Advertisement:

Castro for Stanton makes sense

Castro for Stanton makes sense

When you first heard the news yesterday about the Cubs inquiring on Giancarlo Stanton, you figured it was just the front office doing their due diligence.

However, I have heard there is something to this and there may yet be something to ponder. The first name we heard the Cubs would possibly have to part with is Starlin Castro.

My first thought was no. Not going to that after the Cubs just locked up the possible building block. After further review, I for one am willing to do this deal. It’s fair to mention I’ve been an advocate of Castro like John, and there are few young players I would deal him for.

Now there are even rumors the commissioner wouldn’t even allow the Marlins to deal Stanton after their mega salary dump that has angered all of baseball.

Castro’s involvement would change that I would think. Castro is already a name and would be the type of player the Marlins could yet again rebuild around and he comes relatively cheap. Not to mention Stanton is in his own words “pissed”.

Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer have said they tend to value up the middle players over other positions. However, if you really think Javier Baez is truly the shortstop they think he is then we really have something to talk about.

Stanton, Anthony Rizzo, and Jorge Soler could really wreak some havoc in Wrigley Field for years to come. The Cubs would probably look to lock Stanton up to an extension as he is scheduled to become a free agent after 2016.

I know we alaready discussed the scenarios after John’s post yesterday but I have to say I’m leaning towards doing this if Miami is game. I also agree pitching would still be an issue but it would be hard to pass up on the potential that line up could bring.

I'm ready to deal, but would you rather give up Castro or Baez if you had a choice?

 

 

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    No question: I'd rather give up Baez. Castro has already shown he can hit major league pitching and showed real progress at the plate last season. Baez, as great as he's been, has never played beyond A ball. He was incredibly over-aggressive against AA pitchers in Arizona, and while I think he'll fix that, it's still a risk. If you take both the probability of making the majors and their respective ceilings into account, Castro is more valuable.

    Having said that, that's why I suspect Castro and Not Baez is the price of playing. (In fact, probably Castro and more.)

    And our doctors better be real sure on his knee.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    I'd give up Baez as well over Castro for those exact same reasons, but I think the Marlins would be advised to insist on Castro. And remember, Bud Selig is watching. He'll want the Marlins to replace Stanton with a marketable young star.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    I would rather give up Castro...idk why but I'm just not a big fan of Castro...I really like rizzo Baez and soler but Castro idk I'm just not feeling it I don't really think he will get much better I mean he is a GREAT player but I just don't see him getting any better where is I feel Baez has more potential and I would easily give up Castro and Jackson + Nick struck?(likely to be taken in rule 5) for Stanton

  • fb_avatar

    If I had to choose I would rather give up Baez just because Castro is a proven commodity while Baez isn't. That being said, I probably still would do Stanton for Castro.

  • No way would I rather give up Baez! I've seen him play many times in Peoria and that kid is a superstar! I'd do Castro for Stanton in a heartbeat because I really feel Baez is the real thing!

  • I would rather trade Baez than Castro.

    But that isn't the point. You said that the deal would START with Castro. I suspect that the Marlins would not only demand Castro, but ALSO a couple from Baez, Soler, Vogelbach and Vizcaino. They will certainly expect a LOT more than we gave up for Garza.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    I think Castro's status as a 23 year old MLB all-star SS would greatly diminish the requirement for additional pieces. The Rays only got one quality AA player in return and that was Chris Archer, the other quality prospect was an a A ball guy in Lee, the other 3 are reserves if they make it at all. Castro a much bigger return than Archer was as the headliner.

  • No way I will give up Castro for Stanton especially around uncertainty of his knees and plus we will need more than Stanton.,...why gut the farm system to get one player(a very good superstar player)?

  • Can anyone actually explain to me WHY they would choose Stanton over Castro? What makes Stanton a better player than Castro? What happened to value up the middle?

    So far the only argument I've heard is that we have Baez as a replacement, but A) couldn't we slide him (or Castro) to third once there's a clog on that side of the field, and B) don't we already have Stanton's "replacement" in Soler? Baez and Soler are at similar levels of development, right?

    I say no to Castro for Stanton for three reasons:

    1. Castro plays a more premium position; Stanton does not
    2. It sounds like from a couple of posters that Stanton's knees could become an issue
    3. Castro's contract is already locked up, at arguably a more favorable rate than what we could do for Stanton. Batting average and athleticism are nice, but I don't know that that translates as easily to dollars as homers, RBIs, etc. that Stanton is already possessing. Who is to say that he'd get locked up at an equally club-friendly deal as Castro is?

    Tom, John, and intelligent posters -- feel free to refute this, but so far I haven't actually heard any specific reasons as to why to trade one budding superstar for another and not have it be a wash at best.

  • In reply to mosconml:

    Right on, mosconml, my feelings exactly. Let's see what the kids can do before we do something really stupid! Low A ball doesn't translate to MLB with a 100% guarantee.

  • In reply to mosconml:

    I think you make an excellent case here for the Castro side, mosconml. Hard to argue with that.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to mosconml:

    Well Stanton has much more power and Castro is at a position we have good depth at I mean until Baez is ready we could have Barney at short and then a Villanueva/Watkins at 2nd until Baez is ready where is the outfield now we have dejeseus and that's it cuz soriano is likely to be traded and I don't think Jackson is very good so we could Definatly use a star power out fielder now because dejeseus is getting old and we need a proven young outfielders who is able to knock the ball out of the park cuz odds are almora and soler won't turn out

  • In reply to Joey Skokna:

    Completely agree. Barney's natural position is short stop, and while it is hard to see a team move a player after winning the Gold Glove at that position, it just makes sense. The Cubs have lots of 2B depth and Watkins may be ready to contribute in 2013. Barney would be a solid stop-gap until Baez is ready, and at that point Baez could still move to 3B if Barney exceeds expectations at SS and provides a bit more offense.

  • In reply to mosconml:

    Now this is just one person's opinion, but according to the Trade Value Series at FanGraphs, they had Stanton at #5 and Castro at #41. This article was also written midseason, but not a whole lot should change. This is from Stanton's blurb:

    "For comparison, Stanton has been better through age 22 than Miguel Cabrera, and on the same level as Ken Griffey Jr and Alex Rodriguez. He doesn’t offer the same kind of defensive value of those two, but young hitters don’t get much better than this. With four more years of team control, Stanton is one of the most valuable pieces in the game today"

    http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2012-trade-value-5-1/

  • In reply to kylejo:

    WHOA. A lot has changed since than. We extended Castro and have cost certainty.

    Look Stanton is the likely currently the better more accomplished player in a vacuum with HUGE power. But Castro plays a premium position, and the Cubs have much longer control over Castro at what is projected to be a pretty team value price through what his age 29 or 30 season? That's a big change from when that article was written. Not to mention Stanton missing a month and a half with a knee injury.

    I'd probably do it straight up. But if they were asking for much more than Stanton ( like a top 5 or even 10 Cubs prospect) I'd have a real hard time pulling the trigger.

  • In reply to kylejo:

    I remember that list. Grantland is making a similar list and they've gone from honorable mention down to #32 and neither Castro nor Stanton have been mentioned yet. Rizzo made the honorable mention list.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Thanks for pointing this out -- good read.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Looking forward to tomorrow's story and seeing where Castro and Stanton rank this year.

  • Tom--if you can say it here, where are the legs to this story? It started with a sketchy Nick Cafardo "this might be a possible story" post (about which I am still skeptical) to now discussing real players in a real deal.
    Thanks for any verifying info you can provide.

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    Not sure where Tom heard, but I can say that Phil Rogers wrote an article suggesting Castro as the return.

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    Nothing other than they called and they love him but like John said why wouldn't they?

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    There is no reason other than just talking fun rumor to throw names around it's just fun at this point but hey watch the Cubs closely at the meetings. You never know what they can pull off.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    Have a feeling we'll be seeing a few new faces in the next couple of weeks.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    as long asthey are young and mlb ready new players John, not Coco Cris types

  • In reply to Luigi Ziccarelli:

    That's the ideal, but those guys aren't easy to get. At least not good ones. Sometimes you just have to buy yourself a year or two with a stop gap...and someone like Crisp could get you a young MLB ready player in a trade down the road.

    There is more than one way to rebuild and the Cubs have to consider every avenue.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Sorry if someone else posted this but I had a thought I wanted to piggyback on your post John. Your last sentence stuck with me. There is more than one way to rebuild and the Cubs have to consider every avenue. I absolutely agree with your statement and think there is one way that they have completely screwed the pooch on.

    The one thing the Chicago Cubs organization has is money. Especially considering the substantial amount that has come off of the books.

    We have seen the strategy of pursuing the guys who want to play for a year and get a chance to come back the next year to get a HUGE long-term contract. That guy is then flipped for prospects.

    Why have we not seen the strategy of taking on some of these huge, bad contracts of other team's players that may be past their time and that team wants to dump in exchange for taking one of their better prospects as well?

    We take on the payroll of say 2-3 years remaining on a good "team guy" who isn't hitting anymore or a pitcher who was paid as a 2 but is now a 5 with a couple years left. No more Milton Bradley's though. No thank you. Contracts $40-50 million over 2-3 years. Something like Vernon Wells and his 2/50 deal. Oh yeah, we'll throw in Marmol AND pay all of his salary but we we're going to take some of those tasty prospects. Say Garrett Richards?

    I may be mistaken but have you seen any of these types of acquisition avenues being utilized?

  • In reply to Ryan Kalasz:

    I think that's a creative way to take on prospects and I think we actually see that done in the NBA more than baseball, but it's a viable strategy if you're willing to take on the money...and the other team is willing to give you a top prospect or two for your troubles. I've seen it suggested, but I haven't seen it happen with the Cubs yet, nor have I really seen it done by any MLB team. If I missed someone, please refresh me on that. Part of the problem is it still ties up your payroll should an opportunity come about or the team is better than expected, so you'd really want a top prospect back for taking on that burden.

  • I agree with Tom. I am a big supporter of Castro, but Stanton is one of the few players I would deal him. Stanton is young and proven like Castro. But Stanton is one of the best young sluggers in baseball, and run production is the key to winning.
    When Theo and Jed were hired a couple of years ago, they talked about studying the characteristics needed for a team to be successful in Wrigley Field. Did they ever share the results of their study?
    In my observation, the most succesful Cub teams over the past 40 years have usually been near the top of the league in HR's and runs scored. The Cubs need HRs to win.

  • In reply to Rosemary:

    I got to disagree, when the cubs are at the top of the league in home runs we get bounce out the playoffs quick.

  • Sorry tom, I usually agree with you but stanton is a good player he is not worth castro and more prospects. I know everyone has rizzo as a super star but rizzo has to prove more, And baez has to prove something above A ball. We as cubs fans and cubs org have to get away from thinking power,power and more power. An outfield of stanton and soler would be a slow outfield. Castro contract has been set, and stanton's have not. The farm system cannot take that blow because they will ask for castro and multiple prospects and that will set the team back even more years. I think the trade would be bad long term and short term because long term we have no farm system and short term we need pitching. I think some times us as fans undervalue castro right now because we see him on a daily bases. When he's gone and we are bad up the middle because we may overvalue power then we have a problem !

  • In reply to seankl:

    No problem I love Castro too.

  • fb_avatar

    I mentioned this on the other post, but I think it's worth bringing up again. Is there more difference between Castro and a league-average shortstop or Stanton and a league-average right fielder? I suspect Castro wins on that basis. In which case, I don't trade for Stanton if it includes Castro.

    As for prospects, you'd have to include at least three of our top five to even have a conversation, right? So Baez, Almora, Soler? Seems like a lot for a team that's hurting for talent as badly as the Cubs are right now. Stanton doesn't make us a contender I don't think, and you're setting back your timeline at least a year or two by making that trade. Stanton and Castro should still be good players then, but you're creating a bigger gap in talent, which means depending more heavily on free agents, and I'm not sure, given the way teams have been playing free agency, that top talent is going to be consistently available. I just don't see how we have the depth to make the trade *and* still be in a position to supply over half of our on-field talent internally.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    I would disagree here. Stanton just put up a .600 slugging percentage before he was 23. That's really rare. In fact, it's only happened twice in the history of major league baseball: A-Rod and Pujols. Stanton has a very good chance of being one of the top 5 players of his generation, and that's almost certainly going to be harder to replace than an All-Star shortstop.

    My fear is injuries. Assuming everyone is healthy, it's easy. But Stanton isn't necessarily healthy, and that's the scary part for me.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    Turns out I'm incorrect here. Those are the only 3 active players to have done that. And that does, in fact, drop my valuation of him a bit.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    I know that many people on here have stated they think Castro would be packaged with a couple prospects for Stanton but I think it should be opposite. We have a 23 year old, 2-time All Star who plays a premium position and is signed to a reasonable contract. We have a kid who is learning to hit with power and could give Miami a good righty/lefty 3/4 of Castro/LoMo. Miami should be coming to Theo asking to start a conversation offering Stanton straight up. They're the same age and Stanton still has to prove he's not permanently bitten by the injury bug.

  • Hey folks, great to see a good debate on this from both sides. Sorry been out last night and today with the flu. Should be up and ready soon.

  • Get well, John. We miss you!

  • In reply to ifandorbut:

    Thanks, feeling a bit better!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Remarkable what the possibility of acquiring Giancarlo Stanton can do for one. :-)

  • funny thing is while I look at this piece by tom MLB network says the yankees should try and get castro.

  • In reply to seankl:

    People always say this about the Cubs, so it feels good to say it about another team -- they don't have the goods to get Castro. Best talent is at A ball level. They have no shot.

  • I'd try and look for ways around dealing out studs. Do you think they'd do Almora, Vogelbach, Jackson, Vitters, and McNutt?

  • In reply to DeuceBaseman:

    Almora is a stud. I'd rather trade Soler because he plays the same position as Stanton.

  • I still pass. The trade would make more sense to me if it is one for one, but only if the front office sees a problem with Castro that is not apparent to me. I do think that Baez is a shortstop so he should no trouble with 3b.

  • john why is phil rodgers always trying to put out trades with castro involved ? Today he is at it again with his morning phil. Its like he won't be happy until castro is gone.

  • In reply to seankl:

    Haha. Was just saying the same thing the other day. It goes back at least as far as when the Tigers put Granderson on the market.

  • Also, I think people forget another important fact. The Marlins are going to HAVE to deal Stanton at some point, based on recent moves. They have angered him, and I don't see any way he signs an extension with a no-trade unless the offer is beyond huge. So, either they deal him soon for a king's ransom, or wait a few years when the return is much, much smaller. Based on this, plus some of the above reasons, there is no way I would deal Castro for Stanton. I think Stanton is a stud player, but giving up a quality SS to get him just doesn't seem like a great idea.

  • I'll preface this by saying that I really like Starlin and would much rather give up Baez in a package for Stanton. I also trust the FO. If they dealt Starlin for Stanton then I'm okay with it. I have to figure they wouldn't do it if the knees were questionable. I'm going to play devil's advocate though. Beyond Starlin's hit tool, is there REALLY a lot to love there?? Power: not there yet, Speed: solid above average, Arm: yeah, Defense: ehh...a case could be made that we'd be better off with Barney at SS and Castro at 2b. Regardless, his glove is much less than stellar. Plate discipline: not really Make-up: Highly questionable. At best. I see Starlin as a little bit of a diva in the Hanley Ramirez mold. By the time he's full grown I can see him being the Aretha Franklin of big league shortstops. That is, of course if he stays at short. He may very well outgrow the position by his late 20's. I'd hate to give him up. But if you look at it from a non-cubs fan's perspective I'm not sure he's a guy you'd be dying to build your team around. As for giving up our top prospects...chime in if i'm missing one but the only trade in the last few years where i can remember all the prospects (basically) panning out is the Teixeira to Atlanta deal. Other than that teams are lucky if one guy becomes a star in a trade like that. I'm just saying that its not a foregone conclusion that this kind of trade will cripple the Cubs. Its no sure thing that they'll be stars. Especially in the case of Almora. Don't get me wrong, I hope he is a star for a decade! But he could also end up being a Reed Johnson type quality big leaguer. Jeremy Hermida, Rocco Baldelli, Corey Patterson....those guys were first rounders out of high school too.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ben20:

    I hear what you're saying, but I question your assessment of his make up. He had the accusation over last off-season, but that seems to have fizzled out. And on-the-field, everything I hear is that he's a solid teammate. Yeah, he had some focus issues, but I think that was over emphasized. He retooled his approach last season, which is not something a diva does when they've had success. I don't know if I'm going to argue he's got plus-plus makeup, but I think it's decent at worst.

  • In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    I think Bobby Valentine really damaged his reputation. Bob Brenly piled on a little with his hyper focused criticism on Castro while letting other players make the same mistakes without saying a word. Nothing new with Brenly, he did with Soriano when anyone who knew him knew he was a hard worker -- and not just last year.

    It's a shame, he's a good kid who works hard. Then again, Valentine has proven to be ineffective when judging player's character in his one season with the Red Sox. But what he said still resonates.

  • In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    Right on, Kevin. Jury's still kinda out for me BUT I do realize that criticizing any player's make up when they've played on nothing but bad teams can be a little harsh. Nobody like winning twice a week! That was mostly devil's advocacy anyway. I don't want Starlin going anywhere. Regardless of position I still think the 27 year old version of Starlin Castro has a chance to be a top 5 hitter in MLB. If not before.

  • I went over this quite a bit, but I think I'm most comfortable giving up Soler, Vogelbach, + 2 5-20 prospects. I just think trading Castro for Stanton fills a hole by creating a hole. I like Baez but I think ultimately he ends up at 3B and I don't want a headcase like Escobar. That leaves us with either asking for Adeiny or waiting for Marco Hernandez, which still feels like a hole. Soler's ceiling is most likely going to be Stanton, and adding Vogelbach that's a ton of power folk-hero power going over to the Marlins.

  • In reply to Furiousjeff:

    I agree. I'd like to avoid dealing Castro if at all possible, though I understand the arguments on both sides. Soler makes the most sense because it's the same position and he's not all that much younger than Stanton is now.

  • fb_avatar

    Get well soon John!

    I have mixed feelings about trading either Castro or prospects for Stanton, but if I did it, I think I would rather trade Castro. A prospect only deal would hurt the long term future of the Cubs, which is why this FO probably wouldn't do it. However, individually, it's probably an even swap.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    Thanks Mike. I think that's the only reason you trade Castro, because it means a signifcantly smaller package going to the Marlins.

  • fb_avatar

    I look at a potential future Cubs lineup like this, if and it is a big if, all these guys pan out.
    C- Castillo
    1B- Rizzo
    2B- Barney, Watkins, ?
    SS - Castro
    3B- Baez
    RF- Soler
    CF- Almora
    LF - Jackson/?/Free agent
    P- Samardzija/Garza/Vizcaino/?/?

    It seems to me the glaring need is still front line pitching, now I really do like Stanton, but not at the cost I believe it will take to acquire him. I've been doing some reading about the future Cubs, here is who some of them are compared to:
    Baez = Hanley Ramirez, Gary Sheffield
    Almora = Adam Jones, Carlos Beltran
    Soler = Giancarlo Stanton, Justin Upton

    So we may already have our Stanton in the pipeline. I know it is a long shot that this will pan out as envisioned, but it beats the snot out what we've had to look forward as recently as two years ago. I remain optimistic of the future as long as Theo stays the course, get some front line starters and we're good to go by 2014/15.

    "The future's been dark for so long, it looks like light to me"

  • In reply to Dafoxx:

    I hear that, man...the future does look kinda bright-ish. But for every Giancarlo Stanton there are ten Wily Mo Pena's...

  • In reply to Dafoxx:

    I agree. We should stay to course. I am more comfortable trading top guys from AAA and AA and wait to see on the youth.

  • I would not trade Castro for Stanton. I just think it'd be bad karma, plus Castro is already locked up for a long time on a very team friendly deal, shortstops typically have better health than outfielders and if Stanton starts to slow down physically then we have no where to put him because of Rizzo. I just think the whole idea makes little sense, if I were Theo I'd want to trade for Stanton so we could put him behind Castro in the order, not replace him.

  • Stanton looks more like a proven superstar while Starlin looks like a fringe All Star with perhaps the potential to become a superstar. The Marlins will certainly ask for a prized farmhand along with Starlin.

  • I'm thrilled with Castro, do not get me wrong at all here. However, Stanton could be a Miggy type hitter like mentioned above. The knees would be my only concern.

  • In reply to Tom Loxas:

    tom i understand the logic in the trade, its potential great player for potential great player and you could argue that either has a higher ceiling depending on how you look at it, but i just dont think its smart to trade a player whos in a good situation and likes where he is, like castro, for someone who is complaining about where he is. i think stanton has every right to complain, but u never know how guys change after their traded, for the better or worse. i think it would make a lot more sense to trade stanton to arizona for a guy like justin upton or trevor bauer (maybe both)

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jshmoran:

    That's true. We could get Stanton and find out his contract demands are crazy or he's unwilling to sign a long term deal and eventually we lose both him and Castro. We already have Castro locked up long term, on a nice contract too, thanks to smart timing by our FO.

  • There is no question in my mind that Baez is going to be a good, and possibly great, player in the MLB. The question is whether or not he can be a good SHORTSTOP. Sure, I'd probably prefer to wait to make this decision until Baez is succeeding in AA or higher. Who wouldn't? Still, none of this matters if he slides over to 3rd base.

  • In reply to elusivekarp:

    I disagree what is the hardest position to find a superstar right now. It's 3B there are a lot more stud SS in baseball than 3B.

  • In reply to WickitCub:

    Not sure where you are getting this idea. There are only a handful of good shortstops in this league. The Cubs already have a ton of good 3B prospects in Villanueva, Candelario, Vitters, and possibly Lake. Also, shortstop is generally just a more important player in the field.

  • In reply to elusivekarp:

    A SS with a decent bat can always switch to 3B, including Baez and Castro. Much easier to find a 3B.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Sorry John I just physically went through all of the SS and 3B in the MLB. Here is how it went and I have pulled Manny Machado and Hanley Ramirez because they can play each position above average.

    On the SS side you have JJ Hardy, Starlin Castro, Alexei Ramirez, Asdrubal Cabrera, Troy Tulowitzki, Alcides Escobar, Erick Aybar, Dee Gordon, Derek Jeter, Jimmy Rollins, Brandon Crawford, Elvis Andrus, Jose Reyes and Ian Desmond that 14.

    the 3B has Will Middlebrooks, Todd Fraizer, Miguel Cabrera, Mike Moustakas, Aramis Ramirez, David Wright, Arod, Pablo Sandoval, Chase Headley, David Freese, Evan Longoria, Brett Lawrie, and Ryan Zimmerman that is also 14.

    There are some at both positions that some could pull off the list but its still pretty equal. Finding a quality 3B is not that easy.

  • In reply to WickitCub:

    C'mon Kevin. The all-around skill set of a SS is the most difficult to find in all of baseball. Then to find an above average defender who's at least a league average hitter is even more difficut. Then cut that list down to 22 year olds on a team friendly deals and it's rarer still. Making broad, debatable lists at a snapshot in time doesn't change that.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I wouldn't say that finding a true starting 3B is easier than SS since teams can plug a good fielding SS in and be happy if they're unable to find a SS who hits. Look at how many 3B we went through to find a good, everyday player after Santo. But, if we have any position of strength in our farm system it is infielders. We have many players that right now project as starting 2B/3B/SS and virtually nothing in the OF (or pitching). I still think that if they did decide to consider dealing Castro in the right trade that it makes more sense to deal him for a package of good young starting pitchers instead of an OF, as incredible a talent as Stanton is.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Haven't really had a good SS since Banks either until Castro. Dunston played a while, but by today's metrics he was a fringe starter because of those terribly low OBPs.

  • In reply to elusivekarp:

    Yes SS is a more important position Defensively but he doesn't have to hit to help you win games. Ozzie Smith was never an big threat with the bat.
    I don't get where the Cubs have a ton of 3B prospects. I don't believe Lake will ever see a MLB IF, OF maybe or even the mound but not IF. Vitters will never be a Starting 3B in the Majors. Villanueva has a great glove but lacks the power to stay at 3B. Candelario does not look athletic enough to stay at 3B and will most likely be a 1B.
    You can have a SS that plays stellar defense and hits .250 to .275 and stilll have a great team.

  • What about putting Rizzo up for the trade? That would leave us with Vogelbach and maybe Soler as future Fb's. It would trade power for power, speed for speed with the advantage to the Marlins of Rizzo's glove being better.

  • The Cubs should at least shop Castro to see what is worth to other teams. There maybe a team that would give up the moon for him.

  • Hey, I love Starlin, going to have a great career. But in Stanton, you are talking about a rare player. He has Pujols like numbers his first 3 years. Proven to be one of the best hitters in baseball last year at the age of 22, in a tough hitters park. I make that deal in a second, especially when the Cubs have some quality prospects at the SS position.

  • There are only 3 players

  • There only 3 players that are off limits for trade and Castro isn't on the list. They are Rizzo, Baez and samarjza. Everyone else is trade able.

  • In reply to WickitCub:

    I think if you were to ask executives around the league they'd put Castro at the top of that list of players they'd like to acquire.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    That's my point for shopping him. If you can fill multiple holes but only create one. Lets say a team that is looking to compete now needs a SS that can hit and they believe that is the one piece they need. They are going to be willing to paid above and beyond for him. Lets look at the Pirates they need a SS and they have pitching that is almost ready and other players that would be useful for the Cubs. Or lets look at the Rays I would not be surprised if they could get a few of their young studs way from them for a player like Castro. My point is I don't think they should give him away, but get a king's ransom for him and I think they could. I am not completely for trading for Stanton because I really don't think it would help them in the long run. I like Stanton but it still won't fill any holes they have.

  • In reply to WickitCub:

    If you trade Castro then you have a huge hole at SS. Barney is not a SS and Watkins is stretched there too, never has played full time there at any level. Nobody in the next group hasn't played even a full season at advanced A ball.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Like the 3 huge holes in the OF, 3B and on the mound. If the Cubs can find a serviceable SS until a better option comes along.

  • Starlin has never been injured and played every game this year. I worry a lot about Stanton's injury and even Baez, who got knocked out of the AFL. I don't care if Baez has a higher ceiling than Starlin, I still would rather keep Castro. Baez really needs to work on his plate discipline. He put up good power numbers in Daytona and the AFL, but he had a really hard time getting hits overall and swung at a lot of bad pitches.

  • Anyone throwing out a package that involves only one of Soler, Baez, and Almora, please stop, you're in fantasy land. Giancarlo Stanton is one of the most valuable trade targets in the game, you aren't getting him without at least 2 top 50 prospects.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    Agreed. I think this is all moot speculation anyway since there's no premium pitching anywhere to offer. Other teams will blow the Cubs out of the water if its a prospect package. On the other hand , if it comes down to another sub 25 all-star level player then there aren't too many of those.

  • fb_avatar

    This is an interesting debate and I can see both sides. I also think that it would be hard to decide to deal Castro and not get good young starting pitching in return. Offense is much easier to come up with than good pitching.

    Two things I would like to add.

    One, and this is just me, I've never felt that Castro is much of a leader or settling influence on the team. Obviously he's young and that can change. It seems that many leaders are leaders from the start and not a role that they grow into. That is one intangible about him that I don't feel is very high, at least right now.

    Two, Stanton's career OBPS is .903 in three MLB seasons. It was .969 last year at age 22, in a division with very good SP. It appears he will play at near that level or better for the next 5+ years. He's already a star. Most of Castro's value in our minds is his future potential. Stanton is already a stud offensive player and the same age, so it's not like we're getting older. Castro still seems to me to be very similar to Edgar Renteria, average on defense and a swing-at-anything type of hitter, although Castro makes better contact and has better power potential.

    One thing that organizations have to eventually do is trade surplus to fill other holes. The Cubs are loaded with SS prospects, many of whom can actually hit. We are weak in OF prospects. (And extremely weak in pitching prospects). It seems that taking the names out of the equation and just looking at the ages/stats/projections, trading depth at a position of strength to fill a weakness would make sense. I don't know how eager the Marlins would be to do that, and there surely would be other names involved.

    I pray that if the trade does happen we do not end up with Escobar at SS for even one game. He drives me nuts.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Not exactly sure how you could say we're weak in OF prospects when 4 of our top 6 or 7 (depending on where you look) play the outfield. Also wouldn't consider the Cubs "loaded" with SS prospects either. Agreed that the pitching is weak but to me, OF is a strength.

  • Some great points made by everyone. I really don't think Castro is going anywhere. However I think Stanton will be a special, special player. It is at the very least always fun to talk about hot stove items real or hypothetical.

  • fb_avatar

    In my opinion if you are thinking Castro for Stanton then you have to look at the the stats. Who is more consistent and who is going to stay consistent when we are ready to compete.

  • fb_avatar

    I would trade Castro for Stanton.

    Look at it this way-if you moved Castro to right field-and it has been discussed-who would give you more production? Replacing Castro's defense at short will not be as difficult as finding a 40 homer potential bat. Stanton is a special talent. The Cubs could move Barney to short and start Watkins at second and immediately be better both offensively and defensively.

  • why are we in fantasyland, when we could be talking about matt garza for wil myers???????

  • I know I'm late to this party but hell yeah I would trade Castro for Stanton. As much as I love Castro, Stanton is a franchise player like Pujols who can carry a team by himself.

  • No way I'm dealing Baez!! Castro for Stanton would have to be a straight up deal for that to happen and even a straight up deal I'm not sure.

  • John,
    I want to make you understand what it would take for me OK with trading Castro. It would take names like Matt Moore, Gerrit Cole, and Taillon. If they can get players like that plus more I would be happy, but that's what it would take for me.

  • In reply to WickitCub:

    I understand, but to me it's like discarding a full house in the hopes that you get a royal flush.

    You have to be very careful when trading known commodities -- especially when they are 22 year old all star players who still have significant upside. You can't let the perception of a particular need, like SP, to distract from the overall plan of building a core of good young MLB players. Castro is already one such player and not only will you'll be trading him for guys who are not and may never be, but you'll also be replacing his position on the field with a similar question mark.

    I think it's a moot point as the Cubs consider Castro as one of their core young players. Not just because Theo has literally said it, but also because the team has backed it up in dollars by signing him long term.

  • Hope everyone had a terrific Thanksgiving. I don't post often but I try to keep up with reading most of the posts as time permits, because this is by a wide margin, the best Cubs message board I've ever come across.

    This is an interesting debate and most likely just speculation, but I'd like to weigh in. I wouldn't trade Castro unless I was absolutely certain I had a superstar (Baez) replacement waiting in the wings, and the return just blew me away. Stanton is clearly an offensive force, but he is somewhat of a health concern and RF'ers are easier to come by than AS SS's. Castro is even younger than Stanton, and while his SLG and OPS don't come close to rivaling the slugger, as others have pointed out, he brings incredible value and offers tremendous potential at the SS position.

    If the FO was certain of Stanton's health and could get him for a package headlined by Soler (would be blocked by Stanton) and other top prospects, I'd say go for it. But I'd want to be sure they could sign Stanton to an extension first, and I'd also want to see them accelerate the "competitive" time curve by adding some key free agents. If they lose some key components of their farm system, they would need some future trading chips to replace that depth. They could turn into an instant contender with the right upgrades in CF, 3B, and to the pitching staff.

  • In reply to WSorBust:

    Thanks WSorBust!

    I agree. You have to be certain you can replace Castro at SS and you really can't say that right now. Baez has yet to master the advanced A level, there's still a significant amount of risk there.

  • Said it before...
    I'd trade anyone the Cubs have for Stanton.
    He is that monster stud that rarely comes along.

    Here's a fun story...

    One of that idiot Zambrano's last Cub starts was against the Marlins.
    I was there, he was pitching like crap and when Stanton came up I told everyone around he was going yard.

    Easiest called shot ever. I think that ball went into orbit.
    Also told everyone around he'd look really good in a Cub uni.

  • fb_avatar

    No. As frustrating as Starlin is at times he's still the best young shortstop in baseball, those are hard as hell to find. And if we did what would be the point at the moment, cool as his 10,000 feet home runs and name are, Giancarlo Stanton isn't going to make this team twenty wins better by himself, even him and Starlin together if it was Baez and some others we traded, wouldn't, would it? I say lets be patient and see how things grow.

  • I might - might - trade Castro and a bag of balls for Stanton, but I'm not touching any of our top pospects. We already have Soler, so if you trade either him or Almora with Castro, you've simply created a worse hole than the one you had, imo.

  • fb_avatar

    This is really a funny and spirited debate. This is a classic case of people who love to value there own players more then all the others see them.

    As of right now Starlin Castro is not Jedstein type player. He loves the high OBP, w pop type players. If you believe that Jedstein is the real deal and think he is going to take this team to the next level w his philosophy then you have to be on board for how he acquires his "type" of players.

    At the beg of this year, I really didn't think Starlin was going to turn into the player we all dream he could be esp w how poor his defense was. He did surprise me w how he finished the season, but I really don't see him becoming patient enough or becoming that 20+ HR threat that we all imagined for him when he debuted against the Reds.

    Stanton is man among boys and he's still a boy. If the Marlins were to offer him to us for Castro, and we didn't take it, it would go down as one of the biggest mistakes in baseball history. That will probably never happen as I give Jestein more credit then that, and the Marlins are too shrewd to give him away for just Castro.

Leave a comment