Advertisement:

Report: Cubs claim Jacob Turner

Report: Cubs claim Jacob Turner
Jacob Turner

Okay, it's ESPN's Jim Bowden and while he flubbed the deadline, I can't believe he wouldn't tweet it if he wasn't absolutely, positively sure.  His reputation would not withstand that.  Besides, he tagged the Cubs account on this.  I am giving him the benefit of the doubt

So a tentative "Woohoooo!" for this tweet....

Cubs claim Jacob Turner on waivers and have the rights #Cubs@Cubs

We do know an NL team has claimed him.  The more reliable Ken Rosenthal gives us this,

Source: #Marlins’ Turner claimed by NL team. Likely to be dealt. Off 40-man due to DFA; can’t be pulled back w/o going on irrevocable wvrs.

UPDATE: The young but also reliable Chris Cotillo confirms Bowden.

This lines up with an interesting bit of news in that the Rockies don't appear to be interested in the 23 year old RHP.  It may have to do with Turner being out of options.  His roster situation makes him a difficult fit for some teams but the Cubs have done well to give themselves plenty of flexibility in that regard.

The Marlins have shown interest in some of the Cubs prospect depth and with good young pitching in Nathan Eovaldi, Jared Cosart, plus hard-throwing young arms like Tom Koehler and Brad Hand, the injured Jose Fernandez and Henderson Alvarez, and prospects like Andrew Heaney, it's doubtful they'll seek starting pitching.

The Marlins are the Cubs polar opposite when it comes to the team's farm system.  You an make a case that after the Colin Moran/Jake Marisnick deal to the Astros, the top 10 Marlins prospects are all pitchers.  The 5'8" 2B Avery Romero, C JT Realmuto, and OF Jesus Solorzano are among their best position player prospects, but Solorzano is raw, Realmuto looks like a backup, and Romero is undersized, so he presents some risk as well.

The Cubs have plenty of position player depth, starting with 3B Christian Villanueva who looks like the odd man out in the Cubs competitive 3B derby.  The Marlins seem to be happy with 3B Casey McGehee for now, but he may not be a long term answer.  The Cubs also have players like Mike Olt, who can help as soon as this season and an Olt-Turner swap makes some sense in that it is a struggling former top prospect for struggling former top prospect deal.  The problem with Olt, however, is that he would have to clear waivers.  So would Villanueva, for that matter.

There is also native Floridian Dan Vogelbach, who really doesn't have a spot to play for the Cubs because incumbent Anthony Rizzo is an all-star 24 year old signed to a long term extension.  Though that would almost certainly be too much.  The Cubs also have rule 5 eligible infielders at Class A in Gioskar Amaya and Marco Hernandez that could entice.  Jeimer Candelario is even further down the road but does not need Rule 5 protection this year.

Those are just a few names to throw out there.  It is purely speculative on my end.  It could end up being much less than that given the Marlins don't have a ton of leverage and perhaps the Cubs consider this little more than a flyer.  Maybe there is a reason why Turner is about to be on his 3rd team by the age of 23.  But it should give you an idea of how the Cubs match up pretty well with the Marlins in that that they can give them position player prospects with the option of MLB or near MLB ready prospects or solid prospects who are further away but could give them some temporary roster relief.

I don't know what the Cubs think of Jacob Turner other than we know they asked for him in a Matt Garza deal two years ago.  Perhaps things have changed since then as Turner has struggled, but given that was partially affected by nagging injuries and a subsequent drop in velocity, he does seem like the kind of player the Cubs could take a shot at.  It now appears that they will with the only question being how much they are willing to give in return.

Turner's peripherals as we have mentioned are solid, particularly his dropping walk rate (2.6 per 9 IP. 6.5%).  The 6'5" Turner fits the mold of someone the Cubs can tailor to Wrigley, in that he can throw high velo two-seamers with good plane.  It worked well with Jason Hammel and Scott Feldman the past two seasons and Turner is more gifted than either pitcher.

As to whom the Cubs will have to let go, it has to be someone from the 25 man roster because Turner is out of options.  If we go by the Last In-First Out rule, it could be Chris Valaika, who isn't as needed with Javier Baez on the roster.  Blake Parker would be another choice but seems less likely to me.

In other news that was wholly expected, the Cubs DFA'd Nate Schierholtz and activated Kyuji Fujikawa.  That move may lessen the need for a reliever, so let's not let Parker off the hook just yet.

It looks like he Cubs could become August buyers as they look to get the jump on 2015.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tags: Jacob Turner

Comments

Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    Please please please let this happen! I've been following him since he was drafted. He's got the stuff and he's still young. I honestly think he could be the TOR pitcher that everyone thought he could be. If not I'm sure he would be a solid #3-5

  • fb_avatar

    Was really hoping the Cubs claimed him. What are the chances that this deal gets a little bigger. Something like Christian Villanueva and Dan Vogelbach for Turner and maybe someone like Andrew Heaney?

    It might lessen the risk a bit more than just trading for Turner alone....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bocabobby:

    Your dreaming if they trade Andrew Heaney whose almost MLB ready and has TOR talent for a mainly glove only AA third baseman w doubles power and a bat only below avg fielding first baseman at A plus.

    If they did it, boy would the cubs future be set. Perhaps in someone prospects list,they could have 5 in the top 10 w Baez, Bryant, Heaney, Russell, and Soler w none of them much more then a year away.

  • fb_avatar

    Chicago Cubs ‏@Cubs 2m

    #Cubs today activated RHP Kyuji Fujikawa from the 60-day DL and designated OF Nate Schierholtz for assignment.

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Doubt Marlins would take Schierholtz, even Theo couldn't swing that con.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Oneear:

    Why wouldn't the Marlins take Schierholz. Its not as if they have a better RF.

    (don't worry, I'm kidding)

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    I admit I remain a fan of Scheirholtz - but of the guys on the roster who can be spared - he's probably the best candidate for DFA. He's unproductive offensively, and even Sweeney is hitting better and with more authority of late.

    I wish Nate well - wherever it is he lands.

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Should have traded Nate when he had value.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    When did he have value? They couldn't get a taker for him for much at the end of last season - when he was actually playing well.

    What makes you think they could do any better this year with him showing no power, and hitting no more than about 0.220 at his peak all Summer?

  • In reply to drkazmd65:

    At the all star break last season he had some value. And we stayed at the craps table too long and lost our money.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    You were involved in the discussions, huh?

    Comments like this crack me up - it is quite possible we were not offered anything that made moving Nate worthwhile.

  • In reply to Eric:

    guys like schierholtz have almost no value (every year they can be easily replaced). look at bonafacio and Russell they together could only produce a low level prospect.

  • In reply to bleachercreature:

    its only average or above average starters that have any real value to a playoff contender. obviously top bats can produce some returning talent as well.

  • In reply to bleachercreature:

    A switch hitting catcher that was a 2013 2nd Round pick is a "low level prospect"? He was the Braves #8 ranked prospect and now he is our 13th.....Bonifacio we picked up off the scrap heap and Russell had worn out his welcome with quite a few cubs fans.....that's a good value trade for the FO!

  • In reply to Eric:

    So you know we were offered nothing? That cracks me up. We could have gotten something for him.... If marmol and Barney got something in return then Nate would have.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    You must be a blast at the casino.

    "Hey NextYear, congrats on winning a million dollars!"

    "The hell with that, I lost ten bucks at blackjack...[grumble, grumble, grumble]"

  • Does anyone know what his velocity is like now?

  • In reply to JLynch2247:

    Fastball is at 92.2 MPH, up from 91.6 MPH in 2013

    so nothing of concern

  • In reply to MendyMania7:

    With a 92.2 MPH average fastball, what is his ceiling if he gets his issues fixed?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to JLynch2247:

    He was said to reach 95, but pitches in the 91-93 range if I remember correct.

  • How about some of the almost ready guys, like Vitters, Jackson, Sczur? Wouldn't they be a bit more enticing, then high/low A ball guys?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to lokeey:

    Jackson I feel would be the ideal swap for both teams, even though I'm not entirely ready to give up on him.

  • In reply to Subiedude19:

    hahahahahahaha. Jackson is completely done, toast, finished. That being said, I'd be ecstatic if that was the deal.

  • In reply to lokeey:

    Vitters and Jackson are in the almost ready group? Almost ready for what?

  • In reply to Quedub:

    hahaha that made me laugh

  • In reply to Quedub:

    Ready to be taken off our roster.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    Almost ready for nametags and hairnets.

  • In reply to Behn Wilson:

    ready for AAAA

  • fb_avatar

    Yeah I think we all saw that move coming. Nate just wasn't performing. Someone will pick him up. Don't know what Kyuji will offer. He was ok, of course it may have been injury related.

  • In reply to Sean Holland:

    They have an option on him for next year. Seems they'd want to get some idea at the ML level of just how "back" he is.

  • Any chance the deal would be expanded to include multiple minor leaguers going in either direction? Turner + pitching prospects for say Olt + Vogelbach?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ike03:

    I kinda posted the same thing but it was lost in the spam filter. I kinda like the idea of trying to add another pitching prospect to lessen the risk of taking just Turner for one of our guns....

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    It's not going to take a gun to get Turner, just a couple scraps that we won't need anyway.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    Olt, maybe. Vogelbomb is an overpay. Hed be very valuable if the NL were to adopt the DH in 2-3 yrs.

  • Now this,... could be cool - especially if somebody like Vogelbomb or Villanueva were acceptable in return by the Marlins.

    I like these two guys - but they are really the odd men out on the Cubs current roster.

    Would prefer the Cubs NOT swap out Olt at this stage because in a lot of ways I think that would be selling low on him.

  • In reply to drkazmd65:

    I do think Vogelbach and Olt are too much.

  • 2nd question, why would the Marlins give up on a 23 year old pitcher who had a 3.73 ERA last year as a 22 year old?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ike03:

    Lets not question it and hopefully we get him haha.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ike03:

    This guy has a plausible explanation.

    http://marlinmaniac.com/2014/08/06/marlins-make-mistake-giving-jacob-turner/

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    Thanks for that, Joel. Interesting read.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    I hope he's right. Thanks!

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    I found this part very intriguing...

    "If it were me, I’d turn Jacob Turner into a two-pitch reliever with a potential 7th or 8th inning role. Those two pitches would be his two-seam fastball and his curveball.

    His two-seam fastball touches 96, sits 92-93 and has the life and movement you cannot teach. The GB% on that pitch was a strong 63.6% this year with 0 HR allowed. His curveball can be hellacious, in 2013 he posted a .147 batting average against and a 27:2 K:BB ratio with his breaking pitch. Inexplicably, he ha€™s used it half as much this year.

    As is common, it is very likely Turner would see a velocity jump as a reliever. Couple that with a simpler repertoire and shorter outings and you may just develop a dominant setup man. "

  • Voglebach would be too much for a waiver claim imo.. but wouldn't mind anyone else named

  • fb_avatar

    Now that is 2 of the 4 change of scenery candidates we talked about in June John. I think you are giving the Cubs me personal correspondents.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Richard Hood:

    That was suppose to be my .... my personal correspondents.

  • In reply to Richard Hood:

    I think it was supposed to be your personal "correspondence," unless you happen to own a couple of reporters.

  • In reply to Richard Hood:

    ?????????????

  • In reply to Richard Hood:

    Brett Jackson/Josh Vitters for Turner. Id like to keep Vogelbomb in case the NL adopts the DH.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to mutant beast:

    Naw the other 2 were also outside the organization that I thought would be an outside chance that a change of scenery would help them tremendously. I wanted Ackley from Seattle and the other was Duffy from KC.

  • I don't get it. The Marlins could have found a trading partner after they DFAd him, but before they waived him. Instead, they waived him. If we claimed him on waivers after he was DFAd, it's not like typical waivers this time of year, is it? It says if the Marlins pull him back, he just goes to irrevocable waivers. So the Marlins would pull him back, them put him on irrevocable waivers, then we'd just claim him again.

    Seems like the Marlins have no leverage here. We claim him, we get him, the Marlins shouldn't get anything back. Seems like Rosenthal may have had his processes mixed up...?

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    It is peculiar. It appears that Miami’s only leverage against the Cubs would be the possibility that Colorado might not pass on Turner a second time if he were to reach outright waivers.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    So either way, their alternative is to lose him for nothing to either COL or to us... Me thinks if we gave them a bucket of used baseballs, they should be happy.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    Yeah. There really isn't leverage on their side. They'd have to hope Theo and Jed are desperate, and trade deadlines have shown they don't blink. Either lose Turner for nothing at all or take anything you're offered. Seems like a big goof up on the part of their FO.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Or, they could build some good will.

    MIA is an organization rich in pitching prospects and void of position player prospects... either way, it appears we are in the drivers seat.

    COL does need young pitching so many were surprised they passed. They may not again... So we have some risk of losing him.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    Why would they pass once but not again? Not saying you're wrong, but it just doesn't male sense. They could've claimed him first and refused to negotiate, and this ensured they got him for nothing by forcing a second trip to waivers. Instead, they didn't and risked letting 28 other teams claim and trade for him.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Why do people take stuff from the curb that is free when they wouldn't give you $0.50 for it at a garage sale?... because it's FREE!

    The other scenario is if the Cubs win tonight and the Diamonds lose, then they pass us in the waiver priority so then COL & ARZ both would have to pass on him. We are basically MIA's only shot at getting something so...

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    If you saw something at a garage sale that was $0.50 and wouldn't pay for it but grabbed it on the curb, you didn't really want it. You're risking not getting it free on the curb. The analogy still doesn't correlate. It would be like hanging onto said item until the end of the sale when everyone left and then offering a nickel or nothing. The Rockies simply could've claimed him and forced the Rockies to waive him again (getting him free at the curb). If the Rockies had claimed him the first time around, the Marlins would have 0% leverage. Now they have maybe 5-10% with the Cubs. And yet they didn't. If the Rockies had wanted him they could've got him for nothing by claiming him this time around! Instead they have risked not getting him! There was basically zero chance that he'd go unclaimed, but Colorado passed. It's like the guy at the garage sale telling you "$0.50 or I'll put it on the curb" and you walk away as he places it on the curb and say "if it is still there in two days I'll grab it." Didn't really want it very badly, did ya?

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    *The Rockies simply could've claimed him and forced the MARLINS to waive him again

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    I admitted it was a low risk scenario. I'll even give you that it's unlikely that COL Fo was asleep at the wheel here... they probably just dont like/want him.

    But you don't seem to want to admit there IS some risk of them grabbing him, however slight.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    I never said that. I said "Not saying you're wrong, but it just doesn't make sense. ". Because it doesn't. They could've claimed him this time and refused to trade anything for turner and forced Miami to re-waive him and get him for free with 0% risk of not getting him. Is that incorrect? Is it not, therefore, logical and more than probable that they just don't want (or can't, given the 25 man roster limits) him??? That is all I'm saying.

  • In reply to TulaneCubs:

    The Marlins could not trade him after the trade deadline without putting him through waivers. For some reason, they couldn't trade him before the deadline, probably because he is out of options, and would have to be kept on the 25 man roster.

    But whatever the reasons, the Marlins are now over a barrel. They can only trade him to the Cubs, and there is certainly no reason to give up a Vogelbach anyone of that caliber. The only way the Cubs can fail to get Turner is if the Marlins take him off waivers, put him on irrevocable waivers, and have the rockies take him. (Or the Padres if they fall a little before the deadline).

  • fb_avatar

    This should be interesting. I wonder who they are gonna trade for Turner?

  • In reply to Mark Lemke:

    Amaya. Hernandez. Szcur. Heck, maybe we can dump Bjax or Vitters and open up some roster spots.

  • fb_avatar

    I would be very surprised if anybody wanted those guys, other than maybe on a minor league deal over the winter. Szczur might be attractive as a secondary piece. The other two are 5A type players if that.

  • Hopefully one of the guys on the 40 man bubble, Amaya, Hernandez. I would think Jackson or Vitters could be second pieces going back.

  • So the Cubs will now have 7 starters right:

    Arrieta
    Wood
    Jackson
    Dourbont
    Turner
    Wada
    Hendricks

    Certainly Wada goes down for Turner right? What happens when Dourbont comes back? Jackson to the pen? Hendricks goes down?

  • In reply to Ike03:

    Acquiring Turner creates roster problems, so I'm thinking this only makes sense roster wise if someone on your list goes to Miami. Of course, the best scenario is EJax is shipped there. Cubs would have to eat most, perhaps nearly all of his salary, but I'd do that in a heartbeat.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TTP:

    No, we can just send Wada or Hendricks (or Valaika) down. The Marlins DON'T want someone they have to have on their 25 man roster. They had a roster crunch that got this whole ball rolling.

  • In reply to TTP:

    I don't think this is totally out of the question. Obviously eating nearly all of the salary.

    They are 5.5 games out and will have to take a player on the 40 man. Ejax is a decent guess on who could help them now. If they go the prospect direction then John's speculation seems good - Hernandez.

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    Marlins wont have to take a person on 40 man

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ike03:

    Dourbront could stay on the DL until September. For that matter we might find the same UCL irregularities that the Astros found on Aiken and have him sit on the DL for a few weeks, give him a couple "rehab" starts in the minors and pull him up, coincidentally, when rosters expand to 40 players. There are lots of games that can be played.

    What has me baffled is why MIA didn't look hard for a trade partner before the deadline. They seem to have painted themselves into a nasty little corner.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    In house and possible arms for next years starting rotation (before free agency) we would have 10 options:
    Arrieta
    Wood (L)
    Jackson
    Hendricks
    Wada (L)
    Beeler
    Jokisch (L)
    Straily
    Doubront (L)
    Turner

  • Imagine if Vitters and Bjax both get shipped in this.. that would be so awesome

  • In reply to CubfanInUT:

    Why would that be awesome? If the Cubs want to get rid of them, all they have to do is release them.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    Right. I don't understand all of the hate for those two. I realize there were expectations but haven't people run them down enough. Goodness. We get it.
    Both of them may be released tomorrow, but the front office has let go of a few others before them and, also, left some other guys unprotected instead of them (from a good system).
    My guess is that, if either of them is released, there will be some reluctance on the part of the front office.
    I don't think either of them will be stars, but I do think they'll both have a role in the majors for a good amount of time.
    Jackson plays the game hard and could hit nine-hole and play center on a decent team.
    I could still see Vitters hitting 20 out in the show. I think both would fit better in the AL, but could be a decent platoon together in the NL possibly for a team like the Marlins. I've said before that I'd like to see that platoon in left in September for the Cubs. I think both of them will have better careers than Lake.

  • fb_avatar

    Did I miss something? Pena is starting for the Smokies tonight? When was he promoted? I missed that.

    http://www.milb.com/index.jsp?sid=t553

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    He was, mentioned it in a tiny recap blurb. Easy to miss :)

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Thanks, John

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John, is there a time frame that this deal with Jacob Turner has to be done in before it's null and void?

  • In reply to copinblue:

    48 hours.

  • O/T; but with SD naming a new GM and A.J. Hinch resigning from his job as AGM (he interviewed for our Manager opening) I'm wondering if Theo/Jed/Jason have/will create a role for him?....

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    The more the merrier. The Cubs already have 2 assistant GM's in Randy Bush & Shiraz Rehman, who are like the operation managers for Theo/Jed. McLeod just got the extension and he runs the entire minor league system as VP. However the Cubs top positions for the Pro's is the Director of Pro Scouting, Joe Bohringer & Director of Baseball Ops, Scott Harris...which is meaningful because Hinch in his prior position was the was the Vice President of Pro Scouting for the San Diego Padres... So maybe they would create a similar position for the Cubs where he is above the three Directors of Pro Ball, the two above, and Chris Moore the Director of R&D. That would make a top dog for the Pro Level just as McLeod is the top dog for the Minors.

    was the vice president of professional scouting for the San Diego Padres

  • Olt and VBomb are too heavy a price for a DFA , I offer up someone in Boise or Kane .

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    I don't think it will be either of them either. I think a Rule 5 eligible may be more likely.

  • The Cubs have been giving up pitching talent and getting Low A in return (Maholm, Feldman, Russell), I would anticipate this being one of the same type of deals. So Amaya or Hernandez makes some sense. I do not know if I trade away Vogelbach yet as he is not truly blocked yet.

  • In reply to Gator:

    My gut says it is one of those two (Amaya, Hernandez)

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John, who is more viable to go from those two? - My guess would be Amaya as he is positionally locked at 2B or potentially an OF spot but has not played there. Hernandez plays a premium position and is a plus defender.

  • In reply to Gator:

    I think it depends on preference, Amaya more likely to hit, but Marco has more utility and thus a higher floor.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John is that too much to give up given the Marlins will lose him regardless and their only leverage is the possibility the Rockies will claim him the second time through waivers? Seems like The Rockies wouldn't sudden change their minds...if they don't want to claim a guy without any options, what would change? I only see anything of value being offered as a move of classiness by the FO to help the Marlins' FO save face in their screw up

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    This wasn't a screw up - the only options the Marlins had was to send him to the bullpen or trade him. The only way to trade him is to put him through waivers.

    The more I think about it the more I'm sure the Marlins and Cubs have a trade already worked out.

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    It is a screw up because they DFA'd h and made it so they have little to no leverage. The Cubs could tell them to get lost and then the Marlins are forced to give him away for free (whether to the Rockies or Cubs or whoever may fall in front of the winning cubs). If they don't make a trade, they're forced to place him on irrevocable waivers and get nothing in return. The Cubs know that. I'd call that a screw up...

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    But they wouldn't have DFA'd him if they didn't have a deal in place, right? Maybe they had another option I'm not understanding.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    The option was to not DFA him. To manage his options better (I'm assuming this was Miami and not Detroit). They apparently had some options before they got to this place. Like keeping him. Either they screwed up or they valued him little. Either case seems to mean a very insubstantial return in trade. Just isn't much leverage

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Like I said, if they valued him they wouldn't have DFA'd him without first having a deal in place.

    The possibility exists they really just think he's a worthless bum. Meaning they willfully just released him and will get next to nothing in return.

    But either way they made a willful adult decision that hardly qualifies as a screw up. It sounds from the manager that the latter may be true:

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/05/4273744/miami-marlins-release-pitcher.html

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    If he had any options left, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He would've probably been traded for more than they'll get now or be pitching in AAA until next year. If you don't like "screw up", fine. Whatever you want to call it, the roster options on a former top prospect and headliner in the Anibal Sanchez deal is about to be lost for nothing or close to nothing. If you want to call it great roster management, fine. I call it a screw up that they're now at this point...unless they value him how people here value Vitters or Jackson. In which case, Miami should only expect an unautographed Javy Baez bobble head and a thank you note.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    They were the first guys I thought of too. Turner alone will be relatively cheap I think. But what about an expanded deal to swap some of that hitting for pitching. Isn't this the perfect opportunity?

  • fb_avatar

    Marlins ownership seems extremely cheap - how about just some cash for Turner?

  • John, Can players on the 40 man roster be PTBNL's? I ask because if not it would seem to eliminate the BJax, Vitters, etc. And make it more likely Amaya or Hernandez with the other one going to Boston for Doubrant.

  • fb_avatar

    Here's a question. Who do we have that is Rule 5 eligible and we probably can't protect? Wouldn't that type of guy be a perfect candidate for the Turner trade?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bocabobby:

    I guess John already stated this idea.... Doh!

  • Bjax/Vitters and c vill.. I can dream

  • John, would turner be considered a prospect still? If so, where would he fit into the Cubs top 20?

  • In reply to Naf023:

    No, not a prospect anymore.

  • In reply to Naf023:

    he has 264 MLB Innings pitched. He lost his prospect status 3+ years ago

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    I was going to say somewhere below Rizzo but you stole my thunder!

  • Long term if Turner's mechanics in his secondary pitches which appear to mess up his two-seam can be corrected and he returns to a TOR young pitcher, this could change things. It could allow the off season roster development to

    A) Seek out a FA starter but also open trade possibles,
    *dump EJackson
    *trade Wood (if Strailey and/or Doubrout are regrouped as well)
    OR
    move Turner to a dominant late-inning reliever allowing Ramirez to be a starter

    it just adds to a growing stable.

  • Man, I hate to give up a possibly useful piece for a DFA'd guy. Villanueva may be the odd guy out at third, but he would seem to have a little more value than that, wouldn't he? I've been rooting for Amaya, and would personally hate to see him go. Same with Hernandez.

  • I like this claim.

    Living in Metro Detroit, the tigers were very high on him just a couple of years ago.

    Not totally sure the Marlins screwed this up by putting him on waivers. They might see something wrong that we don't right now. However, he is definitely worthy of taking a chance on and could be a good fir on the Cubs.

    Maybe we give them someone like a Trey Martin / John Andorelli / Dustin Geiger?

  • In reply to DetroitCubFan:

    that should read "good fit"!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to DetroitCubFan:

    I thought maybe you were referencing this as some kind of Christmas (tree) present.

  • Time to give Mr Turner some quality time with Bosio and Derek Johnson. Maybe even with Manny Ramirez(just kidding).

  • Nobody's asking - what's the catch? If Turner has value, why didn't the Marlins make a deal before the trade deadline?
    I'm not questioning anyone's judgment - Turner seems like a great pickup. But, I'm suspicious. It's just TOO easy. What isn't Miami telling us?
    Hopefully, it's a "change of scenery" thing and Bosio can "fix" is issues, but something still smells funny...

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    They don't have a spot for him on the 25 man and they can't send him to AAA. He wasn't valuable enough to help a contender at the trade deadline so the options were limited. It's very plausible that the Marlins and Cubs have a trade worked out for a mid tier prospect like the two options that john mentioned.

  • In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    Hernandez is an overpay IMO as a pure SS and given Miami's lack of leverage.

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    The catch is that Turner is out of options. Any team that takes him will have to keep him on the 25 man roster. Most teams wouldn't want to do that.

    That isn't just for the rest of this year. That is forever. He either has to make the team out of spring training, or he is gone. Not a very good trade candidate.

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    Roster crunch for most teams, since he was on the Marlins 25 man he has to go to the team hed have been traded tos 25 man, since he was out of options.

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    The Marlins must feel that they still have a shot at the division (or at least a wild card) to make this move now. Interesting...

  • is there a time restriction by which the agreement with the marlins have to be reached?

  • In reply to Csanad:

    Yes. The Marlins must work out a trade with the Cubs or withdraw him from waivers within 48 hours.

  • OT... Heard that the Cubs had a private workout @ Wrigley today for Cuban OF Rusney Castillo.

    Any word on how that went?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    Hasn't he been doing the same thing for several teams?

  • Tip of the hat to John, x 2. Who called the Cubs claiming Turner? Who predicted that Schierholtz would be the DFA casualty when Fujikawa returned? Nicely done. BTW, I will be in Peoria this evening catching the Cougs game. Hopefully the rain holds off this time. Blackburn on the bump. I'll try to post some info.

  • We aren't expecting any value from Scheirholtz, got more than we expected for Barney, and the Marlins shouldn't expect much for Turner. Miami has no leverage here. Although as some have stated it might be a chance he give someone from our roster a fresh start. If Turner is not put on the 25 man roster, does he have to go through wavers again (which of course would make no sense)? Perhaps Turner also has a calf muscle needing DL time :) However the details work out I love the move.

  • In reply to Cphil:

    Yes. If Turner is not kept on the 25 man roster, he has to go through release waivers. If not claimed, he would be released and could be re-signed to a minor league contract, as they did with Stewart a couple years ago. However, it is extremely likely that he would be claimed off release waivers.

  • fb_avatar

    I saw this guy pitch for us when his name was Chris Vostad...

  • Awesome report. Thanks.

  • Would he jump into the rotation?

  • The Cubs are not sending down Valaika. They just can't. It has to be a pitcher. Parker/Wada go down or Villanueva gets dealt in a seperate move. If they go with a 9 man bullpen and just Ruggiano and Lake on the bench I am going to go out of my mind.

  • fb_avatar

    This is the first waiver wire guy I've been optimistic about all year.

    Still has a ton of potential as a Bosio special.

    This guy really might have potential for an Arrieta-like turnaround. Not saying he will pitch like Arrieta has been but definitely can right his own ship. A former top-10 prospect level talent could be a pretty decent #3 if we pick up Lester.

    Straily, while he doesn't have the talent of Arrieta or even Turner wouldn't be a bad #4 if Bosio & Johnson can right some wrongs.

    And the Doubront/Wood competition should be fun.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    His stuff is just a tad behind Arrietas. He needs work on his command of his secondaries. Hes become a better strike thrower, just not throwing quality strikes consistently/

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    The depth is really getting nice. The odds are one or 2(dreaming) of Turner, Doubrant, Strally come to something good. Please!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bilbo161:

    I would expect 2 of them to work out, while the other can serve as a Villenueva type swing man. They have all gotten out plenty of major league hitters already.

  • Interesting. It seems that with the unique situation of Doubront, i.e. he goes on irrevocable waivers if the the Cubs & Marlins don't work something out, that the Marlins really have no leverage and aren't expecting much in return, as they knew this was the scenario when they put him on the wire. I think it's going to be a very small price. Amaya might even be too much, but since he is Rule 5 eligible it's not a bad guess. Maybe a Carlos Penalver who is way down the org depth chart when it comes to shortstops, or maybe Candelario after an off year although the org likes him more than I do, Trey martin as a long shot flyer? I'd love it to be Jackson/Vitters but that's probably less likely

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Turner not Doubront. #brainlapse

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    I say even less than Vitters/BJax.

    Like EJax.

    (justkidding)

    But actually I was also thinking Penalver would be a good choice.
    Lower down depth chart, and slightly flawed seems like a great candidate to trade for a DFA guy.

    Of course we could talk more if they want to deal from their considerable minor league pitching depth

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    RE: "Of course we could talk more if they want to deal from their considerable minor league pitching depth"

    That's an interesting thought....maybe the two teams could use this as an opportunity to trade a bit of strength for strength, i.e. Pitchers for Hitters...with a focus on secondary type prospects from each team to shore up the organizational depth of both clubs.

  • Guys, I wanna go back a little on those names. I think it may be less of a return than I originally thought. I updated the piece a little bit.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    It makes sense. I think Amaya might is a pretty good guess because of his Rule 5 eligibility, and with better options to protect (Hernandez in my opinion) and a chance he gets snatched anyway. What do you think of names like Carlos Penalver who is way down the org depth chart when it comes to shortstops, or Candelario after an off year (although the org likes him more than I do), orTrey martin as a long shot flyer? I'd love it to be Jackson/Vitters but that's probably less likely

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Penalver and Candelario make some sense.

    A very smart FO exec once told me that if you see a guy get traded multiple times at a young age, there might be a reason for it. Word gets around in baseball. And it may be a reason (just speculating here) why the Rockies took a pass.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Well, Rizzo got traded twice, so I'll just assume that's what we're dealing with here and that the Cubs got the next steal.

    Separately, wouldn't it make more sense to (try) and trade someone from the current 40-man since they'd have to make room for Turner on it anyways? That's versus a non-40 guy that would be Rule V eligible.

  • In reply to PenFoe:

    I wouldn't assume he is Rizzo. I wish that were the case.

  • In reply to PenFoe:

    Rizzo was traded to Hoyer both times though.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Hmmn, good point. Hopefully the Great and Powerful Bosio, i.e. the Master of Mechanics, the Oracle of ERA, the Wizard of WHIP, the Conjurer of Control, the Guru of Groundballs, (you get the point) has seen something in the video scouting that he thinks he can fix/adjust with Turner. I believe in Bosio! (ejax notwithstanding).

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    I like the wizard of WHIP.

    But I think we have to add Marmol & Veras to the dud list... Just shows Bosio is Human after all.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    It seems to me those are not good ways to evaluate Bosio's effectiveness. If Marmol or Veras were talented enough to "fix" they would both be on another roster right now. Some guys like them, Z, Volstad, etc. are beyond hope.

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    He's just a man...behind a curtain!

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    Boston can teach it, but the students must listen, believe, and put into action 100 percent. Veras, Marmol, and Jackson most likely did not follow the script.

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    There MUST be some sort of award for coming up with this many great titles for Bosio!

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John. Let me again express how impressed I am with your knowledge and the enormous amount of information you possess. You have a unique talent for explaining the complex so it makes perfect sense. I thoroughly enjoyed your "Symphony" explanation of the "plan" yesterday. I absolutely love Cubs Den. I feel like I am taking a graduate course on the Chicago Cubs. When I discuss the Cubs with fellow baseball fans, they are amazed with my (your) knowledge. Thanks again for the great and timely info!

  • In reply to Big Blue:

    Thank for the kind words Big Blue. I really appreciate that.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Great if so, but any other creative moves to make to protect additional players at this point?

  • Given Miami's lack of leverage, one of our surplus OF-ers seems to be the logical choice here. Vitters, Jackson, Kalish, or the just-DFA'd Schierholz, that's my guess.

    I agree with the above, Christian Villanueva is way too much to pay for a DFA player, and Vogelbach? Please. No, it'll be some fringey-at-best guy, I'll put my foot down and say with Schierholz (with Cubs picking up all remaining $$ beyond MLB minimum).

  • Do you think the Cubs view Turner as strictly a starter or does he have the stuff to be a starter turned elite bullpen arm like Neil Ramirez.

  • Turner has never had a K/9 of more than 6.2 (this year), and has a .323 avg against.. He doesn't seem to miss many bats. Is he like a Beeler who needs to get ground balls to succeed?

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Throws harder and better all around stuff.

  • His era+ is 64 and his dip is 4.00.. that isn't that bad

  • *fip

  • Just read that Cole Hamels was claimed off of waivers. Think the Cubs did it?

  • In reply to Holy Cattle:

    I just saw that as well from Rosenthal and was wondering the same thing. Boy oh boy ... Does anyone know If they do claim him and complete a trade, would the Cubs have to give up a pick like they would have had to before the July trade deadline?

  • In reply to lblegacy:

    What do you mean a pick?

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Draft pick as compensation for the loss of a qualified player. Excuse my ignorance here, Ghost Dawg. I'm guessing that if they put the player on waivers that nullifies that compensation. But I'm not sure.

  • In reply to lblegacy:

    No worries, we are all here to learn, but I think you are a bit confused on how the QO's work. Qualifying offers are only for players whose team control has expired, i.e. Becoming Free Agents example: an older player whose contract is over, or a young player who is done with his arbitration years and is becoming a free agent. At which time if the player has been with the team the entire year (not aqcuired part way through the season) the Team can extend to the player a Qualifying Offer (determined annually by averaging the top 125 player salaries from the previous year, last year was $14+ million). If the player declines the offer any team who signs him must pay a penalty of their top draft pick (unless it's top 10, in which case you give up the next highest). If he is signed to another team then the team wthat made the QO gets a compensation pick at the end of the 1st round (order determined by w-l record) Either way, Cole Hamels is signed for 4-5 more years, so a qualified offer has nothing to do with him.

  • In reply to lblegacy:

    No, that I you sign a player who was given a qualifying offer by the team they were with the entire year. Related question - does the cba allow for those qualifying offers to be extended multiple times on one year deals, if accepted of course, or is there no draft pick como after first year

  • In reply to Holy Cattle:

    Its fun to dream.

    Lester
    Arrieta
    Hamels
    Turner
    Hendricks

    Alcantara
    Baez
    Rizzo
    Bryant
    Castro
    Soler
    Castillo
    Olt

    Gosh Darn! That would be a hell of a team.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to northside disciple:

    How do list Hamels behind Arrieta?

  • In reply to Holy Cattle:

    I don't think so, but we'd have to give up significant value.. Not sure if that means a top 10 prospect or a couple of top 20.

  • fb_avatar

    John - If Turner comes aboard, could Fujikawa be the guy to go in order to make space on the 25-man roster? Since his vesting option won't happen for 2014, don't the Cubs have the choice of bringing him back for $5.5M or letting him go with a $500K buyout? Since he's a bit older & the Cubs have other closer options at a low cost, I wondered if you saw this as a realistic option.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Keith Erickson:

    I was wondering if that was why we saw Fujikawa added today. Interesting idea....

  • Does it really matter? If Turner comes over and does well - great. If he stinks, all it does is put us in a better position to lose games and get a better draft pick. We won't give up any value or anyone that is in our long-term plans - so there really isn't much downside.

    I'd think a lot of people on this Board would (or should) be happy if he does what EJax consistently does - allow 4-5 runs in about 5 innings and lose 2 our of every 3 games.

  • In reply to Roscoe Village:

    Nah, there's only a few on this board that love the idea of the Cubs tanking for a better draft pick. I agree that the season is pretty much meaningless (as far as standings go) but I don't feel I "should be happy" when the Cubs lose. Losing isn't progress - it's losing.

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    No one said you have to be happy about it.. but having the first pick to ensure you get the best chance of getting the best prospect isn't progress to better in the future..in a season winning isn't attainable.. then I have no idea how you define progress

  • In reply to CubfanInUT:

    Roscoe Village said that we SHOULD be happy about it. I'll give you that obtaining a better draft pick is progress, but tanking the remaining games doesn't do much for the Cubs in 2015, now does it?
    I personally don't give a s*** if the Cubs get the first TWO picks if they don't win any more games this year. I'm not rooting against them. Next year will be my 50th of watching, hoping, pleading, crying and cussing, but I'll still be pulling for the Cubs to win.

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    Wins do nothing for us.. outside of seriously hinder the team from getting another high impact prospect.. that isn't rooting "against" the Cubs..

  • In reply to CubfanInUT:

    That's nonsense. How do you instill a winning culture on a team of young guys by having them lose? How do you tell a team you have their backs by letting them know you hope they tank? The winning process has already started. It makes no sense to shut it down.

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    I am done with the tanking for a draft pick with Baez being called up. (Plus hopefully Soler & Bryant to join him soon). Not that my rooting changes anything but I am full ledged rooting for wins now and wherever the pick ends up, it ends up. It should still be bottom ten so they wont lose a pick for signing free agents.

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    ER I agree.. Get sick of "better draft pick" card being played. Why wouldn't we want to win games? Wouldn't that mean that AA, Baez, rizzo, Castro and who ever else is up is playing well? Would that mean that jake, Hendricks, wood, anyone else we acquire is throwing well? Isn't that the what we want to do? We can't stink the rest if the way and be on fire next year. Progress time

  • fb_avatar

    Could Cole Hamels be a Cub also soon? WOW!

  • He would probably require a voglebach/Olt haul

  • In reply to CubfanInUT:

    He would require a Bryant plus haul.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    Um, no.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Quedub:

    definitely.

  • Phillies want to cut payroll they wont get a kings ransom for him

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    Agreed. But they will try to.. He probably doesn't go anywhere before the season ends imo

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bryan Craven:

    I was thinking the same thing. The Cubs wouldn't have to give up the core 4 and could afford the contract. Plus the Phillies really need to face the fact that they need to rebuild. But this could be the death nail for Amaro as a GM no matter what he does. Keep him or trade him, Amaro has created a real mess over there.....

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Agreed..

  • In reply to Bryan Craven:

    That would make sense, however, Amaro is on the record with this statement:

    "Money wasn't going to be an impediment for us, it was trying to get the right baseball deal," ... "We weren't going to let money impede that. My feeling is if we had an opportunity to improve the club with the type of talent we wanted to get back, then we would have made a move."

    It could just be post trade deadline bluster, but I don't expect the Cubs to end up with Hamels. I would like it if they could get him for a few mid tier prospects, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Henry Loose:

    But he has to see what the Rays ended up with for Price. Not saying it's going to happen but if he was looking to get some youth as well as some financial relief, who better than the Cubs right now. Theo could take advantage of this new development!

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Slightly different.. rays financial constraints and they have no/less leverage this off-season/nxt yr bcuz price would be a unrestricted free agent at the end of next year.. Phillies could probably wait for the off-season to get a better deal for hamels then whatever deal they would get through a dfa deal

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubfanInUT:

    It's not a DFA type of deal it's a waiver deal and Philly needs to free themselves of financial burdens they have....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bocabobby:

    That and Amaro is under big-time pressure to do SOMETHING. Philly is not happy he stood pat with his current roster.

    As far as "money won't be an impediment" is true, as long as other teams take on all of his salary and give him premiere guys in return. Even if you say that he is worth more because he is under team control, the fact is that right now premiere prospects, top-40 prospects are worth A LOT! At the very least they are likely to provide replacement level talent for a fraction of the cost.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    Phillies, and Amaro, did just trade Roberto Hernandez to the Dodgers...

  • In reply to Quedub:

    Is that enough of a something to relieve the pressure Amaro may have been under to do something?

    I don't know, man. I have a hard time wrapping my head around anything getting done here, pressure on Amaro or not.

  • Theo & Jed must feel like they won the lottery or something. To have a young top 30 talent like Turner be available is amazing... on top of the Doubront and Straily pickups the pitching deficiency in the organization is turning rapidly.

  • In reply to Paulson:

    Yeah, but I'll be happier when they get a collection of TOR prospects instead of #3-5 types.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Theo just creating depth..

  • In reply to CubfanInUT:

    I know. Just ready to start getting quality

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Arrieta was considered a 3-5 starter when cubs got him.

  • In reply to nkniacc13:

    And I believe turner could still end up a 2

  • In reply to Paulson:

    Remember Olt???

  • This move by Marlins baffles me. If he is as promising as everyone thinks and is 23. Why give up on him? If we ask for him as part of Garza deal and was a no. Now he is DFA??? I know Seems like low risk. And I hope he works out. Does the player to be named later depend on how well he does???

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    Low risk doesn't mean no risk... Cubs are in a position to risk it.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    The Marlins are 5.5 games out and are trying to make a run at the playoffs. They needed to maximize the production they were getting from their 25-man roster and (in their minds) Turner wasn't producing and wasn't likely to any time soon. Because he didn't have any options left, he couldn't be sent down without exposing him to waivers anyway, so they DFA'd him to buy themselves 10-days.

  • In reply to Quedub:

    Thanks for explanation.

  • In reply to WaitTilNextYear:

    There is no PTBNL in this deal there is no deal at this point

  • fb_avatar

    I see Alcantara was moved down to 6th tonight. That might take a little pressure off of him....

  • Since he is out of options, does that mean we are forced to leave him on our 25 man roster? Or, I guess what I am really asking is, are there any sneaky moves we can make where we can send him to AAA? I guess he could always get "injured" and have a rehab assignment.

Leave a comment