CC Sabathia Traded to Brewers (for LaPorta + Prospects)

[Clem Fandango]

If Beau Mills develops into the hitter he has the potential to become, a corner IF of LaPorta and Mills in the future will be absurdly awesome

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

for the sake of argument, what if wieters is in the cubs organization instead of vitters? then are the cubs close to topping this offer with something like wieters/veal/atkins or something?

 

I don't know. I think LaPorta is a better hitter than Wieters, but Wieters adds value from the catcher's spot. It might be a lot closer, but who knows?

 

You have to consider that LaPorta might have been a target of Shapiro's. Wasn't it reported that Hendry wasn't really involved with the CC talks, and Cleveland spurned a different package from the NYY?

 

I know you hate yourself some Vitters, but Weiters might not have changed the equation.

 

Why not just ask what would be different if we took LaPorta over Vitters?

[TruffleShuffle]

for the sake of argument, what if wieters is in the cubs organization instead of vitters? then are the cubs close to topping this offer with something like wieters/veal/atkins or something?

 

I don't know. I think LaPorta is a better hitter than Wieters, but Wieters adds value from the catcher's spot. It might be a lot closer, but who knows?

 

You have to consider that LaPorta might have been a target of Shapiro's. Wasn't it reported that Hendry wasn't really involved with the CC talks, and Cleveland spurned a different package from the NYY?

 

I know you hate yourself some Vitters, but Weiters might not have changed the equation.

 

i think vitters was the wrong pick for the cubs. the main reason i brought this up was because it was apparent that the indians were looking for a good hitter who could contribute by next year, and wieters would have fix that bill.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

for the sake of argument, what if wieters is in the cubs organization instead of vitters? then are the cubs close to topping this offer with something like wieters/veal/atkins or something?

 

I don't know. I think LaPorta is a better hitter than Wieters, but Wieters adds value from the catcher's spot. It might be a lot closer, but who knows?

 

You have to consider that LaPorta might have been a target of Shapiro's. Wasn't it reported that Hendry wasn't really involved with the CC talks, and Cleveland spurned a different package from the NYY?

 

I know you hate yourself some Vitters, but Weiters might not have changed the equation.

 

i think vitters was the wrong pick for the cubs. the main reason i brought this up was because it was apparent that the indians were looking for a good hitter who could contribute by next year, and wieters would have fix that bill.

 

I think it's too early to judge the Vitters pick. He's hitting and doing what he was expected to do and is still very young. Making picks because you think might need to trade the player a year later is the wrong way to handle the draft.

 

Sure, in hindsight, we could just say if the Cubs had drafted LaPorta instead of Vitters, we could have made this deal. But to look a year ahead and guess that an AL team would be unloading a pitcher is crazy. You didn't like the Vitters pick at the time. You no longer can call Vitters a bust because he's doing what is expected of an 18-yr old prospect even if it is a low A. So, now you're banging this drum. Vitters wasn't a bad pick at the time, and he's not a bad pick now. The deal for Sabathia doesn't change that.

[TruffleShuffle]

Vitters wasn't a bad pick at the time, and he's not a bad pick now.

 

you'd have written the same thing about ryan harvey and luis montanez a year after they were drafted.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Vitters wasn't a bad pick at the time, and he's not a bad pick now.

 

you'd have written the same thing about ryan harvey and luis montanez a year after they were drafted.

 

So because Montanez and Harvey were busts, Vitters will be too. God, that's freaking ridiculous.

 

And Vitters is performing much better than Harvey a year after he was drafted and better than Montanez as well.

 

And in time we'll see who was the better pick out of Vitters and Wieters. But trying to use the Sabathia trade to justify your position is asinine.

[Guest]

Each players first full year in the system (i.e. the season after they were drafted):

 

Ryan Harvey @ Boise: .264/.327/.481/.808; 20 BB, 78 K (231 AB)

Luis Montanez @ Lansing: .255/.316/.375/.691; 34 BB, 121 K (499 AB)

Josh Vitters @ Boise: .338/.390/.500/.890; 6 BB, 13 K (74 AB)

[TruffleShuffle]

Vitters wasn't a bad pick at the time, and he's not a bad pick now.

 

you'd have written the same thing about ryan harvey and luis montanez a year after they were drafted.

 

So because Montanez and Harvey were busts, Vitters will be too. God, that's freaking ridiculous.

 

And Vitters is performing much better than Harvey a year after he was drafted and better than Montanez as well.

 

And in time we'll see who was the better pick out of Vitters and Wieters. But trying to use the Sabathia trade to justify your position is asinine.

 

not really. drafting wieters would've given the cubs a trading chip that would have been more valuable at this time. that isn't arguable.

 

you can say that you think vitters wasn't a bad pick at the time. i disagree. just because other baseball organizations thought it was a fine pick for that position doesn't meant that it was the right move - if so then just about every cubs' bust in the past 10 years is justifiable. also, montanez was playing at a higher level at the same age, so i don't think you could say that vitters is outperforming him at this stage.

[TruffleShuffle]

Each players first full year in the system (i.e. the season after they were drafted):

 

Ryan Harvey @ Boise: .264/.327/.481/.808; 20 BB, 78 K (231 AB)

Luis Montanez @ Lansing: .255/.316/.375/.691; 34 BB, 121 K (499 AB)

Josh Vitters @ Boise: .338/.390/.500/.890; 6 BB, 13 K (74 AB)

 

(a) sample size

(b) you left out vitters' numbers at peoria this year.

[jersey cubs fan]

Vitters wasn't a bad pick at the time, and he's not a bad pick now.

 

you'd have written the same thing about ryan harvey and luis montanez a year after they were drafted.

 

So because Montanez and Harvey were busts, Vitters will be too. God, that's freaking ridiculous.

 

And Vitters is performing much better than Harvey a year after he was drafted and better than Montanez as well.

 

And in time we'll see who was the better pick out of Vitters and Wieters. But trying to use the Sabathia trade to justify your position is asinine.

 

 

So because he's hit well for a couple weeks criticisms of the pick are invalid? Truffle was against that pick before, during and after the draft. He's held his ground pretty steady and has been very clear about why he was against it. The draft is all about acquiring assets - assets that will be used in a variety of ways. Being against drafting high school bats that high, especially high school bats with the red flags Vitters had, is hardly an indefensible stance.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Vitters wasn't a bad pick at the time, and he's not a bad pick now.

 

you'd have written the same thing about ryan harvey and luis montanez a year after they were drafted.

 

So because Montanez and Harvey were busts, Vitters will be too. God, that's freaking ridiculous.

 

And Vitters is performing much better than Harvey a year after he was drafted and better than Montanez as well.

 

And in time we'll see who was the better pick out of Vitters and Wieters. But trying to use the Sabathia trade to justify your position is asinine.

 

not really. drafting wieters would've given the cubs a trading chip that would have been more valuable at this time. that isn't arguable.

 

you can say that you think vitters wasn't a bad pick at the time. i disagree. just because other baseball organizations thought it was a fine pick for that position doesn't meant that it was the right move - if so then just about every cubs' bust in the past 10 years is justifiable. also, montanez was playing at a higher level at the same age, so i don't think you could say that vitters is outperforming him at this stage.

 

So, you think teams should draft based on who will be the better trading chip one year later and not on projectibility further down the road?

 

So, by that logic, you think LaPorta would have been a better pick than Wieters and you thought that last year, right?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Vitters wasn't a bad pick at the time, and he's not a bad pick now.

 

you'd have written the same thing about ryan harvey and luis montanez a year after they were drafted.

 

So because Montanez and Harvey were busts, Vitters will be too. God, that's freaking ridiculous.

 

And Vitters is performing much better than Harvey a year after he was drafted and better than Montanez as well.

 

And in time we'll see who was the better pick out of Vitters and Wieters. But trying to use the Sabathia trade to justify your position is asinine.

 

 

So because he's hit well for a couple weeks criticisms of the pick are invalid? Truffle was against that pick before, during and after the draft. He's held his ground pretty steady and has been very clear about why he was against it. The draft is all about acquiring assets - assets that will be used in a variety of ways. Being against drafting high school bats that high, especially high school bats with the red flags Vitters had, is hardly an indefensible stance.

 

Sure, it's fine that he was against the pick. And it may be that he's right. But using the Sabathia trade to further justify it is what I find comical. While I don't have a problem with the philosophy of drafting college hitters who may be closer to the majors and easier to project, I do think it is crazy to draft by trying to predict which will have more trade value one year down the road.

 

Had it been another team other than the Indians shopping starting pitching, a player more projectible like Vitters might have held the value. It just happened that this year it was the Indians who want someone who can step in by next season.

[Guest]

Each players first full year in the system (i.e. the season after they were drafted):

 

Ryan Harvey @ Boise: .264/.327/.481/.808; 20 BB, 78 K (231 AB)

Luis Montanez @ Lansing: .255/.316/.375/.691; 34 BB, 121 K (499 AB)

Josh Vitters @ Boise: .338/.390/.500/.890; 6 BB, 13 K (74 AB)

 

(a) sample size

(b) you left out vitters' numbers at peoria this year.

 

Josh Vitters in 2008: .318/.365/.489/.853; 6 BB, 19 K (88 AB)

 

you'd have written the same thing about ryan harvey and luis montanez a year after they were drafted.

 

I would have said Montanez was a bad pick less than a year in because he was a money-saving pick. Concerning sample size, even 100 AB in, Harvey and Montanez had started to show poor plate discipline (along with bad numbers), all while being 1 year older than Vitters.

[jersey cubs fan]

So, you think teams should draft based on who will be the better trading chip one year later and not on projectibility further down the road?

 

 

Teams should draft based on who is the best asset - included in that is future trade value.

[VanceJergins]

I mentioned yesterday:

 

Wieters is OPS'ing 1.024 in A+ ball at age 22

Vitters is OPS'ing .923 in A- ball at age 18.

 

I'm not even sure Wieters has more value right now. He would have to the Indians, but I don't know about overall.

[Guest]

I mentioned yesterday:

 

Wieters is OPS'ing 1.024 in A+ ball at age 22

Vitters is OPS'ing .923 in A- ball at age 18.

 

I'm not even sure Wieters has more value right now. He would have to the Indians, but I don't know about overall.

 

He would, given his position and how far Vitters is from the bigs.

[jersey cubs fan]

Sure, it's fine that he was against the pick. And it may be that he's right. But using the Sabathia trade to further justify it is what I find comical. While I don't have a problem with the philosophy of drafting college hitters who may be closer to the majors and easier to project, I do think it is crazy to draft by trying to predict which will have more trade value one year down the road.

 

I think it would be crazy to ignore that part of the valuation.

[VanceJergins]

I mentioned yesterday:

 

Wieters is OPS'ing 1.024 in A+ ball at age 22

Vitters is OPS'ing .923 in A- ball at age 18.

 

I'm not even sure Wieters has more value right now. He would have to the Indians, but I don't know about overall.

 

He would, given his position and how far Vitters is from the bigs.

 

Touche

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So, you think teams should draft based on who will be the better trading chip one year later and not on projectibility further down the road?

 

 

Teams should draft based on who is the best asset - included in that is future trade value.

 

But best asset is often a moving target depending on who you are trading with. LaPorta right now is a better asset than Vitters because he's hit well at a much higher level. LaPorta is also 23 compared to Vitters being 18. In those five years, Vitters could easily surpass LaPorta and either be a valuable member of the Cubs or traded for someone better than Sabathia.

 

Hindsight is great. Sure, had the Cubs taken LaPorta, then maybe we're the front runner in getting Sabathia. I just don't think that's the best way to handle the draft.

[jersey cubs fan]

So, you think teams should draft based on who will be the better trading chip one year later and not on projectibility further down the road?

 

 

Teams should draft based on who is the best asset - included in that is future trade value.

 

But best asset is often a moving target depending on who you are trading with. LaPorta right now is a better asset than Vitters because he's hit well at a much higher level. LaPorta is also 23 compared to Vitters being 18. In those five years, Vitters could easily surpass LaPorta and either be a valuable member of the Cubs or traded for someone better than Sabathia.

 

Hindsight is great. Sure, had the Cubs taken LaPorta, then maybe we're the front runner in getting Sabathia. I just don't think that's the best way to handle the draft.

 

I don't understand why you keep insinuating people think that should be the only way they handle the draft. Evaluating a draftable asset entails many things, among them should be the likely value in a trade. Nobody, as far as I can tell, is suggesting drafting guys solely on who will be the best trade bait next year.

[TruffleShuffle]

Had it been another team other than the Indians shopping starting pitching, a player more projectible like Vitters might have held the value. It just happened that this year it was the Indians who want someone who can step in by next season.

 

no. everybody rates wieters as the better prospect. every writer in BA had him ranked higher; BP's prospect list had him higher, and i'm pretty sure sickels had him higher. the only teams that would rate vitters ahead of wieters are teams like the braves and dodgers, teams with a young catcher who's one of the best in the game already.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

I mentioned yesterday:

 

Wieters is OPS'ing 1.024 in A+ ball at age 22

Vitters is OPS'ing .923 in A- ball at age 18.

 

I'm not even sure Wieters has more value right now. He would have to the Indians, but I don't know about overall.

 

 

Wieters is in AA. Milb is wrong. He is on the Bowie BaySox

 

OPS 1.081 in 42 plate appearances. Limited plate appearances so far. But, thought I'd throw it out there.

[VanceJergins]

I mentioned yesterday:

 

Wieters is OPS'ing 1.024 in A+ ball at age 22

Vitters is OPS'ing .923 in A- ball at age 18.

 

I'm not even sure Wieters has more value right now. He would have to the Indians, but I don't know about overall.

 

 

Wieters is in AA. Milb is wrong. He is on the Bowie BaySox

 

OPS 1.081 in 42 plate appearances. Limited plate appearances so far. But, thought I'd throw it out there.

 

Ah. Well thank you, I didn't know that.

[twothousandfive]

the only teams that would rate vitters ahead of wieters are teams like the braves and dodgers, teams with a young catcher who's one of the best in the game already.

 

It's hindsight versus when the pick was made, but don't the Cubs have a young catcher who is one of the best in the game (as far as we can tell right now)?

[Magnetic Curses]

I mentioned yesterday:

 

Wieters is OPS'ing 1.024 in A+ ball at age 22

Vitters is OPS'ing .923 in A- ball at age 18.

 

I'm not even sure Wieters has more value right now. He would have to the Indians, but I don't know about overall.

 

 

Wieters is in AA. Milb is wrong. He is on the Bowie BaySox

 

OPS 1.081 in 42 plate appearances. Limited plate appearances so far. But, thought I'd throw it out there.

 

i kind of get confused as to how organizations move along their college prospects. some of them are playing in the majors the next year, while some are moved slowly through the system, even the ones who are the most mlb-ready coming out of college. i don't get it.