Backtobanks

Looking at their organization, Rizzo makes more sense. They seem pretty set at SS, but Rizzo solving 1b for the next six years would be a nice piece for them. Of course, any Stanton trade involves multiple key pieces, so it may not be an either/or. We could have sent them LaHair instead of Rizzo if they needed a 1B. :yahoo:

Doubt anything happens, but it's fun to speculate. I'd have to imagine a deal for Stanton has to include Baez. I'd be okay with that. Selig doesn't mind that Loria traded half of his ML roster, but he may be upset with trading Stanton?

I see on MLBTR that the Yankees are interested in Jeff Keppinger. Keppinger would be an interesting platoon player with Stewart or Valbuena and he shouldn't cost too much. Have Vitters gain some confidence in AAA. Also, Keppinger could get us something at the trade deadline.

? Seriously, go away. Let me make sure I understand what you are saying... Theo, et al, get no credit for acquiring Rizzo? Because anyone would have done that? Man, you LOVE Hendry, don't you? After the Padres acquired Alonso and committed to him, there was no doubt that Rizzo would be traded to somebody. The Cubs needed a power-hitting 1B and thought they had enough young pitching to give up Cashner, so it wasn't a shock that the Cubs would try to make a deal. No where did I say that Theo gets "no credit" for acquiring Rizzo, but the discussion was really about the fact that the FO came in with a bare cupboard. My point was that the cupboard wasn't as bare as some posters claimed and included a pitching prospect (Cashner) good enough to acquire a cornerstone player (Rizzo). Sure seems like you're not giving Epstein credit since you're saying any GM including Hendry could have done that trade. I'm sure every GM in the ML that needed a power-hitting, top prospect 1B would have been discussing a Rizzo trade given that the Padres had committed to Alonso. Theo gets credit for making the deal. Hendry should get credit for giving Theo the player (Cashner) to complete the deal.

Apparently you have amazing insight as to what would have happened with Hendry as GM. With tightwad Ricketts as owner, Hendry wouldn't be allowed to go after Fielder or Pujols. As for the cupboard being bare, I guess your definition of "the cupboard" is the minor leagues. If there's anything in the cupboard now it's because of the players that Hendry left so that Theo could trade them for prospects. Apparently those players had some value or else Theo wouldn't be able to acquire decent prospects for them. We're now committed to punting on 2 seasons for sure (and possibly more) to continue on the road of building on "dual fronts". Unfortunately, nobody explained that the "dual fronts" were Rookie League and Low-A Ball. Again, Hendry signed Shark with the intention of him being a starter. As for the cupboard being in the bottom 5, now the ML team is going for 2 years of bottom of the league.

And then raise ticket prices and sit on the money for a few more years.

? Seriously, go away. Let me make sure I understand what you are saying... Theo, et al, get no credit for acquiring Rizzo? Because anyone would have done that? Man, you LOVE Hendry, don't you? After the Padres acquired Alonso and committed to him, there was no doubt that Rizzo would be traded to somebody. The Cubs needed a power-hitting 1B and thought they had enough young pitching to give up Cashner, so it wasn't a shock that the Cubs would try to make a deal. No where did I say that Theo gets "no credit" for acquiring Rizzo, but the discussion was really about the fact that the FO came in with a bare cupboard. My point was that the cupboard wasn't as bare as some posters claimed and included a pitching prospect (Cashner) good enough to acquire a cornerstone player (Rizzo).

It's a little late for 2012, so I assume you mean 2013. There has been lots of discussion about trading for young players who can start in 2013 (Chisenhall, Delgado, young A's pitchers, etc.) plus go after Upton for CF and add someone like McCarthy to the rotation along with finding some bullpen help. This would make the team decent in 2013 while adding ML youth. It would cost some money, but hopefully we would have a few more young core players going into 2014.

And Garza. And Barney. And the trade bait that got Rizzo, Wood, Torreyes, Vizcaino and Lout. And that 4-win LFer we put out there. And the entire low minors draft class that owned the NWL lists. But other than a middle infield, a middle-of-the-order bat, three-fifths of a rotation, a bunch of trade bait and a wave of prospects, there was a completely blank slate for St. Theo to work his magic. On the Fangraphs top 15, our current regime inherited 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15. And it didn't exactly take a wizard to turn the top two draft picks into top-15 organizational guys. It speaks more of our current regime that nearly every worthwhile major leaguer is a legacy. i like this constant distortion where whenever the Theo regime turns a mediocre reliever into a frontline starter or damaged goods into a franchise player, full credit goes to Hendry for giving him that player- "we traded Greg Rohan for Tommy Hanson? well done, Hendry!" and what a laugh, seeing Barney as like the third name listed..."i fully stocked the cupboards for you; there should be a can of Hormel chili and maybe a granola bar in there" What about the constant distortion that everything Theo has done has been of his making. The plan was always to turn Shark into a starter. Any GM (including Hendry) would have made the deal trading Cashner for Rizzo because the Padres had already committed themselves to Alonso. The cupboard wasn't as bare as some of you are making it out to be.

"Extremely little" until it's time to drool over Castro, Baez, etc. And what else? One great ML asset and one in the low minors. Oh, and Shark. Other than that, it was a wasteland. Love the "etc.", as if there was anything else of note. He left something, but it was pretty [expletive] far from a foundation. It speaks volumes of Hendry's regime that nearly all of our top prospects have been added in the past 12 months. Except for Castro, Rizzo (who we got for Cashner), and all of the other prospects we received by trading Marshall, Dempster, etc.

They must've been bad for a long time to build that up. I have always thought that teams like the Cardinals and others don't focus so much on who to pick as much as they focus on how to develop. I am sure there is some great debate about this subject somewhere. So you're telling me we don't have to suck for 2-3 years to make sure we get top draft picks?

Yeah, the Cards are pretty consistent as opposed to the Cubs, Pirates, and Brewers.

He could become the next Tuffy Rhodes.

Really hard to predict what will happen in 2015. Obviously that's what the FO is hoping for, but we still have very little in the way of pitching for the future. Our offensive players look promising, but are still very young and in the low minors. Our big advantage is money assuming Theo decides to start spending it.

Obviously nobody's going to give up a top prospect for LaHair, but I still think some ML team could find a spot for him as a platoon DH/1B. LaHair vs. RHP - .291/.362/.503/.865 Soriano vs LHP - .260/.342/.489/.831 Rizzo vs RHP - .318/.383/.508/.892 Dunn vs RHP - .211/.348/.469/.817 Chris Davis vs RHP - .271/.333/.502/.836 Doumit vs RHP - .288/.335/.488/.823 These are examples of batters who much better facing one type of pitcher over the other.

Still can't believe he doesn't have some value as a platoon DH/1B.

I'm most interested in trying to fill the rotation with younger pitchers who could possibly turn it around and fill a need long term rather than the likes of Marcum/Blanton/etc. for a year or two. As you stated, the A's young pitchers, Bauer, Hellickson, Delgado, Jurrjens, Porcello, etc. are better options than middle aged filler. We already know that we're going to suck next year anyhow. I don't want middle aged filler (still would be OK with signing 1 guy just to be there for the inevitable Garza trade). But young filler isn't much better. I know the 2013 rotation isn't going to be good enough. But I want hope that the 2014 rotation might be. If Porcello is in the 2013 rotation, I know that his spot in the 2014 rotation isn't likely to be any better than average. If a guy like Bauer or Delgado are brought in, the 2013 rotation still won't be good enough, but 2014 gives you some hope with Samardzija, Bauer/Delgado, Vizcaino being possibly set in 3/5 of the rotation. Maybe its too much to ask given the Cubs limited amount of tradeable assets, but it's the only realistic direction I can see working out for the positive. Why do you know this? We allegedly have offers sitting on the table for a few pitchers... McCarthy and Liriano among them. Samardzija, Garza, McCarthy, 2 of Baker/Liriano/Wood/Vizcaino looks like a rotation that could be anywhere from very good to awesome (if things go right at the back end) to me. It wouldn't be any better than the rotation for the first half of 2012. Assuming things go well, you trade off at least Garza (maybe more) and you're back to having a mediocre staff for 2014.

Does it really matter? If he can be had for cheap, I'd take it regardless of how he is defensively. I totally agree. If we can pick up any young players cheaply that have the potential to be productive, then go for it. If it doesn't work, so be it.

I'm most interested in trying to fill the rotation with younger pitchers who could possibly turn it around and fill a need long term rather than the likes of Marcum/Blanton/etc. for a year or two. As you stated, the A's young pitchers, Bauer, Hellickson, Delgado, Jurrjens, Porcello, etc. are better options than middle aged filler. We already know that we're going to suck next year anyhow.

Did you see what the Cubs trotted out to the mound during the 2nd half of the season?

Now that the Tigers have signed Hunter, maybe we could swing a deal to get Andy Dirks and Porcello. Offer them Barney + ??????.

Gotta get that top draft pick.

Masterson and Chisenhall in a package deal would be a great move.

that's horribly embarrassing for every other team if true. but i doubt it is. Why the hell weren't the Cubs in on this? Like they have money to spend on other players? I know OF is probably not the Cubs biggest need, but collecting assets is. Melky at that price is an asset, just like Scott Baker. Actually, it is one of their biggest. Who said the Cubs weren't in on him? Apparently they weren't "in on him" enough if he went somwhere else for that money.

After the All Star game he only had 109 AB, which could account for some loss of production. Obviously he's best suited for a platoon player with .291/.362/.503/.865 against righties for the whole season.