Quantcast

nate schierholtz cubsThat there headline is not how I would phrase things, even if I knew the substance to be true. If Nate Schierholtz is available, it’s because the Cubs a rebuilding team that would gladly trade any expiring contract for long-term assets.

I digress before I’ve even progressed.

The rumor implied by the headline comes via Jon Paul Morosi, who has apparently been looking into the Tigers’ outfield needs, and drops this tonight:

From the sound of the rumor, it was either Morosi or Cubs-driven, rather than Tigers-driven. The Tigers’ outfield need emerged over the past week with presumed left fielder Andy Dirks needing back surgery that could cost him three months. If the Tigers are looking to replace his lefty bat, they could do a hell of a lot worse than Schierholtz, who actually out-produced Dirks by a wide margin last year (86 OPS+ versus 107 OPS+). Schierholtz will make just $5 million in 2014, and he’s probably worth a pretty decent pitching prospect, for example.

All in all, that the Tigers could become interested in Schierholtz is unsurprising. The stated reason for Schierholtz’s availability – the emergence of Ryan Kalish – is something of a surprise. The Cubs signed Kalish, 25, to a minor league deal after he was non-tendered by the Red Sox in November. He’s been battling shoulder and neck issues for a few years now, but believes he finally had the problem cleared up by a cervical fusion surgery in August. He’s played in only a handful of Spring Training games, and it would be surprising to learn that the Cubs already have so much confidence in him that they’re ready to declare him one of the outfielders to open the season.

What little I can offer about Kalish from my in-person viewing is that he does look healthy, and he’s obviously an excellent natural athlete (and also the kind of dirtbag scrapper that fans tend to love). Does that mean he’s back to where he was three years ago, when he appeared on the verge of a long, productive big league career? I don’t think anything in Spring Training was going to tell us as much, but it’s good to hear that the Cubs’ staff is sensing good things from him.

As I’ve written in the past, Kalish does offer intriguing upside for the Cubs, even as a long-term piece, and even if he doesn’t make the team out of Spring Training. I don’t think the Cubs would shop Schierholtz because of the emergence of Kalish (if that’s really happening), but it might make them more willing to capitalize on Schierholtz’s value now, rather than waiting until mid-season.

Peter Gammons, who covered Kalish closely in the past, and who maintains good relationships with the Cubs’ front office, appears to be impressed by Kalish (or, maybe more likely, is hearing good things from sources):

I guess we’ll monitor this and see if anything pops up from the Tigers’ side.

  • Javier Bryant

    I wonder if the Cubs could get Jake Thompson. He’s thw Tigers 5th best prospect according to Baseball America.
    http://m.bbref.com/m?p=XXminorsXXplayer.cgiQQid=thomps000jak

  • Kyle

    Corner the market on reserve outfielders, then start doling them out to teams who need them. Clever.

    • blublud

      I was against signing Schierholtz, but with the exception of his dismal September, he was really good last year. If he a reserve OF, then he’s one of the best reserves in the game.

      • Rebuilding

        He had about the hottest stretch of his career last year. After that he was mediocre/bad

    • ssckelley

      Whatever gets the job done, if teams keep giving the Cubs prospects for them might as well keep signing them.

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

    If Kalish makes the team we might have another member of the All-Scrappy team.

  • http://BN Sacko

    Holy..that’s not a lot of info on Kalish but ok if he’s “swinging” well..does he have Schierholtz power?

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

      You don’t need power when you have gritty BellyFire.

      • DarthHater

        Belly fire IS power.
        [img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8521/8673808256_0ef7149b21_o.jpg[/img]

    • CubFanBob

      Not as much power but higher ave, on base %, and SB speed. Defense is equal but Kalish can play all three outfield spots plus younger so more control.

      This is assuming Kalish is 100% back to where he was before the injuries.

  • Rebuilding

    Maybe he has just looked incredible on the practice fields, but I don’t see how Kalish has impressed enough to be a starting RFer on an MLB team out of spring training. The FO made a mistake not flipping Schierholtz last year when he was incredibly hot. I’m not even going to beat the Eaton rumor to death, but even a good BP arm would have been fine, as Sweeney (or Kalish it seems) provides about the same value. Oh well, maybe it will work out like Garza and it will be a good thing

    • ssckelley

      We were saying the same thing about Schierholtz last year about this time. This is a transition year right? The Cubs will have better options for right field in another year. They clearly are not extending him so why not get something out of him and then see if you can strike gold again with Kalish?

      • DarthHater

        Plus, it will help the Cubs get a better draft pick and increase the number of PAICOABLANs on this message board!

      • Rebuilding

        Ummmm…ok. I’m not necessarily against that. It’s just that you are taking one hell of a leap of faith to say Kalish is even a MLB player. To say that is what is making Schierholtz “expendable” seems silly. He should have always been expendable. If you think you have something in Kalish then maybe shift Sweeney to RF, let Ruggiano/Lake play CF and let Kalish get a few cuts in AAA. Some good swings in the batting cages in March just seems like a strange reason to finally deal Schierholtz

        • ssckelley

          Again the Cubs took one hell of a leap of faith in Schierholtz last year. If it doesn’t work hopefully Soler is not far behind.

          • http://bleachernation.com woody

            So we have a guy that hit 21 homers and drove in 68 RBI’s while playing a platoon for much of the season. He was closing fast on Rizzo for the team lead in those two categories. You know he is only 29 or maybe 30years old. He he hadn’t have put up those numbers in 2013 we might have set an all time record for losses.

            • ssckelley

              What are you telling me? You think the Cubs should keep him and extend him?

              • http://bleachernation.com woody

                I just wanted to make sure you were still awake. Are you showing your sensative side? LOL

            • Diehardthefirst

              Trade em one year early.. Better than one year late

        • Diehardthefirst

          This kid on the Braves plays OF and 1B so can spell Rizzo too

        • mjhurdle

          I think that, if the Cubs were looking to trade Nate, if would be coming more from the idea of maximizing his value than their impressions of Kalish in a few early ST ABs.

          For instance, if they were not confident that Nate could sustain his success from the first half of last year, then it would make sense to be shopping him.
          Someone hears a rumor of the Cubs shopping Nate, and hears the Cubs front office talking good things about kalish, and all of a sudden it isn’t “Cubs are shopping Scheirholtz. Oh, and they like the early returns from Kalish” it becomes “Cubs shopping Scheirholtz because they feel Kalish is a HoF talent”.

          If the Cubs are looking to trade Scheirholtz, it tells me that they either are trying to sell high because they aren’t sure he is going to repeat last year’s performance, or they feel that they can get a high value prospect for him, or a combination of the both. I don’t think 2 weeks of ST from kalish has caused them to change their value of Nate dramatically.

          • Voice of Reason

            Mjhurdle,

            You are way over thinking this.

            Trade him or keep him, schierholtz is a fourth outfielder. That says it all.

            • mjhurdle

              My point was simply that the Cubs are not shopping Scheirholtz (if they are) simply because they like what they have seen from Kalish so far. That is independent of whether he is a 4th OF or not. So the fact that he is a 4th OF does not “say it all”, at least not in my opinion.

  • Diehardthefirst

    Kalish Shmalish – step one to open up OF for the Braves trade proposed by this poster last nite- Why? Cause makes sense and this turd kid does not stink

    • ssckelley

      Ok, that was funny.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

      Terdoslavich wouldn’t be a bad part of a package to the Cubs, but he can’t do the deal alone if the Braves would be targeting Shark. As a secondary or tertiary piece in a group headlined by J.R. Graham, perhaps, he makes some sense.

  • http://bleachernation.com woody

    IMO Schierholtz is one of the more valuable players that we have. What happened to that spiel by Theo that we needed a few veteran players in the lineup to set an example for the youngsters? But if we are going for that #1 pick next year then go ahead and start the selloff early.

    • Rebuilding

      Schierholtz being “one of the best players we have” is certainly a reason we are picking #4 this year. That’s measuring tallest midgets

      • MoneyBoy

        LULz Rebuilding… well played sir !!!

      • Funn Dave

        Not best. Most valuable. Two very different statements.

    • DarthHater

      If you get a good enough offer for the guy, you have to consider it. And one veteran more or less in the clubhouse isn’t going to make a difference this spring while our prospects are still toiling away in Iowa and Tennessee.

  • dAn

    Great writeup by Badler on BA site covering Cubs ’13 international signings. VERY in depth, but requires a subscription. Article will get you excited about Mejia, and to a lesser extent, Tseng, Torres and even Matos. Nothing on Jimenez that we didn’t already know, though–and not a ton of praise for him.

  • Voice of Reason

    Its sad that before the emergence of future hall of famer Ryan kalish, our star outfielder nate schierholtz was untouchable.

    • Blackhawks1963

      Ryan Kalish is Bostonian for Brett Jackson. I doubt very seriously if TheoJed think of him as anything of note.

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

        Kalish has a much better contact ability than Jackson.

        • Blackhawks1963

          And your point is? Sorry, but I’m not going to get terribly excited about Kalish. He’s a castoff from another organization who MAYBE can eventually become a decent spare outfielder.

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Luke

            That he isn’t the same player as Brett Jackson and likely has a higher floor. I’m not saying you should be terribly excited by him, just that he doesn’t suffer from the same problems as Jackson.

  • Blackhawks1963

    Sadly, Nate Schierholz is the best and most complete outfielder currently on this roster. He’s not a star by any stretch, but he’s a good ballplayer who can hit, hit with some pop and plays a quality outfield. Granted he should be platooned, but he is seriously the best of a projected five-some to include Sweeney, Lake, Coughlan, Ruggiano. A case of the tallest midget perhaps, but he’s OUR midget and the offense is already going to be dreadful enough.

    I can’t see the trade value of Schierholz surpassing his relative value to the Cubs in 2014 and maybe for a few seasons beyond. I like the guy. I hope he stays.

    • Voice of Reason

      If schierholtz stays the cubs lose 100. If they trade him they lose 101.

      Schierholtz is a fourth outfielder.

      Its just sad that this is such a big story.

      • baldtaxguy

        Its not.

  • Rebuilding

    Based on the responses I guess some people didn’t get my point. Nate S is a platoon player at best and prob a 4/5 and LH pinch hitter who hit an incredible hot streak for about 6 weeks last year. Please look at his career stats and tell me that’s a starting RF on a good team. With that said – suggesting Ryan Kalish’s performance in the batting cage has suddenly made home expendable is absurd. (1) Schierholz should have been dangling from a for sale sign since the day we signed him, (2) Kalish has shown nothing tangible to suggest he can make a ML roster much less be a starter out of ST, (3) people write stupid stories during ST. That was all

    • ssckelley

      Nice summary, and I agree Schierholtz has been expendable since the day they signed him. But I am not sure we can completely rule out that this FO may see something in Kalish much like how they seen something in Schierholtz. One thing is for certain, unless the Cubs pull off a miracle and contend, Schierholtz will be traded at some point as I think it is highly unlikely they extend him and they get nothing if he walks. So if they like what they see in Kalish perhaps they roll the dice on him and cash in on Schierholtz now instead of waiting. They don’t have much to lose.

  • Johnny Chess

    Interested in an OF? The Cubs will listen.

  • TTH

    Peter Gammons is: A) Senile and B) the one person in America that gets giddier over Red Sox rejects more than our FO.

  • Funn Dave

    Is anybody Twitter buddies with Morosi that could just ask him if someone with the Cubs indicated that Kalish potentially makes Schierholz expendable? Or does it not work that way?

  • NorthSideIrish

    Nick Cafardo reported yesterday that the Tigers are willing to listen to offers on Rick Porcello…maybe we could have a whole new round of ridiculous Porcello trade offers?

    • Jason P

      Usually when the Tigers say they’re “willing to listen” on Porcello, they really mean “he’s theoretically available if someone blows us away with an offer”.

      Although, I’d love to have him. We could always use ML ready, young, high upside pitching.

      • DocPeterWimsey

        To some extent, I wonder if that is what has happened with Shark over the last few months. That seems to be what happened with Chase Headley two years ago: for all of the talk, it seems that the price was very high (three good prospects, supposedly: but down to two this winter!), and Headley is still a Pad two years later.

  • Orval Overall

    This team’s best outfielders under Theo: Soriano (traded), DDJ (traded), Schierholtz (on the block).

    Potential replacements: Sweeney (DFA’d by Red Sox, mid-season pickup), Kalish (non-tendered by Red Sox, minor league contract with Cubs), Lake (rookie/raw, toolsy prospect).

    We’re going to lose a lot of games with or without Schierholtz, so I wouldn’t be strongly against it for the right piece(s) coming back. But at some point they’re going to have to add some legitimate outfielders, and I’m curious where they think those will be coming from — outside of the eventual promotion of players that spent most of last season at Kane County or Daytona.

    • Voice of Reason

      At some point the team will have to add legit outfielders?

      What would you expect the cubs to get for schierholtz?

      • Orval Overall

        Not an outfielder that is capable of starting any time in the next 2-3 years. Most likely, they’d try to get pitching for him.

        Yes, once you deal away your established MLB starters, if you have any interest in competing you need to find replacements that can play at an above average level. Eventually. I don’t think it’ll matter for the 2014 season, but for 2015 and beyond we basically have 3 vacant OF positions that we are hoping to fill with iffy prospects and reclamation projects. Safe bet that they won’t all work out; pretty decent chance that none will work out at the level of being a legit starting caliber OF on a contending team.

  • Rizzo44

    What about a deal Schierholz and Shark to the Braves for Heyward and Alex Wood or Lucas Sims? That would be a pretty fair deal for both sides. Atlanta now needs pitching and the Cubs need an answer in RF long term. The Braves won’t be able to sign Heyward in my mind after this 2 year contract is up. Just an idea. Put Barney in to help with second base and I think it’s a nice deal.

    • Brocktoon

      That doesn’t get Heyward alone.

    • Chad

      I suggested Shark and Schierholtz for Heyward alone yesterday and was told that was not enough for Heyward, so unless you throw something else in (Russel and do they need/want Lake?) you may not be able to get Heyward, let alone a prospect on top of it I guess. But who thought we could get what we got for Garza???

      Also, Atlanta is now said to be in on Santana even though he said he doesn’t want to go the NL

      • baldtaxguy

        I think that scenario is a lot doable than what you were told.

        • Chad

          I do too and I think it is a deal the cubs do in a heartbeat.

          • DocPeterWimsey

            Well, it is one or the other: if Team A will do the trade in a heartbeat, then Team B is getting jobbed and the trade is doable only if it involves players that don’t grunt incoherently enough for Kevin Towers’, I mean, Team B’s tastes.

            • Chad

              Not necessarily. Just because I’m not a huge fan of Shark and would like to see him get traded doesn’t mean the trade is not worth it to the Braves. It could be a good deal for both. Just because I think the cubs should do it doesn’t mean the cubs do either.

              • Chad

                Ex. I really liked the Garza trade when the cubs got him from the rays. I don’t think either team got jobbed there.

      • Edwin

        I just don’t see how Atlanta comes out ahead on that trade. They’d be robbing Peter to pay Paul. How does that trade make Atlanta better in either the short term or long term?

        • Chad

          Schierholtz can play serviceable RF for the Braves and Samardzija is likely better than any other internal option they could get right now. Long term Heyward only has 2 years left on his deal and is likely going to be more expensive than Samardzija to extend. I’m not saying it is a perfect trade, but no trade is perfectly equal for both sides.Just has to be close and I think this gets relatively close. Not saying it will happen by any means, but I think it is a better deal than most give it credit.

  • Jason P

    I think if Atlanta was balking at Samardzija for Heyward straight up, then they’d *really* balk at that and basically Schierholtz for Sims.

  • Jason P

    The Marlins have to make Stanton available at some point, right? I can’t imagine Loria’s going to pony up the cash to sign him long term, and he’s only under control for 2 more years. Even if he did, there would seem to be a good chance Stanton doesn’t want to stay in Miami anyway.

    I would love to use some of our farm system depth to get him into a Cubs uniform.

    • Rebuilding

      They are…the problem is the Red Sox are going to get him. Why? Because we are just getting our first wave of talent. The guys we drool over they already have on the ML roster. They have a 2nd wave and a 3rd wave. So when we talk about trading Almora, Soler, Vogelbach or Edwards/Johnson? it’s a kick in the gut. They can trade Cecchini, Owens, Swihart, Betts, Barnes, Renaudo and on and on and no one even notices

      • Jason P

        A top-30 prospect and 2 top-50’s seems excessive to me, even for a guy like Stanton. I was thinking more along the lines of Almora, Edwards, and Candelario or something like that.

        The Red Sox could certainly put together a worthwhile package, but so can we. We may be only getting our first wave of talent, but Stanton’s young enough to be part of that first wave. If it would take the package of prospects you outlined, then I would agree we have too many holes to invest that much into one player. However, with the one I laid out (plus maybe a few more complementary pieces like Villanueva or Blackburn) getting a proven star like Stanton would be a win.

        • http://deepcenterfield.mlblogs.com/ Jason Powers

          Giancarlo would be nice. Miami will part with him for only a monstrous haul of prospects…whenever the trade deadline ups the need. He’s still cheap in 2014. No rush yet. The price will stay high…dude’s barely 24. And when he’s traded, the extension will have to come…from someone. Else it would be a waste of prospects. But, he’s actually a good FA target come 2017, if for some mystery he’s not extended, and still is good.

          Don’t we all wish Mike Trout was available well before 2018. Damn Angels had back to back picks…Cubs drafted 31st in 2009 Brett Jackson. 6 lousy spots. Imagine what that would have done to “the plan.”

          • ssckelley

            Had the Cubs gotten Trout they very well could be in baseball hell right now. Mike Trout alone could not have fixed this team, only made them slightly better. So in 2012 you win 71 games instead of 61, definitely do not get Bryant, last season you win 76 instead of 66 and might not have traded Garza. I doubt Trout would have made this years team a playoff team.

            Being good enough to win but not good enough to win the World Series or even make the playoffs is not a great place to be.

            • Jason P

              I don’t think baseball hell really exists for large market teams. If the Cubs had Trout, I think they’d be a .500 team on paper this year (they were slightly better than a 66-win team last year, but underachieved), and if that were the case, I think there would have been a lot more urgency to spend this offseason for 5 extra wins.

              Also, unlike basketball, you can land elite prospects at places other than the very top of the draft. It may be slightly tougher if you’re picking 10th and not 3rd every year, but it’s still very doable to build an elite farm system.

              • ssckelley

                But are the Cubs really a large market team right now? I know Chicago is the 3rd largest market (which they share with another team) but with the current TV contract they have, the stadium renovations they are trying to get done, I get the impression they cannot spend like a large market team.

                Otherwise I completely agree with you, if you have the money and a very good scouting system a large market team should never be in this predicament. Teams like the Dodgers and Yankees can spend a ton of money and yet still maintain a fairly good farm system.

                • Brocktoon

                  5th highest revenues in baseball

                • Jason P

                  If they had a .500 team on paper last year and going into this year, they’d probably have the revenue streams to spend more like a large market team.

            • Kyle

              There is absolutely no such thing as baseball hell.

              • http://www.friendly-confines.com hansman

                Tell that to Brewers/White Sox/Indians/Rockies/Astros fans.

                The Cubs were in it during the 70’s and 2011…

                • Kyle

                  OK. Fair enough. Having a terrible team is baseball hell. There’s no such thing as “too good to get meaningfully better” baseball hell.

                  And if the Cubs are out of baseball hell now, then there’s no way the Astros can be considered in it.

                • Jason P

                  If baseball hell is defined as “good enough to win but not good enough to win the World Series or even make the playoffs”, then the Astros are certainly not in it.

                  The Indians made the playoffs last year. The Rockies have a top-10 farm system. The White Sox pick 3rd this year, so it’s not like they’ve been good enough to avoid the top of the draft.

                  The Brewers are possibly, but their problem isn’t so much that they’re a .500 true talent level team, it’s that they’re a .500 true talent level team whom their front office thinks they can fix with a new Kyle Lohse every year.

              • ssckelley

                What I mean by that is you’re just good enough to win games but not good enough to win the World Series. The last place this FO would have want to been the past 2 years was a team ~.500. Being an average team your not usually sellers at the TD, your drafting in the middle, and getting middle-of-the-road IFA dollars. Basically you are just spinning your wheels.

                I’ve heard people use this term to describe the Bulls. They are good enough to make the playoffs but have no chance at knocking off either the Heat or the Pacers to win the championship. This years draft is supposed to be deep and I think Paxson tried dump this season to improve their draft position and the team refused.

                • Kyle

                  I know exactly what you mean. It’s a terrible idea that doesn’t exist in the real world of MLB.

                  It exists in the NBA because you pretty much *cannot* win in the NBA without a top-5 player, and you can’t get a top-5 player in the NBA outside of the top of the draft.

                  Neither of those things is true in MLB, and thus it isn’t applicable.

                  • ssckelley

                    But if the past couple of years they had a guy like Trout look at the amount of prospects they would not have acquired. I doubt they trade Dempster 2 years ago and I doubt Soriano and Garza get traded last year. Most of the reason why the future looks so bright for this team is because of how good and deep this farm system is. I don’t want to root for a .500 Cubs team, or a team that reaches the playoffs 1 out of 5 years. Playoffs every year with at least a shot at winning the World Series year in and year out.

                    • Jon

                      I never thought I would see the day where someone actually argue that possessing Mike Trout might have some negatives attached.

                      Some of you prospect smeagles crack me up.

                    • Kyle

                      You might want to just walk away for awhile. Take a job around the block or something.

                      You are arguing that if the Cubs had received a 10-win pre-arb player for free at the end of 2011, they’d be worse off.

                    • Kyle

                      “But if the past couple of years they had a guy like Trout look at the amount of prospects they would not have acquired. ”

                      The fact that you think this is a bad thing is the best example of overvaluing prospects that I’ve seen yet.

                    • Kyle

                      “Playoffs every year with at least a shot at winning the World Series year in and year out.”

                      Your idea of what needs to happen for this to happen is skewed.

                      The Cardinals have not drafted in the top 10 since 1998.

                      The Yankees have made the playoffs 17 of the last 19 years and haven’t had a top-10 pick since 1992.

                      The Red Sox last year made their first top-10 pick since 1993.

                    • ssckelley

                      Well Jon and Kyle your replies to me are not surprising. This all boils down to either you agree with the FO’s plan or you don’t. Neither of you agreed with the way the FO went about rebuilding this farm system. If adding a 10 win player is all the Cubs needed the past 2 season to win a World Series then, hell yes I want him. I believe it would not have been enough and that this organization would be in a completely different place right now. I look at where the Angels are right now with Trout and I’m not sure if that is where I want the Cubs to be.

                      Don’t get your panties all in a bunch. It is ok for us to have a different opinions.

                    • ssckelley

                      Yes Kyle, the Cardinals, Yankees, and the Red Sox are all doing it right and I hope that is where the Cubs are heading. I am hopeful that once this FO gets the Cubs contending that they will be able to keep refueling the farm system to keep the team winning consistently.

                      Thanks for bringing up the Cardinals, I wanted to bring them up earlier but I throw up in my mouth every time someone tells me how great they are.

                    • Brocktoon

                      It’s ok to have differences of opinion. It’s not ok to say having mike trout would leave the franchise in a worse position than not having him would. Do you think the angels are kicking themselves for not trading him away 2 years ago?

                    • Kyle

                      ” This all boils down to either you agree with the FO’s plan or you don’t”

                      No, it doesn’t. This has to do with whether anyone agrees with your rather absurd assertion that a free Mike Trout would have been a bad thing for the Cubs.

                      That has nothing to do with the front office’s place.

                      “Yes Kyle, the Cardinals, Yankees, and the Red Sox are all doing it right ”

                      So your argument is that without top picks and deep losing, you end up in baseball hell, but all these teams that never need top picks or deep losing are “doing it right”?

                      You don’t seem to know what you are actually saying.

                    • ssckelley

                      Wow, I have set off some fireworks! I simply presented a different angle to a comment, I wasn’t expecting a pile on. :D

                      No, the Angels are not kicking themselves for not trading Trout. But they are probably kicking themselves for the moves they have made in an attempt to build around Trout. They have spent a crap load of money, will have to spend another crap load to extend him and they are a team that was 12 wins better than the Cubs last year. I won’t deny that the Angels will probably win more games than the Cubs this season but from top to bottom which organization is better going forward?

                    • ssckelley

                      Kyle it has everything to do with if you agree with the FO plan to rebuild this organization. If the Cubs had Trout this organization would look completely different because now you are forced to build around him. Look at the Angels now, they won 12 more games than the Cubs last year with him.

                      Evidently you are not reading, or understanding, what I am saying. If having a guy like Trout would have given the Cubs a chance to win the WS the past 2 years then HELL YES I would want him. I would love for the Cubs to acquire him. But I do not believe Trout alone would have even made the Cubs a playoff team the past 2 years. So now you are forced to spend a crap load of money and hang on to players you would have traded to build around the guy because you still have a shitty farm system.

                    • Kyle

                      “Wow, I have set off some fireworks! I simply presented a different angle to a comment, I wasn’t expecting a pile on. :D”

                      Your opinion on this subject is literally the worst opinion I have read about baseball in almost 20 years on the internet.

                      The Angels’ organization vs. the Cubs’ organization is moving the goalposts (and probably closer than you think). We’re not talking about that. We’re talking about the actual Cubs vs. a hypothetical Cubs with Mike Trout beginning in 2012.

                    • Kyle

                      ” If the Cubs had Trout this organization would look completely different because now you are forced to build around him. ”

                      It’s about your skewed vision of what the front office thinks and not what they actually think.

                      I guarantee you they’d have seriously considered cutting off their right arms to get Trout pre-2012 had they known what he would turn into.

                      “Evidently you are not reading, or understanding, what I am saying.”

                      I think the problem is that you aren’t thinking about what you are saying.

                      ” So now you are forced to spend a crap load of money and hang on to players you would have traded to build around the guy because you still have a shitty farm system.”

                      Then you must not be very good at scouting and development, because there’d be no reason to have a shitty farm system. You’d still have Baez, you’d still have Almora, you’d still have half the rest of the top-10. You’d have a lower-first-round pick instead of Bryant, and you’d be missing CJ Edwards, but that’s about it.

                    • ssckelley

                      I am not moving the goal post, looking at the success the Angels have had with Trout along with the moves they made is the only way to compare the 2 situations. The Angels have a crappy farm system, had to make a bunch of moves to build around Trout, and now have a crap load of money invested in a team that could not even win 1/2 their games last season.

                      “Your opinion on this subject is literally the worst opinion I have read about baseball in almost 20 years on the internet.”

                      Woo Hoo!!!! I guess I will always have that. But I am not looking for your approval here big boy. ;)

                    • Jason P

                      The whole point of a rebuild is to acquire guys like Mike Trout. Even if their farm system would’ve been slightly worse, their organizational young talent level right now would be miles higher.

                      ML Cubs + Mike Trout + top-10 farm system >>> ML Cubs + No Mike Trout + top-5 farm system. It’s as simple as that.

                  • bnile1

                    Am I missing something. Why would they have had to make any different moves?? All they have done the last few years is clear older declining veterans and expiring contracts, and bring in a few flip candidates. Trout or no trout, that would still have been the right thing to do. The only thing I can see is that they might have had felt they were a little closer to competing this year. Heck if they were “worried” about having him on the roster, just think about the trade possibilities.

            • Jon

              WTF? This isn’t basketball? There is no baseball hell.

              • nick5253

                Correct. Here in Minnesota – the Twolves were in basketball hell forever during the Garnett years. Consistent 8th seed in the playoffs, out in the first round…. Never improved.

                The Twins had a similar run of making the playoffs and always getting bounced early, especially by the Yankees, but I pin that on a cheap owner who would never add FA pieces on top of a fantastic young core (Mauer, Morneau, Hunter, Santana, Garza, etc).

                • Kyle

                  In baseball, making the playoffs and getting bounced early frequently is just a function of bad luck. It’s a much higher-variance sport than basketball.

                • Brocktoon

                  And look how much better the twolves turned out after trading kg.

                  (Yeah I know a lot of that is the wrath of Kahn)

            • Brocktoon

              This has gotta be an all time Stockholm syndrome record. Thank God we don’t have trout.

              • Kyle

                The best player in baseball, inner-circle HOF mortal lock if he doesn’t get hurt, for all six years of service time. Sure glad we dodged *that* bullet.

                Gosh, I hope Baez doesn’t become a 10-win player too. That’d suck.

                • Edwin

                  I just hope Baez doesn’t become too good too fast and ruin our chances at drafting a player like Baez.

                • Jon

                  If Baez sucks that means we will be a horrible team and can draft more top prospects like him and maybe one of them will become what we want him to be!

                • ssckelley

                  Damn, now you are just acting like a jerk. I mean seriously, come on, I simply presented a different angle to how getting Trout in the 2009 draft may not have been ideal for the past 2 years and you get your panties in a wad over it. The Angels are a third place team in a tough division with him.

                  I will say this for the THIRD time, if Trout would have given the Cubs a chance at winning the World Series the past 2 years then sign me up! For the record I would love to have Trout on this team going forward.

                  • Kyle

                    You can say it as many times as you like. It’ll still be a terrible opinion.

                  • Orval Overall

                    Mike Trout is still just 22 years old and is by leaps and bounds the best player in all of baseball. Any scenario in which you think it’s better to have a team without Mike Trout than with Mike Trout is almost certainly a reflection of placing way too much value on prospects.

                    I mean, there’s a reason he’s called a generational talent. We don’t have another such player in our system; no one does.

                    • ssckelley

                      I do not deny that Trout would have made the Cubs better. My only question is would he have given the Cubs a chance at winning the World Series the past 2 seasons? If the answer is yes then heck yeah bring him on, if the answer is no then questioned if this organization would be as good from top to bottom.

                    • Kyle

                      It was a terrible question.

                      Even without a World Series, the organization is of course is massively better shape with Mike Trout than they are with a pile of prospects.

                    • Orval Overall

                      It would not have won them the World Series the last two years, then again neither did Baez, Bryant and Almora. Going forward, I would trade Baez, Bryant and Almora for Mike Trout and I wouldn’t even give it a moment’s hesitation. The Cubs are much more likely to win a World Series in the next 10 years with Trout plus whoever they can assemble around him from this point forward, than they are to do so without Mike Trout and everyone currently in the system.

            • http://deepcenterfield.mlblogs.com/ Jason Powers

              Boy, I missed out on the convo here. Never knew Mike Trout would be such a touchstone.

        • Chad

          I don’t think that is likely enough to get it done. I also don’t know if Stanton is the long term answer. His knees and young 20s are giving him problems. That doesn’t suggest long term durability. Do you want to trade away a bunch of prospects for that risk? Also, I don’t see anyway this FO trades their first pick ever as a Cub FO Almora. The only way that happens if someone like Alcantara can come in and play GG CF and hit to match.

          • Jason P

            It makes me wish the NL had the DH so we could stick him there if his knee problems worsen.

            The injuries are a significant concern, but it’d be a risk I think the Cubs should be willing to take so long as they only have to give up 1 of the big-4. Stanton is a special talent when healthy.

            • Chad

              The one that would make the most sense from the cub’s standpoint would be Soler. If Bryant moves to LF like most of us envision then Stanton would go to RF and where would Soler play. I think his contract is probably an issue for the Marlins even though it is very modest for a guy like Soler. Will Stanton even want to be extended or will he want to test FA? Could be very risky to trade for him unless you know you can extend him. I don’t see the cubs being in this type of trade market quite yet. I would see them more prepared to trade for SP in a year, maybe.

          • Noah_I

            I don’t think there is anyone the Cubs wouldn’t trade if the right deal comes along, and I think Almora, Edwards and Candelario could be very close to getting a deal done IF Almora stays healthy and excels in High A (which means he’d move up to Double A mid-season), Edwards starts quieting some of the doubters on whether he can hold up to a starter’s workload, and Candelario looks like he has a good chance of staying at 3B. You likely need one more piece there. Maybe an Amaya or Vogelbach type.

            With that said, I don’t think the Cubs go that hard after Stanton unless Baez or Bryant fall off, and will instead look to make up for the weakness in their farm system (lack of top of the rotation starting pitching) through the draft.

          • Kyle

            The front office traded a *lot* of their top picks in Boston.

            • Brocktoon

              This FO was allowed to pay players in Boston too. If payroll is stagnant, sadly I’m not sure trading prospects for guys approaching FA is that smart a play

          • C. Steadman

            i agree the Cubs will probably never trade Almora, at least if they dont have to…everything I hear about him marks him as a future captain of a team and the makings of a work-your-tail-off outfielder…he’s a born leader and has “plus makeup” according to many scouts. He’s as low risk prospect as you can get among High A/AA/whereever-he-starts prospects

      • Jason P

        Not to mention the Marlins probably won’t even seriously consider trading him until next offseason, when we’ll have a better idea of where we are.

  • Diehardthefirst

    Keep Shark and trade Scherholtz and Russell for Porcello and contend this year

    • bbmoney

      Sure I’d love to do that.

      Can’t imagine the Tigers need an outfielder that badly though.

      • DocPeterWimsey

        I find it less easy to imagine that the Cubs are a Rick Porcello away from contending: after all, Dirks is hurt, and other injuries will happen.

    • C. Steadman

      “Ha!” *click* -Dombrowski

  • Diehardthefirst

    Then Barney and Russell since neither figure in long term plans

    • bbmoney

      I’m quite sure they don’t need a second basemen that badly either now that they have Kinsler. Porcello is pretty good and I wouldn’t be surprised if his mainstream stats get better this year now that they don’t have Cabrera at 3b (although Castellanos might be an adventure) and have a really, really good defensive SS.

      The bigger issue with them trading Porcello right now, is that they don’t really have a starter ready to take Porcello’s place. Smyly was that guy last year, but now he’s already in the rotation since they gave (err…traded) Fister away. They also picked up a LHRP in that trade.

    • Voice of Reason

      Are you sure you don’t want verlander? I mean we giving them a gold glove second baseman and a solid middle reliever.

      • gocatsgo2003

        Can’t tell if serious…

  • Darth Ivy

    Just FYI: those redirecting ads when you go to a website are extremely annoying and will definitely limit the amount of time I visit this website. The reason I visit this site multiple times a day is to really quickly check to see if there’s either a new article and or any new comments that are interesting (maybe even more of the latter). But if the redirecting ad thing is at all common, I simply won’t have time to visit BN as a casual, quick check-in.

    Again, that was just an FYI. I’m all for getting as much revenue out of this site as you can, Bett. And since I like this site so much, and really appreciate your involvment in it, I figured to let you know about this.

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      I don’t know what ads you’re referring to – I am not in favor of anything that redirects folks from the site, so I’ll gladly look into it with a little more information. I need to know things like what the redirect is taking you to, what browser you’re using, is it mobile or desktop, etc. The more information you can provide the better chance I have of rooting out the offending ad. Unfortunately, I do the best I can, but it’s not entirely within my control (unless I have no ads at all, which … can’t do that).

      Believe me: I hate annoying ads for you guys as much as you do. It’s not in my interest to annoy readers.

      • Darth Ivy

        It didn’t happen just now. But when I initially opened BN earlier, there was one of those ads that takes up the entire browser like it’s the entire webpage. A video started playing and on the top right of the page it said something like, “You can skip this ad in [countdown]” then something like, “click here to continue on to the website.”

        I hope I’m not being annoying about this. It just seemed like a big change that might affect/effect user engagement.

      • Darth Ivy

        I’m using explorer on vista. Desktop PC. I don’t remember what the ad was, I never actually watch them.

      • Darth Ivy

        maybe microsoft is selling these ads to pop at random times? I mean, if you didn’t sell the ad, then I guess I’m just wasting your time. This was the third time I opened BN and it didn’t happen again. Now I feel like I’m making too big of a deal out of this. So, how ’bout that local sports team….

  • Pingback: Old Style Stays at Wrigley Field and Other Bullets | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

  • Ballgame17

    Do you have an iPhone? I’ve been having the same issues that I had about a month ago. It’s a cellphone glitch that re-routes you to buy “Candy Crush”. It’s annoying as hell, but it’s not Brett’s or BN’s fault. Just thought I’d let you know because “forced” marketing drives me nuts too

    • Darth Ivy

      I’m on a PC right now, but it sounds like the same thing. It just seems like I only get those ads at certain websites, not being a random thing. But things change, especially in the technological world. I guess that’s what it was though.

  • Ballgame17

    If it’s on your PC you may have to uninstall a few telemarketing programs that get installed on your comp when u download something else. Go to Start menu and go to “control panel”. Then “uninstall program”. Check to see if any unwanted programs have been recently downloaded. I also just had to do this and it fixed the prob..

    • Darth Ivy

      thanks!

  • Ballgame17

    No prob, it’s beyond frustrating so hopefully this helps..

  • Pingback: Lukewarm Stove: Pitching Injuries, Iglesias, Barney, Samardzija | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

  • Pingback: Lukewarm Stove: Tigers Coming After Nate Schierholtz and Darwin Barney? | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary()

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+