Yooooooooooooennis Cespedes: To Oakland pg 44

[dew1679666265]

I think prospects are, in a lot of ways, becoming overvalued. I know we've been through it many times, but Hendry was pretty good at trading prospects that ended up not amounting to much and getting back solid players (excluding the Juan Pierre trade). Given the emphasis on player development, I would think the new regime would be even better at identifying the prospects they want to keep and the ones they think have a higher chance of busting. And I think the value of prospects will only increase given the draft spending caps and lack of compensatory picks. Given the contracts that have recently been given out to big time free agents, it could be better going forward to trade your prospects for good young players like Garza, and then try to extend them before they hit free agency. The prospects are the price you pay for saving tens of millions of dollars in contracts.

 

How many players like Garza are we going to see hit the trade market and not be ridiculously overpriced? Just this offseason, we've seen Cain, Votto, Kinsler, Kemp, Alex Gordon, and others signed to extensions to keep them with their original team and guys like Lincecum and Justin Masterson are in talks for an extension. The As also got a ridiculous haul for a pretty average pitcher in Trevor Cahill. The Latos and Gonzalez trades were much better than the Cahill deal, but both the Reds and Nats gave up a pretty significant haul of talent for each guy and those deals were more the exception than the rule anyway.

 

If anything, I think the changes to the CBA make keeping and developing prospects even more important. It's much harder now to simply go out and buy prospects in the draft, making it much harder for teams that deal away prospects to simply replenish them by spending a bunch of money. You also have smaller market teams like the Pirates and Royals who generally were the biggest spenders in the draft, now unable to spend as much. Some of that money may go toward locking up young players like McCutcheon and Gordon who previously may have been dealt. I'm not saying teams shouldn't trade prospects for pre-FA players, I simply think it should be done with a bit more care now since you can't just buy your way to a better farm system anymore.

[dew1679666265]

Been watching the Royals-A's games the past couple of days, and just thought I'd say that Cespedes looks AWFUL when swinging at off-speed pitches. Pretty brutal stuff. Not to say he won't fix that hiccup in his swing, and I still wish the Cubs had signed him to his contract, but he is going to need to fix that.

 

I wonder what type of breaking pitches he was seeing in Cuba? I have no idea what type of stuff most of their pitchers have, but it wouldn't surprise me if he's seeing far more advanced off-speed stuff in the States. An adjustment period to get used to that wouldn't seem out of the ordinary, as long as it doesn't take too long.

[KingCubsFan]

I think prospects are, in a lot of ways, becoming overvalued. I know we've been through it many times, but Hendry was pretty good at trading prospects that ended up not amounting to much and getting back solid players (excluding the Juan Pierre trade). Given the emphasis on player development, I would think the new regime would be even better at identifying the prospects they want to keep and the ones they think have a higher chance of busting. And I think the value of prospects will only increase given the draft spending caps and lack of compensatory picks. Given the contracts that have recently been given out to big time free agents, it could be better going forward to trade your prospects for good young players like Garza, and then try to extend them before they hit free agency. The prospects are the price you pay for saving tens of millions of dollars in contracts.

 

How many players like Garza are we going to see hit the trade market and not be ridiculously overpriced? Just this offseason, we've seen Cain, Votto, Kinsler, Kemp, Alex Gordon, and others signed to extensions to keep them with their original team and guys like Lincecum and Justin Masterson are in talks for an extension. The As also got a ridiculous haul for a pretty average pitcher in Trevor Cahill. The Latos and Gonzalez trades were much better than the Cahill deal, but both the Reds and Nats gave up a pretty significant haul of talent for each guy and those deals were more the exception than the rule anyway.

 

If anything, I think the changes to the CBA make keeping and developing prospects even more important. It's much harder now to simply go out and buy prospects in the draft, making it much harder for teams that deal away prospects to simply replenish them by spending a bunch of money. You also have smaller market teams like the Pirates and Royals who generally were the biggest spenders in the draft, now unable to spend as much. Some of that money may go toward locking up young players like McCutcheon and Gordon who previously may have been dealt. I'm not saying teams shouldn't trade prospects for pre-FA players, I simply think it should be done with a bit more care now since you can't just buy your way to a better farm system anymore.

We're in agreement that prospects have now become more valuable with the new CBA. But just because they have become more valuable doesn't mean their odds of actually succeeding as baseball players has increased. Yes, the Nats and A's gave up a "pretty significant haul of talent" for young, cost-controlled pitchers, but in the end it will probably be worth it because most of those prospects will amount to nothing. Jarrod Parker and Trevor Cahill are almost the same age, and Cahill has already proven himself to be a good major league starter. Will Parker be that much better than Cahill? Probably not. With the new CBA, and inability of teams like the Pirates to outspend in the draft, their need for prospects will only increase. A well-run team like the Cubs should be able to capitalize on that.

[dew1679666265]

We're in agreement that prospects have now become more valuable with the new CBA. But just because they have become more valuable doesn't mean their odds of actually succeeding as baseball players has increased. Yes, the Nats and A's gave up a "pretty significant haul of talent" for young, cost-controlled pitchers, but in the end it will probably be worth it because most of those prospects will amount to nothing. Jarrod Parker and Trevor Cahill are almost the same age, and Cahill has already proven himself to be a good major league starter. Will Parker be that much better than Cahill? Probably not. With the new CBA, and inability of teams like the Pirates to outspend in the draft, their need for prospects will only increase. A well-run team like the Cubs should be able to capitalize on that.

 

Or will teams like the Pirates and Royals be more likely to lock up the few prospects who actually do pan out instead of trading them for others? I think the value of both prospects and pre-FA players have increased considerably with the new CBA in place, so both will be harder to obtain in future seasons.

 

Keep in mind as well, it's not simply whether or not Parker is likely to be better than Cahill going forward, it's also the opportunity cost you're surrendering by giving up that group of value. By making the trade for Cahill, the Diamondbacks now don't have those three players to package together for another player and it's no longer as simple as to just buy a few similar prospects in the draft. Therefore, if you can spend nothing but money to sign an elite player to fill one need, you'll be able to keep those prospects you would have traded and potentially fill a hole later that you can't address in FA.

 

A well-run team like the Cubs (feels good to say that and be accurate, by the way) should be able to find the right balance between signing elite FAs when they become available, while also moving some prospects for pre-FA guys and still having enough to fill holes on their own team cheaply. We should make use of all three of those avenues, not ignore free agency because prices are getting really high.

[KingCubsFan]

Or will teams like the Pirates and Royals be more likely to lock up the few prospects who actually do pan out instead of trading them for others? I think the value of both prospects and pre-FA players have increased considerably with the new CBA in place, so both will be harder to obtain in future seasons.

 

Keep in mind as well, it's not simply whether or not Parker is likely to be better than Cahill going forward, it's also the opportunity cost you're surrendering by giving up that group of value. By making the trade for Cahill, the Diamondbacks now don't have those three players to package together for another player and it's no longer as simple as to just buy a few similar prospects in the draft. Therefore, if you can spend nothing but money to sign an elite player to fill one need, you'll be able to keep those prospects you would have traded and potentially fill a hole later that you can't address in FA.

 

A well-run team like the Cubs (feels good to say that and be accurate, by the way) should be able to find the right balance between signing elite FAs when they become available, while also moving some prospects for pre-FA guys and still having enough to fill holes on their own team cheaply. We should make use of all three of those avenues, not ignore free agency because prices are getting really high.

 

I don't think cutting a draft budget will suddenly allow small-market teams to keep all of their young stars (although teams are obviously starting to realize the value of Longoria-like contracts). These guys have always been extremely valuable, and I don't think the CBA did anything to change that.

 

If you're going to talk about the opportunity cost of giving up prospects, then you also have to look at the opportunity cost of the extra money spent in obtaining a free agents. For example, look at Adrian Gonzalez vs. Prince Fielder. Adrian Gonzalez was traded for Kelley, Fuentes and Rizzo, three really good prospects. All Prince Fielder cost was money. But the Red Sox were able to lock in Gonzalez for 7 years at 154 million before he hit free agency. It costs the Tigers 9 years and 214 million. That's 2 years (when Prince will be bad) and $60 million in additional value the Tigers had to give up because he was a free agent. So the Red Sox, theoretically, have an extra $60 million going forward to spend on their team and they have a similar (better) player going forward but three less prospects. The three prospects given up would have to put up significant WAR over that time period to make up the difference in overall value, and that is unlikely (I hope Rizzo does, obviously).

 

I'm not saying you should close the door on ever signing an elite free agent, but the deals given this offseason (plus the Votto and Cain deals) make it less likely that those signings will ever be smart.

[Guest]

Or will teams like the Pirates and Royals be more likely to lock up the few prospects who actually do pan out instead of trading them for others? I think the value of both prospects and pre-FA players have increased considerably with the new CBA in place, so both will be harder to obtain in future seasons.

 

Keep in mind as well, it's not simply whether or not Parker is likely to be better than Cahill going forward, it's also the opportunity cost you're surrendering by giving up that group of value. By making the trade for Cahill, the Diamondbacks now don't have those three players to package together for another player and it's no longer as simple as to just buy a few similar prospects in the draft. Therefore, if you can spend nothing but money to sign an elite player to fill one need, you'll be able to keep those prospects you would have traded and potentially fill a hole later that you can't address in FA.

 

A well-run team like the Cubs (feels good to say that and be accurate, by the way) should be able to find the right balance between signing elite FAs when they become available, while also moving some prospects for pre-FA guys and still having enough to fill holes on their own team cheaply. We should make use of all three of those avenues, not ignore free agency because prices are getting really high.

 

I don't think cutting a draft budget will suddenly allow small-market teams to keep all of their young stars (although teams are obviously starting to realize the value of Longoria-like contracts). These guys have always been extremely valuable, and I don't think the CBA did anything to change that.

 

If you're going to talk about the opportunity cost of giving up prospects, then you also have to look at the opportunity cost of the extra money spent in obtaining a free agents. For example, look at Adrian Gonzalez vs. Prince Fielder. Adrian Gonzalez was traded for Kelley, Fuentes and Rizzo, three really good prospects. All Prince Fielder cost was money. But the Red Sox were able to lock in Gonzalez for 7 years at 154 million before he hit free agency. It costs the Tigers 9 years and 214 million. That's 2 years (when Prince will be bad) and $60 million in additional value the Tigers had to give up because he was a free agent. So the Red Sox, theoretically, have an extra $60 million going forward to spend on their team and they have a similar (better) player going forward but three less prospects. The three prospects given up would have to put up significant WAR over that time period to make up the difference in overall value, and that is unlikely (I hope Rizzo does, obviously).

 

I'm not saying you should close the door on ever signing an elite free agent, but the deals given this offseason (plus the Votto and Cain deals) make it less likely that those signings will ever be smart.

What does smart mean? Isn't it about winning? If Prince helps them win 6 WS titles, I'd say he's worth it. Nothing against your post, but if the Tigers or whoever can afford the dollars and/or lost prospects and field playoff teams, IMO it's woth it. I'm not particularly interested in a business model as long as the model produces winners.

[Guest]

The best thing you can do to produce winning teams over the long haul is to focus on the process and make it as high quality as possible.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

I think the fact that prospect discussion has blown up on the internet over the past decade makes prospects overrated in the fan world. Some of the things I heard post-Garza trade (Chris Archer can be better than Garza - theoretically true since it's not impossible and he's done nothing at the ML level to prove otherwise - was infuriating on many levels) left me a little wtf? when it came to prospects.

 

Iunno prospects are a very touchy subject....you NEED alot of them but you need alot of them because 75% of them (at least) will bust. You really have to analyze everything about them including the climate of the minor league world in general...for instance recent graduation of an absolute crapton of young studs into the MLB over the past say...5-6 years....has left the minors relatively weak over the past few seasons, allowing for very high rankings (at least IMO) for guys like Chris Archer (who has walked less than 5 per inning once so far, when repeating a level) or young relatively unknown tools guys. Could be that it was always this way and I'm being selective, but it's definitely how I've felt in recent years. Maybe this was helped by the sort of changing of the guard that's happened in the big leagues....the stars of the 90's/00's being on the way out as the next generation of guys (Verlander, Cabrera, etc) have become the prime veterans while even more young guys (Justin Upton, Stanton, Felix etc) work their way up the ML star ladder.

 

I'm not articulating it very well but it's not something I've given a ton of thought too...Maybe I should, because it IS more interesting than not IMO...and I know I'm not the only one who's called the past maybe 3 years in the minors kind of a lull. It'd have to be some kind of quantitative history article that I don't even have much of a thesis for anyway....Mucho work would have to be done.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not intending to argue that prospects are these uber-valuable possessions that we should hold onto at all costs. I fully believe part of the value of a prospect is what he can bring back in a trade (either individually or as part of a package). However, as we are in a process of asset building, it seems to make far more sense to me to err on the side of giving up money rather than prospects when we can.

 

It seems like a lot of the conversation on this board, especially recently, has been to avoid signing players (Pujols, Cespedes, Darvish) because we can just trade for a guy later on. If the choice is to sign Prince or trade for Adrian Gonzalez, of course I'd rather trade for the far superior player. But there's a lot of value in giving a player nothing but money when he's similar to a guy you have to give up less money and prospects for.

[SouthSideRyan]

It seems like a lot of the conversation on this board, especially recently, has been to avoid signing players (Pujols, Cespedes, Darvish) because we can just trade for a guy later on.

 

I don't think anyone has argued that this is the preferred method, just that it can be done.

[dew1679666265]

It seems like a lot of the conversation on this board, especially recently, has been to avoid signing players (Pujols, Cespedes, Darvish) because we can just trade for a guy later on.

 

I don't think anyone has argued that this is the preferred method, just that it can be done.

 

I've seen it given by some as reasoning to not pursue certain FAs this past offseason. Basically, "let's not give Pujols/Darvish the kind of money he wants and instead trade for young, superstar X in 2 years."

[XZero771679666304]

It seems like a lot of the conversation on this board, especially recently, has been to avoid signing players (Pujols, Cespedes, Darvish) because we can just trade for a guy later on.

 

I don't think anyone has argued that this is the preferred method, just that it can be done.

 

Yeah, and in part as a counter to some of the knee jerk "OMG WE DIDN'T SIGN ANY BIG NAME FAs IT'S GONNA BE 5 YEARS BEFORE WE'RE GOOD AGAIN" nonsense that has gone on.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and not going big in free agency this offseason absolutely does not mean we're in for 3-4 years of rebuilding.

[jersey cubs fan]

It seems like a lot of the conversation on this board, especially recently, has been to avoid signing players (Pujols, Cespedes, Darvish) because we can just trade for a guy later on.

 

I don't think anyone has argued that this is the preferred method, just that it can be done.

 

I think many people have argued very strongly that it is their preferred method.

[jersey cubs fan]

It seems like a lot of the conversation on this board, especially recently, has been to avoid signing players (Pujols, Cespedes, Darvish) because we can just trade for a guy later on.

 

I don't think anyone has argued that this is the preferred method, just that it can be done.

 

Yeah, and in part as a counter to some of the knee jerk "OMG WE DIDN'T SIGN ANY BIG NAME FAs IT'S GONNA BE 5 YEARS BEFORE WE'RE GOOD AGAIN" nonsense that has gone on.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and not going big in free agency this offseason absolutely does not mean we're in for 3-4 years of rebuilding.

 

Oh goody, more insulting people who wanted the front office to try.

[XZero771679666304]

It seems like a lot of the conversation on this board, especially recently, has been to avoid signing players (Pujols, Cespedes, Darvish) because we can just trade for a guy later on.

 

I don't think anyone has argued that this is the preferred method, just that it can be done.

 

Yeah, and in part as a counter to some of the knee jerk "OMG WE DIDN'T SIGN ANY BIG NAME FAs IT'S GONNA BE 5 YEARS BEFORE WE'RE GOOD AGAIN" nonsense that has gone on.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and not going big in free agency this offseason absolutely does not mean we're in for 3-4 years of rebuilding.

 

Oh goody, more insulting people who wanted the front office to try.

 

GMAFB.

 

I wanted them to "go for it" more in 2012, but I also see logic in why they have gone the route they have. I'm disappointed, but I also understand it isn't a go full bore immediately or rebuild for years proposition.

 

Some people just had a scenario in their heads regarding how this offseason should play out and when it didn't, they freaked out. Frankly if people are looking at the situation in absolute terms, they probably deserve to be derided.

Edited April 16, 2012 by XZero77

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Does anyone think the FO executed everything they wanted to this past offseason?

[Sammy Sofa]

What "freaking out?"

[XZero771679666304]

What "freaking out?"

 

Come on. There has been no shortage of people here who responded to this offseason with an emotional "we're going to have to endure 3-4 years of being bad" attitude.

 

It's reactionary nonsense, or "freaking out" in my book.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's been a few, but most are simply recognizing that there's a good shot that this team sucks next year, too. And it's not a stretch to think things don't work out as hoped and they're bad beyond that.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

I'm really asking for it by posting this so I'll preface with "this is a joke people":

 

How close is "freaking out" to "melting down?"

 

Personally hope they sign a significant FA this offseason, preferably Cole Hamels.

[Guest]

There's been a few, but most are simply recognizing that there's a good shot that this team sucks next year, too. And it's not a stretch to think things don't work out as hoped and they're bad beyond that.

 

Agree to disagree.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's been a few, but most are simply recognizing that there's a good shot that this team sucks next year, too. And it's not a stretch to think things don't work out as hoped and they're bad beyond that.

 

Agree to disagree.

 

You don't think there's a realistic shot they could be a mediocre or bad team in 2014?

[Sammy Sofa]

And I know "realistic" is a broad term; I'm not saying they're necessarily likely to be a bad/middling team in 2014, but it wouldn't surprise if that was what happened given the way they're seemingly trying to build this team.

[Guest]

There's been a few, but most are simply recognizing that there's a good shot that this team sucks next year, too. And it's not a stretch to think things don't work out as hoped and they're bad beyond that.

 

Agree to disagree.

 

You don't think there's a realistic shot they could be a mediocre or bad team in 2014?

 

We're getting into semantics now, but my expectation is that they're 5-7 games better than last year in 2012, and 5-7 games better than that(if not more) in 2013. I think this year is the last year for the forseeable future that winning less than 75 games is a significant/probable outcome.

[davell]

The wild cards are Shark and Volstad. if either, or both, prove to be solid mid rotation guys, I think we'll make big moves this upcoming offseason. If they don't and we trade Garza, I guess all bets are off.