The Jeff Samardzija Stove: Fister Fallout, Extension Talks, Possible Price Tags, More

jeff samardzija gatorade showerI kind of really hope this doesn’t become a regular feature, but there are a variety of Jeff Samardzija bits to share and discuss, and bullet-style makes the most sense …

  • Fister trade, Fister trade, Fister trade. I don’t have a lot more to say that I didn’t already say when the trade happened last night, or in the Bullets this morning, but I’m now hoping the Tigers do what many are expecting they’ll do, which is spend big on some free agent. Then the narrative can be, “the Tigers foolishly accepted an extraordinarily weak package for a 4-win pitcher because they were desperate to clear some cash to sign Player X, who was pressuring them to put the deal together quickly.” I still think the Tigers were silly for making this Fister deal (dumping cost-controlled great players to free up cash for the privilege of overspending in free agency is rarely a laudable strategy), but at least it would be nice to have a story to sell when discussing why Jeff Samardzija’s trade value should dramatically exceed that of the Fister deal. Right now, the best you can come up with: Fister is a year older, he’s slightly more expensive, he’s a soft-tosser who has lost a mile or two on his already soft stuff, and … well, that’s all I’ve got. Fister probably doesn’t have the upside of Samardzija, but Fister is already a fantastic pitcher. Samardzija, we hope, will get there next year.
  • (That all said: because the consensus is that the Tigers didn’t get nearly enough for Fister in this trade, it’s not as if prospective trade partners can tell the Cubs, “Hey, that’s the market price for Fister, so the market price for Samardzija is X-1.” Well, they can say that, but the Cubs can respond, “We’re content to hold Samardzija for a little while, given that he and David Price are probably the only upper tier arms available on the trade market, and the free agent market is looking weak, too.” I still like the Cubs’ leverage here. I just would have liked it even more if the Tigers had received a healthy score for Fister.)
  • Bruce Levine apparently reported this weekend on his radio show on The Score (I say apparently because I couldn’t find audio for myself – anyone have it handy?) that the Cubs have offered Jeff Samardzija a five-year, $55 million extension. That’s the exact extension I’ve suggested as reasonable for about a year now (based on Matt Harrison’s similar extension a couple years ago), so, yeah, that’s reasonable. I could understand Samardzija continuing to refuse, preferring to bet on himself. The Cubs could probably go a little higher and keep the extension in the range of “good idea,” but there’s only so much wiggle room, even when you factor in inflation.
  • Nick Cafardo also discussed extension stuff, saying that the Cubs’ preference remains signing Samardzija to an extension. If the trade market crumbles in the wake of the Fister deal (and that’s probably going too far), an extension probably does become more likely, since the Cubs may have to pony up if they want to convert Samardzija into a long-term asset. As I say in the previous bullet, though, there has to be a limit.
  • Although Dave Cameron’s gut tells him Jeff Samardzija will be traded, he doesn’t seem to think the Blue Jays should have interest in acquiring him (and especially not if the deal includes one of Aaron Sanchez or Marcus Stroman). For my part, any deal with the Blue Jays that doesn’t include at least one of Sanchez or Stroman might not make sense for the Cubs. Maybe there’s just not a fit there.
  • Jim Bowden proposes four trades that are probably now in the range you’d be looking in a Samardzija deal, like it or lump it. From the Orioles, the Cubs get Kevin Gausman, straight up (eh – I like him, but risky); from the Diamondbacks, the Cubs get Tyler Skaggs and Stryker Trahan (still doesn’t wow you); from the Royals, the Cubs get Aaron Crow and Miguel Almonte (doesn’t seem like nearly enough); and from the Blue Jays, the Cubs get Sean Nolin, Daniel Norris, and Alberto Tirado (not bad, though I’d still want to see one of Sanchez or Stroman in the mix). You can see Bowden’s thoughts on/explanation for each deal here.

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

228 responses to “The Jeff Samardzija Stove: Fister Fallout, Extension Talks, Possible Price Tags, More”

  1. mdavis

    I like Gausman, but there would need to be more than that. Gausman as a centerpiece, yes, but not alone.

  2. jh03

    How likely is it that the Cubs can extend Samardzija and still land Tanaka?

    1. jh03

      *Typical caveats about the likelihood of signing Tanaka*

    2. Funn Dave

      Hmm, your wording makes this question difficult to answer. If you’re asking if they *can* do both, the answer is a resounding yes. In terms of likelihood, I’d peg it at about 5%, unless the extension comes later than this offseason.

    3. Rebuilding

      Just my opinion, but if we sign Tanaka I think it makes signing Samardzija to an extension much more likely. Adding a 4-5 WAR pitcher potentially moves up your competitiveness window to the 2nd half of 2015 IF Bryant and Baez come up earlier that year and have an impact (and before you guys get crazy on me, sometimes rookies of their caliber do have a big impact)

      1. JB88

        Given the seeming finances of the team, it seems unlikely to me, but it would potentially offer a very nice rotation of:

        1 – Tanaka
        2 – Samardzija
        3 – Wood
        4 – Jackson
        5 – Arrieta

        That’s some nice power across the rotation and gives you some real potential upside in Samardzija and Arrieta from a power perspective.

  3. ken

    Price may be destined for Detroit for Ray, McCann, +

  4. Norm

    “why Jeff Samardzija’s trade value should dramatically exceed that of the Fister deal. Right now, the best you can come up with: Fister is a year older, he’s slightly more expensive, he’s a soft-tosser who has lost a mile or two on his already soft stuff, and … well, that’s all I’ve got.”
    How about “DET was stupid and we’re not going to cave in because of someone else’s stupidity. See James Shields, RA Dickey, and Matt Garza trades. Go get someone else inferior if you can’t up your offer.”

  5. Oswego Chris

    Offer Samardzija 4 for 52, or 5 for 63 and call it a day…he gets EJax money and at 12.5-13 per year he may outperform deal

  6. carmine ziccarelli

    garbage.tell those teams to call back when they are serious.

    1. Funn Dave

      Those aren’t those teams’ actual trade proposals. They’re Jim Bowden’s own trade suggestions.

  7. Senor Cub

    Brett – can you give some thoughts on the Shark’s possible offer of $55M in relation to Tanaka? In other words, is Tanaka worth 2X Shark, I would think Tanaka would receive a lower offer than Shark’s. If Shark is as good as the Cubs make him out to seem you would think $55M would be at an extreme bargain. I know there are many other factors to consider here like age and what not but if a team can possibly spend up to $110M for Tanaka, what is the real market value for Shark?

  8. woody

    You’re like the ever ready bunny Brett. The posts just keep coming. You put the other guys to shame. By far you are the most informed and hardest working blogger in the business. I was reading where Mr. Sherman said something to the effect that maybe the Cubs were at a disadvantage in the Tanaka pursuit because of restrictions in place by lenders or something to that effect. So what does this mean? Seeing that many are calling him out for being cheap does this mean that he really doesn’t have the resources to make a big deal?

  9. mak

    I’m sure you’ve mentioned it before, but Shark’s (for purposes of extension) perceived value is going to be higher than Harrison’s, if nothing else, because Shark already got paid when he got drafted. So he’s going to be more inclined to bet on himself. Puts Cubs in a bad spot as they may end up having to pay over market for him.

  10. Illini Iceman

    Tigers just signed Nathan to a 2 year deal.

    1. Gabe Athouse

      Looks like the $$ savings Brett was talking about is going to Nathan.

  11. MightyBear

    I disagree with O Chris. The price of poker seems to be going up. Even the A’s are spending money. My understanding is the Shark wants 5/90 and the Cubs are offering 5/55. My ceiling if I’m the Cubs is 5/70. I would do that to keep the Shark. If he doesn’t bite, I cut him lose.

    1. CubFan Paul

      “Even the A’s are spending money”

      Not really.

      1. MightyBear

        Uh, they spent 22 million on Kazmir and Johnson is going to cost them 10 mil in arbitration. That’s 32 million. I don’t remember the A’s spedning 32 mil in a week, ever. So, yeah, they’re spending money. Not Dodger money but way over A’s money.

        1. YourResidentJag


        2. Blackhawks1963

          They aren’t really spending money. Johnson is going to be a one year rental in Oakland. And Kazmir is making Bartolo Colon money. Billy Beane loves to mix and match.

        3. ssckelley

          They might spend a little more than last year (even the A’s payroll goes up slightly year over years), but the rumors are already out that they are looking to deal Anderson. He is owed $9.5 million if they buyout the last year (2015) and I doubt they re-sign Crisp after next year.

          We have not seen what is going out the A’s back door yet.

        4. C. Steadman

          Cespedes for 36 mill in 2012 is the only highest week i can remember…but yeah 10+ mill for a closer seems out of Beane’s norm, and Kazmir is now the 2nd highest paid player on the A’s behind cespedes

          1. Blackhawks1963

            Billy is doing what Billy does…and that is mix and match. But the A’s payroll rarely goes up by a whole lot. It stays about steady.

            Add Kazmir and rent one year of Johson…subtract Colon and Anderson. The math is just about a wash for 2014.

            1. MightyBear

              He’s also not done yet. My understanding is he’s looking for another bat. It may be through trade for Anderson but it’s still going to cost him either way. I also heard the A’s payroll will go up this year significantly. Like 25 mil they’re getting from MLB, just like every other team. Hence, you will see more spending overall.

            2. C. Steadman

              even for one year.. 10+ million for a closer isnt what Billy usually does…but yeah he already has Colon, Chris Young, and Balfour off the books for $16 million, possibly Anderson(more like probably).so that does wash Kaz (11mil) and Johnson(~10+), but he spent alot on a closer

              1. C. Steadman

                here’s a good article about the A’s Holiday spending and how they are able to do it…Bear is right, A’s could see a little bigger bump than usual in payroll


        5. CubFan Paul

          The A’s “spend money” every offseason.

          “spending money” on free agents is easy when you have 15-22 players that are pre-arb or only a year or two into arbitration years. The A’s are “spending money” to fill up the available salary space to stay competitive annually.

          1. MightyBear

            Not like this year.

    2. ssckelley

      I can get much closer:

      Year 1 – $10 million
      Year 2 – $12 million
      Year 3 – $18 million
      Year 4 – $20 million
      Year 5 – $20 million

      Total – $80 million

      My figures would be awarding him now by giving him more up front in his 2 remaining arbitration years in exchange for giving me a discount for 3 of his free agency years. On the open market Samardzija is easily worth $20-$25 million per year, probably even more in 2 years. In years 3-5 his salary will be palatable during seasons the Cubs are looking to be competitive. If the Cubs do nothing and just pay him whatever the arbitrator awards they will pay $12-$15 million anyway for the next 2 years.

    3. AB

      ha. Shark doesn’t bite….

  12. Oswego Chris

    MightyBear, curious where you got that 5-90 number…not disagreeing, just curious

  13. Blackhawks1963

    Clearly, Jeff Samardzija is gambling on himself and is unwilling to sign a new “fair market” contract. He’s not a guy who is going to agree to 4 year, $60 M type terms. He’s acting like a guy, via his agent, who seeks a monster payday in a year or two.

    I’m not the biggest Samardzija fan. I try to actively trade him, but if I do keep him then I don’t give him a monster contract…yet at least. Wait till next offseason.

  14. MightyBear

    O Chris, not sure it’s legit but somebody posted that one of the reporters said Shark was looking for a deal at 18 mil per year. At 5 years 18 mil per is 90 mil. He may take less years but my guess is the Cubs don’t want to go less or not much less. They have 2 already. A 3 year deal doesn’t really turn him into a long term asset.

    1. MightyBear

      I can’t remember when that was posted. It was a few weeks ago.

    2. Eric

      I think it’s safe to assume that any deal Shark signs, it would include a buyout of his arbitration years. That’s probably one of his hesitations.

      1. MightyBear


  15. YourResidentJag
    1. Blackhawks1963

      We haven’t seen it because it is irrelevant…it’s a blog guy proposing that the Braves go after Samardzija. Whoopie.

      1. YourResidentJag

        So, you think all these rumors aren’t generated to a degree by people positing things on the Internet? Or you think this guy’s analysis of Shark sucks? I personally don’t think either. Apparently, you think both.

        1. Blackhawks1963

          Hence why all “rumors” are to be taken with a big grain of salt unless there is some sort of validation.

          If I start a post saying the Cubs should sign Robby Cano, does that make the Cubs an actual suitor? Of course it doesn’t.

          1. YourResidentJag

            Heh? That’s why they’re rumors. Apparently, you haven’t read the article before commenting either. Right?

            1. Blackhawks1963

              I read it…and I summarily dismissed it. Why?!? Because it is a nobody blog writer who is making the business case for the Atlanta Braves trading for Jeff Samardzija. Nothing more.

              1. YourResidentJag

                It’s the same analysis that Brett is giving towards suggesting that Shark has ace potential. Unlike other out of town pieces I’ve seen, it puts Shark in a favorable light in terms of sabremetric analysis. If you don’t like the analysis (which compares favorably in tone to what Brett is saying), what bother commenting about it on here?

                1. Eric

                  You *apparently* spend a lot of your time and energy policing everyone else’s comments. People are allowed to disagree, especially with you. Now stop hounding people and get over yourself.

                  Go ahead and respond with a nonsensical and defensive quip. Prove my point.

                  1. YourResidentJag

                    Heh? My point is to compare the logic of what Brett is saying with the writer of this article about Shark. I hardly see how this is a relevant blowback from you. Still, need to seek attention, I see, still mad about yesterday, I suppose. I saw this from you with others on here. Now I completely see what you’re about on here. Enough said…and no I won’t respond any further to your out of left field attack, especially with respect to this poster on this particular subject.

          2. Senor Cub

            Nothing like asking a question and answering it yourself. Does BA have a block button, it truly is off-season the rhetoric lately has literally made my brain smaller….and when you have a small brain to begin with, that’s really critical matter. Please stop posting useless crap.

    2. ssckelley

      Interesting article, it is neat to see what writers for other teams think of Samardzija. If the Cubs are going to trade him I would love for the Braves to be involved.

      1. Eric

        Who intrigues you from the Braves though? I’m not sure they have the elite pitching prospects we’re after.

        1. YourResidentJag

          And other teams do? The best trade we could make as of right now would be Stroman as a centerpiece from the Jays. A nice centerpiece but the Braves always have effective SP.

          1. Eric

            I personally think Arizona is in play. I believe they would pull the trigger with Skaggs or Bradley.

            1. YourResidentJag

              The national media has stated that Bradley won’t be traded.

              1. Eric

                And I tend to think that’s correct. Do you think Skaggs could be?

                1. Rebuilding

                  I think they would move Skaggs in a Samardzija deal

                  1. YourResidentJag

                    Yes, I think so as well.

                  2. CubFan Paul

                    I can’t see Samardzija being traded for a soft tossing lefty that’s not an ace.

          2. THEOlogical

            The Braves farm system isn’t like it used to be. They don’t have the elite pitching (at least not in the upper minors) to intrigue the Cubs. If Alex Wood were involved, only then would I let them come to the table. Maybe Teheran, but Wood looks like a star in the making.

            1. YourResidentJag

              Well, if Alex Wood was a centerpiece, I’d consider it then.

              1. FullCountTommy

                Wood is a reliever long term. No chance he will be able to repeat that delivery

                1. YourResidentJag

                  Meh. Who knows. Don’t know enough about him to make that call.

                  1. FullCountTommy

                    Go watch video of him, it’s quite funny haha (He does have great stuff though)

            2. ssckelley

              Jeez, now you have me looking at the Braves. How about Lucas Sims and Cody Martin?

              1. SenorGato

                I didn’t even stay away long enough to finish the name of the second and final player listed.

                1. SenorGato



                2. ssckelley

                  Well then you saved yourself some time, the 2nd name I posted was not any better. Just further along in the minors and is closer to graduating to the majors.

                  But Lucas Sims would be a name I would consider from the Braves, but not as a center piece (he is to far down the line). I will have to agree with the masses, the Braves systems looks depleted and it would take several of their top 10 for me to consider giving up Samardzija. I threw up in my mouth a little looking at their top position players.

                3. SenorGato

                  Since all kinds of teams are thrown into the Samardzija hunt I would like to submit the Yankees if they are willing to deal Gary Sanchez. I think Sanchez is the best catching prospect in the minors. Though the Padres with Hedges and Wisler with Wieckel/Ross might be interesting I guess…

                  That said, not really into the idea of trading Shark anymore.

        2. ssckelley

          Tbh, I have not looked but the Braves are usually good for a few good pitching prospects. The more teams involved the better the haul.

  16. Oswego Chris

    Man I would really like to see him kept sub-15M per, or if he wants 18…go for shorter years

    1. MightyBear

      I agree Chris. BTW if I buy a hard copy of your book from Amazon and I send it to you, would you sign it? Or could I buy a hard copy directly from you and have you sign it? I would pay a premium for it because I want to buy it for my niece and have you sign it to her and send it to her. Let me know. Thanks.

      1. MightyBear

        Sorry, I will send it to her not you. I didn’t re-read that post before I posted.

  17. bobo justis

    Why were all the field lights on at 7 pm at Wrigley last night? I’ve never seen that before in December.

  18. Austin8466

    I’d say go 5/$75 mill with a possible 7/$115 mill full contract fulfillment.

  19. The Logos

    I have two thoughts on this subject. 1) The cash savings that Detroit gets is the ONLY way this makes any sense. Even from that angle, I think many feel like they could have saved the cash and still gotten more. Unless ownership told them to shed payroll now.

    2) I actually think this could be a good thing for the Cubs. I don’t remember ever hearing the Nats in on Samardzija, and it takes another player off the market; thus, this actually makes Samardzija more valuable.

    Am I crazy for thinking that?

  20. Rebuilding

    Don’t forget that all of the small market teams have an additional $25 million a year to spend due to the new TV contract. Here is a GREAT article on the economics of baseball right now:

    1. Rebuilding

      Interesting takeaway is that the Cubs (with local TV revenue sharing) take in an estimated $90.6 million this year from TV alone. That does not count tickets, concessions, advertising, etc.

  21. James Smith

    How about this trade Vogelbach and Justin Grimm and PTBNL to the A’s for Bret Anderson and then Sign Tanaka. After that trade shark and Scheirholtz to the diamondbacks for SP Tyler Skaggs and SP Archie Bradley and 3B/1B Brandon Dury he was a smaller piece in the Justin Upton trade i think that deal is acceptable and sign elsbury if his stock drops to 16ish mil per year for 6 years then i think they have added lots of quality players to compliment all the young talent on the way. I think this actually adds a lot more young talent Bradley is 7th on the top 100 drury is 15 for the dbacks not in the top 100 but his slash line this season is .302avg/.362obp/.500slg/.862ops he added 15 homers to the entire season i think he could be moved to a corner outfield position and play average defense and could be a great platoon player or trade bait in the future for buying trade deadlines
    Check out Drury and Bradly Here

    Does anyone have a thought on all this?

    1. James Smith

      may have to throw in a PTBNL in the dbacks trade

      1. James Smith

        that player may be a mid tier prospect as well

        1. Rebuilding

          As we’ve discussed on here over the last several weeks there is no way you are getting Skaggs AND Bradley. I’m very doubtful the Dbacks would trade Bradley alone straight-up for Shark (IMHO) but no way they trade both

          1. James Smith

            for the power hitting outfielder and a prospect like soler they might im okay with giving him or almora up with the idea of signing elsbury

            1. Rebuilding

              After the Detroit trade I’m out of the business of saying anything is impossible. But I think it is highly unlikely

              1. James Smith

                Yeah it may take another prospect to pull it off but if they can do it the return would benefit both sides

    2. Big Earl's Truck Driving School and Storm Door Repair Company

      Billy Beane has pitching up the wazoo. He’s in the win-now mode and is said to be looking for a bat (or two).

      1. James Smith

        Yes he is but grimm would help the bullpen they are strong in the rotations but average in the pen Grimm would help there and Vogelbach would give them a piece for the future and anderson is just a log jammed in that rotation they would taking getting something rather than holding onto him

    3. C. Steadman

      dont think Diamondbacks will give up Skaggs and Bradley…and I think bradley is pretty much untouchable unless we wow them

    4. C. Steadman

      Shark and Schier could net Skaggs, a lesser tier pitcher than Bradley(Zeke Spruill or Andrew Chafin), and a 15-20 tier pitcher(Felipe Perez or RP Evan Marshall)…with that we’d might have to send a PTBNL

      1. Rebuilding

        I think that’s about right. I would push like hell to try and get Adam Eaton instead of the 2nd and/or 3rd pitching prospects. But that’s just me and is prob too much

        1. C. Steadman

          Eaton or AJ Pollock would be a nice addition…Cubs need OF help, and with trading Schierholtz they’ll for sure be hurting for some MLB ready OF’ers

          1. James Smith

            I think getting someone like Brandon Drury would be a better option they are more likely and neither of those two will be a starter two years from now so i dont see the point the cubs could go with Brian and Ryan and Lake in the outfield they also could bring bret jackson for another trial run

        2. C. Steadman

          only thing is Dbacks are in the market for OF’ers so might just have to settle for pitching from them and seek an OF elsewhere…they have zero OF in their Top 20

  22. Brent

    Just a question : is the trade value of Shark more now or in July when a desperate team is looking to add an arm? Assuming he has a decent year, I would think it would be in July.

    1. James Smith

      For the Dbacks it could be now they are prepared to win now

      1. Big Earl's Truck Driving School and Storm Door Repair Company

        The Diamondbacks are smoking funny tobacco if they think they can catch the Dodgers and the Giants in the NL West. There is no way they are trading Archie Bradley unless overwhelmed. Jeff Samardzija by himself is not getting Bradley. Forget that right now.

        1. C. Steadman

          they have already caught the Giants…by 5 games last year, they need to worry about the Pirates and Reds for the wild card bc like you said…they arent catching the Dodgers

  23. Brian Peters

    I’d give Shark 6 months for $500.00 because that’s what he will be worth after he gets injured.

  24. James Smith

    I really like drury he could be a good asset in the future he would be one I go after

  25. Jono

    I remember being told earlier this off season that getting Bradley back for Samardzi-jah would be disappointing and not enough. I’m guessing that’s no longer the consensus and that people would be fine with that return now

    1. C. Steadman

      ha who told you that? Bradley is arguably the best pitching prospect in baseball!

      1. Jono

        I’d rather not get into specific names

      2. ssckelley
        1. ssckelley

          That was weird. I was raising my hand on that one. I would not do Bradley for Samardzija straight up for the reason I mentioned below.

    2. ssckelley

      For me it isn’t enough, top pitching prospects have a 33% chance of being productive. I would need more than Bradley, but then again I am not enthused about trading Samardzija in the first place.

      1. Jono

        I think the risk/reward is worth it.

      2. C. Steadman

        I’m not enthused about it either because I think next year is gonna be some Shark dominance but if i was offered Bradley straight up i would do it..Bradley is special and the only thing thats stopping him from being MLB productive is an injury…and thats the same percentage as Shark getting injured

  26. woody

    Seeing that it has been said that the Dbacks are lacking in outfield depth then why not throw Soler in the mix as well. Shark, Schierholtz and Soler in a deal that brings Bradley and Skaggs.

    1. C. Steadman

      still think Cubs would need to throw in another Top 10 prospect like Johnson or Alcantara to net Skaggs and Bradley…Bradley is the 1st or 2nd best pitching prospect in all of baseball and Skaggs would be up there too except he had enough IP to graduate from prospect status

      1. ssckelley

        Read that article you posted again on the success rate of prospects and analyze your deal again.

        Is this what you are proposing to be a fair trade?

        Bradley – Top 10 pitching prospect (60% chance of bust)
        Skaggs – Top 20 pitching prospect (60% chance of bust)

        Schierholtz – established MLB position starter
        Samardzija – mid to top of the rotation MLB starting pitcher
        Soler – Top 40 position prospect (65% chance of bust)
        Alcantara – Top 100 position prospect (67% chance of bust)

        If I am the GM for Arizona I would be rushing to get the deal approved before the Cubs came to their senses.

        1. C. Steadman

          i wouldnt do that trade, i was just saying what it would take to net both Skaggs and Bradley(Arizona is highly unlikely to part with Bradley, especially both unless Cubs overpay which is why I threw that out there…also didnt come up on that article till after i posted that)…I tend to overvalue prospects more than a normal person so I want to keep Soler and alcantara(i think he’s our solution to the Barney problem)

    2. James Smith

      i completely agree and if they throw soler into the mix im fine because they can then in turn take sharks money and put it towards elsbury if and i do mean IF his demands come down i would be okay at 6 years 90-100 mil

    3. woody

      I like Alcantara, but considering the depth we have with middle infielders I could see throwing him into the deal. If we could get Ellsbury later this winter when his prospects don’t look so good we could put Lake in left where he belongs and play Sweeny in right.

      1. James Smith

        exactly completely agree giving up a prospect where you have depth to get a top young pitcher and arguably the best pitching prospect in the game is completely worth it

  27. YourResidentJag

    John Gambadoro ‏@Gambo620 3m
    Heath Bell is definitely on his way out of Arizona in a trade.

    1. YourResidentJag

      Heath Bell headed to Tampa?

  28. Jack

    Think Dbacks would go Bradley, Holmberg, and Trahan for Shark, Schierholtz and Vogelbach? Not enough? Too much?

    1. James Smith

      Vogelbach would be a waste of their time he isnt moving off 1B unless its a DH and the Dbacks already have one of the best first baseman in Goldschmidt so that would be a waste they want OF we have Junior Lake Soler Almora Jackson Vitters we have plenty that we could thow in a deal like that and really not lose anything except for depth

      1. Jack

        So if we substituted an outfielder in for Vogelbach and the Dbacks agreed, would that be a good enough outcome to be considered a good trade for the cubs? Or would we need more?

        1. James Smith

          No that would be a good trade they get a top young pitcher and arguable the best pitching prospect in the game and only losing a little bit of depth in a position they have lots of absolutely a good deal

        2. On The Farm

          They just traded Holmberg to the Reds.

          1. James Smith

            Holmberg isnt very impressive his numbers through the minors say maybe a backend starter or bullpen 32-32 3.40 era

            1. James Smith

              i would do the deal without him i would take just Archie and Skaggs

              1. On The Farm

                Oh you would just settle for Bradley AND Skaggs. You act like its no big deal for AZ to trade those two. At least Skaggs pitched in the MLB, Holmberg was a ways out yet. Arizona won’t be jumping to give us all of their best young pieces..

                1. YourResidentJag

                  Couldn’t agree more, On the Farm. You are totally right about the effect of Holmberg being traded.

                2. James Smith

                  Yeah i understand what you mean i’m just saying if that deal were on the table absolutely i would accept that trade and not want anymore and if the wanted a pitcher instead of an extra outfielder ill throw edwards grimm in too

  29. DarthHater

    Tom Loxas writes:

    “Fister is a solid pitcher, a guy who fits in as a solid #3 type. How does he stack up with Samardzija? I spoke with an AL exec today that said it’s not really close on who most would prefer.

    ‘Any team would rather move forward with the potential in that (Samardzija) arm’, he says.”

    1. YourResidentJag

      Yeah, I agree with this position.

    2. SenorGato

      Fister’s fastball velocity really makes it hard to LOVE him as a pitching talent, though he’s definitely a quality pitcher. He’s up for his first arb this year after making 4 million last year. I wouldn’t mind having him at arb prices through 2016 (well, more comfortable with 2014/2015) but he’ll be 32 then with a long mediocre fastball.

      It was a good move for the Nats but not sure how much he really reflects Samardzija’s trade value anyway. FIster’s a really weird pitcher…he’s been very productive through his prime but soft tossing RHers are really hard to buy into for long.

  30. Cheese Chad

    I thought I read somewhere that a no-trade clause was part of the hold up as well.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.