Trade deadline/rumors

[Ari Bear]

Entirely probably you could see Heyward opt out, Bryant -> RF, Baez -> 3B. Admittedly they still have Candelario but I like Torres' bat far more than his.

As for Happ as others have mentioned, people are just assuming he'll transition well to 2B. He's not a natural MI. He was drafted originally as a OF and the cubs moved him there in instructs largely cuz he can't play CF really and his bat doesn't profile well in the corners. Suppose it's all a moot point now but I'd still rather have Torres. Think he's equal in terms of his bat and a better defender.

I guess. It's mostly all perspective. I mean we really don't know forsure what Theo and Hoyer and Maddon for that matter are all thinking or planning anyways.

 

[beckdawg]

Now they have
wood for the 6th/7th
Montgomery for the 7th/8th
Chapman for 8th/9th

As LHers out of pen...

All set to go come playoff when facing the Nats or Giants if needed in those innings to get their big LH hitters out...

That what getting Chapman does for them

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

I mean they had the first two regardless. It's not an either or. The question should be do you "need" Chapman as a 3rd lefty. For one thing, you're not really talking the same situations here. You might use wood for 1 out in the 6th vs a really tough lefty. You're not throwing Chapman out there for one guy. Granted you might start him with a tough lefty in say the 8th and let him finish from there after but he's not going to be pitching for 1 out situations. And generally when you talk about needing a lefty it's in that sort of context. Getting back to the need vs want, my opinion is Rondon is perfectly fine in the 8th/9th vs left handers.

At the end of the day it's just a question of how do you want to allocate your resources? You're saying you want a reliever. My counter to that is you could potentially net Wade Davis or David Robertson for cheaper package and get say 85% of the impact chapman provides. Additionally, I'm still not entirely convinced they even needed him to begin with. Better is always better but at some point you're talking about diminishing returns. My worry is that someone like Jose Fernandez or Chris Sale gets put up for trade in the next 2 years and the cubs are sitting there with what... Soler, Happ, Jiminez and a bag of hopes and dreams. Eventually they are going to have to do something because right now they have one starter who's under the age of 29 and money as we saw this past offseason isn't going to fix all your problems.

 

[beckdawg]

Im sure they will find another Torres by 2019 via trade Draft or IFA

Possibly IFA but the draft is going to be dicey going forward because the cubs should be good. And the problem these days is that drafting is less about your physical position in the draft and more about how much bonus money you can offer. If you're picking in the bottom third of the draft and you don't have competitive balance picks or any from QO's you simply don't have much money to play with. Additionally, if you're a good team signing players to win you're usually losing picks to QO's.

The cubs did grab 2 SS in IFA in 2015 who might be worth talking about but IFA's in general are so far away it's really hard to project them. As for the next few years, they have a penalty for this year and next and there's talk of implementing an IFA draft in which case you're likely dealing with the same issues as the normal draft. Simply put, you can't really buy your way out of lack of prospects anymore. The system is a bit rigged to help uncompetitive teams as well as smaller market teams.

It's easy to forget because how well this front office has done but all you need to do is look back at the Hendry regime to see how quickly things can dry up.

 

[CSF77]

Rather have Baez than Candy. But it's an awfully close offer.

I know you would but them selling Torres pretty much puts Baez off limits. Candi is blocked behind Bryant but is a SH that may become special as a hitter. He already has a strong idea of the strike zone. We could be talking a .300 hitter with a .400 OBA with 15 HR power as a floor if his power stays the same. That is not a bad player to have at any position much less 3B.

I would say Ceace and one of the lefties and Sox would take it before Sale starts to burn team flags next.

 

[beckdawg]

We like to speculate about Sale. And he is well worth a ransom. If it happens it would be centered around Hendricks, Soler, Almora and Candiero. These guys have all logged in MLB time so adding them to a rebuild is not a huge issue for the Sox. Cubs problem could add in 1 quality SP prospect and a fringe to end it. Again a over pay but it means Jake becomes your #2 starter and most teams can't match that impact.

I don't see anyway you can move Hendricks. For one thing, I doubt any front office is going to give you proper value for the results he puts up. His stuff just isn't ever going to make a team drool to the point they think he's a large piece. For example, Doug Fister before being dealt to the Nats was sort of in a similar situation and they got Robbie Ray who wasn't really that highly regarded.

On top of that, not sure why the Sox would want Hendricks. If you are trading Sale you are more or less tanking. What you want is the highest rated prospects you can get not current MLB pieces.

 

[Diehardfan]

Now they have
wood for the 6th/7th
Montgomery for the 7th/8th
Chapman for 8th/9th

As LHers out of pen...

All set to go come playoff when facing the Nats or Giants if needed in those innings to get their big LH hitters out...

That what getting Chapman does for them

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

That's a pretty good assessment. I've never been against getting Chapman....the only problem I had with investing assets on rentals or big name players has more to do with the Cub's offense which for whatever reason goes through stages when anyone who can throw a baseball looks like Bob Gibson to them. A great back end to your pen is only useful if you have the lead late. Currently, the Cubs have more wins than anyone in MLB yet Rondon is 21st in saves....in 59 wins the Cubs have given him only 22 save opportunities. That's a very low % when you compare it to the other teams which indicates to me that closer is not their problem. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I don't see anyway you can move Hendricks. For one thing, I doubt any front office is going to give you proper value for the results he puts up. His stuff just isn't ever going to make a team drool to the point they think he's a large piece. For example, Doug Fister before being dealt to the Nats was sort of in a similar situation and they got Robbie Ray who wasn't really that highly regarded.

On top of that, not sure why the Sox would want Hendricks. If you are trading Sale you are more or less tanking. What you want is the highest rated prospects you can get not current MLB pieces.

Actually they've said the wouldn't tank. If they did trade Sale, or Quintana, they'd still have the other plus Rodon and Fulmer. They'd also have a young core of Ztim Anderson and the prospect return which going from the rumors could start with Gallo and Profar from Texas or Moncada and Devers from Boston. If the deal from the Cubs was something like Schwarber, Baez, etc. it would be similar and they could be competitive again quickly. All that said I don't the White Sox as an organization are good enough to pull that off.

 

[CSF77]

I don't see anyway you can move Hendricks. For one thing, I doubt any front office is going to give you proper value for the results he puts up. His stuff just isn't ever going to make a team drool to the point they think he's a large piece. For example, Doug Fister before being dealt to the Nats was sort of in a similar situation and they got Robbie Ray who wasn't really that highly regarded.

On top of that, not sure why the Sox would want Hendricks. If you are trading Sale you are more or less tanking. What you want is the highest rated prospects you can get not current MLB pieces.

I think most GM's do know his true value. That is why he would be the headliner. For the Cubs you are taking a 3-5 depending on how the other 2 are pitching and swapping for Kershaw. That is the reality. You pay for that. So yes you are paying up that much and with a smile because your rotation 1-3 could all have 20 wins.

 

[czman]

I don't mind that they traded these players, but I don't like the return. They gave up too much for a 3 month rental closer. An overpay is an overpay. They never once lead vs the Mets and I think they gave up a run every first inning. A closer is not going to help that. They needed starting pitching more than an elite closer and maybe another situational lefty out of the pen.

I think they may have overpaid severely twice now. All in on the season does not mean getting fleeced. If they don't win the WS this season they overplayed their hands. As a GM you don't ever want to go that far in on the season.

Lastly, a closer just does not have enough impact on the game. He won't help them at all for innings 1-5 and that is over half the game. All he can do is shift people down one inning so that means it helps you one inning extra a game. I would rather have another starter or a bat. Both will have far more impact in the playoffs.

 

[CSF77]

I don't mind that they traded these players, but I don't like the return. They gave up too much for a 3 month rental closer. An overpay is an overpay. They never once lead vs the Mets and I think they gave up a run every first inning. A closer is not going to help that. They needed starting pitching more than an elite closer and maybe another situational lefty out of the pen.

I think they may have overpaid severely twice now. All in on the season does not mean getting fleeced. If they don't win the WS this season they overplayed their hands. As a GM you don't ever want to go that far in on the season.

Lastly, a closer just does not have enough impact on the game. He won't help them at all for innings 1-5 and that is over half the game. All he can do is shift people down one inning so that means it helps you one inning extra a game. I would rather have another starter or a bat. Both will have far more impact in the playoffs.

I don't think they are done yet. Selling Torres just means all chips are being put on the table.

But if they sit on this it means they have a bull pen that rivals what KC ran last year. Which beat said Mets.

 

[czman]

I don't think they are done yet. Selling Torres just means all chips are being put on the table.

But if they sit on this it means they have a bull pen that rivals what KC ran last year. Which beat said Mets.

The Bullpen did not beat the Mets the team did. The Cubs BP last year was not why they lost to the Mets. I think people are oversimplifying the actual flaws of this Cubs team and what happened in the playoffs last year to rationalize this trade.

 

[chibears55]

Cubs deadline need/want

Bullpen - acquired 2 LHers to solidify pen

LH bench/OF - week left in deadline.. Still think Reddick a possibility

SP- not a need, but could use a just in case arm and if Maddon chooses to go with..a 6th starter



Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[JoJoBoxer]

Let's look at this deal another way:

Torres stays and becomes not only an all-star shortstop but also has a long hall-of-fame career. That is the best case scenario for Torres. Chances are great that it will be much less than this.

Having a hall-of-fame player on the Cubs is certainly a wonderful thing to happen, but compare it to this:

Chapman is a part of the 2016 Cubs winning the World Series.

Suddenly, Epstein is a shoo-in for Canton (probably considered the best MLB executive ever), Chapman's chances of re-signing with the Cubs would be greatly increased because of the excitement of being part of such a historic event, a 100+ year streak (curse) is over.

The chances of the Cubs winning the World Series this year are much greater than Torres having a hall-of-fame career.


Do you think that Torres will have a better career than Sandberg or Banks? And in the end how close did either of those two hall-of-famers (or the other 31 hall-of-famers who played for the Cubs since 1907) get to winning the World Series?

 

[chibears55]

Think about this for a second...
LH Chapman just replaced LH Richard in the bullpen

Yes the bullpen just got better



Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[czman]

Let's look at this deal another way:

Torres stays and becomes not only an all-star shortstop but also has a long hall-of-fame career. That is the best case scenario for Torres. Chances are great that it will be much less than this.

Having a hall-of-fame player on the Cubs is certainly a wonderful thing to happen, but compare it to this:

Chapman is a part of the 2016 Cubs winning the World Series.

Suddenly, Epstein is a shoo-in for Canton (probably considered the best MLB executive ever), Chapman's chances of re-signing with the Cubs would be greatly increased because of the excitement of being part of such a historic event, a 100+ year streak (curse) is over.

The chances of the Cubs winning the World Series this year are much greater than Torres having a hall-of-fame career.


Do you think that Torres will have a better career than Sandberg or Banks? And in the end how close did either of those two hall-of-famers (or the other 31 hall-of-famers who played for the Cubs since 1907) get to winning the World Series?

Extremely flawed logic. The question is much more better does it make the cubs and could the Cubs have used those assets to improve their chances more than making this move. I think the cost to benefit ratio is all wrong for the Cubs. Not enough impact for the cost.

 

[Hammer]

The only bad thing anyone can say about this Chapman deal is that they kinda overpaid by including a top prospect in Torres who could have been used in a trade for young, cost controlled TOR SP, i.e. player type Cubs currently lack the most.

On the other hand, if they could somehow get Sale by the trade deadline (for a player combination mentioned by CSF77) then this team would be an absolute, hands down favorite to win the title.

 

[czman]

The only bad thing anyone can say about this Chapman deal is that they kinda overpaid by including a top prospect in Torres who could have been used in a trade for young, cost controlled TOR SP, i.e. player type Cubs currently lack the most.

This is what I have been saying. Although I would have put a young cost controlled CF who could bat leadoff and replace Fowler next year. Odubel Herrera or someone like that who could play LF and bat 2nd this season and move to the leadoff spot and CF next year. So SP or future CF would have made sense. A 3 month closer, no matter how dominant is just not worth what they paid.

 

[chibears55]

The only bad thing anyone can say about this Chapman deal is that they kinda overpaid by including a top prospect in Torres who could have been used in a trade for young, cost controlled TOR SP, i.e. player type Cubs currently lack the most.

On the other hand, if they could somehow get Sale by the trade deadline (for a player combination mentioned by CSF77) then this team would be an absolute, hands down favorite to win the title.

Reinsdorf would never trade Sales to Cubs and basically give them the key to a world championship....

He literally and admittedly hates the Cubs

Sent from my LG-V495 using Tapatalk

 

[TL1961]

I don't think they are done yet. Selling Torres just means all chips are being put on the table.

But if they sit on this it means they have a bull pen that rivals what KC ran last year. Which beat said Mets.

No it doesn't mean all chips are being put on the table. That would be insane.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

Extremely flawed logic. The question is much more better does it make the cubs and could the Cubs have used those assets to improve their chances more than making this move. I think the cost to benefit ratio is all wrong for the Cubs. Not enough impact for the cost.

No, choices are not made in a vacuum.

If it were the Yankees making the same decision, then having the chance at a really good player could take priority over improving their chances of winning a World Series. Why? Because they have been there, done that in regards to winning World Series' in the past 50 years.

The Cubs are a different story. They have not won a World Series in over 100+ years. Winning a World Series is priority +1. The slight increase of winning the World Series because they signed Chapman while losing Torres has much more value to them than the Yankees in the above example.