Advertisement:

Cubs Notes: Samardzija to AZ talks rekindling? Boston playing hardball with Lovullo... and the return of Hank White?

Cubs Notes: Samardzija to AZ talks rekindling?  Boston playing hardball with Lovullo... and the return of Hank White?

Things are starting to happen quickly.  Let's update on a couple of things.

Lovullo Snag

Ken Rosenthal, who reported Lovullo would be getting an interview this week, is now reporting that there is a snag as there is some question as to whether the Cubs can ask for permission to talk to Lovullo.  The cubs have an agreement in place with Boston not to hire any of their personnel for 3 years, but Lovullo was not employed with Boston at the time that agreement was reached.  Does the agreement include even future employees?  It seems that's what everyone is trying to figure out.

But the fact that the Cubs haven't even asked is curious in it of itself.

There may be a decision on this one way or another by Thursday.   The Cubs likely don't want to go into the weekend before the GM meetings.

Coaching Staff

David Kaplan is reporting that he fully expects pitching coach Chris Bosio to stay on and things Henry Blanco may be in play for a coaching position if he decides to retire.  He also says that the Cubs have begun interviewing coaching candidates.

Maybe you're asking, shouldn't the manager be hiring the coaches?  Well yes and no.  I've just learned that the front office likes to hire half the staff and have the manager hire the other half.

Cubs, Diamondbacks to rekindle Samardzija talks?

Buster Olney tweeted,

There is an expectation that the Jeff Samardzija/Arizona trade talks will continue. Cubs reaching point where they need a decision on him.

This shouldn't be surprising.  It's been talked about many times here, most recently here, where we looked at what he might be worth. Arizona approached the Cubs about a trade and immediately rebuffed them when the Cubs asked for both Archie Bradley and Tyler Skaggs.

Perhaps the Cubs are willing to scale it down and the Cubs can meet somewhere in the middle.  LHP David Holmberg has been mentioned in the past.  Holmberg profiles as more of a #4 type starter though some think he can be more than that.

The Diamondbacks also have a surplus of outfielders, with Adam Eaton being an extra outfielder after A.J. Pollock got most of the ABs in CF last year.

Another scenario would be the Diamondbacks trading Skaggs and a prospect package.  Holmberg could be part of that package.  Striker Trahan would also be intriguing as a LH hitting catching prospect with power.

The Diamondbacks seem to like Jeff Samardzija a lot.  He fits their profile of athletic, hard-throwing pitchers and he has the kind of gritty, competitive makeup they like.  However, if the Cubs are really going to do well in this deal, they'll have to get other teams involved.

One such team would be the Nationals and from what I understand, they like Samardzija as well.   The Pirates could be another alternative.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • If "scale it down" means take Skaggs out of the deal or supplement it from the Cubs' side, sure. If it means anything else, AZ can take a hike.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Maybe the Cubs could throw in another player, like Darwin Barney or Christian Villanueva to make this work.

  • fb_avatar

    This sounds like a Lucchino hates Theo part 7. If he thought he could get Baez or Bryant for the Cubs to interview Lovullo, he'd do it.

    I could live with Shark for Bradley/Eaton. I would be happier if I knew we'd get Tanaka, but I'd say that is less than 15%

  • Also, the fight over Lovullo shows the difference in classiness of the BSox and Rays' FO IMHO. Lovullo wasn't employed by Boston when the agreement was made. We obviously don't know how specific the agreement was, but one would suspect that the spirit behind the agreement was that Theo would not plunder the coaches/FO staff that were there at the time he left/time of the agreement. We'll know the specifics soon enough, but seems pretty tasteless. And not just that part of it, but also a refusal to let your coaches move on and receive promotions. I hope it bites them in the butt in the future.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    It also strikes me as pretty tasteless (and even unethical) to not allow someone to explore a chance to advance their career merely to stick it to someone else regardless of the legality of it.

  • With the price of good pitchers getting so high we should acquire
    top young pitchers any way we can

  • In reply to emartinezjr:

    Maybe, but maybe because pitchers are so expensive, it would be better to obtain position players as they are being undervalued relative to pitchers. Just like the stock market you want to buy low, not high. if the price of pitchers is high, you don't want to buy them, you want to buy undervalued position players.

  • "I've just learned that the front office likes to have the manager hire half the staff and have the manager hire the other half."

    Does that need an edit?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to GAHillbilly:

    Tonight, the role of John Arguello will be played by Yogi Berra.

  • In reply to GAHillbilly:

    To bad McKay wasn't part of the FO's half.

  • Not surprised at Boston's response and neither should the front office. This will continue as long as Larry is there and Theo is in Chicago, childish games between grown men. I wish they would have hired Ausmus and never dealt with this. Sounds like Renteria by default.

  • Archie Bradley, Adam Eaton and Jake Barrett for Samardzija. Done and done.

    (Note: I don't think the DBacks would do that, but it's Kevin Towers, so who knows)

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    Kevin Towers + Kirk Gibson = the X Factor. Grit.

  • If Archie Bradley isn't part of the deal, I will consider the deal a bad one on the Cubs end.

    I believe they can certainly get more elsewhere.

  • In reply to Average Samaritan:

    More than Archie Bradley? Enlighten us.

    To get Bradley the Cubs will have to give up Shark and another player.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    I don't think so. Samardzija has had some success at the MLB level for a terrible team, and has the profile of a #1/2 pitcher.

    Bradley had never pitched above AA, and only a partial season at that.

    Unless the Cubs are convinced that Samardzija will never sign an extension, they wouldn't take that deal.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    What sense does this make from the Diamondbacks perspective? They were a .500 team last year, does Shark push them over the top in a division where there's a clear #1 team? No.

    Why are they going to give up arguably the best pitching prospect in baseball to get a guy that will pitch for you for two years when you're not expected to compete. Just doesn't make any sense.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    I never said Archie+.

    I just said Archie has to be coming to the Cubs. None of the other D'Backs prospects intrigue me enough. Skaggs had a bad year both in the minors, and in the majors. Pollock and Eaton aren't really needed here.

    I'd rather get young pitching elsewhere if we can't get Bradley.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    It depends on whether they think they can compete next year or not... Obviously, if they're interested in Samardzija, they were willing to give up long term pieces in order to win now.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    This is yet another case of painting the Cubs player in a positive light and diminishing a possible trade acquisition.

    I can spin it too and say Shark has given middle of the rotation results, he's only signed for 2 more seasons and Bradley profiles as a #1 pitcher and controlled for many years longer and for several million cheaper.

    Would you consider trading Ian Desmond for Javier Baez? Baez has never played above AA, and only a partial season at that.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Yemi:

    Can you give me an example where multiple big-leaguers were traded for one prospect? Honest question, just can't see the Cubs trading Samardzija + someone else for a prospect, never heard of that.

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    I never suggested multiple big leaguers for Bradley, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Yemi:

    From above (I responded to the wrong comment):

    "More than Archie Bradley? Enlighten us.

    To get Bradley the Cubs will have to give up Shark and another player."

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    That doesn't mean major league player, it could mean minor league player.

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    That's the thing though. Teams don't really trade a guy like Bradley.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    Shark has more value than Garza and we were able to get CJ Edwards, Mike Olt, Grimm and Neil Ramirez for him... The FO has to make sure they get more than that for Samardzija or it doesn't make sense... There is some precedent to gauge Shark's value there.

    And maybe I wouldn't trade Baez for Desmond, that scenario is apples to oranges... But you can make a point about trading Javier Baez and a throw-in for Lance Lynn and another prospect...

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Yemi:

    Fair enough, can you give me an example of a team trading an established big league starter plus prospects for a single prospect?

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    I don't know, I'm not well versed on trades in Major League Baseball history.

    I don't know what that has to do with any potential trade happening. I don't think Theo says...wait...we can't do it, it has never happened before. And that's just playing along with the idea that it never happened.

    Try google if the question is still bothering you.

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    Could to give me an example of a football team trading their entire draft for one pick? That didn't stop the Saints from getting Ricky Williams.

    I don't see what precedent has to do with anything at all.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Yemi:

    I was asking an honest question, dude. You seemed pretty well versed, to me. I thought you might know. I could do without the condescending response though.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Yemi:

    But really, I think precedent would have some bearing on future trades. I mean, it's not as though recent history is not a factor in determining value, is it?

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    So let's say there was a trade like that 10 years, you think it would have some bearing on Theo pulling the trigger now? I personally don't think it would have any bearing at all.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Yemi:

    No, I don't think 10 years ago would have much bearing. I think recent precedent, along with team need, would be the biggest factors in determining trade value, though.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    I don't think its about Theo pulling the trigger, or precedent. Matt was just saying that Trading a solid big leaguer and either another big leaguer or prospect for another prospect ALONE, Bradley in this case, never happens.

    Precedent is how prospect packages are put together, isn't it. That and need.

  • In reply to Ben20:

    I understood what he was saying.

    Would it make either of you feel better if the trade happened midseason when a prospect like Bradley is expected to make the majors?

    I wouldn't say it never happens. Like I said I can't name it happening off of my head as I'm not a baseball trade history buff but that doesn't mean it has never happened.

    I also can't name a 3 team deal that featured 8 players including 3 pitchers but I wouldn't say it never happened.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ben20:

    It wouldn't make me feel better, personally. I hope they don't trade Samardzija at all, even for Bradley (though Bradley would be tough to pass up). I'm still of the minority school of thought that Shark is a very good pitcher with the potential to be very, very good, if not great. I don't know where the sentiment that he is some glorified #3 or #4 came from, but I think that's ridiculous (not saying it came from you, I've just seen it here).

  • In reply to Yemi:

    "Could to give me an example of a football team trading their entire draft for one pick? That didn't stop the Saints from getting Ricky Williams."

    Ditka was also demonstrated to be nuts when he did it. Did indirectly help the Bears pick up a few more useless draft picks via Washington, though. Williams didn't stick with the Saints.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    Agree. Don't see any of the big names like Bradley coming back for Samardzija. Skaags might be acceptable if there are other good pieces coming back with him. IMO, if the Cubs are holding out for everyone's top pitching prospect, they might as well try harder to extend Jeff. I'd be happy to be wrong.

  • If this FO is really dictating half of the coaches, why on earth would they have left Mckay hanging for so long?....

    Just saw that Atlanta declined Reed Johnsons option. That's kind of surprising seeing how cheap he was. He hits LH pitching well, something we need...

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    I was wondering the same thing!

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    We could do worse than another season of Reed Johnson.

    Quality clubhouse guy that plays his ass off. Not the most talented guy,.... but makes great use of what he has.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    That's a great question. I'd be on board with a reunion with RJ!

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    Maybe he wasn't the cinch to return that we thought he was.

  • I don't see the Cubs getting a top prospect like skaggs or bradley in a trade for Samardzija. I would rather trade him at the deadline hoping his mid season numbers can improve his trade value.

  • Am I the only one who thinks getting Bradley is highly unlikely?

    Like I said last week...If I'm the Diamondbacks am I really going to give up a potential top of the rotation guy for two years of Jeff Samardzija? If you don't make a WS series run or at the very least make the playoffs in the next two years with Shark being a big part it's not even worth it. Dodgers look like they'll be the clear favorite in the West next year with everyone else in the west playing for second place and best case scenario looks like that dreaded wild card game. They'll be competing for that spot with the likes of the NL East 2nd place team (Braves/Nats) 2nd/3rd place NL Central teams (Cards/Pirates/Reds) and even some in division competition (Giants). If they were neck and neck with the Dodgers I could mayyyyybe see them doing something crazy, maybe..., but they aren't there. They are probably the 8th best team in the NL.

    Sure he could resign with them and that makes his value a bit more, but one of the chief reasons the Cubs might be shopping him is because they aren't close on a contract, you can't make a Bradley for Shark trade with hope you'll resign him when all signs point to him being difficult to resign with his current team.

    Bradley is their Baez, the guy who they deem untouchable unless someone blows them away. A lot of the time when trades are mentioned on here you see the Cubs getting a huge steal with the trade not making much sense for the other team.

    I would liken it to trading Ian Desmond (2 years left on his deal, solid/good player, like Shark) for Javier Baez (top 10 prospect just like Bradley).

    Some people might say, the Cubs aren't contending so they wouldn't make that trade, well the Dbacks aren't contending either, and lets just say the Cubs were a 90 win team, would they even consider that trade?

    No. Let's give up on the Bradley dream.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    I agree Bradley is highly unlikely. But maybe Skaggs is more accessible, with some smaller pieces.

  • In reply to KSCubsFan:

    Skaggs plus is definitely possible -- and more than just small pieces, could be Skaggs plus a top 100 type prospect and another prospect/player or two.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I think it would have to be Skaggs plus, I'm with you there but would we have interest in Davidson and Owings? Those two don't make a ton of sense to me based on the other guys their age we already have around. Other than those guys, can they offer any other top 100 type guys? With Bradley being too good and Shipley being ineligible I'm having a hard time finding a match.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I really think they need to try to get Eaton. He's lefty, and a has shown signs of being the kind of on-base leadoff hitter the team could use. Not as the main piece, but definitely a piece.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    He could be a useful player for them. A top of the order player for the short term. I don't know if he's viable long term even though he's young. He's a bit of a tweener for me. Has a good CF bat but his range in CF is a bit short. In a perfect world, he's a 4th OF'er, but as we know, the Cubs roster isn't a perfect world.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Yeah, he's a starter in the short term -- the longer term is a question mark. I think he's the third or even fourth player in the deal, but I like what he brings to the table.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    I think he's a great 4th OF'er a and a fringe starter. Could be useful as a bridge player. I like that he's pretty patient and can run a little.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Bridge player is a perfect label. He could instantly start in the OF for the Cubs tomorrow. Who knows after getting some ABs w some good instruction, maybe he can flourish.

    In parts of 4 seasons in the minors, he had a .348/.450/.501 and a 951 ops w 106 steals in 140 attempts. Not great, but maybe he can work on his base stealing skills along w a little more patience and you have yourself a mini choo minus the power but w much better defense.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    I'm not up on all this stuff like John and others, but I've read articles in the past discussing what prospects' value is in a trade. For instance, this article links to other articles on the subject [http://www.piratesprospects.com/2012/06/updating-the-trade-surplus-values.html]. From what I gather, Shark is definitely projected to be at least as worth as much as Bradley, if not more. Not career-wise, but at least over his contract.

    I don't know how that works and I don't know to what extent front offices use that stuff (though I'd think if they're all about WAR and advanced stats/metrics, they'd be all over stuff like this).

    In short, the reason you trade for Shark if you're AZ is that you project that he'll provide you more wins and sooner than a pitching "prospect" will over the next few years or so.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    That's only using his Fangraphs WAR.

    Baseball Reference has his WAR for the last two seasons at ... 2.8. A 1.4 average.

    ESPN has his WAR for the last two seasons at ... 2.3. A 1.3 average.

    Using John's 5 million per win example you'd get $14 million for two seasons using his Baseball Reference WAR. Which is equal to the estimated $14 million he'll get over two seasons.

    You'd get $13 million if you used ESPN's WAR. A $1 million deficit.

    If you averaged all three numbers together, by adding all the WAR's, then dividing by 6 you'd get... 1.82, then you times that by $5 million per season, twice...and add the numbers, the mean for the three numbers is... 18.2. Only a $4.2 million surplus from the the original $14 million estimate.

    I don't see why Fangraphs WAR should be considered better than the other WAR's. I can see why some people might prefer it, but since there's no clear cut way to calculate it I feel it's best to take the average of all the WAR's.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    Take it up with them! I had no clue that there are different formulas for WAR (as I said above, I'm not up on this stuff, I just read the article some time ago).

    Anyway, FWIW, Baseball Prospectus has him at 5.3 over the last two seasons (fairly close to the Fangraphs WAR).

    In any case, this is about projections. What is Shark's projected WAR over the next two seasons, as Bradley's value is a projection as well.

    You don't have to agree with the projections, but the case can be made that Shark is worth more than Bradley. All I'm sayin'.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    You're right about BP. I copied and pasted from the other article before I found out about the BP formula. If you were to recalculate the numbers it wouldn't make a significant difference though.

    No matter what his WAR is projected at over the next two seasons, it's not something that's going to make to put the Dbacks over the hump. I don't see a middle of the road team parting with someone who has such high potential for a 2 years of a middle of the rotation starter. Do you think it makes sense?

  • In reply to Yemi:

    Why shouldn't the Cubs try to get Bradley? They already asked for Bradley before... Samardzija is under control for 2 more years... There's no rush to trade him... The Cubs have the upper hand, this is a piece the Dbacks need more than the Cubs at this point... If the Cubs don't get Bradley on the table they can turn around and look for offers somewhere else... Perhaps talk to the Rockies about CarGo...

    In fact, they could throw-in someone like Arismendy Alcantara or Christian Villanueva to sweeten the pot... But the Cubs should not settle for a package lesser or even equal than the one they got for Garza because Samardzija has more value than Garza.

  • In reply to Caps:

    They should absolutely try. No question. No reason not to ask.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    As they say - if you don't ask - the answer is generally no.

  • In reply to Caps:

    I think the points Yemi has been trying to make the whole time are pretty simple.

    1. Arizona's window of contention is no better than the Cubs. Why trade Bradley?

    2. Shark for Bradley does not seem logical and is not likely to happen.

    I think one of the main points Yemi might be missing is the following.

    1. Towers and Gibson don't necessarily deal on a logical plane if you know what I mean. :)

  • In reply to givejonadollar:

    I'll counter your point:

    "Arizona's window of contention is no better than the Cubs. Why trade Bradley?"

    With my own question: If AZ believes their window of contention is no better than the Cubs, then why are they interested in trading for a guy who, if the D'backs are similar to the Cubs, be becoming a free agent as their window to contention opens up?

    So either you're wrong or AZ thinks differently than you do. Either answer explains why they would trade Bradley.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    I have nothing invested in the Bradley dream. I'm with you on that. Arizona would just let him pitch instead of trading him for another pitcher at this point. BUT I will say that I don't think Baez has been deemed untouchable. In fact, I think he's the most likely to be included on any marquee trade the Cubs make.

  • In reply to Ben20:

    Bradley hasn't pitched in AAA so I don't think he pitches in the MLB until late 2014 more likely 2015.

  • In reply to KGallo:

    He's almost ready. I didn't mean that they'd literally start with him in the rotation. But once the season starts, it's only a matter of 6 to 8 weeks before he will likely be able to match Samardzija's output. I think it's fair to say he could start the season in the majors and post a 4.34 ERA over the course of a season at least. Point was that they won't trade HIM for young controllable pitching.

  • In reply to Ben20:

    He wouldn't be up until late August or Sept. Seasons can be won and lost in may and June.

  • In reply to KGallo:

    LOL Oh Thanks, KG. Seasons can be won or lost in lots of different months in lots of different ways.

    I'll take the under on late August. There are a lot of 22 year olds pitching well in the show. Bundy would have been there already if not for TJ right?

  • ARI isn't the best fit ,IMO. There is a significant gap between Bradley & the rest of their SP prospects, and we aren't getting Bradley. I just don't care too much for Skaggs & Holmberg is pretty ho-hum.

    I think TOR, BAL, and even PIT make more sense.

    Kevin & Tulane what do you guys think of ARI's non-Bradley talent?

  • I am a big fan of Alcantara, but if we put Samardzija and Alcantara together in a trade for Bradley and Skaggs, would that make any sense. Would love to get Bradley, but either way I do not see them giving him up, just thought I would throw something out there.

  • In reply to jswick23:

    I meant someone less than Skaggs. Bradley is a top 10 prospect, so I do not see any chance for Arizona agreeing to trade him straight up for Jeff.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jswick23:

    Bauer for Gregorious.

  • In reply to Eric Foster:

    but bauer had some clear big question marks, and those question marks have proven to be accurate. So far it looks like Arizona might have made out well in that trade although it really is too early to tell. Bradley is more highly thought of than bauer was at the time of his trade.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Andrew:

    Bauer came with quite a few red flags.
    But Gregorious as the return was still questionable.

    Towers is a little out of his mind.
    I don't put it beyond the realm of possibility we can get something done for Bradley.
    Although it is unlikely.

  • fb_avatar

    John,

    In your article, do you suggest that the Cubs would take only Holmberg and Eaton for Samardzija? It sure seems to me that the Cubs would be getting the uber-raw end of the stick on that one.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Chris Trengove:

    I doubt it.
    Holmberg and Eaton might not even get Travis Wood.
    I really think this is how they plan to acquire an ace. And it's the smartest way to go about it.

  • In reply to Chris Trengove:

    Not at all. That would be an awful trade. Just throwing names out there without making specific pages.. Holmberg is a guy that's been mentioned before. Eaton comes from an area of depth for them. I'll take a closer look tomorrow.

  • If Arizona isn't willing to part with Bradley (which is likely), then the for me the next most intriguing option John mentioned is Giolito. Washington wants to be competitive now so Samardzija is more valuable to them than a player like Giolito who is a few years away from helping them.

  • In reply to North Side Irish:

    He'd be intriguing, but it's still a real tough get.

  • Who is the returning "Hank White?"

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to DropThePuck:

    Henry Blanco

  • In reply to DropThePuck:

    Henry Blanco...it's a rough Spanglish translation...

  • In reply to DropThePuck:

    Veteran catchers often make good coaches.

    And Henry is/was a good vetran Catcher.

  • In reply to DropThePuck:

    Kind of a nickname he developed. Blanco is Spanish for white.

  • Giolito is an interesting name. K Zimmer ? Gausman? A Sanchez? We're not going to get Bradley but we can surely do better than friggin Skaggs + other fillers. Just my .02.

  • fb_avatar

    No Bradley, no deal.
    The Cubs need to play hardball, here.
    Skaggs would be a downgrade from Samardzija. And we already have a plethora of mid/back rotation guys like Skaggs and Holmberg.

    We can hold out for a young ace. If Arizona actually parts with Bradley, that's great. It's not super likely, though. We can toss in Shierholtz, but we wouldn't need to give up any prospects for an unproven, yet very intriguing commodity.
    If Washington wants to get involved, we can talk about Gioloto.
    The price will rise, strictly based on demand.
    These are all very good things.

  • In reply to Eric Foster:

    Schierholtz adds no value to a trade. Dbacks aren't expected to contend this year and Nate is only signed for one more year.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    What do you mean he adds no value? No team wants a 20 hr RF with above average defense and a low salary? C'mon now... They wouldn't want Schierholtz because they have a bunch of OF'ers, but to say they are not expected to contend? I mean, they were a .500 team... They can get Samardzija and 1 more piece and they're already contending in a Division that totally falls off after the Dodgers... Weakest Division in baseball probably.

  • In reply to Caps:

    Well they're currently 19th in MLB to win the WS according to the Vegas odds. 8th in the NL. 3rd in their division. I'd say that falls under "not expected to contend"

  • In reply to Yemi:

    And if they weren't expected to contend, they wouldn't even be looking to trade for Samardzija... Especially after they finished 2nd in their division... Of course they can contend.

    Big difference... The Cubs are not expected to contend and they will rarely look for a 2-year rental while giving up their top prospects... Same with the Astros or Marlins... Those are teams not expected to contend.

  • In reply to Caps:

    Of course they can contend, any team can contend.

    We're talking about expected to contend. Two different things. You're changing the subject. I wouldn't say a middle of the pack team in a league is contend worthy, you can switch your definition to what you think constitutes as contending to justify your point, sounds a little ridiculous though. Calling the 19th team in baseball a team that is expected to contend. Doesn't even sound right.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    Go tell that to Kevin Towers, not me... He's the one making moves to contend, not me... So, I'm not being ridiculous, it's him... Go tell him his team won't contend then... Just because you or the Vegas odds say to not expect them to contend or rank them 19th, doesn't mean they won't try... Go tell a Dbacks player they are not expected to contend and you'll get the point... I don't think the Dbacks follow the Vegas odds or go to an oracle to predict their future before they make moves...

    And it's not about what the Vegas odds say... It's about what the Dbacks org think, if they think they can contend, then they will act like a team that can... And mind you, finishing 2nd in their division is already contending since they didn't get disqualified until the final month... Keep in mind, the Dodgers won like 50 out of their last 60.

    And again, it's the weakest division in baseball, they certainly have a shot.

  • In reply to Caps:

    He actually hasn't made a move to contend yet. He hasn't traded Bradley for Shark as many have suggested. So he isn't being ridiculous.

    The Cubs didn't get disqualified until the final month either. Woooooo!!! We're contenders!!!

    You're calling a team in the bottom half of baseball a team that is expected to contend, I'd call that ridiculous.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    Stop comparing apples to Jupiter... The Dbacks had a .500 record and finished 2nd in their division... That makes them contenders... They don't have to be top 10 in the Vegas odds for that, they just have to beat the Dodgers... They are the ones to make that decision, not Vegas odds...

    And they have not traded for Samardzija, but they are interested in him, as they were by the trade deadline.

    I don't care if you think that's ridiculous... Predicting the future or telling a GM what to do based on the "Vegas odds" is not only ridiculous but laughable too... Let me know when Towers tells us they are not expected to contend according by the Vegas odds, so they are not going to try, OK.

  • In reply to Caps:

    The Vegas odds are a guide.

    So you agree that the Dodgers are the clear cut #1 in the West. The Diamondbacks are most likely going to be fighting for 2 wild card spots with the likes of 2nd/3rd place in the East (Phillies/Braves/Nats), 2nd/3rd of the Central (Cards/Reds/Pirates) and SF in their own division. So they're going to trade arguably the top prospect in baseball in order to get a guy to compete with about 5 other teams, for 2 spots, for a one game playoff to get into the playoffs? Sounds like pretty low odds to make the playoffs. Even if they think they're contenders I'm sure they know what they have in Bradley and having him around when the Dodgers start to age in a couple years is a better choice then giving him away and hoping to contend for a wild card spot for the next two years with Shark.

    I could see the Diamondbacks getting Shark, but that's why I don't see them giving up Bradley, it's not worth it, doesn't make sense for them.

    I see you don't get it, so I'm going to say it again, the Vegas odds are a guide.

  • In reply to Caps:

    To say that they won't give up Bradley because he's their #1 prospect is one thing... To say they won't give him up because Vegas odds doesn't expect him to contend is another...

    I find it unlikely they part with Bradley because of his price... But I don't think it's impossible for it to happen... I'm sure that if they can make the playoffs next year and what they think they need for that is Samardzija, they will go for it, instead of waiting 2 years for Bradley to take them.

    Again, there's a precedent, I'm not talking about a guide or an oracle, I'm talking about actual FACTS... Some teams have given away their top prospects for a chance at the playoffs... Whether that happens with the Dbacks or not is to be determined but that doesn't mean the Cubs shouldn't aim for it.

    Personally, I think that if they don't give up Bradley, then the Cubs should listen to other teams and analyze which one is the best offer... Garza was traded for a good package, Samardzija should net more in a trade.

  • In reply to Caps:

    "To say they won't give him up because Vegas odds doesn't expect him to contend is another.."

    Oh good, because I never said they shouldn't give up Bradley because of Vegas odds. I actually have a pretty long post near the top of this page saying why they won't give him up.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    I don't think the D'Backs are looking at the oddsmakers when making baseball decisions.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Me neither.

    It's just a guide to show they aren't contenders.

  • In reply to Yemi:

    How are they not contenders and finished 2nd in their division? And how can that predict the future? The Red Sox went from last to WS winners... Did Vegas odds predict that?

  • In reply to Caps:

    They aren't contenders because they're a .500 team. Just saying they finished in 2nd place fails to tell the whole story.

    I guess the Cubs should go all in this season, sign a bunch of free agents, I mean the Red Sox went from last to first right?

    Again...it's a guide, it's not a set in stone fortune teller.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Caps:

    Although it seems to be the norm around here lately. but What is the point of arguing about semantics? I blame it the frustration this time of year because there is no more baseball.

    All one is saying that Bradley is like a Strasburg/Harvey/Cole type prospect to the Dbacks who may or may not be 1 middle of the rotation arm away from competing and they prob won't trade him for 3/4 bull dog starter on a good team who may have the attributes to be a #2.

    The other argument is perhaps the Dbacks may want to go all in a la the Royals for James Shields ( although more parts were involved and Shield is a much more proven pitcher and perhaps better)

    At the end of the day, lets just get a manager, go get ourselves some tough acting tanaka, a middle of the order bat to protect Rizzo and lets see where we are in June..................

  • In reply to Yemi:

    The Diamondbacks front office will decide whether they think they're contenders. For the purpose of forecasting what they'll do in the offseason, that's the only opinion that matters.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I don't think anyone was trying to say otherwise.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    It's what I've been saying all along... It doesn't matter what Vegas odds or any other guide say... Whether they can contend or not will be determined by the Dbacks FO... They finished 2nd, there's no reason to think they can't contend... And just because a guide says they're not expected to contend, doesn't mean they won't try.

    If they didn't think they could, this article wouldn't be posted here since Towers will definitely not give up long term pieces if they are not ready... He comes from Theo's school.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    You haven't been saying that all along at all...

  • In reply to Yemi:

    Not sure what you're talking about. I wouldn't pretend to speak for the Diamondbacks office. If they believe they can contend and want to trade prospects for win now players, then that's their decision. They're not going to let me, you, or Las Vegas make that decision for them.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    If you think I haven't, then you're not reading... You're being too argumentative... John and I are basically saying the same thing... That the Dbacks are not looking at a guide to determine whether they can compete or not.

    I'm done with this... Talking about it any further is not productive.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    My response was to him, I had to hit the reply button under your name though to have the response below his.

    And again, I don't think any of us have any bearing on the Diamondbacks front office, or Vegas does for that matter, so...let's stop saying that...

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Please don't test me by being condescending. It won't end well for you.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    I can't tell if the Incognito line was directed at John or Caps, but you guys may want to back off a bit. This is creating more heat than light at this point.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Strike 2. Debating whether you even get a strike 3 right now. You could make it easy for me by giving me a good reason.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Yemi:

    I respectfully disagree.
    He's one of the better platoon options in the game. He's not a deal-breaker one way or the other. But if the D'Backs are serious about 2014, a guy like Nate or James Russell makes it easier for Arizona to part ways with one of the top 10 prospects in the game.

    Arizona dealt with a lot of injuries, last year. I live in the bay area, and the Giants fans were just as worried about the Diamondbacks as the Dodgers. Good young team. Solid core. Scrappy, 110% effort guys. It's not unheard of that Arizona gives the Dodgers a run for their money, next season.

  • John I just have been wondering are their any more big International free agents after tanaka like 2012 with cespedes and soler or is there just the one big prize?

  • There are going to be 5 teams interested in Samardzija. The Nats, Pirates, DBacks, Royals, and Blue Jays. They all have interesting pitchers and other players. Then if you the teams that have interest in Castro like Cards, Pirates, Mets and Marlins now the Cubs could have a hell of a rotation in the making.

  • In reply to KGallo:

    I would think that of the two the Cubs would part with Shark quicker than they would Castro. With the fact that this rumor keeps coming up, I would almost be surprised if they didn't pull the trigger on a trade for shark, but what is the likelihood that Castro will be moved as well?

  • In reply to supercapo:

    I think the possibility of trading Castro is greater then people believe. I keep hearing that Baez can handle SS. I think this makes Castro expendable and I believe they can get good value for him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to KGallo:

    Why do it now and not in a year, though? I'm all over the place on this, I know.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Because there is interest now. Right now there are 4 teams interest but in a year there may only be 2. There are 2 FA out there that will cost a draft pick. They need to use the numbers now.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to KGallo:

    That's fair, thanks.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Welcome.

  • In reply to KGallo:

    So how surprised would you be to see both of them traded before Feb?

  • In reply to supercapo:

    Not surprised at all.

  • In reply to KGallo:

    I think you'll see the dominoes falling quickly after the Tanaka announcement. These leaks suggest that the Cubs aren't very confident in obtaining him (or the posting price is more than they are comfortable paying).

  • In reply to Eldrad:

    I think it will happen before or around the same time.

  • In reply to KGallo:

    Kevin, what is the trade for Shark and the trade for Castro you'd hope for (what teams and what players)?

    And how does that compare to what would realistically happen?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to KGallo:

    I sure hope not. That would set the rebuild back years. I certainly hope we don't trade 2 of maybe 5 core players we have at the big league level.

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    If the players they got back in return made it to Chicago by the end of 2015 and the big prospects in the minors made it, they'd all be hitting Chicago at about the same time. Contrast that with Shark becoming a FA at the end of 2015.

    Just saying. I doubt Theo and Jed would trade 2 "core" players if they didn't see the value there.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubbie steve:

    I'm not saying there wouldn't be value, I trust Theo and the gang would get a whole s*%t load of value, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't set the rebuild clock back a few years. If all of our prospects pan out, plus the prospects we trade for pan out, and they all converge on Wrigley in 2015, and nobody's over the age of 25 with no more than a year of MLB experience, that makes for a real exciting team and possibly a winner in 2018!

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Matt, my point is that Shark will be gone by the time the team is ready to contend anyway. So how can trading him do anything negative to affect the rebuild? I could see the argument with Castro, but not with Shark. He (Shark) most likely won't be apart of the team when they're getting ready to contend regardless!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubbie steve:

    Steve, I see where you're coming from, but I don't see it as a foregone conclusion that he won't be around. The urgency that everyone is creating doesn't make any sense to me. He's controlled for 2 more full seasons (I understand that more control = more trade value). But the fact that the two sides have been unable to strike a deal up til now doesn't necessarily indicate, to me, that they won't. It also doesn't mean Shark is an egomaniac demanding Kershaw/Verlander-type money (as some people have implied). This is likely Jeff's one shot at a big, eight-figure contract. I don't see why it's such a big deal that he wants to maximize that opportunity. The idea that we can only build a team around elite talent that is willing to sign team-friendly extensions for the good of the Wrigley-faithful is fairy tail stuff.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Matt, you said "The urgency that everyone is creating doesn't make any sense to me."

    Who's everyone? That would be Theo and Jed, no? They're the ones, from everything I've read and heard, who've put a deadline for an extension as this offseason. Unless I've read and heard wrong, and unless the trade rumors are wrong, I'd say they created the urgency. Does that mean they'll trade Shark for 50 cents on the $? No. I don't think anyone believes that. So yes, in that sense, it isn't a forgone conclusion that Shark gets traded. But if he does not sign an extension, there's no reason to believe he will remain a Cub. There's definitely no reason to believe he'll be a Cub in 2016 unless he signs an extension. And everything I've read says he has to sign that extension this offseason. Why? To maximize his value to the Cubs, either by tying him up financially, or by trading him and maximizing the value of the return.

    So unless you have a great reason for thinking that Shark is going to give in to Theo and Jed, I see no reason to expect an extension. The growing trade rumors seem to indicate that as well.

    So if that's the case, what is the point of keeping Shark around until he becomes a free agency? Where's the value in that at? Where is the destroying of the core by trading him before then?

    Why the urgency? Because this is (presumably) the apex of Shark's value in a trade, or at the very least, his trade value has already climaxed so that from now on, the longer he's a Cub (and refusing to extend his being a Cub for longer) the more has value goes down.

    I just don't see any strength to your argument.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubbie steve:

    I haven't read anything about a deadline imposed by the front office, I could have missed it. I'm aware they've said it was a priority this offseason. If that is the case, it would be one of the few things I've disagreed with the FO on so far. They can't expect every player to sign away their chance at bigger money if they want to remain a Cub. I think that would be short-sighted.
    I admit, I'm a biased fan of Shark, have been since he was at Notre Dame (and I'm not an Irish fan). I'm not saying he's off limits. I'm saying I would have to blown away (Skaggs + doesn't blow me away). And to trade both Samardzija AND Castro this offseason sets us WAY back, even if we get a surplus of talent.
    Here's an honest question: Does Samardzija have more value now, or after a terrific year next year with one less year of control?

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    If it hasn't been said explicitly, it sure has implicitly for the reasons I've stated.

    I do not disagree with you on Shark's end. I'm not bashing him at all. That said, both Rizzo and Castro signed long-term deals. Any front office's job is to spend as little as possible to get what you want. Heck, that's how capitalism works in general. I don't necessarily disagree with your expectations that the Cubs cannot lock him up for more than they want to. Nor do I necessarily disagree that they should (though admittedly, I'd rather have Bradley et al than Shark). At the end of the day, maybe he's way overvaluing himself or their projections for him or much much different than his view of his potential. The dance is what it is. And I think in the FO's case, they have a number in mind and they have a certain prospect value in mind.

    I guess at the end of the day, I don't see Shark signing anything other than a realistic extension. I don't mean that in a negative way. I know he believes he can be a great pitcher. I think the FO and the fans believe the same. But he hasn't put it all together to really push the issue with the FO. Maybe, just maybe, they do not believe he is going to maximize his potential before hitting FA.

    As far as the question, I'm sure Kevin and John can give much more informed answers. But I believe the answer is that the extra year of control makes him worth more now than a year from now. Of course it is somewhat hypothetical because the market next year will dictate who would be interested and to what extent. In other words, IMO because of the extra year and the presumed competition (at least in interest) for him, this is the off season to do it.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubbie steve:

    Sorry, must have missed your response, earlier. You make some good points, we're just not on the same page.

    Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I think the urgency has been more speculation by fans/ media than implication from the powers that be. Of course they want to sign him on the cheap, I certainly don't blame them for trying, even for playing hardball in negotiations. I just think you can't draw that line in the sand for every talent that comes up in your organization.

    The biggest difference between Shark and Rizzo & Castro is age, those guys will be 30(ish) when those extensions are up, plenty of time to cash in big again before retirement.

    Now we don't know what kind of numbers are being thrown around behind closed doors, but I've heard rumblings that the biggest hangup is a No Trade Clause. If that's the case, and the numbers are close, I see no hurry to ship him out. Now, if he's being totally unreasonable and asking for in-prime-ace-type money, my whole argument goes out the window.

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    With ya.

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    Matt

    I don't see your concern. I think Bryant making it all the way soon is a given - much quicker than expected when drafted based on AFL numbers (with Olt as back up if he doesn't). Alcantara is not a million miles away, Baez is less than a year away and if either of them don't make it then there may be a case for moving Villanueva into the middle infield.

    Now I know the argument is that not all these prospects will make it, but if they don't we are still a long way from the promised land even if we keep Castro.

    Regards Samardzija, we have him for 2 years at best if we keep him - and get a supplemental first round pick if we give him a QO. As hard headed as he seems to be I can see him losing half a season to release himself of the constraint of the lost draft pick for the signing team.

    Lets be honest we are not going to contend in the next 2 seasons so let's try and get a Bradley or Giolito or even a Glasnow headlining the package for him now and these players will be ready and cost-controlled when we are ready to contend in 2016.

    Not trading them now is as daft as the trade that Hendry made for Garza. Core pieces are only of value when you are contending.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Hustlelikereed:

    Personally of all the Cubs players. I think Kris Bryant should be the only one untouchable. To me, hes our Evan longoria, our Joey Votto, our Chase Utley, our Mike Trout, our Freddie Freeman, our David Wright, our Ryan Braun.

    He's as lock as a superstar we have ever had. Sure Baez, Soler, Almora ( people really love him) all have talent, but none are as sure or cant miss as he is. Personally I think he could hit cleanup for the Cubs this April. Partly due to his poise, maturity, and talent, partly due to the state of our poor cubs offense.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Hustlelikereed:

    I totally disagree with your last statement. Core pieces are what you build around in order to contend. If you keep trading them away for younger, potential core pieces, you will never contend. I don't understand the sentiment that if a guy won't sign an extension 2 years early he never will. Shark's peripherals were pretty damn good in 13, yet everyone thinks he should just settle for back of the rotation money because he had an ERA over 4. He was 28th in FIP and 12th in xFIP and 5th in k/9 among qualified starters in the NL. That's one hell of a rotation if he's in the middle of it! Personally, I hope this guy's on our staff for a long time.

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    Here is the thing even if all the prospect hit can not win the WS right now. There is no pitching coming. They have the next Samardzija type player in Pierce Johnson but they need a Verlander or Greinke. Samardzija has an outside chance of getting them that but Castro (who if things go right will be their #7 hitter) could net them that type of player. Will this hurt them short term at SS? Yes but it could be a one year hiccup at SS and a two to three year fast forward in the rotation.

  • In reply to Matt McNear:

    It won't setback it could speed it up. If they can get back the right pitching back you are now looking like a complete team, instead of developing a team like the Rangers of the late 90s early 2000s.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to KGallo:

    I think you put way to much stock in your future lineup cards, my friend. To say Pierce Johnson is "the next Samardzija type player" when he's never thrown a pitch in AA is ludicrous. I can't even respond to that. You want to trade not just 40% of the core at the big league level, but the two most veteran pieces. If you don't think that will turn back the clock, I don't know what to say. Teams cannot be carried completely by 22-25 year old guys with less than a year of MLB experience, not matter how talented they are. I'm not saying the trades couldn't make them more talented, overall, but when you're trading big-leaguers for prospects, the clock turns back.

  • In reply to KGallo:

    Thanks

  • In reply to KGallo:

    As a fan who has tried to make peace with dying without seeing even a WS appearance, let alone a Championship, I like this. If the Cubs could achieve the rotation you suggest and the position prospects join them, I may just have hope!!

  • fb_avatar

    I don't know if this is Cherington or Lucchino orchestrating this snag - probably Lucchino, since Cherington and Theo are on pretty good terms - but it really makes the BoSox front office look bad, like spoiled brats. It's just a nasty thing to do, to hold a guy's career hostage because you have a snit with someone else. And while I don't think it'll stop anyone from taking a job with the Sox in the future - after all a job is a job, the Sox are a winning franchise - but in a situation where all other factors are equal it might be enough tilt some close calls away from them.

  • I don't like what Arizona has to offer. I like Archie Bradley but they're not offering him.

    I love the idea of a Hank White reunion! Maybe he'll be our manager when the one that we're about to hire gets fired.

  • I really hope the Royals get involved in talks for Shark. They are in more of a position to overpay then they were last year with Sheilds. We can rip the Royals off, trade with them.

  • Would we all agree that Giolito has the highest upside of any of the arms that we could realistically expect for Shark?

    Who is the most likely to pay the toll Epstoyer will demand. I'm inclined to think TOR and WAS.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Carl9730:

    The rumor is the talks are with AZ, but, yeah, Giolito seems possible and the highest ceiling pitcher that's possible. However, Towers does crazy stuff every now and then.

  • well this is for sure , Shark and Dad agree to a team friendly deal very soon or He will be traded this offseason and I trust Theo to bring back good value . Castro I want to see in a Cubs uni next year, build his value ith a rebound year , and if not then Baez should be ready late 2014.

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    If Baez adjust as quickly to AAA as he did to AA than he could easily be called up by June/July after 250-300 AB's.

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    i agree and if Castro has a good Starlin 1st half then His value is thru the foof and can get probably 3 of a teams top 10 prospects easily and bring back arms .

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bryan Craven:

    If Starlin has a good first half, wouldn't it also be smart to just keep him? He is on a potentially very team friendly deal and is young. If he has this hypothetical first half of the season as you are saying, then I think it is smarter to keep that piece. I'd rather trade players that don't have two all star games under their belt.

  • In reply to Demarrer:

    i agree, i am not saying trade Castro no matter hat i am saying if He has a good 1st half it really boosts His stock IF Theo decides to move Him. win win for the Cubs .

  • The reason why the Cubs aren't paying Shark top dollar is the same reason why the Cubs won't snag Bradley or Giolito. Shark is a very good MLB pitcher, but he's no ace even though he wants to be paid like one.

    Arizona has the pieces to make it work. Skaggs stock isn't what it used to be even though his numbers last year were inflated by some bad luck. Jake Lamb and Stryker Trahan are very interesting pieces. Barrett is almost MLB pen ready. Holmberg has mid-rotation upside. Shipley could be a ptbnl.

    The Cubs are in a fine position to wait for top dollar on Shark. Who knows maybe he finally puts together a full season that backs up either a monster contract or some super elite prospects coming back in return.

  • One way or the other, the situation will be resolved this offseason. They take too much risk in letting him pitch any longer if they don't think they can sign him. Furthermore, his value drops if the acquiring team only gets him for one pre-FA season. Situation seems to be coming to a head. There's no rush on Castro.

  • For me, it is about shooting for the moon and at least they will reach the sky... The Cubs should ask for Bradley if it's the Dbacks, Taillon if it's the Pirates, K Zimmer if it's the Royals and so forth and so on... And play hard ball... They can stick to their guns for a while and still get value late in the offseason if they decide to give in... There's no reason to sell low, especially with a guy with 2 years of control...

    We saw the Dbacks trade Bauer for Gregorious and at first we thought they were crazy, but it worked... But we also saw the Royals trade Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi for James Shields... So, some teams will indeed part with their #1 prospect if they are desperate enough.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Caps:

    I like Zimmer, but I wouldnt mind Ventura and Duffy.

    To me w as bad as this team is and it looks like the FO is looking to hit the power ball ( although in a very analytical and scientific way) , I think our best option is to get as many lottery tickets ( players) as possible

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Caps:

    I wouldn't even mind sending Smardija and others in a blockbuster over to Cleveland for Bauer and Kipnis. Jason Kipnis is the type of player would we perfect for us and hes the type of player jedstein loves. Hes gritty, plays a premium defensive position, hits left handed, has pop, takes walks and had a .284/.366 w an .818 ops. The 17 hrs 84 rbi's and 30 stolen bases aren't so bad either. IMO, kipnis is just scratching the surface of his talent.

    So Samaridja, Schierholtz, Pierce Johnson, Brett Jackson, Josh Vitters, Darwin Barney ( we can dream)

    For TrevOR Bauer, Jason Kipnis, and Chen Lee, and ptbnl depending how well our guys do

    They are going to have to move Asdrubal or Kipnis pretty soon to open a spot for Francisco Lindor. Surely they will end up moving Asdrubal, but maybe Jedstein can pull a big move out.

  • Still hoping for a Castro-for-Stanton blockbuster (if not, I'd prefer Starlin stay put).

  • In reply to Average Samaritan:

    If they trade Stanton there is no reason for them to get Castro.

  • In reply to KGallo:

    ITA, the whole reason the Marlins would trade Stanton is salary. Getting Castro makes no sense, seeing that he makes more money than the Marlins like. If/When the Marlins do trade Stanton , it will be for a boatload of prospects

  • For those of you freaking out about Castro I am working on a top 10 or 15 (I haven't decided how high I am planing on going yet) with help from people I know in the industry. Last night I talked to some people about Castro who they all still really liked, but I asked for scouting scale number floor and Ceiling for both Castro and Baez.

    Castro. Baez
    Hitting. 55/70. 45/70
    Power. 50/55. 60/70
    Field. 50/60. 45/55
    Arm. 60/60. 60/60
    Run. 55/55 50/50

    The floors are going off that they are right now. The only big difference in the two is floors of hitting and power. Most likely the true is somewhere in the middle.

  • In reply to KGallo:

    Nice piece. When's that list coming out.

  • I feel like I have a decent sense of Shark's value on the mkt. I don't feel like I have such a handle on Castro's worth.

    There are some real strong pros and cons for his value. Cons: he was downright bad y last yr-TAV and OPS + were brutal; mental errors remain a major impediment to defensive consistency. Pros: the contract, he was basically a .300 hitter in age 20-22 seasons; there's a widely accepted sense that he hasn't touched his power ceiling; and , most simplistically, he's an established SS with a viable offensive game.

    Breaking it down a bit, he should still have significant value- contract being a really attractive factor. If they move him and I'm not dying to, they need to get darn near elite young SP prospects in return.

  • In reply to Carl9730:

    Basically his performance last year hurt him but he has shown hr can compete at a higher and his contract has given enough value to counter his bad season. His value is around 2 to 3 top tier prospect or young players combination.

  • In reply to KGallo:

    I like the Castro to Cards trade with us getting Miller and Martinez. Two young power arm SPs would do wonders to help our lack of pitching situation.

    I really like Shark but if he and his Dad can't compromise then a trade with Washington for Giolito would be a risk worth taking.

    And like you have pointed out, Baez would likely out perform Castro so we wouldn't really miss Castro.

  • fb_avatar

    I would guess that the Cubs agreement with the Red Sox would include "future" employees. Basically anyone who is employed by the Red Sox during that three year stretch.

    I will say that I felt the Red Sox were unreasonable when they asked for compensation for Theo to begin with. It's customary to let employees interview and take jobs elsewhere with compensation when the job is a promotion which is what Theo was getting going from GM to PBO

  • In reply to Pooch7171:

    With the way things have played out, it isn't unreasonable to think that. But outside of the knowledge that they haven't allowed him to interview, one would think that the spirit of the agreement was that Theo didn't plunder from a system he already knew, as in, it only applied to staff already under contract with the Red Sox at the time of the agreement.

    But either way, not allowing your employees to try to get promotions is bad business in my opinion.

  • Anyone have any thoughts on Cubs trying to sign Joe Nathan? Other than he is 38.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    I think he'd be great short term add. Bigger question may be why would he come to rebuilding team at the end of his career.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    He might not. I guess it would depend on if he has a lot of interest. You think many teams would be after him?

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    It makes absolutely no sense to spend a significant amount of money on a closer for a team that currently has a limited budget and is unlikely to complete. Resources are much better spent elsewhere.

  • In reply to Eric:

    Do you think he would be that expensive? Do you think a lot of teams will be interested?

  • believe a soler sox game is on mlb network today/tonight. forget the time

  • fb_avatar

    Good info. Thanks. I'm calling home right now to have someone set the DVR

  • We need to trade with the Mets. Noah Syndergaard. High Ks, low BBs. Both Skaggs and Bradley walk too many people. Package a deal with Samardzija + Castro for Synder + Rafael Montero + Gavin Cecchini

Leave a comment