The Pitchers we can trade for....

[RammyFanny]

So in other words, his most recent quote says he still just wants to close. Which I could see why he doesn't want to make such a drastic change in the year before he gets his payday. The author argues he could get an extra $50 million as a starter, but still expects him to throw 103 mph and not blow his arm out.

 

And I'd argue his payday is going to be north of the $50 million cap the author currently suggests it's at.

 

His most recent quote was him being a good employee. He didn't just change his mind and not want to be a starter again within a handful of months for no reason.

I mean, I guess if I squint realllly hard I can see him just saying this if he wants people to stop asking him about it. But on the surface, it sounded pretty clear like he just didn't want to start.

So too would Chapman. At least being asked the question. He said he feels it's no longer a question that needs to be asked.

"I am preparing myself as every offseason, getting myself ready to close," Chapman said. "Starting hasn't even crossed my mind and I'm not going to do it either."

Chapman said nobody's talked to him about starting and he doesn't see it as a transition he can make.

"I don't want to — and it's difficult that I'd do it," Chapman said.

 

"I think probably until last year, he wasn't undecided but was more willing to take a look and kick the tires of starting again," Price said.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2013/12/08/aroldis-chapman-wont-be-a-starter/3909963/

 

I'm not saying he couldn't be swayed at some point, but I just don't think he's interested in putting his arm under the most stress it's ever been under in years right before he hits free agency and is still going to cash in.

[Guest]

http://www.hngn.com/articles/151258/20151117/mlb-trade-rumors-tampa-bay-rays-taking-offers-on-matt-moore-drew-smyly-brad-boxberger-and-jake-mcgee.htm

 

A few interesting options there. If Smyly's shoulder were guaranteed to be in tact, he'd be a heck of an option. That's a heck of a gamble, though. Moore would be a nice option for the bottom of the rotation with some significant upside. If they'd take minor leaguers as the return, both would be interesting options.

[Guest]

Other than failing or getting hurt right before his big payday.

 

Best predictor for a future injury, by far, is a recent past injury, not guesses on what might happen to one guy making the transition from reliever to starter. This is not an unprecedented conversion, he wouldn't be the first or last guy to go from starter to reliever to starter again as a pro.

And that conversion has a failure rate associated with it. That's a big gamble for him to take on just before his big payday.

[Guest]

So in other words, his most recent quote says he still just wants to close. Which I could see why he doesn't want to make such a drastic change in the year before he gets his payday. The author argues he could get an extra $50 million as a starter, but still expects him to throw 103 mph and not blow his arm out.

 

And I'd argue his payday is going to be north of the $50 million cap the author currently suggests it's at.

 

His most recent quote was him being a good employee. He didn't just change his mind and not want to be a starter again within a handful of months for no reason.

I mean, I guess if I squint realllly hard I can see him just saying this if he wants people to stop asking him about it. But on the surface, it sounded pretty clear like he just didn't want to start.

So too would Chapman. At least being asked the question. He said he feels it's no longer a question that needs to be asked.

"I am preparing myself as every offseason, getting myself ready to close," Chapman said. "Starting hasn't even crossed my mind and I'm not going to do it either."

Chapman said nobody's talked to him about starting and he doesn't see it as a transition he can make.

"I don't want to — and it's difficult that I'd do it," Chapman said.

 

"I think probably until last year, he wasn't undecided but was more willing to take a look and kick the tires of starting again," Price said.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2013/12/08/aroldis-chapman-wont-be-a-starter/3909963/

 

I'm not saying he couldn't be swayed at some point, but I just don't think he's interested in putting his arm under the most stress it's ever been under in years right before he hits free agency and is still going to cash in.

 

I've heard and read the quotes before and say it again - that's a guy being a good employee and probably sick of the Reds' indecisiveness. 2014 would have been the 4th or 5th offseason in a row where the Reds were jerking him around on whether to start or close.

You're reading what you want to read. How do you know his quotes about being okay with any role from previous years was the guy just being a good employee and then last year he finally expressed his true feelings by taking an adamant stand? It seems to be a more likely interpretation.

[Guest]

Other than failing or getting hurt right before his big payday.

 

Best predictor for a future injury, by far, is a recent past injury, not guesses on what might happen to one guy making the transition from reliever to starter. This is not an unprecedented conversion, he wouldn't be the first or last guy to go from starter to reliever to starter again as a pro.

 

None of that matters if he thinks it's a risk he doesn't want to take.

 

Please shut the [expletive] up about this already and talk about Rick Porcello or Tyler Beede or something.

[Guest]

On the subject of taking back Maybin to lower the cost of acquiring Teheran, this article would imply that isn't the case.

 

While Coppolella is adamant that there’s a method to all of the Braves’ perceived madness and staunchly rejects the idea of trading Freeman, Nightengale does write that further trades from Atlanta could be on the horizon. The team still hopes to shed the contracts of Nick Swisher and Michael Bourn — two players acquired to accelerate the alleviation of the financial burden that Chris Johnson‘s contract had presented — and a strong offer for Maybin could pry him away from Atlanta as well.

 

Now, the source for that seems to be Nightengale. And it seems more speculation than a sourced quote at that point. But it at least implies that if we wanted to lower the cost of Teheran we'd have to be stuck with the cost of Swisher or Bourn.

[Guest]

Btw I hope you all realize that Chapman is a massive add even if you don't convert him. Pitchers more valuable than him on last year's Cubs? Lester, Arrieta, and possibly/probably Hendricks.

 

yes we all realize that. if some hadn't before, they would've by now as it's probably the 102nd time you've told them.

[Guest]

You're reading what you want to read. How do you know his quotes about being okay with any role from previous years was the guy just being a good employee and then last year he finally expressed his true feelings by taking an adamant stand? It seems to be a more likely interpretation.

 

Both in 2012 and 2013 he prepared as a starter, was told by the org he'd start, only to end up walking into a ST where they're already backtracking. 2014 was the first time he went out of his way during the offseason to end that, avoid the controversy, and still be a good employee.

 

Btw I hope you all realize that Chapman is a massive add even if you don't convert him. Pitchers more valuable than him on last year's Cubs? Lester, Arrieta, and possibly/probably Hendricks.

Yes, he would be fabulous to have at the back end of the pen. Between him, Rondon, Grimm and Strop (and Ramirez if he manages to be healthy) we'd have an amazing pen. I just don't think it's reasonable to pay the price to get him and then try to convert him for the myriad reasons previously stated.

[Guest]

Yes, he would be fabulous to have at the back end of the pen. Between him, Rondon, Grimm and Strop (and Ramirez if he manages to be healthy) we'd have an amazing pen. I just don't think it's reasonable to pay the price to get him and then try to convert him for the myriad reasons previously stated.

 

All I'm saying is that there are just as many reasons to start him as not, stated throughout. Id even say there's more reason to start him than not, which basically comes down to not wanting to take on the perceived risk.

Even if you do convert him, you probably can't get more than 150-160 innings out of him and he's possibly not available for you in the postseason. That's IF everything goes well with the conversion. Then, if the conversion succeeded, you've now dramatically raised his price to retain his services for when he can work a normal workload as a starter.

[Guest]

Rich Hill just got 6 million and he made 4 MLB starts last year and hasn't thrown 100 pro innings in 5 years. If Chapman is remotely successful as a starter he is going to get a ton of money. But really, the answer hasn't changed since the last time we had the conversation.

 

The answer is because trading a huge haul for Chapman, paying him 10+ million, hoping he pans out in the rotation, then trying to extend him/sign him in free agency is a really bad use of resources. If any of those things were different, if he had more team control, or a lower 2016 cost, or his trade cost wasn't astronomical or if we could be more certain of him as a starter, then that might be a different story. But it's not so trading for Chapman is a bad idea in general, and it's especially bad with the eye on making him a starter.

[ctcf]

On the bullpen front, K-Rod just got traded to the Tigers.

[davell]

On the bullpen front, K-Rod just got traded to the Tigers.

 

Are we sure he's not getting stretched out to start?

[Rob]

Rumor has it that the Yankees are getting pretty deep in a conversation about Gardner for one of the Indians young pitchers (presumably either Salazar or Carrasco)

[Guest]

Rumor has it that the Yankees are getting pretty deep in a conversation about Gardner for one of the Indians young pitchers (presumably either Salazar or Carrasco)

wtf

[Guest]

I disagree that it's a bad use of resources so much as a non-linear way of going about things, which doesn't even necessarily make it significantly more high risk. Beyond innings, is there even a reason to think Chapman wouldn't succeed as a starter? You have a nearly perfectly healthy arm that cultivated a third plus pitch as a reliever when he barely needs his second, dominant physical tools for the position, and dominant periphs against MLers.

 

Innings, lack of control, and middling performance as a starter in the past are all compelling enough for me to have significant doubts. But even if we were certain that he'd be great, the most overwhelming reason not to is that he's a rental that will not be priced like a rental. It's pure tunnel vision to think trading for Chapman and making him a starter is anywhere near the best way for the team to use it's resources, with 10 seconds of thought I was able to list off a dozen SP options that are better fits.

[Cubswin11]

Rumor has it that the Yankees are getting pretty deep in a conversation about Gardner for one of the Indians young pitchers (presumably either Salazar or Carrasco)

There is no way that's true

[Guest]

Rumor has it that the Yankees are getting pretty deep in a conversation about Gardner for one of the Indians young pitchers (presumably either Salazar or Carrasco)

There is no way that's true

Maybe we can swoop in and trump them with Coghlan for Salazar or Carrasco instead.

[Cubswin11]

Rumor has it that the Yankees are getting pretty deep in a conversation about Gardner for one of the Indians young pitchers (presumably either Salazar or Carrasco)

There is no way that's true

Maybe we can swoop in and trump them with Coghlan for Salazar or Carrasco instead.

Pfft, offer them Szczur if they push back up it to LaStella but that's the limit.

[Clem Fandango]

Rumor has it that the Yankees are getting pretty deep in a conversation about Gardner for one of the Indians young pitchers (presumably either Salazar or Carrasco)

 

One of these is Brett Gardner. The other is Chris Coghlan...

 

http://i.imgur.com/2UcdJit.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/vXcoEWm.jpg

 

I know I know, Gardner can play CF if need be and is under contract through 2018 while Coghlan is a FA after next season, but Coghlan is also substantially cheaper and also two years younger than Gardner, who's been declining as he ages. If Gardner can bring back Salazar or Carrasco I don't see what the Cubs couldn't shop Coghlan in a package for something similar.

[Clem Fandango]

Rumor has it that the Yankees are getting pretty deep in a conversation about Gardner for one of the Indians young pitchers (presumably either Salazar or Carrasco)

There is no way that's true

Maybe we can swoop in and trump them with Coghlan for Salazar or Carrasco instead.

 

Beat me to the punch

[SouthSideRyan]

Because Chris Coghlan isn't valued at nearly the same level as Brett Gardner. Come on.

[Guest]

Because Chris Coghlan isn't valued at nearly the same level as Brett Gardner. Come on.

 

It's a joke.

 

And nowhere near as egregious as Gardner (as the main piece) vs. Salazar/Carrasco.

[Clem Fandango]

Because Chris Coghlan isn't valued at nearly the same level as Brett Gardner. Come on.

 

http://i.imgur.com/iFXsP3I.gif

[Clem Fandango]

Serious question though, I know Cleveland has tossed around Carrasco and Salazar's names as trade pieces. Are they rebuilding or contending? Or are they in the middle somewhere? What kind of pieces would they want in return for guys like that (MLB or prospects)?

[SouthSideRyan]

Because Chris Coghlan isn't valued at nearly the same level as Brett Gardner. Come on.

 

http://i.imgur.com/iFXsP3I.gif

 

I don't see why the Cubs couldn't shop Coghlan in a package for something similar

 

Nobody cares about a 1 year platoon LF with a decent bat and a shaky defensive reputation.

 

There's a reason most of us are trying to marginalize him.