Sean Marshall traded: T Wood +prospects Sappelt &Torreys p21

[SouthSideRyan]

In theory, anyway.

 

In theory, communism works. In theory.

 

Communism works in theory if you believe in the power of the repressive state. Shame on those who still believe in that.

 

Also waiting on the prospects, though I doubt they will amount to much. Still love Theo, though.

 

KBBL's going to give me something stupid!

 

What a bunch of clowns.

[reds44]

My buddy (pro scout for rangers) thinks one of the prospects could be Daniel Corcino.

 

Much more promising than some of the other prospects listed. Works in the low 90's and tops out at 97mph. Seems to have started to figure things out.

 

The other two Coddington and Ward make absolutely no sense.

 

The other name he gave me was Yorman Rodriguez

 

Corcino and Rodriguez. Yes please.

You're kidding right? I think you guys need to come way down off your prospects expectations. I wouldn't trade Wood for Marshall straight up as it is, so if it's anything but low level filler guys I'll be surprised. Coddington/Webb makes much more sense.

[XZero771679666304]

My buddy (pro scout for rangers) thinks one of the prospects could be Daniel Corcino.

 

Much more promising than some of the other prospects listed. Works in the low 90's and tops out at 97mph. Seems to have started to figure things out.

 

The other two Coddington and Ward make absolutely no sense.

 

The other name he gave me was Yorman Rodriguez

 

Corcino and Rodriguez. Yes please.

You're kidding right? I think you guys need to come way down off your prospects expectations. I wouldn't trade Wood for Marshall straight up as it is, so if it's anything but low level filler guys I'll be surprised. Coddington/Webb makes much more sense.

 

Well, being that you and Jocketty apparently value players differently, what you would or would not be surprised by seems pretty irrelevant.

 

I'm happy with the trade as is and am not expecting much else of substance, but after seeing the Latos trade, I'm not ruling anything out here.

[A New Era]

My buddy (pro scout for rangers) thinks one of the prospects could be Daniel Corcino.

 

Much more promising than some of the other prospects listed. Works in the low 90's and tops out at 97mph. Seems to have started to figure things out.

 

The other two Coddington and Ward make absolutely no sense.

 

The other name he gave me was Yorman Rodriguez

 

Corcino and Rodriguez. Yes please.

You're kidding right? I think you guys need to come way down off your prospects expectations. I wouldn't trade Wood for Marshall straight up as it is, so if it's anything but low level filler guys I'll be surprised. Coddington/Webb makes much more sense.

 

You realize Walt Jockety is your GM right?

[reds44]

The Latos trade made sense because they received a really good pitcher who's affordable and under control for 4 years. That's huge on our budget. Not to mention the fact both Alonso and Grandal had nowhere to play.

 

If any of Hamilton, Yorman, or Corcino are involved I'll be shocked.

 

As for Wood, he's not a flamethrower but he'll get up to 94. He's not Dave Williams. He'll probably be your 2nd best SP next year.

 

I can live with this as long as the prospects are throw ins, like many people have said on here the prospects will make or break the trade.

[Rob]

My buddy (pro scout for rangers) thinks one of the prospects could be Daniel Corcino.

 

Much more promising than some of the other prospects listed. Works in the low 90's and tops out at 97mph. Seems to have started to figure things out.

 

The other two Coddington and Ward make absolutely no sense.

 

The other name he gave me was Yorman Rodriguez

 

Corcino and Rodriguez. Yes please.

You're kidding right? I think you guys need to come way down off your prospects expectations. I wouldn't trade Wood for Marshall straight up as it is, so if it's anything but low level filler guys I'll be surprised. Coddington/Webb makes much more sense.

 

Keith Law says the names he's heard have been non-zeroes. Jim Bowden said the prospects will be the key to the deal. Yadda yadda yadda.

 

We don't know what they had to give up. But given how many teams were supposedly in on Marshall I'm sure the Reds had to outbid others, as well as perhaps pay the standard premium for trading with a division rival. It's not about what's fair or what makes sense.

 

That said, Wood is a pretty significant piece already. I'm not expecting much in addition to him... but at the same time I absolutely would not be shocked to see some more interesting names than you're anticipating.

[reds44]

The Latos trade made sense because they received a really good pitcher who's affordable and under control for 4 years. That's huge on our budget. Not to mention the fact both Alonso and Grandal had nowhere to play.

 

If any of Hamilton, Yorman, or Corcino are involved I'll be shocked.

 

As for Wood, he's not a flamethrower but he'll get up to 94. He's not Dave Williams. He'll probably be your 2nd best SP next year.

 

I can live with this as long as the prospects are throw ins, like many people have said on here the prospects will make or break the trade.

[Rob]

The Latos trade made sense because they received a really good pitcher who's affordable and under control for 4 years. That's huge on our budget. Not to mention the fact both Alonso and Grandal had nowhere to play.

 

If any of Hamilton, Yorman, or Corcino are involved I'll be shocked.

 

As for Wood, he's not a flamethrower but he'll get up to 94. He's not Dave Williams. He'll probably be your 2nd best SP next year.

 

I can live with this as long as the prospects are throw ins, like many people have said on here the prospects will make or break the trade.

 

The prospects may make or break the trade from the Reds perspective. The Cubs already came out ahead.

[XZero771679666304]

The Latos trade made sense because they received a really good pitcher who's affordable and under control for 4 years. That's huge on our budget. Not to mention the fact both Alonso and Grandal had nowhere to play.

 

If any of Hamilton, Yorman, or Corcino are involved I'll be shocked.

 

As for Wood, he's not a flamethrower but he'll get up to 94. He's not Dave Williams. He'll probably be your 2nd best SP next year.

 

I can live with this as long as the prospects are throw ins, like many people have said on here the prospects will make or break the trade.

 

The prospects may make or break the trade from the Reds perspective. The Cubs already came out ahead.

 

Pretty much. Marshall may be a better pitcher, but this looks to me like 5 years of Wood for 1 year of Marshall. Even if he never amounts to more than a back of the rotation guy, it's a net gain for the Cubs.

 

Any decent prospects would just be icing.

[mookie]

The Latos trade made sense because they received a really good pitcher who's affordable and under control for 4 years. That's huge on our budget. Not to mention the fact both Alonso and Grandal had nowhere to play.

 

If any of Hamilton, Yorman, or Corcino are involved I'll be shocked.

 

As for Wood, he's not a flamethrower but he'll get up to 94. He's not Dave Williams. He'll probably be your 2nd best SP next year.

 

I can live with this as long as the prospects are throw ins, like many people have said on here the prospects will make or break the trade.

 

The prospects may make or break the trade from the Reds perspective. The Cubs already came out ahead.

 

 

Definitely agree, and very nice to read on here after all the backlash.

[TruffleShuffle]

how [expletive] long does it take for a couple of minor leaguers to be announced?

[XZero771679666304]

how [expletive] long does it take for a couple of minor leaguers to be announced?

 

After the physicals, I'm guessing.

[A New Era]

prolly some time today. This morn or early afternoon.

[Brian]

I don't know if I'm mentally prepared for the Cubs to be overpaid in a trade.

[Exile on Waveland]

For me it's all about pitching depth. We all know how awful Lopez, Coleman, Davis and Russell were last year. We know we need SP depth and we just got some. That was the biggest weakness on the team last year and acquiring Wood strengthens that. Even if he's a #4 or 5 - he's much better than what we had last year.

Who cares about pitching depth when your team isn't going to be any good?

 

Who cares about one year of a relief pitcher when your team isn't going to be any good?

 

You can absurdly reduce any move down to "why? the team isn't going to be any good." That doesn't mean the Cubs shouldn't make moves; especially moves for young, cost-controlled starting pitchers. Maybe you weren't serious. If so, yeesh.

[SouthSideRyan]

For me it's all about pitching depth. We all know how awful Lopez, Coleman, Davis and Russell were last year. We know we need SP depth and we just got some. That was the biggest weakness on the team last year and acquiring Wood strengthens that. Even if he's a #4 or 5 - he's much better than what we had last year.

Who cares about pitching depth when your team isn't going to be any good?

 

Who cares about one year of a relief pitcher when your team isn't going to be any good?

 

You can absurdly reduce any move down to "why? the team isn't going to be any good." That doesn't mean the Cubs shouldn't make moves; especially moves for young, cost-controlled starting pitchers. Maybe you weren't serious. If so, yeesh.

 

Nobody complaining about the Marshall trade is saying we should've kept him in order to win 61 games instead of 59 next year. They're saying they should've traded him for something better than "5 cost-controlled years" of a back of the rotation starter.

[RynoRules]

For me it's all about pitching depth. We all know how awful Lopez, Coleman, Davis and Russell were last year. We know we need SP depth and we just got some. That was the biggest weakness on the team last year and acquiring Wood strengthens that. Even if he's a #4 or 5 - he's much better than what we had last year.

Who cares about pitching depth when your team isn't going to be any good?

 

Who cares about one year of a relief pitcher when your team isn't going to be any good?

 

You can absurdly reduce any move down to "why? the team isn't going to be any good." That doesn't mean the Cubs shouldn't make moves; especially moves for young, cost-controlled starting pitchers. Maybe you weren't serious. If so, yeesh.

 

Nobody complaining about the Marshall trade is saying we should've kept him in order to win 61 games instead of 59 next year. They're saying they should've traded him for something better than "5 cost-controlled years" of a back of the rotation starter.

 

Ok, but that wasn't the trade. They also are receiving two prospects. So why don't we wait and see who the two prospects are and then you, me and whoever can go nuclear over the trade if we don't like them.

 

EDIT: Also, I know many here are peeved that we appear to be punting 2012. I am not one of those. I'm fine with it so long as moves we make actually further the apparent goal of a tear-down/re-build.

Edited December 22, 2011 by RynoRules

[Exile on Waveland]

For me it's all about pitching depth. We all know how awful Lopez, Coleman, Davis and Russell were last year. We know we need SP depth and we just got some. That was the biggest weakness on the team last year and acquiring Wood strengthens that. Even if he's a #4 or 5 - he's much better than what we had last year.

Who cares about pitching depth when your team isn't going to be any good?

 

Who cares about one year of a relief pitcher when your team isn't going to be any good?

 

You can absurdly reduce any move down to "why? the team isn't going to be any good." That doesn't mean the Cubs shouldn't make moves; especially moves for young, cost-controlled starting pitchers. Maybe you weren't serious. If so, yeesh.

 

Nobody complaining about the Marshall trade is saying we should've kept him in order to win 61 games instead of 59 next year. They're saying they should've traded him for something better than "5 cost-controlled years" of a back of the rotation starter.

 

Well, the post I responded to had no such evaluation. In fact, it had no evaluation whatsoever; only a blanket statement that pitching depth doesn't matter for bad teams. However, nothing really matters to bad teams, so that point is completely irrelevant. Therefore, my post stood only for the proposition that dismissing a move -- much less a move that obviously has the future in mind -- based on such logic is nonsense. It, invariably, leads to a paralysis where no moves are made. It is, ostensibly, the same logic that leads one to argue signing Fielder is pointless because the team is going to be bad this year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Nobody complaining about the Marshall trade is saying we should've kept him in order to win 61 games instead of 59 next year. They're saying they should've traded him for something better than "5 cost-controlled years" of a back of the rotation starter.

 

Then I'll simply counter that they are severely underestimating Wood's value.

[dew1679666265]

EDIT: Also, I know many here are peeved that we appear to be punting 2012. I am not one of those. I'm fine with it so long as moves we make actually further the apparent goal of a tear-down/re-build.

 

My only problem with a complete rebuild is that with our payroll it shouldn't be necessary. Unless the Ricketts are diverting funds to be able to invest in peripheral stuff (triangle building, McDonald's, renovations) that will help overall but hurt the product on the field in the near term, there's no reason to give up on 2012 without any effort whatsoever to contend.

 

Plus, devoiding the roster of any talent makes it that much harder to compete in 2013 as well. You can't just flip a switch and turn a 65 win team into a 90 win team in one offseason. It takes time and tearing down this roster is very possibly going to hinder us from contending for the next 2-3 years.

[jersey cubs fan]

EDIT: Also, I know many here are peeved that we appear to be punting 2012. I am not one of those. I'm fine with it so long as moves we make actually further the apparent goal of a tear-down/re-build.

 

My only problem with a complete rebuild is that with our payroll it shouldn't be necessary.

 

My problem is that it absolutely isn't necessary, and it's pretty much a cop-out.

[dew1679666265]

Nobody complaining about the Marshall trade is saying we should've kept him in order to win 61 games instead of 59 next year. They're saying they should've traded him for something better than "5 cost-controlled years" of a back of the rotation starter.

 

Then I'll simply counter that they are severely underestimating Wood's value.

 

Or they don't believe in a guy with mediocre stuff to continue being useful going forward and a 200 inning sample size isn't enough to disprove their concerns. Kind of like you with Wells, except instead of just starting Wood, we're giving up a good trade chip for him (and prospects).

[dew1679666265]

My problem is that it absolutely isn't necessary, and it's pretty much a cop-out.

 

The only way I see it being necessary is if the Ricketts value the renovations and more peripheral improvements right now more than putting a good product on the field. If they're pouring enough money into all of that, it may sap enough of the available funds that they can't put a $130 million payroll on the field in the short term. If that's the case, I'll begrudgingly be ok with it because I do have faith in Ricketts/Theo, but if that's not the case then there's absolutely no reason why we should be in complete rebuild mode.

[Guest]

My problem is that it absolutely isn't necessary, and it's pretty much a cop-out.

 

The only way I see it being necessary is if the Ricketts value the renovations and more peripheral improvements right now more than putting a good product on the field. If they're pouring enough money into all of that, it may sap enough of the available funds that they can't put a $130 million payroll on the field in the short term. If that's the case, I'll begrudgingly be ok with it because I do have faith in Ricketts/Theo, but if that's not the case then there's absolutely no reason why we should be in complete rebuild mode.

 

I pretty much think that might be what's going on. And if they can't put money into those improvements without sacrificing the quality of the team in the short term, then that sucks, but it's worth it and the right thing to do.

 

But we'll see where we end up after IFAs and everything, since it doesn't appear we'll be blowing a big wad on Fielder.

[jersey cubs fan]

My problem is that it absolutely isn't necessary, and it's pretty much a cop-out.

 

The only way I see it being necessary is if the Ricketts value the renovations and more peripheral improvements right now more than putting a good product on the field. If they're pouring enough money into all of that, it may sap enough of the available funds that they can't put a $130 million payroll on the field in the short term. If that's the case, I'll begrudgingly be ok with it because I do have faith in Ricketts/Theo, but if that's not the case then there's absolutely no reason why we should be in complete rebuild mode.

 

I pretty much think that might be what's going on. And if they can't put money into those improvements without sacrificing the quality of the team in the short term, then that sucks, but it's worth it and the right thing to do.

 

But we'll see where we end up after IFAs and everything, since it doesn't appear we'll be blowing a big wad on Fielder.

 

I don't see it. They aren't moving forward with real renovations until they figure something out with the city. That's not happening anytime soon.