2015 trading deadline

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

So what? So they rebuild it. We're looking at a team next year that is likely going to be anchored offensively by Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, Schwarber, Soler and Baez next year. Why is such a problem if the farm system slips in the rankings temporarily because they bolstered the team by trading for an impact player or two?

[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.

 

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.

 

Because they are better at hitting the baseball and scoring runs? We're behind the Dodgers, Cardinals, Pirates, Giants and Nats in nearly every offensive category.

[Sammy Sofa]

Because they are better at hitting the baseball and scoring runs? We're behind the Dodgers, Cardinals, Pirates, Giants and Nats in nearly every offensive category.

 

We're talking the narrow sample size of the playoffs where you're usually just going up against a team's best, something the Cubs, yes, have shown they can do at times, just like anyone else. The key is to actually get in to have that shot.

[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.

 

So what? So they rebuild it. We're looking at a team next year that is likely going to be anchored offensively by Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, Schwarber, Soler and Baez next year. Why is such a problem if the farm system slips in the rankings temporarily because they bolstered the team by trading for an impact player or two?

I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that the Cubs don't really have the prospects to compete with a deal like the Rangers for Hamels without decimating our system.

[SRQCub]

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.

 

If the 2016 Cubs have Price and Baez, I would take that over Hamels and Castro. And you still have prospects to use next season, along with Castro to deal for an OF this offseason.

 

I just don't want to see good prospects go for a rental right now.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I just don't want to see good prospects go for a rental right now.

 

That's because you place really bad valuations on the present season and on prospects. Really, really bad.

[SRQCub]

I just don't want to see good prospects go for a rental right now.

 

That's because you place really bad valuations on the present season and on prospects. Really, really bad.

 

Lol, how so?

[sontensei]

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.

 

i guess its just me, but i want to watch meaningful baseball as far into september / october as possible. the team is only 2.5 back with 7 games vs. the giants and what 3 vs. the dodgers? several vs. the pirates and cards? yeah its easy to say "hey man there is no chance" but the interesting thing is this team plays way better vs. good teams for some reason.. that 5th starter spot is just a sore eye, out of what 9 or 10 starts they will need a 5th having a better chance to win is important to regular ole cub fans like me. waiver deal for wandy rodriguez or picking up jason marquiz is the same or worse than a clayton richard... if pierce johnson is such a good prospect why not give him a shot?

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

So what? So they rebuild it. We're looking at a team next year that is likely going to be anchored offensively by Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, Schwarber, Soler and Baez next year. Why is such a problem if the farm system slips in the rankings temporarily because they bolstered the team by trading for an impact player or two?

I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that the Cubs don't really have the prospects to compete with a deal like the Rangers for Hamels without decimating our system.

 

Again: so what? So the farm gets emptied some more temporarily for a fantastic pitcher to bolster a rotation that needs the help and who they have under control for years. Why is it critical they hold on to any of the players you listed?

[sontensei]

I just don't want to see good prospects go for a rental right now.

 

That's because you place really bad valuations on the present season and on prospects. Really, really bad.

 

Lol, how so?

 

who is not "worth it" for you in the farm system for a guy like leake or kennedy?

[SRQCub]

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.

 

I don't care what fans pine for. Fans are irrelevant, and mean absolutely nothing in this conversation.

[SRQCub]

I just don't want to see good prospects go for a rental right now.

 

That's because you place really bad valuations on the present season and on prospects. Really, really bad.

 

Lol, how so?

 

who is not "worth it" for you in the farm system for a guy like leake or kennedy?

 

I've acknowledged there are guys I'd deal for one of those guys.

[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.

 

I don't care what fans pine for. Fans are irrelevant, and mean absolutely nothing in this conversation.

 

Yes ... That is what I'm saying too ...

 

I'm glad we're on the same page?

[sontensei]

I just don't want to see good prospects go for a rental right now.

 

That's because you place really bad valuations on the present season and on prospects. Really, really bad.

 

Lol, how so?

 

who is not "worth it" for you in the farm system for a guy like leake or kennedy?

 

I've acknowledged there are guys I'd deal for one of those guys.

 

then since its common knowledge around here that no one wants to mortgage the "future" for a rental why did you even make it a point in the first place?

 

no one said "hey man lets trade McKinney, Torres, and Edwards for a Price rental"...

[SRQCub]

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.

 

So what? So they rebuild it. We're looking at a team next year that is likely going to be anchored offensively by Rizzo, Bryant, Russell, Schwarber, Soler and Baez next year. Why is such a problem if the farm system slips in the rankings temporarily because they bolstered the team by trading for an impact player or two?

I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that the Cubs don't really have the prospects to compete with a deal like the Rangers for Hamels without decimating our system.

 

Again: so what? So the farm gets emptied some more temporarily for a fantastic pitcher to bolster a rotation that needs the help and who they have under control for years. Why is it critical they hold on to any of the players you listed?

 

Again, this isn't a vacuum. Would you rather add Hamels at the cost of Baez, Edwards and McKinney, or add Price for nothing but payroll?

[SRQCub]

then since its common knowledge around here that no one wants to mortgage the "future" for a rental why did you even make it a point in the first place?

 

no one said "hey man lets trade McKinney, Torres, and Edwards for a Price rental"...

 

Yes they did. Read the Hamels thread.

[sontensei]

then since its common knowledge around here that no one wants to mortgage the "future" for a rental why did you even make it a point in the first place?

 

no one said "hey man lets trade McKinney, Torres, and Edwards for a Price rental"...

 

Yes they did. Read the Hamels thread.

 

Hamels isnt a rental.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

Holy [expletive] [expletive].

[Guest]

I'd personally drive all those dudes to Philadelphia

[Guest]

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.

 

Wow.

[SouthSideRyan]

That's 35 years of control we're giving up.

[Clem Fandango]

It's like 5 lottery tickets and a scratcher you found in the parking lot that already lost.

[toonsterwu]

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 think anyone would give that up in a heartbeat for Hamels and his salary. That's a lot of eh if we're being honest.

 

That said, the Rangers package was far superior to that. I'd take a dinged up Harrison over Richard, and the prospect haul (Alfaro, Thompson, and Williams in particular) is far superior that grouping of Cubs you've listed.

 

For all the talk about whether or not we could've matched the Rangers, I'd suggest that all indications were that the Phillies wanted a catcher of the future, something we didn't really have to give them at anywhere near Alfaro's talent level. That said, it's quite fair to say we couldn't match the Rangers. We really don't have a Jake Thompson level arm, no matter how one feels about Jake Thompson, as a young arm in AA with 2 plus pitches, a solid 3 pitch arsenal, and has shown some command is an intriguing asset. If we're beingfair, Nick Williams raw toolset overwhelms most of our remaining top guys, so if a team bought into his improved discipline, that's a fascinating asset.

 

That's okay, though. We've graduated our key members of our future, and that weakens a system. We still have enough assets that the FO should, if they wanted to, add a key rotation member for the stretch run without sacrificing too much. Again, I've said repeatedly that I didn't see a need to go after elite arms - the need, more than anything, was rotation depth. We had a good one-two punch ... and Hammel was fine as a 3rd/4th piece. For all the talk about Hamels, I look at the cost of Latos and that's the one I sort of wish the Cubs had gotten in on, but I can understand them not going that route.

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

Neither does he. But the I don't want to see them try crowd has to tell themselves they feel that way for a reason.

[jersey cubs fan]

[tweet]

[/tweet]