Hammel/Samardzija Traded to A's for Russell/McKinney/Straily

[DiamondMind]

it sets us up to acquire the Gregor Clegane of major league players and slot him in RF until eventually the Viper comes to kill him in 17 years.

 

http://i.imgur.com/ppTftBk.gif

[Guest]

[davell]

Sleeping on it, it's just sooooo [expletive] hard to add top 10 type guys. I mean damn, serious [expletive] impact. I'd rather get that than 3 top 100 types.

 

As for it being another hitter? Screw it, bats are so needed throughout baseball it's not even funny. And it's entirely plausible to say we've got an embarrassment of riches.

 

I don't want to trade a SS, we've got room for them all. I'm not sure what this means for 2015. We need one of Hendricks/Beeler/Wada/Straily to become a true option.

 

Arrieta/Wood/Jackson/one of those 4- I'd sign a big name, but I get trying to find another Hammel as well. Anyway, we can contend next year with no trades, a solid FA SP and an OFer without making any trades. Still think 2015 is the start of everything for us.

 

Geez, what a [expletive] lineup we've got coming......

[ScrubMD]

With the trade, the Cubs will have the No. 2 (Kris Bryant), No. 5 (Addison Russell) and No. 7 (Javier Baez) prospects in the game, as ranked in Baseball America’s upcoming Midseason Top 50, which went to press Thursday. They also have a massive traffic jam of big league and nearly big league ready infielders, all of whom have significant offensive potential.

 

 

:yahoo: :clapping:

 

BP has us with numbers 3,5,6,18, and 37.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

LOL, bandits.

[DiamondMind]

Yea - my facebook thread is full of people complaining about "acquiring more shortstops" - cubs fans are pretty stupid

[Ryne Ween]

We traded shark and hammel together so obviously we were going to get a top rates prospect. But it being a guy who won't come up until 2017 is a worst case scenario type trade.

[dew1679666265]

we gave up a 32-year old maholm-type and a guy who's 30 next season and is pretty good but hasn't ever put it all together consistently. we gave these up for a top 3 prospect, a youngish pitcher with decent peripherals, and a 19 year-old outfielder with a very very very advanced approach already.

 

Going by fWAR, Hammel has had 2 seasons of almost a full win more than Maholm (3.7 and 3.8), another season of close to Maholm's peak (2.6) and this year he's on pace for around a WAR of 4. He's better than Maholm and I might like Vizcaino more than Straily (that extra year of control of Maholm is important, but Hammel is still the superior pitcher and that should mean more).

 

The Russell/McKinney for Shark part of the trade doesn't bother me as much - mainly because of Russell. There's just a ton of risk in McKinney.

[Castros trade value]

Addison had already stepped on the Wrigley grass a few years back. Oh, and his name couldn't be better for playing at Wrigley.

 

http://baysportsjournal.blogspot.com/2012/06/as-get-little-of-everything-in-draft.html

[ctcf]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm a bit torn on this trade. I love Addison Russell and how much he contributes to our stacked minor league roster, but it just doesn't seem like we got that much outside of him and we gave up 2 great trade chips to get him.

 

McKinney seems like a slightly better version of Almora, is very young and has a ton of bust potential. Straily is 25 years old and it'll take Bosio magic to make him anything better than kinda average.

 

It just seems like we put all our eggs on one player (Russell) and that seems awful risky for a legit TOR pitcher in Shark and a very solid veteran in Hammel. I feel like we should have done better than Straily and maybe better than McKinney. Somebody convince me I'm wrong.

 

we gave up a 32-year old maholm-type and a guy who's 30 next season and is pretty good but hasn't ever put it all together consistently. we gave these up for a top 3 prospect, a youngish pitcher with decent peripherals, and a 19 year-old outfielder with a very very very advanced approach already.

 

ths trade is a disaster for our very real chances this season, but beyond, it sets us up to acquire the Gregor Clegane of major league players and slot him in RF until eventually the Viper comes to kill him in 17 years.

 

I also like how KLaw looked at it: if you break this trade into pieces it is essentially Russell and Strailey for Shark and McKinney for Hammel. Those are both great trades.

[Ryne Ween]

Yea - my facebook thread is full of people complaining about "acquiring more shortstops" - cubs fans are pretty stupid

 

No the idiots are the people who think we have a mid 90s Cleveland Indians lineup in our farm system.

[dew1679666265]

I feel like Straily will be pretty equatable to Hammel soon enough, I almost look at this trade as just Shark for Russel/McKinney

 

Or Straily could be a 2 WAR pitcher as his ceiling. I don't dislike that portion of the trade, just feel like it wasn't great value.

[ScrubMD]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm a bit torn on this trade. I love Addison Russell and how much he contributes to our stacked minor league roster, but it just doesn't seem like we got that much outside of him and we gave up 2 great trade chips to get him.

 

McKinney seems like a slightly better version of Almora, is very young and has a ton of bust potential. Straily is 25 years old and it'll take Bosio magic to make him anything better than kinda average.

 

It just seems like we put all our eggs on one player (Russell) and that seems awful risky for a legit TOR pitcher in Shark and a very solid veteran in Hammel. I feel like we should have done better than Straily and maybe better than McKinney. Somebody convince me I'm wrong.

 

I was torn at first, but I like it the more I think about it. Russell is better than any player that had been mentioned as a potential return for Samardzija. Sarmadzija for Russell straight up is a very good deal. When I first looked at McKinney's stats, I was underwhelmed, but he's extremely young for his league, has great patience and decent power, plus he was a 1st round pick. A 1st round pick who is performing well plus a decent reclamation project is a good return for someone like Hammel. I was hoping to trade Samardzija to the Orioles and get Bundy and Harvey, but we have 3-4 guys we could trade and get almost any pitcher we want.

[Bobson Dugnutt]

We traded shark and hammel together so obviously we were going to get a top rates prospect. But it being a guy who won't come up until 2017 is a worst case scenario type trade.

 

Where in the world are you getting this from?

[Castros trade value]

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000DAAmSSnJkWY/s/600/600/Russell-Addison-82910-100-Janes.jpg

[Guest]

Yea - my facebook thread is full of people complaining about "acquiring more shortstops" - cubs fans are pretty stupid

 

No the idiots are the people who think we have a mid 90s Cleveland Indians lineup in our farm system.

http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/wet-blanket.jpg?w=285

[Guest]

If springer/correa would have done Stanton last year, Russell/alcantara should be enough a year later, even though that dumbo GM will ask for Bryant and baez

 

i would give them Baez and Russell in one second if they asked for it. It clears the way for Bryant to be a 3rd baseman, moves Soler to left.

 

2b - Al Contra

SS - Castro

RF - Stanton

1b - Rizzo

3b - Bryant

LF - Soler

C - Schwarber

CF - doesn't matter let's just say Almora

 

My dear Lord that is just ravishing

[ScrubMD]

We traded shark and hammel together so obviously we were going to get a top rates prospect. But it being a guy who won't come up until 2017 is a worst case scenario type trade.

 

Russell could easily be ready by next year.

[Guest]

we gave up a 32-year old maholm-type and a guy who's 30 next season and is pretty good but hasn't ever put it all together consistently. we gave these up for a top 3 prospect, a youngish pitcher with decent peripherals, and a 19 year-old outfielder with a very very very advanced approach already.

 

Going by fWAR, Hammel has had 2 seasons of almost a full win more than Maholm (3.7 and 3.8), another season of close to Maholm's peak (2.6) and this year he's on pace for around a WAR of 4. He's better than Maholm and I might like Vizcaino more than Straily (that extra year of control of Maholm is important, but Hammel is still the superior pitcher and that should mean more).

 

The Russell/McKinney for Shark part of the trade doesn't bother me as much - mainly because of Russell. There's just a ton of risk in McKinney.

 

the control makes up for it. Hammel is going to make a lot of money next season, a lot, and he's no guarantee to return or repeat his production given his history.

[Guest]

We traded shark and hammel together so obviously we were going to get a top rates prospect. But it being a guy who won't come up until 2017 is a worst case scenario type trade.

 

Where in the world are you getting this from?

 

bd811, meet Ryne Ween.

 

Now, ignore his posts.

[ScrubMD]

If springer/correa would have done Stanton last year, Russell/alcantara should be enough a year later, even though that dumbo GM will ask for Bryant and baez

 

i would give them Baez and Russell in one second if they asked for it. It clears the way for Bryant to be a 3rd baseman, moves Soler to left.

 

2b - Al Contra

SS - Castro

RF - Stanton

1b - Rizzo

3b - Bryant

LF - Soler

C - Schwarber

CF - doesn't matter let's just say Almora

 

My dear Lord that is just ravishing

 

A Stanton-Rizzo-Bryant middle of the order for the next decade makes me poop in all of my pants.

[dew1679666265]

I was torn at first, but I like it the more I think about it. Russell is better than any player that had been mentioned as a potential return for Samardzija. Sarmadzija for Russell straight up is a very good deal. When I first looked at McKinney's stats, I was underwhelmed, but he's extremely young for his league, has great patience and decent power, plus he was a 1st round pick. A 1st round pick who is performing well plus a decent reclamation project is a good return for someone like Hammel. I was hoping to trade Samardzija to the Orioles and get Bundy and Harvey, but we have 3-4 guys we could trade and get almost any pitcher we want.

 

I may be too hard on McKinney, I just had very, very high requirements to be happy with a Shark trade. I was very strongly in the "don't trade Shark unless you get a deal you can't pass up" and, outside of Russell (that's an extremely important note I don't want to be overlooked), this just doesn't strike me as too good to pass up - especially when adding in Hammel.

 

Is Russell good enough to make the trade too good to pass up all on his own? Maybe, but that's a huge amount to bet on one 20 year old prospect. I don't know - I don't want to come off as particularly critical of the trade, just not sure I'm excited about it.

[Castros trade value]

Yea - my facebook thread is full of people complaining about "acquiring more shortstops" - cubs fans are pretty stupid

 

No the idiots are the people who think we have a mid 90s Cleveland Indians lineup in our farm system.

 

Well, actually, it could happen. Not saying it will, but this offense will/should be unstoppable

[Guest]

 

The Russell/McKinney for Shark part of the trade doesn't bother me as much - mainly because of Russell. There's just a ton of risk in McKinney.

 

given his high BB rate and decent k rate, i think he's a pretty good bet to be a major leaguer at the very least.

[davell]

Truly top end prospects are pretty rare to see dealt at this point. I've got serious doubt Shark would have landed Russell by himself. I think Hammel was needed to balance things out there somewhat. Again, getting a top 10 type is definitely better than getting 3 top 100's or 2 top 50's. Especially in our case of already having a ridiculous system.