dew1679666265

I like Cashner, though I tend to think his shot at being a great SP isn't terribly high and he's a couple years away from being a SP at all. So while SD may view this as a win bc they have other young 1b at their disposal, I think we got exactly the kind of player we need. So I'm ecstatic. Being 22 and the Padres' #1 prospect are both reasons to be excited, but Cashner has 5 years under team control. Granted a couple of those would be turning him back into a starter, but there's a good chance we'll burn a couple of Rizzo's years under team control developing him into the very good first baseman he can be. Part of what makes it a very good trade is that we got him for a bit less than I thought we'd get him for, but the fact that the guy I wanted to give up least for him (never thought it'd take Garza to get him) is the piece we gave for him makes me like it a bit less. If this were McNutt instead of Cashner in the deal, I'd be pretty ecstatic. But Cashner being included keeps me from gushing too much. Again, though, just to be clear: this is a very good, smart trade and I'm not criticizing it.

Should we be getting ecstatic over deals every year? Since the ARam trade I think I've been ecstatic over two trades: Aramis/Lofton and Nomar. I was borderline ecstatic on the Marshall trade when I found out Torreyes and Sappelt were included. I might be forgetting one or two, but I don't often get ecstatic over trades. This isn't a criticism of the trade or of Theo/Jed, I simply don't see Rizzo as being such a great talent that I'll get ecstatic over giving up a potential TOR pitcher with huge injury risk for him. It's a very good, smart trade, but not one that gets me over the top ecstatic.

If he becomes any semblance of that, I'll be beyond ecstatic. I hope you're right.

Because I really like Cashner's upside potential, despite his significant injury risk. I think it's a very good trade, but one where we certainly gave up a very good pitcher in the process. There's nothing wrong with that, but for me to be ecstatic over a trade I need to feel like it was a complete steal. I don't feel that way - more that it was a very good trade for both sides.

They help you be more consistent. The Cubs in the later 2000s had some really good players (DLee, Aramis, Dempster, Soto, Soriano for a little bit) but never a legit superstar. That, in part, led to the inconsistency we saw. They're not necessary, but they're pretty important if you can afford them. Note: That's not a criticism in any way of the Rizzo trade. It was a very good trade.

Maholm fits much, much better in the grouping with Lohse and Piniero than with Wood, Volstad, and Sonnastine. Maholm is 30, has never been that good, and I think gets more than 1 year and around $8-10 million AAV. If we still want pitching depth, which I'm fine with, look at guys like Wei-Yin Chen instead of Maholm.

Who's upset?

I just don't get why people have to be sold that he's a cornerstone elite superstar. I don't get why my post requires him to be that. As I said, I think it's a very good trade even with my questions over whether he is an elite cornerstone bat.

Does he really need to be to justify being really happy with this trade? Read another sentence longer in my post - I referred to it as a very good trade by Theo and Jed. My concern over whether he has the upside to be a cornerstone keeps me from being ecstatic about this trade as some on here are. I still think it's a very good trade even if Rizzo is nothing more than a good to very good first baseman long term (which isn't something to take for granted either).

My first reaction was that I wasn't a big fan of this trade. I kept hearing varied reports on Rizzo's upside and I'm a huge fan of Cashner's upside, despite his huge injury risk. However, the more I've thought about it and the more I've heard about Cates, the more I like this trade. I'm still not as ecstatic as most on this since I'm not fully sold on Rizzo as a cornerstone, elite superstar, however this MLE line is pretty impressive: .277/.343/.515 as a 21 year old. Very good trade by Theo/Hoyer as they seem to love Rizzo.

That's kind of what I thought you meant, but wasn't sure. 6/150 for Prince makes me feel about the same as 10/275 for Pujols made me feel - it's as far as I'd be willing to go and I'd feel uncomfortable paying that much. Given the Cubs' payroll now, the upside it has going forward (especially with a TV deal possible), and the FO's ability to bring in good, cheap talent to offset big money contracts, if I'm going to be uncomfortable I'd rather get the better, more complete player.

It's an idea worth considering to be sure, but I think losing multiple first round picks every year hurts too much for the plan to work in practice.

Prince at $30 million - $4 million AAV more than Pujols - carries less risk? I realize there's a 5 year difference in deal length, but as you think I'm starry eyed over Pujols, I think you might be too easily disregarding Prince's poor defense compared to Albert's good defense and the propensity for overweight players to decline faster and earlier. There's no way I'd even consider $30 million a year for Prince and $25 million a year is stretching it quite a bit. I think Cain and Hamels are likely to get 6+ years and Greinke might get that much. The problem with Greinke is that you have the normal high risk of injury and ineffectiveness that naturally comes with pitchers, plus the emotional issues that may crop up in a big market like Chicago. A 5 year deal for Greinke may be as risky as a 6+ year deal for Cain and Hamels. I wouldn't classify any of the other pitchers I listed as likely to be elite going forward, except maybe Anibal Sanchez, so I hesitate to include them in the discussion going forward. I simply included them to be as comprehensive as possible and to include some guys who've shown the ability to be elite.

Losing multiple first round picks and paying 100% extra is pretty significant - especially considering if we simply compensate by going overslot later in the draft again next year we lose multiple first round picks again. Also, if the plan is full rebuild for 2012 at least, that means we're forfeiting probably a top 5-10 pick. That hurts.

I'm all for signing Prince if the plan is respectability in 2012 and competing in 2013. However, the distance between my ideal contract for him and where I'd stop feeling comfortable with a deal is much, much smaller than it was with Pujols. There's a good chance we're going to get into the area I'm not comfortable with for both and if that's the case, I'd rather take the more complete and better player, even if he is older.

I think Greinke very realistically gets more than that. The emotional issues might make the bigger markets (Philly, NY, Boston, Chicago maybe) balk, but he'd be an ideal guy for smaller markets with excess money to pursue looking to splurge (Nats, Blue Jays, Marlins, etc). I think the big market teams will be very aggressive in pursuing Cain and Hamels, if they even hit the market (there's a good chance neither do). I don't think Pujols is in full decline. As I (and others) have pointed out previously, he dropped from his peak years the past couple, but there's been no other clear decline in his numbers. His drop from a 9-WAR player in 2008-9 to a 7-WAR player in 2010 was a drop from his peak to a more sustainable (for him) level. The drop from 2010's 7 WAR to 2011's 5 WAR could be explained in a number of ways other than that his skills are deteriorating: his BABIP dropped 20 points while his LD% held steady; he started out slowly but from the middle of April through the playoffs (about 150 games, I believe) he was much closer to his 2010 numbers; his O-swing% was much higher than ever but his contact rate on those swings held steady, meaning his struggles could be more approach related than deteriorating skills related. There's plenty of reason to believe he could still be the 7-win player he was in 2010 at least for the next year or two before he begins a full (but possibly graceful) decline. I wouldn't be gung-ho in favor of giving Pujols a 10/275 deal and I would have had some hesitation at that price, but I think given the dearth of major league talent in our system, the lack of true impact bats on the horizon, the uniqueness of talent Pujols possesses, and the front offices' ability to fill the organization with good, cheap talent going forward (thus making bad years on the back end much more manageable), that the reward on the front end is worth the risk on the back end. My main point with the pitchers is that they don't have to sign a 10/275 contract to carry similar amounts of risk that Pujols does. These are all pitchers who have logged quite a few innings, will log around 200+ more by the time we might have a chance to sign them, and will be on the wrong side of 30 within 2 years of signing a new deal - there's a ton of risk there. All of them will also be in very high demand next offseason and this year a 32 year old (with much less mileage) CJ Wilson signed a "hometown discount" deal of 5/75 after two elite seasons. 6+ years isn't out of the question with any of them.

Here's a question: Signing an elite player in Pujols at 10/275 or so has been deemed a risk too great to take, but there doesn't seem to be much hesitation in pursuing pitchers (admittedly elite) about to turn 30 to huge deals, possibly/probably as long as 6-8 years. Going by TT's baseline of 5+ WAR being an elite player (I looked at the previous three seasons), six of the upcoming possible FA pitchers meet that criteria: Greinke will be 29 if he hits the market, Hamels 29, Cain 28, Haren 32, Liriano 29, Shields 31. Of those players, Hamels and Shields barely missed the mark but I included them anyway (both had peaks of 4.9 WAR) and Liriano had sub-2.0 WAR seasons bookending his 6.0 WAR year. My question is, if it's that bad an idea to give one of the greatest all-around players in the history of the game a monster contract, is it that much smarter to give a near-30 pitcher a potentially monster contract (6-8 years is very realistic, I think)? I don't think so, given the huge amount of additional risk associated with a pitcher than with a hitter. All of those guys would be in their mid-30s by the time their deals run out - if they all hit FA as it is. What I see as of right now, and even if we do sign guys like Cespedes and Soler who aren't sure bets to be highly productive major leaguers, is a team that will have to be aggressive in FA during the 2012 offseason in order to seriously compete in 2013. Theo may yet have some tricks up his sleeve to keep that from being the case, but as things stand now I'm having trouble seeing it. I'd have much rather been more aggressive this offseason for Pujols and Prince (we still could be) than to be set up to have to hand out 1-2 major contracts to pitchers in order to be competitive in 2013.

Soriano?

Dominguez sounds like a guy Theo/Hoyer would target given their apparent extremely strong emphasis on defense and lukewarm stance on offense. Not sure Z's value is high enough to net him, but it wouldn't surprise me if Theo/Hoyer want him.

Only 21. Power could still develop. What's his perceived ceiling? The OBP is probably worse than the power. At least he can top a .400 SLG - his OBP is .325 in his minor league career. His IsoD (.070) and BB% (8%) are less than inspiring as well.

Volstad and Dominguez for Z would be kind of intriguing. I'd like some offense from a third base prospect, but if the awful offense we've been seeing at third continues, Dominguez could project moderately well and could be used as trade bait in the future.

Thanks. Both of those give me some hope that Theo/Hoyer saw something in him and feel that he's a candidate to potentially break out a bit. If the deal is Z for Volstad straight up and we're paying all of Z's contract, I'd still rather have waited for the deadline, though.

Does Volstad have some really great stuff or something? He's 26, hits arbitration in 2013, and has been less than stellar so far in his ML career. I don't have a problem targeting him, but I don't see enough potential there to pay all of Z's contract unless he's got some really nice stuff. I don't expect stars for Z (as great as the LoMo talk is, it's almost certainly a pipedream), but if Volstad is it and we're paying the entire deal, I'd have rather kept Z and hoped a good first half would boost his value some. That said, after the Marshall/Wood trade, I'm not criticizing this trade until we find out all the details. And Volstad is 6'8, which is kind of cool ......

He probably is in decline, but his numbers still compare favorably to a guy like Buerhle (less WAR, however). I'm not debating whether he's in decline, however, I'm debating whether or not we should dump him for "whatever we can get." And like I said before, given his graceful decline and the type of pitcher he is, if he puts up another 2.5 WAR or better season this year and we don't get a worthwhile offer for him at the deadline, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing if he would be open to a "hometown" deal of some type (2/15-20 maybe?).

Coaches can still be fired after the Monday after the regular season ends. That said, if the Chargers want to continue being mediocre that badly, then more power to them.