is back of the rotation.

Then trading Valbuena is dumb with Baez sitting at 41% SO ratio. Not to mention Russell in AAA next year. Not really a smart time to be dealing out.

What I see added is a SP or 2.

What I see subtracted Jackson and Wood by any means. I'm interested with the Braun and Mayben suggestions though. They should look into it some.

The Cubs really do not need a over haul right now. 2 weeks into the season they should have Bryant past the 7 year of control window. Which is what they were planning ( and the reason Boras spoke out about it..get him experience and only 6 years of team control...) That move alone changes the dynamic of the line up. Regardless if Baez adjusts or busts. Shoot Bryant, Rizzo and Soler in the middle of the order makes the line up very interesting.

I frankly think you have it backwards with regard to the trade. It makes far less sense in my opinion to trade Castro for a projectable young TOR arm. You already know what Castro gives you. You're far safer taking that and trading the potential of a prospect be it Russell or Baez for a proven commodity. That's why I disagree with the idea that it's too early to make a move. If the right player is available you want to trade a Russell or a Baez when they have their top value which is almost certainly before you know what they are. Maybe that player beats the odds and becomes and MVP caliber player but if Russell or Baez nets you a 4-5 WAR player I'd take the safe money every day over the hope that either is the next Cabrera/Trout.

If you're talking about David Price then sure that makes little sense for the cubs to trade now but I really don't see a point in them going after him via trade anyways because he's going to be a FA soon. On the other hand, the names I've talked about here and previously were sub-27 year olds. Strasburg will be 26. I've previously mentioned names like Jose Fernandez and Matt Harvey as names the cubs would probably attempt to trade if anyone. I don't know for certain that any of those players are available. But if a circumstance arises in which they are you'd be silly not to move a prospect for them. That's where I was going with the timing aspect. Sure nearly every year some starter is available be it at the dead line or during the hot stove. But when I brought up Latos i did so for the very reason that he was a pre-prime starter. Shields, Lee, Halladay were all in their prime or arguably past it. Garza, Shark...etc ditto. Players like Latos rarely get traded because teams will typically lock a starter up until he's 28-29 at the least. As such if a top tier starter at that age is available for whatever reason i hope by all means they part with whatever it takes. I care less about Hamels and Price as trade pieces because of their age. And for consistency I'll note that I said the same thing about Shark when trading him wasn't a foregone conclusion. However, someone who's prime age fits in well with Castro/Rizzo makes a boat load of sense to me. Again whether or not that is available at this point is unclear. But for whatever reason Latos was available at that time. So it does happen.

As for Jackson, I'm sure they will try to off load him I just don't see Brown as being viable for either side. Michael Bourn I wouldn't hate if the money were equal but the problem is A) he's making $5.5 mil more over the next 2 years and B) has a vesting option of $12 mil if he gets 550 plate appearances in 2016. I suppose if Cleveland chipped in $5.5 mil it wouldn't be that terrible. If you assume he's a 2 WAR player he was in 2013 over the next 3 years that's roughly $12-14 mil in FA. A quick glance at his stats doesn't appear much difference between 2013 and 14 other than his defense fell off a cliff. I don't follow cleveland much but it also looks like he was hurt by number of PAs which would likely go with the poor defense.

Either way, someone like Bourne would make more sense to me than Brown. You could even argue that if it were Jackson for Bourne + $5.5 mil to offset the cost that Bourne becomes a decent buy low candidate and potential player to flip once you have prospects ready. He's not that far off a pretty monstrous 2012 and a still very solid 2011. At 32, I doubt he is going to put up 3 more 4+ fWAR seasons but all it really takes is one good one and suddenly public perception of him changes enough to turn Jackson which is essentially a worse than nothing into maybe something decently positive.

 

[brett05]

If you want to argue Strasburg is more valuable than Latos is that's fine. I did acknowledge I don't know exactly what it will take. But I do feel the comparison to Latos is probably you're best case for comparison. Using Shark is a bit different because you're talking about a deadline deal. 1/2 a season for a team that knows it's got a good shot at playoffs is worth a lot more than a player prior to the season. Another example of a trade was the Beckett for Hanley trade. That amounts to Beckett + Guillermo Mota + Lowell who while coming off a down year had previously been an all-star 3B for Jesus Delgado, Harvey Garcia, Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez. Hanley had been a top 25 player and even top 10 at one point. Sanchez was back end of the top 100. The rest I don't think were viewed as much more than filler pieces.

In that sense, these type of trades typically are one big player(read top 25) and fillers or two medium players 25-100 and fillers. Even if you want to include the Shark trade it was also Hammel in the deal that netted such a high return. James Shields and Wade Davis was Wil Myers, Patrick Leonard (minors), Mike Montgomery (minors), and Jake Odorizzi. Myers(top 10) and Ororizzi(70's i think) were viewed as the big pieces and while Montgomery had once been viewed highly he'd fallen off some. And like with Hammel you have to account for Davis' value to some extent.

If you have a better example by all means show it. But even if you want to start with the Shark deal, Baez as a prospect is viewed in a similar range to Russell. I love Billy McKinney but mlb.com graded him as a 50. Paul Blackburn was graded as a 45. And Straily was a whatever reclamation type piece similar to the Turner/Doubront example I gave. Candelario and Vogelbach who I mentioned you could also still add are graded as 50 prospects. And that doesn't factor in what Hammel was worth to that deal. So even if those pitchers are worth more than Shark you're also adding in whatever value Hammel has which at the trade deadline was possibly a top 100 piece.

To suggest it's going to cost a top 10 prospect and a top 50-75 prospect just doesn't seem likely to me. In the last 10-15 years the closest trade I can come to that sort of value with a top 10 prospect + a top 50ish is Miggy/Willis trade for Maybin and Andrew Miller. Keep in mind that even though Willis now seems like a crap part, he was going to be 26 and excluding the 5.17 ERA 2007 he had 3.87 2006, 2.63 2005, 4.02 2004, and 3.30 2003 and was coming into his "prime". Miggy was going to be 25 and had put up a 5.1 fWAR 2007, 6.4 fWAR 2006, and a 5.1 2005.

So, you can suggest those pitchers are worth more than that but in terms of what teams actually gave up it appears you're setting the bar too high. In the case of Gio, we don't have to look that far back because we can see what he was traded for. That cost A.J. Cole (minors), Tommy Milone, Derek Norris and Brad Peacock and that was with more team control than he has now. None of those players were top 50 prospects prior to 2012. If you want to read about how those players are viewed at that time you can here.

Perhaps you just feel Baez isn't a top 10 prospect anymore. My feelings on him are well known. But I doubt many teams will significantly knock him yet for a poor initial call up. They likely either never believed in him in the first place in which case none of this talk matters to begin with or did believe in him and just see this as growing pains.

I can agree that arguably these players should cost more as I said with the thing about Valbuena. However, prospects being what they are these days that's just not the case. Recently, the M's traded a 23 year old Michael Pineda who was coming off a 3.74 ERA season(3.2 fWAR) with tons of team control for essentially Jesus Montero who had serious concerns about sticking as a C and was likely to be DH only in the short term. Obviously Pineda got hurt and that set him back a ton but the point I"m trying to make is top 10 prospect carry serious weight with teams.

Not all classes are equal would be my argument

 

[beckdawg]

Not all classes are equal would be my argument

Not sure exactly what you mean by classes. I assume you mean tiers of players. If so again that's fine but if Beckett at the time of the FLA/BOS trade wasn't top tier than I don't know who is. He was coming off leading the Marlins to a WS title. The way I see it is what I've outlined is the top line price anyone has paid in the past two decades or so for pitching in terms of trades. So, if you're saying they're worth more I just honestly don't see it where they would get more.

Maybe someone like Strasburg really is worth more but I frankly don't think you're every going to find a team to give you significantly more than I outlined. Every trade is different and perhaps a trade like that would involve Wood instead of say Blackburn as the team might need a back of the rotation type today vs potential future upside. But to suggest it would require a top 10 prospect like Baez/Russell/Bryant and then another player like Almora/Schwarber/Alcantara...etc seems entirely impractical. The one trade that even approached that was the Willis Cabrera trade and that was for a soon to be 26 year old 2 time all star pitcher and Cabrera. That'd be like trade for Strasburg and Harper rather than just Strausburg alone. Every other trade I've come across for a pre-prime pitcher has been something on the magnitude of a top 10 player or 2 25-100 players plus a 50ish grade prospect and some org filler on the back end. Whether right or wrong, that's the going rate apparently.

 

[CSF77]

Baez is 50/50 right now. He is missing outside of the zone.

My main problem with him is he looked bad for most of the year against AAA pitching. When Bryant promoted he finnaly adapted then they pulled the trigger. He really never mastered AAA. It showed up in the bigs. Not to mention his swing is all or nothing. Other words pitchers can start any pitch with downward movement that starts in the strike zone but ends up under the violence. Then they can put the heat eye level and his non adaptable swing will thunder under it.

Until Baez matures as a hitter and to be honest here try's to make contact vs trying to play ball smash he has bust written all over him.

 

[CSF77]

He reminds me of Sori. Gets hot and can wreck the ball. Thing is every time he gets hot they pull the trigger and he slumps again. We still haven't seen what he can do with a full year at 1 level.

Early opinion is he will start cold until the weather heats. After that IMO he may get lost in the shuffle. Bryant and Soler on the team who have HR power also but have better contact rates. Then Russell close.

Baez needs to improve or well....

 

[SilenceS]

He reminds me of Sori. Gets hot and can wreck the ball. Thing is every time he gets hot they pull the trigger and he slumps again. We still haven't seen what he can do with a full year at 1 level.

Early opinion is he will start cold until the weather heats. After that IMO he may get lost in the shuffle. Bryant and Soler on the team who have HR power also but have better contact rates. Then Russell close.

Baez needs to improve or well....

Get lost in the shuffle to who? Russell isnt coming up until the earliest September. Baez will most likely have a whole year at second.

 

[SilenceS]

The problem i have with trading Valbuena is it's going against what they are saying they want to do which is to have a vet presence for the young players. And fair enough you can get that with other FA's but this feels like a case of bird in the hand. Valbuena has to be one of the most cost effective players in 2014 who's not on a pre-arb contract. His 2.7 fWAR puts him as the 53rd best positional player. If you were to buy that on the FA market it should cost you roughly $15 mil a year. I also don't think you can really consider him a fluke. Perhaps his power is a bit up but as an overall value he's about the same. His 2013 he put up 2.1 fWAR in 391 PAs. In 2012 he put up 1.4 in 303 PAs. That's over 1200 PAs he's played at this level. Valbuena is a perfect example of why having a 10%+ walk rate matters. Even given that, what are you going to get for him? Who's going to give you a serious prospect for him? Would you give up anything of value for Erick Aybar? You're basically talking a similar age/skill level player. I've said it a number of times but we've gone from the early 90's when no one gave a shit about prospect to the point where prospects are seriously over valued. If you're a team in need you arguably should give up an Almora level player for someone like Valbuena/Aybar if you're going to be competitive. But no one does. I'm sure the cubs tried to trade Nate last year but look what they got for Dejesus who was arguably a better/less flukey player. On top of all that, he's great insurance against Baez being terrible again and he's a left handed bat who can hit near the top of the order. Frankly, I'm much more inclined to believe in Valbeuna as a bridge to hopefully Russell being a star than I am in Baez which is why I say there's a compelling argument to be made that you're better off medium term(2-5 years) with Valbeuna than you are with Baez.

I get why people think about trading someone like Valbuena. He's far from a sexy player. However, over the past 3 years in 1965 PAs Castro has been worth 6.2 fWAR. Valbuena has been worth 6.2 fWAR in 1241 PAs. WAR isn't an end all be all stat but it's cases like this that point out the inherent bias people have in viewing players. Relatively few want to even talk about the concept of trading Castro but few view Valbuena as having anywhere near as similar a value to the team. Obviously Valbeuna is going to be 29 to Castro's 25 but it's not like he's some upper 30's guy trying to hold onto his career. If Shark as a 4 win player is roughly worth Russell who's a top 10 prospect then what's that say to Valbuena's value as roughly a 3 win player over the past 2 600 PAs "seasons?" Surely you'd have to be talking a top 50 prospect to get equal value back and I seriously doubt anyone is going to give that up for Valbuena.

Perhaps you could get better value for him as part of a bigger trade. But even if you were to include him as part of say a Heyward trade to Atlanta who's both competitive and has a black hole at 2B I don't see that moving the dial much for them. Valbuena and Almora for example wouldn't get that trade done. I just think any offer you get for him will be low ball compared to what you actually get out of him. He still has 2 years of arbitration left at probably below $5 mil per for both. $5.25 mil in FA this past offseason got you a 37 year old Mark Ellis who put up -0.4 fWAR. $3.5 mil got you a 36 year old Rafael Furcal who posted a -0.2 fWAR. $3 mil got you a 36 year old Nick Punto who posted a 0.2 fWAR. $2 mil got you a 36 year old Brian Roberts who posted 0.2 fWAR. 4 years $30 mil got you a 32 year old Infante who put up 0.5 and was only 3.1 and 2.9 the two years prior to FA. And while you would think that would make him have serious value I doubt it will.

To me Valbuena is the type of player that is worth far more to the team he's on than he will ever be in a trade scenario.

It all depends on what is offered. I didnt say ship him off for a bag of balls. Also, Valbuena is a matchup based player. He has had a total of 170 at bats against left handed pitching in the past 3 years. He has 2 homers and around a .200 BA against them. He is put in situations to succeed. To compare him to Castro is frankly ridiculous, Castro is an everyday player no matter the matchup. Even if you want to go with WAR, Valbuena has had a negative oWAR 2 of the 3 years. His dWAR is why his WAR stayed up. His bWAR is nowhere near his fWAR.

I like Valbuena before almost any Cub fan. He is versatile and has some pop but I know what he is. He is a bench player that has to be put in the right matchups to succeed. Also, the league is going to stop throwing him fastballs. He cant hit a breaking ball for shit. I have no clue why the league hasnt picked up on that. Valbuena for all intensive purposes had a career year that I doubt he will top again. He is going to be 29. Also, what vet presence does he really bring? He has never been to the playoffs. He has never really been a true starter until this year. Im sure he brings maturity, but its not like he has been there done that. I think when the Cubs talk vets. They talk gritty guys who have been through it all including the playoffs. I dont mind Valbuena being on the team, but I still feel the Cubs should see if someone will overpay in a desperate situation. If not, he looks good in the super sub role.

 

[Zvbxrpl]

I like Valbuena before almost any Cub fan. He is versatile and has some pop but I know what he is. He is a bench player that has to be put in the right matchups to succeed.

Bingo.

Valbuena has had moderate success against rightys while getting destroyed against lefties. He's an everyday starter if he's consistent against lefties. Bluntly, he's servicable, and guys like him are harder to find than one would think.

Ideally, I'd like to see the cubs keep Val, as you can plug him in the infield, and I'd like to see him start (am quite confident he will) 2015 at 3rd base until Bryant crosses the money/service time threshold and gets his call up. Let's see what he can do. He's steadily improved, raising his average and OBP. Who knows, when Bryant is up, a team may find him necessary to trade for and the cubs get a nice little piece, or you keep him in the long shot odds that the cubs are in the WC hunt. Significant pieces and luck as well as fast on the job learning is needed for that though, hence long shot.

As for Olt, I always thought he was a bust. He's got next spring to prove me wrong. If he can't, pull a LaHair and sell him to a NPB team for a million dollars. Dude just isn't a MLB calibur player.

 

[CSF77]

Get lost in the shuffle to who? Russell isnt coming up until the earliest September. Baez will most likely have a whole year at second.

Like I said. If he keeps his SO rate near 40% and Bryant comes up and takes over. Then it puts Valbuena out of a job. And if Valbuena is giving equal production to this year and Baez is still struggling. Guess what. Baez in AAA. Then with Russell already there the pecking order changes.

Baez needs to improve. Cubs have depth in talent and jobs are not guaranteed in that environment

 

[SilenceS]

Like I said. If he keeps his SO rate near 40% and Bryant comes up and takes over. Then it puts Valbuena out of a job. And if Valbuena is giving equal production to this year and Baez is still struggling. Guess what. Baez in AAA. Then with Russell already there the pecking order changes.

Baez needs to improve. Cubs have depth in talent and jobs are not guaranteed in that environment

No jobs are ever guaranteed but I doubt they choose valbuena over him unless he just bombs. He has to learn at the major league level. Bryant isn't guaranteed to succeed. A lot would have to go on is all I'm saying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

It all depends on what is offered. I didnt say ship him off for a bag of balls. Also, Valbuena is a matchup based player. He has had a total of 170 at bats against left handed pitching in the past 3 years. He has 2 homers and around a .200 BA against them. He is put in situations to succeed. To compare him to Castro is frankly ridiculous, Castro is an everyday player no matter the matchup. Even if you want to go with WAR, Valbuena has had a negative oWAR 2 of the 3 years. His dWAR is why his WAR stayed up. His bWAR is nowhere near his fWAR.

I like Valbuena before almost any Cub fan. He is versatile and has some pop but I know what he is. He is a bench player that has to be put in the right matchups to succeed. Also, the league is going to stop throwing him fastballs. He cant hit a breaking ball for shit. I have no clue why the league hasnt picked up on that. Valbuena for all intensive purposes had a career year that I doubt he will top again. He is going to be 29. Also, what vet presence does he really bring? He has never been to the playoffs. He has never really been a true starter until this year. Im sure he brings maturity, but its not like he has been there done that. I think when the Cubs talk vets. They talk gritty guys who have been through it all including the playoffs. I dont mind Valbuena being on the team, but I still feel the Cubs should see if someone will overpay in a desperate situation. If not, he looks good in the super sub role.

We'll just have to disagree then. Either way, let's say your opinion on his ability is right. Who's going to give you more than a bag of balls for that player? I mean look at the Ruggiano trade in terms of a bench player. You can basically get a different bench player. But given what Valbuena has done the past 3 years I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better bench player if that is indeed his true ability.

As for a vet presence, you're talking about a guy who has struggled around the league and finally found his place. In my opinion that's far more valuable experience than having played a playoff game. Experience is a nebulous concept so it's hard to put an exact value on things. But we know most every player in the league will struggle and having someone who's been through that failure and come out the outside is invaluable. Considering we're generally talking about prospects that sort of experience I would rate higher than playoffs at this point. For example, I think that's better than having someone like Trout who's hardly ever struggled. As young as he is, he's probably not the best example but you can see where I'm going with that I think. Also, Valbuena is a latin player which can be helpful and is part of the reason Rentaria was hired.

 

[SilenceS]

We'll just have to disagree then. Either way, let's say your opinion on his ability is right. Who's going to give you more than a bag of balls for that player? I mean look at the Ruggiano trade in terms of a bench player. You can basically get a different bench player. But given what Valbuena has done the past 3 years I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better bench player if that is indeed his true ability.

As for a vet presence, you're talking about a guy who has struggled around the league and finally found his place. In my opinion that's far more valuable experience than having played a playoff game. Experience is a nebulous concept so it's hard to put an exact value on things. But we know most every player in the league will struggle and having someone who's been through that failure and come out the outside is invaluable. Considering we're generally talking about prospects that sort of experience I would rate higher than playoffs at this point. For example, I think that's better than having someone like Trout who's hardly ever struggled. As young as he is, he's probably not the best example but you can see where I'm going with that I think. Also, Valbuena is a latin player which can be helpful and is part of the reason Rentaria was hired.

I have no problem with your opinion and I would keep Valbuena if no one wants to give us anything. I just said I would see. This team could take a different shape in one off season. We have to see where they go in FA.

 

[CSF77]

No jobs are ever guaranteed but I doubt they choose valbuena over him unless he just bombs. He has to learn at the major league level. Bryant isn't guaranteed to succeed. A lot would have to go on is all I'm saying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would give him until mid May to adjust. It is more than enough time to adjust. It comes down to his SO%. 30% would be acceptable to build off of. 40% means he needs more time against lesser pitching to get his mechanics right.

 

[JZsportsfan]

Would be interesting to see what Fernandez would net on the trade market. Marlins will have to trade Stanton in the next couple of years. Wonder if they'd even think to package Fernandez with him. Would cost the Cubs a large portion of their farm, and doubt either side would do it, but it's an interesting thought

 

[SilenceS]

Would be interesting to see what Fernandez would net on the trade market. Marlins will have to trade Stanton in the next couple of years. Wonder if they'd even think to package Fernandez with him. Would cost the Cubs a large portion of their farm, and doubt either side would do it, but it's an interesting thought

Marlins can afford to pay Stanton. Its just will they. I read they were going to offer him a huge deal.

 

[Zvbxrpl]

Marlins can afford to pay Stanton. Its just will they. I read they were going to offer him a huge deal.

I read that too, and I'll believe it when I see it.

I presume Miami will offer him something a lot more fair than we think Miami would offer someone based on their/Jeff Loria's history of 'develop good players, trade them and be cheap.'

Can definitely see them moving to trade this winter if Stanton and his agent flat out refuse to play ball with the Marlins.

 

[JZsportsfan]

Stanton has said though he will not forget what he's already been forced to go through with the organization. The Cubs, Yankees, or Red Sox could throw $225+ at him. Would that be smart? No, but if Stanton went to the Yankees he'd hit 55 HR a year if he was healthy. Wrigley wouldn't be too bad for him either. I see no way the Marlins can stop him from walking tbh. Stanton in FA is like the MLB version of Lebron in FA. Stanton will be 26 YO entering his prime.

 

[beckdawg]

I don't particularly think Stanton is a good fit with the cubs anyways. I talk about this a lot but you're adding another heart of the order hitter to a group of Baez, Castro, Bryant, Soler, and Rizzo. Maybe some of those would be gone in a trade but you have a number of power hitters. Line ups have been built a certain way for a number of years and to go against that with so much power is bucking at trend which is fine and all but I think you have to prove it can work other wise you're being contrarian and hoping for the best. On top of that, Stanton's injury issue could very realistically push him out of the outfield most likely to 1B where the cubs happen to have Rizzo.

If they are going to go after someone I really would prefer it to be Heyward. I think he makes much more sense from a fit perspective. Additionally, he's yet to put all his tools together in a single season. The closest he's come is 2012 where he hit .269/.335/.479 with 27 HRs 21 SBs and a 8.9%/23.3% walk/K rate. Since then he's improved his contact quite a bit with him having a 10.3%/15.1% walk/k rate though his power dropped some. He was 24 this year so it would be reasonable to expect him to burst out in the next few years and combine that into a pretty stellar season. I'm not sure he'd get quite to McCutchen's 2013 level but perhaps within that realm as a gold glove RF.

Best of all, Heyward gives the cubs things they sorely lack. He steals and of the players still with the cubs the best player was Alcantara with 8(+21 in the minors). He hits left handed which again you're talking about Alcantara, Schwarber and McKinney being your only other lefties with Rizzo. He's obviously a great defender of which many of the cubs prospects are average at best. Him being in RF would push Soler to LF which with his arm would possibly make him considered "plus."

 

[JZsportsfan]

Yeah I agree with Heyward. I wouldn't mind seeing the Cubs take a run at him this offseason and it sounds like he could be on the block. He seems like the prototypical player for this front office. Gets on base, and plays very good defense. That would also allow Bryant to stick at 3B long term, and give the Cubs 2 corner OF that can get on base and hit for some power. Cubs reportedly shopped Shark around to the Braves asking for Heyward or Upton in return

On a side note, the Royals are reportedly going to offer Shields a 5/$80 million extension. That's could be enough to get him to stay IMO. Wouldn't mind if the Cubs went to 85 but not anymore than that. Not sure about Shields on a 5 year deal.

 

[KingDarude7]

4 yr/65 million? For Shields?