Offseason Rumors

[davell]

Are we supposed to get excited over some reliever from OAK, who, as condition of trading for, comes with a waste of money in Alberto Callaspo attached?

 

If they're just going to spend the money poorly, why even spend it? Just to say you did?

If it's Doolittle or Cook, just to have to take Callaspo(a utility guy we CAN use, by the way), you really should go look at those two pitchers.....They're pretty [expletive] good.

[HoopsCubs]

Are we supposed to get excited over some reliever from OAK, who, as condition of trading for, comes with a waste of money in Alberto Callaspo attached?

 

If they're just going to spend the money poorly, why even spend it? Just to say you did?

 

My friend, I can't tell you who you should or should not get excited about. I am merely reporting when I hear something from someone I deem as credible.

 

I remain excited about the plan, and I'm glad we get a bird's eye view of the machinations (and hand wringing) as they attempt to engineer a sustainable turn-around under tough short-term economic conditions. If successful, it could be a Harvard Business Review case study some day.

[Guest]

Are we supposed to get excited over some reliever from OAK, who, as condition of trading for, comes with a waste of money in Alberto Callaspo attached?

 

If they're just going to spend the money poorly, why even spend it? Just to say you did?

 

Callaspo is one year removed from back to back 3 win seasons (well, 2.9 and 3.5)...

 

I wouldn't exactly term $4.9M or whatevver a waste of money. We can easily get surplus value out of him alone.

[Tyrant]

If successful, it could be a Harvard Business Review case study some day.

 

sure.

[USSoccer]

Are we supposed to get excited over some reliever from OAK, who, as condition of trading for, comes with a waste of money in Alberto Callaspo attached?

 

If they're just going to spend the money poorly, why even spend it? Just to say you did?

 

Callaspo is one year removed from back to back 3 win seasons (well, 2.9 and 3.5)...

 

I wouldn't exactly term $4.9M or whatevver a waste of money. We can easily get surplus value out of him alone.

 

 

It depends how much salary we take on; as a percentage of our overall available payroll, I'd rather that $4-5m go somewhere more impactful than on a guy who at best we're just going to try and flip in June.

 

ETA: A large part of that feeling is being sick of only looking forward to who we might be able to sell off for more attrition-rich prospects.

[Rob]

Callaspo has been a favorite little target of mine for years. I'd be pretty happy to get him as a "take this contract off our hands please" guy.

[Guest]

Callaspo has been a favorite little target of mine for years. I'd be pretty happy to get him as a "take this contract off our hands please" guy.

 

The thing I like the least about Callaspo is that he doesn't fit the roster very well. He's able to play 2B and 3B, but he's better at 3B where we have at least 3 okay options. He's a switch hitter, but he hits better RH where we currently have 3 other options(2 once Barney is traded). He'd do the job as a bridge/platoon at 2B, but at a certain point he's only so much better than a Watkins/Murphy platoon at doing that. If the payroll is 100 million and we can still go get a quality OF and SP, then that's fine with me, especially since a good reliever is the true aim of adding Callaspo. But even if we're clearing Barney, Shark, and Schierholtz, an 85 million payroll is restrictive enough for me to worry that Callaspo would leave them unable to make more productive moves.

[davell]

If you look at a move of Callaspo and one of Doolittle or Cook even as a 2014 move and nothing else, I find it hard to be upset, as it certainly seems fair to say for that 5 mill of payroll, you're likely adding 3 WAR. Give me another sscenario where that's possible, without giving up bigtime assets from within.

[Guest]

If you look at a move of Callaspo and one of Doolittle or Cook even as a 2014 move and nothing else, I find it hard to be upset, as it certainly seems fair to say for that 5 mill of payroll, you're likely adding 3 WAR. Give me another sscenario where that's possible, without giving up bigtime assets from within.

 

Yeah, if not giving up anything of substance it's def a good move.

[HoopsCubs]

Callaspo has been a favorite little target of mine for years. I'd be pretty happy to get him as a "take this contract off our hands please" guy.

 

The thing I like the least about Callaspo is that he doesn't fit the roster very well. He's able to play 2B and 3B, but he's better at 3B where we have at least 3 okay options. He's a switch hitter, but he hits better RH where we currently have 3 other options(2 once Barney is traded). He'd do the job as a bridge/platoon at 2B, but at a certain point he's only so much better than a Watkins/Murphy platoon at doing that. If the payroll is 100 million and we can still go get a quality OF and SP, then that's fine with me, especially since a good reliever is the true aim of adding Callaspo. But even if we're clearing Barney, Shark, and Schierholtz, an 85 million payroll is restrictive enough for me to worry that Callaspo would leave them unable to make more productive moves.

 

I agree with your take TT.

[SouthSideRyan]

If successful, it could be a Harvard Business Review case study some day.

 

Goodness

[rawaction]

The Cubs have had multiple conversations with the Oakland A's these past 2 days. My source hears a trade might be in the works to acquire one of the A's young relief pitchers, and to make the deal happen the Cubs would be willing to take on Alberto Callaspo's 1 year and $4.875M contract (and presumably play him at 2B for 3 months and flip him at the trade deadline).

What would the Cubs be giving up? Barney? Don't seem to need Schierholz or pitching prospects

[Guest]

If successful, it could be a Harvard Business Review case study some day.

 

Goodness

 

This makes me want to punch all the world's dicks

[Rob]

Callaspo has been a favorite little target of mine for years. I'd be pretty happy to get him as a "take this contract off our hands please" guy.

 

The thing I like the least about Callaspo is that he doesn't fit the roster very well. He's able to play 2B and 3B, but he's better at 3B where we have at least 3 okay options. He's a switch hitter, but he hits better RH where we currently have 3 other options(2 once Barney is traded). He'd do the job as a bridge/platoon at 2B, but at a certain point he's only so much better than a Watkins/Murphy platoon at doing that. If the payroll is 100 million and we can still go get a quality OF and SP, then that's fine with me, especially since a good reliever is the true aim of adding Callaspo. But even if we're clearing Barney, Shark, and Schierholtz, an 85 million payroll is restrictive enough for me to worry that Callaspo would leave them unable to make more productive moves.

 

Very good points. In a vacuum this would probably be a fine move, but there are bigger fish to fry right now.

[The-Kris-Bryant]

Callaspo has been a favorite little target of mine for years. I'd be pretty happy to get him as a "take this contract off our hands please" guy.

 

The thing I like the least about Callaspo is that he doesn't fit the roster very well. He's able to play 2B and 3B, but he's better at 3B where we have at least 3 okay options. He's a switch hitter, but he hits better RH where we currently have 3 other options(2 once Barney is traded). He'd do the job as a bridge/platoon at 2B, but at a certain point he's only so much better than a Watkins/Murphy platoon at doing that. If the payroll is 100 million and we can still go get a quality OF and SP, then that's fine with me, especially since a good reliever is the true aim of adding Callaspo. But even if we're clearing Barney, Shark, and Schierholtz, an 85 million payroll is restrictive enough for me to worry that Callaspo would leave them unable to make more productive moves.

why would we need to make productive moves? If the FO thinks 2014 is a lost cause, there is no reason to add production unless it's for 2015/2016. I don't think the FO really cares if we win 75 or 70. There is no need to spend to win 80.

[rawaction]

As was said, if its a good reliever like Doolittle or Cook, then its basically the same as signing a FA like O'Flaherty. But you also get a decent IF out of it that u can possibly flip at a later date. I do worry about what they'd have to give up though. Of course they could be giving up salary too to make the money similar.

[davell]

ABTY thinks Bourjos to the Cubs has some legs.

[Guest]

why would we need to make productive moves? If the FO thinks 2014 is a lost cause, there is no reason to add production unless it's for 2015/2016. I don't think the FO really cares if we win 75 or 70. There is no need to spend to win 80.

 

I'm confused why you would interpret that otherwise. Did you think I meant they need to save room to spend on one year contracts or trading for pending FAs in the OF or rotation?

 

ABTY thinks Bourjos to the Cubs has some legs.

 

Love hearing that, Bourjos is one of my favorite targets this offseason.

[Cubswin11]

ABTY thinks Bourjos to the Cubs has some legs.

Yeah, saw that post. Said we approached them about Trumbo but that went nowhere. Guess he would've played LF? Also said he's heard Kendrick and Richards names involved. Wouldn't mind adding either of those two guys, always have liked Kendrick. Bourjos would be a nice addition to the OF rotation. Any ideas what the Angels need/would be wanting to acquire?

[Sammy Sofa]

ABTY thinks Bourjos to the Cubs has some legs.

 

Love hearing that, Bourjos is one of my favorite targets this offseason.

 

Yeah, I'm a big Bourjos fan. Pulling that off would make me very happy.

[Guest]

Any ideas what the Angels need/would be wanting to acquire?

 

Some of it will depend on what they do with Aybar/Kendrick, but I believe they need to add starting pitching while also avoiding the luxury tax. They can't even approach Trout about an extension because of it, supposedly. That probably means Arrieta and Villanueva would be of interest, maybe Barney too if they find a taker for Kendrick?

[davell]

ABTY thinks Bourjos to the Cubs has some legs.

Yeah, saw that post. Said we approached them about Trumbo but that went nowhere. Guess he would've played LF? Also said he's heard Kendrick and Richards names involved. Wouldn't mind adding either of those two guys, always have liked Kendrick. Bourjos would be a nice addition to the OF rotation. Any ideas what the Angels need/would be wanting to acquire?

Well, he said Kendrick and Richards had been discussed. I didn't take it to mean in a Bourjos deal. My guess is Angels inquired on Shark and that's where they came up.

 

Angels want SP supposedly for either Trumbo or Bourjos. That's not much of an option for us, outside of E-Jax for Bourjos maybe? We'd need to bring in someone else, if its true that's what they want. Because they're system isn't capable of getting them much of anything.

[Cubswin11]

ABTY thinks Bourjos to the Cubs has some legs.

Yeah, saw that post. Said we approached them about Trumbo but that went nowhere. Guess he would've played LF? Also said he's heard Kendrick and Richards names involved. Wouldn't mind adding either of those two guys, always have liked Kendrick. Bourjos would be a nice addition to the OF rotation. Any ideas what the Angels need/would be wanting to acquire?

Well, he said Kendrick and Richards had been discussed. I didn't take it to mean in a Bourjos deal. My guess is Angels inquired on Shark and that's where they came up.

 

Angels want SP supposedly for either Trumbo or Bourjos. That's not much of an option for us, outside of E-Jax for Bourjos maybe? We'd need to bring in someone else, if its true that's what they want. Because they're system isn't capable of getting them much of anything.

I wonder if Wood would be in play here (if Theo/Jed feels he's in for major regression and he can't keep his peripherals up)?

[Guest]

Bourjos doesn't have that kind of trade value, that's why he's such an interesting trade target. He's coming off wrist surgery and has less than 400 PA the last 2 years combined.

[Cubswin11]

Yeah, obviously didn't mean a 1 for 1 swap but he could be the key piece being sent there on our side.