Re: New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

[Little Slide Rooter]

I would not be OK with that unless there was something else coming our way.

[SouthSideRyan]

Ace/Brett over at bleachernation.com is reporting that multiple sources have told him that Vitters is in the discussion in the compensation talks.

 

I know a lot of people don't love Vitters, but that's a lot higher up the scale than we are hoping to give up.

 

Theo&Jed probably hate him. There's no reason for him to be involved otherwise. This is dumb.

[Guest]

Ace/Brett over at bleachernation.com is reporting that multiple sources have told him that Vitters is in the discussion in the compensation talks.

 

I know a lot of people don't love Vitters, but that's a lot higher up the scale than we are hoping to give up.

 

Theo&Jed probably hate him. There's no reason for him to be involved otherwise. This is dumb.

 

Seriously. If something like Vitters or Lake happens, chalk up a victory for stamping your feet like a petulant child.

[sneakypower]

sticking Boston with either of those stiffs would be a great long con

[mookie]

Vitters is a big bag of awful. No sweat off my sack.

[UMFan83]

In terms of the ranking of prospect that Vitters is, I think that's too much, but all rankings aside, I really don't care if Vitters is the compensation. I probably should care more but I don't.

[dew1679666265]

Vitters is a big bag of awful. No sweat off my sack.

 

He has value and upside. Whether you like him or not, he's a far better piece than the Cubs gave up to get MacPhail and Selig forcing us to give him away to the Red Sox would take away a fairly valuable trade chip from an organization that still lacks them.

 

That said, I simply can't imagine this is serious. I don't mean to doubt Brett and I'm sure he's heard it if he says he did, but it's hard to believe Selig would be ok with setting a brand new, much higher precedent than the one that was already set.

[dew1679666265]

In terms of the ranking of prospect that Vitters is, I think that's too much, but all rankings aside, I really don't care if Vitters is the compensation. I probably should care more but I don't.

 

It would annoy me a lot. I like Vitters, but I doubt he's in Theo/Jed's long term plans. However, he is a toolsy, still young guy who a scout-heavy organization could still overvalue. Even if you think his likelihood of becoming a successful major leaguer is near 0, his potential trade value makes him far too valuable to simply give away.

[mookie]

I guess I didn't flesh out my thoughts completely. I do agree that Vitters is too high. He just isn't a too high guy that is going to make me flip out or anything.

[davell]

I'd prefer losing Vitters to Lake myself. That said, this is on the very high side of what I think is fair. As long as it's not more than this, I won't lose sleep over it.

[UMFan83]

In terms of the ranking of prospect that Vitters is, I think that's too much, but all rankings aside, I really don't care if Vitters is the compensation. I probably should care more but I don't.

 

It would annoy me a lot. I like Vitters, but I doubt he's in Theo/Jed's long term plans. However, he is a toolsy, still young guy who a scout-heavy organization could still overvalue. Even if you think his likelihood of becoming a successful major leaguer is near 0, his potential trade value makes him far too valuable to simply give away.

 

Yeah you make a good point about having value. That said, if Theo thought there was legit value there, I'd think he would refuse to give him up as compensation.

[A New Era]

Wasn't Vitters a first round pick? So thanks selig you dolt. Even though precident was already set, now just to screw the cubs new precident = GM promotion? 1st round pick. Yeah real FAIR there.

[davell]

Wasn't Vitters a first round pick? So thanks selig you dolt. Even though precident was already set, now just to screw the cubs new precident = GM promotion? 1st round pick. Yeah real FAIR there.

Why is Vitters' 1st round pick status relevent? He's a decent prospect, but I don't think anyone could possibly say he's actually lived up to what he was supposed to be. And this is coming from a guy that still has hopes of him becoming an everyday player.

[javy knows my name]

Wasn't Vitters a first round pick? So thanks selig you dolt. Even though precident was already set, now just to screw the cubs new precident = GM promotion? 1st round pick. Yeah real FAIR there.

 

This guy is upset with Selig right now

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yeah you make a good point about having value. That said, if Theo thought there was legit value there, I'd think he would refuse to give him up as compensation.

 

It may be out of his hands at this point. Or at least, it's at the point where he's going to have to make a choice he doesn't want to make, such as Vitters or Lake.

[Guest]

Vitters is a big bag of awful. No sweat off my sack.

 

He has value and upside. Whether you like him or not, he's a far better piece than the Cubs gave up to get MacPhail and Selig forcing us to give him away to the Red Sox would take away a fairly valuable trade chip from an organization that still lacks them.

 

That said, I simply can't imagine this is serious. I don't mean to doubt Brett and I'm sure he's heard it if he says he did, but it's hard to believe Selig would be ok with setting a brand new, much higher precedent than the one that was already set.

 

Exactly. Even though Vitters isn't a top prospect, he still has good trade value. Boston should be getting far less value in compensation.

[A New Era]

Wasn't Vitters a first round pick? So thanks selig you dolt. Even though precident was already set, now just to screw the cubs new precident = GM promotion? 1st round pick. Yeah real FAIR there.

Why is Vitters' 1st round pick status relevent? He's a decent prospect, but I don't think anyone could possibly say he's actually lived up to what he was supposed to be. And this is coming from a guy that still has hopes of him becoming an everyday player.

 

Well it's relevant because 1st round picks, even ones that haven't lived up to it, still hold value. Let's be honest, he's still pretty young and hasn't completely lost his value. We had to trade a 1st round pick to get another, Rizzo. Now don't get me wrong Cashner is way more proven than Vitters is, but even though he was injured during his very first start and missed most of last year, because he was a first round pick we were able to trade him for the #1 first base prospect going into 2012.

 

Vitters is a very valuable trade chip, that could be a part of a very good trade for the Cubs. And now thanks to Selig, that could be gone.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Shouldn't we wait until we actually give up Vitters before condemning it? Maybe someone else has heard something I havn't, but all I know is that Vitters is in the "discussion". Matt Szczur, Trey McNutt, Brett Jackson, Matt Garza, and Starlin Castro, have all been in the discussion at some point. For all we know we'll send them Jay Jackson and Logan Watkins and be done with it.

 

I'd still rather give up Lake over Vitters due to the fact that we have a short stop for years to come, plus several young options in the lowe levels but nothing really for 3rd aside from Baez. If we knew that Ian Stewart could come anywhere near his ceiling, sending Vitters would be easier to swallow. Unless of course Lake were to be put at 3rd for the next few years in the minors.

[KingCubsFan]

Shouldn't we wait until we actually give up Vitters before condemning it? Maybe someone else has heard something I havn't, but all I know is that Vitters is in the "discussion". Matt Szczur, Trey McNutt, Brett Jackson, Matt Garza, and Starlin Castro, have all been in the discussion at some point. For all we know we'll send them Jay Jackson and Logan Watkins and be done with it.

 

I'd still rather give up Lake over Vitters due to the fact that we have a short stop for years to come, plus several young options in the lowe levels but nothing really for 3rd aside from Baez. If we knew that Ian Stewart could come anywhere near his ceiling, sending Vitters would be easier to swallow. Unless of course Lake were to be put at 3rd for the next few years in the minors.

Lake's days as a SS are likely over, so we're probably looking at two 3B prospects, although Lake could also move to the outfield. I think I'd probably give up Lake, but it's close.

 

Wasn't the guy we gave up for MacPhail our #10 prospect? If that's the case, without getting into system comparisons, giving up Vitters wouldn't be that egregious, although it still sets a very bad precedent.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wasn't the guy we gave up for MacPhail our #10 prospect? If that's the case, without getting into system comparisons, giving up Vitters wouldn't be that egregious, although it still sets a very bad precedent.

 

#10 in a system with 1 top 100 prospect.

[Guest]

Shouldn't we wait until we actually give up Vitters before condemning it? Maybe someone else has heard something I havn't, but all I know is that Vitters is in the "discussion". Matt Szczur, Trey McNutt, Brett Jackson, Matt Garza, and Starlin Castro, have all been in the discussion at some point. For all we know we'll send them Jay Jackson and Logan Watkins and be done with it.

 

I think we're capable of reacting to what the potential return would be without knowing if it is officially going to happen. Especially when the reaction is "What a crock" and not something like "How could you Theo you idiot".

[SouthSideRyan]

WSR thinks we should stop and think things through before posting our thoughts. Edited February 9, 2012 by SouthSideRyan

[weis21]

Brett now hearing it will be "lesser value" than JV.

 

Red Sox sources still expect the Theo Epstein compensation issue to be resolved before the start of Spring Training. After hearing from multiple sources earlier in the week that Josh Vitters’ was the name being tossed around, I’m no told the compensation will probably be of a “lesser value” than Vitters. That sounds more reasonable.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Brett now hearing it will be "lesser value" than JV.

 

Red Sox sources still expect the Theo Epstein compensation issue to be resolved before the start of Spring Training. After hearing from multiple sources earlier in the week that Josh Vitters’ was the name being tossed around, I’m no told the compensation will probably be of a “lesser value” than Vitters. That sounds more reasonable.

 

just for S&G, a few names that come to mind are, in no particular order: Logan Watkins, Jay Jackson, Jeimer Candelerio, Chris Rusin, Dae Eun Rhee, Jeff Antigua, Steve Clevenger, Hayden Simpson, Micah Gibbs, Nick Struck, Jeff Beliveau, Ronald Torryes, Dave Sappelt, Tony Campana, Matt Cerda, David Cales, Marcus Hatley, Zach Cates, Rebel Ridling, Brooks Raley, Kevin Rhoderick, Ja Hoon Ha, Frank Batista, Frank Del Valle, Austin Kirk, Austin Reed, Juan Cerrano, Ruby Silva, Zach Rosscup, Michael Burgess, Dallas Beeler, Grahem Hicks, Robinson Lopez, Kyler Burke, Reggie Golden, Marco Hernandez, Giosker Amaya, Wilson Contreres, Wes Darvill, Pin Cheih-Chen, Sun Ming Jun, Cam Greathouse.

 

I know, a lot of names and a very wide range. A lot of guys that we value. Those bolded are guys that I'd really hope don't even enter the conversation, but outside of our top 10-15 and 2011 draft picks, I don't know who's really safe assuming that Selig is moderating this thing.

[A New Era]

Shouldn't we wait until we actually give up Vitters before condemning it? Maybe someone else has heard something I havn't, but all I know is that Vitters is in the "discussion". Matt Szczur, Trey McNutt, Brett Jackson, Matt Garza, and Starlin Castro, have all been in the discussion at some point. For all we know we'll send them Jay Jackson and Logan Watkins and be done with it.

 

I'd still rather give up Lake over Vitters due to the fact that we have a short stop for years to come, plus several young options in the lowe levels but nothing really for 3rd aside from Baez. If we knew that Ian Stewart could come anywhere near his ceiling, sending Vitters would be easier to swallow. Unless of course Lake were to be put at 3rd for the next few years in the minors.

 

Thinking of, what positions we need, as a general rule, is ok, I guess. I still say always go for the highest rated guy available, unless the position you desperately need is like 1 ranking below him or something. But you shouldn't think that way in this compensation. You should think only of, how low of a prospect can we get away with giving? Because those are very important pieces you want to have as trade chips when we go seeking to file a hole via trade. Say at SP, or 2B, or RF or whatever. Josh Vitters as part of a package would net you a better talent as say, someone like Steve Clevenger.

 

I think it will be more than that ofcourse, but we should hope for the lowest return possible, not only to keep high level chips in our system. But to stick it to an owner who has been acting like a stubborn child.