Package Castro and Castillo

[Backtobanks]

Castro's a nice player, but the Cubs have more than enough capable infielders and other players that project higher than he is at right now.

 

Doing it on the field is different than projections.

These players have done it on the field.

 

Not on a ML field.

[Guest]

It'll probably be Russell at 3B, but if you want to seek out the perfect trade to eek out the extra value from these guys playing SS rather than 3B, go find it and let us know. I'll stick with the more realistic and very good option of just letting them both play for us.

 

Hamels for Castro isn't it, though.

If Bryant sticks, if Baez pans out, if Alcantara can play SS. Any one of these happens and you are greatly improved, especially for the postseason.

 

Bryant just might give away enough value defensively at 3B to offset any he loses by playing OF (where he might even be above average based on scouting reports and his athletic ability).

 

And you'd need more than one of those to happen, otherwise who plays 2B? That's without even taking into account that Russell still isn't a sure thing to be a productive Major Leaguer (especially as productive as Castro - who you have locked in for years at a beyond reasonable salary), as safe a prospect as he may be.

So Starlin Castro has you foresaking Kris Bryant and Addison Russell, i hope youre [expletive] happy.

[Guest]

Castro's a nice player, but the Cubs have more than enough capable infielders and other players that project higher than he is at right now.

 

Doing it on the field is different than projections.

These players have done it on the field.

 

Not on a ML field.

I think you should bet on Russell.

[Guest]

Im not going to let any of you Bryant and Russell haters enjoy one single minute of their successes.

[sweetpeteman]

Im not going to let any of you Bryant and Russell haters enjoy one single minute of their successes.

 

 

It's not about hating on Russell and Bryant, it's about not counting your chickens before they hatch.

 

How many "can't miss" prospects miss? Nobody is here saying, "Keep Castro because Bryant and Russell suck." No, they're saying we shouldn't count on Russell and Bryant until they show they can be successful in the majors. And we shouldn't trade Castro for pitching when pitching staffs can succeed without a lot of aces (hell, didn't do Detroit, Washington, or Oakland any good to have loaded staffs last year).

 

 

 

Here's the last six years of which teams ranked highest in fWAR by starters, relievers, and batting, followed by where the WS winners ranked.

 

Starting Pitching:

2009: Red Sox. Yankees 8th
2010: Rockies. Giants 15th
2011: Phillies. Cards 17th
2012: Tigers. Giants 17th
2013: Tigers. Red Sox 2nd
2014: Tigers. Giants 28th!

Relief Pitching:

2009: A's, Giants 9th
2010: Padres, Red Sox 21st
2011: Red Sox, Cards 25th, 
2012: Royals, Giants 27th
2013: Rangers, Red Sox 5th
2014: Royals, Giants 28th

Batting:

2009: Yankees. 
2010: Reds, Giants 5th
2011: Red Sox. Cards 4th
2012: Angels, Giants 4th
2013: Red Sox
2014: Dodgers. Giants 6th 

 

Now this probaby isn't the best way to rank staffs, but that's not the point. The point is that right now offense is a lot more important then pitching. I'm not saying that pitching is overrated or shouldn't be targeted, what I am saying is that the Cubs probably don't need to try to trade for Hamels right now, but should focus on building a frick'n offense first, especially in this era of subdued offense.

 

The way the Cubs FO is building the staff makes sense. Not overspending on FA relievers, targeting an ace (and seeing if they could get a second one on a great deal in Shields) and finding value through guys like Hammel, Feldman, Maholm, while looking to reclamation projects and prospects like Arrieta, Turner, and Hendricks.

 

Also, next offseason you have Price, Cueto, Zimmermann, Fister possibly available.

 

Oh, and in case anybody is curious, here's the last six WS winners(+Royals) starting pitching staffs (pitchers who started 10 games or more) with games started, ERA, FIP, xFIP, and fWAR compared to the Cubs potential 2015 staff:

 

 

2014 Giants
Bumgarner*	33 	2.98	3.05	2.99	3.6
Hudson* 	31	3.57	3.54	3.57	1.7
Peavy*		12	2.17	3.03	4.01	1.3
Vogelsong*	32	4.00	3.85	3.96	1.0
Petit		12	5.03	3.59	3.01	0.7
Lincecum	26	4.67	4.19	3.73	0.1
Cain(DNP)	15	4.18	4.58	4.01	-0.3

2014 Royals
Shields*	34	3.21	3.59	3.56	3.7
Ventura*	30	3.23	3.64	3.77	2.7
Vargas*		30	3.71	3.84	4.05	2.6
Duffy		25	2.55	3.92	4.51	2.0
Guthrie(DNP)	32	4.13	4.32	4.33	1.5

2013 Red Sox
Lester*		33	3.75	3.59	3.90	4.3
Buchholz*	16	1.74	2.78	3.41	3.2
Lackey*		29	3.52	3.86	3.49	3.2
Doubront	27	3.87	3.79	4.10	2.8
Peavy*		10	4.04	3.79	4.51	1.3
Dempster	29	4.64	4.70	4.20	1.2


2012 Giants
Cain*		32	2.79	3.40	3.82	3.5
Bumgarner*	32	3.37	3.50	3.45	2.8
Vogelsong*	31	3.37	3.70	4.15	2.3
Lincecum*(1)	33	5.18	4.18	3.81	0.8
Zito*		32	4.15	4.49	4.92	0.7


2011 Cardinals
Carpenter*	34	3.45	3.06	3.31	4.5
Garcia*		32	3.56	3.23	3.31	3.2
Lohse*		30	3.39	3.67	4.04	2.2
Westbrook	33	4.66	4.25	4.08	0.7
JAckson*	12	3.62	4.03	4.05	0.6
McClellan	17	4.21	4.54	4.25	0.2


2010 Giants
Lincecum*	33	3.43	3.15	3.09	4.2	
Cain*		33 	3.14	3.65	4.00	3.9
Sanchez*	33	3.08	4.00	3.94	2.2
Zito		33	4.13	4.24	4.56	1.7
Bumgarner*	18 	3.00	3.66	3.85	1.7
Wellemeyer	11	5.82	6.51	5.55	-0.9

2009 Yankees
Sabathia*	34	3.37	3.39	3.77	6.1
Pettitte*	32	4.16	4.15	4.32	3.6
Burnett*	33	4.04	4.33	4.23	3.1
Chamberlain	31	4.78	4.84	4.51	1.7


2015 Cubs (2014 Stats)
Lester		32	2.46	2.80	3.10	6.1
Arrieta		25	2.53	2.26	2.73	4.9
Hendricks	13	2.46	3.32	3.92	1.5
Hammel		29	3.47	3.92	3.57	1.7
Wood		31	5.03	4.38	4.51	1.0
Wada		13	3.25	3.75	3.96	0.8
Jackson		27	6.33	4.45	4.12	0.5
Turner		18	6.13	4.16	4.05	0.4
Doubront	14	5.54	5.13	4.83	0.0

(2015 Best Projections)
Lester		31	3.10	3.25	 	4.0	
Arrieta		30	3.17	3.24	 	3.4
Hendricks	28	3.54	3.54	 	2.6
Hammel		28	3.87	3.76	 	1.8
Wood		27	4.36	4.33	 	1.0
Jackson		26	4.75	4.15	 	1.0
Wada		17	4.04	4.10	 	0.8
Doubront	22	4.21	4.08	 	1.1
Turner		23	4.95	4.56	 	0.1

 

[Tryptamine]

Why do people overrate Castro so badly? Its truly incredible.

 

I mean, he's a nice player.

 

He was on pace for a 3.5fWAR season last year before that fluke sliding incident. That would have made him the 6th most valuable SS who had at least 350PAs last year. This is during his age 24 season. Over the next 4 seasons Castro will make 32M or 8M/YR; during the same span Hamels will make 96M or 24M/YR. You could go out an add another major piece in FA to the tune of a 16M a year player to Castro and you'd just be reaching what it would cost you just to have Hamels. That's likely enough to land you Porcello in '16. Add about 4M to it and that's enough to land you whoever gets the bad end of the draw between Zimmerman/Samardzija.

[Guest]

Not if you have redundancy, which you seem to be ignoring.

 

And i'd hate to see your projections for Lester. Hamels is more likely to be a 4-5 WAR pitcher than a 3-4 WAR pitcher over a full season. 4-5 WAR is really good, especially considering thats 3-4 more WAR than Wood.

 

There is no redundancy, there's room in the lineup for all the prospects. If all of them pan out and you extend Fowler or something maybe you have a surplus, but that's like the .01% outcome.

 

I'm not Lester's biggest fan, but he's had higher highs than Hamels and there's some reason to think he can set a higher baseline for his decline given his 2014 and changing leagues. He also only cost a bucket of money and not a slightly smaller bucket of money plus a ton of player value.

 

But really, if you think Hamels is going to be 4 wins better than the 5th starter position, I can't help you. Like the idea of trading Castro for Hamels, that's complete crazytalk.

[Guest]

Not if you have redundancy, which you seem to be ignoring.

 

And i'd hate to see your projections for Lester. Hamels is more likely to be a 4-5 WAR pitcher than a 3-4 WAR pitcher over a full season. 4-5 WAR is really good, especially considering thats 3-4 more WAR than Wood.

 

There is no redundancy, there's room in the lineup for all the prospects. If all of them pan out and you extend Fowler or something maybe you have a surplus, but that's like the .01% outcome.

 

I'm not Lester's biggest fan, but he's had higher highs than Hamels and there's some reason to think he can set a higher baseline for his decline given his 2014 and changing leagues. He also only cost a bucket of money and not a slightly smaller bucket of money plus a ton of player value.

 

But really, if you think Hamels is going to be 4 wins better than the 5th starter position, I can't help you. Like the idea of trading Castro for Hamels, that's complete crazytalk.

It's (nearly) something like Castro + Heyward for Hamels when money is considered.

[Guest]

Not if you have redundancy, which you seem to be ignoring.

 

And i'd hate to see your projections for Lester. Hamels is more likely to be a 4-5 WAR pitcher than a 3-4 WAR pitcher over a full season. 4-5 WAR is really good, especially considering thats 3-4 more WAR than Wood.

 

There is no redundancy, there's room in the lineup for all the prospects. If all of them pan out and you extend Fowler or something maybe you have a surplus, but that's like the .01% outcome.

 

I'm not Lester's biggest fan, but he's had higher highs than Hamels and there's some reason to think he can set a higher baseline for his decline given his 2014 and changing leagues. He also only cost a bucket of money and not a slightly smaller bucket of money plus a ton of player value.

 

But really, if you think Hamels is going to be 4 wins better than the 5th starter position, I can't help you. Like the idea of trading Castro for Hamels, that's complete crazytalk.

So Lester isnt a risk but Hamels is. Crazytalk indeed. You truly have a dizzying intellect.

 

The value he would cost is redundant, which is what ive been saying, mitigated by the rise of similar or superior players.

 

I would trade 10 years of Castro for one world series. Maybe even one world series appearance.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Stannis

[Guest]

Not if you have redundancy, which you seem to be ignoring.

 

And i'd hate to see your projections for Lester. Hamels is more likely to be a 4-5 WAR pitcher than a 3-4 WAR pitcher over a full season. 4-5 WAR is really good, especially considering thats 3-4 more WAR than Wood.

 

There is no redundancy, there's room in the lineup for all the prospects. If all of them pan out and you extend Fowler or something maybe you have a surplus, but that's like the .01% outcome.

 

I'm not Lester's biggest fan, but he's had higher highs than Hamels and there's some reason to think he can set a higher baseline for his decline given his 2014 and changing leagues. He also only cost a bucket of money and not a slightly smaller bucket of money plus a ton of player value.

 

But really, if you think Hamels is going to be 4 wins better than the 5th starter position, I can't help you. Like the idea of trading Castro for Hamels, that's complete crazytalk.

So Lester isnt a risk but Hamels is. Crazytalk indeed. You truly have a dizzying intellect.

Can you parse what TT said into what you got out of it? It confuses me.

[sweetpeteman]

 

I would trade 10 years of Castro for one world series. Maybe even one world series appearance.

 

 

That's nice. Too bad that's not what's happening.

[Guest]

Not if you have redundancy, which you seem to be ignoring.

 

And i'd hate to see your projections for Lester. Hamels is more likely to be a 4-5 WAR pitcher than a 3-4 WAR pitcher over a full season. 4-5 WAR is really good, especially considering thats 3-4 more WAR than Wood.

 

There is no redundancy, there's room in the lineup for all the prospects. If all of them pan out and you extend Fowler or something maybe you have a surplus, but that's like the .01% outcome.

 

I'm not Lester's biggest fan, but he's had higher highs than Hamels and there's some reason to think he can set a higher baseline for his decline given his 2014 and changing leagues. He also only cost a bucket of money and not a slightly smaller bucket of money plus a ton of player value.

 

But really, if you think Hamels is going to be 4 wins better than the 5th starter position, I can't help you. Like the idea of trading Castro for Hamels, that's complete crazytalk.

So Lester isnt a risk but Hamels is. Crazytalk indeed. You truly have a dizzying intellect.

Can you parse what TT said into what you got out of it? It confuses me.

 

TT is saying Lester is less of a risk than Hamels because it suits his argument against a Castro/Hamels trade.

[Guest]

 

I would trade 10 years of Castro for one world series. Maybe even one world series appearance.

 

 

That's nice. Too bad that's not what's happening.

I never said it was.

[Guest]

Not if you have redundancy, which you seem to be ignoring.

 

And i'd hate to see your projections for Lester. Hamels is more likely to be a 4-5 WAR pitcher than a 3-4 WAR pitcher over a full season. 4-5 WAR is really good, especially considering thats 3-4 more WAR than Wood.

 

There is no redundancy, there's room in the lineup for all the prospects. If all of them pan out and you extend Fowler or something maybe you have a surplus, but that's like the .01% outcome.

 

I'm not Lester's biggest fan, but he's had higher highs than Hamels and there's some reason to think he can set a higher baseline for his decline given his 2014 and changing leagues. He also only cost a bucket of money and not a slightly smaller bucket of money plus a ton of player value.

 

But really, if you think Hamels is going to be 4 wins better than the 5th starter position, I can't help you. Like the idea of trading Castro for Hamels, that's complete crazytalk.

So Lester isnt a risk but Hamels is. Crazytalk indeed. You truly have a dizzying intellect.

Can you parse what TT said into what you got out of it? It confuses me.

 

TT is saying Lester is less of a risk than Hamels because it suits his argument against a Castro/Hamels trade.

 

As a pitcher, I like Lester a bit better than Hamels. As an acquisition, I like Lester a lot better because he only costs a lot of money and not a lot of money plus a ton of player value. You're really flailing about aimlessly here, the value he would cost is redundant? Bryant and Alcantara are potential OFs, Russell may not be a SS, it doesn't take bending over backwards to see them all coexisting, and that assumes that no one busts, which almost certainly won't happen.

[NonProfitCow]

Castro to CF

 

There, just fixed the Cobs.

[Guest]

Castro to CF

 

There, just fixed the Cobs.

why didn't the :banned: work earlier?

[NonProfitCow]

Castro to CF

 

There, just fixed the Cobs.

why didn't the :banned: work earlier?

lol

 

Please don't. I'd be homeless.

[Guest]

Castro to CF

 

There, just fixed the Cobs.

why didn't the :banned: work earlier?

lol

 

Please don't. I'd be homeless.

 

didnt you already do it to yourself once

[NonProfitCow]

didnt you already do it to yourself once

lol, yeah

 

But I could post in Social, Rants and Other Sports all I wanted!

[Sammy Sofa]

sulley, I love the idea of trading for Hamels and I love you in starving mad dog-mode, but I don't understand why you're so focused like trading Castro would be the only way to net Hamels. Baez is a much more appealing trade chip, and why are you even bring up Al Contra like he's even remotely close to being some kind of sure thing? I think the Cubs could relatively easily net Hamels without giving up Castro, Rizzo, Soler, Russell or Bryant...why don't you?

[Cubbie Swagger]

Castro's a nice player, but the Cubs have more than enough capable infielders and other players that project higher than he is at right now.

 

Doing it on the field is different than projections.

These players have done it on the field.

I feel like you had to have known that this was not a true statement at the time you posted it.

 

Besides Rizzo and Castro, none of our young hitters have "done it on the field" yet. Literally, none of them.

[doschi]

C Montero/Ross

1B Rizzo

2B Baez/Alcantara

SS Russell

3B Castro

LF Bryant

CF Fowler

RF Soler

 

I see no redundancies. I see a stacked freaking lineup.

[sneakypower]

Besides Rizzo and Castro, none of our young hitters have "done it on the field" yet. Literally, none of them.

do you mean like [expletive]?

[biittner77]

Besides Rizzo and Castro, none of our young hitters have "done it on the field" yet. Literally, none of them.

do you mean like [expletive]?

 

Time to sign Kris Benson?

[Guest]

C Montero/Ross

1B Rizzo

2B Baez/Alcantara

SS Russell

3B Castro

LF Bryant

CF Fowler

RF Soler

 

I see no redundancies. I see a stacked freaking lineup.

 

Not much room for Schwarber in that lineup if it turns out he can't catch. But, I suppose that's a good problem rather than a bad problem.