Cubs' Prospects FUTUREBONER thread

[Chuck to Chuck]

I'd be very surprised if the Cubs try to trade for Cole Hammels. I think their best option is to wait until the offseason to add a major free agent starter that will only cost them money and not prospects.

The Cubs have nearly one billion prospects. It's OK to let go.

If the asking price is a Swihart-level prospect or a starting pitcher not counted among your estimated one billion, it's not ok.

I wasn't speaking of Hamels, specifically. Just the general idea of waiting until the winter to improve the team so they can hoard every last possible prospect.

Yeah but if not Hamels, who? If the Hamels asking price is too great and the Cubs won't match the price, I don't see who would be available. Maybe if the Reds put Cueto on the block. But if you aren't trading for Hamels I'd rather not trade for any other pitcher when they could get a top tier starter just waiting a few months.

I mean so yeah, in the abstract, trading a few prospects is okay, but if it ain't getting you Hamels what's the point?

DPD, but let's concede the Cubs need another top flight starter.


The options appear to be Hamels by trade or Cueto/Price/Zimmerman by free agency.

If the Cubs actually can't meet the price for Hamels because they lack a top tier starting pitching prospect and Philly is unimpressed with Kyle Hendricks or whatever, then I don't see who else they could trade for. If the Reds even decide to move on from Cueto at the deadline would they trade him within the division? I don't see the Tigers or Nats ending up sellers. So I mean yeah, dump a mid-tier prospect for a rental like the Cards did with Masterson last year if you need a #3 type by the deadline because one of Wood/Hammel/Hendricks isn't working out, but might as well wait till the offseason to really get a top-notch guy.

But that assumes you can get a top-notch guy via free agency. It's not the cost that would worry me, it's the competition. With a trade, you know you get the guy.  With free agency, there could be 8 suitors.  For only 3 guys.

Personally, I think the Cubs have an edge in the trade market because of their system.  In free agency, the field is leveled and they have no real advantage over the Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Rangers etc.

[Eli]

If the Phillies come to the Cubs and say they want Addison Russel or Kyle Schwarber, the Cubs should rightly and directly tell them to fuck their chili rings. Why give up Russell or Schwarber (I'm making assumptions here) when they can wait, keep them (because their more valuable than Cole Hamels I have to think) and have their pick of the litter in free agency next winter?

Well, the Cubs won't "have their pick of the litter" in the offseason, because other teams exist and will also try to sign good players. Part of the benefit of trading for someone is making sure you actually get that guy on your team.

And since it seems like we're primarily talking about Hamels, apparently, what's left on his deal is way below his current market value. Waiting around for free agency basically ensures you end up with an overinflated contract. A few of those are fine (and I'm glad they have Lester), I'm not entirely convinced the Cubs are going to sign pitchers to 9-figure contracts in consecutive offseasons.

In my view, the hypothetical trade of an elite prospect for Hamels depends on what we think the Cubs are this year. Right now, it's more up in the air. If they're still playing at a 90-plus-win pace in 6-8 weeks and the Cardinals look vulnerable in the division without Wainwright, it becomes more intriguing. I think most people's assumption is that this is just first year of many contending years for the Cubs, but I think you have to be careful in being too rigid about that -- the Nationals had the same mindset in shutting down Strasburg in 2012 and it's possible that was their best shot at a title.

At some point, the front office is going to trade a prospect for a real major-league player and it'll be fun to read everyone's nervous comments.

[Powdered Toast Man]

I'd be very surprised if the Cubs try to trade for Cole Hammels. I think their best option is to wait until the offseason to add a major free agent starter that will only cost them money and not prospects.

The Cubs have nearly one billion prospects. It's OK to let go.

If the asking price is a Swihart-level prospect or a starting pitcher not counted among your estimated one billion, it's not ok.

I wasn't speaking of Hamels, specifically. Just the general idea of waiting until the winter to improve the team so they can hoard every last possible prospect.

Yeah but if not Hamels, who? If the Hamels asking price is too great and the Cubs won't match the price, I don't see who would be available. Maybe if the Reds put Cueto on the block. But if you aren't trading for Hamels I'd rather not trade for any other pitcher when they could get a top tier starter just waiting a few months.

I mean so yeah, in the abstract, trading a few prospects is okay, but if it ain't getting you Hamels what's the point?

DPD, but let's concede the Cubs need another top flight starter.


The options appear to be Hamels by trade or Cueto/Price/Zimmerman by free agency.

If the Cubs actually can't meet the price for Hamels because they lack a top tier starting pitching prospect and Philly is unimpressed with Kyle Hendricks or whatever, then I don't see who else they could trade for. If the Reds even decide to move on from Cueto at the deadline would they trade him within the division? I don't see the Tigers or Nats ending up sellers. So I mean yeah, dump a mid-tier prospect for a rental like the Cards did with Masterson last year if you need a #3 type by the deadline because one of Wood/Hammel/Hendricks isn't working out, but might as well wait till the offseason to really get a top-notch guy.

But that assumes you can get a top-notch guy via free agency. It's not the cost that would worry me, it's the competition. With a trade, you know you get the guy.  With free agency, there could be 8 suitors.  For only 3 guys.

Personally, I think the Cubs have an edge in the trade market because of their system.  In free agency, the field is leveled and they have no real advantage over the Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Rangers etc.

Do you really think pitchers are going to not want to come to Chicago now with an awesome manager, superhero prospects, and an incredibly competent front office and new surroundings at Wrigley with the NL Central being the NL Central and the Cubs finally taking advantage of it?

[SKO]

If the Phillies come to the Cubs and say they want Addison Russel or Kyle Schwarber, the Cubs should rightly and directly tell them to fuck their chili rings. Why give up Russell or Schwarber (I'm making assumptions here) when they can wait, keep them (because their more valuable than Cole Hamels I have to think) and have their pick of the litter in free agency next winter?

Well, the Cubs won't "have their pick of the litter" in the offseason, because other teams exist and will also try to sign good players. Part of the benefit of trading for someone is making sure you actually get that guy on your team.

And since it seems like we're primarily talking about Hamels, apparently, what's left on his deal is way below his current market value. Waiting around for free agency basically ensures you end up with an overinflated contract. A few of those are fine (and I'm glad they have Lester), I'm not entirely convinced the Cubs are going to sign pitchers to 9-figure contracts in consecutive offseasons.

In my view, the hypothetical trade of an elite prospect for Hamels depends on what we think the Cubs are this year. Right now, it's more up in the air. If they're still playing at a 90-plus-win pace in 6-8 weeks and the Cardinals look vulnerable in the division without Wainwright, it becomes more intriguing. I think most people's assumption is that this is just first year of many contending years for the Cubs, but I think you have to be careful in being too rigid about that -- the Nationals had the same mindset in shutting down Strasburg in 2012 and it's possible that was their best shot at a title.

At some point, the front office is going to trade a prospect for a real major-league player and it'll be fun to read everyone's nervous comments.

Yeah I agree with all of this, I just think "what if Philly says no" to any package that doesn't include, say, Addison Russell. I'd turn that deal down. So if they won't accept a pretty good, reasonable package like Hendricks/Edwards/Baez/Vogelbach/Gleyber or whatever, I'm saying I'd wait for free agency rather than offer up a similar package for someone else unless say, Cueto comes available and the Reds are willing to move him in the division.

[Eli]

Do you really think pitchers are going to not want to come to Chicago now with an awesome manager, superhero prospects, and an incredibly competent front office and new surroundings at Wrigley with the NL Central being the NL Central and the Cubs finally taking advantage of it?

Other teams have good players and smart front offices. Some of them play in way better weather. Some have more money. Some might be closer to family. It's myopic to think that players should find the Cubs far more desirable than any other number of teams.

[Eli]

Yeah I agree with all of this, I just think "what if Philly says no" to any package that doesn't include, say, Addison Russell. I'd turn that deal down. So if they won't accept a pretty good, reasonable package like Hendricks/Edwards/Baez/Vogelbach/Gleyber or whatever, I'm saying I'd wait for free agency rather than offer up a similar package for someone else unless say, Cueto comes available and the Reds are willing to move him in the division.

I pretty much agree. I'd like to hang onto Russell. Schwarber would be a little bit tougher call in my mind.

[SKO]

Yeah I agree with all of this, I just think "what if Philly says no" to any package that doesn't include, say, Addison Russell. I'd turn that deal down. So if they won't accept a pretty good, reasonable package like Hendricks/Edwards/Baez/Vogelbach/Gleyber or whatever, I'm saying I'd wait for free agency rather than offer up a similar package for someone else unless say, Cueto comes available and the Reds are willing to move him in the division.

I pretty much agree. I'd like to hang onto Russell. Schwarber would be a little bit tougher call in my mind.

God I'd have a hard time letting go of Schwarber. That kind of lefty power-hitting bat with that patience. Christ almighty. I'd sweat bullets. I'd get nervous shits. I'd mostly just be glad it's not my decision. I'm probably gonna get the nervous shits anyway.

[PenFoe]

If the Phillies come to the Cubs and say they want Addison Russel or Kyle Schwarber, the Cubs should rightly and directly tell them to fuck their chili rings. Why give up Russell or Schwarber (I'm making assumptions here) when they can wait, keep them (because their more valuable than Cole Hamels I have to think) and have their pick of the litter in free agency next winter?

Well, the Cubs won't "have their pick of the litter" in the offseason, because other teams exist and will also try to sign good players. Part of the benefit of trading for someone is making sure you actually get that guy on your team.

And since it seems like we're primarily talking about Hamels, apparently, what's left on his deal is way below his current market value. Waiting around for free agency basically ensures you end up with an overinflated contract. A few of those are fine (and I'm glad they have Lester), I'm not entirely convinced the Cubs are going to sign pitchers to 9-figure contracts in consecutive offseasons.

In my view, the hypothetical trade of an elite prospect for Hamels depends on what we think the Cubs are this year. Right now, it's more up in the air. If they're still playing at a 90-plus-win pace in 6-8 weeks and the Cardinals look vulnerable in the division without Wainwright, it becomes more intriguing. I think most people's assumption is that this is just first year of many contending years for the Cubs, but I think you have to be careful in being too rigid about that -- the Nationals had the same mindset in shutting down Strasburg in 2012 and it's possible that was their best shot at a title.

At some point, the front office is going to trade a prospect for a real major-league player and it'll be fun to read everyone's nervous comments.

Yeah I agree with all of this, I just think "what if Philly says no" to any package that doesn't include, say, Addison Russell. I'd turn that deal down. So if they won't accept a pretty good, reasonable package like Hendricks/Edwards/Baez/Vogelbach/Gleyber or whatever, I'm saying I'd wait for free agency rather than offer up a similar package for someone else unless say, Cueto comes available and the Reds are willing to move him in the division.

Gleyber? You're trading the centerfielder of the future??

[InternetApex]

Yeah I agree with all of this, I just think "what if Philly says no" to any package that doesn't include, say, Addison Russell. I'd turn that deal down. So if they won't accept a pretty good, reasonable package like Hendricks/Edwards/Baez/Vogelbach/Gleyber or whatever, I'm saying I'd wait for free agency rather than offer up a similar package for someone else unless say, Cueto comes available and the Reds are willing to move him in the division.

I pretty much agree. I'd like to hang onto Russell. Schwarber would be a little bit tougher call in my mind.

You and your whore mouth.

[PenFoe]

Yeah I agree with all of this, I just think "what if Philly says no" to any package that doesn't include, say, Addison Russell. I'd turn that deal down. So if they won't accept a pretty good, reasonable package like Hendricks/Edwards/Baez/Vogelbach/Gleyber or whatever, I'm saying I'd wait for free agency rather than offer up a similar package for someone else unless say, Cueto comes available and the Reds are willing to move him in the division.

I pretty much agree. I'd like to hang onto Russell. Schwarber would be a little bit tougher call in my mind.

God I'd have a hard time letting go of Schwarber. That kind of lefty power-hitting bat with that patience. Christ almighty. I'd sweat bullets. I'd get nervous shits. I'd mostly just be glad it's not my decision. I'm probably gonna get the nervous shits anyway.

You can trade anyone currently in the minors except Schwarber.  

I'd sure rather they didn't trade Jen-Ho or Underwood as well, but the rest can all go if it truly comes to it.

[Saul Goodman]

Although is there any reason to be concerned with Hamels start this year? I know he's gotten good results last few times out but he's walking guys at a higher rate than previous years (16 already in 5 starts) and he has surrendered 7 homers. His FIP is 5.56 vs. an ERA in the 3s. Just wondering if any more advanced metrics say if that's just early season bad luck/rough start or indicative of anything more troubling?

I think most of that comes from getting roughed up by Boston on Opening Day.

Alright. Make the trade then. Vogelbach, Lake, Hendricks, Almora, Castillo, Jason Dubois, Bobby Hill, and Roosevelt Brown for Cole Hamels. Phil Rogers says this is a +7 for the Phillies.

Couldn't help but notice you're keeping David Ross around to catch for Hamels. Embrace it.

[Eli]

You can trade anyone currently in the minors except Schwarber.  

What if he doesn't have a position? Maybe McLeod is just publicly saying that he'll stick at catcher to hold up his trade value.

[PenFoe]

You can trade anyone currently in the minors except Schwarber.  

What if he doesn't have a position? Maybe McLeod is just publicly saying that he'll stick at catcher to hold up his trade value.

If he can't catch, we're still under the assumption he can play LF, right?

Unless Baez becomes viable again, forcing Bryant to the OF, LF should still be open for Schwarber. 

[Bort]

You can trade anyone currently in the minors except Schwarber.  

What if he doesn't have a position? Maybe McLeod is just publicly saying that he'll stick at catcher to hold up his trade value.

If he can't catch, we're still under the assumption he can play LF, right?

Unless Baez becomes viable again, forcing Bryant to the OF, LF should still be open for Schwarber. 

How will Baez coming up at Center Field put Bryant in the outfield?

[Eli]

You can trade anyone currently in the minors except Schwarber.  

What if he doesn't have a position? Maybe McLeod is just publicly saying that he'll stick at catcher to hold up his trade value.

If he can't catch, we're still under the assumption he can play LF, right?

Unless Baez becomes viable again, forcing Bryant to the OF, LF should still be open for Schwarber. 

I think the thing that will force Bryant to the OF is the way he plays 3B.