Advertisement:

Holiday Rumor Thread: Where do the Cubs go from here?

Holiday Rumor Thread: Where do the Cubs go from here?

I don't know if there's enough to stoke the hot stove, but as we approach the holidays, there's plenty of smoke.  The Cubs aren't done fixing their team but any future major moves will center around dealing two short term players, Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Marmol, and possibly a 3rd player in Matt Garza.  Nothing cooking with the Cubs, but there is stuff happening around the league that may impact their offseason.

As far as other needs on the roster, the Cubs could use a bullpen arm, preferably LH, a RH 3B/utility infielder, and perhaps an everyday CF'er.

Since I won't be around the 24th and 25th, I'll keep this thread going until the 26th...just in case something happens.  I'll try and keep an eye on things in between festivities...

12/23

  • 11:10 AM: Nick Swisher will sign with the Cleveland Indians.  It certainly didn't seem like Swisher's first choice but there just wasn't enough teams out willing or able to commit the payroll space + the draft pick.  In case you're wondering about the Cubs, Jason McLeod is very excited not just about the Cubs #2 overall pick, but their 2nd rounder as well which, because of less comp free agents, will the equivalent of a 1st round supplemental pick in years past.  The Cubs were not in on Swisher and I don't expect them to be on any FAs that are tied to a draft pick.  That likely rules out guys like Michael Bourn and Kyle Loshe.  Of course, the other way this impacts the Cubs is that it thins out the OF market even more.

12/22

  • 3:26 PM (12/22): Bowden is now tweeting that hard-throwing pitching prospect Stolmy Pimentel is also in the deal.  He ranked as Boston's #22 prospect heading into the season.
  • 3:04 PM (12/22):  Jim Bowden is tweeting that Jerry Sands is involved in the deal for Pirates closer Joel Hanrahan.  Sands is a good hitting corner OF'er with some athleticism.  Sands was the #6 Dodgers prospect in 2011 and was acquired by the Red Sox as part of the large trade that sent Josh Beckett and Adrian Gonzalez to the Dodgers.  Meanwhile, Jon Heyman says that Red Sox #12 prospect SS Jose Iglesias is not part of the deal, though there are multiple players involved.  Again, this deal could be a model for a potential Carlos Marmol deal.
  • 1:35 PM (12/22): Buster Olney tweets that the Diamondbacks are indeed trying to trade an OF'er and that Jason Kubel is the most likely candidate.  As many of you already know, I like Gerald Parra as a possible fit for the Cubs.  Another OF, A.J. Pollock, was a guy the old regime liked in the draft.  Perhaps he's still a low cost option
  • 1:30 PM (12/22): Jason Catania of ESPN (insider only) speculates that the Cubs new found rotation depth may have them considering a deal involving a pitcher, likely Matt Garza.  He also believes the Cubs next move may be dealing Alfonso Soriano and/or adding an outfielder.
  • 1:22 PM (12/22): The Boston Red Sox are reportedly closing in on a deal for closer Joel Hanrahan, who is similar in many ways to Carlos Marmol, so we'll get an idea as to current market value here.  Last year the Red Sox made an ill-fated deal to send OF Josh Reddick to the A's for closer Andrew Bailey.  Now they had to fill a vacant OF spot with the more expensive, yet less productive Shane Victorino and appear poised to give up another prospect or young player to land Hanrahan.
  • 1:13 PM (12/22):  The Arizona Diamondbacks have surprised everyone by beating everyone to OF Cody Ross.  They won the derby by giving him 3 years and $26M, the kind of long term security he has been looking for in his career.  It also helps that he makes his home in Arizona.  The signing is understandably leading to speculation about what the D'Backs plan to do to release that log jam they have in the OF again.  Justin Upton had been rumored often earlier in the postseason but now it's Jason Kubel's name that has been surfacing.  To me, the Rangers would seem like a good fit for Kubel.  Ross off the market also means one less name on the market and it could draw attention to Alfonso Soriano.  The Cubs seem content to let things play out as options dwindle and Soriano reduced price and recent production make him look more and more attractive.   The Phillies, Yankees, and Rays all appear to be possible suitors for Soriano.  Though as reader 44 slug mentioned, the team that is in most dire need of a RH power bat is the Chicago Cubs, so there is no reason to just give him away.
  • 1:00 PM (12/22): The Mariners are said to have serious interest in Raul Ibanez.  The 40 year old hit .240/.309/.453 with 19 HRs last year.  The Mariners have been looking for bats to jump start a sputtering offense and recently traded for Kendry Morales.  I'm not sure how they plan to fit Morales, Ibanez, and Jesus Montero together in the same lineup.  All seem better off being DHs.

 

Filed under: Rumors/Speculation

Comments

Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    One other point on the Mariners: Mike Zunino is real close to being ready. I don't see how they fit Montero into their new lineup. He's likely a goner, but I don't see a match with the Cubs.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Zunino will definitely take that catching spot when he's ready but if they sign Ibanez to a one year deal it may not be that big of a long term issue.

  • It the Cubs are really having trouble clearing enough space on the 40 man roster, here is a creative way to help the situation.

    Get Soriano's permission to outright him to the minors. He would have to clear waivers, but that certainly would not be a problem. Obviously, they would put him back before the start of the season, but would have all spring to evaluate the rest of the players on their roster. I see no reason why Soriano would have a problem with it.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    Not sure if you're serious here...

  • In reply to DaveP:

    If I said some crazy s*** like this....some of those Blue Kool Aid drinking yoyo's would have bashed me by now..

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Exactly !!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubsTalk:

    Well finally..... we agree.... ROFL!!

  • I just don't see the need to give up prospects at this point for anyone - even Justin Upton. If anything, Marmol could bring a better haul, and if you get a MLB ready OFer in the process, bonus!

  • In reply to historyrat:

    Agree it's too early to pursue a Justin Upton...unless they're willing to take a Didi Gregorius type prospect again :)

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Considering what they gave up to get Gregorious, who knows? That one still has me scratching my head.

  • Merry Christmas all. I need sleep , 3 xmas parties in 3 nights all ran well into the early hours and involved non baseball debouchery. Love and happiness to every Cubs Den family .

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Thanks Bryan. Happy Holidays to you and yours as well.

  • If it was not for the 40-man roster, I would say just pickup some
    more players any way we can. Might have to trade someone for
    any good low prospect we can get. Trading Garza, Soriano
    and Carlos will have to wait at least until the end of ST.

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    True. They may have to wait a bit if they can't find trades.

  • Do you think the lack of movement on the Sori front speaks to Jedstein holding out for a respectable prospect or a relative lack of interest from other teams?

    Given the significant subsidy that we're rumored to be offering, I'd imagine that Jedstein is holding out for a decent return- say someone like Dom Brown. 2yr/10mil for Sori in this financial environment has to be pretty appealing , on a relative basis.

  • In reply to Carl9730:

    Absolutely. They want a good player back. Dom Brown fits that description. They're banking on a win-now team willing to give up a young player they don't feel comfortable with in their everyday lineup for a proven performer.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Ideally, we'd get Brown, and he'd have a break out year.

  • In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I'd be happy with that!

  • In reply to Carl9730:

    I think the strategy of waiting on dealing Sori is a good one. Cody Ross got gobbled up by a team that didn't have a need for more OFs. Now, Dbacks might trade Kubel to Phils, but the longer things go on and FA OF's get signed, people will start asking about Sori.

  • In reply to IrwinFletcher:

    Fortunately for us, PHI has a strong preference for a RH power bat, as they're pretty covered from the left side , in that regard. Also, Ruben seems to be "doubling down" when you take a look at the way he's constructed his team. Taking that into account, Soriano's advanced age wouldn't appear to be an issue, in and of itself.

  • With regard to Sori, Jedstein can say with some credibility that they're just as content to hold onto him. They can ask other teams why they should be expected to GIVE .away basically their only source of RH power, after they just went out and spent a good deal of $ on SP. Also, it's not like we desperately need to save the $ either. They'd seem to possess the leverage here.

  • fb_avatar

    Joel Hanrahan is off the market after being traded to the Red Sox. That just makes Marmol even more valuable.

  • I was quite serious about Soriano, and am a little surprised that it was ridiculed out of hand.

    This from ArizonaPhil

    "because they each of them have at least five years of MLB Service Time, David DeJesus, Matt Garza, Carlos Marmol, Dioner Navarro, and Alfonso Soriano would have to give their consent AND Optional Assignment Waivers would have to be secured before the player can be optioned to the minors."

    The upside for the Cubs is obvious. What would be the downside for Soriano?

  • In reply to DaveP:

    There is no upside, nothing to gain for Soriano. There is only downside. He's not guaranteed anything. I cannot think of a single case where an established MLB player agreed to something like this. Why would anybody put themselves in that vulnerable position?

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I agree. There is absolutely no reason for Soriano to agree to being outrighted to Iowa.

    Unless, of course, the Cubs GAVE him a reason.

    Suppose they gave Soriano half a million dollars and guaranteed his no trade rights would not be affected? This would allow the Cubs to keep someone like the dearly departed Rosario for that half million dollars. A pretty cheap acquisition in the current labor agreement environment.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    In order to keep a borderline 40 man roster guy, the Cubs would pay 500K to a guy who doesn't need it, bump him off the roster, risk the consequences of how that reflects on them with his agent, the union, and every other player around baseball, so that the Cubs can keep a middle reliever who can easily be replaced?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to DaveP:

    AZ Phil isn't suggesting the Cubs try that with Soriano or any of those guys, he's simply explaining in that piece that those players cannot be sent to the minors without both giving their consent and clearing waivers.

    Doing that to a well liked veteran on a gigantic contract would be bad for the franchise. It would be a bad sign to future free agents of how the team treats players. It's not like Soriano isn't producing.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    I never said that AZ Phil was advocating it. I merely said that it would benefit the Cubs to do it. It would not negatively affect Soriano in any way, since, as I recommended above, he would get quite a bit of money for his small inconvenience, and still maintain all his rights.

  • In reply to Just Win:

    Exactly. It's not a question of legality. It's a question of whether you want to do that to your players -- and if you do, how it reflects back on your front office. First of all, the agent would never allow it (union too, probably). After that you look like a team that treated one of it's best players as if he were nothing more than a commodity.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    There's yet another problem here: Bud Selig. The 40-man rules exist for a reason. To do this you're essentially destroying the spirit of the rule by adhering to the letter. Even if it does somehow work, Selig is not going to be pleased. When it comes time to rewrite this asinine CBA -- among other issues that baseball will tackle -- if you're Tom Ricketts, you want Selig to listen to your council, not dismiss it out of hand because you do whatever you want to get ahead.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Another good point. These sort of maneuvers have all kinds of ramifications. When you consider what the prize is even if you can pull it off (a 40th man, usually a middle reliever), it just isn't worth it.

  • fb_avatar

    Cubs get Vanderbilt coach.. Helped develop David Price.. Suppose to be top pitching coach in the country. I'm pulling for this manaea kid in the draft..

  • fb_avatar

    2001 keeps playing over and over in my head. I just can't get away from it, and when you take Sosa out of the equation, you might actually be able to make a case for the 2013 offense being better on paper, at least going into Spring Training. It's certainly younger and has more upside.

    Ca: Hundley vs. Castillo
    1b: Stairs vs. Rizzo
    2b: Young vs. Barney
    Ss: Gutierrez vs. Castro
    3b: Coomer vs. Stewart
    Lf: White vs. Soriano
    Cf: Matthews vs. DeJesus
    Rf: Sosa vs. Schierholtz

    Offensively, Rf is the only place that team has a decided advantage over this team. I'd take Barney over Young because of the defense, and I'd take Stewart over Coomer because of the upside. The only way I would take White over Soriano is if you could guarantee me that White would be healthy enough to get 600+ PA.

    The 2013 team should be a better defensive team at every single position, except Cf.

    A case can even be made that the 2013 starting rotation has a good chance to be better than the 2001 rotation. As for comparing the bullpens, it's difficult to say, but the 2013 team has potential, and if the rotation is solid, they won't wear down from overuse.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I doubt we'll have two guys combine to hit the 64hr's Sosa had that year. I think we probably have less power in 2013 than that horrible 2001 offense, even if you take a mulligan and wash out Sosa and Soriano.

    Only plus for us is Casto and Rizzo are long term keepers. That team's offense was mostly 30 something's. How they decided that Stairs and Coomer should man the corner inf spots is beyond me. I remember how disappointed I was that year.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Just Win:

    God I hope we have 3 guys combine to hit 64 if they trade soriano like a lot are thinking they might

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jim Odirakallumkal:

    I'm trying to imagine a scenario like that without being way too optimistic. Maybe 18 from Castro, 26 from Rizzo and 20 from Stewart? Sounds plausible, if Stewart is healthy.

    In any case, things would not be pretty.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Just Win:

    I fear you may be right, but this team will have a higher OBP, and it will be more athletic. You also never know who might step up and surprise us all.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Caldwell:

    I hope so. But there are guys here to be hopeful about instead of all 32-33-34 year old guys like that 2001 team.

  • 2 more players going to the Bucs?? I have a feeling Theo and Jed will be laughing and celebrating after this deal is done.

  • fb_avatar

    Looks like Scott Kazmir got another shot in Cleveland. I wonder if the Cubs kicked the tires in this area as well. He might be one of those guys that make a nice comeback....

  • John, Happy Holidays and thank you for your many long hours making this the informative and enjoyable site it is. Quick question, if Clevenger doesn't stick on the 25, who backs up Rizzo?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to socalcub:

    Maybe Stewart with Valbuena at 3B that day would be my guess.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to socalcub:

    I've heard Schierholtz had some experience at first base in the minors, so I think he could be Rizzo's replacement.

  • In reply to João Lucas:

    I think Schierholtz played first for a single game in rookie league, so I wouldn't say he's quite ready for a MLB assignment.

  • Condolences to the Freel family.

  • Yes... condolences to the Freel family. Please understand my following comments.
    This is a terrible act to leave with your wife, daughters and parents. They, especially the daughters, will have this to haunt their "joyful" Christmas' for the rest of their lives.
    My son visited met and spent some time with Ryan and his Dad and enjoyed their company. (My son was a canine handler with the Air Force doing security sweeps at Riverfront on 2 opening days because of the President's presence.)
    Who know what he was going through, but the act was selfish and ill timed. RIP Ryan and Farney.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Moonlight:

    I agree completely. I have a cousin who did that, leaving a wife and child behind. Very selfish act. I know they were suffering but the pain they inflict on their loved ones will last a lifetime. Especially with the double whammy of doing it at Christmas time.

  • Just want to thank John for all of his hard work and dedication in making this the best place for cub info.

  • In reply to SonomaCubFan:

    Thanks Sonoma!

  • Just saw the news. Prayers for the Freel family.

  • MLBTR says Swisher to the Indians. 4 years, $56M with an option year.

    Phillies seem to make more and more sense for Soriano as the offseason goes on.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TulaneCubs:

    Now the market is starting to shake out. Wondering if the Phillies might revisit Brown-for-Soriano at this point.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    Brown represents a great opportunity, but the only reservation I have is that he's a lefty. Never thought I'd write this, but the Cubs need some right-handed hitting, especially power. With DeJesus (hopefully not starting), Stewart, Rizzo, Schierholtz we have a lot of lefty hitters. The other question is this: Why does everyone think Sappelt is, at best, a 4th OF? Statistically in the minors he and BJax seem to be identical except that Sappelt Ks half as much as BJax. Any thoughts?

  • When evaluating Soriano, the Phillies and their scouts might see him as a 37 year old with bad knees. As an armchair GM I can see why an NL team might not want him in LF.

  • No doubt that's part of the reason. I have to think with Soriano it's the sum of all these parts because other teams signing injury risks too. With Soriano it's injury risk + age + perception as me-first player (whether deserved or not) + bad defense (again, perhaps undeserved) + what the Cubs are asking for in return. All of that equals a big risk to some GMs, I guess, and I don't blame them either but for teams build to win in next year or two, he may be worth that risk.

  • Soriano has become a lot easier to pull for after last years effort. He earned consideration for another shot in lf even though we are the only organization that noticed. At this time, he is a pretty good Cub and fits well in the middle of the batting order. Last year I was thinking much different.

  • In reply to 44slug:

    I agree except that I think Soriano always worked hard. Media helped fuel perception that he didn't.

  • fb_avatar

    I'm predicting none of the three (Garza, Marmol, Soriano) get moved before the deadline. I think the front office wants to see if they have a chance to surprise some folks this year, so they'll let things play out. Then, if we're not in striking distance in July, pieces get moved. I could be wrong, but that's my guess right now.

  • In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    I'm confused, you're predicting none of those 3 get moved, but you think if we're not within striking distance in July, other pieces will get moved? So are you saying you think we'll be within striking distance in July?

    I think there's a single digit % chance that all 3 of those guys will be on the roster after the trade deadline. Like, 5%. And I think the most likely way that'd happen is if one or more of those guys were injured.

  • In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    I agree it's a possibility with Garza and maybe even Soriano, but I think Marmol has to be gone by the deadline because the Cubs won't keep him and they won't make the qualifying offer. They need to get something for him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    I'm assuming you mean by Opening Day, not the trade deadline. If so, you may be right, but I disagree with the reasoning. I continue to think being competitive is a side-effect to building the team Theo wants long term.

    Matt Garza's value takes an enormous hit the second the season starts (though he may raise it substantially by, you know, actually pitching). Soriano is a rapidly aging player and difficult to move under any circumstances, so if you have an opportunity to do so, you take it. Marmol is an extreme short term asset on a team thinking long term, and -- in fact -- blocks one of their bigger FA acquisitions.

    All 3 are difficult to impossible to move right now, though. So, if they are on the roster, it's because Theo couldn't move them despite his best efforts, not because he wanted to make a run at the wild card.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    Well this is where we disagree. The front office has said that every season is a chance, and each chance is important. I think they're looking around and thinking, with the pitching they've landed, that they have a shot - not likely, but not impossible either. and given that, along with the fact that offers for these players have not been knocking anyone's socks off, I think they will see if they have a competitive team.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    He said that before last season -- and we know for a fact he tried to move their best pitcher for minor league pieces before the season even started. And he moved a major league pitcher (Cashner) for a guy he had determined was going to start in AAA. They have a plan, they trust the plan, I don't see them deviating from it to increase their odds marginally in one season.

    Another way to put this: if they're going to compete next season, it's because they have big years from Rizzo, Castro, Shark, Jackson, and Castillo. Those don't require Garza and Soriano to be there. If they DO get those big years, they'll still be in the running and can replace Garza and Soriano at the trade deadline. If you keep the big 3 and they don't get those big years, the team is still awful and -- assuming you've passed on offers for them this off-season -- you increase the odds of getting nothing for them, which would be the worst case scenario.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    Right, but we're in a different position last year than this year, imo. The only real question is moving Garza. Frankly, you're not going to get prospects who immediately upgrade your system for either Soriano or Marmol. So the real question is, if they think they have the chance to compete, do they move Garza anyway? Given the track record on trading good pitchers for prospects, they may decide that keeping Garza is a better bet (assuming they can extend him - if there's no opportunity for an extension, then I think they move him regardless). This isn't deviating from the plan. This *is* the plan. It's not sacrificing the future of the franchise for a one-shot deal. It's an early chance to compete while continuing to build the organization at all levels.

    Now if they don't think they have a realistic chance at competing then they should move all three whenever they can get the best value. We'll have a good idea of what they think when we see whether Garza's on the opening day roster.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    I would also say, that the one situation in which Soriano and Marmol have more value to the Cubs as players than as tradeable assets is if the Cubs think they have a shot to compete. And unlike Garza, their value doesn't change as much between now and the trading deadline. That's why I say the decision is really about whether or not to trade Garza.

  • In reply to Kevin Heckman:

    Kevin, I think you may have spiked the egg nog and started drinking it early. It is pretty clear both Soriano and Marmol are available in a deal. It is also clear that they are willing to part with short term assets in order to aquire long term assets even if it means reducing their chances of winning this year. This doesn't mean they aren't going to try to win this year... It just means they aren't going give Soriano and Marmol away unless the get quality assets in return. As John has pointed out, it is much more likely Marmol gets dealt since he is in the last year of his deal and the Cubs are going to want to get something in return for him long term.

  • In reply to Ibleedcubbieblue:

    As far as Soriano is concerned, they have been clear they are willing to eat all but $10 million of his remaining contract to aquire the right prospect. In other words, they are willing to pay $28 million dollars to have him help another team win this year.

  • Just trying to catch up now. Swisher signing with Cleveland is big news.

  • My condolences as well to Freel's family.

    Many of you may remember Freel's hard-nosed style of play and he suffered several big concussions, which helped end his career. I can't help but wonder. It's a big concern with football players, but Freel played like a football player.

  • fb_avatar

    It's very clear that teams are valuing draft picks much more than in the past. FA's tied to draft-pick compensation are having trouble attracting interest; the best ones left all seemingly have draft pick comp (Swisher, LaRoche, R. Soriano, Bourn). I am particularly interested to follow Rafael Soriano, who does not figure to get a contract as good as the $14 mil option he turned down.....bad miscalculation on his part.

    And that's a great point on our 2nd round pick......it will be the 34th pick in the draft, which in year's past would be a 1st round supplemental.

    Agents are likely taking note

  • In reply to Zonk:

    It is interesting to see how teams are trying to work within this system.

    Teams know it's more difficult to spend on signability guys after the first couple of rounds. Those higher picks have become more valuable with the new CBA.

    Indians found a creative way around it.

    The Indians basically traded a good prospect for Nick Swisher. However, they have a guy locked up for at least 4 years and they picked up some pieces for a guy who was leaving in year anyway in Shin-Soo Choo.

    The trade winds up being Choo, Lars Anderson,Tony Sipp, Jason Donald and a prospect (top 40 pick) for Swisher, Trevor Bauer, Drew Stubbs, Matt Albers, and Bryan Shaw.

    It's pretty creative maneuvering, but you have to have the right parts to make it work. All in all, I think the Indians came out ahead here. They got 5 MLB players under 30.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Meant Swisher and 4 guys under 30...Swisher for Choo pretty even, but they got 4 young guys who should help this year.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    If they were contending, I'd like it a lot more. But Swisher is 32 and they have one of the lowest payrolls in baseball. Based on this offseason, they aren't doing anything in the next 2 years (when Swisher might be worth his contract). If the Indians don't increase their payroll, they'll allocate 1/5 of it to Nick Swisher over the next 4 years. The Bauer trade was great, but this signing makes no sense for them. They should have kept the pick and the payroll flexibility.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    I agree, but there's no doubt they improved themselves short and long term when you put those two moves together. Waiting for the draft pick and not signing a player would have hurt them short term certainly. They could have improved themselves slightly for the long term by keeping the draft pick instead of Swisher, but that's a pretty movable contract. They can likely get something better than a 2nd round pick in return if things go south. In the meantime, they can try and make a run in a weak division. I think taken in context of the two moves, it was a worth risk.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I don't see that contract as movable at all past the first year of that deal. $14M over 3 years for a guy that's 33? That deal is going to get bad, fast. Several baseball guys have already commentated that they really aren't aware of much else competition for Swisher. Part of that was certainly the pick attached, but I have a feeling a big part was the contract he was seeking.

    What does Swisher get you, if you're the Indians? He doesn't make you a contender. All he does is clog up money over 4 years. And they don't have the budget to eat significant money like the Cubs do.

    Indians would have been much better off taking fliers on injured guys and trying to flip them like the Cubs are.

  • fb_avatar

    Hey John, I stumbled on this today. You may have already done something on this a few weeks ago and I either missed it or am forgetting about it, but thought it was something appropriate to Cubs fans:
    http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121120&content_id=40372360&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    I have seen that and Mayo's rankings. Thinking if draft was today, Astros would pick between Meadows and Manaea, leaving Cubs with choice of Appel, Stanek, and the guy the Astros don't pick.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I have high hopes we'll get our choice between Appel and Manaea. Not sure the Astros want to deal with Scott Boras right now. Obviously, if the season works out in such a way that someone emerges as a "can't miss prospect," all that is out the window.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Best case scenario for the Cubs is that Meadows or Frazier turns into that can't miss prospect. If there's only one "can't miss", that is. Obviously you hope at least two prospects emerge that way.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    John. If lets say Manaea and Meadows both become can't miss, who do you see the Astros taking?

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    Seems to me their time frame is better suited for Meadows. Hard to pass up the ceiling of a HS CF'er if he's at the can't miss level. Impossible for me to make that decision for them, but if Meadows reaches that level, how do you pass him up when your team is probably 5 years away like the Astros are now?

  • sorry if I missed it but any interest in the two cuban defectors who will be trying out for mlb teams in January? One is an outfielder and is 24, think Diaz is his name. The other may be an infielder. Don't know if they would fit with what the team is doing now.

  • In reply to eddie35:

    Talked about those guys last month in this article. Diaz is the better prospect. Both will be showcased in January.

  • Off topic - I asked Jonathan mayo where he thought Carlos Rodon, a college pitcher might be selected in June's draft. Mayo tweeted back "Short list for top of the draft ". It looks like the Astros might end up with him. I've read that he was out pitching Appel for much of this year.

    I wish that mlb would go to the nba's lottery system to prevent tanking for the first pick.

Leave a comment