Wish we thought this way...

[NoDak]

1. I am a person who believes that ANY player is available. Honestly, if FLA is willing to give me Miguel Cabrera for Felix Pie AND Hill I am certainly willing to listen (and get them to sign on the dotted line before they sober-up!). Obviously, this is an exagerration. What we have to keep in mind is that about the time a player is "proven" he is likely toward the end of the time when he will likely put up those kinds of numbers.

 

2. Too often people equate "proven" with "famous." I think this is a foolish error and one that good GMs will feast on. There are many very famous examples of this "Bagwell for Anderson," "Bell for Sosa," "Alexander for Smoltz" etc. Every team has that one deal that they kick themselves for for 10-15 years.

 

3. I tend to look at the minor leagues as the place for cheap replacements for aging/high priced players. There are others who look at it as simply "trade bait" top to bottom. I disagree.

 

For reasons 2-3 I am really curious to watch what happens and tracking the results of the Cards/A's trade last off-season when the Cards acquired a "proven" Mark Mulder for "potential" in Haren and Barton (as well as Calero). I said right away that Billy Beane is too smart of a GM to have gotten fleeced as badly as it looked on initial impression, and I think he got the better end in 05 and likely for years to come.

[SteveSarley]

Trading prospects seems to be a "damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't"

proposition.

I think Hendry is pretty smart. I also think that Cub fans value our system's prospects much more that the other GM's do. I don't think that we have a "can't miss"prospect in our entire system right now. (I am assuming that Murton and Cedeno are major leaguers, not prospects.)

Notice how Hendry has said that Rich Hill is virtually untouchable and that he is still high on Corey Patterson? I think that Hendry is trying to build value, or at least maintain value for Hill and Patterson, in hopes of getting premium quality in return in a trade for them.

I believe in trading prospects for established players. I always ask if I think that the prospect will ever be as good as the established player he is traded for. If you don't think the prospect will be better, than why not just go with the proven player. You know what you are getting, not just hoping for development year after year.

I've seen too many Keltons, Scotts, Dubois, etc. not get traded while they were still prospects only to see tham swapped for other players who have also never reached their early hype.

[nilodnayr]

I'm just trying to imagine the brouhaha on this board if we traded prospects in part for a 3B who makes 9 mil and had an ops of 658 last year when we already had an 800 ops guy who made 2.5 million last year.

 

Wow!

 

You are missing a big piece here. They traded for Lowell, in part, must it was only a small part. They traded for Beckett and took on Lowell's salary, kind of like how the Cubs traded for Alfonseca and took on Clement's salary, or traded for Lofton and took on Ramirez's salary.

 

I'm not missing anything - I'm not even saying it was a bad deal for Bosox - I'm just saying that 9 mil is a lot of money for someone who sucked as bad as Lowell did last year. Hopefully for them Beckett will make the deal worth it. I'm also saying that if Hendry spent 9 mil for a similiar player in a similiar situation we would be hanging him in effigy ( so to speak) on this board today.

 

I'm not sure if you followed baseball before last year, but in 2002, 2003, and 2004 in the NL there were two thirdbaseman who were in the top 5 in OPS for their position in all three years, their names are Scott Rolen and dum dada dum, Mike Lowell. Lowell had a horrible year last year but has very recently been a premier thirdbaseman in the league.

[stitchface]

not saying that anybody in this thread is doing this, but it seems like the same people who say 'who cares about prospects, trade for proven commidities' are the same people who ride the cubs for trading willis, the red sox for trading bagwell, etc.

 

The Red Sox should be ridden for trading bagwell because they traded him for a forgettable player. the garland trade is more comparable than the willis trade or this one. personally, I wouldn't mortgage the farm for a pitcher with beckett's history but it could turn out to be a steal for sox. Let me ask this: would you trade Wood for that package?

[stitchface]

Trading prospects seems to be a "damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't"

proposition.

I think Hendry is pretty smart. I also think that Cub fans value our system's prospects much more that the other GM's do. I don't think that we have a "can't miss"prospect in our entire system right now. (I am assuming that Murton and Cedeno are major leaguers, not prospects.)

Notice how Hendry has said that Rich Hill is virtually untouchable and that he is still high on Corey Patterson? I think that Hendry is trying to build value, or at least maintain value for Hill and Patterson, in hopes of getting premium quality in return in a trade for them.

I believe in trading prospects for established players. I always ask if I think that the prospect will ever be as good as the established player he is traded for. If you don't think the prospect will be better, than why not just go with the proven player. You know what you are getting, not just hoping for development year after year.

I've seen too many Keltons, Scotts, Dubois, etc. not get traded while they were still prospects only to see tham swapped for other players who have also never reached their early hype.

 

Kind of depends on the age of the proven player. Once the proven commodity is past their prime, you lose that guarantee of production. I would agree the cubs don't have any can't miss prospects though they have several possible stars.

[RynoRules]

not saying that anybody in this thread is doing this, but it seems like the same people who say 'who cares about prospects, trade for proven commidities' are the same people who ride the cubs for trading willis, the red sox for trading bagwell, etc.

 

Lots of folks are talking outta both sides of their mouths these days:

 

"I'd rather sign FAs than trade our prospects...but don't spend so much money!"

[stitchface]

not saying that anybody in this thread is doing this, but it seems like the same people who say 'who cares about prospects, trade for proven commidities' are the same people who ride the cubs for trading willis, the red sox for trading bagwell, etc.

 

Lots of folks are talking outta both sides of their mouths these days:

 

"I'd rather sign FAs than trade our prospects...but don't spend so much money!"

 

I think few people would make gross generalizations like that. Some free agents are worth the money and some aren't. I think trading Pie would be great if we got ARod in return - if we get Pierre in return, not so much.

[RynoRules]

not saying that anybody in this thread is doing this, but it seems like the same people who say 'who cares about prospects, trade for proven commidities' are the same people who ride the cubs for trading willis, the red sox for trading bagwell, etc.

 

Lots of folks are talking outta both sides of their mouths these days:

 

"I'd rather sign FAs than trade our prospects...but don't spend so much money!"

 

I think few people would make gross generalizations like that. Some free agents are worth the money and some aren't. I think trading Pie would be great if we got ARod in return - if we get Pierre in return, not so much.

 

I have seen exactly those generalizations and contradictory statements crop up recently. Its my opinion that it stems from the fact that the current Cubs fan base is the most rabidly frustrated in history.

 

And I wouldn't go trading Pie for Pierre either...however, for Abreu or Dunn...