tski1972 wrote:just checking that this is indeed the trade rumors thread.
All we need is some Kaepernick/political takes and we're all set.
Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25, humanrefutation
tski1972 wrote:just checking that this is indeed the trade rumors thread.
Kerb Hohl wrote:I was responding to twirly saying that we shouldn't go near any big/long contracts. We're not a big market, but the Cubs' rotation outside of Arrieta and Hendricks (and Arrieta is still expensive in arby) cost $50 million dollars last season for 3 pitchers.
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."
I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
Kerb Hohl wrote:El Duderino wrote:
They'll have to finally draft/develop it, something this organization has failed miserably to do for decades..
Trade for pitching prospects which the team then hopes pan out.
Maybe catch a break or two like Theo did with Arrieta and Hendricks.
Pray that young pitching prospects both stay healthy and can translate minor league success into big league success.
Some combination of the above. Easier said than done though.
Sure, those are all options I am hoping for. We're already probably too far into this rebuild to hope for a stud pitcher to come out of the draft for the front half of this next contention window unless it is a very polished college pitcher.
I was responding to twirly saying that we shouldn't go near any big/long contracts. We're not a big market, but the Cubs' rotation outside of Arrieta and Hendricks (and Arrieta is still expensive in arby) cost $50 million dollars last season for 3 pitchers.
We hopefully will trade for more pitching, but I'm not even sure if packaging Brinson and another big prospect will get some Chris Sale-esque prospect to Milwaukee. We could dump half of our prospects into Jose Quintana but half of this board would jump off a bridge.
So, where is it going to come from? I hope Hader, Woodruff, Guerra, and some of the other prospects are all good and can fill a solid rotation. That means we'd just have to fill the #4 or #5 slot with some shorter-term vet deals.
However, if those guys are not really that good...we're going to overpay for some pitching. Whether it is via trade or via free agency.
trwi7 wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:I was responding to twirly saying that we shouldn't go near any big/long contracts. We're not a big market, but the Cubs' rotation outside of Arrieta and Hendricks (and Arrieta is still expensive in arby) cost $50 million dollars last season for 3 pitchers.
How about you **** read? Obviously we're not getting close on the Price and Scherzer type contracts so we always go a level or two down for the Suppan, Wolf type contracts that never end well. Would you not agree that we need to stay away from those?
coolhandluke121 wrote:Even Mark A admitted that they didn't do nearly enough to keep the farm system stocked, and he said he had second thoughts about his organizational philosophy. I don't care what anybody says; it's ridiculous to stockpile one of the best minor league systems in recent memory and then be a .500 team with 6 playoff wins (in the wild card era) over the next 10 years.
They could have easily traded guys like Ramirez, Hart, Weeks, and Yovani for a frickin' haul at the end of the 2012 season. Lohse and Garza should have been traded years ago when it was clear they were going nowhere, too. Hell, even Marcum and Wolf might have been worth something after the 2011 season, despite their disastrous September and October that year. And with Braun's positive test, they should have heeded the bad omens and traded him after his monstrous 2012 season. They weren't going any damn place anyway.
A small market team needs to trade guys like that before they decline. Look at how it's worked out for them trading a bunch of guys just before they decline since Stearns took over.
El Duderino wrote:coolhandluke121 wrote:
A small market team needs to trade guys like that before they decline. Look at how it's worked out for them trading a bunch of guys just before they decline since Stearns took over.
I don't think Stearns traded guys like Lucroy, Davis, Smith, Jeffress, Thornburg, etc at all because he thought they were due to decline. He traded them because the organization badly needed an overall/rebuild, along with the farm system needing to be restocked.
trwi7 wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:I was responding to twirly saying that we shouldn't go near any big/long contracts. We're not a big market, but the Cubs' rotation outside of Arrieta and Hendricks (and Arrieta is still expensive in arby) cost $50 million dollars last season for 3 pitchers.
How about you **** read? Obviously we're not getting close on the Price and Scherzer type contracts so we always go a level or two down for the Suppan, Wolf type contracts that never end well. Would you not agree that we need to stay away from those?
El Duderino wrote:coolhandluke121 wrote:Even Mark A admitted that they didn't do nearly enough to keep the farm system stocked, and he said he had second thoughts about his organizational philosophy. I don't care what anybody says; it's ridiculous to stockpile one of the best minor league systems in recent memory and then be a .500 team with 6 playoff wins (in the wild card era) over the next 10 years.
They could have easily traded guys like Ramirez, Hart, Weeks, and Yovani for a frickin' haul at the end of the 2012 season. Lohse and Garza should have been traded years ago when it was clear they were going nowhere, too. Hell, even Marcum and Wolf might have been worth something after the 2011 season, despite their disastrous September and October that year. And with Braun's positive test, they should have heeded the bad omens and traded him after his monstrous 2012 season. They weren't going any damn place anyway.
A small market team needs to trade guys like that before they decline. Look at how it's worked out for them trading a bunch of guys just before they decline since Stearns took over.
I don't think Stearns traded guys like Lucroy, Davis, Smith, Jeffress, Thornburg, etc at all because he thought they were due to decline. He traded them because the organization badly needed an overall/rebuild, along with the farm system needing to be restocked.
He also looked at the obvious place the team was in the competitive curve. In the current place the team was in when Stearns took over, they clearly weren't a serious contender, so it made sense to trade quality late inning relievers who have far greater value to contenders than non-contenders, a catcher who was a year and a half from free agency, and a one tool outfielder blocking Santana and other outfield prospects who needed a chance to play.
The bigger test with Stearns will be with guys like Shaw and Broxton if say two years from now they are still playing well on pretty good to good teams, but they are now 29-30 years old, getting closer to free agency, and there are prospects at their positions in the minors.
I think Stearns is smart, good at evaluating talent, and plenty willing to to make trades compared to some GM's who are less willing to pull the trigger, but it's impossible to know how he's going to react if/when the team wins and he has to juggle between roster composition with very productive MLB players no longer in their 20's who are a year or two from free agency, along with guys in the minors who may be ready to come up.
There is also the Attanasio wild card. He seems to have been willing to not interfere with Stearns so far at least compared to when Melvin was GM, but that could change as the team gets good again.
Iheartfootball wrote:That is pretty much exactly where I'm at with the front office as well. I do think Attanasio has learned from his last go round that you can make the playoffs annually without gutting the minor league system.
coolhandluke121 wrote:Iheartfootball wrote:That is pretty much exactly where I'm at with the front office as well. I do think Attanasio has learned from his last go round that you can make the playoffs annually without gutting the minor league system.
I would argue that you're more likely to consistently be a playoff contender if you don't gut the minor league system, especially if you've built the kind of talent engine the Brewers had when Mark A bought the team. Just keep one eye on the present and one eye on the future and you're much better in the long run.
Iheartfootball wrote:coolhandluke121 wrote:Iheartfootball wrote:That is pretty much exactly where I'm at with the front office as well. I do think Attanasio has learned from his last go round that you can make the playoffs annually without gutting the minor league system.
I would argue that you're more likely to consistently be a playoff contender if you don't gut the minor league system, especially if you've built the kind of talent engine the Brewers had when Mark A bought the team. Just keep one eye on the present and one eye on the future and you're much better in the long run.
That's exactly what I said.
"can make the playoffs without gutting the minor league system"
coolhandluke121 wrote:Iheartfootball wrote:That is pretty much exactly where I'm at with the front office as well. I do think Attanasio has learned from his last go round that you can make the playoffs annually without gutting the minor league system.
I would argue that you're more likely to consistently be a playoff contender if you don't gut the minor league system, especially if you've built the kind of talent engine the Brewers had when Mark A bought the team. Just keep one eye on the present and one eye on the future and you're much better in the long run.
coolhandluke121 wrote:
And they should have drafted and developed pitchers better. Just saying "they had no pitchers" is no excuse.