Sammy Sofa

Holy [expletive], that is hysterical.

Christ, I don't even follow the minor leagues and I knew this was completely wrong.

If Travis Wood is your only All-Star player, you done fucked up again.

Congratulations to him; boo to the organization for failing this spectacularly.

Turns out we and the prospect rankings were maybe overestimating Vizcaino's ability to stay healthy. Right; the perspective of that trade should be less "wow, if the Cubs got that for Maholm then they should be able to get even better for Wood" and look at is a move reflective of both sides understanding the risk involved with a player like Vizcaino.

Yes, I can very easily judge a trade made for a high ceiling/high risk prospect for a starting pitcher having a good year who was only signed through the end of the season as being exactly what it was. There was no great subterfuge or trickery or trade dominance going on at the hands of either FO. I mean, I'm not "judging" it in the sense of saying it was a bad move.

You can't judge that trade and whether you'd make others like it so heavily based on the fact that you managed to have one of the worst possible outcomes thus far. Sure I can; that there was a distinct possibility of this happening the way it has was one of the main reasons they even got a guy like Vizcaino in a deal like that in the first place. I don't fault them for making the move, and I still think Vizcaino could be useful, but you were trading away a guy who was going to be gone anyway in Maholm. If you're trading away Wood, at his age and with his team control, I'd expect something better than the Vizcaino return...but he's in that gray area talent and history-wise where it's tremendously unlikely you'd get something better in return. At the same time, he's valuable enough that I wouldn't want them settling for something like the Vizcaino trade. It's a situation where you have people simultaneously overvaluing and undervaluing Travis Wood, sometimes practically in the same breath.

And given Vizcaino's current track, I would say that Travis Wood would hold more value as a Cub to the Cubs than trading for the next Vizcaino.

Guys, nobody is going to drive a Lambo filled with cash up to your house, ring your doorbell and hand you the keys, but what this book presupposes is...maybe they will.

That would not happen.

Especially if Soler and maybe Junior Lake are in the OF. And I wouldn't complain if Stanton was out there with them, though I suspect that it would mean that either Soler or Baez would not be there. Then again, if Kris Bryant's at 3rd by 2015, perhaps a Baez-centric package for a guy with a good chance to be one of baseball's premier sluggers for years to come wouldn't be the worst thing.

Trying really hard not to notice.

I mean, I know it's staged, but Jesus Christ; he gets absolutely destroyed.

Holy [expletive].

If you're being sarcastic, my post was meant as a comment to sneaky. If you're being serious, then you'll see I wasn't really throwing a strawman out there. I was simply making a comment to sneaky about how he and I value Wood differently based on his projected ability to sustain a crazy HR/FB ratio. I am serious; I don't think Wood's current performance is sustainable and I think he's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than what they could get trading for him. okay - wasn't quite what I meant by if you're being serious, but I'll respond to this. Why is Wood more valuable to the Cubs based on future value than he is to another team where he would be worth the same future value (perhaps more if they are more likely to contend in 2014, also), but significantly more present value, as well? Do you disagree the Wood is more valuable to other teams than the Cubs? Or do you not believe the front office has a chance to receive fair compensation for the value Wood would provide to the trade partner? The simplistic answer is that I think Wood is a good enough pitcher (coupled with his age and control time) to be valuable to the Cubs, but not good enough to bring back enough of a haul to justify moving him. It's less about the FO's ability and more that he just doesn't cross the tipping point where you can get the worthwhile return for trading him. I don't think anyone is saying they should turn it down if someone offered a ridiculously good deal; the argument is that it's so unlikely to be offered anything even resembling that in the first place. Punting 2015 isn't acceptable in any way, and trading of Wood makes their already shaking pitching lineup that much worse, so you REALLY have to be getting something good to move him.

You have much more confidence than I do that he has some weird ability to have an sustainable, incredibly low HR/FB rate on non pop ups. Wood obviously has a broad spectrum of usefulness to the Cubs; he doesn't have to be this good to be very valuable. Even if he is a 3-4 guy, that is certainly quite valuable, especially when you look at some of the garbage that we've passed off as rotation depth up until this year. This being said, a 3-4 starter is not the type of guy that's off limits, not if someone in more of a win now situation is willing to part with a few of their top prospects. Then again, it depends on when they decide that they want to win. The odds are greatly against anyone willing to give up anything resembling a "top prospect" for Travis Wood. That's a pipe dream. Let it die.

If you're being sarcastic, my post was meant as a comment to sneaky. If you're being serious, then you'll see I wasn't really throwing a strawman out there. I was simply making a comment to sneaky about how he and I value Wood differently based on his projected ability to sustain a crazy HR/FB ratio. I am serious; I don't think Wood's current performance is sustainable and I think he's more valuable to the Cubs as a Cub than what they could get trading for him.

Well, duh, how could anybody ever forget that?

Gregg, plus a little talk about Schierholtz, but that's about it.

In the quote right above, where you drop the strawman of "you have much more confidence than I do that he has some weird ability to have an sustainable, incredibly low HR/FB rate on non pop ups" when nobody said anything of the sort. If you're going to be all defensive and respond with stuff like "where did I say that" it doesn't really help if you yourself is putting words in someone else's mouth on the same page. So let's follow the process...you bring up the idea of someone having confidence in Wood sustaining his numbers this season going forward. That's why I pointed out that Wood doesn't have to be pitching at this level to still be valuable to the Cubs. If that was so abundantly clear to begin with then why did you bring up the idea of someone thinking that Wood was going to keep pitching like this when they said nothing of the sort? (Hint: we already know why)

Bueno.

You have much more confidence than I do that he has some weird ability to have an sustainable, incredibly low HR/FB rate on non pop ups. Wood obviously has a broad spectrum of usefulness to the Cubs; he doesn't have to be this good to be very valuable. Where on earth did I say otherwise? If you're going to play that card then stop responding to people like anyone has said they think Wood is any kind of lock to keep pitching like a TOR-type of guy.

You have much more confidence than I do that he has some weird ability to have an sustainable, incredibly low HR/FB rate on non pop ups. Wood obviously has a broad spectrum of usefulness to the Cubs; he doesn't have to be this good to be very valuable.

None of the players he listed are or were actually "great" if you're going by some kind of lofty, baseball superstar standard. His point obviously was that the Cubs' future looked bright after 2003 because they had a collection of what looked like good or better players and he happened to use the word "great."