Who do we trade and what do we expect in return?

[Sammy Sofa]

There may be no player in baseball that epitomizes sell high more than Travis Wood. I understand the value he brings as a long term asset even if when the smoke clears he is a 3-4 starter, but if you're really building a team for 2015 and beyond, and he can bring back a top 25 prospect and then some, I'd think you have to do it without thinking twice.

 

Horrible logic. By this way of thinking then anyone and everyone the Cubs have of any kind of value is a "sell high candidate."

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There may be no player in baseball that epitomizes sell high more than Travis Wood. I understand the value he brings as a long term asset even if when the smoke clears he is a 3-4 starter, but if you're really building a team for 2015 and beyond, and he can bring back a top 25 prospect and then some, I'd think you have to do it without thinking twice.

 

Horrible logic. By this way of thinking then anyone and everyone the Cubs have of any kind of value is a "sell high candidate."

 

That phrase and its counterpart have become so absurdly abused.

 

Besides the fact that comparing ballplayers to equities is a profoundly imperfect analogy, "sell high" doesn't mean "sell the moment the value is slightly higher than it used to be" and "buy low" doesn't mean "buy anything that used to be highly valued and is now lower," and those seem to be the operating definitions these days.

[EhDubya]

"top 25 prospect and then some" ... for Travis Wood???

 

Yeah, you do that imaginary, never happening deal. Sure. Keep dreaming.

[Little Slide Rooter]

There may be no player in baseball that epitomizes sell high more than Travis Wood. I understand the value he brings as a long term asset even if when the smoke clears he is a 3-4 starter, but if you're really building a team for 2015 and beyond, and he can bring back a top 25 prospect and then some, I'd think you have to do it without thinking twice.

 

Horrible logic. By this way of thinking then anyone and everyone the Cubs have of any kind of value is a "sell high candidate."

 

Wood's different. Here's a guy who's 26 years old and under team control through 2016. Everything points to him ending up a 3-4 starter in the long run, but we're close to the halfway point and he still has a sub 3.00 ERA, as obsolete as some seem to think that stat is in this day and age.

 

It's one thing for a veteran with a big contract to be having a big season, but this is a guy who looks like he could be having a big breakout. Or he could just be getting very lucky. More likely than not, he's worth more to us to keep than whatever we're likely to get in return, but as long as there are any GM's out there convinced that he's having a breakout, he could be worth a lot more than just a guy with some value.

[TruffleShuffle]

i love the idea that mlb general managers will be too dumb to look at travis wood's statistics and notice that he has a .218 babip. it's a lot easier to "sell high" to some buffoon in your fantasy baseball league than it is to get sandy alderson or andrew friedman to believe that travis wood has suddenly become a #2 starter and surrender top prospects for him.

[Guest]

i love the idea that mlb general managers will be too dumb to look at travis wood's statistics and notice that he has a .218 babip. it's a lot easier to "sell high" to some buffoon in your fantasy baseball league than it is to get sandy alderson or andrew friedman to believe that travis wood has suddenly become a #2 starter and surrender top prospects for him.

 

luckily there are people who are not as smart as sandy alderson and andrew friedman running baseball teams, and i'm pretty sure there are still some who have no idea wtf a .218 BABIP against means.

 

that's not to say i think there's any chance in hell you get a top 25 prospect for travis wood.

[jersey cubs fan]

i love the idea that mlb general managers will be too dumb to look at travis wood's statistics and notice that he has a .218 babip. it's a lot easier to "sell high" to some buffoon in your fantasy baseball league than it is to get sandy alderson or andrew friedman to believe that travis wood has suddenly become a #2 starter and surrender top prospects for him.

 

luckily there are people who are not as smart as sandy alderson and andrew friedman running baseball teams, and i'm pretty sure there are still some who have no idea wtf a .218 BABIP against means.

 

that's not to say i think there's any chance in hell you get a top 25 prospect for travis wood.

I don't even think the mets will be buyers

[TruffleShuffle]

i love the idea that mlb general managers will be too dumb to look at travis wood's statistics and notice that he has a .218 babip. it's a lot easier to "sell high" to some buffoon in your fantasy baseball league than it is to get sandy alderson or andrew friedman to believe that travis wood has suddenly become a #2 starter and surrender top prospects for him.

 

luckily there are people who are not as smart as sandy alderson and andrew friedman running baseball teams, and i'm pretty sure there are still some who have no idea wtf a .218 BABIP against means.

 

that's not to say i think there's any chance in hell you get a top 25 prospect for travis wood.

 

yeah you're right that there are still the ned colettis out there, but i think the number of morons running baseball teams is really low. and even if the GM sucks, many (most?) mlb teams now have sabermetrically-inclined departments that would advise not to trade a king's ransom for a pitcher having a fluky good year.

[Tyrant]

i love the idea that mlb general managers will be too dumb to look at travis wood's statistics and notice that he has a .218 babip. it's a lot easier to "sell high" to some buffoon in your fantasy baseball league than it is to get sandy alderson or andrew friedman to believe that travis wood has suddenly become a #2 starter and surrender top prospects for him.

 

luckily there are people who are not as smart as sandy alderson and andrew friedman running baseball teams, and i'm pretty sure there are still some who have no idea wtf a .218 BABIP against means.

 

that's not to say i think there's any chance in hell you get a top 25 prospect for travis wood.

 

yeah you're right that there are still the ned colettis out there, but i think the number of morons running baseball teams is really low. and even if the GM sucks, many (most?) mlb teams now have sabermetrically-inclined departments that would advise not to trade a king's ransom for a pitcher having a fluky good year.

 

And I'm sure even Ned Coletti knows what a .218 BABIP means.

[SouthSideRyan]

i love the idea that mlb general managers will be too dumb to look at travis wood's statistics and notice that he has a .218 babip. it's a lot easier to "sell high" to some buffoon in your fantasy baseball league than it is to get sandy alderson or andrew friedman to believe that travis wood has suddenly become a #2 starter and surrender top prospects for him.

 

luckily there are people who are not as smart as sandy alderson and andrew friedman running baseball teams, and i'm pretty sure there are still some who have no idea wtf a .218 BABIP against means.

 

that's not to say i think there's any chance in hell you get a top 25 prospect for travis wood.

 

yeah you're right that there are still the ned colettis out there, but i think the number of morons running baseball teams is really low. and even if the GM sucks, many (most?) mlb teams now have sabermetrically-inclined departments that would advise not to trade a king's ransom for a pitcher having a fluky good year.

 

And I'm sure even Ned Coletti knows what a .218 BABIP means.

 

I'm not sure Ned Coletti knows what dog means.

[Sammy Sofa]

There may be no player in baseball that epitomizes sell high more than Travis Wood. I understand the value he brings as a long term asset even if when the smoke clears he is a 3-4 starter, but if you're really building a team for 2015 and beyond, and he can bring back a top 25 prospect and then some, I'd think you have to do it without thinking twice.

 

Horrible logic. By this way of thinking then anyone and everyone the Cubs have of any kind of value is a "sell high candidate."

 

Wood's different. Here's a guy who's 26 years old and under team control through 2016.

 

...

 

That doesn't make him "different;" that means that between his age, his team control and ideally his improving performance makes him an ideal candidate for the team he's on to hold on to him, especially since the have practically no pitching prospects and the starting pitcher FA market looks terrible for a while. Again, horrible logic: you could simply replace his name with Samardzija's or Castro's or Rizzo's with that thinking.

[Sammy Sofa]

And no, I'm not saying he's as valuable as those other three players. He's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than as a trading chip.

[Guest]

And no, I'm not saying he's as valuable as those other three players. He's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than as a trading chip.

How can you realistically have any idea whether this is true or not without knowing the potential returns?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And no, I'm not saying he's as valuable as those other three players. He's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than as a trading chip.

How can you realistically have any idea whether this is true or not without knowing the potential returns?

 

Because despite the "hur hur, Kevin Towers has the dumbs!" meme, MLB teams aren't stupid. Any package they offer us for Wood is going to be roughly equivalent to his value.

 

So the only reason to make the trade is if they offer us something of equalish value that we need more than an early-prime, cost-controlled starting pitcher. And there's more or less nothing that fits that description.

[USSoccer]

And no, I'm not saying he's as valuable as those other three players. He's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than as a trading chip.

How can you realistically have any idea whether this is true or not without knowing the potential returns?

 

Because the potential returns aren't likely to be high enough to justify trading a perfectly good pitcher who will still be young enough to be around when we're ready to begin to think about maybe competing in 201x.

[Guest]

And no, I'm not saying he's as valuable as those other three players. He's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than as a trading chip.

How can you realistically have any idea whether this is true or not without knowing the potential returns?

 

Because despite the "hur hur, Kevin Towers has the dumbs!" meme, MLB teams aren't stupid. Any package they offer us for Wood is going to be roughly equivalent to his value.

 

So the only reason to make the trade is if they offer us something of equalish value that we need more than an early-prime, cost-controlled starting pitcher. And there's more or less nothing that fits that description.

Well, aside from being able to dig up hundreds of dumb trades that MLB teams have made over the years, the argument doesn't have to be based on stupidity.

 

Another team's need for Wood could be higher than ours right now because of present AND future value, whereas the Cubs really only need the future value part.

 

Their evaluation of Wood could be higher than the Cubs.

 

The Cubs may value their prospects / young mlb players differently than the other team.

 

There's just no way a definitive statement can be made without knowing what teams would give up.

[Guest]

And no, I'm not saying he's as valuable as those other three players. He's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than as a trading chip.

How can you realistically have any idea whether this is true or not without knowing the potential returns?

 

Because the potential returns aren't likely to be high enough to justify trading a perfectly good pitcher who will still be young enough to be around when we're ready to begin to think about maybe competing in 201x.

That's fine - if the returns aren't high enough then don't trade him just to trade him. But you cannot definitively say that he's more valuable as a Cub than he is in a trade unless you know potential returns.

[Sammy Sofa]

Because he's been good this year, but hasn't been good enough long enough that it's likely they'd get a return that outweighs the Cubs' need for starting pitching given how barren their system is in that regard and how bad the starting pitcher FA market is looking.

[USSoccer]

And no, I'm not saying he's as valuable as those other three players. He's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than as a trading chip.

How can you realistically have any idea whether this is true or not without knowing the potential returns?

 

Because the potential returns aren't likely to be high enough to justify trading a perfectly good pitcher who will still be young enough to be around when we're ready to begin to think about maybe competing in 201x.

That's fine - if the returns aren't high enough then don't trade him just to trade him. But you cannot definitively say that he's more valuable as a Cub than he is in a trade unless you know potential returns.

 

The potential returns for a guy who's having his first good season aren't probably more valuable to the Cubs than the guy himself could end up being.

 

You do realize that they will still have to at least attempt to put out a team going forward, right? Unless you think somehow the financial picture of the team will benefit from being gutter-awful for a few more years and they can just set up big screens showing minor league box scores and people will still show up.

 

But hey, by all means, if you think securing some teams' #15 prospect and some filler for him will somehow help the major league team be better, go for it.

[imb]

if we just trade anyone of value for top 100 prospects and then keep flipping them for more top 100 prospects, we'll eventually have all the prospects

[Guest]

And no, I'm not saying he's as valuable as those other three players. He's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than as a trading chip.

How can you realistically have any idea whether this is true or not without knowing the potential returns?

 

Because the potential returns aren't likely to be high enough to justify trading a perfectly good pitcher who will still be young enough to be around when we're ready to begin to think about maybe competing in 201x.

That's fine - if the returns aren't high enough then don't trade him just to trade him. But you cannot definitively say that he's more valuable as a Cub than he is in a trade unless you know potential returns.

 

The potential returns for a guy who's having his first good season aren't probably more valuable to the Cubs than the guy himself could end up being.

 

You do realize that they will still have to at least attempt to put out a team going forward, right? Unless you think somehow the financial picture of the team will benefit from being gutter-awful for a few more years and they can just set up big screens showing minor league box scores and people will still show up.

 

But hey, by all means, if you think securing some teams' #15 prospect and some filler for him will somehow help the major league team be better, go for it.

Because that's what I'm saying.

[imb]

And no, I'm not saying he's as valuable as those other three players. He's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than as a trading chip.

How can you realistically have any idea whether this is true or not without knowing the potential returns?

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/003/040/110/enraged_display_image.jpg?1363219608

 

IN MY OPINION

[Bryants Disco Ball]

If the Cubs trade Garza to the Rangers, could it be Profar coming in return or do we need pitching for sure?

 

I ask because I'm not so sure Profar is viewed as elite by some in the game anymore, right or wrong.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If the Cubs trade Garza to the Rangers, could it be Profar coming in return or do we need pitching for sure?

 

I ask because I'm not so sure Profar is viewed as elite by some in the game anymore, right or wrong.

 

No.

[Guest]

I think I'd deal him before the ASB, if we get a top 100 type prospect and another guy that fits in or near our top 10.

 

That's a horrible [expletive] return. I'd rather make the qualifying offer and try to sign him.

 

I'd like to come back to this, because what's interesting to me is how broad the actual value can be that fits those parameters. Even taking Top 100 as "between 50-100". Some examples:

 

Martin Perez and Cody Buckel from Texas

 

Hak-Ju Lee and Alex Colome from Tampa

 

Gregory Polanco and Kyle McPherson from Pittsburgh

 

Tony Cingrani and Ismael Guillon from Cincy

 

Kyle Gibson and Max Kepler from Minnesota

 

There's some pretty significant variation in those packages, and a great deal of that comes down to the difference in the values of guys considered "Top 100 prospects". I'd be happy with several of those examples, okay with the value in others(if not the specific players), and others still are just bad(I hear Lee is actually now a top 50 prospect that he finally got the injury out of the way). The details matter when the spectrum is so broad.