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

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Also, I suppose it's notable to mention that the Cubs are acquiring a lot of useful pieces to make a splash in the offseason with a David Price type trade, are they not?

 

It's possible, but I don't think you can count on it. A "David Price-type" trade basically just means Price (don't want) or Stanton.

[Clem Fandango]

Also, I suppose it's notable to mention that the Cubs are acquiring a lot of useful pieces to make a splash in the offseason with a David Price type trade, are they not?

 

It's possible, but I don't think you can count on it. A "David Price-type" trade basically just means Price (don't want) or Stanton.

 

Stanton's injury prone-ness scares me a bit, but I sure would like him on the team. But he's still gonna cost a fortune, injuries or not. Also, I can't see the FO selling off a lot of their valuable assets on a big bat when pitching is apparently their #1 priority.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

With Price, you are paying an insane prospect price just for the right to pay him $20m a year or whatever. You pay full price for him twice. Throw in the fact that he's recently had arm problems and is in the second half of his prime, and I just want nothing to do with that.

[Sammy Sofa]

Also, I suppose it's notable to mention that the Cubs are acquiring a lot of useful pieces to make a splash in the offseason with a David Price type trade, are they not?

 

It's possible, but I don't think you can count on it. A "David Price-type" trade basically just means Price (don't want) or Stanton.

 

Stanton's injury prone-ness scares me a bit, but I sure would like him on the team. But he's still gonna cost a fortune, injuries or not. Also, I can't see the FO selling off a lot of their valuable assets on a big bat when pitching is apparently their #1 priority.

 

It's not like it's a glaring priority over the ML team's offensive needs. You can point to more potential impact offensive prospects right now, but they're almost all still years away.

[Cubswin11]

Grilli to the DL with the dreaded forearm strain. I know they already have a solid bullpen but you could probably add them to the list of teams interested in Russell/Gregg.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Grilli to the DL with the dreaded forearm strain. I know they already have a solid bullpen but you could probably add them to the list of teams interested in Russell/Gregg.

 

I remember how sad it felt when Cubs fans were melting down over narrlowly missing out on a 35 year old journeyman reliever. In retrospect, he could have been the difference between an above .500 team and this.

[Little Slide Rooter]

We seem to have a plethora of potential long term 3B options:

 

MLB: Valbuena (27), Lake (23)

AAA: Olt (24) Vitters (24)

AA: Villanueva (23) Baez (20)

Boise: Bryant (21)

 

Most of these guys can play other positions as well, but we already have our SS in Castro and a solid backup plan in Alcantara. Lake or Vitters could end up long term solutions as outfielders, and any one of these guys could bust.

 

This being said, with that many potential high ceiling prospects at the same position, an in demand one at that, would it be wise to shop at least one?

 

Valbuena is already coming up in trade rumors. He's 27 and under team control through 2016, he could also be a super sub and plan be if they give the 2014 job to Olt or Vitters and it doesn't work out. If somebody wants to overpay for him, great. If not, there's no reason to move him. Even if he is a super sub, better him than cycle through more Lillibridges and Alberto Gonzalez'

 

The one that strikes me as the most disposable is Villanueva. He's had a nice bounce-back after a dreadful first month or so, but due to a cruel twist of fate, he's right back in the same position as be was with the Rangers; and blocked by the same guy no less. He's kind of in no man's land; assuming that Olt and Vitters are given the next cracks at 3rd, if they don't work out it could be Javy Time, and he'd be passed right over. Wouldn't bring back much of anything alone, but if a multiplayer deal were on the table, he's certainly the type that could be involved to bring back a better return.

[Cubswin11]

We seem to have a plethora of potential long term 3B options:

 

MLB: Valbuena (27), Lake (23)

AAA: Olt (24) Vitters (24)

AA: Villanueva (23) Baez (20)

Boise: Bryant (21)

 

Most of these guys can play other positions as well, but we already have our SS in Castro and a solid backup plan in Alcantara. Lake or Vitters could end up long term solutions as outfielders, and any one of these guys could bust.

 

This being said, with that many potential high ceiling prospects at the same position, an in demand one at that, would it be wise to shop at least one?

 

Valbuena is already coming up in trade rumors. He's 27 and under team control through 2016, he could also be a super sub and plan be if they give the 2014 job to Olt or Vitters and it doesn't work out. If somebody wants to overpay for him, great. If not, there's no reason to move him. Even if he is a super sub, better him than cycle through more Lillibridges and Alberto Gonzalez'

 

The one that strikes me as the most disposable is Villanueva. He's had a nice bounce-back after a dreadful first month or so, but due to a cruel twist of fate, he's right back in the same position as be was with the Rangers; and blocked by the same guy no less. He's kind of in no man's land; assuming that Olt and Vitters are given the next cracks at 3rd, if they don't work out it could be Javy Time, and he'd be passed right over. Wouldn't bring back much of anything alone, but if a multiplayer deal were on the table, he's certainly the type that could be involved to bring back a better return.

Candelario

[Little Slide Rooter]

Forgot Candelerio; but he's so young and raw that I doubt he'd factor into the decision.

[Guest]

Not sure where to put this...

 

Speaking of free agency- I've heard multiple times that barring injury, don't be surprised if Scott Kazmir ends up with the Cubs next year... Likely signs a two year deal at or just north of Feldman money... IMO, at 30 and coming off a fairly solid bounce back season thus far, Kaz may turn out to be a guy that performs very well in the NL and garners either a solid amount of trade buzz and/or is a player they decide they like as a 4/5 LHSP enough to keep around... Baker is also a likely resign and while other pieces will likely be added prior to the start of next season, as of today you'll see something like:

 

Villanueva, Baker, Grimm, Arrieta, Rusin, Loux and Cabrera all battling for the 5th starters spot behind Shark, Wood, EJax and Kazmir... Eventually, I think you see Kyle Hendricks take over the spot with Villanueva and Kazmir or Baker being (hopefully) the last true sellers pieces this organization deals at the deadline for the next decade or so...

 

 

Better not be sellers next year.

Edited July 24, 2013 by David

[Guest]

Who said that?

[Tyrant]

Not sure where to put this...

 

Speaking of free agency- I've heard multiple times that barring injury, don't be surprised if Scott Kazmir ends up with the Cubs next year... Likely signs a two year deal at or just north of Feldman money... IMO, at 30 and coming off a fairly solid bounce back season thus far, Kaz may turn out to be a guy that performs very well in the NL and garners either a solid amount of trade buzz and/or is a player they decide they like as a 4/5 LHSP enough to keep around... Baker is also a likely resign and while other pieces will likely be added prior to the start of next season, as of today you'll see something like:

 

Villanueva, Baker, Grimm, Arrieta, Rusin, Loux and Cabrera all battling for the 5th starters spot behind Shark, Wood, EJax and Kazmir... Eventually, I think you see Kyle Hendricks take over the spot with Villanueva and Kazmir or Baker being (hopefully) the last true sellers pieces this organization deals at the deadline for the next decade or so...

 

 

Better not be sellers next year.

 

Agreed. The offseason is going to suck if every guy we sign has a Kazmir/Feldman/Maholm buzz of hoping he's good for 3 months so we can flip him for prospects.

[Warpticon]

That whole dynamic is further complicated by the fact that their two highest rated prospects at AA or above (not including Olt) are shortstops, and Castro is blocking them both. If they were both to make it to the majors at close to the same time, they'd have to switch positions to 2B/3B to fit into the lineup, where there currently are no vacancies. Ignoring Logan Watkins for the moment, there's a very real possibility that, if no one is moved, the Cubs could be trying to find a way to fit 6 players or more into 3 positions by the end of next year. Clearly something has to give.

[Guest]

Who said that?

 

My bad. ABTY.

[Guest]

That whole dynamic is further complicated by the fact that their two highest rated prospects at AA or above (not including Olt) are shortstops, and Castro is blocking them both. If they were both to make it to the majors at close to the same time, they'd have to switch positions to 2B/3B to fit into the lineup, where there currently are no vacancies. Ignoring Logan Watkins for the moment, there's a very real possibility that, if no one is moved, the Cubs could be trying to find a way to fit 6 players or more into 3 positions by the end of next year. Clearly something has to give.

 

For those prospects, with Barney and Valbuena in the way, you make vacancies, though. Not sure if that's what you were alluding to with the last part.

[Warpticon]

That whole dynamic is further complicated by the fact that their two highest rated prospects at AA or above (not including Olt) are shortstops, and Castro is blocking them both. If they were both to make it to the majors at close to the same time, they'd have to switch positions to 2B/3B to fit into the lineup, where there currently are no vacancies. Ignoring Logan Watkins for the moment, there's a very real possibility that, if no one is moved, the Cubs could be trying to find a way to fit 6 players or more into 3 positions by the end of next year. Clearly something has to give.

 

For those prospects, with Barney and Valbuena in the way, you make vacancies, though. Not sure if that's what you were alluding to with the last part.

 

That's my point. Obviously they're not going to just keep 6 guys to play 3 positions, so somebody's gotta move, and soon.

[Guest]

ABTY also was positive the Cubs weren't getting Olt

[Guest]

ABTY also was positive the Cubs weren't getting Olt

 

i don't expect all of his information to be accurate (nor do i expect that from any of the reporters who should probably be held to a higher standard) nor do i expect most of it to pan out

 

take the info FWIW...

[Guest]

Not sure where to put this...

 

Speaking of free agency- I've heard multiple times that barring injury, don't be surprised if Scott Kazmir ends up with the Cubs next year... Likely signs a two year deal at or just north of Feldman money... IMO, at 30 and coming off a fairly solid bounce back season thus far, Kaz may turn out to be a guy that performs very well in the NL and garners either a solid amount of trade buzz and/or is a player they decide they like as a 4/5 LHSP enough to keep around... Baker is also a likely resign and while other pieces will likely be added prior to the start of next season, as of today you'll see something like:

 

Villanueva, Baker, Grimm, Arrieta, Rusin, Loux and Cabrera all battling for the 5th starters spot behind Shark, Wood, EJax and Kazmir... Eventually, I think you see Kyle Hendricks take over the spot with Villanueva and Kazmir or Baker being (hopefully) the last true sellers pieces this organization deals at the deadline for the next decade or so...

 

 

Better not be sellers next year.

 

Agreed. The offseason is going to suck if every guy we sign has a Kazmir/Feldman/Maholm buzz of hoping he's good for 3 months so we can flip him for prospects.

 

I'm not sure there's much of a distinction to be made there. It seems pretty clear that the front office sees a lot of value in identifying league average SPs that can be signed to short deals. While that does make them easier to deal if the team isn't in contention, there's benefits beyond that like cost savings to pursue upgrades elsewhere, avoiding larger/longer contracts with performance/injury risk, etc.

 

Given the current makeup of the rotation, unless there was a really good SP coming available they felt was worth the money(I don't really see any this year, maybe Josh Johnson or Lincecum?), adding another guy in the Feldman/Maholm mold is actually more an indication that they intend on being competitive. It'd be easy to bank the money and trot out some combo of Shark/Jackson/Wood/Villanueva/Arrieta/Grimm/Cabrera/Hendricks to get a better feel of what they have in some of those guys. Instead, adding someone like Kazmir and maybe Baker gives them that depth to use those guys in a more productive role other than depth. Villanueva, Arrieta, and Cabrera are potentially bullpen options. Grimm could stand to start 2014 at AAA. You can do those things now with those additions in the fold, and you've done so without compromising your ability to make bigger changes in the lineup or to the back end of the bullpen.

[Bruno7481]

Not sure where to put this...

 

Speaking of free agency- I've heard multiple times that barring injury, don't be surprised if Scott Kazmir ends up with the Cubs next year... Likely signs a two year deal at or just north of Feldman money... IMO, at 30 and coming off a fairly solid bounce back season thus far, Kaz may turn out to be a guy that performs very well in the NL and garners either a solid amount of trade buzz and/or is a player they decide they like as a 4/5 LHSP enough to keep around... Baker is also a likely resign and while other pieces will likely be added prior to the start of next season, as of today you'll see something like:

 

Villanueva, Baker, Grimm, Arrieta, Rusin, Loux and Cabrera all battling for the 5th starters spot behind Shark, Wood, EJax and Kazmir... Eventually, I think you see Kyle Hendricks take over the spot with Villanueva and Kazmir or Baker being (hopefully) the last true sellers pieces this organization deals at the deadline for the next decade or so...

 

 

Better not be sellers next year.

 

Be really nice if they weren't, but I think it is the more likely scenario at this point. I don't see a lot out there that would put this team on the same level as STL/CIN, and now even PIT.

 

Not a great FA class this year. Talent in the minors not quite ready.

 

What would you do?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't mind the realistic expectation that selling is likely next season. I abhor the idea of planning our offseason around an intent to sell.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't mind the realistic expectation that selling is likely next season. I abhor the idea of planning our offseason around an intent to sell.

 

Right. As they did this year you can sign guys that you can sell if needed (and if they succeed), but also have for more than one year if the team does better than expected/hoped.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Given the current makeup of the rotation, unless there was a really good SP coming available they felt was worth the money(I don't really see any this year, maybe Josh Johnson or Lincecum?).

 

I guess that's the part that pushes me to grudging acceptance of this plan. I hate to accept replacing Garza with a clearly inferior reclamation FA, but given what's likely to be no the market, I don't see much choice.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Assuming that Soriano and DeJesus are moved, we won't have much selling left by the offseason. Maybe Edwin Jackson and Schietholtz, but even they woudln't be agressively shopped.I suspect that virtually everyone else remaining on the roster by season's end will be guys who factor into the long term plans to some degree, and while guys like Wood and Russell to name a few should draw a lot of interest, it would have to be for something big rather than simply the best return possible. Basically, they won't be actively shopping them, but they won't refuse to answer the phones either.

[Sammy Sofa]

Maybe Edwin Jackson

 

Please explain why you thought this made sense.