Chase Headley

[Transmogrified Tiger]

There's been a couple mentions connecting Headley with the Cubs recently. Headley's seemingly been on the block for an eternity, but I'm curious what people think of him as a trade target. Some assorted facts and thoughts:

 

- Headley turns 29 tomorrow, is arbitration eligible this offseason, and a FA after next year.

 

- He posted a 7.2 fWAR last year (!) and is already 1.0 this year. That's nearly 800 PAs of MVP level play.

 

- He has a significant Home/Road split. .704 OPS career at Petco, .836 career elsewhere. Last year it was .812 v. .937. Shades of Adrian Gonzalez.

 

- He's a well regarded defender, but he doesn't get an abnormal portion of his value from defense. His career UZR/150 is +7, +6 in last year's 7 win campaign.

 

- On one hand, he's a greater impact acquisition than either Stanton or Price. Because of the fewer years of team control and the fact that Andrew Friedman isn't involved means he should have a lower player cost. The rebuilding Padres may be more willing to take on assets not ready to immediately give huge value at the MLB level too.

 

- On the other hand, you'd need to extend him almost immediately to make it worthwhile. Would you trade for Headley then immediately give him something like 5/100? Would the front office even think about that level of investment(dollars and players) for a guy that turns 29 tomorrow?

 

- Do you like Headley enough to acquire him knowing that you're likely out of tradeable assets that can land you a star(at least without savaging the system) for a year or more?

 

- To throw out something of an actual scenario, let's say Baez starts hitting enough to restore confidence, and Barney as well. Do you give those two and one or two other ancillary players and then turn around and extend Headley? Maybe the Padres laugh at that, I don't know you tell me. With a static payroll, a deal like that leaves you a couple smart rotation/outfield decisions from being a very dangerous team in 2014.

[mul21]

I think it would be worthwhile, especially considering the scarcity of high quality offensive 3B anywhere in MLB right now. I fear that may drive his price beyond a reasonable one to pay for where the Cubs are at this point. I think this also would depend on whether or not you think Watkins or Valbuena can fill the gap at 2B for a few years until you have a better option.

 

Is Garza going to be back? Will resources have to be used to get another front line starter if he's not? There's so many unknowns, from Vizcaino being capable of starting to what will the fates of Villanueva, Feldman, and Baker be.

 

I wouldn't have an issue giving him a deal for his age 30-34 seasons if he was acquired as Soriano will be off the books soon and revenue should be up significantly by the end of that deal so even if he's not producing as well it won't cripple you.

[Tracer Bullet]

Every time I see Headley's age I'm surprised at how old he is.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's close. A lot depends on how he fits into your overall plan.

 

If you can bump payroll to $115-120m next year and believe that you can add another bat on top of Headley, replace Garza and fix the bullpen, then you can probably justify it.

 

If you can't afford to do all that, then I think you'd be better served waiting to see what the (admittedly thin) free agent market can bring and commit your money there rather than trade prospects for the privilege of giving Headley an FA-cost extension.

 

If 3b was our only hole, then it'd be more pressing. But we can make plenty of strides next season in the OF, the bullpen, 2b, catcher, replacing Garza in the rotation.

[davell]

I think it depends on what you mean about Baez restoring our confidence. Is he going to show a 5-6% walk rate and hit enough to get him to AA, where he puts up an OPS north of .800 for a month or so there? If so, my answer is no. If it means he hits .260ish, carries an OBP a tad under .300, but hits enough to post close to an .800 OPS in Daytona, then my answer is possibly, as long as the other 2 guys are borderline top 30 types from our system. I like Headley, but if Baez really comes on, rightly or wrongly, I'm going to want Stanton or Price, even if it means I'm giving up Vogelbach and a nice pitching prospect like Underwood, to go along with Barney.

[CubsWin]

For me, this debate comes down to one question. Would you rather greatly improve the Cubs chances of competing in 2014-2017 or more greatly improve their chances of competing in 2015-2019?

 

TT makes a great argument for Headley's value, despite the fact he is rapidly approaching a period of decline, albeit a gradual one. The most compelling stat for me was his road splits. His career numbers away from Petco are .302/.371/.465. That's good. And I love the fact that he is a switch hitter who can provide a strong left-handed bat. However, Headley is still a player who only has one full season with a SLG% over .400. He is off to a hot start this season, and if his current production continues throughout the next several months, I will feel more comfortable giving up meaningful prospects for him.

 

I would prefer to use those meaningful prospects in a package for Price or Stanton. If I'm going to give up Baez, I want to get someone who is young enough to fit in with the progression arcs of Rizzo, Castro, Castillo, Soler and Almora. Because the Cubs have the opportunity to draft a TOR arm with the 2nd pick, have already assembled a decent rotation without Garza (and still have the ability to extend him), I lean towards focusing on Stanton. He'll be 23 all season. That fits right in with the young core the Cubs already have. He doesn't hit FA until after the 2016 season. With a potential OF of Stanton, Almora and Soler, Castro at SS, Rizzo at 1B and Castillo behind the plate, the Cubs could afford to go heavy on defense at 2B and 3B and be just fine. The Cubs already have a solid defensive 3B who hits from the left side (and hitting well right now) in Luis Valbuena who will be 27 all year. One drawback is that Stanton is right-handed and wouldn't provide any balance amongst Castro, Soler, Almora and Castillo, but that is a rather minor concern.

 

In 2015, the first year I can see the Cubs realistically competing for a championship, Rizzo, Castro and Stanton will all be 25. Castillo will be 28, and Soler will be 23 and likely ready or close to ready for the bigs. Almora will be 21 and likely a year away. BJax will be 26 and likely a decent, left-handed bat place-holder. All of those players will be younger than the average peak years of 29-30.

 

Price is 27 until late August. He hits free agency after the 2015 season. Tampa's financial restrictions and Price's current cost (just over 10 million) make his two more years of control almost irrelevant. After this season, Price will become very expensive and perhaps too expensive for the Rays to retain. That will give teams bidding for him more leverage than if they were trading for Stanton. A potential rotation of Price, Samardzija, Appel/Gray, Wood and EJax with Vizcaino either in the wings or closing can get you to the World Series.

 

In 2015, Price will be 29, Samardzija a low-mileage 30 year old. Wood will be 28, Jackson 31, and Appel/Gray will be 23. Vizcaino will be 24. Only Jackson would be past his peak, if only by a year, but would likely be the 4th or 5th best starter amongst that group. That rotation would have lefty/righty balance and would just have to stay healthy to be top 5 for a few years after that.

 

A month into the 2015 season, Headley will be 31. That's not bad at all. Again, he would be a very good addition. But as Castro, Stanton, Rizzo and Soler will be hitting their peak years around 2018-19, he will be 34-35. Getting him still makes a lot of sense, but it seems to me less than ideal given the options of Stanton and Price. If Baez, Underwood/Pierce Johnson, Vogelbach, Barney and maybe one more like Lake or Alcantara can get me Stanton or Price while Baez, Barney plus two other minor prospects gets me Headley, I would much rather add the other prospects and go for the big kahuna that makes the run from 2015-2019 that much stronger.

[ConstableRabbit]

I am not advocating either way here, but you're not going to have as much of that young core if you trade for Stanton. Stanton is going to cost a [expletive] ton more than Headley...

[SouthSideRyan]

For me, this debate comes down to one question. Would you rather greatly improve the Cubs chances of competing in 2014-2017 or more greatly improve their chances of competing in 2015-2019?

 

Is that really a debate?

[SABR Gamer]

I don't think Headley would be the best use of the assets it would require to get him.

[Guest]

I am not advocating either way here, but you're not going to have as much of that young core if you trade for Stanton. Stanton is going to cost a [expletive] ton more than Headley...

 

Yep, I wanted to work that into the original post but couldn't find the words. With Headley you might not be giving away a ton of pieces that are a part of the immediate MLB roster. With Stanton you're more likely to be trading several of Barney, Castillo, Wood, Vizcaino, etc.

[sneakypower]

the time to trade for Headley was last season, but if it's possible to acquire him without including Shark, Castro, Rizzo, Soler, i don't see the harm in trying

 

but the one thing i don't like about this is it greatly reduces the value of another worthwhile asset in Valbuena, if you feel like his UZR/150s (-7 @2B, +22 @3B) are even remotely representative

[Guest]

The crazy thing to me about Valbuena's UZR is when you look at the components it doesn't make sense. For both 2B and 3B his Error and Double Play ratings hover around average, but his Range scores amazing at 3B (+13) and atrocious at 2B (-11). 2B isn't THAT far ahead on the defensive spectrum, I wonder if he'd be much closer to average defensively at 2B (at least in UZR terms) with a manager that employs shifts as well as the Cubs do.

[SouthSideRyan]

Great instincts vs. poor cover?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Chase Headley would be a great addition to any team. We'd surely plug him right into the 3 hole. His position and that he's a switch hitter certainly adds a lot to his value.

 

On the other hand Giancarlo Stanton and Anthony Rizzo could potentially be the one of the premier 3-4 combo in baseball for years to come. If there's any chance of acquiring Stanton, I'd much rather hang on the assets it would take Headley in hopes of doing so. Headley: potentially great. Stanton; potentially once in a life time. If we have to start with Soler, so be it. In the most perfect of worlds, Soler becomes something resembling Stanton.

[sneakypower]

i think any chances of acquiring Stanton died with Baez's horrid start

[rawaction]

I'm not sure how much it matters that Baez isn't playing well in A ball. Everyone knew last year he needed some work on plate discipline. A month didn't change that.

[rawaction]

Oh and I'm saving the assets for Stanton if I'm trading for a hitter. Or anyone NOT going to be 30+ when the cubs can reasonably contend.

[SABR Gamer]

Oh and I'm saving the assets for Stanton if I'm trading for a hitter. Or anyone NOT going to be 30+ when the cubs can reasonably contend.

 

Pretty much this. Having players past 30 is okay, but I'd much rather them not be part of the core group.

Edited May 9, 2013 by New York Cubs Fan

[SouthSideRyan]

Oh and I'm saving the assets for Stanton if I'm trading for a hitter. Or anyone NOT going to be 30+ when the cubs can reasonably contend.

 

That's why he's cheaper.

[davell]

I doubt Stanton gets dealt til the offseason anyway. Same with Price. Enough time for Baez to get back on track.

[rawaction]

Oh and I'm saving the assets for Stanton if I'm trading for a hitter. Or anyone NOT going to be 30+ when the cubs can reasonably contend.

 

Pretty much this. Having players past 30 is okay, but I'd much rather then not be part of the core group.

I don't care if someone 30+ is part of the core as long as you don't give up what is potentially core players to get him. FA signing, fine. Reclamation guy that develops into a core player. Or homegrown.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I really hate the idea of "core." You have a bunch of players under control and they help you win baseball games. It's nice to have really, really good ones under control for a long time, but partitioning off a few as "core" doesn't really add to your understanding of the state of your organization.

[davell]

I think I kind of like the term "core" actually. But its OK to identify a guy as a "core member" and still trade him. We've got to show progress at the major league level in 2014 somehow. The upcoming trade deadline could be epic or it could be relatively quiet for us honestly. There could be quite a few teams selling, if so, it hurts the returns we get due to supply and demand.

 

If possible, it'd be cool if we dealt Garza and maybe a few others in the early stages of selling season. Then, in a perfect world, Headley is still available, and we trade the returns we've gotten for a few others, as the major pieces for Headley.

 

As far as major league "core" at this point, I'm really starting to think Wood is part of it and Valbuena MAY be as well(possibly at 2B). Castillo has more to prove and Barney needs to hit obviously. Schierholtz has a shot, in my mind anyway, although it'd probably be a good idea to at least give him some at bats against lefties regularly for a while.

[SABR Gamer]

Oh and I'm saving the assets for Stanton if I'm trading for a hitter. Or anyone NOT going to be 30+ when the cubs can reasonably contend.

 

Pretty much this. Having players past 30 is okay, but I'd much rather then not be part of the core group.

I don't care if someone 30+ is part of the core as long as you don't give up what is potentially core players to get him. FA signing, fine. Reclamation guy that develops into a core player. Or homegrown.

 

 

Yeah, that's more what I meant to say. I don't want to give up valuable assets, other than cash, for players in their 30s. I was also talking about right now, not necessarily in the future once we are already competitive.

[SABR Gamer]

I really hate the idea of "core." You have a bunch of players under control and they help you win baseball games. It's nice to have really, really good ones under control for a long time, but partitioning off a few as "core" doesn't really add to your understanding of the state of your organization.

 

Like Davell said, being part of the core doesn't make you untouchable, you are just a major part of the teams success and should either cost a ton to acquire or be someone of value to your team as a player or trade chip.