Cubs trade Straily/Valbuena for Dexter Fowler

[Guest]

Fangraphs upgrades us to 84 wins after this. They mostly think Fowler kinda sucks, but they gave Bryant 150 more PAs of playing time and that bumped us a win.

 

Looks like Fowler's consistently high BABIP is breaking Steamer's brain a bit.

[RynoRules]

Fangraphs upgrades us to 84 wins after this. They mostly think Fowler kinda sucks, but they gave Bryant 150 more PAs of playing time and that bumped us a win.

 

Helps to look at it that way.

[Rob]

After letting it sink in a bit, I'm a little more okay with this move. We definitely gave up too much value, but we dealt from a position of strength and filled out our weak OF a bit.

 

I don't want us to start giving up too much value in every trade, but an occasional trade like this to fill out a glaring hole is okay.

[Guest]

In the big picture, isn't it best to do everything possible to make Bryant fit at 3b? Schwarber has a less likely chance of sticking behind the plate, and LF seems like his ultimate destiny.

 

Him working out at 3B would be the ideal, but my biggest concern is long term health. Seems like a tall guy diving around at 3B would invite back problems.

 

Troy Glaus lasted quite awhile at 3b. He did miss significant time for a few seasons. Anyone know if his injuries were fielding related or something entirely different?

[Guest]

I love the trade, but giving up Valbuena stings a little.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

After letting it sink in a bit, I'm a little more okay with this move. We definitely gave up too much value, but we dealt from a position of strength and filled out our weak OF a bit.

 

I don't want us to start giving up too much value in every trade, but an occasional trade like this to fill out a glaring hole is okay.

 

I'm not against the move. I mean, we're probably a tiny bit better than we were yesterday.

 

I just wanted us to trade a prospect for someone Fowler-esque and keep Valbuena.

[Deeg]

I know the fanatical Valbuena love around here means people are going to bitch about this trade, but it's a great move for the Cubs. Straily is strictly fill, and Valbuena is a guy we have redundancy for with Bryant inheriting 3B and Alcantara the supersub role. Fowler brings elite OP in CF and I don't think his defense is nearly as bad as some of the guesswork defensive "stats" make it out to be. If you wanted any chance to compete in 2015, this is a great move.

 

You have to give up value to get value, and Cub fans dramatically overstate Valbuena's value. He's a good player, but Fowler is a potential game-changer for the Cubs this season . And sooner or later you have to stake your faith in guys like Bryant, Baez and Alcantara who have to be good for the Cubs to have any chance to compete anyway.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Deeg

[Cubswin11]

Does this mean there could be a non zero chance Bryant starts the year in MLB?

[Guest]

I know the fanatical Valbuena love around here means people are going to bitch about this trade, but it's a great move for the Cubs. Straily is strictly fill, and Valbuena is a guy we have redundancy for with Bryant inheriting 3B and Alcantara the superset role. Fowler brings elite OP in CF and I don't think his defense is nearly as bad as some of the guesswork defensive "stats" make it out to be. If you wanted any chance to compete in 2015, this is a great move.

 

You have to give up value to get value, and Cub fans dramatically overstate Valbuena value. He's a good player, but Fowler is a potential game-changer for the Cubs this season .

 

be more condescending and wrong please

 

 

says cub fans dramatically overstate Valbuena's value

 

 

calls jeferson mejia a "very good prospect"

[Guest]

I know the fanatical Valbuena love around here means people are going to bitch about this trade, but it's a great move for the Cubs. Straily is strictly fill, and Valbuena is a guy we have redundancy for with Bryant inheriting 3B and Alcantara the supersub role. Fowler brings elite OP in CF and I don't think his defense is nearly as bad as some of the guesswork defensive "stats" make it out to be. If you wanted any chance to compete in 2015, this is a great move.

 

You have to give up value to get value, and Cub fans dramatically overstate Valbuena value. He's a good player, but Fowler is a potential game-changer for the Cubs this season . And sooner or later you have to stake your faith in guys like Bryant, Baez and Alcantara who have to be good for the Cubs to have any chance to compete anyway.

 

I like Valbuena probably more than any one else possibly can and I like the move. Sometimes it's good to not invent points of view to counter and rather just say what you think.

[Guest]

Does this mean there could be a non zero chance Bryant starts the year in MLB?

<.01 chance in he starts in MLB this year. I hate it, but that's business.

[Tryptamine]

Maybe I'm missing it, but this trade seems like an offensive upgrade in CF, a downgrade in CF defensively and a downgrade at utility infielder. I'm not so sure it made the team any better. Edited January 19, 2015 by Tryptamine

[Guest]

I know the fanatical Valbuena love around here means people are going to bitch about this trade, but it's a great move for the Cubs. Straily is strictly fill, and Valbuena is a guy we have redundancy for with Bryant inheriting 3B and Alcantara the supersub role. Fowler brings elite OP in CF and I don't think his defense is nearly as bad as some of the guesswork defensive "stats" make it out to be. If you wanted any chance to compete in 2015, this is a great move.

 

You have to give up value to get value, and Cub fans dramatically overstate Valbuena value. He's a good player, but Fowler is a potential game-changer for the Cubs this season . And sooner or later you have to stake your faith in guys like Bryant, Baez and Alcantara who have to be good for the Cubs to have any chance to compete anyway.

 

I like Valbuena probably more than any one else possibly can and I like the move. Sometimes it's good to not invent points of view to counter and rather just say what you think.

 

Yep. I'm bummed at giving him up but am still pleased with the trade. Similar level of players (not "good" vs. "potential game changer") but Fowler fits our roster better.

[Brian]

every player in the Cubs system that can play 3rd or LF (besides Bryant) could forget how to play baseball and he's still not on the opening day roster.

[Deeg]

I know the fanatical Valbuena love around here means people are going to bitch about this trade, but it's a great move for the Cubs. Straily is strictly fill, and Valbuena is a guy we have redundancy for with Bryant inheriting 3B and Alcantara the supersub role. Fowler brings elite OP in CF and I don't think his defense is nearly as bad as some of the guesswork defensive "stats" make it out to be. If you wanted any chance to compete in 2015, this is a great move.

 

You have to give up value to get value, and Cub fans dramatically overstate Valbuena value. He's a good player, but Fowler is a potential game-changer for the Cubs this season . And sooner or later you have to stake your faith in guys like Bryant, Baez and Alcantara who have to be good for the Cubs to have any chance to compete anyway.

 

I like Valbuena probably more than any one else possibly can and I like the move. Sometimes it's good to not invent points of view to counter and rather just say what you think.

 

If you think any part of that is invented, you're ignoring everything that's been posted on every Cub board for the last year. Cub fans overstate Valbuena's value. That doesn't mean he isn't a good player, but it's just the way it is.

 

We got a switch-hitting CF with arguably the best late discipline in baseball without giving up anybody who figures to be a regular by mid-season or a prospect - that's a great move for Theo. No pain, no gain.

[Guest]

Maybe I'm missing it, but this trade seems like an offensive upgrade in CF, a downgrade in CF defensively and a downgrade at utility infielder. I'm not so sure it made the team any better.

 

It's about certainty. The 50% projection may not have moved a ton, but the Cubs have a lot of guys with very different 30% and 70% outcomes. Moving more at bats to a more certain player at a position where there's fewer quality alternatives is a net improvement. Now if Alcantara falls on his face the consequences are far less dire. You can say the same thing about Baez too probably, although he always had more help with LaStella and later Russell(even more reason to move Valbuena's certainty to another position).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We got a switch-hitting CF with arguably the best late discipline in baseball without giving up anybody who figures to be a regular by mid-season or a prospect - that's a great move for Theo. No pain, no gain.

 

You can use whatever adjectives you like, Valbuena and Fowler project to be nearly identical in value.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Maybe I'm missing it, but this trade seems like an offensive upgrade in CF, a downgrade in CF defensively and a downgrade at utility infielder. I'm not so sure it made the team any better.

 

It's about certainty. The 50% projection may not have moved a ton, but the Cubs have a lot of guys with very different 30% and 70% outcomes. Moving more at bats to a more certain player at a position where there's fewer quality alternatives is a net improvement. Now if Alcantara falls on his face the consequences are far less dire. You can say the same thing about Baez too probably, although he always had more help with LaStella and later Russell(even more reason to move Valbuena's certainty to another position).

 

If your current projection is low-80s in wins, do you really want certainty?

[Guest]

Maybe I'm missing it, but this trade seems like an offensive upgrade in CF, a downgrade in CF defensively and a downgrade at utility infielder. I'm not so sure it made the team any better.

 

It's about certainty. The 50% projection may not have moved a ton, but the Cubs have a lot of guys with very different 30% and 70% outcomes. Moving more at bats to a more certain player at a position where there's fewer quality alternatives is a net improvement. Now if Alcantara falls on his face the consequences are far less dire. You can say the same thing about Baez too probably, although he always had more help with LaStella and later Russell(even more reason to move Valbuena's certainty to another position).

 

If your current projection is low-80s in wins, do you really want certainty?

 

Yes. They didn't forfeit their ceiling to add certainty. Alcantara, Baez, Bryant, and Soler are all still Cubs, and there's still a place in the lineup for all 4 even with Fowler if they all hit.

[Sammy Sofa]

you're ignoring everything that's been posted on every Cub board for the last year. Cub fans overstate Valbuena's value. That doesn't mean he isn't a good player, but it's just the way it is.

 

So it shouldn't be hard to link us to such an occurrence.

[Banedon]

Ken Rosenthal:

 

#Cubs didn't love giving up two years of control on Valbuena plus STraily for one year of Fowler. But they had more IF depth than OF depth.

 

#Cubs also valued Valbuena's on-base ability -they need more such players - but Bryant's ascent would have made him expendable by June.

[davell]

Passan brought up that if Fowler has a halfway decent year, he'll net us a comp pick.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yes. They didn't forfeit their ceiling to add certainty. Alcantara, Baez, Bryant, and Soler are all still Cubs, and there's still a place in the lineup for all 4 even with Fowler if they all hit.

 

OK. So you're saying they added certainty, didn't lose any ceiling, but we're not sure if it made them better or not.

 

I'm not sure that math adds up.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Passan brought up that if Fowler has a halfway decent year, he'll net us a comp pick.

 

It's cloooooose. $15m or whatever? I think he'd pass on that, maybe?

[Tyrant]

 

I just wanted us to trade a prospect for someone Fowler-esque and keep Valbuena.

 

i feel like you would've rather they traded russell for fowler just for the sake of trading a prospect away