Organizational Philosophy Discussion Thread

[gaughan333]

he's averaged 100 games in the last 4 seasons

[Brad IBCB]

how are they getting stanton and price while still keeping someone like Appel?

Let him dream.

[1908_Cubs]

how are they getting stanton and price while still keeping someone like Appel?

In his defense, it'd be nearly impossible to trade Appel next offseason as he'd have to be a PTBNL for a good 5-6 months prior to him being officially turned over - meaning a lot of his "value" is lost in the sense that a team has to differ 5-6 months of his development over the Cubs, instead of developing him in their own way/style.

[davell]

how are they getting stanton and price while still keeping someone like Appel?

Maybe something like Stanton for Baez(if top 10-15 prospect, as he is now), top 100 type SP acquired in Garza trade, Jackson or Szczur(whichever one is consid ered a prospect at that point) and whichever of Paniagua, Johnson, or Maples has turned into the best prospect(top 100 possibility there as well). Price for Almora(top 25ish type at the time), Vogelbach(top 100), Hernandez or Alcantara(whichever is highest rated at that point), Vitters or Villanueva(same thing), pitcher thats got upside, like a Maples, Underwood, Paniagua. Or a guy we've gotten in return for Barney by then. Well aware these packages sound very light currently, but I think the system takes a huge step forward in 2013.

[gaughan333]

In his defense, it'd be nearly impossible to trade Appel next offseason as he'd have to be a PTBNL for a good 5-6 months prior to him being officially turned over - meaning a lot of his "value" is lost in the sense that a team has to differ 5-6 months of his development over the Cubs, instead of developing him in their own way/style.

that doesn't change the fact that they would not have enough to get those two players whether his value is diminished or not

[gaughan333]

Maybe something like Stanton for Baez(if top 10-15 prospect, as he is now), top 100 type SP acquired in Garza trade, Jackson or Szczur(whichever one is consid ered a prospect at that point) and whichever of Paniagua, Johnson, or Maples has turned into the best prospect(top 100 possibility there as well). Price for Almora(top 25ish type at the time), Vogelbach(top 100), Hernandez or Alcantara(whichever is highest rated at that point), Vitters or Villanueva(same thing), pitcher thats got upside, like a Maples, Underwood, Paniagua. Or a guy we've gotten in return for Barney by then. Well aware these packages sound very light currently, but I think the system takes a huge step forward in 2013.

Keep dreamin bro.

[davell]

I'll be very surprised if we don't have a top 5 system at this point next year, maybe top 3. Price, I think we'll have a better shot at than Stanton. But Upton would come cheaper. At any rate, I DO expect 2 trades that bring impact guys in. After the E-Jax signing, I think they'll happen next offseason, instead of the one after that.

[gaughan333]

I'll put it this way. If the cubs start 2014 with Stanton, Price, and Appel, I'll openly admit you were correct. Until then, you're dreaming.

[KyleJRM]

He *said* he was dreaming when he first brought it up

[CubbieSteve]

Here's a question...Price or Stanton in trade next winter?

[KyleJRM]

Assuming each are equally likely to sign long-term extensions, and that each is healthy and productive this coming season, Stanton ainec.

[Milnertime]

Assuming each are equally likely to sign long-term extensions, and that each is healthy and productive this coming season, Stanton ainec.

In a heartbeat.

Stanton is a once in a generation power producer. Even if he's not on par with the Pujolses and Cabreras of the world, which could still be the case, you'll be hard pressed to find someone more productive than him in the next 5 years.

Price is a great pitcher. Great pitchers happen more often, however. And with how volatile the position is injury wise, it's better money to spend on a great hitter than a great pitcher.

[rcal10]

Garza for Ellsbury? It fits us, but personally, I'd rather add the prospects from a Garza trade and sign Bourn, while losing the 2nd rounder this year. It seems his market is rather soft and we may get good value there. Instead of paying more for Ellsbury and likely losing our 1st next year in the process. He's got more upside obviously, but I think Bourn is actually the safer of the two.

Why not Garza for Ellsbury AND sign Bourn? Or Garza for Gordon and sign Bourn. There may have to be add ons to either Garza trade. I am just saying why not trade Garza for a hitter and then also get Bourn. Then you have a team that competes in 2013 and basically still younger with all your minor league talent still intact. You still have a lot of good minor league talent that can be used next year to get an ace(Price). At that point they are contenders. Actually I would be surprised if they were in the race next year with the two moves I mentioned. The Cubs are not as far away from competing next season as some people think. Those deals and a surprise year from Stewart (ave 3rd baseman numbers) and the Cubs can win in 2013, IMO.

[1908_Cubs]

Why not Garza for Ellsbury AND sign Bourn? Or Garza for Gordon and sign Bourn. There may have to be add ons to either Garza trade. I am just saying why not trade Garza for a hitter and then also get Bourn. Then you have a team that competes in 2013 and basically still younger with all your minor league talent still intact. You still have a lot of good minor league talent that can be used next year to get an ace(Price). At that point they are contenders. Actually I would be surprised if they were in the race next year with the two moves I mentioned. The Cubs are not as far away from competing next season as some people think. Those deals and a surprise year from Stewart (ave 3rd baseman numbers) and the Cubs can win in 2013, IMO.

Because Ellsbury and Bourn both derive their value from playing CF.

It's 100% redundant to have both of them.

Not to mention, most teams who are looking to add a Garza, an MLB talent, are looking to trade non-MLB assets. It doesn't make much sense for a team, trading for one year of Matt Garza, to then deal MLB talent (thus, losing MLB assets). Most of the time, deals are prospects for MLB talent and visa-versa, not, MLB for MLB talent. Those trades are far, far more rare.

[rcal10]

Because Ellsbury and Bourn both derive their value from playing CF.

It's 100% redundant to have both of them.

Not to mention, most teams who are looking to add a Garza, an MLB talent, are looking to trade non-MLB assets. It doesn't make much sense for a team, trading for one year of Matt Garza, to then deal MLB talent (thus, losing MLB assets). Most of the time, deals are prospects for MLB talent and visa-versa, not, MLB for MLB talent. Those trades are far, far more rare.

True about Ellsbury and Bourn. But that is why I also mentioned Gordon. Could add Upton, Headley or Markakis to that list too. My point is why not trade Garza for proven major league talent and try competing next year by also adding Bourn. And teams trade pitching for hitting and vice versa often. It is not that rare. Again any deal for major league hitters would also have to be tweeked one way or the other. I am not talking straight up on any deals. Just suggesting getting major league talent for Garza.