Trade deadline banter

[ursamajor]

I just hope Contrares takes it the right way and Joe does not sit him too much. At least Caratini got to his his first home run before getting demoted. Avila should be looked at as more of a get rest for Rizzo option to even it out.

Why would Willson take it poorly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Like I said Happ, Alzolay, Ademan and Zantzny (Mills if healthy as a toss in or Butler) for Archer.

If I were tampa I wouldn't do that deal. Zastryzny Mills and Butler are effectively PTBNL type value. Maybe you argue they are slightly more but they aren't moving a dial. Ademan's got potential to be a big piece but you really have to have a team buying on him not floundering in A ball which he's yet to hit in. Alzolay's more a third piece than a 2nd piece in a trade. I'm not sure he's better than Basabe in the Sale trade in terms of scouting and he's no where near Kopech either way. Some team is going to give up far more than that in an offer. Tampa would have to absolutely love Happ Alzolay and Ademan more than the industry consensus.

 

[chibears55]

I can't see them moving Russell. If Baez were the guy they wanted at SS he'd be there full time and it would be Russell fighting for time. I do agree on the Happ/Baez issue and in my estimation Happ is probably slightly ahead in terms of staying. My question is what sort of trade return can you get with it centered around Baez or Happ? And another question is what pieces you can pair with them to make the deal happen. Hoyer was talking like they really don't want to touch their young pitching in future trades. I could see them moving a Tseng or a Clifton in the right deal for someone now as they aren't really high ceiling guys and they are essentially almost ready themselves.

Overall, I just don't know. I think they probably are hoping Otani stays away this year which he might given he's been hurt. If he does that would be serendipitous for the cubs.

I see them going the FA route anyways for that SP..

They basically need 1 SP and they can use one of their own as the no.5 like Tseng...

I don't think they'll look to add one that going to cost big money plus years, unless it someone like Sales if for whatever reason Boston opts out..

all those young pitchers in system now, some could get into top 100 in next couple years..

Epstein thinking probably if they can get by next season with Lester Quintana Hendricks and maybe a not too expensive mid rotation type starter that he signs for a 1 or 2 year deal, he can use those young arms for deals next deadline or off season to bring in a young controllable arm that a team might look to unload like the sox did with Sales...

But again a lot of what he might hope to do or does depends on these young bats getting better and not falling back like a couple has done this year..
Then he won't have to focus on replacing them via FA or pitching prospects in trades..



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Iceman2385]

I see them going the FA route anyways for that SP..

They basically need 1 SP and they can use one of their own as the no.5 like Tseng...

I don't think they'll look to add one that going to cost big money plus years, unless it someone like Sales if for whatever reason Boston opts out..

all those young pitchers in system now, some could get into top 100 in next couple years..

Epstein thinking probably if they can get by next season with Lester Quintana Hendricks and maybe a not too expensive mid rotation type starter that he signs for a 1 or 2 year deal, he can use those young arms for deals next deadline or off season to bring in a young controllable arm that a team might look to unload like the sox did with Sales...

But again a lot of what he might hope to do or does depends on these young bats getting better and not falling back like a couple has done this year..
Then he won't have to focus on replacing them via FA or pitching prospects in trades..



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I'd say go for the trade in the offseason why wait? If we can get stroman for a Baez centered deal I'd do that. Why spend in FA if we dont have too, might as well keep as much financial flexibility as possible for when we have to pay our young players and if we want to entice a FA like Harper. I also think typically u get a better deal in the offseason vs deadline, but that could be debatable. But if we can't make a reasonable trade, then yea I'm ok w going after a Cobb or Lynn in FA. And then letting Monty and Tseng fight over the 5th spot.

 

[CSF77]

If I were tampa I wouldn't do that deal. Zastryzny Mills and Butler are effectively PTBNL type value. Maybe you argue they are slightly more but they aren't moving a dial. Ademan's got potential to be a big piece but you really have to have a team buying on him not floundering in A ball which he's yet to hit in. Alzolay's more a third piece than a 2nd piece in a trade. I'm not sure he's better than Basabe in the Sale trade in terms of scouting and he's no where near Kopech either way. Some team is going to give up far more than that in an offer. Tampa would have to absolutely love Happ Alzolay and Ademan more than the industry consensus.

Sale > Archer.

Archer ? Q.

Archer is closer to Q's net worth

 

[beckdawg]

Sale > Archer.

Archer ? Q.

Archer is closer to Q's net worth

You can argue that but if Archer moves which isn't a guarantee in my eyes he's the best pitcher on the market. He's gonna cost crap tons.

 

[Iceman2385]

Yea that's thing w Archer who's to say the Rays r gna wna trade him? I think I'd still be interested in Snell tho too. I think it's more likely the BlueJays sell. Do you think Stromsn can be had in the offseason, what do u think he would cost? Or we could trade w the Orioles, they never seem to wna sell, but any interest in Bundy or Gausmsn? I wouldn't give up as much for one of those two. We also could kick the tires on Teheran?

 

[CSF77]

You can argue that but if Archer moves which isn't a guarantee in my eyes he's the best pitcher on the market. He's gonna cost crap tons.

I'm thinking it will be:

1: Yu (just because of age/don't have to lose prospects)
2: Jake
3: Archer

The thing is Jake is money in big game situations. Last WS he was the guy that kept them in it. Post ASG 2.33 ERA. Yes he has a "feel' of the ball thing going on and sweat issues on his arms...drama... but still when he is locked in he is one of the top 3 pitchers in the game. Which means Sale and Kershaw good.

Archer is still toolsy at this point. He is missing the whole staff leader and big game stuff that you get in those situations.

Play off results:

Yu: 2012/2016 0-2 5.40
Jake: 2015-16 4-2 3.64

Archer: 2013 Didn't start his 2 games.

The way I look at it Archer strikes out a lot of guys. But he is 48-57 3.56 ERA on a team that is always hovering around the play offs.

So the numbers are good but the end results are so-so. Has no moments of battle testing. That is why I balled him and Q up together. They are the same bird.

 

[beckdawg]

Yea that's thing w Archer who's to say the Rays r gna wna trade him? I think I'd still be interested in Snell tho too. I think it's more likely the BlueJays sell. Do you think Stromsn can be had in the offseason, what do u think he would cost? Or we could trade w the Orioles, they never seem to wna sell, but any interest in Bundy or Gausmsn? I wouldn't give up as much for one of those two. We also could kick the tires on Teheran?

re Stroman, more than I'd want to pay. I'm worried his body will break down. He's 5'8 180 which is super tiny for a starter. I think he's going to be hard to trade because I think he'll be pushed hard value wise by TOR but the market wont want to pay as much as they want. In my eyes he's like a lessor version of Quintana who based on numbers should have went for more but the market didn't really expand like you would expect.

re Teheran, 2 years ago I was really into him. Then he broke out the following year and looked to expensive in my eyes. He's obviously pitching poorly this year. So really by a similar logic I should like him though I'm not sure why I'm not as jazzed about him. He's still only 26 and is on a some what reasonable deal for the next few years. Atlanta is weird. They seem to be both buying and selling at the same time so I never really know which way they are going. Think my interest in him depends on what they are asking.

Re Bundy/Gausman ... Speaking of teams that I don't understand the O's. Why they didn't sell more is beyond me. On gausman, I don't understand why he's not a better pitcher. I'd have to dig into the data more but just a quick glance and usual indicators looks fine excluding his walk rate this year. Usually an 8+ k/9 with less than 2.5 bb/9 and a 45%ish ground ball rate is a ticket to cy young contention(see Hendricks). Maybe he needs to refine another pitch or something. Not sure. He's also not been as healthy as you would like. Bundy doesn't strike me as a cubs pitcher. He's at 33.5% career ground ball rate. Cubs starters this year are at 47.5%.

If I had to list the guys I could see the cubs going after they'd be the following.
James Paxton - supposedly already tried to get him last year and he's not moving after this season IMO
Jacob deGrom - mets should probably sell and he's be really interesting if they did
Masahiro Tanaka - I could actually see something like this happening. He seems to need a change of scenery. I doubt he opts out though.
Kevin Gausman - depends on the price largely but he fits their profile.
Gerrit Cole - probably wont happen in division

Of those I think Tanaka is possibly the most interesting play. I can't imagine he opts out after this year and any trade would almost certainly have to happen in the offseason after he decides. He's got 3 years and $67 mil left on his deal. If NY decides to go another direction in FA and would eat $10-15 mil I think you could probably make a case for him. That'd put him at around 3 years $18-19 mil which isn't super cheap but you could probably have him for a mediocre prospect at that cost.

 

[beckdawg]

According baseball prospectus top 6 teams in +war via trades in 2017

cubs +4.6
yankees +4.2
Nationals +2.7
Royals +2.4
Braves +2.1
Dodgers +2

 

[SilenceS]

Cubs did well. The Cubs time is now or now plus 3 to 4 years. This is why they drafted so heavy on position players. I have a hard time believing these guys wont get better as they age. Rizzo is the only one that is in his peak and its still an early peak. I feel Rizzo is going to be live Votto and just keep pumping.

 

[Bear Pride]

At this point Theo should be the most trusted man in sports for Cubs fans. I don't follow the minor league system enough to comment.... but if Theo likes it then so do I.

Yep, I agree. Theo built the farm system for the Cubs. It's perplexing that shade be thrown the Cubs way for trading away 'the future'. I also find it amusing that some people are angry that the Cubs are trying to 'Win Now'.

Consistently good teams adapt every year to keep an edge with their competition. The trade deadline is one of them. Good teams sell young talent to compete now. The Cubs did that with fairly good contracts as well for the veterans they brought in.

The Cubs core roster is still very young. Most of these prospects probably won't get a real opportunity for years due to the Cubs young core of controlled players. I also have to think that Theo thinks he can rebuild the next couple years as well. Maybe we should be concerned about his experience at rebuilding a team?

 

[beckdawg]

Yep, I agree. Theo built the farm system for the Cubs. It's perplexing that shade be thrown the Cubs way for trading away 'the future'. I also find it amusing that some people are angry that the Cubs are trying to 'Win Now'.

I'm not sure who you're referring to but if it's me I think you're missing the point. The players the cubs traded were never "the future." They were exactly how they were used which is to say trade assets. The point is a team always has more than one need. The cubs already had arguably the deepest bullpen in the race. I'm not opposed to replacing Grimm with something else but did that need to be arguably the most expensive reliever traded? And did they also need to get the most expensive back up catcher? And to contrast, how does that compare to the need the cubs will have assuming both Lackey and Arrieta leave?

There's valid points to be made on both sides. Maybe you prefer to give up prospects for Wilson rather than paying a FA reliever. And maybe you prefer to address the Lackey departure with another short term tier 2 vet in FA. But to characterize it as "throwing shade" because someone disagrees with that approach is disingenuous. It's probably true to suggest had the cubs spent less on someone besides Chapman and had they not made the Wilson trade they could have arguably had both Gray and Quintana. Whether or not that's "better" is subjective.

The great thing about baseball is there's tons of different ways to win. That's why the hot stove and trade deadline are so much more interesting than other sports. I'm not misrepresenting my views here. I came out immediately suggesting I don't buy into the theory of having a great bullpen as much as the current thinking dictates. That's not some controversial view. My thinking is fairly inline with how most of baseball felt prior to 2014 when the Royals made their run with a deep bullpen. Prior to that if you had a good set up guy and a good closer that's more or less all teams cared about. Opinions changed since then about the "right" way to build a team. And in 5 years opinions probably will be different again.

 

[Diehardfan]

IMOP, The importance of a deep bullpen came into prominence when 100 pitches became the magic number for starting pitchers.

 

[beckdawg]

IMOP, The importance of a deep bullpen came into prominence when 100 pitches became the magic number for starting pitchers.

You'd have to point to some examples to convince me that it was prior to the Royals. This whole 3 headed bullpen monster idea wasn't really a thing until very recently where you essentially had 3 guys who were of set up or closer quality. That's more what I'm talking about because that's what has shot the price of relievers into a crazy level. First trade I remember for a closer that went into crazy levels value wise was the Kimbrel from atlanta to san diego trade. That happened after 2014. Prior to that closers certainly were traded but it was rarely for the sort of prospects we talk about now.

Edit: as an example here, Sean Marshall was one of the better relievers prior to the cubs trading him for Dave Sappelt, Ronald Torreyes and Travis Wood. If that trade had occurred in todays price Marshall would have brought back so much more and that wasn't that long ago. Trade happened in December of 2011.

 

[Iceman2385]

I'm not sure who you're referring to but if it's me I think you're missing the point. The players the cubs traded were never "the future." They were exactly how they were used which is to say trade assets. The point is a team always has more than one need. The cubs already had arguably the deepest bullpen in the race. I'm not opposed to replacing Grimm with something else but did that need to be arguably the most expensive reliever traded? And did they also need to get the most expensive back up catcher? And to contrast, how does that compare to the need the cubs will have assuming both Lackey and Arrieta leave?

There's valid points to be made on both sides. Maybe you prefer to give up prospects for Wilson rather than paying a FA reliever. And maybe you prefer to address the Lackey departure with another short term tier 2 vet in FA. But to characterize it as "throwing shade" because someone disagrees with that approach is disingenuous. It's probably true to suggest had the cubs spent less on someone besides Chapman and had they not made the Wilson trade they could have arguably had both Gray and Quintana. Whether or not that's "better" is subjective.

The great thing about baseball is there's tons of different ways to win. That's why the hot stove and trade deadline are so much more interesting than other sports. I'm not misrepresenting my views here. I came out immediately suggesting I don't buy into the theory of having a great bullpen as much as the current thinking dictates. That's not some controversial view. My thinking is fairly inline with how most of baseball felt prior to 2014 when the Royals made their run with a deep bullpen. Prior to that if you had a good set up guy and a good closer that's more or less all teams cared about. Opinions changed since then about the "right" way to build a team. And in 5 years opinions probably will be different again.

The trade for Q I loved no question even loosing eloy and cease I thought we desperately needed a CCSP for this year and the future. I love that he's durable and still very good. Kinda like Lester.

I agree in theory about did we have to go for the most expensive reliever idea. About a week ago I was all about getting Neshek, thought he could be had cheap (which I think he was) and still gives us another high leverage guy to use this year. But I really don't think we paid that high of a price for Wilson so I'm happy. I do disagree on importance of bullpen, at least to our ball club. Our bullpen is probably our only advantage over Dodgers and Nats, that really could be the difference. Plus I'm not super confident all of our starters wil be able to go too deep in games effectively in the playoffs.

 

[TL1961]

Well I have pretty much said my piece on it so I'm not going to ramble too much but if they aren't playing Avila at least twice a week he's a bad include in my eyes. In fact I'd argue he should be playing 50/50 with Contreras given what they paid to get him. My worry is more that he sits the bench hardly plays and then wilson gets maybe 20 innings the rest of the way and 5-10 innings in the playoffs. I don't care who you are if that's the amount of playing time those two get there's no way they are going to be impactful comparative to what they paid. It's just not enough innings to rack up value.

And while I get the argument people make that relief pitching is more valuable in the playoffs, I don't agree with the conclusion that you should overpay to get the best relievers for the playoffs. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that Chapman was more valuable than Montgomery in last years playoffs. I'm not entirely against acquiring help in the bullpen but Montgomery sort of proves my point that there's a limit to what you need to pay.

You don't play the lesser of your two catchers 50% of the time because the price seems high. That is making a second mistake to make a first mistake (for those who consider it a mistake) look better. Bad idea.

And in response to another poster's suggestion: You don't pay for a backup catcher to play him at first and not rest your starting catcher. Not saying he will never play first, but....

Avila should catch enough to give Contreras a breather, not half the time or a position other than C.

 

[Iceman2385]

re Stroman, more than I'd want to pay. I'm worried his body will break down. He's 5'8 180 which is super tiny for a starter. I think he's going to be hard to trade because I think he'll be pushed hard value wise by TOR but the market wont want to pay as much as they want. In my eyes he's like a lessor version of Quintana who based on numbers should have went for more but the market didn't really expand like you would expect.

re Teheran, 2 years ago I was really into him. Then he broke out the following year and looked to expensive in my eyes. He's obviously pitching poorly this year. So really by a similar logic I should like him though I'm not sure why I'm not as jazzed about him. He's still only 26 and is on a some what reasonable deal for the next few years. Atlanta is weird. They seem to be both buying and selling at the same time so I never really know which way they are going. Think my interest in him depends on what they are asking.

Re Bundy/Gausman ... Speaking of teams that I don't understand the O's. Why they didn't sell more is beyond me. On gausman, I don't understand why he's not a better pitcher. I'd have to dig into the data more but just a quick glance and usual indicators looks fine excluding his walk rate this year. Usually an 8+ k/9 with less than 2.5 bb/9 and a 45%ish ground ball rate is a ticket to cy young contention(see Hendricks). Maybe he needs to refine another pitch or something. Not sure. He's also not been as healthy as you would like. Bundy doesn't strike me as a cubs pitcher. He's at 33.5% career ground ball rate. Cubs starters this year are at 47.5%.

If I had to list the guys I could see the cubs going after they'd be the following.
James Paxton - supposedly already tried to get him last year and he's not moving after this season IMO
Jacob deGrom - mets should probably sell and he's be really interesting if they did
Masahiro Tanaka - I could actually see something like this happening. He seems to need a change of scenery. I doubt he opts out though.
Kevin Gausman - depends on the price largely but he fits their profile.
Gerrit Cole - probably wont happen in division

Of those I think Tanaka is possibly the most interesting play. I can't imagine he opts out after this year and any trade would almost certainly have to happen in the offseason after he decides. He's got 3 years and $67 mil left on his deal. If NY decides to go another direction in FA and would eat $10-15 mil I think you could probably make a case for him. That'd put him at around 3 years $18-19 mil which isn't super cheap but you could probably have him for a mediocre prospect at that cost.

I like the tanaka idea, it's out of the box thinking I can dig it. Doubt the yanks would get rid of him for nothing prospects, basically just to shed salary. Never know tho, worth looking in too. I have to assume we can't get archer, the Rays just seem to competitive to be trading a guy like that. I'd be very happy w Gausmsn. Not a whole lot of interesting guys out there, but I'm sure thoyer will find someone.

What do you think of Danny Duffy, I could see the Royals going in to full mode rebuild after the year?

 

[Diehardfan]

You'd have to point to some examples to convince me that it was prior to the Royals. This whole 3 headed bullpen monster idea wasn't really a thing until very recently where you essentially had 3 guys who were of set up or closer quality. That's more what I'm talking about because that's what has shot the price of relievers into a crazy level. First trade I remember for a closer that went into crazy levels value wise was the Kimbrel from atlanta to san diego trade. That happened after 2014. Prior to that closers certainly were traded but it was rarely for the sort of prospects we talk about now.

Edit: as an example here, Sean Marshall was one of the better relievers prior to the cubs trading him for Dave Sappelt, Ronald Torreyes and Travis Wood. If that trade had occurred in todays price Marshall would have brought back so much more and that wasn't that long ago. Trade happened in December of 2011.

I knew the 100 pitch thing started awhile back but 2001 even surprised me. The rise in relief pitchers started even father back than that...looks like 1985 and rising. It's not new, it's just more in the forefront because of the Royals and now how each reliever kind of has a particular job or inning he pitches in. Specialization.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kurkjian_tim&id=4359938

 

[CSF77]

So Grimm went to AAA. Kinda figured that he was the weak link.

Now I haven't heard of the 2nd guy demoted yet.