"Time makes fools of us all" - The Kyle Schwarber Thread

[Cubswin11]

My point about trading Schwarber (and Russell) back when they had trade value was based on the fact that they were both easily replaced while giving us solid ML pitching (or top pitching prospects). Schwarber always has been the epitome of a DH in a league that doesn't use a DH. Russell's obvious replacement was Baez who moved off of SS for Russell. Finding a replacement LF and 2B from Zobrist, Happ, LaStella, Bote, or a FA would have been rather easy.

 

You're going to need to get a lot more specific in terms of timing if you're going to keep tooting your own horn on this. When exactly did you want these trades to be made?

 

If you trade Schwarber and Russell, you're giving Zobrist a full time job at either second base or left field. A full time set job for a guy in his late 30s who draws a lot of value from his positional versatility. This also means that it becomes much harder to hide Heyward the last couple years as he struggled to be a replacement level player. You can't sit Heyward for Zobrist against lefties if you need Zobrist to play second or left. Of those remaining players you named, who of Happ, LaStella, and Bote did you want to give full time ABs to going into 2017? Ian Happ had just got done throwing up a .318 OBP in AA. David Bote had a good year in high A, and got a cup of coffee in AAA as a reward. He spent all of 2017 in AA. Tommy LaStella? Lol ok.

 

I know this is where you point random free agent X that turned out to be a great deal as a way to retroactively solve all our problems. But let's not pretend like this grand solution was sitting there, obvious to you but not Theo, at the time.

 

 

How about 2017 when Schwarber has a hero and Russell was still considered a top draft pick. Hell, Schwarber still could have been valuable (Braves, Indians, etc.) this past offseason until Theo announced he was unavailable. As I said before, it was obvious from day one that Schwarber was born to be a DH and Russell was going to be replaced by Baez. The players that I named were internal possibilities, but there were plenty of external trade possibilities or FAs in the last two years that could have filled those two spots.

The tweet/article on the last page I posted literally said there were concerns they could even trade Schwarbs this last offseason because of his back issue last year. Which yeah backs up they should’ve sold high on him (which was post 2015 and pre 2016 I suppose and why the horsefeathers are you trading him then?). But they seemingly couldn’t really trade him this last offseason.

[badger]

Y'all know that once he's gone from the Cubs he's going to turn into the majestic dongmaster we got a glimpse of and always knew he was. :(

[bcl412]

I think we just need fat Kyle back.

[Backtobanks]

Schwarber could have still been valuable to the Braves and also it's obvious since day one that Schwarber is a DH. Those two opinions, back to back, definitely don't contradict at all.

 

The Braves were desperate enough for a slugger that they would play Schwarber in the OF, even though he should be a DH. Adam Dunn had no business playing the OF either, but if you need his bat in the lineup you find a way.

[Backtobanks]

 

 

 

I used 2017 as my example to clearly show none of the internal options were ready that year besides Seal Boy. Or did you mean you wanted to trade Schwarber after 2017, which was a clear step back from 2015 and what he showed in the 2016 World Series? That's clearly not the selling high everyone was talking about.

 

And please define 'day one'. Was it when Baez was so bad after he got called up that he basically spent the whole next year in the minors? Was it when Schwarber was drafted as a catcher? Was it when he came in 6th in FG defense in 2017 out of 24 left fielders, or when he came in 3rd in 2018 out of 31?

 

Again, you can fall back on 'well we could have just traded for someone, obviously' (trade who?) or 'yeah, in hindsight Player X would have been a lot better'. But stop pretending this was some huge mistake made.

 

Schwarber & Russell should have been traded after the WS. As for Schwarber's stats in the OF, we all know that stats don't always show the true story. A perfect example is my favorite Cub (Ernie Banks) set a record for fewest errors by a SS, but nobody considered him a great SS defensively. He was considered a great SS because of his bat. As for trading for "someone", you can check out all of the OFs and MIF who were traded (or rumored to be available) in the last two years and fill in the blank. We have no idea what we could have received in a trade for Russell or Schwarber if the FO was unwilling to trade them.

[17 Seconds]

 

Schwarber & Russell should have been traded after the WS.

 

there was no reason to trade them then. especially russell. saying they "should" have traded them in hindsight is pointless, especially since there was probably more reason to trade baez then, which would have been a huge mistake.

[squally1313]

So basically we're at 'I don't like the stats' and then 'well I assume there was someone better that we should have traded for'. Which also conveniently ignores the point of...who are you trading to get these upgrades after you expertly identified that weak players that still held enough value to get good pitching?

[Backtobanks]

 

Schwarber & Russell should have been traded after the WS.

 

there was no reason to trade them then. especially russell. saying they "should" have traded them in hindsight is pointless, especially since there was probably more reason to trade baez then, which would have been a huge mistake.

 

 

Russell had a #1 prospect attached to his name and would most likely bring more in return. To me Baez had a higher ceiling than Russell, even at that time.

[ConstableRabbit]

 

Schwarber & Russell should have been traded after the WS.

 

there was no reason to trade them then. especially russell. saying they "should" have traded them in hindsight is pointless, especially since there was probably more reason to trade baez then, which would have been a huge mistake.

 

 

Russell had a #1 prospect attached to his name and would most likely bring more in return. To me Baez had a higher ceiling than Russell, even at that time.

Damn, you're an oracle, B2B.

 

What predictions do you have for the current roster? Please share.

[Backtobanks]

So basically we're at 'I don't like the stats' and then 'well I assume there was someone better that we should have traded for'. Which also conveniently ignores the point of...who are you trading to get these upgrades after you expertly identified that weak players that still held enough value to get good pitching?

 

I never said they were weak players. What I did say was that Schwarber skill set is better served as a DH and Russell's reputation as a #1 prospect might influence another team in trade negotiations. Also, I said that both could be replaced rather easily (internally, trade, or FA). As I said before, it's hard to say who we might get in return when the FO refused to consider trading either of them. Obviously both have lost trade value in the last two years, but both can still play regularly on some team.

[We Got The Whole 9]

So basically we're at 'I don't like the stats' and then 'well I assume there was someone better that we should have traded for'. Which also conveniently ignores the point of...who are you trading to get these upgrades after you expertly identified that weak players that still held enough value to get good pitching?

 

I never said they were weak players. What I did say was that Schwarber skill set is better served as a DH and Russell's reputation as a #1 prospect might influence another team in trade negotiations. Also, I said that both could be replaced rather easily (internally, trade, or FA). As I said before, it's hard to say who we might get in return when the FO refused to consider trading either of them. Obviously both have lost trade value in the last two years, but both can still play regularly on some team.

 

Kyle Schwarber is one of the best LF in the game defensively and you don't know how to evaluate talent as well as you believe you do.

[Backtobanks]

So basically we're at 'I don't like the stats' and then 'well I assume there was someone better that we should have traded for'. Which also conveniently ignores the point of...who are you trading to get these upgrades after you expertly identified that weak players that still held enough value to get good pitching?

 

I never said they were weak players. What I did say was that Schwarber skill set is better served as a DH and Russell's reputation as a #1 prospect might influence another team in trade negotiations. Also, I said that both could be replaced rather easily (internally, trade, or FA). As I said before, it's hard to say who we might get in return when the FO refused to consider trading either of them. Obviously both have lost trade value in the last two years, but both can still play regularly on some team.

 

Kyle Schwarber is one of the best LF in the game defensively and you don't know how to evaluate talent as well as you believe you do.

 

 

If you think Schwarber is one of the best LF in the game defensively, then you REALLY don't know how to evaluate talent.

[17 Seconds]

 

Schwarber & Russell should have been traded after the WS.

 

there was no reason to trade them then. especially russell. saying they "should" have traded them in hindsight is pointless, especially since there was probably more reason to trade baez then, which would have been a huge mistake.

 

 

Russell had a #1 prospect attached to his name and would most likely bring more in return. To me Baez had a higher ceiling than Russell, even at that time.

 

russell would have brought more in return because he had more value at that time. i don't think it was even a question then. the fact that you may have thought baez was worth more doesn't change the fact that the baseball world didn't.

 

but the point is that there was no reason to trade russell after 2016. they were never going to have 100% of these young hitting prospects pan out. they had to let the stars prove themselves and then try to get value for the busts while they still could. trading 22 year old russell after his 4-win 2016 made no sense. he looked like a young cheap star, and the plan of competing for the better part of a decade revolved around getting those.

[Backtobanks]

 

there was no reason to trade them then. especially russell. saying they "should" have traded them in hindsight is pointless, especially since there was probably more reason to trade baez then, which would have been a huge mistake.

 

 

Russell had a #1 prospect attached to his name and would most likely bring more in return. To me Baez had a higher ceiling than Russell, even at that time.

 

russell would have brought more in return because he had more value at that time. i don't think it was even a question then. the fact that you may have thought baez was worth more doesn't change the fact that the baseball world didn't.

 

but the point is that there was no reason to trade russell after 2016. they were never going to have 100% of these young hitting prospects pan out. they had to let the stars prove themselves and then try to get value for the busts while they still could. trading 22 year old russell after his 4-win 2016 made no sense. he looked like a young cheap star, and the plan of competing for the better part of a decade revolved around getting those.

 

 

I would have been more reluctant in trading Russell than Schwarber, but both would bring the young pitchers we needed in return. My thinking was Baez at SS, an adequate replacement 2B, and the quality players obtained in the trade would be better for the team in the long run.

[jersey cubs fan]

How is this ridiculous conversation still happening?

[Bull]

How is this ridiculous conversation still happening?

Because I would have traded arismendy alcantara for babe Ruth if only they had listened to me.

[BigSlick]

 

I never said they were weak players. What I did say was that Schwarber skill set is better served as a DH and Russell's reputation as a #1 prospect might influence another team in trade negotiations. Also, I said that both could be replaced rather easily (internally, trade, or FA). As I said before, it's hard to say who we might get in return when the FO refused to consider trading either of them. Obviously both have lost trade value in the last two years, but both can still play regularly on some team.

 

Kyle Schwarber is one of the best LF in the game defensively and you don't know how to evaluate talent as well as you believe you do.

 

 

If you think Schwarber is one of the best LF in the game defensively, then you REALLY don't know how to evaluate talent.

 

He’s not one of the best but he’s had several seasons to prove he’s solidly average or above average defensively. You should drop this point of argument because you’re losing it.

 

He’s totally fine as an outfielder.

[Backtobanks]

 

Kyle Schwarber is one of the best LF in the game defensively and you don't know how to evaluate talent as well as you believe you do.

 

 

If you think Schwarber is one of the best LF in the game defensively, then you REALLY don't know how to evaluate talent.

 

He’s not one of the best but he’s had several seasons to prove he’s solidly average or above average defensively. You should drop this point of argument because you’re losing it.

 

He’s totally fine as an outfielder.

 

Schwarber has worked hard to be an OF, has made good progress, and he has a very strong arm for a LF, but anyone who thinks he is one of the best or above average defensively is delusional.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

 

 

If you think Schwarber is one of the best LF in the game defensively, then you REALLY don't know how to evaluate talent.

 

He’s not one of the best but he’s had several seasons to prove he’s solidly average or above average defensively. You should drop this point of argument because you’re losing it.

 

He’s totally fine as an outfielder.

 

Schwarber has worked hard to be an OF, has made good progress, and he has a very strong arm for a LF, but anyone who thinks he is one of the best or above average defensively is delusional.

Most outfielders are bad at fielding. Schwarber gets to be above average because average is worse than him. This isn't hard to figure out.

[BigSlick]

 

 

If you think Schwarber is one of the best LF in the game defensively, then you REALLY don't know how to evaluate talent.

 

He’s not one of the best but he’s had several seasons to prove he’s solidly average or above average defensively. You should drop this point of argument because you’re losing it.

 

He’s totally fine as an outfielder.

 

Schwarber has worked hard to be an OF, has made good progress, and he has a very strong arm for a LF, but anyone who thinks he is one of the best or above average defensively is delusional.

I didn’t say he was one of the best, but he is average and has had an above average season. Stow your argument away, it’s materially and objectively wrong.

[Backtobanks]

 

He’s not one of the best but he’s had several seasons to prove he’s solidly average or above average defensively. You should drop this point of argument because you’re losing it.

 

He’s totally fine as an outfielder.

 

Schwarber has worked hard to be an OF, has made good progress, and he has a very strong arm for a LF, but anyone who thinks he is one of the best or above average defensively is delusional.

I didn’t say he was one of the best, but he is average and has had an above average season. Stow your argument away, it’s materially and objectively wrong.

 

You said " he’s solidly average or above average defensively". Neither is true. I repeat what I said before, he is playing LF because the NL doesn't have a DH and LF (or 1B) are the places you hide big-time sluggers with defensive liabilities.

[Derwood]

 

Schwarber has worked hard to be an OF, has made good progress, and he has a very strong arm for a LF, but anyone who thinks he is one of the best or above average defensively is delusional.

I didn’t say he was one of the best, but he is average and has had an above average season. Stow your argument away, it’s materially and objectively wrong.

 

You said " he’s solidly average or above average defensively". Neither is true.

 

The numbers say otherwise

[BigSlick]

 

Schwarber has worked hard to be an OF, has made good progress, and he has a very strong arm for a LF, but anyone who thinks he is one of the best or above average defensively is delusional.

I didn’t say he was one of the best, but he is average and has had an above average season. Stow your argument away, it’s materially and objectively wrong.

 

You said " he’s solidly average or above average defensively". Neither is true. I repeat what I said before, he is playing LF because the NL doesn't have a DH and LF (or 1B) are the places you hide big-time sluggers with defensive liabilities.

No you're wrong. I mean you're just totally wrong by all measures of man and god

 

Provide the numbers that say the opposite or go away

[soccer10k]

I didn’t say he was one of the best, but he is average and has had an above average season. Stow your argument away, it’s materially and objectively wrong.

 

You said " he’s solidly average or above average defensively". Neither is true. I repeat what I said before, he is playing LF because the NL doesn't have a DH and LF (or 1B) are the places you hide big-time sluggers with defensive liabilities.

No you're wrong. I mean you're just totally wrong by all measures of man and god

 

Provide the numbers that say the opposite or go away

 

He made a couple bad plays in the 2015 NLCS so he was and will always be terrible defensively.

[Backtobanks]

I didn’t say he was one of the best, but he is average and has had an above average season. Stow your argument away, it’s materially and objectively wrong.

 

You said " he’s solidly average or above average defensively". Neither is true.

 

The numbers say otherwise

 

Tell that to Maddon when he takes him out late in the game for defensive reasons.