Chase Headley

[SABR Gamer]

At this point, I think it makes more sense to add to the core with players who are well under 30.

 

ETA: At least on the path that Theo has decided on.

[KingCubsFan]

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.

I think Scherholz has shown he has no business getting at bats against lefties. I'm perfectly comfortable with the role he's in, and I think the Cubs have done a great job of maximizing his success so far.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

I wasn't talking about whether it you trade your core or not. It just doesn't really mean anything. It's just some imaginary line where a certain amount of projection and years of control puts you into a different group.

[Little Slide Rooter]

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.

 

Call it what you want, but that bunch of players under team control that helps you win games is what we should be aiming for. As of now, we have Castro, Rizzo, Samardzjia, Castillo, Barney, Schierholtz, Valbuena, Wood, Edwin Jackson, and Russell fitting that description to one degree or another. It's certainly the start to a strong core group of players under team control that can help us win games. If we could add Stanton to that equation, I'd feel incredibly good about this group going forward. Especially if we could extend Shark and add another front-mid rotation pitcher somehow. Could be our upcoming draft pick.

[sneakypower]

whoa, kyle is asking others to refrain from doing things that annoy him

 

you ****know**** this has to be some kind of absurd joke

[mul21]

whoa, kyle is asking others to refrain from doing things that annoy him

 

you ****know**** this has to be some kind of absurd joke

 

Only Kyle is allowed to use that many cat anuses (anusi?) consecutively.

[SABR Gamer]

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.

 

I wasn't talking about whether it you trade your core or not. It just doesn't really mean anything. It's just some imaginary line where a certain amount of projection and years of control puts you into a different group.

 

Lol, it's just a loosely defined term, not really worth getting worked up about. Idc what you call it.

 

ETA: The way I think of core, "long term assets" may be a more fitting term.

[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?

 

Is that really a debate?

My point exactly. For me, it's not much of one...

[CubsWin]

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

Exactly. Baez's start, good or bad, would not affect his value in a potential trade that's going to happen months from now. It's possible Stanton gets traded around the deadline, but I expect Price won't go anywhere until after this season.

[CubsWin]

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...

If by "young core" (sorry Kyle...) you mean major league players, I don't see it. One of the reasons why Stanton would be traded is that the Marlins don't really have any other good major leaguers to go with him. You certainly could be right, but Miami's situation strikes me as they would want to build via high quality prospects to go along with Fernandez, Yelich, Marisnick, Heaney, etc. The idea would be to turn Stanton into several young high quality assets. If they're asking for Rizzo or Castro or Shark, they're not going to get more than one and I doubt the Cubs would then also include one of Baez/Soler/Almora. It would be one of those guys plus some good, not great, prospects. But if I were them, I'd want to take a chance at getting two or three great players by going young and taking on the risk that they may not turn out. Risks on players like Baez, Pierce Johnson/Duane Underwood, tradeable assets like Vogelbach or Alcantara, possibly add in Junior Lake or Ben Wells. If two or more of those guys develop as expected, they've improved themselves.

 

If some team is willing to give them two under-25 all-star caliber major leaguers for Stanton, then god bless em.

[davell]

Well, I think a package that we'll have to offer to beat Stanton will have to beat Profar, plus upside types like Lewis Brinson or Nomar Mazzaro, and a Martin Perez and possibly Luke Jackson from Texas. Or a Cards package centered around Taveres and one of Martinez or Rosenthal and Wong. In other words, Im not going to get my hopes up very high on Stanton. On the other hand, I truly doubt Profar or Taveres would be in play on Price, making it more reasonable for us to get him.

[Rob]

I like Headley. But his track record has been more good than MVP caliber. And since trading for him would be to lock him up mostly in his early 30s as opposed to actually during his prime, I'm hesitant to give up potential franchise cornerstones for him.

 

I dunno. I guess it's a good thing we'll have a lot more information to work with before a trade like this becomes a viable idea.

[CubsWin]

Well, I think a package that we'll have to offer to beat Stanton will have to beat Profar, plus upside types like Lewis Brinson or Nomar Mazzaro, and a Martin Perez and possibly Luke Jackson from Texas. Or a Cards package centered around Taveres and one of Martinez or Rosenthal and Wong. In other words, Im not going to get my hopes up very high on Stanton. On the other hand, I truly doubt Profar or Taveres would be in play on Price, making it more reasonable for us to get him.

I'll take either one. They both elevate the chances of the Cubs winning it all in a five year window of 2015-19.

[Exile on Waveland]

I've always liked Headley; I wanted him before he blew up. But . . . considering what a trade would likely cost, it's not likely to make sense.

[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...

If by "young core" (sorry Kyle...) you mean major league players, I don't see it. One of the reasons why Stanton would be traded is that the Marlins don't really have any other good major leaguers to go with him. You certainly could be right, but Miami's situation strikes me as they would want to build via high quality prospects to go along with Fernandez, Yelich, Marisnick, Heaney, etc. The idea would be to turn Stanton into several young high quality assets. If they're asking for Rizzo or Castro or Shark, they're not going to get more than one and I doubt the Cubs would then also include one of Baez/Soler/Almora. It would be one of those guys plus some good, not great, prospects. But if I were them, I'd want to take a chance at getting two or three great players by going young and taking on the risk that they may not turn out. Risks on players like Baez, Pierce Johnson/Duane Underwood, tradeable assets like Vogelbach or Alcantara, possibly add in Junior Lake or Ben Wells. If two or more of those guys develop as expected, they've improved themselves.

 

If some team is willing to give them two under-25 all-star caliber major leaguers for Stanton, then god bless em.

My comment was made in the context of assessing who you'd rather trade for.

 

One can't say that you'd rather have Stanton because your young, cost-controlled guys (Baez, Soler, Johnson et al) are going to be more developed when you might not have all of those guys as a result of the Stanton trade.

 

With Headley, he'll be older, but you will likely have more of the young studs you're hoping will become stars.

 

Pick your poison.

[Guest]

I've always liked Headley; I wanted him before he blew up. But . . . considering what a trade would likely cost, it's not likely to make sense.

 

everybody liked him before he blew up