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

[manbearcub]

You could've been hanging out with Carrie Muskat at the beat writers Christmas party.

[Sammy Sofa]

i blew it

 

You would have been making up interviews with crippled kids outside of the ballpark in no time.

[ScrubMD]

I'd answer and pretend to be Pizza Hut and then Jim Hendry joke.

[Fro]

I'd say it's 99.9999999999% he will be traded.

 

just like last year!

 

I'm looking forward to hearing about imminent trades all the way until the last week of July when something will actually happen.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I'd say it's 99.9999999999% he will be traded.

 

just like last year!

 

Except last year he wasn't a free agent at the end of the season with little to no hope of signing long term.

 

And that aside, he would've been traded had he not gotten hurt. Obviously, if he gets hurt again, that would throw a wrench into things.

 

I'm still curious as to what happened with all of the iminant trades 2 winters ago. Between the Tigers, Rangers, and Blue Jays, it seemed as though he'd been traded 3 times a day for 2 months straight.

[Guest]

ABTY:

 

As to something that actually matters going forward, Braves offered David Hale for Kevin Gregg straight up... FO apparently (since no deal is completed) feels they can do somewhat better...

[Clem Fandango]

ABTY:

 

As to something that actually matters going forward, Braves offered David Hale for Kevin Gregg straight up... FO apparently (since no deal is completed) feels they can do somewhat better...

 

*Looks up David Hale on B-R*

 

http://i.imgur.com/qnniC.gif

[rawaction]

ABTY:

 

As to something that actually matters going forward, Braves offered David Hale for Kevin Gregg straight up... FO apparently (since no deal is completed) feels they can do somewhat better...

Hale is arguably in their top 20. Mid 90s FB. Change. Slider. I'd have taken the deal.

[Clem Fandango]

ABTY:

 

As to something that actually matters going forward, Braves offered David Hale for Kevin Gregg straight up... FO apparently (since no deal is completed) feels they can do somewhat better...

Hale is arguably in their top 20. Mid 90s FB. Change. Slider. I'd have taken the deal.

 

A 25 year old pitcher who is probably a 5th starter at best and a likely long reliever who just this year made it to AAA with a career 3.90 minor league ERA with a K/9 less than 7.5? Pass. You can find a more desperate team willing to give up someone of more value for Gregg, IMO. I'm not expecting greatness in return for Gregg, but I think the Cubs can do better.

[Guest]

If that bit about Hale's stuff is accurate, then I think that's a decent deal for Gregg. The absolute best way to get value from Gregg may be to help package him with a SP or an OF though, so I can understand why they wouldn't pull the trigger right away. Hale isn't so big a prize that you can't afford to see if you can make something better happen.

[Backtobanks]

The FO better not wait too long on Gregg because I think the magic is going to start wearing off soon.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If that bit about Hale's stuff is accurate, then I think that's a decent deal for Gregg. The absolute best way to get value from Gregg may be to help package him with a SP or an OF though, so I can understand why they wouldn't pull the trigger right away. Hale isn't so big a prize that you can't afford to see if you can make something better happen.

 

Pretty much. If this were July 30th, you take the deal. Worst case scenerio, Gregg collapse on himself and we lose out on a fringe prospect. When he was picked up, most of us expected he'd be in Iowa or somebody else's AAA affiliate by now.

[toonsterwu]

In terms of ... ability? ... Hale would be okay for a Gregg trade. I'd hope for more/better, as I still have some doubts that Hale is a starter. Add in that he's 25 and turning 26, Gregg's excellent year, and factor in the way teams overpay for pen arms at the deadline, I don't think waiting is the worst thing.

 

To be quite honest, I'm really not sure what type of "expectation" to have on a Garza trade, in terms of the return. It's a lot of factors, plus and minus, running into each other. I think, speaking specifically on the Orioles right now, that it's hard to build a trade that really excites me, but then again, I'm not sure if I should be expecting an "excite me" trade on Garza. At the very least, I'd demand Eduardo Rodriguez as a center piece, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Orioles are going to balk at that as long as possible. I'm still not exactly on the Eduardo Rodriguez train, although I'll admit, he's a fascinating prospect. Problem is, I'm not sure what to slide in after that. I guess if we could get a Britton or Arrieta to work with, that'd be something, but I doubt the Orioles do that and I've never liked the raw potential of Arrieta enough. I guess something like Eduardo Rodriguez and either Zach Davies or maybe Branden Kline? as the key components of a package could be considered a solid enough return, but at the end of the day, nothing really jumps out at me.

[toonsterwu]

TT, was that a response to me? Because my point really was more that, in 2-3 years time, when the team might be closer to competing, Samardzija would've likely logged a ton of innings over that span.

 

Closer to possibly competing by 2016? Let's reel in those expectations a bit.

 

Okay. I have a hard time seeing the organization build up enough assets to compete in 2014. 2015 seems possible, but trying to push for a playoff spot in 2016 seems a bit more realistic to me right now.

 

This was the point of my other thread. The same things have been said about a bunch of teams that made significant jumps to make the playoffs, there is no threshold where you're "ready" to compete.

 

More to the point, the idea that there's little to no chance of the team being competitive in 2014 is crazy to me. Let them find the new Feldman/Maholm/Villanueva to round out the rotation, use Marmol's money and this year's deadline to make the pen less of a disaster, put Garza's money to Choo, and have a good year of progress from young players. You don't need 95th percentile projections to make that happen, and that's really what matters when the decision here is about trading Samardzija.

 

Leaving the Samardzija stuff aside for a moment, as I simply said it didn't hurt to ponder it if a great thing came along, but also that I don't expect anything to happen.

 

First, to be clear, I'm talking about competing for the playoffs. And, it should be noted, I didn't say little to no chance. What I actually said was that I find it hard to believe that "the organization [can] build up enough assets to compete in 2014" for the playoffs.

 

Yes, teams can make dramatic steps in one off-season.

 

That said, as currently situated, I've got a hard time seeing it. You talk about some key components to making this happen.

 

a) Garza money to Choo -

 

If we can get Choo, great, but

 

1) Has the front office given any indication that we're likely to pursue someone like Choo? A 31, almost 32 year old player that will demand a major contract, with a high AAV and multiple years? This isn't exactly DeJesus that we are talking about. Every indication from the front office so far has been that they didn't want to head down the line of what Boston did in Theo's final days there.

 

2) Are you presuming that we simply win a bidding war on Choo? Perhaps I'm underestimating the appeal of coming to the Cubs now, or maybe Choo has an affinity for the Cubs that I'm not aware of, but with baseball flush with money, and multiple teams with money to spend ...

 

b) A good year of progress from young players - Sure, but even then, as we both know, there really isn't, outside of maybe Alcantara, a key player in the pipeline that looks to have an outside shot at helping in 2014. Maybe Matt Szczur. Even my point above, about the Cubs top prospects potentially being ready in 2015, is probably slightly on the optimistic side. Even if Castro bounces back, as I expect, and Rizzo takes some steps forward, those were two guys considered core pieces to build around anyways. I'm not seeing the internal building blocks coming up by 2014.

 

Maybe I'm under-estimating our ability to land a key free agent. I have my doubts that we have that ability, or that the front office will pursue someone like Choo. Certainly, if we do go that route, yeah, that would really help things out. Now, one thing to be said is that, at some point, a front office feels some heat and may deviate from their plan.

 

__________________

 

This may get me into ... murky waters, but ... I'd argue that, for teams that build internally, akin to the way this front office is doing it now, that there's a threshold for when they start competing/believing that they can compete, and that is when there is an, for lack of a better term on a Sunday evening, accumulation of young talent in the upper levels, allowing the front office to add to the major league core, whether through call-ups or trades. Now, yes, most of these models lack the resources that the Cubs have, but again, I just haven't gotten the feeling that the front office is about to make big free agent splashes. Admittedly, I've been a bit busy, so maybe I've missed some stuff.

 

Perhaps the best comparison for hope for the Cubs are the Rangers. Daniels managed to turn the Rangers around from their low point in about 2 years, but I'm not really sure we have the trade assets to make the big moves that Daniels made in 2007 (namely, no one to bring back a Tex return). Again, my main point was that I have a hard time seeing the organization add enough assets. As I noted, while I think 2016 is the more realistic year, I think 2015 is a reasonable possibility. I'm not disagreeing with you on the ability for a team to turn around their fortunes in a short order - it's definitely possible. And I have no interest in dealing Samardzija - I just would keep an open ear if it came along. I just don't know if we have the trade assets and the ability/desire to make the big free agent moves for older veterans. If I'm wrong on the latter, and they add a key arm and a bat, then sure, it's easier to buy that this team can be, reasonably, a playoff contender next year.

[toonsterwu]

@Buster_ESPN When Diamondbacks and Cubs talked briefly about Jeff Samardzija, Cubs asked about Archie Bradley/Tyler Skaggs; talks ended.

 

Skaggs and Bradley alone wouldn't do it for me. It would get my attention, but it's just not quite enough.

 

Yeah. And this makes it sound like asking for either stopped the talks. That's pretty ridiculous, and surprising, considering how little it took for them to send Bauer away.

 

But really, does Buster Olney know anything about anything?

 

Well, before we try to connect the dots on Bauer with their willingness to trade Bradley/Skaggs, a couple points (as noted above, I don't think that'd be enough for me to want to move Shark) -

 

a) The team made clear, even if almost everyone else (except for some Reds fans) disagreed, that they believed in Gregorius' offensive potential and that they believed Didi had a better offensive ceiling than given credit for (I believe Towers made a Jeter comp)

 

b) They were looking specifically for a middle infielder, like when the Brewers traded for Segura.

 

c) While you can never have enough pitching, once a team trades away a top pitching prospect, they tend to show some wariness on moving the rest.

[PrimeTime]

Since Jed and Theo love guys coming off TJS surgery, think there is anyway we can entice the Nats with Garza and someone and get Lucas Giolito? Anyone else interesting in their system? Not to familiar with it.

[davell]

Actually, I'd think with Vizcaino having his setback and Baker being wasted money this year, our FO is less likely to go that route again. As for the Nats system, I like AJ Cole and Brian Goodwin. But I see better fits on a Garza return elsewhere.

[Guest]

This may get me into ... murky waters, but ... I'd argue that, for teams that build internally, akin to the way this front office is doing it now, that there's a threshold for when they start competing/believing that they can compete, and that is when there is an, for lack of a better term on a Sunday evening, accumulation of young talent in the upper levels, allowing the front office to add to the major league core, whether through call-ups or trades. Now, yes, most of these models lack the resources that the Cubs have, but again, I just haven't gotten the feeling that the front office is about to make big free agent splashes. Admittedly, I've been a bit busy, so maybe I've missed some stuff.

 

Perhaps the best comparison for hope for the Cubs are the Rangers. Daniels managed to turn the Rangers around from their low point in about 2 years, but I'm not really sure we have the trade assets to make the big moves that Daniels made in 2007 (namely, no one to bring back a Tex return). Again, my main point was that I have a hard time seeing the organization add enough assets. As I noted, while I think 2016 is the more realistic year, I think 2015 is a reasonable possibility. I'm not disagreeing with you on the ability for a team to turn around their fortunes in a short order - it's definitely possible. And I have no interest in dealing Samardzija - I just would keep an open ear if it came along. I just don't know if we have the trade assets and the ability/desire to make the big free agent moves for older veterans. If I'm wrong on the latter, and they add a key arm and a bat, then sure, it's easier to buy that this team can be, reasonably, a playoff contender next year.

 

I think you're vastly overestimating the gulf in talent needed to be competitive. It isn't assured by any means, but the most important pieces(Samardzija staying good, Wood/Jackson staying healthy, getting 7-8 WAR from Rizzo/Castro) are not only already in place with the current roster, but aren't exactly blind optimism either.

 

Also, when you say things like "while I think 2016 is the more realistic year, I think 2015 is a reasonable possibility" when talking about competing, you also have to be saying there's little to no chance next year.

[Guest]

Also from Sullivan's item, the Red Sox have sent top scout Gary Hughes to follow the Cubs while the team is on the west coast. Sullivan considers it likely that the Cubs will ask for two or three of Boston's top prospects in any significant deal given Epstein's familiarity with the Red Sox farm system.

 

 

It'd be nice if we could snag Cecchini as part of a Garza deal.

[davell]

Also from Sullivan's item, the Red Sox have sent top scout Gary Hughes to follow the Cubs while the team is on the west coast. Sullivan considers it likely that the Cubs will ask for two or three of Boston's top prospects in any significant deal given Epstein's familiarity with the Red Sox farm system.

 

 

It'd be nice if we could snag Cecchini as part of a Garza deal.

I'd prefer DeLa Rosa or Webster as the headliner. A second piece, I'd love to grab Ranaudo or Henry Owens. Maybe even Barnes, although I'm not sure if his stuff has regressed or not.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think you're vastly overestimating the gulf in talent needed to be competitive. It isn't assured by any means, but the most important pieces(Samardzija staying good, Wood/Jackson staying healthy, getting 7-8 WAR from Rizzo/Castro) are not only already in place with the current roster, but aren't exactly blind optimism either.

 

Also, when you say things like "while I think 2016 is the more realistic year, I think 2015 is a reasonable possibility" when talking about competing, you also have to be saying there's little to no chance next year.

 

When the list of things that absolutely have to go right is already half a dozen long off the top of your head, and that's just to have a chance, then you are drawing to an inside straight at best.

[Guest]

More than half that list is the status quo. Just because it's the most important doesn't mean it's necessarily not happening now.

[Guest]

Also from Sullivan's item, the Red Sox have sent top scout Gary Hughes to follow the Cubs while the team is on the west coast. Sullivan considers it likely that the Cubs will ask for two or three of Boston's top prospects in any significant deal given Epstein's familiarity with the Red Sox farm system.

 

 

It'd be nice if we could snag Cecchini as part of a Garza deal.

I'd prefer DeLa Rosa or Webster as the headliner. A second piece, I'd love to grab Ranaudo or Henry Owens. Maybe even Barnes, although I'm not sure if his stuff has regressed or not.

Do you like them better as prospects or just hung up on getting a pitcher?

[Guest]

Jackie Bradley Jr is still my favorite non-Bogaerts prospect in the Red Sox system.

[davell]

Also from Sullivan's item, the Red Sox have sent top scout Gary Hughes to follow the Cubs while the team is on the west coast. Sullivan considers it likely that the Cubs will ask for two or three of Boston's top prospects in any significant deal given Epstein's familiarity with the Red Sox farm system.

 

 

It'd be nice if we could snag Cecchini as part of a Garza deal.

I'd prefer DeLa Rosa or Webster as the headliner. A second piece, I'd love to grab Ranaudo or Henry Owens. Maybe even Barnes, although I'm not sure if his stuff has regressed or not.

Do you like them better as prospects or just hung up on getting a pitcher?

Rightly or wrongly, I'm a bigtime Rubby fan. I'd take him over Cecchini myself. I'd let the positional need and the fact Webster could be in our rotation next year put him over Cecchini for me as well. Nothing against Cecchini either. I agree with what TT mentioned a while ago, about getting a lead piece pretty close to the majors.