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

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

With the right moves I fully believe they could have had a shot at contending in a weak division in 2012. If nothing else, they could have set themselves up to be the favorites in 2013. Now, it's going to take some really good moves to simply have a shot to contend in 2013, and that's if the Brewers, Cardinals, and Reds don't make substantial improvements in the next year.

 

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.

 

We've had this Prince/Pujols discussion more than a couple times and I'd guess you're aware that I believe a drop off the cliff isn't likely for either Prince or Pujols in the next year or two. I think you can still get 4-5 highly productive years out of both. That's plenty of time to bring in either, sign Darvish or a FA next year, and be the favorites in 2013 with a chance to contend this year. If you have the budgetary room for Soler and Cespedes, even better.

 

In that scenario, you've added as few as 2 and as many as 4 long term assets and should still have the baseball budget (if it's holding steady) to spend as needed in the draft and IFA to restock the minors. If the money's not there for all of that, then a full rebuild is more understandable. But if the funds are there, then punting the next couple of years is completely unnecessary.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

Me too. If it's Wood and a couple good pieces, I'm very happy with this trade. If it's Wood, a good prospect, and filler, then I'm happy enough with the trade. If it's Wood and a couple of fillers, then I'm pretty discouraged.

Edited December 22, 2011 by dew

[pccubfan]

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.

 

With the right moves I fully believe they could have had a shot at contending in a weak division in 2012. If nothing else, they could have set themselves up to be the favorites in 2013. Now, it's going to take some really good moves to simply have a shot to contend in 2013, and that's if the Brewers, Cardinals, and Reds don't make substantial improvements in the next year.

 

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.

 

We've had this Prince/Pujols discussion more than a couple times and I'd guess you're aware that I believe a drop off the cliff isn't likely for either Prince or Pujols in the next year or two. I think you can still get 4-5 highly productive years out of both. That's plenty of time to bring in either, sign Darvish or a FA next year, and be the favorites in 2013 with a chance to contend this year. If you have the budgetary room for Soler and Cespedes, even better.

 

In that scenario, you've added as few as 2 and as many as 4 long term assets and should still have the baseball budget (if it's holding steady) to spend as needed in the draft and IFA to restock the minors. If the money's not there for all of that, then a full rebuild is more understandable. But if the funds are there, then punting the next couple of years is completely unnecessary.

 

This.

[waffle]

ok with bringing in Reed

See the sense of trading Marshall. Looking forward to seeing the prospects.

 

Not having the strong reaction on either that some here are. Think both moves can be seen as sensible.

[davearm2]

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.

 

With the right moves I fully believe they could have had a shot at contending in a weak division in 2012. If nothing else, they could have set themselves up to be the favorites in 2013. Now, it's going to take some really good moves to simply have a shot to contend in 2013, and that's if the Brewers, Cardinals, and Reds don't make substantial improvements in the next year.

 

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.

 

We've had this Prince/Pujols discussion more than a couple times and I'd guess you're aware that I believe a drop off the cliff isn't likely for either Prince or Pujols in the next year or two. I think you can still get 4-5 highly productive years out of both. That's plenty of time to bring in either, sign Darvish or a FA next year, and be the favorites in 2013 with a chance to contend this year. If you have the budgetary room for Soler and Cespedes, even better.

 

In that scenario, you've added as few as 2 and as many as 4 long term assets and should still have the baseball budget (if it's holding steady) to spend as needed in the draft and IFA to restock the minors. If the money's not there for all of that, then a full rebuild is more understandable. But if the funds are there, then punting the next couple of years is completely unnecessary.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree about the Cubs' prospects in 2012.

 

I would have been happy going after Darvish. I hope they do go after the Cubans. And of course I hope they are as aggressive spending money on the draft as the new CBA allows.

 

You characterized Prince and Pujols as long term assets. I disagree. I would characterize them as short term assets, and long term liabilities. I think everyone agrees, somewhere down the road, they will cost you more than their production is worth. That's a liability, not an asset. Given that the Cubs (IMO) are not well-positioned to capitalize on the remaining years of elite production, taking on the long-term liability seems foolish to me.

[Illini Iceman]

I like the idea of getting Wood instead of a top 10 prospect since we know based on his 2010 season that he is capable of being a useful big league pitcher. He also seems to have enough upside that he could develop over the next year or two and be a solid rotation guy for a while. If you listen to what Theo said when he was hired all the moves have been consistent with his philosophy. Stewart, Wood and to some degree DeJesus are talented guys who have the potential to be major contributors. I don't think he is punting on 2012, just would rather roll the die with players more in the mold he likes instead of trying to tweak what he feels was a flawed 2011 roster. Hopefully he can still make one big splash.

 

It does kind of suck to lose Marshall, however. It was nice knowing we had him back there to make an easy 8th before the inevitable Marmol heart attack ninth. I hope Russell, Samadzija, Carpenter or someone else can step up and take over that role successfully.

[dew1679666265]

You characterized Prince and Pujols as long term assets. I disagree. I would characterize them as short term assets, and long term liabilities. I think everyone agrees, somewhere down the road, they will cost you more than their production is worth. That's a liability, not an asset. Given that the Cubs (IMO) are not well-positioned to capitalize on the remaining years of elite production, taking on the long-term liability seems foolish to me.

 

How about mid term assets? Short term is the next 1-2 years, 3 at most. I think both can be great assets beyond that point - as I said, 4-5 years. That should have been more than enough time for the Cubs to right the ship. Now, it's a bit more murky as I don't know how long they plan to do this complete overhaul. I'm thinking contention in 2013 is being pretty optimistic since we've added nothing in the way of impact talent or potential impact talent yet.

 

Probably 2014 is the earliest we can seriously expect to contend at this point, so I'd probably agree with you now on Prince. I still think punting multiple seasons is unnecessary for a big market team like the Cubs, though.

[Guest]

You characterized Prince and Pujols as long term assets. I disagree. I would characterize them as short term assets, and long term liabilities. I think everyone agrees, somewhere down the road, they will cost you more than their production is worth. That's a liability, not an asset. Given that the Cubs (IMO) are not well-positioned to capitalize on the remaining years of elite production, taking on the long-term liability seems foolish to me.

 

You are using those words in a different context than pretty much everyone else.

[davearm2]

You characterized Prince and Pujols as long term assets. I disagree. I would characterize them as short term assets, and long term liabilities. I think everyone agrees, somewhere down the road, they will cost you more than their production is worth. That's a liability, not an asset. Given that the Cubs (IMO) are not well-positioned to capitalize on the remaining years of elite production, taking on the long-term liability seems foolish to me.

 

You are using those words in a different context than pretty much everyone else.

What term would you choose for a player that's making more money than his production is worth?

 

I'd say "liability" conveys the concept kinda perfectly. It's just semantics, though.

[dew1679666265]

I like the idea of getting Wood instead of a top 10 prospect since we know based on his 2010 season that he is capable of being a useful big league pitcher. He also seems to have enough upside that he could develop over the next year or two and be a solid rotation guy for a while. If you listen to what Theo said when he was hired all the moves have been consistent with his philosophy. Stewart, Wood and to some degree DeJesus are talented guys who have the potential to be major contributors. I don't think he is punting on 2012, just would rather roll the die with players more in the mold he likes instead of trying to tweak what he feels was a flawed 2011 roster. Hopefully he can still make one big splash.

 

The best thing about Wood is that we control his cost for the next 5 years. Problem is, since we're clearly rebuilding for at least 2012 and maybe longer, his best asset becomes less important. I don't see any way this team contends in 2012 at this point and unless we get a few breaks (sign Prince and Cespedes and hope Cespedes hits his ceiling by 2013 would be a good start) 2013 is looking pretty unlikely. So we're looking at 3 cost controlled years for Wood when we're actually trying to contend and with a very limited ceiling, I just don't think that's worth Marshall. The prospects could make all the difference, though.

 

That's why I would have preferred a high upside prospect - he'd be much more cost effective when we're trying to contend than Wood will be.

[pccubfan]

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.

 

With the right moves I fully believe they could have had a shot at contending in a weak division in 2012. If nothing else, they could have set themselves up to be the favorites in 2013. Now, it's going to take some really good moves to simply have a shot to contend in 2013, and that's if the Brewers, Cardinals, and Reds don't make substantial improvements in the next year.

 

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.

 

We've had this Prince/Pujols discussion more than a couple times and I'd guess you're aware that I believe a drop off the cliff isn't likely for either Prince or Pujols in the next year or two. I think you can still get 4-5 highly productive years out of both. That's plenty of time to bring in either, sign Darvish or a FA next year, and be the favorites in 2013 with a chance to contend this year. If you have the budgetary room for Soler and Cespedes, even better.

 

In that scenario, you've added as few as 2 and as many as 4 long term assets and should still have the baseball budget (if it's holding steady) to spend as needed in the draft and IFA to restock the minors. If the money's not there for all of that, then a full rebuild is more understandable. But if the funds are there, then punting the next couple of years is completely unnecessary.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree about the Cubs' prospects in 2012.

 

I would have been happy going after Darvish. I hope they do go after the Cubans. And of course I hope they are as aggressive spending money on the draft as the new CBA allows.

 

You characterized Prince and Pujols as long term assets. I disagree. I would characterize them as short term assets, and long term liabilities. I think everyone agrees, somewhere down the road, they will cost you more than their production is worth. That's a liability, not an asset. Given that the Cubs (IMO) are not well-positioned to capitalize on the remaining years of elite production, taking on the long-term liability seems foolish to me.

 

Again, why are Theo and Hoyer being paid so much? On the one hand, you believe that they will be able to build this team into a consistent winner through their drafting. Yet you aren't willing to also come to terms with these home grown assets providing cheap production to offset a less than perfect situation with Pujols or Fielder.

 

I will give you that Pujols and Fielder are likely to be overpaid in the later years of their contracts but in my lingo a player that can produce for five or six years into the future is not a short-term asset.

[jersey cubs fan]

I like the idea of getting Wood instead of a top 10 prospect since we know based on his 2010 season that he is capable of being a useful big league pitcher. He also seems to have enough upside that he could develop over the next year or two and be a solid rotation guy for a while. If you listen to what Theo said when he was hired all the moves have been consistent with his philosophy. Stewart, Wood and to some degree DeJesus are talented guys who have the potential to be major contributors. I don't think he is punting on 2012, just would rather roll the die with players more in the mold he likes instead of trying to tweak what he feels was a flawed 2011 roster. Hopefully he can still make one big splash.

 

The best thing about Wood is that we control his cost for the next 5 years. Problem is, since we're clearly rebuilding for at least 2012 and maybe longer, his best asset becomes less important. I don't see any way this team contends in 2012 at this point and unless we get a few breaks (sign Prince and Cespedes and hope Cespedes hits his ceiling by 2013 would be a good start) 2013 is looking pretty unlikely. So we're looking at 3 cost controlled years for Wood when we're actually trying to contend and with a very limited ceiling, I just don't think that's worth Marshall. The prospects could make all the difference, though.

 

That's why I would have preferred a high upside prospect - he'd be much more cost effective when we're trying to contend than Wood will be.

 

Those last two years probably won't be all that cost effective, unless he keeps getting better and better.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think everyone agrees, somewhere down the road, they will cost you more than their production is worth.

 

Congratulations: you've just recognized the reality of almost every big ticket FA.

[Guest]

You characterized Prince and Pujols as long term assets. I disagree. I would characterize them as short term assets, and long term liabilities. I think everyone agrees, somewhere down the road, they will cost you more than their production is worth. That's a liability, not an asset. Given that the Cubs (IMO) are not well-positioned to capitalize on the remaining years of elite production, taking on the long-term liability seems foolish to me.

 

You are using those words in a different context than pretty much everyone else.

What term would you choose for a player that's making more money than his production is worth?

 

I'd say "liability" conveys the concept kinda perfectly. It's just semantics, though.

 

Inefficient.

 

If Soriano and Z were still consistent 3 win players, very few people would call them liabilities, despite their contract paying them above what their production would dictate. Likewise, paying Fielder or Pujols 25 million dollars to be a 4 win player 5 years down the line would be inefficient, but few would view them as liabilities. A lack of clarity in the difference in paying someone big money to be good(Fielder and Pujols 4-5 years from now) and paying someone big money to be below average(Soriano) has caused untold numbers of pages of reiterating the same points.

 

Signing Ramirez to a 3 year deal when he'll be below average and making 15 million dollars in 2014, that's a future liability.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"very limited ceiling"?

 

24 years old. 92 career FIP-.

[mookie]

Is this Pujols/Prince debate going to run into next year? I just want to prepare myself.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is this Pujols/Prince debate going to run into next year? I just want to prepare myself.

 

Another two weeks? I don't see why not.

[dew1679666265]

"very limited ceiling"?

 

24 years old. 92 career FIP-.

 

Pretty much everybody I've seen talking about Wood refer to him as a 4-5 starter and nothing more. That's very limited.

[dew1679666265]

Those last two years probably won't be all that cost effective, unless he keeps getting better and better.

 

I'm confused - who are you talking about with this comment? If it's Wood, as I think, then I agree and that's why I said the higher upside prospect would be much more cost efficient than Wood would be when the Cubs are actually trying to contend again.

[jersey cubs fan]

Those last two years probably won't be all that cost effective, unless he keeps getting better and better.

 

I'm confused - who are you talking about with this comment? If it's Wood, as I think, then I agree and that's why I said the higher upside prospect would be much more cost efficient than Wood would be when the Cubs are actually trying to contend again.

 

Wood. I keep hearing about 5 cost controlled years when in reality it's just 5 team controlled years, with a couple cheap ones and the rest will be very expensive. Even if he's mediocre he'll be awarded a lot of money in arbitration. That's why non-tenders exist.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"very limited ceiling"?

 

24 years old. 92 career FIP-.

 

Pretty much everybody I've seen talking about Wood refer to him as a 4-5 starter and nothing more. That's very limited.

 

They are talking about his current ability. His ceiling is a bit higher.

 

And I think you are underestimating how valuable a "No. 4 starter" is just because the Cubs have had so many terrible ones lately.

[dew1679666265]

Wood. I keep hearing about 5 cost controlled years when in reality it's just 5 team controlled years, with a couple cheap ones and the rest will be very expensive. Even if he's mediocre he'll be awarded a lot of money in arbitration. That's why non-tenders exist.

 

Ok, I get it now. This is the drawback to focusing purely on finding guys who are cheap and looking at nothing else when you're not contending - we'll waste his first two "controlled" years by being really bad, then he hits his arbitration years by 2014 and is a FA in 2017. So we're trying to win for probably 3 of his "controlled" years, but all three of them are arbitration years, so he won't be super cheap during them.

 

The value of his "controlled" years would be much higher if we were trying to win in 2012-2013.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Those last two years probably won't be all that cost effective, unless he keeps getting better and better.

 

I'm confused - who are you talking about with this comment? If it's Wood, as I think, then I agree and that's why I said the higher upside prospect would be much more cost efficient than Wood would be when the Cubs are actually trying to contend again.

 

Wood. I keep hearing about 5 cost controlled years when in reality it's just 5 team controlled years, with a couple cheap ones and the rest will be very expensive. Even if he's mediocre he'll be awarded a lot of money in arbitration. That's why non-tenders exist.

 

Exactly how much do you guys think he's going to be getting in his last two arbitration years that are more than the market for a pitcher like him?

[dew1679666265]

They are talking about his current ability. His ceiling is a bit higher.

 

I've been hearing ceiling as well as current ability. He is what he is, would be a good descriptive term to describe him.

 

And I think you are underestimating how valuable a "No. 4 starter" is just because the Cubs have had so many terrible ones lately.

 

And I think you may be overestimating one because the Cubs had such issues with that last year and the back end of the rotation cost the Cubs so many games. It's important to have rotation depth, but the 2011 level of awfulness isn't likely to repeat itself because of the injury issues we had.

[dew1679666265]

Exactly how much do you guys think he's going to be getting in his last two arbitration years that are more than the market for a pitcher like him?

 

Probably enough that a lot of the surplus value in having "cost controlled years" is negated. If we were planning to be good in 2012 or 2013, then having him at a super cheap cost would be a great value and him being closer to market value in 2014 and beyond would be fine. But since we probably won't be taking advantage of his super cheap years, then quite a bit of the surplus value is gone and you only get some value later on in the deal.

Edited December 22, 2011 by dew