Random Cubs Musings

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If you trade the prospects for one awesome player and do nothing else, then you still aren't good enough.

 

If you keep the prospects, promote the one or two the become good, and do nothing else, then you still aren't good enough.

 

How does that enter in to the trade evaluation?

[neely crenshaw]

One player is a lot closer to being "the difference" than four prospects.

 

but he's gone after 2 seasons.

Isn't it possible that Bryant is near that type of bat in the very near future? I don't think you get this done without Baez or Bryant being part of it. So you are selling out many years of 2 probable studs, for 2 years with 1 definite one. Unfortunately it sure look alike during those 2 years the rest of the team would not be ready to be a serious playoff team, so without other moves, we sell out the high end of our system for two years of being OK.

[WrigleyField 22]

Replace Nate Schierholtz

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WrigleyField 22]

Well of course you're gonna lose Baez or Bryant. That was the case when Stanton wasn't playing at a 9 WAR pace. Might have to include both now.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dew1679666265]

If you trade the prospects for one awesome player and do nothing else, then you still aren't good enough.

 

If you keep the prospects, promote the one or two the become good, and do nothing else, then you still aren't good enough.

 

How does that enter in to the trade evaluation?

 

Money is involved in there too. With the awesome player, you're going to be paying him like an awesome player. That means, when you're dealing with a cheapskate owner, less money to put toward the rest of the team.

 

By calling up the 1-2 players who become good (or maybe awesome), you still have that $300 or so million you're not paying the awesome player to improve in other areas (if the cheapskate owner chooses to do so).

 

I'm definitely not against adding Stanton at whatever cost. But there does come a point in time (basically Baez + Bryant) that I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot a bit unless the Ricketts are ready to get serious about actually spending enough to win at a high level.

[Sammy Sofa]

That was well written.

 

We have a nice farm system, but not terribly deep at the top.

If we drain all the near ready talent to get one big bat or arm, are we any closer to competing?

 

 

Yes.

 

Marginally.

 

Trading some of our top talent for MLB talent would absolutely help, but cleaning out our top 5 for one player, even for a guy like Stanton, would be not be a prudent move. One player is not the difference right now, and imo, even if MLB talent is added, the Cubs need one or two of Baez/Bryant/Almora/Soler/Edawrds to make it. Though at some point, Stanton will be traded. Even if Miami were to make him a market value extension offer, I don't see any way he would accept it. They'll have to deal him sooner or later.

 

Referring to previous conversation, Matt Kemp is a huge question mark at this point. Given his contract, I would be hesitant to give up much for him.

 

Stanton is only 24.

[Sammy Sofa]

We'd be better but not ready to compete.

 

Better put off any major moves until they're ready to compete.

 

Whoops, now you're never making any major moves.

[EhDubya]

I know this probably sounds stupid and hyperbolic, but I'd be furious if we traded both KB and JB. These past couple years, following their developments has been the only fun thing about being a Cubs fan for me, sadly. I'm all in on them. If we traded one or both away and they went on to have the kinds of careers I hope they have, I'd probably give up watching baseball altogether.

[Andy]

I know this probably sounds stupid and hyperbolic, but I'd be furious if we traded both KB and JB. These past couple years, following their developments has been the only fun thing about being a Cubs fan for me, sadly. I'm all in on them. If we traded one or both away and they went on to have the kinds of careers I hope they have, I'd probably give up watching baseball altogether.

There's absolutely no way both are getting traded. I'd be surprised if either is, unless it's for Stanton.

[Guest]

I know this probably sounds stupid and hyperbolic, but I'd be furious if we traded both KB and JB. These past couple years, following their developments has been the only fun thing about being a Cubs fan for me, sadly. I'm all in on them. If we traded one or both away and they went on to have the kinds of careers I hope they have, I'd probably give up watching baseball altogether.

Stanton is basically the dream of what we hope one of those guys turns into.

[Guest]

I know this probably sounds stupid and hyperbolic, but I'd be furious if we traded both KB and JB. These past couple years, following their developments has been the only fun thing about being a Cubs fan for me, sadly. I'm all in on them. If we traded one or both away and they went on to have the kinds of careers I hope they have, I'd probably give up watching baseball altogether.

There's absolutely no way both are getting traded. I'd be surprised if either is, unless it's for Stanton.

 

Which is what we're talking about, dingus!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Stanton is only two years older than Bryant and has 132 career home runs.

[Andy]

I know this probably sounds stupid and hyperbolic, but I'd be furious if we traded both KB and JB. These past couple years, following their developments has been the only fun thing about being a Cubs fan for me, sadly. I'm all in on them. If we traded one or both away and they went on to have the kinds of careers I hope they have, I'd probably give up watching baseball altogether.

There's absolutely no way both are getting traded. I'd be surprised if either is, unless it's for Stanton.

 

Which is what we're talking about, dingus!

Haha indeed. But there's no way Theo is coming off both. Bryant is basically doing what Stanton did in AA (albeit a year older while he's doing it), so I have to think Theo and Jed view him as virtually untouchable right now.

[SouthSideRyan]

I know this probably sounds stupid and hyperbolic, but I'd be furious if we traded both KB and JB. These past couple years, following their developments has been the only fun thing about being a Cubs fan for me, sadly. I'm all in on them. If we traded one or both away and they went on to have the kinds of careers I hope they have, I'd probably give up watching baseball altogether.

 

They've been the only fun things about the Cubs because the major league roster has had a glaring lack of Stanton or anywhere close to Stanton level players on it

[neely crenshaw]

I know this probably sounds stupid and hyperbolic, but I'd be furious if we traded both KB and JB. These past couple years, following their developments has been the only fun thing about being a Cubs fan for me, sadly. I'm all in on them. If we traded one or both away and they went on to have the kinds of careers I hope they have, I'd probably give up watching baseball altogether.

Stanton is basically the dream of what we hope one of those guys turns into.

 

Exactly but in this scenario we get Stanton for 2 seasons. Is that worth selling out a lot of what has been built?

It would be nice to add a bat like that, but it would be for a limited, short time improvement.

If the Astros added Stanton would they be playoff contenders? of course not.

Right now we are the worst team in baseball, its time some people stop thinking we are that close to winning.

As far as Stanton goes, if we want him long term, it makes more sense to bring our guys along, and then try to get him as a free agent after 2016.

He is the type of bat that could put us over the top, but we aren't close enough to the top yet.

[WrigleyField 22]

Who cares if Stanton only has two years of control. He's a 24 year old superstar who you'll do everything in your power to extend and retain.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neely crenshaw]

If you can extend him, you can sign him and not lose prospects. You could make the case that having him already would help, but in our case it could be as much a hinderance.

 

"IF" we knew we had him long term, it would make much more sense but it would be an absolute toss up as to whether we could extend him.

So we would have to look at mortgaging our future, for two years on a team that isn't ready to seriously compete.

Now if they make numerous moves to improve the ML team, it also makes more sense but outside of our fantasies they have shown no hint of looking to do that.

I just don't see the FO doing everything to build the system, and then ransack it before we are actually ready. It sucks for the fans, but it sure seems short-sighted to sell out our prospects to try to win 80 games for a couple seasons. I don't think they tried to build the system just to then have to "buy" players anyway in 2017.

 

Losing Shark for prospects, also only minimizes the impact getting Stanton would bring.

[jersey cubs fan]

If you can extend him, you can sign him and not lose prospects. You could make the case that having him already would help, but in our case it could be as much a hinderance.

 

That ass that you are speaking out of, would you kindly remove yourself from it and wash yourself off? It stinks.

[WrigleyField 22]

You can always draft more prospects to replace the ones you're trading too.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sneakypower]

You can always draft more prospects to replace the ones you're trading too.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://img.pandawhale.com/47264-Bill-and-Ted-whoa-gif-Qkdx.gif

[neely crenshaw]

yes, you can draft prospects but in most cases you would be many years away from getting them to the bigs to help.

looking at who's close for us, we have Baez, Bryant and Hendricks. Watkins and Alcantara possibly but without the impact of the others.

 

Realistically to get Stanton, it takes 2 of the top 3, and maybe Alcantara or Almora-if not more lower prospects. If we add Stanton, and only have Baez and Watkins ready to come up, we are then waiting for guys in A ball to develop, and I don't see that happening in 2 years.

 

Stanton would be ideal for what we need but I think we are better off trying to sign him later, rather than trade for him, in what would likely be a bidding war, for 2 guaranteed years and then hope to re-sign him.

[davell]

We are in no position to trade both Javy and KB for Stanton currently. He'll be making 15 mill or so next year and only going up from there. Unless we're suddenly going to carry 110-120 mill in payroll immediately, he's just not a fit at THAT price. One or the other, Almora, and more? You could probably make that work, if whichever one of the two that's not dealt still turns into a very good player.

[Sammy Sofa]

I know this probably sounds stupid and hyperbolic, but I'd be furious if we traded both KB and JB. These past couple years, following their developments has been the only fun thing about being a Cubs fan for me, sadly. I'm all in on them. If we traded one or both away and they went on to have the kinds of careers I hope they have, I'd probably give up watching baseball altogether.

Stanton is basically the dream of what we hope one of those guys turns into.

 

Exactly but in this scenario we get Stanton for 2 seasons. Is that worth selling out a lot of what has been built?

It would be nice to add a bat like that, but it would be for a limited, short time improvement.

If the Astros added Stanton would they be playoff contenders? of course not.

Right now we are the worst team in baseball, its time some people stop thinking we are that close to winning.

As far as Stanton goes, if we want him long term, it makes more sense to bring our guys along, and then try to get him as a free agent after 2016.

He is the type of bat that could put us over the top, but we aren't close enough to the top yet.

 

Holy hell, you think they'd trade for Stanton just to have him for two years and they'd have no desire to extend him? How could you possibly think that?

 

Stanton is a 24-year old monster; he is exactly what this team needs. If he can be had without trading both Baez and Bryant the Cubs absolutely need to be in on it.

[neely crenshaw]

No one is saying they wouldn't want to extend him, I'm saying there is no guarantee that they could, and track record right now says they probably won't be able to.

 

I clearly said that if they could extend him it would make more sense to trade the prospects but we have no idea if they could.

Right now the history shows we have targeted Sanchez and Tanaka, and were outbid on both. The words I believe they said were "we will not be outbid for Tanaka". Which of course, they were outbid by 50 million.

 

I also worry that even with the highest bid, until we have our upgrades in place at Wrigley and in talent, the top guys won't be interested no matter what our offer.

 

I also think that if we have the ability to sign him long term, why not wait until he's a FA and not lose any prospects. I have no problem paying him a monster, long term deal to get him at 26 compared to giving away prospects and risk losing him and the prospects in 2 seasons. At least if we don't sign him at that point, we aren't out anything.

 

With the serious chance of losing Shark, trading for Stanton, with no other large moves doesn't even get us to .500. That's just taking for granted that they will again be able to re-stock the pitching staff and role players after they lose at least Hammel and Bonifacio.

[Sammy Sofa]

Pretty sure that if they're doing a huge trade like that it's with the idea that they can extend him and would spend whatever it takes to do so. Just a hunch. Missing out on FA is one thing; not paying a guy that you shipped out a bunch of good parts for AND then not signing him two years later is just stupid. That you think they'd make a move like that without being confident that they'd have the resources to keep him is absurd.