DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 135839--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Jes Beard Date: June 22, 2013, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Cubsin link=topic=108.msg135833#msg135833
date=1371882311]
I'd put much lower odds on Schierholtz being traded, because
he's under team control through 2014, and there aren't any
obvious OF candidates in the minors. Lake, Ha, Szczur and
possibly Jackson or Vitters might battle for a roster spot next
year, but none of them look like everyday starters to me.
[/quote]
The only reason for real concern at this time about who is
playing ANY position on the Cubs next season is if you believe
the Cubs have a meaningful prospect of contending in 2014.
#Post#: 135841--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: craig Date: June 22, 2013, 8:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I doubt there will be many trades. Theo still has the "every
season is sacred" theme, and I assume there is some "every game
is sacred" principle as well, even if that is much lower on the
priority list.
*Gregg: Two months of renting a 35-year-old journeyman who's
never been much good before. Nobody will give much. If McLeod
likes some guy offered, maybe yes. (Of course yes.) But Gregg
(as he's been functioning thus far) gives the Cubs a chance to
function more or less like a normal team. Marmol has been the
backup closer since Gregg took over; do we want two months with
Marmol closing again? W/L mean nothing this year, I get that;
but Theo may want to remain presentable unless a prospect
offered is somebody McLeod actually likes. And if Gregg remains
capable, he may help fill next year's pen.
*DeJesus: Garza got hurt last year, oh well. Same for DeJesus.
*Feldman: He's the most interesting candidate, I think. A team
who needs a capable pitcher who can throw strikes, that's a real
issue. And I assume there are teams who will. He's not old, so
a team could consider keeping him beyond this year as well.
Fair chance. Still, not sure teams will like him well enough to
offer much worthwhile, and Theo needs a staff next year too. So
I think maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the offer. Obviously
he's got some opportunity to get injured before deadline. And
his stuff is iffy enough, he's a guy whose current stats look
solid enough, but he could easily hit a slump and not longer
look very capable over the course of another month of starts.
*Schierholz: It takes one team with the right need and a strong
scouting appreciation for him and the right prospect(s). In
theory, well possible, and I sure hope so. But what teams are
there? From the small supply of teams who might have interest,
do any believe in him? Would he be bought as an injury fill-in,
or does somebody think he'd be an asset starter for them next
year as well? I hope there is a strong buyer. Still, just as
Theo refused to trade Garza when he was really valuable, and
held onto DeJesus, he may well do the same with Schierholz.
*Garza: Very unlikely, I think. I doubt he'd bring much as a
two-month rental. I expect he stays, and Theo tries to bring
him back.
#Post#: 135844--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Ron Date: June 22, 2013, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree that there is a balancing act that the Cubs will perform
in making decisions about trades. Unlike a small percentage of
fans who have their sole focus on the future, Theo and company
have a secondary, but real, concern about putting a reasonably
competitive team on the field in the short-term, particularly
after (presumably) two miserable seasons in a row. So I don't
think he's going to give up guys like Schierholtz, Feldman or
Gregg lightly.
On the other hand, Theo has said, repeatedly, that he will not
allow external perceptions or expectations to interfere with the
Cubs' long term plan. As long as Ricketts hangs in there with
him, I expect him to be true to his word on that. So I think
that if the return were sufficiently promising, he'd be willing
to bite the bullet and trade guys who seem to be critical pieces
to winning games (such as Schierholtz and Gregg). But I don't
think he'll be trading valuable short-term assets absent a
belief that the guys they get are likely to have pretty
significant value.
I'd guess that Feldman is the most likely to go, with Garza
being the second most likely. But I shudder to think what the
rest of this season, and next, would be like if they were to
both go. And if Gregg were gone as well, YIKES!
An aside to craig: I've read at least two different places that
Sveum has now said that Marmol is not (and will not) be the back
up closer any longer. I didn't actually hear him say that, but
Sveum (like about every other manager) believes that some guys
just can't handle the last three outs, and Marmol has apparently
convinced him he's one of those guys. Of course, that begs the
question of who the closer would be if Gregg isn't here. Parker?
#Post#: 135846--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: craig Date: June 22, 2013, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ron, thanks for Marmol note.
I'm not strongly concerned about the impact on next year for
Feldman. There are a lot of pitchers in the profession, and
probably always some pitchers who'd like a shot to start.
Maholm last year; Feldman, Villanueva, Baker this year. (Too
bad they opted against Francisco Liriano, he's been great and
has superior stuff.)
Feldman's put together a capable couple of months, and maybe the
guy you sign this winter won't do as well as Feldman or Maholm
have. But there's no guarantee that Feldman will, either. Trade
him, sign somebody else of his ilk this winter, that's not a
problem.
I'd also be "Camp careful". Camp had a capable year last year,
and seemed a part of the anti-awful program. Gregg and Feldman
have both been good thus far. But I'd be careful about building
too many anti-awful-in-14 aspirations on them. Either might be
fairly awful next year, for guys like this I'm not sure how much
carryover there is from year to year.
#Post#: 135848--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Deeg Date: June 22, 2013, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think anyone's advocating giving away guys for nothing.
If you don't get offered meaningful prospects, don't make the
deal. But I think the question has to be asked: what are you
protecting? Even with these guys on-board, the Cubs are still a
very bad team. What's it worth not to be slightly worse? Not a
decent prospect, if you ask me - if the offers are decent, you
have to move.
There's also the fact that Schierholtz, Gregg and Feldman are
all performing substantially better than they might reasonably
have been predicted to based on their age and track record.
There's a pretty good chance that if you get seduced by that,
they're going to end up reverting to what they probably should
be (or get hurt) and then you end up not being to get a sack of
hammers for them.
Finally, I think the situation is somewhat different from last
year in that even if Garza and Feldman are traded, it's not as
if you're going to have to run garbage pitchers like Rusin and
Raley and Coleman out there every day - we didn't have Garza for
the first two months of the season and the world didn't come to
an end. Villanueva can go back into the rotation, and maybe
Baker comes back for the final two months. And even if he
can't, it's still a secondary concern - this team is going to
lose 90 games even if they stand pat. Would it be that much of
a tragedy to lose 95 instead?
#Post#: 135849--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Jes Beard Date: June 22, 2013, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=craig link=topic=108.msg135841#msg135841
date=1371909241]
I doubt there will be many trades. Theo still has the "every
season is sacred" theme, and I assume there is some "every game
is sacred" principle as well, even if that is much lower on the
priority list.
[/quote]
Is this the same Theo who last year traded two of the top
starting pitchers (at that time) in the NL, and did his best to
also trade Marmol and Soriano?
He has made comments which would support the idea he is simply
in rebuilding mode and will be not only happy to entertain any
offer of future assets for current assets, but will aggressively
seek to move current assets who have reached or passed their
prime.... and he has made others which would support the idea he
will try to win every game and every season.
His actions, however, are consistent with one of those two
interpretations and inconsistent with the other.
Look for the Cubs to be heavy sellers.
#Post#: 135850--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Jes Beard Date: June 22, 2013, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Deeg link=topic=108.msg135848#msg135848
date=1371913059]
this team is going to lose 90 games even if they stand pat.
Would it be that much of a tragedy to lose 95 instead?
[/quote]
Actually, with the current record at 30-42, we have a W/L
percentage of .417. Winning that percentage of games over a 162
game season gives you 67.554 wins, which gives you 94.446
losses.
So the team is pretty much already on pace for 95 losses.
Look for reaching 100 after the trades.
#Post#: 135858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: craig Date: June 22, 2013, 12:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They had to trade Dempster (age); they got a home-run offer on
Maholm (if Vizcaino got healthy), so they traded him. They
didn't get great offers on Barney or DeJesus, so they kept them.
Schierholz, Wood, Feldman, none of those guys are Dempster aged,
so no similar need to trade. If they get good offers, they'll
trade as with Maholm. If they don't, they may hold them as was
the case with DeJesus and Barney and Camp.
#Post#: 135859--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: craig Date: June 22, 2013, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you, deeg. Look to trade, obviously. And I agree
that the pitching won't be as bad as last year. They lost Garza
Dempster Maholm and towards the end Samardz. If they trade
Feldman, it will be little different than early in season, Garza
in Feldman's place. If they trade Garza, it will be no
different than early when they didn't have Garza.
Rusin is better than last year. He was a 4.6 guy at Iowa last
year, he's 3.0 now. If he was to be needed for 6 starts, might
be fine.
#Post#: 135860--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '13
By: Jes Beard Date: June 22, 2013, 1:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=craig link=topic=108.msg135858#msg135858
date=1371922047]
They had to trade Dempster (age); they got a home-run offer on
Maholm (if Vizcaino got healthy), so they traded him. They
didn't get great offers on Barney or DeJesus, so they kept them.
Schierholz, Wood, Feldman, none of those guys are Dempster aged,
so no similar need to trade. If they get good offers, they'll
trade as with Maholm. If they don't, they may hold them as was
the case with DeJesus and Barney and Camp.
[/quote]
They "had" to trade Dempster because of his age?
Is that some hidden clause in the basic agreement with the
MLBPA? You also only address Maholm and Depster, ignoring the
efforts to move Soriano and Marmol and the dealing of Soto.
I think you seriously underestimate the Theocracy's eagerness to
trade present assets for future assets.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page