What players do we actually want to keep off current roster?

[mul21]

Marshall has never cracked 135 IP in a season, and a big reason for that is he kept coming down with minor injuries as a starter. Sure, he might be able to fill a role, but he's put up 5 WAR the last two years. Given that he's far from a guarantee to be a success as a starter, I think it's a big stretch to say that moving him to the rotation would end up being a net positive.

 

Then there's the issue of filling the role he vacates as well. I agree, too high of a risk for an unknown when he's been as great as he's been in the setup role.

[davearm2]

Marshall has never cracked 135 IP in a season, and a big reason for that is he kept coming down with minor injuries as a starter. Sure, he might be able to fill a role, but he's put up 5 WAR the last two years. Given that he's far from a guarantee to be a success as a starter, I think it's a big stretch to say that moving him to the rotation would end up being a net positive.

Fair points, and those are the concerns. But if it works, he's worth 5 WAR every year. If it only kinda works, he's still probably going to be worth 2.5 (Randy Wells 09-10 range).

 

If you don't think he can even replicate Wells, then sure, leave him alone.

[mul21]

Marshall has never cracked 135 IP in a season, and a big reason for that is he kept coming down with minor injuries as a starter. Sure, he might be able to fill a role, but he's put up 5 WAR the last two years. Given that he's far from a guarantee to be a success as a starter, I think it's a big stretch to say that moving him to the rotation would end up being a net positive.

Fair points, and those are the concerns. But if it works, he's worth 5 WAR every year. If it only kinda works, he's still probably going to be worth 2.5 (Randy Wells 09-10 range).

 

If you don't think he can even replicate Wells, then sure, leave him alone.

 

I'm less worried about him replicating Wells than I am with him ending up broken given his history. It could work, but even if he gives you 150 IP and then gets hurt, WAR may say you gained something, but you've lost a valuable guy by taking an unnecessary risk.

[davearm2]

Marshall has never cracked 135 IP in a season, and a big reason for that is he kept coming down with minor injuries as a starter. Sure, he might be able to fill a role, but he's put up 5 WAR the last two years. Given that he's far from a guarantee to be a success as a starter, I think it's a big stretch to say that moving him to the rotation would end up being a net positive.

Fair points, and those are the concerns. But if it works, he's worth 5 WAR every year. If it only kinda works, he's still probably going to be worth 2.5 (Randy Wells 09-10 range).

 

If you don't think he can even replicate Wells, then sure, leave him alone.

 

I'm less worried about him replicating Wells than I am with him ending up broken given his history. It could work, but even if he gives you 150 IP and then gets hurt, WAR may say you gained something, but you've lost a valuable guy by taking an unnecessary risk.

Of course this assumes that starting puts Marshall at greater risk for injury than relieving, which is probably not a valid thing to assume.

 

I think it was John Smoltz that said closing put much more wear-and-tear on his arm than starting.

[Guest]

Marshall has never cracked 135 IP in a season, and a big reason for that is he kept coming down with minor injuries as a starter. Sure, he might be able to fill a role, but he's put up 5 WAR the last two years. Given that he's far from a guarantee to be a success as a starter, I think it's a big stretch to say that moving him to the rotation would end up being a net positive.

Fair points, and those are the concerns. But if it works, he's worth 5 WAR every year. If it only kinda works, he's still probably going to be worth 2.5 (Randy Wells 09-10 range).

 

If you don't think he can even replicate Wells, then sure, leave him alone.

 

I'm less worried about him replicating Wells than I am with him ending up broken given his history. It could work, but even if he gives you 150 IP and then gets hurt, WAR may say you gained something, but you've lost a valuable guy by taking an unnecessary risk.

Of course this assumes that starting puts Marshall at greater risk for injury than relieving, which is probably not a valid thing to assume.

 

I think it was John Smoltz that said closing put much more wear-and-tear on his arm than starting.

 

One of Marshall's recurring problems was with blisters, which would definitely be at a higher risk of recurring if he's starting.

 

Maybe Marshall ends up a 5 WAR guy, but I don't think that's so likely that it's worth the injury and performance risk. The odds of SP Marshall + [whoever replaces his pen innings] exceeding the value of [Wells/Cashner/whoever he would be replacing] + RP Marshall are very slim.

[davearm2]

Marshall has never cracked 135 IP in a season, and a big reason for that is he kept coming down with minor injuries as a starter. Sure, he might be able to fill a role, but he's put up 5 WAR the last two years. Given that he's far from a guarantee to be a success as a starter, I think it's a big stretch to say that moving him to the rotation would end up being a net positive.

Fair points, and those are the concerns. But if it works, he's worth 5 WAR every year. If it only kinda works, he's still probably going to be worth 2.5 (Randy Wells 09-10 range).

 

If you don't think he can even replicate Wells, then sure, leave him alone.

 

I'm less worried about him replicating Wells than I am with him ending up broken given his history. It could work, but even if he gives you 150 IP and then gets hurt, WAR may say you gained something, but you've lost a valuable guy by taking an unnecessary risk.

Of course this assumes that starting puts Marshall at greater risk for injury than relieving, which is probably not a valid thing to assume.

 

I think it was John Smoltz that said closing put much more wear-and-tear on his arm than starting.

 

One of Marshall's recurring problems was with blisters, which would definitely be at a higher risk of recurring if he's starting.

 

Maybe Marshall ends up a 5 WAR guy, but I don't think that's so likely that it's worth the injury and performance risk. The odds of SP Marshall + [whoever replaces his pen innings] exceeding the value of [Wells/Cashner/whoever he would be replacing] + RP Marshall are very slim.

Ideally, Marshall would be "replacing" CJ Wilson, and saving the Cubs $100M or whatever that they can then spend elsewhere.

 

That's best-case, of course. And I know the money is extremely loose and doesn't account for Marshall's salary. Point is SM is dramatically cheaper. Offer him a 4/$15M extension and tell him you'd like to try him as a starter. He'd be an enormous value and a huge asset at those prices, if he can stick.

[mookie]

Oh, I see I am not the only one.

 

8-[

[Sammy Sofa]

I'd offer him a much smaller reliever-based extension and then tell him he was going to start after he had already accepted it (not that I think starting Marshall is a very good idea).

[CubColtPacer]

Marshall has never cracked 135 IP in a season, and a big reason for that is he kept coming down with minor injuries as a starter. Sure, he might be able to fill a role, but he's put up 5 WAR the last two years. Given that he's far from a guarantee to be a success as a starter, I think it's a big stretch to say that moving him to the rotation would end up being a net positive.

Fair points, and those are the concerns. But if it works, he's worth 5 WAR every year. If it only kinda works, he's still probably going to be worth 2.5 (Randy Wells 09-10 range).

 

If you don't think he can even replicate Wells, then sure, leave him alone.

 

The problem becomes that it's much easier to find a starter that can put up a 2.5 WAR than a reliever. Marshall would almost have to put up 4-5 WAR as a starter to match what he does in the bullpen. There's a big roster spot and playing time adjustment to factor in. In a vacuum, Marshall as a decent starter is just as good or better to the Cubs than him as an elite reliever, but I don't think the reality matches that. That's especially true for a market like the Cubs where playing time is a more scarce resource than money.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Castro

Garza

Marshall

Soto

Shark

Ramirez?

 

 

But really everyone but Castro...though I think the talent of the team is underrated due to the poor finishing record. Because most of the talent to keep is young or early prime I'm not sure they can't help this team get going again faster than is percieved. I think a good GM would see room for a quick turnaroud given the teams monetary resources and not unappealing farm system.

[C.C.]

Castro

Garza

Marshall

Soto

Shark

Ramirez?

 

 

But really everyone but Castro...though I think the talent of the team is underrated due to the poor finishing record. Because most of the talent to keep is young or early prime I'm not sure they can't help this team get going again faster than is percieved. I think a good GM would see room for a quick turnaroud given the teams monetary resources and not unappealing farm system.

 

Shark? Hell, I'd be happy as a clam if that's who they wanted.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Shark? Hell, I'd be happy as a clam if that's who they wanted.

 

Yeah they should be falling over themselves to hand over young power pitching because he failed to live up to the obligations of an overslot draft pick.

 

He was probably the best reliever on the team in the second half...and he's clearly still growing as a pitcher.

 

I'd rather not give up major league talent. I think it's dumb to do so.

[Butterscup1679666578]

if a reliever was what boston wanted then holy [expletive], do it yesterday

[C.C.]

Shark? Hell, I'd be happy as a clam if that's who they wanted.

 

Yeah they should be falling over themselves to hand over young power pitching because he failed to live up to the obligations of an overslot draft pick.

 

He was probably the best reliever on the team in the second half...and he's clearly still growing as a pitcher.

 

I'd rather not give up major league talent. I think it's dumb to do so.

 

For Theo? You're crazy.

[EpsteinCubs]

Shark? Hell, I'd be happy as a clam if that's who they wanted.

 

Yeah they should be falling over themselves to hand over young power pitching because he failed to live up to the obligations of an overslot draft pick.

 

He was probably the best reliever on the team in the second half...and he's clearly still growing as a pitcher.

 

I'd rather not give up major league talent. I think it's dumb to do so.

 

For Theo? You're crazy.

Agreed. Shark was awesome for most of last year but fact of the matter is, he's an overpaid reliever. I'd give him up for Theo in a heartbeat.

[Guest]

I'd give up Samardzija for Albert Pujols this offseason too. Fortunately in both cases, they don't have to.

[C.C.]

I'd give up Samardzija for Albert Pujols this offseason too. Fortunately in both cases, they don't have to.

 

You mean Boston doesn't want to.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'd give up Samardzija for Albert Pujols this offseason too. Fortunately in both cases, they don't have to.

 

You mean Boston doesn't want to.

No, he was right the first time.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd give up Samardzija for Albert Pujols this offseason too. Fortunately in both cases, they don't have to.

 

+1 for TT being in charge of the negotiations

[Guest]

I'd give up Samardzija for Albert Pujols this offseason too. Fortunately in both cases, they don't have to.

 

You mean Boston doesn't want to.

 

No, I mean I've seen this nonsensical loop about 10 times in the last 3 days. Saying there's no way I'd give Samardzija for Epstein is not the same thing as saying I think Samardzija is more valuable than Epstein. What it means is that under the circumstances it is wholly unnecessary to give up Samardzija in order to get Epstein, just like it would be crazy to give up players in order to sign Albert Pujols as a Free Agent. Furthermore, even if you're of the mind that all the logical reasons to limit Boston's leverage(6.5 million to disgruntled Theo for one year, hit to reputation on future executives, loss of ANY compensation, etc) are bunk, the one thing that's been consistently reported is that the compensation would not be MLB players, so hypotheticals like Shark or Soto from the other thread are even more rhetorical than they already ought to be.

[Tracer Bullet]

I told you he was right the first time. Why do you feel compelled to be dense about this?

[A New Era]

Castro is about the only one that should be part of the next "core". Players like Soto, Byrd, Marshall, Garza, etc. . who probably have some decent trade value should go IF you get a pretty good young talent in return. Otherwise let them stay on the roster to field a "competitive" team.

 

How long do you think we'll be non-competitive? Garza's only turning 28 next year and Marshall is around 30. Unless the next time we have a "core" together is 4-5 years from now, both of those players can easily be a part of the next core.

 

And Garza will have far more than decent trade value. He was one of the better pitchers in the majors this year, I'd only trade him if I got a huge amount in return.

 

What I'm basically saying, in response to the topic, who out of the current roster is off limits. My response is no one but Castro. What I'm trying to say about those young guys is they are actually worth some pretty good trade value. But I would ONLY trade them if I get a minor leaguer who is a couple years away but is a CLEAR improvement over the player you are trading. So I'd rather keep them, but if it netted us a top prospect then ofcourse I would give them up. Because I'd rather build for the next few years than keep a guy that MIGHT not be as valuable a few years from now.

[dew1679666265]

What I'm basically saying, in response to the topic, who out of the current roster is off limits. My response is no one but Castro. What I'm trying to say about those young guys is they are actually worth some pretty good trade value. But I would ONLY trade them if I get a minor leaguer who is a couple years away but is a CLEAR improvement over the player you are trading. So I'd rather keep them, but if it netted us a top prospect then ofcourse I would give them up. Because I'd rather build for the next few years than keep a guy that MIGHT not be as valuable a few years from now.

 

I get what you're saying now. I would only consider trading Garza if we got a fantastic deal for him. With the season he had last year, he finally began to make that step from really good pitcher to elite and he's a very good value at this point. The only way I consider dealing him is if multiple top prospects are coming back our way and at least one or two are right on the edge of being major league ready.

 

On Marshall, it's very hard to find consistently good relievers and Marshall is one of the few. I'd want quite a lot to consider dealing him as well.