Dave, no concern for his “breakout” largely only coming at Wrigley this year? His road splits this year look like his career numbers which don’t look like an upgrade for anyone.
Comment by Pirates Hurdles — June 21, 2013 @ 4:20 pm
This is probably a stupid question, but the Pirates are really lacking in a shortstop with Clint Barmes. Do you think Castro will ever be put on the block or is he a no-no franchise player when the trade deadline rolls around?
I’m not Dave but I think the cubs have been upset with his work ethic, attitude & such. They have Baez & Alcantara on their way down on the farm. I’m sure if the pirates came calling with some big time prospects the cubs would be willing to at least listen.
Comment by ElToroStrikesAgain — June 21, 2013 @ 4:29 pm
Its nice to see Nate healthy so far. He’s had a start-stop career with injuries and inconsistent play. He may play like a tweener, but he has power. If the Rockies don’t fade, they would benefit from picking him up. He absolutely mashes there. Yeah yeah, Coors field… but absolute bombs at Coors field. Nate’s arm has given Giants fans a lot of thrills in the past few years. Solid player.
Love Schierholtz as a pirates fan, and although he does have wrigley splits, PNC isn’t exactly hell on left-handed batters, that’s only for righties. I think he’d be a clear upgrade on Snider, not sure where he’d fit in the lineup, 2 perhaps? Being that Alvarez & Jones will both be towards the middle vs RHP.
Comment by ElToroStrikesAgain — June 21, 2013 @ 4:33 pm
Sure other teams should want him, but the Cubs don’t have great options at OF if they trade him, and their young outfielders are in a constant state of fail. While I do want the Cubs to trade him (and Garza, Feldman and Kevin Gregg as well), everybody who writes these blurbs neglects to say what the Cubs should accept in return. If all they can get is a marginal asset for Schierholtz, et al, the Cubs should keep them vs trading them for nothing to a division rival.
That goes against most reports out of Chicago. Word is that he IS a very hard worker, the biggest complaint is that he occasionally loses focus out in the field, but that’s a long way away from having a poor attitude. I’d be absolutely shocked if the Cubs parted with Castro, but I suppose if someone will really overpay, they’d listen on anybody.
EY’s name is written into the 2014 outfield in very light pencil, at best. There are a hundred MLB outfielders better than him.
If I had to guess, I’d say two out of the three 2014 opening day outfielders for the Mets aren’t with the organization (Duda might still be the LF). With the pitching almost ready for playoff contention, they may actually go for it and sign some quality hitters.
Package him with Garza and send them to the Rangers for Olt and Perez. Rangers are always interested in Garza and may need an outfielder when Cruz gets his suspension. Cruz is a FA after this year too so the Rangers could use him in th OF next year too.
That is not at all what I said… but these articles are pointless if it doesn’t identify at least what a breakeven deal would be for both sides. The title says “Z player is worth going after.” Well, that’s not true if you’re only going after the player if you can get him for nothing. As much as he might be worth going after, he’s worth it for the Cubs to keep too.
I think what he’s suggesting is that it’s not worthwhile to suggest trades in a vacuum, every trade requires a countertrade. We could easily say, yeah, the Cubs should trade Carlos marmol, or they should trade for Giancarlo Stanton – but for the thought to be complete you have to suggest what compensation would make the trade both feasible and worthwhile.
The Rangers already have two left-handed starters in the outfield with Murphy and Martin, so they would probably rather look for a righty should Cruz get suspended. Also, with the health concerns Texas may not be willing to part with two key prospects when they have Lewis and Harrison coming back eventually.
The process was good. There was upside with Baker. The process was good. It’s important, if difficult, to wrap one’s head around not solely judging a decision based on the outcome.
Comment by rogue_actuary — June 23, 2013 @ 9:24 pm
It’s also as important when the result is bad not just to default to good process because the front office is highly regarded.
A lot of times good process means the result may be bad, but clearly I could not have mis-analyzed something so I’ll just chalk it up to “good process/bad result” and claim people are using confirmation bias of the result. Or in this case since the front office was highly regarded it must have been a good move that just didn’t work out.
A 1 year deal at 5.5mil to a pitcher coming off TJ surgery who wasn’t likely to be ready for opening day was a roll of the dice. You also have to factor in that starters coming off of TJ surgery are not operating at 100% and it may take 3 months, sometimes as much as a year to really get back to pre-surgery in terms of command. So perhaps you can explain the upside of the potential of ~5 months of a pitcher, who will probably be at a suboptimal level for at least half that time if not all of it.
And how that could be viewed as one of the 10 best offseason moves (according to Dave)? If Sabean or Amaro, Jr makes this move is it viewed through the same prism?