Offseason Rumors

[Boris]

I might freak out even more than I did with Rizzo if we land Bradley. I love that kid.

[Clem Fandango]

Some additional news from the same source:

 

Other than Castillo, Rizzo, Lake, Sweeney, Arietta, Wood, Strop and Grimm, all Cubs will be shopped this offseason.

 

So Castillo is not being shopped? That Arencibia rumor makes no sense then. Good.

 

I can see "current" truth to that. No reason to shop him unless you get Salty. Maybe Lake isn't being shopped, but he's a perfect 2nd or 3rd piece in a large deal. Not sure his value will ever be higher either.

 

Yeah I don't buy that they're keeping Lake. Obviously they will probably listen, but if they intend to keep Castillo I'd be fine with that, given his improvement over the season defensively. Not shopping Lake makes little sense unless they truly believe he can be our Ben Zobrist... but I don't personally buy into that. I agree with you that he makes a great 2nd or 3rd piece to a bigger deal.

[davell]

FWIW, if I understood correctly, ABTY was saying that the royals were in deep on samardzija but that towers got involved and now the royals felt like they were shopping for an F-150 and someone else came in thinking they were buying a Lotus.

 

he also said that bradley was off limits, though, so I'm not sure how those both could be true at the same time.

D-Backs could be offering Skaggs and Delgado, with KC stuck on one of Ventura or Zimmer.

[Guest]

FWIW, if I understood correctly, ABTY was saying that the royals were in deep on samardzija but that towers got involved and now the royals felt like they were shopping for an F-150 and someone else came in thinking they were buying a Lotus.

 

he also said that bradley was off limits, though, so I'm not sure how those both could be true at the same time.

D-Backs could be offering Skaggs and Delgado, with KC stuck on one of Ventura or Zimmer.

 

He also said the Royals were considering offering Zimmer, but no one else of value above A-ball. The two Royals rumors aren't really compatible, for better or worse.

[Clem Fandango]

FWIW, if I understood correctly, ABTY was saying that the royals were in deep on samardzija but that towers got involved and now the royals felt like they were shopping for an F-150 and someone else came in thinking they were buying a Lotus.

 

he also said that bradley was off limits, though, so I'm not sure how those both could be true at the same time.

 

Bradley being off limits doesn't surprise me, if true. Arizona still has some great players to build a trade around. KC and AZ really are two of the best fits for a Samardzija trade. It's nice that they both are apparently in on him.

[HoopsCubs]

FWIW, if I understood correctly, ABTY was saying that the royals were in deep on samardzija but that towers got involved and now the royals felt like they were shopping for an F-150 and someone else came in thinking they were buying a Lotus.

 

he also said that bradley was off limits, though, so I'm not sure how those both could be true at the same time.

 

Supposedly the terrain changed again when the Cubs expanded the deal with KC to include Darwin and Nate. FO would prefer deals with AL teams.

 

As I said yesterday, the information I have suggests the Cubs will do everything in their power to utilize current major league assets like Shark, Castro, Barney, Scheirholtz and Russell plus non-core prospects (Vitters, Pineyro, McNutt, etc...) to acquire a minimum of 2 prospects, who have "top of the rotation" stuff and are less than 2 years away from the Majors.

[Clem Fandango]

FWIW, if I understood correctly, ABTY was saying that the royals were in deep on samardzija but that towers got involved and now the royals felt like they were shopping for an F-150 and someone else came in thinking they were buying a Lotus.

 

he also said that bradley was off limits, though, so I'm not sure how those both could be true at the same time.

 

Supposedly the terrain changed again when the Cubs expanded the deal with KC to include Darwin and Nate. FO would prefer deals with AL teams.

 

As I said yesterday, the information I have suggests the Cubs will do everything in their power to utilize current major league assets like Shark, Castro, Barney, Scheirholtz and Russell plus non-core prospects (Vitters, Pineyro, McNutt, etc...) to acquire a minimum of 2 prospects, who have "top of the rotation" stuff and are less than 2 years away from the Majors.

 

If we need to include more to make Zimmer + Ventura happen in that deal, would Vogelbach put it over the top? He'd be arriving right around the time Butler's contract is up.

[Splendid Splinter]

If we need to include more to make Zimmer + Ventura happen in that deal, would Vogelbach put it over the top? He'd be arriving right around the time Butler's contract is up.

 

I think Voggy is a year away from being an extremely valuable trade piece to an AL team.

[Clem Fandango]

Cubs signed OF Aaron Cunningham to a minor league contract.

Cunningham hit .247/.337/.401 with 10 homers and 12 steals in 115 games this past year for the Rangers' Triple-A affiliate. He'll be organizational depth for the Cubs.

 

Irrelevant signing, but figured it should be noted.

[Coach C]

Herrera was also (somewhat inexplicably) demoted to the AAA rotation for a while this summer. Their treatment of him certainly hasn't been reflective of what he's accomplished(144 IP, 3.06 xFIP, 9.4/2.6 K/BB thru age 23), which combined with their glut of relievers, has made him a favorite target of mine for a while.

 

EDIT: Cain is also a good buy low-ish target. As much as I've wanted to trade for Bourjos, there's not a ton of difference between them, and Cain has an extra year of team control and isn't coming off wrist surgery.

 

Herrera was demoted to AAA because he had no confidence on his secondary pitches, and when he was throwing secondary pitches, they were too wild. Batters were also realizing that his off-speed pitches were nowhere in the strike zone, so they sat on the fastball. He also has a great fastball, but sometimes it straightens out that it eventually ends up being out of the park.

 

He has potential, but he also reminded me of Marmol, mostly because of control issues.

 

Cain is a good player, but the problem with Cain is his inability to stay healthy. He missed some significant time because of a groin injury, and other various of injuries. But he is a very solid defender, for the most part.

 

This is just my recollection off of memory. I'm sure there's more that I am forgetting at the moment.

[bhogg]

If we need to include more to make Zimmer + Ventura happen in that deal, would Vogelbach put it over the top? He'd be arriving right around the time Butler's contract is up.

 

 

 

We candy hope there's no connection to earl Cunningham

[The-Kris-Bryant]

FWIW, if I understood correctly, ABTY was saying that the royals were in deep on samardzija but that towers got involved and now the royals felt like they were shopping for an F-150 and someone else came in thinking they were buying a Lotus.

 

he also said that bradley was off limits, though, so I'm not sure how those both could be true at the same time.

 

Supposedly the terrain changed again when the Cubs expanded the deal with KC to include Darwin and Nate. FO would prefer deals with AL teams.

 

As I said yesterday, the information I have suggests the Cubs will do everything in their power to utilize current major league assets like Shark, Castro, Barney, Scheirholtz and Russell plus non-core prospects (Vitters, Pineyro, McNutt, etc...) to acquire a minimum of 2 prospects, who have "top of the rotation" stuff and are less than 2 years away from the Majors.

 

If we need to include more to make Zimmer + Ventura happen in that deal, would Vogelbach put it over the top? He'd be arriving right around the time Butler's contract is up.

 

 

Why not sweeten it more with Alcantara + Shark for Zimmer, Ventura and etc? Hell I'd entertain a Shark & Castro deal if we could get two elite SP prospects - depending on the secondary guys in the package.

[davell]

I can't see anyone having the pitching that it would take to get me to part with both Shark and Castro in one deal. I asked Nick Faleris in his BP chat today if a top 50, a top 100, and an org top 10 guy was about right for Shark and he said it seemed rich, depending on the major league readiness of the prospects. At any rate, I can't see us parting with him for LESS than that.....So, if you combine all 3 of those players, do you get something close to Archie Bradley or Jameson Taillon in a straight up deal? Possibly. But, if you're going to try for a 1 for 1 deal, thats about the only 2 pitching prospects on THAT level. And who knows if either team is actually comfortable making the deal?

 

Then, add in whatever you think Castro is worth.....Personally, I'll still say more than Shark, in order for us to deal him and then look at the landscape of teams in need and their prospects or young players and I can't see but a single team capable of making us deal them together.

 

The closest I could see is Pittsburgh(and do you want to deal those 2 within the division?) I'd do it, if I got back Taillon, Glasnow, Polanco, and Kingham.....But no way would Pittsburgh make that deal. And I wouldn't take less either.(not selling low on Castro and needing to hurt Pitt since we'd be dealing with the consequences of the deal for a long time)

 

I'm fine selling Shark, it makes sense if he won't extend, and we get ready or near ready pitching in return. But I'm not giving up on Castro at this point, unless I'm getting back the same return I would have at this point last year and it makes sense to do it. Which I just don't see happening-he's lost some value. But he can get it back with a solid season.(I'm more confident than most here that he will, I guess)

[Guest]

I can't see anyone having the pitching that it would take to get me to part with both Shark and Castro in one deal. I asked Nick Faleris in his BP chat today if a top 50, a top 100, and an org top 10 guy was about right for Shark and he said it seemed rich, depending on the major league readiness of the prospects. At any rate, I can't see us parting with him for LESS than that.....So, if you combine all 3 of those players, do you get something close to Archie Bradley or Jameson Taillon in a straight up deal? Possibly. But, if you're going to try for a 1 for 1 deal, thats about the only 2 pitching prospects on THAT level. And who knows if either team is actually comfortable making the deal?

 

Then, add in whatever you think Castro is worth.....Personally, I'll still say more than Shark, in order for us to deal him and then look at the landscape of teams in need and their prospects or young players and I can't see but a single team capable of making us deal them together.

 

The closest I could see is Pittsburgh(and do you want to deal those 2 within the division?) I'd do it, if I got back Taillon, Glasnow, Polanco, and Kingham.....But no way would Pittsburgh make that deal. And I wouldn't take less either.(not selling low on Castro and needing to hurt Pitt since we'd be dealing with the consequences of the deal for a long time)

 

I'm fine selling Shark, it makes sense if he won't extend, and we get ready or near ready pitching in return. But I'm not giving up on Castro at this point, unless I'm getting back the same return I would have at this point last year and it makes sense to do it. Which I just don't see happening-he's lost some value. But he can get it back with a solid season.(I'm more confident than most here that he will, I guess)

 

I don't see how you can or should expect that given the most recent data point. His value has diminished and fairly so.

 

What isn't certain is whether you can get enough in return to justify dealing him for what his value should be now. But you certainly shouldn't expect to get what you would've a year ago.

[davell]

I can't see anyone having the pitching that it would take to get me to part with both Shark and Castro in one deal. I asked Nick Faleris in his BP chat today if a top 50, a top 100, and an org top 10 guy was about right for Shark and he said it seemed rich, depending on the major league readiness of the prospects. At any rate, I can't see us parting with him for LESS than that.....So, if you combine all 3 of those players, do you get something close to Archie Bradley or Jameson Taillon in a straight up deal? Possibly. But, if you're going to try for a 1 for 1 deal, thats about the only 2 pitching prospects on THAT level. And who knows if either team is actually comfortable making the deal?

 

Then, add in whatever you think Castro is worth.....Personally, I'll still say more than Shark, in order for us to deal him and then look at the landscape of teams in need and their prospects or young players and I can't see but a single team capable of making us deal them together.

 

The closest I could see is Pittsburgh(and do you want to deal those 2 within the division?) I'd do it, if I got back Taillon, Glasnow, Polanco, and Kingham.....But no way would Pittsburgh make that deal. And I wouldn't take less either.(not selling low on Castro and needing to hurt Pitt since we'd be dealing with the consequences of the deal for a long time)

 

I'm fine selling Shark, it makes sense if he won't extend, and we get ready or near ready pitching in return. But I'm not giving up on Castro at this point, unless I'm getting back the same return I would have at this point last year and it makes sense to do it. Which I just don't see happening-he's lost some value. But he can get it back with a solid season.(I'm more confident than most here that he will, I guess)

 

I don't see how you can or should expect that given the most recent data point. His value has diminished and fairly so.

 

What isn't certain is whether you can get enough in return to justify dealing him for what his value should be now. But you certainly shouldn't expect to get what you would've a year ago.

 

Basically, it's just my way of saying I'm not trading Starlin right now.

[Guest]

 

I don't see how you can or should expect that given the most recent data point. His value has diminished and fairly so.

 

What isn't certain is whether you can get enough in return to justify dealing him for what his value should be now. But you certainly shouldn't expect to get what you would've a year ago.

 

i don't see why that's so crazy. if you don't get what you could have gotten for him last year, you don't trade him, because you don't have to trade him. you could convince other teams that last year he was experimenting

[Guest]

 

I don't see how you can or should expect that given the most recent data point. His value has diminished and fairly so.

 

What isn't certain is whether you can get enough in return to justify dealing him for what his value should be now. But you certainly shouldn't expect to get what you would've a year ago.

 

i don't see why that's so crazy. if you don't get what you could have gotten for him last year, you don't trade him, because you don't have to trade him. you could convince other teams that last year he was experimenting

 

I'm saying we should also have changed our idea of his value and what would constitute surplus value and a good trade for us probably isn't the same as it was a year ago.

 

I don't see how you just disregard 2013. It might be an outlier and he might recover, but it nevertheless should play a significant role in our evaluation of what he is actually worth and it would do nothing but bring it down from where it was a year ago.

 

Any other position would be irrational.

[Guest]

For instance, before this season I'm pretty sure SSR argued against trading Starlin for Bryce Harper.

 

I'm pretty sure he'd change his stance on that at this point.

[SouthSideRyan]

FO would prefer deals with AL teams.

 

 

If this was true, then our front office is [expletive] stupid.

[Clem Fandango]

FO would prefer deals with AL teams.

 

 

If this was true, then our front office is [expletive] stupid.

 

I'm missing the logic behind this statement. If they are acknowledging that there are better trade matchups with AL teams vs. NL teams this offseason (bear in mind it doesn't say they WON'T trade with NL teams) how is that stupid?

[Guest]

Because "we would prefer trades with teams that match up better" is self-evident, so stating it as a point indicates something more, like not wanting to trade assets to NL teams for competitive reasons. That would be stupid, as SSR notes.

[Guest]

I interpreted it as they want to trade him to the AL so they dont have to compete against him much. Which id guess is an attempt to make Arizona pay more to compensate.

[HoopsCubs]

Because "we would prefer trades with teams that match up better" is self-evident, so stating it as a point indicates something more, like not wanting to trade assets to NL teams for competitive reasons. That would be stupid, as SSR notes.

 

I think it's a leverage strategy on a case-by-case basis. The three teams currently most vocal about wanting to acquire Samardzija are Toronto, Kansas City and Arizona from what I've been told. Strictly from an upside potential point of view, the Cubs probably think the D-Backs have the better near-Major League ready prospects, so they throw it out there that they'd prefer to trade him to TOR or KC just to see if AZ flinches. It's good cat and mouse.

 

I don't think this FO cares about AL or NL, in general. We've seen them trade with NL teams (CIN, ATL, WAS, SD, LAD) and we've seen trades with AL teams (TEX, BAL, BOS, NYY). For example, if the Mets had been willing to trade Noah Syndergaard, Starlin Castro would have been playing home games at CitiField in August and September.

 

The quest remains to find the best arms, so that they can be linked up with the forecast of awesome hitting on the near horizon.

[RammyFanny]

I just looked at Tyrell Jenkins numbers and they are awful. Why is he even being mentioned in those original Castro trade rumors? Bad results and even worse K numbers. Does he secretly throw 102 or something?

[KingCubsFan]

For instance, before this season I'm pretty sure SSR argued against trading Starlin for Bryce Harper.

 

I'm pretty sure he'd change his stance on that at this point.

This board also wouldn't trade Soto for Mike Trout. We have a tendency to overvalue our own players.