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

[UMFan83]

I mean whatever fine, get rid of the players I actually liked from the last few seasons. But can they stop all going to division rivals.

[CubsWin]

What was left in the Reds system after the deal for Latos?

Not a lot. IF Henry Rodriguez, lefty reliever Chris Manno, IF Billy Hamilton, P Daniel Corcino...

[rawaction]

i like the trade even if the prospects suck

 

Yeah, I think I do too. Odds are, the prospects aren't going to be just filler. Getting 3 players for a short reliever with 1 year left on his contract is probably going to be a good deal regardless of the players. Getting a back of the rotation starter for 4 years is not a horrible return by itself.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

What was left in the Reds system after the deal for Latos?

 

Well ... some decent positional assets. The system was over-hyped at the beginning of the off-season, IMO, anyways. They were dead thin on pitching (I mean, Corcino is arguably the top arm). Mesoraco is an untouchable and the starting C in 2012 for them, barring a surprise. AFter that, there's some MI's (Cozart, although he could be a major leaguer for them, and Hamilton/Gregorius lower). Nefatli Soto has good raw power, but I've never been a fan of his swing (well, never been big on his approach, or his ability to read pitches either). Yorman Rodriguez is toolsy, but really raw. Todd Frazier is basically a Ryan Flaherty type, someone the Cubs let walk. Dave Sappelt is ... not that interesting from a trade perspective (could become a depth OF type). Couple raw arms with upside in the lower levels, akin to what the Cubs have.

 

I feel like I'm missing a couple guys. There's ... uh ... Lotzkar, but I'm taking a wait and see on how he does as he moves up, as he was an older guy coming off injury in the lower levels. A couple midde infielders, but I can't think of their names right now.

 

All in all, a fairly weak system now.

Thanks.

[SouthSideRyan]

What the heck do they see in Travis Wood to make this deal?

 

While I've sort of bashed Wood, he has a lot of value. 5 cost-controlled years of a guy who looks capable of being a 5th starter, if not a 4th, is quite valuable. He's also ready to step in soon, perhaps freeing them up to move Randy Wells for some more savings. Perhaps whatever savings they make get re-invested elsewhere. It seems that the general feeling that the media is putting out is that the Cubs FO were quite frustrated by the new rules, and they may view selling off some valuable pieces, but replaceable assets, as a way to restock the system. I mean, I don't think our pen is going to be that hurt, provided it's managed well. Everything depends on Marmol being solid, but Wood, perhaps Cashner, perhaps Carpenter, should offer enough power setup arm potential, and there's enough lefties to match up.

.

 

Moving Randy Wells to save 700K? Making Cashner a setup man for the rest of his career?

 

Not helping me like this trade.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I don't particularly have a problem with the trade so much as I have a problem with the fact that they probably could have done better for Marshall alone or packaged him with someone else, but then again, maybe they were shopping him for the past month and this was the best offer so who knows.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I don't particularly have a problem with the trade so much as I have a problem with the fact that they probably could have done better for Marshall alone or packaged him with someone else, but then again, maybe they were shopping him for the past month and this was the best offer so who knows.

What?

[CubColtPacer]

i like the trade even if the prospects suck

 

Yeah, I think I do too. Odds are, the prospects aren't going to be just filler. Getting 3 players for a short reliever with 1 year left on his contract is probably going to be a good deal regardless of the players. Getting a back of the rotation starter for 4 years is not a horrible return by itself.

 

I'll throw in my guess that Wood is the centerpiece and that the other two prospects are a decent position player and a minor league reliever with potential. The position player will come in between 10 and 30 on the Cubs system and the reliever won't be in the top 30.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I don't particularly have a problem with the trade so much as I have a problem with the fact that they probably could have done better for Marshall alone or packaged him with someone else, but then again, maybe they were shopping him for the past month and this was the best offer so who knows.

What?

 

Basically, if it were July and we were 15 game out I'd e perfectly fine with Wood as a return for Marshall, an impending free agent but it's not a good enough return that we needed to do it now without seein what else we could get, and if it was the best offer at this time there was no urgency to move him and we could have waited until mid season.

[davell]

I'm not a huge Travis Wood fan, but 5 years of cost control of him for Marshall isn't bad, the more I think about it. I hope we get a decent prospect, but in the end, the new CBA actually hurts the value of guys like Marshall somewhat. Since there's no compensation for them anymore.

[CubsWin]

i like the trade even if the prospects suck

 

Yeah, I think I do too. Odds are, the prospects aren't going to be just filler. Getting 3 players for a short reliever with 1 year left on his contract is probably going to be a good deal regardless of the players. Getting a back of the rotation starter for 4 years is not a horrible return by itself.

It's certainly possible that Wood for Marshall by itself would turn out to be a good trade for the Cubs. But there is no guarantee that Wood will be a rotation starter for 4 years. He wasn't able to get AAA hitters out very well last season. He could turn out to be a bust.

 

And Marshall isn't just a short reliever with 1 year left on his contract as you put it. He's a very reliable, sometimes dominant, left-handed short reliever. Those are rare and can be very important pieces to a team making a run at it all.

[jersey cubs fan]

I like the idea of trading a reliever for a starting pitcher, but I think people are going a little overboard on valuing the "5-cost controlled years".

[SouthSideRyan]

I like the idea of trading a reliever for a starting pitcher, but I think people are going a little overboard on valuing the "5-cost controlled years".

 

Well it'll really be 3 cost controlled years, because what's the point in paying him big money those last 2 years when we won't be contending during them.

[Tracer Bullet]

I don't particularly have a problem with the trade so much as I have a problem with the fact that they probably could have done better for Marshall alone or packaged him with someone else, but then again, maybe they were shopping him for the past month and this was the best offer so who knows.

What?

 

Basically, if it were July and we were 15 game out I'd e perfectly fine with Wood as a return for Marshall, an impending free agent but it's not a good enough return that we needed to do it now without seein what else we could get, and if it was the best offer at this time there was no urgency to move him and we could have waited until mid season.

 

Sometimes (like after reading your last 2 posts) I get the sense that you type streams of thoughts without concern about how well formed they are.

[jersey cubs fan]

I like the idea of trading a reliever for a starting pitcher, but I think people are going a little overboard on valuing the "5-cost controlled years".

 

Well it'll really be 3 cost controlled years, because what's the point in paying him big money those last 2 years when we won't be contending during them.

 

They key is what you can get in a trade 3 years from now when you will be 2-3 years away from being able to use good players.

[CincyCubsFan]

I'm not a huge Travis Wood fan, but 5 years of cost control of him for Marshall isn't bad, the more I think about it. I hope we get a decent prospect, but in the end, the new CBA actually hurts the value of guys like Marshall somewhat. Since there's no compensation for them anymore.

 

It's not that Wood is a horrible return. It's that Marshall is one of the most dominant relievers in the game and we find it hard to believe that the Cubs weren't able to get a better offer for him.

[CubsWin]

I like the idea of trading a reliever for a starting pitcher, but I think people are going a little overboard on valuing the "5-cost controlled years".

Agreed. Those only have value if he is able to produce around league average. We know what Marshall will give you. We don't really know which Travis Wood the Cubs are going to get.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What the heck do they see in Travis Wood to make this deal?

 

Five years of a cost-controlled, adequate starting pitcher.

 

I really, really like this deal.

 

Edit: Also I replied in this thread without actually seeing that this exact point had been debated for a full page. I feel shame.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Hairyducked Idiot

[ctcf]

Any word on the minor leaguers yet?

[Little Slide Rooter]

I don't particularly have a problem with the trade so much as I have a problem with the fact that they probably could have done better for Marshall alone or packaged him with someone else, but then again, maybe they were shopping him for the past month and this was the best offer so who knows.

What?

 

Basically, if it were July and we were 15 game out I'd e perfectly fine with Wood as a return for Marshall, an impending free agent but it's not a good enough return that we needed to do it now without seein what else we could get, and if it was the best offer at this time there was no urgency to move him and we could have waited until mid season.

 

Sometimes (like after reading your last 2 posts) I get the sense that you type streams of thoughts without concern about how well formed they are.

 

ADHDs a sumbitch.

[CubsWin]

Any word on the minor leaguers yet?

Nope. Not yet.

[ScrubMD]

I'm not a huge Travis Wood fan, but 5 years of cost control of him for Marshall isn't bad, the more I think about it. I hope we get a decent prospect, but in the end, the new CBA actually hurts the value of guys like Marshall somewhat. Since there's no compensation for them anymore.

 

It's not that Wood is a horrible return. It's that Marshall is one of the most dominant relievers in the game and we find it hard to believe that the Cubs weren't able to get a better offer for him.

 

I know, if we were going to trade Marshall, we might as well have gotten better players.

[RynoRules]

i like the trade even if the prospects suck

 

Yeah, I think I do too. Odds are, the prospects aren't going to be just filler. Getting 3 players for a short reliever with 1 year left on his contract is probably going to be a good deal regardless of the players. Getting a back of the rotation starter for 4 years is not a horrible return by itself.

 

I'll throw in my guess that Wood is the centerpiece and that the other two prospects are a decent position player and a minor league reliever with potential. The position player will come in between 10 and 30 on the Cubs system and the reliever won't be in the top 30.

 

This was pretty much my guess earlier today, except that I was thinking (hoping?) that the position player would be in the low-end of the Cubs top 20. If it is Hamilton as rumored, that's probably closer to top 10, no?

[SouthSideRyan]

I like the idea of trading a reliever for a starting pitcher, but I think people are going a little overboard on valuing the "5-cost controlled years".

 

Well it'll really be 3 cost controlled years, because what's the point in paying him big money those last 2 years when we won't be contending during them.

 

They key is what you can get in a trade 3 years from now when you will be 2-3 years away from being able to use good players.

 

So really Wood will equal like 8 cost-controlled years of mediocrity.

Edited December 21, 2011 by SouthSideRyan

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I know, if we were going to trade Marshall, we might as well have gotten better players.

 

Teams are getting super-stingy with their prospects. We might have been able to get some higher-ceiling low level guys, but personally I love guys who are ready to contribute with 0 or 1 years of service time. Those are highly valuable assets.