Quantcast

Keith Law reports this morning that the two prospects in the Cubs/Reds Sean Marshall/Travis Wood swap are AAA outfielder Dave Sappelt and A-ball second baseman Ronald Torreyes.

If true, like, wow. Neither is a tip top prospect, but they are far, far from filler.

Torreyes, who turned 19 in September, is a small second baseman who put up a very impressive .356/.398/.457 line in A-ball this year. Given that he was just 18 for most of the year, that’s pretty darn impressive. He’s considered a top 15 prospect in the Reds’ system.

Sappelt, 24, has progressed nicely through the Reds’ system, reaching AAA in 2010, and starting there in 2011. He got a cup of coffee with the Reds this year, but didn’t do much with the chance. He’s a center fielder with a career .309/.362/.459 line, and is a top 20ish prospect in the Reds’ system.

In other words, these two are legit prospects. I’m waiting for the official announcement (and to see whether Marshall got an extension as part of the deal), but I’m tentatively very, very happy about this deal.

To the extent it’s relevant to you, Reds fans seem to be pretty irked about giving up so much for Marshall.

Of interest about the prospects: both are positional players. While I caution you against reading too much into the fact that the Cubs didn’t go for pitchers, it does seem like that’s what their preference would have been. A chance these are two kids the Padres were looking at when talking to the Reds about Mat Latos? A chance. That’s all.

We’ll have more on the trade after it’s finalized, and much more on the prospects involved later.

UPDATE: As confirmed by the Cubs’ front office, the deal is Sean Marshall for Travis Wood, Ronald Torreyes and Dave Sappelt. Wood, alone, would have been an acceptable return for Marshall. Two legit prospects, one of whom killed it in A-ball as an 18-year old (and plays good defensive second base), thrown on top? Dude. That’s a hell of a deal. Happy Festivus, indeed.

  • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

    A Festivus Miracle indeed. Great comments, rich discussion, and a positive feeling that’s been absent for weeks. This just reconfirms my that Theo is doing the right things the right way and patience is good. This is a Festivus to remember.

    Doesn’t this also increase the value of Garza and any other trade chips we have?

    • http://cubbiekingdom.wordpress.com hansman1982

      No, trading Marshall was the Festivus Miracle (remember, only mundane things can be Festivus Miracles)

      • EQ76

        Jed is currently leading in the Fesivus “Feats of Strength”

    • Spencer

      Couldn’t agree with this more.  It’s not to not have to sift through dozens of comments to find the useful ones.  I give the credit to Theo.

  • cubincardianalland

    Torreyes was a great pickup in this deal. He was the most exciting and popular player on the Dayton team last year. He plays with great energy, running and diving all over the field,and the fans go crazy for the little guy. He has real pop for a 5’7″ player, in batting practice he would have people laughing how such a small guy can drive the ball so well. Very tough to strikeout, and plays the game with a real passion. His manager was former big leaguer Delino Deshields, and he raved about him, thinks he is a future major league player. Compared him to Dustin Pedroia. He is rated the 6th best prospect for the Reds by MLB dirt, who I think do a good job of rating young players.

  • TWC

    Seems like a nice deal and all, but looking at his stats, I see Torreyes is listed at 5′-9″ 140lbs!  He’d make Mike Fontenot look positively gigantic.

    • Brian Myers

      He also has a great statistic: 19 strike outs in 306 plate appearances. If he can continue that he’s exactly the mold our new management loves.

      • Kyle

        I’m trying to think of a comparable Cubs prospect with that kind of contact ability.

        Castro and LeMahieu are both known for their contact ability, but those guys both struck out literally twice as much in the minors as Torreyes has. Vitters is a low-K guy, but he’s struck out more than three times as much.

        • hcs

          And, LeMaheiu is calling Colorado home now…

  • Sayueri

    I would have liked for the Cubs to have kept Marshall but this seems like a good deal.

    Marshall is one of the few Cubs I kept on my team in MLB The Show.

  • http://cubbiekingdom.wordpress.com hansman1982

    Well, one thing is for certain, Theo is not going to be known as a GM that can only win titles by spending money if he wins one here.

  • oso

    Good trade. I presume Torreyes fits the speed and defense mantra. I like the Corpas signing too, he has good upside.

  • Kyle

    Torreyes’ hit tool is just off the charts.

    As an 18 year old hitter in regular A ball (i.e. against players 1 or 2 years older than him), he only struck out 19 times in 306 plate appearances.

    Starlin Castro doesn’t have that kind of contact ability.

  • When the Music’s Over

    I am finding it really hard to get too excited about either of these guys and even more so how Reds fans are upset. I would have rather had one fringe top 10 guy.

    Torreyes-> Just another gator (my word for short/undersized) middle infielder who has very poor plate discipline. He is young so there is time for his approach to change, but in the end, I’ll guess he probably ends up a utility player.

    Sappelt-> Yet another gator player with questionable power (I don’t see much more power coming for someone as old as him), and he’s turning 25 soon. So where do you play him in the OF? Not enough power for the corners, and the Cubs already have like 10 CFs in the organization (Byrd, Jackson, Szcuzur, Ha, etc, etc) . Basically he’s yet another 4th/5th OF. Who knows, maybe Byrd gets flipped.

    So unless these two are being flipped or there are further moves, I guess I don’t see how these two are really much more than organizational depth/filler.

    • Kyle

      I’m not sure how you are figure Torreyes’ plate discipline is “very poor.” He has a 5.4% walk rate in the minors. That’s not a plus, but it’s not even below average either. Let alone “very poor.”

      • When the Music’s Over

        Easy. I don’t count rookie ball. He had a 4.6% walk rate last year, and just looking at straight BB numbers, he had 14 in 300 ABs. Vitters wasn’t that much worse through A ball (3.7%), although his K% was much higher.

        • ferrets_bueller

          ….turn out the lights, turn out the lights.

        • Kyle

          You don’t think a 20% difference in BB rate is that much worse? If Vitters improved his walk rate by 20% overnight, he’d be a much better prospect.

          Not to mention, if he played plus defense in the middle infield instead of iffy defense in the corners, he’d be an elite prospect.

          I’m still trying to figure out how to place Torreyes’ contact rate in context. I can’t think of a single comparable prospect to project off of.

          • http://cubbiekingdom.wordpress.com hansman1982

            Agree, some people knock Castro for not walking more but when you have confidence that you will put the bat on the ball you are going to be more aggressive.

          • When the Music’s Over

            All I know is that if you have 300 ABs a 1% change in BB rate means you walk 3 more times. That doesn’t make much of a difference to me. I guess I’m just so exhausted with low or even slightly below average BB rates on the Cubs, that I need to see above average or well above average to get excited.

            On top of that, call me an ahole or whatever you will, but I thought new mgmt would hopefully get the Cubs organization away from undersized middle infielders. Obviously there are plenty of gator middle infielders tthat do well, but it just makes me laugh because its the same sh*t.

            • Kyle

              Seeing as how the biggest scouting coup of the Epstein regime was Dustin Pedroia, I expect you to be disappointed in that regard.

              • When the Music’s Over

                I know your kind. I’ll move on.

                • Kansas Cubs Fan

                  I think it’s Your kind people should be worried about.

            • ferrets_bueller

              When analyzing Walk/Contact rates, just look at the OBP.  If a guy is batting .340 with a high contact rate, his OBP is still going to be high, just as a guy with a .290 average and a bunch of walks.

              You’re overvaluing walks as a stat- its not about the walks at all, its about the OBP.  While walks are a component, they dont have to be a significant one if the player can turn anything into a hit- like Castro, Vlad, or this kid.

              • When the Music’s Over

                Dude had a .374 BABIP last year. Be weary of expecting another .356 BA.

          • Jason

            What were Polanco’s and Pierre’s contact rates like in the minors? Two pretty high contact guys in the majors so maybe they could be comps?

            Reds’ fans don’t appear to be happy about giving up Torreyes. I’d still like to see him take more walks but he;s young so there’s time for him to develop. I like the fact that he is younger than his level and playing well.

  • Eric

    I’m starting to get excited about what this team might look like in a couple years with “theo type players” coming through the farm to become staples of our line-up.  Now I kinda feel bad that Castro’s major league clock has already begun to tick.  To keep him by the time some more gems come up, we’ll have to pay him.  We’ll no doubt have the money though.

    • JasonB

      That’s the advantage of having a big market team.  I suspect that at some point in the near future, Theo will lock Castro up to a 6/40-50 type of deal that will still make him an extremely valuable asset.

  • Jeff

    Sean Marshall 6’7″

    Travis Wood 5’11”, Ronald Torreyes 5’9″, Dave Sappelt 5’9″

    No pun intended (not) but we got the short end of the stick on this trade.

    • TWC

      I think Eddie Gaedel is the PTBNL.

  • OlderStyle

    Cubs make a good trade (the Reds could win div. and Marshall could be instrumental), and evryone’s back-slapping and raising toasts to the guys in FO when people were lighting torches and raising pitchforks a few days ago. Geez, and I thought this ‘board was more level-headed than most. Wild mood-swing much?

    Yet, Theo and co. haven’t changed nor have their plans. They’ve stated it’s a long range plan and those take time. Every signing and transaction does not occur in a vacuum. How much time are we allowing them to show results? Two months? Five months? I will give them at least one season’s worth before I will start dissecting every little sneeze they make and shouting “Bird Flu!!!”

    • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

      Many of us on here have been supporting Theo’s patience and approach since he got here, but the board has quadrupled in size over the past month.

      • Kansas Cubs Fan

        Yeah man don’t associate us good ones with the bad ones. Yikes.

  • Matt

    Here’s a link showing Wood’s home/road splits over his career. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=woodtr01&year=Career&t=p Getting him out of that Cincy ballpark could be a breath of fresh air for him.

    • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

      I certain that is one thing Theo & Jed saw and will continue to find. Players that need a change, and don’t forget the Dusty factor when it comes to poor pitching performances. Watch him move Marshall to the rotation.

      • Kyle

        There’s really something there in the home/road splits. GABP is the third most homer-friendly park in the big leagues (Wrigley is pretty much neutral). Wood is a fly ball pitcher who has had double the HR rate at home vs. on the road.

        So while his park-adjusted stats look pretty good, Wood might benefit from leaving that park even more than most pitchers would.

        I really think we might have stolen a No. 3 starting pitcher out of this deal.

      • NyN

        he did start Marshall like 25 times in 06

  • ReiCow

    This trade is great to see.. and highlights the value of the new management. For a nice relief pitcher, we got a steal. This goes a long way to ameliorating the growing impatience with the regime.

    • Jeff

      @ reicow
      How have you determined we got a steal? If Wood makes 33 starts with 200+ innings and wins 10+ games with a sub-4.00 era, then maybe it is a steal.

      But if these three guys never put up any significant numbers in the majors, not the minors then it seems a rather lack luster trade.

      I’m not opposed to trading Marshall or any other veteran on this team. But too many people on this board seem to like this trade and I wonder if it is just because the Cubs have finally done something.

      Change just for the sake of change is not always good. I will reserve my opinion on whether this is a good trade or not. right now my grade is a C.

      I’m looking for A trades from these new guys in charge.

  • ty

    o. k. reicow cool it on the vocabulary or be banned.

    • Bric

      I agree. There’s no need for over-verbosity.

    • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

      I love it

      *** the great vocabulary, not the banning***

  • Skinner

    Very, very happy with this trade. Exactly the sort of move a savvy organization makes. The old regime would have extended Marshall.

  • BetterNews

    Brett—I can’t really see how the “Marshall” deal is a “hell of a deal” as you put it. I would not say it was a bad deal either. My point is, anything less than what they got for Marshall would have been very disappointing to say the least. And after you factor in Marshall was dealt to a division rival, It seems this deal was “mediocre”.

    • Kyle

      I think you are vastly underrating the value of what they got back.

      • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

        Agreed Kyle, this move adds both value to the farm and gives us more pieces to trade with. These players don’t have to do anything with the Cubs to have a major impact on the Cubs. Looking at this deal as a straight player X = player Y&Z move is short sighted and not a model for long term sustained success.

      • Jeff

        I think you are vastly Over-rating the value of what they got back.

        I’m sorry, but there is a big difference between what a player accomplishes at the major league level verses what someone does in the minor leagues.

        Everybody is over projecting on what Wood or the two other players could do in the future. Until they do it, it is all speculation.

        This trade’s only value is that the Cubs eliminate some salary and get three player’s they can control longer than Marshall.

        The future positives “could” be decent performance from Wood. Remember he doesn’t even make the Reds top five starters and maybe one of the other two might make the big league club somewhere in the future.

        The negatives could be that Marshall really helps them out tremendously and none of these three every pan out to be much but roster fillers.

        • Kyle

          I think you are underrating what Wood has already accomplished in the major leagues.

          As far as him not making the Reds rotation, keep in mind who is setting that rotation. I wouldn’t put a lot of faith in his player judgment.

          • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

            Whaaaat? Dusty’s pitcher evaluation is not good?

        • Skinner

          A fair point, but we’re still talking about the Cubs losing, even in the most apocalyptic of scenarios, a middle reliever. This is one of the most volatile commodities on a baseball roster. In the end we’re talking about a pitcher deemed not good enough to start, nor close. For 70 innings of Sean Marshall the Cubs got a heck of a lot of value in return, and as far as 2012 is concerned, who cares if Marshall pitches well? The Cubs aren’t going to contend next year no matter what so Marshall is a luxury they simply don’t need. What they do need, is what the Reds gave them. It’s not an eye-popping trade by any means, but it is a very good one.

      • BetterNews

        All they got back are mere prospects for one of the best relievers in baseball! Is there potential there, sure. But potential does not equate to success, we all know that. Sappelt hit .243 in 118 plate appearances against ML pitching last year. Torreyes is just 19 and his numbers that people are so excited about are at “A” ball level. Please! That brings us to Wood. Again the word potential comes up. Until Wood pitches a solid year, 200 innings with a decent ERA, he really holds no value.

        If they are nothing but trade pieces, what does that say about a deal for one of the best relievers in baseball, and to a division rival nonetheless? I’m sorry, I think people are jumping for joy just because Theo did something. I hope I’m wrong, but I just don’t see the Cubs benefiting from this deal.

        • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

          You’ve got to see how this is a move that impacts moves in following years. Think about Derosa. We got Archer for him, got Garza for Archer, and now maybe even more for Garza. The Cubs are looking 5-6 moves ahead for the first time in years, and yet fans keep looking at next year. Be patient, keep calm and carry on. The sky is not falling.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      We disagree, but I don’t want to rehash all the reasons this is an excellent deal for the Cubs’ situation.

      • cubsnivy56

        I agree.  The farm system is low on quality prospects.  This type of deal will increase the volume of quality prospects.  They won’t all be stars, but some will.  I hate to see Marshall go, especially to the Reds, but the situation is what it is.  Tough decisions have to be made.  We just have to have patience, and faith in Theo.

  • BleedBlueinWNeb

    love those home/road splits for Wood…that park in cincy is a launching pad! So if you trade in that park for Wrigley coupled with his fairly solid road numbers Wood could turn out to be real nice. from what i can remember seeing of him he reminds me of Ted L. And for the most part Ted was real solid for Cubs. This deal looks great…loved the poster who chimed in with the delino deshields manager reference, saying torreyes will be future major leaguer and compared him to Pedroia.

    Keith Law seems very high on Rizzo too, for what its worth. He also said the Padres farm system is top 5 in baseball and that Hoyer and McCleod really turned things around there. nothing but positive for cub fans to read and hear.

    i think they’re are more deals to come…the hot stove seems to be gaining steam league wide.

    • Kansas Cubs Fan

      I’m excited too see what Wood can do next season. I’m not expecting an ace but I just like getting shiny new players that haven’t been over paid for.

      I have also heard the Wood to Lilly comparison. I just hope Wood can keep the ball in the ballpark a little better.

  • Shawn

    A solid trade. Wood could give the Cubs a 3-5 starter. Torreyes is intriguing and has some upside at 19. Sappelt looks like a fourth outfielder. I just hope this doesn’t mean Jackson is heading to the Padres for Rizzo. I want Rizzo and Jackson.

  • koboldekobold

    I think perhaps some are overvaluing Marshall’s value. I feel like some Cubs fans have an unrealistic expectation for what we should get back for our pieces. If Garza gets traded someone will without irony suggest that we should have received something as absurd as Cliff Lee and a legit prospect or two. This looks like a great deal.

    • Jeff

      I don’t see how Marshall is being over-valued. There are very few quality left-handed relievers on the market. Marshall is relatively cheap at 3M a year. If a team needed to sign a lefty reliever from the free agent market, you could look at Scott Downs @ 5M a year as what the market is paying for a decent lefty.

      Is this a good trade? only time will tell. I don’t think it is an awesome trade simply because we are giving away a relatively low cost reliever to one of our division rivals and until Wood shows he can pitch 200+ inning, I’m not sure you really know what you have there.

      He’s only gone 100 innings, he could be pressed to 150 this year and go down with Tommy John’s, you never know.

      • Skinner

        It’s easy to see how Marshall gets over-valued. Middle relievers, by definition, are not all that valuable. There’s too much variance from year to year and that tends to be the case even with the best of them.

        Middle relievers aren’t immune to ye old Tommy John either. If we’re worrying about injury disaster for Wood, seems unfair not to worry about it for Marshall either.

        And for the record, the Reds only get 1 year of Marshall and then he, if he pitches well, gets quite expensive. If he doesn’t pitch well…then this gets even worse for the Reds (and it doesn’t take much for a 70 inning pitcher to have a bad season). So even in the best case scenario the Reds will soon be paying top dollar for a middle reliever on top of giving up two mid-level prospects and a young, cost-controlled LH SP with #3 upside to acquire him. It’s the sort of trade that, as a GM if you keep making it, you’ll likely soon find yourself out of a job.

        • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

          Not to mention with the new CBA there will be NO draft pick compensation for a player like Marshall. Theo referenced in his comments today, better to get three players instead of either paying too much for middle relief or losing him for nothing.

          **edit: left out the very important NO

      • King Jeff

        He has averaged over 200 innings between the minors and majors the last two years.  He would have pitched more if Dusty Baker hadn’t decided that Dontrelle Willis was a better option, and Wood wasn’t banished to the pen for part of the year.

        • Toosh

          I like the trade, for the sake of accuracy though, Wood has averaged closer to 180 total IP over the last 2 seasons.

  • njriv

    I like the direction that they are going. I like this move and hope they make more like this. See what we can get for Soto, Marmol, Byrd, Soriano and Z. I would hate to see Garza go but you gotta do what you gotta do, he’s the only player left that would give you good talent. As long as they unload those guys, get more pitching depth, get young talent and have anyone who’s name isn’t Bryan LaHair playing first base I’ll consider it a successful first off-season for Theo and Co.

  • ShootTheGoat

    Regardless if we are good or bad this year, (fingers-crossed on good) I am ready for some Cubs baseball!!!

    • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

      I’m right there with you, us goats can’t wait.

      • ShootTheGoat

        Us Goats Gotta stick together…especially with some of these, “The sky is falling, The sky is falling” characters on here!!! People freak out and go all “Debbie Downer” too quick. But they do have a right to their own opinion. So, I am ready for Opening Day!

        • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

          The Goats Abide

          • ferrets_bueller

            Don’t F with deJesus.

  • Randy

    I think people are getting too wrapped up on this trade. Theo has said from the start that the Cubs need assets. He is gathering prospects to build the team. Not all of these player will make the cubs, but many could be spun off to other clubs for different prospects/players. I would be that we see a lot more trades to gather such assets and in a year or 2, many will be shipped off to fill other needs in the organization. Plus next year a lot of money comes off the books and a few good pitchers will be available if they do not sign extensions such as Cain/Hamels/Grienke(I think unless he signed an extension).

    • Jeff

      I kind of agree here, but I worry about the 1 for 3 deals. Do I like this trade, not really. Maybe Wood will have a great year and change my mind.

      As far as adding prospects to the system, I agree that’s what needs to be done. But I’d rather go for a 1 for 1. I would have asked for a Hamilton for Marshall straight up.
      I’d rather get one future as opposed to 2 question marks.

      Some are over valuing Rizzo and under valuing Jackson. The truth is they are both about a wash and I’d like to have both of them, I just don’t think Rizzo is worth as much as what some here think it would take to get him.

      Which leads me to Garza, some over value, some under value (Brett, who rates Gonzalez higher).

      Regardless,the market has shown through Latos and Gonzalez that a premium starter is worth 4 quality prospects, minimum.

      • JasonB

        The problem with asking for Hamilton for Marshall is that you won’t get Hamilton for one year of Sean Marshall.  You probably wouldn’t get Hamilton for two years of Marshall – dude swiped 100 bags last year and is flying up prospect rankings.  Those players aren’t traded, especially for a relief pitcher regardless of how good that relief pitcher is.

        Also, Gio and Latos are under team control for four more years.  Garza is under team control for two.  That’s why we won’t get four prospects for him even though Garza is a better pitcher than Gio.

        • Jeff

          Yes, but he struck out 133 times had a .340 OBP and a .700 OPS.

          He’s far from polished yet so don’t let the 100 bags he swiped over-value your opinion of him.

          • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

            You’ve made your points yet continue to argue with everybody and that just becomes TIRESOME.

            • Jeff

              Well, if your tired, go to bed.

              • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

                Goodnight Jeff

                • Jeff

                  Goodnight Goat :)

          • JasonB

            Yes, but those 100 bags are the reason that he is deemed to be a top prospect.

            We were never getting Hamilton for Sean Marshall – end of story.  I don’t understand why this is even a debatable point.  And if he is so far from perfect, why the hell do you want him anyway?

            You’re continuously spinning your stories in this thread just to be argumentative.  I’m done with you

  • ferrets_bueller

    Pretty much any argument against this trade can be shot down in one sentence: Sean Marshall is a relief pitcher.

    • Jeff

      That’s very narrow minded on your part ferrets. It takes a solid bullpen to win a championship. That’s why Texas lost and St. Louis won.

      • ferrets_bueller

        So why didn’t the 2008-10 Royals win the World Series?  They had the best relief pitcher in all of baseball.

        • Jeff

          The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you don’t understand that, I can’t really help you.

          • ferrets_bueller

            Nail, meet hammer. Stop and think about what you just said, and get back to me.

            A piece, like a relief pitcher, that has more value as a part of a whole as opposed to as a piece itself, doesn’t have much value to a team with no other pieces.  Soria wouldn’t make the Royals win, just as Marshall wouldn’t make the Cubs win.

            • Jeff

              Why do you not value a player simply because he’s a reliever? there are 25 guys on a roster and everyone has a role, not everyone is going to be a Halladay.
              Those other players have value, but you seem to throw relievers in the garbage because they don’t fit your viewpoint.

              That’s not a good argument to make a blanket statement such as , “Pretty much any argument against this trade can be shot down in one sentence: Sean Marshall is a relief pitcher.”

              • BT

                And getting a decent, young, left handed starter with years of control, plus 2 more project-able prospects is not “throwing relievers in the garbage”.

              • ferrets_bueller

                Elite relief pitchers have little to no value to bad teams.  You have to have position players and SP first, in order for them to matter.  hanging on to your one good part is pointless when you need to build a whole.

                • Jeff

                  The most demoralizing thing to any young pitcher is for him to pitch a great game for 6 innings and then watch the crappy relief guys blow up in the 7th and 8th inning and end up with a loss.

                  Ask any manager and he will tell you it’s always a plus to have a solid bullpen regardless of where you are in the standings.

                  You really are ready to let Russell, Gaub or Maine be the main guys? They are still very green and very homer prone.

                  By no means is Marshall elite but he is pretty good.

                  I’m more skeptical about the two prospects we are getting.

                  I personally feel that in three years we will look at that trade and ask where those guys are at, yet Marshall will still be pitching strong for someone else.

                  But that’s just my opinion, and I am free to have one, just as you are free to have yours.

                  • ferrets_bueller

                    The key to that first statement is that you have to first acquire good young starting pitchers.  Maybe we should figure out a way to acquire one…I hear the Reds might be willing to part with Travis Wood?

                    • Skinner

                      Agreed. If the Cubs are at a point where they have a slew of young pitchers leaving their games with the lead, then the team is officially a contender and it makes sense to have a Sean Marshall.

                      As things stand until then though, all Sean Marshall would be good for would be to make a bunch of those 90 losses not look so bad.

                    • Jeff

                      Well, if Travis Wood makes more than 30 starts and goes more than 200 innings with decent numbers, you will have won the argument.

                      Until then, it’s all speculation.

                    • ferrets_bueller

                      Theres no point in having icing, before you’ve acquired the flour and eggs to make the cake.  Whether or not the cake gets burnt is another story, but first you have to acquire the flour and eggs to find out.

                    • Jeff

                      So your saying you have to get Hemorroids first before you get the cream?

          • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

            But if those parts can get you more wholes in a couple of years when your ready to be competitive, it’s better to have parts now. This is really all about vision vs. instant gratification.

            • JasonB

              “This is really all about vision vs. instant gratification.”

              This is a great statement, MG.

              • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

                Thanks, I know patience and a FO that is making moves now for the future is a difficult concept for some people to understand, but it’s nice to know there are other people that see the wisdom behind this move and the others that will follow,

                • ferrets_bueller

                  Amen.

                  • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

                    It’s nice to have rational voices around, that see beyond 2012.

                • JasonB

                  I do see a number of guys on here who feel the same way.  It’s just hard to see them at times through all of those who expect the Hendry-esque sugar-high signings of the last 5 years and those who expect every team to trade us all of their top 5 prospects for 1 year of a 2.5-3 WAR player.

                  I’d like to win a WS next year but that just isn’t realistic given the hand that we’ve been dealt.  I like what I’m seeing from Thoyer so far and firmly believe they’re going to get us where we want to be.  Just have to be patient – sucks that we have to continue to be patient after waiting our whole lives, but that’s the reality of the situation.

        • BetterNews

          Ferrets, come on man! I don’t think Jeff was implying that a solid bullpen alone gets you a WS. For cryin out loud.

          • ferrets_bueller

            You guys are making my point for me, lmao.

            • BetterNews

              You seem to be missing the point. A GOOD pen is a requirement for a WS. It is not an “entity” by which you can say because you have a good one you are going to win a WS. Of course not. A good pen is part of the “whole” package in a contending team, thus a requirement! Forstansh?

              • ferrets_bueller

                You’re still arguing my side for me, little do you realize it.  Teams with just a pen can’t even contend.  Guess what pieces you need to acquire first?  Guess which pieces are the easiest to acquire?

                • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

                  Ferrets it’s time to leave it alone, it’s just going to be a circular argument. It will just become an argument that’s not worth the time.

              • http://cubbiekingdom.wordpress.com hansman1982

                Ya, this team wasn’t going to the world series this year with Sean Marshall and it is possible that Sean didn’t fit into the long term plans of the Cubs so get what you can and move on.

                • BetterNews

                  Hans–I agree. But the original argument, if one wants to call it that(GOAT), was what did we really get in the Marshall trade.

                  • Jeff

                    And that’s the nuts and bolts of it.

                    Some on here seem so excited over this trade. Great!

                    But what did we really get?

                    We for sure know what Cincinnati is getting, a great solid Lefty.

                    Woods has shown potential but has never completed a full season.

                    The two minor league prospects are still even bigger question marks.

                    This trade can only be evaluated properly in time, and we may not come out on top.

                    But that is only my opinion that I am allowed to argue, but not by the prevailing voices on here who scream at any descent of their goat pack mentality.

                    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                      This trade can only be evaluated properly in time, and we may not come out on top.

                      That is true of every single trade ever in the history of ever.

                      You can, if you choose, evaluate trades at two points in time: the day they are consummated (prospective), and looking back after everything has played out years later (retrospective). The trade happened today. If we’re to evaluate it at all, we can only evaluate prospectively – and, in that regard, on paper, the Cubs did excellently.

                      If you’d prefer, we can not discuss anything that might happen in the future, since it remains a question mark. Might make for a mighty boring place to talk about the Cubs, eh?

                    • http://www.michigangoat.blogspot.com MichiganGoat

                      Perfectly stated Brett.

                  • EtotheR

                    You know, BNews…none of us can truly know your motivation for being here. We don’t whether or not you’re a Cubs fan, the annoyed purveyor of a competing site, or just one of those guys who likes to use the anonymity of the Internet to be irksome.

                    Whether or not you’re actually a troll, you’ve certainly come to embody the role. Even the most abject pessimist would take issue with your basic commentary, which is clearly designed to drown out any sense of fun or optimism shown on this site. This leads me to believe that you’re likely some sort of White Sox or Cards fan with a socially frustrated streak.

                    If I’m wrong…if you really are a Cubs fan…if this really is your line of thinking, then you gots to grab yourself a handful of Prozac and make some happiness. If I’m right…then go. Your work here is done. Still…seek happiness.

                    • BetterNews

                      Ha! Your looking in the mirror again.

                    • Bric

                      We don’t need no stinking purveyors…

                    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

                      That’s about as on point and pleasant as a response gets in a situation like this. Thanks, ER.

                      You’re welcome here, BetterNews, but I continue to encourage you – assuming you are, in fact, a Cubs fan and not an act – to think before you comment. Sometimes you come off as doom and gloom just for the sake of being doom and gloom. No one’s asking you to be perpetually positive. But just take a moment before you comment and think, “am I being over-the-top negative here? Is it necessary? Is it REALLY how I feel?”

                    • BetterNews

                      You’re not gonna ruffle my feathers bro. Just because I question “moves” by the Cubs doesn’t mean I am a troll, a Sox fan, or a Cards fan. They are “legitimate” questions. You know nothing about me. So why don’t you go grab some Prozac and make some happiness, as that might be the only thing you’re good at, you insulting bastard!

    • cls

      To the original post, is it a guarantee that Marshall will end up being a relief or setup pitcher? Or is there a chance Dusty could add him to the rotation? Until that is decided, your initial argument doesn’t hold up. However, I still think this was a great trade for the Cubs.

      • BetterNews

        I’m trying to be smart, but isn’t a set-up pitcher a relief pitcher?

  • EtotheR

    Yeah…I know…I’m looking in the mirror.

    Good luck to you, friend.

  • ty

    Mgm Grand offering 25-1 odds on Cubs for World Series. My guy said 40-1 until Theo hired Uhm–Think I will take a chance on my wife pounding the slots across the aisle. Does anybody know what last years odds were for St. Louis?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      Cubs odds are always a bit better than they should be because they get a high volume of bets, regardless of how good they actually look. So 25-1 means the books are thinking the Cubs are going to be REALLY, REALLY bad next year.

      I would also take the slots.

  • leo

    craps. more social.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I was always intimidated by craps.

      • Toosh

        I like blackjack.

  • ty

    thanks Brett! Mgm guy told me exactly that and I was surprised that
    cubs are bet so heavily. He said top three. Degenerate Chicago gamblers huh?

  • Mike F

    First, it’s pretty centered on Wood for Marshall. Marshall is a short reliever not a closer. In general, even in the case of a quality left-hander, if there was a point system for positions, the highest point system rating would likely be starting pitching. In football you have known value systems in the draft, so at least you can instantly measure a trade against some known standard. Here that doesn’t exist.

    So, in this instance, this trade is in essence a trade of a fine LHP short reliever with 1 year left known for an interesting LHP SP under control and a chance to be good. I really see that as good for both teams.

    Second the other part of this trade is throw in. Torreyes is kind of surprising. He’s a smurf yes, I will admit, but with his age and quality, not necessarily the kind of guy I expected. I expected more like Sappelt in pitching form. So it’ll be 2014 before you can realistically judge this particular player, Torreyes. Sappelt is a throw in type, but with Jackson, Szcur and the Cubs supposed interest in Cespedes, Im a little surprised they took him. That is unless they intend to trade Jackson. Jackson being traded now, more so than Garza, if in their mind they don’t want him or like others better, is something I strongly support. People preach trading Garza now and that’s fine under the sell high theme. But it applies even more with Jackson. If you intend to play him soon it’s one thing. But if a team isn’t high on a prospect like this at 23, you run his value down the longer you drag it out.

    In the end, I think it’s a good deal. Marshall is a good pitcher for which we got fair value in Wood at a premium position. And we were able to get a prospect and a suspect. And as in all good deals, the trade could have tremendous upside for the the Cubs who gave up the known value or fizzle.

    • BetterNews

      People have been using the Good++ to excellent mantra in the Wood trade. This deal was nothing more than fair, if that.

  • Stinky Pete

    Preface:  I like this trade.  I really like this trade and I would do it again.

    BUT Call it a morbid curiosity, I’m trying to think of examples where the prospects turned out better than the “established” player.

    I can think of two.  Sandberg and Peirzynski (Worst trade I can really think of).  I am sure there are more but I really can’t think of any off the top of my head.

    • ferrets_bueller

      two off the top of my head:

      Adam Eaton for A Gonz and Chris Young

      Teix for Texas Rangers current team. (mild exaggeration, but….)

      • ferrets_bueller

        Also, Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir

  • drew

    Perfectly stated mike. I view middle relief pitchers much like punters in the NFL draft…this is why youd never see a punter taken in the first round. Not that the position isnt important, but they are much easier and cheaper to replace than skill players and linemen. As previously stated, there is a lot of turnover in the average ML bullpen today, and getting an average, young, LH started along with 2 decent prospects for a guy we can pretty easily replace ( Russell and his sub 2 ERA in relief comes to mind) seems like a good deal.

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+