Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Offseason Rumors & Transactions Thread

Clem Fandango
 Share
Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted
Unless there are multiple teams vying for Castillo's services what is the motivation for giving up anything to the Cubs for a guy they clearly want nothing to do with.

 

Unless there are multiple teams vying for Smith's services what is the motivation for giving up anything to the Padres for a guy they clearly want nothing to do with.

 

Because the alternative is signing John Baker.

 

Players with any semblance of MLB success are at an all-time high in trade value.

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Clem Fandango All-Star

Clem Fandango

Old-Timey Member
Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yeah, that's a really silly stance. The acquisition of Player X to supplant Player Y does not diminish Player Y's trade value just because the team likes Player X better. If another team sees value in adding Player Y they will pony up the proper value to acquire them, especially if there's more than one team interested.
Some Guy Prep Ball

Some Guy

Verified Member
Posted
Posted (edited)

I guess we'll have to see how it plays out, but I am quite confident that those who think Castillo has much trade value are going to end up butthurt. You're counting on other FOs brazenly contradicting our FO's (correct) assessment that he needed to be banished behind 2 new Cs for his costly receiving inadequacies.

 

Wood, too, has minimal trade value because he makes too much. Unlike Castillo though, he has value to us. I like him as a reliever and rotation depth. But no one's eager to trade value for a guy like him who's making $5.5M.

Edited by Some Guy
Clem Fandango All-Star

Clem Fandango

Old-Timey Member
Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's not that people think he has a lot of trade value, it's that people don't think he has zero value, which is apparently what some on here seem to think just because people put stock into pitch framing.

 

Castillo may not be a good pitch framer, but he hits lefties well at a premium offensive position which makes him a good platoon partner. Whether a team values framing or not, that has value. How much value depends on who is interested in him.

Some Guy Prep Ball

Some Guy

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
It's not that people think he has a lot of trade value, it's that people don't think he has zero value, which is apparently what some on here seem to think just because people put stock into pitch framing.

 

Castillo may not be a good pitch framer, but he hits lefties well at a premium offensive position which makes him a good platoon partner. Whether a team values framing or not, that has value. How much value depends on who is interested in him.

 

Thinking he can be a centerpiece in a Zobrist trade is thinking he has a lot of value.

 

But yes, put me down as thinking he has almost no value. His framing wipes out his positives, and I think the market knows that by now. It's not like there's a huge unmet demand for catchers right now anyway.

Some Guy Prep Ball

Some Guy

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Where is the Rasmus rumor from? Hasn't popped into my timeline yet, unless I missed it.

 

Jim Duquette said on MLB Network Radio this morning that we made a 1 year offer.

SouthSideRyan MVP

SouthSideRyan

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted (edited)
Yeah, that's a really silly stance. The acquisition of Player X to supplant Player Y does not diminish Player Y's trade value just because the team likes Player X better. If another team sees value in adding Player Y they will pony up the proper value to acquire them, especially if there's more than one team interested.

 

The point is the Cubs have no leverage, and unless they can play teams against each other, there's no need for Team X to give in just because we have a guy we think is worse than Dave Ross.

 

Silly is saying the argument is either trade things of value for Castillo or run out John Baker rather than signing Geovany Soto or trading scraps for Carlos Ruiz.

 

ETA: And there were multiple teams vying for Seth Smith.

Edited by SouthSideRyan
SouthSideRyan MVP

SouthSideRyan

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
It's not that people think he has a lot of trade value, it's that people don't think he has zero value, which is apparently what some on here seem to think just because people put stock into pitch framing.

 

Castillo may not be a good pitch framer, but he hits lefties well at a premium offensive position which makes him a good platoon partner. Whether a team values framing or not, that has value. How much value depends on who is interested in him.

 

You don't trade pieces of value for a backup catcher.

Clem Fandango All-Star

Clem Fandango

Old-Timey Member
Posted
  • Author
Posted
It's not that people think he has a lot of trade value, it's that people don't think he has zero value, which is apparently what some on here seem to think just because people put stock into pitch framing.

 

Castillo may not be a good pitch framer, but he hits lefties well at a premium offensive position which makes him a good platoon partner. Whether a team values framing or not, that has value. How much value depends on who is interested in him.

 

Thinking he can be a centerpiece in a Zobrist trade is thinking he has a lot of value.

 

But yes, put me down as thinking he has almost no value. His framing wipes out his positives, and I think the market knows that by now. It's not like there's a huge unmet demand for catchers right now anyway.

 

No one is suggesting he's a centerpiece. Cubswin and myself suggested a Castillo and Edwards package, and I can't speak for him, but I didn't suggest it as Castillo being the centerpiece as much as he was a fair and equal companion piece with Edwards to fulfill what Tampa was speculated to want in exchange for Zobrist. TT suggested getting a third team who values Castillo while sending prospects (presumably a mix between us and the third team) to Tampa for Zobrist.

 

I don't think anyone truly thinks Castillo is a centerpiece player in any deal, but more a player who can fulfill a very specific need certain teams might value and, as such, be willing to spend more than he's worth to the Cubs. That's how trades work.

 

If Castillo's pitch framing alone makes him replacement level, then by that logic Matt Kemp should not have yielded Yasmani Grandal. Matt Kemp probably should not have even yielded Welington Castillo with this logic. Yet somehow despite being a replacement level player last year with an abysmal contract, Matt Kemp + $30 million netted the Dodgers Yasmani Gramndal while the Padres got their replacement level player they still owe $75 million to.

Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted
I guess we'll have to see how it plays out, but I am quite confident that those who think Castillo has much trade value are going to end up butthurt.

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=60112&start=125&hilit=butthurt&p=2700693&view=show#p2700693

 

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=59904&hilit=butthurt&p=2669371&view=show#p2669371

 

Also

 

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=59363&p=2798020&hilit=butthurt#p2798020

Some Guy Prep Ball

Some Guy

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

No one is suggesting he's a centerpiece.

 

Wrong. Transmogrified Tiger did. (a 3 way deal "centered around Castillo and/or Wood," lol)

 

I don't know why you're using Kemp as a comp for Castillo, but bravo for that.

 

Anyway, just let the fullness of time reveal to you how minimal Welington's value is.

Clem Fandango All-Star

Clem Fandango

Old-Timey Member
Posted
  • Author
Posted
It's not that people think he has a lot of trade value, it's that people don't think he has zero value, which is apparently what some on here seem to think just because people put stock into pitch framing.

 

Castillo may not be a good pitch framer, but he hits lefties well at a premium offensive position which makes him a good platoon partner. Whether a team values framing or not, that has value. How much value depends on who is interested in him.

 

You don't trade pieces of value for a backup catcher.

If our backup catcher is a starter on another team then that team will trade accordingly. If only one team wants Castillo then yeah, sure, the Cubs can get lowballed and be stuck with that or nothing. But if more than one team are interested, one of them is going to have to pony up more than the other. Castillo, as a lefty masher at catcher, holds some value. No one is going to give up top prospects or players for Castillo straight up, but packaged with the right players in the right deal and he could be useful in getting something good in return. Also, pitch framing aside, Castillo ranked as one of the top defensive catchers in baseball last year. He's also one year removed from a 3.3 fWAR/4.5rWAR season and has put up 5.5 fWAR/6.3 rWAR the past two seasons. Just because the Cubs aren't interested, doesn't mean no one will want him.

 

Wrong. Transmogrified Tiger did. (a 3 way deal "centered around Castillo and/or Wood," lol)

Just because that's what we would offer in a 3-team deal does not mean he's the centerpiece in a 3-team deal. Unless I'm interpreting TT wrong, in this example "centered" does not mean he's the centerpiece, just the piece you start and work to build a reasonable package with. Seems pretty obvious that's what he was going for, though I could be wrong.

 

I don't know why you're using Kemp as a comp for Castillo, but bravo for that.

Because you claimed Castillo is replacement level (based solely on pitch framing ability and nothing else) and therefore holds zero value, I used another replacement level player to show you that's not true. Not that difficult to figure it out. Also the defensive metrics that bog down Kemp's overall WAR value are the same ones that show Castillo was the 4th best defensive catcher in the majors last year. His 32.9% of runners caught stealing would be 3rd best in the majors among qualified starters. So really despite a lot of defensive metrics saying Castillo is actually a good defensive catcher, because he's a poor pitch framer you are immediately writing off any value he has whatsoever because you apparently seem to think all 30 teams in baseball value pitch framing the same amount as the Cubs, which isn't true.

 

Anyway, just let the fullness of time reveal to you how minimal Welington's value is.

I don't think he has a ton of value, but I think he's a good complimentary piece in a multi player package.

SouthSideRyan MVP

SouthSideRyan

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

Castillo is replacement level based on the absurd number applied to his pitch framing stats taking away all the value(and then some) of his fWAR. Matt Kemp on the other hand was a 2 win player last year and had a net pitch framing number of exactly 0.

 

You sold Castillo as a guy who can hit lefties well(along with every other right handed bat in MLB) so he could be the weak side of a platoon. How is that not a backup?

 

Equating him to CJ Edwards means you think he's worthy of a top 100 prospect in return, which is crazypants.

Clem Fandango All-Star

Clem Fandango

Old-Timey Member
Posted
  • Author
Posted
Castillo is replacement level based on the absurd number applied to his pitch framing stats taking away all the value(and then some) of his fWAR.

 

Pitch framing is still a relatively new concept that is not yet a universally accepted market inefficiency and doesn't even have a publicly accepted statistical measure. Not all teams employ it, nor do they necessarily believe in it. If they did Montero probably would've cost a lot more than what we gave up. Castillo's value is relative to who's buying into him.

Clem Fandango All-Star

Clem Fandango

Old-Timey Member
Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
You sold Castillo as a guy who can hit lefties well(along with every other right handed bat in MLB) so he could be the weak side of a platoon. How is that not a backup?

 

This doesn't exactly help or hurt my case since it kind of shows you can't really know what to expect with Castillo, but for what it's worth he would've been the strong side of a platoon this time last year...

 

2014

vs RHP: .216/.279/.352/.631 .266 BABIP

vs. LHP: .301/.350/.505/.855 .359 BABIP

 

2013

vs. RHP: .282/.353/.405/.758 .362 BABIP

vs. LHP: .247/.337/.371/.707 .299 BABIP

 

His BABIP's did a complete reversal.

 

And not for nothing, and I know this will be met with negative comments because having 3 catchers is traditionally ludicrous, but what harm is there in leaving Castillo on the roster as a platoon with Montero and a situational pinch hitter? Our bench currently is constructed of the following players according to the depth chart:

 

Castillo

Ross

Olt

Lake

LaStella

Sczsur

Sweeney

Lopez (Rafael)

 

Castillo might be one of the better bats of that bunch. What value do any of them hold other than a late inning defensive replacement and an occasional spot starter to spell those ahead of them on the depth chart? It was always rumored Ross would come on as Lester's personal catcher. Why would Ross not be more than just that and a late inning defensive replacement and occasional spot starter to spell the other two while Montero and Castillo platoon on non Lester starts and provide a useful bat off the bench when they're not starting?

Edited by The Logan
SouthSideRyan MVP

SouthSideRyan

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

I see 6 teams who could be in the market for a catcher.

 

BOS

ATL

LAD

CHW

ARI

TEX

 

Boston and Atlanta would be if they don't yet want to turn over the reins to their respective Christians. (And ATL has to be set on moving Gattis either to another team or the OF) LA now employs the GM who ran Jose Molina's anemic bat out there forever due to his pitch framing. The White Sox seemingly still believe in Tyler Flowers.

 

Arizona has absolutely nothing at catcher, but it would seem strange to me that the Montero trade wouldn't have been expanded to include Castillo if they wanted him. Texas started TT's favorite playing at catcher for half the season, but he actually did a cromulent job at it.

 

So we need to rely on teams

 

-Not valuing pitch framing the way we apparently do

-Not believing their young catchers are ready

-Believing Castillo would be a good mentor to said young catchers

-Not seeing Geovany Soto as an equivalent option

-Believe that they can be competitive this season to the point that it makes sense to trade prospect(s) for Castillo(Neither Arizona nor Texas have shown any signs of adding pieces this offseason)

 

I'm not optimistic.

Clem Fandango All-Star

Clem Fandango

Old-Timey Member
Posted
  • Author
Posted
Well now you just made me sad looking at our current bench. But you did leave out Denorfia, and presumably somebody in our starting lineup will be joining that bench by May.

 

Forgot about him. Cubs.com hasn't updated for it yet obviously. And yeah we'll get another bat I'm sure.

davell Chicago Cubs

davell

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
I'm guessing Theo is "selling" him as a top 20 C, that's what he called him within the last month somewhere. I think in a one for one type deal, he'd net us a Vogelbach caliber prospect.(top 10 in most systems)
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

Become a Caretaker

  • Member Statistics

    6,796
    Total Members
    13,056
    Most Online
    MushroomTaco
    Newest Member
    MushroomTaco
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...