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

[jersey cubs fan]

So you would've been okay with taking on Hak-Ju Lee types that might be 4-5 win players, but spent 2011 in the Florida State League? If I'm putting together a package of two of my best tradeable assets, I personally want more performance certainty than that.

 

FSL or SL, sure. If the performance certainty is nothing to write home about you are just unnecessarily putting a ceiling on the value if you insist on MLB ready. 2012 is almost completely gone. If you are serious about acquiring assets to help you be a contender in the future, then get serious about it and don't chicken out by insisting the guy give you some nice innings today. Sign Maholm for that purpose and trade your assets for the future.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So you would've been okay with taking on Hak-Ju Lee types that might be 4-5 win players, but spent 2011 in the Florida State League? If I'm putting together a package of two of my best tradeable assets, I personally want more performance certainty than that.

 

In the Cubs' current position, I'd rather take the near-ready or ready MLB assets. *Especially* in the rotation. A guy like Wood is perfect for what we need.

 

We've got Garza for two more years, Dempster and Zambrano for one. Wells is a huge question mark at this point. Our upper-minors rotation prospects have all struggled with injuries, ineffectiveness, or both.

[davearm2]

It seems to me that a far more likely (and obvious) reason to enter a rebuild mode is because the talent on the roster is not very good.

 

So you sap even more talent from it and replace that sapped talent with Reed Johnson and Travis Wood? Unless this team is diverting its funds elsewhere, there's no reason we can't do the parallel fronts idea that Theo/Hoyer talked about after getting hired. There's no reason to punt at least 2012 and probably 2013-2014 as well when you're one of the biggest markets in the majors. Big market teams should reload (add talent to the major league roster while reforming the minor league roster as well) not tear completely down and rebuild for 2-3 years.

Reed Johnson has instantly become a red herring. He's totally inconsequential in the big picture.

 

Travis Wood, yes this is exactly the kind of player the Cubs should be targeting.

[jersey cubs fan]

So you would've been okay with taking on Hak-Ju Lee types that might be 4-5 win players, but spent 2011 in the Florida State League? If I'm putting together a package of two of my best tradeable assets, I personally want more performance certainty than that.

 

In the Cubs' current position, I'd rather take the near-ready or ready MLB assets. *Especially* in the rotation. A guy like Wood is perfect for what we need.

 

We've got Garza for two more years, Dempster and Zambrano for one. Wells is a huge question mark at this point. Our upper-minors rotation prospects have all struggled with injuries, ineffectiveness, or both.

 

Perfect? I mean, if they are actually going to do anything to help 2012, sure, it would be nice. But since the team sucks anyway there's no point in taking lesser compensation just because you insist on MLB ready.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Perfect? I mean, if they are actually going to do anything to help 2012, sure, it would be nice. But since the team sucks anyway there's no point in taking lesser compensation just because you insist on MLB ready.

 

Lesser compensation?

 

We got a 24-year-old starting pitcher with a career FIP- of 94, and we have him for five cost-controlled years.

 

It'd have to be one *heck* of a A-ball prospect to compete with that in value.

[Guest]

So you would've been okay with taking on Hak-Ju Lee types that might be 4-5 win players, but spent 2011 in the Florida State League? If I'm putting together a package of two of my best tradeable assets, I personally want more performance certainty than that.

 

FSL or SL, sure. If the performance certainty is nothing to write home about you are just unnecessarily putting a ceiling on the value if you insist on MLB ready. 2012 is almost completely gone. If you are serious about acquiring assets to help you be a contender in the future, then get serious about it and don't chicken out by insisting the guy give you some nice innings today. Sign Maholm for that purpose and trade your assets for the future.

 

I think you're really overstating the potential difference between Wood and the hypothetical preferred return(again, who would that be?), or maybe just underestimating attrition. Wood's been a 3 win pitcher in a full season's worth of MLB starts prior to the age of 25. When you think about how likely it is that any prospect that's not in MLB or on the cusp exceeds that value, you have to realize that you're needing Strasburgian levels of potential in order to have a greater value than someone like Wood.

[jersey cubs fan]

Perfect? I mean, if they are actually going to do anything to help 2012, sure, it would be nice. But since the team sucks anyway there's no point in taking lesser compensation just because you insist on MLB ready.

 

Lesser compensation?

 

We got a 24-year-old starting pitcher with a career FIP- of 94, and we have him for five cost-controlled years.

 

It'd have to be one *heck* of a A-ball prospect to compete with that in value.

 

I'd like a heck of a prospect, yes.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Perfect? I mean, if they are actually going to do anything to help 2012, sure, it would be nice. But since the team sucks anyway there's no point in taking lesser compensation just because you insist on MLB ready.

 

Lesser compensation?

 

We got a 24-year-old starting pitcher with a career FIP- of 94, and we have him for five cost-controlled years.

 

It'd have to be one *heck* of a A-ball prospect to compete with that in value.

 

I'd like a heck of a prospect, yes.

 

Would you like him to be riding a pony as well?

[jersey cubs fan]

Would you like him to be riding a pony as well?

 

Too risky.

[Little Slide Rooter]

It's getting to the point where someone needs to change the thread title to "Travis Wood + 2 PTBNLs"

 

My god.

 

It will probably be announced when the deal is finalized. It's still pending physicals.

[dew1679666265]

Reed Johnson has instantly become a red herring. He's totally inconsequential in the big picture.

 

Travis Wood, yes this is exactly the kind of player the Cubs should be targeting.

 

Neifi, Miles, Macias, Grabow, etc., were inconsequential red herrings too, I guess. Reed's a bad player and will take up a chunk (small or not is irrelevant) of our payroll for no good reason. It's a poor move. Wood is a nice enough tweak if we had a good roster and just needed some good rotation depth. As it stands, he might keep us from dipping below 70 wins next year.

 

The thing you disagreed with, though, was why we're in a rebuilding process. The point is, this team didn't need to be overhauled so radically that we completely ignore making the current roster better in the hopes that we might be decent in a couple of years. This team could have had a shot at contending this year while still fixing the minor leagues through the draft and IFA. We should have the payroll to do that, but it appears we've chosen the small-mid market path of punting multiple years while taking out time overhauling the roster. As I pointed out before, unless the renovations and other peripheral concerns are sapping our budget, we don't need to pretend we're a small market team.

[jersey cubs fan]

So you would've been okay with taking on Hak-Ju Lee types that might be 4-5 win players, but spent 2011 in the Florida State League? If I'm putting together a package of two of my best tradeable assets, I personally want more performance certainty than that.

 

FSL or SL, sure. If the performance certainty is nothing to write home about you are just unnecessarily putting a ceiling on the value if you insist on MLB ready. 2012 is almost completely gone. If you are serious about acquiring assets to help you be a contender in the future, then get serious about it and don't chicken out by insisting the guy give you some nice innings today. Sign Maholm for that purpose and trade your assets for the future.

 

I think you're really overstating the potential difference between Wood and the hypothetical preferred return(again, who would that be?), or maybe just underestimating attrition. Wood's been a 3 win pitcher in a full season's worth of MLB starts prior to the age of 25. When you think about how likely it is that any prospect that's not in MLB or on the cusp exceeds that value, you have to realize that you're needing Strasburgian levels of potential in order to have a greater value than someone like Wood.

 

You asked me what I'd prefer. I'm telling you what I'd prefer. I see no reason to overvalue "MLB ready" given the current environment and would prefer more potential future impact instead of half assing this offseason to try and solidify a 77 win team. I wanted them to actually try to win in 2012, but if they aren't going to do that I'd prefer they actually get aggressive about the future. I'm not saying getting Wood for Marshall is a horrible deal, I'm saying I would have preferred something else.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

As TT mentioned earlier in the thread, Marshall for Wood doesn't exactly torch 2012. It's pretty close to a wash. Any starting upgrade has big value to the Cubs because of their extremely weak back-of-the-rotation, but they have the relief depth to mitigate the loss.

 

The fact that we let the Reds upgrade shows we aren't trying that hard in 2012, but I don't think we necessarily lose more games because of this move.

[jersey cubs fan]

As TT mentioned earlier in the thread, Marshall for Wood doesn't exactly torch 2012. It's pretty close to a wash. Any starting upgrade has big value to the Cubs because of their extremely weak back-of-the-rotation, but they have the relief depth to mitigate the loss.

 

The fact that we let the Reds upgrade shows we aren't trying that hard in 2012, but I don't think we necessarily lose more games because of this move.

 

Jesus Christ. No chip sherlock. Obviously this move doesn't torch 2012. It's the lack of other moves that torched 2012.

[dew1679666265]

As TT mentioned earlier in the thread, Marshall for Wood doesn't exactly torch 2012. It's pretty close to a wash. Any starting upgrade has big value to the Cubs because of their extremely weak back-of-the-rotation, but they have the relief depth to mitigate the loss.

 

The fact that we let the Reds upgrade shows we aren't trying that hard in 2012, but I don't think we necessarily lose more games because of this move.

 

It's the offseason in it's entirety to this point that makes it clear we're punting 2012 (and maybe 2013 as well). That punt makes me like the Marshall for Wood deal less, because Wood's value is lessened by the likelihood that we won't be trying to compete for the first 2 of his 5 cost controlled years and then may take another 1-2 to become serious about contending. It's why I'd be ok with a player further away if he had a greater upside - if he makes it, then he'd make it around the time we'd be seriously thinking about contending again.

[abuck1220]

good lord in heaven if a team in a huge market with a $100 mil+ payroll and a ton of expiring contracts seriously is planning on punting the next two seasons, i'm going to murder someone.

[SouthSideRyan]

good lord in heaven if a team in a huge market with a $100 mil+ payroll and a ton of expiring contracts seriously is planning on punting the next two seasons, i'm going to murder someone.

 

Well if we can dump Byrd and Garza, we could get it down to about 85M

[davearm2]

Reed Johnson has instantly become a red herring. He's totally inconsequential in the big picture.

 

Travis Wood, yes this is exactly the kind of player the Cubs should be targeting.

 

Neifi, Miles, Macias, Grabow, etc., were inconsequential red herrings too, I guess. Reed's a bad player and will take up a chunk (small or not is irrelevant) of our payroll for no good reason. It's a poor move. Wood is a nice enough tweak if we had a good roster and just needed some good rotation depth. As it stands, he might keep us from dipping below 70 wins next year.

 

The thing you disagreed with, though, was why we're in a rebuilding process. The point is, this team didn't need to be overhauled so radically that we completely ignore making the current roster better in the hopes that we might be decent in a couple of years. This team could have had a shot at contending this year while still fixing the minor leagues through the draft and IFA. We should have the payroll to do that, but it appears we've chosen the small-mid market path of punting multiple years while taking out time overhauling the roster. As I pointed out before, unless the renovations and other peripheral concerns are sapping our budget, we don't need to pretend we're a small market team.

I don't agree that the Cubs are pretending they're a small market team. I also don't agree that they're close to contending in 2012.

 

They're proceeding like a team that needs a large infusion of talent to be a contender. That harsh reality dictates the timetable, because acquiring those assets cannot be done overnight. Money really isn't the issue at all. If they could buy their way out of this situation, they probably would (and they still may do some of that, with the Cuban guys). But they can't.

 

Put it this way -- if Prince Fielder or Albert Pujols had their best years still in front of them, then the Cubs would be all over them. The guys that have their best years in front of them also happen to be inexpensive (generally). The Cubs aren't interested in them because they're cheap, they're interested in them because they're improving.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I've come to terms with punting 2012. I'm not giving up on 2013 yet.

[RammyFanny]

So the psd insider backtracked a bit and said he doesn't think it's Hamilton anymore but from what he's hearing we should be really happy with the deal and they are definitely not filler prospects.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marlin Bystro

I will say this. I don't think it is Hamilton, but we should be very happy with this one. The players coming back are not throw in types.

Edited December 22, 2011 by RammyFanny

[pccubfan]

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.

It seems to me that a far more likely (and obvious) reason to enter a rebuild mode is because the talent on the roster is not very good.

 

So let's not try and improve the major league roster, let's try to improve the low minors.

Your snide comment might actually have a thread of truth to it if the Cubs had actually done anything to improve the low minors.

 

As it is, they replaced Ramirez with Stewart, and Marshall with Wood. Those new guys are major leaguers, FYI.

 

See the point of a rebuild is to let go of the guys that won't be around by the time you're good again, and replace them with younger guys that can potentially be regular contributors, and help make you good again.

 

Did I strike a nerve? You are correct those players are major leaguers but are hardly improvements to the major league roster. You seem to be very pro internal build through the minors until the Cubs are ready to win. I'm pretty sure that you grasp that building through the system is exactly what I referenced, improving the low minors.

 

You don't seem to grasp that the Cubs aren't the Pirates they have sufficient revenues to compete most years. They should never have to throw away one, let alone two or three years in order to be good.

[dew1679666265]

good lord in heaven if a team in a huge market with a $100 mil+ payroll and a ton of expiring contracts seriously is planning on punting the next two seasons, i'm going to murder someone.

 

I would hope we're not, but with the way we're dumping talent and not replacing it with much, we're going to have to go on a pretty wild spending spree next offseason to have a shot at contention in 2013.

[YearofDaCubs]

So the psd insider backtracked a bit and said he doesn't think it's Hamilton anymore but from what he's hearing we should be really happy with the deal and they are definitely not filler prospects.

If that's the case the deal will be a solid win. I just didn't want Wood being the only primary piece we were getting back.

[davell]

So the psd insider backtracked a bit and said he doesn't think it's Hamilton anymore but from what he's hearing we should be really happy with the deal and they are definitely not filler prospects.

In his defense, he actually said Hamilton could, not would. I wanted to keep my hopes down, but I hope we find out sometime soon today.

[davearm2]

It seems to me that a far more likely (and obvious) reason to enter a rebuild mode is because the talent on the roster is not very good.

 

So let's not try and improve the major league roster, let's try to improve the low minors.

Your snide comment might actually have a thread of truth to it if the Cubs had actually done anything to improve the low minors.

 

As it is, they replaced Ramirez with Stewart, and Marshall with Wood. Those new guys are major leaguers, FYI.

 

See the point of a rebuild is to let go of the guys that won't be around by the time you're good again, and replace them with younger guys that can potentially be regular contributors, and help make you good again.

 

Did I strike a nerve? You are correct those players are major leaguers but are hardly improvements to the major league roster. You seem to be very pro internal build through the minors until the Cubs are ready to win. I'm pretty sure that you grasp that building through the system is exactly what I referenced, improving the low minors.

 

You don't seem to grasp that the Cubs aren't the Pirates they have sufficient revenues to compete most years. They should never have to throw away one, let alone two or three years in order to be good.

It's not an unwillingness to spend money that's preventing the Cubs from competing this year.