Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[davearm2]

That is one hilarious false dichotomy.

What a load of bullcrap.

 

Some team could call the Cubs today and make the sort of offer I just described.

 

If you're Theo/Hoyer, do you accept or decline?

[Guest]

Going into more detail on your false dichotomy doesn't make it any less of one.

[davearm2]

Going into more detail on your false dichotomy doesn't make it any less of one.

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right?

[Guest]

Going into more detail on your false dichotomy doesn't make it any less of one.

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right?

 

My position is that the idea that the Cubs find themselves in a spot where they are only able to get prospects who are at least 1 year away from breaking into MLB for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is a hilarious one.

[davearm2]

Going into more detail on your false dichotomy doesn't make it any less of one.

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right?

 

My position is that the idea that the Cubs find themselves in a spot where they are only able to get prospects who are at least 1 year away from breaking into MLB for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is a hilarious one.

If they got ML-ready guys instead, then they'd presumably be less highly regarded and/or have lower ceilings. That stands to reason, does it not?

 

Would you accept that return instead?

 

Neither would I.

 

So we're back to the two options I presented originally. They're not presented as the *only* options available. Just the two most appealing ones. So which one do you prefer?

[MSG T]

Going into more detail on your false dichotomy doesn't make it any less of one.

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right?

 

You're also ignoring, evidently intentionally, that the Cubs could, and probably would, counteroffer by asking for a ML ready prospect. I know would make that counteroffer.

 

It's fine to want to get prospects, but when you have the resources the Cubs have, and have already made statements supporting the idea that you won't ignore the present to build for the future, why would you not demand to receive ML ready players?

 

That's the flaw in your question. You are ignoring the present in thinking about the future. Theo and Jed have both said they won't do that.

[Guest]

Going into more detail on your false dichotomy doesn't make it any less of one.

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right?

 

My position is that the idea that the Cubs find themselves in a spot where they are only able to get prospects who are at least 1 year away from breaking into MLB for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is a hilarious one.

If they got ML-ready guys instead, then they'd presumably be less highly regarded and/or have lower ceilings. That stands to reason, does it not?

 

Would you accept that return instead?

 

Neither would I.

 

So we're back to the two options I presented originally. They're not presented as the *only* options available. Just the two most appealing ones. So which one do you prefer?

 

No, not necessarily, especially when we're talking about packages of players, where adjustments in quantity can be made as well as quality. Furthermore, this paints the picture that there is one suitor willing to give up appropriate value for those players, that no third parties could be involved to get that value in players that offer enough certainty for a big market team like the Cubs, the whole concept is just an exercise in absurdity. Oh, Toronto is the only team that doesn't think Marmol's elbow is about to explode, but they can't give up young MLB talent? Well, let's just call up Andrew Friedman and parlay that package into James Shields and an extension. The Royals are the only team willing to shell out for Soto's last 2 arb years? Well turn that into Gio Gonzalez, or Felix Hernandez, or whoever is available that fits a "win now and later" paradigm.

 

Most simply put, the idea that we can get appropriate value for guys, but that value can only be in players that can contribute years down the road, is stupid. It's a false choice presented to play "gotcha" when no such decision is necessary.

[Sammy Sofa]

Well said, TT.

[davearm2]

Going into more detail on your false dichotomy doesn't make it any less of one.

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right?

 

My position is that the idea that the Cubs find themselves in a spot where they are only able to get prospects who are at least 1 year away from breaking into MLB for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is a hilarious one.

If they got ML-ready guys instead, then they'd presumably be less highly regarded and/or have lower ceilings. That stands to reason, does it not?

 

Would you accept that return instead?

 

Neither would I.

 

So we're back to the two options I presented originally. They're not presented as the *only* options available. Just the two most appealing ones. So which one do you prefer?

 

No, not necessarily, especially when we're talking about packages of players, where adjustments in quantity can be made as well as quality. Furthermore, this paints the picture that there is one suitor willing to give up appropriate value for those players, that no third parties could be involved to get that value in players that offer enough certainty for a big market team like the Cubs, the whole concept is just an exercise in absurdity. Oh, Toronto is the only team that doesn't think Marmol's elbow is about to explode, but they can't give up young MLB talent? Well, let's just call up Andrew Friedman and parlay that package into James Shields and an extension. The Royals are the only team willing to shell out for Soto's last 2 arb years? Well turn that into Gio Gonzalez, or Felix Hernandez, or whoever is available that fits a "win now and later" paradigm.

 

Most simply put, the idea that we can get appropriate value for guys, but that value can only be in players that can contribute years down the road, is stupid. It's a false choice presented to play "gotcha" when no such decision is necessary.

I'm not assuming any of that stuff. You're trying to paint this as an either-or hypothetical, but in reality (and perhaps I didn't spell it out painstakingly enough), what I'm really asking is if you shop a guy around, get a bunch of teams interested, sort through all the various options, and decide the most attractive offer is for guys that may or may not help you in 2012, and definitely will contribute less than the guy you're giving up, but the younger guys have better long-term value, would you do that trade?

 

Or would you choose one of the lesser packages that provide better immediate impact? To use an extreme, completely unrealistic example to illustrate the question, say one team offers Bryce Harper (better upside, but no immediate contribution) and another offers Ian Stewart (will play right away but who knows what you'll get).

 

Or would you decline all the offers and keep the player?

 

It's really a very basic question I'm asking, yet you want to complicate it and make it all kinds of things it's not. And the basic question is this: would you be willing to make a trade that hurts in the short term but helps in the long term?

 

If you're response is, such a choice is a false dichotomy, I reject that conclusion. It's a very realistic set of circumstances the Cubs could find themselves in this offseason. Heck I'd call it not just realistic, but likely.

[davearm2]

Going into more detail on your false dichotomy doesn't make it any less of one.

So your position is that the phone ringing and a team offering to trade prospects for Marmol/Marshall/Soto is too ridiculous and farfetched a premise to bother contemplating? Do I have that right?

 

You're also ignoring, evidently intentionally, that the Cubs could, and probably would, counteroffer by asking for a ML ready prospect. I know would make that counteroffer.

 

It's fine to want to get prospects, but when you have the resources the Cubs have, and have already made statements supporting the idea that you won't ignore the present to build for the future, why would you not demand to receive ML ready players?

 

That's the flaw in your question. You are ignoring the present in thinking about the future. Theo and Jed have both said they won't do that.

I'm not ignoring that option. I'm presuming that the overall talent in the package is inversely related to ML-readiness.

 

If you could get more talent, that's farther away, or less talent, that's ready now, which of those do you take?

 

Again, if you choose the former, then we're right back at the original two options.

[MSG T]

You're trying to frame the argument so that the only right answer supports your own conclusions about how they should go about things. Given your extremely limited, narrow view of the possible deals, yes I'd take the better prospects.

 

That's not the only choice though. Given that there would be many possible packages amongst multiple teams, they'd also have the choice of not trading him unless they got a ML ready player of equal value to all those prospects. That's the choice I'd make in the real world. Unless I already had a deal working to flip some of those prospects for ML ready players.

[Guest]

I'm not assuming any of that stuff. You're trying to paint this as an either-or hypothetical, but in reality (and perhaps I didn't spell it out painstakingly enough), what I'm really asking is if you shop a guy around, get a bunch of teams interested, sort through all the various options, and decide the most attractive offer is for guys that may or may not help you in 2012, and definitely will contribute less than the guy you're giving up, but the younger guys have better long-term value, would you do that trade?.

 

hahaha, I'M trying to paint an either-or hypothetical?

 

To reiterate, the idea that we can get appropriate/best value for guys, but that value can only be in players that can contribute years down the road, is stupid. I mean, seriously dumb. What's next? What if Pujols will take less money if he's paid in rubles? Would we want to take on that exchange risk?

[davearm2]

You're trying to frame the argument so that the only right answer supports your own conclusions about how they should go about things. Given your extremely limited, narrow view of the possible deals, yes I'd take the better prospects.

 

That's not the only choice though. Given that there would be many possible packages amongst multiple teams, they'd also have the choice of not trading him unless they got a ML ready player of equal value to all those prospects. That's the choice I'd make in the real world. Unless I already had a deal working to flip some of those prospects for ML ready players.

I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future. I'm not assuming there's a right and wrong answer, although I know which I would choose.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have even bothered with an example, knowing people would nit-pick it to death.

 

Obviously, both are important. But if presented with an opportunity that hurts in the short term, but helps in the long term, do you take it or leave it?

 

This requires setting aside the obvious point that a deal that helps in both the short and long term is best of all. So "I'd trade Marmol for prospects and then flip them for Felix Hernandez" doesn't really further the discussion at all.

[davearm2]

I'm not assuming any of that stuff. You're trying to paint this as an either-or hypothetical, but in reality (and perhaps I didn't spell it out painstakingly enough), what I'm really asking is if you shop a guy around, get a bunch of teams interested, sort through all the various options, and decide the most attractive offer is for guys that may or may not help you in 2012, and definitely will contribute less than the guy you're giving up, but the younger guys have better long-term value, would you do that trade?.

 

hahaha, I'M trying to paint an either-or hypothetical?

 

To reiterate, the idea that we can get appropriate/best value for guys, but that value can only be in players that can contribute years down the road, is stupid. I mean, seriously dumb.

You can't imagine a scenario where the best offer the Cubs receive for a particular player is for prospects that are a year away?

 

Why not?

[Sammy Sofa]

That's not a scenario relegated only towards the 2012 season.

 

This is a subjective hypothetical that you're inexplicably trying to narrow to an absurd degree.

[davearm2]

That's not a scenario relegated only towards the 2012 season.

 

This is a subjective hypothetical that you're inexplicably trying to narrow to an absurd degree.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future.

 

If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion.

[davell]

I doubt there is anyone on the site that wants a repeat of the 2006 offseason, where we saddle ourselves with contracts of players that become untradeable and aren't good enough 3 years later to make the playoffs. But, as a major market team, we certainly can't have a Tampa Bay offseason, trade away everyone on our roster and build for 2015. To me and probably everyone else here, we want to build for the future. But, that doesn't preclude us from fielding a team capable of surprising and winning in 2012 either. If it comes down to it and we get offers for Marshall, Marmol, Soto, and Garza and the most enticing ones on each of them are for players who won't contribute in 2012, then my hope would be we'd maybe take the very best ONE of those offers, if it's too good to pass up. And I'd continue to shop the other guys, but for more major league ready talent. Because we can add a big piece, some stopgaps, and maybe a solid guy or two as well this offseason, not hurt ourselves longterm, and possibly contend.

[Guest]

That's not a scenario relegated only towards the 2012 season.

 

This is a subjective hypothetical that you're inexplicably trying to narrow to an absurd degree.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future.

 

If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion.

Do you want to move all of our tradeable assets for the best possible return? So we should trade Garza, Marshall, Marmol, Byrd and anyone else we can get a return for? And then not sign any star free agents to fill the gaps, of course.

 

I'm just trying to get at which is more important to you, fielding the best team possible in 2012 or building for the future.

[Little Slide Rooter]

That's not a scenario relegated only towards the 2012 season.

 

This is a subjective hypothetical that you're inexplicably trying to narrow to an absurd degree.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future.

 

If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion.

Do you want to move all of our tradeable assets for the best possible return? So we should trade Garza, Marshall, Marmol, Byrd and anyone else we can get a return for? And then not sign any star free agents to fill the gaps, of course.

 

I'm just trying to get at which is more important to you, fielding the best team possible in 2012 or building for the future.

 

The arguement is relevant only if it is the organizational plan. If they chose to do so, they have the resources to build a win now, or at least in 2013 team and keep building for the future as well. However, if they are not going to open the check book for Fielder/Pujols and somehow acquire a front end starting pitcher, I agree that they may as well move whoever they can aside from Castro because contention won't be an issue with what we have now and a couple of bargain bin additions.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's not a scenario relegated only towards the 2012 season.

 

This is a subjective hypothetical that you're inexplicably trying to narrow to an absurd degree.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future.

 

If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion.

 

Yes, we know how you're trying to frame this; that's the point. It's not an either/or proposition. The Cubs can do both and should do both and I want them to do both.

[davearm2]

That's not a scenario relegated only towards the 2012 season.

 

This is a subjective hypothetical that you're inexplicably trying to narrow to an absurd degree.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future.

 

If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion.

Do you want to move all of our tradeable assets for the best possible return? So we should trade Garza, Marshall, Marmol, Byrd and anyone else we can get a return for? And then not sign any star free agents to fill the gaps, of course.

 

I'm just trying to get at which is more important to you, fielding the best team possible in 2012 or building for the future.

I've said right from the beginning that building for the future is more important to me. I've hardly kept that a secret.

 

Not sure why everyone else is so afraid to pick one side or the other.

 

A definite yes on Marshall, Marmol, and Byrd, presuming solid value is offered. Garza is more tricky since he could be a cornerstone for many years.

[davearm2]

That's not a scenario relegated only towards the 2012 season.

 

This is a subjective hypothetical that you're inexplicably trying to narrow to an absurd degree.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future.

 

If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion.

 

Yes, we know how you're trying to frame this; that's the point. It's not an either/or proposition. The Cubs can do both and should do both and I want them to do both.

So you'd trade Marmol for Hernandez. Thanks, that's very helpful to know.

[Guest]

That's not a scenario relegated only towards the 2012 season.

 

This is a subjective hypothetical that you're inexplicably trying to narrow to an absurd degree.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future.

 

If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion.

Do you want to move all of our tradeable assets for the best possible return? So we should trade Garza, Marshall, Marmol, Byrd and anyone else we can get a return for? And then not sign any star free agents to fill the gaps, of course.

 

I'm just trying to get at which is more important to you, fielding the best team possible in 2012 or building for the future.

I've said right from the beginning that building for the future is more important to me. I've hardly kept that a secret.

 

Not sure why everyone else is so afraid to pick one side or the other.

 

A definite yes on Marshall, Marmol, and Byrd, presuming solid value is offered. Garza is more tricky since he could be a cornerstone for many years.

It's not that we are afraid to pick one side or the other. We feel it is unnecessary to choose. Not sure why you feel it is required.

[MSG T]

Dave, I don't know if you truly don't get it or if you're being intentionally contrarian, but no one needs to go to one side or the other. The Cubs don't have to do one or the other, they can build for the future AND try to win immediately, and do both without hurting one or the other. They don't have to sacrifice 2015 and on to have a competitive team next season. The also don't have to give up on 2012 to build up their chances for long term success.

 

All of the guys that have been discussed as them possibly acquiring, Darvish, Cespedes, Fielder/Pujols, CJ etc. Are guys that cost them nothing in terms of prospects, and will be around for years, most likely very productive for years. How is that sacrificing the future? Here, we're talking deals for Marmol, Marshall, Soto and Garza. If they do trade one or even all of them, how does making the decision to trade only if they get a ML ready player, along with prospects, hurt them long term?

 

Neither of those hurts them long term. You either can't, or refuse, to see it. You want to limit the argument to the point where there is only one possible answer, and there just isn't one answer, there are many possible answers. You want it black and white and it's not even close to that.

[Sammy Sofa]

That's not a scenario relegated only towards the 2012 season.

 

This is a subjective hypothetical that you're inexplicably trying to narrow to an absurd degree.

Again, I'm trying to frame the argument so we can get to the bottom of which is more important to folks -- fielding the best team possible in 2012, or building for the future.

 

If you consider that inexplicable and absurd, then feel free to bow out of the discussion.

 

Yes, we know how you're trying to frame this; that's the point. It's not an either/or proposition. The Cubs can do both and should do both and I want them to do both.

So you'd trade Marmol for Hernandez. Thanks, that's very helpful to know.

 

Keep flailing, pal.