We still talk about how bad the Texiera trade was... and this is exactly what happened then. It didn't work out as we hoped, but that was the thinking at the time.
Insane package for Chapman
- Thread starter Enscheff
- Start date
We still talk about how bad the Texiera trade was... and this is exactly what happened then. It didn't work out as we hoped, but that was the thinking at the time.
No, they're not, but if you need a truck to haul something or an SUV to pile the kids in that extra corvette isn't going to help you out very much.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
McKinney is blocked by Almora, Schwarber, Soler, Heyward, Contreras, Baez, etc.
Torres 2-3 years away and blocked by Russell.
Warren/other prospect are nothing to lose sleep over.
It's not a massive overpay at all.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
No no, i'm saying if we had a team as loaded as the Cubs with the financials they have.
They can go out and sign a closer if Chapman doesnt re-up.
And farm system wise they still have a ton of positional prospects.
Russ2dollas
10 yr, $185 million Extension
No...it's a massive overpay. You just provided the context of why they did it.
They could have used those assets to acquire something else (like Tehran, theoretically)
Things are worth what people will pay for them. In terms of future WAR this is bad. But if you are a Cubs fan you want guys to go for it. You never know. Prior and Wood were still going to be pitching side by side in 2020 remember?
For a rental bullpen arm? Definitely seems like a big overpay -- an overpay I understand -- but an overpay nonetheless.
Again those players being 'blocked' doesn't really make them less valuable as currency.
The mistake was that the Braves made the trade despite it not being the "missing piece" for a title run. The Braves were nowhere close and mortgaged the future for that trade. Plus, the Cubs can buy prospects and sign FAs so they have an easier time stockpiling prospects and filling needs.
Maybe, but every currency is different...
Core prospects that are part of your future = dollars.
Prospects you'd prefer to keep for long-term depth = yen.
Buried prospects (no matter how good) = euros.
Torres is by far the best name in the deal, and he fits into that last category - buried. Russell's their guy for at least four more years. They've made it clear that they don't intend to part with Baez - he's their fallback for just as long. Torres had absolutely no future as a SS in their plans for some time. They'll be free to spend money on the international market before Torres would have seen their MLB roster - they can go get another kid like him. What did they need more than anything? A lockdown Closer. They got the best in the game for an extra piece. That's serious dollars for a few euros. I hope Coppy will be in a position to make that kind of deal in the near future.
The thing I've noticed everybody seems to be sleeping on is the fact that the Yankees aren't in any better financial position to re-sign Chapman this winter than the Cubs will be. They can both afford him, and I'd imagine the fact that New York shipped him off will factor into his decision - I'd rather be the team that can say "Hey, I gave up FOUR players to get you AND I'll pay you as much as they will".
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
Sure, they could but the Cubs biggest weakness was the bullpen.
Chapman moves Rondon into a setup role and/or can use him in different spots now, more chess pieces for Maddon to play with.
Most of the Cubs top players are hitters so the Prior/Wood thing is retarded to use as an example.
Also Cubs are a big market so not like this is a small market team pushing all their chips into the middle of the table.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
Yes, but if you want something you're gonna have to pony up.
Overpay i guess but its not an insane one, Torres is the best player they gave up, everyone else they already have replacements for on the farm or on the roster already, its a fine deal.
Cubs are a big market so it's not like they cant sign some international FA's or sign a closer to replace Chapman if he wouldnt re-sign.
Russ2dollas
10 yr, $185 million Extension
Not a fan of your opinion of my example. I was only making the point that you can't assume you'll be there every year. Dan Marino in the super bowl for example.
The other thing this does is raise the cost for others. So maybe that scares off a nationals team from paying the price for Miller and then that helps the Cubs.
If you want to pay over market value for something b/c you want it, good for u. I don't blame the cubs. I think I'd love it as a fan.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
The market is what it is.
Sure they may not be there every year never know what can happen in baseball, but given the core they have, i'd like their chances.
Exactly. And when we traded for Tex what we really needed was pitching (a 3rd starter to go with Smoltz and Huddy) not hitting. But since there was no pitching available we just went for a good hitter, even though it didn't make much sense and had no chance of pushing us over the top. It was a total ego move, a last gasp at a playoff move by JS as he was on his way out.
Tapate50
Well-known member
As GM of course. That should have been fairly obvious from my comment I would think. Or perhaps you think Wren had no say in how things were run at all?
Southcack77
Well-known member
I mean according to the last list I saw the worst trade in Braves history was a Texeira trade where none of the pieces traded actually were missed in the MLB lineup (though Feliz certainly could have been a nice set up man to Wagner/Kimbrell).
Some people cannot stand losing perceived opportunity cost. They always want to give up nothing to get something.
Now, I think you should not cash chips in until you are close, but I'm willing to trade away players to try and win the whole thing. that's the point.
Southcack77
Well-known member
According to whom? They assessed the market and presumably know what the value of these prospects actually is.
That trade seemed terrible at the time because it was so much to give up for a guy who wasn't signed to a long-term deal.
In hindsight, by far the worst part of it was subsequently trading him for Kotchman. We would have been better off either not limiting our return to a 1B or just taking the pick.