The Pitchers we can trade for....

[Hairyducked Idiot]

A lot of people are going to be disappointed by Jorge Soler's actual trade value. He's not good enough to warrant one of the good Cleveland pitches. Yes, upside UPSIDE UPSIDE!!!!. But also about to turn 24, coming off a 0.1 fWAR season, five years of control left.

 

Shelby Miller is less than 1.5 years older than Soler, has three years of control left, was a higher-rated prospect than Soler at their respective peak ratings, and has actual success in the major leagues sustained over entire seasons.

 

One-for-one is not an unreasonable swap. Maybe you don't want to do it because of screw pitchers, but the value is reasonable.

[Guest]

A lot of people are going to be disappointed by Jorge Soler's actual trade value. He's not good enough to warrant one of the good Cleveland pitches. Yes, upside UPSIDE UPSIDE!!!!. But also about to turn 24, coming off a 0.1 fWAR season, five years of control left.

 

Shelby Miller is less than 1.5 years older than Soler, has three years of control left, was a higher-rated prospect than Soler at their respective peak ratings, and has actual success in the major leagues sustained over entire seasons.

 

One-for-one is not an unreasonable swap. Maybe you don't want to do it because of screw pitchers, but the value is reasonable.

 

i don't care about jorge soler's actual trade value because i don't want to trade him.

 

(if it's not obvious that that is hyperbole, please no "you should always care about our players' trade value" "right deal blah blah" types of responses)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

A lot of people are going to be disappointed by Jorge Soler's actual trade value. He's not good enough to warrant one of the good Cleveland pitches. Yes, upside UPSIDE UPSIDE!!!!. But also about to turn 24, coming off a 0.1 fWAR season, five years of control left.

 

Shelby Miller is less than 1.5 years older than Soler, has three years of control left, was a higher-rated prospect than Soler at their respective peak ratings, and has actual success in the major leagues sustained over entire seasons.

 

One-for-one is not an unreasonable swap. Maybe you don't want to do it because of screw pitchers, but the value is reasonable.

 

i don't care about jorge soler's actual trade value because i don't want to trade him.

 

That's a lot more reasonable than wondering which top prospect we're getting in addition to Miller.

[Guest]

maybe i'm unreasonable but i think i want a better pitcher than Miller or Teheran if i'm giving up Jorcules (Solercules?)

I think you're overrating Soler quite a bit to think you'd do better than Miller and Teharan. Two very good cost controlled pitchers. I'm not even necessarily saying I'd do the trade, but you're not getting much better than that for Soler alone. He's talented but he's flawed.

i just don't prize high-end pitching all that highly; Teheran seemed cool to add at the was-bad-at-everything-in-2015 discount

 

the consistent narrative i've been touting is just adding Heyward and having a relatively unassailable lineup that threatens for most runs in the league and even the steady but uninspiring, quality start machines like Hendricks/Leake/Hammel win a ton of games

 

Jason Heyward

Kris Bryant

Anthony Rizzo

Kyle Schwarber

Jorge Soler

Addison Russell

Castro / Baez

Montero / Contreras

 

yup, that lineup for sure wins the division like 4 of the next 5-6 seasons

 

love button plz

[Clem Fandango]

Hey I'm not the one who thought they'd need more than Miller or Teheran, I was just playing along with Crasnick's rumor.

[Guest]

A lot of people are going to be disappointed by Jorge Soler's actual trade value. He's not good enough to warrant one of the good Cleveland pitches. Yes, upside UPSIDE UPSIDE!!!!. But also about to turn 24, coming off a 0.1 fWAR season, five years of control left.

 

This touches on an idea that a lot of people don't seem to grasp, and I don't quite understand why.

 

In Free Agency, people have generally come around on the idea that free agents get paid more than they're 'worth' because of the circumstances needed to acquire them. Free Agents are not items in a store, so you can't just line up a suggested retail price and pay it. Because you're competing against other people who want that player, you're self selecting for those that believe the most in that player, driving up their perceived value of the player and therefore the price they pay. Don't get me wrong, between inflation and the masses there's still plenty of 'I wouldn't pay more than X/year' out there when the player ends up getting X+10 million, but more than ever people recognize that you're paying the price for the best possible version of that player and more, so no one genuinely thinks they're getting a deal when signing players, especially near the top of the market.

 

For whatever reason, this idea has not translated to the trade market, even though the same principle applies. The original rumor here is that the Braves are 'enamored' with Soler. While they can try to drive down his price, if that rumor is at all true they certainly don't see him as a 0.1 fWAR K machine/defensive statue going forward, so that doesn't have much bearing on what they'd trade for him. This is made even more true by the fact that Soler does not remotely need to be traded. The Cubs can make the offseason upgrades they need to without touching Soler, which means that they're not likely to accept a trade that values Soler as a 0.1 fWAR K machine/defensive statue either unless they're really really(really really) bearish on him.

 

We see this when dismissing other trade ideas as well, and it's why it's so tedious to talk about specific trade packages in general. Most potential trade ideas are based on some level of irrationality(either towards the player's value, the desire to pay the person their guaranteed money, a subjective reason like personality/behavior, or some combo), so that irrationality is assumed when thinking of potential packages. If that irrationality isn't the actual reality of the situation, then the trade probably won't come to fruition because it's not a great fit. That doesn't mean that there's a hard coded 'trade value' of X for that player that [your favorite team] is misjudging though.

[Guest]

there's been some talk on miller and there's been soem talk on pollock so

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Guest]

Someone send Dave Stewart a Baez highlight reel and let's make this happen.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

A lot of people are going to be disappointed by Jorge Soler's actual trade value. He's not good enough to warrant one of the good Cleveland pitches. Yes, upside UPSIDE UPSIDE!!!!. But also about to turn 24, coming off a 0.1 fWAR season, five years of control left.

 

This touches on an idea that a lot of people don't seem to grasp, and I don't quite understand why.

 

In Free Agency, people have generally come around on the idea that free agents get paid more than they're 'worth' because of the circumstances needed to acquire them. Free Agents are not items in a store, so you can't just line up a suggested retail price and pay it. Because you're competing against other people who want that player, you're self selecting for those that believe the most in that player, driving up their perceived value of the player and therefore the price they pay. Don't get me wrong, between inflation and the masses there's still plenty of 'I wouldn't pay more than X/year' out there when the player ends up getting X+10 million, but more than ever people recognize that you're paying the price for the best possible version of that player and more, so no one genuinely thinks they're getting a deal when signing players, especially near the top of the market.

 

For whatever reason, this idea has not translated to the trade market, even though the same principle applies. The original rumor here is that the Braves are 'enamored' with Soler. While they can try to drive down his price, if that rumor is at all true they certainly don't see him as a 0.1 fWAR K machine/defensive statue going forward, so that doesn't have much bearing on what they'd trade for him. This is made even more true by the fact that Soler does not remotely need to be traded. The Cubs can make the offseason upgrades they need to without touching Soler, which means that they're not likely to accept a trade that values Soler as a 0.1 fWAR K machine/defensive statue either unless they're really really(really really) bearish on him.

 

We see this when dismissing other trade ideas as well, and it's why it's so tedious to talk about specific trade packages in general. Most potential trade ideas are based on some level of irrationality(either towards the player's value, the desire to pay the person their guaranteed money, a subjective reason like personality/behavior, or some combo), so that irrationality is assumed when thinking of potential packages. If that irrationality isn't the actual reality of the situation, then the trade probably won't come to fruition because it's not a great fit. That doesn't mean that there's a hard coded 'trade value' of X for that player that [your favorite team] is misjudging though.

 

You did notice in my post that I mentioned the upside too. I didn't say he was *just* the bad things. It's just that in the "people value things differently," our assets in these trade discussions always mysteriously land on the high end of their potential value.

[Guest]

 

PRAISE JESUS

[Tryptamine]

So after being turned down the first time on a lopsided deal, they made the 2nd offer even more lopsided and expected that to get accepted? Really?

[Guest]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

 

I prefer Teheran to Miller, but outside of Grilli I'm not sure there's another compelling piece I'd want to add to Teheran to consider trading Soler.

 

 

[Felix Leiter]

I see San Diego is looking to trade James Shields, is it time to revisit him for the Cubs? He's @ 3/$65 right now and it's been said that the Pads would have to send cash also. I wonder what they would say to sending McKinney and another AA for Shields and $15M?

[sneakypower]

fwiw James Shields had basically the same HR/9 as Dan Haren this year

 

i could be talked into taking his contract off their hands, but not giving up an actual real prospect to do so

[Guest]

Shields was not good last year, and while some of it is potentially explained by San Diego's bizarre HR spike last year(has anyone written about this?), he still had a spike in walks and a drop in velocity to go along with the fact that he's 34 this year. Also, he has an opt out after this season, so if you straighten him out this year you run the risk of only having him for that season. I'd consider trading nothing for Shields and money in January or so if the needs/finances worked out, but he's not high at all on the list for me.

[Cubswin11]

I could get behind a Shields trade if it's like Jeimer and Pierce Johnson at most and they pay some of the salary

[KingCubsFan]

I could get behind a Shields trade if it's like Jeimer and Pierce Johnson at most and they pay some of the salary

Jeimer may be pretty close to a Top 100 prospect at this point.

[Felix Leiter]

Shields was not good last year, and while some of it is potentially explained by San Diego's bizarre HR spike last year(has anyone written about this?), he still had a spike in walks and a drop in velocity to go along with the fact that he's 34 this year. Also, he has an opt out after this season, so if you straighten him out this year you run the risk of only having him for that season. I'd consider trading nothing for Shields and money in January or so if the needs/finances worked out, but he's not high at all on the list for me.

 

TT-here's a Fangraphs article about Shield's 2015 year.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-year-james-shields-was-different/

 

An interesting point was that he changed his approach(possibly because he had diminished arm strength) or maybe it was dictated from up high. If Bosio felt Shields was on the downhill slide and unfixable even for one year, then I'll pass. But if he's fixable, then I'd ask the Padres what it would take.

[Cubswin11]

I could get behind a Shields trade if it's like Jeimer and Pierce Johnson at most and they pay some of the salary

Jeimer may be pretty close to a Top 100 prospect at this point.

Ok? I think a maybe top 100 prospect is a decent deal for Shields, especially when a pitcher like Samardzija is apparently getting $100+

[davell]

Gammons was on Inside the Clubhouse and said that as of Thursday, the Cubs thought they had the framework for a Shelby Miller deal in place. But things fell apart quickly on Atlanta's end for some reason.

[Guest]

Gammons was on Inside the Clubhouse and said that as of Thursday, the Cubs thought they had the framework for a Shelby Miller deal in place. But things fell apart quickly on Atlanta's end for some reason.

I wonder what the deal looked like and if it can be revisited.

[davell]

Gammons was on Inside the Clubhouse and said that as of Thursday, the Cubs thought they had the framework for a Shelby Miller deal in place. But things fell apart quickly on Atlanta's end for some reason.

I wonder what the deal looked like and if it can be revisited.

 

He acted like it could be revisited evidently. Just seemed confused by the Braves situation as to why they'd pull him back away quickly like that.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Gammons was on Inside the Clubhouse and said that as of Thursday, the Cubs thought they had the framework for a Shelby Miller deal in place. But things fell apart quickly on Atlanta's end for some reason.

 

Deja vu much?

[Guest]

Gammons was on Inside the Clubhouse and said that as of Thursday, the Cubs thought they had the framework for a Shelby Miller deal in place. But things fell apart quickly on Atlanta's end for some reason.

I wonder what the deal looked like and if it can be revisited.

 

He acted like it could be revisited evidently. Just seemed confused by the Braves situation as to why they'd pull him back away quickly like that.

My guess would be that they heard from another team.

[XZero771679666304]

Gammons was on Inside the Clubhouse and said that as of Thursday, the Cubs thought they had the framework for a Shelby Miller deal in place. But things fell apart quickly on Atlanta's end for some reason.

I wonder what the deal looked like and if it can be revisited.

 

He acted like it could be revisited evidently. Just seemed confused by the Braves situation as to why they'd pull him back away quickly like that.

My guess would be that they heard from another team.

 

If earlier reports that twenty teams contacted the Braves regarding Miller are true, I suspect that there is quite a bit of multi-party discussion going on. I could see the Miller situation dragging on for a while.