Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[toonsterwu]

If we add all these upper level guys to our farm system, and then the lower level guys we have take the expected steps next year, our farm system is going to be ridiculously highly regarded a year from now.

 

 

Then again, Rizzo, Jackson, and Turner may not even count as prospects by then.

 

 

Heck, BA is saying we're a borderline top 10 system right now. I don't know how many Cubs fans felt that way.

 

The best thing is, even with graduations, there's a chance, albeit slim perhaps, that the system could be better next year because the depth of the raw upside in the system is fairly strong.

[davell]

We're at 40 and the Tigers 40 man stands at 39. We've likely got Maholm coming and maybe Wood as well. Crosby AND Turner are both on the 40 as well for Detroit. If a deal goes down with them, either a) it's not both Turner and Crosby or b) we'd be sending something else off our 40 man to them as well. They need a utility guy, Baker or Dewitt makes sense. My guess is Turner/Castellanos/Smyly for Garza/Dewitt. Leaves us room for Maholm. Although, I really think that's a better package than what we SHOULD be getting, just going off Kaplan's article.

[Cubswin11]

We're at 40 and the Tigers 40 man stands at 39. We've likely got Maholm coming and maybe Wood as well. Crosby AND Turner are both on the 40 as well for Detroit. If a deal goes down with them, either a) it's not both Turner and Crosby or b) we'd be sending something else off our 40 man to them as well. They need a utility guy, Baker or Dewitt makes sense. My guess is Turner/Castellanos/Smyly for Garza/Dewitt. Leaves us room for Maholm. Although, I really think that's a better package than what we SHOULD be getting, just going off Kaplan's article.

Would the Tigers be interested/have a need for Byrd? He could be another guy traded to clear a spot.

[toonsterwu]

We're at 40 and the Tigers 40 man stands at 39. We've likely got Maholm coming and maybe Wood as well. Crosby AND Turner are both on the 40 as well for Detroit. If a deal goes down with them, either a) it's not both Turner and Crosby or b) we'd be sending something else off our 40 man to them as well. They need a utility guy, Baker or Dewitt makes sense. My guess is Turner/Castellanos/Smyly for Garza/Dewitt. Leaves us room for Maholm. Although, I really think that's a better package than what we SHOULD be getting, just going off Kaplan's article.

 

I'm not all that concerned about the 40. I think there are plenty of guys that could be released, including the guys signed this winter, Bianchi/Corpas types.

 

I think the chances are high that we'd probably flip them a young player or two if we got this type of package in a return though.

 

Put it this way - if Turner/Castellanos/Crosby happened (and I still have my doubts), I think that would be the best prospect package traded for a starter this offseason. I'd like that deal far better than the Nationals/A's deal, and I love AJ Cole. Turner is upper level impact stud. That trumps Peacock/Cole individually for me, and Crosby is another upper level, high ceiling arm.

[davell]

Toonster, It's a coin flip for me as for whether I'd take Castellanos or one of Crosby/Smyly. We need pitching moreso than hitting, Crosby probably has the most upside of the 3, but he's injuryprone and Castellanos probably has better value from a trade standpoint. Meanwhile, Smyly is the surest thing of the 3. Considering we've still got other parts we can move as well, I guess, gun to head, I'd take Castellanos. Then concentrate on pitching with any other deals. Plus, we can still go sign Concepcion, Omar Luis, and the big bonus Latin American pitchers to rebuild the system quickly too. Because outside of the big 2, the IFA market is pretty pitching heavy.

[dew1679666265]

Alright. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, as I don't follow Castellanos all that close, but there's a level of Vitters in him in that he gets swing happy at times, but he's viewed as having far better discipline (albeit, without Vitters raw hit tool). He had a bad April (looking at firstinning) marked by him pounding the ball into the ground, but the K rate was also a bit higher then as well.

 

It'd be dang fascinating if we could get Castellanos here, but my focus would still be on the pitching. If it's an option of a 2nd high ceiling arm or Castellanos, I think I lean arm. Obviously, it'd be great to get all three.

 

Thanks. How does Castellanos compare to Vitters? He looks more patient, but you also mentioned he doesn't have the great hit tool Vitters does. I'd have to think Castellanos profiles as a better defender - and probably much better - which would make him a better prospect by itself, I'd think.

[toonsterwu]

Off the top (and guys I don't follow closely, my information could be off, as I haven't had a BA/BP subscription in ages), Vitters raw ability all around profiles as probably better, but probably not enough to overcome his approach issues when making a comparison btw their offensive ceilings (that is, Vitters raw ability is better, but realistic ceiling for both, offensively, is probably vaguely similar). Castellanos probably doesn't have Vitters "raw" power or hitting/"contact" ability. I think, as of now, Castellanos' power projects more as slightly above average, perhaps 20 HR pop. Defensively, as a former shortstop sliding over, so far, to what I understand, he shows a good ability to stick at 3rd. Good arm, so if Baez develops faster than expected (and moves to third), it's possible that Castellanos could get plopped in LF I guess.

 

A more interesting comparison/discussion might be Baez/Castellanos, because there's a chance that Baez hits Low A this year while Castellanos is likely slated to start in A+.

 

Edit: Meant to say realistic ceiling, not expected ability.

Edited January 10, 2012 by toonsterwu

[dew1679666265]

Off the top (and guys I don't follow closely, my information could be off, as I haven't had a BA/BP subscription in ages), Vitters raw ability all around profiles as probably better, but probably not enough to overcome his approach issues when making a comparison btw their offensive ceilings (that is, Vitters raw ability is better, but expected ability for both, offensively, is probably vaguely similar). Castellanos probably doesn't have Vitters "raw" power or hitting/"contact" ability. I think, as of now, Castellanos' power projects more as slightly above average, perhaps 20 HR pop. Defensively, as a former shortstop sliding over, so far, to what I understand, he shows a good ability to stick at 3rd. Good arm, so if Baez develops faster than expected (and moves to third), it's possible that Castellanos could get plopped in LF I guess.

 

A more interesting comparison/discussion might be Baez/Castellanos, because there's a chance that Baez hits Low A this year while Castellanos is likely slated to start in A+.

 

Thanks. I'm still holding out hope that if/when Baez moves off SS, he'll be able to stick at second instead of having to move to third (his bat would play better at second). That's why I brought up the Vitters/Castellanos comp, along with both Vitters and Castellanos being rather impatient.

[davell]

The more I think about it, to get THAT good of a package from Detroit(and I agree with Toonster that it'd be the best one traded this offseason) we'd almost definitely have to be sending them a Vitters, McNutt, or Szczur in the deal. Even Theo couldn't pull something like this off.

[toonsterwu]

Off the top (and guys I don't follow closely, my information could be off, as I haven't had a BA/BP subscription in ages), Vitters raw ability all around profiles as probably better, but probably not enough to overcome his approach issues when making a comparison btw their offensive ceilings (that is, Vitters raw ability is better, but expected ability for both, offensively, is probably vaguely similar). Castellanos probably doesn't have Vitters "raw" power or hitting/"contact" ability. I think, as of now, Castellanos' power projects more as slightly above average, perhaps 20 HR pop. Defensively, as a former shortstop sliding over, so far, to what I understand, he shows a good ability to stick at 3rd. Good arm, so if Baez develops faster than expected (and moves to third), it's possible that Castellanos could get plopped in LF I guess.

 

A more interesting comparison/discussion might be Baez/Castellanos, because there's a chance that Baez hits Low A this year while Castellanos is likely slated to start in A+.

 

Thanks. I'm still holding out hope that if/when Baez moves off SS, he'll be able to stick at second instead of having to move to third (his bat would play better at second). That's why I brought up the Vitters/Castellanos comp, along with both Vitters and Castellanos being rather impatient.

 

Baez's bat, if it's as good as people suggest, should be able to play anywhere. It's arguably one of the elite potential bats in the minors in terms of bat speed and power. I would rather have Baez at 3rd and Castellanos shift to the OF, I think, then Baez at 2nd and Castellanos at 3rd. But that's me.

[toonsterwu]

The more I think about it, to get THAT good of a package from Detroit(and I agree with Toonster that it'd be the best one traded this offseason) we'd almost definitely have to be sending them a Vitters, McNutt, or Szczur in the deal. Even Theo couldn't pull something like this off.

 

It honestly wouldn't surprise me that, if there was any truth to this package (and again, doesn't sound like Kaplan is suggesting that's a package, sounds more like he's saying, hey, here's three names to consider), that the Cubs might send some major league pieces to them, along with a prospect or two. Guys like James Russell and Jeff Baker cross my mind.

[El Duderino]

just how elite is baez's bat? i realize we don't have much to go on, but what would be a good comp if he hits close to his ceiling?

[Little Slide Rooter]

We're at 40 and the Tigers 40 man stands at 39. We've likely got Maholm coming and maybe Wood as well. Crosby AND Turner are both on the 40 as well for Detroit. If a deal goes down with them, either a) it's not both Turner and Crosby or b) we'd be sending something else off our 40 man to them as well. They need a utility guy, Baker or Dewitt makes sense. My guess is Turner/Castellanos/Smyly for Garza/Dewitt. Leaves us room for Maholm. Although, I really think that's a better package than what we SHOULD be getting, just going off Kaplan's article.

Would the Tigers be interested/have a need for Byrd? He could be another guy traded to clear a spot.

 

Their outfield as of now is Delmon Young, Austin Jackson, and Brennan Boesch and I don't know if Byrd is any better of an option than any of them for the Tigers. They also have Ryan Raburn as a utility IF/OF so it wouldn't make sense to add another righty to that mix. If they feel that Byrd is a better option than Young, also a free agent after 2012 I could see them taking him off our hands for an additional prospect and then flip Young elsewhere.

[davell]

Kaplan just tweeted that Cubs/Tigers are a lot further than "initial discussions" in regards to him saying "pretty far down the road". OK Dave, thanks for the clarification.

[davell]

just how elite is baez's bat? i realize we don't have much to go on, but what would be a good comp if he hits close to his ceiling?

Not good at comping, but if he hits his ceiling, .300ish hitter with 30 homers is probably fair.

[82TonyM]

Just tweeted:

 

Scott Swaim @MLBInsideNews 1m

 

Don't be shocked if #Cubs get Turner and Smyly +

 

7:33 PM - 9 Jan 12 via web · Details

[RynoRules]

Just tweeted:

 

Scott Swaim @MLBInsideNews 1m

 

Don't be shocked if #Cubs get Turner and Smyly +

 

7:33 PM - 9 Jan 12 via web · Details

 

I'm quite aroused.

[82TonyM]

Goldstein just said we wont get both Castellanos and Turner :(

[ctcf]

I'll stop wearing pants.

[Butterscup1679666578]

well that would be fantastic.

[Guest]

Goldstein just said we wont get both Castellanos and Turner :(

 

If it's Turner and Smyly, then I don't particularly care who's behind door #3.

[ctcf]

Goldstein just said we wont get both Castellanos and Turner :(

 

If it's Turner and Smyly, then I don't particularly care who's behind door #3.

 

Me either. Now that would be getting pitching back.

 

But out of curiosity, how connected is Goldstein to stuff like this?

[82TonyM]

Goldstein just said we wont get both Castellanos and Turner :(

 

If it's Turner and Smyly, then I don't particularly care who's behind door #3.

 

Me either. Now that would be getting pitching back.

 

But out of curiosity, how connected is Goldstein to stuff like this?

 

I dont know for sure but from following him on Twitter I get the impression he doesnt know anything about a possible trade but it is his opinion that he rates the players so high he doesnt think we can get both in a deal for Garza

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Just tweeted:

 

Scott Swaim @MLBInsideNews 1m

 

Don't be shocked if #Cubs get Turner and Smyly +

 

7:33 PM - 9 Jan 12 via web · Details

 

 

Is that the guy who claims to have broken a bunch of stuff, but really just tries to predict something that looks likely so he can claim he "broke" it?

[82TonyM]

Just tweeted:

 

Scott Swaim @MLBInsideNews 1m

 

Don't be shocked if #Cubs get Turner and Smyly +

 

7:33 PM - 9 Jan 12 via web · Details

 

 

Is that the guy who claims to have broken a bunch of stuff, but really just tries to predict something that looks likely so he can claim he "broke" it?

 

That's the one!