ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 1, 2014 13:01:34 GMT -5
Valbuena's so much better that I can't get at all excited about Freese. And that's without considering the LH / RH lineup balance. The Cubs, furthermore, owe us a PTBNL for three years of Doubront, which would reduce the cost if a Valbeuna deal were used to complete that. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 1, 2014 13:20:34 GMT -5
I'm not sure Valbuena will come all that cheap. Think a package headlined by someone in the Owens/Rodriguez/Johnson/Barnes tier. The Cubs aren't in all that much of a hurry to trade him, and some 2B-needy teams (of which there are many) will be in on him too.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 1, 2014 13:23:33 GMT -5
The Cubs, furthermore, owe us a PTBNL for three years of Doubront, which would reduce the cost if a Valbeuna deal were used to complete that. Theoretically, I guess. But realistically the amount it would take in addition to Doubront to get Valbuena is basically what it would cost to get Valbuena if Doubront didn't exist. Value-wise Doubront really isn't a drop in the bucket. EDIT: Most importantly - the difference in between what it will take to get Valbuena and Freese would be more than Doubront. |
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 1, 2014 17:35:48 GMT -5
If Valbuena costs that much forget it. He's been in the majors 7 years and until last year was never once even an average hitter. No way I'm giving up any of the prospects on that list for him.
We've had this discussion before but I think we are overvaluing Valbuena big time. He was even a negative 12 in Rdrs/yr last year. He is not a good defensive 3rd baseman and his offensive record is not that impressive. I sincerely would rather have Cechinni out there than Valbuena.
Let's hope Headley's cost is reasonable because I agree with your earlier assessment jmei, that Headley is the probable target. I'm not enamored with it either but for less than 4/$55 mil I could live with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 1, 2014 17:38:36 GMT -5
With all the infielders the Cubs have coming up I really think they are going to trade Valbuena. If he isn't gone, someone else from that infield is gone and probably 2 of them are gone. And it fits Epstein's modus operandi to a T. Sell high.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Nov 1, 2014 21:39:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure Valbuena will come all that cheap. Think a package headlined by someone in the Owens/Rodriguez/Johnson/Barnes tier. The Cubs aren't in all that much of a hurry to trade him, and some 2B-needy teams (of which there are many) will be in on him too. If that's the case I'd rather save the chips for the larger package it would take to get anelite player(Hamels, Zimmerman, Cueto, Upton, , Stanton, usual suspects). |
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Nov 1, 2014 22:06:19 GMT -5
Cubs fans are not high on Valbuena, half of them want him traded as soon as possible. Not sure how Theo sees him though. A player that might be worth to take a look is Starlin Castro. Since the beginning of the season there has been rumours in Chicago that he might be traded to accomodate Baez in SS and those rumours have been fueled by Russell's arrival. His bat is good enough for him to play at 3B and he has some years left of control at a reasonable cost.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 2, 2014 10:21:38 GMT -5
I'm not sure Valbuena will come all that cheap. Think a package headlined by someone in the Owens/Rodriguez/Johnson/Barnes tier. The Cubs aren't in all that much of a hurry to trade him, and some 2B-needy teams (of which there are many) will be in on him too. Do you see Nava getting that? Because he has 50% more years of control left, and has definitely been the better player, the last two years. Now, Valbeuna's trade value is hard to estimate because he's been a 2.0 WAR guy who might well be a 3.5 WAR guy the next two years. But the question is whether teams will trade based on that possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2014 12:25:18 GMT -5
Yes, if I were to trade Nava for prospects, I'd want a player like that in return. Probably not Owens, but certainly a guy in the 75-150 range a la the other three, and I don't think that's unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Nov 2, 2014 13:20:48 GMT -5
Yes, if I were to trade Nava for prospects, I'd want a player like that in return. Probably not Owens, but certainly a guy in the 75-150 range a la the other three, and I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't see Valbuena (or Nava for that matter) netting a prospect like that. I think a couple of 10-20 type guys in the system is a much more likely scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2014 15:53:36 GMT -5
This is getting into trade proposal territory, and I'll move it there if there's further interest in the subject. But guys like that who are league-average-to-better guys with multiple years of control are really valuable, and teams give up real value for them, as they should.
For instance, two offseasons ago, in a three-way deal, the Oakland As traded A.J. Cole, Blake Treinen, and a PTBNL for three years of John Jaso, a guy who is in that underrated Nava/Valbuena mold. Cole was unranked by BA and BP that offseason, but was clearly in that 100-120 region (he was ranked 89th by Sickels), and in my mind, he compares favorably to, say, Matt Barnes.
|
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 2, 2014 16:04:05 GMT -5
John Jason was a 29 year old catcher (albeit not a good one defensively) coming off a .372 wOBA year.
Nava was DFAd not long ago. Luis Valbuena is coming off the his first year hitting over .220 since 2009.
These things are not alike.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2014 16:13:53 GMT -5
John Jason was a 29 year old catcher (albeit not a good one defensively) coming off a .372 wOBA year. Nava was DFAd not long ago. Luis Valbuena is coming off the his first year hitting over .220 since 2009. These things are not alike. You're cherry-picking here. Jaso was coming off a great platform year, but he only started 39 games at catcher that year (because of the aforementioned butchery behind the plate) and the year before that, he put up a 85 wRC+. Meanwhile, Nava put up a .366 wOBA year in 2013, while Valbuena put up a .342 mark this year as a left-side-infielder. In his three years prior to being traded, Jaso averaged 2.9 fWAR per 600 PAs, while Nava checks in at 2.6 fWAR/600 and Valbuena is a robust 3.0 fWAR/600. They're very comparable players-- elite part-time players who were you could reasonable project to be three win players if given a larger role. ADD: I'll concede that Owens (probably ranked in the 30s/40s) or Rodriguez (50-75?) are probably too much, but I do think it'll take a Johnson/Barnes plus another lesser piece or two. I'm very skeptical that a package headlined by Ranaudo or two guys in the 10-20 range is going to be enough. |
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Nov 2, 2014 17:37:47 GMT -5
I guess that was my primary objection. Owens and Rodriguez wouldn't be in the conversation IMO. Johnson is a player that will draw mixed reviews. If they're lower on him than average than I could see him potentially involved. Same with Barnes.
|
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 2, 2014 18:21:55 GMT -5
I guess that was my primary objection. Owens and Rodriguez wouldn't be in the conversation IMO. Johnson is a player that will draw mixed reviews. If they're lower on him than average than I could see him potentially involved. Same with Barnes. Agreed. Johnson + low prospect sound about right. Still think it would be buying high. Like trading fire Jaso just as much |
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 2, 2014 19:07:29 GMT -5
6 out of the 7 years or so Valbuena has been in the big leagues he has been a about a replacement level player. NWIH I give up 6 years of control of a Owens/Rodriguez/Johnson/Barnes for him even straight up, let alone as those prospects maybe even needing others to get it done.
I get that the sample size last year is significant and it may well be that his metrics prove a change which indicates he will be better going forward offensively. I see the trend line started moving up really 2 years ago but I also see some pretty bad defensive metrics last year at 3rd.
He's not worth it. I'm not fishing in that lake.
|
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 2, 2014 21:05:47 GMT -5
6 out of the 7 years or so Valbuena has been in the big leagues he has been a about a replacement level player. NWIH I give up 6 years of control of a Owens/Rodriguez/Johnson/Barnes for him even straight up, let alone as those prospects maybe even needing others to get it done. I get that the sample size last year is significant and it may well be that his metrics prove a change which indicates he will be better going forward offensively. I see the trend line started moving up really 2 years ago but I also see some pretty bad defensive metrics last year at 3rd. He's not worth it. I'm not fishing in that lake. As far as I can tell - he was slightly below average last year but was REALLY good the two years prior. What defensive metrics are you looking at? www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4969&position=2B/3B |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 2, 2014 21:32:02 GMT -5
I've previous discussed why I think Valbuena is a worthy target here, here, and here. He had a bad defensive 2014 by all the defensive metrics, but has been rated very positively by those same metrics in years past and comes with positive scouting reports. His peripherals have been excellent for an extended stretch now, and the only thing keeping his trade value at a reasonable level is the fact that he was so bad earlier in his career. I think he's a cost-controlled 2.5 win player going forward, and I'd be willing to give up, say, Johnson and Mercedes for him. |
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,907
|
Post by nomar on Nov 3, 2014 0:44:41 GMT -5
I'd potentially give up Johnson for him. Call me crazy, but I'd rather give him up than Barnes.
Valbuena's BABIP was .035 higher than his career average last year. We don't know how real that is. If it isn't real, then he goes back to being an average player. With an .811 OPS against LHP this year looks great, but he looked a lot worse in 2013 and 2012. He isn't a proven commodity. I think that some people are overrating his value. I think best case scenario he's a 3 win player, and it isn't likely he surpasses his 2014 season success-wise. He's definitely valuable, but I think the theoretical trade value for Valbuena is being overblown.
|
|
