The Cubs made a series of moves today, the net result being the acquisition of a few marginal players and some additional pool space to sign international free agents.
Trade Roundup
Trade 1: Cubs give up Scott Feldman and Steve Clevenger for Jake Arrieta, Pedro Strop, and pool space
Feldman had been good this year, but unfortunately his track record leaves a lot to be desired. As a result, the return is less than one might have hoped. Arrieta has bounced between the minors and the O’s rotation throughout his career. Scouts have always liked the stuff, as he was twice a top 100 prospect, but that has never translated into much major league success. In 2012 he actually put up decent peripherals (22.0% K’s, 7.1% BB’s) over 114 big-league innings, which is I suspect a big reason why the Cubs are interested, but was crushed to the tune of a 6.20 ERA. In 2013 he has been horrible over 5 starts. Meh, maybe a change of scenery will help. Pedro Strop is a reliever with bad control who generates lots of ground balls.
Trade 2: Cubs trade Carlos Marmol and pool space to the Dodgers for Matt Guerrier
This is bit of a head scratcher for me. Guerrier was a successful heavy-usage set up man with the Twins, but has been very ordinary since joining the Dodgers two and a half years ago. The periphs are not there anymore, he had elbow problems in 2012, and he looks like a minor leaguer at this point. He is not making as much money as Marmol, but it still seems an odd move for a team like the Cubs, who seem to be hording IFA pool space.
Trade 3: Cubs trade Ronald Torreyes to the Astros for pool space
Most of those who follow the Cubs’ minor league system closely seem to like Torreyes. He’s very young for his level (20 at AA), and he can hit (.312 career BA). He’s tiny, however, and the Cubs are obviously hording pool space. Remind me why they didn’t just release Marmol, again?
Cubs Sign IFA Erling Moreno
With the luxury of having additional pool space, the Cubs have signed a third top IFA prospect, RHP Erling Moreno for $800,000. Moreno is #16 in BA’s ranking, and #48 for TAM.
BA:
Moreno doesn’t have a plus fastball yet, working anywhere from 87-90 mph, but he has plenty of room to add weight and velocity so he could throw in the mid-90s eventually. He gets good angle on his fastball and works down in the strike zone. He keeps hitters off his fastball with a solid changeup, a pitch that some scouts think is ahead of his breaking ball. Other scouts prefer his breaking ball and think it’s a projectable pitch.
TAM:
Strong athletic build with present strength. Wide shoulders and thick lower half. Fastball 86-87mph with projection. Low effort delivery, 3/4 with good downward plane. Does a good job locating the fastball. Shows good control.
Pool Space Roundup
| From | Amount |
| Orioles | $388,100 |
| Astros | $468,400 |
| Astros | $316,300 |
| Cubs (to LAD) | $209,700 |
It’s been widely circulated that the Orioles sent $388,100 to the Cubs, but the Orioles didn’t have a slot or combination of slots that add up to that number which is a combination of their third and fourth slots. I’m going to stick with it just because Jed confirmed the net amount acquired to Bruce Miles. This means the Cubs have $2.44 million remaining, taking into account the allowed 5% overage and the Torres, Mejia, and Moreno contracts. Eloy Jimenez has been rumored to sign at $2.7 million with the Cubs, so something is obviously not adding up here. Jimenez could sign for less (though Rangers rumors are still floating around), but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the Cubs are not done making moves. (Poor Brett may have picked the wrong day to do his marathon.) I also wouldn’t expect the Cubs to go right up to their limits with the Eloy signing, as most teams eventually acquire at least a dozen or so lesser names on the cheap.
Regardless of the details here, it’s clear that the Cubs made the 2013 IFAs a huge priority. I won’t comment too much on the wisdom of this decision. Obviously the Cubs saw an opportunity given their large bonus pool and the available premium talent. This is clearly a long term move, though, as it will probably be five years before any of these players sniff the majors. I give them credit for long term thinking, but IFA’s are also famously a big gamble, given their age and distance from the majors. Impact talent is hard to find, and clearly the Cubs think it’s worth the risk.
Comments
Hey GW…
O’s #3 slot = $237200
O’s #4 slot = $150900
That should add up to $388100.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://billmitchell.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/MLB-Amateur-Prospect-Showcase-2013/G000057QHfKCP990/I0000gHtgbI28kgM/C00004ngJkL3ML24
GWQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
thanks, missed that
GWQuote Reply
Am I the only person who’s not up in arms about trading Torreyes? I feel like his upside is Tony Campana, but at 2b.
BerseliusQuote Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWttV1jWRA8
GWQuote Reply
Berselius wrote:
and we just got rid of him, so
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
not that big of a deal to me, but they essentially traded him for Erling Moreno.
GWQuote Reply
don’t get the marmol trade, though. the cubs are paying $2 million of his remaining salary, apparently.
GWQuote Reply
This is the predecessor move to Baez to AA and Alcantara to 2b.
MylesQuote Reply
I like Arrieta more than most. xFIP is a dumb stat, but he had a 3.59 SIERA last year in MLB.
MylesQuote Reply
@ GW:
Maybe they actually like the guy they got back. They’ve showed decent ability to find pitchers who end up being useful.
joshQuote Reply
@ josh:
I liked him a lot, too. In 2007, that is.
GWQuote Reply
GWQuote Reply
Also worth noting that Jake’s strand rate has been really low the last two years.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
No reason to be all that upset, but it is a questionable trade. When do you ever trade a decent prospect not far away from the big leagues so you can get a 16 year old? Pretty dumb in my opinion, but not a huge deal.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Myles:
Strand rates are often reflective of the player’s talent.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Would you trade a $1 scratch off for a $1 Powerball ticket?
JonKneeVQuote Reply
JonKneeV wrote:
I’d agree with this analogy.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
How decent is Torreyes? I feel like he’s been in the low teens of the org’s prospect list.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
I’ve never bought a lottery ticket and have no interest in doing so, but I probably wouldn’t make that trade. I’d have a better chance of winning something (anything) with the scratch off.
I really don’t know how Torreyes can be valued at $782K. He’s worth more than that. I agree with what 2883 said in the last thread. You don’t give up depth for a slot pick in the IFA.
Is it a big deal? No, because Torreyes was never going to be all that good. That doesn’t mean you just trade the guy for anything, which is basically what the Cubs did.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
@ Aisle424:
a 20 year old in AA vs a 16 year old pitcher with middling stuff you think the pitcher has a higher upside? i suppose. but it wouldn’t be by much. torreyes has an .823 career OPS. He will be limited by his physique, but he’s not Tony Campana. Campana could play for 50 years and not hit 16 homers, which is what torreyes has for his career.
i think it’s a reasonable move to make, but let’s not go overboard with the analogies.
GWQuote Reply
i mean, pedroia is what, 5’8″ 170? jose altuve is 5’4 160?
betting on torreyes to be as good as those guys would be stupid, but little guys can be successful in the bigs
GWQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
He’s been better than average everywhere he’s been despite being young for the level. Sickels had him at a C+ (I think), which is worth more than what they got. It’s really not a big deal and it’s not worth arguing about the pros and cons of losing Torreyes for a 16-year old who has a one in a million chance of amounting to anything at all. It is what it is, but I would have hoped for more for Torreyes. Not that I think he’d gotten them much. I don’t, but more than this.
dmick89Quote Reply
It’s also worth pointing out that not every player taken in the IFA is a potential star and the guy they got certainly doesn’t sound like one. This guy would have been taken in the 30th round or later in the MLB Draft if he was eligible.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ GW:
Ah, I didn’t realize he was 20. I retract my earlier comparison. WTF on that trade.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I actually like the Feldman trade. I don’t think Arrieta will ever be very good, but I like turning Feldman into 3+ years of control of Arrieta. He has a nice fastball and maybe there’s a chance, like Samardzija, the Cubs can help him reach his potential.
dmick89Quote Reply
I was going to do a trade value piece on Feldman shortly after the Garza one, but I had to get away from my computer. I think they come out well ahead on this trade.
dmick89Quote Reply
I don’t think you ever trade someone that young and at that level for IFA space. There are other ways to go about adding that. There has to be better ways.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
If nothing else, this team needs bullpen arms.
BerseliusQuote Reply
GWQuote Reply
I’m not sure thinking of it in terms of trading Torreyes specifically for any particular one of the IFA guys is looking at it the right way. The only way this makes sense to me is as a compliment to the Rule 4. We’re all in pretty decent agreement that they took a fairly conservative approach in the rule 4, drafting a bunch of college arms that we’re pretty confident are gonna be bullpen fodder, right? I think they’re getting aggressive with the IFA market to supplement that, buying up as much of the projectable, riskier, younger talent they can get their hands on. I think the group of players they were targeting is more important than any one kid in particular.
I think they had a specific dollar amount they wanted to get to in IFA budget and felt a lot of pressure to acquire it quickly before teams blew their wad. I think it’s safe to say we don’t quite have a precise handle on how the market is valuing this pool money. Because of that, yeah, the Torreyes deal might retroactively be a bit of an overpay, but as has been said, it’s probably not a huge deal because it’s a position of depth and Torreyes probably doesn’t have a huge major league future ahead of him anyway.
I guess I don’t see it as “We traded Torreyes for pool money to acquire player X” so much as I see it as “This is our player acquisition strategy for this season, we need to free up this amount of IFA funds to fulfill it, and trading Torreyes is a low-risk way to do so”.
sitrickQuote Reply
I believe that the focus on the extra slot amount to get the pitcher might be misplaced. They didn’t trade Torreyes to get the pitcher. They traded him to increase the int’l cap so they could eventually sign Jimenez. Or that’s how I’m thinking about it anyway, I could just be totally wrong.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
You make a good point here, but the Cubs did trade Torreyes for $782,000. Maybe we shouldn’t say they got so and so for that money, which I actually agree with after your comment. That said, they still traded him for the equivalent of a higher ranked player in the IFA. If Torreyes was in the Midwest League, I probably don’t even say anything about it, but we’re talking about a guy who is super young for his level, has produced throughout his career and is at AA. This is a guy who is not far from the big leagues.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
I guess my point is mostly that while yes, they did trade him for $782,000, that $782,000 in pool money is more valuable than $782,000 in ordinary payroll, and we don’t quite know how much more valuable the market is going to consider it. Given that it’s the first year, I think it’s more important to have a plan you’re looking to execute and then find low-risk ways to do so then to worry about if (or in this instance, how much) you’re overpaying.
I wouldn’t be shocked if it turns out $782,000 in IFA draft money works out to similar value as a 1st round draft pick, given the cheaper pools teams are allowed in IFA vs Rule 4, which would mean we’d get the same value out of trading Torreyes as we would for letting Garza walk at the end of the year.
Maybe I’m just trying too hard to talk myself into this, though, (dying laughing).
sitrickQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
1st round money in the IFA? Sure. Is that talent equal to the 1st round in MLB Draft? Not even close. As I said, that guy who was ranked 16th probably isn’t taken in the top 30 rounds of the MLB Draft. If he was in the draft, he’s worth $100,000. Since it’s more of an auction, that ends up getting players in that range a lot more money.
This really isn’t a big deal though. This is just something that I think is pretty dumb. It would be like me giving some stranger $1 because he says he’ll meet me the next day and give me $1000. Obviously that’s a pretty dumb thing to do. You almost know for certain you won’t see the guy again. You’ll lose the dollar and the time you wasted going back there the next day. But it’s only a dollar so big deal.
That’s how I feel about this Torreyes trade.
dmick89Quote Reply
Ryno wrote:
Ryno, are you NotTomRicketts?
JonKneeVQuote Reply
@ dmick89
Sorry if I seem to be making a bigger deal about it than it is, I just find it really interesting and like thinking/talking about it.
Not even close, though? Interesting. This is my first year really following the IFA process. I was figuring the talent pool was fairly similar given things like the Futures game being broken up into U.S. and World squads, etc.:
sitrickQuote Reply
GW wrote:
I think you aren’t looking at this in the right context. A 16 year old that throws 85+ and has a strong build to add velocity is most certainly a lotto ticket with high upside. I mean, I don’t know how many kids were throwing that hard when you were 16 but it’s pretty freaking good for that age. While a 20 year old 5’6”, 150 lb 2B in AA doesn’t have much upside but has less risk. Torreyes will have the same problem with his bat as Darwin Barney when/if he gets to the majors.
Not saying I like the trade one way or the other. It’s kind of “meh” to me. 3 years down the road and this trade will more than likely not have any impact on either team.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
@ sitrick:
I mean it’s not close because these guys are even further away from the big leagues. As GW said, it will be 5 years before any of them really have a chance at the big leagues. 7 years more likely. It will be 2 years until they even get to the US.
dmick89Quote Reply
As always GW, huge thanks for keeping up with this and posting all of it.
dmick89Quote Reply
As you might imagine, these trades don’t really alter the landscape at all for the Cubs in 2014, in my estimation. Arrieta, at this point (and I’m going to look a lot harder at him the next few days), probably profiles as a #4 or a #5 type at best, but I’m higher on Negrin than most and so thought that slot was already filled. It does allow the Cubs to go ahead and trade Villanueva and go Shark/Jackson/Wood/Negrin/Arrieta next year, though I’d like to see them address the back of that rotation in that case. Pedro Strop is exactly the type of coinflip reliever that the Cubs can take a chance on, and he’s got as good a chance as any to be the 3rd or 4th guy in the pen, though he shouldn’t and wouldn’t take the place of a Logan or Neshek-type.
That isn’t to say that I don’t like the return on Feldman, because I do.
MylesQuote Reply
Matt Guerrier should be DFA’ed more or less immediately, btw.
MylesQuote Reply
Votto just saved the no-hitter.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Agreed.
I’m also OK with Arrieta. Has some promise still, and he’s nicer looking than F7.
SVBQuote Reply
Homer Baily with the No-No. Wow.
It seems like he’s been a prospect for the past 7 years or so.
EdwinQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
torreyes’ bat blows darwin barney’s out of the water, not that it’s hard to do. barney never hit in the minors. torreyes had better numbers at daytona at age 19 than barney did at age 22.
torreyes is 5’9″, by the way. he’s just rail thin.
GWQuote Reply
@ Myles:
(dying laughing), I think you’re the only person I’ve seen in the Cubs-o-sphere on the Yoanner Negrin train. I think the Cubs sign another Feldman type in this offseason. Maybe they sign Feldman again (dying laughing).
BerseliusQuote Reply
New shit
http://obstructedview.net/previews/series-preview-chicago-cubs-35-45-at-oakland-athletics-48-35.html
BerseliusQuote Reply
delete
SVBQuote Reply
delete
SVBQuote Reply