Garza to Texas for CJ Edwards, Olt, Grimm & Neil Ramirez

[Guest]

Reading the discussion at Newberg Report and Lone Star Ball, it's funny to me that there's a pretty clear consensus on their hierarchy for potential trade chips. Perez is a non-starter for Garza, and most prefer keeping him. Olt has some more divisive opinions, with some thinking he should be going for a better or longer term asset than Garza, while others recognize his drop in value but still think of him as the biggest piece they should give up in a deal.

 

Most puzzling is that a guy like Tepesch is much more easily included by Rangers fans. I know he doesn't have the ceiling of Perez or 2012 Olt, but you'd think there'd be more recognition for the guy who jumped from AA to MLB and was pitching at a ~3 win pace before going on the DL.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Reading the discussion at Newberg Report and Lone Star Ball, it's funny to me that there's a pretty clear consensus on their hierarchy for potential trade chips. Perez is a non-starter for Garza, and most prefer keeping him. Olt has some more divisive opinions, with some thinking he should be going for a better or longer term asset than Garza, while others recognize his drop in value but still think of him as the biggest piece they should give up in a deal.

 

Most puzzling is that a guy like Tepesch is much more easily included by Rangers fans. I know he doesn't have the ceiling of Perez or 2012 Olt, but you'd think there'd be more recognition for the guy who jumped from AA to MLB and was pitching at a ~3 win pace before going on the DL.

 

It's shiny toy syndrome. Fans are more likely to gravitate toward the blue they've been hearing about for a while then the guy that came out of nowhere. It's also why teams continue to take, dare I say, fliers out on one time top prospects who's likelihood of reaching their ceiling, or even being replacement level big leaguers is minimal.

[Tyrant]

It's also why teams continue to take, dare I say, fliers out on one time top prospects who's likelihood of reaching their ceiling, or even being replacement level big leaguers is minimal.

 

how dare you

[Lefty]

Looking at Olt's year at AA last year and his current AAA performance, aren't they consistent adjusted for a huge drop in BABIP? Also, his LHP/RHP splits this year are terrible. They could not have been the case before, correct? That said, he's 25 next month, and I think is better represented in a challenge trade for Brett Jackson.

[Elrhino]

Tepesch just wasn't very highly thought of as a prospect. He's got four solid pitches, but none of them really plus. He didn't strike out many people in the minors. His strikeout and walk rates in the majors are actually an improvement from his AA numbers last year. He kinda came out of nowhere in Spring Training to win the 5th spot in the rotation. I guess Ranger fans are skeptical that his major league performance will be sustainable once batters face him more.

[Guest]

Looking at Olt's year at AA last year and his current AAA performance, aren't they consistent adjusted for a huge drop in BABIP? Also, his LHP/RHP splits this year are terrible. They could not have been the case before, correct? That said, he's 25 next month, and I think is better represented in a challenge trade for Brett Jackson.

 

The thing about BABIP with prospects is that at a certain point, you expect a higher baseline even with BABIP fluctuation. Olt is very likely better than his AAA line to this point, what's worrisome is that the downside is so low, especially given his age. Also, his K rate has spiked up so sharply that his BABIP(.287) isn't way out of whack with his career MiLB BABIP(.316). The FO knows things better than me, but superficially I'll be really bummed if Olt's the best player coming back.

[Lefty]

Looking at Olt's year at AA last year and his current AAA performance, aren't they consistent adjusted for a huge drop in BABIP? Also, his LHP/RHP splits this year are terrible. They could not have been the case before, correct? That said, he's 25 next month, and I think is better represented in a challenge trade for Brett Jackson.

 

The thing about BABIP with prospects is that at a certain point, you expect a higher baseline even with BABIP fluctuation. Olt is very likely better than his AAA line to this point, what's worrisome is that the downside is so low, especially given his age. Also, his K rate has spiked up so sharply that his BABIP(.287) isn't way out of whack with his career MiLB BABIP(.316). The FO knows things better than me, but superficially I'll be really bummed if Olt's the best player coming back.

 

I am pretty sure we'd all be bummed if that was the case. Profar madness notwithstanding, it would very uncharacteristic if the FO didn't get a couple of arms for Garza.

[Tyrant]

Not that this is a surprise or anything.

 

After an industry source mentioned Jurickson Profar as a possible piece in a Garza deal last week, that idea was relayed to a Cubs official, who responded by going Hawk Harrelson: "Are you (bleeping) me?" Garza is a good pitcher, but he's still only a rental, while Profar is 20 years old and regarded as one of the best prospects in the game.

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs-talk/what-cubs-are-looking-garza-deal

[davell]

In what could be something we factor into trading season, the competitive balance lottery was held today. Picks 32-37, in order, are Colorado, Baltimore, Cleveland, Miami, KC, and the Brewers. The 2nd rounders are San Diego, Arizona, Cards, Tampa, Pirates, and Mariners.

[illiniguy]

In what could be something we factor into trading season, the competitive balance lottery was held today. Picks 32-37, in order, are Colorado, Baltimore, Cleveland, Miami, KC, and the Brewers. The 2nd rounders are San Diego, Arizona, Cards, Tampa, Pirates, and Mariners.

Good, we need to do what we can to keep Tampa and St. Louis competitive.....

[ctcf]

It's gonna be kinda funny when this goes down to the deadline.

[Guest]

a couple of things from Cubs Den today

 

UPDATE 3:16 PM: Hearing now that part of the delay here is that the Cubs are waiting on 4-5 teams to make their best offer before making decision. Blue Jays among those teams. Not unusual in that buying teams will often request that the selling teams check back with them before pulling the trigger. It appears the Cubs may be in the process of sorting that out.

 

UPDATE 5:38 PM: Some good stuff from the Red Sox blog "Over the Monster". The Red Sox may be waiting to see what happens with Clay Buchholz throwing session, which has been pushed back to Thursday. OtM also speculates that with the Red Sox facing a lot of 40 man roster decisions, they could offer a package centered around Anthony Ranaudo, who was a significant overslot signing from the Theo Epstein era. Ranaudo is 8-2 with a 2.67 ERA in AA with 9.30 Ks/9 IP and 3.16 walks/9 IP. His FIP is a solid 3.15. LHP Drake Britton is mentioned as a possible secondary piece.

[davell]

Boston could be holding things up waiting on Buchholz, to see if he's healthy. Toronto is another possible holdup. They're 9 out of the 2nd WC, but have a 10 game homestand to begin the 2nd half, beginning with 3 against Tampa, who they may need to sweep in order to consider themselves buyers. They also have 3 against the Dodgers and 4 with the Astros. I was kind of hoping for a trade over the break, but those two teams could be holding us up, if they're possibly ready to send us something better than what we're getting from Texas or others.

[ctcf]

Pretty sure I'd prefer Ranaudo to Olt.

[Castros trade value]

The Cubs and Rangers will likely agree to a four player deal, with Garza and Soriano going to Texas (Berkman is on the DL and Murphy has not done much). The Rangers will include Martin Perez and Mike Olt. At the last minute, Sori will go all Fred McGriff on us and nix the deal. By the time Sori changes his mind, the Rangers will say: Too late.

 

[-X

[Irrelevant Dude]

In what could be something we factor into trading season, the competitive balance lottery was held today. Picks 32-37, in order, are Colorado, Baltimore, Cleveland, Miami, KC, and the Brewers. The 2nd rounders are San Diego, Arizona, Cards, Tampa, Pirates, and Mariners.

Good, we need to do what we can to keep Tampa and St. Louis competitive.....

It seems perfectly fair to penalize 1 team in a division by giving every other team the opportunity for an extra draft pick. That's competitive balance for you.

[The-Kris-Bryant]

God the competitive crap is so messed up. Half of those teams interested in Garza...

 

 

 

Anyways. I like Ranaudo, if we get him.... Effing fantastic. I stil maintain garza gets us a 75-100 sp though :(

[Irrelevant Dude]

In what could be something we factor into trading season, the competitive balance lottery was held today. Picks 32-37, in order, are Colorado, Baltimore, Cleveland, Miami, KC, and the Brewers. The 2nd rounders are San Diego, Arizona, Cards, Tampa, Pirates, and Mariners.

Fun fact:

 

The teams receiving competitive balance picks have a combined .502 winning percentage.

 

The remaining teams in MLB who will not receive competitive balance picks have a .499 winning percentage.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Would you rather we have total revenue sharing and cut the other teams in the division a check for $15m each?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Not that this is a surprise or anything.

 

After an industry source mentioned Jurickson Profar as a possible piece in a Garza deal last week, that idea was relayed to a Cubs official, who responded by going Hawk Harrelson: "Are you (bleeping) me?" Garza is a good pitcher, but he's still only a rental, while Profar is 20 years old and regarded as one of the best prospects in the game.

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs-talk/what-cubs-are-looking-garza-deal

 

At the off chance that Profar was discussed in a serious manner, I doubt that even the most delusional of the delusional would have thought Profar to be a piece in a Garza package, but rather the cornerstone of a blockbuster in which who knows how many players and prospects changed hands. I'd have to assume that one of our top three would end up in Texas as well in this mythical scenario.

[Irrelevant Dude]

Would you rather we have total revenue sharing and cut the other teams in the division a check for $15m each?

MLB already has revenue sharing in place in addition to the competitive balance picks.

 

Under its current iteration, MLB’s revenue sharing program looks something like this:

 

● Every team in the majors pays in 31% of their net local revenue, and then that money is divided up and equally distributed to every team. Since large-market teams will have much greater local revenues than small market teams, this already puts small market teams in the black.

 

● On top of this, a large chunk of MLB’s central fund (which are acquired through things like national broadcasts) is set aside to be allocated to teams based on their revenues.

 

● By 2016, the fifteen teams in the largest markets in baseball will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing. This feature is being phased in over the coming years. The disqualified clubs will receive a refund for the amount that they would have received in revenue sharing, although teams that have exceeded the Luxury Tax threshold in recent years will not receive a full refund.

 

(MLB.com)

[Guest]

Would you rather we have total revenue sharing and cut the other teams in the division a check for $15m each?

 

i personally would rather just spend like crazy and put our [expletive] in them every year

 

but apparently ricketts wants to be the royals. i predict he commits suicide in a couple of years.

[Guest]

I'm pretty wary of Ranaudo's injury history.

[SouthSideRyan]

Would you rather we have total revenue sharing and cut the other teams in the division a check for $15m each?

 

We'd have an Astros payroll in that case.

[Guest]

Would you rather we have total revenue sharing and cut the other teams in the division a check for $15m each?

MLB already has revenue sharing in place in addition to the competitive balance picks.

 

Under its current iteration, MLB’s revenue sharing program looks something like this:

 

● Every team in the majors pays in 31% of their net local revenue, and then that money is divided up and equally distributed to every team. Since large-market teams will have much greater local revenues than small market teams, this already puts small market teams in the black.

 

● On top of this, a large chunk of MLB’s central fund (which are acquired through things like national broadcasts) is set aside to be allocated to teams based on their revenues.

 

● By 2016, the fifteen teams in the largest markets in baseball will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing. This feature is being phased in over the coming years. The disqualified clubs will receive a refund for the amount that they would have received in revenue sharing, although teams that have exceeded the Luxury Tax threshold in recent years will not receive a full refund.

 

(MLB.com)

I'll say it again, Jeff Loria is a friggen genius. What a system.