I want to start by saying that I don't think compensation is going to be that big a deal. I also don't think it will be painless. What you hope happens is that it comes from an area of depth and the Cubs get to keep the guy they like better -- sort of the way they gave up catching prospect Robinson Chirinos instead of Welington Castillo in the Matt Garza trade. You also hope it follows recent and relevant precedent, but more on that later.
With that in mind, according to a rumor from MLB radio the name Josh Vitters has come up in talks. Would he be an acceptable loss? Let's look at both sides....
The argument for giving up Vitters
- The Cubs have a young, cost controlled starter in Ian Stewart
- The Cubs have some depth at 3B with Vitters, Junior Lake, Javier Baez, Jeimer Candelario, and Dustin Geiger.
- Vitters isn't a great fit for this front office because of his poor plate discipline and mediocre defense.
- As the 10th rated prospect in the Cubs system, he would make a loose comparison with the McPhail compensation where the Cubs gave up Hector Trinidad, also ranked 10th by Baseball America at the time.
The argument against giving up Vitters
- While they have depth at 3B, Vitters is the most ready and the closest to a sure thing. At this point, he doesn't project as star level, but he does project as a regular third baseman in the majors. Except for the Randy Winn/Lou Piniella outlier, no player given up for comp has ever been a regular, everyday player.
- Vitters is still young at 22 and did show progress with his defense and seemed willing to take more pitches -- though it was not reflected in his walk rate.
- The Cubs system today is much stronger than the one when the Cubs compensated the Twins for Andy McPhail.
- Hector Trinidad was also a Class A pitcher. He put up some good numbers in A ball -- but it was A ball. Vitters is a AA player where the competition is much closer to the majors. There's much less risk involved.
I'm not the biggest Josh Vitters fan here, but I think it's still too much. The Marlins gave up prospects in the high minors,but it was a utility infielder prospect in Ozzie Martinez and a relief prospect in Jhan Marinez. Hector Trinidad was a starter prospect, but he was in the low minors. It seems to me you can't have both. Vitters is both a starter quality prospect and a guy who's at the upper levels of the minors.
Let's also assume it follows precedent and has to be a#10 prospect or lower (let's not kid ourselves and call the Marlins/Sox guys top 10 prospects. They are rated that high because they are in the worst farm system in baseball...by far). I'm also not going to select a player from the most recent draft because they are not yet eligible.
Here are some Cubs prospects that would qualify under the above guidelines...
Reserve/Relief prospects, upper levels
- Chris Carpenter, RP
- Steve Clevenger, C
- Jae-Hoon Ha, OF
- Jeff Beliveau, RP
- Logan Watkins, 2B-SS
- Marcus Hatley, RP
- Casey Weathers, RP
Starter Prospect, Lower Levels
- Dae Un Rhee, SP
- Marco Hernandez, SS
- Reggie Golden, OF
- Ben Wells, SP
- Jeimer Candelario, 3B
- Jose Rosario, SP
- Hayden Simpson, SP
It's also been said that the player would be someone from the 40 man roster. That leaves 4 players: Carpenter, Clevenger, Beliveau, and Weathers.
And then what about the Red Sox hang-up of getting a "significant" player? Well, the Red Sox never defined what that would be ahead of time. Significant could mean a major league player since only one player, Randy Winn, has qualified under even that seemingly minimal criteria. In that case, you have two prospects, Carpenter and Clevenger, who fit all of those qualifications. That...is what I consider fair compensation. Significant could also mean a top 10-15 prospect, that would mean Carpenter, Vitters, Rhee or Hernandez. But only Carpenter and Vitters are on the 40 man roster.
The worst case scenario to me is someone within the top 10 like SS-3B Junior Lake or Rafael Dolis, but I see that as unlikely.
In the end, Carpenter makes the most sense to me. He qualifies as "depth", as he ranks below Dolis on the depth chart and recent draftee Tony Zych not far behind. Clevenger and Beliveau are also possibilities.
Filed under: compensation
John, it's looking to me like Selig is going to take the path to least resistance in this decision. Not going to give the Red Sox as much as they want, but also make the Cubs give more than we want.
Instead of making the tough decision here, he is going make one that leaves much less collateral damage. Neither side is going to be thrilled with his decision.
I think someone like Carpenter would qualify in that respect. The Cubs probably aren't eager to give up a top 15 prospect who throws 100 mph and should be part of their bullpen this year. Red Sox probably wouldn't be thrilled with an unproven bullpen arm.
Right now I think we can overcome the loss of a bat a bit easier than we can an arm.
Agreed.
John, i'm so against Vitters getting moved...I feel like putting my foot up Lucchino's ass right now...Theo's hire was a promotion and a huge raise he'd would have never gotten in Boston what's the issue besides ego here and it sets an awful precedent...I'd rather ship Jeff Baker or Marlon Byrd to Boston as compenstion rather than lose Vitters. Lake or Carpenter
Part of me would rather give up a major league player as well, but I seem to remember people saying that it wouldn't be an established MLB player.
I agree with Luigi. Vitters still shows some promise. Only "Bud"
could take this long to make this fair to both sides
Yeah Bud is a tool isn't he??
I agree with both of you. I think Vitters is too much and I'm hoping Bud doesn't decide that's fair.
After everything that happened this offseason, after all that Theo and Jed went through, there's no way. No way we just hand them an upper lever pitching prospect after spending the last few months restocking on them, especially one with closer potential in Carpenter.
I hope you're right. I don't expect we'll give up a star, but I do think Bud will choose someone of value. Carp has potential, but not as much as Dolis according to most scouts.
John, how long before this thing is settled either way do you think?
2 weeks at most, my guess is this week.
Honestly i believe that the Red Sox are trying to punish us for taking Theo. Well if they wanted Theo than they should have just denied us the ability to talk to him. I think that bud selig will side will the Red Sox, however i don't think we will lose Matt garza, Starlin Castro, or Brett Jackson. So lets get over this Theo compensation and get onto something more important. Like Spring Training. LETS GO CUBBIES.
Plz let me know what you think if i am wrong.
I don't think he'll side with the Red Sox at all. I think he'll be fair about it.
My thought is that the Red Sox are actually trying to game the system and get a good player out of this. Lucchino has always wanted to be in charge and I don't think he cared too much one way or the other if Theo stayed. I think he was fine with Cherington and getting more control for himself. He knew he was going to lose Theo, so why not get a good player out of this.
I don't think the Red Sox would be too happy with Vitters or Lake because they have Middlebrooks about a year away and Bogaerts in their system as well.
Maybe they could flip one of our guys to another team, But the Red Sox need pitching and won't be too thrilled if they get a hitter as compensation.
I don't think they'd like Vitters either for those exact reasons -- that and he's not exactly a Red Sox kind of player.
I think it would be smart of Bud to give Boston a player that was actually on the Cubs' roster at the time of the trade. Is there anything to say he can't give them two players or is it a single "player" to be named later? If he can give them two, I can see him doing it to reference the fact the Marlins gave up two for Guillen. Maybe two prospects ranked in the 20's like Gioskar Amaya and Tony Zych. I think either one of those would be closer to fair compensation than both of them, but if he can do two, I'm thinking he will.
I'm okay with Amaya but Zych was recently signed and can't go unless he's the player to be named later. I don't think Bud is going to do that since this has gone on long enough. My opinion, too, is that it will be one player -- but I don't know that for certain.
I'd be perfectly ok with Larry Lucchino looking like a dumbass with the Red Sox Nation after all of this..Bottom line is that giving away a top prospect for a promotion and more money is not in the best interests of the game...I'd try to get more if I were him too but enough is enough
I think (and hope) that Bud agrees with you!
I agree with you John, while I am not the biggest fan of Vitters, it's still too high a player for me. Carpenter makes better sense to me, however I agree that Selig will take the easy way out. Vitters will not make the Cubs happy while at the same time RedSox nation will not be entirely happy either .
That's the irony...Vitters will make both teams unhappy, but I think Carpenter will as well, given the Red Sox unrealistic expectations.
I guess I'm not following why compensation should be lower since it is a promotion.
Theo's position as Pres is worth more, so the team should pay more.
In a more extreme hypothetical example, lets say the Cubs want to hire three White Sox scouts that are under contract. One hire as a lateral move, one promoted to Nationwide Scout, and the third promoted to GM. Who is going to bring the White Sox the better compensation?
The guy being hired in the highest position.
Another question, would we then assume the Padres are going to get better prospects since MacLeod/Hoyer were lateral moves?
Compensation has unwritten rules and part of it has to do with the relationship between owners. I suspect the Padres compensation will be equal to -- if not less -- than what the Red Sox get. Moorad and Ricketts have a good relationship and it wouldn't surprise me if there was some loose agreement before hand.
There's no set rule, but it's customary not to give compensation for promotions because you want people to be upwardly mobile. It's common courtesy.
Bosox fans are expecting a top prospect:
http://bosoxinjection.com/2012/02/01/sox-will-get-a-top-prospect-for-theft-of-theo-but-who-lets-see/
That person has no basis for what he's saying. It's just his personal expectations tinged by the sense of entitlement that some east coast fans seem to have. The use of the word "theft" is an obvious manipulation.
The Red Sox gave permission, but they held back compensation agreement not because they forgot about it, but because they wanted to wait until they were in a position of leverage. It was their intention to get a good player out of this from the start by saying, "We have what you want, so you have to give us exactly what we demand". In doing so, they set up unrealistic expectations from their fans. It wasn't "theft" by the Cubs, it was a botched extortion plan from the Red Sox. Now they want Selig to help them execute it.
That was the biggest homer, piece of crap "article" that I've ever seen. Theo was "stolen"?! Talk about revisionist history. It would be comical if it wasn't so sad and pathetic.
This kind of crap is what makes everyone hate RedSox Nation.
Norm, it's an opportunity to improve your position..It's like an unwritten rule, Dallas Green got a huge promotion when he came to the Cubs and the Cubs never had to give Philly anything for that..In MacPhail's case he was Mr everything to Twins owner Carl Pohlad but the Chicago Cubs are a big opportunity for anyone..So in that case a decent but young prospect was sent to Minnesota case closed... Compensation makes more sense if your letting someone out of his deal for a lateral move like when Ozzie left the Sox for the Marlins or when Piniella left the Mariners for the Rays..Theo was never gonna get that kind of raise or authority in Boston as long as Larry the Bastard Lucchino is there..NEVER!!! In Hoyers case, the compensation may not be much because Jeff Moorad originally wanted Josh Byrnes as GM but wasn't allowed by the Diamondbacks to speak with him so he hired Hoyer...This move freed up Byrnes to go to the position that he was originally intended to have anyway... Between the RedSox and Pats I friggin hate New England..Screw em all!!!
Well put Luigi...
the bottom line with this whole thing is that giving up compensation for someone who has absolutely zero affect on innings 1-9 is absolutely ridiculous. theo left his job in boston and decided to upgrade his position in chicago, i dont think anyone should have to be given anything in terms of baseball value just because one man switched jobs, which was his own choice. players dont have the right to switch teams by choice, therefore compensation is required when that happens. the cubs already paid for theos salary this year in boston and giving up anything more than money is ridiculous.
of course we live in a very corrupt society and things dont always go as they should, but if your asking me i say we give up a guy like steve clevenger. hes projected to be a backup catcher, something very useful, yet no one is gonna break the bank for. him and a little cash sounds more than fair to me.
I agree with you and I think Clevenger is more than enough. The bottom line to me is that if one year of Theo is so valuable as to warrant a top prospect, you don't let teams talk to him. I now think it was Lucchino's intention from the start to extort a top player (i.e. Garza) from the Cubs while they had leverage but were foiled by Bud's decision to let the deal go through first. Now they think they're entitled. It's bs and if any team should get punished, it's Boston for trying to use their executives to acquire top players -- that is not in the spirit of compensation.
Let me know if I'm wrong, but didn't Boston also get out of having to pay Theo a big bonus for completing his contract?
@ John and Tom: Check you FB messages. I think you will both find what I sent you interesting.
Per this thread, Vitters might be a little bit of a high price to pay, but I wouldn't be that upset about it, but I don't think it will be Vitters. It's hard to see how Vitters fits philosophically or depth wise with Boston. Yet at the same time, Boston's greatest need, pitching, happens to be our greatest weakness. Simply put, we could stand to lose Vitters, but we really can't afford to lose a pitcher.
Finally, did anyone see the piece that Mike Newman did on Junior Lake at Fangraphs? I would link it, but every time I try to link something it never gets posted. Here is an excerpt.
"Fortunately for Lake, the Boston Red Sox were excellent at quieting hitters with “loud” hitting mechanics and pieces of that regime are now in Chicago. This leaves me much more bullish on his ability to adjust after witnessing Oscar Tejeda post back-to-back campaigns of sub-.300 wOBA’s in the South Atlantic League before a mechanical overhaul led to a spike in production and a .350+ wOBA at the high-A level."
I found it interesting there was the suggestion and some follow up discussion that Lake might well end up on the mound.
Obviously, they will attempt to straighten out his hitting mechanics first. Then the next thing will be to fix plate discipline and pitch recognition, but if all else fails, he could end up on the mound. I've read where experts say he has a better arm than Shawon Dunston.
I've heard that too -- and some of it came from the Cubs organization, but that was before his breakthrough season. I'm thinking that's on the backburner for now.
Thanks Michael, interesting stuff. I appreciate that link. I'm off to a bit of a late start this morning.
I did also read that Fangraphs pieces and it does give some hope. If they can harness Lake, they could have something pretty special.
Interesting....
"...Commissioner “Judge Buddy” Selig is morally offended that the Cubs stole the Sox GM, who was still under contract and is reportedly ready to make a point: steal a team’s GM and expect to pay a serious price."
Really? I was NOT aware of this? Where did this guy get his info from, Lisp Gammons?
I'm assuming you're referring to that Red Sox article. Theft was a hilarious way to put it. Love how he's speaking for Selig in a way that serves the Red Sox.
Exactly!
I've got to think that Bud wouldn't give the Sox somebody they don't want. Therefore, you would think that he has in his mind the level of player he will be awarding them, and the Red Sox are just refusing to submit players they are interested in at that prospect level. Do you think it is taking this long because the Red Sox are just so stubborn and won't agree to keep lowering the expectations on the players they submit? Or do you think Bud is literally just going to pick the player without discussing with the Sox first who they would prefer. I would think Bud would at least give them two or three players to pick from. That way he can say the Red Sox picked them. Another thought is that it will be interesting how Luccino spins it when the player finally is awarded. If he complains that they got hosed, that's pretty disrespectful to the guy they just got. If he acts thrilled, then Red Sox nation will be pissed and think that is all he asked for.
I don't think they have to agree to anyone in the end. Selig can give them whoever he wants. I just think Selig wants to make sure he understands the situation, value, and history when it comes to compensation. As long as he researches it thoroughly, he'll find that the Red Sox deserve a moderate prospect at best.
@ John and Tom: Have you two been paying attention to the Cole Hamels situation? Extension talks between Hamels and the Phillies are at an impasse, and Hamels camp is saying they're done talking once spring training starts. In the mean time, the Philadelphia media is ripping Hamels for not caving in and giving the team a hometown discount, but Hamels reps are right to point out that Ryan Howard gave no such discount, and the team payed top dollar for Cliff Lee and Jonathan Papelbon.
It sounds like Hamels may hit the market. Obviously, he will be highly sought after, but lets say Team Theo extends Garza, rather than trade him, and they were to add Hamels and say Matt Cain and/or Anibal Sanchez to the mix. Given the restraints of the new CBA, could this be a way to go?
The flip side of that is that Team Theo could still trade Garza and go after Hamels, Cain and Sanchez this winter. In fact, that might be the better way to go.
Seems like the Phillies are running out of money. I try not to keep too close an eye until it becomes a reality. It's in the back of my mind until he becomes a free agent and we see how close the Cubs are to competing after this season.
Given all the money coming off the books and the restraints of the new CBA, it may be the way to go. One thing is for sure, over the next few of years, the ratio of quality pitchers to quality hitters will be decidely in favor of the pitchers.
If you traded Garza now to replenish the system and then spent heavily on starting pitching in free agency, the Cubs greatest weakness would suddenly become a strength, giving them options in terms of trading for offense.
The Cubs will have money and it fits a need whether we have Garza or not. I don't disagree with the idea at all, just saying it's too early for me to seriously think about it. Now if he becomes a FA and the Cubs make progress this year, it's something that immediately moves to the forefront.
I never thought you were disagreeing, and I hope it didn't seem as if I did. Hamels makes for an interesting what if scenario is all I'm saying.
It made no sense for the Cubs to go after Pujols, Fielder or Wilson. All they would do is screw up the Cubs draft position for 2013, and the Cubs would still be no closer to a World Series in reality. Wilson is over-hyped, and he and Pujols are on the wrong side of 30. Fielder has a terrible body, and he is simply a better long term fit in the AL.
However, Hamels, Cain and Sanchez would make a lot of sense given their age, and they would speed the rebuilding process up.
Honestly, I'm neutral on trading Garza versus extending him. I can see both sides of that argument. Of course, I lean to either side depending on the day.
I don't really care who is taken for compensation because few will remember the name when the Cubs win a Championship.
Ha! I like the optimism! I will say though that one of these guys could one day play a key role in that championship. Cubs should be giving up the least value possible to help them toward that goal.
Everyone is going to cry no matter what happens. The Cubs will have the better part of the deal no matter who goes. Who will be more important in the future: a successful, championship-winning GM, or a player who may or may not make it to the majors, much less have solid career?
As far as giving up the least possible, I just hope it is a player Hendry picked up.
It's about value, too. You don't want to overpay for an exec. In the end, it's the players that win, not the GM, so if you give up a Trey McNutt and he turns out to be a #2 starter, it becomes very costly to try and replace that through either trade or free agency. You're much better off if you have someone in your system who could fill those types of roles and don't have to give up major players or money to get them.
Hector Trinidad was chosen in the 6th round of the 1991 draft.
Josh Vitters was a 1st round draft pick in 2007.
Hector was the 10th best prospect in 1994. Here’s the list.
1. Brooks Kieschnick
2. Brant Brown
3. Derek Wallace
4. Kevin Orie
5. Steve Trachsel
6. Jon Ratliff
7. Doug Glanville
8. Amaury Telemaco
9. Matt Franco
10. Hector Trinidad
Josh Vitters is the 9th best prospect in our system. Here’s that list.
1. Brett Jackson, OF
2. Javier Baez, SS
3. Matt Szczur, OF
4. Trey McNutt, RHP
5. Dillon Maples, RHP
6. Welington Castillo, C
7. Rafael Dolis, RHP
8. Junior Lake, SS
9. Josh Vitters, 3B/1B
10. Dan Vogelbach, 1B
All this points to Vitters being too much.
I'm calling Vitters #10 because I assume Rizzo would be in the top 3 and bump off Vogelbach but I do agree with your assessment that Vitters would be too much.
I think if it's an MLB ready guy, the best they can expect is Carpenter or Clevenger. If it's a non-roster player, then I think it will be a guy at A ball, but not one of their top 10 prospects. I think even Rhee is too much, but I'm not going to rule that out.
We need to bite the bullet and give Boston fair compensation...
It will be hard to move forward without Soriano....but we must try.
I think Vitters is too much, but the guy I'd really hate to lose is Dae-Eun Rhee and probably Beliveau. Rhee seems like he's really coming back from that TJ surgery and has some good pitches, still think he's capable of being a mid-rotation or better type of pitcher.