Offseason Rumors

[Backtobanks]

I would bet a lot of money that the Cubs do not trade Castro at the deadline just because they drafted Trea Turner. Believing that requires a lot of things to be true, like Turner becoming a much better prospect than he is at the moment, the front office being absolutely convinced Baez isn't a SS, and the front office having similar feelings about Alcantara or just trading him altogether.

 

More simply, if having a Top 10 SS and another Top 100 SS at AAA is not enough of a logjam to trade Castro, then drafting Trea Turner(who at this point isn't on the level that Bryant was, the same Bryant whose ETA is probably 2 years from his draft day) won't make a difference.

 

EDIT: Maybe even more to the point, the idea of coming up with contingencies based on your #4 overall draft pick that's 6 months and a college season away from happening is kinda absurd.

 

Absolutely nothing absurd about exploring different scenarios on paper and assigning weighted probablities to see what decisions bubble up. Scenario planning is a tool used by many in and out of baseball.

 

I totally agree with you Hoops. I thought the whole point of hiring Theo was using technology to evaluate players and plan scenarios to acquire the players needed to win the WS. Many of the discussions here involve which amateurs will be drafted next year, which FAs will be available, etc.

[Sammy Sofa]

I would bet a lot of money that the Cubs do not trade Castro at the deadline just because they drafted Trea Turner. Believing that requires a lot of things to be true, like Turner becoming a much better prospect than he is at the moment, the front office being absolutely convinced Baez isn't a SS, and the front office having similar feelings about Alcantara or just trading him altogether.

 

More simply, if having a Top 10 SS and another Top 100 SS at AAA is not enough of a logjam to trade Castro, then drafting Trea Turner(who at this point isn't on the level that Bryant was, the same Bryant whose ETA is probably 2 years from his draft day) won't make a difference.

 

EDIT: Maybe even more to the point, the idea of coming up with contingencies based on your #4 overall draft pick that's 6 months and a college season away from happening is kinda absurd.

 

Absolutely nothing absurd about exploring different scenarios on paper and assigning weighted probablities to see what decisions bubble up. Scenario planning is a tool used by many in and out of baseball.

 

I totally agree with you Hoops.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GNKcJP7dZ6A/SsFZHlF9ETI/AAAAAAAACjc/tBZvq32399E/s400/godfather_07_0810081442_id_176569.jpg

[SouthSideRyan]

 

 

As a quick sidebar, I'd be interested to see how people are interested in having transaction threads go this offseason. Right now it seems like everything is getting consolidated in a very small number of threads, which isn't the greatest when there's multiple news items that come up. Any suggestions?

 

I think the big ticket guys deserve their own threads, minor moves elsewhere. I feel like that's how its' always been done.

[Guest]

I would bet a lot of money that the Cubs do not trade Castro at the deadline just because they drafted Trea Turner. Believing that requires a lot of things to be true, like Turner becoming a much better prospect than he is at the moment, the front office being absolutely convinced Baez isn't a SS, and the front office having similar feelings about Alcantara or just trading him altogether.

 

More simply, if having a Top 10 SS and another Top 100 SS at AAA is not enough of a logjam to trade Castro, then drafting Trea Turner(who at this point isn't on the level that Bryant was, the same Bryant whose ETA is probably 2 years from his draft day) won't make a difference.

 

EDIT: Maybe even more to the point, the idea of coming up with contingencies based on your #4 overall draft pick that's 6 months and a college season away from happening is kinda absurd.

 

Absolutely nothing absurd about exploring different scenarios on paper and assigning weighted probablities to see what decisions bubble up. Scenario planning is a tool used by many in and out of baseball.

 

I totally agree with you Hoops.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GNKcJP7dZ6A/SsFZHlF9ETI/AAAAAAAACjc/tBZvq32399E/s400/godfather_07_0810081442_id_176569.jpg

 

http://hotteahotbooks.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/pennywise-the-dancing-sewer-clown-tim-curry-dantania-blogspot-com.jpeg

[Have a seat, Neifi]

Sorry but this is just insane:

 

Jon Heyman

‏@JonHeymanCBS

i team that offered $52M for 4 yrs for peralta was told they're not even in game. will be fascinating how high it goes.

[Pushfrog98]

Sorry but this is just insane:

 

Jon Heyman

‏@JonHeymanCBS

i team that offered $52M for 4 yrs for peralta was told they're not even in game. will be fascinating how high it goes.

I read that the Cardinals are close to signing him.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/cardinals-peralta-close-to-deal.html

[HoopsCubs]

I would bet a lot of money that the Cubs do not trade Castro at the deadline just because they drafted Trea Turner. Believing that requires a lot of things to be true, like Turner becoming a much better prospect than he is at the moment, the front office being absolutely convinced Baez isn't a SS, and the front office having similar feelings about Alcantara or just trading him altogether.

 

More simply, if having a Top 10 SS and another Top 100 SS at AAA is not enough of a logjam to trade Castro, then drafting Trea Turner(who at this point isn't on the level that Bryant was, the same Bryant whose ETA is probably 2 years from his draft day) won't make a difference.

 

EDIT: Maybe even more to the point, the idea of coming up with contingencies based on your #4 overall draft pick that's 6 months and a college season away from happening is kinda absurd.

 

Absolutely nothing absurd about exploring different scenarios on paper and assigning weighted probablities to see what decisions bubble up. Scenario planning is a tool used by many in and out of baseball.

 

I totally agree with you Hoops. I thought the whole point of hiring Theo was using technology to evaluate players and plan scenarios to acquire the players needed to win the WS. Many of the discussions here involve which amateurs will be drafted next year, which FAs will be available, etc.

 

It's not a question of whether someone agrees with me or not. The FO is clearly telling us what they're doing, but a majority of us are still not hearing. And I am not sure whether it's that we don't get it or that we don't want to get it. I've been away 5 years. Back then, it was all about Hendry being too short-sighted and not doing the right things for the future. Now, I am hearing fixing this is taking way too long, let's cut a corner, pay Jacoby Ellsbury $100M and let's get to .500. "Cyclical ironies" is a phrase my previous President used to utter - it's appropriate here.

 

This FO gave the owner an assessment and a plan, and told him it would take 4-5 years to fix, which is why they got a 5 year deal in the first place. They absolutely do not give a rat's arse about their win-loss record in 2014 as they didn't in '12 and '13. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves. They have a model that actively monitors attendance (revenue) and payroll (expenses), and as one goes down, the other will, and vice versa. They do not want long term contracts with players over 30 until the building block and nucleus is in place at the major league level. The goal was to be bad, get high picks and create a sustainable culture. Have there been bumps in the road? Of course. They've made mistakes. But the plan is still sound. They just need to cash in short term assets for 2 or 3 high ceiling arms.

 

You should feel free to question and express your opinions. I'm not 100% correct - never claimed to be. But unless you have engineered a business turn-around for a distressed situation or been tasked to fix a festeringly damaged P&L for a multi-million dollar business as many on this board have, you just will not appreciate the short term challenges this FO is facing.

 

I remain intrigued with how they are going about this, and still believe that there are good days ahead!

 

Now, back to the offseason.... it looks like activity is about to bust wide open...

Edited November 24, 2013 by HoopsCubs

[Sammy Sofa]

People "appreciate" it just fine; a lot of us think it's an issue of the Ricketts suffering some pretty serious setbacks in terms of their financial planning and everything is paying the price because of it. I highly doubt that anyone's plan was just to just shrug off three or more entire seasons of baseball; that sounds like the exact opposite of a sound business plan.

[HoopsCubs]

The Cubs have been talking to Scott Kazmir's agents over the last few days. Cubs are interested in a 1 year deal + option. Kazmir wants a 3 year deal. At this time, the Cubs are not prepared to give him that.

 

My source was told today that the Cubs are one of 4 teams actively talking to Detroit about CF Austin Jackson. Tigers are giving teams the impression that they want to shed salaries, so that they can do something really big. Some still don't think Ian Kinsler is going to start the season in a Tiger uniform.

[rawaction]

The Cubs have been talking to Scott Kazmir's agents over the last few days. Cubs are interested in a 1 year deal + option. Kazmir wants a 3 year deal. At this time, the Cubs are not prepared to give him that.

 

My source was told today that the Cubs are one of 4 teams actively talking to Detroit about CF Austin Jackson. Tigers are giving teams the impression that they want to shed salaries, so that they can do something really big. Some still don't think Ian Kinsler is going to start the season in a Tiger uniform.

 

I'd offer 2 and a team option for Kazmir. Really like him (as I've stated before) as far as the mid tier starters go. Not sure what it would take to get Jackson, but big fan of acquiring him if its a salary dump, though if it's cheaper....he and Dexter Fowler are pretty much the same player.

[HoopsCubs]

This is interesting. It seems Mike Illitch has a man-crush on Robinson Cano. He's asking Dave Dombrowski how he might get him.

 

I just looked at some salary numbers/estimates: if they can deal Porcello, Jackson and Kinsler, it would free up $25-30M of annual salary. That could accomodate Cano.

 

And if it's a salary dump exercise, Cubs would certainly be interested in taking on Porcello and Jackson. And the Yankees or Mets could certainly fit Kinsler.

[Deeg]

Certainly, Jackson in a vacuum is a nice addition. Throw in Porcello, even better. But what are you willing to give up? And please don't say "Darwin Barney" because only in the most Arguello-like, rose-colored worldview does Barney add significant value to a trade - he's one of the worst offensive players in baseball (including several SP).

 

Depending on the cost, if you could add Jackson and Porcello, sign Kazmir for 2 years plus an option, and trade Smaradzjia for a legit #1-2 starter prospect that's a pretty good offseason. But I certainly wouldn't give up any of our top-5 prospects for Jackson.

[Guest]

Certainly, Jackson in a vacuum is a nice addition. Throw in Porcello, even better. But what are you willing to give up? And please don't say "Darwin Barney" because only in the most Arguello-like, rose-colored worldview does Barney add significant value to a trade - he's one of the worst offensive players in baseball (including several SP).

 

Depending on the cost, if you could add Jackson and Porcello, sign Kazmir for 2 years plus an option, and trade Smaradzjia for a legit #1-2 starter prospect that's a pretty good offseason. But I certainly wouldn't give up any of our top-5 prospects for Jackson.

 

Yeah, I really like adding Jackson and Porcello, but even though you're being a touch harsh on Barney here, he's not even an option if the goal is to clear salary for Cano(or just to keep Kinsler). Lake could be a low cost OF option, but the most obvious match is Castillo. Castillo, Villanueva, and maybe part of Villanueva's salary for Porcello, Jackson, and Avila maybe? That'd make the team better, but I'm not sure if getting multiple short term improvements is what they'd want for trading a long term piece like Castillo.

[Sammy Sofa]

How many catchers along Castillo's lines actually end up being long term assets? It's probably the post-Soto experience talking, but I'm really a big fan of selling relatively high on him since he is a catcher.

[Guest]

How many catchers along Castillo's lines actually end up being long term assets? It's probably the post-Soto experience talking, but I'm really a big fan of selling relatively high on him since he is a catcher.

 

That along with his approach at the plate and a relative surplus of catching alternatives on the market are reasons I'm okay with trading Castillo, but in this case I feel like i'm shoe-horning it in to fit Detroit's needs. My point is more that if you're going to trade him and only get average to slightly above average guys in return, it's probably preferable to get some guys who are under control for more than 2 years. It also has the side benefit of not taking you out of the running for some bigger FAs, as the deal I outlined above adds about ~10 million for next year. If we're cutting payroll relative to last year, you're pretty much staking your offseason to those guys. Not terrible, but not awesome.

[Sammy Sofa]

How many catchers along Castillo's lines actually end up being long term assets? It's probably the post-Soto experience talking, but I'm really a big fan of selling relatively high on him since he is a catcher.

 

That along with his approach at the plate and a relative surplus of catching alternatives on the market are reasons I'm okay with trading Castillo, but in this case I feel like i'm shoe-horning it in to fit Detroit's needs. My point is more that if you're going to trade him and only get average to slightly above average guys in return, it's probably preferable to get some guys who are under control for more than 2 years. It also has the side benefit of not taking you out of the running for some bigger FAs, as the deal I outlined above adds about ~10 million for next year. If we're cutting payroll relative to last year, you're pretty much staking your offseason to those guys. Not terrible, but not awesome.

 

Good points.

[rawaction]

Looks like Peralta to the Cards.

[jersey cubs fan]

.

 

You should feel free to question and express your opinions. I'm not 100% correct - never claimed to be. But unless you have engineered a business turn-around for a distressed situation or been tasked to fix a festeringly damaged P&L for a multi-million dollar business as many on this board have, you just will not appreciate the short term challenges this FO is facing.

.

Well if that ain't all just a big ball of nothing.

[Guest]

You should feel free to question and express your opinions. I'm not 100% correct - never claimed to be. But unless you have engineered a business turn-around for a distressed situation or been tasked to fix a festeringly damaged P&L for a multi-million dollar business as many on this board have, you just will not appreciate the short term challenges this FO is facing.

 

For the record, my objection has nothing to do with the timeline for winning, I think most everyone here would agree I've been more forgiving/"appreciative" of the front office than the average poster. My point is that even the most MLB ready draft picks are so far away that making contingencies for your MLB roster based on who you might draft 6 months from now is just a waste of time. Especially when we're talking about a pick who is very far from being considered a finished product at the moment, and if he does take a big step forward there's 3 teams who have a shot at him before the Cubs. I'm pretty sure there will be very few moves made with clearing a spot for Kris Bryant in mind in the next 6 months, and he's a far faster riser than Turner will likely be, plus he's already been in the system for half a year.

[davell]

I like Jackson a bunch. Don't like that he's a Boras guy though. 2 years til FA, has his extension window passed? Did he ever have one? Not that you can take Cameron's rankings as the gospel, but he did list Jackson at no. 50 on his top trade values this past year. Obviously, he's not anything close to a salary dump, but one, would Detroit even trade him for minor leaguers? Being in total "go for it" mode, I doubt it. Would we want to trade Castillo for a guy with two years of control, of which its not likely we're contending during that time? Again, I doubt it.

 

I like him and Porcello, just don't see them as great fits, assuming we're looking at our window opening in 2016 anyway. If we plan on sooner, by all means, they can help us.....

[davell]

I also have been in favor of the plan from Day 1, have no issue with moves made by the FO since they've taken over. I don't expect perfection. Am very disappointed in missteps I see from the business side and didn't envision the plan taking AS long as its going to.

 

That said, I definitely agree with TT-No way our FO decides to trade Castro based on who we draft at 4. It's just not something you do. No offense to Hoops or his source, just don't see that going down that way.

[jersey cubs fan]

I've never been in favor of tanking and still think it was a dick move by these guys.

[CUBZ99]

I've never been in favor of tanking and still think it was a dick move by these guys.

 

I agree, but I refuse to believe that they are trying to lose on purpose. I thought we were getting a front office that was supposed to excel at scouting and drafting. Almost any team can get good draft picks early in the draft and if tanking was their purpose they have sucked at it. We have yet to get the #1 overall pick so far. I'm guessing they were mislead by the Ricketts regarding the financial situation when they signed on.

[Sammy Sofa]

I've never been in favor of tanking and still think it was a dick move by these guys.

 

I agree, but I refuse to believe that they are trying to lose on purpose. I thought we were getting a front office that was supposed to excel at scouting and drafting. Almost any team can get good draft picks early in the draft and if tanking was their purpose they have sucked at it. We have yet to get the #1 overall pick so far. I'm guessing they were mislead by the Ricketts regarding the financial situation when they signed on.

 

I think they did expect to have a crappy season or two and then the upgrades to Wrigley knocked everything into limbo and they were just sorta stuck for the time being while the Ricketts figure out what the hell they're going to do money-wise. As soon as they can actually put up the new signs and the video boards and whatever you'll likely see some more movement.

[gscool89]

RT @TomLoxas: Hearing Samardzija is possibly gone before winter meetings.