Re: Starlin Castro making decision tough on Chicago Cubs

[Guest]

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.

Then again, I appreciate most any erudite poster who raises the level of conversation. :)

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

I simply disagree with this. Trading Theriot is not the makings of a fire sale or a "sad sack" team. I understand that the Cubs are presenting the idea that they are a "win now" team, but the reality is that they're not a win now team. They're a "maybe we'll win if our old team doesn't have another off-year or gets hit with injuries and if this crappy division stays healthy." The reality is that the Cubs are not in any kind of situation where they NEED to keep Theriot because of the small margin of wins he might give them vs. a Barney/Blanco platoon. I agree, it would be helpful if Theriot could be part of a package that got the Cubs a player that could impact them since there is a a decent chance they could contend despite their halfassed construction, but it is in no way a necessity that trading Theriot would have to mean a return of a player who could be plugged into the team right away. The Cubs are at a crossroads with the contracts that are coming up this year and the next and I would not mind at all if Ricketts' rhetoric about building for the future meant that players like Theriot were moved for prospects.

[Guest]

Not to derail such a wonderful discussion about finishing complete thoughts and transferring those thoughts to words on a computer screen without losing its meaning, but why has every post used Blanco/Barney as if they are one and the same.

 

Have we determined that Barney will be nothing more than Blanco as a big leaguer, thus they are completely interchangeable?

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think anyone's determined anything. It's simply one suggestion. I've been saying "platoon" while thinking more in the sense that the Cubs would likely have both of them up since they need a SS backup.

[davearm2]

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.

 

I simply disagree with this. Trading Theriot is not the makings of a fire sale or a "sad sack" team. I understand that the Cubs are presenting the idea that they are a "win now" team, but the reality is that they're not a win now team. They're a "maybe we'll win if our old team doesn't have another off-year or gets hit with injuries and if this crappy division stays healthy." The reality is that the Cubs are not in any kind of situation where they NEED to keep Theriot because of the small margin of wins he might give them vs. a Barney/Blanco platoon. I agree, it would be helpful if Theriot could be part of a package that got the Cubs a player that could impact them since there is a a decent chance they could contend despite their halfassed construction, but it is in no way a necessity that trading Theriot would have to mean a return of a player who could be plugged into the team right away. The Cubs are at a crossroads with the contracts that are coming up this year and the next and I would not mind at all if Ricketts' rhetoric about building for the future meant that players like Theriot were moved for prospects.

Look let's make this real simple.

 

Do you think the Cubs have a legitimate chance to contend in 2010? Yes or no.

 

If the answer is yes, then the notion of making a deal that costs you ~3 wins is just flat out ludicrous.

 

If the answer is no, then a) you're more pessimistic than most, and b) Theriot should be well down the Cubs' trade "to-do" list.

[Sammy Sofa]

Do you think the Cubs have a legitimate chance to contend in 2010? Yes or no.

 

If the answer is yes, then the notion of making a deal that costs you ~3 wins is just flat out ludicrous.

 

If the answer is no, then a) you're more pessimistic than most, and b) Theriot should be well down the Cubs' trade "to-do" list.

 

It's not that simple.

 

Yes, I think the Cubs can contend in 2010. I think they can contend despite having a rather underwhelming because they are in a bad division. I think that's a terrible reason to cling to a player like Theriot IF (and that "if" is a huge caveat because maybe the demand for him simply isn't there) they can move him in a good deal that potentially helps the club in the long run.

 

I don't want them to move Theriot just for the sake of moving him. My parts of this discussion have been with the idea that I think they should move him only if they can get a good return on him and teams are actually looking to pick him up while he's still cheap and before he gets too old. If the interest isn't there then you're right, there's no reason to force the issue.

 

I don't think anyone on the 25-man should be "safe" this season regardless of their relative ability to contend simply because they're in a bad division. If the deadline is approaching and they're more than 5 games out then I think they need to seriously look at who they can move and who maybe can be talked into waving their NTC. 5 games might not be much in the grand scheme of things, but that's pretty sorry given how much money is sunk into this team and how craptacular this division is. Desperately holding onto a player like Theriot and negating his ever-shrinking window of value in that kind of scenario doesn't strike me as being in the club's best interests when it comes to the big picture.

[MSG T]

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.

 

I simply disagree with this. Trading Theriot is not the makings of a fire sale or a "sad sack" team. I understand that the Cubs are presenting the idea that they are a "win now" team, but the reality is that they're not a win now team. They're a "maybe we'll win if our old team doesn't have another off-year or gets hit with injuries and if this crappy division stays healthy." The reality is that the Cubs are not in any kind of situation where they NEED to keep Theriot because of the small margin of wins he might give them vs. a Barney/Blanco platoon. I agree, it would be helpful if Theriot could be part of a package that got the Cubs a player that could impact them since there is a a decent chance they could contend despite their halfassed construction, but it is in no way a necessity that trading Theriot would have to mean a return of a player who could be plugged into the team right away. The Cubs are at a crossroads with the contracts that are coming up this year and the next and I would not mind at all if Ricketts' rhetoric about building for the future meant that players like Theriot were moved for prospects.

Look let's make this real simple.

 

Do you think the Cubs have a legitimate chance to contend in 2010? Yes or no.

 

If the answer is yes, then the notion of making a deal that costs you ~3 wins is just flat out ludicrous.

 

If the answer is no, then a) you're more pessimistic than most, and b) Theriot should be well down the Cubs' trade "to-do" list.

 

 

Not if dealing Theriot nets you a player, say a 2B, that makes up that 3 wins or more. You get stronger at one position while making yourself weaker at another. They won't just give Theriot away for free, there has to be some value coming back. If you get a guy back that is an improvement over Baker/Fontenot by, say, 4 wins, you make that deal. You are a better team even though you are now worse at SS.

 

Keep in mind, my argument is but one possible example, but should explain it.

 

Theriot should be well down on the Cubs "to do" list if he won't bring back anything of value. If he will, then it should be looked at.

[Backtobanks]

I enjoy discussion as much as anybody, but all of this discussion about trading Theriot is ridiculous. The discussion revolves around:

1. Castro/Blanco/Barney being ready to play SS everyday on a contending team.

2. Getting a player in return for Theriot that will strengthen the 2010 roster (most likely a 2B or SS).

 

Since neither one of those is likely, anyone thinking Theriot will be traded before next winter is delusional.

[17 Seconds]

I enjoy discussion as much as anybody, but all of this discussion about trading Theriot is ridiculous. The discussion revolves around:

1. Castro/Blanco/Barney being ready to play SS everyday on a contending team.

2. Getting a player in return for Theriot that will strengthen the 2010 roster (most likely a 2B or SS).

 

Since neither one of those is likely, anyone thinking Theriot will be traded before next winter is delusional.

 

bring us all back to reality with one of your multi-team trade proposals then

[Bobson Dugnutt]

I enjoy discussion as much as anybody, but all of this discussion about trading Theriot is ridiculous. The discussion revolves around:

1. Castro/Blanco/Barney being ready to play SS everyday on a contending team.

2. Getting a player in return for Theriot that will strengthen the 2010 roster (most likely a 2B or SS).

 

Since neither one of those is likely, anyone thinking Theriot will be traded before next winter is delusional.

 

bring us all back to reality with one of your multi-team trade proposals then

 

awesome

[Sammy Sofa]

I enjoy discussion as much as anybody, but all of this discussion about trading Theriot is ridiculous. The discussion revolves around:

1. Castro/Blanco/Barney being ready to play SS everyday on a contending team.

2. Getting a player in return for Theriot that will strengthen the 2010 roster (most likely a 2B or SS).

 

Since neither one of those is likely, anyone thinking Theriot will be traded before next winter is delusional.

 

The reality of the discussion does not revolve only around those two points. You're trying to frame it like the Cubs are actually a "win now" team when in reality they're just selling the "win now" message with a very underwhelming team. The Cubs very easily could eat the SS production of Blanco/Castro if it's part of a process to make the team better in the long run while shaking off as many overrated and overpaid (or soon to be overpaid) players as possible.

 

I actually agree that them trading Theriot is unlikely since, like trading DeRosa, it would be perceived as a negative move by most of the media and too many of the fans regardless of the return because while this team is only a "contender" because the division is so bad, the perception still exists that they should be winning it and if they don't then you're just going to see the same scramble to blame and make excuses as last year. The wild card in all of this is how smart Ricketts is and how much he's willing to accept in terms of negative publicity this early in the ownership game if it means making decisions that are good for the club in the long run. There's absolutely nothing "delusional" with the idea of trading Theriot to make the team stronger in the future given how piss-poor and old the team is made up right now.

[Backtobanks]

I enjoy discussion as much as anybody, but all of this discussion about trading Theriot is ridiculous. The discussion revolves around:

1. Castro/Blanco/Barney being ready to play SS everyday on a contending team.

2. Getting a player in return for Theriot that will strengthen the 2010 roster (most likely a 2B or SS).

 

Since neither one of those is likely, anyone thinking Theriot will be traded before next winter is delusional.

 

The reality of the discussion does not revolve only around those two points. You're trying to frame it like the Cubs are actually a "win now" team when in reality they're just selling the "win now" message with a very underwhelming team. The Cubs very easily could eat the SS production of Blanco/Castro if it's part of a process to make the team better in the long run while shaking off as many overrated and overpaid (or soon to be overpaid) players as possible.

 

I actually agree that them trading Theriot is unlikely since, like trading DeRosa, it would be perceived as a negative move by most of the media and too many of the fans regardless of the return because while this team is only a "contender" because the division is so bad, the perception still exists that they should be winning it and if they don't then you're just going to see the same scramble to blame and make excuses as last year. The wild card in all of this is how smart Ricketts is and how much he's willing to accept in terms of negative publicity this early in the ownership game if it means making decisions that are good for the club in the long run. There's absolutely nothing "delusional" with the idea of trading Theriot to make the team stronger in the future given how piss-poor and old the team is made up right now.

 

But how many teams are willing to give up 1-2 top prospects for a 30-year old SS with no power, little range, and a weak arm. So if Ricketts is going to take a PR hit, weaken the current team, and receive serious prospects to improve the team in the future, Theriot would be pretty low on the trade list.

[Guest]

In the many times this conversation has taken place, I've never understood why the analysis settles in on this being a single, solitary move. Depending on circumstances, a Theriot trade could be one of several moves that takes place.

 

With Castro on the horizon, if a contending team has an injury to (or performance issues with) their SS, they could easily peg the Cubs as a team that might be willing to move their current SS. The Cubs could either get a different major league piece in return, a three way trade could be made, or the Cubs could save those prospects and then trade others to strengthen the major league team.

 

Also, if we're talking about half a season, three wins is a VERY large number for the difference in wins between Theriot and a temp replacement. According to BP's WARP metric (flaws properly caveated here), he's only been a 2.6 WARP player on average across the last three years. Even assuming he improves to a 3.1 or so WARP player means we'd only lose ~1.5 wins by going to someone like Barney if we did that for half a season. While every game obviously matters in a pennant race, there are obviously a lot of ways to make up that same amount of ground in a corresponding move after a hypothetical Theriot trade.

[Guest]

I enjoy discussion as much as anybody, but all of this discussion about trading Theriot is ridiculous. The discussion revolves around:

1. Castro/Blanco/Barney being ready to play SS everyday on a contending team.

2. Getting a player in return for Theriot that will strengthen the 2010 roster (most likely a 2B or SS).

 

Since neither one of those is likely, anyone thinking Theriot will be traded before next winter is delusional.

 

The reality of the discussion does not revolve only around those two points. You're trying to frame it like the Cubs are actually a "win now" team when in reality they're just selling the "win now" message with a very underwhelming team. The Cubs very easily could eat the SS production of Blanco/Castro if it's part of a process to make the team better in the long run while shaking off as many overrated and overpaid (or soon to be overpaid) players as possible.

 

I actually agree that them trading Theriot is unlikely since, like trading DeRosa, it would be perceived as a negative move by most of the media and too many of the fans regardless of the return because while this team is only a "contender" because the division is so bad, the perception still exists that they should be winning it and if they don't then you're just going to see the same scramble to blame and make excuses as last year. The wild card in all of this is how smart Ricketts is and how much he's willing to accept in terms of negative publicity this early in the ownership game if it means making decisions that are good for the club in the long run. There's absolutely nothing "delusional" with the idea of trading Theriot to make the team stronger in the future given how piss-poor and old the team is made up right now.

 

But how many teams are willing to give up 1-2 top prospects for a 30-year old SS with no power, little range, and a weak arm. So if Ricketts is going to take a PR hit, weaken the current team, and receive serious prospects to improve the team in the future, Theriot would be pretty low on the trade list.

If Theriot is as low an impact player as you suggest, then trading him shouldn't impact the big league team, right? You seem to want it both ways. He sucks when talking about trade value, but he's invaluable to a contending team like the Cubs and so they shouldn't even think about a trade.

[Sammy Sofa]

But how many teams are willing to give up 1-2 top prospects for a 30-year old SS with no power, little range, and a weak arm. So if Ricketts is going to take a PR hit, weaken the current team, and receive serious prospects to improve the team in the future, Theriot would be pretty low on the trade list.

 

If you had actually read the discussion you would have noticed I specifically stated in seperate posts that they should trade him only if the offers/demand are there and not simply to trade him just to trade him. Nowhere have I advocated moving Theriot just because it could be done. I think his value would likely be maxmized if he was part of a package, like, say, if it's near the deadline and the Cubs out of it and Lilly's had a nice bounceback. I think it would be a smart move to start offering a package of Lilly and Theriot to maximize the return, especially if they can't talk Aramis and Lee into waving their NTC's.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Sammy Sofa

[WilcoFan]

If you had actually read the discussion you wouldn have noticed I specifically stated in seperate posts that they should trade him only if the offers/demand are there and not simply to trade him just to trade him.

 

 

Is there a single major league player on the current Cubs team to whom this doesn't apply?

[wvcbxl]

If you had actually read the discussion you wouldn have noticed I specifically stated in seperate posts that they should trade him only if the offers/demand are there and not simply to trade him just to trade him.

 

 

Is there a single major league player on the current Cubs team to whom this doesn't apply?

 

Silva?

[chopsx9]

 

Also, if we're talking about half a season, three wins is a VERY large number for the difference in wins between Theriot and a temp replacement. According to BP's WARP metric (flaws properly caveated here), he's only been a 2.6 WARP player on average across the last three years. Even assuming he improves to a 3.1 or so WARP player means we'd only lose ~1.5 wins by going to someone like Barney if we did that for half a season. While every game obviously matters in a pennant race, there are obviously a lot of ways to make up that same amount of ground in a corresponding move after a hypothetical Theriot trade.

 

The assumption here is that Barney or Blanco will be able to perform at an average replacement player level though, correct?

[Guest]

 

Also, if we're talking about half a season, three wins is a VERY large number for the difference in wins between Theriot and a temp replacement. According to BP's WARP metric (flaws properly caveated here), he's only been a 2.6 WARP player on average across the last three years. Even assuming he improves to a 3.1 or so WARP player means we'd only lose ~1.5 wins by going to someone like Barney if we did that for half a season. While every game obviously matters in a pennant race, there are obviously a lot of ways to make up that same amount of ground in a corresponding move after a hypothetical Theriot trade.

 

The assumption here is that Barney or Blanco will be able to perform at an average replacement player level though, correct?

yep. It's not an especially high hurdle for two good defensive shortstops.

[Sammy Sofa]

If you had actually read the discussion you wouldn have noticed I specifically stated in seperate posts that they should trade him only if the offers/demand are there and not simply to trade him just to trade him.

 

 

Is there a single major league player on the current Cubs team to whom this doesn't apply?

 

There shouldn't be. (Except for maybe Soto)

Edited March 20, 2010 by Sammy Sofa

[biittner77]

How about we trade Theriot and Castro and anyone else in the system that Florida wants for Hanley Ramirez? This assumes that Florida won't be able to pay him what he'd command in FA and would be willing to use him to reload.

 

That would never happen but I could see Hendry doing something similar with another team with a soon to be too expensive SS and Ramirez was the first name that came to mind. Hendry is firmly in win now mode so cashing in the farm system for an upgrade at SS would be something he'd probably love to do.

[NewUserName]

In the many times this conversation has taken place, I've never understood why the analysis settles in on this being a single, solitary move. Depending on circumstances, a Theriot trade could be one of several moves that takes place.

 

With Castro on the horizon, if a contending team has an injury to (or performance issues with) their SS, they could easily peg the Cubs as a team that might be willing to move their current SS. The Cubs could either get a different major league piece in return, a three way trade could be made, or the Cubs could save those prospects and then trade others to strengthen the major league team.

 

I think a reason many people paint these types of trades as either/or is because that is usually what they are with the Cubs. When was the last time the Cubs traded a player in his prime that still had some sort of value to the team? I honestly can't think of any at the level of Theriot.

[Guest]

There is a lot of assuming going on that the Cubs will be in contention on July 31st. Injuries and inability to sustain "team chemistry" might have the Cubs on the outside looking in come July 31. If that's the case, I'd welcome the Cubs to find a new home for Theriot.

 

If the Cubs are in contention, I seriously doubt that Piniella will want to downgrade (in his eyes) from a veteran to a rookie in the heat of a playoff battle, and I'm certain Piniella will be bending Hendry's ear. This is the same Lou Piniella that needed veteran names like Robbie Alomar on his roster if he was going to take the Tampa job. I know he's not completely allergic to young talent being promoted, but in a playoff race, I'm quite sure they'll ride it out with Theriot at SS.

[Garwilly]

In the many times this conversation has taken place, I've never understood why the analysis settles in on this being a single, solitary move. Depending on circumstances, a Theriot trade could be one of several moves that takes place.

 

With Castro on the horizon, if a contending team has an injury to (or performance issues with) their SS, they could easily peg the Cubs as a team that might be willing to move their current SS. The Cubs could either get a different major league piece in return, a three way trade could be made, or the Cubs could save those prospects and then trade others to strengthen the major league team.

 

I think a reason many people paint these types of trades as either/or is because that is usually what they are with the Cubs. When was the last time the Cubs traded a player in his prime that still had some sort of value to the team? I honestly can't think of any at the level of Theriot.

 

DeRosa?

[NewUserName]

In the many times this conversation has taken place, I've never understood why the analysis settles in on this being a single, solitary move. Depending on circumstances, a Theriot trade could be one of several moves that takes place.

 

With Castro on the horizon, if a contending team has an injury to (or performance issues with) their SS, they could easily peg the Cubs as a team that might be willing to move their current SS. The Cubs could either get a different major league piece in return, a three way trade could be made, or the Cubs could save those prospects and then trade others to strengthen the major league team.

 

I think a reason many people paint these types of trades as either/or is because that is usually what they are with the Cubs. When was the last time the Cubs traded a player in his prime that still had some sort of value to the team? I honestly can't think of any at the level of Theriot.

 

DeRosa?

 

that was a sell... I should have put more parameters on my statement. One that came to mind after I posted was Lee Smith for Nipper and Shiraldi

 

edit: actually it probably does fit tims criteria since it did lead to other moves that were supposed to make the team better. I am not sure DeRosa was in his prime though