Quantcast

jeff samardzija gatorade shower[I've got to put it up front that I don't see the Diamondbacks (depth), A's (depth), or Braves (just signed Ervin Santana) suddenly allowing themselves to be put over a barrel by the Cubs because they've suffered some injury problems. For that reason, I really don't think it's likely that either team meets the Cubs' persistently high asking price on starter Jeff Samardzija, whom the Cubs could just as easily hold until the Trade Deadline or next offseason. I also think the pressure to get an over-the-moon return on a guy like Samardzija would be particularly high just before the season starts. No, business and clubhouse attitudes don't drive baseball transactions, but they float there at the periphery of these kinds of decisions. Trading Samardzija now for anything short of a return that leaves fans sockless for months could be ugly.]

Ok. Preamble over. On with the reports.

Bruce Levine reports that, in the wake of Patrick Corbin’s UCL injury, the Arizona Diamondbacks will once again take a serious look at Jeff Samardzija as a possible trade target. As Levine notes, however, actually making a trade with the Cubs would be difficult without the inclusion of top pitching prospect Archie Bradley, and I still don’t see that swap happening. Indeed, the Diamondbacks could just as easily fill the Corbin void with a combination of Randall Delgado and Bradley, himself. Yes, Samardzija is more of a sure thing than Bradley (and has more upside than Delgado), but he’s under contract for only two years. Bradley could be an ace for the Diamondbacks for the better part of six years if they play their cards right.

If the Diamondbacks are set on acquiring Samardzija, but also set on keeping Bradley, it’s conceivable they could try and use some of their infield depth/prospect surplus to swing a three-team trade, but those are rare for a reason.

Nick Cafardo reports that the Braves, who’ve lost Kris Medlen and (probably) Brandon Beachy to Tommy John surgery, could come after Samardzija (though they’ve publicly said that they’re done making external moves after adding Ervin Santana). Cafardo says there is “buzz” in scouting circles that the Braves might be interested in Samardzija, which is something we knew to be true back in December. You could argue that the Braves had a need for Samardzija even before the injuries (and, thus, the Santana signing shouldn’t foreclose that), so I suppose I could see something here. I’m not sure if the Braves have room in the budget for Samardzija, though, modest as his salary may be.

Finally, I didn’t hear the particulars, but there’s an MLBN Radio report (caught by BN’er Spoda) making the rounds that the A’s, who lost Jarrod Parker to Tommy John surgery, and may also lose A.J. Griffin for a period of time, have reached out to the Cubs about Samardzija. We’ll wait for something a little more solid to dig into this one too deeply, but be advised, I suppose, that it’s floating out there.

  • waittilthisyear

    anyone think there is any chance the dbacks part with Bradley? smart money is on “no,” but their front office has gifted a couple pretty decent, or likely to become pretty decent, players the last couple years. any other dback needs we could fill by packaging someone else along with shark?

    • VittersStartingLF

      How about Shark and Lake for Bradley?

      • Edwin

        Milton Bradley?

      • rabbit

        lake is utility player at best…doubt that interests a club that has position player depth already

  • Jon

    Braves don’t have the prospects either. Lucas Sims doesn’t get it done. They can “rob peter, to pay paul” so to speak and give us Heyward + prospects for Shark. I realize with Heyward we would have the same control issues, but I would love to get that bat in hand then work on a contract extension.

    • Kyle

      Mother of god.

      Heyward is younger than Samardzija, and in three of his four seasons he’s put up a better fWAR than Samardzija’s career high, including one season twice Samardzija’s career high.

      Samardzija+Baez might be a starting point for Heyward.

      • Jon

        And like Shark, he’s probably gone in two years. You know what we call that…”A common denominator”

      • markdwalton

        I would hope we wouldn’t even offer that!

  • WGNstatic

    While Shark for Bradley does seem exceedingly unlikely, what if the Cubs were to include one of their own upper level prospects in such a swap? What if it was Shark+Soler for Bradley+________? That is a lot of talent to be moving in a single deal, but it seems like it might be more reasonable for both sides.

    • David

      I’d include Solar with Shark.

      • JakeMac

        Will be hard “including” Soler in any deal. Don’t forget he already has a major-league contract (30 mil over 9 years, I believe). I don’t know many teams who would be willing to add somewhere near 8 mil in additional payroll at this point in the spring.

        • David

          How ’bout Almora and Shark. I’d be quite tempted…. shoot, I’d do it. Especially with Olt coming along nicely. Baez to 2nd, then Alcantara to center.

        • WGNstatic

          Good point on Soler. Could be a Vogelbach, Alcantara, Villenueva, etc.

  • Edwin

    I wish the Cubs could trade for AJ Griffin just to be able to watch his curveball occationally.

    • cubbiehawkeye

      I miss the Sean Marshall Curveball

      • Diehardthefirst

        You raise a good point- the emphasis on sliders and cut fastballs could be the source for so many injuries- his slow curve didn’t impact the arm as much- another fix could be the Japanese 6 man rotation – This would be a worthwhile experiment with teams like the Cubs who have no Ace but rather a rotation of 3 and 5 pitchers basically- Theo could do MLB a service by trying this rotation for 3 months and see if pitchers are more effective with less injury

  • SenorGato

    I think a Samardzija trade at this point would involve more than two teams. I’m probably just saying it to say it.

    • Jon

      Neither of these three teams are a good match for a trade. (unless Atlanta wants to give up a big league outfielder). I actually think, Oakland could sell at the deadline, depending on circumstance.

  • Beerhere

    I’ve said it on other forums and I’ll say it here as well. Bruce Levine has no idea what he is talking about. He has no inside contacts and he often has much less information than the average poster on this site or others.

  • MightyBear

    Who do the A’s have that could make that deal? I don’t like the idea of trading with Billy Beane.

    • Jon

      Ynoa?

      • MightyBear

        Would that be enough? Seems like Theo would want more.

        • Jon

          Agree.

          Ynoa is a real wildcard. Amazing stuff but still getting back from TJS. I don’t think the A’s are good match and like others said, I am terrified of dealing with Beane.

  • itzscott

    Let’s look at it this way…. The DBacks want to win this year.

    Bradley sports a 4.32 ERA this spring and hitters are batting .250 against him

    Delgado sports a 5.56 ERA this spring and hitters are batting .292 against him

    Both are unproven at the major league level and wouldn’t give any GM confidence in their ability to step in to beat the Dodgers or Giants for a playoff spot.

    So why wouldn’t they include Bradley in a deal for Samardzjia??

    • Edwin

      Spring stats are basically meaningless. Bradley is considered by scouts and prospect evaluators to be a very good pitching prospect. I’m guessing that’s why they wouldn’t include Bradley in a deal for Samardzija, at least not unless the Cubs are adding something more to their side.

      • itzscott

        Meaningless? Maybe, maybe not as much as you’d think.

        DBacks want to win this year….. Bradley might not be ready this year or ever.

        Samardzjia’s more of a sure thing than Bradley is at this point.

        • mjhurdle

          That is the unknown. How much are the DBacks into winning ‘this year’?
          for 2014, Shark would probably be more valuable to the DBacks winning.
          for 2014-2020, Bradley is obviously the more valuable piece.
          If for some reason Towers is hell bent on winning in 2014, that might create enough leverage to pull Bradley away.
          I don’t think it is likely, but teams have made bad looking deals before when they are ‘all-in’ on a year.

    • Jon

      So why wouldn’t they include Bradley in a deal for Samardzjia??

      It doesn’t make sense, but…Kevin Towers…..

    • Blackhawks1963

      Archie Bradley is an elite level pitching prospect. Good grief get a dose of perspective.

  • Spoda17

    I tend to agree, I really don’t think any of these teams have a realistic package to put together for Samarzija. No chance the D’Backs are going to give of Bradley unless we throw in a really good sweetener… but still don’t see it.

    I also think this is a good warning for the draft… young pitchers are so fragile nowadays that I would take the best positional player with our first pick, and then load up on pitchers rounds 2-to the end (all things being equal). I think it’s too risky to commit long term until you see a pitcher pitch a few years like Kershaw or Grenkie… Scherzer… or dare I say… Samardzija…

  • Isaac

    Please, please, please don’t trade Shark to the A’s. It doesn’t seem possible for that to work out well.

  • candyland07

    Samardzija….. To trade or not to trade? Does it matter? Who replaces Shark in the rotation? Does it even matter with a team that strives for last place finishes?

    If the Cubs are overwhelmed to trade shark they will pull the trigger. The Cubs opportunity of winning ball games is not important in the near future.

    Samardzija.is not a dumb player . he know he has talent . He know he will be paid and he knows the contract he signs will be his decision.

    I also feel, if the Cubs trade Shark they will get return value for him and the sooner they trade him the more value they should get for him.

    But trading Shark for prospects is a repeated cycle the Cubs are not ready to compete or even give a notion of being a major league baseball team. this year or the next.

    Samardzija.is a talented Cub player, he is not an elite pitcher. he is a great number 3 . he is not bad if he is a number 2 but to be an ace on a staff – well its down right embarrassing if shark is your ace. And only aces should get what the Cubs want for him. but if the Cubs can get anything close to what the Cubs got for Garza – hats off to the front office. Shark can play for two years on any given team he is traded too – which is why the asking price is steep and should be steep. but its not because shark is an elite player.

    • Jon

      - The Cubs should get double for Shark what they got for Garza

      – Given the events of the past few days, I really think durability is still undervalued when it comes to pitchers. Shark may never be a #1, but his medical record is spotless, and because of his limited use early in his career, his arm, in theory is probably a few years younger than traditional players his age.

    • DocPeterWimsey

      But, again, if Shark’s performance over the last 2 seasons has been one of the Top 20 among MLB starters. There simply are not as many clearly superior pitchers out there as people believe: there are (if I remember) 4 teams who have 2 or more pitchers that have out-performed Shark in the last two seasons.

  • YourResidentJag

    I’m beginning to see that Shark won’t be traded this year at all. It will be next year as a rental player like Garza and unfortunately he, along with a core of Baez, Rizzo, Castro, Olt(maybe), EJax, and others, will contribute to teams over the next two yrs that do nothing more than win, say, 83 games at best.

  • CCunt

    Why does everyone always assume that we would have to trade Samardzija for pitching prospects?

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

      That is certainly an interesting username.

      • Jon

        It’s in honor of Beth Murphy

        • Edwin

          See, I find a joke like that to be in bad taste. That’s just not a nice or respectful thing to call someone, even if you’re not calling them that directly.

          • Jon

            It kind of just popped in my head, like the Stay Puft Marsh mellow man.

          • Brocktoon

            I thought it was hilarious

      • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

        CC’s handle is something of an inside joke in the olden days of the Cubs-related web.

        Wonder if might not object to going back to his original CC name, though …

        • CCunt

          I’ll do you anything for you Brett, anything.

          • aaronb

            Will you do that?

            [img]http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Meatloaf-meatloaf-873204_1024_768.jpg[/img]

            • CC

              But I won’t do that

          • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

            Thanks, CC. Your username is still the same (for login purposes), but it’ll now display as CC. :)

  • Blackhawks1963

    The Samardzia trade rumors never end. Sigh.

    Arizona? Not going to happen because they are not going to trade the only thing we would be interested in, namely ARCHIE BRADLEY.

    Atlanta? I don’t see the frontline pitching prospects.

    Oakland? I don’t see the frontline pitching prospects.

    We now take you back to your regularly scheduled programming…

    • Jon

      Heyward, Heyward, Heyward. It makes too much sense.

      They aren’t going to retain Heyward, not with the arb games they have been playing with him. Cubs can get him and a leg up on negotiating his extension.

      • Blackhawks1963

        Except that I don’t want Jason Heyward. He’s an enigma…reminds me way too much of Delmon Young. And MOST importantly, the Cubs need PITCHING in return for Samardzija.

        I’m of the opinion that Samardzija isn’t going anywhere. Now, mid-season or next offseason.

        • CCunt

          “And MOST importantly, the Cubs need PITCHING in return for Samardzija.”

          Well like, that’s just your opinion man.

        • Edwin

          Yeah, but Delmon Young has never come close to being as good as Heyward has been. So far, Heyward has had 3 seasons with a 120 wRC+ or higher, and one with a wR+ of 96. He’s also been a great fielder and baserunner, and he turns 25 in August. He had a 6 WAR season in 2012, and last year he still put up 3.4 WAR in only 440 PA. He’s projected between 3.6 and 5.9 WAR for next season. I’d love Jason Heyward, I just don’t see how the Braves part ways for him unless they’re getting back a haul in return.

          • DocPeterWimsey

            Delmon Young was one of the last players who was supposed to grow a batting eye. That is the huge difference between him and players like Heyward: Young’s walk rate was less than 4.5% whereas Heyward’s has been over 11%. Heyward’s K-rate is only a bit higher (20.5 vs. 18%), so that’s not a huge issue.

            Indeed, to show how ludicrous the comparison is, just look at the isoD and isoP components of their career OPS: 0.091 vs. 0.034 (isoD) and 0.184 vs. 0.141 (isoP). So, Heyward gets on base a heck of a lot more often and he gets more bases when he hits the ball. (Heyward also has better speed, although this has not translated into better BABiP: DYoung beats him there 0.326 vs. 0.305 for careers; of course, DYoung also played in turf parks and at a time right before teams started to routinely use spray data.)

            So, this could be one of the worst comparisons ever made!

        • ssckelley

          Have you looked at the Cubs projected outfield lately? Heyward would be a welcome addition, the only question is if it would take more than just Samardzija to get him.

          • Jon

            Heyward would also block one of Soler, Almora, so you move them for pitching.

            • ssckelley

              Assuming both make it, you can fit both Soler and Almora in the 2015 and/or 2016 outfield.

              A young left handed bat with power, yes please!

              • aaronb

                I’d think 2016 is more realistic. Both guys are still in A ball.

          • Blackhawks1963

            TheoJed are not going to trade Samardzija with the headliner coming back a non-pitcher. I just don’t see it.

            • willis

              I agree that’s the case as we sit here right now. As it should be. But, I could see it come middle of the season or next offseason if some of the minor league guys take big steps forward this season. May feel there is enough pitching depth to take that gamble.

        • JCubs79

          Delmon Young is an awful comparison for Heyward. Heyward is entering his age 24 season with a career slash of .259/.352/.443. Not to mention he hasn’t even entered his prime yet. He would be a fantastic return for Shark. You get a close to prime, LH bat for the OF to go along with his fantastic make-up.

  • Jon

    Delmon young is a fucking insane comparison. His best year was a 1.6 WAR season in 2010.

    Conversely Heyward has produce a cumulative 16 Career WAR in his career and a 6.4 Win season.

    Delmon Young?

    • waittilthisyear

      alright, to show comity here, i agree jon boy! heyward and delmon young are different beasts, with heyward being a far more attractive, in both tangibles and intangibles, target. delmon young is a bum, heyward is damn good and could become great

  • Ed

    I’m sure someone has mentioned this but… I can see Darwin Barney traded to the tigers. He’s playing shortstop in spring training and the tigers are looking for a good glove SS to hit 9th in their order… Seems like an obvious fit.

    • Blackhawks1963

      Except that Barney has more value to the Cubs then the used infield rake he would bring back in trade.

      • aaronb

        What about the half empty can of simoniz?

      • brickhouse

        What value does arney bring to a last place team ? Maybe he becomes a utility infielder and not a starter.

  • Steve

    Preamble….

    I’ve always loved that word.

  • brickhouse

    Barney to Detroit seems like a fit if the Tigers wants a SS that can’t hit

    • http://fullcount1544.blogspot.com FullCountTommy

      Well considering their incumbent SS couldn’t hit, it doesn’t seem like they mind

  • On The Farm

    I feel like all this Samardjiza speculation is because the Cubs just named him their opening day starter, so they don’t want him to get too comfortable and keep him sharp.

    But being serious, I don’t see how any team get’s it done. They want Bradley type pitcher and that won’t happen at this point in the season, they wanted Stroman and Sanchez from the Jays and that is certainly more than the Braves have to offer. I also don’t see the A’s matching up particularly well.

  • Porkslap

    Can’t the Cubs just send cash along with Shark to a team like the Braves? Wouldn’t that sweeten the deal to a cash-strapped team? I don’t see how the Braves lack of available resources can have too big of an impact when the Cubs are easily able to help out on that end.

  • Ballgame17

    If the Cubs do deal Samardzija at any point this year, it’ll certainly be a bigger return than Garza. Stating the obvious, but Garza had all kinds of health questions and was merely a few month rental. If the Cubs deal him, it’s gonna be a haul.

    Would this be a ridiculous proposal?

    Cubs get:
    -Drew Smyly (24yo)
    -Rick Porcello (25yo)

    Tigers get:
    -Barney
    -Schierholtz
    -Shark

    • Darth Ivy

      Smyly is really underrated. It’ll be exciting to see what he can do as a starter. He’s another guy I’m targeting in the last rounds of my fantasy draft. To get Smyly and Porcello in return for those three would be pretty sweet. I’d smile about it

      • Darth Ivy

        shit, I meant, “I’d smyl about it”

  • Ballgame17

    I wouldn’t call this proposal a “haul” necessarily because it doesn’t involve prospects, but I think it’s intriguing to add 2 possible rotation pitchers, one of which (Smyly) has a chance to be a damn solid #2

  • Ballgame17

    It randomly came across my mind and who knows if FO i would prefer SP who can help in the very near future or a long-term prospect. If the Cubs could swing this, I could see them drafting Kolek for a “2nd wave” type pick if he’s the one left of the Top4 SP…Tigers could use all 3 of Barney, Schierholtz and Shark..

  • farmerjon

    What about Samardzija and Wood for Bradley and Corbin?

    • aaronb

      I was just thinking about Shark for Jarrod Parker + another good prospect.

      • Jon

        You are aware Jarrod Parker is having TJS surgery, like probably right now?

        • aaronb

          Yes, that is the only reason that Oakland would likely consider it.

          A healthy Parker is already a better pitcher than Shark. Also he has 4 years of control left. So you are basically trading 2014 of Samjay for the bet that Parker can help you 2015, 2016 and 2017.

          • Jon

            Four years of control, 1.5-2 years of that could be mired in recovery from the surgery. That is an insanely dumb idea.

            • Jon

              Also Jarrod Parket’s best year 2012 he posted a .5 WAR better than Shark 3.5 vs 3.0. Shark was a better pitcher last year. Shark has a significantly better K/9 innings and pitchers in a tougher hitters park. So no Parker isn’t better than Shark, he’s damanaged, and you want to deal him straight up for Shark.

              Holy shit, what a bad idea that is.

              • aaronb

                Parker is also pitching in the AL.

            • aaronb

              It’s along the same vein as the Wood and Samjay for Corbin and Bradley above.

              It’s trading a lesser healthy pitcher for a better injured pitcher who has more years of control.

              It’s certainly not unheard of. We traded 2 years of Paul Maholm control for an injured Vizcaino not so long ago.

              Jarrod Parker is a much better pitcher than Vizcaino.

              • farmerjon

                Not really in the same vein…

                • aaronb

                  Corbin is out for the year with TJS. That was what made me think of it.

      • http://BleacherNation blewett

        As long as we’re trading Shark for a TJS pitcher, let’s make it Matt Harvey!

  • rabbit

    With the lack of pitching depth in our system right now is it really that realistic to think we will be ready to compete with St. Louis and Pittsburgh by 2016. Unless we somehow both outspend the yankees, redsox, dodgers, etc. and convince one of the few available aces in free agency these next few years to come to a non competitive team, I don’t see how we can realistically say we will be competing for division titles in 2 years.

    • BWA

      Yes. We will have an extremely cheap and hopefully very skilled set of young position players so all of our money can be spent on FA pitching. Not to mention, the team should have some money to play around with after spending very little last year and this year.

    • BenRoethig

      At this point we look to have a serviceable bullpen and the young offensive players are who we thought they were, they could win with average starting pitching.

  • another JP

    I posted this morning that the Braves would be a good trading partner for Shark if they were willing to deal Lucas Sims. Since they also have a need at 2B, throwing Barney into the mix would make it really enticing to the Braves. It seems Bethancourt has a good chance to make a successful conversion to catcher and would be another prospect to target, along with some of their other lower level pitching prospects like Shae Simmons or Pfisterer. With the lineup the Braves have, adding a few wins and some good defense at 2B might just be what they need to overtake the Nats.

  • Diehardthefirst

    As I reported last week Terdoslavich is available and doesn’t have to be Shark- could be our # 3 or 4…

    • bbmoney

      You don’t take the word “reported” too seriously……do you?

      • Diehardthefirst

        Hayward would upset the Cubs chemistry and be an issue in the clubhouse- Cubs have enuf problems without adding a Prima Donna

        • Jon

          I know it’s you, but there is no such thing as clubhouse chemistry in baseball. It doesn’t exist.

          • http://www.teamfums.org MichiganGoat

            This comment is hilarious on so many levels.

            • Jon

              Explain to me the myth of clubhouse chemistry

              • DocPeterWimsey

                I think that Billy Martin said something to the effect that it was keeping the half of the team that hated you focused on hating each other more than they hated you, or something like that.

                (It is hard to believe that he’s been dead for a quarter of a century almost!)

              • http://www.teamfums.org MichiganGoat

                The myth is that some people believe there is a myth in the first place.

          • brainiac

            anyone who played baseball growing up or in college knows that it’s a tangible intangible. anyone who only knows baseball through fantasy sports or video games wouldn’t understand.

            • Drew7

              Fantasy sports…SMH

            • DocPeterWimsey

              And yet a lot of players dismiss the notion of chemistry, pointing out that you don’t have to like your teammates to win with them. A lot of teams with (in)famously bad chemistry such as the 1980’s Mets and Cards or the 1970’s Yanks and A’s were very successful despite being filled with people that didn’t like each other very much. Heck, Billy Martin was less a clubhouse cancer than a clubhouse ebola virus: but he managed a lot of winning teams! (Martin actually believed that animosity fueled better performance from players: but, then, animosity seems to be what fueled his entire existence, so perhaps it’s not surprising that he believed that.)

              • brainiac

                even bad chemistry is chemistry, that’s the secret, and why some managers make their own teams hate them instead of each other.

                • DocPeterWimsey

                  But this also makes it meaningless. You can make a 2X2 contingency table of teams with good chemistry vs. bad chemistry, and teams that were winners vs. teams that were losers. You’d fill up all four grids.

                  Thus, you are left picking and choosing when the good chemistry helped and when the bad chemistry hurt, or trying to assert that the right bad chemistry is good some times and that good chemistry is bad some times. In other words, it explains whatever you want after the fact: and that is no explanation at all.

                  Alternatively, you can just use Occam’s Razor, and attribute success to things that actually correlate with success.

              • mjhurdle

                I admire the logic here.
                Side 1 – Chemistry in baseball doesn’t matter
                Side 2 – yes it does
                Side 1 – but teams have hated each other and still had success
                Side 2 – Well ya…umm…..even bad chemistry is chemistry. Only fantasy, non-baseball playing nerds don’t believe in chemistry. Real players know.
                Side 1 – But players themselves say that they dont believe in “chemistry”.
                Side 2 – uhhh….well….even the absence of chemistry is still chemistry!

                • DocPeterWimsey

                  In all of these things, I think that it’s a correlation and causation problem. Here is a simple premise on which I hope everyone can agree: winning is more fun than losing. So, teams that are winning are going to tend to have guys that look like they are having fun: and we call that good chemistry.

                  Losing sucks: it’s not fun. So, teams that are losing are going to tend to have guys that don’t look like they are having fun: and we call that bad chemistry.

                  These correlations won’t be 100%: the 1970’s Yanks had fights on the bench in games that they were winning, and the early 1970’s Senators were all smiles as they lost 90+ games. However, they are general associations.

                  And that is where Occam’s Razor comes into play: just given human nature that applies to a lot more than baseball, we expect winning/losing to create behaviors that we label good/bad chemistry. Never multiply explanations without need: and we don’t need to add an explanation that the behavior caused by winning/losing causes it in turn.

              • cubs2003

                I do think chemistry plays a tiny part. Especially when it comes to signing free agents. I’m not saying teams should build a roster based on a personality test, but all other things equal I’d guess they don’t want to play under an asshole manager or be in the same clubhouse as Milton Bradley types for 162 games if they have the choice.

            • http://www.teamfums.org MichiganGoat

              Oh my little league thinking is not the same as professional sports, there is only one truth: Winning = a myth of positive chemistry and losing = a myth of negative chemistry. Either way you have a myth that we tell little leaguers so they play nice to each other but success and losing has nothing to do with people liking each other.

              • brainiac

                much worse is no chemistry, or the assumption that mere number crunching can replace human judgment, interaction, and momentum.

                • Drew7

                  Yeah! Stupid nerdz ruining baseball!

                • DocPeterWimsey

                  If there is no logic (what you call “number crunching”), then there is no proper judgement. As for interaction, how is it relevant? And as for momentum, the only momentum that counts is how much is transferred from bat to ball or throwing arm to ball.

                  You can glue horns on all of the horses that you want, but there will never be unicorns.

              • mjhurdle

                you forgot “confidence”.
                Winning = Chemistry + Confidence + Lineup protection
                Losting = no chemistry, no confidence, and no protection

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

              Is it possible to have a tangible intangible? Wouldn’t that just make it tangible?

          • Ballgame17

            Wow, this can’t be a serious comment. Have you never played a team sport? If you have, I feel really bad for whatever team(s) you played on…

            • Jon

              OMG dude, totally tell me about your team sport bonding experiences that are totally irrelevant to major league baseball.

              • ssckelley

                I once played on a CoEd bowling team with a blind guy. I got a plaque with my name on it, my mom has a pic of me holding it on her fridge.

  • bobdawg78

    I wonder if a Shark+Shierholtz for Heyward+mid tier pitching prospect, would get a deal done? I’m sure we couldn’t get Sims from them with Heyward, so a mid level pitching prospect or two would do. Heyward would give us a huge bat in RF, and possibly be our lead off hitter or number 2.

    The key to Heyward how ever, would be working out an extension as soon as possible, because he’s only signed through 2015. If no extension can be reached by the trading deadline of 2015, then he’d probably need to be moved for what ever we can get. Heyward isn’t blocking anyone in RF for the next 2 years, and if we can get him extended long term, all of a sudden Soler or Almora become expendable, because Heyward can play great D in both RF and CF.

  • Canadian Cubs Fan

    I am so fatigued by all the Shark trade talk. It’s not happening. Pure speculation by writers that have nothing to write about.

    Get back to me at the trade deadline.

  • The Real Wrigley

    And, I’m so very tired of hearing “he’s a front end of the rotation guy”…even the term “ace” has been tossed around. He got good stuff, but he’s far too inconsistent. Nobody is going to break the bank, or pillage their farm system in a trade for Shark. He’s a B/B- guy. Always has been. Always will be. I would go as far as to say that, his remaining 2 years of control are more attractive than his predicted results on the mound.

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+