General Trade Deadline Thread

[Guest]

we'd be punting 2014 by trading travis wood?

[Guest]

i like travis wood, but are we really "punting" 2014 by trading him?

 

If you're trading Wood for a return that has zero impact on 2014, you may not be completely punting the season, but you're essentially asking for a miracle off-season or a crazy number of player development breakouts in order to be competitive.

[Guest]

exactly how many wins do you think travis wood will be worth next year?

[Guest]

exactly how many wins do you think travis wood will be worth next year?

 

Roughly 3, at the cost of a couple million dollars. That production won't be replaced internally or by the cost of his modest salary, so you're adding more strain to an off-season that already needs some things to go right in order to be a playoff contender(to speak nothing of the message that trading your All-Star SP for a TJS rehab prospect would send).

[Guest]

i don't know, i'm pretty confident that the front office could find another undervalued cheap starter to take his place on a 1 or 2 year deal, then we're talking about a difference of 1 or 2 wins. i don't see how a couple wins can be the difference between competing and punting the season. there are reasons to want wood over bundy long-term, but i don't think 2014 is one of them.

[sneakypower]

he's sitting at 4.4 bWAR right now

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Pretty much that.

 

It's not shipping out 2014 wins that kills you, it's shipping out 2014 *cost-controlled* wins. Right now, we should have a chance to put together a solid team for next year with the talent and spending power we have in place. Maybe even creeping up to that area where marginal wins start to significantly increase in value. But it's a very delicate chance that can come crashing down if you start removing cost-controlled guys and have to replace them on the open market.

 

I really don't want to trade Schierholtz for the same reason.

[Guest]

he's sitting at 4.4 bWAR right now

 

you are the king of cherry picking stats. you always love to use fWar when it suits your argument. anyways, i'm pretty sure he's not going to pitch at this rate next season.

[Guest]

sneaky, you always talk about xFIP. what about wood's 4.38?

[sneakypower]

he's at 3.1 fWAR, if that's your preference, which still puts him somewhere near a top-15 pitcher

 

i don't care for fWAR too much in Wood's case, since it's readily apparent he won't carry a league average BABIP, as FIP assumes

[Guest]

2.3 fWar

[Guest]

I really don't want to trade Schierholtz for the same reason.

 

I will say this for trading Schierholtz. If by adding a quality prospect or two for him made them more likely to use their prospect currency in trade this offseason, then that could potentially be worth it. e.g. Schierholtz and Gregg gets us Greg Polanco, and then we're more comfortable using Almora and Soler (local boys!) to headline a package for Stanton.

[sneakypower]

Wood's elite hitting counts, too

 

edit: for an unpleasant reminder of Barney's woeful hitting, in the last 2 seasons, Wood has a .654 OPS (99 PA) and Darwin Barney has a .629 OPS (944 PA)

[Little Slide Rooter]

I don't care how viciously I'm attacked for this; the very thought that the Cubs would be the ones with reservations over trading Travis Wood for Dylan Bundy is nothing short of delusional.

[Guest]

I don't care how viciously I'm attacked for this; the very thought that the Cubs would be the ones with reservations over trading Travis Wood for Dylan Bundy is nothing short of delusional.

 

Perhaps you might read the points being made and respond to any of them instead of just starting over with a broad and accusatory statement.

[bukie]

I don't care how viciously I'm attacked for this; the very thought that the Cubs would be the ones with reservations over trading Travis Wood for Dylan Bundy is nothing short of delusional.

 

Perhaps you might read the points being made and respond to any of them instead of just starting over with a broad and accusatory statement.

There's a first time for everything, I suppose.

[sneakypower]

unless things have changed significantly since this study on prospect surplus values came out a few years back (certainly possible), it can be argued a top-10 pitching prospect is worth a little over $20M in surplus value

 

fwiw, Wood's likely to eclipse that in this year alone

[jersey cubs fan]

I would be absolutely shocked if the Cubs hesitated in an opportunity to trade Wood for Bundy, notwithstanding having their doctors go over his medical reports. They have shown zero interest, to date, in emphasizing the now over the longterm value of any asset. They have not been hesitant to acquire, and pay for, guys with current injury/rehab situations. And I would guess they view Travis Wood's results as a Cub as better than what they expect them to be going forward.

 

Things like what "message you send by trading your all star" are completely irrelevant to this group.

 

I would think the only reason there would be a chance they would hesitate would be if they regretted the path they have taken already, but I cannot imagine that is the case. It would be pretty much a text book example of a value-oriented transaction they would be likely to jump at.

[Guest]

I would be absolutely shocked if the Cubs hesitated in an opportunity to trade Wood for Bundy, notwithstanding having their doctors go over his medical reports. They have shown zero interest, to date, in emphasizing the now over the longterm value of any asset. They have not been hesitant to acquire, and pay for, guys with current injury/rehab situations. And I would guess they view Travis Wood's results as a Cub as better than what they expect them to be going forward.

 

Things like what "message you send by trading your all star" are completely irrelevant to this group.

 

I would think the only reason there would be a chance they would hesitate would be if they regretted the path they have taken already, but I cannot imagine that is the case. It would be pretty much a text book example of a value-oriented transaction they would be likely to jump at.

 

In the last 4 weeks they've added Olt, Grimm, Strop, and Arrieta when they very likely could've gotten different players with lesser warts/greater potential that were not as close to MLB ready. I can't agree at all with "They have shown zero interest, to date, in emphasizing the now over the longterm value of any asset." Arguello actually put it pretty well just now:

 

I also believe the Cubs greater interest is in building with assets that give them short term value as well as long term value. It's a common misperception that the Cubs are willing to forgo short term value to get long term value. Their preference, whenever possible is to have both.

[jersey cubs fan]

I would be absolutely shocked if the Cubs hesitated in an opportunity to trade Wood for Bundy, notwithstanding having their doctors go over his medical reports. They have shown zero interest, to date, in emphasizing the now over the longterm value of any asset. They have not been hesitant to acquire, and pay for, guys with current injury/rehab situations. And I would guess they view Travis Wood's results as a Cub as better than what they expect them to be going forward.

 

Things like what "message you send by trading your all star" are completely irrelevant to this group.

 

I would think the only reason there would be a chance they would hesitate would be if they regretted the path they have taken already, but I cannot imagine that is the case. It would be pretty much a text book example of a value-oriented transaction they would be likely to jump at.

 

In the last 4 weeks they've added Olt, Grimm, Strop, and Arrieta when they very likely could've gotten different players with lesser warts/greater potential that were not as close to MLB ready. I can't agree at all with "They have shown zero interest, to date, in emphasizing the now over the longterm value of any asset." Arguello actually put it pretty well just now:

 

I also believe the Cubs greater interest is in building with assets that give them short term value as well as long term value. It's a common misperception that the Cubs are willing to forgo short term value to get long term value. Their preference, whenever possible is to have both.

 

I don't think he put that well at all. It's a meaningless comment. What they theoretically "could" have had isn't particularly meaningful, since it's all speculation and they were trading away a bunch of flawed guys in the first place.

 

You can disagree but you know you are wrong. How is any of what they've done emphasizing the now over the longterm value? Now isn't a guy who might make the team next year. The fact that they acquired guys who can play in AA or AAA doesn't mean they are emphasizing the now, at all.

[bukie]

I don't think he put that well at all. It's a meaningless comment. What they theoretically "could" have had isn't particularly meaningful, since it's all speculation and they were trading away a bunch of flawed guys in the first place.

 

You can disagree but you know you are wrong. How is any of what they've done emphasizing the now over the longterm value? Now isn't a guy who might make the team next year. The fact that they acquired guys who can play in AA or AAA doesn't mean they are emphasizing the now, at all.

 

Trading for guys like Olt, Grimm, Arrieta and Strop emphasizes a more near-term approach than trading for higher ceiling, lower-level types.

 

You can disagree but you know you are wrong.

[Guest]

So the fact that the Cubs when trading players at the deadline haven't acquired guys who immediately are placed on the MLB roster means they have "zero interest, to date, in emphasizing the now over the longterm value of any asset"? Or is it the fact that they're selling pending FAs when they're well out of the race that's the example of "not-now" valuation?

 

You're being ridiculous here. The vast majority of the value they've received in trades this year is either on the MLB team now(Strop), could be at the MLB level if there was a real purpose to doing so(Arrieta), or working on fixing some things in their game so they can contribute as early as September, and most likely next year(Olt, Grimm). That's pretty clearly placing a priority on guys who can make an impact now and later.

 

The implication that we can't infer who else they might've received is probably more ridiculous. Not only is it very clear that they could've gotten different players by the names floated both then and traded since then(e.g. Odor, Sardinas, Alfaro mentioned by mutliple sources in Garza rumors, Baltimore trading Delmonico for K-Rod), but if that point were true the entire argument falls apart because by default it's both the most now and most later move they can make, because you've eliminated all other options as fantasy.

[Guest]

I don't think he put that well at all. It's a meaningless comment. What they theoretically "could" have had isn't particularly meaningful, since it's all speculation and they were trading away a bunch of flawed guys in the first place.

 

You can disagree but you know you are wrong. How is any of what they've done emphasizing the now over the longterm value? Now isn't a guy who might make the team next year. The fact that they acquired guys who can play in AA or AAA doesn't mean they are emphasizing the now, at all.

 

Trading for guys like Olt, Grimm, Arrieta and Strop emphasizes a more near-term approach than trading for higher ceiling, lower-level types.

 

You can disagree but you know you are wrong.

 

Pretty much this.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I don't think he put that well at all. It's a meaningless comment. What they theoretically "could" have had isn't particularly meaningful, since it's all speculation and they were trading away a bunch of flawed guys in the first place.

 

You can disagree but you know you are wrong. How is any of what they've done emphasizing the now over the longterm value? Now isn't a guy who might make the team next year. The fact that they acquired guys who can play in AA or AAA doesn't mean they are emphasizing the now, at all.

 

Trading for guys like Olt, Grimm, Arrieta and Strop emphasizes a more near-term approach than trading for higher ceiling, lower-level types.

 

You can disagree but you know you are wrong.

 

Pretty much this.

 

That argument would be relevant if we were talking about low level/ceiling prospects in general, but we're talking the number #2 overall prospect in baseball entering the season and #17 mid season even following TJS.

 

Travis Wood for Dylan Bradley coming off of TJS is the very definition of selling incredibly high. And by that I mean that Dan Duquette would have to be incredibly high to make that deal.

[Guest]

His name is Dylan Bundy, he's coming off of Tommy John surgery, and he has 18 innings pitched above A ball.