2015 trading deadline

[SRQCub]

The pieces they'll need in the offseason are the same pieces they need right now.

 

In a vacuum, yes.

 

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

 

It means that there are other factors that the FO has to consider, obviously. Are they in a position to take on payroll right now? Is there a reasonable package that brings back the arm and the bat necessary to compete with teams like the Dodgers, who have what appears to be infinite resources right now?

 

It also means that teams make moves to rent players in the regular season that they wouldn't always target the following offseason. So, if you can save prospects required to rent guys like Leake or Kennedy, maybe this FO prefers that? Honestly, I don't know what they're thinking at this point.

[Sammy Sofa]

The pieces they'll need in the offseason are the same pieces they need right now.

The value of those pieces slightly goes down because you lose a half year of them. Could be the difference between keeping a prospect you like and giving up one you're not so sure on.

 

They're not "losing half a year" if they make a push to improve the team now for a run and they don't win a World Series.

 

And again, one of the main points of rebuilding the farm system was to have assets to move, not to hoard them and only move them when the team has a clear and easy path to winning the division. You try to have those assets in part to help you when the team is struggling to hit its potential, whether because they can come up and produce or because you can use some of them to upgrade.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Sammy Sofa

[ARCubsFan]

The pieces they'll need in the offseason are the same pieces they need right now.

The value of those pieces slightly goes down because you lose a half year of them. Could be the difference between keeping a prospect you like and giving up one you're not so sure on.

 

They're not "losing half a year" if they make a push to improve the team now for a run and they don't win a World Series.

 

And again, one of the main points of rebuilding the farm system was to have assets to move, not to horde them and only move them when the team has a clear and easy path to winning the division. You try to have those assets in part to help you when the team is struggling to hit its potential, whether because they can come up and produce or because you can use some of them to upgrade.

They're not "hoarding" their prospects. The majority of their top prospects from a year ago are currently either in the majors or on the verge of being there and the well is kind of dry right now. They have a nice system but they weren't going to beat the Rangers in a Hamels deal with anyone we wouldn't have regretted giving up.

[Sammy Sofa]

The pieces they'll need in the offseason are the same pieces they need right now.

 

In a vacuum, yes.

 

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

 

It means that there are other factors that the FO has to consider, obviously. Are they in a position to take on payroll right now? Is there a reasonable package that brings back the arm and the bat necessary to compete with teams like the Dodgers, who have what appears to be infinite resources right now?

 

It also means that teams make moves to rent players in the regular season that they wouldn't always target the following offseason. So, if you can save prospects required to rent guys like Leake or Kennedy, maybe this FO prefers that? Honestly, I don't know what they're thinking at this point.

 

If the budget really is that tight then all of this is moot and basically all we can do is hope and dumpster dive. It would be really unfortunate that after everything they've done to improve the farm system they can't actually use it to go out and get impact players at critical times because they cost too much.

 

And it's going to be years until the Cubs theoretically have the money to compete with the Dodgers and company when it comes to spending, so again, you're just perpetuating another self-fulfilling prophecy to excuse not trying to bolster a competitive Cubs team.

[Sammy Sofa]

They're not "hoarding" their prospects. The majority of their top prospects from a year ago are currently either in the majors or on the verge of being there and the well is kind of dry right now. They have a nice system but they weren't going to beat the Rangers in a Hamels deal with anyone we wouldn't have regretted giving up.

 

The well isn't dry at all; that's nonsense. And there's always the risk of ultimately regretting giving up a prospect. That's not a definitive reason in and of itself to not make moves to help the team right way.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It was not good, and it only regressed as the season continued. Yes, they certainly hit better in the playoffs, but that's not an indication of what we'd do.

 

It's an indication of what is possible. There's not point in puting down a blanket "This is what they would/won't do." There are only probabilties.

 

Even at their worst, they were a much better offense than we've seen in Chicago this season.

 

That's not actually true.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It also means that teams make moves to rent players in the regular season that they wouldn't always target the following offseason. So, if you can save prospects required to rent guys like Leake or Kennedy, maybe this FO prefers that? Honestly, I don't know what they're thinking at this point.

 

I don't care what the front office "prefers." I care about what's best for the organization. I'm not always convinced the two align.

[ARCubsFan]

They're not "hoarding" their prospects. The majority of their top prospects from a year ago are currently either in the majors or on the verge of being there and the well is kind of dry right now. They have a nice system but they weren't going to beat the Rangers in a Hamels deal with anyone we wouldn't have regretted giving up.

 

The well isn't dry at all; that's nonsense. And there's always the risk of ultimately regretting giving up a prospect. That's not a definitive reason in and of itself to not make moves to help the team right way.

The Rangers gave up their 4th, 5th, 6th, 17th, 29th prospects and Matt Harrison for Cole Hamels. That's like the Cubs giving up Carl Edwards Jr, Duane Underwood, Albert Almora, Jen Ho Tseng, Jeremy Null, and Clayton Richard on a bigger salary for Hamels. No thanks.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The Rangers gave up their 4th, 5th, 6th, 17th, 29th prospects and Matt Harrison for Cole Hamels. That's like the Cubs giving up Carl Edwards Jr, Duane Underwood, Albert Almora, Jen Ho Tseng, Jeremy Null, and Clayton Richard on a bigger salary for Hamels. No thanks.

 

I'm sure as hell not giving up David Kelton, Bobbie Brownlie *and* Ryan Harvey in the same deal. That'd be destroying the future.

[PetermanRealityTour]

I wonder what it'd would take to get Gomez/Fiers?

[Sammy Sofa]

They're not "hoarding" their prospects. The majority of their top prospects from a year ago are currently either in the majors or on the verge of being there and the well is kind of dry right now. They have a nice system but they weren't going to beat the Rangers in a Hamels deal with anyone we wouldn't have regretted giving up.

 

The well isn't dry at all; that's nonsense. And there's always the risk of ultimately regretting giving up a prospect. That's not a definitive reason in and of itself to not make moves to help the team right way.

The Rangers gave up their 4th, 5th, 6th, 17th, 29th prospects and Matt Harrison for Cole Hamels. That's like the Cubs giving up Carl Edwards Jr, Duane Underwood, Albert Almora, Jen Ho Tseng, Jeremy Null, and Clayton Richard on a bigger salary for Hamels. No thanks.

 

So when is it acceptable for them to make moves like that? When they're actually in a WC spot? Just a game behind? Just 3 games behind in the division? Tied for the division? Leading? How much better does the offense have to be? When would you actually be OK with that?

[ctcf]

Harrison is a lot more comparable to someone of Hendricks value than a Clayton Richard, imo

[ARCubsFan]

Harrison is a lot more comparable to someone of Hendricks value than a Clayton Richard, imo

Ehhh Harrison sucks, he's been through 2 major injuries now in 3 seasons and is probably better off retiring. Plus his contract is terrible.

[SRQCub]

If the budget really is that tight then all of this is moot and basically all we can do is hope and dumpster dive. It would be really unfortunate that after everything they've done to improve the farm system they can't actually use it to go out and get impact players at critical times because they cost too much.

 

And it's going to be years until the Cubs theoretically have the money to compete with the Dodgers and company when it comes to spending, so again, you're just perpetuating another self-fulfilling prophecy to excuse not trying to bolster a competitive Cubs team.

 

The bolded sentence is where I disagree with you. The farm system is not what we thought it was back in March. Graduating Bryant, Russell and Schwarber has really hurt what was a terribly top-heavy system. That doesn't mean we don't have pieces to trade, but trading for impact would significantly hurt the system, and would do so in a year where you likely don't feel as good about your chances as you may in 2016.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

what was a terribly top-heavy system.

 

You honestly don't know what you're talking about.

 

Having a few really elite prospects does technically make you top-heavy because they're all that matter, but the system was and remains extremely deep on the kinda mid-tier prospects that goober fans love to pine for.

[Sammy Sofa]

If the budget really is that tight then all of this is moot and basically all we can do is hope and dumpster dive. It would be really unfortunate that after everything they've done to improve the farm system they can't actually use it to go out and get impact players at critical times because they cost too much.

 

And it's going to be years until the Cubs theoretically have the money to compete with the Dodgers and company when it comes to spending, so again, you're just perpetuating another self-fulfilling prophecy to excuse not trying to bolster a competitive Cubs team.

 

The bolded sentence is where I disagree with you. The farm system is not what we thought it was back in March. Graduating Bryant, Russell and Schwarber has really hurt what was a terribly top-heavy system. That doesn't mean we don't have pieces to trade, but trading for impact would significantly hurt the system, and would do so in a year where you likely don't feel as good about your chances as you may in 2016.

 

So "hurt" the system; this is supposed to be the FO that can replenish it with smart drafting and signings. Everyone knew Bryant and Russell were definitely coming up this year, so Schwarber being a regular in the lineup at this point is the only real surprise. Why would it be worse if the farm is momentarily depleted this year because of trades as opposed to the next? Are they "hurting" the farm system if they make a big trade in this coming offseason? Honestly, this comes across as being more worried as to how the system will be ranked for 2016 moreso than the Cubs doing what they can to compete this year.

[RammyFanny]

They're not "hoarding" their prospects. The majority of their top prospects from a year ago are currently either in the majors or on the verge of being there and the well is kind of dry right now. They have a nice system but they weren't going to beat the Rangers in a Hamels deal with anyone we wouldn't have regretted giving up.

 

The well isn't dry at all; that's nonsense. And there's always the risk of ultimately regretting giving up a prospect. That's not a definitive reason in and of itself to not make moves to help the team right way.

The Rangers gave up their 4th, 5th, 6th, 17th, 29th prospects and Matt Harrison for Cole Hamels. That's like the Cubs giving up Carl Edwards Jr, Duane Underwood, Albert Almora, Jen Ho Tseng, Jeremy Null, and Clayton Richard on a bigger salary for Hamels. No thanks.

I'm a prospect hoarder and I'd do that trade in an instant.

[SRQCub]

It was not good, and it only regressed as the season continued. Yes, they certainly hit better in the playoffs, but that's not an indication of what we'd do.

 

It's an indication of what is possible. There's not point in puting down a blanket "This is what they would/won't do." There are only probabilties.

 

Even at their worst, they were a much better offense than we've seen in Chicago this season.

 

That's not actually true.

 

There are only probabilities? So, what are the probabilities that this team that has struggled at the plate all year begins to hit against the likes of Kershaw/Greinke/Latos or Scherzer/Zimmermann/Gozalez or Wacha/Martinez/Lynn?

 

No, nothing is a guarantee. I guess I just don't get where all the optimism is coming from, and have a hard time using the 2014 Kansas City Royals as a beacon of hope.

[ARCubsFan]

I wouldn't say we're a top heavy system anymore. That went away once Addison was promoted and will surely go away once Schwarber isn't eligible. Still think they have a deep system but it's no longer top 10 in baseball due to all the promotions.

[SRQCub]

If the budget really is that tight then all of this is moot and basically all we can do is hope and dumpster dive. It would be really unfortunate that after everything they've done to improve the farm system they can't actually use it to go out and get impact players at critical times because they cost too much.

 

And it's going to be years until the Cubs theoretically have the money to compete with the Dodgers and company when it comes to spending, so again, you're just perpetuating another self-fulfilling prophecy to excuse not trying to bolster a competitive Cubs team.

 

The bolded sentence is where I disagree with you. The farm system is not what we thought it was back in March. Graduating Bryant, Russell and Schwarber has really hurt what was a terribly top-heavy system. That doesn't mean we don't have pieces to trade, but trading for impact would significantly hurt the system, and would do so in a year where you likely don't feel as good about your chances as you may in 2016.

 

So "hurt" the system; this is supposed to be the FO that can replenish it with smart drafting and signings. Everyone knew Bryant and Russell were definitely coming up this year, so Schwarber being a regular in the lineup at this point is the only real surprise. Why would it be worse if the farm is momentarily depleted this year because of trades as opposed to the next? Are they "hurting" the farm system if they make a big trade in this coming offseason? Honestly, this comes across as being more worried as to how the system will be ranked for 2016 moreso than the Cubs doing what they can to compete this year.

 

I don't believe that they can truly "compete" in 2015. I think they can in 2016. That's where I'm ultimately coming from.

[ARCubsFan]

They're not "hoarding" their prospects. The majority of their top prospects from a year ago are currently either in the majors or on the verge of being there and the well is kind of dry right now. They have a nice system but they weren't going to beat the Rangers in a Hamels deal with anyone we wouldn't have regretted giving up.

 

The well isn't dry at all; that's nonsense. And there's always the risk of ultimately regretting giving up a prospect. That's not a definitive reason in and of itself to not make moves to help the team right way.

The Rangers gave up their 4th, 5th, 6th, 17th, 29th prospects and Matt Harrison for Cole Hamels. That's like the Cubs giving up Carl Edwards Jr, Duane Underwood, Albert Almora, Jen Ho Tseng, Jeremy Null, and Clayton Richard on a bigger salary for Hamels. No thanks.

I'm a prospect hoarder and I'd do that trade in an instant.

Keep in mind, the Rangers have a better system than the Cubs and they were able to keep their top 3 prospects untouchable. The Cubs probably have to add Gleyber in that deal instead of one of those mentioned to equal it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There are only probabilities? So, what are the probabilities that this team that has struggled at the plate all year begins to hit against the likes of Kershaw/Greinke/Latos or Scherzer/Zimmermann/Gozalez or Wacha/Martinez/Lynn?

 

Higher than the probability that whatever rando prospects we trade will ever, ever make a meaningful diference in a baseball season in terms of how far the team gets.

 

No, nothing is a guarantee. I guess I just don't get where all the optimism is coming from, and have a hard time using the 2014 Kansas City Royals as a beacon of hope.

 

I don't care about what makes you feel "hope." I care about what wins baseball games. And it's not Scrooge McDucking prospects in the middle of a playoff race just because the narrative that 2016 will be magical if you are virtuous and patient has taken a grip.

[Sammy Sofa]

It was not good, and it only regressed as the season continued. Yes, they certainly hit better in the playoffs, but that's not an indication of what we'd do.

 

It's an indication of what is possible. There's not point in puting down a blanket "This is what they would/won't do." There are only probabilties.

 

Even at their worst, they were a much better offense than we've seen in Chicago this season.

 

That's not actually true.

 

There are only probabilities? So, what are the probabilities that this team that has struggled at the plate all year begins to hit against the likes of Kershaw/Greinke/Latos or Scherzer/Zimmermann/Gozalez or Wacha/Martinez/Lynn?

 

No, nothing is a guarantee. I guess I just don't get where all the optimism is coming from, and have a hard time using the 2014 Kansas City Royals as a beacon of hope.

 

If the Cubs had, say, traded for Hamels, why would teams like the Dodgers or the Cardinals be so likely to be able to handle Hamels/Arrietta/Lester any easier? You just want to be in the playoffs because things can wildly sway in either direction.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't believe that they can truly "compete" in 2015. I think they can in 2016. That's where I'm ultimately coming from.

 

You're going to be very disappointed when the actual 2016 Cubs show up looking remarkably like the 2015 Cubs, give or take a starting pitcher.

[sontensei]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Gonna guess Carlos Santana here

 

knowing the cards they will get carrasco and brantley