Rosenthal: Reds to trade Kearns for Pitching?

[USSoccer]

No, I agree with you. Williams is a guy you hold onto.

 

As is apparently every othe Cubs prospect unless the deal involves one of the top 5 players in baseball, and even then people around shake their heads.

 

Trying to talk value on this board usually is very difficult. Williams is a very good trading chip for Chicago right now, perhaps the best they have to maximize value.

 

Well, in my personal opinion Williams has more value in our rotation right now than as a trade chip. We're going to need his arm in our rotation, and I feel better about him starting than Hill or Rusch. I'd sooner trade Hill than Williams. That said, I'd not hesitate to use Williams to get a really good SS or OF. However, that player would have to be a legit impact player, and not one who has potential but has never put it together with any sort of consistency.

 

Given that our window of opportunity is right now, I'd rather trade potential type guys like Hill, Marmol, Pie, Dopirak, Harvey, and even Guzman before I moved guys like Cedeno, Murton and Williams, simply because those 3 can produce for you right now, when your window is still open, and at a low cost.

[TheDude]

Even if they are "stocked" (I disagree with your definition), I wouldn't want to trade someone of Williams' talent for someone of Kearns' talent, period. It's not selling high at all. Williams is 24 years old. Maddux is 39. I'm sorry, but I totally disagree that Maddux > Williams. Looking at 2005 alone, they were pretty equal. Williams only got better as the season progressed and is much more likely to continue to do so. Maddux has declined in the last few years and is much more likely to continue to do so.

 

Frankly, (I'm going to be in the minority here) I'd rather trade Hill or Brownlie before I traded Williams. Maybe even Guzman (I doubt it).

 

What is there to disagree with? If you state that Williams is better than Maddux for the 2006 rotation, you are projecting improvement for Williams, not basing it on current levels of production. Maddux's numbers last year were better (particularly in the stats that matter most for pitchers), and unless Williams improves his control, they project to be better this year also.

 

You're also mistaken regarding a gradual decline with Maddux. Maddux's 2003 was a sharp decline from career norms, but he has almost completely leveled off at that declined value. In fact, his 2005 numbers are nearly identical to 2003, except 2003 hid an extra 10 unearned runs that represents the difference in his ERA. He actually allowed fewer runs per inning in 2005 than in 2003.

 

Maddux's pitching style isn't such that he should start declining again. I see no reason for it, and other pitchers of his style have proven in the past that they can plateua production into their early 40s.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Even if they are "stocked" (I disagree with your definition), I wouldn't want to trade someone of Williams' talent for someone of Kearns' talent, period. It's not selling high at all. Williams is 24 years old. Maddux is 39. I'm sorry, but I totally disagree that Maddux > Williams. Looking at 2005 alone, they were pretty equal. Williams only got better as the season progressed and is much more likely to continue to do so. Maddux has declined in the last few years and is much more likely to continue to do so.

 

Frankly, (I'm going to be in the minority here) I'd rather trade Hill or Brownlie before I traded Williams. Maybe even Guzman (I doubt it).

 

What is there to disagree with? If you state that Williams is better than Maddux for the 2006 rotation, you are projecting improvement for Williams, not basing it on current levels of production. Maddux's numbers last year were better (particularly in the stats that matter most for pitchers), and unless Williams improves his control, they project to be better this year also.

 

You're also mistaken regarding a gradual decline with Maddux. Maddux's 2003 was a sharp decline from career norms, but he has almost completely leveled off at that declined value. In fact, his 2005 numbers are nearly identical to 2003, except 2003 hid an extra 10 unearned runs that represents the difference in his ERA. He actually allowed fewer runs per inning in 2005 than in 2003.

 

Maddux's pitching style isn't such that he should start declining again. I see no reason for it, and other pitchers of his style have proven in the past that they can plateua production into their early 40s.

 

Maddux finished 2005 with a 4.24 ERA and an ERA+ of 101. Williams finished 2005 with a 4.26 ERA with an ERA+ of 100. So, while saying Williams will be better than Maddux is slightly projecting, not by much. He was nearly Maddux's equal in 2005 and considering Maddux will be 40 and Williams 24, I don't think it's a stretch to say Williams will be better next season.

 

"Watch out boy, she'll chew you up." Vance

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Even if they are "stocked" (I disagree with your definition), I wouldn't want to trade someone of Williams' talent for someone of Kearns' talent, period. It's not selling high at all. Williams is 24 years old. Maddux is 39. I'm sorry, but I totally disagree that Maddux > Williams. Looking at 2005 alone, they were pretty equal. Williams only got better as the season progressed and is much more likely to continue to do so. Maddux has declined in the last few years and is much more likely to continue to do so.

 

Frankly, (I'm going to be in the minority here) I'd rather trade Hill or Brownlie before I traded Williams. Maybe even Guzman (I doubt it).

 

What is there to disagree with? If you state that Williams is better than Maddux for the 2006 rotation, you are projecting improvement for Williams, not basing it on current levels of production. Maddux's numbers last year were better (particularly in the stats that matter most for pitchers), and unless Williams improves his control, they project to be better this year also.

 

You're also mistaken regarding a gradual decline with Maddux. Maddux's 2003 was a sharp decline from career norms, but he has almost completely leveled off at that declined value. In fact, his 2005 numbers are nearly identical to 2003, except 2003 hid an extra 10 unearned runs that represents the difference in his ERA. He actually allowed fewer runs per inning in 2005 than in 2003.

 

Maddux's pitching style isn't such that he should start declining again. I see no reason for it, and other pitchers of his style have proven in the past that they can plateua production into their early 40s.

 

Maddux finished 2005 with a 4.24 ERA and an ERA+ of 101. Williams finished 2005 with a 4.26 ERA with an ERA+ of 100. So, while saying Williams will be better than Maddux is slightly projecting, not by much. He was nearly Maddux's equal in 2005 and considering Maddux will be 40 and Williams 24, I don't think it's a stretch to say Williams will be better next season.

 

Also, Williams had a 3.91 ERA(109 ERA+) as a Cub.

[TheDude]

Given that our window of opportunity is right now, I'd rather trade potential type guys like Hill, Marmol, Pie, Dopirak, Harvey, and even Guzman before I moved guys like Cedeno, Murton and Williams, simply because those 3 can produce for you right now, when your window is still open, and at a low cost.

 

We definately have different approaches. I don't see the Cubs window as closing - that passed in 2004 and the cycle begins again. The Cubs can let Wood and Maddux walk away after this year and allow 2 other young pitchers to emerge in 2007 as Zambrano and Prior did in 2003. Continue to give Prior and Zambrano the money they are worth, and lock up Lee for 4 more years. Ramirez is still locked-up.

 

So with that in mind (the core all in place), you move Williams at his current high value for a younger, developing positional player, looking at 2007 as the impact year, not 2006.

 

Cleveland is the model IMO. Moving Crisp while his value is high not for impact player for 2006, but a developing player for 2007, 2008, and 2009 runs.

[TheDude]

Maddux finished 2005 with a 4.24 ERA and an ERA+ of 101. Williams finished 2005 with a 4.26 ERA with an ERA+ of 100. So, while saying Williams will be better than Maddux is slightly projecting, not by much. He was nearly Maddux's equal in 2005 and considering Maddux will be 40 and Williams 24, I don't think it's a stretch to say Williams will be better next season.

 

"Watch out boy, she'll chew you up." Vance

 

Ok, so those are the Williams favorable numbers...how about the rest? Like strike-out to walk ratio? WHIP? Williams has to cut down his walk total before he can be considered Maddux's equal, but he has been fortunate with those extra free passes not to have a higher ERA.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Ok, so those are the Williams favorable numbers...how about the rest? Like strike-out to walk ratio? WHIP? Williams has to cut down his walk total before he can be considered Maddux's equal, but he has been fortunate with those extra free passes not to have a higher ERA.

 

Agreed...Williams could start K'ing a few more guys too.

 

Also, there really isn't much statistically to back this up, but Williams stuff seems like in a full season with Wrigley as his home park he just may be a bit homer prone in the future.

 

Personally I DO think he should be trade bait, but we don't exactly have the depth we had just two/three years ago...

[UK1679666180]

Williams provides the Cubs a long-term under contract btm of the rotation pitching, his ceiling is that of a middle of the rotation starter. Right now, they have 4 starters locked up after this year and Williams happens to be the cheapest and likely will be more productive than Rusch. With Maddux, Wood, and Miller FAs, despite the large amount of money from FAs Maddux and Wood, it will become difficult to build a large % of the rotation thru FA in the same year.

 

If the Cubs had the ability to trade someone of that value for a platoon player, it would be great. I don't see it. I don't see where the Cubs have the ability to even start the year with Z, Prior, Maddux, Rusch, and Hill their starting 5 until Wood gets healthy. A 4 man rotation is unwise, unless the risks of burning out a rotation in August is worth having Kearns face LH'ers, something I've haven't seen discussed regarding Jones.

 

I think Kearns over Murton would be a more likely possibility than Jones/Kearns in RF. I feel Murton has better tools than Kearns on offense as well as a better approach and will be more productive, that's before factoring Kearns' injury history