Dempster Traded to Texas for 3B Villanueva & RHP Hendricks

[Clem Fandango]

Dave Schoenfeld offers his thoughts, thinks the best fit is Detroit and the Cubs could aim for Turner, but settle on Crosby or Porcello...

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/25504/crystal-ball-dempster-lands-in-detroit

 

Also offers 6 other possible destinations, all of which are baseless hypotheticals.

 

EDIT: The ridiculousness of this article is absurd...

 

Trade suggestion: Tyler Greene, Adron Chambers and Maikel Cleto. This may not be the sexy prospect package Cubs fans envision, but the truth is Dempster isn't going to bring some huge return. Hey, I could be wrong -- the Mets got Zack Wheeler, San Francisco's top prospect, last year for Carlos Beltran. But I'm not sure Dempster will fetch what Beltran did.

 

Later...

 

Trade suggestion: The Cubs can aim for Jacob Turner and maybe settle for Casey Crosby or even Porcello.

 

So Dempster won't return anything huge, but they could aim for a Top 25 prospect Detroit reportedly balked at including in a Garza deal who is held in higher regard than Wheeler? Well done, Schoenfeld.

 

He also floats Dempster for Jose Igleseas.

[rawaction]

Dave Schoenfeld offers his thoughts, thinks the best fit is Detroit and the Cubs could aim for Turner, but settle on Crosby or Porcello...

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/25504/crystal-ball-dempster-lands-in-detroit

 

Also offers 6 other possible destinations, all of which are baseless hypotheticals.

 

EDIT: The ridiculousness of this article is absurd...

 

Trade suggestion: Tyler Greene, Adron Chambers and Maikel Cleto. This may not be the sexy prospect package Cubs fans envision, but the truth is Dempster isn't going to bring some huge return. Hey, I could be wrong -- the Mets got Zack Wheeler, San Francisco's top prospect, last year for Carlos Beltran. But I'm not sure Dempster will fetch what Beltran did.

 

Later...

 

Trade suggestion: The Cubs can aim for Jacob Turner and maybe settle for Casey Crosby or even Porcello.

 

So Dempster won't return anything huge, but they could aim for a Top 25 prospect Detroit reportedly balked at including in a Garza deal who is held in higher regard than Wheeler? Well done, Schoenfeld.

 

He also floats Dempster for Jose Igleseas.

 

He also seems very hell-bent on getting Castro to 3B. Mentions it twice, including one scenario where the Cubs get a 2B and move Darwin Barney to SS for Castro.

[Elrhino]

I question how much compensation picks have ever truly factored into vast majority of deadline trades for rentals. At best it seems like a throwaway justification a GM might tell himself when he's wrapped up in the here and now. Not unlike "Hey this Soda Stream Veggie Juice-a-Tron 2000 will pay for itself after X number of uses" justification logic people use when they're impulse buying consumer goods. Edited June 12, 2012 by Elrhino

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I question how much compensation picks have ever truly factored into vast majority of deadline trades for rentals.

 

I don't see why. Moneyball referenced it heavily. It was a huge portion of the Red Sox early 2000s drafts. Other teams followed in a copycat industry.

[Elrhino]

Billy Beane might be one of the few with enough job stability where compensation picks might factor into the decision making, but by and large I just don't buy GMs are letting some sandwich pick compensation that may (but mostly likely may not) pay off 5 years down the road enter much into their thinking. I believe they're concerned about adding a key piece to an immediate potential pennant run (a pennant run that could pay off in a big way for them professionally). The compensation pick is handy to assuage guilt or anxiousness for fans (or even themselves) that they've mortgaged future organizational potential to do so.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Under that theory, why would a GM ever trade for prospects at all? There wouldn't be any deadline deals.

[jersey cubs fan]

Under that theory, why would a GM ever trade for prospects at all? There wouldn't be any deadline deals.

 

Because prospects aren't compensation picks. Prospects are known quantities right now, even if all that is known is how they are handling professional baseball. Compensation picks after the 1st and 2nd round of next year's draft are the furthest thing from a known quantity you can get for a GM who needs to win soon. You don't know who will be available, let alone if you can sign them or how they will handle extended spring training. Prospects are generally considered a year away when teams go trading their vets for them. A potential comp pick (which you don't even really know if you can get at the time of the trade) is a year away from being drafted and likely a year and a half away from getting into your system, then another 4-5 years away from contributing to your team. It's apples and oranges and a completely absurd comparison.

[Guest]

I certainly believe there were teams that didn't value comp picks highly, or even at all. But to say that they're more of a rationalization for after the fact than part of the actual decision making would be a mistake. Plenty of teams shelled out millions on picks in those rounds, and without pick trading it was the only way to get more of those players that they're willing to give millions to. Teams put real value on that, it's not just a coupon that comes with a takeout order.

[jersey cubs fan]

I certainly believe there were teams that didn't value comp picks highly, or even at all. But to say that they're more of a rationalization for after the fact than part of the actual decision making would be a mistake. Plenty of teams shelled out millions on picks in those rounds, and without pick trading it was the only way to get more of those players that they're willing to give millions to. Teams put real value on that, it's not just a coupon that comes with a takeout order.

But it's also not the determining factor in trade decisions that without them, will completely shut down the market. It was mostly a way for cost conscious teams to justify giving up their prospects for veterans who helped them in the short-term. Straight up cash probably played a bigger role in the trading atmosphere the last 5 years.

[Guest]

I certainly believe there were teams that didn't value comp picks highly, or even at all.

Jim Hendry says hi.

 

It remains one of the things that irritated me the most about his reign.

[bukie]

I certainly believe there were teams that didn't value comp picks highly, or even at all.

Jim Hendry says hi.

 

It remains one of the things that irritated me the most about his reign.

More so than his change in organizational philosophy every 6 months, or the system's complete inability to develop positional players and keep pitchers healthy?

[SouthSideRyan]

I think draft picks played a decent role when it came to signing free agents. (for some teams) I think it meant close to nothing when it came to acquiring a player at the deadline.

[pccubfan]

I think draft picks played a decent role when it came to signing free agents. (for some teams) I think it meant close to nothing when it came to acquiring a player at the deadline.

 

You don't think GMs looked at an offer and weighed it against draft pick compensation they would be entitled to if they lost the player in FA?

[jersey cubs fan]

I think draft picks played a decent role when it came to signing free agents. (for some teams) I think it meant close to nothing when it came to acquiring a player at the deadline.

 

You don't think GMs looked at an offer and weighed it against draft pick compensation they would be entitled to if they lost the player in FA?

 

No, they didn't weight it against it, because by and large, any decent prospect package is going to be worth the chance that you might get sombody with the 42nd pick who can one day be as highly rated as the prospects you got. It obviously influenced decisions, but compensation was no guarantee (there was always the threat that the player would accept your arbitration offer) and the value of those things just aren't close to equal.

[pccubfan]

I think draft picks played a decent role when it came to signing free agents. (for some teams) I think it meant close to nothing when it came to acquiring a player at the deadline.

 

You don't think GMs looked at an offer and weighed it against draft pick compensation they would be entitled to if they lost the player in FA?

 

No, they didn't weight it against it, because by and large, any decent prospect package is going to be worth the chance that you might get sombody with the 42nd pick who can one day be as highly rated as the prospects you got. It obviously influenced decisions, but compensation was no guarantee (there was always the threat that the player would accept your arbitration offer) and the value of those things just aren't close to equal.

 

What if the package wasn't "decent"? It seems to me that the draft pick compensation set a floor for GMs. I would agree that different GMs valued that compensation differently, but I think that when a GM was considering a trade they would want to obtain more in trade than what they perceived the value of the pick(s) was worth.

[jersey cubs fan]

What if the package wasn't "decent"?

 

Then there wouldn't be any reason to think about making a trade.

[rawaction]

I think draft picks played a decent role when it came to signing free agents. (for some teams) I think it meant close to nothing when it came to acquiring a player at the deadline.

 

You don't think GMs looked at an offer and weighed it against draft pick compensation they would be entitled to if they lost the player in FA?

 

No, they didn't weight it against it, because by and large, any decent prospect package is going to be worth the chance that you might get sombody with the 42nd pick who can one day be as highly rated as the prospects you got. It obviously influenced decisions, but compensation was no guarantee (there was always the threat that the player would accept your arbitration offer) and the value of those things just aren't close to equal.

 

That's the key thing to me. It's hard to factor in compensation when you don't know if the player will accept arbitration or not. Granted some cases are pretty straight forward (players not living up to the end of their contract), but if the Cubs traded Aramis Ramirez last year, I don't think the team trading for him could have said, "hey, will just get the draft picks for him". Because there's a chance that he would have done well, liked the team and city and accepted arbitration for a year.

[Banedon]

Danny Knobler of CBS Sports.com says that the Dodgers are “definitely interested” in acquiring Ryan Dempster.

[jersey cubs fan]

Theo confirms Cubs ready to start moving players to improve the organization's future.

[CubColtPacer]

I certainly believe there were teams that didn't value comp picks highly, or even at all.

Jim Hendry says hi.

 

It remains one of the things that irritated me the most about his reign.

 

The second half of his tenure was really confusing in that regard (his last 5 off seasons starting with the 2006 spending spree). The Cubs were very active in free agency at that time while cutting ties with other veterans. With their patterns, they should have been one of the highest in giving up and getting extra picks during that time period. Yet IIRC, they received only 2 picks (Pierre, Kendall) and gave up only 1 (Soriano) in that time period.

 

The new regime already managed to match that number of extra picks in just one offseason. They were willing to take the middle road that Hendry never was. It seemed like if Hendry wanted a player, he'd give him a multi-year deal. If he didn't, he wasn't willing to risk them even coming back for one year. The two picks he received he lucked into when those players signed before the deadline.

 

As for the question on whether comp picks would really change the market for a player like Dempster, I think it increases the selling club's desire to deal the player, but as long as there is still some competition for that player's services I don't see it changing the price very much. Teams probably factored in the possibility of comp picks for players like Dempster, but I don't think they saw it as a sure thing, and I doubt it inflated their price by that much.

[jersey cubs fan]

I will never forgive him for losing a #1 pick for Latroy Hawkins, a GD reliever.

[davell]

Theo confirms Cubs ready to start moving players to improve the organization's future.

 

So, I wonder what that truly means? If it means Dempster and Soriano, fine, that's a no-brainer. But, does it mean Garza or even LaHair?

 

I understand trading Dempster and Soriano for whatever the most you can get for them, under pretty much any case. They're not a part of the future. But, at what point, DO you trade Garza or LaHair?

 

I think we can contend during the early to middle parts of a Garza extension and he's certainly capable of being a frontline starter for us, if we keep him, for the entirety of a 5-6 year deal. LaHair? I know that there are still plenty of doubters around here on him, but I'd definitely throw him in LF when Soriano is dealt and Rizzo comes up. His bat has been too valuable to just dismiss, from my point of view.

 

I guess guys like Maholm and DeJesus could be on the block as well, personally don't see the point of dealing them right now, since we do have to field a major league team next season and both have reasonable contracts(Maholm, not nearly as much as DeJesus, but a 6.5 mill option is feasible on a one year deal at least). It doesn't appear as if we'll spend wildly next offseason right now, but of course, things could change that scenario too.

 

So, what would it take for you to trade Garza and LaHair? I want both back, unless I'm overwhelmed.

 

For Garza, it'd take 2 top 100 prospects(40-80ish range and at least one of them being in AA or higher, preferrably pitchers)a guy who's already played a bit in the majors and hopefully can slide into his rotation spot that has 3ish upside, and maybe a guy or two that have bench player capabilities, like Sappelt, Fuld, Chirinos, Guyer, etc.

 

LaHair is a different story, but I'm not getting rid of him, unless I'm also getting back a top 10 guy from a system, plus a top 20ish guy, and maybe a pen arm that has some upside. Again, these guys need to be fairly close to the majors. AA or so.

 

Too much? Probably for LaHair, in most's minds, but he's better off in LF for us, than giving hjim up for less than that, in my opinion. Anyway, not sure if these prices could be too high or not, but I don't care, since I can easily see us keeping one or both of them as it is.

[jersey cubs fan]

How the hell does LaHair get coupled with Garza in that discussion?

 

"Even LaHair?"

 

If you can get anything for LaHair, take it. They got a ridiculous start from him and have done a tremendous job of doling out the playing time to maintain those overall numbers in impressive territory.

[Guest]

How the hell does LaHair get coupled with Garza in that discussion?

 

"Even LaHair?"

 

If you can get anything for LaHair, take it. They got a ridiculous start from him and have done a tremendous job of doling out the playing time to maintain those overall numbers in impressive territory.

 

This.

[Clem Fandango]

How the hell does LaHair get coupled with Garza in that discussion?

 

"Even LaHair?"

 

If you can get anything for LaHair, take it. They got a ridiculous start from him and have done a tremendous job of doling out the playing time to maintain those overall numbers in impressive territory.

 

It's Jim Bowden, so take it with a boulder of salt, but...

 

Jim Bowden of ESPN.com examines the rosters of potential sellers, including the Cubs. Most scouts believe Bryan LaHair has legitimate late-blooming power like Nelson Cruz and Jose Bautista, according to Bowden.