Sammy Sofa

And that's pretty much it. I'm not some baseball savant who knows what Baez will be; I just know I'm not a big fan of his due to strikeout issues and I think even if he pans out as a ML starter he's not going to be anywhere near the levels people were breathlessly talking about him maybe being at. That said, a lot of people a lot smarter than me still think he can turn overcome (or at least minimize) his flaws enough to became a really valuable player. There's a still a ton of temptation to pick up a player like him. I would just prefer another team take that chance instead of the Cubs.

Think of Baez as the "first" piece in the deal if it helps you process it better. He just sits in a nebulous spot value-wise where on his own he's probably too scary, but combined correctly his monster potential could probably get a team a lot in return.

I actually agree with a lot of this, which is why I think the best use of him in a trade would be as A big piece as opposed to being THE big piece. On his own the risk is too high to really bring something gamechanging, but the appeal of what he could be if he actually clicks would make him an insanely appealing asset in a big trade. Given them the less spectacular with a higher floor gets you an OK return; that player + Baez gets you gold, Jerry, GOLD. It's like trying to sell someone a car and instead of trying to win them over with a bunch of add-ons you're like, "ah, [expletive] it, you get the hover-tires. Sure, there's a good chance they'll fail and you'll die, but if they work you can FLY." you know, this used to be jon voight's javi baez. I'm going to compare these bite marks to the ones on this bison dog.

I actually agree with a lot of this, which is why I think the best use of him in a trade would be as A big piece as opposed to being THE big piece. On his own the risk is too high to really bring something gamechanging, but the appeal of what he could be if he actually clicks would make him an insanely appealing asset in a big trade. Given them the less spectacular with a higher floor gets you an OK return; that player + Baez gets you gold, Jerry, GOLD. It's like trying to sell someone a car and instead of trying to win them over with a bunch of add-ons you're like, "ah, [expletive] it, you get the hover-tires. Sure, there's a good chance they'll fail and you'll die, but if they work you can FLY."

yes, based purely on his defense. his offense was bad. i don't see why it's lazy to compare him to other players who were bad in their first stint against mlb pitching. yes, baez was especially abysmal, but we already knew that his risk profile was much higher. he'll probably end up not being good. but it's possible that he ends up being really good. i can't really say what "selling high" on him would be, because i'm not sure how other clubs will value him. he can rebuild his value above where it was after last season, but it's never going to be higher than it was before he was called up, at least until he actually shows he can face major league pitching without striking out half the time. But that's actually where he is similar to Rizzo; teams are going to still be willing to go in big for him if he keeps mashing and being more patient in the minors. They'll be willing to take that chance because of the expectations/hopes for what he can be. Plus I disagree that the highest time to sell on him was before when he was first called up; you could argue it's higher if he keeps improving in the minors since it could be looked at/hoped that he went through a good chunk of his major league growing pains already. And it's lazy to just point to someone like Rizzo and Trout and say, "see? He can be fixed!" when basically all they have in common is they weren't as good as anyone wanted in their first go around. It would hold a lot more weight if you point to players who have similar skills/flaws/results as Baez and then succeeded after initially floundering. He just doesn't seem very similar to Rizzo or Trout at all.

If we're talking about Soriano in his prime, there probably isn't a position player prospect on earth whose team wouldn't be thrilled to death if they ended up that. No, I'm talking Alfonso Soriano, very streaky monster-hitter. I doubt Baez would have the SB numbers that gave Soriano his best player ratings; better defensively, but Soriano really only had one truly bad defensive season during his peak years (2002-2008). So like I said, would be perfectly fine if Baez panned out a la Soriano with the bat, but I think if moved at the right time he could net the Cubs something even better.

And hyperbole aside, I don't think it's the end of the world if the Cubs hold on to him; personally, I think he'd end up being a Soriano-esque player, which I'm more than happy to have. That said, I think the potential that so many people are enamored with plus what he's done in the minors could very realistically make him the main part of a deal that could bring back a player that would be even more valuable than what I think Baez is likely to pan out as.

Trading high isn't "burying a guy." Holding up other player's unsuccessful first go-arounds never fails to be way too simplistic. And now we've gone from just lazily using Rizzo in that example to also inexplicably using Mike Trout, too? Mike Trout, who manged to be a 0.7 WAR player in 40 games at 19-years-old.

so you think javy is a 22 year old AAAA player? i have a hard time believing AAAA players are a thing (barring like guys who have played at AAA for years and years and are dominating it in their late 20s), especially 22 year old ones. I just think the scenario I presented is very humorous. Personally, I don't think Baez' actual output will match or top what they could get in return if they move him at the right time in the right deal.

You do realize that trading him when the thing you're named after isn't particularly high doesn't really make much sense, right? Terrible trade speculation by hack baseball writers doesn't mean that actual GM's don't notice how he's struggled this year or two season ago. He's not somehow damaging the team, so hopefully they just move him down in the lineup for the time being.

Come on, you haven't been dying to see Mike Baxter and Jonathan Herrera hit back to back? That's the stuff dreams are made of!

Only if you can someone who can consistently put up 4 WAR/season at SS. And when you find that guy, can you have him work with Castro to hopefully make him that good? (Note: I appreciate the response to a madman talking about dumping Castro, but Castro has never consistently put up 4 WAR seasons) If we're gonna replace Castro, it needs to be a clear better replacement. I think Castro is a 2-3 WAR/season player for the rest of his career, and I don't think that 4 WAR SS is in our system. Ah, gotcha. I thin Russell very easily could be that guy, but I also think he can be that guy at 2B, too.

Only if you can someone who can consistently put up 4 WAR/season at SS. And when you find that guy, can you have him work with Castro to hopefully make him that good? (Note: I appreciate the response to a madman talking about dumping Castro, but Castro has never consistently put up 4 WAR seasons)

They should be batting Montero ahead of him, too. I don't know why they've insisted on keeping him in the #4 spot as long as they have.

Chris Coghlan.

He now has 7 HR and only 11 RBI lol I'll love it when he's an ape-monster they can let out of his cage and go PH sometimes.

No. Sorta. Promising signs, anyway HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE BEST.

Coghlan is some kind of flesh-monster who can sometimes hit home runs and do nothing else.

No.

Sneaky bad? Everyone's been talking about about how it usually half-sucks to varying degrees.

Damn you, goldenrod.

Or Bryant...to make room for Javy on the infield. TT summed it up very well why Baez's recent stretch is good but isn't screaming for him to be called back up ASAP. Meanwhile you've got Schwarber hitting like he's Thor in disguise and Maddon talking about seeing him up this year...basically I hope we see Schwarber before we see Baez. I think the former has a much better shot of making a real impact.

That's not what I meant by "whoever," you loon. Nobody wants to just dump him; I want to trade him because I think he'll be ridiculously streaky at best and I think he can be a huge part of a monster trade. Nah, by ANYONE, I actually meant good players. Hamels, whoever else with more than half a season of control winds up on the block. I know you're not saying trade him for the first half ass decent guy to come along. I'm just saying there's a decent chance that when we do trade him, it's still very possible it comes back to haunt us. I only think that's likely if they trade him for peanuts or if they key player they get for him suffers some kind of catastrophe injury. Even if he pans out he's likely to of the "pretty good variety;" "generational talent" is more than a tad hyperbolic

Soon Schwarber will be there instead of Coghlan...and all will be well.

Seriously, that's really gross.