Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 66 of 97 FirstFirst ... 1656646566676876 ... LastLast
Results 976 to 990 of 1441
  1. #976
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,547
    vCash
    1500
    he's averaged 100 games in the last 4 seasons
    #Turtlepower

    Save the kittens, ignore sbs' posts
    Red Sox hater since 10/2011

    It is anyway, not anyways.

  2. #977
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    5,195
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gaughan333 View Post
    how are they getting stanton and price while still keeping someone like Appel?
    Let him dream.

  3. #978
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    41,530
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gaughan333 View Post
    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.
    Don't give up on us now...


    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Henry, House of Burgess, 1775
    Give me the playoffs...or give me death!!

  4. #979
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,543
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gaughan333 View Post
    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.

  5. #980
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,547
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    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
    #Turtlepower

    Save the kittens, ignore sbs' posts
    Red Sox hater since 10/2011

    It is anyway, not anyways.

  6. #981
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,547
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by davell View Post
    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.
    #Turtlepower

    Save the kittens, ignore sbs' posts
    Red Sox hater since 10/2011

    It is anyway, not anyways.

  7. #982
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,543
    vCash
    1500
    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.

  8. #983
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,547
    vCash
    1500
    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.
    #Turtlepower

    Save the kittens, ignore sbs' posts
    Red Sox hater since 10/2011

    It is anyway, not anyways.

  9. #984
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,764
    vCash
    1500
    He *said* he was dreaming when he first brought it up

  10. #985
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    17,772
    vCash
    1500
    Here's a question...Price or Stanton in trade next winter?

  11. #986
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,764
    vCash
    1500
    Assuming each are equally likely to sign long-term extensions, and that each is healthy and productive this coming season, Stanton ainec.

  12. #987
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,042
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by KyleJRM View Post
    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.

  13. #988
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,702
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by davell View Post
    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.

  14. #989
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    41,530
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    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.
    Don't give up on us now...


    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Henry, House of Burgess, 1775
    Give me the playoffs...or give me death!!

  15. #990
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,702
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    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.

Page 66 of 97 FirstFirst ... 1656646566676876 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •