Phil Rogers is dumb
by fischisgod on Nov 14, 2009 2:07 AM CST
Email
PrintPhil Rogers is dumb
"A Cubs offer could be built around 19-year-old shortstop Starlin Castro, who is emerging as one of the top prospects in the minors. Third baseman Josh Vitters, 19-year-old Korean shortstop Hak-Ju Lee and minor league pitching from a group including Andrew Cashner, Jay Jackson and Chris Carpenter also could be part of deal."
This is so dumb. Granderson isnt good. I wouldnt give up anyone but Carpenter for him. We dont need a platton CF.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm not a fan of
1. Rogers
2. Rogers’ trade idea
3. Selling out our revitalized farm to land Granderson
That said, while I have my concerns about Granderson, he’s a good player. Even in a down year, he posted the 25th best WAR for OF’s, a healthy 3.4, and there was some bad luck involved. He’s cheap, in his prime, from the city, a good locker room guy. What he’s not is an ideal leadoff candidate. Yes, he’s a platoon guy, but let’s assume that he has a tiny bit of bounce back against lefties. As long as he’s not horrible against lefties, he’s a very good player. In this offseason, he’s about as close as an ideal fit as there is for the Cubs (still not perfectly ideal, but there was no one move out there that would make things all peachy).
I love following the farm, and sure, I’d love to see a team built from internal options, but that’s not realistic. Tough decisions have to be made at times, and I’d support going after Granderson if he truly was shopped around. I wouldn’t sell the house for him, but I’d be willing to give up 2 guys from Jay Jackson/Cashner/Carpenter/Brett Jackson/Hak-ju Lee/Josh Vitters. Of the arms, I’d rather give up Cashner, because while his potential is high, I’m not sold he’s a starter, whereas Jackson/Carpenter both, IMO, have better shots, and if they fail, both could project as late inning pen arms. I wouldn’t give up 3 from those 6, though. If there was a way to balance things out with “ready” players (for example, Jeff Baker and an end of the rotation arm) and raw assets lower down and only cost us one of the 6, I’d prefer that route.
But a good organization has to make some tough decisions at times. Granderson would be a good guy to take a gamble on this offseason, but in general. Our OF defense would be upgraded (more through Kosuke going back to right), we potentially add a lefty bat to balance out the middle and a bat to anchor the back end. If the Cubs could land another top of the order bat (say at 2nd base), I’d be much more excited about 2010. CG is also young enough to potentially bridge this “core” with the next “core”.
well put
I think you and DGU mentioned platooning CG with guys like Baker and Fuld, both of which would make me happy. Even with a tiny bit of bounce-back against lefties I think we’d be better off with the platoon. Anyway, I’ve been beating the platoon horse for too long…must…leave…keyboard.
I wouldn't call it "revitalized"
Toonster, I wouldn’t call our farm system “revitalized” as it still has a way to go. I would agree with you only in the fact that I don’t listen to ideas from Phil Rogers very often. I wouldn’t call him “dumb”, however.
I myself would not overpay for Granderson, although I think he’d be a good edition to the Cubs line-up. He’s left-handed, has some power, and a lot of speed. He’d be an excellent 1-2 hitter. For those who have suggested putting him in the 5 hole, all that does is kill his speed. Can you picture him running right behind Ramirez after hitting a ball into the gap?
I believe that IF Granderson is traded it will not happen until the GM’s Winter Meetings in a few weeks. The Tigers will see what they can get for him, and if they can get a team to take either Jeremy Bonderman or Nate Robertson off their hands at the same time. The Tigers will look to shed A LOT of payroll while attempting to get some major league-ready talent in return.
That being said, I would NOT be willing to give up Starlin Castro in a deal for Granderson. The Tigers need to understand that he:
1. Hits lefties poorly
2. Does not possess a strong OBP
3. Will bring a good amount of payroll with him
4. Plays average to above average defense
Toonster is right in that good prospects don’t come along for the Cubs very often. If the Cubs were talking a trade for someone like Roy Halliday or Adrian Gonzalez (an elite player) then I can see where he’d even be discussed. But when you see trades made such as the one last year for Cliff Lee (the reigning Cy Young Award winner) in which the Phillies didn’t fork over any of their elite prospects, you can see that trading ours are unnecessary at this point.
The Cubs should propose a trade that DOES NOT include Castro, Vitters, Brett Jackson or Cashner. Any of the others should be within reason, including some of our current players. I’d hate to see Fox go, but since he appears to be Piniella’s dog house (apparently for hustling and playing hard) and he’d make a great DH for an AL team I’ll hold off purchasing his jersey for now.
I hope that the Cubs will be smart with this, however, I won’t hold my breath.
One more thing
If the Cubs do get him, they should be sure to re-sign Reed Johnson so that he can play against lefties or pinch hit at the end of a game against a tough lefty (and come in for defense).
re:
real quick, I wasn’t sure if you were simply replying to the OP or me, but I don’t think Rogers is “dumb”. I like his columns for the most part in regards to liking to read an opinion … not a fan of many of his trade ideas.
I do think the system is revitalized. The system was in the steadily in decline in the middle part of the decade, culminating in being one of the worst systems in baseball last year. Certainly, a lot of the talent that has flourished was in place a year ago, but by the standards with which folks judge prospects, it was justifiably ranked low.
Granted, often times, people get this idea that the difference between a solid system and a bad system is a lot (now, the difference between a bad system and an elite system is a a lot). It really isn’t. It can be as simple as one draft year, and the 2008 draft class really bolstered our system, with, imo, 4 of our top 10 prospects (Cashner, Flaherty, Carpenter, Jackson). The system’s arguably in the middle tier now, a big jump from last year. There’s a good top tier of pitching and some lower pitching prospects with potential. There’s depth up the middle. No, this isn’t a top 10-12 system, but it’ll stack up with many systems following it, with a top tier of around 7 guys that looks solid.
Now, we have a ways to go before becoming a great system, but for me, each system needs to fit the big league squad, and we’re in an in-between phase right now, between one aging core and the next core not being ready/not being there yet. If you wait for an elite system to emerge, chances are high that you will go in the dumps for a couple years, so I wouldn’t use a standard of being revitalized as having an elite system in the game.
But that’s me, and this could really be an issue of semantics.
This should have gone under the Granderson post.
It’s not really worth a separate post.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Actually...
It’s this post that’s pretty dumb.
Phil Rogers is something of a buffoon, to be sure. However, simply suggesting that the Cubs might have to part with Castro as part of the deal isn’t one of those cases; it’s reporting.
Baseball history is littered with the souls of prized, 19 year-old prospects never to be seen or heard from in major league parks. If the Cubs are lucky, maybe Castro is making significant contributions to the big club in a couple of years. If they’re unlucky, he’s Andres Blanco. Hendry needs to make decisions about how to keep a consistent winner on the field. It’s not crazy or dumb to think that the way to do that is to acquire an All-Star CF entering his peak years, as opposed to playing a waiting game on a teenage prospect.
Don’t be so fixated on a player that most have never even seen in person, let alone play.
by Damen Jackson on Nov 14, 2009 8:25 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
The real deal?
Maybe not, however all reports from not only Cub scouts this guy can be a solid MLB player. With that he defintely has bigger upside then Vitters at this point. IMO I would not include Castro in a deal for Granderson.
I agree with you
on Castro having more upside than Vitters at this point. And I, too, would not include Castro in a deal to get Granderson.
I did want to make the point that calling almost ANY prospect, “the real deal” is dangerous. I don’t think any prospect in the Cubs system should be untouchable.
Hey Starlin's the next Felix Pie or Corey Patterson
the last real deal Cub prospects.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Nov 14, 2009 2:24 PM CST up reply actions
and just one more in a long line of them
I am still waiting for Bobby Hill (amongst others) to live up to projections and expectations
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 15, 2009 11:35 AM CST up reply actions
expectation
was him on a unicorn, you fail Drew
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
hey, I’m not SWL, ok?
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 15, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions
sure
but there is always room for another former cub on a unicorn, right?
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
Bobby Hill got us A-Ram
How much better could he have done ?
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 15, 2009 4:14 PM CST up reply actions
But...
Doggie…the Cubs already had seen that Bobby Hill wasn’t going to be as great as expected when they got rid of him. I still can’t believe that the Pirates GM accepted that trade.
I know he got us ARam
but my concern isnt what we traded him for, since the BCBers are against trading the kids now. THe point I was making is that we can make all our expectations and projections for the prospects and we never know what will happen with them. This is not a new thing with prospects. I am all for moving prospects to improve on the now, and Hill for ARam is a perfect example of why.
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
You know why this trade makes sense...
Is because Hendry doesn’t care about what happens in 2-5 years from now. That won’t matter to him as he will be fired if he doesn’t win now. To empty the cabinets now to get a player that might help put you over the top is the only thing that he cares about now. Maybe Hendry feels that with Granderson, and maybe two or three other players (Like Millwood and a couple other players) he feels that he has all the pieces to win now.
I guess we will see.
That’s not true!!! WHY THE F*CK WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU AHOLE!! Ok maybe your right but you gotta give a little something here for it to work. I don’t know what I’m going to do this is the worst thing I’ve ever read, this day could not get any worse. Fine, F*ck it, you’re right.
by Ditkavsworld
Nothing could be further from the truth.
First, let’s address the issue that “this trade” may include Starlin Castro. I don’t think it needs to. Jim Callis said that the Cubs had the most depth to get this done and that’s w/o Castro.
If the Cubs wanted to include Starlin Castro, which might be a little crazy but they do have a lot of middle-infield talent on the way up, they could easily get a deal done. Even without Castro, they could put together a bat like Josh Vitters with an arm like Andrew Cashner, Jay Jackson or Chris Carpenter. If the Tigers were willing to take a talent further away from the majors, they could ask for Hak-Ju Lee, if the Cubs didn’t want to part with Castro.
So, in other words, Callis looks at the possibility of why “this trade” (if we’re referring to Castro for Granderson) makes sense and says it could make sense because the Cubs’ farm is loaded w/ middle IF talent even apart from Castro. I don’t think we’ll see Castro for Granderson, but if we do, it will mean that the Cubs are really high on Hak-Ju Lee. In other words, it will mean that, looking 2-5 years from now, the Cubs will believe they can transition from Theriot to Lee.
Meanwhile, who’s going to play CF in 2-3 years? We don’t have a close CF prospect. Especially when you compare him to the free agent options, Curtis Granderson is a player who makes sense if your target is to win in the next 2-5 years. He just has the added bonus of being good now, too. He’ll be turning 29 when next season opens; his contract runs to 2012 with a nice option for 2013. Unless he sustains a significant injury, or has an unexpected early decline, he’ll be worth significantly more than he’s paid through those four years.
There’s been this myth, much like the Derrek Lee Decline myth, that’s been perpetuated at BCB that Jim Hendry hasn’t built a long-term winner, that the Cubs’ farm is in disarray, that we’re overburdened by too many veteran contracts. The fact, though, is that we’ve had a window to win and when your club has gone w/o a championship for a century, you don’t wait until you have the perfect club to go for that championship. You go for that window because it’s not always the best team that wins the World Series. You go for that window, because sometimes the perfect club gets undermined by injuries anyway.
Our window is still open. Our team has issues, but the NL Central isn’t strong enough that those issues doom us. Depending on what St. Louis does this off-season, we could easily field a team in 2010 that will be the favorite for the division title. Do you just throw that chance away? No – but you also don’t want to sell too much future to get there. Acquiring Curtis Granderson is perfect, then, for a team that wants to compete now and has a wave of prospects on the way up, without having one in CF.
He’s perfect but only if we don’t trade too much to get him. I think the ideal trade for Granderson is with players who aren’t going to be helpful in 2-5 years. Marmol-Theriot-Fox is what we hope to be the trade cost. Next in line, I believe, should be a Vitters offer because I’m not convinced Vitters will be a better player than Aramis Ramirez at any point over the next 5 years and Aramis has shown a desire to stay with the Cubs.
Both of these ideas are keeping in mind the question of what’s best for us long-term. There are possible trades Jim Hendry could make which wouldn’t be good for us long-term, but I’ll be surprised if he makes one.
Is he traded yet?
by DGU on Nov 14, 2009 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 6 recs
Deep Thoughts by DGU
well said.
It is amazing how people on BCB either fear selling the future or want to sell everything to win now, but neither sees how the two go hand-n-hand
baseball is a game of outs......pop out, ground out, line out, pitch out, strike out, fly out, and Fox and Bud's favorite black out
I'll toss in a Rec as well - and a question re: CF prospects.
How seriously should we take Brett Jackson as a CF prospect? Or should we at all? I know he was just drafted but I’ve heard/read very few bad things about him. Could he be up in the bigs by, say, 2012?
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
I'd take the known and now
over the unknown and future most of the time, particularly with this club. Last year Vitters was a sure-thing and untouchable, and fans were aghast at even the mention of his inclusion in any trade proposal. Now he’s been all but written off and is in every fan’s trade proposals.
Castro might be great. But he might never develop the bat to be a real asset to the big league club.
Granderson would be an asset. Try to give as little to get him as you can, but nobody in our system should be untouchable.
DEJESUS!!!
Well no one should write off Vitters
He’s still going to be a top 50 prospect. It’s just that Granderson is worth Vitters, that’s all.
Is he traded yet?
Not so sure Vitters will crack top 50
A lot of scouting opinions seemed to have really gone down on him. If he does crack top 50, it’ll be just barely. SHould be a solid top 75, though.
I'm not sure that this needs a fanpost... :-)
It is an established fact that Phil Rogers is dumb; there is nothing to discuss, hence no need for a fanpost…
Having said that, for the right price (i.e., NOT Castro or Vitters), I would love to see Granderson patrolling CF at Wrigley. He works hard, plays an excellent CF (allowing Dome to move back to RF), and is a class act. Even better would be re-signing RJ to play against tough LHPs.
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
Wouldn't Granderson be...
an older version of Felix Pie?? … or is he what we had hoped Felix would become??
sorry, I asked again under the Granderson post.
by speed skater on Nov 14, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions
No worries.
Granderson is only four years older than Pie and already an established major league star. I think we’d take that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
A couple things
1) Yes Phil Rogers is amazingly dumb and/or stupid
2) Josh Vitters is a good not great prospect who may or may not pan out
3) Over the past 3 years Curtis Granderson has been one of the best players in baseball.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=10&type=6&season=2009&month=12
You may not think WAR is the be all and end all of player valuation, but it’s a bit more legitimate than denouncing a guy for having a .500 OPS in a very small sample size against lefties one year.
Granderson is 28, right about in his peak, and has averaged 4.9 WAR over the past 3 years. In 2009, it was 3.4, so that is still well above average. Due to his age, he is likely a 3-4 WAR player over the length of his contract. His contact, at 3/24, values him like a 2 WAR player, so he has excellent surplus value.
Vitters may or may not be as good as Granderson, but it’s very unlikely given that he hasn’t even played in the major leagues yet, and there are already questions about his power and defense.
The frustrating thing, vivaelpujols,
is that we may trade for Granderson and still not have the best LH CF in the NL Central. You guys ready to give up on Rasmus and re-sign Ankiel?
Is he traded yet?
Try to come up with a better title to your post, please.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Nov 15, 2009 3:09 PM CST reply actions
yeah, it's pretty self-explanatory
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
Well, I certainly wouldn't disagree with the sentiment...
…but some indication that this Fanpost was about Granderson would have been nice.
Catch my act on Twitter as @dat_cubfan_dave.
but if you make it more specific,
it leaves out the generalities.
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 16, 2009 11:38 AM CST up reply actions
and it puts a damper on posting cool pictures...
…like this one which I found by doing a search on “generalities”.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Forget all that other stuff. I gotta believe.
by drewishdrewid on Nov 16, 2009 7:23 PM CST up reply actions
How about General Lees?
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Nov 17, 2009 11:11 AM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Community Projections
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
