2015 Rotation

[Guest]

Castro is 3rd in BA, SLG, wRC+, wOBA and 4th in HR and OBP amongst all qualified SS this years, FYI

 

which means he's valued highly and could likely net you a good return that fills other needs.

 

It also means he's the opposite of surplus value; he's the proven commodity and yet you want to move him as if the Cubs can just plug in someone who is a lock to outproduce him at SS. The surplus value is the relative glut of MI prospects.

 

Russell's floor is Castro.

Which is great because these guys have enough versatility and there are enough open positions that we can find room for all of Russell/Castro/Baez/Bryant/Soler on the roster between SS/3B/2B/OF

 

someone will be the odd man out. Castro's real value is as a SS, not a corner infielder, although he has some value there as well, just not as much as others.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Stannis

[Derwood]

I don't know how you can possibly make that claim with any degree of certainty. Russell has been great in the minors, but that guarantees pretty much nothing

[Backtobanks]

Castro is 3rd in BA, SLG, wRC+, wOBA and 4th in HR and OBP amongst all qualified SS this years, FYI

 

which means he's valued highly and could likely net you a good return that fills other needs.

 

It also means he's the opposite of surplus value; he's the proven commodity and yet you want to move him as if the Cubs can just plug in someone who is a lock to outproduce him at SS. The surplus value is the relative glut of MI prospects.

 

Russell's floor is Castro.

 

No, it's not.

 

Russell may be one of the best prospects in baseball, but he's still a prospect. When he proves himself at the ML level, then we can talk about trading our young, all-star caliber SS.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

The problem is: It doesn't matter what anyone's floor is or what prospects are coming up. You just don't trade a guy on a very reasonable contract for something that is less than his full value because of... reasons.

[Guest]

I don't know how you can possibly make that claim with any degree of certainty. Russell has been great in the minors, but that guarantees pretty much nothing

 

advanced approach, power, defense, and athleticism go a long way.

 

although now i see people disparaging a prospect they love in order to try to be right about something. for shame.

[Guest]

we should trade rizzo too. vogelbach will soon be ready to take his spot.

[Guest]

we should trade rizzo too. vogelbach will soon be ready to take his spot.

 

so Russell is to Castro as Vogelbach is to Rizzo?

 

your depravity and general ungentlemanliness know no bounds, sir.

 

i mean dahveed have you lost your [expletive] mind?

[Guest]

So Kasper was just on the Score. Said the Cubs are going to be major players in free agency (mentioned the paradigm shifting with how they approach the MLB team) and that he'd be shocked if the Cubs didn't end up with one of the top pitchers in free agency this offseason.

[Guest]

Sulley, I love Javy and KB and Soler as much as anyone. But it's certainly possible that these kids struggle enough to where we're not a contender in 2015. It definitely seems our FO errs on the side of caution. I'm just saying I expect one this offseason and one later on.

 

offense is so crappy in MLB that i'm becoming more and more confident that guys as talented/skilled as these are going to be at least passable reasonably quickly.

[Guest]

The problem is: It doesn't matter what anyone's floor is or what prospects are coming up. You just don't trade a guy on a very reasonable contract for something that is less than his full value because of... reasons.

 

what is full value? what is full value in a need situation? it's incredibly fluid.

[Guest]

we should trade rizzo too. vogelbach will soon be ready to take his spot.

 

so Russell is to Castro as Vogelbach is to Rizzo?

 

your depravity and general ungentlemanliness know no bounds, sir.

 

i mean dahveed have you lost your [expletive] mind?

 

I'm more just making fun of you for the last time you did something like this, which was last year when you wanted to get rid of Rizzo because we had a HR monster in the minors waiting in the wings.

[Guest]

we should trade rizzo too. vogelbach will soon be ready to take his spot.

 

so Russell is to Castro as Vogelbach is to Rizzo?

 

your depravity and general ungentlemanliness know no bounds, sir.

 

i mean dahveed have you lost your [expletive] mind?

 

I'm more just making fun of you for the last time you did something like this, which was last year when you wanted to get rid of Rizzo because we had a HR monster in the minors waiting in the wings.

 

i don't remember giving up on Rizzo entirely, although I was down on him, but I was high on Vogelbach and i still am.

[Guest]

the home runs came for Rizzo and I'm sure they'll come for Vogelbach. Probably not as a cub, but whatever.

[Sammy Sofa]

although now i see people disparaging a prospect they love in order to try to be right about something. for shame.

 

Pointing out the reality of the situation, that you're valuing a prospect over a proven asset under long-term control, is not disparaging Russell. It's been the opposite, with people pointing out how the Cubs can fit him into the lineup with Castro.

[jersey cubs fan]

I was high on Vogelbach and i still am.

 

you're high on something

[Aaron_Kennelly]

The problem is: It doesn't matter what anyone's floor is or what prospects are coming up. You just don't trade a guy on a very reasonable contract for something that is less than his full value because of... reasons.

 

what is full value? what is full value in a need situation? it's incredibly fluid.

 

Well, you have advocated trading him for a guy that is at best equal to guys we could just sign as free agents. Guys whose contracts would last two years longer or so, and would cost about $45-50 million more for those extra two years. So I would say selling him off for $50 million in cash and only cash is definitely undervaluing him, if the only reason you are trading him is because of prospects.

[Cubswin11]

The problem is: It doesn't matter what anyone's floor is or what prospects are coming up. You just don't trade a guy on a very reasonable contract for something that is less than his full value because of... reasons.

 

what is full value? what is full value in a need situation? it's incredibly fluid.

Castro for Hamels certainly isn't. Castro is younger, cheaper, plays a position whose attrition rate is lower than Hamels, and provides good offense at a offensive starved position in a offensive starved league. Hamels is older, more expensive, has already had injury issues, plays a position where guys are dropping every day seemingly and we still may be under spending limitations so acquiring a contract like Hamels could inhibit us from making other moves and also puts even more pressure on needing to hit on all these prospects coming up since we are trading away a known offensive commodity.

[Guest]

Hamels's injury issues are overstated, as Truffle has gone over in the past. I think it's a nice red herring for his critics. What Hamels is is a known commodity at a position that we lack, his contract is for four years and takes him through his productive years. His out-pitch is a pitch that is notoriously easy on the arm and often allows guys to throw well into their late 30's. His value above the guy he is replacing is significant, whereas Castro's value over his replacement is likely to be non-existent, if not negative.

[Guest]

Hamels's injury issues are overstated, as Truffle has gone over in the past. I think it's a nice red herring for his critics. What Hamels is is a known commodity at a position that we lack, his contract is for four years and takes him through his productive years. His out-pitch is a pitch that is notoriously easy on the arm and often allows guys to throw well into their late 30's. His value above the guy he is replacing is significant, whereas Castro's value over his replacement is likely to be non-existent, if not negative.

 

When that actually is (or is even close to) the case, then you explore what you're talking about. That's not going to be this offseason.

[Cubswin11]

If you want to talk about trading surplus value for Hamels, the guys we should be trading really are guys like Almora, Vogelbach, Schwarber, Mckinney (since our OF/1B is pretty much filled up if we are going on the assumption all of Baez/Soler/Russell/Bryant are hitting), Pierce, CJ, any other minor league pitchers (since we are getting a position on the ML roster that takes their spot, and as always screw pitching prospects).

[Guest]

The problem is: It doesn't matter what anyone's floor is or what prospects are coming up. You just don't trade a guy on a very reasonable contract for something that is less than his full value because of... reasons.

 

what is full value? what is full value in a need situation? it's incredibly fluid.

 

Well, you have advocated trading him for a guy that is at best equal to guys we could just sign as free agents. Guys whose contracts would last two years longer or so, and would cost about $45-50 million more for those extra two years. So I would say selling him off for $50 million in cash and only cash is definitely undervaluing him, if the only reason you are trading him is because of prospects.

 

Jersey and I have continued to insist that a trade ensures acquisition. There is absolutely no assurance that we sign a free agent ace, any assertion to the contrary is lazy and disingenuous.

 

What's more is that Theo and Jed have shown interest already in acquiring Hamels. Now, if he can be had for Torres/Jimenez, PJ, and Vogelbach, I'd make that deal before I'd deal Castro, but Castro seems to be about the price that Amaro will want for him. Getting money back may be the only question.

 

I think we make a trade for Hamels in the offseason.

[Guest]

If you want to talk about trading surplus value for Hamels, the guys we should be trading really are guys like Almora, Vogelbach, Schwarber, Mckinney (since our OF/1B is pretty much filled up if we are going on the assumption all of Baez/Soler/Russell/Bryant are hitting), Pierce, CJ, any other minor league pitchers (since we are getting a position on the ML roster that takes their spot, and as always screw pitching prospects).

 

i think if we get Castillo, it's more likely that we deal Almora

[Guest]

do you guys see what a rotation of

 

Lester

Hamels

Arrieta

Hendricks

whomever

 

would do with a lineup featuring Baez, Bryant, Soler, Rizzo, R. Castillo, and Alcantara? That virtually guarantees a playoff spot and 4 year reign to start with in the central.

[Cubswin11]

If you want to talk about trading surplus value for Hamels, the guys we should be trading really are guys like Almora, Vogelbach, Schwarber, Mckinney (since our OF/1B is pretty much filled up if we are going on the assumption all of Baez/Soler/Russell/Bryant are hitting), Pierce, CJ, any other minor league pitchers (since we are getting a position on the ML roster that takes their spot, and as always screw pitching prospects).

 

i think if we get Castillo, it's more likely that we deal Almora

I kinda want to trade Almora/use him as a headliner for some sort of known MLB commodity this offseason (preferably pitching), since we seemingly have the OF filled between Alcantara, Bryant, Soler and/or a FA (Castillo) with also having guys in the wings if/when they fail like Schwarber, Mckinney, Jimenez in the next few years.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think everyone is opposed to the general idea of trading for Hamels; it's just that you're hung up on the idea of trading Castro for him.