Re: Starlin Castro making decision tough on Chicago Cubs

[davearm2]

Well I suppose "great things" is a subjective term, but the folks running the team certainly are planning around fielding a contender this year.

 

Suggesting the Cubs should just fold up their tents before things even get started is pessimistic in the extreme. Heck we're not Baltimore or KC here.

 

Giving Castro more time in the minors even if Theriot is traded is not the same thing as "fold[ing] up their tents."

No, making Blanco or Barney your everyday SS is.

[Geech]

No, making Blanco or Barney your everyday SS is.

 

Compared to what? If you think Castro would blow Blanco/Barney out of the water, then you're seriously overrating his abilities at this point in his career. Mojo's point is that in the scenario of trading Theriot for prospects there's still no need to call up Castro to play shortstop.

[davearm2]

No, making Blanco or Barney your everyday SS is.

 

Compared to what? If you think Castro would blow Blanco/Barney out of the water, then you're seriously overrating his abilities at this point in his career. Mojo's point is that in the scenario of trading Theriot for prospects there's still no need to call up Castro to play shortstop.

Compared to Theriot.

 

Look if Castro isn't ready, then you don't trade Theriot. It's that simple. This scenario that has Theriot traded, Castro left in the minors, and the starting SS job turned over to Blanco or Barney is just goofy for a team in the Cubs' position. Never going to happen, nor should it.

[Geech]

Compared to Theriot.

 

Look if Castro isn't ready, then you don't trade Theriot. It's that simple. This scenario that has Theriot traded, Castro left in the minors, and the starting SS job turned over to Blanco or Barney is just goofy for a team in the Cubs' position. Never going to happen, nor should it.

 

I agree, but that wasn't the point.

[davearm2]

Compared to Theriot.

 

Look if Castro isn't ready, then you don't trade Theriot. It's that simple. This scenario that has Theriot traded, Castro left in the minors, and the starting SS job turned over to Blanco or Barney is just goofy for a team in the Cubs' position. Never going to happen, nor should it.

 

I agree, but that wasn't the point.

That was exactly what Nuts&Gum advocated.

[Geech]

That was exactly what Nuts&Gum advocated.

 

This statement is false. You are factually incorrect, sir, and you may need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

 

Here is Mojo's exact statement:

 

I don't understand why it's often approached on this board like the Cubs must bring Castro up if Theriot is traded. Why can't they trade Theriot and keep Castro in the minors? I'd happily take starting a combo of Blanco/Barney if it meant getting a good return for Theriot (ideally prospect(s)). It's not like they can't eat the crappy production from SS if it means building for the future. This isn't exactly a team that peple are expecting great things from.

 

Again: "if Theriot is traded." Nowhere in this post does he explicitly advocate trading Theriot. He's addressing the idea that Castro would need to be called if Theriot was gone. No more than that.

[Four and Twenty]

I'd happily take starting a combo of Blanco/Barney if it meant getting a good return for Theriot (ideally prospect(s).

This is where he advocates trading Theriot, with the qualifier being "getting a good return."

 

I'll spare you the reading comprehension insult since you seem to be well versed in such frivolities.

[Geech]

This is where he advocates trading Theriot, with the qualifier being "getting a good return."

 

I'll spare you the reading comprehension insult since you seem to be well versed in such frivolities

 

Guys, context matters.

 

Paragraphs are made up of many sentences, but they are intended to convey a single key idea. Each sentence imparts important meaning onto the following sentences, and later sentences need to be read within the context of earlier sentences. Together, they illustrate and explain a single point.

 

While many people are not very good at writing and may not use paragraphs in a appropriate manner, Nuts&Gum seems fairly competent, and I think he understands these important concepts. His first sentence sets the stage for the proceeding lines when he states that he cannot "understand why... the Cubs must bring Castro up if Theriot is traded." Everything else he posts is a continuation of this basic idea.

 

Furthermore, reading Nuts' post within the larger context of the thread strengthens my interpretation. In an exchange with Jersey, Sever82 advocates playing Castro in the majors to start the season because Sever hates Theriot and wants to see him traded. Shortly after this, Nuts&Gum made the post in question which challenged the idea that playing Theriot and playing Castro are the only viable alternatives.

 

This whole argument is an example of why I post so rarely. It's fine to have a disagreement based on different ideas; that's perfectly understandable and potentially fruitful. However, arguments that rise from misread or misunderstood posts are frustrating and pointless. When you are going to make a counterpoint, you should make it relevant. That involves reading a post, considering it for a while, and actually trying to understand before you respond. Message boards are not chat rooms, and an immediate response is not necessary and often not desirable.

 

There is no reason I should have to spell this out, yet here I am.

[Guest]

Geech is my new favorite poster.

[Four and Twenty]

While many people are not very good at writing and may not use paragraphs in a appropriate manner, Nuts&Gum seems fairly competent, and I think he understands these important concepts.

I agree. Nuts&Gum is a competent writer. And while he assuredly understands the important concepts you so eloquently stated, he did not adhere to them this time around.

(1)I don't understand why it's often approached on this board like the Cubs must bring Castro up if Theriot is traded. (2)Why can't they trade Theriot and keep Castro in the minors? (3)I'd happily take starting a combo of Blanco/Barney if it meant getting a good return for Theriot (ideally prospect(s)). (4)It's not like they can't eat the crappy production from SS if it means building for the future. (5)This isn't exactly a team that peple are expecting great things from.

His first sentence sets the stage for the proceeding lines when he states that he cannot "understand why... the Cubs must bring Castro up if Theriot is traded." Everything else he posts is a continuation of this basic idea.

Incorrect. Sentences (1) and (2) are related. Sentence (3) is offered as an alternative Nuts&Gum would happily take (meaning, he would advocate for it) if they received a good return on a Theriot trade. It is not a continuation of the basic idea of (1) and (2). While it is a logical course of successive thought regarding (1) and (2), (3) does fine standing alone. Sentences (4) and (5) are related to the success of 2010 and beyond without Theriot if the trade in (3) were to happen.

Paragraphs are made up of many sentences, but they are intended to convey a single key idea. Each sentence imparts important meaning onto the following sentences, and later sentences need to be read within the context of earlier sentences. Together, they illustrate and explain a single point.

I agree. Applying these rules to Nuts&Gum's quote and it should read...

I don't understand why it's often approached on this board like the Cubs must bring Castro up if Theriot is traded. Why can't they trade Theriot and keep Castro in the minors?

 

I'd happily take starting a combo of Blanco/Barney if it meant getting a good return for Theriot (ideally prospect(s)). It's not like they can't eat the crappy production from SS if it means building for the future. This isn't exactly a team that peple are expecting great things from.

His first paragraph challenges the idea that playing Theriot and playing Castro are the only viable options. His second paragraph offers an alternative that he supports.

It's fine to have a disagreement based on different ideas; that's perfectly understandable and potentially fruitful. However, arguments that rise from misread or misunderstood posts are frustrating and pointless. When you are going to make a counterpoint, you should make it relevant. That involves reading a post, considering it for a while, and actually trying to understand before you respond. Message boards are not chat rooms, and an immediate response is not necessary and often not desirable.

This is why I commented in the first place. I interjected to quell an argument over semantics. It's clear that Nuts&Gum should have used a second paragraph. One of you stopped to read the post, consider it for awhile, and understand it before responding and one of you didn't.

There is no reason I should have to spell this out, yet here I am.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Lastly, apologies to Nuts&Gum. I enjoy your posts thoroughly and only critique your writing to illustrate an argument. Please, sir, continue unabashed.

[CubbieBum]

While many people are not very good at writing and may not use paragraphs in a appropriate manner, Nuts&Gum seems fairly competent, and I think he understands these important concepts.

I agree. Nuts&Gum is a competent writer. And while he assuredly understands the important concepts you so eloquently stated, he did not adhere to them this time around.

(1)I don't understand why it's often approached on this board like the Cubs must bring Castro up if Theriot is traded. (2)Why can't they trade Theriot and keep Castro in the minors? (3)I'd happily take starting a combo of Blanco/Barney if it meant getting a good return for Theriot (ideally prospect(s)). (4)It's not like they can't eat the crappy production from SS if it means building for the future. (5)This isn't exactly a team that peple are expecting great things from.

His first sentence sets the stage for the proceeding lines when he states that he cannot "understand why... the Cubs must bring Castro up if Theriot is traded." Everything else he posts is a continuation of this basic idea.

Incorrect. Sentences (1) and (2) are related. Sentence (3) is offered as an alternative Nuts&Gum would happily take (meaning, he would advocate for it) if they received a good return on a Theriot trade. It is not a continuation of the basic idea of (1) and (2). While it is a logical course of successive thought regarding (1) and (2), (3) does fine standing alone. Sentences (4) and (5) are related to the success of 2010 and beyond without Theriot if the trade in (3) were to happen.

Paragraphs are made up of many sentences, but they are intended to convey a single key idea. Each sentence imparts important meaning onto the following sentences, and later sentences need to be read within the context of earlier sentences. Together, they illustrate and explain a single point.

I agree. Applying these rules to Nuts&Gum's quote and it should read...

I don't understand why it's often approached on this board like the Cubs must bring Castro up if Theriot is traded. Why can't they trade Theriot and keep Castro in the minors?

 

I'd happily take starting a combo of Blanco/Barney if it meant getting a good return for Theriot (ideally prospect(s)). It's not like they can't eat the crappy production from SS if it means building for the future. This isn't exactly a team that peple are expecting great things from.

His first paragraph challenges the idea that playing Theriot and playing Castro are the only viable options. His second paragraph offers an alternative that he supports.

It's fine to have a disagreement based on different ideas; that's perfectly understandable and potentially fruitful. However, arguments that rise from misread or misunderstood posts are frustrating and pointless. When you are going to make a counterpoint, you should make it relevant. That involves reading a post, considering it for a while, and actually trying to understand before you respond. Message boards are not chat rooms, and an immediate response is not necessary and often not desirable.

This is why I commented in the first place. I interjected to quell an argument over semantics. It's clear that Nuts&Gum should have used a second paragraph. One of you stopped to read the post, consider it for awhile, and understand it before responding and one of you didn't.

There is no reason I should have to spell this out, yet here I am.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Lastly, apologies to Nuts&Gum. I enjoy your posts thoroughly and only critique your writing to illustrate an argument. Please, sir, continue unabashed.

 

This.

 

It is clear as day that Nuts & Gum would gladly trade Theriot if we got a good return on him even though he would then hope to have Blanco or some other scrub be the everyday shortstop and continue to keep Castro developing in minors.

 

I am not in favor of this. Everyone seems to have cast off the Cubs before the season has even started. Seems dumb to me considering we still have a very talented team. Our pitching staff is very good if Lilly can return and there is no way Soriano, Soto and Fontenot are all as woeful as they were last year.

[Four and Twenty]

This.

 

It is clear as day that Nuts & Gum would gladly trade Theriot if we got a good return on him even though he would then hope to have Blanco or some other scrub be the everyday shortstop and continue to keep Castro developing in minors.

 

I am not in favor of this. Everyone seems to have cast off the Cubs before the season has even started. Seems dumb to me considering we still have a very talented team. Our pitching staff is very good if Lilly can return and there is no way Soriano, Soto and Fontenot are all as woeful as they were last year.

 

A this in return.

 

I don't particularly understand the sentiment that the season is over on March 19th, either. Obviously, you consider each scenario in the context with which you come across it. Trade talk involving anyone on the Cubs roster is just hypothetical babble at this point.

[wvcbxl]

Trade talk involving anyone on the Cubs roster is just hypothetical babble at this point.

 

Not necessarily.

The Cubs have a number of players on the 40 man roster that can't be easily sent down (i.e. without clearing waivers or the right to refuse), so discussing possible trades to solve any problem of trimming down to 25 may not be as hypothetical as you would like to think.

[Backtobanks]

This.

 

It is clear as day that Nuts & Gum would gladly trade Theriot if we got a good return on him even though he would then hope to have Blanco or some other scrub be the everyday shortstop and continue to keep Castro developing in minors.

 

I am not in favor of this. Everyone seems to have cast off the Cubs before the season has even started. Seems dumb to me considering we still have a very talented team. Our pitching staff is very good if Lilly can return and there is no way Soriano, Soto and Fontenot are all as woeful as they were last year.

 

A this in return.

 

I don't particularly understand the sentiment that the season is over on March 19th, either. Obviously, you consider each scenario in the context with which you come across it. Trade talk involving anyone on the Cubs roster is just hypothetical babble at this point.[/quote]

 

Trade talk about anyone on the roster isn't necessarily babble, but Theriot trade talk certainly is. The Cubs won't even think about trading Theriot until next offseason. If by some chance Castro makes the Cubs and is very successful, Theriot moves over to 2B. The only way the Cubs would trade Theriot this season would be if Castro shines and Fontenot/Baker put up great numbers at 2B during the regular season.

[Sammy Sofa]

Whoa.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying "the season is over before it's begun," nor do I think that if the team opted to trade Theriot it would necessarily indicate that mentality since Theriot, quite frankly, is not making or breaking this team. I would not be opposed at all to them trading Theriot sooner than later since getting a better return on him hinges more on sooner since as he gets older and more expensive his trade value will plummet...though I understand also why the Cubs would opt to not trade him at this point (popularity with fans, useful in his limited capacities, relatively cheap for the time being, SS prospects not ready yet). That said, I do not think something along the lines of a Barney/Blanco platoon at SS is "giving up on the team."

[Derwood]

I wasn't expecting to walk into a Freshmen Composition lecture this morning....

[sneakypower]

if we traded Theriot we'd *gasp* have no leadoff hitter

[davearm2]

Whoa.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying "the season is over before it's begun," nor do I think that if the team opted to trade Theriot it would necessarily indicate that mentality since Theriot, quite frankly, is not making or breaking this team. I would not be opposed at all to them trading Theriot sooner than later since getting a better return on him hinges more on sooner since as he gets older and more expensive his trade value will plummet...though I understand also why the Cubs would opt to not trade him at this point (popularity with fans, useful in his limited capacities, relatively cheap for the time being, SS prospects not ready yet). That said, I do not think something along the lines of a Barney/Blanco platoon at SS is "giving up on the team."

The Cubs will win fewer ballgames in 2010 if Blanco/Barney is their everyday SS rather than Theriot. For all the Theriot hate on this board, I have a hard time believing anyone would disagree with that.

 

Now if you're a sad-sack club like the Royals or Orioles or whatever, then maybe you'd trade a few wins this year for a nice prospect that might help you down the road.

 

However if you're the Cubs, you'd be more inclined to do the exact opposite -- trade prospects for an upgrade that will net more wins now.

 

This is why the original notion that Theriot could be traded and replaced by Blanco/Barney is silly and pointless.

[NewUserName]

Whoa.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying "the season is over before it's begun," nor do I think that if the team opted to trade Theriot it would necessarily indicate that mentality since Theriot, quite frankly, is not making or breaking this team. I would not be opposed at all to them trading Theriot sooner than later since getting a better return on him hinges more on sooner since as he gets older and more expensive his trade value will plummet...though I understand also why the Cubs would opt to not trade him at this point (popularity with fans, useful in his limited capacities, relatively cheap for the time being, SS prospects not ready yet). That said, I do not think something along the lines of a Barney/Blanco platoon at SS is "giving up on the team."

 

I don't have a big opinion one way or the other about trading Theriot. Mainly because I think the Cubs probably value him more than the rest of MLB. However, I do agree that trading Theriot would not eliminate the Cubs from contending this season. I also ran into this either/or concept when I thought the best move would be to trade DLee this off-season. There seems to be this idea that good players being traded is always a fire sale move. Is it not possible to trade players who will probably never have higher trade value then they do now to improve your team?

[NewUserName]

Whoa.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying "the season is over before it's begun," nor do I think that if the team opted to trade Theriot it would necessarily indicate that mentality since Theriot, quite frankly, is not making or breaking this team. I would not be opposed at all to them trading Theriot sooner than later since getting a better return on him hinges more on sooner since as he gets older and more expensive his trade value will plummet...though I understand also why the Cubs would opt to not trade him at this point (popularity with fans, useful in his limited capacities, relatively cheap for the time being, SS prospects not ready yet). That said, I do not think something along the lines of a Barney/Blanco platoon at SS is "giving up on the team."

The Cubs will win fewer ballgames in 2010 if Blanco/Barney is their everyday SS rather than Theriot. For all the Theriot hate on this board, I have a hard time believing anyone would disagree with that.

 

Now if you're a sad-sack club like the Royals or Orioles or whatever, then maybe you'd trade a few wins this year for a nice prospect that might help you down the road.

 

However if you're the Cubs, you'd be more inclined to do the exact opposite -- trade prospects for an upgrade that will net more wins now.

 

This is why the original notion that Theriot could be traded and replaced by Blanco/Barney is silly and pointless.

 

How many games do you think Theriot is over Blanco/Barney?

[davearm2]

Whoa.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying "the season is over before it's begun," nor do I think that if the team opted to trade Theriot it would necessarily indicate that mentality since Theriot, quite frankly, is not making or breaking this team. I would not be opposed at all to them trading Theriot sooner than later since getting a better return on him hinges more on sooner since as he gets older and more expensive his trade value will plummet...though I understand also why the Cubs would opt to not trade him at this point (popularity with fans, useful in his limited capacities, relatively cheap for the time being, SS prospects not ready yet). That said, I do not think something along the lines of a Barney/Blanco platoon at SS is "giving up on the team."

The Cubs will win fewer ballgames in 2010 if Blanco/Barney is their everyday SS rather than Theriot. For all the Theriot hate on this board, I have a hard time believing anyone would disagree with that.

 

Now if you're a sad-sack club like the Royals or Orioles or whatever, then maybe you'd trade a few wins this year for a nice prospect that might help you down the road.

 

However if you're the Cubs, you'd be more inclined to do the exact opposite -- trade prospects for an upgrade that will net more wins now.

 

This is why the original notion that Theriot could be traded and replaced by Blanco/Barney is silly and pointless.

 

How many games do you think Theriot is over Blanco/Barney?

If I had to put a number on it, I'd say three.

[NewUserName]

Whoa.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying "the season is over before it's begun," nor do I think that if the team opted to trade Theriot it would necessarily indicate that mentality since Theriot, quite frankly, is not making or breaking this team. I would not be opposed at all to them trading Theriot sooner than later since getting a better return on him hinges more on sooner since as he gets older and more expensive his trade value will plummet...though I understand also why the Cubs would opt to not trade him at this point (popularity with fans, useful in his limited capacities, relatively cheap for the time being, SS prospects not ready yet). That said, I do not think something along the lines of a Barney/Blanco platoon at SS is "giving up on the team."

The Cubs will win fewer ballgames in 2010 if Blanco/Barney is their everyday SS rather than Theriot. For all the Theriot hate on this board, I have a hard time believing anyone would disagree with that.

 

Now if you're a sad-sack club like the Royals or Orioles or whatever, then maybe you'd trade a few wins this year for a nice prospect that might help you down the road.

 

However if you're the Cubs, you'd be more inclined to do the exact opposite -- trade prospects for an upgrade that will net more wins now.

 

This is why the original notion that Theriot could be traded and replaced by Blanco/Barney is silly and pointless.

 

How many games do you think Theriot is over Blanco/Barney?

If I had to put a number on it, I'd say three.

 

I agree that this whole debate is pointless because Hendry/Cubs are not going to trade Theriot. I do believe though that a player who probably is at the peek of his trade value right now should not be considered untouchable if at the most he worth is 3 wins this season. If good value can be had in a trade it should be considered.

[davearm2]

Whoa.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying "the season is over before it's begun," nor do I think that if the team opted to trade Theriot it would necessarily indicate that mentality since Theriot, quite frankly, is not making or breaking this team. I would not be opposed at all to them trading Theriot sooner than later since getting a better return on him hinges more on sooner since as he gets older and more expensive his trade value will plummet...though I understand also why the Cubs would opt to not trade him at this point (popularity with fans, useful in his limited capacities, relatively cheap for the time being, SS prospects not ready yet). That said, I do not think something along the lines of a Barney/Blanco platoon at SS is "giving up on the team."

The Cubs will win fewer ballgames in 2010 if Blanco/Barney is their everyday SS rather than Theriot. For all the Theriot hate on this board, I have a hard time believing anyone would disagree with that.

 

Now if you're a sad-sack club like the Royals or Orioles or whatever, then maybe you'd trade a few wins this year for a nice prospect that might help you down the road.

 

However if you're the Cubs, you'd be more inclined to do the exact opposite -- trade prospects for an upgrade that will net more wins now.

 

This is why the original notion that Theriot could be traded and replaced by Blanco/Barney is silly and pointless.

 

How many games do you think Theriot is over Blanco/Barney?

If I had to put a number on it, I'd say three.

 

I agree that this whole debate is pointless because Hendry/Cubs are not going to trade Theriot. I do believe though that a player who probably is at the peek of his trade value right now should not be considered untouchable if at the most he worth is 3 wins this season. If good value can be had in a trade it should be considered.

Theriot's not worth 3 wins at the most. The expected value I threw out is 3. Could be higher though.

 

Anyway if they'd get a guy back in the deal that offsets the wins lost, then that's one thing. If it's just for prospects with zero impact in 2010, then that's something else. The former is obviously more plausible.

[Four and Twenty]

Trade talk involving anyone on the Cubs roster is just hypothetical babble at this point.

 

Not necessarily.

The Cubs have a number of players on the 40 man roster that can't be easily sent down (i.e. without clearing waivers or the right to refuse), so discussing possible trades to solve any problem of trimming down to 25 may not be as hypothetical as you would like to think.

Trade talk about anyone on the roster isn't necessarily babble, but Theriot trade talk certainly is. The Cubs won't even think about trading Theriot until next offseason. If by some chance Castro makes the Cubs and is very successful, Theriot moves over to 2B. The only way the Cubs would trade Theriot this season would be if Castro shines and Fontenot/Baker put up great numbers at 2B during the regular season.

Definitely.

 

I should have been more specific. I was referring to trade talk involving the 25-man roster, and more specifically any of the Cubs core that might available throughout the season depending on the their level of success.

[Four and Twenty]

I wasn't expecting to walk into a Freshmen Composition lecture this morning....

 

Even the professor needs a chalkboard diagram at times...