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

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yes, but one of them is the wrong way.

 

If you can get Taillon from the Pirates, you can get someone almost as good from somewhere else and be better off.

[ctcf]

Also really not worried about Shark getting traded, but if the DiamondBacks were stupid enough to offer Bradley and Skaggs, I'd take it.

[Guest]

Whatever term you want to use, there's been enough rumors mentioning Shark's name to think that there's some doubts about his future with the organization. None of the reasons for those doubts are particularly good omens, despite the fact that they could get good value in return.

 

I really think you're pulling that assumption out of thin air. Just because the big rumor guys needed something to throw at a wall and heard Towers called the Cubs again about Shark doesn't mean there's any doubts or concern about Shark.

 

That's possible, but the mentions have been varied enough in both time and source to make me wonder. I'm not angry at the news itself, but the repeated mentions give me some uneasiness for reasons already mentioned.

 

 

As for the Pirates, I wouldn't treat them any differently than any other team. The price for Samardzija should be prohibitively high. On the order of Cole/Delgado/Bradley Jr + Taillon/Skaggs/Webster + another piece of significance. If the Pirates are the team that wants to pay that price, let them.

[davell]

Yes, but one of them is the wrong way.

 

If you can get Taillon from the Pirates, you can get someone almost as good from somewhere else and be better off.

I'm not saying the Pirates are ideal to trade with, by the way. I'm just saying the exact package I mentioned would MAKE me do it. I'd much rather Arizona send Bradley/Skaggs/Holmberg/Eaton......My disclaimer here being I seriously doubt EITHER of those teams would offer that, maybe not even close to it, so we're just fine keeping him and hopefully locking him up longterm. I'm not sure the Red Sox are a great fit, as the 3rd team mentioned in all of this. Bogaerts would be a great get, but holy hell, we'd be running out of infield positions for guys to play. And I totally understand trading for talent over need. It'd take Bogaerts/Webster/Rubby/Owens and there's no chance the Red Sox would come close to that. I'm NOT in favor of trading Shark, I just figure that if we did, it'd be for enough that all of us would be happy. Which is no different a stance than what I think on Schierholtz, DeJesus, or Russell.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Unless the Twins call and offer Buxton/Sano/Meyer, nothing to see here.

[treebird]

Whatever term you want to use, there's been enough rumors mentioning Shark's name to think that there's some doubts about his future with the organization. None of the reasons for those doubts are particularly good omens, despite the fact that they could get good value in return.

 

I really think you're pulling that assumption out of thin air. Just because the big rumor guys needed something to throw at a wall and heard Towers called the Cubs again about Shark doesn't mean there's any doubts or concern about Shark.

 

That's possible, but the mentions have been varied enough in both time and source to make me wonder. I'm not angry at the news itself, but the repeated mentions give me some uneasiness for reasons already mentioned.

 

 

As for the Pirates, I wouldn't treat them any differently than any other team. The price for Samardzija should be prohibitively high. On the order of Cole/Delgado/Bradley Jr + Taillon/Skaggs/Webster + another piece of significance. If the Pirates are the team that wants to pay that price, let them.

 

i think you're underselling your previous point here, which was a very good one. i am not really concerned much at all that the cubs aren't planning on being good while samardzija is under team control, but the idea that the front office may value samardzija less than i'd like them to (whether due to insider info on injuries or something involving his underlying performance) does give me pause. i like samardzija a lot, so if people who are smarter than me and have way more information than i do like him less than i do, that's a bad thing.

[Tryptamine]

Apparently, the WSox asked for both Gray and Russell for Peavy with no cash included. I hope Beane hung up immediately.

[BeerHere]

Unless the Twins call and offer Buxton/Sano/Meyer, nothing to see here.

If the Twins offer Buxton and Sano for Shark....I do that deal in a heartbeat. I want Smardzija to remain a Cub but those two are blue chip, grade A prospects. No way the Twins make that deal.

[Guest]

Unless the Twins call and offer Buxton/Sano/Meyer, nothing to see here.

If the Twins offer Buxton and Sano for Shark....I do that deal in a heartbeat. I want Smardzija to remain a Cub but those two are blue chip, grade A prospects. No way the Twins make that deal.

 

And Samardzija is already a top end MLB talent with 2 (I believe) years of team control after this one.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Unless the Twins call and offer Buxton/Sano/Meyer, nothing to see here.

If the Twins offer Buxton and Sano for Shark....I do that deal in a heartbeat. I want Smardzija to remain a Cub but those two are blue chip, grade A prospects. No way the Twins make that deal.

 

The Twins are in full rebuild mode so obviously they wouldn't do that trade. My point was that it's stupid to trade Samardzija unless Theo/Jed are absolutely trade raping a team to oblivion.

[KingCubsFan]

Unless the Twins call and offer Buxton/Sano/Meyer, nothing to see here.

If the Twins offer Buxton and Sano for Shark....I do that deal in a heartbeat. I want Smardzija to remain a Cub but those two are blue chip, grade A prospects. No way the Twins make that deal.

 

And Samardzija is already a top end MLB talent with 2 (I believe) years of team control after this one.

Are you seriously questioning trading Samardzija for the two best prospects in baseball?

[TruffleShuffle]

sano is not one of the two best prospects in baseball.

[The-Kris-Bryant]

sano is not one of the two best prospects in baseball.

You sure as hell can make a good case for him

[Tryptamine]

sano is not one of the two best prospects in baseball.

 

Well he's safely in the top 7 so that's pretty much semantics.

[Guest]

sano is not one of the two best prospects in baseball.

You sure as hell can make a good case for him

I love Sano's power. But he's got the same red flags as Baez without the premium position.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

sano is not one of the two best prospects in baseball.

You sure as hell can make a good case for him

I love Sano's power. But he's got the same red flags as Baez without the premium position.

 

He's got the swing and miss, but he certainly doesn't have any plate discipline issues.

[Guest]

sano is not one of the two best prospects in baseball.

You sure as hell can make a good case for him

I love Sano's power. But he's got the same red flags as Baez without the premium position.

 

He's got the swing and miss, but he certainly doesn't have any plate discipline issues.

So you're saying he can't even hit strikes consistently?

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

sano is not one of the two best prospects in baseball.

You sure as hell can make a good case for him

I love Sano's power. But he's got the same red flags as Baez without the premium position.

 

He's got the swing and miss, but he certainly doesn't have any plate discipline issues.

So you're saying he can't even hit strikes consistently?

 

All I'm saying is that he walks a ton, which is something he doesn't share with Baez.

[davell]

I think the main point here is if you were offered two of the top 10 prospects in baaeball for Shark, you do it. Not that it'd happen.

[treebird]

sano is not one of the two best prospects in baseball.

 

Well he's safely in the top 7 so that's pretty much semantics.

 

it can't be semantics when we're talking about numbers. we know what numbers mean. it would be arguing over semantics if someone said sano was an elite prospect and someone else said he's only near-elite and then we had to hash out definitions for those terms.

[ScrubMD]

meta

[Sammy Sofa]

sano is not one of the two best prospects in baseball.

 

Well he's safely in the top 7 so that's pretty much semantics.

 

it can't be semantics when we're talking about numbers. we know what numbers mean. it would be arguing over semantics if someone said sano was an elite prospect and someone else said he's only near-elite and then we had to hash out definitions for those terms.

 

http://cdn.wl.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Big-Ern-Celebrating.gif

[Tracer Bullet]

sano is not one of the two best prospects in baseball.

 

Well he's safely in the top 7 so that's pretty much semantics.

 

it can't be semantics when we're talking about numbers. we know what numbers mean. it would be arguing over semantics if someone said sano was an elite prospect and someone else said he's only near-elite and then we had to hash out definitions for those terms.

 

are you sure about that?

[drewha]

sano is not one of the two best prospects in baseball.

 

Well he's safely in the top 7 so that's pretty much semantics.

 

it can't be semantics when we're talking about numbers. we know what numbers mean. it would be arguing over semantics if someone said sano was an elite prospect and someone else said he's only near-elite and then we had to hash out definitions for those terms.

 

are you sure about that?

 

1) it's a semantic argument about semantics!!

 

2) there's denotation and connotation. by a more academic definition (or denotation), "semantic" purely means meaning in language. on the street, though, the connotation has come to be more negative: arguing over meaningless differences. (which, over time, has evolved into a new and alternate definition, too.)

 

3) structuralists argued heavily over the semantics, or meanings, of signs. it was a very serious thing. some think that's where the negative connotation originally came from. of course, a post structuralist might explain that we're always developing different meanings. in other words, everything is semantics.

[wekse]

did someone say hash?