Misc. Cubs offseason rumor discussion

[Backtobanks]

My post about Swisher was purely thinking offense rather than defense because the offense is still pretty pathetic. Obviously, signing Swisher isn't going to happen, but it would certainly be a good fit offensively.

 

Okay, but roster decisions don't happen in such a vacuum.

 

You mean teams don't sign players that are very good offensively, but are weak on defense (or vice versa)? I would think there are probably 1-2 positional starters on most teams that would fit that description.

 

No. He means that both things matter.

 

Of course both matter, but if your team is weak offensively, then you might sacrifice some defense to fill a spot offensively (or vice versa). The Cubs have done a good job of adding pitching, but most of that pitching is not going to hold other teams to 1 or 2 runs. Their offense needs to be upgraded if they are going to translate stronger and deeper pitching into wins.

[Guest]

Of course both matter, but if your team is weak offensively, then you might sacrifice some defense to fill a spot offensively (or vice versa). The Cubs have done a good job of adding pitching, but most of that pitching is not going to hold other teams to 1 or 2 runs. Their offense needs to be upgraded if they are going to translate stronger and deeper pitching into wins.

 

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't really see it that way. Overall what matters is the net effect a given player has on your team. Obviously, there are cases where you can cover up one guy's deficiencies (i.e. maybe a super awesome CF can cover for the guys next to him), but by and large, what matters is how many net runs that player gets you. Doesn't really matter where it happens (although, obviously, with offensive metrics being more reliable, offense is easier to predict/measure the effect of).

[Backtobanks]

Of course both matter, but if your team is weak offensively, then you might sacrifice some defense to fill a spot offensively (or vice versa). The Cubs have done a good job of adding pitching, but most of that pitching is not going to hold other teams to 1 or 2 runs. Their offense needs to be upgraded if they are going to translate stronger and deeper pitching into wins.

 

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't really see it that way. Overall what matters is the net effect a given player has on your team. Obviously, there are cases where you can cover up one guy's deficiencies (i.e. maybe a super awesome CF can cover for the guys next to him), but by and large, what matters is how many net runs that player gets you. Doesn't really matter where it happens (although, obviously, with offensive metrics being more reliable, offense is easier to predict/measure the effect of).

 

You may not see it that way, but I'm sure most of the GMs do. Most of the DHs in the AL were playing regularly somewhere in the field before they became a DH.

[Warpticon]

Of course both matter, but if your team is weak offensively, then you might sacrifice some defense to fill a spot offensively (or vice versa). The Cubs have done a good job of adding pitching, but most of that pitching is not going to hold other teams to 1 or 2 runs. Their offense needs to be upgraded if they are going to translate stronger and deeper pitching into wins.

 

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't really see it that way. Overall what matters is the net effect a given player has on your team. Obviously, there are cases where you can cover up one guy's deficiencies (i.e. maybe a super awesome CF can cover for the guys next to him), but by and large, what matters is how many net runs that player gets you. Doesn't really matter where it happens (although, obviously, with offensive metrics being more reliable, offense is easier to predict/measure the effect of).

 

You may not see it that way, but I'm sure most of the GMs do. Most of the DHs in the AL were playing regularly somewhere in the field before they became a DH.

 

And this is relevant because....?

[Backtobanks]

Of course both matter, but if your team is weak offensively, then you might sacrifice some defense to fill a spot offensively (or vice versa). The Cubs have done a good job of adding pitching, but most of that pitching is not going to hold other teams to 1 or 2 runs. Their offense needs to be upgraded if they are going to translate stronger and deeper pitching into wins.

 

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't really see it that way. Overall what matters is the net effect a given player has on your team. Obviously, there are cases where you can cover up one guy's deficiencies (i.e. maybe a super awesome CF can cover for the guys next to him), but by and large, what matters is how many net runs that player gets you. Doesn't really matter where it happens (although, obviously, with offensive metrics being more reliable, offense is easier to predict/measure the effect of).

 

You may not see it that way, but I'm sure most of the GMs do. Most of the DHs in the AL were playing regularly somewhere in the field before they became a DH.

 

And this is relevant because....?

 

Most of them are (and have been) one dimensional players their whole careers. The Adam Dunns of the world were butchers at every position they ever played.

[Warpticon]

Of course both matter, but if your team is weak offensively, then you might sacrifice some defense to fill a spot offensively (or vice versa). The Cubs have done a good job of adding pitching, but most of that pitching is not going to hold other teams to 1 or 2 runs. Their offense needs to be upgraded if they are going to translate stronger and deeper pitching into wins.

 

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't really see it that way. Overall what matters is the net effect a given player has on your team. Obviously, there are cases where you can cover up one guy's deficiencies (i.e. maybe a super awesome CF can cover for the guys next to him), but by and large, what matters is how many net runs that player gets you. Doesn't really matter where it happens (although, obviously, with offensive metrics being more reliable, offense is easier to predict/measure the effect of).

 

You may not see it that way, but I'm sure most of the GMs do. Most of the DHs in the AL were playing regularly somewhere in the field before they became a DH.

 

And this is relevant because....?

 

Most of them are (and have been) one dimensional players their whole careers. The Adam Dunns of the world were butchers at every position they ever played.

 

And this is relevant because...?

[Backtobanks]

It's relevant to the discussion we were having if you read the posts before you posted.

[Warpticon]

It's relevant to the discussion we were having if you read the posts before you posted.

 

It's actually not, at all, and I know this because I read the posts before I posted.

[Cubswin11]

With the D'backs signing Ross I wouldn't mind us taking a look at getting Parra as they probably are going to move an OF. Would love to get Upton, obviously, but I don't know if they are really wanting to trade him/asking too much.

[Clem Fandango]

Bunch of bits from Levine over on MLBTR...

 

The Blue Jays and Rangers have been Matt Garza's most ardent trade suitors and could again be interested in acquiring the right-hander if Garza shows he's in good health during Spring Training. I'd think that Texas might still be in the mix but Toronto's rotation seems set unless the Jays don't think Ricky Romero can return to form.

 

If the Cubs have concerns that Garza won't be ready for Opening Day, Levine thinks the Cubs could try to sign a free agent starter like Shaun Marcum.

 

Before the Cubs and Angels settled on the eventually-abandoned Carlos Marmol-for-Dan Haren trade, L.A. turned down the Cubs' offer of Marmol for Peter Bourjos and an infielder.

 

The Cubs have "genuine concern about holding [their] fan base" given the team's recent struggles and rebuilding process, which Levine feels may have been the impetus for the Cubs' signing of Edwin Jackson and its pursuit of Anibal Sanchez.

 

If Garza eventually gets moved to Texas I can't imagine a deal that doesn't involve Olt coming back.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Bunch of bits from Levine over on MLBTR...

 

The Blue Jays and Rangers have been Matt Garza's most ardent trade suitors and could again be interested in acquiring the right-hander if Garza shows he's in good health during Spring Training. I'd think that Texas might still be in the mix but Toronto's rotation seems set unless the Jays don't think Ricky Romero can return to form.

 

If the Cubs have concerns that Garza won't be ready for Opening Day, Levine thinks the Cubs could try to sign a free agent starter like Shaun Marcum.

 

Before the Cubs and Angels settled on the eventually-abandoned Carlos Marmol-for-Dan Haren trade, L.A. turned down the Cubs' offer of Marmol for Peter Bourjos and an infielder.

 

The Cubs have "genuine concern about holding [their] fan base" given the team's recent struggles and rebuilding process, which Levine feels may have been the impetus for the Cubs' signing of Edwin Jackson and its pursuit of Anibal Sanchez.

 

If Garza eventually gets moved to Texas I can't imagine a deal that doesn't involve Olt coming back.

 

I can. Garza's a 1 year rental with questionable health even if ST goes well. If Olt's on the table, I could definitely see Oakland or Atlanta offering someone with a lot more team control. This isn't to say that we won't be able to get something nice and valueable from the Rangers for Garza though. That system stays stacked.

[Clem Fandango]

I was basically saying in the situation that Garza gets dealt to Texas, Olt is likely the desired target for a return. Of course someone else can offer a better deal for Olt, but if the Cubs are trading Garza to Texas then a) it means he's proven he's healthy enough b) he's regained some of his value and c) the Cubs won't trade a healthy, reasonably valuable Garza for anything less than a player like Olt, or similar to him, who fits into this team's long term plans.

[Splendid Splinter]

 

Before the Cubs and Angels settled on the eventually-abandoned Carlos Marmol-for-Dan Haren trade, L.A. turned down the Cubs' offer of Marmol for Peter Bourjos and an infielder.

 

 

I'm sure Cubs were trying to get as much as they can by adding an IF in that deal, but I would take Bourjos straight up. Am I the only one who would take Marmol for Bourjos straight up? Not sure if Angels would do that anyway, but man... getting Bourjos would be great IMO.

[davell]

Neither Atlanta or Oakland is an ideal trading partner for Texas right now. Oakland is trying to contend, is in the same division, and likely wouldn't part with Anderson or Parker for an Olt-led package. On the same note, they've got no one else that actually upgrades Texas' current rotation options. Atlanta is looking for a leadoff hitting OFer, while moving Prado to 3B. Again, trading Delgado or Teheran doesn't really upgrade Texas' rotation options either. Garza would. My main concern with Texas right now involves them trading for Upton, while possibly getting Kennedy or Hudson in the deal as well. Or signing Lohse. Short of one of those scenarios going down, Garza fits them as well or better than anyone else.

[RammyFanny]

ABTY said the Cubs are really ramping up their effort with Bourn and want to close on him. Think he said Seattle was offering slightly more but Cubs recently upped their offer to be right in that same neighborhood.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Wow. I know there have been rumors, but I've never really seriously considered the Cubs getting Michael Bourn.

 

For some reason, I still don't.

[WrigleyField 22]

Well if Seattle beats our offer by even just a little I can't see why we would land him, unless he values league/division consistencey. But that cant be worth much, so we really have to at least match if we want a shot, with the above factor giving us an edge as a tie breaker.

 

Years and AAV obviously matter but I tentatively would like it even though i have my doubts about the value of his defense.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UMFan83]

No "Bourn to Cubs done deal" tweets yet so it looks good for us so far.

[Guest]

ABTY:

 

Interesting blurb- talks between the Padres, Cubs and... White Sox have taken place... Padres interested in Gavin Floyd, White Sox like Travis Wood and Everth Cabrera, Cubs looking at Gyorko... Other pieces involved, possibly Vitters ending up with the Sox as well... Sox insistent on either taking Beckham which neither has shown any interest in doing... Padres also intend to extend Floyd (likely on a one year plus option deal) prior to accepting any deal... Too many if's at this point to consider this a true blue possibility, IMO...

 

Cubs wouldn't only deal Wood/Vitters... Likely a Szczur plus type(s) involved to boot...

[rawaction]

That would be nice. I'd probably even take Beckham off the Sox hands if it meant Gyorko for nothing much more than Wood, Vitters, and Szczur. Not sure what we'd do with him but he's cheap and still young enough.

[Rex Buckingham]

That would be nice. I'd probably even take Beckham off the Sox hands if it meant Gyorko for nothing much more than Wood, Vitters, and Szczur. Not sure what we'd do with him but he's cheap and still young enough.

 

Beckham could probably play third, right? maybe stick him there til Gyorko is ready?

[Guest]

That would be nice. I'd probably even take Beckham off the Sox hands if it meant Gyorko for nothing much more than Wood, Vitters, and Szczur. Not sure what we'd do with him but he's cheap and still young enough.

 

He mentioned that they see Gyorko as a Zobrist type who would play several positions.

[rawaction]

That would be nice. I'd probably even take Beckham off the Sox hands if it meant Gyorko for nothing much more than Wood, Vitters, and Szczur. Not sure what we'd do with him but he's cheap and still young enough.

 

He mentioned that they see Gyorko as a Zobrist type who would play several positions.

Yeah I could see that. That deal wouldn't stop the cubs from going after Olt still as he could play 3b with Gyorko at 2b. And I'd love Gyorko at 2b though his bat looks good enough for 3rd.

[WrigleyField 22]

I'd do it, but I'd feel a little better if half our starting pitcher candidates weren't on one year deals. Maybe they don't view Wood as a SP so its a moot point, but he's certainly nice to have to fill in the back of the rotation cheap next year if needed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WrigleyField 22]

Also that deal helps with some of our 40 man crunch, so thats nice I guess.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk