Re: What would you deal Garza for?

[Guancous]

The Texas system isn't lopsided like Baltimore's. They have tons of other pieces to move without even thinking about Profar.

[TruffleShuffle]

The Texas system isn't lopsided like Baltimore's. They have tons of other pieces to move without even thinking about Profar.

 

yeah, Olt is probably the guy they'd use as the centerpiece of a deal, since the position where he'd be most valuable (3b) is blocked by beltre through at least 2015.

[toonsterwu]

I guess I'm in the minority but I really don't care if the returns for Dempster and Garza are pitcher-dominated. I just want the best prospects.

 

Well, let's frame this another way - if it's close, would you prefer a pitcher? Because that's all I'm arguing. If there's a guy that's a significantly better talent (and I'm focusing mostly on the main pieces to a deal), then of course you take the better talent. But ... for a dumb hypothetical ... say you have a guy who you feel is a 9, but an arm that you feel is an 8.8. I'd rather take the arm in that scenario, in all honesty.

[Sammy Sofa]

I definitely want them to get pitching as the main pieces. I mean, yeah, if for some reason they're being offered a near-slam dunk non-pitching prospects, fine...but I doubt that happens. Plus starting pitching is an area of EXTREME need, even on a team with as many needs as this one. Getting pitching prospects works twofold; you have resources from which internal options at a barren position will emerge and/or you're more likely to be able to trade for quality starting pitching if you have good pitching prospects.

[Little Slide Rooter]

That's reasonable. But even from that point of view, if I'm trading a prospect the quality of Profar, I'd have to think I could do better than Matt Garza. Grienke, Hamels, Hernandez? Garza is in the Darvish "nice but not elite" mold.

 

This is where the extra year of team service comes in. With Hamels or Greinke, you're trading for 2-3 months. Obviously, you want lock them up, but it will be easier said than done. With virtually every big market team in need of pitching, there's no way I could see Hamels not testing the FA market. With Garza, at least you're guaranteed a 2nd year of service and time to work on an extension. Obviously, if Hernandez were to hit the market, that would completely change it all together, but as of now, Hamels is the one elite arm on the market. Garza might not be having the season that Greinke or Dempster are, but if you're giving up one of the top 5 prospects in baseball, you want more than 2-3 months.

[CP_414]

All things equal I would prefer positional prospects in return over pitchers. Maybe I'm wrong on this, I don't have any numbers, but pitching prospects just seem much riskier to me. Ideally I think something like the discussed Barnes/Bradley Jr trade would be great. A poor man's version of that trade from the Nats would be Meyer/Goodwin but they are both further away so hopefully there would be a 3rd piece involved. I don't really believe in Perez or Olt as big time prospects from Texas. No way we get Profar. They could still make a really good offer. I'd have lots of concerns about any 2nd player after Castelannos from Detroit. Any Yankees trade would have to be centered around offensive prospects in A ball. I am actually rooting for a Boston trade right now. I love Bradley Jr and would be fine with Barnes or Owens as the other main pice, though I would prefer Barnes.

[Sammy Sofa]

Aren't most trades for pitchers based around pitching prospects (or at least one top pitching prospect)? As I said, if that's a route the FO is going to pursue then the Cubs need pitching prospects, because the cupboard is pretty [expletive] bare right now. Yeah, pitching prospects can be more risky, but the benefit of having multiple highly regarded pitching prospects is that more often other teams are willing to take on that risk in a trade for an established starter than if you're offering position prospects.

[Guest]

I guess I'm in the minority but I really don't care if the returns for Dempster and Garza are pitcher-dominated. I just want the best prospects.

 

Well, let's frame this another way - if it's close, would you prefer a pitcher? Because that's all I'm arguing. If there's a guy that's a significantly better talent (and I'm focusing mostly on the main pieces to a deal), then of course you take the better talent. But ... for a dumb hypothetical ... say you have a guy who you feel is a 9, but an arm that you feel is an 8.8. I'd rather take the arm in that scenario, in all honesty.

I think Ronnie Woo Woo summed up my concern over pitching talent (inherent likelihood of injury). Not only would the pitching talent have to be equal or superior to the positional talent, I'd want it to be in the upper levels of the minors too.

[jersey cubs fan]

I guess I'm in the minority but I really don't care if the returns for Dempster and Garza are pitcher-dominated. I just want the best prospects.

 

I'm absolutely with you. it's a huge mistake to take pitching for the sake of taking pitching.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't want them to take pitching for the sake of pitching, but I would prefer them to get a good pitching return than positional return.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The Royals are determined to sign a significant starting free agent pitcher for 2013 this coming offseason, Danny Knobler of CBSSports.com reports. After a difficult first half that included a number of serious injuries, the Royals' rotation ranks 28th in baseball with a 5.16 ERA. 

 

Perfect match? Who says we need to trade him to a contender? A lot of teams with a lot more money than The Royals will be in on every SP from Hamels to Liriano. Maybe they have a chance at Dempster, Liriano, Zambrano, or Sanchez, but they may as well not bother with Hamels or Greinke, who's already demanded they trade him once.

 

Here's where Garza comes in. A young, front end starter with another year under team control. While they can't compete with the big boys as far as money, they can with prospects. Regardless of who's in on Hamels or Greinke, if we wanted to work with KC now, we'd be alone. I'm not sure if their system is as bountiful as it once was, but as far as I'm concerned the package can start and end with Wil Meyers.

[Hawk4Hall]

I don't want them to take pitching for the sake of pitching, but I would prefer them to get a good pitching return than positional return.

I agree, and I'm also fine with keeping Garza too if they can't get a solid return for him.

[davell]

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

 

By far, the best article on prospects there is.

[Guest]

Toonster, I don't want to re-hash things from previous pages since the discussion has passed but I want to say I definitely think Jackie Bradley Jr is an elite prospect. He's basically what you dream of on Albert Almora.

 

Agree with you on Barnes. I definitely don't think Barnes is elite and too many people have fallen in love with him based on his performance at A-ball.

 

Sorry, was busy yesterday and didn't see this. Trying to make this short and sweet, so, let's go bullet points

 

- Barnes would obviously hold more value for the Cubs than Bradley Jr., IMO. My mild counter of myself on Barnes is that the kid is working on his change-up, so he could take another step.

- My issue with Bradley Jr., if I have one (don't get me wrong ... not thinking he's elite yet doesn't mean I don't think he's a very, very good prospect) is that I'm not sure how much power he'll legitimately have as he deals with tougher pitching. We'll know more by season's end, though. Is he a top of the order, 2 hole type bat, or is he a potential middle of the order, anchor bat?

 

I dont think Bradley will ever hit more than 20 HR, but I still think he's an elite prospect if he's hitting 10-15 HR a year, given his elite defense and on-base ability. While he won't hit too many HRs, I think the doubles power will definitely make up for that.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

 

By far, the best article on prospects there is.

 

 

That's absolutely amazing.

 

I love the chart that shows how extreme the dropoff is in the top 10-20 prospects.

[Guest]

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

 

By far, the best article on prospects there is.

Hard to keep these things in mind when talking about the "floor" of various prospects.

[Guest]

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

 

By far, the best article on prospects there is.

 

 

That's absolutely amazing.

 

I love the chart that shows how extreme the dropoff is in the top 10-20 prospects.

How about the success and failure rates of even the 1-10 pitching prospects. Wow!

[jersey cubs fan]

Fewer than one-third of top 100 prospects succeed in the majors, but there is a big difference between position players and pitchers. While nearly two out of five position players in the top 100 succeed, fewer than one in four pitchers do. And of course many fewer prospects achieve superior success in the majors. A little under one in four position player prospects become stars, while only one in ten pitchers have that level of success.

[davell]

The biggest question I've had is what do you spend FA money on? Hitting or pitching? Which do you try and develop in house? Position players are much more of a sure thing, so spending money on them, there's probably a better success ratio than if you do on pitching as well, because of injuries and missed time.

 

In my perfect world, we'd develop pitching and once it's time to hit FA, let it go and bring the next guy in. Of course, finding a couple of Kershaws doesn't seem like it's evidently all that easy of a thing to do. As far as drafting goes, I think we hit it out of the park strategy-wise this year. Position player, followed by lots of upside pitching.

 

But, the article certainly makes trading for unproven pitching seem riskier than we probably thought. I read it a couple of months ago and forgot to post it here, but with the deadline looming and us needing pitching(and me wanting it, unless the talent is better hitting-wise), it puts things in a perspective.

 

Maybe the thing to do(and situations have to dictate it even becoming available) is trade position players for younger, established major league pitching? Again, probably doesn't even come up all that often, but it may be the best way to acquire pitching, when and if it ever does.

[Guest]

Fewer than one-third of top 100 prospects succeed in the majors, but there is a big difference between position players and pitchers. While nearly two out of five position players in the top 100 succeed, fewer than one in four pitchers do. And of course many fewer prospects achieve superior success in the majors. A little under one in four position player prospects become stars, while only one in ten pitchers have that level of success.

 

Glad to see some numbers back up my concerns.

[Guest]

Part of me wonders if it might be better to just try to build an offensive super team in this run environment, and simply aim for decent on the pitching side. More certainty of production, and less downside if the average pitcher is going to give up so few runs.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The biggest question I've had is what do you spend FA money on? Hitting or pitching? Which do you try and develop in house? Position players are much more of a sure thing, so spending money on them, there's probably a better success ratio than if you do on pitching as well, because of injuries and missed time.

 

In my perfect world, we'd develop pitching and once it's time to hit FA, let it go and bring the next guy in. Of course, finding a couple of Kershaws doesn't seem like it's evidently all that easy of a thing to do. As far as drafting goes, I think we hit it out of the park strategy-wise this year. Position player, followed by lots of upside pitching.

 

But, the article certainly makes trading for unproven pitching seem riskier than we probably thought. I read it a couple of months ago and forgot to post it here, but with the deadline looming and us needing pitching(and me wanting it, unless the talent is better hitting-wise), it puts things in a perspective.

 

Maybe the thing to do(and situations have to dictate it even becoming available) is trade position players for younger, established major league pitching? Again, probably doesn't even come up all that often, but it may be the best way to acquire pitching, when and if it ever does.

 

Those numbers suggest to me that small-market teams need to try to take the riskier approach of developing pitching, but big-market teams can afford to develop hitting and buy the pitchers who have already panned out for other teams.

[bukie]

Fewer than one-third of top 100 prospects succeed in the majors, but there is a big difference between position players and pitchers. While nearly two out of five position players in the top 100 succeed, fewer than one in four pitchers do. And of course many fewer prospects achieve superior success in the majors. A little under one in four position player prospects become stars, while only one in ten pitchers have that level of success.

 

Glad to see some numbers back up my concerns.

This is also why the Cubs should never trade Castro unless the return involves either an entire team's system or an already superior major leaguer.

[jersey cubs fan]

Part of me wonders if it might be better to just try to build an offensive super team in this run environment, and simply aim for decent on the pitching side. More certainty of production, and less downside if the average pitcher is going to give up so few runs.

 

That has been the sort of thing I've been wanting them to do ever since MacPhail/Hendry decided to do the complete opposite (draft and develop pitchers then go sign bats).

[davell]

I'm not opposed to that kind of team, but colder weather and better pitching in October hasn't exactly been kind to the Yankees all that often.