The trade deadline passed at 3 p.m. and all Cubs fans had for their trouble and Twitter refreshing was tiny little Tony Kemp. But then, word started circulating that the Cubs had actually traded for an adult sized player, and sure enough, a trade for Tigers’ “outfielder” Nicholas Castellanos was announced.
It made no sense for the Tigers to keep Castellanos, since he’s a free agent at the end of the year, openly despises hitting in their ginormous tumbleweed riddled ballpark, and was certain to sign somewhere–anywhere–else in the offseason.
Castellanos has crushed lefties so far this season, to the tune of: .347/.415/.611/1.026, that will come in handy as the Cubs as a team hit .010/.011/.010 against lefties. I didn’t actually look that last part up, but I’m pretty sure it’s right.
He also leads the American League in doubles with 37 and in dropped flyballs with all of them. Much like Valtrex spokesman Ryan Braun he originally broke in at third base, and was hilariously inept there, so he then went to the outfield where he’s gotten really good at just waiting for the ball to stop rolling and then picking it up.
It’s true he’s moving from the vast expanses of Comerica Park to the cozy outfield at Wrigley, so I’m sure he’ll be fine. I mean, he’ll probably play left field instead of Schwarber against lefthanded starters and right with Jason Heyward moving to center against righties. So, if the Cubs pitchers will just remember which outfield spot he’s in and not let anyone hit it there it’ll all work out. You know, like Mark Prior used to do when Sammy was in right.
To get Castellanos, the Cubs traded pitching prospects Paul Richan and Alex Lange. Given how well the Cubs have developed pitching the last decade or so, this seems like a bad idea for the Tigers.
I’m troubled mostly by the fact that Castellanos goes by the formal, Nicholas. Part-time Cubs’ fan coming to a hair restoration billboard near you, John Cusack, sums it up nicely:
And, he’s going to have some pretty bitching walk-up music:
“tiny little” Tony Kemp. What’s so little about 5’7″?