Four Possible Trade Scenarios

Boobaby1 · Apr 29, 2014

brett05 said:
Well at least someone who dissents with me can be an intellectual about this.

back to the peaceful discussion....

You are right, I am not trying to start an uproar. SilenceS and others know when I am doing that. In fact I will do that next week by bumping an old thread.
I feel you and others severely over value the Cubs players and factually it seems major league baseball agrees with me by not giving up the quality the Cubs want.
You are right that I don't like the Cubs. Well, they are my 30th favorite team pending expansion
I do think the AL is the better league and I think IL play has shown that, but it is also cyclical.
I hear ya about hating the trade, but I think TOR fans would as well if it were those two guys for Shark. I know if I had those pitchers for a guy like Shark (see, I am avoiding the bias) I would be upset.

If I may chime in, I think that is a starting place by GM's. They want to pump up what they have, but they also don't want to give in to getting a potential TOR pitcher when they would be trading away at least a proven #3 to #4 pitcher. That's why they ask for two, or in the case with the Braves, asked for Heyward. The Cubs want pieces moving forward, and Shark on the team or off the team could be just that.

Pitching is at a premium these days, especially when you would be giving up a guy that has proven himself to be durable at the ML level. The asking price should be high, and GM's make these moves all of the time. Rarely does it work out for both teams and someone is generally always on the short end.

Case in point, albeit sample size, but why would you trade a 22 year old lefty in Tyler Skaggs, for a below average, power hitting 28 year old defensive liability in Mark Trumbo? The D-Backs stood a better chance with pitching, and could have supplemented Trumbo's spot via free agency in time.

Like I said, GM's make moves like this all of the time, and you can bet your ass that if Shark goes, the return will be big as far as potential. I am not overvaluing Shark in any way, but I know by history what Theo will give or get via a trade involving good players. Check out his Masterson-V-Mart, H-Ram-Beckett, Garza package, and on a lesser note, the Feldman deal.

And if the roles are reversed, he knows he will have to give up a substantial amount of talented prospect(s) to acquire someone proven.

brett05 · Apr 29, 2014

Oh I think we agree. Everyday Shark is moving up the top 75-100 pitcher list.

2323 · Apr 29, 2014

brett05 said:
I disliked 2323 for his personal attack post. I am sure he'll respond in kind. Typical.

You're really not qualified to attribute the characteristic of being intellectual to anyone. It looks like you have your hands full with your own limitations. Not only that, but the guy just called you out for trolling but your so happy about your perception that someone is defending you, that you're totally oblivious to how it's making you look bad. And this, "if you're nice to me, you're intellectual" business is straight out of the sandbox. What are you, nine years old?

brett05 · Apr 29, 2014

2323 said:
You're really not qualified to attribute the characteristic of being intellectual to anyone. It looks like you have your hands full with your own limitations. Not only that, but the guy just called you out for trolling but your so happy about your perception that someone is defending you, that you're totally oblivious to how it's making you look bad. And this, "if you're nice to me, you're intellectual" business is straight out of the sandbox. What are you, nine years old?

whatever helps you get thru things

2323 · Apr 29, 2014

brett05 said:
whatever helps you get thru things

If you don't like having your sh*t shoved back in for spewing nonsense, then stop trolling the Cubs forum. Negative reinforcement: even a lab rats smart enough to figure that out.

MRubio52 · Apr 29, 2014

Stroman is going to start

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

brett05 · Apr 29, 2014

2323 said:
If you don't like having your (stuff) shoved back in for spewing nonsense, then stop trolling the Cubs forum. Negative reinforcement: even a lab rats smart enough to figure that out.

Got a winner here Cub fans

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

TL1961 · May 2, 2014

brett05 said:
Im not saying he won't but for those two a bryant/almora will need to be in on it

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

That's ridiculous.

DewsSox79 · May 3, 2014

i love threads like these.

Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

DewsSox79 · May 3, 2014

2323 said:
If you don't like having your sh*t shoved back in for spewing nonsense, then stop trolling the Cubs forum. Negative reinforcement: even a lab rats smart enough to figure that out.

settle the fuck down.

Sent from my Rotary Phone using Tapatalk

Chris J · May 3, 2014

brett05 said:
Im not saying he won't but for those two a bryant/almora will need to be in on it

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

Absolutely not. Youre far off

Chris J · May 3, 2014

CSF77 said:
They had Black who was under the radar. He is excelling as a starter in AA now. Manny looks to be back. They have legit pieces.

Looking at the Yanks:

Nova 60 day DL.
Nuno #5 SP.

McCann 5 year 85 mil deal
#1 prospect

Gary Sanchez #3 catching prospect in baseball. playing in AA.
Manny Banuelos LHP in FSL right now but has been in the minors sense 2008. He just needs to prove he is back from TJS.
Was the #1 LHP prospect in baseball a few years back. Only 23 still. Age is right.

Getting those 2 would be worth Shark. Now they do not have depth. That is a problem for them but they have some pieces.

No way man. You cant trade a possible ace for someone who has barely pitched over the last few years due to an injury. That doesnt make sense. Yea the Cubs dont have organizational depth at catcher but Castillo has really made big strides since July last year

CSF77 · May 3, 2014

Chris J said:
No way man. You cant trade a possible ace for someone who has barely pitched over the last few years due to an injury. That doesnt make sense. Yea the Cubs dont have organizational depth at catcher but Castillo has really made big strides since July last year

If that is the best offer on the table you do it.

CSF77 · May 3, 2014

I would rather have them re-up Shark for 5/80 mil and then trade Castro to the Yanks for Manny and something.

Manny has been bumped up to AA.

Over all 0-0 2.30 ERA 2 BB/18 SO in 15.2 IP. 0.89 WHIP.

He has had top of the rotation potential and his age fits for the future at 23 YO.

I'm just seeing a sell high on Castro this year now that he is producing again and Baez is in AAA.

Scouting Grades: Fastball: 60 | Curveball: 55 | Changeup: 55 | Control: 45 | Overall: 50

Banuelos began his pro career as a control-oriented starter, then saw his stuff take a huge step forward while his command regressed in 2010. He was a sensation in big league camp the following spring and appeared on the verge of reaching Yankee Stadium. But he has yet to reach New York, missing most of 2012 and all of 2013 following Tommy John surgery.

Before he got hurt, Banuelos showed the potential for three plus pitches. He worked at 91-94 mph and touched 97 with a tailing fastball. He also got swings and misses with his curveball and changeup.

In addition to regaining his health, Banuelos will have to prove he can throw enough strikes to realize his ceiling as a No. 2 starter. He has averaged 4.7 walks per nine innings between Double-A and Triple-A.

2323 · May 3, 2014

The Cubs approach has been interesting. They've focused on adding bats with their high picks. There's a premium on pitching but there's also been a dearth of power hitting. If the Cubs would have focused on arms, there would gave been a greater likelihood they'd turn it around faster. Historically, good pitching gives you a better chance to win games than good hitting. So by adding bats, they'll still afford themselves the opportunity add high end pitching prospects in subsequent drafts. Given, not all prospects pan out but if they can get at least two quality players out of their young players, they'll be able to start adding around that.

beckdawg · May 3, 2014

2323 said:
The Cubs approach has been interesting. They've focused on adding bats with their high picks. There's a premium on pitching but there's also been a dearth of power hitting. If the Cubs would have focused on arms, there would gave been a greater likelihood they'd turn it around faster. Historically, good pitching gives you a better chance to win games than good hitting. So by adding bats, they'll still afford themselves the opportunity add high end pitching prospects in subsequent drafts. Given, not all prospects pan out but if they can get at least two quality players out of their young players, they'll be able to start adding around that.

Historically, pitching is far less likely to succeed(around half as likely for top 100 players on studies i've seen). Injuries too easily derail careers of pitchers. Their approach was essentially "we need everything." So, they used their high round picks on offense because they are more projectable. They then attacked pitching in bulk in the later rounds of the draft. The reasoning behind this is that you can often find high profile guys in the second round or later because pitchers are very volatile. Take C.J. Edwards for example. He was a 40-something round pick. Seattle's Walker was the 43rd pick...etc.

On top of that, when they've traded players they have always tried to get an arm back in the deals. This also goes in with the bulk idea but there's an added benefit. They are closer to the majors. Often times these guys will get drafted out of high school and take 3 years to reach high A. For example the cubs drafted Duane Underwood as a 17 year old and 2 full years later he's only in mid-A not even A+. That's 2 years where a guy can either not have it or he can get hurt that they don't have to worry about, though you still have the rest of the time to worry about. Its to some extent like adding more college age players.

Now it's true that as of right now there's not a clear cut elite pitcher in the cubs minor league system. Obviously as I said before players could still emerge. Even if he doesn't, the overall health of their farm system is much superior. It's not like they don't have good pitching prospects. They have a number of guys who probably can make the majors as a #2-5 starter. Their offense players are obviously some of the best.

If pitching were a bit more stable in the minors perhaps you could build easier that way. But we've seen with guys like Appel that even those who seem like they are on a fast track to the majors that they can have set backs if not serious concerns about the future. Additionally, perhaps it's just anecdotal but it sure seems like more top tier pitchers have been available as FAs of late than top tier hitters. And there's always the option of dealing hitters for pitching. So, if it's easier to take a hitter from top 10 pick to top 100 prospect than a pitcher, you could in theory just use hitters to buy a pitcher and save yourself all of that development.

Now that's not to suck off Theo and Co because they could have totally been wrong on some of their picks. It doesn't appear that way yet but it could happen. But from an approach standpoint I like the idea of starting by building strong on offense and attacking pitching in bulk.

beckdawg · May 3, 2014

CSF77 said:
If that is the best offer on the table you do it.

I'd be seriously surprised if the yankees had the best offer. I don't see any way they can make that sort of trade work with Shark unless it's a 3 team deal. Just because Shark would make sense for the Yankees as a player doesn't really mean it makes sense as a deal. According to MLB.com the yanks have 2 top 100 prospect Mason Williams(OF) and Gary Sanchez(C). Their best pitching prospect is 8th in their rankings and is 19. Their second best pitching prospect is 10th in their rankings and is 20. Given the focus the cubs have had on pitching in return for their best trade pieces(Edwards, Grimm, and Ramirez for Garza, Hendricks for Dempster, Strop and Arrieta for Feldman, Vizcaino for Maholm) I don't feel like either of those two are enough to get a conversation started. Perhaps Michael Pineda would be something to get a conversation started if the cubs like him but then the Yankees have the issue of replacing him as well.

Someone like Hammel would make more sense for the Yankees if they are looking to make a deal with the cubs. The cubs aren't greatly invested in him and as such they might be willing to take a positional player and one of their lessor arms.

2323 · May 4, 2014

beckdawg said:
Historically, pitching is far less likely to succeed(around half as likely for top 100 players on studies i've seen). Injuries too easily derail careers of pitchers. Their approach was essentially "we need everything." So, they used their high round picks on offense because they are more projectable. They then attacked pitching in bulk in the later rounds of the draft. The reasoning behind this is that you can often find high profile guys in the second round or later because pitchers are very volatile. Take C.J. Edwards for example. He was a 40-something round pick. Seattle's Walker was the 43rd pick...etc.

On top of that, when they've traded players they have always tried to get an arm back in the deals. This also goes in with the bulk idea but there's an added benefit. They are closer to the majors. Often times these guys will get drafted out of high school and take 3 years to reach high A. For example the cubs drafted Duane Underwood as a 17 year old and 2 full years later he's only in mid-A not even A+. That's 2 years where a guy can either not have it or he can get hurt that they don't have to worry about, though you still have the rest of the time to worry about. Its to some extent like adding more college age players.

Now it's true that as of right now there's not a clear cut elite pitcher in the cubs minor league system. Obviously as I said before players could still emerge. Even if he doesn't, the overall health of their farm system is much superior. It's not like they don't have good pitching prospects. They have a number of guys who probably can make the majors as a #2-5 starter. Their offense players are obviously some of the best.

If pitching were a bit more stable in the minors perhaps you could build easier that way. But we've seen with guys like Appel that even those who seem like they are on a fast track to the majors that they can have set backs if not serious concerns about the future. Additionally, perhaps it's just anecdotal but it sure seems like more top tier pitchers have been available as FAs of late than top tier hitters. And there's always the option of dealing hitters for pitching. So, if it's easier to take a hitter from top 10 pick to top 100 prospect than a pitcher, you could in theory just use hitters to buy a pitcher and save yourself all of that development.

Now that's not to suck off Theo and Co because they could have totally been wrong on some of their picks. It doesn't appear that way yet but it could happen. But from an approach standpoint I like the idea of starting by building strong on offense and attacking pitching in bulk.

I'm aware that the data suggests it's safer to get a bat with a high pick. But either way, there's sort of a buckshot approach,. By this, I mean that either way, the idea is to amass enough talent to give yourself a chance since you know all of your high picks are not likely to pan out. This applies to both bats and arms. But just to clarify, I wasn't even talking about whether a bat or an arm at the high end of the draft is more likely to pan out. A big reason highly drafted pitchers don't work out is there's a greater chance of injury with pitching arms. If you draft a guy who can hit, there's a good chance he'll play a corner position.

I was just saying that by drafting bars with high picks later, they'll have a better chance to get pitching with high picks later even if you assume the bust rate is the same between pitchers and hitters.

2323 · May 4, 2014

It won't be the Yankees. Whenever someone brings up the Yankees, it's usually because they're regurgitating something they heard on TV since baseball coverage is so Yankee-centric. It's going to be a contending team with pitching prospects and/or a team with a GM who is under pressure to win this year and is desperate. Either way, it will take something like what the Mets got for Dickey, which included a high end pitching prospect (Syndegaard) and a catcher (d'Arnaud). Both of these were high end prospects.

JosMin · May 4, 2014

2323 said:
It won't be the Yankees. Whenever someone brings up the Yankees, it's usually because they're regurgitating something they heard on TV since baseball coverage is so Yankee-centric. It's going to be a contending team with pitching prospects and/or a team with a GM who is under pressure to win this year and is desperate. Either way, it will take something like what the Mets got for Dickey, which included a high end pitching prospect (Syndegaard) and a catcher (d'Arnaud). Both of these were high end prospects.

The Dickey trade was one of the worst I can recall in recent memory. Alex A regrets doing it.

Four Possible Trade Scenarios

New member

867-5309

New member

867-5309

New member

New member

867-5309

Well-known member

CCS Donator

CCS Donator

Chris Jelinek

Chris Jelinek

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Entirely too much tuna